Does race exist?

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Hello, I am a 20 year old African American male with an interest in race and ubuntu linux. I have come across these forums and although I am not a leftist (I am slightly paleoconservative), I have perused and decided to start a thread to debate a topic of interest to me. Although the concept of race has caused many injustices such as the slavery of my ancestors, I do believe it exists and not something to be ashamed about. After all, certain diseases affect different races a certain way and even medicine affects all peoples differently; not forgetting the OBVIOUS differences in physical appearance.

I hope we can discuss this maturely and responsibly, as it is indeed a sensitive topic.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:47 AM
I am a 17 year old Mexican with an underwear fetish. Can I be in your plan for world domination?
Goodbye, sir.

[KC]

How couldn't race exist? Isn't it obvious that it exists? I mean, I can tell the difference between a white guy and a black guy. Hence, race. Or am I missing something?

[baxter00]

Of course it exists, and the differences are not just skin color. 40,000 years ago is what scientists approximate the time when the peoples divided that would later become today's modern races. Over that time these races have evolved separately in different environments. Before claiming that all humans have %99 of the same genetic code, know that a human and a rat share %95 of the code. Human skulls also show marked differences.

[baxter00]

Besides asking the question if race exists, ask yourself, SHOULD it exist? In today's globalist society, humans are being bred to conform to one lowest common denominator, bred into the perfect consumers, one brown race. Is this going against nature? i think so, look at all the species of this earth, each constantly evolving into more diverse subspecies through natural selection. Diversity is a beautiful thing, and we must do everything to maintain human diversity.

[KC]

Besides asking the question if race exists, ask yourself, SHOULD it exist? In today's globalist society, humans are being bred to conform to one lowest common denominator, bred into the perfect consumers, one brown race. Is this going against nature? i think so, look at all the species of this earth, each constantly evolving into more diverse subspecies through natural selection. Diversity is a beautiful thing, and we must do everything to maintain human diversity.

Uh, what? Race has nothing to do with economics.

[baxter00]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:04 AM

Besides asking the question if race exists, ask yourself, SHOULD it exist? In today's globalist society, humans are being bred to conform to one lowest common denominator, bred into the perfect consumers, one brown race. Is this going against nature? i think so, look at all the species of this earth, each constantly evolving into more diverse subspecies through natural selection. Diversity is a beautiful thing, and we must do everything to maintain human diversity.

Uh, what? Race has nothing to do with economics.
Think, isn't it easier to sell a group of people a product if they're all the same? One consumer culture to go with one race.

[KC]

Think, isn't it easier to sell a group of people a product if they're all the same? One consumer culture to go with one race.

Culture isn't attached to race.

[baxter00]

So do you agree that it is a positive thing to preserve the earth's races?

[KC]

So do you agree that it is a positive thing to preserve the earth's races?

By doing what?

[baxter00]

Obviously the only way to achieve this is racial segragation.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

I was hoping this to be an apolitical debate. Baxter, could you please create another topic on racial separation? Thank you very much.

[KC]

Obviously the only way to achieve this is racial segragation.

Of course not. Restricting people's rights because somoene thinks racial diversity is a good thing and should be preserved is foolish.

[baxter00]

A typical response. Thinking an individual's "rights" are more important than the health of the whole results in selfishness and degeneration.

[Individual]

Without race there is no racism.

Choose your battles

[quincunx5]

Of course not. Restricting people's rights because somoene thinks racial diversity is a good thing and should be preserved is foolish.


Wow! I agree with you.

[Clarksist]

Obviously the only way to achieve this is racial segragation.


The love of diversity is not an instant "goto" for segregation.

It is this thinking which makes the ratialists say "well you know black people are diverse from white people, they should be slaves."

Segregation would be working backwards in any kind of attempt to push forward race relations.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Can we take this racial diversity subject to another topic? I want an apolitical discussion on race...

[quincunx5]

A typical response. Thinking an individual's "rights" are more important than the health of the whole results in selfishness and degeneration.


The health of the whole is nothing more than the sum of health of the individuals.

Reducing the sum reduces the whole, you imbecil.

[baxter00]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:28 AM

Obviously the only way to achieve this is racial segragation.


The love of diversity is not an instant "goto" for segregation.

It is this thinking which makes the ratialists say "well you know black people are diverse from white people, they should be slaves."

Segregation would be working backwards in any kind of attempt to push forward race relations.
Integration means devolution, that's all there is to it.

[baxter00]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:30 AM


A typical response. Thinking an individual's "rights" are more important than the health of the whole results in selfishness and degeneration.


The health of the whole is nothing more than the sum of health of the individuals.

Reducing the sum reduces the whole, you imbecil.
Actually, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which is the whole point.

[baxter00]

Originally posted by Iconoclast the [email protected] 16 2005, 06:28 AM
Can we take this racial diversity subject to another topic? I want an apolitical discussion on race...
Okay, i apologize.

[Clarksist]

Integration means devolution, that's all there is to it.


No, making false statements like that with no base makes it a hard sell.

In fact, blending races would benefit humanity as we would evolve to take the best from all worlds.

That is called evolution.

And btw, don't make several posts in a row. Edit your last post if no one has replied since.

[KC]

A typical response. Thinking an individual's "rights" are more important than the health of the whole results in selfishness and degeneration.

An individual's rights are more important than the health of the whole. You don't believe that individual's rights should exist? Fascist.



Wow! I agree with you.

Amazing.


Can we take this racial diversity subject to another topic? I want an apolitical discussion on race...

Yes, instead of trashing this subject after baxter is banned, please just delete all this garbage.



The health of the whole is nothing more than the sum of health of the individuals.

Reducing the sum reduces the whole, you imbecil.

Again we agree!


Integration means devolution, that's all there is to it.

Again, your opinion. If you want to debate, please use logic and evidence to back it up with. Just because we're different doesn't mean we should be treated differently either. Asshole.



Actually, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which is the whole point.

Wow. Explain this to me please. 1+1=2 right? So how can two (the sum total) exist without the ones (the individuals that make up the sum total)? God you're a fascist prick. Racist two. Racism + Fascism = NAZI. BAN.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:30 AM


A typical response. Thinking an individual's "rights" are more important than the health of the whole results in selfishness and degeneration.


The health of the whole is nothing more than the sum of health of the individuals.

Reducing the sum reduces the whole, you imbecil.
Could you please refrain from petty insulting? It solves nothing.

I suppose it is impossible to make this apolitical, so let us just discuss race, our value judgements of it, and everything in between. No bigotry, please.

Society functions as a collective, not a summary of individuals. For instance, a baker and a farmer need to coexist to create, say, muffins ( I really enjoy lemon flavored muffins). The baker needs the farmer and the farmer needs the baker to create a new product that neither could create by themselves. The farmer has to produce the various ingredients in the muffin and the baker needs to gather and combine the ingredients into a muffin.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Iconoclast the [email protected] 16 2005, 05:45 AM
Hello, I am a 20 year old African American male with an interest in race and ubuntu linux. I have come across these forums and although I am not a leftist (I am slightly paleoconservative), I have perused and decided to start a thread to debate a topic of interest to me. Although the concept of race has caused many injustices such as the slavery of my ancestors, I do believe it exists and not something to be ashamed about. After all, certain diseases affect different races a certain way and even medicine affects all peoples differently; not forgetting the OBVIOUS differences in physical appearance.

I hope we can discuss this maturely and responsibly, as it is indeed a sensitive topic.
Well. Race does indeed exist. It is undeniable - and yes, things do need to work around this complications.

And for chrissakes ban Baxter00 for being a Nazi serregationist. <_<

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

In fact, blending races would benefit humanity as we would evolve to take the best from all worlds.

This presumes racial advantages exists. May I inquire how the human gene pool would benefit humanity?


That is called evolution.


I believe baxter was using it in a metaphorical sense.

[KC]

Baxter&#39;s already gone, you don&#39;t have to talk about him or what he said anymore. You might as well start an identical topic with the identical starting post and get this one trashed so that nazi shit isn&#39;t here and your topic isn&#39;t contaminated.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

An individual&#39;s rights are more important than the health of the whole. You don&#39;t believe that individual&#39;s rights should exist? Fascist.


I do not like it when what people say are misrepresented. He never said individual rights shouldn&#39;t exist, just that the collective is more important.






Again, your opinion. If you want to debate, please use logic and evidence to back it up with. Just because we&#39;re different doesn&#39;t mean we should be treated differently either. Asshole.

There is no need to insult baxter, he is being courteous in his views.



Wow. Explain this to me please. 1+1=2 right? So how can two (the sum total) exist without the ones (the individuals that make up the sum total)? God you&#39;re a fascist prick. Racist two. Racism + Fascism = NAZI. BAN.

Baker and Separated Farmer = NOTHING, Baker + Farmer = RESULT. People aren&#39;t equal in that they don&#39;t have the same societal functions.

You seem to be debating on an emotional level because you are calling for him to be banned although he seemed to be polite in debating his value judgements. He never said anything prejudiced or truly "fascistic". Perhaps you need to calm down before responding?

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:48 AM
Baxter&#39;s already gone, you don&#39;t have to talk about him or what he said anymore. You might as well start an identical topic with the identical starting post and get this one trashed so that nazi shit isn&#39;t here and your topic isn&#39;t contaminated.
Perhaps I ought to, but I am disturbed that someone is censored for their views without a chance to even back them up. I don&#39;t agree with him, but he seemed polite and respectful unlike the responses he recieved.

[KC]

Perhaps I ought to, but I am disturbed that someone is censored for their views without a chance to even back them up. I don&#39;t agree with him, but he seemed polite and respectful unlike the responses he recieved.

Nazi trash isn&#39;t allowed here for two reasons.

1.) This is a private internet domain. The owner, who pays for the site, doesn&#39;t want to listen to nazi trash (much like you might not want to listen to nazi trash in your house and would kick them out if they started spouting that shit).

2.) The owner of this site lives in Germany and could face legal consequences if he allowed nazis to post here.

So start a new topic with the same name and same first post, edit your first post and last post to say "MODS TRASH THIS THREAD PLEASE" and we&#39;ll get on with the discussion.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:55 AM


Perhaps I ought to, but I am disturbed that someone is censored for their views without a chance to even back them up. I don&#39;t agree with him, but he seemed polite and respectful unlike the responses he recieved.

Nazi trash isn&#39;t allowed here for two reasons.

1.) This is a private internet domain. The owner, who pays for the site, doesn&#39;t want to listen to nazi trash (much like you might not want to listen to nazi trash in your house and would kick them out if they started spouting that shit).

2.) The owner of this site lives in Germany and could face legal consequences if he allowed nazis to post here.

So start a new topic with the same name and same first post, edit your first post and last post to say "MODS TRASH THIS THREAD PLEASE" and we&#39;ll get on with the discussion.
1) I agree, but this is an opposing ideologies forum. It seems strange to have one and yet ban people whom you disagree with.

2) That makes sense, although It was nebulous if baxter was a nazi; he could even be nonwhite for all we know.

[Commie-Pinko]

On the issues of Race, one must dichotomize the term. There are two general categories to consdier: Cultural and Biological.


Culturally, race does exist, because society created it. Race is a social construction, thus racism is a product of that social construction. If you want to use the term race when dealing with humans, it is not biological, rather cosmetic and for purely identification purpouses.

Biologically, Race does not exist in humans. Race represents a subspecies, of which there is none in humanity. Humans are essentially Homo Sapiens in a pure form. There used to be various races of humans living together simultaneously, but after the demise of the previous Homo species, only homo sapien sapien was left. Currently, there are no more subspecies or human varients. Blacks, whites, asians, etc are all equally part of the human race.

In order to have a separate species or a subspecies, the genetic code must be significantly different, thus permitting one to distinguish from another. There is no way to tell if one is white, black, or asian simply from the genetic code. It&#39;s nearly identical in almost every way. A subspecies wouldn&#39;t be so.

Most of the differences one can see among "races" are purely cosmetic and slight variation. This, however, does not make a subspecies. There are no diseases which afflict only one race, and there are no "special genes" that one races has that the other cannot have. Some groups have minor characteristics which make them a bit different, but the differences are nowhere near the level required for separate species or subspecies.

In actuality, there is MORE genetic variation within human populations than among separate populations.

Nearly every biologist, as well as the majority of the international anthropological associations are in concurrance on this issue. There are, however, a few fringe groups and people who try to push for the existence of biological races, but there is very little real evidence for this.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Biologically, Race does not exist in humans. Race represents a subspecies, of which there is none in humanity. Humans are essentially Homo Sapiens in a pure form. There used to be various races of humans living together simultaneously, but after the demise of the previous Homo species, only homo sapien sapien was left. Currently, there are no more subspecies or human varients. Blacks, whites, asians, etc are all equally part of the human race.


This is a strawman. Races are similar to term "breeds" in dogs, they are the same species but obviously have very different characterists and abilities depending on the breed. Nobody says that we aren&#39;t human, but we are different types of humans.



In order to have a separate species or a subspecies, the genetic code must be significantly different, thus permitting one to distinguish from another. There is no way to tell if one is white, black, or asian simply from the genetic code. It&#39;s nearly identical in almost every way. A subspecies wouldn&#39;t be so.


Yes there is. We have different skin colors, bone structures, and immunities to diseases; all dictated from genes.


Most of the differences one can see among "races" are purely cosmetic and slight variation. This, however, does not make a subspecies. There are no diseases which afflict only one race, and there are no "special genes" that one races has that the other cannot have. Some "races" have more occurances of genetic problems simply because of the previous mating history and local environment. Every disease that a black gets a white can get, and everything a black can do a white can do.

Because humans are still biologically dissimilar as to have different immunities. You admit right here that race exists once you mention that there are groups of similar genetic material with genetic problems.


Nearly every biologist, as well as the majority of the international anthropological associations are in concurrance on this issue. There are, however, a few fringe groups and people who try to push for the existence of biological races, but there is very little real evidence for this.


I don&#39;t care what the masses of biologists say, they prove whatever they&#39;re paid to prove. Welcome to modern science.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Since you&#39;re keen on all humans capable of being affected by the same diseases, I would like to bring up a medicine only effective in those of African descent.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=4...hL4LO-QHhr8XvAg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A//www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2005/NEW01190.html&ei=55IBQ4ThL4LO-QHhr8XvAg)

[Commie-Pinko]

This is a strawman. Races are similar to term "breeds" in dogs, they are the same species but obviously have very different characterists and abilities depending on the breed. Nobody says that we aren&#39;t human, but we are different types of humans.

Actually, you are the one issuing the strawman. A strawman is an attack against an argument which doesn&#39;t exist. I never said races aren&#39;t human. Races = a biological subspecies. Do you want me to whip out my anthropology and biology texts to prove you wrong? I can also quote them, as well as the AAA when they state humans have no subspecies, which they call races.


Yes there is. We have different skin colors, bone structures, and immunities to diseases; all dictated from genes.

False. We don&#39;t have immunity to diseases. No race is immune from a disease. There are levels of resistency present. That&#39;s not biologically the same thing. Bone structure? no, we don&#39;t. That&#39;s actually pseudoscience. Skin colour? That doesn&#39;t make a biological race.

Again, I can easily prove you wrong by quoting simple bio texts. If you don&#39;t accept mainstream scientific sources, your concession in this debate will promptly be accepted. Thank-you, and goodnight.



Because humans are still biologically dissimilar as to have different immunities. You admit right here that race exists once you mention that there are groups of similar genetic material with genetic problems.

False. Information does not support the existence of separate subspecies. If you won&#39;t accept mainstream science, I will accept your prompt concession.


I don&#39;t care what the masses of biologists pay, they prove whatever they&#39;re paid to prove. Welcome to modern science.

Appeal to motive fallacy on your part. Since you won&#39;t accept mainstream science, your concession has been accepted.



Sources:

The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races. King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%. However, within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals. The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races.

As you can see, there are no races. In order to have a race, the percentage difference in genetic code must be great, and there must be a higher percentage of difference among groups than among individuals. In reality, there is as much varation between individuals in a group as there are among so-called groups. There is nothing genetically different between "races" that isn&#39;t the exact same percentage difference between individuals. The former is what make a race. The latter does not.

his type of genetic divergence is nonexistent in the human species. To be classified as separate races, humans would need to possess this hybrid disability. The “races” of the human species are variable in degrees of melanin, which does not qualify them to be called as such.

Here, you can also see that phenotypical, shallow considerations such as "athletic skill" and "skin colour" are not what medical professionals and biologists use to determine race. In fact, they use exactly what I said they use. So kiss my ass retard.

[Commie-Pinko]

Your article proves nothing other than they have a new medicine to combat severe heart disease lol. The article has nothing to do with race specific medicine or race specific diseases. If you actually read it, it deals with severe cases of heart disease--so severe that traditional methods were unable to be effective. THis is the same case in whites and blacks, since heart disease is one of the leading causes of death among americans--white and black.

Heart disease is controlled by many things, including heritible traits and lifestyle. There is no disease a black can get that a white also cannot get. Your immunity argument is bullshit.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Actually, you are the one issuing the strawman. A strawman is an attack against an argument which doesn&#39;t exist. I never said races aren&#39;t human. Races = a biological subspecies. Do you want me to whip out my anthropology and biology texts to prove you wrong? I can also quote them, as well as the AAA when they state humans have no subspecies, which they call races.

A strawman is an attack against a misrepresented argument.

I am using race as a group of humans with similar genetic makeup that differs from the the rest of humanity. It is common sense to see that this is the case.

I&#39;d rather you just post the arguments the textbooks contain.

This is obviously a very socially volatile topic. Just look at what happened to baxter when he mentioned his views on race.



False. We don&#39;t have immunity to diseases. No race is immune from a disease. There are levels of resistency present. That&#39;s not biologically the same thing. Bone structure? no, we don&#39;t. That&#39;s actually pseudoscience. Skin colour? That doesn&#39;t make a biological race.


We have varying levels of immunity was what I was saying, malaria being one such that levels of resistence are found in GROUPS of genetically similar humans.

Yes, bone structure is quite valid. Skull structures are one such example of varieties in race.



False. Subspecies are only existent when the genetic code is different enough. Biologists have determined it not so. There&#39;s nothing inherently different in the genetic code other than cosmetic differences. That does not a race make.

Nonetheless it is a difference in genetic code among groups of humans, am I right?



Appeal to motive fallacy on your part.

Wrong again. I never said they were wrong because of their motives, I said I&#39;m not giving them the time of day because they&#39;re going to back up the social dogmas of the masses. Watch what happens when a politician says race exists.

[LSD]

This is obviously a very socially volatile topic. Just look at what happened to baxter when he mentioned his views on race.

Baxter admitted to be in favour of racial segregation as well as being an "ecofascist".

Fascism and racism in any form are not tolerated.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Originally posted by Commie&#045;[email protected] 16 2005, 07:19 AM
Your article proves nothing other than they have a new medicine to combat severe heart disease lol. The article has nothing to do with race specific medicine or race specific diseases. If you actually read it, it deals with severe cases of heart disease--so severe that traditional methods were unable to be effective. THis is the same case in whites and blacks, since heart disease is one of the leading causes of death among americans--white and black.

Heart disease is controlled by many things, including heritible traits and lifestyle. There is no disease a black can get that a white also cannot get. Your immunity argument is bullshit.
Obviously, you speak of many obvious things, but you conveniently ignore the core of the argument is that the medicine only AFFECTS those of African descent.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 16 2005, 07:30 AM

This is obviously a very socially volatile topic. Just look at what happened to baxter when he mentioned his views on race.

Baxter admitted to be in favour of racial segregation as well as being an "ecofascist".

Fascism and racism in any form are not tolerated.
Exactly my point. Race is a volatile topic.

[Commie-Pinko]

Obviously, you speak of many obvious things, but you conveniently ignore the core of the argument is that the medicine only AFFECTS those of African descent.

You don&#39;t have an argument. You have an assertion. THe core point of the article was not that it only works on africans; it was that it only works on severe cases of heart disease. Christ your dense. NOthing in that article claims it only works against ONE race. That&#39;s a false statement, thus I called it bullshit.


A strawman is an attack against a misrepresented argument.

I am using race as a group of humans with similar genetic makeup that differs from the the rest of humanity. It is common sense to see that this is the case.

I&#39;d rather you just post the arguments the textbooks contain.

This is obviously a very socially volatile topic. Just look at what happened to baxter when he mentioned his views on race.

Common sense &#33;= Logically correct, nor factual. Commonsense is often commonly wrong. I also didn&#39;t strawman you, since you are making up your own definition of race. I am using the ONLY correct definition--the biological definition. You are attempting to do so, but incorrectly.

I didn&#39;t strawman you. YOu strawmaned me. Your definition of "race" is an equivocation of the term. Race, when dealing with caucazoids, mongoloids, and Negroids deals with the Biological defition, thus you are wrong.



We have varying levels of immunity was what I was saying, malaria being one such that levels of resistence are found in GROUPS of genetically similar humans.

Yes, bone structure is quite valid. Skull structures are one such example of varieties in race.

If resistency to disease is your criterion for making separate races, them I am sad to tell you that africans aren&#39;t the only ones who are susceptible to the sickel-cell anemia afflication. Other individuals of other races, who also have sickel-cell anemia, also have resistency. Yes, Africans have a resistancy to malaria because of Sickel-Cell anemia, a disease which every other "race" also can get. THe reason why it&#39;s more common among africans is due to their heritage, but this doesn&#39;t make a seprate race. It&#39;s merely part of the SMALL genetic differences among populations. As I will show, this does not make a race in the biological sense.

Evidence: The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races. King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%. However, within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals. The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races.

This type of genetic divergence is nonexistent in the human species. To be classified as separate races, humans would need to possess this hybrid disability. The “races” of the human species are variable in degrees of melanin, which does not qualify them to be called as such.

Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.”

Now, you probably don&#39;t understand the importance of this, since your biology professor must have been sleeping while teaching. They are saying exactly what I said: to have a race, you must have statistically significant differences among racial populations that aren&#39;t less than or exactly the same as those found in individuals within the same population. The percentage of genetic difference is mere variation of 6%, which is very little, and not suprisngly, the same as variation from one black man to another black man.

The differences are statistically insignificant and cosmetic. This is a problem; You don&#39;t understand the concept of a biological race. THere is a LOT of genetic differences among cat and dog subspecies, whereas that difference is not present among humans.


http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Scienc...BiologyRace.htm (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm)


This is also corroborated by every sociology, anthropology, and biology textbook used in academics. This is mainstream knowledge, and you should have learned in in a basic college 101 bio class.

Not to be mean, but who the fuck was your biology professor and what crack was he smoking?



