If races are not real, then you have to be logically consistent - Page 62 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15319185
@FiveofSwords

Adaptive traits do not define races in humans!

In the 2002 Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies.

There is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities.

Race is a social construct, not a biological attribute.

When I said, "Turkish farmers were the first white men," I was referring to the colour of their skin, not their non-existent biological race.

See A.R. Templeton (2013) Biological Races in Humans


:)
#15319192
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

Adaptive traits do not define races in humans!

In the 2002 Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies.

There is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities.

Race is a social construct, not a biological attribute.

When I said, "Turkish farmers were the first white men," I was referring to the colour of their skin, not their non-existent biological race.

See A.R. Templeton (2013) Biological Races in Humans


:)

Your history is retarded, first of all. There were no turks and there were no scottish people 10k years ago.

Adaptive traits absolutrly do define a race, cause that is how I define race. Whenever I suggest that humans adapt to different environments,, you jnaist there is no such thing.

But whenever you think you can make white people look bad, suddenly it is a thing.
#15319193
@FiveofSwords

10,000 years ago...

The white-skinned 'Anatolian farmers' were from what is now Anatolia. Anatolia is a region in Turkey, constituting most of its contemporary territory.

The Gaelic Scots were in what is now Ireland and dark-skinned. Although there had always been movement back and forth between Scotland and Ireland since well before recorded history, the Scots didn't migrate in numbers to what is now Scotland until the 6th century AD.


:)
#15319196
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

10,000 years ago...

The white-skinned 'Anatolian farmers' were from what is now Anatolia. Anatolia is a region in Turkey, constituting most of its contemporary territory.

The Gaelic Scots were in what is now Ireland and dark-skinned. Although there had always been movement back and forth between Scotland and Ireland since well before recorded history, the Scots didn't migrate in numbers to what is now Scotland until the 6th century AD.


:)

Dude...dna changes over time...as your own fake study suggests. Even if we ignored migrations and conquest. There were no turks or Scots 10k years ago and you are dumb to suggest there were.
#15319199
@FiveofSwords

I could have called them anything, but everyone knows where Scotland, Ireland, and Turkey are. So, as we were talking about geographical areas and your bullshit Scots ancestry, anachronisms are neither here nor there if they aid clarity.

As for your 'because I' bollocks...

The world doesn't revolve around you.


:lol:
#15319200
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

I could have called them anything, but everyone knows where Scotland, Ireland, and Turkey are. So, as we were talking about geographical areas and your bullshit Scots ancestry, anachronisms are neither here nor there if they aid clarity.

As for your 'because I' bollocks...

The world doesn't revolve around you.


:lol:


Yeah, I know where Anatolia is and I also happen to know that the hittites, for example, who were much less than 10k years ago, were not turks.

I know the people who built skara Brae were not scottish, also. Neither were they African.

I also don't believe for a second that they had black skin lol...if people with black skin migrated to Scotland it would quickly turn white simply because there would be a massive issue with vitamin d deficiency. I think your 'study' is just fake because it is not scientifically plausible. Their depiction of 'cheddar man' is bs. Could ancient Europeans have darker skin than modern Europeans? Sure. They spent a lot more time outside, after all. But pick black skin and as ugly as cheddar man? No. That is clearly just 'sciebtists' trying to lie as much as they can to make some fake moral legitimacy to the genocide of white people (by pretending white people never existed and yet that our distant ancestors were physically repulsive, lol)

The reason your world view is full of bs and internal contradictions is because you are constantly avoiding the only thing you really have to say. You don't actually give a shit about history or genetics or what people are a legitimate people lol. None of this matters one bit to you. All you have to say is that you don't like white people...but you feel like you have to avoid just saying that directly. Well, I can hear clearly ehat you are actually saying. And I don't give a shit that you don't like white people.

The world doesn't revolve around you.
#15319201
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

I could have called them anything, but everyone knows where Scotland, Ireland, and Turkey are. So, as we were talking about geographical areas and your bullshit Scots ancestry, anachronisms are neither here nor there if they aid clarity.

As for your 'because I' bollocks...

The world doesn't revolve around you.


:lol:


Your trolling calculations are just wrong, lol. It's so stupid.

First of all you assume I woukd identify with some ice age hunter in the British isles. I don't. That was a long damn time ago and a lot has happened since then, which altered what sort of people me and my ancestors actually were.

Second, you think it matters a lot to me what skin color people are. I have told you many times that I don't care about that.

Because your brain is small you seem to think that implies I don't care about race...because YOU like to use 'skin color' as a euphemism for race (despite simultaneously insisting that there is no genetic component to race, which is a contradiction). But no, I care a lot about race...just not skin color. More important to me is behavior and what sort of civilizations the people of various races create...which I believe is mostly influenced by their genetics.

Nothing you say is ever any sort of 'gotcha' lol. Everything you say is just stupid and irrelevant and contradictory. And it is even more stupid because you seem to think I would care about any of the dumb things you and the Mexican say
#15319203
FiveofSwords wrote:a massive issue with vitamin d deficiency

If vitamin D deficiency was such a problem, why aren't BPOC citizens in Scotland dropping like flies?

Scotland's population was 4% Asian, African, Caribbean, or Mixed in 2011.


:lol:
#15319205
ingliz wrote:If vitamin D deficiency was such a problem, why aren't BPOC citizens in Scotland dropping like flies?

Scotland's population was 4% Asian, African, Caribbean, or Mixed in 2011.


:lol:


This is the problem when talking to racists about the science of racism. Their "science" is fabricated and has been discredited for a very long time at this point. So they can only make up history or variables to justify their racism. It's never coherent because it's based on fabrications from the beginning.
#15319206
ingliz wrote:If vitamin D deficiency was such a problem, why aren't BPOC citizens in Scotland dropping like flies?

Scotland's population was 4% Asian, African, Caribbean, or Mixed in 2011.


:lol:

Actually they do often have serious vitamin d deficiency. But the issues associated with this can be mitigated with modern medical technology that did not exist 10k years ago. Really a dumb question.
#15319212
@FiveofSwords

While diverse health problems ranging from MS to heart disease, from TB to cancers at various sites have been associated with low levels of vitamin D (and with higher latitude) there is no or insufficient evidence to support a causal link between low vitamin D and any of these problems; furthermore, there is no evidence that giving vitamin D alters the incidence of any of these conditions.

Also, don't forget average life expectancy was low in Neolithic times.

Analysis of 170 Neolithic skeletons from a rock shelter in France indicated that the group had a life expectancy of between 25 and 28 years. A review of human remains in an early Bronze Age Austrian necropolis indicated a life expectancy of only 24 years.

— Proceedings of the Royal College Physicians of Edinburgh (1999)

In Darwinian terms, the ability to synthesise vitamin D was an advantage, but I doubt a lack of vitamin D made that much difference to lives that were so brutish and short. A little more vitamin D would make a life of pain less painful for the individual, but they weren't dropping like flies without it. They were still able to fulfil their main task in Darwinian terms, that of reproducing.

It took 1000s of years to turn Europe white.


:)
#15319213
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

While diverse health problems ranging from MS to heart disease, from TB to cancers at various sites have been associated with low levels of vitamin D (and with higher latitude) there is no or insufficient evidence to support a causal link between low vitamin D and any of these problems; furthermore, there is no evidence that giving vitamin D alters the incidence of any of these conditions.

Also, don't forget average life expectancy was low in Neolithic times.

Analysis of 170 Neolithic skeletons from a rock shelter in France indicated that the group had a life expectancy of between 25 and 28 years. A review of human remains in an early Bronze Age Austrian necropolis indicated a life expectancy of only 24 years.

— Proceedings of the Royal College Physicians of Edinburgh (1999)

In Darwinian terms, the ability to synthesise vitamin D was an advantage, but I doubt a lack of vitamin D made that much difference to lives that were so brutish and short. A little more vitamin D would make a life of pain less painful for the individual, but they weren't dropping like flies without it. They were still able to fulfil their main task in Darwinian terms, that of reproducing.

It took 1000s of years to turn Europe white.


:)

I love how when you are just trying to show off your midwit knowledge by ignoring the main point and asserting that your expert opinion is that vitamin d doesn't matter, you still show how low info you are.

The reason life expectancy in the Neolithic era was so low is because of how common it was to die before reaching the age of 5. If you did reach 5, however, you could expect to reach your 40s or 50s. The most common cause of death was, as always, illness.
#15319214
@FiveofSwords

If you were living into your 50s around 10,000 years ago, a lack of vitamin D is not a problem in Darwinian terms.

You'd have plenty of time to make lots of babies...

Living things grow and they reproduce. Growth is a way to generate the materials for reproduction. Reproduction is a way to make new organisms that can grow. Thus, the apparent "goal" of every organism is to fill the available world with its offspring, that is, with "self".

Of course, over time, your vitamin D-synthesising neighbours will out-compete you*, but that will take thousands of years and is not an immediate problem. Although why you would think the white-skinned fucking the dark-skinned is a problem is beyond me - Sex is not death.


:)


* The Scots...

With the more efficient vitamin D-synthesising females able to produce quality breast milk, more babies carrying the 'white' gene survive to reach sexual maturity. And with that, you get more white men fucking dusky maidens and more babies carrying the 'white' gene.

Given enough time - 3,500 years - and enough fucking - There was not much else to do on those cold northern nights - everyone ends up a lot whiter.
#15319244
KurtFF8 wrote:This is the problem when talking to racists about the science of racism. Their "science" is fabricated and has been discredited for a very long time at this point. So they can only make up history or variables to justify their racism. It's never coherent because it's based on fabrications from the beginning.


I agree that "race science" is long discredited and obviously fake.

But so are most of our religions and national histories, so "racism" fits right in with most of the rest of the manufactured-by-oligarch-media Western worldview.

Most Westerners believe in the latest fake "theory" that money rams down their throats. Racism... is just one of the old trends that is now out of date. But there are lots of fake theories to take its place. Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and the White Man's Burden (WMB) of yore... are the same thing, for example.
#15319255
FiveofSwords wrote:What are you talking about? I defined white just fine.


Reapeting yourself like a broken record with no argument is just boring.

And no, Greeks are not white and Christianity has nothing to do with being white.


:lol: You wrote that the White people are defined by: "not being Black, sharing Christianity and Greek culture", now after being corrected you have removed all 3 arguments of yours.

White people are the people who genetically adapted to the way of life that Europeans aboted for the past couple thousand years. I gave you a long tist of events in our history that altered our dna. Is it really that difficult for you to understand?


You 're the one finding it difficult to express yourself. The stuff you have already said make no sense whatsoever, so If you want to be taken seriously, you ought to state what it is you are actually talking about.

And you seem to making pretty sad logic fails. No...black people are not white. But that does not actually imply that everyone who isn't black is white...it is quite possible for a person to be neither black nor white.

White is a category. There are a lot of ethnic groups that are white. For example...Dutch and 3nglish people are white. So a person can be both Dutch and white...there is no contradiction.
I just wonder if you know how categories work? A bulldog is a kind of dog, for example. It is quite possible for a life form to be simultaneously a bulldog and a dog...because 'dog' is just more broad a category.

In the same way, it is possible to live both in new York and in the usa. Because new York is in the usa.

Isthis stuff too confusing for you or what? I'm not sure how to teach the concept of a category to people.


You don't seem to get it, but let's make this is as easy for you as possible. NY is in the USA, both NY and USA accept this as a reality, the Dutch however may not accept that they belong to the same group as yourself, so calling yourself and them "white" and lumping them into a single category with yourself included as you already did with all Europeans is a total fail because the vast majority of these people DO NOT see themselves sharing something with you and as such the entire "White" group you built on this basis is a fake because unlike NY and USA, they are not in the same country and do not see themselves as part of the same group, nor do they share common ethnic memory(.ie dances, folk music, etcetera).

You are lumping together "whites" who simply do not want to be part of this US white nationalist group that you are defining which strictly speaking has historically applied to WASP's only and has excluded ALL other "white" people.
#15319346
noemon wrote:Reapeting yourself like a broken record with no argument is just boring.



:lol: You wrote that the White people are defined by: "not being Black, sharing Christianity and Greek culture", now after being corrected you have removed all 3 arguments of yours.



You 're the one finding it difficult to express yourself. The stuff you have already said make no sense whatsoever, so If you want to be taken seriously, you ought to state what it is you are actually talking about.



You don't seem to get it, but let's make this is as easy for you as possible. NY is in the USA, both NY and USA accept this as a reality, the Dutch however may not accept that they belong to the same group as yourself, so calling yourself and them "white" and lumping them into a single category with yourself included as you already did with all Europeans is a total fail because the vast majority of these people DO NOT see themselves sharing something with you and as such the entire "White" group you built on this basis is a fake because unlike NY and USA, they are not in the same country and do not see themselves as part of the same group, nor do they share common ethnic memory(.ie dances, folk music, etcetera).

You are lumping together "whites" who simply do not want to be part of this US white nationalist group that you are defining which strictly speaking has historically applied to WASP's only and has excluded ALL other "white" people.

I did not define white people as not being black or Christian or Greek. That is just a lie.

I express myself just fine

I consider myself human. Do dutch people consider them human?

Was that clear enough for you?
#15319354
FiveofSwords wrote:...I express myself just fine
...


You really do bring up the quality of language on this forum.

Have you ever thought about becoming a real politician?

I could see you debating against Joe Biden and .... winning.

If only all the member of this forum had severe Alzheimers, you would sound more intelligent and better informed than any of them!

Perhaps, rather than wasting your time pushing the keys on your keyboard, you ought to be looking into ways of giving everyone turbo-Alzheimers. Perhaps you could do this via a fake-vaccine roll-out?
#15319371
FiveofSwords wrote:I did not define white people as not being black or Christian or Greek. That is just a lie.


Sure you didn't.

I express myself just fine

I consider myself human. Do dutch people consider them human?

Was that clear enough for you?


Did you just say that we are all human? Therefore "race" is irrelevant.
#15319399
noemon wrote:Sure you didn't.



Did you just say that we are all human? Therefore "race" is irrelevant.

This is a fascinating forum.

I simply gave you a list of things that I believe altered the genetic history of white people. Made rhen what they currently are.

I think that is pretty clear. I don't know how you can struggle to understand it.

If for example, I say that an important part of the genetic history of whales is that they are mammals who returned to the sea...I'm guessing you could understand that? It doesn't mean that dolphins are whales...and it doesn't mean a whale in an aquarium is not a whale. The fact that whales exist doesn't mean beluga whales are 'irrelevant'. The fact mammals exist doesn't mean whales are 'irrelevant'.

Your brain does very peculiar things.

Please, do show me more of your confusion.
#15319431
You would think that @FiveofSwords would be thanking the Turkish farmers for the time and effort they spent fucking Europeans, happy that dark-skinned Europeans turned white.

But, no, he dumps his genetic argument and calls the geneticists liars.

So much for Scientific Racism.


:lol:
  • 1
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64

Funny you say that at a time that we have Democra[…]

But will those White males vote Trump? That's wha[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hitler saw it differently he saw the East-People […]

Following Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign […]