Race is Real?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Bowser, Jul 4, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Incorrect. That is a strawman; a position you have made up so you can argue against it.
    You asked for a definition of white supremacy. I provided it. You can verify this by using a dictionary.
    You have given me nothing to refute, and I will not attempt to guess your view without you stating it.
    I also stated that white supremacists/climate change deniers/creationists/anti-vaxxers will generally be called out here, which has been true historically.

    If you don't like any of those things, if they offend you or make you feel less valued, then feel free to not read my postings any more.
    Another straw man!

    Here's an idea. Rather than making up strawmen to rail against, why don't you state your position on the topic?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. David Mendlesohn Registered Member

    No, that was exactly the position expressed by your moderator Bells. Positing a genetic racial difference in any valuable trait is an example of "White supremacy" and people positing "White supremacy" get banned. I know that doesn't make any sense. Take it up with your board leader.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, she did not claim that. You made that up.

    Once again - rather than just making shit up, why don't you state your position on the topic?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. David Mendlesohn Registered Member

  8. Bells Staff Member

    That's the thing, David, biologists agree that race does not even exist.

    Let us have a look at your whining..

    "calling any positing of genetic racial differences in valuable traits "White supremacy" is laughably shrill and dishonest rhetoric"​

    What racial differences in exactly what "valuable traits"?

    You know, I have seen better people, more intelligent people than you, attempt to argue this point and the reason it fails each time is because it is not supported scientifically.

    In other words, those "valuable traits" that you argue exists in one "race", but not in others, is wrong. To the one, you have yet to define what you deem to be a "valuable trait". To the other, you appear to be arguing from a frankly ridiculous standpoint based on one's skin colour, while failing to recognise that each geographic group shares traits. In other words, no, there are literally no "genetic racial differences in any valuable trait". I have seen you attempt to launch downright stupid arguments about behaviour and badly attempt to link it to "race".. To do so, you then requested a comparison between the Democratic Republic of Congo to China, while ignoring the history of both nations and ignoring the fact that one country has been in a state of war for over a decade and has been occupied and decimated in the last century by their occupiers who also stripped the country of its wealth.

    It is the same tired argument that white supremacist try to use each time.

    Let me guess, you were drawn to this website by the thread title? Thought you had found kindred spirits?

    You haven't.

    Your attempts at word games.. Dude!

    Did you not read my post? My words exactly? You should go back and have another read.

    Trying to invent or make things up just makes your claims even more incredulous and unbelievable. To wit, you are now resorting to trolling and outright lying to justify your whining. And you expect us to take you and your argument seriously? What is interesting is that white supremacists often follow this exact same path, as you are now. Interesting, no?

    You are yet to define "race". Which races? How many are there? What sets them apart genetically? Can you cite these genes that sets apart a the Miao and Yi peoples of China and Asia? What would make them different "races"? What sets them apart from the Han?

    Saying that there is no racial superiority is "anti-white sophistry"?


    That slight metallic ting sound you may be hearing is the sound of your fingernails scraping the bottom of that barrel.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That was an example, not a definition, as explained above. And it included the term "superior" which your earlier claim did not. Which is why your claim is a strawman - it is a false claim that you attribute to the person you are arguing with, one that is easier to refute than their actual claim.

    I am starting to think you are one of those clueless Internet cranks who comes on to a board with no other objective than to see how much trouble you can cause. Let's test this theory.

    Rather than just trolling, can you state your position on the topic? Do you even have one?
  10. David Mendlesohn Registered Member

    Well, they don't, but you're changing the subject.

    Hey, you're changing your tune? Now it depends what traits to be White supremacy? Are we to believe that you don't have a consistent moderation policy?

    Earlier you said this:

    was an example of "White supremacy". Now it may not be, depending on what traits?

    The rest of your post trots out the usual fallacies, pretending I didn't use the word "average", insinuating I define race by skin color, calling me a "White supremacist", hypocritically accusing me of dishonesty. This is all subject changing.

    The important issue here is your moderation policy.

    Earlier you wrote any positing of average racial genetic differences in valuable traits was "White supremacy". Now it appears that it depends on the traits. Which is it?

    That's because you dismissed it out of hand as "White supremacy" and threatened to ban me. You didn't ask me to clarify "superior" or "valuable". You called me a name and threatened to ban me.

    That's why we are discussing this and and not that.

    No, calling anybody who discusses human differences a "White supremacist" is anti-White. Do you even know whether I'm White? It would be better to ban me. So everybody can see clearly what a huge piece of shit you are.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2017
  11. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    The Trump presidency has allowed a discussion of race. Unfortunately, the discussion is around the discrimination of rich white people.
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    What colour are your eyes?
  13. David Mendlesohn Registered Member

    These posts are utterly worthless.
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Not at all. I'm just curious whether you're white.
  15. David Mendlesohn Registered Member

    Well I must be because apparently I'm a "White supremacist" for not thinking races are exactly the same or something. It's science...
  16. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    The whole thread is worthless - who gives a shit about race?
  17. David Mendlesohn Registered Member

    You're nitpicking. If there is an average difference in a valuable trait it follows that one group will be superior regarding that trait. You're accusing me of creating a strawman by not phrasing the same thing in exactly the same way. Needless to say, that isn't a strawman. Are we to believe that one of these things is "White supremacy" and the other isn't? It's you that's creating a dishonest diversion.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Discussing the hypothetical possibility of such a thing could be interesting. But actually positing a specific trait and asserting that nature for it?

