Race is a human/social construct.

Something else that you need to learn from this thread.

Take responsibility. If you make a claim it's up to you to support it. It's not anyone else's job to go back and make your case for you.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
(guy who refuses to respond to posts arguing against his position)

SERVED
Click to expand...
I never refused anything. You told me to go back and sift through the posts. I've not refused to respond to 136.

Limehouse Chappie said:
"I don't have to prove myself to you"

solid logic
Click to expand...
It's a statement of fact. Responding with "solid logic" is nonsensical at best and wrong at worst. But hey, you tell me, how is stating a fact not "solid logic"?
 
RandFan said:
I never refused anything. You told me to go back and sift through the posts. I've not refused to respond to 136.

It's a statement of fact. Responding with "solid logic" is nonsensical at best and wrong at worst. But hey, you tell me, how is stating a fact not "solid logic"?
Click to expand...

still waiting for your response to post #136. I'll keep checking back until you post something of substance in response. I won't hold my breath.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
Oh, sure I'm trolling now that the other guy has made it clear he can't or won't respond to the post I pointed out.
Click to expand...

No you're trolling because your first post was intended to incite others into a negative reaction and your continued appearance in this thread is solely to cause further incitement. Running around shouting "SERVED" doesn't advance your position, whatever it is, and does little to bring attention to Delvo's argument.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
No you're trolling because your first post was intended to incite others into a negative reaction and your continued appearance in this thread is solely to cause further incitement. Running around shouting "SERVED" doesn't advance your position, whatever it is, and does little to bring attention to Delvo's argument.
Click to expand...

It wasn't intended to incite anything. I read through the thread and noticed that Delvo's posts and specific points often went unanswered. That the other guy isn't able to respond substantively even after I pointed out an an exact post number isn't my problem.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
It wasn't intended to incite anything. I read through the thread and noticed that Delvo's posts and specific points often went unanswered. That the other guy isn't able to respond substantively even after I pointed out an an exact post number isn't my problem.
Click to expand...

1) Telling someone who is, rather politely, asking you to point out the instances where Delvo went unanswered by typing "SERVED" shouldn't be taken as a serious response by anyone and should certainly be viewed as trolling. 2) It's not his problem, as the claimant that's your problem.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
It wasn't intended to incite anything. I read through the thread and noticed that Delvo's posts and specific points often went unanswered. That the other guy isn't able to respond substantively even after I pointed out an an exact post number isn't my problem.
Click to expand...
To start with you told me to go back to 136 and then work my way through the posts. As for 136, I don't find much to respond to. It's patronizing, engages in personal attack, and argues by assertions. It claims that every gene in any person can be traced back through it's ancestral line. Utter nonsense. Recombination makes that impossible. And here's a hint. Your father can't pass on to you his mothers mitochondrial DNA. Yet you likely have genes from your father's mother you just don't have the means to trace back through your fathers matriarchal line.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
1) Telling someone who is, rather politely, asking you to point out the instances where Delvo went unanswered by typing "SERVED" shouldn't be taken as a serious response by anyone and should certainly be viewed as trolling. 2) It's not his problem, as the claimant that's your problem.
Click to expand...

I did point out post #136. The response was "I don't have to prove myself to you." Does that qualify as a logical response in your book?
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
I did point out post #136. The response was "I don't have to prove myself to you." Does that qualify as a logical response in your book?
Click to expand...

That wasn't exactly his response, nor did he say that he wouldn't respond to it. I'm taking his side in this because it's pretty ridiculous to claim someone was "served", suggest they reread the entire thread, then offer up a single post to start from yet have him continue to read the other 400+ posts on his own.

Again; you claimant. You provide proofs. Not Randfan job.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
I did point out post #136. The response was "I don't have to prove myself to you." Does that qualify as a logical response in your book?
Click to expand...
Saying I don't have to prove myself to you isn't a refusal to respond. It's letting you know that your snot nosed attitude wasn't winning you any favor from me. If you want to be treated with respect then grow up a little bit. I don't have to answer you and few are going to give a damn if I refuse to answer you. I'm happy to stand by my record here.
 
One person's arguments are not devastating to another person's arguments in matters of the facts of reality. Reality itself is devastating to arguments that are counter-reality.

If you really want to argue about whether there's been a tendency for the points I make on this subject to get no response and insist on examples to argue over, I could collect multiple examples from this thread... probably multiple conspicuously significant examples (ignoring the minor/unimportant ones for the sake of brevity) per page, for that matter. I could also collect examples not only of claims being first made and then abandoned, but even denials that a claim was ever made at all, in the very same thread where it originally was (after that original claim gets disproven). But what exactly is the point? Do you actually want to bother with that argument? This was all done quite out in the open. It didn't even occur to me that anybody would bother trying to hide it, since it's clearly just as impossible to hide the silence as it would be to hide a response consisting of words. I just thought that the silence was the message that the silent chose to send. What else could it be but that? Is there some reason to switch around after the fact and get in an argument that the silence was somehow not actually silence?

RandFan said:
It claims that every gene in any person can be traced back through it's ancestral line. Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Then where did any given gene that you have come from, if it didn't come from one parent, who got it from one parent, who got it from one parent, et cetera?

Now you're denying the existence of not just races, but also inheritance! Geneticists (particularly those who have done research on the histories of individual genes) would find this somewhat... surprising. :rolleyes: But your claims are at least consistent: in a world which somehow lacked genetic inheritance, there probably would indeed be no human races! :D

RandFan said:
Recombination makes that impossible.
Click to expand...
What does the fact that any given gene doesn't always have the same other genes around it have to do with whether or not any individual who has that gene inherited it from a parent, who inherited it from a parent, who inherited it from a parent, and so on? Or are you using the word "recombination" to indicate something completely different from what everybody else uses it to indicate?

RandFan said:
And here's a hint. Your father can't pass on to you his mothers mitochondrial DNA.
Click to expand...
This is accurate and not disputed. (At least, mostly... I read somewhere once that it might be possible for some mitochondria to be dumped intact from the sperm cell into the egg cell at fusion & fertilization. But I recall that it was either undocumented in humans or quite rare, rarer than most other oddities like extra or missing chromosomes, so, close enough to never for the moment.) But what does that fact have to with the subject, given the fact that the genes that are associated with human races were never claimed to be mitochondrial anyway?

RandFan said:
Yet you likely have genes from your father's mother you just don't have the means to trace back through your fathers matriarchal line.
Click to expand...
The genes you got from your father's mother aren't mitochondrial, so why would anybody care whether any of their previous carriers were male or female? And what would that have to do with the subject anyway, since nobody's claiming that race is a sexual trait?

When you look at one particular coherent piece of DNA, you're looking at the "line" of people who inherited that piece and passed it on. If the piece in question is a mitochondrial genome, then those people would be the people who inherited and passed on those particular mitochondria. If the piece in question is a Y chromosome, then those people would be the people who inherited and passed on those particular Y chromosomes. If the piece in question is anything else, like the gene for sucrase, then those people would be the people who inherited and passed on those particular non-Y-chromosomal, non-mitochondrial genes such as the one for sucrase.

What in the world is your problem with genes that both sexes can pass on? What's supposed to be the big deal about that? Why do you keep trying to make all but one of the chromosomes in our nuclei go away?
 
Last edited:
Wuglife said:
The races of least weasel, which biologists do not all agree about (because binomial nomenclature is NOT inherently objective, as some seem to misunderstand), are considered distinct because of morphological differences, caused by differences in genetics, and are separated by region.
Click to expand...

So what?

The question at hand isn't whether infra-subspeicific rankings exist nor can you can't just suddenly define race as a synonym any infrasubspecific grouping.

The term race simply isn't used that way in biology or genetics, the fact that you and a few others chose to misuse it changes nothing.
 
I know this has been touched upon before but this is an old post of mine:

OnlyTellsTruths said:
A newer Discover magazine (June 2010) has a great article about this very topic (giraffes included), coincidence?

The article is "Unclassified: The Enigma of Species" page 55.

It talks about how there is no agreed upon way to define a species, that there are in fact several methods used. Ranging from sexual activity to dna.

It also makes the case that there really are several species of giraffe, not sub-species.
Click to expand...

I challenge anyone to read that article (try your library, I don't think it is online) and then tell me you are still convinced that even a majority of scientists agree on what the word species means.

Here's a related post from Cuddles that is really just a link (arrow by Cuddles's name) for everyone to read a related thread where we went through all this with dogs.

Cuddles said:
It wouldn't say anything that we don't already know. "Species" is a word that really doesn't have a precise definition, in the same way that "life" doesn't. It's a useful concept for general classifications, but there are plenty of examples of things that just don't quite fit in. Try reading about ring species, for example. As I say, species are a useful concept, but you should never make the mistake of thinking that they actually represent absolute boundaries.
Click to expand...
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
No, you are clearly not a native speaker of English so it is pointless to discuss the nuances of English grammar with you. The fact that you still think you made a reasonable point is telling. Best wishes!
Click to expand...

yeah its ok, i see others are already kicking your arse here. you get owned pretty hard here, hope you'll be OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom