One more time: Racism exists. But there is no such thing as "Race"

Yeah! They're white or they're black!! So? People can also be hazel eyed or brown eyed. Or black haired or blond. Or tall or short... All these characteristics determined mostly by differences in genes... But none of those is enough of a genetic difference to categorize them as "races"!!!

That's the point!

Somehow.... for some reason I will never understand, you thought that this was about proving that black and white people don't exist. You need to concentrate more.

 

Ok. this is ridiculous. First you ask.

... but less than two lines later...

You need to take a break. You are not doing too well here..

Of course "race" exists!!! It just doesn't exist in human beings!!

You didn't even understand what this thread was about????

God!

 

Not only was Marx a sociologist (1), but he is also "considered to be one of the founding figures of sociology as a discipline." (2) Thus, I am correct. Do I expect you to concede to this fact? No.

Science and philosophy are not the same thing. Science is an outgrowth of philosophy. This is the half-baked logical equivalent of thinking that the apple is the same as the apple tree, just as thinking alchemy is the same thing as chemistry.

Where is your basis for this statement? You just wrote it, and then backed it up with zero evidence. This makes it difficult to argue the underlying logic. However, I will say this: American sociologist, Jeffrey Charles Alexander, who is considered "one of the world's leading social theorists," (3) and is "the Lillian Chavenson Saden Professor of Sociology at Yale University" (4), in his book Theoretical Logic in Sociology, writes about Marx's contributions to sociology. Other writers--Avineri (1968 ), Giddens (1979), Ollman (1976) and Sherman (1995)--also write about Marx in the sociological context. (5)

Again. What is the basis of this statement? Explain what influences he has, and how they are "enormous." You just write these unsubstantiated statements as if they are self-evident truths.

Economics is a science, yes. I agree. But sociology is not; it is a liberal philosophy.

Just like philosophy is not science, alchemy and chemistry are not the same thing. Alchemy was the forerunner of chemistry. Your attempt to compare alchemy and chemistry to the foundation of anthropology is sophistic, as it does not logically apply. It's like comparing grapes to meat.

You consider yourself a serious debator? Serious debators know when to concede; yet you double down.

Wrong. Anthropology says that races exist, but there is no biological tie to it. Biology does not get into this argument directly, but biology implicitly does agree that there is a biological connection between race and BMI, for one.

In the OP, you bring up one article that does argue for the anthropological framework of race with the false veneer of using a biological framework, even though the author of the piece cited the American Journal of Physical Anthropology to help make his point. That is one, just one, article that backs up your point. There are plenty of articles on that same website that counter this perspective. (6, 7) In fact, the biology textbook that I picked up mentions race at a factor in a person's BMI, which flies in the face of the anthropological and sociological perspective that defines race as a social construct or product of culture.

Considering that almost every line you write is either uncited, wrong, or abstract, it's very time-consuming to do the research that you fail to do to prove you are incorrect.

And even when proven incorrect, you persist by doubling down on your incorrect notions, which makes trying to have a serious debate with you a fruitless endeavor.

1: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx
2: https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-sociological-theories-of-karl-marx.html
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_C._Alexander
4: https://sociology.yale.edu/people/jeffrey-alexander
5: https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/ieesmarx.htm
6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968570/
7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4029410/

 

I know what the term is. And I asked you to provide a quote.

You said

Sure. In biology it's one of the words often used instead of "race". So? They don't exist in humans. But I understand why you wouldn't repeat it.

 

You mean like in color? Like the color of charcoal or printing paper? I've never seen people those colors, so what do you mean?

What would be enough?

How do you recognize races such as black or white?

Stupid point.

Black and white in this context discribes races. You are effectively saying they don't exist. If not you'll have to explain when you say race doesn't exist.

 

I'm sorry you are bad at comprehension. What I was asking what article did you want me to quote the meaning of ecotype from? It's an English words and you can look it up I'm not sure what article it's in, it may be thousands

Yes it's about you trying to gaslight.

You are pretending race doesn't exist because you want to virtue signal.

 

Well.. all those are already in the closet. Where all but the last two belong. The last two belong in prison.

That would be fine but only if this "autonomous zone" were in some secluded uninhabited island in the Pacific. Not in my country, thouogh. Remember the song "...this land belongs to you and me"

Most definitely. Racism is just immoral. People have a constitutional right to peacefully protest. But "racism" and "peacefully" are contradictory terms. The second that they bring out a single racist symbol or even utter a racist word, they are committing aggression against minorities. A racist protest march is as nonsensical as a pedophile protest march. The only possible objective of such marches would be to rally people into doing harm to others.

I don't consider racism an "opinion". More akin to a disease. Like Pedophilia. It's a Public Health matter that we do everything to contain these diseases. You wouldn't accept Covid-19 infected people canvassing door to door to increase their ranks. Same difference.