    Nobody to date has ever established the existence of a genetic race in the first place - certainly the US sociological "black" race has no genetic coherence or commonality whatsoever (more genetic diversity than the rest of the human raced combined).

    So that would be the first step. The second would be having some grounds other than the common delusions of racial bigotry to posit such a trait, and in particular a candidate body of code with some mechanistic relevance.

    That is a bit higher than the bar for most such discussions, but there is a history here - this particular matter has attracted a very large number of crank theories and crackpot claims (at one point people were seriously discussing different genetic proclivities for "criminality" in the US sociological races, at which nadir of intellectual integrity the entire matter should have been timed out for a while).

    Until then, you're just posting confused racial bs for no good reason.

    Which brings up the matter of which bad reason is involved this time. That's a moderator's arena, standard procedure.
  19. David Mendlesohn Registered Member

    But earlier you were arguing that lead caused racial differences. Now you are arguing that race is a meaningless concept? Is that a fall back position you resort to when your environmental causation theories are dismissed?

    If race was a meaningless concept how could "lead causes racial differences" have any meaning? Your ideas seem confused.

    Race was defined genealogically by Darwin and by genomic similarity by Mayr, as are all other taxa in animals. Why do you think "diversity" invalidates a taxa? Everything you are writing here is false. You seem to have a problem with biological classification in general.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2017
  20. Bells Staff Member

    I am?

    Hmm, pretty sure that I am not..

    Is that what I said or asked in response to what I quoted from you?

    Pretty sure that it is not. Why are you badly trying to change what I am saying around?

    I see that simple examples and questions to point out the idiocy of your position escaped you somewhat?

    It is interesting that you cannot even answer a simple question, isn't it?

    That was your chance to prove us all wrong. The reason I asked those questions is because I knew full well that you would avoid answering them with any scientific proof. It's all well and good to prattle on about "valuable traits" that apparently only appear or belong to one "race" over the other, but you are yet to define what these genetic traits are and, for example, what makes them so valuable.

    Well you have been..

    Going on about "black" and "white" as different "races".. Really, it is laughable.

    How many "races" do you think there are? And what sets them apart genetically to others? What defines each as a separate "race"? I mean, you are arguing about genetic traits that exist in "whites" and "Asians" but not in "blacks".. Which "whites"? Which "race"? Who do you define as "white"? How about "Asians"? "Blacks"? You speak in general terms, grouping most by way of the colour of their skin. I asked you earlier, where do Indians fit into it and you could not even answer those questions. I also asked you about the Miao and Yi peoples.. Would you consider them the same "race"? Along with other Asians? Who comprises of the "Asian race"?

    Your views on race and your behavioural genetic arguments are naive, childish and has every appearance of being a repetition of white supremacists who have come before you.

    If you are going to argue that race exists, for example, then you need to be able to answer these questions and provide the scientific evidence to show that each of these groups have traits that completely and utterly sets them apart from other groups, in that these traits are distinct within their group. So, avoiding those questions and inventing and outright lying about what I have said, just makes your position here that little bit more pathetic and desperate.

    That is because you are a white supremacist who argued that white people and Asians are more superior to "blacks".. It had kind of been a recurrent theme in your posts.

    You had every opportunity to define and clarify "superior" or "valuable", instead, you chose to lie about what I have said, failed to understand the meaning of "example" and completely posted my comments out of context to whine about our refusal to accept or allow white supremacism on this website. For example, I have asked you to define and clarify certain terms, to provide genetic evidence. I mean, which genes are we talking about when it comes to "behavioural genetics" that differ between white people and black people? For example:

    Which genes are involved? How do you define "race"? Which behaviour is linked to ones genetic make-up? How does environment affect it? Nutrition? Education? Access to healthcare?

    Most importantly, what do you mean by "racial differences in behaviour"? What behaviour exists solely within one group but not in the other that would make it distinct? Which genes affect these behaviours or "racial differences"?

    You whine about being told that white supremacism would see you banned and you make these sweeping statements, and when challenged on those statements, you lie about what I have said, twist my words and take them out of context while ignoring all requests for proof and further information..

    For me it is a case of been there, done that.

    Your complaints about this site not being scientific, but you are fleeing from any question that is even remotely scientific, because all you want to talk about is how "whites" are more superior than "blacks"..
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Races aren't science. You are a racist hiding behind pseudoscience.
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    OK so you can't even state your position on the topic.

    You, sir, are a clueless troll.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Any time. It's popular with me - you don't have to address the forum entire.
    Not a single one of them has been tested.
    They are all known to be significant, and have produced measurable effects in local and defined circumstances. Their total influence on the larger society in, say, the US, is unknown - never evaluated.
    They have to be dealt with, before making grandiose unsupported and speculative conjectures based on such poorly defined (genetically) factors as "race".
    What "pattern"are you talking about?

Share This Page