Race

[Andiferous]

JTB: You aren't suggesting that different 'races' on the planet are of a different classification, surely? That we're not all Homo Sapien Sapiens but require new classification?

I've looked up a few different Wiki articles on different European countries, and they have the gall to actually test the percentage of pure 'insert nationality' percentile genes within the nation. This would surely mean I was a Homo Sapien Muttus. I'm sure this is not your meaning so thought I'd double check here...

 

[televator]

As was homo erectus.

hu,·man (hymn)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Anyway if you want to get technical, I'm homo sapiens sapiens. It's a bit more long winded than just "human. " The word is more accurate but my meaning is the same.

Also, if "race" isn't the right word then I'm totally comfortable "species." It's even better, as it totally removes the use of "race" for me. Thanks for the unintended help.

 

[Squawk]

I see the science, or the "meat" of what I said was completely ignored. Oh well. Anyway, your objection is completely based upon nonsense.

We note first of all the preconceived idea that any post in reply to your opening would be an attempted refutation of it. I did not even begin to refute your claims, I find them idiotic and didn't bother. Instead I asked you for clarification, and then for explanation. But I digress, spending my time noting a lack of reading comprehension isn't the purpose of this post. Exposing BS is. So, without further ado.

Do you really think it's possible for organisms unquestionably completely biological to escape their biology? Through what means? Technology?

Yes, absolutely. Maybe not yet, but then technology evolves. Do you perceive a limit on the achievements of human engineering, on ingenuity? Do you perceive some ceiling to accomplishment that will prevent humanity from one day possessing the ability to bend nature to it's will?

Perhaps this is ultimately beyond the bounds of humanity, perhaps our cognitive capacity is not sufficient to outwit biology. However, you didn't actually limit this to humanity, you limited it simply to biological organisms, which gives us scope for any evolved organism anywhere in the Universe, and I would posit that intelligence sufficient to overcome biology (in the sense of complete understanding and control) is essentially a given. It's somewhat analogous to AI.

If a person with huntington's disease reproduces because of our present-day obsession with equal rights, what we are essentially doing is willfully surrendering our biological integrity as a species (by never weeding out maladaptive genes) in favour of "equal rights."

And you propose to know which traits evolution will favour how, precisely? Are you going to kill all with sickle cell anemia? How about those with a surplus or deficit of melonin in the skin? Lets propose a hypothetical ELE in the next 10 years, something completely unexpected. Could you explain to me how reducing the genetic diversity of humanity would aid humanities survival? You wish to force us into a genetic bottleneck?

Having argued that biological organisms cannot outwit nature, you are now proposing that you have knowledge of natural selection sufficient to state which traits, which genetic characteristics, will best equip humanity for the future. In effect, you are arguing that not only do you know what's best for humanity now, but that you also know what future events will occur and how best to prepare humanity for it.

Why do you reject the notion that emotional attachment is an evolved trait? Morality can be observed in any number of species, definitely not restricted to humans, so you are essentially advocating that evolutionary adaptations should be ignored when they don't conform to your preconceived notions of the perfect human being. In short, you are arguing for eugenics.

Why are a bunch of atheists and skeptics defending this conception of secularized Christian morality? I'd posit that it's an emotional reaction to the way you were raised.

It would seem the null hypothesis is once again brought to the fore. Actually, we don't even get that far, since the morality that I defend is based on philosophy rather than Christianity, and philosophy predates Christianity substantially. Consider your contention irrelevent.

Perhaps there can be some solace in the fact that the freedoms allowed by equality can lend themselves to technological advances which could counter our disrespect for our biological limitations.

Well holy shit, you actually got something just about right, if we ignore the basic premise in that statement.

 

[Andiferous]

This may just all come down to "what colour eyes do you have, and what does this say about you?"

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This may just all come down to "what colour eyes do you have, and what does this say about you?"

More like "what color eyes do you have, and how can I use it as an excuse to demean and/or exploit you?"

Throughout history factions have 'demonised' their enemies by likening them to animals. As a broad example, the Nazi propoganda likened Jews and other undesirables to 'rats,' rodents and animal species of different kinds, and this somehow excused their treatment of these groups and allowed for lack of conscience. I'm sure the same kind of thing may go on today within war, or even within tense political competition, because it's easier to justify some things when groups are dehumanised, than to kill someone who one can empathise with.

The 'fighting' or 'competition' seems to me more the reason for the demotion of certain people to lower beasts than any real scientific evidence as well (why this pisses a lot of folks off I think). To back up your point in words I better understand.

To know what racism is, what race is, or what motivates it, is only part of solving the problem, and ignoring it tends to make it fester.

