Right…well, I think an argument over possible genetic differences is hardly helpful. Culture we can try to change, together. That’s in everyone’s interest. Healther outcomes for any population, is a healthier outcome for the nation.
Of course, there might be a few that hold the opinion that culture, social norms, and morals–tools–are strongly tied to genetic traits and evolutionary diversity.
I have more faith than that.
No one here is just making this stuff up. There’s a pretty dang large body of scientific studies that backs up the idea that there are, indeed, genetic differences between different races. You can get crucified just for bringing it up, but that usually happens because it’s pretty hard to refute the mountains of evidence in support of it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a difference between culture and race. The two are often used interchangeably, but that isn’t the case. I still don’t think this has anything to do with actual race (genetics).[/quote]
Dunno, ppl get all touchy feely discussing this stuff for obvious reasons, although they don’t have much problem accepting that there probably never will be white Hussein Bolt etc.
This may sound a little hitler-esque but there are well documented differences between say mongoloids and sub-saharan africans, denying them is just silly. [/quote]
Statistics don’t speak for the individual. There are always outliers. Besides, the groups you mentioned aren’t mutually elusive. Are you saying that a person with any white DNA couldn’t be as fast as bolt? You have to realize ethnic groups themselves are at least partially blurred if not more or less imaginary. They aren’t real things.[/quote]
Well, the fact that the boundaries between subjects are blurred doesn’t mean the subjects don’t exist. Just because there’s “gray” doesn’t mean there’s no “white” or “black”.
And yeah, if I was blindly placing bets on athletes just based on their skin color I would go with white swimmers and black 100m sprinters.
[/quote]
The individual subjects being the only things existing is exactly what I’ve been arguing. And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.
And you’re an idiot, because if I (or any intelligent person) were betting they wouldn’t factor in skin color at all, they’d use track record.
And even if you did go based on color, your thought is still dumb, because virtually all 100m sprinters are black and all swimmers are white. Your assertion that you would bet on the race that virtually all persons in that sport are doesn’t add any value to the betting selection. You essentially you just claimed you’d bet on everyone.
And even if that weren’t the case, the assertion is still dumb because you are apparently forgetting that skin tones go across the spectrum and can even change due to diet or sun exposure. There is no black/white line in skin tone. Are you asserting that the darker a persons skin is the faster they can run on average? So if there were 2 people of African dissent, you would bet on the one with the darker skin?
Also, are you aware that the black race has genetic groups that are essentially on opposite ends of the spectrum when if comes to muscle composition and explosive power generation? There is a large population of black genes that are terrible for explosive running?
You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
You mad, lol?
Obviously judging by your post you can’t participate in a civil discussion so I don’t see a point of arguing with you here.
This though is the most retarded thing I’ve heard today : “And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.”
Lol. I suppose just because there’s a poor poodle-amstaff mix bastard somewhere means that there are no poodles or amstaffs. Brilliant![/quote]
Scientifically there are no poodles or mastifs. Read my other post. Breed isn’t a scientific concept.
And I think what you mean is, “I’m mad cause I just got logically destroyed so I don’t see the point of arguing”[/quote]
I am not sure I disagree with your analysis, but it seems to me that humans are hard wired to organize things and place them into categories, even if that organization isn’t “scientific.” It can still be useful. I know when I go get a new boxer puppy I have a pretty good idea of what I am getting and would be pretty shocked if that boxer looked like some other non-scientifically defined breed like a pincher. Isn’t the human ability to organize things into artificial categories one of the traits that keeps us alive? Its also the basis–I think, I’m certainly no expert–for Gestalt psychology.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a difference between culture and race. The two are often used interchangeably, but that isn’t the case. I still don’t think this has anything to do with actual race (genetics).[/quote]
Dunno, ppl get all touchy feely discussing this stuff for obvious reasons, although they don’t have much problem accepting that there probably never will be white Hussein Bolt etc.
This may sound a little hitler-esque but there are well documented differences between say mongoloids and sub-saharan africans, denying them is just silly. [/quote]
Statistics don’t speak for the individual. There are always outliers. Besides, the groups you mentioned aren’t mutually elusive. Are you saying that a person with any white DNA couldn’t be as fast as bolt? You have to realize ethnic groups themselves are at least partially blurred if not more or less imaginary. They aren’t real things.[/quote]
Well, the fact that the boundaries between subjects are blurred doesn’t mean the subjects don’t exist. Just because there’s “gray” doesn’t mean there’s no “white” or “black”.
And yeah, if I was blindly placing bets on athletes just based on their skin color I would go with white swimmers and black 100m sprinters.
[/quote]
The individual subjects being the only things existing is exactly what I’ve been arguing. And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.
And you’re an idiot, because if I (or any intelligent person) were betting they wouldn’t factor in skin color at all, they’d use track record.
And even if you did go based on color, your thought is still dumb, because virtually all 100m sprinters are black and all swimmers are white. Your assertion that you would bet on the race that virtually all persons in that sport are doesn’t add any value to the betting selection. You essentially you just claimed you’d bet on everyone.
And even if that weren’t the case, the assertion is still dumb because you are apparently forgetting that skin tones go across the spectrum and can even change due to diet or sun exposure. There is no black/white line in skin tone. Are you asserting that the darker a persons skin is the faster they can run on average? So if there were 2 people of African dissent, you would bet on the one with the darker skin?
Also, are you aware that the black race has genetic groups that are essentially on opposite ends of the spectrum when if comes to muscle composition and explosive power generation? There is a large population of black genes that are terrible for explosive running?
You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
You mad, lol?
Obviously judging by your post you can’t participate in a civil discussion so I don’t see a point of arguing with you here.
This though is the most retarded thing I’ve heard today : “And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.”
Lol. I suppose just because there’s a poor poodle-amstaff mix bastard somewhere means that there are no poodles or amstaffs. Brilliant![/quote]
Scientifically there are no poodles or mastifs. Read my other post. Breed isn’t a scientific concept.
And I think what you mean is, “I’m mad cause I just got logically destroyed so I don’t see the point of arguing”[/quote]
I am not sure I disagree with your analysis, but it seems to me that humans are hard wired to organize things and place them into categories, even if that organization isn’t “scientific.” It can still be useful. I know when I go get a new boxer puppy I have a pretty good idea of what I am getting and would be pretty shocked if that boxer looked like some other non-scientifically defined breed like a pincher. Isn’t the human ability to organize things into artificial categories one of the traits that keeps us alive? Its also the basis–I think, I’m certainly no expert–for Gestalt psychology.
[/quote]
A purebred malamute can range from 55ish pounds to 160ish pounds. And bred looks and temperament and intelligence change over the years. Additionally many breeds have very wide ranges for things like narcissism and general temperament and intelligence. Breed is truely an artificial label. They are invented and deleted.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one here is just making this stuff up. There’s a pretty dang large body of scientific studies that backs up the idea that there are, indeed, genetic differences between different races. You can get crucified just for bringing it up, but that usually happens because it’s pretty hard to refute the mountains of evidence in support of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen[/quote]
There are much higher correlations between specific genes and specific traits for diseases than there is between race and intelligence. Why then to we socially define ourselves by race and not, say, the sickle cell gene? People who have the sickle cell gene are much more of a real group than race. Why then don’t we call ourselves sickles and roundies or some bullshit? Because we understand that people who have a specific gene aren’t magically bound together. It’s a useful tool, but the collective isn’t a real thing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a difference between culture and race. The two are often used interchangeably, but that isn’t the case. I still don’t think this has anything to do with actual race (genetics).[/quote]
Dunno, ppl get all touchy feely discussing this stuff for obvious reasons, although they don’t have much problem accepting that there probably never will be white Hussein Bolt etc.
This may sound a little hitler-esque but there are well documented differences between say mongoloids and sub-saharan africans, denying them is just silly. [/quote]
Statistics don’t speak for the individual. There are always outliers. Besides, the groups you mentioned aren’t mutually elusive. Are you saying that a person with any white DNA couldn’t be as fast as bolt? You have to realize ethnic groups themselves are at least partially blurred if not more or less imaginary. They aren’t real things.[/quote]
Well, the fact that the boundaries between subjects are blurred doesn’t mean the subjects don’t exist. Just because there’s “gray” doesn’t mean there’s no “white” or “black”.
And yeah, if I was blindly placing bets on athletes just based on their skin color I would go with white swimmers and black 100m sprinters.
[/quote]
The individual subjects being the only things existing is exactly what I’ve been arguing. And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.
And you’re an idiot, because if I (or any intelligent person) were betting they wouldn’t factor in skin color at all, they’d use track record.
And even if you did go based on color, your thought is still dumb, because virtually all 100m sprinters are black and all swimmers are white. Your assertion that you would bet on the race that virtually all persons in that sport are doesn’t add any value to the betting selection. You essentially you just claimed you’d bet on everyone.
And even if that weren’t the case, the assertion is still dumb because you are apparently forgetting that skin tones go across the spectrum and can even change due to diet or sun exposure. There is no black/white line in skin tone. Are you asserting that the darker a persons skin is the faster they can run on average? So if there were 2 people of African dissent, you would bet on the one with the darker skin?
Also, are you aware that the black race has genetic groups that are essentially on opposite ends of the spectrum when if comes to muscle composition and explosive power generation? There is a large population of black genes that are terrible for explosive running?
You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
You mad, lol?
Obviously judging by your post you can’t participate in a civil discussion so I don’t see a point of arguing with you here.
This though is the most retarded thing I’ve heard today : “And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.”
Lol. I suppose just because there’s a poor poodle-amstaff mix bastard somewhere means that there are no poodles or amstaffs. Brilliant![/quote]
Scientifically there are no poodles or mastifs. Read my other post. Breed isn’t a scientific concept.
And I think what you mean is, “I’m mad cause I just got logically destroyed so I don’t see the point of arguing”[/quote]
I am not sure I disagree with your analysis, but it seems to me that humans are hard wired to organize things and place them into categories, even if that organization isn’t “scientific.” It can still be useful. I know when I go get a new boxer puppy I have a pretty good idea of what I am getting and would be pretty shocked if that boxer looked like some other non-scientifically defined breed like a pincher. Isn’t the human ability to organize things into artificial categories one of the traits that keeps us alive? Its also the basis–I think, I’m certainly no expert–for Gestalt psychology.
[/quote]
A purebred malamute can range from 55ish pounds to 160ish pounds. And bred looks and temperament and intelligence change over the years. Additionally many breeds have very wide ranges for things like narcissism and general temperament and intelligence. Breed is truely an artificial label. They are invented and deleted.[/quote]
Again, I am not disagreeing with this, but are you saying that artificial groupings–in this example, the general breed standard–have no use, merely because the grouping, i.e, breed standard, is non-scientific and changes over time? I am not sure I understand the special significance of requiring a grouping to be immutable or scientific before it can be useful or predictive. To be clear, I am not suggesting in any way that it is productive or beneficial to discriminate against people based on artificial classifications, I am just trying to understand your point.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a difference between culture and race. The two are often used interchangeably, but that isn’t the case. I still don’t think this has anything to do with actual race (genetics).[/quote]
Dunno, ppl get all touchy feely discussing this stuff for obvious reasons, although they don’t have much problem accepting that there probably never will be white Hussein Bolt etc.
This may sound a little hitler-esque but there are well documented differences between say mongoloids and sub-saharan africans, denying them is just silly. [/quote]
Statistics don’t speak for the individual. There are always outliers. Besides, the groups you mentioned aren’t mutually elusive. Are you saying that a person with any white DNA couldn’t be as fast as bolt? You have to realize ethnic groups themselves are at least partially blurred if not more or less imaginary. They aren’t real things.[/quote]
Well, the fact that the boundaries between subjects are blurred doesn’t mean the subjects don’t exist. Just because there’s “gray” doesn’t mean there’s no “white” or “black”.
And yeah, if I was blindly placing bets on athletes just based on their skin color I would go with white swimmers and black 100m sprinters.
[/quote]
The individual subjects being the only things existing is exactly what I’ve been arguing. And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.
And you’re an idiot, because if I (or any intelligent person) were betting they wouldn’t factor in skin color at all, they’d use track record.
And even if you did go based on color, your thought is still dumb, because virtually all 100m sprinters are black and all swimmers are white. Your assertion that you would bet on the race that virtually all persons in that sport are doesn’t add any value to the betting selection. You essentially you just claimed you’d bet on everyone.
And even if that weren’t the case, the assertion is still dumb because you are apparently forgetting that skin tones go across the spectrum and can even change due to diet or sun exposure. There is no black/white line in skin tone. Are you asserting that the darker a persons skin is the faster they can run on average? So if there were 2 people of African dissent, you would bet on the one with the darker skin?
Also, are you aware that the black race has genetic groups that are essentially on opposite ends of the spectrum when if comes to muscle composition and explosive power generation? There is a large population of black genes that are terrible for explosive running?
You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
You mad, lol?
Obviously judging by your post you can’t participate in a civil discussion so I don’t see a point of arguing with you here.
This though is the most retarded thing I’ve heard today : “And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.”
Lol. I suppose just because there’s a poor poodle-amstaff mix bastard somewhere means that there are no poodles or amstaffs. Brilliant![/quote]
Scientifically there are no poodles or mastifs. Read my other post. Breed isn’t a scientific concept.
And I think what you mean is, “I’m mad cause I just got logically destroyed so I don’t see the point of arguing”[/quote]
Nah, not at all. Someone who uses “dumb” ,“idiot” etc in every other sentence in response to a civil statement is not worth arguing with on teh interwebz.
You already got your panties in a bunch, so no logical discussion can occur at this point and I’m not really interested in the ad hominem attack type of “discussion”. That’s all.
I actually added an edit to my post stating that I believe the central problem in the OP is environmental, more than anything else, but of course whenever I edit something that is pretty important, it never shows up. Whenever I go back and edit typos, though, it always takes. What’s up with that?
And, Murphy’s Law…now that I’ve stated the above, I’ll be my edit goes through.
Mabey Mod Jump’N Jack just doesn’t like me.
(kidding, kidding!!!)
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Again, I am not disagreeing with this, but are you saying that artificial groupings–in this example, the general breed standard–have no use, merely because the grouping, i.e, breed standard, is non-scientific and changes over time? I am not sure I understand the special significance of requiring a grouping to be immutable or scientific before can be useful predictive. To be clear, I am not suggesting in any way that it is productive or beneficial to discriminate against people based on artificial classifications, I am just trying to understand your point.
[/quote]
I’m not saying it isn’t useful. I’m saying they are overused and artificial.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Nah, not at all. Someone who uses “dumb” ,“idiot” etc in every other sentence in response to a civil statement is not worth arguing with on teh interwebz.
You already got your panties in a bunch, so no logical discussion can occur at this point and I’m not really interested in the ad hominem attack type of “discussion”. That’s all.
[/quote]
No, my posts have been very rational. I went point by point dissecting your argument.
Ironically, your post here is exactly an ad hominem argument. You attacked my credibility rather than address the validity of my argument. lol. wow. You can’t make this stuff up.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a difference between culture and race. The two are often used interchangeably, but that isn’t the case. I still don’t think this has anything to do with actual race (genetics).[/quote]
Dunno, ppl get all touchy feely discussing this stuff for obvious reasons, although they don’t have much problem accepting that there probably never will be white Hussein Bolt etc.
This may sound a little hitler-esque but there are well documented differences between say mongoloids and sub-saharan africans, denying them is just silly. [/quote]
Statistics don’t speak for the individual. There are always outliers. Besides, the groups you mentioned aren’t mutually elusive. Are you saying that a person with any white DNA couldn’t be as fast as bolt? You have to realize ethnic groups themselves are at least partially blurred if not more or less imaginary. They aren’t real things.[/quote]
Well, the fact that the boundaries between subjects are blurred doesn’t mean the subjects don’t exist. Just because there’s “gray” doesn’t mean there’s no “white” or “black”.
And yeah, if I was blindly placing bets on athletes just based on their skin color I would go with white swimmers and black 100m sprinters.
[/quote]
The individual subjects being the only things existing is exactly what I’ve been arguing. And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.
And you’re an idiot, because if I (or any intelligent person) were betting they wouldn’t factor in skin color at all, they’d use track record.
And even if you did go based on color, your thought is still dumb, because virtually all 100m sprinters are black and all swimmers are white. Your assertion that you would bet on the race that virtually all persons in that sport are doesn’t add any value to the betting selection. You essentially you just claimed you’d bet on everyone.
And even if that weren’t the case, the assertion is still dumb because you are apparently forgetting that skin tones go across the spectrum and can even change due to diet or sun exposure. There is no black/white line in skin tone. Are you asserting that the darker a persons skin is the faster they can run on average? So if there were 2 people of African dissent, you would bet on the one with the darker skin?
Also, are you aware that the black race has genetic groups that are essentially on opposite ends of the spectrum when if comes to muscle composition and explosive power generation? There is a large population of black genes that are terrible for explosive running?
You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
You mad, lol?
Obviously judging by your post you can’t participate in a civil discussion so I don’t see a point of arguing with you here.
This though is the most retarded thing I’ve heard today : “And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.”
Lol. I suppose just because there’s a poor poodle-amstaff mix bastard somewhere means that there are no poodles or amstaffs. Brilliant![/quote]
Scientifically there are no poodles or mastifs. Read my other post. Breed isn’t a scientific concept.
And I think what you mean is, “I’m mad cause I just got logically destroyed so I don’t see the point of arguing”[/quote]
I am not sure I disagree with your analysis, but it seems to me that humans are hard wired to organize things and place them into categories, even if that organization isn’t “scientific.” It can still be useful. I know when I go get a new boxer puppy I have a pretty good idea of what I am getting and would be pretty shocked if that boxer looked like some other non-scientifically defined breed like a pincher. Isn’t the human ability to organize things into artificial categories one of the traits that keeps us alive? Its also the basis–I think, I’m certainly no expert–for Gestalt psychology.
[/quote]
“non-genetic” doesn’t mean “artificial”.
While there might not be any genetic differences identified between say eskimo indians and aboriginal australians if you give an x-ray of their jaws to a dentist he’ll tell you which is which if he’d ever seen them before. Just like you’ll be able to tell a boxer from a poodle.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a difference between culture and race. The two are often used interchangeably, but that isn’t the case. I still don’t think this has anything to do with actual race (genetics).[/quote]
Dunno, ppl get all touchy feely discussing this stuff for obvious reasons, although they don’t have much problem accepting that there probably never will be white Hussein Bolt etc.
This may sound a little hitler-esque but there are well documented differences between say mongoloids and sub-saharan africans, denying them is just silly. [/quote]
Statistics don’t speak for the individual. There are always outliers. Besides, the groups you mentioned aren’t mutually elusive. Are you saying that a person with any white DNA couldn’t be as fast as bolt? You have to realize ethnic groups themselves are at least partially blurred if not more or less imaginary. They aren’t real things.[/quote]
Well, the fact that the boundaries between subjects are blurred doesn’t mean the subjects don’t exist. Just because there’s “gray” doesn’t mean there’s no “white” or “black”.
And yeah, if I was blindly placing bets on athletes just based on their skin color I would go with white swimmers and black 100m sprinters.
[/quote]
The individual subjects being the only things existing is exactly what I’ve been arguing. And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.
And you’re an idiot, because if I (or any intelligent person) were betting they wouldn’t factor in skin color at all, they’d use track record.
And even if you did go based on color, your thought is still dumb, because virtually all 100m sprinters are black and all swimmers are white. Your assertion that you would bet on the race that virtually all persons in that sport are doesn’t add any value to the betting selection. You essentially you just claimed you’d bet on everyone.
And even if that weren’t the case, the assertion is still dumb because you are apparently forgetting that skin tones go across the spectrum and can even change due to diet or sun exposure. There is no black/white line in skin tone. Are you asserting that the darker a persons skin is the faster they can run on average? So if there were 2 people of African dissent, you would bet on the one with the darker skin?
Also, are you aware that the black race has genetic groups that are essentially on opposite ends of the spectrum when if comes to muscle composition and explosive power generation? There is a large population of black genes that are terrible for explosive running?
You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
You mad, lol?
Obviously judging by your post you can’t participate in a civil discussion so I don’t see a point of arguing with you here.
This though is the most retarded thing I’ve heard today : “And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don’t really exist.”
Lol. I suppose just because there’s a poor poodle-amstaff mix bastard somewhere means that there are no poodles or amstaffs. Brilliant![/quote]
Scientifically there are no poodles or mastifs. Read my other post. Breed isn’t a scientific concept.
