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

I think people get tied up in differences in appearance. Actually most animals look different from others in their species. My wife has pet cats. 3 of them are pitch black yet she can distinguish each of them from a distance. Those differences can be subtle like the length of a tail or obvious like skin or fur color. None of it matters to science.

 

No see what you’re referring to is the P.C. movement within the scientific community which has tried to undermine the concept of race in order to not be offensive and not be accused of being racists as they so often had been in the past, simply because they were talking about science.

As of about 15 years ago we no longer see studies that talk about race, unless it’s about how race doesn’t exist. What we see now are studies talking about “ethnicity”. And the differences between ethnicities. Studies which 20 years ago would have been discussing race. For instance:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004623/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795070/

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ferences_Evidence_from_musculoskeletal_traits

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/rutgers-anthropologist-sets-record-straight-brain-size-and-race

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288563181_Racial_variations_in_different_skulls

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25739558/

How many do you want

 

Well what's the difference between an ecotype and a "race?"

 

Going by your "definition" you could use "deities" and "puny humans".

 

WTF? The word "race" doesn't even appear in that quote.

Thanks for wasting our time

 

In other words, you found nothing wrong with what I said.

 

Yeah, Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask 'em, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer "More, more, more!"

Absolutely not. That's moral relativism.

No. That doesn't cut it at all. I thought we had gone through all this before... hadn't we? But this is waaay too off-topic for this thread.

Spare me the Dictionary Fallacy (Argumentum ad Dictionarium). When I say "by definition" I'm not saying that it's in any of the limited definitions that a dictionary lists in the limited space that they allot to each word. I mean because laws (as well as other similar ethical concepts like "The Commandments", "Swimming Pool Rules", "Ethical codes", "the boss's orders" ...) are part of the ontological nature of ethics.

But again: that is huge subject and completely off-topic here.

 

What's precious about you is, even when painted in a corner, your logic turned against you, you double down, persistent, not conceding ground to anyone. I guess it is a part of your charm.

I said that affirmative action should be null and void, as basing admission standards on race would be moot, as the crux of this thread is that race is nonexistent. Upon understanding this logic, you said that race should not be the basis of affirmative action, ethnicity should. Your implied logic was that ethnicity, as opposed to race, was not socially constructed. When I followed up by citing the American Anthropological Association's position that ethnicity is also socially constructed, you said nothing for a couple of days. You knew you painted yourself in a corner, and did not know how to untie yourself from your twisted logic. So you took a couple of days to ponder, and then, per usual, having to have the last word, you said, basically, "So what?" And then followed that up by saying that "ethnicity, unlike race, is socially constructed by definition." I am not sure how that makes a difference, but perhaps you can cite a credible source that states that ethnicity is socially constructed by definition and how, having that as the basis of affirmative action, would not make affirmative action moot?

 

So when you said 'by definition' you didn't mean it by the definition of definition.......

definition
[ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n]
NOUN

1. a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary

There is no meaningful communication to be had if we're debating using terms that we can't agree on the meaning of... thus the necessity for precise definitions.

 

ONE!

With a quote and your arguments as to why it proves that the concept of race exists in science today.

 

I'll be a proxy for that user and provide a quote from a peer-viewed biological study on the correlation of BMI to race and ethnicity.

"Body mass index (BMI) is now the most widely used measure of adiposity on a global scale. Nevertheless, intense discussion centers on the appropriateness of BMI as a phenotypic marker of adiposity across populations differing in race and ethnicity." (1)

Would you like another quote, or will that suffice?

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968570/

 

You claimed that in the paper they were... I don't even know what... equivalent, aligned, compatible,.... I don't know what word you used. Are you now arguing that they are not different? You can't expect me to argue against a case that you haven't made.

How are they similar (or what freakin' word you used)? You made a statement. Now make the argument to support it.

Or you can retract it.... Or nothing... Up to you. Your argument, your burden.

 

You can't seem to remember your argument from post to post. YOU said that:

So all I asked is what is the difference then between "race" and "ecotype?" It's not my argument that they are different, it's yours, so what's the difference?

 

WTF? Is that an argument? "You're wrong because you didn't answer the same day"?

That's it?

My God! You give yourself waaaay too much importance. But if you don't, who would, right? I'm betting you spent all day reading and re-reading your post believing that I... had even read it.

I could have answered your post easily by pointing out exactly what you admit to at the end of your post.

You: "I am not sure how that makes a difference"​

Exactly! You don't know the difference between "race" and "ethnicity". And the worst part isn't even that you don't know. It's that you don't know what "ethnicity" IS! Because all anybody would need to understand the difference, is to know what the term "ethnicity" means. And I gave you a chance to look it up. But you blew it! This would have gotten you a big fat F on the first High School course on Anthropology. That's not a good sign of... wherever it was you got your High School education. But this is another level. This higher education level. It might be too much over your head.

Now don't embarrass yourself by going on google and looking for a dictionary. These discussions are above that level. Look for a real explanation of what the term means in Anthropology. Remember: these are not High School level debates. You're in a whole new world now.

 

Dictionaries are meant to look up a word when there is confusion regarding the current colloquial meaning of a word. Not as an argument in a serious discussion. We expect a higher debate level than that.

 

Bzzzz! Wrong! It is not race and ethnicity. It's race-ethnicity. . They are Inseparable terms no matter what you put between them.

You won't understand it until you look up what the word ethnicity means (again: in scientific texts... not on a dictionary... work!). After you understand what the word ethnicity means, if you still believe that it's race and ethnicity (as separate terms)... tell us what "race" they are analyzing and show us.

 

What I noticed is that I keep trying to guess what your argument is before you make it. The paper states (and explains) that they are different. You said before you never claimed otherwise. So what is it you claim?

Or have you thought better of it and are no longer in disagreement with the paper?

 

I asked you to explain your logic of how affirmative action would not become moot by replacing one nonexistent thing (race) with another nonexistent thing (ethnicity). You replied back my saying that ethnicity is nonexistent by definition. I asked you to explain why basing affirmative action on ethnicity would not make it moot because it is, as you said, socially constructed by definition. I then asked you to cite reliable sources to back up your claim of ethnicity being socially constructed by definition, to which you replied simply with ad hominen about assumptions about my formal education.

Now don't misunderstand: I have used ad hominem with you, too. I am just as guilty of it. I've called you sunshine and precious. But, sweetie, I've simply sprinkled that in with an actual argument: a premise with cited evidence. You, on the other hand, when asked to explain your position, simply disgorge pure ad hominem, a hallmark of wounded pride. I really feel that you consider yourself an intellectual here, and you don't like it when outsmarted, which you have been in this donnybrook time and again.

 

Where the f... hell did you get the idea that ethnicity doesn't exist??

Again... look up "ethnicity". The longer you stall, the more that ignorance shines through!

And again (for the fourth time): please don't ridicule yourself by looking it up in a dictionary!

 

You are the one that brought up ethnicity. You are the one that said because it is socially constructed by definition, if it was the basis of affirmative action, it would logically make the basis of affirmative action definite. When I asked you to explain why, and when asked to explain with cited sources how ethnicity is by definition socially constructed, you basically said, "No, you look it up!" The onus is on you to make back up your own points, not the other person in the argument. I'll give you one more opportunity to explain, with cited sources, how ethnicity is by definition a social constructor and also explain why, if that was the basis of affirmative action, that would logically make it definite. If you cannot do that, you've lost the argument.

 

There is no meaningful communication to be had if we're debating using terms that we can't agree on the meaning of... thus the necessity for precise definitions.

 

You asked for a "quote and your arguments" proving that race exists in science today. I've done that by using this quote from a peer-viewed article on the correlation of race and ethnicity.

Here is the quote again for the audience.

"Body mass index (BMI) is now the most widely used measure of adiposity on a global scale. Nevertheless, intense discussion centers on the appropriateness of BMI as a phenotypic marker of adiposity across populations differing in race and ethnicity." (1)

You said that it is "not race and ethnicity."

Hmm.

Let's look at the quote again--this time with emphasis.

"Body mass index (BMI) is now the most widely used measure of adiposity on a global scale. Nevertheless, intense discussion centers on the appropriateness of BMI as a phenotypic marker of adiposity across populations differing in race and ethnicity."

No, they said "race and ethnicity." You are clearly wrong. Also, if you'd like, I can provide anthropological evidence that the phrase "race and ethnicity" is used within the anthropological framework.

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968570/

 

Correct. Dictionary definitions are correct to find a meaningful foundation of a word and give it lexical parameters; this way we don't say that the definition of coffee is clock. It provides structure.

 

The hilarious aspect of this is that when somebody says black/asian/white/latino everybody can pretty much identify people of those races. Race is incredibility useful as it allows us to easily categorize people into groups and communicate in an efficient manner. The entire point of social marxism is to muck around with definitions to make communication much more difficult. They have word games for everything. Blacks can use the N word but nobody else can. Every few decades they change the acceptable term for black people and make the previous name a racial slur. They tell us women can have penises. It seems silly and juvenile, but it is not. This manipulation of language from the top down is hideously dangerous and it almost always is a precursor to authoritarianism and barbarity. Jordan Peterson talked about this extensively. It has gotten vastly worse in the past few years.

 

Its a mere annoyance until the 'definition drift' starts getting to the courts. Prime example- the difference between the common meaning of 'regulate' between the late 1700s vs the last 100 years or so has substantially altered how the courts interpret the purpose of govt...