People are not racists because they DO racist things...

Do you think this is because Trump gave Baltimore $16 billion in HUD funds last year, but none of the money went to helping people? Or is it that Trump is just a big stupid meanie?
Can you point to ANY of the funding that went to actually helping poor people in Cummings district? If it didn't go to the poor people, I wonder who got it.... If memory serves, Elijah Cummings is Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, so if ANYONE would know about where those misappropriated funds ended up, it should be him. Seems strange doesn't it?

 

Looks like you like long posts. I try to cut them down to what actually matters, and you keep extending them. If we both did that we would eventually use up the whole forum's bandwidth.

So, for the sake of brevity, I'll eliminate the parts where you go off on a tangent.

There you go again. I "never did"? Again: it's on the OP. You can say many things about it. You can say you disagree (and state the reasons), you can say something like... I don't know... that it's "insufficient" (and state reasons)... or ask for clarification..... Many things. The one thing you can not say is that I "never" explained.

Geez!

Wrong! It's precisely because of genetics that Science abandoned the concept of races decades ago.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

Do you know what this discussion is about? It's about this tweet.

That's the dictionary definition. Dictionary definitions are useless in a scholarly debate

Here:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition

To understand what racism is, you read Science. The Science that studies human culture is Anthropology.

https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/

100% fluent! Not only that. I worked at a very prestigious Latin American University in the Department of Linguistics. Even though linguistics was not my field of study (I graduated in I.T., but also did a second mayor with an emphasis on Epistemology), I did take enough courses and did well enough in them to obtain the job at the Linguistics Department while I was still a Student.

"Raza" (capital R) means "Culture". "A race " (which is what you found in your dictionary) means "breed" or "race" as in animals. Some countries can use "raza" (lower case "r") the same way racists use it in the U.S. But no real 100% bilingual Spanish-English speaker with at least an average education (which is the parameter that linguistics use to determine what the best translation of a term would be) in existence would interpret "La Raza" to mean the same as "The Race" does in English.

Now don't be ridiculous and stop the nonsense about something you know nothing about.

And, BTW, again you use a dictionary in a serious debate. But you use it poorly. You didn't even hit on the right word. Terrible!

Yeah. And Andrew Jackson owned salves. And he was a Democrat.

How the hell does that justify Trump's racism???

What an idiotic and irrelevant thing to bring up!

That would be quite an accomplishment, given that there is no such thing as "race"

What group is that? And, of course, you will provide a quote of this, right? But I see you don't deny that Trump is a racist. You just believe that the judge is also a racist, and that that fact excuses the President of the United States' racism.... somehow.

What the hell? Of course he is! He's the President of the United States!! Didn't you hear? Russians helped put him in the Presidency! You are way behind in the news. As President, he is responsible for correcting anybody who misinterprets him. A mass shooter in Australia used him as one of those who "inspired" him to kill a bunch of people. So if the President of the United States doesn't clearly and definitively disavows and rejects the support of white supremacists... and especially of those who have murdered people, it's because he welcomes their support.

Your post is getting more nonsensical by the minute. Hopefully there is something worth taking seriously in the rest, because this is already getting too long. Let's see.

What led me is exactly what you just said. The fact that they are not like him, and the fact that he assumed the were from another country. I have explained it to you too many times to attribute your denial to ignorance, and feel like I should attribute it to something else. I ask again: when has he confused the country of origin of anybody who does look like him? Never! Obama, the Squad, .... people who are not like him.

And, of course, this is only one example. Trump has a looong history of racism. You would have to be in some sort of political cult to deny what is obvious and has been proven over and over and over.

That is ignorance of the worst kind. These people come here to save their life and the life of their family. They work honestly. They pay taxes....

They are great Americans who come here, produce, and, unlike Trump, really make this country great!

Where the hell did you get this idiotic idea that I (or any democrat) support illegal immigration?

Your unfounded accusations are just too much....

So, bottom line, you made a claim that should have been easily demonstrated by providing a link, and all you can do now is shower us with excuses.

 

Sorry I am long winded, and most people ignore most of my posts anyway. I'll try to trim it down.

No see, that's not how it works. YOU made a positive claim that Trump is a racist. YOU have to support the positive claim. I can not prove a negative to you as that is logically impossible. I can't prove that unicorns DON'T exist, I can simply point to the lack of evidence for them. Similarly with racism, I can only point to a lack of compelling evidence.

