Human races exist

Author: Analgesic.Spectre

Posts

Total: 82
#61
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Race is as objective as color itself, being a general descriptor of ethnic origin that operates on weighted gradients.
OK. But color isn't objective.

The term 'subjective' doesn't apply to anything that exists on a gradient, it applies to something which depends on the subject rather than the object for value (exists in the mind of the subject rather than in the object itself).
True. Race applies no?

Which race isn't, it's literally a quality of the object being discussed.
Yes, but the association of "race" to that quality is ad hoc, arbitrary, and unscientific. So for example, the "white race" all have white skin, but what makes white skin a qualifier for race? That is purely subjective.

I can't say 'I'm an Australian Aborigine', or 'Denzel Washington is Chinese' and then claim that race is subjective so my personal opinion is valid.
Well, as GP pointed out, people do say it. But I get you, you can't say it logically. Terms like "Australian Aborigine" are assigned classifications and thus are subjective by the classic definition of subjunctive.

That's what the world 'subjective' means. Whether someone is nice or not is subjective. Weather they are Polynesian or not is objective.
I don't think you are using the terms correctly. Whether they are Polynesian or not is NOT objective.

Sure, they may be half Polynesian, but they are objectively half Polynesian.
What do you think objective means? You seem to be using  "objective" as if it means "authoritative".
Topic's author
#62
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
If people wanted to they could say there are four races of human, A, B, AB and O.    It is no more logical to discriminate on skin colour genes than on blood group genes - but we can't see blood groups. 
Yeah, dude. Just like we determine subspecies in other animals using purely bloodtypes.

Bloodtypes and races (populations of people geographically separated that interbred, and thus are genetically and physically distinguishable) are exactly the same thing. That's why they have different terms and can't be defined using the same semantics, because they are exactly the same.

Lol.

The mass insanity is our tendency to focus on trivial but conspicuous differences which blind us to the fact that there is more variation within a 'race' than there is between races.
You're reaching gender pay gap levels of pedalling debunked arguments, of which you probably have no idea where they came from (your favourite social media platform is not a reliable source, Keith).

I remember explaining to this you in the past, but you clearly didn't learn (not surprising, seeing that you think bloodtypes and race are the same thing).

To put this incredibly briefly, calculation of fst values (you don't know what those mean, Keith, so search it using a Google search) shows that humans have more genetic variation, when compared with other species with enjoy subspecies classifications (a recent human fst value is 12%) (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837). 

Some examples of these other species are, but are not limited to: Plain Zebra (5 subspecies with an fst of 11%), Kob (2-3 subspecies with an fst of 11%, Southwestern European Cow (18 subspecies with an fst of 6.8%) and the Red Winged Black Bird (5 subspecies with a 1% fst) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18466230) (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03382.x) (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1439-0388.2003.00384.x) (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=icwdm_usdanwrc).

So, humans have a greater amount of genetic variation than other species whom enjoy subspeciation, despite all being subject to the 'more variation within than between' meme. That should make you think (it won't).

I didn't expect you to understand any of this, Keith, just like last time. I'm just hoping that someone, who hasn't been beaten over the head with a shovel half a dozen times, will read this and post something worthwhile. Perhaps that is radically optimistic, on a website such as this.


#63
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
If you hadn't given yourself away by writing that some races should be excluded from professions such as research I might be willing to consider you as less of a lowlife.  As it is you protestations ring very hollow.


#64
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@keithprosser
Except race isn't just 'skin color', and includes just about every attribute of a person, including blood types, which vary pretty reliably depending on race. The 'more diversity within than between' mantra is just that: a tired old mantra which fundamentally misunderstands how genetics works. If you have the necessary technical understanding to parse it, this is a pretty good breakdown of why that's just a completely bad take on the issue which takes advantage of the general population's ignorance when it comes to the finer point of genetics: https://anthropology.net/2008/01/18/fighting-the-mantra-people-vary-more-within-the-groups-than-vary-between-groups/
#65
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@ethang5
Subjective means the quality is in the mind of the subject perceiving. Objective means that the quality is within the object itself. You seem to mean that 'subjective' means 'inexact', which is how the word is commonly misused, especially among the young. But color is100% objective. A leaf is green, I don't think that it is green. On the other hand, Doris being nice or mean completely depends on my perspective. Green being the best color depends on my perspective. Race is an easily measurable, real quality. We know this because if you lined up a bunch of people in front of me, had them guess their race, and then genetically tested them and compared the results, the guesses would be spot on 99% of the time. Subjective qualities don't do that.
#66
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
That's like saying that nobody can call anything blue because #0000FF doesn't really exist as a natural pigment. Things aren't disqualified or made 'subjective' by being inexact; if that were the case we would have to scrap all of taxonomy.
#67
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Subjective means the quality is in the mind of the subject perceiving. Objective means that the quality is within the object itself.
Sir, race is not a quality in man. Race is the description you use to classify people. It can be based on any perceived quality.

You seem to mean that 'subjective' means 'inexact', which is how the word is commonly misused, especially among the young.
Without knowing you, I can confidently say I am older than you. Subjective means determined/influenced by the human mind. And that is exactly what your "race" is.

But color is100% objective. A leaf is green, I don't think that it is green.
Of course you do. Nothing has color except light. Green is only in your mind, not in the leaf. Plus, there is no way for us to know if the "green" you see is the "green" I see.

On the other hand, Doris being nice or mean completely depends on my perspective. Green being the best color depends on my perspective. Race is an easily measurable, real quality.
Depending on the qualities you assign to "race".

We know this because if you lined up a bunch of people in front of me, had them guess their race, and then genetically tested them and compared the results, the guesses would be spot on 99% of the time. Subjective qualities don't do that.
You should probably re-read this paragraph.

I have no problem with your classification system. There can be many. And yours may work as a simple classification. My issue is with what its proponents say "race" means. For example, "race" A may have wider hips than "race" B. So what? The people who state hip width to propose discouraging "race" B from equestrian endeavors use the data incorrectly.

Race is an assigned classification based on pre-picked qualities. Sure the qualities can exist objectively, but your classification doesn't.
#68
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
But pure colors do exist. We can't even manufacture a pure race in the lab.
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
One of the peculiarities of American discussion about race is that skin color is assumed to be synonymous with racial distinctions. That is, skin color is not just a trait, but it is the trait which defines between population differences. There’s a reason for this, the skin is the largest organ and it is very salient. Populations with little phylogenetic relationship to each other, from India to the Pacific to Southeast Asia have been referred to as “black” by lighter-skinned populations. No population is referred to by their neighbors as those “straight hairs,” to my knowledge. But another point in the United States is that historically the black-white dichotomy has dominated our historical narrative to the exclusion of others. (with an asterisk for Native Americans) Though black Americans are an admixed population, which is around 20% European in ancestry with considerable variance (e.g., ~10% of the black American population is more than 50% European by ancestry), white Americans are relatively homogeneously European. Unlike the populations of Latin America admixture did not occur along a continuum, and due to hypodescent there was a categorical binning where black Americans with any visible African ancestry were categorized as non-white (and some with no visible African ancestry!).


But the past is not the present. Today Americans of Latin American origin are a larger proportion of the population than black Americans. These groups are often admixed in ancestry, and exhibit a continuum of appearance. The mean proportions of ancestry can also vary from region to region, as evidenced by the recent paper I pointed to earlier this week. While black Americans and white Americans are nearly disjoint in physical appearance, there are Latinos of all phenotypes. Most understand that the quasi-racial status of the Hispanic/Latino category is awkward, and at some point the old paradigm will need to shift.
#70
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Race is an easily measurable, real quality.
Can't be, because 'race' is not well defined.  To see that I suggest you try to answer the simple question 'how many human races are there?'.  Whatever number you pick there will be plenty of authorities who will give a different one.

How many races depends on the criteria choosen - it is in that sense subjective; you can get any number you want by choosing the right criteria.



