RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

kittinSol -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 12:18:49 PM)

(I wish there were a 'race to forum hits'. This thread's scored roughly 2,500 hits in three days. I'm in awe.)



EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 12:30:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

(I wish there were a 'race to forum hits'. This thread's scored roughly 2,500 hits in three days. I'm in awe.)


lol. race is a hot topic amongst people. i just wish more people could discuss everything openly. aside from a few snide remarks here and there.. this is the most volatile yet civil forum i've ever been on here before.

i dropped out of CM forums because it was just too flamey and not enough facts. it's ok, i just pity them for their lack of debate skills.

but i think race is a topic that needs to be discussed openly and civil of manner like anything else.

i may disagree with people, but for the most part i have noticed this thread has not gotten nearly as flamey as people bitching over dommes wanting tribute.

methinks it's an ace topic!




mnottertail -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 12:32:06 PM)

and I still think you are the bomb.

Ron 



kittinSol -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 12:33:08 PM)

Well it's certainly interesting. I think the reason why it hasn't gone up in flames is because people are too aware of the potential volatility of such a subject. In other words, people happily bash one another on the Gor forums, because that's what they're there for; but on one such as this, the subject is too 'real' for anyone to open the gates to the ego.

A good thing, I'm sure :-)



marieToo -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 12:40:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Seeks - Some fancy speculations hold more water than other fancy speculations. It seem odd to dismiss an explanation simply because it's fancier than your own.

I'd love to see the statistics tables some people must be using to assert that certain populations are better or worse at abstract thought or more prone to despotism and corruption than others. These behaviours would have to be demonstrated over a considerably longer period of time than post WW2 to have any veracity though.  Should such differences be clearly demonstrated, then I'd like them to make the link between those differences and the genetic variations across populations.

It is of no matter that crocodiles do not demonstrate abstract reasoning. They don't need it to survive. It would probably be a liability as they would have to learn meditation in order to develop the discipline to lay still for hours waiting for dinner. "Adaptations" is also a problematic term in that is suggest that there's a collection of accessories waiting to be added to an organism's bag of tricks. Often faculties arise in response to one stimulus and find use in other areas or they are side effects of a new ability which incidentally increases the advantage of the species.

Abstract thought in our species was not an adaptation needed to bestow advantage in writing school exams - it is, as was previously explained, used by all social mammals to create social cohesion. It also happens to be useful, especially in our own hyper developed form, assisted by opposable thumbs, for tool use and development.

And even if we were to agree that the word "race" no longer be used it would not eliminate racism, just change the words we use to describe bigoted attitudes and behaviours. Cute try but a non starter. Nice to see people willing to be mindful of how they use language though.


Z.



This is the crux of the whole debate.  I dont know if you were refering to my post, but if you were, I was trying to make a point in the best way I knew how.  

If there is no such thing as race, there can be no such thing as racism.

But of course we know each of them exists, but if we find a new term for race, then clearly the term for racism, racist etc,  must also be changed.  From a scientific point of view (from all the talented scientists who've contributed here) it would seem that "race" is merely the term that the government and society has coined to differentiate our enthnicities or origins, even if it isn't exactingly accurate. 

For the record, I actually agree with the base concept of there isn't such a thing as race, however, if the title of this thread had been "The word "race" is scientifically innacurate"  There would have been a lot less frustration and confusion.  

Imagine a thread based upon the same principle entitled  "There isn't such a thing as "racism" in humanity" 
 
The OP would have been laughed off the planet.


Edited slightly for clarity.





EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 1:14:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueCollar

Ahhh, okay I think I see what you're saying here, Ebony.  We've been using the term race when, we should be using the term species?   So it's not accurate to make a statement of a particular RACE'S genetic disposition and identifiable traits, but rather those of a SPECIES?

I've been gone for a few hours and the page has moved on considerably so I'm just trying to get my bearings here.



you know blue, when i first read your comments i thought you were clearly off base.. however, now.. i see you just really wanna know the differences.

i will attempt to explain things to you as succinct as i possibly can without being patronizing... seriously.. just telling you facts and from those, you can discern your own view.

look at scientific nomenclature as like geographic locations.

personally.

i live in the universe.. that would classify me based on ALL creatures that live in the universe.

then i live in the northern hemisphere (yeah that differentiates me from all the OTHERS in the n. hem)

then i live in north america (further narrowing down things).

then i live in the western portion of the US (furthering narrowing things.. the closer i narrow things down the less people are different).

then i narrow things down to california out of all the other things.

next i live in los angeles county.. ok that narrows things down a bit MORE.

after that level i live in a section of california, in the west of the US, in the northeran hemisphere of the globe.. as opposed to the globe at large.

LASTLY i live in griffith park/los feliz/ hollywood hills.

that last distinction would be on par to humans (or any other animal on earth)..

what you're saying is species is not in fact species. our species is  Homo sapiens sapiens.. that means that we're ALL the same thing, but just like dogs and cats we're the SAME genus/species/subspecies, but we are not phenotypically the same (ie.. we don't *look* the same.)

species identifies populations of the same genotypes (genetic markers) are still the same species.  like all cats can breed together, all humans can, and all dogs can.

my neighbour has a labradoodle.. DUDE it's a labrador bred with a poodle (and hes, he is a freaky lookin FUCK).. but hey.. if they weren't so genetically compatible then they wouldn't be able to interbreed.

what you're calling species is not species.. it's infrasubspecific classification. meaning that the differences between said populations is SO miniscule that they do not warrant such distinguishing.

i really hope i am making sense.

we do have differences but they are largely phenotypical due to environmental wild cards (and not so wild cards.)

but we are ONE species. there is not  Homo sapiens sapiens negroidii.. or Homo sapiens sapiens caucasionii, or Homo sapiens sapiens mongoloidii.

we can intermix for a reason and produce NON-STERILE offspring for a reason- because genetically we're all the same, and no different than cats or dogs in genetic variation.. meaning that dogs, cats, humans and a few other species are phenotypically SO different (ie.. LOOK so different)..

but genotypically (ie genetically) are so similar that there isn't a warrant of differentiation betwixt species.




EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 1:15:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Just a short precis of a longish post I just "lost"

Those who have been on a "course" and believe that their knowledge of technical jargon explains everything should bear in mind that next to nothing is known about how the brain "works"
For example what produces conciousness, motivation and dare I say it the intellectual achievements apparent across the racial/ethnic or cultural divides ?


cut and paste your posts before you hit *ok*



EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 1:20:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Just a short precis of a longish post I just "lost"

Those who have been on a "course" and believe that their knowledge of technical jargon explains everything should bear in mind that next to nothing is known about how the brain "works"
For example what produces conciousness, motivation and dare I say it the intellectual achievements apparent across the racial/ethnic or cultural divides ?


you know Seeks.. i've tried to deal with you and i've felt i've done a rather amicable job of doing so.

but what you eschew as *jargon*.. is actually fact.

WHAT have you contributed to this forum that is more than conjecture or retarded *bell curve* rhetoric?

you *think* you speak from a knowledgable standpoint when it's really obvious that you have NO background in the matter other than how you feel. sorry, how you feel does NOT equate readily into fact and science. why is it pseudo jargon? when everything any of us have said can be easily googled or even >>gasp<< learned in university or a REAL book??

how about this?.. anything we say henceforth will be backed up with footnotes and viable references?

i'm MORE than capable of said task..

are you?





kittinSol -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 1:38:16 PM)

Well, perhaps it would have been courteous to suggest this to the 'OP' directly? Just a thought :)

PS: 'race' is more than a scientifically inacurate word, it's an inadequate notion altogether. Your premise that 'racism' cannot exist in the absence of the notion of 'race' is bordering on insulting for the many of us who have been on the receiving end of it. Just another thought.



EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 1:54:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

If there is no such thing as race, there can be no such thing as racism.


there is no such thing as race, yes.. that is scientifically proven. racism stems from the inate human need to pigeon hole and quantify things so they are more easily digestible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

But of course we know each of them exists, but if we find a new term for race, then clearly the term for racism, racist etc,  must also be changed.


there is no such thing, biologically speaking, as race. if you had read the rest of the forum, that would be blatantly apparent to you based upon irrefutable facts posed by other posters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
From a scientific point of view (from all the talented scientists who've contributed here) it would seem that "race" is merely the term that the government and society has coined to differentiate our enthnicities or origins, even if it isn't exactingly accurate. 


hmm.. sorry, i didn't know that people into BDSM were entirely incapable of being scientists. gee.. my university better refund me my money for all of the Bachelors of Science that i have (and in more disciplines  than i noted here. i actually have a triple major, quadruple minor).. i just merely noted the degrees i possess based upon what is relevant to the topic at hand. so yes, people on this forum are just as liable to be scientists, artists, lawyers and even perhaps politicians. just because we're on a BDSM forum does not mean that we are incapable of being scientists. i, myself, am fundamentally a scientist. people that are totally not knowledgable of certain disciplines would not be able to express themselves in scientific terms.

i find it funny that people don't understand said terms and then just eschew them based on the technical nature of our terminology. DUH.. we get said terminology from actually KNOWING and STUDYING what we're talking about!

anything i said someone can easily google. genetic drift, linkage disequilibrium, phenotype, human genome, genotype, *out of africa* theory, physical anthropology, bell curve, infrasubspecific, quadramonial.. ...

ALL of these terms are right there waiting for anyone with an open mind to research it.. or like i said, better yet, they can pick up a book in a library and research these things themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
For the record, I actually agree with the base concept of there isn't such a thing as race, however, if the title of this thread had been "The word "race" is scientifically innacurate"  There would have been a lot less frustration and confusion. 


hmm.. that's pretty much what she said "There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity."

she didnt say there were no *differences* in human populations.. she didn't say there is not a such thing as RACISM in human populations.. naaah.. the title of the topic was "There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity."

half a dozen of this and 6 of that.. no?


quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

Imagine a thread based upon the same principle entitled  "There isn't such a thing as "racism" in humanity" 

The OP would have been laughed off the planet.


Edited slightly for clarity.





she didn't say there is no such thing as racism (which would more accurately be described as infrasubspecific-ism).. she said that the basis of race holds no scientifc water... if people feel racism thusly would have no basis.. well i guess that is up to people that hold steadfastly to racist ideologies have to answer



DesertRat -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 2:00:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyFtshGoddess
we can intermix for a reason and produce STERILE offspring ...


I'm sure you meant FERTILE offspring.

Your discussion of this topic is right on. Trying to deal with such a complicated issue (one best analyzed statistically, boring as that might seem) by bringing to bear intuited "facts" and "common sense" is a waste.

Bob



EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 2:09:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertRat

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyFtshGoddess
we can intermix for a reason and produce STERILE offspring ...


I'm sure you meant FERTILE offspring.

Your discussion of this topic is right on. Trying to deal with such a complicated issue (one best analyzed statistically, boring as that might seem) by bringing to bear intuited "facts" and "common sense" is a waste.

Bob


LOL yes.. i changed it and i am SO guilty of not editing what i say before i read it.. i'm getting better at that. i did change what i said a few min ago then i saw your post.

good lookin out.

and yes you're correct. i LOVE how when people that have things to support their assertions are suddenly accused of using *hi falutin* jargon (i LOVE the term.high falutin. lol my gramma used to use it.)  but in reality the topic of genome and Homo sapiens evolution is rather laden with *big words.*

doesn't mean they're untrue just because somene lacks capacity to fathom them.





Rule -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 2:26:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyFtshGoddess
anything i said someone can easily google. genetic drift, linkage disequilibrium, phenotype, human genome, genotype, *out of africa* theory, physical anthropology, bell curve, infrasubspecific, quadramonial.. ...

ALL of these terms are right there waiting for anyone with an open mind to research it..

Ehrm, I did google and dogpile "quadramonial", but that did not have any results. (Dogpile yielded one, but that did not have the word in it.) What does the word mean? Or did you mean "quadrimonial"? (That gave a few results, but I do not know its meaning either.)
 
Edited to add: Ah, it was a typing error. You meant "quadrinomial".



DesertRat -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 2:27:01 PM)

I think the capacity is there, but not the willingness. That's my impression, anyway.

Bob



DesertRat -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 2:38:59 PM)

It shoulda been "quadrinomial", meaning a name with four terms. Homo sapiens sapiens is a trinomial; Rattus rattus is a binomial; Homo sapiens rattus desertii is a quadrinomial. I made that last one up.

