Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,508
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: WAN]
    #21880615 - 06/30/15 10:33 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

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.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,338
Last seen: 1 minute, 23 seconds
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: WAN]
    #21880627 - 06/30/15 10:37 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

WAN said:
Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Why don't we stop focusing on semantic bullshit, and get back to the discussion you were losing WAN. Can you prove that race identification is one of these instincts? I am quite sure human instinct doesn't go beyond breathing and sucking titties. Do have have evidence against my argument?




I never claimed that racial identification is instinctual.  You are setting up a straw-man.  Also, I see that you are still butt-hurt.  So much so that you have lost the ability to be impartial (if you were truly impartial then you would be able to tell that I kicked Enlil's ass so hard, that he's bowed out of our discusioon).  But maybe it's because impartiality is not in you.  I don't blame you.  Some people are born with some form of handicap and/or character flaws, they can't help it.

Quote:



My anecdotal claim regarding my half Kuwaiti brother is stronger than the void of evidence to the contrary.



So this is why you took this thread and my argument so personally.




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineWAN
Stranger
Registered: 10/20/14
Posts: 1,895
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21880634 - 06/30/15 10:39 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

WAN said:
Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Why don't we stop focusing on semantic bullshit, and get back to the discussion you were losing WAN. Can you prove that race identification is one of these instincts? I am quite sure human instinct doesn't go beyond breathing and sucking titties. Do have have evidence against my argument?




I never claimed that racial identification is instinctual.  You are setting up a straw-man.  Also, I see that you are still butt-hurt.  So much so that you have lost the ability to be impartial (if you were truly impartial then you would be able to tell that I kicked Enlil's ass so hard, that he's bowed out of our discusioon).  But maybe it's because impartiality is not in you.  I don't blame you.  Some people are born with some form of handicap and/or character flaws, they can't help it.

Quote:



My anecdotal claim regarding my half Kuwaiti brother is stronger than the void of evidence to the contrary.



So this is why you took this thread and my argument so personally.




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.




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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,338
Last seen: 1 minute, 23 seconds
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: WAN]
    #21880725 - 06/30/15 10:56 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21881050 - 07/01/15 12:33 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
'The encyclopedia is wrong', 'The scientists are liars', when I find myself making these bold claims, I generally accept that I am on the wrong side of an argument. As far as this claim that scientists are trying to avoid being labeled a racist, there is the equally assinine argument that scientists arguing for racial distinction actually do have racist motivations for making that claim. Science is science. It is not so easily subject to politics as you imply.

On the issue of syckle cell anemia. I am curious, if a small white population were isolated to a region with malaria for an extended period of time, and developed syckle cell anemia, would you consider them to be a new race? How many genetic markers must be different for a new race to be defined?




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?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: Enlil]
    #21881054 - 07/01/15 12:36 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Because different races have different frequencies of certain genetic traits, in some cases.  In other cases, cultural factors can make diseases more or less prevalent.





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?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: Enlil]
    #21881062 - 07/01/15 12:38 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
No one is arguing that racial lines aren't drawn in a way that separates them by genetic traits.  That's not the point.  Those lines are still arbitrary and have no relation to biological races.  Instead, they are simply drawn based on societal values.  Racial lines could have just as easily been drawn based on eye color or blood type, and they'd be just as predictive as they are now.





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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: Enlil]
    #21881076 - 07/01/15 12:44 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Lol, you aren't actually arguing that racial classification is instinctual, are you?  That's even more ludicrous than the argument that it's biological.




Asking "why?" is instinctual. A child asking "why is that mans skin black" is not caused by someone telling them anything.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21881094 - 07/01/15 12:52 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Viruses affect different races at different rates due to different exposure rates. As far as I am aware that is the only factor involved.




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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: Enlil]
    #21881105 - 07/01/15 12:56 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

WAN said:

P.s.  I see that you are implying that my "game" is inadequate.  Is this how you normally weasel out of a losing position, enlil?



Frankly, you've offered even less than the rest of the people on that side of the argument, and they've offered close to nothing.

If you have a rational argument based on facts from credible sources, I'm all eyes.  Show your stuff.

As far as a losing position, this debate has been so one sided, it's laughable.  I don't think any educated person would read this and think I am in a losing position here.




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: Enlil]
    #21881147 - 07/01/15 01:07 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
So, Malaria affects black people at a higher rate.  You're saying that's race-related?  You don't think the fact that large populations of black people live in places with improper sanitation has something to do with it?




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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #21881479 - 07/01/15 02:54 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

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:

This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic. On the other hand, in the absence of racial/ethnic information, it is tempting to attribute any observed difference between derived genetic clusters to a genetic etiology. Therefore, researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing difference between genetically defined clusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding.




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 :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21881576 - 07/01/15 04:07 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:

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.




This is exactly what the first (article linked to) study I gave talked about. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAzOHFxVAAAqaKX.png

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:

It found that people’s self-identified race is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background, contradicting the race-as-social-construct view, Risch said.

The participants identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. For each participant, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within functioning genes—some regions of the genome have no known use—but are simply genetic signposts that come in a variety of forms at the same place.

Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.





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:

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.



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:

Therefore, researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing difference between genetically defined clusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding.




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.







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:

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.



Im ok with disagreeing with majority opinion... even of scientists.

Quote:

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:



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:

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."



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:

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."



again, a critique... again a scientists opinion.

Quote:

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. "



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, 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.




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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #21881679 - 07/01/15 05:20 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

SneezingPenis said:


I am not sure which link you pulled the study from, but this first one addresses this very point...




That's the link I pulled it from and that's the exact study I took the quotes from.

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.




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:


No, but you would end up with a statistically relevant majority of them.




Do you have a source to back that up? Because a majority of black people are not afflicted by sickle cell.

Quote:

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?




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, 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.

Quote:

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.




I don't think so. Read them again.

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?

Quote:


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.




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:

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.




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 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.




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:


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.




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:


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.




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 :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,338
Last seen: 1 minute, 23 seconds
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #21882407 - 07/01/15 10:52 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

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.




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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: A few of my rants regarding SC shooting... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21883123 - 07/01/15 02:31 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:

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.




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:


No, but you would end up with a statistically relevant majority of them.




Do you have a source to back that up? Because a majority of black people are not afflicted by sickle cell.



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:


Can you provide a source showing that race can be determined with extremely high accuracy based on a single drop of blood?



Does a single drop of blood not contain all of your DNA?

Quote:

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.




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:


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.




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:

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.




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 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.




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:


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.



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:


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.




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/entries/race/

What "school" of thought I identified with perfectly was: (really long, doubt many of you will read it)
Quote:

The third school of thought regarding the ontology of race is racial population naturalism. This camp suggests that, although racial naturalism falsely attributed cultural, mental, and physical characters to discrete racial groups, it is possible that genetically significant biological groupings could exist that would merit the term races. Importantly, these biological racial groupings would not be essentialist or discrete: there is no set of genetic or other biological traits that all and only all members of a racial group share that would then provide a natural biological boundary between racial groups. Thus, these thinkers confirm the strong scientific consensus that discrete, essentialist races do not exist. However, the criteria of discreteness and essentialism would also invalidate distinctions between non-human species, such as lions and tigers. As Philip Kitcher puts it, “there is no…genetic feature…that separates one species of mosquito or mushroom from another” (Kitcher 2007, 294–6; Cf. Mallon 2007, 146–168). Rather, biological species are differentiated by reproductive isolation, which is relative, not absolute (since hybrids sometimes appear in nature); which may have non-genetic causes (e.g., geographic separation and incompatible reproduction periods or rituals); which may generate statistically significant if not uniform genetic differences; and which may express distinct phenotypes. In effect, if the failure to satisfy the condition of discreteness and essentialism requires jettisoning the concept of race, then it also requires jettisoning the concept of biological species. But because the biological species concept remains epistemologically useful, some biologists and philosophers use it to defend a racial ontology that is “biologically informed but non-essentialist,” one that is vague, non-discrete, and related to genetics, genealogy, geography, and phenotype (Sesardic 2010, 146).

.....

The question is whether these new biological ontologies of race avoid the conceptual mismatches that ground eliminativism. The short answer is that they can, but only through human intervention. Socially isolated race faces no mismatch when applied to African Americans, defined as the descendants of African slaves brought to the United States. However, this racial category would not encompass black Africans. Moreover, because African American race originated in legally enforced sexual segregation, it is “both biologically real and socially constructed” (Kitcher 2007, 298).

In each case, racial population naturalism encounters problems in trying to demarcate discrete boundaries between different biological populations. If discreteness is indispensable to a human racial taxonomy, then mismatches can only be avoided, if at all, through human intervention. But as noted above, biological species are also not genetically discrete, and thus boundaries between non-human species must also be imposed through human intervention. And just as the demarcation of non-human species is justified through its scientific usefulness, so too are human racial categories justified. For instance, Andreason contends that a cladistic race concept that divides northeastern from southeastern Asians is scientifically useful for evolutionary research, even if it conflicts with the folk concept of a unified Asian race. In turn, the concepts of genetically clustered and socially isolated race may remain useful for detecting and treating some health problems. Ian Hacking provides a careful argument in favor of the provisional use of American racial categories in medicine. Noting that racial categories do not reflect essentialist, uniform differences, he reiterates the finding that there are statistically significant genetic differences among different racial groups. As a result, an African American is more likely to find a bone marrow match from a pool of African American donors than from a pool of white donors. Thus, he defends the practice of soliciting African American bone marrow donors, even though this may provide fodder to racist groups who defend an essentialist and hierarchical conception of biological race (Hacking 2005, 102–116; Cf. Kitcher 2007, 312–316). Conversely, Dorothy Roberts emphasizes the dangers of using racial categories within medicine, suggesting that it not only validates egregious ideas of biological racial hierarchy but also contributes to conservative justifications for limiting race-based affirmative action and even social welfare funding, which supposedly would be wasted on genetically inferior minority populations. In effect, race-based medicine raises the specter of a new political synthesis of colorblind conservatism with biological racialism (Roberts 2008, 537–545). However, Roberts’s critique fails to engage the literature on the statistical significance of racial categories for genetic differences. Moreover, she herself acknowledges that many versions of colorblind conservatism do not rely at all on biological justifications.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Shooting up schools is soooo 5 years ago.
( 1 2 all )
AaronEvil 2,237 24 03/26/05 12:21 AM
by AaronEvil
* Police shoot demonstrators mm. 2,660 15 10/12/18 06:26 PM
by christopera
* Chinese police shoot demonstrators lonestar2004 826 8 12/11/05 02:18 PM
by gregorio
* Rants and Ramblings on Capitalism and Socialism
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 2,918 30 02/28/05 12:32 PM
by rogue_pixie
* The amount of effort that is required to be politically informed (Rant) RandalFlagg 496 3 09/12/05 08:13 PM
by The_Red_Crayon
* Why do certain ideologies seem to attract certain stances on issues?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg 4,229 61 08/16/05 02:06 PM
by Arp
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
dee_N_ae 13,927 131 09/19/02 01:08 PM
by francisco
* To all republicans: a quick rant about socialism
( 1 2 3 all )
BrAiN 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 ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.