One more time: Racism exists. But there is no such thing as "Race"

I guess you totally missed the point...

 

If you want to discuss with somebody that a "candle" is not "a four legged animal that goes 'mooo'", you can go right ahead. I'm not interested. You can waste your time any way you want. But count me out. I don't debate semantics. I debate concepts. And concepts is not what you find in a dictionary.

 

You stated that two terms were... something to the effect of "equivalent" or "similar" or "the same"... That's your statement. And you refused to substantiate it. Asking me to prove you wrong is not substantiation. It's laziness...

 

I presume the meaning of words is as they are defined in the dictionary. If you would like to make your own dictionary and link to it for reference, I would be willing to try to debate with you using your preferred meanings. However, what I can't do is adopt your personal understanding of their meanings without being told what those meanings are. Im not a mind reader.

 

You presume completely wrong!

The meaning of words is what is understood among average speakers who typically use the term. Dictionaries attempt, with varying degrees of success, to explain what that is. The main problem in doing so is not that they don't know, or that they are mistaken. It's the limitations in space allotted.

Only in dead languages is the meaning of a word what is defined in a dictionary.

 

Where are these "new schools" you talk of?

 

Go to Wikipedia and type “speciation”. The biggest problem is that there is no universal, technical definition of species. I’m OK if bounds are set by breeding capability. But if that’s not the current boundary, then it opens the door to exploration of this possibility.

 

I'm not 'average'. So how shall we communicate, if not by the official definition of terms?

(ffs, I'm pretty sure I had this same conversation with my crazy ex...)

 

Outside of NASCAR there is only ONE race, the Human race. Now the Human race consists of various different breeds but at the root level we are all part of the Human race. Think of canines and the various breeds of dogs that comprise the species. They are all dogs are they not? The breeds may be different but they are still all dogs.

I guess my point is that we are more alike than not and that all human breeds will have their share of jerkoffs. But unlike dogs we just cannot put the crazy ones down.

 

Dammed shame that.

 

David Reich, America's best geneticist, argues that many human traits are influenced by genetic variations and these traits will differ on average across human populations. These scientists who deny the genetic basis of race are anti-scientific and absurd. But race is a totally inadequate way of characterizing diverse humankind because it is based on backward science that is now obsolete. With the advancement of human genetics in the last few decades, we can better understand human diversity at the DNA level.

 

It's a shame when people hide behind sophist distinctions and avoid the underlying issue.
Bigotry, prejudice and intolerance are always the same, no matter how people try to spin them. Race is just one trigger for such people.

 

"Racism exists" without any proof. If there is no proof then how can it exist?

 

If you had read the study you posted, you would already know the answer to that.

Quite an ironic request for someone who claims...

Semantics seems to be exactly what this thread is about.

 

That is the current boundary. No need to worry.

 

First of all, you need to give me credit for resisting the temptation to give in to the pun you left yourself open for there

Second, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you walk around with a dictionary under your arm because you wouldn't be able to communicate otherwise?

You have a profession or some activity in which you are more knowledgeable than most of your peers (cars, guns, bank telling, farming, rocket science.... something). Let me assure you one thing: in that topic (or those topics) you are also more knowledgeable than the dictionary. Do this: look up some of the terms you use that you are profoundly knowledgeable about. See if you find those definitions satisfactory. I am willing to bet anything that some of the most "technical" terms (the terms most used among people who are knowledgeable on... whatever it is) you will find quite lacking.

Some of the brightest people in history were crazy. You might not want to live with them, but you should pay attention to what they say.

 

No, what Im saying is not everyone will have the exact same common understanding of a word that has a complex meaning, and my understanding tends to differ more than that of others. When a difference becomes suspect I cede to the meaning in the dictionary in the interest of expediting communication (i figure thats what the dictionary is for, after all). If you don't like the dictionary's definition, thats fine, but you're going to have to define your terms for me because we obviously have very different perspectives and likely very different understanding of certain concepts, like morality and ethics.

So how bout instead of telling me that the dictionary definition of morals is wrong and I should know what alternate meaning you're using, just tell me how you define morality and we can continue on that basis. But please do be precise, because I think this whole 'alternate meanings' thing is why it seems like you contradict yourself so much and I'd like to avoid that.

 

Yep! The answer to that is most definitely there. The answer is that you made it up.

It's also here in this and all those posts you've sent with your "you-look-it-up" excuse. If you had an answer you'd be all over it rubbing it in my face at every opportunity. The fact that you're not proves my case.

Thanks for playing....

 

This thread reached the bizarre stage a long time ago.

 

Then you don't communicate. Again: do you walk around with a dictionary under your arm to pull out every time you have a conversation?

If we disagree on the meaning of the word "table", I don't care. I'll be happy to use yours. I have no vested interest in the meaning of words.

But you didn't tell us the result of the experiment I proposed.

I have done that many times in this forum. But it has nothing to do with this thread.

Here is one of those times.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...es-health-care.554318/page-54#post-1070534637

 

Let's see if you finally explained how, with cited reliable evidence, ethnicity, as opposed to race, is a social construct by definition and how that would not make affirmative action moot if it were the basis thereof and thus allowing me to sincerely consider you to at least be a quasi-intellectual who backs up their points in the argument only after they've lost it, having been given plenty of opportunity to do so while still in the argument.

No, nope, still have not backed up your points, even after you've already lost.

So you get nothing. You lose! Good day, sir!

 

I rubbed it in your face on post #70, and you've been unhinged ever since. Should I keep rubbing it in your face or what?

 

Does that mean you think you can finally make an argument now? And not the "you-look-up-my-arguments-for-me" excuse you've been using throughout the thread?

If that's the case... go for it. Let's see you finally make a clear well-reasoned argument.

Otherwise, don't bother...

 

I'm going to do you a favor, and that's summarize quickly the paper you posted since it's clear you never read it, or you wouldn't be asking these questions. All I did was mention the paper's argument about eco-types, and you went ballistic. I'm guessing you never heard of that term until I brought it up.

First, ecotypes are referring to adaptions made as a species moves into new ecological niches and the species adapts to it's new environment. Since you are obsessed with skin color, even though that's only one adaptation and not even that important in the grand scheme of things, I'll use it as an example so you can understand it.

Lighter skin is an adaptation made at higher latitudes that favor Vitamin D, which is important where daylight may be scarce. North Asians are light skinned as are North Europeans, so by the paper's standards, they are (for this one mutation) the same ecotype, Even though the mutation for lighter skin are different mutations and are not related to each other.

That's how it's like race, it's similar adaptations to a local environment. How it's not like race is it's independent of common ancestry. The genetic separation between Africans and non Africans from approximately 60,000 years isn't relevant for ecotypes, and someone could classify Australian aborigines and Africans as the same ecotype even though Aborigines are no more closely related to Africans than Asians or Europeans.

If you would actually read the post you linked you would save a lot of time and and not look like such an idiot to virtually everyone in this thread. Just a helpful time saver for next time you want to post on something you have no intention of educating yourself about.

 

That's for sure, but it's upped the entertainment value.

Not for the OP but for everyone else.