RE albino, you missed the point. On purpose. Yes, if it is known that humans are 99.9% similar, you using "similarity" doesn't mean much.
Explain how. Is it just that I explained how you missed the point, so you automatically accuse me of what you're doing, since you have zero integrity or logic? Explain what phenotypic differences the 0.1% codes for. You must know that right in order to dismiss it? You do know, don't you? What about other subspecies with less differences? Is it only for humans? How much genetic difference must there be to validate a distinction? 1%? 10%?
I literally made up an example to explain something. You seem to be taking the example literally as if I believe in that arbitrary definition of two races. Let it go, I don't believe albino is a race (－‸ლ). It is your job to explain the differences. You can maybe finally complete your "Caucasoid clusters", "Negroid clusters" , then "clusters within clusters", "hybrids scattering between" you started earlier.
No, nobody does. It's possibly the lamest argument I've ever seen. Giving a concept some random definition of your own and then trying the claim the standard definition is therefore meaningless. It's literally insane. You're saying that a non-zero difference should be treated as a zero difference. There's quite obviously nothing to explain here. You're talking patent gibberish.
You're actually stumped. You really can't finish your own classifications ... Hmmmm, let's explore why .... First one you mentioned was "Caucasoid cluster" I'll use wikipedia, since you seem to trust it, and here is what it had to say about the Caucasian race: The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid[1] or Europid)[2] was a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[3] First introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen School of History,[4] the term denoted one of three purported major races of humankind (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid).[5] In biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, over skin tone.[6] Ancient and modern "Caucasoid" populations were thus held to have ranged in complexion from white to dark brown.[7] Since the second half of the 20th century, physical anthropologists have moved away from a typological understanding of human biological diversity towards a genomic and population-based perspective, and have tended to understand “race” as a social classification of humans based on phenotype and ancestry as well as cultural factors, as the concept is also understood in the social sciences.[8] Although Caucasian / Caucasoid and their counterparts Negroid and Mongoloid have been used less frequently as a biological classification in forensic anthropology (where it is sometimes used as a way to identify the ancestry of human remains based on interpretations of osteological measurements), the terms remain in use by some anthropologists.[9] In the United States, the root term Caucasian has also often been used in a different, societal context as a synonym for "white" or "of European ancestry".[10][11] Its usage in American English has been criticized.[12]
I've no idea what point you're trying to make with this copy paste. Can you tell me which fallacy you're changing the subject to now, after being debunked systematically on everything you've said? Here's the list https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races
Found it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race What you have isn't a list. It's an ideology. You're stumped. I rest my case.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Am I supposed to make up your fallacies and argue with myself now? Please tell me you're not making an argument from authority, with Wikipedia as your authority. That article is confused gibberish probably written by first year sociology students. American sociology students.
Actually even though he Cherry Picked Wikipedia... None of it Refutes races/'Caucasian' as a designation. And in fact, mentions George Gill from My post #2. HIS Link continues: ..."According to George W. Gill and other modern forensic anthropologists, physical traits of Caucasoid crania CAN be Distinguished from those of the people from Mongoloid and Negroid racial groups based on the shapes of specific diagnostic anatomical features. They assert that they can identify a Caucasoid skull with an accuracy of up to 95%.[36][37][38][39][40] However, Alan H. Goodman cautions that this precision estimate is often based on methodologies using subsets of samples. He also argues that scientists have a professional and ethical duty to avoid such biological analyses since they could potentially have sociopolitical effects.[41] Variation in craniofacial form between humans has been found to be largely due to differing patterns of Biological Inheritance. Modern cross-analysis of osteological variables and genome-wide SNPs has identified specific genes, which control this craniofacial development. .... [......] [......] In the United States, the term "Caucasoid" is Used in disciplines such as Craniometry, Epidemiology, Forensic Medicine, Forensic Anthropology, and Forensic Archaeology. It is also associated with notions of racial typology.".." So he's lost his own OP theme too many times to count. This just another. `
It's kind of like bopping down a bop doll again and again and every time he pops up again with a new fallacy. It's kind of fun really.