I already told you that the soft sciences do this, they down play race. In the hard sciences, like medicine, they are still a factor. Even in the article you cite, which is not a scholarly article by the way, when they add the gene in question to the mice, they refer to them as "cousins". A subspecies. All human beings other than sub Saharan Africans (and Australian aborigines I believe) have 3-5% Neanderthal DNA, and one of those genes codes for keratin (skin, hair, etc). In ANY other animal that would be enough for a sub species. The phenotype reflects the genotype. They are not just physical differences. What you can see is a genetic difference. The article focuses solely on the mutation for pigment specifically, and ignores the Neanderthal DNA and other regionally isolated traits. The whole point of the article is to tell you that race doesn't exist, so they don't present any contradictory evidence.
And I scanned the article looking for this argument, because I knew it would be there to prey on people who don't understand genetics. That is the old "there is more genetic diversity in Africa than between all races". They post the first part, but only explain how it applies to Africans. However, this is the same as "there is more genetic diversity between dog breeds than there is between dogs and giraffes", which is true. If you compare any random dog to a giraffe you might find 1000 genetic differences just for an example. Then you compare any 2 dogs and notice about 1500-2000 differences between dogs. You would likely not conclude that a German Shepherd is more similar to a giraffe than it is to a poodle though right? Just by looking you can tell that something is off about your observation. That something, is WHICH genes are different. The number is somewhat irrelevant compared to which ones. You could lose only 1 gene, and if it is for a codon you would lose the function of potentially hundreds of genes as there is no activator, rendering them inert. Don't be fooled by this verbal slight of hand, this is a puff piece.

Ok and which word from that tweet told you race is being discussed?

Actually dictionary definitions are NOT useless in a scholarly debate, that is just nonsense. You must define your terms before we can know we are even discussing the same thing. You are now relying on REDEFINING racism, as the BASIS for your argument that someone is racist. Did it occur to you that maybe someone just wants to use the emotional appeal of saying racism, without having to actually prove any racism?
If you want to redefine racism, then you are no longer discussing the term that everyone considers universally bad. You are discussing your own definition of racism or the self serving one that hipster college "professors" are trying to foist on society. So if racism doesn't actually mean racism, why should anyone care?
Post all the soft science you want, it proves nothing. Soft science is called soft science for a reason. I already told YOU that the soft sciences do this, so post anthropology.com or whatever is meaningless because I already know what they say. Funny enough, anthropologists can tell what race you were by your skeleton. Just a fun fact for you.

Sure guy. I know people in La Raza that I worked with in the past, all say the race. Every Spanish to English translator on the internet translates it to the RACE. But some rando who swears he is more fluent that anyone else has his own definition...and his own definition for racism. Seems legit.
Everyone else in the world is wrong, but you. We all use the wrong definitions for things, because we don't use the ones in your head. I hate to bring up the schizophrenia thing again... You know people's motivations by mind reading, you use common words incorrectly and then blame dictionary use as a fallacy. Subtle comments or juxtaposition of factors means definite racism and righteous anger. Take a step back and really evaluate this situation. Now you are arguing something that literally translates to THE RACE, means the culture.
If Don Trump was in a group called THE RACE would you give him a pass and look for ways that it probably wasn't about race? Be honest with yourself right here if you can. You would not, and you know it. Yet here we are. Why is that? Is it because of THE RACE that you are defending this supremacist group? Only racial collectives that are white is bad, is that the gist of it?

Well, Andrew Jackson lived in the 1800's and Robert Byrd just died about a decade ago. Why was Clinton not asked to disavow and why don't you care at all? If this was about racism, really about racism, seems like you would care that you support a party that was full of clan members an the disciples of clan members. Guess not. Doesn't the lack of media circus seem odd? I mean you brought up some dropped lawsuit from the 70's as proof of racism, but Clinton literally saying she was mentored by a KKK grand Cyclops is probably fine. He was her mentor when she made the comment about bringing the black "super predators" to heel like dogs, and campaigned in front of a confederate flag. Not a peep from you guys during the election, or ever. Nothing seems at all odd about that?
You are being played by the media.

Well given that you make up your own definitions, there is no such thing as anything.

Why would I deny that Trump is a racist? I have not seen any proof to that effect. I also don't deny he is a martian or Jesus Christ superstar, because there is no reason to deny something that seems self evidently true.

Quotes for you:
"“Further, we find that the vicious cultural genocide being inflicted upon La Raza by gringos and their institutions not only severely damage our human dignity but also make it impossible for La Raza to develop its right of self-determination."

“For these reasons, top priority is given to identifying and exposing the gringo. We also promote the social welfare of Mexicanos through education designed to enlarge the capabilities of indigenous leaders."

"Social change that will enable La Raza to become masters of their destiny, owners of their resources, both human and natural, and a culturally and spiritually separate people from the gringo"

"We will not try to assimilate into this gringo society in Texas, nor will we encourage anybody else to do so."

"We realize that the effects of cultural genocide takes many forms—some Mexicanos will become psychologically castrated, others will become demagogues and gringos as well and others will come together, resist and eliminate the gringo. We will be the latter.”"

-J.A. Gutierrez

Maybe that guy is not as fluent in Spanish as you are and he thinks La Raza is something else. You should go correct him.
What you are repeating is a 2016 public relations push to rebrand La Raza, ironically enough after this exact incident with the Mexican judge in La Raza. All these puff pieces came out trying to soften the image of the group.

No he isn't. It makes you weak to constantly act on command or on instinct. Have you ever hunted before? You learn the animal's pattern of behavior first, then you can make him do what you want.
If I spook this rabbit, he will run back to his warren. My dog is between him and his warren. By knowing how he will react every time, I can control him and make him run right to my dog. If I know the deer drink from the same spot every morning at 4 am, then I am going home with a deer.
Those reporters demanding disavowals are trying to take control of the situation. By Acquiescing to their demands, you have ceded control of the conversation. Read the 48 laws of power, or even Machiavelli touches on it in The Prince.
Frankly, I find the idea that you are somehow responsible for people that like you, absurd. You are only in control of yourself. Other people's bad behavior has nothing to do with me, as I do not believe in collective guilt or collective punishment.
If the most racist person that ever walked the earth said they were voting for Bernie because they like his foreign policy, does that make Bernie a racist? No, how could it??? How does that even SEEM like it makes sense?? Why should Bernie have to apologize for that?

Wait...so YOU are the racist? You are saying that YOU assumed this is a race issue, because YOU looked at those women and saw a different race and concluded this must be the cause.

I am. It is a weird cult where we use actual definitions for things and discuss things that actually exist based on evidence. It is crazy man. We don't even use telepathy to determine other people's motives, we have to ask with our words like idiots.

Like I said, everyone has a sob story. They came here to better their material situation. That is not my problem. If they were so honest, they would immigrate legally.
Also, what of all the identity theft by these good honest people who need social security numbers? Do you care about that at all? Why does the sob story only count if it is an outsider? Do you listen to the complaints of people with border property or the people who have to pay exorbitant taxes to support this? Probably not. I am sure they just want a better life too.

You are enabling it. By supporting illegal immigrants, by asking for amnesty or leniency, and by repeating their bullshit sob stories as an excuse to break the law, you are an enabler. Any pattern of behavior that is encouraging this to continue, is part of the problem. Their countries can not and will not recover if they export their problems here. If you support these people, then enforce the border. No matter what at this point, there is going to be a moment of pain before the gain can begin. Once they are back on their feet, they will not be reliant on a 3rd party to prop up a failed state, and everyone will be more productive.

Did the guy who makes up his own definitions, just complain about a lack of sources? Are you serious?
I know better than the dictionary! I know better than Trump does about what he thinks!! I know the secret sensitive purpose of La Raza that none of the members do!!! Citations needed.

So go ahead and start sourcing ALL of those baseless claims you have made thus far. Here is your video:

 

Simply action is character.

 

Done. See OP

As a general statement, that is false. But I don't even know what "negative" you are talking about.

You "tell", I quote Science. My case is made.

Word?

That's as nonsensical as asking what "word" in "On the Origin of Species" proves that humans evolved from Primates.

To settle a scholarly debate, dictionaries are useless. That is not the purpose of a dictionary.

In a serious debate, you most certainly do. And dictionaries will not do it for you

.
None that is relevant to this debate. Anthropology analyzes human culture. Matters dealing with culture are the realm of Anthropology. No other science deals with the areas of culture itself relevant to this debate.

Therefore, the authoritative area of Science related to human culture is Anthropology.

Anyway... this is ridiculous. No Science... hard or soft... accepts the existence of "races" in the sense used in "racism" as an actual thing. And I have provided the proper articles. You have provided nothing.

.
So Anthropology is not the authoritative are in human culture. You are.

I don't know if you are aware of this. But the more obviously ridiculous your statements are,, the more your whole position loses credibility. And right about now there is not much more left for you to lose.

This is ridiculous. You have no idea what you're talking about. All you would need to do is learn about what "La Raza" is and stands for.

In many countries in Latin America, October 12 is celebrated as "Día de La Raza" In many places there are parades and many types of events. And they use images like this one:




Do you see a "racial" pattern in the children depicted? Of course not! Because there is none! That drawing is "La Raza". It includes whites, indians, blacks, ... All those things that racists call "race". Not even for a second would anybody believe that October 12 is a celebration for only one ethnic group.

So, again: please stop making assertions about things you know nothing about.... It's embarrassing.

What the hell is your problem? I GAVE a link to the page where the real definition of "racism" is given as it pertains to the corresponding authorative Science Here.

https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/

Why are you saying that I made it up? I can assure you I did not write that statement. So you can stop trying to lose any more credibility, because you are left with none.

If I answer that question with my opinion, my post will be deleted by the mods. So I can't answer.

No. I assumed this was a debate. A "race" is a bunch of athletes trying to be the first to get to a finish line. And this is definitely not one of those.

So, if we were to follow your logic, what would you supporting racists mean?

I have asked that children not be separated from their parents. I have asked that you don't put over a hundred human beings in a cage for weeks that were design to hold 40 people for two or three days. I have asked that those people be treated humanely.... I have asked that our government follow the law and follow human decency regarding refugees seekers.

You call that "enabling"? You guys truly have no soul.

 

I did. It made promises it could not fulfill.

I was referring to logically, but OK go ahead, prove to me that unicorns don't exist. Objectively and beyond any shadow of a doubt. Also, I will always have doubt.
The "negative" I am talking about is the negative assertion of your positive assertion. You made the assertion that Trump was a racist. I don't have to disprove a positive assertion, you have to prove it is true. The null hypothesis is the reasonable one in the absence of evidence. Otherwise you get witch trials and crazy ****.

You are quoting soft science though. It belongs in irony quotes. Soft "science".

Everyone that reads "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (actual title) concludes that Darwin was saying the same thing. With this tweet, not so much.

Also the origin of species does not prove anything, it postulates. That is not how proof works. The fact that you think it PROVES anything, demonstrates my point. You don't understand what scientific proof even is, so how can you be a good judge of what is compelling evidence? Similarly, like On the Origin of Species, your OP postulates, and you think that is the same as proof. THAT is why you think soft science is authoritative. Do you know what the scientific method is? OR who Karl Popper was?

So there was no word or indication of racism in the tweet. So what is the problem then?

Actually, dictionaries are quite useful if the debate is over the meaning of a word. You provided jargon. Do you know what jargon is? I provided a real definition that everyone else uses when they say the word racism.

.

Anthropology isn't the authoritative source on anything. It is a soft science. Most of the soft sciences start with the assumption that races are social constructs, which is in part true. The demarcation you choose could be arbitrary. Each nation used to be considered a race and that is likely more accurate than 3-4 umbrella categories based on morphology. However, those categories of morphology do exist, and are used by ANTHROPOLOGISTS to identify the race of the skeleton.

"Race and weight
Weight is easy to approximate, but hard to pinpoint. All you have to do is measure the wear at certain points of the skeleton. For race, the nose gives the most important information. Caucasian nose holes are triangular, Negroid’s square, and Mongoloid’s diamond-shaped. Negroid femur bones are also straighter than other racial groups. Also, some diseases and conditions can be identified."
http://itsgov.com/forensic-anthropology-osteology.html

or here is a forensics assignment from rice...they are misinforming those poor children:

"Forensic anthropology is a unique forensic discipline that studies the human skeleton to answer various questions about an individuals race, sex, age, height, illness, and trauma."
http://forensics.rice.edu/en/materials/activity_nine.pdf

Now since anthropologists are the worlds most august and respected of all scholars, you believe it right?

This is what I was trying to explain to you. Out of one side of their mouth they say there is no race, but then people within the scientific community do use it. And this is forensic anthropology, so you can't say their bones are social constructs. They know exactly what they are defining. If you corner one, he will say social construct blah blah because he wants to be published again in this lifetime.

