| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 65,508 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
|
I've already cited multiple sources other than wiki.
You want my thoughts? Race is a social construct that was largely formed by classifying people by where they came from or were originally encountered. Eventually, science sought to explain it and came up the laughable theories of the late 19th century and the early 20th century. Today, with a solid understanding of genetics, science has abandoned the notion that race is based on any natural classification and is instead wholly arbitrary and socially constructed. I agree with this modern scientific view.
| |||||||
|
Trumps Bone Spurs Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 13,338 Last seen: 1 minute, 23 seconds |
| ||||||
Quote: I haven't taken your poor arguments hard. Especially that slew of ad hominems and straw men. I don't see my half Kuwaiti brother's 'race' as better or worse than my own. He is who he is. My experience is what I brought to this discussion, but just as any racist would, you glossed over my point while stuck on the idea of a multiracial family being a sore spot. -------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin Every one of you should see this video. "If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/20/14 Posts: 1,895 Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: A whole slew of ad hominems? Look who's talking. YOU are the one who's been taking shots at me, for no reason at all, just because I hold a different view than you do. You are a truly close-minded person. also, your family's blood line is being mongrelized. Sorry to hear that bro.
| |||||||
|
Trumps Bone Spurs Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 13,338 Last seen: 1 minute, 23 seconds |
| ||||||
|
Wow. I never once attacked your character. Only your ill-conceived arguments. I prefer to allow you to paint yourself in the color best suited you, as you have just done.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin Every one of you should see this video. "If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: once it becomes a relevant box to check on a medical form... and lets clarify something here... Enlil, you or that other guy have provided ZERO facts or studies. ZERO. All they have cited is opinions of scientists that are not based upon fact or science. Real scientific discovery and proof means that there is no discussion about that precise thing anymore. What you guys are doing is tantamount to quoting quantum physicists as saying "I believe there are 23 dimensions" and then claiming that it is proof that 23 dimensions exist. We are in an era of Meta-science where the goal is not definitive proof, but rather a creation of correlated data sets to favor a theory. need proof?
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: why is that distinction able to be made without the accusation of it being a social construct yet calling that very same thing by a different name (race) a social construct?
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No, you are citing genetic traits that span and can express themselves over 1-2 generations. The genetic traits that we are talking about happened over thousands of years and came about over hundreds of generations to instill themselves as a very good indicator of race and ancestral origin.
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Asking "why?" is instinctual. A child asking "why is that mans skin black" is not caused by someone telling them anything.
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The HIV virus affects black people differently than all other groups. Now I hope that I have not given the idea that a virus is sentient and chooses to punish the black man more severely... no, it is due to their genetic makeup... but there is enough of a distinction that HIV affects them more aggressively.. also there are multiple HIV treatments that have side effects that occur almost entirely only in black people--again due to their genetic makeup. ipso facto, there is an objective distinction that is being made by things not associated in any way possible to a social construct. ipso motherfuckin facto.
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: lets review the scoreboard here. Studies provided: Enlil: 0 SP: 2 Points made that have yet to be addressed and refuted: Enlil: 0 SP: too many to count number of times emphatically stating an opinion as fact: enlil: too many times to count SP: 0
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: If the place you are living is malaria infested and compounded by lack of potable water.. after hundreds of years the "weak" die off and the people with SCA go on to proliferate. This isn't, stick a white man on malaria island and see if he magically develops SCA... this is hundreds if not thousands of years of a process that spread throughout a region that later became defined along with other genetic phenotypes that made their subset more resilient in their environment. Somehow, your argument has become "but yeah, aside from all that genetic stuff, there is no objectively discernable differences".... yeah, you are basically agreeing with us, but somehow unable to admit it... so you cite semantics as the culprit. What is there beyond genetic differences? That is THE ONLY objectively discernable criteria for anything--which means that really, you just have a problem with the word "race" and no real objection to making distinctions based on genetic variance. and once again you are claiming that because the arbitrary process in which biological taxonomy is predicated upon doesn't include a FORMAL distinction that it is proof that it doesn't objectively exist.... meaning that the socially constructed table of making distinctions between organisms doesn't officially recognize a distinction in humans beyond species is proof that no objective distinction can be made.... which is absolutely ludicrous.
| |||||||
|
Pokemon Master Registered: 03/10/11 Posts: 2,549 Loc: Kanto Region |
| ||||||
|
Alright, this thread has had quite a bit of activity since I went to sleep, so I'm going to respond in general to the points I've read, as it would take to long to go point by point. Thus, if I miss a point you wish me to discuss, just let me know.