Racial Realists are Leftists in that they (1) are Collectivists and (2) push identity politics and the most ironic part is that they do not even realise it. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me why anyone would put so much emphasis on pigmentation to build their ideal society. As if "non-whites" are the biggest problem of our time.
It is not entitely pathetic since it is quite "natural" in that our species is a very tribalistic one. However, letting haplogroups define one's entire ideology and putting race in the centre of one's Utopia is extremely pathetic.
Well it depends how you define "leftist". It generally means egalitarianism and state enforced wealth equality. So by that definition race realists are not leftists. Racial collectivists are leftists? No, that doesn't seem right. Anyway, who cares. If ideas don't fit into left and right the only thing your proved is that political views are too complex for brainless binary categorisation. Yeah absolutely the replacement of whites by non-whites is the biggest problem of our time. Thinking the only difference is "pigmentation" isn't really worth discussing. Such people are either lying or delusional. Anti-whites who browbeat whites into accepting their own destruction by calling them "racist" are something far worse than simply pathetic.
No, that is exactly what makes them Leftist - They are racial egalitarians in that they believe "all Whites are equal" and they do support an "All White society" enforced by the State. Collectivism is Leftism. What are you talking about? It is not at all a "brainless categorisation", Racial Realism ('White Nationalism') fits very well into what defines Leftism.
YOU are so partisan(IST) you Derailed this thread trying to paint Race Realism to one of the political poles. But in fact, the opposite is true. Liberals, bye and large, are Race deniers 100%. PCers 100% deny there are [real] races, an that there are differences between them. See my post at the top of page 3 anticipating Genetics will confirm race. excerpt: "..we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals... The Foremost tome on Race Denial was by Leftist geneticist Stephen J Gould (Mismeasure of Man) `
NON answer I pointed out You are so Partsian you DERAILED this thread with YOUR Right Wing Politics and.. That you were Wrong/Bass Ackwards on which side are Race Realists. That's what. WHIFF much? and again (since I edited it on to my last) The Foremost tome on Race Denial was by famous Leftist geneticist Stephen J Gould (Mismeasure of Man) `
And egalitarianism then is not leftism? So then why not just say collectivism? Or are left and right just confused loaded words often used to generate heat rather than light?
But "belief" has nothing to do with it when you're talking about a classification system. Those are arbitrary. For example, "science" divides animals up between vertibrates and non-vertibrates. One could just as easily divide things up by what does or doesn't have wings, or hair. Long before science came along, people classified different races by outward traits, not genetics. So there's a "common usage" definition of race, and a "scientific jargon" usage. So don't conflate the two. And common usage is a much better way of communicating between non-scientists.
In human genetics, the old concept of race is replaced with ancestry or population, while we cannot deny the existence of genetic differences across populations. But according to David Reich, professor in the department of genetics at the Harvard Medical School, ancestry is not synonymous with race and the term was born of an urgent need to discuss genetic differences between them with a precise language. The race vocabulary is too ill-defined for scientific discussions, loaded with historical baggage. I think the so-called race realists are mostly anthropologists who cannot comprehend genetics due to the lack of scientific education, which is why they cling to the 19th-century definition of race. I created a thread on the subject: Ancient DNA and the human past http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/ancient-dna-and-the-human-past.503664/
The people confusing race and science are race realists. This is the bottom line and your post should be directed towards them. The way people are classed today is socially, not scientifically. This is the point. Any racial realist attempting to use pseudoscience to peddle their crap should be reminded of this very thing every time.
Third Term, I always appreciate your posts when I come across them. I'll go check out this thread as well. Thanks for sharing it.
You're LYING again I made dead clear what Scientific Race is in this thread (#s 2, 3, 4, 5, 22, 23) and the previous thread that caused you to flee and start a new one. You lost every point. It's a riDiculous posting comparing NATIONALITIES that are in between/Mixes of Races... as well as those THREE RACES. OOOPS! It shows you are Wrong, and that despite the MIXES in some COUNTRIES caused by populations mixing along POLITICAL/SOCIAL Construct borders, and as the result of gene inflow due to Colonization, Scientific Base Races are the source. Blue, Red, Green. NOT understanding the issue, DarkSkies always tries to claim goofy posts as backing him. `
