Just to clarify: There is no such thing as "Race". There is only "Racism"

Sorry. but pseudo-intellectual garbage does not impress me. There may not be such thing as human race, but there certainly is a Human Race.

Don't overthink it, though...

 

I have many positions. You just have to indicate which of them you are referring to.

Try again. This time in context, though. As I said in the OP (and subsequent), there are arbitrary categorizations that are called "races". But there is no objective biological definition of race as related to human beings in the sense that racists use them.

 

On the pseudo-scientific categorization of human beings into races for the purpose of claiming that theirs is superior. At a genetic level, there is no clear objective differentiation that would justify this categorization.

Same way as there are no unicorns, and yet, we invented a word to describe them.

 

Your self-loathing is not our problem.

"Race," like lots of other indefinite categorical abstractions is just as useful as any, and has the same limits of usefulness. "Race," as a matter of irrefutable linguistic, legal and scientific fact, is a "thing" whether you and your virtue signaling Complex denizens think so or not.

To reiterate in a different way, I have a hunch you'd probably be opposed to removing race from disease research considerations and also from judicial "hate crime" considerations.

 

That's elementary. Sorry it went over your head

 

why play stupid and you think that's I'm going to win you this argument?

I posted in this thread about something specifically that you said did you forget how to read when you responded to my post or did you forget what thread you're in?

why? You just conceded. I'll explain. Race is defined by characterizations however arbitrary they are is of no relevance. You said there are characterizations called race you just admitted race exists.

So what?

 

if you're going to make the claim that these characteristics are pseudo-scientific then you're going to have to prove that.

once because it was never based on genetics. It's based on Anatomy.

You're trying to use a screwdriver to drive a nail.

the show show me unicornism show me a belief set that relies on unicorns and takes evidence from the physical world.

 

Which has many more complex than you seem to think. Because there are many positions expressed in this thread. In this case, if I remember correctly, the message you quoted contained at least 4 different statements.

Not as an objective characterization. If you mean that the word "race" exists... well... sure... I'll concede that. I even gave 2 examples on the OP ("Human Race" and .as an arbitrary "title" in our Census) But there is none in the sense applicable to the context: racism.

So... nothing. The title says it: "Just to clarify..."

 

I see. So that's how Science works.... Everybody else has to prove that a claim that "sounds" Scientific is not Science, right?

In any case, just to call out your set up for a strawman. I didn't say that the "characteristics" are pseudo-scientific. Which, BTW, is a phrase that wouldn't even make sense. I said the categorization is pseudo-scientific. Your reading skills might need some work.

Oh. Do share. By all means. What is the objective definition of "race" in anatomy?

Hopefully you understand the absurdity of the statement you made and I was responding to. That if somebody made up a word for something, than that means that that something exists. I am horrified that you didn't grasp the nonsense in your statement after a clear "reductio ad absurdum"

Evidence from the physical world? None. Same as with races as they relate to racism. Evidence from the physical world doesn't exist.

 

If race doesn't exist, then there is no need for Israel.

 

I clearly only addressed one.

Human is a lay term for homo sapians which is a species.

Just because something isn't genetic doesn't mean it can't be objective.

The title expresses an erroneous belief.

 

No you have to prove your claims. The characteristics that account for race are observable. You have to prove those observations false.

No it's not. In order to be pseudo science it would have had to been claimed to be science in the first place.

You can find definitions in the dictionary.

You flunked at That goal. You just picked some fictional creature and said that its a word that describes something that doesn't exist.

It didn't make sense. Unicorns don't exist and thus we don't talk about unicornism. Race exists its observable.

If they are discribing something that exists yes. It's just a label or a symbol for an idea or object.

Race is based on sets of characteristics that are visible unicorns are imaginary animals somebody made up and labeled.

No you are just throwing a hissy fit because people are denying your virtue signal.

Laughably false. Physical features that exist, exist in the physical world.

Racism is treating people differently on the basis of race. If race doesn't exist racism can't possibly exist any more than unicornism.

I'm appallingly amused you couldn't see that I was mocking you.

This dumb idea isn't intellectual or virtuous like you desperately wish it to be. Its feeble minded and racist. The fact that you need race not to exist to condemn racism is a complete lack of self awareness.

 

No races, more than two genders. And they claim they are so smart.

 

Wow, what a topic.

 

They are smart, or rather, half-smart. It takes some intelligence to be persuadable that there are no races. But they are not that smart and are so insecure. They dare not question the orthodoxy for fear of being called stupid.

In many debates with the PC I know I could mount a better defense of their position than they are doing and this is one of them. Its a pity. I like a good challenger.

 

Yeah I agree with that. The problem isn't that they're stupid, but that they're smart enough to totally discount their own life experience and observation, but not smart enough to do that as a way of determining truth from falsehood. Call it, "Huffpost smart."

 

You didn't address any. You just posted something like "What would it take you to change your mind" with no quote. I obvously asked what you were talking about.

What makes this hypothetical "race" as racists use the term, objective? We have established it's not genetics

 

Can you prove that Unicorns are false? Can you prove that fire-breathing dragons are false?

The characteristics that you claim to observe are arbitrary. There is no rational justification to claim that they correspond to a "race". It's as absurd to claim that there is such a thing as "black" or "white" or "jewish"... race... as it would be to claim that there is such thing as a blue-eyes race, or a Longer-second-toe-of-the-foot race. What you see is not "races". What you see are clines.

