• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Racism and Mass shootings

:rolleyes:
This merely demonstrates your ignorance. The nonsensical rubbish you posted is merely a newer version of the 'XYY' drivel of the '70s.
:rolleyes:

It so interesting how atheists and agnostics become ardent creationists when their own sacred beliefs are challenged.
 
Yeah, yeah, we already got that - which is why i was referring to cultural differences - or do you think that cultural differences are because of genetics? Personally I don't.

Yes. Yes they are. Asian-Americans behave like East Asians. Americans of Nordic descent behavior like European Nordics. And so on. It's gene-culture coevolution.
 
Dude, dogs are not different because of socioeconomic factors. They're different because of selection and ancestry. Just like all other life on this planet. It's never been explained why those forces that affect all other life don't apply to humans.
Please elaborate on how "selection and ancestry" explain why different groups of people are treated differently.

If you could keep referring to them as "dogs", that would be cake.
 
Yes. Yes they are. Asian-Americans behave like East Asians. Americans of Nordic descent behavior like European Nordics. And so on. It's gene-culture coevolution.

Nah, that's culture. There's nothing in the genes of (eg) asians that makes them behave as you think Asians would behave. Asians behave as asians because their culture developed that way in Asia and that culture follows their move to the USA. If the asians had developed in Nordic countires they might well behave the way you think Nordics behave.
 
That's not the purpose for mentioning Fst. It's to show that humans are biodiverse. The genetic difference between an English and Bantu person is 0.23. Between dogs and wolves Fst=0.165. So how far away you are from any nationality has nothing to do with it. It's just that there's this pattern that keeps occuring.

NYC

[qimg]https://i.postimg.cc/3R7yhMD1/NYCcrime.jpg[/qimg]

This English person?



 
Nah, that's culture. There's nothing in the genes of (eg) asians that makes them behave as you think Asians would behave. Asians behave as asians because their culture developed that way in Asia and that culture follows their move to the USA. If the asians had developed in Nordic countires they might well behave the way you think Nordics behave.

And of course these “races” are completely arbitrary, we can’t even agree which of “them” are which “race”.
 
Yes but Trausti's successive charts have been posted to try to explain how his original one, which contained nationalities was relevant

Ok, though Darat might have been better to have quoted the original chart to make his comment more relevant. Still, as I said, whatever.
 
Ok, though Darat might have been better to have quoted the original chart to make his comment more relevant. Still, as I said, whatever.

Trausti said: "...an English and Bantu person...." - I was asking him was this the English person they were talking about.

If you don't consider "English" a "race" you should let Trausti know, they think "English" and "Bantu" are distinct human "races".
 
The post I was replying to said "The genetic difference between an English and Bantu person is 0.23."

Fair point.

What a silly thing to say since it doesn't follow from my post, i.e. a non sequitur.

I think it does, since you were stating
And of course these “races” are completely arbitrary, we can’t even agree which of “them” are which “race”.

I note you don't actually disagree, you just say it's silly because it doesn't refer to your post....
 
Fair point.



I think it does, since you were stating

I note you don't actually disagree, you just say it's silly because it doesn't refer to your post....

Sorry didn't realise you were adding a new strand to the discussion, thought it was something to do with the part of my post you had quoted before your new strand.

To address that you'll have to expand on your reasoning as I don't understand why "races" have to be real for racism to exist?
 
Sorry didn't realise you were adding a new strand to the discussion, thought it was something to do with the part of my post you had quoted before your new strand.

To address that you'll have to expand on your reasoning as I don't understand why "races" have to be real for racism to exist?

Fair enough, that's one of the problems with responding to multiple posts in one post.

As to expanding it, the (very) short answer would be if something isn't real, it's quite difficult to criticise someone for dissing something that doesn't exist.

Not sure it's something that is on topic for this thread though.
 
Dude, dogs are not different because of socioeconomic factors. They're different because of selection and ancestry. Just like all other life on this planet. It's never been explained why those forces that affect all other life don't apply to humans.

This is of course true, but dogs are not different solely because of selection and ancestry. Nature and nurture both play a role.

With human groups, there's also nature and nurture, but the "nurture" part is even more complex due to culture and the various histories of different groups.