And I think what you mean is, “I’m mad cause I just got logically destroyed so I don’t see the point of arguing”[/quote]
I am not sure I disagree with your analysis, but it seems to me that humans are hard wired to organize things and place them into categories, even if that organization isn’t “scientific.” It can still be useful. I know when I go get a new boxer puppy I have a pretty good idea of what I am getting and would be pretty shocked if that boxer looked like some other non-scientifically defined breed like a pincher. Isn’t the human ability to organize things into artificial categories one of the traits that keeps us alive? Its also the basis–I think, I’m certainly no expert–for Gestalt psychology.
[/quote]
“non-genetic” doesn’t mean “artificial”.
While there might not be any genetic differences identified between say eskimo indians and aboriginal australians if you give an x-ray of their jaws to a dentist he’ll tell you which is which if he’d ever seen them before. Just like you’ll be able to tell a boxer from a poodle.
[/quote]
Not 100% of the time. And not when you include all other groups as possibilities and not thought all stages of life and not if they’ve had jaw injuries. And I bet you can’t tell a boxer from a mut that looks like a boxer.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Again, I am not disagreeing with this, but are you saying that artificial groupings–in this example, the general breed standard–have no use, merely because the grouping, i.e, breed standard, is non-scientific and changes over time? I am not sure I understand the special significance of requiring a grouping to be immutable or scientific before can be useful predictive. To be clear, I am not suggesting in any way that it is productive or beneficial to discriminate against people based on artificial classifications, I am just trying to understand your point.
[/quote]
I’m not saying it isn’t useful. I’m saying they are overused and artificial.[/quote]
I’m interested in your points because Title VII protects individuals from discrimination “because of” their “race” or “national origin.” Occasionally a plaintiff will say, “you discriminated against me because I’m an American Indian.” To which the defendant will respond “prove you are an American Indian.” So what is an American Indian in any event? Does it depend on blood lines? How much blood? Is 1/16th enough?
“National origin” is tricky as well, because the definition is not necessarily tied to concepts of national sovereignty, citizenship, or place of birth. The category certainly isn’t scientific.
Some courts require proof of membership in a protected class before a plaintiff can assert a claim, and its hard to draw these lines in the real world, precisely because they are artificial, and the decision rests on whether a person’s race is “provable” or definable. Other court’s focus on whether the defendant perceived you as a member of a particular group and took an adverse action against you based on that perception rather than because of the person’s individual merit as an employee. The “focus” of the court typically decides the case if it is a close call.
You points are not lost on me, as I would sure hate to see a court come down and say that all these categories are artificial so no one gets any protection under the law.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Again, I am not disagreeing with this, but are you saying that artificial groupings–in this example, the general breed standard–have no use, merely because the grouping, i.e, breed standard, is non-scientific and changes over time? I am not sure I understand the special significance of requiring a grouping to be immutable or scientific before can be useful predictive. To be clear, I am not suggesting in any way that it is productive or beneficial to discriminate against people based on artificial classifications, I am just trying to understand your point.
[/quote]
I’m not saying it isn’t useful. I’m saying they are overused and artificial.[/quote]
I’m interested in your points because Title VII protects individuals from discrimination “because of” their “race” or “national origin.” Occasionally a plaintiff will say, “you discriminated against me because I’m an American Indian.” To which the defendant will respond “prove you are an American Indian.” So what is an American Indian in any event? Does it depend on blood lines? How much blood? Is 1/16th enough?
“National origin” is tricky as well, because the definition is not necessarily tied to concepts of national sovereignty, citizenship, or place of birth. The category certainly isn’t scientific.
Some courts require proof of membership in a protected class before a plaintiff can assert a claim, and its hard to draw these lines in the real world, precisely because they are artificial, and the decision rests on whether a person’s race is “provable” or definable. Other court’s focus on whether the defendant perceived you as a member of a particular group and took an adverse action against you based on that perception rather than because of the person’s individual merit as an employee. The “focus” of the court typically decides the case if it is a close call.
You points are not lost on me, as I would sure hate to see a court come down and say that all these categories are artificial so no one gets any protection under the law.
[/quote]
And none of that in the courts is a scientific definition.
But I take huge issue with your last point. Why can’t it the decision be, “races are artificial, so everyone gets protection.”?
Why exactly is it legal to discriminate against me because of the size of my ears, but not because of the color of my skin? Scientifically explain the difference.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Dunno, ppl get all touchy feely discussing this stuff for obvious reasons, although they don’t have much problem accepting that there probably never will be white Hussein Bolt etc.