Topic's author
#71
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
Keith, I know you tried your best, but you accidentally didn't respond to a little bit of what I wrote, in that you responded to none of it. I know that it is hard for you to read things. I know that responding to other people's comments, rather than restating your own monologue, is a big person's thing to do, but I believe in you. You are a special person, and I believe the super basic skills of reading and responding to other's comments is well within your reach.

Remember: shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll still be among the stars.

Topic's author
#72
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
That's like saying that nobody can call anything blue because #0000FF doesn't really exist as a natural pigment. Things aren't disqualified or made 'subjective' by being inexact; if that were the case we would have to scrap all of taxonomy.
There's no point in bothering with him. He literally stated that data (you know, the thing that makes or breaks most arguments) doesn't matter, if you started with an opinion he disagrees with: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/831?page=3&post_number=51). You are wrong as soon as you disagree with him lol.

The masked guy turns into an NPC after a couple responses -- not something to bother with, either.

Keith is usually a much better poster than this, but his brain switches off, when it comes to discussion of race.

I miss the old DDO where this flagrant retardation would be relegated to the religious forums.
#73
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
FST is an objective measure of the 'genetic distance' between populations.   The FST between widely separated human populations (Germans and Polynesians, say) is as great or greater than the FST between many zoological subspecies.   I think that is mildly interesting,but perhaps not that surprising.   I am not much good at distinguishing between subspecies of giraffes;  I wonder if all humans look the same to giraffes.

If that is all AnalSpec was saying I'd say he had a valid point, but in post #34 he wrote:

For example, a race with an average low I.Q. doesn't belong in high I.Q. professions, such as law or university research.

What can one say?   What on earth does the average of a person's race have to do with what professions should be open to them?   Note:  not their personal genetic merits; their average of the race.  The racist doesn't see individuals - they only see faceless representives of a race.  

It seems clear that AS is trying to smuggle racism in by the back door by feigning academic detachment and objectivity. I am gratified that it doesn't seem to be fooling too many people.






#74
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@keithprosser
I am gratified that it doesn't seem to be fooling too many people.
It isn't. And I will make it my burden to introduce him to new posters whenever he posits his vileness.

Keith is usually a much better poster than this, but his brain switches off, when it comes to discussion of race.
If his brain was off, you could have excused him. But he implies his brain was on (we assume he has one) You were correct to hold him to his vile beliefs. He is free to be a racist, but he will not be one surreptitiously.
#75
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
I don't think his hand is sore enough from patting his own back.
#76
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Or he's sobered up and is ashamed of insulting my mom. One can never know with these Klan types.
#77
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre

Topic's author
#78
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
FST is an objective measure of the 'genetic distance' between populations.   The FST between widely separated human populations (Germans and Polynesians, say) is as great or greater than the FST between many zoological subspecies.   I think that is mildly interesting,but perhaps not that surprising. 
Yeah "mildly interesting", in that in blew a gaping hole in your 'more variation within than between' meme.

If that is all AnalSpec was saying I'd say he had a valid point.
You're not acknowledging the gravity of my argument. If humans are sufficiently genetically diversified to greater subspecies, then a whole host of less diversified subspecies (from other species) now exist in hypocrisy. 

What can one say?   What on earth does the average of a person's race have to do with what professions should be open to them?   Note:  not their personal genetic merits; their average of the race.  The racist doesn't see individuals - they only see faceless representives of a race.  

It seems clear that AS is trying to smuggle racism in by the back door by feigning academic detachment and objectivity. I am gratified that it doesn't seem to be fooling too many people.
Again, this doesn't belong in this thread.

Again, if you want to discuss it, then create a different thread.

Again, I will not be discussing this here.


Topic's author
#79
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Paul
Now what?

#80
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Again, this doesn't belong in this thread.

you wrote

For example, a race with an average low I.Q. doesn't belong in high I.Q. professions, such as law or university research.
in post #34 of this thread, creep.



#81
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Is your thread motivated by racism?
Topic's author
#82
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Paul