Specifically, when considering the disproportionate criminality of young black men it could be any of these factors or a combination. I'm not really too well read on the subject, but it seems to me the biggest influence is a particular subculture that has developed in the black community. Call it "gangster rappers" or "gangbangers" or whatever you want.

A couple of reasons - first, that the rate of crime in the community has widely varied over time, along with other metrics like single parent households, high school graduation rates, etc. Secondly, is that non-black members of the "gangbanger" subculture also seem to commit a lot of crime.
 
Nah, that's culture. There's nothing in the genes of (eg) asians that makes them behave as you think Asians would behave. Asians behave as asians because their culture developed that way in Asia and that culture follows their move to the USA. If the asians had developed in Nordic countires they might well behave the way you think Nordics behave.

If culture was just some practice anyone could do, and not in some way tied to ancestory and genes, then there's no reason why all people can't behave like Asians - don't commit crime, do well in school, respect your parents. But that's not what we see.
 
Last edited:
The difference between dogs and humans, and I can't believe this has to be spelled out, is COMMUNICATION. We can talk to humans. We can't talk to dogs. We can explain to humans how what they did was wrong, they can tell us how well they understand, what they will do to indicate they've changed. We have none of that with dogs.

You can leave your infant alone with a pitbull or a border collie. Which one and why?
 
And of course these “races” are completely arbitrary, we can’t even agree which of “them” are which “race”.

Race is just who your ancestors were. It's the reason organ donors mostly have to be of the same race. Mixed people have lower chances of finding a match.
 
Yes but Trausti's successive charts have been posted to try to explain how his original one, which contained nationalities was relevant

English is both a nationality and an ancestory. This is not hard.
 
English is both a nationality and an ancestory. This is not hard.
Our ancestors? Do you mean Australopithecus? If more recent then perhaps Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Celts, Danes, Norse, Ordovices, Demetae, Silures, Deceangli or Gaels
Then in the last few hundred years it got far more complicated. I mean look at our royal family! I think scientists have shown that the only person in the UK who can trace all the way back to the first person to step on to English soil is Danny Dyer.
 
Last edited:
Racism is not a biological phenomenon, but it is a sociological phenomenon.

Talk to Darat, he's the one who said
And of course these “races” are completely arbitrary, we can’t even agree which of “them” are which “race”.

Perhaps you can help him with some definitions...

If culture was just some practice anyone could do, and not in some way tied to ancestory and genes, then there's no reason why all people can't behave like Asians - don't commit crime, do well in school, respect your parents. But that's not what we see.

Yeah they could, provided they were enveloped by the Asian culture from birth, but that's rather the point.
 
Fair enough, that's one of the problems with responding to multiple posts in one post.

As to expanding it, the (very) short answer would be if something isn't real, it's quite difficult to criticise someone for dissing something that doesn't exist.

Not sure it's something that is on topic for this thread though.

You've not explained why racism requires races to objectively exist to be a phenomenon.
 
If culture was just some practice anyone could do, and not in some way tied to ancestory and genes, then there's no reason why all people can't behave like Asians - don't commit crime, do well in school, respect your parents. But that's not what we see.

Who are these "Asians" - how do I identify them?
 
You've not explained why racism requires races to objectively exist to be a phenomenon.

"races aren't real but if they were you'd be a racist" isn't the killer putdown you seem to think it is.
 
"races aren't real but if they were you'd be a racist" isn't the killer putdown you seem to think it is.

Any chance you can explain why you think races not being real means someone couldn't be a racist?

You seem to be missing a link in your reasoning.
 
Any chance you can explain why you think races not being real means someone couldn't be a racist?

You seem to be missing a link in your reasoning.

I'll try

Racism to me involves assigning certain attributes, usually derogatory, to an individual or group of individuals purely on the basis of their being members of a specific race, as opposed to there being any indications that they themselves exhibit those attributes. Those attributes being supposedly typical of the race they belong to.

If Race is not real, how can attributes good or bad be attached to something unreal, and if you can't identify which race an individual or group of individuals belong to, how can anyone ascribe the attibutes of a race to them, even if race was real.

I suspect that the person you would describe as racist above would in fact have to be Xenophobic, or simply tribalistic. Having hatred for the other but unable to point to specific characteristics on the basis of the race due to being unable to define race.

Understand that I don't subscribe to your view that race isn't real, I'm just extrapolating from your statements.

As to why I bothered extrapolating from your statements, that would be because I think that point of view is a cop out.
 
I'll try

Racism to me involves assigning certain attributes, usually derogatory, to an individual or group of individuals purely on the basis of their being members of [a group I define], as opposed to there being any indications that they themselves exhibit those attributes. Those attributes being supposedly typical of the [group I define] they belong to.

...snip...

As you can see with the alteration I made above it doesn't require a group that you define to be real, simply that you define a group and decide who belongs to that group.

Racism is real whether or not specific human races objectively exist or not.

ETA: Since you consider race to be real which race does this British person belong to:
 
Last edited:
As you can see with the alteration I made above it doesn't require a group that you define to be real, simply that you define a group and decide who belongs to that group.

Racism is real whether or not specific human races objectively exist or not.
So each individual can choose what each race is and who they include in a race? So could a Xenophobe, or even a tribalist, with the same result. Not convinced in the slightest, fractal racism seems far to esoteric to be any use as a definition.
ETA: Since you consider race to be real which race does this British person belong to:[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_165cb48e048b30.jpg[/qimg]

No idea, I'd need to know much more about her (them) to make any judgement whatsoever.

Enough of this Darat - we're way off topic. I suggest if you really want to discuss this at greater length you make a split off thread. Or you could simply AAH the whole lot from your post stating Race is arbitrary.
 
Lplus, you're right. We could really use a thread in Sci/Med about race and racial distinctions in humans. I don't know how long a thread it'd be, but it would certainly be useful -- and maybe revealing.

And you, old poster, could in the meantime hop over to Wikipedia and read the article on race as a human distinction. It's old stuff to many people, but that's their problem, not, apparently, yours.
 
Lplus, you're right. We could really use a thread in Sci/Med about race and racial distinctions in humans. I don't know how long a thread it'd be, but it would certainly be useful -- and maybe revealing.

And you, old poster, could in the meantime hop over to Wikipedia and read the article on race as a human distinction. It's old stuff to many people, but that's their problem, not, apparently, yours.

It's on-topic here because two racists are trying to use their grouping of humans by "race" to "explain" why the real problem is with the "race" they label as "blacks", and one at least is trying to use pseudoscience as the reason for their racism. They can tart it up as much as they like but that is their position.

My position is the current scientific one:
...snip...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

Researchers have investigated the relationship between race and genetics as part of efforts to understand how biology may or may not contribute to human racial categorization. Today, the consensus among scientists is that race is a social construct, and that using it as a proxy for genetic differences among populations is misleading.[1][2]

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Modern_scholarship
 
It's on-topic here because two racists are trying to use their grouping of humans by "race" to "explain" why the real problem is with the "race" they label as "blacks", and one at least is trying to use pseudoscience as the reason for their racism. They can tart it up as much as they like but that is their position.

My position is the current scientific one:


Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Modern_scholarship


Delightful. But perhaps, maybe, say in the spirit of rational debate, we could still have a separate thread.

It might clear the air a little in this thread.
 
So each individual can choose what each race is and who they include in a race? So could a Xenophobe, or even a tribalist, with the same result. Not convinced in the slightest, fractal racism seems far to esoteric to be any use as a definition.

Since race has no objective meaning in regards to humans of course people will decide what they consider a race is. What did you think they were doing - using science to come up with what they call a "race"?

You've seen it here with the photo of the British person I've used, according to Trausti that person isn't a member of the "English race" and they can tell simply by looking at them. It's apparently obvious who your "ancestry" is, it's probable that she has more of an "English ancestry" than I have - indeed as my ancestry of being English is only 2 generations as by my great parents none of my ancestors as far as can be traced back are of "English ancestry". But for a racist like Trausti if you look "Asian", "English" or "Black" to them then that's your race. It goes back to the "one drop rule" concept.

And it is important to tackle it in this thread because someone is trying to use their idea of "race" to explain why the USA has high levels of gun killings, whilst side stepping the blaringly obvious reason, which has nothing to do with race of any description.

ETA:
One English person



Another English person





Apparently the second one is of the "English race" despite only having at the most two generations of English ancestry, and you can tell that by just looking at their photos.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom