Are the Extremist Green Parties Across Europe The Most Dangerous Of All

The Equalizer said:
Draw the dividing line then..
Click to expand...
I have no need to because unlike you I have no policies or ideas about treating someone differently on account of their skin colour (which is similar to your own idea about "race"). If I did I would indeed consider I would have great difficulties drawing a dividing line to facilitate that different treatment. But I don't. And I don't understand anyone who insists there should be different treatment - if not for the logistical difficulties of drawing such a dividing line, then also for the fact that notwithstanding appearances we an astonishingly uniform species as the geneticists tell us, even Dawkins. So any rationale for trying to draw this dividing line is also for the birds.
 
Roc_ said:
I have no need to because unlike you I have no policies or ideas about treating someone differently on account of their skin colour (which is similar to your own idea about "race"). If I did I would indeed consider I would have great difficulties drawing a dividing line to facilitate that different treatment. But I don't. And I don't understand anyone who insists there should be different treatment - if not for the logistical difficulties of drawing such a dividing line, then also for the fact that notwithstanding appearances we an astonishingly uniform species as the geneticists tell us, even Dawkins. So any rationale for trying to draw this dividing line is also for the birds.
Click to expand...
Twas a very simple question, really.

You said that some of your best friends are white, how do you know that they're white?
 
No, I am well aware of the role of averages in Nazi race pseudo-science. But I am not speaking of an average scientifically. I am using the term colloquially. I understand the difference. You don't. For instance you don't understand the implication of Simpson's paradox when you try and apply your Nazi race "science". You don't understand the role of confounding factors like individual agency, unique biological or environmental factors, when you attempt to judge individuals based on group averages. So unlike you I am aware of a the science of averages. But clearly the context was a colloquial use of "average". Do you understand the difference? Well you should try to.
 
Roc_ said:
No, I am well aware of the role of averages in Nazi race pseudo-science. But I am not speaking of an average scientifically. I am using the term colloquially. I understand the difference. You don't. For instance you don't understand the implication of Simpson's paradox when you try and apply your Nazi race "science". You don't understand the role of confounding factors like individual agency, unique biological or environmental factors, when you attempt to judge individuals based on group averages. So unlike you I am aware of a the science of averages. But clearly the context was a colloquial use of "average". Do you understand the difference? Well you should try to.
Click to expand...
How do you know that many of your best friends are white? Tell us!
 
The Equalizer said:
How do you know that many of your best friends are white? Tell us!
Click to expand...
I answered you already:

Roc_ said:
Like they're whitish, pinkish, more or less tanned in the summer, and after winter getaways, and you can tell from appearances there are clearly a few more generations between their ancestors in Africa than other more recent arrivals here. Noting that I'd expect these recent arrivals I'm referring to will likely lose most of their current skin melanin within a few generations, if they stay here, to better adapt to conditions here in this country, given the continuance of our current climate of course.
Click to expand...
 
Your claim of being unable to understand what is being said to you is really something. Listen to Dawkins again, it's not hard to understand:

"... if you take two chimpanzees from the same forest in Africa, they are likely to be more different from each other genetically than any two humans in the whole world... As surprising as this may be to people who consider that races look so different to our eyes...."
 
If I asked you is something red or orange, would you get in the same tizzy?
 
Roc_ said:
Your claim of being unable to understand what is being said to you is really something. Listen to Dawkins again, it's not hard to understand:

"... if you take two chimpanzees from the same forest in Africa, they are likely to be more different from each other genetically than any two humans in the whole world... As surprising as this may be to people who consider that races look so different to our eyes...."
Click to expand...
You were given your chance in the Race Realism thread. You were told the rules - stick to the facts and the human species.

You failed.
 
Jambo, you're some fucking idiot.

"Race realism". :LOL::LOL::rolleyes:

Who's going to argue with Jambo about his white supremacist jargon. :rolleyes:
 
Roc_ said:
Jambo, you're some fucking idiot.

"Race realism". :LOL::LOL::rolleyes:

Who's going to argue with Jambo about his white supremacist jargon. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What an incredible bore you are.

Race realism has been defined a brazillion times to you. It means that race is a biological reality and that there are differences between the races that are more than "skin deep".
 
The Equalizer said:
Race realism has been defined a brazillion times to you. It means that race is a biological reality and that there are differences between the races that are more than "skin deep".
Click to expand...
Defined by whom and for what is the question.

"Race realism" is a jargon phrase to carry a hypothesis and give it a false impression of concreteness and authority.

It is an attempt to frame the discussion of the above hypothesis in a phrase that already gives the conclusion (and positions anyone who disagrees as a "race denier" etc.)

And the hypothesis itself is framed in an underhand way too of course. Sure there are differences between races, that claim can be made when we study things at the molecular level. But the question is whether these differences make a difference enough to posit racial categories as useful proxies for genetic diversity.

So that is the key question that all your jargon and phrasing attempts to obscure. It attempts to obscure it because the science is very clear on the answer, which is a resounding NO, these differences are swamped by an order of magnitude by the genetic diversity that occurs within the human species as a whole regardless of racial categories.
 
Roc_ said:
Defined by whom and for what is the question.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

Roc_ said:
"Race realism" is a jargon phrase
Click to expand...
🤦‍♂️

Roc_ said:
to carry a hypothesis and give it a false impression of concreteness and authority.

It is an attempt to frame the discussion of the above hypothesis in a phrase that already gives the conclusion (and positions anyone who disagrees as a "race denier" etc.)

And the hypothesis itself is framed in an underhand way too of course. Sure there are differences between races, that claim can be made when we study things at the molecular level. But the question is whether these differences make a difference enough to posit racial categories as useful proxies for genetic diversity.

So that is the key question that all your jargon and phrasing attempts to obscure. It attempts to obscure it because the science is very clear on the answer, which is a resounding
Click to expand...
Roc_ said:
NO, these differences are swamped by an order of magnitude by the genetic diversity that occurs within the human species as a whole regardless of racial categories.
Click to expand...
You were told the rules..

Stick to the facts and do not repeat the derivation as proof of anything. That's all you're doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Back
Top Bottom