Do you date out of your race?

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Curiosity. The only girl I dated was my religion and race.

[L.Kizzle]

Everyone is black when the lights go outm

[Inactive]

When the lights go out, all cats are grey.

[sweggeh]

I'd probably kill myself if I didnt.

[DwnShft2Xcelr8]

Everyone is dark skinned-ed-ed when the lights are turned off.

[boozehound]

that would be gross. dating outside of homo sapiens? maybe if there were still some hot neanderthal or devisonians chicks alive ( I hear they are thick!). But nowadays? That means your ****ing a chimp at best and most likely a pet or farm animal. you are ****ing sick OP

[Akrazotile]

In the absence of photon illumination, every individual's pigmentation is equally rich with melanin.

[CelticBaller]

Why wouldn't i? You racist ****

[Shade8780]

Everyone is white when they get paint poured on them.

[NumberSix]

Why is everything here about race?

[Inactive]

Every chick is white when you come on your face.You might want to stop pointing it towards your eyes.

[imdaman99]

Carrie was red when she got blood poured on her and lights went out. Don't know what the hell you all talkin bout

[NumberSix]

that would be gross. dating outside of homo sapiens? maybe if there were still some hot neanderthal or devisonians chicks alive ( I hear they are thick!). But nowadays? That means your ****ing a chimp at best and most likely a pet or farm animal. you are ****ing sick OP
Species =/= race

[imdaman99]

Every chick is white when you come on your face.
:lebronamazed: You got some super shootin skills :eek:

[Jameerthefear]

ya

[L.Kizzle]

Every chick is white when you come on your face.
:biggums:

[Akrazotile]

Species =/= race


I was just about to point this out, but I think hes trying to demonstrate how progressive he is and for totally like not even recognizing race man.

[NumberSix]

I was just about to point this out, but I think hes trying to demonstrate how progressive he is and for totally like not even recognizing race man.
At least he didn't regurgitate "there's only one race. The human race"

[DonDadda59]

In the absence of photon illumination, every individual's pigmentation is equally rich with melanin.

I read that in Barry White's voice. Added an 'awwwww baby' at end. Got me all hot and bothered :pimp:

[Inactive]

I was just about to point this out, but I think hes trying to demonstrate how progressive he is and for totally like not even recognizing race man.
At least he didn't regurgitate "there's only one race. The human race"How do you guys delineate races biologically?

[boozehound]

Species =/= race
right. it means sub-species. and there are no actual biological races among humans. Its possible, even probable that neanderthals and devisonians were races of homo sapiens. but there are no actual valid race divisions among humans today (Variation within is greater than variation between, i.e. no genetic reality to the idea of race).

[NumberSix]

How do you guys delineate races biologically?
There are 4 distinct skull types. Those are the 4 races

Contrary to popular belief, race has nothing to do with things like skin color or hair type.

[Akrazotile]

I read that in Barry White's voice. Added an 'awwwww baby' at end. Got me all hot and bothered :pimp:


*Camera cuts to panties sliding down shins.*

[boozehound]

I was just about to point this out, but I think hes trying to demonstrate how progressive he is and for totally like not even recognizing race man.
it has nothing to do with being progressive or any of that shit.

Its about recognizing biological reality as demonstrated by genotypic and phenotypic data.

[Akrazotile]

right. it means sub-species. and there are no actual biological races among humans. Its possible, even probable that neanderthals and devisonians were races of homo sapiens. but there are no actual valid race divisions among humans today (Variation within is greater than variation between, i.e. no genetic reality to the idea of race).



So I assume you oppose colleges and businesses including race inquiries on applications, yeah?


*Waits for this question to be ignored*

[boozehound]

There are 4 distinct skull types. Those are the 4 races

Contrary to popular belief, race has nothing to do with things like skin color or hair type.
this isnt really true. There are some distinctive features among differing populations, but there is enough variation between them (i.e. its a spectrum rather than distinct, categorical types) that its not as straight-forward as that.


A good example is sinodont and sundodont teeth (used to distinguish between "mongloid" and "australoid" skulls. Do you have shovel shaped upper incisors? YOU might be an E. asian.

[Akrazotile]

it has nothing to do with being progressive or any of that shit.

Its about recognizing biological reality as demonstrated by genotypic and phenotypic data.


Its very difficult to concretely group organisms across the board at any classification level. But as a practical definition, everyone understands what "race" means on a human sociological level. It doesnt mean it has to matter for anything. But its silly to pretend its some made up concoction.

[boozehound]

So I assume you oppose colleges and businesses including race inquiries on applications, yeah?


*Waits for this question to be ignored*
no, I dont really care.

[NumberSix]

right. it means sub-species. and there are no actual biological races among humans. Its possible, even probable that neanderthals and devisonians were races of homo sapiens. but there are no actual valid race divisions among humans today (Variation within is greater than variation between, i.e. no genetic reality to the idea of race).
You're very ignorant of science. Humans are animals like anything else. There is no reason to not classify us the same as any other animal.

The "there's more variation within than between" is true, but you're misinterpreting what that means.

First, variation within what? If there are no races, what's the "within"?

Second, when you say there is more variation within a race, think of that like variation between vehicles. Think cares and motorcycles. They are different things, but there is more variation within. There are millions of variations within cars. There is only a finite difference between a car and a motorcycle. Example, cars have a steering wheel and motorcycles don't. That's 1 variation, but within cars there's are thousands of different steering wheels. Obviously a steering wheel is more like another steering wheel than a non-steering wheel but within steering wheels there are thousands of more variations. There is more cation in numbers but not in degree of variation.

[boozehound]

it is made up. Its not biological reality. Which is why it is so variable across different cultures (go look at the # of races in other countries, particularly brazil). Race is not science, its a cultural construct that is highly variable.

Again, I dont really care that people use it, but I think people need to recognize that its not a biologically real thing, especially when dating "outside" your race is the topic. Who cares, if you like her, date her.

[NumberSix]

Its very difficult to concretely group organisms across the board at any classification level. But as a practical definition, everyone understands what "race" means on a human sociological level. It doesnt mean it has to matter for anything. But its silly to pretend its some made up concoction.
Herds the confusion. Scientific race isn't the same as sociological race. When people say "there is no race" that is referring to the sociological perception of race. The problem though is people who just repeat what they hear don't understand the difference.

[boozehound]

You're very ignorant of science. Humans are animals like anything else. There is no reason to not classify us the same as any other animal.

The "there's more variation within than between" is true, but you're misinterpreting what that means.

First, variation within what? If there are no races, what's the "within"?

Second, when you say there is more variation within a race, think of that like variation between vehicles. Think cares and motorcycles. They are different things, but there is more variation within. There are millions of variations within cars. There is only a finite difference between a car and a motorcycle. Example, cars have a steering wheel and motorcycles don't. That's 1 variation, but within cars there's are thousands of different steering wheels. Obviously a steering wheel is more like another steering wheel than a non-steering wheel but within steering wheels there are thousands of more variations. There is more cation in numbers but not in degree of variation.
why are you comparing vehicles to reproductive species. sub-species is a defined term and human races (also defined) dont make it. Go look it up, races are not scientifically valid (now, yes, we can use them as a cultural grouping or classification)

yes, I am ignorant of human genetics and science in general. please educate me.

[boozehound]

Herds the confusion. Scientific race isn't the same as sociological race. When people say "there is no race" that is referring to the sociological perception of race. The problem though is people who just repeat what they hear don't understand the difference.
no, its not. sociological race is real. scientific race (among existing anatomically modern humans) is not biologically valid.

[NumberSix]

why are you comparing vehicles to reproductive species. sub-species is a defined term and human races (also defined) dont make it. Go look it up, races are not scientifically valid (now, yes, we can use them as a cultural grouping or classification)

yes, I am ignorant of human genetics and science in general. please educate me.
I don't know why you insist on posing as if you know what you're talking about when you know that you don't.

Subspecies actually is not a "defined term". There is no concrete criteria. Only loose criteria. The main one being visibly distinguishable, which human races are and the other being unique DNA characteristics, which human races also qualify.

Why you're getting confused is you believe in the old "white is a race" and "black is a race". Those are not races. THAT is what it means when it is said that there is no biological foundation for THOSE to be subspecies.

[ILLsmak]

Curiosity. The only girl I dated was my religion and race.

yes. But I don't deny my own kind either.

-Smak

[NumberSix]

yes. But I don't deny my own kind either.

-Smak
Would you date a girl that writes "-smak" after EVERY post?

[Inactive]

Herds the confusion. Scientific race isn't the same as sociological race. When people say "there is no race" that is referring to the sociological perception of race. The problem though is people who just repeat what they hear don't understand the difference.You have it backwards. When people say there is no race, they're referring to biological classifications of race, within the human species. Not sociological, or anthropological.

You're repeating junk from late 19th/early 20th century anthropology. "Scientists" also claimed they could predict personality traits based on phrenology, and physiognomy back then.

If you divide people into races based on genetics, then most of the races would have to be African. There is more genetic diversity on the African continent than there is in the rest of the world combined.

Almost every relatively large human population (e.g a nation-state, or ethnic group) has virtually every allele that any other population has. So your distinctions would have to be based on the allele frequencies, not isolated traits. Then you're stuck arbitrarily deciding which alleles, at which frequency, define which race. Unfortunately, your races wouldn't correlate very well with popular notions of race, and ethnicity. For example, Icelanders might not fit into the same race as Scandinavians, and French Canadians might not fit into the same race as the French, due to the combination of geographical separation, and environmental variation. The variation within a single country might even result in this problem. For example, maybe the alleles frequencies in England overall put them into race x, but the allele frequencies in Kent would put their population in race y, and the allele frequencies in Yorkshire would put their population in race z. When you get down to classifying individuals, it gets even worse.

[Myth]

Hmmm... I'd consider it.

[NumberSix]

You have it backwards. When people say there is no race, they're referring to biological classifications of race, within the human species. Not sociological, or anthropological.
You're again misunderstanding.

When I say sociological race is not real, I mean that THAT is a social construct. THAT has no biological legitimacy.

There are biological race classifications that most people aren't aware of even existing. THOSE are real.

You seem to be stuck on phenotypes. That is not what we're talking about.

[Inactive]

You're again misunderstanding.

When I say sociological race is not real, I mean that THAT is a social construct. THAT has no biological legitimacy.

There are biological race classifications that most people aren't aware of even existing. THOSE are real.What are they? Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid aren't biological race classifications.

[NumberSix]

What are they? Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid aren't biological race classifications.
And why is that?

[Inactive]

And why is that?You could just as easily classify people according to how their toes are shaped, how big their ***** are, or any other arbitrary physical characteristic. And they did. Anthropologists came up with different racial categorizations all the time.

Anthropologists used arbitrary physical features to distinguish between people, because that was all they had to go by. Now that we can sequence genomes, and actually see how people are related, their old ideas have been convincingly discredited.

[NumberSix]

You could just as easily classify people according to how their toes are shaped, how big their ***** are, or any other arbitrary physical characteristic. And they did. Anthropologists came up with different racial categorizations all the time.

Anthropologists used arbitrary physical features to distinguish between people, because that was all they had to go by. Now that we can sequence genomes, and actually see how people are related, their old ideas have been convincingly discredited.
You seem to have this idea that in order for things to be classified as "subspecies", they have to be drastically different. For people familiar with the field, this is known to obviously not be the case. All it means is an observable difference. If you can tell one from the other. That's all. People from geographic region A are observably recognizable from people from geographic region B. It's not difficult to understand.




If these are classified as separate subspecies, I don't see how doing the same for humans is any different.

http://www.wall321.com/thumbnails/detail/20120419/animals%20tigers%20mammals%203100x2052%20wallpaper _www.wallpaperto.com_78.jpg

http://www.tigers-world.com/wp-content/uploads/Siberian-tiger_624.jpg

[Solidape]

Curiosity. The only girl I dated was my religion and race.

