racism

maxx

do you intend to debate or just continue to insult? It seems as there are 2 debates going,  racism is hardwired and the human race is but one race. Now, in the first which is my OP i have clearly and logically shown as to why. You disagreed mostly but failed to logically explain as to why. I have asked many times as to what you guys think the root causes of racism is, and how and when it originated, but NO ONE has answered that. @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

do you intend to debate or just continue to insult?

Are you saying it's my fault that you don't read the posts you reply to? What is actually wrong with you, Maxx? I was having a conversation with @Dee about someone else and you just decided to butt in because you're not intelligent enough to read the things you respond to. You're currently arguing with three or four different people who are all saying the exact same thing about you.

Dee

@maxx


do you intend to debate or just continue to insult? 

Nom has done his best to treat you fairly you seem to think it's fine for you to insult others but yet you scream blue murder when you are put in your place 

It seems as there are 2 debates going,

No , it's seems as if you are trying to deflect by claiming this 

  racism is hardwired and the human race is but one race

So you keep saying without a shred of proof for your babblings , what you clearly stated was that humans and animals are born racist which is nothing but your ill informed opinion , babies are born with two innate fears.... 1 falling...... 2 loud noises.

Racism is learned behaviour 

. Now, in the first which is my OP i have clearly and logically shown as to why. 

No you haven't all you keep doing is asserting your unfounded nonsense and then declaring "I've logically shown etc , etc "

You disagreed mostly but failed to logically explain as to why. 

We all keep explaining but you don't listen , same ole Maxx ignore every counter and keep accusing others of not answering 

I have asked many times as to what you guys think the root causes of racism is, and how and when it originated, but NO ONE has answered that.

Strange that when I mentioned 23 times now racism is learned behaviour and is a fairly recent concept historically.

All you're doing is lumping in racism with fear of strangers as in of different tribes or societies in ancient times and claiming they were exercising racism ........


Do a bit of basic research instead of making a fool of yourself , here is a very basic explanation of what your cannot grasp .......

Bet you still say "but no one has answered"  ......


Racism is a relatively modern concept, arising in the European age of imperialism, the subsequent growth of capitalism, and especially the Atlantic slave trade,[1][5] of which it was a major driving force.[6] It was also a major force behind racial segregation in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and of apartheid in South Africa; 19th and 20th-century racism in Western culture is particularly well documented and constitutes a reference point in studies and discourses about racism.[7]Racism has played a role in genocides such as the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, as well as colonial projects including the European colonization of the Americas, Africa, Asia, and the population transfer in the Soviet Union including deportations of indigenous minorities.[8] Indigenous peopleshave been—and are—often subject to racist attitudes.

WIKI 

maxx

i am saying it is your fault that you are not debating the subject. I again just asked you a pointed question in again you failed to answer. Now if the shoe was on the other foot and I was you, I'd be quick to say, my you must not be very intelligent if you can not answer so simple a question. However I am glad that I am not6 you, for i dis-iike stooping to such sophomoric behaviorisms. now return to the debate and answer the questions. @Nomenclature

Bogan

@maxx

I do not debate links, Maxx.   You can use a link to SUPPORT your argument, but not AS your argument.   If you think that what the link says is valid, then read it, summarise it, and present it as your own argument.      I will not read links for a good reason.     One debating opponent drove me mad "debating" with links and he never bothered to present an argument at all.     Being young and foolish, I accommodated him in good faith and I would read his links and point out the fallacies in them.      He would just say "I didn't agree with that bit anyway" and then drown me with more links.    One time, he found a link with a sarcastic heading which did not support his argument at all, it supported mine.    But he submitted it anyway because he did not realise that the writer was being sarcastic.    He had not even read the link he was using as an argument.    That was when I decided to never accept a link as an argument.     

In any case, the idea that science does not accept race is complete (Japanese word) bursheedo.     "Species" and "sub species" are scientific terms and one definition of "race" equates precisely with "sub species.     If you can find a politically partisan pseudo scientist who claims different, then post him up and I will read what they say.      In addition, as I have explained umpteenth times before, anthropologists are scientists ad they most definitely do recognise the concept of race because identifying the races of long buried skeletons is part of their job.    If you say different, then please explain to me how anthropologists use the term "race" every day in their work?   

And claiming that races are just a 'social construct" is the lamest excuse for an argument ever invented.      If race is 'social construct" which somehow invalidates a named concept, then so is "reptile" "species", "sub species" "breeds", "fish", "birds", "marsupial", "Mammal", "ape", "red dwarf star", "main sequence star" "planet" , and every other damned thing which the human mind classifies into categories. 

Your silly position would work very well on a person who is not as well read and clued up as I am Maxx, but it won't work on me.

And another thing.    This whole "social construct" thing was dreamed up by the old time socialists who once claimed that "class" was a social construct.    But you won't hear or read the neo Marxists saying that today, because the socialite socialists and Gucci greenies of today are the most class conscious snobs around.

maxx

you would not accept my summary if you refuse to read the link. As well I already explained part of it. biologically we are all the same race. Diverging into so called sub races is but a culture hierarchy  label . skin color is just melanin and there is little dna difference at all with-in the human race. aside from that, culture, morals and other attitudes do not change a race. I posted the link for time saving, as well as the evidence it shows. It is a very simple process for you to read it for it explains it bettter than i can summarize it. I do no have time to analyze it for you. If you wish to understand as to why we are all one race then I suggest you take time to read it. I know it goes against your beliefs, however scientific and biological evidence is right there. Labels are but a human concept. as well you should get the labels correct. species are different than race. There is almost no difference biologically in humans as a whole. in lower primates, there are. One thing you have not explained is what differences "different" races in humans actually have. if so, then i missed it. Shape, color, muscle tone are all but physical differences and does not change a race.  Now just take time for the link. @Bogan

Nomenclature

@maxx

i am saying it is your fault that you are not debating the subject

You're attacking me because you misread one of my comments, directed at someone else, in a two way conversation you were not part of. It is nothing short of unbelievable that you are trying to blame me for your own error. What is your malfunction, Maxx?

