Two things, all of these people do not share the same definition of race. While some believe it falls on continental grounds, others like Coyne believe there are up to 30 races and others believe race is determined by having traits not found in other populations. Not really helpful when trying to define something on biological grounds. The second thing is that the "one drop" rule was found amongst some of the definitions of race found in the wiki link shared by another poster in this thread.
So now you're tacitly admitting that race realists don't have "one drop" conception of race, and are changing the subject to a new fallacy. https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Argume...ence_of_races#Impossibility_of_counting_races Race deniers tend to cycle through these fallacies in an endless loop. Do you really not understand that categories subdivide and that you can look at similarity based categories at both the continental and subcontinental level? You can see continental and subcontinental clusters here: http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TR8ox_MI6qI/AAAAAAAADIE/zEcyBpR0U8s/s1600/MDS1600.png No level of analysis is "more correct" any more than the mammal category is more correct than the canine category or vice versa. You even bring up Coyne to apparently support you who said right in the quote above "it’s a subjective exercise to say how many races there are". What is your thought here? Have you not read Darwin about groups within groups and the spectrum of differences from genus to species to subspecies right through to individual differences? Presumably you're referring to: https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races#Singular-trait_Fallacy So I guess the problem is just one of reading comprehension. What fallacy will you bring up next? I most likely won't bother responding to it.
The point was the way race is used is "colloquial." And that "colloquial" use includes the "one drop rule." This is why asking race realists what the races are stumps them. They can tell us what their own personal definition of race is, but they cannot tell us what those races are and the traits that define those races. Even the race realist knows that there would be an incredible amount of exceptions when trying to use the social definitions of race as grounds for defining them biologically. So, instead, the race realists avoids the challenge and instead, substitutes every other deflection for an appropriate response. Last thing, if you are unable to defend your point of view, don't attack me for it. Instead, ponder over why you couldn't adequately respond to the challenge and perhaps you'll change your mind over certain aspects of your ideology, if not drop the whole belief altogether.
Can be. But race realists don't use the colloquial/one-drop definition, they consider hybrids as in between, not part of one cluster. I just gave you my definition, and about ten matching definitions from prominent race realists, where race is defined by ancestral or genomic similarity. Are you closing your eyes and pretending it's not there? "Their own personal definition" is the definition they support. Absolutely they can tell you what those races are. Did you even ask? We have Caucasoid clusters, Negroid clusters, then clusters within clusters, hybrids scattering between. The "trait", for the fourth time, is ancestral or genomic similarity. Not a single trait like skin color or something. All of your posts are just one extended strawman where you make up what your imaginary opponent is saying, or failing to achieve. They don't use "the social definitions", whatever you mean by that, if those definitions aren't ancestral or genomic similarity. No, I quite clearly answered your "challenge" and defined race by ancestral or genomic similarity. Sorry if that's kind of a fail for your thread. LOL
race 1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared bythe group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in partbecause there is more genetic variation within groups than between them. 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographicdistribution: the Celtic race. 3. A genealogical line; a lineage. 4. Humans considered as a group. 5. Biology a. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the samespecies in certain heritable traits: an island race of birds. b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals. 6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Racial+Groups Racial characteristics. Race in general.. Race demographics and statistics. Individuals in a particular 'race'. Who are the 'racists' referring to? Do they feel/find themselves as 'racists' or do others give them the term 'racists'? Keep to the 'good' in your personal life, keep your self away from the 'bad' in life and all should be okay, right? It might be better to keep/hold onto the righteousness that you already have than to seek to modify or add or subtract to it without True knowledge.
That's known as Lewontin's fallacy and it's normal among subspecies for there to be more genetic variation within groups than between them. Most genetic variation is neutral or junk anyway.
But most definitely, you are not not intelligent. You are wise and smart. Thank you for your input and opinion. Why do I say this? Because... after reading some other posts, i see how the disagreeing of mental thoughts and opinions can lead to arguments and fights which cause more harm than good. One person has this idea but the other uses more of a scientific approach to define certain things. Still, the main point is that not many want to see others be put down but rather lifted higher. And if a person does not know the 'definitions' of certain things, talking about a 'false definition' can lead to a very circular talk. The 'definition' should first be put out and then the discussion can go from there. What is a racist? What is a realist? Rather than assume that the other knows 'your' definitions to 'racists' and 'realist', being sure that the other does can lead to more fruitful discussions. And if a person is unsure of a definition, that person can always put that word in ' ', single quotes or double quotes or some other bracket so that the reader can also understand that those words are questionable. Rather than assume that the other knows 'your' definitions to 'racists' and 'realist', being sure that the other does can lead to more fruitful discussions. I do not know your definition of 'where you arrive those definitions from'. And I am unsure as to what the non individual definitions of 'racists' and 'realist' is/are either, if there is such a thing. Racists and Realists seem more like 'philosophical' words than 'useful' words. If i was a racist, would that mean that every other person in the race I belong to are racists also? if i thought my race was superior to another race or if I thought another race was inferior to my race, do all the other persons in my race also have the same ideas and feelings?
You FABRICATED/BS-ed up another number. You just can't accurately characterize without LOSING Again. If Only one method (which he/others do Not use alone), Two or three or Four will get you Much higher than 85%. ie, a second "over 80%" Method with get you to 96%+ (eating up 80% of the 20% doubt). A third over 99%, etc. Another WHIFF/Fail. "who cares" means you CANNOT Answer Wright pointed out the UNdebatable fact we can tell (the three major continental Races) a Chinese/East Asian from a Euro/Brit, from a sub-Saharan/West African with 100% ACCURACY. (aka, Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid) You cannot the debate that fact. YOU LOST. So you you say/try/WHIFF with "who cares". He is perhaps the Country's foremost expert on Evo/Genetics and author of the Standard Text "Speciation." He says, and explains, why there Are human Races. Against this we have LOFL.... YOU! In your case, I thought it would help as you deny both logical argument and Credible Sources. But really, it was short hand for everyone else. Saves alot of time. Race, after all, is about being able to consistently tell groups apart. And one easily can with any amount of each of those Two, because of the sets of features that make Race. False Repeated 'Disingenuity' (and worse), debunked above. That's 0-fer-4 Twice in a row. Disingenuously Fabricated numbers AGAIN. Now "85%" "Who cares about Wright"! "What about Coyne?" These are just obnoxious and juvenile non-debate/gratuitous last-wording prefixes to nowhere. You lost. # 696, #697, #698, #699. Bonus! 5. Then of course there are Genetic Tests (Saliva, Blood, other organic material) to help anyone (including perhaps my Anthroplogist above) Verify Race with stupendous accuracy. That's right. The same ones that are used commercially will tell you what Race/percent of each Race you are. More empty "who cares" last-wording will no doubt follow You are not debatable because you have No facts, and are insincere (and that's the nice word) in your gratuitous 'replies'. `
What I am talking about (or challenging) is in the opening post of this thread, but at least you finally provided the following. Per Splash Master these are the races: Caucasoid clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) Negroid clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) clusters within clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) hybrids scattering between: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait)
Thank you for this post. To the bolded, this is one reason why I have asked race realists to define what the races are. My definition of race is almost the same as the current sociopolitical groups ("black", "white", "Asian", "mixed", "other"). I know that over time the social definitions for these groups have changed. I also know that different countries have different definitions for the same terms of race. Lastly, I realize scientist cannot define traits exclusive to any of these groups warranting their own distinct group, so I accept that race as I know it does not follow a biological basis. So when someone claims that race has a biological basis, I know they can't be using the same definition of race that I'm using. ITT, racist and realist aren't conflated. A race realist is simply a person who believes race has a biological basis and are not just social constructs. I will say that they aren't mutually exclusive and leave it at that.
The fact is we are following different definitions of race. My definition is almost the same as the sociopolitical one. You OTOH believe race has a biological basis. When you say <insert race here> or <insert another race here> they are going to mean something different than the simple sociopolitical definitions I'm using. You are throwing a tantrum because you know what it will lead to when you finally confront your definition of race. With the amount of exceptions to your definition, you'll have to acknowledge that what you believe in is full of crap.
You seem to be reduced to repeating yourself ad nauseam. Let me ask you a question. How do you think other taxa in biology are defined?
It's because instead of getting direct answers to the challenge I presented to race realists, I'm getting all sorts of deflections. Getting an appropriate response is like pulling teeth. And I'm ignoring your question. The sort of definitions provided so far ITT do not qualify a comparison to scientific classification because some of the definitions provided are socially defined (Brazilian White, Brazilian Black, Brazilian Indian, US Black, US Mixed, US Indian). Anyway, this is the best put forth so far: White - skeletal remains different from the other races Black - skeletal remains different from the other races American Indian - skeletal remains different from the other races Other - skeletal remains different from the other races Englishman - easily distinguished from West Africans and Chinese (per wikipedia link) West Africans -easily distinguished from Chinese and Englishman (per wikipedia link) Chinese - easily distinguished from West Africans and Englishman (per wikipedia link) East Asians - light skinned (per wikipedia link) Brazilian White - anyone who is perceived to be and identify as white (per wikipedia link) Brazilian Black - average 50% Sub Saharan African, 37% European, and 13% AmeriIndian (per wikipedia link) Brazilian Indian - Indigenous Brazilian natives can be of a racial mix from non-Brazilian Indians (per wikipedia link) US Black - Political assumption that regardless of appearance, one has a drop of "Black blood" or known ancestry (per wikipedia link) US White - Americans who are descendants from any of the white racial groups of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa (per wikipedia link) US Mixed - Belonging to more than one race (per wikipedia link) US Indian - Indigenous people associated with certain tribes and not "too white" unless formally adopted by male member (per wikipedia link) Caucasoid clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) Negroid clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) clusters within clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) hybrids scattering between: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait)
LOL. So you have no clue how biological taxa are actually defined, you just know race isn't one. Carry on chief.