Proofreader Bob [8|]



EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 3:13:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyFtshGoddess
anything i said someone can easily google. genetic drift, linkage disequilibrium, phenotype, human genome, genotype, *out of africa* theory, physical anthropology, bell curve, infrasubspecific, quadramonial.. ...

ALL of these terms are right there waiting for anyone with an open mind to research it..

Ehrm, I did google and dogpile "quadramonial", but that did not have any results. (Dogpile yielded one, but that did not have the word in it.) What does the word mean? Or did you mean "quadrimonial"? (That gave a few results, but I do not know its meaning either.)
 
Edited to add: Ah, it was a typing error. You meant "quadrinomial".


yawn.. yes we can get nitpicking on typos (which i am entirely happy has not transpired thus far).

OBVIOUSLY i meant quadrinomial.. as i have said QUADRINOMIAL in my other posts.

i didn't spell it "qadinomeal" or something SO egregiously erroneous. i transposed the M for the N.. oh, shoot me. hopefully the average person is more aware than that.. also, hopefully the person reading the WHOLE thread would also be thusly aware. there is a difference between *typo* and *ignorance*.

obviously that was a *typo*

check how many other times i spelled that word correctly.. vs the ONE time i spelled it wrong.

i would *hope* that intelligent people could take contextural usage into account.

hmm.. perhaps not.

i love when arguments turn to typo sorta debasements..

riddle me this.. how many people could spell that word
wrong vs people that have no concept of the word to begin with? let alone know what the fuck it means?

ok i spell words wrong, i never make apologizes for that.. so shoot me.. i can treat each response i make as a treatise.. or i can speak and send. hmm perhaps i should treat it from a thesis perspective.

however, were it a term paper or thesis.. i can guarantee you that my Ts would be crossed and my Is would be dotted.



EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 3:24:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertRat

It shoulda been "quadrinomial", meaning a name with four terms. Homo sapiens sapiens is a trinomial; Rattus rattus is a binomial; Homo sapiens rattus desertii is a quadrinomial. I made that last one up.

Proofreader Bob [8|]


hehe.. indeed.

i'm guilty of typos just like the rest of us. but it doesn't mean what i've said is any less valid because i'm not treating this as term paper.

i type 85 wpm.. i make a lot of mistakes and i type nearly as fast as my brain is working. sometimes i do make mistakes. but they are not mistakes of error in thinking.. more like mistakes in not slowing down enough to proof read.

but if one would view my posts vs the posts of others.. few of my posts are edited even tho they need to be perhaps. save a few typos here and there.. the jist of the matter is as blatant and evident as a clear glass window.

i enjoy your input.



DesertRat -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 3:37:43 PM)

I knew what ya meant. Was just explaining it to the guy and not correcting you. Your meaning was quite obvious.

Bob



kittinSol -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 4:13:35 PM)

I only type at 72wpm, but with some level of accuracy it seems [;)]; maybe that's why I spent a lot of my career being a secretary!

Okay, enough boasting, and time to check out the word 'quadrinomial'... oh, I see, it just means 'made of four things'! I think I can get my head around that, blonde brain and all.

Now, on to the means we have to eradicate xenophobia and prejudice in our immediate vicinities. Any thoughts?



seeksfemslave -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/6/2007 4:19:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyFtshGoddess
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Those who have been on a "course" and believe that their knowledge of technical jargon explains everything ...etc etc

but what you eschew as *jargon*.. is actually fact.
WHAT have you contributed to this forum that is more than conjecture or retarded *bell curve* rhetoric?
you *think* you speak from a knowledgable standpoint when it's really obvious that you have NO background in the matter other than how you feel. sorry, how you feel does NOT equate readily into fact and science.

The jargon itself may be factual, it's the interpretation that follows from the knowledge of that jargon that is wrong IMO. Whenever a little ad hominem attack creeps into the debate its reasonable to conclude  that the opposition is rattled.

I simply offer my opinions based on my experience and observation of the world as I see it.
If I see a group that sits in the Sun and eats grubs for breakfast and have done that for a good number of years and I see another group that builds nuclear weapons is it so unreasonable to conclude that those groups are not equal ?
How does the fact that both groups have approximately equal genotypes impinge on any conclusion that may be made ?



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875