• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Abandon the concept of race.


EvotingMachine0197

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,641
As a human, it is thoroughly ridiculous for me to even countenance the idea of race.

If a family of Giraffes or (Jupiter forbid) Penguins decided to move in next door, I may be a bit peeved.

I hold a firmly strong Darwinist approach to all things in life. Therefore, in my mind, all humans are of the same species. In terms of human taxonomy, there is no difference.

Prior to the current scientific classification of humans, philosophers and scientists have made various attempts to classify humans. They offered various definitions of the human being and various schemes for classifying types of humans. Biologists once classified races as subspecies, but today scientists question even the concept of race itself. Certain issues in human taxonomy remain topics of debate today.
Human taxonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd be pretty sure that if one were to ask any cardiovascular surgeon, neurosurgeon or cosmetic surgeon if they ever came across a case where there was a taxonomical difference, the answer would be a definitive no.

The reason why the concept of race is still so prevalent today is due to several factors, but mainly ignorance.

It is a bedrock of hate. It is a mover of politics. And it is a trough of feeding for destruction.

It also causes humanity to completely miss the fcking boat. The question is not 'where are you from', but 'what do you think'. And the debate should always be about what we think.

So, I submit that the concept of race is both biologically wrong and morally wrong.
 


Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
33,328
Abandon race? But Evoting, what would some folk have left to feel superior about?
 

Ren84

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
49,992
The very concept of race has been abandoned by mainstream science long ago. But be sure not to confuse ethnicity with notions of race, the two are often conflated.
 

ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
When people speak of race what they are most often referencing (disparaging) are cultural traditions. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 

yobosayo

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
3,358
As a human, it is thoroughly ridiculous for me to even countenance the idea of race.

If a family of Giraffes or (Jupiter forbid) Penguins decided to move in next door, I may be a bit peeved.

I hold a firmly strong Darwinist approach to all things in life. Therefore, in my mind, all humans are of the same species. In terms of human taxonomy, there is no difference.



Human taxonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd be pretty sure that if one were to ask any cardiovascular surgeon, neurosurgeon or cosmetic surgeon if they ever came across a case where there was a taxonomical difference, the answer would be a definitive no.

The reason why the concept of race is still so prevalent today is due to several factors, but mainly ignorance.

It is a bedrock of hate. It is a mover of politics. And it is a trough of feeding for destruction.

It also causes humanity to completely miss the fcking boat. The question is not 'where are you from', but 'what do you think'. And the debate should always be about what we think.

So, I submit that the concept of race is both biologically wrong and morally wrong.
What makes you so sure that what you call your strict Darwinist approach is correct? Was precisely a strict Darwinist approach that gave rise to eugenics and the related phenomenon of Sobibor. They used race. Someone more modern might use IQ tests. In other words, sure, we are all human, however, your very beloved evolutionary theory says that despite our common humanity, we are not equal, at least from a genetic standpoint. Lastly, you might otherwise want to be careful with your strict Darwinist approach, since a strict Darwinist approach means polygamy, or at least multiple partners, since the data seems to indicate that men have better reproductive success with multiple partners. And probably if for no other reason than....after you've got wife no. 1 pregnant and so she's out of the running for a while, well, that's where wives nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 come in. Doesn't appear to matter for women though.

Almost forgot, but what with your strict Darwinist approach, will you be shortly proposing a Dail bill that requires one and all to reproduce when able? You see, looked at properly, from a strictly biological standpoint, those among us who do not reproduce have a rather low biological fitness. In other words, their DNA is going the way of the dinosaur and it doesn't get any more unfit than that. And if you want the expandorama version, think of it this way, there are two kinds of reproducers, those fish who release gobs and gobs and gobs of eggs, most of which are breakfast, lunch and dinner for some other critters, then there's mammals like us, who take an incredibly long time, not only with respect to gestation, but also for maturing into a animal that can survive on its own. Except that physical AND social maturation process can also lead some to not reproduce, thereby reducing their fitness to near zero. So we are mixed bag, since sure, we don't have hundreds of eggs being eaten for a meal, but at the same time, I've never met a fish that didn't reproduce when able. Not of all of us can say the same as those fish in that latter respect. So, back to where I began, or ended, good strict Darwinist that you are, you recognize the problem, or downside with our process of reproduction, and so you'll shortly be submitting your bill to the Dail requiring one and all to reproduce when able. And I don't mean reproducing all the time, just that if you are not infertile, you must, by law, have some kids. Fitness by legislation.

By the way, if you didn't grasp my point, my point is, you're worried about race while I'm worried about a rate of reproduction that leads to extinction. And so whitey has to import darkies to keep the population at least stable, lest we go the way of the dinosaur. Which isn't a knock on darkies, more power to 'em, but whitey needs to understand that his social construct is more than a little fvcked up when the fertility is below the point of sustainability.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,901
Twitter
Deiscirt
So, I submit that the concept of race is both biologically wrong and morally wrong.
Whilst skin pigmentation and traits are obviously genetically based, if you look at the over all genetic map, the differences are tiny. There is only a small amount of human genetic variation overall and 85% of that exists within any given population. So, it is quite possible for two random Irish people to be as genetically different to each other (overall) as an Irish person and a Nigerian or an Innuit and a Cypriot.

This seems counterintuitive but it also happens to be true. Whilst we can determine the geographic ancestry of a person ('genetic markers' more prevalent in one population than another) when considering the overall difference on an individual level, "race" doesn't really get reflected in genetic difference the way people often think it does. This is why the best scientests can do with a DNA sample is to give a better-than-random guess as to the ethnic identity of the individual from which it came.

All this is saying is that "race" is not a synonym for "genetic difference". There was a a lot of hoo-haa about this discovery back in the early noughties and rightly so. That is not to say that different populations don't have different traits.

The most important differences IMO are cultural in nature. I'm going to feel more "at home" and have more "in common" with the black fella I went through school with in rural Wicklow than I will with my long distant cousin who grew up in Argentina. Race doesn't come into it.
 

enochpowell

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
588
theres more genetic differences between an african and a european than there is between different breeds of dog,look at the different temperment,intelligence,strength etc.. that there is between different dogs ...belief in race isint isint a choice anymore than belief in gravity is a choice
 

EvotingMachine0197

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,641
What makes you so sure that what you call your strict Darwinist approach is correct? Was precisely a strict Darwinist approach that gave rise to eugenics and the related phenomenon of Sobibor. They used race. Someone more modern might use IQ tests. In other words, sure, we are all human, however, your very beloved evolutionary theory says that despite our common humanity, we are not equal, at least from a genetic standpoint. Lastly, you might otherwise want to be careful with your strict Darwinist approach, since a strict Darwinist approach means polygamy, or at least multiple partners, since the data seems to indicate that men have better reproductive success with multiple partners. And probably if for no other reason than....after you've got wife no. 1 pregnant and so she's out of the running for a while, well, that's where wives nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 come in. Doesn't appear to matter for women though.

Almost forgot, but what with your strict Darwinist approach, will you be shortly proposing a Dail bill that requires one and all to reproduce when able? You see, looked at properly, from a strictly biological standpoint, those among us who do not reproduce have a rather low biological fitness. In other words, their DNA is going the way of the dinosaur and it doesn't get any more unfit than that. And if you want the expandorama version, think of it this way, there are two kinds of reproducers, those fish who release gobs and gobs and gobs of eggs, most of which are breakfast, lunch and dinner for some other critters, then there's mammals like us, who take an incredibly long time, not only with respect to gestation, but also for maturing into a animal that can survive on its own. Except that physical AND social maturation process can also lead some to not reproduce, thereby reducing their fitness to near zero. So we are mixed bag, since sure, we don't have hundreds of eggs being eaten for a meal, but at the same time, I've never met a fish that didn't reproduce when able. Not of all of us can say the same as those fish in that latter respect. So, back to where I began, or ended, good strict Darwinist that you are, you recognize the problem, or downside with our process of reproduction, and so you'll shortly be submitting your bill to the Dail requiring one and all to reproduce when able. And I don't mean reproducing all the time, just that if you are not infertile, you must, by law, have some kids. Fitness by legislation.

By the way, if you didn't grasp my point, my point is, you're worried about race while I'm worried about a rate of reproduction that leads to extinction. And so whitey has to import darkies to keep the population at least stable, lest we go the way of the dinosaur. Which isn't a knock on darkies, more power to 'em, but whitey needs to understand that his social construct is more than a little fvcked up when the fertility is below the point of sustainability.
That's just mental muck.
 

Schomberg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
12,341
theres more genetic differences between an african and a european than there is between different breeds of dog,look at the different temperment,intelligence,strength etc.. that there is between different dogs ...
Mental. The only difference is the climate of the two societies. You take a black African, put him in Europe and all things being equal he'll do as well as anyone else. You people are all full of piss and vinegar until someone turns this around and uses the same prejudice on you.
 

enochpowell

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
588
Mental. The only difference is the climate of the two societies. You take a black African, put him in Europe and all things being equal he'll do as well as anyone else. You people are all full of piss and vinegar until someone turns this around and uses the same prejudice on you.
....what are you basing any of that on?
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,565
Website
en.wikipedia.org
FK me lads, have ye no jobs/school to get up for in the morning?
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,565
Website
en.wikipedia.org
Whilst skin pigmentation and traits are obviously genetically based, if you look at the over all genetic map, the differences are tiny. There is only a small amount of human genetic variation overall and 85% of that exists within any given population. So, it is quite possible for two random Irish people to be as genetically different to each other (overall) as an Irish person and a Nigerian or an Innuit and a Cypriot.

This seems counterintuitive but it also happens to be true. Whilst we can determine the geographic ancestry of a person ('genetic markers' more prevalent in one population than another) when considering the overall difference on an individual level, "race" doesn't really get reflected in genetic difference the way people often think it does. This is why the best scientests can do with a DNA sample is to give a better-than-random guess as to the ethnic identity of the individual from which it came.

All this is saying is that "race" is not a synonym for "genetic difference". There was a a lot of hoo-haa about this discovery back in the early noughties and rightly so. That is not to say that different populations don't have different traits.

The most important differences IMO are cultural in nature. I'm going to feel more "at home" and have more "in common" with the black fella I went through school with in rural Wicklow than I will with my long distant cousin who grew up in Argentina. Race doesn't come into it.
Not the lewontin meme again.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top