The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
The Netrix Is a Blank Shadow of RealityEvery word in every language is an arbitrary construct; however, that doesn't mean that the words don't communicate reality.
Words are disguises.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Netrix Is a Blank Shadow of RealityEvery word in every language is an arbitrary construct; however, that doesn't mean that the words don't communicate reality.
"Nobody is saying race is the same species. Race is a sub classification of species."
You sure about that?
Here is the OFFICIAL Science Classification for Humans,
Wikipedia:
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorhini Infraorder: Simiiformes Family: Hominidae Subfamily: Homininae Tribe: Hominini Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens
Nope Race isn't listed at all because it is a social/political construct.
Right! Thank youYou do realize the very notion of taxonomy is a human construct, right?
Actually, races would be analogous to sub species in other animals. The binomial nomenclature you referenced lists down to the level of species, but it is common in taxonomy to list sets within a species with localized traits consistent among the smaller grpu, but not the species as a whole.
You do realize the very notion of taxonomy is a human construct, right?
In any case, those who deny the existence of race should not indulge in all the formulaic idedentity polits as they do. It just makes then look like foolish hypocrites.
Scientific classification | |
---|---|
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Chordata |
Class: | Mammalia |
Order: | Carnivora |
Suborder: | Feliformia |
Family: | Felidae |
Subfamily: | Felinae |
Genus: | Felis |
Species: | F. catus[1] |
I see no problem with your post. It may just have been deported to the Badlands because race is a controversial subject. The Badlands is a fun place, IMO! I check in there every once in awhile.I wrote this as a response to someone who said there was no such thing as race, and then the whole thread got deported to the Badlands. Could someone help me understand why this happened? I don’t see it as racist.
Is this racist?
“What is this for you guys? Is this some kind of religion?. The father's of the scientific revolution would be disappointed with people like you. You are definitely not a scientist; things are not true because you want them to be true. They thought they were putting an end to superstition and ignorance; they didn't realize it would just transform. It doesn't matter what the motivation is for denying the truth is still the truth. If we ever forget that we're on our way back to holding witch trials and burning witches.
Races are a fact, they can be observed, and predictions can be made: have you ever heard of Derrick Todd Lee (November 5, 1968 – January 21, 2016), also known as The Baton Rouge Serial Killer. He escaped detection because the FBI and local police were looking for a white man based on an FBI profile and a faulty witness description. When DNA gathered at a crime scene was analyzed, it showed that the suspect was a black man. Most were unwilling to accept that DNA could identify an individual's race. However, they were looking for a man that didn't exist. After police accepted that fact, Lee was identified and captured. His DNA matched the collected DNA evidence.
Have you ever heard of forensic anthropology? These people can take a skull of an unidentified person and reconstruct the face based on racial differences with a rather good accuracy. They couldn't do that if there were no racial differences.
It appears that the left only believes in science only when it tells them what they want to hear, but that's not the way it works. The truth is the truth, whether you like it or not. I have to say that perhaps the right can be just as bad in some ways and even us moderates. I believe René Descartes said something like; perception often deceives us. I am wrong sometimes, but I try very hard to see the world, not as I want to see it but as it is.”
One of us actually has a background in taxonomy.The only people who use the word race is always about those with trivial differences in appearance wonder you don't talk about the "races" of house CATS since they also have differences in color too but are of one Species too but somehow the rest of the mammal world never gets treated that way as race doesn't exist among them at all.
WIKIPEDIA
Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Suborder: Feliformia Family: Felidae Subfamily: Felinae Genus: Felis Species: F. catus[1]
The real problem is that people are so hung up on the word that they don't realize they are actually CREATING artificial divisions between people with it.
Let it go.
Yes, of course our "races" are sub-species, at least in 2022. In 1914 people loosely referred to races of Germans versus the French, versus Italians --- all these were races. We are not doing race as much as a cultural thing now, but as physical differences.Actually, races would be analogous to sub species in other animals. The binomial nomenclature you referenced lists down to the level of species, but it is common in taxonomy to list sets within a species with localized traits consistent among the smaller grpu, but not the species as a whole.
The only people who use the word race is always about those with trivial differences in appearance wonder you don't talk about the "races" of house CATS since they also have differences in color too but are of one Species too but somehow the rest of the mammal world never gets treated that way as race doesn't exist among them at all.