In medicine, different racial groups have different race specific illness and predispositions. Genetic research has increased that, not decreased it. I mentioned in another post on the topic about carbohydrate tolerance and possible weight gain variance between races. There are a lot of things you could point to. There have been many major branching events of the human family tree. That this would continue is what you would expect if evolution by natural selection is correct.This is why I said there are probably more races. Any group that was isolated for thousands of years is likely to contain enough variation, that if we were talking about animals, would be considered subspecies. We don't like the sound of "human subspecies" and ideas along these lines have caused some problems in the past. THAT is why people don't focus on it much, not because the information is not there.

.

Nice! Way to try to turn that back around on me "Senor Brings his own definitions from home and is totally fluent in Spanish I swear". I'm not, and neither is anthropology. Not everything has to be a false dichotomy.

That's OK because I am fluent in English, so I will just redefine ridiculous and credibility, and now I am looking pretty good. Don't you dare quote a dictionary at me either. Words have no meaning in this conversation.

That you think you are in a position to revoke my credibility is endearing.

I noticed you didn't post those quotes you had asked for. Why is that do you suppose? Is it becuase of the one about eliminating the gringo? I have provided you a translation and literal racist quotes. I have done my due diligence for you. I am not sure why your standard of evidence is so ridiculously high here, but you have STILL not pointed to anything racist Trump said, yet you believe that with no evidence.

You posted a cartoon drawing as evidence. If I can find a picture of Trump with many different races of children will you put this racism nonsense to bed? Or will the standard shift yet again? <----I bet these last 2 get clipped out of your quotes.

Why do you bother posting this over and over again? Just tell me to **** off or whatever, I don't care. You shouldn't be getting this upset though. Is it possible, JUST POSSIBLE, you are experiencing cognitive dissonance?

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person's belief clashes with new evidence perceived by the person. When confronted with facts that contradict beliefs, ideals, and values, people will try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.[1][2]

To adapt people will:

Change the behavior or the cognition ("I'll eat no more of this doughnut.")
Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition ("I'm allowed to cheat my diet every once in a while.")
Justify the behavior or the cognition by adding new cognitions ("I'll spend thirty extra minutes at the gymnasium to work off the doughnut.")
Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs ("This doughnut is not a high-sugar food.")

Any of that look familiar? Like say number 4 maybe...

Nice try. YOU introduced the concept of race to this. I asked you to point to something specific in the tweet that indicates this is about race, and you have nothing. YOU injected it. Now race is just athletes or whatever, so I guess you will retract your complaint in the OP?

Which racists do I support?
You do support the people abusing the asylum system. And you support La Raza. SO you support both illegal immigrants and racists. What is that like?

I am asking for the same thing as you. If they stay home or come legally, we will not separate children from their parents, no one will be put into cages, and all asylum laws will be followed. Let's work together to enforce the border and make people do things the right way, and we all get what we want.

I told you I listen to sob stories all day. Most of the people I deal with cause their own problems. This does not really seem different. If I get emotionally involved in a situation then I don't think as clearly. It is easier to see what needs to be done if you can be detached. Give it a shot, maybe you won't get all worked up responding this time. Instead of reading it like I am your enemy and this is a heated exchange, read it like I am someone who is mildly interested in this conversation and who makes sarcastic comments when I feel you are being ridiculous. You will get a more accurate read of the tone of my posts.

And yes, when you make excuses for people's bad behavior, it is known as enabling.

 

It didn't make any "promise". It made an argument. And you made no rebuttal. Argument vs No-rebuttal... argument always wins by default.

Oh God! Now you use Kindergarten-level logic to try to change the subject . I know I mentioned before that I have a degree in Epistemology. Which is a branch of "Logic". And therefore requires a heavy curricula of logic courses. But it's off-topic here. But you should know that after kindergarten-level, you learn the difference between universal, existential and punctual statements (and others that are way too elevated for you at this point). "Unicorns don't exist" is an existential negative. Not impossible, but very difficult to prove. Universal negatives like "nothing can travel faster than light" can certainly be proven, and so can Punctual negatives like "my shirt is not white" or "Trump is not Chinese" or "Trump is not a racist". The last one is a punctual statement that is assumed to be true until somebody proves it false.

And that's what I proved.

Sorry.. My mistake. This last statement is not accurate.... The correct way of saying it is: that's what Trump proved!

What nonsense! Do you know what Epistemology (as it relates to Science) is?

Soft, hard, blue, green, sweet, salty.... whatever you want to call it... Anthropology is a Science. But discussing whether it's a science or not is another Red Herring. What's important is that Anthropology is the authoritative field on matters dealing with the study of culture.

Wrong! Both with Darwin and with the tweet, there are irrational people who deny what every rational human being understands to be the case: In the former: that all species have a common ancestor. In the latter, that Trump is a racist.

And, though not always, usually it's the same people who are on the wrong side of both.

Met him personally. Well... I did shake his hand, and my name was mentioned to him. He might have even retained it for a fraction of a second.. But I did attend one of his lectures

This debate is not about the meaning of a word. It's about what Racism is.

Your post goes on and on with the same nonsensical rants that you want to use to change the subject. Off-topic.

What I think about it is irrelevant. What anthropologists think about it is what matters.

"Over our history, the AAPA, and many of its members, have been complicit in producing and reifying racist ideologies via the misuse, falsification, or biased production of scientific information. We acknowledge this history and stress that we should not paper over it even as we seek to end these practices and prevent the reemergence of misconceptions about race in the future."
...
"We acknowledge that outdated and inaccurate ideas about race, and racism, still inform scientific research today, and are sometimes embedded in what otherwise appears to be “modern,” technologically-advanced science. We stand against such practices."
https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/​

.

Physical, or phenotypic, variation in our species reflects interactions between an individual’s genome and their environment. Genome/environment interactions and gene flow across our species produce the plethora of phenotypes we see in humans today, including traits such as skull morphology (head form, nose form, dental traits) and aspects of body form.
(Ibid)​

What the hell are you talking about? All these countries include in their legislation the holiday "Día de la Raza".




So in order to defend an obvious racist like Trump, you would have us assume that all the governments of all these countries are racist.

What a waste!

Trump.

Quote any post, any phrase... anything.... where I support people abusing the asylum system.

Let's cut the crap! You are desperate because you have no arguments to defend your idol. So you need to find some way to change the subject. You throw in "Anthropology is not a Science" or "La Raza" or "Unicorns" or... anything.... so you don't have to defend the indefensible: that Trump is a racist.

And now your desperation has:driven you to falsely accuse me of supporting people who abuse the asylum system.

Prove it!!! Show a quote, anything to demonstrate this, or retract!

Everything else is done. Don't respond to anything else. This is an accusation and you need to prove it or withdraw it.

 

One thing I learned over the years dealing with many PHDs, education does not guarantee intelligence. It does, frequently result in people convincing themselves that they are always right whether they are right or not.

 

I don't claim "intelligence". I don't even claim to be "right" I only claim to have researched what I'm talking about as thoroughly as I could. Which is what my sig indicates. Hoping that others will do the same. A hope that, in most of my debates, is very rarely fulfilled.

 

There is no argument. You said look at this racism, I said 'what about it is racist?', and you said just look at it. I have asked you repeatedly to point to what about that to you indicates race, and you said look at them, they are another race. Then you said race doesn't exist. Then you said you know all the true definitions of words, not dictionaries.
That is some mighty fine debating.

I know what epistemology is. If you have a degree in it, then your arguments should be a lot better. Yes that is a rather over simplified statement about negatives, but I have had to over simplify all of my arguments so far. It seems to me that you don't want to understand what I am saying and are choosing to interpret everything in a weird way. So I have to go back further and further until it is a point you can see.
Things can travel faster then light though, that is the problem with making statements like this, you don't have enough information to know you are correct. You can slow down the speed of light or even stop it, which means many things technically move faster than light, because the speed of light is variable. Don't try to prove a negative, try to disprove a positive. Karl Popper is sad for you.

So you don't know what a soft science is? I am not discussed whether it is a science or not, I am telling you it is a soft science, and thus not an authority on anything.

Most anthropologists use race. You post a source below that says this was an error and they won't do it anymore. How do you know which one is right? This is where a real science using the scientific method would be useful. We could prove who is right objectively. Sadly, that is not the case with soft sciences so you will have to rely on an appeal to consensus which is absolutely not scientific.
That is what you will fall back on, these authority fugues have proclaimed it. However, they aren't really authorities on anything and 10/10 scientists can believe something and it not be true. Read the life history of Joseph Lister or Galileo. This is why the scientific method helped us move from witchcraft and nonsense into the modern era; because the consensus is not a form of evidence.

Sadly for Darwin, it looks like many of his ideas might be wrong. However, at least he did make the case for his argument. You have yet to do so. Just saying look at it, look at it, is not proving anything. I asked you to explain what specifically is racist, and you can't. "EVERYONE CAN SEE IT" is not an argument.

So I will ask yet again, what specifically indicates that story in the OP is about race? The people in question are not white, so any criticism must be due to their nonwhite status. We know this because....________ <------- Your actual argument goes here.

You will likely say something predictable like "he hasn't said that to white people". I will reply with, what about all the OTHER nonwhite people that he did NOT say this to? Did he forget about them? Are they some other race that is ok? And you will not respond to this, opting instead to say "look at it!!1 Oh My God!!!11! Anyone can see it!!". So skip all that and get to the part where you fill in that blank above with something of substance.

I have no idea what this is in reference to. There is only 1 thing in the line you quoted, so what are "both"? This is the problem with chopping up my quotes, I can't even tell if you know what you are responding to half the time.

All internet BS aside, that is pretty ****ing cool. How old are you??

I am not changing the subject, because we had to get into what constitutes racism, so we can know we are saying the same thing. If you are making claims of racism, but we don't know even what racism is, then how is that meaningful?

You want racism to be institutional only for some reason, even though that was already known as institutional racism and now there is no word left for actual racism, but even that doesn't help your case. Show me the institutional (only) racism in the OP; you have now made your own life harder because you couldn't even show a broader definition of racism.

The reason people do that, with the "institutional" bit, is to excuse the racist behavior of minorities who, it is presumed, have no institutional power and thus can't be racists at all. Is that what you believe? Not an accusation, just a question. Do you think only white people are racists?

Right so they have taken an ideological stance. There is no new evidence presented here, simply a shift in ideology. I already told YOU this has happened, so I am not sure what you think this proves.

.

This has literally nothing to do with what you quoted. Would you like to take another shot at it? Race is used in medicine and biology as a meaningful concept. The phenotype reflects the genotype. i.e., I can predict with a high degree of certainty that a black person, that I can visually identify as a black person of African descent, will gain weight if carbohydrates make up more than 25% of their diet. I can also state with a high degree of certainty that an Asian man with the same % will not gain weight. Is this right 100% of the time? No. Is anything? No. That the trend exists is meaningful though.

We are looking at trends within the population. Mutations happen all the time. It is not impossible to see an older black patient with the same cardiovascular health as a white guy the same age. It is not the trend though.
The problem, to me, with ignoring these biological idiosyncrasies, is that you have to come to some weird conclusions otherwise.

For example, black people have higher STD rates. AIDS is significantly different in transmission rates. If there are no racial differences and it is all cultural, then what does that say about black people? If on the other hand you use your brain, black people get those diseases more not because of bad behavior, but because of their genetics. They have lower genetic resistance. That is a significant difference. In other animal species we would classify them as different. Homo sapien europa vs homo sapien africanus or something similar. We don't do that because of social convention, not because of science.

You have no problem assuming my government is racist. Since all racism is now institutional racism, then you are saying that our government is racist. If that is the case, then why is it so hard to believe about other nations?

Belonging to a group called THE RACE, whose members say things like we must eliminate the gringo, is racist. Read those quotes again, but replace "gringo" with the jew or the black man. Are those quotes you would read in public? If so, can I watch?

Citation needed.

So you don't support them? Is that it?
Then what was the purpose of telling me their sad story about why they need to break our laws? Enabling is support.

So far in this thread, EVERY time you ask me triumphantly for a source or quote like your whole argument hinges on it, I provide it making your comment look foolish, and then you just ignore it and move on to the next thing. Remember the La Raza quotes you wanted? Remember the video evidence of people saying advertisements told them to come here that you demanded and stated did not exist? Then I posted it and you walked away from it. No apology or I guess I was wrong...just ignored it and on to the next BS. Coping mechanism #4.