AFAIK, race has no solid scientific background. Some physical characteristics sometimes associated with race are considered on a medical level, when dealing with fundamental physiological trends.

The racists we've got in this thread are really obviously devoted to an active agenda, versus simply "keep them 'insert slur here' away from our womens!" in the stereotypical racist style. In this case the motivation seems to be mostly politically driven, racism used in the service of promoting policy. And then like I mentioned earlier with things like climate science, they ignore or misrepresent the real data while also hiring their fellow racists to produce bogus science to justify their amoral, sociopathic viewpoints.

What is racism? It is all in the conclusions about what actions should or shouldn't be taken. If you think that the good life is only for the "master race" of your choice, you're a racist. If you think equality is nonsense because your "master race" is inherently superior to "lesser races" then you're a racist. If you think some lives are more valuable than others, or that superficial genetic differences determine your life's outcomes, you're a racist. And here's the kicker: you NEVER see a racist choose a different "race" from their own to be the superior one, which is how you know it is dishonest nonsense.

 

[Andiferous]

With fewer fighting words than Joe:

And you propose to know which traits evolution will favour how, precisely? Are you going to kill all with sickle cell anemia? How about those with a surplus or deficit of melonin in the skin? Lets propose a hypothetical ELE in the next 10 years, something completely unexpected. Could you explain to me how reducing the genetic diversity of humanity would aid humanities survival? You wish to force us into a genetic bottleneck?

Here Squawk does fairly introduce different trends within immigration. For instance, Sickle Cell Anemia has been shown to more likely to affect people of darker pigmentation (say, black) than lighter pigmentation. People of Mongoloid background have statistically shown a likelihood toward less perspiration than those of caucation background, or those of black background. Most people would say these were traits owed to general environment in evolution (though evolution I use loosely).

Many groups are better suited to certain environments than other groups; and I'm likely to either sweat to death, or die of sun stroke myself. But this neither makes us a different species, nor makes any of us less 'homo sapien sapien.'

In fact, only in the last two years have scientists recognised that Europeans might have Homo Sapien Neanderthal lineage; before that scientists believed Neanderthal a dead end in evolution, characterised by primitive lifestyle and substandard biology. And even now, they only recognise that some Europeans have a fraction of Neanderthal lineage. The physical anthropology argument doesn't cut it for me, in this form. We're all homo sapien sapiens aka. Human Beings.

Distinction of "race" only seems minorly relevant when measuring the size of sweat glands or placement of body fat. Elsewise, we're all just human beings. My family is prone to heart failure and cancer, how about yours?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

With fewer fighting words than Joe:

Is nothing worth fighting for? :roll:

Distinction of "race" only seems minorly relevant when measuring the size of sweat glands or placement of body fat. Elsewise, we're all just human beings. My family is prone to heart failure and cancer, how about yours?

Well, even those distinctions are just sort of nothing in the grand scheme of things. Some of it is environmentally-influenced difference that is related to genetics in only a secondary way. Tiny statistical differences make little real-world difference in most cases.

 

[Andiferous]

We all have our own methods. :roll:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

We all have our own methods. :roll:

Yeah, and yours is to be scolding and condescending to me, in defense of racists. Nice work there.

 

[Andiferous]

Hey, I copy and pasted the smiley.

I love you joe, I just argue as hard as you do.

 

[televator]

We certainly do have our own methods. Is it helping to ridicule the lack of nuance or lack of conviction of one another?

I for one don't mind either approach against the racism. Besides, I seem to like how Sqwak manages to pull off something in the middle so far...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah, well... I'm done with my hijack. Sorry about that.

 

[JTB]

Distinction of "race" only seems minorly relevant when measuring the size of sweat glands or placement of body fat. Elsewise, we're all just human beings. My family is prone to heart failure and cancer, how about yours?

Or ensuring a civilized and safe society.

Fact: accounting for socioeconomic factors, Negroids have the lowest average IQ of the major races and are least able to succeed in education or any work involving cognitive tasks

Fact: accounting for socioeconmic factors, Negroids commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.


They can't help it. With their lower IQs and higher testosterone levels, they have a violent temperament marked by poor self control. We recognize that different animals and even different breeds within the same species (think greyhound versus pit bull) have different natural temperaments and traits which can only be partly overcome or controlled by environment.

Fact: Negroids have more fast-twitch muscle fibers than Whites and Asians, which is why every finalist at the Olympic sprints was Negroid while no Negroid made the finals in the powerlifting events. Negroids evolved to run. the White races (especially the true Nords and Alpines) evolved to specialize more in absolute strength

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ[/Youtube]

 

[JTB]

race has no solid scientific background.

