- 25 Apr 2018 21:16
#14909262
@blackjack21
I probably should've clarified. Ethnicity and race overlap given that race is integrated into ethnicity. Thereby you can use both the terms "ethnicity" and "race" when discussing genes. My argument was a semantic one rather than conceptual.
Bringing up your grades in college is worthless in discussion given that it is simply a re-purposed version of the appeal to authority fallacy except with yourself as the authority and such claims are often unverifiable.
My point was to emphasize the relationship between ethnicity and race and thus used them interchangeably. I assumed that you didn't have such information and thus, for the sake of discussion, didn't bring up the nuances of what ethnicity is given that it may prove to be irrelevant to the discussion and only deter from the main topic.
It seems you haven't read my response whatsoever. I stated that the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid categories are based on physical appearance rather than genetics. The terms were coined by anthropologists, people who have no experience in genetics, to organize different human societies into groups (note that even anthropologists today don't use Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid in their work). It was only adopted by genetic scientists who didn't have any other terms to base their findings on and because scientific chauvinism was trendy back then as a way to legitimize imperialism.
In a way, I implicitly stated that it has some foundation in reality, just that it has no foundation in modern genetics and politics. All I said is that they're outdated terms that can't be used to understand why things are in the world. You can't understand why the Middle East is the way it is through these terms.
I was talking from the point of view of a 9/11 apologist which you could clearly tell based on the way I tried to mellow it's impact. If you want a better example, a historical revisionist would say that American slavery wasn't horrible, just that it was a tough time for everyone, both white and black people. It attempts to mellow the impact of slavery on blacks by stating that whites were also suffering (and no, this is not a legitimate argument that slavery wasn't that bad).
If by "your civilization" you don't mean your idealized ridiculous perception of the White Nation or whatever, then your civilization is doing pretty good. Geneticists don't use it and I am only using the term at my expense for you. Now that you are aware I only used "ethnicity" interchangeably with "race" you can now directly answer my response instead being hung up by something you already discussed previously.
Well that certainly isn't enough pros to warrant excluding most of the human population from a set area now is it? Are seriously going to limit your gene pool just for more Vitamin D in a very specific climate that may disappear due to global warming?
I was referencing Charles II of Spain. It was meant to be poetic.
The British, Germans, and Irish aren't Caucasians. All their respective countries aren't even geographically located around the Black Sea. This isn't arguing for argument's sake, this is critically analyzing the claim that you are Caucasian. If you don't have a strong match with any group outside of Anglo-Saxons and Germans, then you're certainly not Caucasian.
The Occipital lobe can process exactly what things are, but it can't tell us what we feel about those things. The frontal lobe however, is capable of doing that.
Darwin doesn't consider beauty at all which is understandable given the time he wrote it. The human mind is more complex than you think it is.
I'm not sure where you are getting your definitions. "Ethnicity" is a term of social science.
I probably should've clarified. Ethnicity and race overlap given that race is integrated into ethnicity. Thereby you can use both the terms "ethnicity" and "race" when discussing genes. My argument was a semantic one rather than conceptual.
I specifically studied these topics in college, and had a 4.0 GPA. It's possible that genetic sciences have their own definition of the term "ethnicity". I haven't heard of the term "ethnicity" being used in genetic science. In social sciences, self-identification is one of the modes of classifying a person into a group. Ethnicity is a good example in sociology.
Bringing up your grades in college is worthless in discussion given that it is simply a re-purposed version of the appeal to authority fallacy except with yourself as the authority and such claims are often unverifiable.
My point was to emphasize the relationship between ethnicity and race and thus used them interchangeably. I assumed that you didn't have such information and thus, for the sake of discussion, didn't bring up the nuances of what ethnicity is given that it may prove to be irrelevant to the discussion and only deter from the main topic.
It's not mellowing anything other than your histrionics. There are historical notions that are prescient, but imprecise. There are notions that are clearly wrong. For example, Hippocrates thought that people had four humors. Obviously, his understanding was not only limited, but much of it didn't correspond to biological processes at all. There was no relationship to Earth, Fire Water and Air, or the four seasons. He was simply wrong. Classifying races as African, Caucasian and Asian is simply imprecise. It's a very large grained abstraction.
It seems you haven't read my response whatsoever. I stated that the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid categories are based on physical appearance rather than genetics. The terms were coined by anthropologists, people who have no experience in genetics, to organize different human societies into groups (note that even anthropologists today don't use Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid in their work). It was only adopted by genetic scientists who didn't have any other terms to base their findings on and because scientific chauvinism was trendy back then as a way to legitimize imperialism.
In a way, I implicitly stated that it has some foundation in reality, just that it has no foundation in modern genetics and politics. All I said is that they're outdated terms that can't be used to understand why things are in the world. You can't understand why the Middle East is the way it is through these terms.
I'm still not following. 9/11 can be interpreted totally different based on your point of view. For Al Qaeda, they considered it a great victory. They weren't uncomfortable at all. Yasser Arafat might have been uncomfortable, as the US clearly wasn't too happy with terrorist organizations. If you want to make semantic arguments, I would suggest a more relevant example.
I was talking from the point of view of a 9/11 apologist which you could clearly tell based on the way I tried to mellow it's impact. If you want a better example, a historical revisionist would say that American slavery wasn't horrible, just that it was a tough time for everyone, both white and black people. It attempts to mellow the impact of slavery on blacks by stating that whites were also suffering (and no, this is not a legitimate argument that slavery wasn't that bad).
My civilization lives or dies with little input from me. Again, ethnicity is a social science concept, not a genetic one. If you can submit to me some evidence that geneticists use the term "ethnicity" to define certain genetic traits, I'll concede. However, I do believe you are incorrect in your usage here.
If by "your civilization" you don't mean your idealized ridiculous perception of the White Nation or whatever, then your civilization is doing pretty good. Geneticists don't use it and I am only using the term at my expense for you. Now that you are aware I only used "ethnicity" interchangeably with "race" you can now directly answer my response instead being hung up by something you already discussed previously.
That depends upon what you mean by those terms. White skin will allow your body to create more nitric oxide and Vitamin D in Northern climates. That doesn't translate into abilities like bench pressing 150lbs, for example. However, it does translate into cardiovascular health and bone strength.
Well that certainly isn't enough pros to warrant excluding most of the human population from a set area now is it? Are seriously going to limit your gene pool just for more Vitamin D in a very specific climate that may disappear due to global warming?
This is clearly not a genetic argument. You are tacking between poetry, a misguided use of social science terms and genetics.
I was referencing Charles II of Spain. It was meant to be poetic.
You are arguing for argument's sake. 23andMe does provide an ancestry breakdown. I don't have strong match strength for any group except for British & Irish and German. For some reason, you don't like that.
The British, Germans, and Irish aren't Caucasians. All their respective countries aren't even geographically located around the Black Sea. This isn't arguing for argument's sake, this is critically analyzing the claim that you are Caucasian. If you don't have a strong match with any group outside of Anglo-Saxons and Germans, then you're certainly not Caucasian.
Visual processing is widely believe to be in the Occipital lobe at the back of the head.
The Occipital lobe can process exactly what things are, but it can't tell us what we feel about those things. The frontal lobe however, is capable of doing that.
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
Darwin doesn't consider beauty at all which is understandable given the time he wrote it. The human mind is more complex than you think it is.