Now... you wish to claim that they are races... the burden of proof is yours. Not only have you not done that, but you can't even do the most basic of all tasks: profice a definition "race" as it applies to human beings and which is compatible with racism.

No. To be pseudo-science, it only has to be presented in a way purposefully designed to make it appear as if it were Science. For example, by using the word "race", which is a term defined and used in science.

Quote it. Quote a technical dictionary of Anatomy what the word "race" is as it relates to racism.

The absurdity expressed here is so brazen I just can't... Look... you're making a fool of yourself. Just show the definition if you can and be done with it. Or don't... This is too ridiculous.

 

The dumb statement that is the title of the thread.

Thats why I'm posting in this thread

Explained it already. Observable.

 

You are being denied you're virtue signal. That makes you angry. Sorry kid, it isn't intellectual it isn't intelligent to pretend race doesn't exist. Its racist. You have to have this erroneous belief because the differences bother you.

 

It appears you are speaking to the strict technical definition as accepted today.

Obviously there are variables we know as races, defined by specific characteristics- which is any other species of animals would be defined and identified as sub-species. The term race has become politically controversial, and is now avoided in part because of social rancor and political arguments. However the facts are not changed by that argument at all. It's not like a black cat and a yellow cat which are different only by color of the fur- because there are often far more differences that are consistent in the groups we have called races.

We have birds of different sub-species that are so close in identifying characteristics one must look very carefully and get our the book to define one from another- and yet they all have sub-species names. What is commonly known as the cooper's hawk is Accipiter cooperii; the sharp-shinned hawk is Accipiter striatus. Unless you know what to look for, such as the difference in squareness of the tail when resting and have your binoculars with you to check it, you would never know they were different.... But, they do have different sub-species names, as does every kind of variable, some quite insignificant, in all kinds of living species.

My point is that we are make exception with our own species to the rules of science we apply everywhere else- obviously for social reasons. That may be for the best to not add fuel to the fire, but it hardly hides the facts from anyone. You can identify most of these nameless variables in people that we aren't suppose to see as marked differences from a great distance, and you don't need the binoculars, and you certainly don't have to be racist or prejudiced person to be aware of it. If awareness makes you a racist, then every person on earth is a racist. That reduces the meaning of the label to zero- just a political mudball to throw at the convenience of the bad-mannered abuser. It's being used so freely today, that most discount such accusations as BS, while others go berserk and endorse tarring and feathering the target. That's a damn poor way to run a society.

 

To change my mind it would take the same thing it would take to change anybody's mind about anything. I din't expect your question would be that absurd.

Not explained. What are you "observing"? What parts of what you observe correspond to "race", which ones don't, and what's the difference in criteria?

Obviously, you don't have an answer. Because there isn't any. So don't bother...

 

We don't "make" an exception. The exception is made in nature. "Sub-species" arise because they evolve differently because of geographical isolation. To the point that they don't interbreed easily or, in a majority of cases, they don't interbreed at all.

This is not the case in humans. Even though, in the past, it was proposed that something similar had happened. A concept that has been abandoned by scientists because of complete lack of consistency. Today, the concept of "race" used by racists is arbitrary and has the only purpose of claiming a "superiority" of theirs. It has nothing to do with awareness of clines within the Human Race. We can be aware that this guy's skin is dark, just as we can be aware that this other guy's eyes are green, or the other one has red hair without being racists.... These are not races. These are clines.

Racists are the people who isolate arbitrary physical and cultural characteristics and use them as if these defined some other arbitrary aspect of personality, moral values, intelligence, etc.

Therefore, while there are racists, the "races" that they are prejudicial against, do not exist.

As I said before, this is regardless of the fact that some (like the Census Bureau) also make arbitrary categorizations for some other purposes.

 

except for its not. Reality doesn't seem to change your mind.

you should open an encyclopedia.

 

Two days ago, I had several temporary labor men working on a job. One was a black man, recently out of prison. He worked hard; I bought him lunch because I though he was short of cash, brought him cold drinks and paid him $30 extra as a tip over his wages because he was a good man.
There was also an Indian- half Navajo, proud of it. He did a pretty good job too, alongside an average white guy. I also bought their lunches, tipped them extra, and drove them home.

Now to me, there is no doubt that these three come from different specific genetic backgrounds, it was obvious. I grew up recognizing this as racial differences. Nothing in the world is going to make these people appear all the same- but that doesn't mean I should treat them any differently, and I don't. So if they are not of different races- what shall we call them? Will it make the slightest difference to do so? It would be denying the obvious to say they are all the same, so we must be doing that for some other reason than reality.
It I had called them the black guy, the red guy and the white guy- am I a racist because i can see that? I don't think so.

So we think differently. The term "race' doesn't bother me, any more that any terms like white or black or red do. However there is a movement afoot to label anything that people are aware of as differences in these groups and call the person "Racist". That terms belongs only on those who degrade people,devalue them on the basis of the difference. Most people do not- but they are getting the label anyway if they so much as utter the word. If a crime victim states the perpetrator was black, the news is afraid to use it in the description for the suspect they look for out of fear they will be labeled racist. That's just a bit too much- it's irrational and takes the focus away from genuine racism issues and applies it everywhere. Denial never made anything go away, it just screws up our thinking. It's like nobody is supposed to be aware that the Lakers ball team is mostly black. If they know that, then damn those fans, they are all racists...

Sensible use of a word makes it relevant. That's what is being lost with the current "racist" word overkill- common sense.