So you're on record saying Jews are liars?

Seven skeletons were successfully tested and five of them had a DNA sequence suggesting they were likely to be members of a single Jewish family.

How'd they know it was a Jewish family?

And how do you explain this?

They sent him DNA swabs from 20 people to see if he could identify their races. He nailed every one.

On a conference call a few weeks later, Frudakis reported his results on their killer. "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian." There was a prolonged silence, followed by a flurry of questions. They all came down to this: Would Frudakis bet his life on his results? Absolutely.

Quickly changing course, the authorities soon turned up the file of Derrick Todd Lee, a 34-year-old black man with an extensive rap sheet for domestic violence, assault, stalking, and peeping. The police got a subpoena, took a cheek swab, and a few days later had an answer: Lee's sample matched DNA collected at the crime scenes.

Frudakis' test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person's origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna

Not only can and do police use DNA to determine a suspect's race, but some private companies offer such tests to the general public (although, like all things on the market, without meaningful oversight, the some companies should be trusted less than others).

Then we have the Journey of Man and the Human Family Tree.

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861

JTB: You aren't suggesting that different 'races' on the planet are of a different classification, surely? That we're not all Homo Sapien Sapiens but require new classification?[/quotes]

Whites and blacks are not the same species. Whites are the result of hybridization between cro magnons (a class of homo sapiens that had already begun to differentiate) and homo neanderthalis. Africans (unless they have been since hybridized in an attempt to improve their stock) contain only the blood of the parent race and have been subject to no dramatic change in evolutionary pressure, leading to minimal adaptations (if any) since originating in Africa.

This would surely mean I was a Homo Sapien Muttus.

You're being dishonest. You know that's not how it works. You're a hybrid, the result of mixing species. The parent stocks still exist.

There are genocidal people out there, however, who would love nothing more than for such hybrids to work tirelessly to breed back into their parent stocks and wipe out the White race.

A more honest set of classifications would see either:
(1) homo africanis originating in africa, homo asiatis developing from them, and homo cro magnus (a specialized breed of homo that had already been subject to strong evolutionary forces by the time they arrived in Europe) merging completely with homo neanderthalis to create a hybrid race that, which further evolutionary pressures, quickly gave rise to homo sapiens

or

(2)homo saiens africanis originating in africa, homo sapiens asiatis developing from them, and homo sapiens cro magnus (a specialized breed of homo sapiens that had already been subject to strong evolutionary forces by the time they arrived in Europe) merging completely with homo sapiens neanderthalis [there is debate over whether Neanderthals were different species or a different subspecies] to create a hybrid race that, which further evolutionary pressures, quickly gave rise to homo sapiens sapiens

There is room to debate whether we are different species or different subspecies/ecotypes. There is, however, no honest argument to be made that we are the same.

 

[Andiferous]

Distinction of "race" only seems minorly relevant when measuring the size of sweat glands or placement of body fat. Elsewise, we're all just human beings. My family is prone to heart failure and cancer, how about yours?

Or ensuring a civilized and safe society.

Fact: accounting for socioeconomic factors, Negroids have the lowest average IQ of the major races and are least able to succeed in education or any work involving cognitive tasks

Fact: accounting for socioeconmic factors, Negroids commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.


They can't help it. With their lower IQs and higher testosterone levels, they have a violent temperament marked by poor self control. We recognize that different animals and even different breeds within the same species (think greyhound versus pit bull) have different natural temperaments and traits which can only be partly overcome or controlled by environment.

Fact: Negroids have more fast-twitch muscle fibers than Whites and Asians, which is why every finalist at the Olympic sprints was Negroid while no Negroid made the finals in the powerlifting events. Negroids evolved to run. the White races (especially the true Nords and Alpines) evolved to specialize more in absolute strength

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ[/Youtube]

1. Lowest IQ where and given which socioeconomic factors?
2. What relevence does IQ have to do with anything? Can you prove the significance of IQ?

 

[kenandkids]

Fact: accounting for socioeconomic factors, Negroids have the lowest average IQ of the major races and are least able to succeed in education or any work involving cognitive tasks

Fact: accounting for socioeconmic factors, Negroids commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

What factors? Was diet included? Poor nutrition has a proven impact on mental capacity.

They can't help it. With their lower IQs and higher testosterone levels, they have a violent temperament marked by poor self control. We recognize that different animals and even different breeds within the same species (think greyhound versus pit bull) have different natural temperaments and traits which can only be partly overcome or controlled by environment.

Wow, old-school racist bullshit! I don't get to see that often anymore.

"We can't trust them niggers! Even the good ones are still violent and bestial, they just control it a little better. Men, you need to watch out for your women and property!"

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Wow, old-school racist bullshit! I don't get to see that often anymore.

Yeah, most racists are much more socially savvy these days. They've come to realize the benefits of hiding their racism behind various less-obviously psychotic language, in order to make sure that there's always some people who will give them breathing room to "make their case". Their "case" is the same KKK bullshit, but usually they take a little while to warm up before burning some crosses.

 

[Andiferous]

race has no solid scientific background.

So you're on record saying Jews are liars?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, here.

Seven skeletons were successfully tested and five of them had a DNA sequence suggesting they were likely to be members of a single Jewish family.

How'd they know it was a Jewish family?

And how do you explain this?

They sent him DNA swabs from 20 people to see if he could identify their races. He nailed every one.

On a conference call a few weeks later, Frudakis reported his results on their killer. "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian." There was a prolonged silence, followed by a flurry of questions. They all came down to this: Would Frudakis bet his life on his results? Absolutely.

Quickly changing course, the authorities soon turned up the file of Derrick Todd Lee, a 34-year-old black man with an extensive rap sheet for domestic violence, assault, stalking, and peeping. The police got a subpoena, took a cheek swab, and a few days later had an answer: Lee's sample matched DNA collected at the crime scenes.

Frudakis' test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person's origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna

Not only can and do police use DNA to determine a suspect's race, but some private companies offer such tests to the general public (although, like all things on the market, without meaningful oversight, the some companies should be trusted less than others).

Then we have the Journey of Man and the Human Family Tree.

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861

JTB: You aren't suggesting that different 'races' on the planet are of a different classification, surely?

That we're not all Homo Sapien Sapiens but require new classification? That chimps don't have 99% of our same DNA?

Whites and blacks are not the same species. Whites are the result of hybridization between cro magnons (a class of homo sapiens that had already begun to differentiate) and homo neanderthalis. Africans (unless they have been since hybridized in an attempt to improve their stock) contain only the blood of the parent race and have been subject to no dramatic change in evolutionary pressure, leading to minimal adaptations (if any) since originating in Africa.

This would surely mean I was a Homo Sapien Muttus.

You're being dishonest. You know that's not how it works. You're a hybrid, the result of mixing species. The parent stocks still exist.

I am a hybrid? I would like to know more about this.

Yes I agree, minimal differences between the emmigrants.

Otherwise, it sounds terrible to be a mixture of homo sapien species. Perhaps I ought to buy some flea powder.

There are genocidal people out there, however, who would love nothing more than for such hybrids to work tirelessly to breed back into their parent stocks and wipe out the White race.

A more honest set of classifications would see either:
(1) homo africanis originating in africa, homo asiatis developing from them, and homo cro magnus (a specialized breed of homo that had already been subject to strong evolutionary forces by the time they arrived in Europe) merging completely with homo neanderthalis to create a hybrid race that, which further evolutionary pressures, quickly gave rise to homo sapiens

or

(2)homo saiens africanis originating in africa, homo sapiens asiatis developing from them, and homo sapiens cro magnus (a specialized breed of homo sapiens that had already been subject to strong evolutionary forces by the time they arrived in Europe) merging completely with homo sapiens neanderthalis [there is debate over whether Neanderthals were different species or a different subspecies] to create a hybrid race that, which further evolutionary pressures, quickly gave rise to homo sapiens sapiens

There is room to debate whether we are different species or different subspecies/ecotypes. There is, however, no honest argument to be made that we are the same.

Not my quotes. Definitely, not my quotes.
Wow.

Austrolopithecus Africanus Afararensis (see moderator) originated tonnes of years ago in Africa as the first known "mitochondrial eve" (theory) popularised by "Lucy" the incomplete skeleton. Various evolutions have come since, and I am not sure that it can be proved that any of these did not fornicate with each other, to eventually arrive at Homo Sapien Sapiens with base in Africa. Homo Sapien Neanderthal we have learned recently, likely came from the same spawn but grew up in Europe, to interbreed with Homo Sapien Sapiens. What are you on about? You're a mutt, too.

 

[kenandkids]

There are genocidal people out there, however, who would love nothing more than for such hybrids to work tirelessly to breed back into their parent stocks and wipe out the White race.

I'm curious, does Tide with bleach work well on white sheets after a rousing lynching or do you prefer standard bleach products?

I must say, it's been a long time since "Those damn Mulattos can't be trusted" was abandoned by nearly every thinking person. Why do you people fear "hybrids" so much?

 

[impiku]

Wow, a rational individual in this lib-fest insanity.