I again just asked you a pointed question in again you failed to answer.  

The only reason you addressed me is because you failed to read my post properly, so your questions are irrelevant. You're trying to deflect away from your own error without taking responsibility for it, which is intellectually dishonest. Why on Earth would I answer your questions when you don't even read the answers?

maxx

well, all things considered, i have asked many times for you to return to the debate and just like many others on here, you refused and would rather
 continue the childish insults. Is that the limit of your debate skills, or are you going to return to the subject at hand? @Nomenclature

maxx

One last time and listen for once. even if it was a learned behavior, in which I disagree, but regardless, if it was,, the4re are still basic root causes underneath as to why it exist and you seem unable to comply and answer that. Why is a person racist? why do they dislike and discriminate others? Because they are taught?  bull!  "excuse me but i dont like you cause my parents taught me not too"  yeah right. At one point in history, the basic causes as to why began and still exist. I have told you, fear of those who are strangers and who are different. The word racist today has under lining psychological tones as to why it exists, and I have gave reasoning as to why. The earliest tribes did not like strangers for they would rob, maim kill, take resources and so on. Now if you would stop your childhood insults and actually debate, then do so. take bullies. is that a learned behavior? lets pretend it is. is the root cause of it a learned behavior? no. they may want attention, or prove that they are not cowards, or they like to prey on the weak, or maybe they are just cruel. These are root causes and just like racism, there are root causes to it. Now answer. @Dee

Nomenclature

@maxx

well, all things considered, i have asked many times for you to return to the debate 

I'm not interested in this particular debate, Maxx. I've already given my views. Your belief that I'm obligated to bark to your whistle is misguided and blaming others for your own mistakes is not much of an incentive for me to get involved in arguing with you.

maxx

imagine that. as if your own mirror does not reflect your mistakes. you will not return to the debate because the answers you give will reflect my own. fine by me if you refuse to debate.  Not much to you. @Nomenclature

Bogan

@maxx

you would not accept my summary if you refuse to read the link. 

I would accept a summary as your argument and I would critique it as your argument.    I can not ask the author of a link questions, or reason with the author, but I can ask you questions and reason with you.

Maxx quote    As well I already explained part of it. biologically we are all the same race. 

And biologically, Clydesdale horses and Thoroughbred horses are all the same species.     These two "breeds" are sub species of the species Equus ferus caballus.    But they are different breeds with different physical characteristics and different temperaments.    What applies to this species of mammals applies exactly to human mammals.   DNA works exactly the same way for humans as it does for horses.   Unless you and your pseudo science link can explain differently?

Maxx quote.    Diverging into so called sub races is but a culture hierarchy  label .

No, the terms  "species" and "sub species" are very scientific terms.    "Race" can have two definitions, one of which equates to "species", and the other equates to "sub species" in everyday English language speech. 

Maxx quote      skin color is just melanin and there is little dna difference at all with-in the human race.

That is malarky and you know it.  Regardless of skin colour, a Scandinavian is identifiably different in physical appearance to a Zulu.     I will bet that you read that somewhere in one of your "scientific" papers and you just accepted it without thinking about it?  

Maxx quote  and there is little dna difference at all with-in the human race.  

There is little DNA difference between a Clydesdale and a Thoroughbred, but that "little difference" obviously makes big difference.    Was that silly statement from another "scientific" link?  
  
Maxx quote      I posted the link for time saving, as well as the evidence it shows. It is a very simple process for you to read it for it explains it better than i can summarize it. I do no have time to analyze it for you. If you wish to understand as to why we are all one race then I suggest you take time to read it.

And when I find something which I can easily disprove, how do I question the link, Maxx?   I can question you, and I can question your logic, but I can not question a link.   In any case, I have read all of these supposed "scientific explanations" that race does not exist before, and none of them has ever impressed me.   As a matter of fact, I even get angry and frustrated at what they write because I know that they are making assertions that are just not true.   They are written for uninformed people like you who want to believe them, and who do not even want to question them.       By making you read and summarise these supposed "scientific" explanations, I can put you on the spot and make you realise that what has been conditioned into your receptive head is just socialist "progressive" (actually "regressive") propaganda.

Maxx quote    I know it goes against your beliefs, however scientific and biological evidence is right there.

It sure is.    "Sub species" equates exactly to the non specific definition of "race."      If you claim otherwise, then please explain?

Maxx wrote    Labels are but a human concept. as well you should get the labels correct.  

So is every category of, stars, volcanoes, planets, soil, rocks, trees, grasses, clouds, snow, wood, metals, and electromagnetic radiation.   They may be "human constructs" or 'social constructs" but they put a name to concepts which are real.

Maxx wrote       species are different than race.

Congratulations, Maxx, you finally almost got something right on this topic.    Species is different to sub species.    But sub species equates exactly to what human who speak the English language use in everyday speech as "race."

Maxx wrote.     There is almost no difference biologically in humans as a whole.  

C'mon Maxx, you know that isn't true.    Did you just read that in some "scientific" essay without your critical analysis circuit switched on?   Human races are identifiably different to each other, which is why they were recognized  as "races" in the first place.   The same way as humans recognized different sub species of cats, dogs, horses, cattle, and sheep, regardless of the colour of their fur.  

Maxx wrote   One thing you have not explained is what differences "different" races in humans actually have.  

They are as identifiably different to each other as the different sub species of cats, dogs, horses, cattle, and sheep are.     So that is just physical characteristics alone.     Then comes physical abilities.   Dark skinned people evolved to have an advantage in hot climates, while whites and Asians are more evolved to cope with cold climates.     Whites and Asians are prone to skin cancer, Africans to rickets if they live in a cold climate without vitamin D supplements.    African descended people are generally better runners, but are poor swimmers.    White people are better swimmers than either Asians or African blacks.   Black people do not even try to compete at Olympic lever swimming events, even though they usually dominate running events.  With IQ. seventy years of IQ testing revealed that there is a 15 point "bell curve" difference in IQ between US whites and US African descended people,     So cognitive metricians, who are scientists, recognise "race" too.    Next comes temperament, and all I can say is that it is screamingly obvious that African descended people (and some other ethnicities) have genetic predisposition to violent behaviour which is far greater than for other races.   Which is why they are so predisposed to serious criminal behaviour.  

Maxx wrote      Now just take time for the link.

No Maxx.     I can question and reason with you, but I can not do that to a link.     Your claim that it will "save time" is a fallacy.    This debate will go on and on, until you read the link yourself, type the arguments in the link that you agree with, and then we can thrash them out.    I have a funny feeling that some of your premises you listed above were already from your" scientific"  links.     If so, you can see for yourself just how easy it is for me to dismiss with logic the premises in these pseudo science "links."

    

   

maxx

you stated that physical difference are the hallmark of a different race? Is that what you are claiming? If so, my opposite gender is either of a different race or species. Physical appearances  do not change a race. This is why I asked you to read the link. It explains fully as to why.  there is no reason not to read it. it is top quality; yes I can find other links this one explains in detail with clear cut reasons. It is scientific and biologicaly accurate. sub races are just a label humans made up. read the damn link. what do you want, something from a cheap tabloid?  @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx ;    you stated that physical difference are the hallmark of a different race? Is that what you are claiming? 

I am saying that human beings identify and categories everything based upon observable similarities or differences.   Human beings recognized long ago that people on planet earth more or less conformed to four recognized skin tones which they called "races."

Maxx wrote    If so, my opposite gender is either of a different race or species. 

Maxx, what you are writing is so silly that even Dee would not dare submit it as a serious premise.     You sure are getting desperate to come out with a doozy like that. 

Maxx wrote       Physical appearances  do not change a race.  

Not only does physical appearance usually define a race, the people of a particular race define themselves that way.     If you called a Māori "an Asian" they would object.   Native Americans hate being called "Indians."

Maxx wrote     This is why I asked you to read the link. It explains fully as to why.  there is no reason not to read it.

There is no reason for you not to summarise it and present it as your own argument if you agree with it.    But I cannot reason with, or question a link.     The reason why you want me to read it, and argue against it, is to take the pressure off you.  Fat chance.     

Maxx wrote     sub races are just a label humans made up.       

"Sub races", never heard that one before.    Who dreamed that one up, Hitler?     What we are talking about is species and sub species, and you know it.  

Maxx       read the damn link. what do you want, something from a cheap tabloid?  

Read it yourself.   Summarize it and present it as your own argument.  Then I can pick it apart and show you how silly you were to believe in such silly pseudo science. 

maxx

incredible. will not even take the time to read the science.@Bogan

Bogan

@maxx ;    incredible. will not even take the time to read the science.

Cop out, Maxx.    I expected better of you.    Whatever you are, I don't classify you as a troll like I do with Dee, Barnadot, Nommie, Piloteer, or John Smith.   So why you will not debate in good faith on this topic is a mystery to me?        Standing on your dignity and acting amazed is just a substitute for a reasoned argument, which you are unable to formulate anyway.      

If your "science" is so impressive, Maxx, then summarise your link and submit it as your own argument.   After all, if it is so profound, you should not have any trouble formulating your own reasoned argument out of such devastating "scientific" resource material.     This is a debate site ma-a-a-a-a-te.   Not a link exchange site.

How about I just tell you to read "A Mind to Crime", "The Criminal History of Mankind",  "The Hunting Hypothesis", "Guns. Germs, and Steel", "The Bell Curve", 'Introduction To Psychology ", "Abnormal Psychology", "Consumer Behaviour", "Social Psychology", "Understanding Psychology," "The Status Seekers"  and "The War Against Children"?     Then you might be able to figure out who is telling you the truth and who is telling you complete bursheedo.   Then you won't be intimidated by somebody claiming that their ideology is "science" and can formulate your own arguments and even cross connect lines of thought, like I can do.  

MayCaesar

maxx said:

my assertions are what the paper says so quit saying that they do not Agree. I said the human race is but one race. The paper explains why   As well, when humans began migrating and diverging into different groups, over time, they developed different skin tone, different speech patterns, morals, attitudes, and so on, but biologically there is almost no difference. The idea of separate races is but a social hierarchy construct.  @MayCaesar

Which paper? Actually, do not bother, as we both know what will happen: I will go through the paper, take a lot of time to understand it, explain to you why its conclusions contradict your assertions - and you will just make a lame post along the lines of, "You just do not accept my links", and that will be it.

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish this way. Do you really think that a single person on this website who is not you takes this nonsense seriously?

You cannot even understand what assertion you are making. In some comments you are saying that race is a purely social construct and has no biological meaning, in others you say that humans are all one race, implying that race does have biological meaning. Which one is it?

ZeusAres42

ZeusAres42

@maxx

Debate is not about finding a link and allowing that link to the arguing for you.

MayCaesar

I scrolled up out of curiosity, and it appears that the "paper" maxx is referring to is linked here:

maxx said:

my declarations are generally supported by science and scientific links. I am not making it up. All you are doing is dismissing what science says.  We are all genetically the same and what is more, the same chromosomes  .  I suggest you read this. Science Proves That Race Does Not Exist - Biology - Science Forums @Bogan

Unfortunately for poor maxx, this is not a scientific paper, but a forum post on a famous physics forum website. The website is great, and I actually used to frequent those forums to discuss some astrophysical questions. What is not great is that maxx confuses forum posts with scientific papers... We are now talking about elementary school level blunders. It is no longer about the ability to read scientific papers, but about the ability to even understand what is and what is not a scientific paper.

Poor maxx... He is cursed. Every time he says something, his reputation plunders. There really is no way out of this other than eternal silence... My condolences.

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

Debate is not about finding a link and allowing that link to the arguing for you.

It's difficult to believe you actually wrote this, given that 80 percent of your posts are gifs and/or jpegs which serve no purpose other than to act as an immature form of mockery. It was only a matter of days ago that I had to correct you about something which has been public knowledge since 1915. You're quite simply one of the densest people I have ever encountered on the internet. At least Maxx attempts to debate, which is more than you do.

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

Well said Zuesares42.     I wish more "debaters" would realise it.   You are one of the smartest people I have ever encountered on the internet.

ZeusAres42

Nomenclature said:

@ZeusAres42

 I had to correct you about something which has been public knowledge since 1915.

Lmao. You didn't correct me about anything. You assumed a position of mine and argued against that instead like you always do with every person here. 99.9 % of the people you debate with here don't exist; they're just imaginary people with arguments you invented yourself. Anyway, this is irrelevant to this debate topic (like almost all of your arguments anyway). Anyway, all the best with this.

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

Lmao. You didn't correct me about anything.

Stop lying please. You tried mocking me under the pretense that you were only following Newton's theory of gravity, and I had to patiently explain to you that Newton's theory of gravity was debunked in 1915 by Albert Einstein. You are a dope and, since you are a dope, the entire collective content of your posts consists of nothing more than infantile mockery and silly gifs.

Dee

@maxx

One last time and listen for once. even if it was a learned behavior, in which I disagree, but regardless, if it was,, the4re are still basic root causes underneath as to why it exist and you seem unable to comply and answer that.

Yet I've clearly stated (24 times now ) racism is learned behaviour  your contention remains babies are born racist which is an utterly absurd claim and worse still you actually believe animals are born racist , this is all in your head even the paper you linked totally rubbished your claims but as usual you didn't read your own links and totally ignored the fact they disagreed with your nonsense 

It's the very same as the time you spent 6 months saying homosexuality was 'unnatural' but couldn't explain why 

 Why is a person racist? 

Because they're taught to be racist , so you're admitting you're racist as you're born this way right?

why do they dislike and discriminate others? 

Why you dislike and discriminate ? You cannot help it you're born this way? That's what you're saying right?

Because they are taught?  bull!  "excuse me but i dont like you cause my parents taught me not too"  yeah right


Well done that's how racism works, you're saying 'bull ' so you're admitting you're a racist and you were born this way so cannot help it 


. At one point in history, the basic causes as to why began and still exist. 

Which is why I sent you yet another link telling you how it began, but of course like MayCaeser you totally ignore any links that disagree with your opinion pieces , in your case by claiming you know because  you say so ; MayCaeser plays a similar game by refusing to offer counters to arguments by typing long winded replies back claiming they know it all because they have an academic degree 

I have told you, fear of those who are strangers and who are different. 

How is a fear of a stranger racism? Do you know what racism is? It seems not 

The word racist today has under lining psychological tones as to why it exists, and I have gave reasoning as to why. 

What the f-uck are you on about? 

The earliest tribes did not like strangers for they would rob, maim kill, take resources and so on. 

I said from my first post that humans are wary of strangers , you're saying that are born racists which is utter bull

Now if you would stop your childhood insults and actually debate, then do so. 

But the only one in a constant rage and attacking everyone is you 

take bullies. is that a learned behavior? lets pretend it is. 

Yes it is that's another fact. I don't have to 'pretend ' as it is learned behavior

is the root cause of it a learned behavior?

Yes 

 no. 

Yes. So now you're saying all humans are born racist and bullies? Seriously ?????

they may want attention, or prove that they are not cowards, or they like to prey on the weak, or maybe they are just cruel. These are root causes and just like racism, there are root causes to it. 

Nonsense 

Now answer

Now answer 

Dee

@Maxx


Well done Maxx .....

I just read your post to Bogan , once again you beat your own arguments as you stated .........

I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well.

Then you say ......

Labels are but a human concept. as well you should get the labels correct. species are different than race. There is almost no difference biologically in humans as a whole

So you admit racisim is learned behaviour well done .....yet again you beat your own argument 

maxx

that is but your opinion may.  regardless of what paper or link I post, be it top quality or not, you declare something is wrong with it; and in doing so, all science is apparently below you.  You have a problem. we are all one race.   The paper may not be up to your , ahem, standards, and it may be a forum, but the science is still in the paper. @MayCaesar @Dee, @Bogan ;Biological races in humans - PubMed (nih.gov)  as the paper states, mere adaptations to terrain, or temperature, nor skin color or changes in other physical features, does not change a race into another one. As well I am willing to bet if i went to one of my post, oh let's say garlic and posted a link from joe blow of the national tabloid, saying garlic has no value at all; then you guys would jump all over it simply because it goes with your beliefs and against mine; yet when I post a top quality link it is dissected, and torn apart, It is said to be full of lies, false and all made up.  what a bunch of hypocrites. 

Bogan

@maxx

I can not "dissect', question, or reason with your "scientific facts" if you will not post them up in a reasoned argument.   Just chanting the mantra of "we are all one race, the human race" add infinitum is a tactic more worthy of a wild eyed ideological zealot than a person who pretends that he can think and reason.    It is exactly like saying "there is only one God, end of discussion."    It is something which has been culturally conditioned into your head at an early stage and it has become an ingrained internal barrier to your critical analysis circuit which your mind refuses to pass.

Since you refuse to co-operate and submit a reasoned argument based upon this so called "scientific" essay, how about I try another tack which might get you thinking straight?

There exists in western societies, the same dysfunctional groups of people with common ancestry who are a serious social problem.     It does not matter if they inhabit the USA, France, Britain, South Africa, or even Australia, the vast majority of them have intergenerational welfare dependency and very high rates of serious criminal behaviour.   if all races are equal, then there can be only two racist theories which account for that.   The first racist theory is, that it is all the white guys fault.    White people have "unconscious racism", they "discriminate" against poor black people. and "oppress" them.     The second racist theory, is that the dysfunctional races have low intelligence coupled with a genetic predisposition to extreme violence at a rate much higher than in other races.

Which of the two racist theories do you support, and why?

Nomenclature

@Bogan

I can not "dissect', question, or reason with your "scientific facts" if you will not post them up in a reasoned argument

Also Bogan:-

I won't debate you if you include links to credible sources.

Dee

@Nomenclature

Bogend is a knuckle dragging retard on a par with Mad Maxx

Bogan

@Nomenclature ;   Also Bogan:-

I won't debate you if you include links to credible sources.

Okay ma-a-a-a-te.   When you start deliberately lying and making up comments from me and then submitting them as a quote from me, you have just crossed the Rubicon.  .  You are lower than a snake's duodenum and even your dog does not like you.       You are worse than a troll.   Consider yourself permanently banned from ever "debating" with me again.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

When you start deliberately lying

Oh, I'm lying am I? Let's try this again then, Bogan. There is no such thing as race. It's a made up label. Your racist beliefs are rooted in something which is not even scientifically real:-

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/people-and-culture/2018/04/theres-no-scientific-basis-for-race-its-a-made-up-label

even your dog does not like you

The irony of this claim is that I do not have a dog, so you're lying. Here's another link to a credible source:-

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection

Bogan

Barnardot

@Nomenclature
Human beings are a product of whichever environment you put them in. 

Well what do you reckon then if you get an Eskimo and then you put him in Africa or you get a Zulu and you put him in the North Pole. Because when  you analize it in the end what is going to happen is that there not going to be a product of there environment that there being put in because all of the other Eskimo s are going to be racist against the Zulu and all the Zulu s are going to be racist against the Eskimo. So that that is what the point is all about because the Zulu doesn’t know how to dress properly and die of frost bite and the Eskimo won’t be able to find ice so he will dies. So then the point that I’m pointing out is that the Zulu can only be aprduct of Africa and the Eskimo can only be a product of the North Pole. In the end a coconut that came from Africa can only be a product of Africa and it can’t be a product of the North Pole if you put one there.

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

Well what do you reckon then if you get an Eskimo and then you put him in Africa

How do you suppose Eskimos adapted to their own environment in the first place? 

Bogan

Could you two go and play in the middle of the road?     This topic is for adults. 

MayCaesar

maxx said:

that is but your opinion may.  regardless of what paper or link I post, be it top quality or not, you declare something is wrong with it; and in doing so, all science is apparently below you.  You have a problem. we are all one race.   The paper may not be up to your , ahem, standards, and it may be a forum, but the science is still in the paper. @MayCaesar @Dee, @Bogan ;Biological races in humans - PubMed (nih.gov)  as the paper states, mere adaptations to terrain, or temperature, nor skin color or changes in other physical features, does not change a race into another one. As well I am willing to bet if i went to one of my post, oh let's say garlic and posted a link from joe blow of the national tabloid, saying garlic has no value at all; then you guys would jump all over it simply because it goes with your beliefs and against mine; yet when I post a top quality link it is dissected, and torn apart, It is said to be full of lies, false and all made up.  what a bunch of hypocrites. 

That you are not embarrassed about making a blunder of this level - confusing a forum post with a paper - and that, even after me correcting you on this, you STILL insist on calling it a "paper" - is... impressive. That everything you said has absolutely zero to do with my comment's content at this point, of course, is a given.

I will repeat it for the... challenged once again: the problem is not with papers, but with you making false claims about their content. The science is in the papers, indeed; too bad that you do not know how to read such papers, or even how to tell what is a paper and what is not.

Dee

@maxx


. we are all one race.  

Yet you keep saying we are born racist , 

I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well.

Then you say ...... 

Labels are but a human concept. as well you should get the labels correct. species are different than race. There is almost no difference biologically in humans as a whole

still have not accepted your beating from yesterday where you totally contradicted  yourself so now you post up a new topic and pretend everyone is arguing against it 

As well I am willing to bet if i went to one of my post, oh let's say garlic and posted a link from joe blow of the national tabloid, saying garlic has no value at all; then you guys would jump all over it simply because it goes with your beliefs and against mine; yet when I post a top quality link it is dissected, and torn apart, It is said to be full of lies, false and all made up.  what a bunch of hypocrites. 

But your link has nothing to do with what this debate is about , it's you pretending everyone is making claims regards race /races that only Bogend has made ......you don't nor ever have taken your beatings well 

maxx

regardless of the fact that it was a forum, the science in it stands  @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

Argument topic insane Maxx yet yet another complete meltdown over taking another thrashing in debate ......yeee haaaaaaaa

dee one of these days i or my associates

"my associates"..........Bwhahahahahahahaha .....sorry Maxx convicted pedos are not allowed enter my country 

 will find you and you will no longer be able to use that mouth of yours. 

Whooooooooo scary ........please mr bar -room brawler don't hurt me 

I have friends right now tracking down your IP address. 

This from you a greasy haired freak with 4 inch thick googles , Maxx you cannot even tie your shoe
laces unassisted  ......bwhahahahahahaha .......good luck with that 

Wont be hard from that point

I'd make mincemeat of you and your buddies , you yanks are a laugh you have never one a war and yet you all see yourselves as natural born killers , go back to your sand pit and play with the other retards 

maxx

yeah, well we will  see. I have tried to be amiable  on this site but you think the only way to debate is to toss out names and ridicule others. I have yet seen you on here with an attitude to actual debate. May is starting to act the same way; just insults. anytime a post goes against your beliefs, instead of debating the issue, nothing but insults. apparently aarong would rather lose his license than get tid of the garbage and turn this back into a debate site. when your phone or laptop turns to junk, that will make me all smiles.  I would not have gone to this extreme had you been seriously trying to debate the issues, but no, after a year of your mouth, i am tired of it. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

yeah, well we will  see.

The country is in a state of high alert as we speak 

I have tried to be amiable  on this site but you think the only way to debate is to toss out names and ridicule others. 

No you haven't , you attack anyone who disagrees  with you

I have yet seen you on here with an attitude to actual debate. 

Well try me, debate one topic without ignoring every question asked of you? Or flying into a rage at different opinions 

May is starting to act the same way; just insults. 

May is a snob and not very bright  he said before only his comments were worthy as he has a science degree 

anytime a post goes against your beliefs, instead of debating the issue, nothing but insults.

Thats simply not true, you totally contradicted yourself on the racism debate and instead of admitting it you issue death threats , seriously?

 apparently aarong would rather lose his license than get tid of the garbage and turn this back into a debate site. when your phone or laptop turns to junk, that will make me all smiles.  

That's great as I've ordered a new one this ones days are done .....thanks mate 

I would not have gone to this extreme had you been seriously trying to debate the issues, but no, after a year of your mouth, i am tired of it

Tell you what post up one topic and I bet you will fire of the first insult but you won't as you know I'm right 

maxx

ip address will still be the same. and no, you refuse to debate. I have already talked with arrong about the rules of the fcc governing sites like these.. if you would simply curb your mouth and debate, it would be different. Many of my posts are designed to be on the extreme side and there are lots of times I take the wrong side simply to debate it. a bit of insulting adds spice and I can take it, yet what you are doing is out of the question. If you want to debate something, ok, but you simply read what I wrote and dismiss it out of hand and then laspe into insults. when i ask you pointed questions you ignore them. It is hard to prove something when thye do not look at the science behind it or as may, just say he doesnt like the link,  claim I do not understand the link and then ignore the content of the link. I claimed racism is hardwired and you said it was a learned behavior. fine. yet i asked you many times to give the basic reasons and the root causes of racism, as to why we discriminate, and you will not do so. You may state that one does not like the skin color, or their ethnicity, or religion, yet those are just surface reasons. We discriminate others because they are different than we and that, as well as distrust, is the root causes and it began in ancient times.  Assuming that it is a learned behavior, the reasons and root causes as to why are not what you are debating.  I am sure you are an adult, but on this site you are acting more like a kid on a school play ground. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

ip address will still be the same. 

What are you on about?

and no, you refuse to debate. 

But you say that to everyone once you disagree with them

have already talked with arrong about the rules of the fcc governing sites like these..

So have I 

 if you would simply curb your mouth and debate, it would be different

Kettle / pot 

. Many of my posts are designed to be on the extreme side and there are lots of times 

Thats fine , I judge by your arguments 

I take the wrong side simply to debate it. 

Good 

a bit of insulting adds spice and I can take it,

No , you cannot but you like dishing it out 

yet what you are doing is out of the question.

Wait , do you want a list of the insults you fire at me and others?

 If you want to debate something, ok, but you simply read what I wrote and dismiss it out of hand and then laspe into insults. 

Incorrect ,read your latest debate as usual my opening remarks are spot on, but you fly into an instant rage at being challenged 

when i ask you pointed questions you ignore them. 

I don't , read the racism debate where you posted my one link which disagreed with your contentions and you refused to acknowledge such 

It is hard to prove something when thye do not look at the science behind it or as may, just say he doesnt like the link,  claim I do not understand the link and then ignore the content of the link

Which I never do , you're actually talking about what you do 

. I claimed racism is hardwired and you said it was a learned behavior. fine. yet i asked you many times to give the basic reasons and the root causes of racism, as to why we discriminate, and you will not do so.

But you deny it's learned behaviour , which it is , that's a fact. See the way I tell you it's learned behaviour yet you totally ignore and keep asking the same question as it's not the answer you want , your last response was " bull" ......and then you keep asking the same question again and again 

Also you totally contradict yourself by saying we are born racist then contradict yourself by saying it's a  social construct but you refuse ( as usual) to address any contradictions to your thesis 

 You may state that one does not like the skin color, or their ethnicity, or religion, yet those are just surface reasons. 

What are you on about do you know the definition of racism?

We discriminate others because they are different than we and that, as well as distrust, is the root causes and it began in ancient times. 

We also love and cooperate with others , your views are very biased 

 Assuming that it is a learned behavior, the reasons and root causes as to why are not what you are debating.  

It is learned , it's up to you to prove we are born racist a claim you've zero proof for 

I am sure you are an adult, but on this site you are acting more like a kid on a school play ground.

Well when you stop firing of insult after insult and behaving like a spoiled  child having a tantrum I will treat you that way.

You are arguing with 7 different people on racism and accusing and insulting everyone of the very behavior you're indulging in , you just issued me with death threats for disagreeing with you and you expect to be treated like an adult ....seriously?

Bogan

@maxx ;    It seems as there are 2 debates going,  racism is hardwired and the human race is but one race. 

I agree with your first premise, but your second premise is false.      

"Taxonomy" is the naming of species and sub species.     It was invented by the great Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus who originally invented the idea of naming species with two Latin names, the first being the genus name, and the second being the species name.    Since the number of known species exploded in his own time, and the concept of "sub species" was realised, it was decided by naturalists at the time to include a third Latin name to identify sub species.     The universally recognized species of Brown Bears thus became Ursus arctos.    Sub species of brown bears like Kodiak bears were given the third Latin name of Ursus arctos middendorffi, while Grizzly bears received the scientific name of Ursus arctos horribilis, due to the fact that they were very dangerous and mean sons of bit-ches.

 Naturalists in the 19th century recognized that the human term "race" equated exactly to the concept of sub species, and they began the process of naming races of people with sub species catagorisations.

Since "Homo" was the genus name of humans, and "sapiens" the species name, races of human beings were named according to their sub species with a third Latin name.      The discovery of a race of humans in Tasmania for example, led to Linnaeus naming them "Homo sapien tasmanianus".       Other races of humans were similarly named as sub species, and these include Homo sapien arabicus, homo sapien Iranicus, homos sapien americus, homo sapien australasicus, and homo sapian patagonius.

But by the 1980's the infiltration of neo Marxist thought within academia with their associated political correctness raised it's ugly head, which resulted in the "taxonomic wars".     This "war" equated exactly with the "history wars" now raging in many western countries between traditional historians and the new breed of neo Marxist historians with their "black armband" view of western history.      The neo Marxist naturalists began to object to the idea that human races (or sub species) existed when (like gender) observable reality said that they did.     "Modern" naturalists without scientific consensus renamed the whole human race as 'Homos sapien sapien" to exclude the reality that human sub species (or races) existed, and they could then pretend that this new "reality" is recognized by science.      

 Your premise that science does not recognise races, my dear Maxx, equates exactly to the new neo-Marxist line that "modern" science does not recognise that there are two sexes.   If you want to keep sprouting the bizarre commie line, Maxx, then go right ahead.    I prefer to maintain that biological reality and traditional thinking about human races as sub species trumps wooly headed Marxist ideology. 

 Do you also agree with the stu-pid commie bastar-ds that "science" recognises 187 genders, too?

maxx

true, there are other races that diverged or rather races that homo sapiens diverged from, races that are not homo sapiens. we diverged from them, not them us. however homo sapiens have yet to diverge into another race. If so, do you not think science would have recognized it and given that race a separate name? can you produce something more than skin color, physical features, adaptations to the environment; for that doesnt change a race. If there was another race today that has diverged into another race, science would have done classified it; instead all they have done is to divide the one human race into various ethnic stereotypes and geological backgrounds. I perhaps may agree with you if science suddenly stated that among us there are now homo-africanus or homo-eskimo-ercetus but no, we are just homo sapiens. correct? @Bogan

MayCaesar

@maxx

Homo-sapiens is a species, not a race. The difference between species is much more profound than between races, and Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals differ from each other much more significantly than Africans and Asians.

Buddy, do you ever do any homework at all? You keep making a blunder after a blunder, and then have the audacity to not only ignore/reject criticism, but also double down on the latest blunder. You know, there is a medical condition that used to be called a word starting with "i" and that is now an insult: people having it are unable to incorporate new information into their picture of the world. Basically, they hold on to the set of beliefs about the world that they have, and when new information comes up that contradicts those beliefs, they brush it away and maintain the beliefs. You might want to verify with a professional that you are not a victim of that condition. I do not remember you ever correcting yourself upon learning that you were objectively wrong about something, not even after multiple repetitions of the correction.

Lastly, your threats towards Dee were the lowest of the lows I have seen of this website. Seriously, threatening someone with violence anonymously on a debate website? Do you have any social skills at all? Or do you come here and talk all this rubbish exactly because in real life no one wants to interact with you?

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

You keep making a blunder after a blunder, and then have the audacity to not only ignore/reject criticism

Lol. Oh May, your hypocrisy is the stuff of absolute legend.

Bogan

@maxx

Maxx wrote   true, there are other races that diverged or rather races that homo sapiens diverged from, races that are not homo sapiens. we diverged from them, not them us. however homo sapiens have yet to diverge into another race.

 Okay, so far, so good.

 

Maxx wrote    If so, do you not think science would have recognized it and given that race a separate name?

 I find it incredible that after I submitted to you a 461 word explanation of the entire history of Taxonomy (naming human and animal species, genus's and families) you still can not get it?

 Okay, let's try once more and this time, try to concentrate.     There are two definitions of the English language word "Race".    The first is general, as in "the human race", which is grammatically and scientifically correct when used to denote the human species.    The second definition of "race" relates to the fact that the human species is divided by sub species, and in that usage it is used, scientifically and grammatically, to refer to human sub species.     Got it now?    If not, please re read what I have written until it sinks in.    Or, please ask pertinent and polite questions and I will endeavour to enlighten you on how in the English language, one word can have multiple meanings depending on context.

 

Maxx wrote     You  can you produce something more than skin color, physical features, adaptations to the environment; for that doesnt change a race.

 It does not change a species name, but changes in physical appearance, coupled with differences of physical abilities, and differences in intelligence and temperament, most definitely indicate that a species has developed  sub species.     Okay, let's give an example that you can relate to.      Brown Bears are a species.  The species name is Ursos actos.     That species in Alaska lives on the coast and it eats both meat and fish.     It is dangerous but it is not known for attacking without provocation.    

 Grizzly Bears are a sub species of the Brown bear species.     They live in the mountains where food is a lot less plentiful, they do not eat fish, and they are extremely aggressive and territorial when it comes to defending their territory.   And they are ferking dangerous.   They will attack without provocation any human or animal in their territory.    They are different in appearance to ordinary brown bears because they are usually smaller, and the tips of their fur has a lighter shade of brown compared to their undercoats.   Their scientific name is Ursos actos horriblis.    The "horriblis" suffix denotes their sub species designation and the fact that they are horrible sons of bi-tches.

 Kodiak bears are a sub species of brown bears and their scientific name is ursos  actos middendorffi.    They are different in appearance to both brown bears and grizzly bears because they tend to be smaller than brown bears,  and while they resemble brown bears, there are some differences in appearance    And they are smart.     They are so smart that people driving through Kodiak bear territory must keep their doors locked because Kodiak bears have figured out how to open car doors.

 

Maxx wrote    If there was another race today that has diverged into another race, science would have done classified it; instead all they have done is to divide the one human race into various ethnic stereotypes and geological backgrounds.

 You must not have even bothered to read my last post to you because I explained all this to you previously, in detail.     This time, pay attention.  I hate explaining things to people over, and over, and over again.    It makes me wonder "is he dumb or is he devious?"    The jury is still out on you.

 The human species is Homo sapiens, named by the great Linnaeus himself.       Linnaeus also recognised that within the human species there were sub species which he also named.    Following so far?  

  Australian aborigines are a sub species of the human species, also called a "race", according to the second definition of the word "race."   The sub species name is homo sapien australasicus.   Arabs are a race according to the second definition of the word "race", or a sub species, named by naturalists as homo sapien arababicus.  Tasmanians were recognised as another sub species, or "race" as Homo sapien tasmanianu.    

 

Maxx wrote   I perhaps may agree with you if science suddenly stated that among us there are now homo-africanus or homo-eskimo-ercetus but no, we are just homo sapiens.

 Linnaeus and other naturalists who invented taxonomy and who realised that the human species, homo sapiens, consisted of many human sub species, named those known sub species.   These sub species are commonly referred to as "races" in the English language, according to the second definition of that dual defined word.     I can give you the sub species names for Arabs, Patagonians, Tasmanian aboriginals, Australian aboriginals, and native Americans.    But wiki does not list the taxonomic name for  Eskimos, although I am sure that such a taxonomic name exists.    As for Africans, it would have been obvious to Linnaeus and his peers that even black Africans consist of identifiably different races,(or sub species) and he and his peers would have probably invented a Latin suffix to identify each African sub species of humans.

maxx

first sir, bears are not humans. Second; Only certain people in general consider other cultures "sub" species. I fail to see where any anthropologists are science classify any as such. Sub species are a label used to justify racism itself. Now first i would like your definition of your usage of sub. Is it those you consider backwards and uneducated or people who simply diverged from the human race? After you give me such definition then I would like a clear cut example of one group as you considered sub. Then if you would, give me the reasons why; either through the first definition, or as to why as the second. If it is but the second definition, on as to why and with some science to it; for again, adaptations to areas, or heat or cold, nor changes any physical appearances.  does not change a race. neither does their ethnic or culture @Bogan Scientific speaking we are but one race. biologically speaking we are but one race. give me your definition ro sub, for unitl you do, we are spinning any circles.