Yes, of course our "races" are sub-species, at least in 2022. In 1914 people loosely referred to races of Germans versus the French, versus Italians --- all these were races. We are not doing race as much as a cultural thing now, but as physical differences.
HUGE confusion over this subject because it has changed so much. When I was young we were taught that species could not cross-reproduce. Sometimes they COULD, but there wouldn't be fertile offspring. Mules and hinnies (hinnies are produced with stallions on jennies, they used to be popular: and smaller) were the most obvious examples, but I can sadly tell you that regular ducks and Muscovy ducks cross very well --- but the "mule" does not reproduce at all. Boy, was I confused for a couple years there.
But humans all produce fertile offspring, unfortunately, so that definition of species is not applicable to us.
In the last thirty years or so the definition of species has changed to a physically different looking variety that is geographically limited, like dwarf rhinoceroses. It doesn't matter anymore if they can cross-reproduce fertilely. Of course humans fit that definition of more than one species very well: we just call those differences races,
You need to study taxonomy, dude.Recommend you simply drop the "triggering" term "sub-species". Really no need for that. Humans make the rules for the minutiae of the Homo Sapien specie. And there's no need to go further than that. Because the ADDITIONAL science to go DEEPER - really hasn't been available except in the past 30 years or so.
You need to study taxonomy, dude.
There are countless subspecies in both the plant and anal kingdoms. As I tried to explain to those unwilling to learn anything new, the term simply refers to localized populations of a species that display a trait consistent among the group but differing in some way from the species as a whole.
There is nothing the least bit triggering about using it. Now, YOU may be triggered by it due to your scientific ignorance, but that does not mean it is triggering by nature.
I figured you would go there due to your complete ignorance of the subject matter.So you dont get the possible connotation of sub-species suggesting sub-human to some? Because in little warped minds or even in scientific minds, (EDITED to add) SOME people are bound to play "favorites" with sub-species. And we know who they are.
I figured you would go there due to your complete ignorance of the subject matter.
You could always try learning a little something - heck, all you need to do is Google up the meaning of the term sub-species - but you refuse to do so out of your arrogance and preconceptions.
Go tell black people the term is not offensive. Humans dont really need branches to sub-species. They only need to use the place markers for race.
It's slightly possible that my ignorance plays a part. It's also possible that you're fixated on taxonomy declarations that were DECLARED before DNA typing became "a thing" - and a little bit too ARROGANT to recalibrate your bearings on the topic accordingly.
Actually, races would be analogous to sub species in other animals. The binomial nomenclature you referenced lists down to the level of species, but it is common in taxonomy to list sets within a species with localized traits consistent among the smaller group, but not the species as a whole.
In any case, those who deny the existence of race should not indulge in all the formulaic identity politics as they do. It just makes then look like foolish hypocrites.
There was no mention of BLACKS as a lone sub species. I simply mentioned that the notion of races in humans is analogous to sub species in the animal and plant kingdom. There is no inference of being lesser in any way, just different.
You would know that if you were educated on the subject.
You are just being dishonest here, as you always are.
Ignoring and insulting their White supporters and instead virtue-signaling to their prep-school classmates, the Rightists actually brag about how many Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights for the Uncivilized Act.
I found this article that applies, especially the next to last paragraph:No it isn't. It's an arbitrary construct. For example what do you mean by Caucasian? Do you specifically mean people from the Caucus region? Do you mean white Europeans in general? Do you mean it historically which included people from Europe, Asia and North Africa? Do you realize that there could be many genetic variations between people considered Asian, Caucasian or black, even amongst each other? There is as much if not more genetic variation between people from different parts of Africa than there is between people from Africa and Europe. That means two "black" people from different regions of Africa could have more genetic variation between each other as they do with someone considered "white". If we tried to categorize people by genetic variation rather than general skin color or region we would have several thousand different races, not a handful.
Yes you are a racist. Any more questions?
I hope that makes you feel good because it does nothing for me, negative or positive. A cry of racism is a way to control people. I will not allow anyone to manipulate me. I know what I am; that is the only thing that matters. I do my own thinking and let no one think for me. Sometimes I am wrong; everyone is eventually, but it is an honest error. I try very hard to see the world as it is, not as I would like.