You'd have to be a real dummy to deny all of gods hot chicks in all colors and creeds. I feel sorry for people that limit their choices.

[LJJ]

I've only twice dated a girl of my own ethnicity, I don't know why.

[pauk]

No, i dont know any alien.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

You'd have to be a real dummy to deny all of gods hot chicks in all colors and creeds. I feel sorry for people that limit their choices.

I don't limit my choices, I'm Indian who finds Caucasians attractive and blacks as well. I just happened to have dated another Indian.

[Inactive]

You seem to have this idea that in order for things to be classified as "subspecies", they have to be drastically different. For people familiar with the field, this is known to obviously not be the
case. You can distinguish between two organisms based on any difference. You can classify every individual as a subspecies. You can even distinguish between identical twins, or clones, if you do a full genome sequence, as they will end up with a few unique mutations of their own.

The point is, human populations don't neatly divide up into some small number of races. If you compare each person in a sample of Sub-Saharan Africans, and a sample Northern Europeans, ~20% of the time between group pairs will be more closely related than within group pairs. When you do the comparison with East Asians and Northern Europeans, it's ~38%. And if you compare two Sub-Saharan populations from different regions, they will likely be less similar to each other, than the East Asians and Northern Europeans are to each other. So if you want to make a racial distinction between East Asians, and Northern Europeans, you would have to create multiple African races to justify it.

If there was no difference between the populations, between group pairs would of course be more closely related ~50% of the time. So obviously there is some difference between geographically separate populations, but they aren't really distinct. I don't know if the same is true for Tigers, which seem to have relatively small, inbred, isolated populations.

You can use various methods to accurately guess which population each individual is likely to belong to (e.g comparing individuals to population means, rather than other individuals), but what utility can that have if individuals from the most dissimilar populations still overlap as much as described previously? When you introduce all of the in-between populations, it makes even less sense to distinguish between races.

[DwnShft2Xcelr8]

No, i dont know any alien.

Plenty of aliens in the States, bro.























































































We are talking about illegals, right?

[niko]

I've dated one hispanic girl in my life. I've dated a few white girls, and then almost all asians and i married an asian so yeah, most of the time actually.

[NumberSix]

I've dated one hispanic girl in my life. I've dated a few white girls, and then almost all asians and i married an asian so yeah, most of the time actually.
Wait a minute......

Aren't you asian? If you're asian and your wife is asian too, where did this story of me supposedly insulting your mixed kids come from?:wtf:

:confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

You can distinguish between two organisms based on any difference. You can classify every individual as a subspecies. You can even distinguish between identical twins, or clones, if you do a full genome sequence, as they will end up with a few unique mutations of their own.
This^ is a logical fallacy called "reductio ad absurdum".

[niko]

Wait a minute......

Aren't you asian? If you're asian and your wife is asian too, where did this story of me supposedly insulting your mixed kids come from?:wtf:

:confusedshrug:
I'm puerto rican. I've never once said I'm asian. Mostly because I'm not asian. I get tons of asian girls, clearly I'm not asian.

[NumberSix]

I've never once said I'm asian. Mostly because I'm not asian.

That would make sense.

[TheMan]

I don't limit my choices, I'm Indian who finds Caucasians attractive and blacks as well. I just happened to have dated another Indian.
So what kind of Indian are you? Like Navajo? Seminole? Cherokee?

[NumberSix]

So what kind of Indian are you? Like Navajo? Seminole? Cherokee?
I think he means Indian, as in people from India.

[TheMan]

I think he means Indian, as in people from India.
:kobe:

[Inactive]

This^ is a logical fallacy called "reductio ad absurdum".No it isn't.

[QUOTE]reductio ad absurdum, (Latin:

[Gr]

This^ is a logical fallacy called "reductio ad absurdum".

:lol Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy.

Here is a reductio ad absurdum:

Guy A: Property is rightful and shouldn't ever be questioned.
Guy Z: So, chattel slavery is rightful and shouldn't be questioned?

Let's analyze:

P1: Property is rightful and shouldn't ever be questioned.
P2: Chattel slaves are property.
C: Therefore chattel slavery is rightful and shouldn't be questioned.

The absurd conclusion (C) applied by Guy Z logically follows Guy A's statement (P1) and thus proves Guy A's statement wrong.

[Lebron23]

Yes

Dated some Indians, Middle eastern, Chinese, and once dated a German Jew.

[Gr]

Yes

Dated some Indians, Middle eastern, Chinese, and once dated a German Jew.

Ashkenazi Jewish girls :bowdown:

In the Philippines?

[Lebron23]

[QUOTE=Gr

[NBAplayoffs2001]

I think she's mix. Her father is a Jew. Lots of foreigner here. Just yesterday I saw some Palestinian chicks at the mall with their bf's.

Yeah, I follow a guy from the Philippines who plays tennis via youtube. He said he plays a lot of Americans (Caucasians). I also know of two family relatives (unrelated, related by marriage) whose parents raised them in Southeast Asia.

[PHX_Phan]

Almost exclusively.

[Le Shaqtus]

Never have before but open to it.

[BigBoss]

Yes

Dated some Indians, Middle eastern, Chinese, and once dated a German Jew.



So apparently Lebron23 dates. And he's dated indians, middle eastern, chinese and german jews in the phillipines :roll:

Make sure you show the ladies your moves

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-30-2014/m8dyun.gif

[L.Kizzle]

Hey guys it's not 1927 anymore. Think outside the box .

[NBAplayoffs2001]

So apparently Lebron23 dates. And he's dated indians, middle eastern, chinese and german jews in the phillipines :roll:

Make sure you show the ladies your moves

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-30-2014/m8dyun.gif

I call it the "panty dropper"

[ALBballer]

there is only one race, the human race.

amidointhisrite

[TonyMontana]

Nope. If I did then any potential offspring wouldn't even look like me. I would never be able to look at my kids and have them not even resemble me. I like the way I look and look to retain my ethnicity and values through my family.

[bdreason]

My GF is half-Mexican, so yes.



As for race, I always thought their were 3 distinct biological race classifications Cuacazoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid... or something like that.

[Lebron23]

So apparently Lebron23 dates. And he's dated indians, middle eastern, chinese and german jews in the phillipines :roll:

Make sure you show the ladies your moves



I have never seen such an ugly looking piece of crap like you who's suffering from superiority complex. Of course I dated some chicks while you are still a virgin.

[Thorpesaurous]

Not as much as I'd like. I've dated a couple of asian girls, and a few latina girls. Honestly probably more of them total than standard caucasian girls. And my longest relationship was with a greek girl who would've passed for spanish.

[riseagainst]

how bout we talk about the Miss Universe Pageant. Isn't it crazy that every winner has been from Earth? I think it's rigged.

[32jazz]

In the absence of photon illumination, every individual's pigmentation is equally rich with melanin.


Are you saying fairer skinned people have as much melanin as Africans/Aborigines/Melanasians or other darker peoples?

Explain or I may have to cut open a White person to see if true.



I always wonder about a person(men especially) who claim 'I'm just not attracted to (insert race/ethnic group) women".

Beauty is beauty. Nookie is nookie. Love is love.

[boozehound]

My GF is half-Mexican, so yes.



As for race, I always thought their were 3 distinct biological race classifications Cuacazoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid... or something like that.
no, there is no genetic reality to race. There is more variation within races than between races. There are tons of great websites on this.

[nightprowler10]

I almost exclusively dated outside of my race until a few years ago. Mostly it was because there weren't many girls around here from my race, but also because I wanted to experience something different, you know, forbidden fruit and all.

[ArbitraryWater]

LOL @ my typo... :lol

OMFG thats hilarious

What were you REALLY going to say instead of a accidentally creative joke? :oldlol:

[Akrazotile]

no, there is no genetic reality to race. There is more variation within races than between races. There are tons of great websites on this.


But variance on an individual level has a lot to do with random mutation. Consistent variance between peoples of different regions has to do with environmental factors. When people have markers that clearly indicate a particular environmental background (europe, africa, asia) we call those things race.

Is there a single race "gene"? No. But you and I having different amounts of hair on our arms doesn't provide the same historical indications as someone having a particular skull shape, or nose/eye configuration, skin tone etc.

We're all humans, of course. Our race simply indicates what region of the globe our ancestors were predominantly isolated in.


It's like what Potter Stewart said about obsenity/pornography. "[I cannot concretely define it] but I know it when I see it."

[LOLCATS]

I have dated a wide variety of girls from different backgrounds. I don't understand people who dont want to try something new. There is a lot out there in the world to enjoy, you shouldnt limit yourself.

[boozehound]

But variance on an individual level has a lot to do with random mutation. Consistent variance between peoples of different regions has to do with environmental factors. When people have markers that clearly indicate a particular environmental background (europe, africa, asia) we call those things race.

Is there a single race "gene"? No. But you and I having different amounts of hair on our arms doesn't provide the same historical indications as someone having a particular skull shape, or nose/eye configuration, skin tone etc.

We're all humans, of course. Our race simply indicates what region of the globe our ancestors were predominantly isolated in.


It's like what Potter Stewart said about obsenity/pornography. "[I cannot concretely define it] but I know it when I see it."
this point of view is completely unfounded in science. Race is a cultural construction based on a handful of phenotypic attributes. Not only is there no "gene", there is no combination of genes that explain race. In other words, the clinal variation between populations is very different for individual genes.

and human populations have never been isolated from each other (other than the americas, which was only for about 13k years). There has been gene flow among populations for as long as their have been anatomically modern humans outside of africa.

Again, there is a ton of great website that deal with this if people are actually interested in understanding it better. Even the wiki on race is pretty decent and well cited. Or check out the three part documentary, Race: The Power of an Illusion.

[LJJ]

this point of view is completely unfounded in science. Race is a cultural construction based on a handful of phenotypic attributes. Not only is there no "gene", there is no combination of genes that explain race. In other words, the clinal variation between populations is very different for individual genes.

and human populations have never been isolated from each other (other than the americas, which was only for about 13k years). There has been gene flow among populations for as long as their have been anatomically modern humans outside of africa.

Again, there is a ton of great website that deal with this if people are actually interested in understanding it better. Even the wiki on race is pretty decent and well cited. Or check out the three part documentary, Race: The Power of an Illusion.

I can still distinguish someone with Japanese lineage from someone with English lineage 10000x out of 10000x based on their looks.

You can call it something other than that, but that's what people generally mean when they say race.

[boozehound]

I can still distinguish someone with Japanese lineage from someone with English lineage 10000x out of 10000x based on their looks.

You can call it something other than that, but that's what people generally mean when they say race.
neither japanese nor english is a race in any post-19th century sense. Its easy to take two extremes and separate them. What about someone from North Africa and someone from the Levant? Two different races there......


Besides, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, race is a classification system, its just not based in biological science. Which is why different societies have very different racial groupings.

[NumberSix]

no, there is no genetic reality to race. There is more variation within races than between races. There are tons of great websites on this.
Did you know that evolution isn't real either? There's also no scientific reality of climate change. Radiometric dating is totally not real either. Lightyears are not a real thing either.

[boozehound]

Did you know that evolution isn't real either? There's also no scientific reality of climate change. Radiometric dating is totally not real either. Lightyears are not a real thing either.
you are a giant dumbass

[NumberSix]

you are a giant dumbass
Only one of us is a science denier. Although, I'm not sure you can be classified as a denier if you just don't understand in the first place.

[niko]

Why wouldn't a person date out of race? The only way that makes sense to me is if legitimately only the girls in your race look good. Otherwise, you are reducing the population of hot girls, and that makes no sense.

[NumberSix]

Why wouldn't a person date out of race? The only way that makes sense to me is if legitimately only the girls in your race look good. Otherwise, you are reducing the population of hot girls, and that makes no sense.
I try not to apply my own sensibilities to others, but the whole idea of finding entire races unattractive makes no sense to me. I truly believe that if you find an entire racial group to be unattractive, it's because you have convinced yourself to believe that.

The variation in humans is that, that nobody looks the same. The idea that every person of Race-A would be unattractive to you makes no sense. Every person looks different, so the idea that none of them look good is preposterous. Added to the fact that humans often desire genetic variation, it would seem to me that anyone that finds entire racial groups unattractive is a result of mental conditioning.

[riseagainst]

I try not to apply my own sensibilities to others, but the whole idea of finding entire races unattractive makes no sense to me. I truly believe that if you find an entire racial group to be unattractive, it's because you have convinced yourself to believe that.

The variation is humans is that, that nobody looks the same. The idea that every person of Race-A would be unattractive to you makes no sense. Every person looks different, so the idea that none of them look good is preposterous. Added to the fact that humans often desire genetic variation, it would seem to me that anyone that finds entire racial groups unattractive is a result of mental conditioning.


:applause:

[LJJ]

neither japanese nor english is a race in any post-19th century sense. Its easy to take two extremes and separate them. What about someone from North Africa and someone from the Levant? Two different races there......


Besides, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, race is a classification system, its just not based in biological science. Which is why different societies have very different racial groupings.

Nobody is arguing about whether race or not exists biologically. We are speaking colloquially, and everybody here knows what the question "do you date outside of your race?" means, unless you are being obtuse.

[NumberSix]

neither japanese nor english is a race in any post-19th century sense. Its easy to take two extremes and separate them. What about someone from North Africa and someone from the Levant? Two different races there......

:rolleyes:



Besides, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, race is a classification system, its just not based in biological science. Which is why different societies have very different racial groupings.
You can repeat it as many times as you want, it won't make it true.


Whether you like it or not, bones are biology. If you have 2 skeletons, one of a person from Spain and the other of a person from China, you can accurately detect which skeleton is which. That's not made up. It's real and it is a matter of biology.

[boozehound]

:rolleyes:



You can repeat it as many times as you want, it won't make it true.


Whether you like it or not, bones are biology. If you have 2 skeletons, one of a person from Spain and the other of a person from China, you can accurately detect which skeleton is which. That's not made up. It's real and it is a matter of biology.
spoken like someone who has never actually done any human skeletal analysis. Yes, there are morphological traits that are common to many people from a particular region (can you name any of them without looking them up?), but there is so much variation and co-occurrence that this is not nearly as straightforward as you think. None of these traits occur in discrete sets that allow you to racially classify all individuals to a race. This is much more appropriately thought of in other terms, like populations. Hell, look at this case study which involves soft tissue.

In “Bred in the Bone,” Goodman discusses the effectiveness and accuracy of physicians and forensic anthropologists using race to identify human remains. The article opens up with the story of rescue workers discovering a human left leg in the remains of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building after the Oklahoma City bombings. Clyde Snow was a forensic anthropologist whose job usually involved identifying victims in such crimes as this. After reviewing the individuals that survived the bombing, going through autopsy records, pathology reports, and photographs, Snow and the other forensic anthropologists couldn’t figure out who the leg belonged to. After measuring the leg and categorizing the leg bone through the use of technology, Snow eventually concluded that the leg belonged to “a darkly complected Caucasoid.”
The problem of using race to identify human remains came up after the discovery that the leg actually belonged to 21 year- old black female by the name of Lakesha R. Levy. Misidentifying people based on race has been a common mistake committed by forensic anthropologists.

So, basically, they identified the leg as belonging to a Hispanic male. Other examples include older skeletons like Kennewick Man.
http://themanuscript.net/2012/02/20/race-racism-and-science-written-in-2009/

https://www.academia.edu/218217/Biological_and_Social_Definitions_of_Race_Implicat ions_for_Modern_Biomedical_Research

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-No-Biological-Basis-For-Race-3310645.php
http://minerva.stkate.edu/people.nsf/files/mina-82v8bu/$file/inclusivescience.pdf
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/race-is-not-biology/276174/
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/184.aspx
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201204/race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think

If you are so sure race is biologically real, why dont you see what the american association of physical anthropologists (the scientists who study this) have to say. the clearest statement is in item 3. http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/330TAAPA%20Statement%20on%20Race.pdf

[boozehound]

Nobody is arguing about whether race or not exists biologically. We are speaking colloquially, and everybody here knows what the question "do you date outside of your race?" means, unless you are being obtuse.
My point is that this is an incredibly dumb way to view the world, founded in ignorance and pseudo-science from the 19th century. And, again, this question would not be the same if you were asking a brazilian. Thinking about people in terms of discrete races is both ignorant and unfounded.

[NumberSix]

spoken like someone who has never actually done any human skeletal analysis. Yes, there are morphological traits that are common to many people from a particular region (can you name any of them without looking them up?), but there is so much variation and co-occurrence that this is not nearly as straightforward as you think. None of these traits occur in discrete sets that allow you to racially classify all individuals to a race. This is much more appropriately thought of in other terms, like populations. Hell, look at this case study which involves soft tissue.


So, basically, they identified the leg as belonging to a Hispanic male. Other examples include older skeletons like Kennewick Man.
http://themanuscript.net/2012/02/20/race-racism-and-science-written-in-2009/

https://www.academia.edu/218217/Biological_and_Social_Definitions_of_Race_Implicat ions_for_Modern_Biomedical_Research

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-No-Biological-Basis-For-Race-3310645.php
http://minerva.stkate.edu/people.nsf/files/mina-82v8bu/$file/inclusivescience.pdf
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/race-is-not-biology/276174/
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/184.aspx
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201204/race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think

If you are so sure race is biologically real, why dont you see what the american association of physical anthropologists (the scientists who study this) have to say. the clearest statement is in item 3. http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/330TAAPA%20Statement%20on%20Race.pdf
We're trying to have a scientific conversation, and you're seriously going link material with such quotes as...

[QUOTE]Noah

[NumberSix]

My point is that this is an incredibly dumb way to view the world, founded in ignorance and pseudo-science from the 19th century. And, again, this question would not be the same if you were asking a brazilian. Thinking about people in terms of discrete races is both ignorant and unfounded.
We categorize every other animal on the planet into subspecies. What should make us any different?

If the criteria we would apply to a leopard to classify as a subspecies also fits humans, why should it not apply to us?

[Trollsmasher]

seeing a lot of race traitors here:coleman:

[LJJ]

My point is that this is an incredibly dumb way to view the world, founded in ignorance and pseudo-science from the 19th century. And, again, this question would not be the same if you were asking a brazilian. Thinking about people in terms of discrete races is both ignorant and unfounded.

So what do you call it then? Let's say you make two groups. Each of these people can track their ancestry back to exclusively their birth country for at least 500 years.

the east asian group: One Chinese, one Japanese, one Korean

the european group: One Norwegian, one English and one French

We both agree that the vast majority of people in the world could easily identify the general area of the world where these people are from. The area of their ancestral home so to speak. They could easily distinguish which is the east asian group and which is the european group.

They are "extremes". Extremes of what?

[boozehound]

We categorize every other animal on the planet into subspecies. What should make us any different?

If the criteria we would apply to a leopard to classify as a subspecies also fits humans, why should it not apply to us?
we have tried. and the data doesnt fit sub-species designations among humans. Maybe you should re-read those links.

Thats the beauty of science. You come up with a falsifiable explanation for the patterns of observed data and evaluate it. When they have, the hypothesis of races among humans is falsified by the data. and here I thought you loved science.........

[boozehound]

So what do you call it then? Let's say you make two groups. Each of these people can track their ancestry back to exclusively their birth country for at least 500 years.

the east asian group: One Chinese, one Japanese, one Korean

the european group: One Norwegian, one English and one French

We both agree that the vast majority of people in the world could easily identify the general area of the world where these people are from. The area of their ancestral home so to speak. They could easily distinguish which is the east asian group and which is the european group.

They are "extremes". Extremes of what?
of continuous spectrum of variation.

Date outside of your ethnicity, heritage, etc.


Here is the thing numbnuts like chris and number6 want to deny. The use of race in society has a historicity associated with unequal power structures, statements on human intelligence, creation of lesser races, etc. This term is embedded in its ugly history. and its not science.

[Nick Young]

of continuous spectrum of variation.

Date outside of your ethnicity, heritage, etc.

Race is a massively loaded term with underpinnings in racism (as well as racialism) and its just not scientifically valid.
Is it pseudo-science to say that black people have better fast-twitch muscles then any other race? No, it is proven science.

Stop your PC wonderland bullshit way of thinking. Human races and ethnicities from different regions are biologically different from eachother, just like every other species on the planet. It is science.

It is ignoring reality to say otherwise.

[Akrazotile]

My point is that this is an incredibly dumb way to view the world, founded in ignorance and pseudo-science from the 19th century. And, again, this question would not be the same if you were asking a brazilian. Thinking about people in terms of discrete races is both ignorant and unfounded.


Well the question was about dating, which is a social category not a biological one, so the biological element of race is moot in any case. I realize you were making a somewhat tongue in cheek jest to make a point, but I think it was just poorly applied. Construct or not, everyone knows what the generally distinct races and ethnicities are particularly in a social context.

Even in a biological context I think youre trying to use a narrow defintition of race to eliminate all of them. While youre saying there are no races bc there is no dna sequence that is specific and universal to a given population, others are arguing that race equates to a totality of factors that indicate a particular geographic lineage. Both are correct but the latter is how most people view the defining of race. Again nobody is saying it has to matter for anything but the fact is its really quite observable.

[boozehound]

We're trying to have a scientific conversation, and you're seriously going link material with such quotes as...



:hammerhead:
we are not having a scientific conversation, because you lack the basic knowledge of racialist science (or science in general it seems) to have an actual conversation.

That basis of "race" in the bible is completely tangential to the main point of the links I sent you, but it does emphasize that the categories of race chosen by a specific culture are based in the historical particularism of that culture. There is no valid biological basis for dividing humans into sub-species (which is why the divisions along the spectrum of diversity among human populations is culturally constructed). Take a look at brazilian racial classification and you will see that the characteristics used to define race are not the same. there are a myriad of ways to group human diversity and none of them have the authority of science behind them.

[boozehound]

Is it pseudo-science to say that black people have better fast-twitch muscles then any other race? No, it is proven science.

Stop your PC wonderland bullshit way of thinking. Human races and ethnicities from different regions are biologically different from eachother, just like every other species on the planet. It is science.

It is ignoring reality to say otherwise.
you should bother to read something on the subject. any of those links will do. Or there are hundreds of others, with peer reviewed research behind them. A little information goes a long way.

[boozehound]

Well the question was about dating, which is a social category not a biological one, so the biological element of race is moot in any case. I realize you were making a somewhat tongue in cheek jest to make a point, but I think it was just poorly applied. Construct or not, everyone knows what the generally distinct races and ethnicities are particularly in a social context.

Even in a biological context I think youre trying to use a narrow defintition of race to eliminate all of them. While youre saying there are no races bc there is no dna sequence that is specific and universal to a given population, others are arguing that race equates to a totality of factors that indicate a particular geographic lineage. Both are correct but the latter is how most people view the defining of race. Again nobody is saying it has to matter for anything but the fact is its really quite observable.
go read what the people who study race have to say. I would suggest the AAPA link as a place to start. There is not a totality of factors, its a pick and choose approach. which is why its not science.

[NumberSix]

So what do you call it then? Let's say you make two groups. Each of these people can track their ancestry back to exclusively their birth country for at least 500 years.

the east asian group: One Chinese, one Japanese, one Korean

the european group: One Norwegian, one English and one French

We both agree that the vast majority of people in the world could easily identify the general area of the world where these people are from. The area of their ancestral home so to speak. They could easily distinguish which is the east asian group and which is the european group.

They are "extremes". Extremes of what?
His problem is he doesn't understand what "race" means from a scientific standpoint. He's stuck on the old meaning of "race" like, caste system.

It's easier to just use the word "subspecies". Less ambiguity.



If these are distinct enough to be classified as different subspecies, why shouldn't the same criteria apply to humans?


http://graphicsheat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Bengal_Tiger_8.9.2012_Hero_and_Circle_XL_257678.jp g

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/image/article/5/7/0/1570.jpeg

[Akrazotile]

of continuous spectrum of variation.

Date outside of your ethnicity, heritage, etc.


Here is the thing numbnuts like chris and number6 want to deny. The use of race in society has a historicity associated with unequal power structures, statements on human intelligence, creation of lesser races, etc. This term is embedded in its ugly history. and its not science.


Yes, we are all aware that you practice the "if I wont like the conclusion i wont ask the question" variety of science. Credibility personified.

[Nick Young]

you should bother to read something on the subject. any of those links will do. Or there are hundreds of others, with peer reviewed research behind them. A little information goes a long way.
Do you really think that white people and black people are biologically exactly the same? Do you really think that east asians and european white people are biologically exactly the same?

The height difference between white people from Denmark and East Asians from Phillipines is just a strange coincidence and has nothing to do with biology and genes?


So basically humans are the only species on the planet that didn't evolve and change to adapt to their region and environment, according to you?
XD
You are clueless. Your argument is ignorant and ignores science and reality. Aren't you a professor? I will pray for the kids you are sending out in to the world with these reality denying views. The only 'psuedo-science' in this thread is coming from you.

[NumberSix]

Yes, we are all aware that you practice the "if I wont like the conclusion i wont ask the question" variety of science. Credibility personified.
I mean, his claims about biology are DEFINITELY proved by his linked writings by sociologists, psychologists, bible thumpers and San Francisco columnists.

[sweggeh]

I would finger a girl from my race, and let her give me a bj. But I wouldn't kiss her, eat her out or marry her. I would do ****, but I wouldn't kiss her. I would introduce her to my family but not meet hers. My rules are very rigid.

[Nick Young]

Basically, this is boozehound's biology ignoring argument, transferred to a different species:
Asian Elephant
http://cdn2.arkive.org/media/F0/F0533B97-E7EC-4620-8A96-6CA1C6B0039B/Presentation.Large/Indian-elephant-bull.jpg

African Elephant
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/naturelibrary/images/ic/credit/640x395/a/af/african_elephant/african_elephant_1.jpg

Boozehound: They are exactly the same!

:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:


You do believe in evolution, right Boozehound? If your bizarre hypothesis about the human species is correct, how do you explain evolution passing us by?:confusedshrug: Why do humans not adapt and change over time to fit in with their surroundings?:confusedshrug:

You either believe in evolution, or you don't believe in evolution and choose to follow your bizarre "we are all exactly the same" theory that has no basis in biology.

[NumberSix]

Here is the thing numbnuts like chris and number6 want to deny. The use of sexes in society has a historicity associated with unequal power structures, statements on human intelligence, creation of lesser sexes, etc. This term is embedded in its ugly history. and its not science.

Therefore, sexes don't exist.
You see what I did there?


Whether things are used for good or for bad doesn't decide if they exist or not. :hammerhead:

[Nick Young]

You see what I did there?


Whether things are used for good or for bad doesn't decide if they exist or not. :hammerhead:
I can't believe this man is allowed to teach at university.:facepalm Says everything you need to know about the state of the American education system, really.

[ace23]

boozehound is right. Just dropping in to let you know you're not alone.

[Nick Young]

boozehound is right. Just dropping in to let you know you're not alone.
Which part of his looney tunes Darwin denying argument is right?:confusedshrug:

[Inactive]

Is it pseudo-science to say that black people have better fast-twitch muscles then any other race? No, it is proven science.
Better fast-twitch muscles? I think they have the same fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles as everyone else.

I assume what you mean to say is that an allele which increases the percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers one develops, is more common in African Americans than it is in Caucasian Americans.

That doesn't mean "African Americans have it, and Caucasians don't.", both populations have the same alleles, but one is more common in one population, and another is more common in the other.

It doesn't mean "All black populations have more fast-twitch muscle on average than white populations." either. The variant for fast-twitch muscle might be really common in some European populations, and relatively uncommon in some African populations.

Basically, this is boozehound's biology ignoring argument, transferred to a different species:
Asian Elephant


African Elephant


Boozehound: They are exactly the same!

:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:


You do believe in evolution, right Boozehound? If your bizarre hypothesis about the human species is correct, how do you explain evolution passing us by?:confusedshrug: Why do humans not adapt and change over time to fit in with their surroundings?:confusedshrug:

You either believe in evolution, or you don't believe in evolution and choose to follow your bizarre "we are all exactly the same" theory that has no basis in biology.Asian and African elephants are different species, which diverged millions of years ago. There are two species of African elephants(Forest and Savanna), which diverged 2.6-5.6 million years ago.

Humans left Africa ~50,000 years ago, and never stopped interbreeding across continents.

[Legends66NBA7]

Yes and I usually try to date women who are not my race.

[Nick Young]

Better fast-twitch muscles? I think they have the same fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles as everyone else.

I assume what you mean to say is that an allele which increases the percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers one develops, is more common in African Americans than it is in Caucasian Americans.

That doesn't mean "African Americans have it, and Caucasians don't.", both populations have the same alleles, but one is more common in one population, and another is more common in the other.

It doesn't mean "All black populations have more fast-twitch muscle on average than white populations." either. The variant for fast-twitch muscle might be really common in some European populations, and relatively uncommon in some African populations.
Asian and African elephants are different species, which diverged millions of years ago. There are two species of African elephants(Forest and Savanna), which diverged 2.6-5.6 million years ago.

Humans left Africa ~50,000 years ago, and never stopped interbreeding across continents.
Are you of the belief that humans have not evolved at all in the 50,000 years since they left Africa?:confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

Better fast-twitch muscles? I think they have the same fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles as everyone else.

I assume what you mean to say is that an allele which increases the percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers one develops, is more common in African Americans than it is in Caucasian Americans.

That doesn't mean "African Americans have it, and Caucasians don't.", both populations have the same alleles, but one is more common in one population, and another is more common in the other.

It doesn't mean "All black populations have more fast-twitch muscle on average than white populations." either. The variant for fast-twitch muscle might be really common in some European populations, and relatively uncommon in some African populations.
Asian and African elephants are different species, which diverged millions of years ago. There are two species of African elephants(Forest and Savanna), which diverged 2.6-5.6 million years ago.

Humans left Africa ~50,000 years ago, and never stopped interbreeding across continents.
You also have to account for the fact that humans also interbred with other now extinct species of "humans". Europeans and Asians interbred with other human species that sub saharan Africans never had contact with and visa-versa.

Neanderthals lived in Europe for 250,000 years. All modern Europeans are a result of interbreeding with them. Something 3-6% of European DNA is from Neanderthals. Of course, sub saharan Africans have 0% Neanderthal DNA because they never came into contact with them.

[NumberSix]

Are you of the belief that humans have not evolved at all in the 50,000 years since they left Africa?:confusedshrug:
Of course not. If you put a sub saharan African, a European and an east Asian next to eachother, you can't even tell them a part. They're the exact same. No differences.

[Inactive]

Are you of the belief that humans have not evolved at all in the 50,000 years since they left Africa?:confusedshrug:I'm sure there are alleles that didn't exist 50,000 years ago. But almost all of them have spread throughout the world. They're common in some places, and less common in others, due to differing selection pressures, but they exist everywhere.

[NumberSix]

I'm sure there are alleles that didn't exist 50,000 years ago. But almost all of them have spread throughout the world. They're common in some places, and less common in others, due to differing selection pressures, but they exist everywhere.
What makes a lion so different from a tiger?


What if I told you it's harder to tell lion and tiger skulls apart then it is to tell caucasoid and mongoloid skulls apart? It actually is true.

[Inactive]

What makes a lion so different from a tiger?


What if I told you it's harder to tell lion and tiger skulls apart then it is to tell caucasoid and mongoloid skulls apart? It actually is true.Why do you think that sort of superficial observation means anything? I'd have a harder time telling a <insert monkey species> from a chimp, than a chimp from a human, but the human and the chimp are still more closely related.

[Nick Young]

I'm sure there are alleles that didn't exist 50,000 years ago. But almost all of them have spread throughout the world. They're common in some places, and less common in others, due to differing selection pressures, but they exist everywhere.
Is the only reason there are so few white people and Asian people in the NBA because they are told from a young age that they can't compete with black people?

Are whites, blacks and asians athletically exactly the same?

Are Filipinos shorter then Danes on average because they are raised to be taught that they have to be short?:confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

Why do you think that sort of superficial observation means anything? I'd have a harder time telling a <insert monkey species> from a chimp, than a chimp from a human, but the human and the chimp are still more closely related.
The point is animals don't have to be DRASTICALLY different to qualify as subspecies. All it takes is an observable difference.

Human quite obviously fit this. It's easily observable. Humans from region-a is easily recognizable from humans from region-b. that's all it means.

[Inactive]

Is the only reason there are so few white people and Asian people in the NBA because they are told from a young age that they can't compete with black people?Hard to say. Do you think Euros from the Balkans, or Lithuanians do better in basketball on average, because they're a different race?

Are whites, blacks and asians athletically exactly the same?It depends on the individual.

Are Filipinos shorter then Danes on average because they are raised to be taught that they have to be short?:confusedshrug:It's hard to say. In Prussia from 1854-1862, 31.7% of conscripts did not meet the minimum height requirement of 157 centimeters, roughly 5'2". Now they're 5'10"-5'11" on average. South Koreans are about 5'8.5", while North Koreans are around 5'5". Urban Chinese are taller than rural Chinese, and both are taller than previous generations.

[Nick Young]

Hard to say. Do you think Euros from the Balkans, or Lithuanians do better in basketball on average, because they're a different race?
It depends on the individual.
No, they are that way because they play basketball from a young age, and it is one of the most popular sports in these countries. Despite these fact, European and Balkan players find it extremely difficult to compete in the black dominated NBA, often times due to an athletic disadvantage. Where does this athletic disadvantage come from?

Why are so few of the Balkans and Baltic and Spanish players able to physically compete with the black American players at the very top level?:confusedshrug:

All humans are exactly the same regardless of race amirite? Why is the NBA dominated by one race? To ignore this fact is to stick your head in PC wonderland sand.

In the olympics, why are a majority of the top sprinters black? Is it just a magical coincidence?

[Inactive]

No, they are that way because they play basketball from a young age, and it is one of the most popular sports in these countries. Despite these fact, European and Balkan players find it extremely difficult to compete in the black dominated NBA, often times due to an athletic disadvantage. Where does this athletic disadvantage come from?Toni Kukoc could only dunk from the free throw line. If he had that black athleticism to go with his white guy work ethic, and bbiq, he would've been a superstar. :rolleyes:

[Nick Young]

Toni Kukoc could only dunk from the free throw line. If he had that black athleticism to go with his white guy work ethic, and bbiq, he would've been a superstar. :rolleyes:
Why is Toni Kukoc the exception and not the norm?:confusedshrug:

[GimmeThat]

you have absolutely no idea what it was like to conquer the fear of taking a dump in a restroom outside of your home