Wrong again. I never said they were wrong because of their motives, I said I&#39;m not giving them the time of day because they&#39;re going to back up the social dogmas of the masses. Watch what happens when a politician says race exists.

You might be able to bullshit the others here, but you can&#39;t pull that sophistry on me.
Analyse your language logically. You are saying you are not paying heed to the scientists&#39; findings, nor are you giving a shit what they say, simply because you believe they are puppets of social agendas. Since you believe they are puppets of social agendas, they are prove what they are told to prove, and you flat out claimed they will change the facts as soon as the government poltiicans change their opinion on the existence of race. This implies that they will change the facts to suit the politicans&#39; agendas.

As such, you are questioning the validity of their science based not on the facts, but their motive of corruption. That = a classic appeal to motive.

And your argument is wrong anyway, since politicans frequently say race exists, yet scientists still claim the opposite.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

You don&#39;t have an argument. You have an assertion. THe core point of the article was not that it only works on africans; it was that it only works on severe cases of heart disease. Christ your dense. NOthing in that article claims it only works against ONE race. That&#39;s a false statement, thus I called it bullshit.



But the medicine is only EFFECTIVE in those of African descent.



I didn&#39;t strawman you. YOu strawmaned me. Your definition of "race" is an equivocation of the term. Race, when dealing with caucazoids, mongoloids, and Negroids deals with the Biological defition, thus you are wrong.


"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Race Race, n. F. race; cf. Pr. & Sp. raza, It. razza; all
from OHG. reiza line, akin to E. write. See Write.
1913 Webster
1. The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe,
people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the
same stock; a lineage; a breed.
1913 Webster



If resistency to disease is your criterion for making separate races, them I am sad to tell you that africans aren&#39;t the only ones who are susceptible to the sickel-cell anemia afflication. Other individuals of other races, who also have sickel-cell anemia, also have resistency.

Yes, Africans have a resistancy to malaria because of Sickel-Cell anemia, a disease which every other "race" also can get. THe reason why it&#39;s more common among africans is due to their heritage, but this doesn&#39;t make a seprate race. It&#39;s merely part of the SMALL genetic differences among populations. As I will show, this does not make a race in the biological sense.

Firstly, resistency is merely a pointer that there are genetic differences between groups of people. Secondly, I believe those with sickle-cell anemia probably have some African ancestry somewhere in their bloodline.


The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races. King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%. However, within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals. The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races.


This does not say how they differ and completely sidesteps the being genetically similar groups of people, forgetting the fact it is easy to throw percentages around without in-depth context. They also commit the strawman of saying race is only skin color, perhaps they are only measuring genes related to pigmentation? Just a thought, but probably incorrect.

Africans (a broad term itself) also differ amongst each other more than any other tribe, hence that 6% cannot be global between individuals.



This is also corroborated by every sociology, anthropology, and biology textbook used in academics. This is mainstream knowledge, and you should have learned in in a basic college 101 bio class.


Argumentum ad Naseum



You might be able to bullshit the others here, but you can&#39;t pull that sophistry on me.
Analyse your language logically. You are saying you are not paying heed to the scientists&#39; findings, nor are you giving a shit what they say, simply because you believe they are puppets of social agendas. Since you believe they are puppets of social agendas, they are prove what they are told to prove, and you flat out claimed they will change the facts as soon as the government poltiicans change their opinion on the existence of race. This implies that they will change the facts to suit the politicans&#39; agendas.

As such, you are questioning the validity of their science based not on the facts, but their motive of corruption. That = a classic appeal to motive.


I am saying I don&#39;t care what so-and-so says, it is irrelevant and I&#39;d rather you bring arguments up instead of appealing to authority.

However, they are puppet of social agendas. Who pays their bills? Who gets censored when they say race exists? Those who say race exists get censored, such as Christopher Brand, Richard Lynn, and various other scientists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060802385.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html)



And your argument is wrong anyway, since politicans frequently say race exists, yet scientists still claim the opposite.

Such as?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Iconoclast the Splendid
Such as?

Um...Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Louis Farrakhan?

Last I heard, all those guys say that "race" exists.

Of course, they are not biologists...they are hustlers -- who have a very different idea of "truth" than scientists do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[OleMarxco]

Are you implyin&#39;.....
......that these "Hustler&#39;s" are just adaptin&#39; their "Science"....
---to further serve their own end&#39;s - In Racism, for some
obscure reason we cannot fathom? HMM&#33;? And why do you
only respond to&#39;rat, Red-Stah&#39; - begun to become lay-zay&#33;? ;)

Don&#39;t care what Enclycopedia&#39;s say. What matter&#39;s is practical
fact&#39;s, and a paper in a book doesn&#39;t change as truth does....

[Commie-Pinko]

If you don&#39;t give a shit what the science says, and you don&#39;t understand how basic biology works. I accept your concession. Thank you.

Tip: Learn not to use logical fallacies in your posts.




"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Race Race, n. F. race; cf. Pr. & Sp. raza, It. razza; all
from OHG. reiza line, akin to E. write. See Write.
1913 Webster
1. The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe,
people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the
same stock; a lineage; a breed.
1913 Webster

Improper Definition: the proper defintion you ought to use in this case is not the one you provided, rather: Biology. The dictionary is also not a reliable source for technical definitions. The dictionary claims Atheism = immorality as well. Dictionarys are massively colloquial.


Race:

1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

Scientists have come to the conclusion there is no such thing as race, because there is not enough genetic diversity.

Check a biology text in a debate on genetics and biology, not meriam webster.


But the medicine is only EFFECTIVE in those of African descent.

Where? Show where.



Firstly, resistency is merely a pointer that there are genetic differences between groups of people. Secondly, I believe those with sickle-cell anemia probably have some African ancestry somewhere in their bloodline.

Yes. THey do. However, that&#39;s irrelevant, since that&#39;s not the biological definition of race. That&#39;s socio-cultural. Race = Subspecies. I will repeat this untill you learn it.

You have a hard time understanding simple biology, as well. Genetic difference does not a subspecies make. Statistically significant differences does--of which there is none. There is no evidence of such. All scientific evidence supported in mainstream points to the opposite if your absurd assertion.

You can rant and rave about how you dismiss all scientists findings all day; I don&#39;t give a flying fuck what you think. YOu do it one more time, and you concede, since that&#39;s a classic appeal to motive fallacy.



this does not say how they differ and completely sidesteps the being genetically similar groups of people, forgetting the fact it is easy to throw percentages around without in-depth context. They also commit the strawman of saying race is only skin color, perhaps they are only measuring genes related to pigmentation? Just a thought, but probably incorrect.

Africans (a broad term itself) also differ amongst each other more than any other tribe, hence that 6% cannot be global between individuals.


1. False. They aren&#39;t strawmanning anything. They are merely explicating what the sociological definition of race is: cultural and skin colour. Biologically, they aren&#39;t saying race is only skin colour. They state that race is a subspecies determined by statistically significant genetic diversity. However, they are also saying there&#39;s nothing in the evidence to suggest that exists in humans, therefore, "races" as you are calling them, is only skincolour delinea
1. Africans aren&#39;t a univeral tribe, so why are you treating africans as one?

It doesn&#39;t need to say how they differ. Biology texts explain that you need significant heredity/genetic differences to make a race (subspecies). Among human populations, there is very little genetic difference, therefore, you don&#39;t have races.

You are using the term "race" to delineate lineage and culture. I am not. I am using the academic, technical term, which is proper for this discussion. According to your definition, German is a race (which is said to be a race in the dictionary). That&#39;s patently absurd.

Your concession is accepted. There is not enough genetic difference between any individual to consider them another subspecies of human, therefore, scientists do not.



Argumentum ad Naseum


False. Your concession is accepted.