The only thing we should never tolerate is intolerance.

 

The ONLY race that in the end really matters is NASCAR. Everyone else is just a bunch of people trying to get along, raise their kids and lead a somewhat good life or flaming aholes.

 

Careful. I don't do reporting for things like that. But there are people here who do. Just be on the lookout. I've been reported for similar. And consider the fact that the people I made them about really were racists. I wasn't just insulting them, like you are. I was just describing a real objective item of their philosophy.

I don't know. Likely I'll get it wrong. As I said above to another poster, I very often get those thing wrong. Somebody I thought was white, turns out to be black, and viceversa.

But what does that have to do with this thread. What is the purpose of that question? What does the fact that I'm lousy at this game supposed to prove?

 

I don't care who you are... that's really good!!!

 

Since races don't exist, I guess we can do away with affirmative action, since it would make using race as a factor in admission moot.

 

My God, we've agreed a couple times over the past few weeks and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse haven't come forth.

 

So you want to play "I don't know what black means"?

Easy. You don't! Because there is no such thing as races in human beings. Read the OP!

Yep! That's why I'm glad you were the one who tried to make it, and not me.

No problem. Here's my explanation

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ts-but-there-is-no-such-thing-as-race.558857/

To summarize, races don't exist in biology, anthropology or .... any science... because there are not enough genetic differences. And the concept of "black race" or "white race" is an absolute absurdity from a genetic pov, given that the difference in skin color is determined by one single gene. Compare that to the difference in eye color which is determined by sixteen genes. So, if there were such thing as race in humans, it would make more sense to base them on eye color than in skin color. But, as it turns out, the differences at a genetic level are too few and subtle to matter.

 

Now you have no excuse. Now you know which article. And still no quote.

I didn't actually expect one. Obviously the article states that there are no ecotypes in humans. So it makes absolutely no difference what they call it "there is no such thing as 'race' in humans" QED But now you just want to play the "there are so many articles in the world, which one do you want me to quote" game.

So, thanks anyway...

 

Humans began as one race, born in Africa and from there migrated to the four corners of the earth. Due to the environment, evolution, isolation and a ton of other reasons out of one race we became many. The good news is due to globalization, immigration, world travel, inter-racial marriages and a host of other reasons we have begun the process of reverting from many races back to one. It a very slow process, but it has begun.

 

Look. Here is a lesson that might be useful for you later in life: people who respond to the title of a thread without reading the post just.... look ... uhm...silly (which is not the proper word to use, but it's probably the one closest that mods usually tolerate)

 

I read the post. It says, "The term "race" was used for many decades. Especially during the 20th Century. It was based on faulty Science."

If race is based on faulty science (or as you say, "Science [sic]"), and in "Science [sic]... In Biology [sic], Anthropology [sic], Genetics [sic], ... there is no such thing as 'race,'" then that logically means that since race does not exist, it cannot be considered a factor in college admissions, since the factor is nonexistent.

 

It should not. Only ethnicity should be considered.

 

Hold up there, sunshine. According to the American Anthropological Association, both "race and ethnicity [are] . . . socially constructed concepts in America and other societies." (1) So you think one nonexistent thing should be replaced by another nonexistent thing? Interesting. Quite the intellectual you are.

1: http://perspectives.americananthro.org/Chapters/Race_and_Ethnicity.pdf

 

argues there is no race......and uses ethnicity as a backdoor to discriminate based on race.....

 

Because he's silly.

 

That's no different than if I said 'Socialism is a disease' to justify censoring support for it. Which i don't.

Racism is a bad idea, but it is just an idea that can acted upon or not. The action is what warrants a reaction, not the idea. It is also immoral, but we got out of the business of legislating morality and I will oppose all attempts to get back in to it.

 

I understand it to mean sometime among the black race. No idea what you mean since you pretend race within the Human species doesn't exist.

The OP contradicts himself.

But they exist, so you recognize you are incorrect.

That's good.

 

articles don't contain meanings of words that's what the dictionary does.

So I don't know what the hell you want me to quote what are you talkin about?

Did a large piece of metal fall and hit you on the head this morning?

expect a quote telling you what a word means?

What on Earth are you talking about? Do you even know?

well describing different environmental adaptations of humans which is the definition of an ecotype.

If you don't know anything about biology you probably ought not talk about it.

except your article mention that there are ecotypes and therefore races of humans. You should really read what you post before you post it.

you're asking me to quote the article explaining to you what the word means that's what a dictionary is for.

If you read the article that describes ecotypes.

For calling out your gaslighting anytime. I don't like phony intellectuals you people make academia look bad making incredibly stupid statements like you do and not understanding the science you present.

 

Don't forget the near unanimous support of progressives during the Progressive Era.