Stevie Wonder

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Neither of the 2 above links about race being link to ancestry. You are providing research intended for other purposes is hopes of anecdotally inferring a point. Please, provided something in context to the discussing.

Race is defined by ancestry. Is always has been. Shakespeare used the word race to refer to lines of descent. Darwin explicitly defined the word race by shared genealogy. Anybody using an ancestry concept is using a race concept. It's just another word for the same thing.

You can say they don't use the word race and pretend they're using a different concept. But you'd be wrong. 

This is how scholars who use the word race define it.

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Race#Definition_of_race

By ancestry.

You're just playing a silly semantic game. How do you define the word race? Some other way? Well then that's just you and you're not using words according to their common definition. Maybe you define race by "skin color" or something. Fine. Please bear in mind when I use the word race I mean shared ancestry. We're done here.

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Cool, can you provide a link outlining your specific definition and how it applies to race so we may review it and understand specifically what you are trying to say?

I already did. You ignored it.

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No. I didn't ask you to  say if we had the same mother (That was your strawman) - I asked you to say if, at some point far back in time, our ancestors- at that time- must have been the same.

What was to be shown was the falsehood of my assertion that, if we went back far enough, we all have the same set of ancestors and thus your definition of race- based on ancestry- is unworkable.

I'm off to bed now so you have plenty of time to think about it.

See if you can come up with something better than three letters of trolling.

If you go back far enough all living things have common ancestors. That doesn't mean they have the same ancestors. Ancestry based classifications aren't based on ancestors at point X "far back enough". They're based on the totality of ancestry. Please stay in bed and do not waste my time any further with your absurd posts.

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No.

QED

Just now, John Cuthber said:

That's not a scientifically valid point.

You seem unable to do better than to say it's a laugh or stupid, or whatever.

But you can't actually show that it's wrong, can you?

 

Either prove that your ancestors differ from mine, or accept that your definition is useless.

Do we have the same mother?

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Your concept claims that race is more than just a social construct. That is not something science uniformly supports. So it isn't simple. I would like research that outlines/supports your position. Not merely you just stating something as fact. 

Yes I linked some. You ignored it.

Really the quality of discussion here is abysmal and beneath me.

Cheers.

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So the Chinese bloke and I had- necessarily- the same set of ancestors.

LMAO

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Which is why I have asked you for information outlines specifically what you mean. Sadly you refuse to provide it.

I don't understand what an "information outline" is. I gave you a simple definition, around 20 times. If you can't wrap your head around simple concepts like some things sharing more ancestors versus other things there is not much I can do about that.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Since the actual answer is "yes"- that's why both use DNA as their genetic material- it's clear that you don't even science.

All humans have at least one common ancestor- mitochondrial Eve.

So, if the definition of race is "shared ancestry" then all humans are (as I pointed out) part of the same race.

Having some common ancestors doesn't mean you have "the same ancestors". All living things have common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". How stupid.

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The "prediction" you say you can make from the knowledge that someone is "Chinese" was that they have black hair.

OK, if I tell you that an animal is a great ape (Hominidae), what can you tell me about that animal's hair colour?

(Here's a hint- if it's not an orangutan, it's almost bound to be black haired)

So, your "race" is no more use than the Family, and yet you are hoping to use it to subdivide a single species.

You could also predict they have epicanthic folds and EDAR 370A. I could go on.

Quote

Well, yes- sort of (though it's not very specific).
Now, tell me where in science they use the concept "looks like they are from China (or thereabouts)"?
 Also, I already asked you this.

How do you define "race"?

By ancestry. I wrote it in my last post. I've written it about 20 times. Do you have a defective memory?

Quote

We still all have the same ancestors, notably

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

so that's still a useless definition.

LOL. Organisms share more or less ancestry. Do amoebae have the same ancestors as snakes? No, they have some different ancestors among some common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". Do you have "the same ancestors" as your cousin? You just don't make any sense.

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I would like to read some research you consider good. It will put of the same page looking at the exact same info.  

I think I'm really done talking to you.

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Neither of these outline race. You are arguing that race is more than a social construct. Can you please support that with research that addresses such?

Race is defined by shared ancestry. That's how Darwin defined it. So it's exactly the same as the Darwinian race concept.

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Cool, can you link some research?

You're unaware of any research which uses terms like "European ancestry"?

https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/short-telomere-length-is-associated-with-impaired-cognitive-perfo

https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/825521

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Rather than just continuing this game of demanding evidence of your preference from others how about you just provide some of your own? I have supplied peer reviewed research. You don't agreed with it and that is your prerogative. How about you go ahead  provide whatever proof it is you have that show race is a true biologically relevant thing in humans. Imagine how much easier that would be than just demanding answers from other. So for all you have attempted to cite is Kant, Dawrin, and Blumenbach all of whom used outdated methods. New doesn't equal better in but genetics is a superior method of determining species and copious amounts of information has been learn since there time. I think everyone in this discussion have asked you to going ahead and lay out your case yet you just respond with sarcasm and out of context questions which apparently cannot be answer to you satisfaction. Please, go ahead and make your case. What is your evidence? 

Lol what? I've repeatedly defined race by shared ancestry, just like other taxa. I'm just using standard biology. It allows one to make group associated predictions, and so it's a valid concept.

You're the one spewing nonsense about "genetic variation within versus between groups" and gigantic copy pastes as if that somehow contradicts what I'm saying. Why shouldn't I ask you to explain how that's relevant? It was satisfying to see you couldn't. Just fake science. Would you have flipped out about "genetic variation between groups" if I'd mentioned a subspecies of blackbird (who have subspecies between group variation down to 1%)? Blatant political fake science.

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, you can find copious peer-reviewed literature, courses and text books on taxonomy, the Linnaean system, cladistics, etc. If you look up most organisms on Wikipedia for example, you will find information on the species, genus, family, order, kingdom, etc. 

Is there the same level of scientific documentation on how to classify people by race?

I think the answer is no (but am open to correction) which suggests it is not a [useful] biological category. (Note, there is no meaningful distinction between a useful category and a biological category, because biological categories only exist in as far as they are useful.)

Well obviously there are million of studies that use the race concept to this day using terms like "European ancestry". Crack a genetics journal.

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

Really? There are Chinese people who look Middle Eastern, who look Mongolian, or Tibetan, or like Han Chinese or ... And of course, there are Chinese people who look like Northern Europeans or Afro-Carribeans. And ...

That is a bizarrely diverse group to try and stereotype. 

Really? So you would describe Jared Taylor (who was born in Japan) as "looking Japanese"? Or are you playing games? Clearly I meant having a Chinese appearance. Are you too PC to describe people's appearance? Is saying "Chinese looking" a racist hate crime now? I'm never sure what's new. I lived in China for 2 years and Korea for 5, so I can tell them apart. How about you?

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

Really? I mean, Really?? Time for the ignore list, I guess.

You get all "OMG I can't even" when people point out anti-White racism? Why is that? But no, feel free to ignore me. I'll happily do the same.

40 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Subspecies come in lots of forms and there  different ways to study them. The 2 cited below are ones you have reference genetic differentiation and ancestry. I recommend reading the link through prior to another reply where you insist your pertinent questions aren't being addressed.

I've already read it. It's Templeton. He's again applying "variation within groups" in the context of denying human races. I asked you to find some cases where this argument is made to test the validity of non-human subspecies, i.e. this being applied in biology outside the context of denying human race. Like show me a paper doing an Fst on some subspecies of worm and then claiming it's not a subspecies because it's under some arbitrary value, with no reference to human races.

Quote

One commonly used threshold is that two populations with sharp boundaries are considered to be different races if 25% or more of the genetic variability that they collectively share is found as between population differences (Smith, et al., 1997).

Templeton fabricates the 25% rule here. The rule referenced in Smith refers to the 75% rule which is for morphological identification reliability in hybridisation zones. It has nothing to do with Fst. Smith made up the "25% Fst" to deny race. It is used nowhere else in biology. Find it being used or referenced anywhere in paper that are not concerned with denying human race. So this is just more fake science.

Here's what Smith actually said:

Quote

“The non-discrete nature of subspecies is evident from their definition as geographic segments of any given gonochoristic (bisexually reproducing) species differing from each other to a reasonably practical degree (e.g., at least 70-75%), but to less than totality. All subspecies are allopatric (either dichopatric [with non-contiguous ranges] or parapatric [with contiguous ranges], except for cases of circular overlap with sympatry); sympatry is conclusive evidence (except for cases of circular overlap) of allospecificity (separate specific status). Parapatric subspecies interbreed and exhibit intergradation in contact zones, but such taxa maintain the required level of distinction in one or more characters outside of those zones. Dichopatric populations are regarded as subspecies if they fail to exhibit full differentiation (i.e., exhibit overlap in variation of their differentiae up to 25-30%), even in the absence of contact (overlap exceeding 25-30% does not qualify for taxonomic recognition of either dichopatric populations or of parapatric populations ….

…..The use of multivariate statistical procedures can provide approaches that are reasonably objective and not dependent on preconceptions about taxonomic membership. Nonetheless, the discriminatory power of such methods depends critically on the quality of the characters being analyzed and, in addition, the adopted standard for level of differentiation required for taxonomic recognition. Multivariate analyses (Thorpe 1987) are useful techniques for substantiation of subspecific validity, with revival of the now generally neglected 75% (or similar) rule (idem:7) (Smith et al., 1997. Subspecies and Classification)

Nothing to do with Fst.

And how do you explain this:

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Interesting that you didn't bother sharing a link to your source (which is basically just another forum), which added to the part you quoted:

"this isn't proof that Goebbels didn't also say the quote in question"

Sure, it's probably paraphrased. The core message and it's application here remain unaffected.

Interesting how it applies to what you are doing isn't it?

I guess defending the on-topic false claims your forum buddies repeat ad nauseam (Lewontin's fallacy, clines) is not possible for you, so you have to resort to false accusations that I am repeating claims while failing to defend them, in order to change the subject

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I see. So using your logic, I can conclude this is probably a Double Secret False Flag. That is, since using chemical weapons on your own people would be too stupid, and therefore fingers would be pointed at the rebels/Israel, we can conclude that the rebels/Israel would never do it either because we would see through their ruse. But Assad knew rebels/Israel would be blamed, and therefore he dropped the chemical weapons himself in order to make his enemies look bad.

Then again, maybe it's a Double Double Secret False Flag, where...

So who do you think did this? And why? Or do you not know?

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If we don't have any evidence either way, then why say "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag"?

Surely you must have some evidence if you are going to make such a claim.

You mean like pushing the idea that "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag."?

Given the circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely zero military advantage to Assad doing this. The only effect would be to make Western nations angry because of the dead children in rebel areas (only in rebel areas) we all see on our TVs 24/7. The circumstantial evidence points strongly towards rebels/Israel. We don't have conclusive evidence either way.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Since you seem to be a big proponent of evidence, will you please provide evidence that indicates this gas attack was a 'false flag'?

We don't have any evidence either way (yet, previous false flag chem attacks have been proven, such as the one proven by MIT). So why assume Assad did it?

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

I guess it's time to Godwin the thread

Quote

I was unable to find anything resembling this quote in either German or English.

The closest quote is one from the Nurenberg rally in 1934:

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing.

 

How ironic.

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

You mean the like the Syrian government helicopter that dropped the barrels on Saturday, the barrels that dispersed a substance which caused people to begin suffocating, foaming at the mouth, and emitting a chlorine odor?

According to who? The Islamists attacking the Syrian government (in line with Israel's destabilisation plan for the Middle East to increase Israeli security see e.g. the invasion of Iraq) who are backed into a corner and about to be captured? Why on Earth would Assad drop chlorine in this situation and attract Western strikes? The only people who benefit are Islamist rebels and Israel, either of which, or both, are more likely culprits.

Quote

I see your tactics, and have seen them before. We'll have to agree to disagree. You believe other actors are the more likely aggressor in these chemical attacks and I see the evidence as part of a clear trend. You wish to sow FUD, and I wish to ignore people like you for being consistently disingenuous.

My tactic of asking for evidence?

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In my experience, people who use the term 'false flag', also tend to use terms like 'we the people', 'marriage is between a man and a woman', and 'thug'. They also seem anxious to defend conspiracy theories, concepts of race, and the idea that gays are abnormal.

Not saying that is you of course. Just sharing an observation.

In my experience people who try to push stories with no evidence to back them up tend to resort to lame ad hominems to distract from their weak position on the issue at hand.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Indeed. Probably 10, actually

While past behavior is not a valid indicator of future performance, there's a history here that would be ignorant to ignore. I'm open to the idea that this was a false flag, but the evidence doesn't support that stance either.

What evidence?

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think it's better to leave it to Israel to give them a whack as it seems rather complicated for NATO at this point. I will say that I was pretty pissed off to read that chemical weapons are being used blatantly and probably with Russian support when you consider what they've just done in the UK.  I was happy to read about the Israeli missile response anyway.

There's literally no evidence either of these attacks were not false flags. In both cases, ask yourself who benefits. Why would Assad use chemical weapons right as he's clearing up the last rebel areas? It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

I suspect a combination of approaches will be required, and none are certain to achieve success.

First, this needs to be a global effort, not directed by US in isolation. Second, we need to strike their planes (basically destroy their entire air force) and setup no fly zones. Third, we need to setup refugee protection so people can be safe while other paths play themselves out. Fourth, we need to put economic pressure on those who have been supporting Assad so they no longer have his back. There are a few to whom this applies, but Russia is obviously a major one. If Putin stops supporting Assad, Assad stops having power. That's really the biggest obstacle I can see. Fifth, if Assad is ousted, a leader with the respect of their people will need to take office and they will need help rebuilding and strengthening a broken country. This will take over a decade, and nobody wants to get into another middle east boondoggle or do "nation building" again so the support is probably lacking. 

Why? Because of a false flag gas attack likely committed by people opposed to Assad? Where is your evidence he did this? Another country around Israel destroyed. How convenient for Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

In short, you've joined with an obvious axe to grind and, regardless of the multiple valid counter points provided, you continue to proceed as if your original assertions have been unchallenged and you keep repeating points already debunked. Instead of addressing reasonable criticisms intelligently, you lash out like a troll and try to make things personal with respondants. Does that help clarify?

This is pure hypocrisy. Disgraceful. It's evident right in the post above yours that this is exactly what my opponents are doing. They assert Lewontin's fallacy and the continuum fallacy, I ask them to contrast that with other species, and they simply repeat the same fallacies without doing that. "Trying to make things personal"? You mean like asking me why I'm getting so emotional (which I'm not) and falsely accusing me of calling posters racists? You mean like what you're doing? Getting personal and failing to address the subject? This is truly disturbing dishonesty and I hope a member of staff can sanction you for this.

On 07/04/2018 at 3:27 PM, Stevie Wonder said:

This seems to be a bit of an appeal to authority without much analysis of the arguments. For example this:

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. 

Is that unique to human races? I didn't see any contrast with divisions in other species.

In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. 

Again does that invalidate divisions in other species?

Also aren't you contradicting yourself by agreeing that race isn't a valid concept then using that concept to make statements about group differences in disease susceptibility?

Right here in post 3. What's going on here? Did you miss this? Did you forget? It seems odd that somebody would have their point questioned and then go on repeating the same point again and again as if nothing had happened. Can you please explain what's going on? Is this the standard of discussion allowed on this board?

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You repeatedly ignore the information. Genetic differences between individuals within the same population and all populations are as great. You have defined race as being ancestry then disregard that that we (Humans) are a continues interbreeding species and all have interconnected ancestry. You are attempting to argue that Blumenbach's measures of skull is the superior genetic research, it is nonsensical. 

No, I've addressed these points ad nauseam and you simply keep repeating yourself and have failed to respond to my request to apply these standards of "variation within groups" and "zones of hybridity" to non-human species. Both of these features are not unique to humans, and are in fact normal among subspecies in other species. They are applied to human races ad hoc. Really at this point you're just chanting "variation within groups" and "clines" like a mantra and completely failing to contrast this with other species. If you did, you would see that these characteristics are normal. 

Lewontin's fallacy, continuum fallacy.

Repeat ad nauseam.