Discussion in 'Human Science' started by paulsamuel, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Someone tell PaumjauleMauneulsthat he is doomed to nest on an iceberg and freeze his tight little cheeks on the icyness of being fucking ignored. Give it up already.

    Oh yes, that charming way of batting my eyelashes and compensating for lack with hypersocivility draws them like flies.

    It must be tits and our cute BellsSwedishBebelonogies.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Why this debate still persists is beyond me. Obviously the many personalities in here that debate about this topic have their beliefs already set in stone, and an abandoning of such beliefs, at least publicy, scares them.

    Sure race exists,-- as a classification of arbitrary rules based on cultural definitions. Some forensic scientists make the claim that they can detect with a high probaility the race of an individual by looking at their bone structure-- but is a psuedoscience, an "art", the prediction is not reliable. It is not reliable because race as is "defined", is based on a set of morphological traits. The skin tone of an individual is of course hereditary, as is the color of one's hair, or eyes. One can therefore make generalized classifications based on these simplistic attributes. But to what end? Of what importance is the skin or hair colour of an individual when said traits have no biological linkage to the capacities such as intelligence, atheleticism, etc that many supporters of the race theory attempt to link it to? A race is of as much importance as me arbitrarily grouping all human adults into groups based on height. The classification will work; height is hereditary. The point is it means nothing.

    Also, there was a mention of organ donations and their linkage to "race". One must not make the mistake of using data based on "African AMericans" and then stretching that to all peoples of African descent. The habits of that group-- eating, etc for instance, make them more susceptible to Diabetes, but this is a cultural phenomenon that does not translate past continents. One must understand data that are affected by cultural habits and not attempt speculate on its scientfific implications.

    If one feels "pride" in their "race", then so be it, as long as that person realizes that one, the grouping does not place them on a separate plateau outside of culture, and two, past sight, the determination of "race" is practically impossible. Hell the same might apply to sight, but this is a different story.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Interesting that you should mention that. My dad was born blind in his left eye, and he's very close to being legally blind in his right. My mom has been wearing glasses for as long as I can remember.

    My sisters eyesight is about average.

    I can honestly say that I have never, ever met anyone with better eyesight than mine. My eyes are like rifle scopes. I consistently surprise people with the distances that I can read from, and likewise, I have no problem reading something put right in front of my face.

    Wonder what that says about heredity?

    This should probably go under Free Thoughts, but whatever.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    maybe you shouldn't open your ignorant mouth.

    i could give a shit what a fucking 15 year old believes about me, it doesn't me a shit to me.

    you don't know what fucking nihilism is, fucking idiot. sitting there questioning me on why something doesn't exist. fucking idiot.
  8. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    That would almost be relevant if he found a clearly defined method for eliminating cultural, sociological, and environmental factors from the study. Point in fact is; he hasn't. If he had that would indeed be the story of the day. In fact, he addresses it in one sentence, "No purely cultural theory can explain this consistent pattern." which is simply laughable in light of present day behavioral theory which indicates that both are significant. It sounds to me like he's wasted 20 years, particularly if that article is representative of his 'research'.

    Apparently you neglected to actually read my post though. I'm not saying that phonotypical traits don't exist and that we could not categorize humans by these traits. What I'm saying is that the selection of which traits we typically use to classify humans into races is arbitrary. Skin color or facial structure is of no more significance than lactase production, blood type, or color-blindness. Tracing the heritage of such traits can be useful in some respects but the more of them that are traced the more it is apparent that humans are all very closely interrelated. Race winds up having no more significance than any other familial grouping.

    Tracing back through history, anthropologists shed even more light on the subject. Caucasian settlements found in China as far back as 2000 BC, Indo-Europeans traveling throughout Russia, China, Asia, India, and the Middle East. There simply are no distinct lines of heritage of any significant duration.

  9. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Don't you see how for you to say "caucasian settlements in china" you are acknowledging that there were caucasians and chinese. So some caucasians mixed with chinese. It still has to be acknowledged that these seperate races evolved in the first place, and THEN started meeting and mixing. They became races first, and this is why we can see these phenotypical differences. A dark skinned person with fuzzy hair could be traced back to a population that developed those traits in accordance with its environment and evolution. Maybe in his ancestral history there was a case of an individual from a different race contributing to his gene pool. But thats only exactly what it sounds like. It shouldn't cause us to scrap the whole idea of his ancestral heritage, it just means in his history individuals from 2 different races met and bred. In the beginning though, those different phenotypes were caused by seperate isolated populations adapting to their environments. These populations are what i would call races. If they have mixed throughout history then races have mixed throughout history. It shouldn't cause us to 'forget about it and talk about something else'.
    And some populations simply haven't been interfered with. There is a population in papua new guinea that was discovered as recently as the 70's which had never been seen by anyone outside of that population(life on earth; Attenborough) is this the only race on earth?
    Ofcourse there are many populations just like this that only recently came into contact with other populations.
    And ones that have come into contact with others, big deal? Their phenotypical forms were set at some stage. At that stage they became races. And I don't think enough has occurred since then to change that. Some have been "outcrossed" a few times in their history, and some have moved into the same regions and started mixing up.
    I would never say the races are set in stone. Multicultural areas would probably produce new races given enough time. And yes with the globalisation of earth and the easy access to any continent it may be only a matter of time untill race is non-existent.
    But I wouldn't say it is now. And I think its more interesting to look at what races were then to dwell on the fact that europeans went around and mixed them all up. And even by your strict definitions demanding that a race have no outside blood in its history, there are a few primitive populations that fit that bill, and more that did untill a few hundred years ago.
    I can definately see the decline of races occurring. But they still exist and certainly did at one stage. Its not like in sub saharan africa 6000 years some babies were popping out white and some were popping out black completely randomly. In different regions different phenotypes developed, and later they started mixing up.

    If possible I tend to call crossbred dogs the mixture of breeds they are, because those breeds were "set" first and its just a clearer way to communicate then saying "dog".
    The races were "set" at one stage as well in the exact same way as the dog breeds except nature was the breeder. If man crosses an american bulldog to a neapolitan mastiff I call it an american bulldog cross neapolitan mastiff, and if man crosses races then I do my best to figure out what they were judging from the phenotype of the mutt. Which is what I often do with dogs too. I find it fun actually.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Yet you reply to him? Strange.

    And frankly paul, you may state that you have a phd and all the rest of it, but frankly, who cares? I mean who really gives a shit? You type and send your messages on here just like everyone else does. You could be God, no one would really give a shit. The manner in which you dare people to challenge you so that you can abuse them only makes you look like a prat. You have a phd? Well start acting like it instead of carrying on like a first year student who thinks he knows everything just because he's at university. Grow up.

    As for the race issue. Society as a whole has come to define each ethnic group of people as a race. It's a commonly used term. It's not racist to define races within the human race. Some refer to it as ethnicity, others refer to it as race and some call it nationality. Calling a group a race does not make that person a racist. Differences exist within the human race as a species, just as differences exist in how each individual defines what each ethnic, nationality or racial group is to be referred as. Sheesh, let it go.

    So maybe I should start using 'purdy' colours now just for you?

    Oh bugger that, it's too friggin annoying.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
  11. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    If I am not entirely mistaken it is illegal to call a group a race in some countries. The reason behind is being that these people are racists.

    or maybe it isn't...
  12. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    The problem you see Lou, is that there is not a specific or even a general mechanism by which one can group the peoples of the earth into races. Certainly some peoples exist that managed to stay separate for a long time. But, how does one even attempt to group the people of Sub-Saharan African alone, where genetic variations is more widespread than in Europe? The notion of a race, and the common morphological attributes that accompany them are simply two generalized that two many blurs occur within them, and that is an issue. To classify people into races that are distinct(we can even at this point, forget about "mixed races) would require thousands of classes. Besides, as has already been pointed out, better classifications exist-- ethnic groups, cultures, nationality, etc... All these groupings, although not scientific or even accurate in their descrip[tions, do a far better job at grouping people than the notion of a race.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Ermm 1) I'm not Lou lol.

    And 2), I agree with you, however surely there are better things to throw a hissy fit about than something such as this. It is obvious that one wouldn't normally refer, for example, to Africans as one race of people for the pure and simple fact that they themselves are a diverse group. Therefore we'd usually refer to them from their ethnicity or nationality (ie South African, etc). However, just because someone refers to them as a 'race' does not make that particular individual a racist. I filled in a form last week where they asked for 'race'. I mean who really cares? I knew what they meant. It wasn't racist. We always hear reference of the Asian race, or the European race etc. Are they incorrect, could be. Are they racist, nope. It is obvious with anyone with half a brain that we share the majority of characteristics. We wouldn't be human if we didn't. However, differences do exist which set us apart from other nationalities/ethnic group/race. One simply cannot ignore that.

    So what if someone refers to another group as a race? In the whole scheme of things, does it really matter that much? Who here really gets confused when faced with a form that asks for your race? Sheesh, this whole argument has been about interpretation and classification.
  14. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    You're missing my point. It's not that we cannot draw such distinctions but that they are arbitrary. Sometimes, as I mentioned, they can be useful as when tracking historical movements. But the distinctions themselves blur into meaninglessness as we expand the number of traits we attempt to track.

    If for instance, we take the common distinctions of Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid as sets you can draw another set based upon lactase production that is partially inclusive of all three sets. We could do the same thing regarding phonotypical features we might designate as Arabic. Native American might be another race but upon examination we will find inclusions with 'Caucasians' in Russia, Mongoloid, and another set we might call Polynesian. We can also draw larger sets based upon a wider variation of traits or we can go in the other direction and continue to create subsets. Southern Europeans differ from Northern, Western from Eastern. We could continue to create subsets upon subsets until we're at the level of the nuclear family.

    We can also point to instances where superficial distinctions lead to erroneous categorizations. One might note that Australian Aborigines have dark skin and hair which would include them in the Negroid classification but their heritage is distinctly Mongoloid in descent. Or do we classify them as a distinct race; if so then what about those peoples in Tasmania, New Zealand, the Philippines, Java, Indonesia, and Taiwan?

    The point being, there are no marked points of distinction, no gaps. Only when you jump from one end of the spectrum of differentiation to another can you attempt to create categories, but they are artificial.

    A simplified analogy would be a color triangle. We conceptualize categories of color based upon the mechanisms of our sight but when you view the entire spectrum you find there are no areas of distinction. You cannot separate yellow from orange, they blend into each other. But beyond that there are numerous inclusions so then imagine a spectrum where blue jumps over and blends into yellow, violet into red. Or where red looks black but still has the wavelength within the spectrum of red.

  15. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Err, I quoted the wrong text, but I was responding to Lou's argument
  16. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Getting a wee bit frustrated?
    Losing your grip?
    Incapable of defending yourself from a "fucking 15 year old"?

    Tell me, oh angry, cursing one, does it really "me" shit to you?

    I hate to write this, but... I've probably forgotten more about nihilism than you'll ever know.
  17. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    nope, i'm completely indifferent to you. you're nothing! (there's nihilism for you)

    i don't blame you for remaining anonymous. i'd be ashamed too if i were you.

    good luck in prison

    don't bother replying, i won't hear.
  18. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    who cares?

    i'm assuming that people who are bringing up points and posting here are trying to understand biological races. being somewhat of an expert, i answer what i can. i don't see a problem with that.

    when some one has a question about say, astronomy. one would do some background research, reading, and if they needed clarifications, they'd ask an astronomer.

    the problem has become, i am now a target because i'm a Ph.D. i defend myself as i can, but most people are attacking anonymously, for all i know, they're ALL xev, you included.

    i can understand why people post anonymously, i'd be ashamed too if i had written some of that crap.
  19. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Easy there paulsamuel. No need to insult Bells by using the dreaded X word.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    She's actually got a pretty decent melon relative to some of the other jokers that troll this pond. I think she was just responding to you seeming to be a bit on the defensive. It's hard not to get defensive when some of these brats start flaming you, but the best thing to do is kill em with kindness, gentle sarcasm, and the truth. The truth speaks for itself, right?

    Good luck.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Remember, you're mostly dealing with a bunch of adolescent pseudo-intellectuals around here. Thankfully, you aren't forced to deal with these people in the real world if you choose not to.
  20. Xev Registered Senior Member

    I thought it was my girlish charm.

    *Giggles* It's like, Stirner was just sooo hott! That boi was just so cool, even though i used 2 think that philosophy is 4 losers and that anti-foundationalism wuz something u put on ur face rofltml but it's like, when u realize that u have no duty higher than 2 urself and that absolutism sux, then u so totally find a new way of percieving teh world! Nihilism rox!!!

    Lol! Macht macht Recht!

    Yes paulsamuel, everyone on sciforums is me. Even you are me.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
  21. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Oh, so you are!

    Anonymous? Need you know more of me than "fucking 15 year old," or is this a subtle request for me to fill in the details, Professor Prole?

    In prison? Not very good at keeping a cool head, now are we? Just casting random, low aspersions, not even the good ones.

    Of course you won't hear me, silly Phd!

    Anyways, don't lie to yourself. You'll read this response, though you'll probably feign disinterest.

    You already have, I guess.

    Wait, wait wait! Are you actually claiming that my name appears as anonymous? That would be peculiar.
    Can anyone confirm this?
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
  22. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    To what end? I'll tell you.

    The exotic locks on a raven haired Polyneasian beauty.
    The golden locks of Nordic gods. The almond eyes of Sphynxes, the Orient, the polished bronze of the lovely Hindu skin.
    The gorgeous blue of Caucasian eyes and the stormy dark of Gitano ones. The rich black of an Ethiope.

    A colorful, beautiful, wonderful rainbow to look at- that's to what end.

    And that is where it goes wrong- in the translation process, the interval between taking the delight one has in one's lienage and then making the mistake of exaggerating its importance.

    And so, all the little white boys and girls with ther 'Federate flags and all the little black boys and girls with ther Black Power and all the little 'chinks' and "japs" segregating themselves[ from other races they find inferior...I will have them, every last one of them for lunch.

    In much the same way I'd mentally destroy a Bimbo for her fucked up value systems.

    Ha! Maye we should continue this, I'm game:

    *LOL* like yah! Maxy is like.........so Unique, u no. That part where he's all like, talkin' about the Unquie and, like, the Me-goist (my word, yah! u like it? Get it? Instead of sayin the egoist I totally changed it and invented me-goist, yah? 'cause it means...me, u know? U get it?)

    Maxy RULES. Hegel, oh Xev, look how silly I am, stupid grrrl. When I read him I frikkin swear to you, I though zeitgeist was, like, pimple cream. And now I'm like frikkin ommigosh, how frikkin stoopid.

    Nihilism so frikkin rox.


    Allright, I'll leave you alone. You did bring something to my other thread and at least you are not in denial of your..shall we say, lack.

    My apologies.

    15 pennies:
    Oh, but some take it upon themsleves to chummy up to them despite his calling them out as lessers in public.

    I wonder how genanken feels on your hand when you "have-sex" nowadays.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2004
  23. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Interesting that you might think I was referring to you when I made that statement. Aren't we being a bit presumptuous?

    Or maybe you really are just thin-skinned? If so, that's disappointing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page