First of all, I think it's important that we are actually arguing over a unified point, which I don't think is happening. To say race is a social construct does not mean that there are no biological differences between the races. To say that there is no biological basis is not to say that there are no differences between the races. When I say race is a social construct, I'm saying that the racial lines were drawn based on social ideas, not biological ones. I'm saying that members of the black race are categorized and identified based on appearance and nothing more. Same with Asian, Hispanic, Caucasian, etc. This is absolutely true. For race to also have a biological basis, there would have to be a way to separate groups biologically and get the exact same divisions. If you look for malarial susceptibility, you wouldn't end up with all blacks, just some of them. The same will hold true for every disease, because as I mentioned before, viruses and bacteria attack susceptible individuals, not individuals of certain races. Pointing out that the races aren't identical biologically means nothing in terms of race being a social construct. Any two groups will not be identical. The key is showing that the racial divisions are based on some inherent genotype, rather than an inherent phenotype and learned behavior. Now, SP, you didn't cite a study as far as I could find (if you did and I missed it, I apologize). You did, however, cite an article which cites a study that is very relevant to that exact point. The problem with that is that articles written about papers are almost universally crap, because while scientists are trying to report data, a journalist is trying to make a story. So, I went and found the paper in question, and it says: Quote: The paper was not arguing that race is defined by genetics and specifically says it may or may not be. It's not particularly helpful to your position to cite a paper that says your position may or may not be true, and then tout it as some winning blow. Again, this is why it's always best to get your information directly from the source, not after it has been shaped by inherent biases of the journalist. Now, once again, there are a minority of scientists who do actually believe that when society determined race, the divisions ended up being based on genetic differences. If you believe them that's fine, but it's important that you understand that it's not the majority opinion. Too many people decide their opinion and then go looking for evidence to support it, and are often blinded to the evidence offered by the other side. To simply call the EB wrong, but not offer any reason why, is hilarious example of this. However, since you all seem hellbent on ignoring the EB, have some papers: Hochman A. (2013) writes: "Human biological diversity was shown to be predominantly clinal, or gradual, not discreet, and clustered, as racial naturalism implied." and "While social constructionism about race became the majority consensus view on the topic social constructionism has always had its critics." Gravlee (2009) writes: "Here, I summarize this evidence and argue that the debate over racial inequalities in health presents an opportunity to refine the critique of race in three ways: 1) to reiterate why the race concept is inconsistent with patterns of global human genetic diversity; 2) to refocus attention on the complex, environmental influences on human biology at multiple levels of analysis and across the lifecourse; and 3) to revise the claim that race is a cultural construct and expand research on the sociocultural reality of race and racism." Witzig (1996) writes: "This division of Homo sapiens into race taxons started in the 18th century, when the sciences of genetics and evolutionary biology were not yet invented. These disciplines have since shown that human race taxonomy has no scientific basis. Race categories are social constructs, that is, concepts created from prevailing social perceptions without scientific evidence. Despite modern proof that race is arbitrary biological fiction, racial taxons are still used widely in medical teaching, practice, and research. " So, to reiterate, in biology, genetic variation does not happen in discreet groupings as it does with race. Race was determined based on social ideals and modern biology has found no basis for those distinctions. Therefore, race is, and has always been, nothing more than a social construct. If I missed any of your arguments, I apologize and would be happy to respond to them. -------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: This is exactly what the first (article linked to) study I gave talked about. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAzO Race has been defined for a lot longer than the 1800's, so yes it was prior to even the concepts of genetics or biology, but it doesn't make it invalid or simply a social construct. First guy to start washing his hands didn't know why his patients suffered less infection, he just found it to be true. Doesn't mean that bacteria don't exist because the first person to identify a distinction was wrong in their pursuit of addressing the issue. I am not sure which link you pulled the study from, but this first one addresses this very point... Quote: I think this is a weak study, but at least it is beyond stating a scientists opinion... But anyway, it shows that there is a correlation to people self-identifying based on (what we can assume) the socially constructed concept of racial distinction and having that perfectly reflect the