This may sound a little hitler-esque but there are well documented differences between say mongoloids and sub-saharan africans, denying them is just silly. [/quote]
I think the politically correct term is Downs Syndrome.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Again, I am not disagreeing with this, but are you saying that artificial groupings–in this example, the general breed standard–have no use, merely because the grouping, i.e, breed standard, is non-scientific and changes over time? I am not sure I understand the special significance of requiring a grouping to be immutable or scientific before can be useful predictive. To be clear, I am not suggesting in any way that it is productive or beneficial to discriminate against people based on artificial classifications, I am just trying to understand your point.
[/quote]
I’m not saying it isn’t useful. I’m saying they are overused and artificial.[/quote]
I’m interested in your points because Title VII protects individuals from discrimination “because of” their “race” or “national origin.” Occasionally a plaintiff will say, “you discriminated against me because I’m an American Indian.” To which the defendant will respond “prove you are an American Indian.” So what is an American Indian in any event? Does it depend on blood lines? How much blood? Is 1/16th enough?
“National origin” is tricky as well, because the definition is not necessarily tied to concepts of national sovereignty, citizenship, or place of birth. The category certainly isn’t scientific.
Some courts require proof of membership in a protected class before a plaintiff can assert a claim, and its hard to draw these lines in the real world, precisely because they are artificial, and the decision rests on whether a person’s race is “provable” or definable. Other court’s focus on whether the defendant perceived you as a member of a particular group and took an adverse action against you based on that perception rather than because of the person’s individual merit as an employee. The “focus” of the court typically decides the case if it is a close call.
You points are not lost on me, as I would sure hate to see a court come down and say that all these categories are artificial so no one gets any protection under the law.
[/quote]
And none of that in the courts is a scientific definition.
But I take huge issue with your last point. Why can’t it the decision be, “races are artificial, so everyone gets protection.”?
Why exactly is it legal to discriminate against me because of the size of my ears, but not because of the color of my skin? Scientifically explain the difference.[/quote]
I agree with you 100% about the ears thing as a matter of policy, but that’s not what the statute says, and the current trend is to restrict Title VII through the restrictive interpretation of its definitions. That is a good or bad thing depending on your view of anti-discrimination laws.
Africa has the most diverse gene pool that is why the fastest and most likely the slowest runners are of African descent.
Also of African descent are the tallest and shortest groups of people.
The most and least intelligent may also be African.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not to the extent of scientific fact. You cannot give me a sequence of DNA that specifies an exact ethnicity and isn’t possible in other ethnicities. And even if there were, this misses the fact that people of mixed ethnicity still blur the lines.
And definitely no assessment of life situations ever includes an investigation into the genetic makeup of an individual.
Besides you have been reduced to only talking about strictly ancestry at this point and NOT the physical or physiological traits we associate with race.[/quote]
No but with a given probability predict race from the a given DNA sequence. it is actually being used in forensics now to help predict skin color and eye olor of unknow perps who leave dna at a crime scene.
you are right in the sense of more a metling pot since we can travel globally fairly easy, but science of behavior and phenotype is driven by protein pathways of the the genome. It is all there.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Scientifically there are no poodles or mastifs. Read my other post. Breed isn’t a scientific concept.
And I think what you mean is, “I’m mad cause I just got logically destroyed so I don’t see the point of arguing”[/quote]
wow, really?
in less complex organisms such as bacteria we call these strains, and there is mountains of evidence for this.
I actually worked doing research looking for the defined pathways as well as genome mapping,
funny how this works.
the dog is a perfect anaology, race in human, breed in dog, strain in lower organism. all genetically definable sbucategories of species.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Scientifically there are no poodles or mastifs. Read my other post. Breed isn’t a scientific concept.
And I think what you mean is, “I’m mad cause I just got logically destroyed so I don’t see the point of arguing”[/quote]
wow, really?
in less complex organisms such as bacteria we call these strains, and there is mountains of evidence for this.
I actually worked doing research looking for the defined pathways as well as genome mapping,
funny how this works.
the dog is a perfect anaology, race in human, breed in dog, strain in lower organism. all genetically definable sbucategories of species. [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, man.
I had always thought that these types of things in humans were in the domain of various branches of anthropology and things like comparative anatomy etc.