He's Not "wise and smart", he's evasive and insincere. He seeks to ambiguate, and indeed immediately 'above'/in his last, seeks to Ignore/dismiss the real and scientific definition of Race (see my post #3 among others for real def) so he can foist the misinformed Colloquial/social uses and then refute those Strawmen! He admittedly cannot/will not engage on a sincere scientific bio/"taxa" debate in the exchange immediate preceding this post. He doesn't know it, and can't discuss it. He prefers ambiguating by comparing the Colloquia/social 'Brazilian' Bikini Wax... As to your points. Basically, a "Racist" is a Realist (aka Racialist) with Malice. One need not use the Loaded 'superior' and 'inferior', (or treat people differently), but obviously (I hope) it is evident that because of their separate geographic evolutions/adaptations, groups have different relative 'advantages and disadvantages.' The looming crisis in human genetics Nov 13th 2009 Premium content | Economist.com Now that is "wise". `
The problem here is that you're confusing three different things 1) Social definitions of race 2) Biological definitions of race 3) The methods used to infer the categorisation Skull traits etc. are used to infer ancestry. There are various methods. Genomics is effectively 100% accurate. No measurement or inference in science is ever assumed to be 100% accurate. I could make a parody of your argument here Colloquial Dolphins are fish Scientific Dolphins are mammals Oh so which is it? Different animals don't exist. Don't discriminate between tuna and dolphins at lunch time.
Couple things: The listed aren't my definitions. This is just a compilation of definitions for all the races I pulled from others, including you, in this thread. What I've been looking for since the 1st post is what the races are and the traits that define them. Something like this: Race A are those with blood type A. Race A is defined by only having the A antigen on red cells and B antibody in the plasma. If you are finding colloquial definitions among the list, it's because you guys are providing them.
You're still confused. "Skeletal remains" for example isn't a definition. It's one method of inferring shared ancestry, which is the definition. They're defined by shared ancestry or whole genome similarity. Not individual traits or single genes. Do I have to write this one million times? You're looking for a strawman definition (one which is extremely common in the fake news media, e.g. Susan Goldberg's National Geographic). But you can't ask your opponent to provide you a strawman. You have to make it up when he's not there. Where did anybody "provide" the one drop rule as a definition? It happens to be mentioned somewhere on the same website therefore your opponent endorses it? That's a rather egregious method of strawmanning isn't it?
a. So stop writing the same thing over and over. I took your input for what the races are and their definitions already. b. Skeletal remains was an answer provided by another racial realist. It being an inappropriate response isn't my problem. This thread sure as heck isn't about methods for determining races, just the actual races and the definitions. All these odd deflections will be treated as responses to the challenge until concessions are made. c. The "one drop rule" was among one of the definitions for one of the races provided in a link by another race realist in this thread.
DarkSkies keeps repeating these Double Talking/MIScharacterizations that NO ONE here has advocated, but might have been mentioned in My Wiki Link? (as a misnomer or not. It doesn't matter. It's Dishonest to claim some here 'brought it up'.) But I have made the definition Race absolutely Clear in many posts. And DarkSkies has thrown in the towel debating me. His wings pinned to the paper like so many specimen butterflies. I have given the biological/taxonomic definition of race. And indeed example of a Forensic anthropolgist using it successfully.. and in court. Though DarkSkies tried to dishonestly Fudge that too. Twice. His BS OP has been Defeated. `
You failed so hard and it's sad you don't have the integrity to admit that and just keep bashing your strawman ad nauseam, even after it's been carefully explained why it's a strawman, you still accuse your opponents of holding views you know they don't hold. Personally I find that kind of behaviour stomach turning. We're done here.
Put me on ignore or something. Geez, I put your definitions on the list and you are still crying about some straw man. A "straw man" that will be addressed in the next post.
Also, MRI's: Scientific wonder or tool of the Alt right? Evidence for bias of genetic ancestry in resting state functional MRI