objective biological distinction. Quote: No, but you would end up with a statistically relevant majority of them. If a person can look at only a drop of blood and know nothing else of where that blood came from, and they could tell you whether or not they were black, white, asian or hispanic... how could that still be rooted in social construct? Quote:Quote: No, this study was merely trying to show if perceived race lines up with regionally distinct genetic markers (aka race)... and it did that pretty well. You are misreading what the bold parts are actually saying. It is referring to two types of studies: ones that do not make the superficial distinction and ones that make a genetic distinction as a primary criteria for choosing acceptable candidates or using it as a control/variable. The first bold sentence is poorly worded and I see the possible ambiguity in reading it, but it is simply stating the obvious that the superficial distinction of race may or may not be rooted in genetics... not implying that making a genetic distinction may or may not be rooted in genetics (because that would be stupid). The second bold sentence is simply stating that if you are doing a study and do not make an initial distinction (superficial or genetic) should not be tempted to correlate any discovered distinctions to genetics because they could in fact be caused by other factors. That part isn't even talking about this study, or racial studies... it is just talking about all studies. It does seem confusing though. It is just poorly worded. Hell the study is pretty shabby. Would have made more sense to have other people try to determine the peoples race and see how well that lined up with their actual genetic cluster. Quote: Im ok with disagreeing with majority opinion... even of scientists. Quote: I wasn't refuting EB, I was refuting your use of it as empirical. It cited no studies and used very vague wording. It even stated that it was a concensus. It contained no science or supporting data. Quote: This is not a study, but rather a paper critiquing a study by a racial naturalist. All I could get at was the abstract. Quote: again, a critique... again a scientists opinion. Quote: Seriously, did you type in "scientists musings on why the feel race is wrong"? These are not studies. This is not empirical. You may as well be citing from "Everybody poops".... well not even, because even that has some scientific validity in it. Quote: So while all the scientists that have conducted studies and favored on the Racial naturalist side, they were just myopic racist scientists trying to keep darky down... but all those other scientists writing opinions about their studies to "revise the claim that race is a cultural construct" should be published in the NEJM.
| |||||||
|
Pokemon Master Registered: 03/10/11 Posts: 2,549 Loc: Kanto Region |
| ||||||
Quote: That's the link I pulled it from and that's the exact study I took the quotes from. Quote: True. But the author of the study himself did not say that race was genetically determined. That's something that the article you cited added. The author specifically said that racial/ethnic differences may or may not be genetic. I hope you see how that doesn't exactly support your claim. Quote: Do you have a source to back that up? Because a majority of black people are not afflicted by sickle cell. Quote: Can you provide a source showing that race can be determined with extremely high accuracy based on a single drop of blood? Regardless, it can still be rooted in social construct even if that is true. Just because you can find the differences based on biological tests, does not mean the divisions make biological sense. If we were to divide race on biological divisions, there would likely be far more categories than the few that have been socially established. Quote: No. He tested similarities between individuals of different races at a few hundred genomic sites to see if individuals of races would be closely grouped together and what stratification would be present. Quote: I don't think so. Read them again. Quote: Yes, exactly. How is something that says your position may or may not be true actually supporting your position? Quote: No, it isn't. Read it again. It is saying that if you find a difference between genetically grouped clusters (so you did make initial distinction based on genetics), which is what a biologically defined race would be, that those differences may not be due to genetics, but instead to myriad other factors. Quote: I completely disagree. Self-assigned race is the most accurate way to conduct a study like this as people know their own histories better than anyone just looking at them. Quote: I never claimed it as empirical. It also didn't use vague wording at all. It quite clearly said: "Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity." Whether or not you care to believe it, the Encyclopedia Britannic is typically viewed as an accurate source that is well researched. That is why I used it as evidence, but you are welcome to disregard it if you choose, but I hope you have a reason for doing so other than you just don't trust something that disagrees with your view. Quote: I never claimed they were studies. Are you familiar with the concept of a review paper? I specifically looked for review papers, because they are what are typically used to understand scientific opinion on a subject. Individual studies mean relatively little, results have to be reproducible. So I went and found review papers, which cite dozens of papers themselves, to give an overview of the topic. It's not the opinion of one scientist, but of many. Journals ask professors who are well respected in their areas to write review papers, which then fall under a lot of scrutiny, so they are typically well written and accurate. Do you honestly think that a scientist can just publish a paper with their opinion and no supporting data? Again, individual studies mean little, but groups of studies comprising a body of knowledge mean a lot. That is why a review paper is effective. If you don't believe me, go read the papers I cited and many more, they all cite their sources very well. Quote: Again, do you honestly believe that the majority scientific opinion was based on opinion and assumptions alone? It most certainly was not. It was based on many, many studies. And no where did I imply that racism had anything to do with this at all, so stop putting words in my mouth. -------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
| |||||||
|
Trumps Bone Spurs Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 13,338 Last seen: 1 minute, 23 seconds |
| ||||||
Quote: The reason your distinctions between organisms (All bearing the same genes) is not officially recognized is because it would be of no use to do so. We have identified different phenotypes within the human race, as with all animals, but there isn't any core genetic varience (ie information added or removed from the genome). In order to define race, one might attempt to identify groupings of alleles that are expressed concomitantly within several different populaces. However, these would have to be mutually exclusive from one another, generally speaking. This is not the case. It is clearly a continuous spectrum, rather than the rigid discontinuity that your racism suggests. Also, I don't 'need' to cite sources to make a coherent argument, or to win the semantics game. Sources are only necessary when bold claims are made, which require evidence. You seem to be the one making the bold claims against the integrity of the scientific community, the encyclopedia, and socially accepted positions on this subject. I don't need to invoke the words or mind of someone else to make an argument. I do not say this with inflammatory or sensational intent, your ideas were once the foundation of the eugenics movement that gave momentum to the Holocaust. Not only have they been deemed erroneous, but they are also dangerous. Your insights are not some new revelation, but the unsavory remnants of a very old poison. -------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin Every one of you should see this video. "If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy Edited by Bigbadwooof (07/01/15 10:53 AM)
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I really don't want to get into a semantic argument over what the author said because opinion has no merit in a debate... but what he said was that not every distinction that is arrived at is fully supported or caused by genetics alone. You are seeing what you want to. If you read it in the entire context it will make more sense. Quote:Quote: That is a logical fallacy... If I say that you took 100 people with Sickle cell traits that they would be overwhelmingly black and you respond with "but if you took 100 black people they wouldn't overwhelmingly have Sickle Cell traits" they have nothing to do with each other. 1 in 500 african-americans (not africans) have SCA and 1 in 12 have sickle cell traits, compared to 1:36,000 for hispanics. This was from the CDC's website and was only based on 7 states. It did not have statistics for white people or asians. Quote: Does a single drop of blood not contain all of your DNA? Quote: How can you find an objective testable distinction and it still be a social construct? If that distinction leads to better diagnosis and treatment, how can it not have some measure of validity in a biological sense? (this is getting a little ridiculous that I have to keep putting this out there and it isn't addressed and then coming full circle back to this for about the 5th time.) Quote: No, this study was merely trying to show if perceived race lines up with regionally distinct genetic markers (aka race)... and it did that pretty well. No. He tested similarities between individuals of different races at a few hundred genomic sites to see if individuals of races would be closely grouped together and what stratification would be present. Yes, if a pattern (or cluster) appears when there is no socially constructed criteria present, and those clusters line up perfectly with the superficial distinctions we make, then there is biological validity. Quote: The first bold sentence is poorly worded and I see the possible ambiguity in reading it, but it is simply stating the obvious that the superficial distinction of race may or may not be rooted in genetics. Yes, exactly. How is something that says your position may or may not be true actually supporting your position? I have never stated that a superficial distinction is a de facto way of determining race. Our discussion is about whether or not it has biological validity and scientific worth... basically if there is a true, objective distinction of subspecies within humans. It doesn't invalidate my position at all. Quote: Quote: No, it isn't. Read it again. It is saying that if you find a difference between genetically grouped clusters (so you did make initial distinction based on genetics), which is what a biologically defined race would be, that those differences may not be due to genetics, but instead to myriad other factors. No, you need to learn how science works. It clearly states that if you are doing a study and you are not using race/ethnicity as part of your initial focus, meaning that you took a group of people and divided them on criteria not based upon ethnic distinctions (superficial or not) and later have findings that do correlate to racial distinction, it would be lazy to then conclude that those clusters or patterns that formed are due to solely genetics... Which is pretty much at the heart of this debate. The modern scientific debate on this has come about because so many anthropologists have made some extremely racist conclusions about the "inferiority of the negro" and such. While there were no real scientific studies done, these were opinion papers written by them and to the weker-minded public was therefor backed scientifically (even though that is a false assumption). The reaction by the scientific community has been to try and do away with that distinction by writing opinion papers parading as scientific rigor. I have been wondering why you guys have not provided any actual studies that show favor to the social constructionist view of race and I was shocked that there are none.... well not shocked in a post Eugenics society where any study that even mentions race is going to be lauded by the scientific community before it evens gets off the ground and even if it was hypothesizing in favor of social constructionism. The reason why this is such a hotly contested issue within the scientific community is because it is a scary premise: if we actually find validity in making racial distinctions then it opens the door for a qualitative ranking of races. It is simple: if race doesn't objectively exist, then no one can create a scientific foundation for a grossly unpopular concept like racial superiority. Quote: Quote: I completely disagree. Self-assigned race is the most accurate way to conduct a study like this as people know their own histories better than anyone just looking at them. that isn't how science works. You want to try and decrease as many variables as possible. A person knowing or being wrong about their lineage is a variable that can skew results. Quote: Quote: I never claimed it as empirical. It also didn't use vague wording at all. It quite clearly said: "Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity." Whether or not you care to believe it, the Encyclopedia Britannic is typically viewed as an accurate source that is well researched. That is why I used it as evidence, but you are welcome to disregard it if you choose, but I hope you have a reason for doing so other than you just don't trust something that disagrees with your view. It is accurate.... about the scientific opinion. Might as well cite Encyclopedia Brown for all the weight it carries in this discussion. Quote: Then why are you guys asking for more studies from me? especially when you have provided ZERO. Scientific opinion has no merit in this discussion. More often than not, scientific consensus has been grossly wrong about things until real empirical evidence puts the debate to rest. Where is your supporting data? where are any of these scientists supporting data? produce data, not papers. Quote: Quote: Again, do you honestly believe that the majority scientific opinion was based on opinion and assumptions alone? It most certainly was not. It was based on many, many studies. And no where did I imply that racism had anything to do with this at all, so stop putting words in my mouth. then where is it? where are all these studies that all this opinion is "scientifically concluded" from? -------------------------------- So I am getting quite bored with this debate. I will let some of you have a go at the last word unless you actually produce something novel to this discussion. I urge anyone to read this article from Stanford. Not for paraphrasing and such, but because it gives a really good, blunt, no frills layout of the history and stances of this argument. We could have all saved ourselves some time by just pointing to a school of thought and saying "this is what I believe" an gone about our way... because all this has been exhaustively debated by better and smarter people than us and they are at an impasse still. http://plato.stanford.edu/entrie What "school" of thought I identified with perfectly was: (really long, doubt many of you will read it) Quote:
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Shooting up schools is soooo 5 years ago. ( |
2,237 | 24 | 03/26/05 12:21 AM by AaronEvil | ||
![]() |
Police shoot demonstrators | 2,660 | 15 | 10/12/18 06:26 PM by christopera | ||
![]() |
Chinese police shoot demonstrators | 826 | 8 | 12/11/05 02:18 PM by gregorio | ||
![]() |
Rants and Ramblings on Capitalism and Socialism ( |
2,918 | 30 | 02/28/05 12:32 PM by rogue_pixie | ||
![]() |
The amount of effort that is required to be politically informed (Rant) | 496 | 3 | 09/12/05 08:13 PM by The_Red_Crayon | ||
![]() |
Why do certain ideologies seem to attract certain stances on issues? ( |
4,229 | 61 | 08/16/05 02:06 PM by Arp | ||
![]() |
2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? ( |
13,927 | 131 | 09/19/02 01:08 PM by francisco | ||
![]() |
To all republicans: a quick rant about socialism ( |
4,363 | 47 | 09/12/07 01:33 PM by Jive turkey |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 8,205 topic views. 8 members, 6 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

and Ferdinand
, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