I am not the one who is desperate here. I think any rational person reading this conversation can see that you have consistently moved the goal post, redefined words to make a false argument true, won't defend the things that YOU post, and are unable to understand even a simple metaphor. Your accusations, whether levied at me or at Trump, are baseless. It appears all you have is personal attacks and appeal to your own authority. You have gone on, at some length, about what an educated person you are, but you have not really shown us much of anything. I learned early on, you don't listen to what people say, you watch what they do. You can SAY you are educated and smarter than me or whatever, but you have yet to demonstrate it. You quote a soft science definition as an authoritative source outside the discipline for a general conversation about race, and I am fairly certain you don't know what a soft science is, which is why you have not addressed that part yet.

You keep threatening to revoke my credibility, but I don't think you are in any position to make such threats. How about instead of worrying about me, you just get your own argument in order. It is in shambles and you have retreated from one hill to the next and are now trying to re frame the debate. What SPECIFICALLY, is racist in the op? Do you have an answer outside of "just look at it"? Also, you have for some reason decided to redefine racism to mean institutional racism, so please show the US institution in question as well thanks.

 

I have explained it to you no less than three times (that I can recall). On the OP, and then at least twice after that. Exact same explanation in all the instances. On only one of those opportunities did you even address my explanation.

My arguments about what? This is not a debate about Epistemology. I'm only explaining to you that Anthropology is a Science. You accused me of not knowing Epistemology, and I explained to you why that accusation is not accurate. That's all. If you want to discuss Epistemology, open another thread. That is not the topic here.

Now, you must excuse me, but I'm going to focus on the topic of this thread. And dispense with all your Red Herrings. I have said about them what I have to say. Anthropology is the authoritative Science in everything related to the study of cultures. They base their definition on genetics. And it's all explained above and, in more detail, in the links I have provided.

Confusing the Speed of Light with the speed at which light travels is typical Kindergarten level physics... And then you top it off with Kindergarten-level Popper.

Ok.... Amusing as your red herrings are, I'll avoid the temptation and stick to the only point that is pending.

That was in the late 1980s I was Passenger Handling manager for the Airline he flew into town for a series of lectures at the University where I was studying at the time. So I assigned myself to receive him and escort him to the VIP room. After that I attended one of his lectures he gave in a packed auditorium for about 600 people. But I only met him personally that one time.

Your posts are just a compendium of nonsense, red herrings and strawman arguments... It's obvious that you don't have an argument, and you try to "slither away" every time you realize yet another one of your argumentative errors.

You said I supported those "who abused the system". Quote where I support that or retract!

And what the hell does that have to do with Asylum seekers who don't abuse the system?

You CONFUSED "La Raza" with a small obscure Mexican nationalist Party that was only known in some regions of South California and parts of Texas in the 1970s called "La Raza Unida Party" God!

As for the rest... this is unbelievable. The "video" you claim is "evidence" is a montage by Infowars. In which the narrator says again and again "advertising" when people say things like "noticiero" (news).... and they don't even show what it is they "saw" on the news because the cut it from the video.. You forced me to watch this idiotic video only to find out that the "advertisement" are just flyers by Coyotes with their price lists. What the hell does that have to do with anything we are discussing.

Look. This is clear to me now. Just stop wasting time with this nonsense and either prove that I have shown any support for those who "abuse the system" (which is what you claim I said), or retract. Or don't.... Actually I'm fed up with all this unending nonsense.

 

RACISTS are anyone who isn't a leftist nutjob. We know this already.

 

That is untrue. The president said there were good people on both sides of the statue debate. And he was right. Telling a lie like that is inflammatory and divisive.

 

No! He said there was "blame on both sides" of the confrontations in Charlotsville.

He did not condemn the right. he even explicitly condemned the Anti-fascist group. But not the fascists... But again and again reporters gave him the opportunity to lay blame on the side that did the killing, he would shift to his "both sides" rhetoric. He finally condemned the neo-nazis in a pre-written speech a day later... only to go back to his ways the following day.

So no! His intentions and the meaning of what he said is clear. No matter how much you try to defend this racist President, his message was unequivocal. And the statement "he called white supremacists good people" is accurate.

 

"...the side that did the killing..."

That is what is commonly called "painting with a broad brush.

No "side" did the killing.

 

Yes. White supremacists did the killing. The ones who came out hollering "Jews will not replace us" and other similar chants that are meant to remove compassion and empathy from their followers. They planted his disdain for human beings.

 

Then you'll have to accept that Socialist Sanders supporters shot up Republican Congressmen.

Any Sanders or Socialist supporter is an assassin.