Pants-of-dog wrote:But it is not our country.
But it is our country while not being your country.
Language is a social construct -- why would you be surprised that, even in language, people as different as us are using different constructions?
Why be so judgmental about that?
Don't get hung up, bro.
No. Some parts are right and some parts are wrong.
No, this is not true.
You do not get it.
You are claiming blacks are a race.
You are claiming Kenyans are a race.
You are claiming that the subtribe is a race.
They cannot all be races. If one is a race, the other two cannot be.
Please note that Pants of Dog absolutely refused
to respond in detail at all. What we actually just have is him saying I am wrong and that only some of what is said is right
in two iterations, and that makes it actually impossible to respond because he does not even bother telling me what I have said that is inaccurate or wrong until the very end here.
My opponent is refusing to argue and to engage. What can I do?
But onto the part where he puts up an argument -- we see that it is actually the same argument I have been trying to disentangle us from from the beginning so that we can actually have a conversation about biology, genetics, and humanity.
He is obsessed with getting us to talk about human categories,
and when I try to appease the situation by saying that the categories are a social construct and that we need to play fast and loose with them to some degree,
he insists I am doing something wrong.
It seems clear to me: Pants of Dog has to recognize that, logically, the genetics of East Africans make them good marathon runners, but he absolutely does not want to say that significant ethnic or genetic categories exist.
He hopes to terminate the argument in utero by insisting that the argument can't happen because categoires can't be constructed.
Yet, East African
is a valid category and we get valid results from it.
I'd liek to further point out that historically, there is a variety of ways to refer to these categories.
Since not all East Africans are good runners, this question is based on a wrong premise.
... Are we really back on this level?
East Africans resoundingly prove a massive trend in the running world,
and show that their genetic sets overwhelmingly give the average person among them advantages in long distance running...
And you are suddenly going to say "Well, some of them aren't that good, so the rest of this is irrelevant..."
That is like saying that since some people who got graduate degrees from Harvard are not intelligent or not successful, it means nothing that people with graduate degrees from Harvard cannot be said to have any real advantage over people who only have their GEDs.
Bad, bad argument.
There are black Mexicans, and white ones, and Asian ones, and indigenous people living in Mexico. Mexico is not a genetic ethnogroup.
In the sense that there are citizens
as such, right. There are perhaps even some Asians who are culturally Mexican, but this would perhaps be even more unique.
When we are saying Mexican, we are generally talking about the Mexican people as an ethnos,
not the gringa who speaks bad Spanish, married in, and is now a citizen, right...?
And this has nothing to do with whether or not races are distinct, which is one of the central premises of the race IQ debate, and which you have not only failed to support, but which you have dismissed as unimportant despite claiming it.
The race IQ debate between us is over and you have failed to support it.
We haven't even begun to talk about that
We are still on long distance runners and strugglign with groups.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
You have failed to support your claim that the races are genetically distinct.
Do West Africans have an advantage inherently, due to their genes, bone structure, and muscle, when it comes to sprinting?
Because the people of West African descent who dominate these sports grow up in very different societies in the Carribbean in the US.