I am saying I don&#39;t care what so-and-so says, it is irrelevant and I&#39;d rather you bring arguments up instead of appealing to authority.

However, they are puppet of social agendas. Who pays their bills? Who gets censored when they say race exists? Those who say race exists get censored, such as Christopher Brand, Richard Lynn, and various other scientists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060802385.html

Your argument is merely repetition of your previous Appeal to Motive Fallacy and an utter misunderstanding as to what the definition of appeal to authority is. I will learn you something: Observe.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/DebatingTips.shtml


Appeal to Motive Fallacy:

A fallacy in which you attack the authors of an idea on a personal level by questioning the "hidden motives" behind their arguments [...]

IE. Scientists have some evil hidden motive for supporting evolution theory.
IE. I don&#39;t believe the Scientists because they are merely morhping the evidence to fit their political agendas.

Your concession on this point will be accepted. Have a nice day.


Appeal to Authority Fallacy deals with Improper Authorities, not proper ones. My texts are "proper" authorities in the field of biology, and the evidence is supported in mainstream because it is hefty. Observe Nizkor Project&#39;s definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy.


1. Description of Appeal to Authority

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

Your concession on this point will be accepted. Have a nice day.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 16 2005, 03:48 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 16 2005, 03:48 PM)
Iconoclast the Splendid
Such as?

Um...Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Louis Farrakhan?

Last I heard, all those guys say that "race" exists.

Of course, they are not biologists...they are hustlers -- who have a very different idea of "truth" than scientists do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
When has Jesse and Al said that genetic differences exist in race? And Farrakhan is more of an activist than a politician, considering he has never been in office.

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

Improper Definition: the proper defintion you ought to use in this case is not the one you provided, rather: Biology. The dictionary is also not a reliable source for technical definitions. The dictionary claims Atheism = immorality as well. Dictionarys are massively colloquial.


And there are clear biological differences between groups of people within the human species. There is no problem.



Where? Show where.


I was hoping you&#39;d be doing some google for bidil, but clearly it isn&#39;t in your interest so you&#39;re not going to do it:

http://www.fdaadvisorycommittee.com/FDC/Ad...1605_BidilA.htm (http://www.fdaadvisorycommittee.com/FDC/AdvisoryCommittee/Committees/Cardiovascular+and+Renal+Drugs/061605_Bidil/061605_BidilA.htm)

Researchers believe that African Americans may be more prone to nitric oxide deficiency than other populations.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2...oval050623.html (http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/23/BiDil-approval050623.html)

A heart failure drug can be marketed to blacks only, the U.S. drug regulator said Thursday.


Manufacturer NitroMed. Inc. told the FDA it wanted to sell BiDil only to blacks, citing studies that showed blacks fared better on the drug than other races.




Yes. THey do. However, that&#39;s irrelevant, since that&#39;s not the biological definition of race. That&#39;s socio-cultural. Race = Subspecies. I will repeat this untill you learn it.

You have a hard time understanding simple biology, as well. Genetic difference does not a subspecies make. Statistically significant differences does--of which there is none. There is no evidence of such. All scientific evidence supported in mainstream points to the opposite if your absurd assertion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

Yup, seems to be no conflict with what I have said.



You can rant and rave about how you dismiss all scientists findings all day; I don&#39;t give a flying fuck what you think. YOu do it one more time, and you concede, since that&#39;s a classic appeal to motive fallacy.


I&#39;ll admit I commited an Appeal to Motive, though it wasn&#39;t a fallacy as I didn&#39;t explicitly say they were incorrect. I merely questioned their motives, and you must clearly remember me saying to bring their arguments up and not them.

Read carefully:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive



1. False. They aren&#39;t strawmanning anything. They are merely explicating what the sociological definition of race is: cultural and skin colour. Biologically, they aren&#39;t saying race is only skin colour. They state that race is a subspecies determined by statistically significant genetic diversity. However, they are also saying there&#39;s nothing in the evidence to suggest that exists in humans, therefore, "races" as you are calling them, is only skincolour delinea
1. Africans aren&#39;t a univeral tribe, so why are you treating africans as one?

It doesn&#39;t need to say how they differ. Biology texts explain that you need significant heredity/genetic differences to make a race (subspecies). Among human populations, there is very little genetic difference, therefore, you don&#39;t have races.

You are using the term "race" to delineate lineage and culture. I am not. I am using the academic, technical term, which is proper for this discussion. According to your definition, German is a race (which is said to be a race in the dictionary). That&#39;s patently absurd.

Your concession is accepted. There is not enough genetic difference between any individual to consider them another subspecies of human, therefore, scientists do not.

First of all, may I inquire the definition of "statistically significant" that you are using?




Appeal to Authority Fallacy deals with Improper Authorities, not proper ones. My texts are "proper" authorities in the field of biology, and the evidence is supported in mainstream because it is hefty. Observe Nizkor Project&#39;s definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy.


Incorrect again. Appeal to Authority is when one says that someone is correct in an observation because they are famous/liked/well-known. Even if they are well known in their field and often right does not mean they will be correct on everything. Wikipedia has a superb page on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Read it carefully: it is one thing to simply bring the arguments of a famous scientist up, and another to play the he-said she-said game.

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:18 AM
Obviously the only way to achieve this is racial segragation.
fuck you racist bastard

[Commie-Pinko]

Incorrect again. Appeal to Authority is when one says that someone is correct in an observation because they are famous/liked/well-known. Even if they are well known in their field and often right does not mean they will be correct on everything. Wikipedia has a superb page on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Read it carefully: it is one thing to simply bring the arguments of a famous scientist up, and another to play the he-said she-said game.


It&#39;s amazing that my source on logical fallacies disagrees, and my source is authored by actual logicians, not Joe H. random. I posted what Appeal to Authority is according to my source. It&#39;s aptly termed Appeal to Improper Authority. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can post there; anyone can alter it. Ever hear of Wiki wars?

I never said it&#39;s right simply because they all agree. However, it&#39;s highly unlikely it&#39;s wrong, because when something is accepted by mainstream science, it has gone through intense scrutiny by means of Peer Review, which is a critial step in the scientific process. there&#39;s no reason to dobut what the majority of scientists have claimed, and as you can see from the Nitzkor project, it&#39;s reasonable to trust the conclusions of huge quantities of proper authorities.

Why should I trust your sources whem my sources say the exact opposite, and my sources are used for what&#39;s taught in college level biology? Hmm? Perhaps we could get somewhere if we could do figure that out.



And there are clear biological differences between groups of people within the human species. There is no problem.

So says you. I can cite all the textbooks in the world. You won&#39;t agree with me. So this will get us nowhere with the "nope" your source is wrong game.




I was hoping you&#39;d be doing some google for bidil, but clearly it isn&#39;t in your interest so you&#39;re not going to do it:

http://www.fdaadvisorycommittee.com/FDC/Ad...1605_BidilA.htm

Researchers believe that African Americans may be more prone to nitric oxide deficiency than other populations.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2...oval050623.html

A heart failure drug can be marketed to blacks only, the U.S. drug regulator said Thursday.


Manufacturer NitroMed. Inc. told the FDA it wanted to sell BiDil only to blacks, citing studies that showed blacks fared better on the drug than other races.

And? So they are allowed to market it only to black people. Manipulating the consumer base into thinking they are special is a tried -and true propaganda tactic of business men. "just for men&#33;"

Even if that were true (I couldn&#39;t access the second link), that doesn&#39;t mean that they are different races. There&#39;s not enough genetic diversity. Races, according to mainsream science, would only occure given that there were significant genetic gaps between populations. This does not exist. I cannot prove to you something that does not exist. You cannot prove a negative.

It&#39;s not saying it&#39;s only effective in them. It&#39;s effective in everyone. We know nothing about the studies they used, we know nothing about the sampling, and subspecies categorization is more complex than "X group has slightly more resistence to Y, therefore it&#39;s a new subspecies." The sentence denotes that they are ABLE to market it specifically for them. T

Men and women react different to different medications too. here are products geared specifically toward males and females too. Using your criterion, they must be subspecies as well&#33; :lol:

And we already know that africans in general are more prone to other afflictions. That&#39;s not what makes a subspecies. Again, sickel-cell anemia. Heart disease and anemia affect all humans.

We are failing to communicate here: genetic variation doesn&#39;t make a subspecies. A lot does.



Race concepts in biology are invalid and have no merit. People who claim that there&#39;s evidence for race typically use Pseudoscientific methods to prove this, as is evident here: (I use academic pages), not wikipedia.

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/ps...ience-race.html (http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/pseudoscience-race.html)

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/race.pdf

[Iconoclast the Splendid]

It&#39;s amazing that my source on logical fallacies disagrees, and my source is authored by actual logicians, not Joe H. random. I posted what Appeal to Authority is according to my source. It&#39;s aptly termed Appeal to Improper Authority. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can post there; anyone can alter it. Ever hear of Wiki wars?


We live in an interesting pluralistic society when everyone has their own reality--I have my own reality, my wikipedia source, and you have your own, your nizkor source (which is made by historians, not logicians as you claim).

Wikipedia still has good information on those fallacies. If you would attempt to think for once you would realize it is not illogical to claim that a claim by a party is biased and not worth arguing. Quite different from saying the source is wrong because they&#39;re biased. It is simple logic, we don&#39;t need to depend on various sources to understand how a fallacy is composed. Think for yourself, don&#39;t blindly depend on what various websites say when it is quite obvious how reality works.



I never said it&#39;s right simply because they all agree. However, it&#39;s highly unlikely it&#39;s wrong, because when something is accepted by mainstream science, it has gone through intense scrutiny by means of Peer Review, which is a critial step in the scientific process. there&#39;s no reason to dobut what the majority of scientists have claimed, and as you can see from the Nitzkor project, it&#39;s reasonable to trust the conclusions of huge quantities of proper authorities.

And we have mainstream scientists such as Richard Dawking, Steven Pinker, and Steven Jay Gould at odds all the time. Sciences changes itself all the time, medicine has to change according to popular biases (homosexuality, whether an ailment or not, was removed from the DSM due to protesting. That is just one example).

Nizkor is a historical website, not a philosophical one.

Of course it is reasonable to trust respected authorities, but that doesn&#39;t make them correct. There is still a very real possibility of error and biases. I have an evolutionary biology text book where the author even admits he is liberal and may be biased.



So says you. I can cite all the textbooks in the world. You won&#39;t agree with me. So this will get us nowhere with the "nope" your source is wrong game.


Let us not focus on textbooks and fixate on known facts. Certain groups of humans have different genetic makeup, correct? Two pure-blooded Africans will produce an offspring with the genes for black skin. In these certain groups, there are certain traits such as lactose-intolerance and immunity towards diseases which are easily predictable in these populations. Certain medicine will affect different groups, such as the aformentioned bidil. There are also different skull shapes, nose shapes, eye colors, hair colors, IQ scores, rate of maturation in children, tooth sizes, blood types (not completely restricted to one race in EVERY instance, but there are still rare blood types reserved towards certain tribes and native South America have almost 90-100% the B allele), and genetic ailments. Now, is race an applicable term?



And? So they are allowed to market it only to black people. Manipulating the consumer base into thinking they are special is a tried -and true propaganda tactic of business men. "just for men&#33;"

Uh... if the medicine was more effective to whites then they would market it to whites as well so they could gain more profit. I&#39;m sure not very many fellow blacks would even be told nor care about the exclusivity of their goddamn heart medicine. BTW you also are doing an Appeal to Motive, though not a fallacy :lol:



Even if that were true (I couldn&#39;t access the second link), that doesn&#39;t mean that they are different races. There&#39;s not enough genetic diversity. Races, according to mainsream science, would only occure given that there were significant genetic gaps between populations. This does not exist. I cannot prove to you something that does not exist. You cannot prove a negative.


And what is "significant" differences, anyway? I&#39;m sure a medicine that only is effective towards one group ought to be considered significant...

So you can&#39;t find evidence for something that doesn&#39;t exist, although evidence does exist?

By the way, the correct term is that you cannot disprove a negative. You cannot disprove that God does not exist, for example. You can prove a negative-- you can prove that there is no monkey on top of the Empire State Building.

Scientific theories are said to be plausible until there is ample evidence to disprove them; then the theory is overturned.



Men and women react different to different medications too. here are products geared specifically toward males and females too. Using your criterion, they must be subspecies as well&#33;

We are discussing racial differences, not gender differences.



We are failing to communicate here: genetic variation doesn&#39;t make a subspecies. A lot does.


A lot is an arbitrary term.




Race concepts in biology are invalid and have no merit. People who claim that there&#39;s evidence for race typically use Pseudoscientific methods to prove this, as is evident here: (I use academic pages), not wikipedia.


Thats great, because I don&#39;t care what arguments other peope are using, because I&#39;m using mine. Debate mine, not some flawed strawman arguments.

[Commie-Pinko]

More sources against race by biologists and life science professors. THe last article is very informative, and explains the issue of race very clearly in a way I think we both can accept. IT also explains in detail the issue of race and medicine on page 4. You should read it. I have quotd some of the important information from the 5th source, but read the others as well.

1. http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/22/apr04/race.htm
2. http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0202/020211.htm
3. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../23/MN94378.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/02/23/MN94378.DTL)
4. http://www.bartle.disted.camosun.bc.ca/soc-race.htm


5. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...BAA83414B7F0000 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000)

Here, races are biologically defined as above : genetically discrete groups, of which there are none in Homo Sapien Sapien. They also answer your question about why medicines might be effective on some groups, and why this does not = new race. People in populations tested across racial lines were found not to fit into any of the ppredefined racial categories. They state there is no real racial boundary, and that populations are difficult to discern from one another, except for various small physical features.

Quotes:

Many studies have demonstrated that roughly 90 percent of human genetic variation occurs within a population living on a given continent, whereas about 10 percent of the variation distinguishes continental populations.

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not.



In contrast, two groups that are genetically similar to each other might be exposed to different selective forces. In this case, natural selection can exaggerate some of the differences between groups, making them appear more dissimilar on the surface than they are underneath.

Because traits such as skin color have been strongly affected by natural selection, they do not necessarily reflect the population processes that have shaped the distribution of neutral polymorphisms such as Alus or short tandem repeats. Therefore, traits or polymorphisms affected by natural selection may be poor predictors of group membership and may imply genetic relatedness where, in fact, little exists.


Race and Medicine:

Richard S. Cooper of the Loyola Stritch School of Medicine, Jay S. Kaufman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Ryk Ward of the University of Oxford--argued that race is not an adequate criterion for physicians to use in choosing a particular drug for a given patient. They pointed out two findings of racial differences that are both now considered questionable: that a combination of certain blood vessel–dilating drugs was more effective in treating heart failure in people of African ancestry and that specific enzyme inhibitors (angiotensin converting enzyme, or ACE, inhibitors) have little efficacy in such individuals.




This is why you cannot use cosmetic, shallow features such as lips, skin colour, eye colour etc. THey can be similiar in that regard, but different in a deeper genetic sense, or they can be much more similiar genetically, but different cosmetically. Colour and outward appearances are NOT valid indicators of subspecies due to this.






[b]Wikipedia still has good information on those fallacies. If you would attempt to think for once you would realize it is not illogical to claim that a claim by a party is biased and not worth arguing. Quite different from saying the source is wrong because they&#39;re biased. It is simple logic, we don&#39;t need to depend on various sources to understand how a fallacy is composed. Think for yourself, don&#39;t blindly depend on what various websites say when it is quite obvious how reality works.

You don&#39;t answer anything in this paragraph, nor do you refute my source&#39;s description of the fallacy. There&#39;s no reason to believe your source, when I have several credible sources that agree with me.


And we have mainstream scientists such as Richard Dawking, Steven Pinker, and Steven Jay Gould at odds all the time. Sciences changes itself all the time, medicine has to change according to popular biases (homosexuality, whether an ailment or not, was removed from the DSM due to protesting. That is just one example).

So what? That does not prove your claim that mainstream science is wrong in this case. Sometimes, mistakes are made and then fix. That&#39;s a strength of science. This issue has been debated and reviewed for a while now, and currently, there&#39;s zero evidence supporting your absurd hypothesis that races exist and that all the scientists are covering this up with a conspiracy because they are protecting the political agendas of their politician overlords. Provide evidence in THIS case, they are doing that, or your entire argument is clever sophistry. If you can do that, THEN and only then will I consider that argument.



Nizkor is a historical website, not a philosophical one.

Of course it is reasonable to trust respected authorities, but that doesn&#39;t make them correct. There is still a very real possibility of error and biases. I have an evolutionary biology text book where the author even admits he is liberal and may be biased.

Yes. It&#39;s reasonable to trust credible sources and authorities. I never said that makes them 100% right. NEver did I ever say that ever. Please show me where I did. Nitzkor is also philosophical.

Yes there is a possiblity they are wrong. However, I won&#39;t accept that untill there is enough evidence. THey have deemed there not to be enough evidence, and they are the experts, therefore it&#39;s not unreasonable to take their word for it.

I don&#39;t care if the author says he&#39;s Ralph Nader and biased. That doesn&#39;t mean the information on biology is wrong.


Let us not focus on textbooks and fixate on known facts. Certain groups of humans have different genetic makeup, correct?

Slightly, however, there&#39;s no evidence that slight genetic variation makes a subspecies, as you can see from the above sources.



Two pure-blooded Africans will produce an offspring with the genes for black skin.

Black skin is a pigment caused by generations of being in hot, sunny climates. It is a characteristic that transends so called racial barriers. For example, there are certain types of asians who are nearly black, or very very dark, who belong to the Inuit tribes and various other high northern cultures.

These individuals, over many generations, developed a skin tone that aided them in reducing damage caused by the sun reflecting on the high albedo snow and ice.

Skin pigement is a minor genetic concern; it&#39;s considered a cosmetic phenotypical trait.



In these certain groups, there are certain traits such as lactose-intolerance and immunity towards diseases which are easily predictable in these populations.

I am not sure what peoples have that, but I know for a fact that this is not unique to any human population. The thing you must consider is that there is no disease or afflication in existence recognized by the Department of Health that afflicts ONE population. All populations can be struck by it.

All popluations have loactose-intolerante individuals, so that&#39;s relatively unimportant.

Let us analyse the issue of disease resistence. You are trying to posit that because africans (not all, mind you) have resistence to malaria because of sickel cell anemia, they must be another subspecies. This logic is invalid, because any Caucazoid or Mongoloid who also has sickel cell anemia will be resistant to malaria.

First we must look at WHY sickel-cell anemia is the way it is. It is a mutation that is genetically harmful in most cases, depending on geographic location. If you, for generations, lived in an area highly prone to malaria outbreaks, sickel-cell traits would provide a measure of protection. Normally, it would kill, but malaria would kill many more people than the sickel cell syndrome. Natural Selection dicated that since those who had Sickel-Cell syndrome were resistant, more would be selected to reproduce. This trait was henceforth passed on to any other generations. However, it still killed people who had it.

Since the syndrome happened to be beneficial in one area, people reproduced and carried it on. When many africans were brought over, they were again sent down to malarial areas where the afflication proved somewhat useful. Many died, but the trait kept on passing. People who mated with the slaves and begot children also passed down this trait among other populations of individuals that lived in the malarial areas.



Certain medicine will affect different groups, such as the aformentioned bidil. There are also different skull shapes, nose shapes, eye colors, hair colors, IQ scores, rate of maturation in children, tooth sizes, blood types (not completely restricted to one race in EVERY instance, but there are still rare blood types reserved towards certain tribes and native South America have almost 90-100% the B allele), and genetic ailments. Now, is race an applicable term?



The concept of SKull measurements and nose shapes, eye colours, hair colours, and IQ scores has since been discreded by all major organizations as Pseudo-Science. Eye colour, nose shapes, and facial features are also considered merely cosmetic. These aren&#39;t important features that distinguish races.

Novels like the "belt curve" use sketchy, incorrect statistical methods. YOu can see that from the sources I provided in the last post.

There is no blood type that one population has. There is no disease that only afflictions one race. THere is no medicine that is ONLY effective on one race, IQ scores are largely bogus, and a poor source for comparing populations. Many whites also have the same colour hair as blacks and asians, as well as eye colour.

For there to be different races, you must have a large, discernable gentoypical difference among POPULATIONS, not a small percentage of petty cosmetic differences. This does not exist. There is MORE difference genetically between the individuals in a south african tribe than there are between the Nazi Ayran Supermen and the Zulu of south africa.

This is a very important piece of information. WHy? It&#39;s litterally impossible to tell one man&#39;s pop from another man&#39;s pop based on his genetics. On average, they are nearly identical. Near identical genetic make up is an absurd criterion for separate subspecies.



Uh... if the medicine was more effective to whites then they would market it to whites as well so they could gain more profit. I&#39;m sure not very many fellow blacks would even be told nor care about the exclusivity of their goddamn heart medicine. BTW you also are doing an Appeal to Motive, though not a fallacy

That&#39;s not a fallacy; that&#39;s marketing propaganda. If you studied propaganda, you would know how pharmaceutical companies market their products.

Yes. People DO care about exclusivity. It makes them feel special, and people tend to respond to it. Propaganda is a powerful tool.


And what is "significant" differences, anyway? I&#39;m sure a medicine that only is effective towards one group ought to be considered significant...

So you can&#39;t find evidence for something that doesn&#39;t exist, although evidence does exist?

By the way, the correct term is that you cannot disprove a negative. You cannot disprove that God does not exist, for example. You can prove a negative-- you can prove that there is no monkey on top of the Empire State Building.

Scientific theories are said to be plausible until there is ample evidence to disprove them; then the theory is overturned.


Actually, the the correct term is Proving a Negative as you can see from the sources below. All say the same thing. You cannot prove a negative. Observe the source:

However, I would also like to add that this mainly applies to existential and similiar negatives. For example, I cannot prove there is some hidden agenda of scientists that makes them play into the hands of the politicians. I can&#39;t prove that&#39;s false, because to do so, I would have to delve into the minds of the scientists, which I cannot do.

IE. You cannot prove God does not exist. You cannot prove flying rabbits don&#39;t exist. You cannot prove that I am not really a magical lepreuchan disguising myself as a human.

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writin...ALLACYS.HTM#237 (http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/FALLACYS.HTM#237)
http://www2.canisius.edu/~moleski/proof/provenegs.htm



There&#39;s nothing that says it&#39;s "only effective" in blacks. It said they are allowing it to only be marketed to blacks. They have to go through the same thing if they market products to any specific group, or they would be accused of marketing discrimination.



QUOTE

Men and women react different to different medications too. here are products geared specifically toward males and females too. Using your criterion, they must be subspecies as well&#33;


We are discussing racial differences, not gender differences.


Your argument still applies when you logically substitute terms. It&#39;s a common tactic to show how absurd your premise is. Yousing your criterion, there&#39;s no difference.



Thats great, because I don&#39;t care what arguments other peope are using, because I&#39;m using mine. Debate mine, not some flawed strawman arguments.


Your claims are exactly the same as all of the other discredited claims, as is evidenced by the use of IQ, hair colour, skin colour, nose, and skull shapes. None of the previous are accepted or delineate race, since none is unique to any one group, rather universal to human populations.

[saint max]

Very late in tha game...

I&#39;ve been watching this for a minute. And yall (commie, iconoclast) both make some good points, but If race, how we undestand the "white/nonwhite" dichotomy, exists in the US as a social construction. Why does it matter if biological differences exist at all?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Iconoclast the [email protected] 16 2005, 09:50 PM
Let us not focus on textbooks and fixate on known facts. Certain groups of humans have different genetic makeup, correct? Two pure-blooded Africans will produce an offspring with the genes for black skin. In these certain groups, there are certain traits such as lactose-intolerance and immunity towards diseases which are easily predictable in these populations.
Excuse me, but other genes aren&#39;t necessarily distributed along the same lines as genes for skin color or the popular concept of race.

For example, sickle-cell trait is found not only in sub-Saharan Africa but also in parts of India, where malaria is also widespread. It is not common in southern Africa, where malaria is not. Lactose intolerance is common among people from everywhere in the world except parts of northern Europe and parts of India....where people have had a lot of dairy in their diet for some time.

Various genes said to be associated with "Africa" are probably associated with some parts of Africa, or even of sub-Saharan Africa, but not others. There is more genetic diversity in Africa and the African Diaspora than the rest of humanity put together.

Some research suggests there may be genes associated with a greater vulnerability to alcoholism. These genes may be more common in some regional populations than others....but not the vague racial categories of "Caucasian" "Negroid", "Mongolian", etc. Rather smaller and more specific geographical populations.

My point is, human genetic diversity exists, that&#39;s not in dispute. What is questionable, is whether "racial" or "subspecies" categorization helps understand that genetic diversity...or if it is an obstacle to fully understanding its complexity and fuzziness, by setting up a few simplistic and overly rigid categories.


Certain medicine will affect different groups, such as the aformentioned bidil.

It is apparently more effective for people with a certain gene which is more common among African-Americans than white Americans. They did a trial for the overall population, failed to prove effectiveness, then did a trial for African-Americans and did. Those trials are all about frequencies and probabilities.

But the most effective way to prescribe it, and other hypertension drugs, would probably be to invent a test for the specific genes or gene products in order to determine which drug would be more effective for a particular individual. Rather than playing a guessing game based on loose correlations between frequencies of hypertension-related genes and skin color genes.


There are also different skull shapes, nose shapes, eye colors, hair colors, IQ scores, rate of maturation in children, tooth sizes, blood types (not completely restricted to one race in EVERY instance, but there are still rare blood types reserved towards certain tribes and native South America have almost 90-100% the B allele), and genetic ailments. Now, is race an applicable term?

Apparently not. You mention "certain tribes" apparently different from the rest of their "race", as popularly defined. You mention "rate of maturation in children" - well, the more rapid rate of maturation for African-American children is not observed in Africa. So is it perhaps due to environment, or some specific interaction of environment and gene expression then? The expression of developmental genes is particularly subject to environmental influence.

Nobody has succceeded in showing that variation in IQ scores between alleged "racial" groups is genetic or heritable. Murray and Hernstein, in the Bell Curve, admit their data doesn&#39;t prove this, but then appeal to intuition saying it "seems improbable" to them, and hopefully to their prejudiced readers, that differences in IQ scores could be due to anything else. This is called "begging the question."

(Within-group heritability proves nothing about between-group heritability, as any population biologist will tell you.)
Interview with an intelligence-testing specialist critiquing the Bell Curve. (http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html)
Review of book critiquing the Bell Curve. (http://www.skeptic.com/04.3.siano-bellcurve.html)

Now, maybe you&#39;ll say Murray and Hernstein&#39;s ideas aren&#39;t yours....the problem is, nobody else has done a better job of proving the "racial" differences in IQ scores, which you mention, are genetic.


Scientific theories are said to be plausible until there is ample evidence to disprove them; then the theory is overturned.

Uh, no. Solid evidence, confirmed by multiple researchers, is needed before something is a recognized scientific theory. Only a hypothesis can be plausible merely because it has not been disproved.

For further reading: A debate over "race" and human genetic differences (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic02-18-05.html#1) Also from Skeptic magazine, which has had a fair bit of debate on topics like these, in a scientifically serious way but for a relatively general audience.

A bunch of material from PBS arguing against the "racial" view of human differences (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01.htm)

[OleMarxco]

All this shit &#39;bout "Text-book&#39;s" is givin&#39; me the blue-ball&#39;s. Whoever said Text-book&#39;s full of lies and insecurity, propaganda, etc.? There ain&#39;t single-shred of fact&#39;s in them, let&#39;s concenctrate on the Stret-Cred, huh&#33;? ;)


Originally posted by Commie&#045;[email protected] 16 2005, 05:14 PM
If you don&#39;t give a shit what the science says, and you don&#39;t understand how basic biology works. I accept your concession. Thank you.

I guess your accusation of your&#39;s of my concession and logical fallacies stop as soon as I reveal that I really said "Hustler&#39;s" "Science", and I neither said that I didn&#39;t believe in Science, and you ignored the Hustler&#39;s part. Way to go to get a quick - but inaccurate - punch at me. Now who&#39;s makin&#39; &#39;STRAWMEN&#39;s, huh&#33;? Drop the "smile-smearin&#39;" tone, you ain&#39;t trickin&#39; nobody, false niceness...blah, I can still understand basic biology, &#39;tho, anyway&#39;s, and there&#39;s fare more to this than a scenario that is like the differencies between frog&#39;s and fishes, similar to "negroes" and "whites"? It&#39;s all evolution that has happened, but the difference is STRIKINGLY SIMILAR. We somehow even got the same build, brain and everything&#33; Yeah, we&#39;re so fuckin&#39; different, we need segregation, just like with the monkey&#39;s, aaaahh, them evil races&#33; <_<

[Forward Union]

Does race exist?

Only in the same way that different eye colours exist, and you don&#39;t see me starting a thread about that now do you?

[Commie-Pinko]

I guess your accusation of your&#39;s of my concession and logical fallacies stop as soon as I reveal that I really said "Hustler&#39;s" "Science", and I neither said that I didn&#39;t believe in Science, and you ignored the Hustler&#39;s part. Way to go to get a quick - but inaccurate - punch at me. Now who&#39;s makin&#39; &#39;STRAWMEN&#39;s, huh&#33;? Drop the "smile-smearin&#39;" tone, you ain&#39;t trickin&#39; nobody, false niceness...blah, I can still understand basic biology, &#39;tho, anyway&#39;s, and there&#39;s fare more to this than a scenario that is like the differencies between frog&#39;s and fishes, similar to "negroes" and "whites"? It&#39;s all evolution that has happened, but the difference is STRIKINGLY SIMILAR. We somehow even got the same build, brain and everything&#33; Yeah, we&#39;re so fuckin&#39; different, we need segregation, just like with the monkey&#39;s, aaaahh, them evil races&#33;

This would be a rebuttle to me, if I were actually talking about you in the above post of mine, which I wasn&#39;t. I also cannot comprehend much of what you said, because most of it is horrible grammar all jumbled up into one monolithic paragraph.

[Severian]

Nobody else can understand any of Ole&#39;s posts either.

[redstar2000]

This post has been edited by OleMarxo on Aug 17 2005, 03:24 PM

Fake&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif