@26scienceguy Of course! It almost certainly is to a very large degree, but nobody has demonstrated to me that it could ONLY be due to such factors. Believing that race could not possibly have any effect upon it is going beyond the evidence and is a faith-based stance. Haven't you picked up that CENTRAL MESSAGE yet?
@MartinJWillett Where I come from, we call it like we see it. I did make some errors and im sorry, you were not completely wrong, but you were wrong to a degree
@26scienceguy Data that you do not fully accept are not lies. If that is your definition of a lie will you apologize for LYING about the number of bones in the human body and the relationship between Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis? No? Well I have not lied to you and you have not shown anything I have said to be incorrect. You argue about tone imagined in the minds of people listening, not about the information I offer.
@26scienceguy ONLY difference? That is clearly nonsense as any human skeleton with most of the skull present can be assigned a racial make-up by a half-trained anatomist. Go back to your precious biology book (is it lonely?) and check whether it actually says that there is only one difference rather than saying that there is a difference.
@26scienceguy That is not a typo! A typo is a slip of the typing finger, typo does not include faulty reasoning. It is NOT the only anatomical difference! If it was it would be impossible to tell the race of a body which lacked soft tissue and that is clearly not the case - ask any forensic anthropologist. I discussed this matter with a bloke who was involved in excavating mass graves in Bosnia. Telling the skulls of blacks from whites is easier than determining their sex.
@26scienceguy Which muscle is this? Searching for this on Google just brings a huge wall of ignorant denial as white liberals fall over each other to strenuously deny the possibility that Negroes have an extra muscle while clearly having no clue as to what this extra muscle is supposed to be and who suggested that it exist. I am disgusted at how people can be so adamant and arrogant out of ignorance and faith.
@MartinJWillett Try the "Ethnic differences in triceps surae muscle-tendon complex and walking economy".study. If anything this proves that we have different genetics
Martin, I never insulted you. There is a continum or racial flow that is very close knit. You were right, neanderthals were not erectus, nor are they sapiens, they are homo neanderthalis and im not sure if you said that in your last comment before you blocked me, but you were still wrong too. Also the number of neanderthal dna is 2 to 4% not 4 to 6%, and for my errors, im sorry. You also said that if "Races" which still not a toxonomic level of categorization, have different anatomy, your wrong.
@26scienceguy Read the fucking comment! I said they were either H n or H s n, that says nothing about reality being in doubt just about academic dick-waving among taxonomists. The figures are approximately 4% for Neanderthal among all non-African humans and up to 6% for Denisovan DNA among Austronesians. Our species is not a single race, we do not all share a single genetic history, therefore declaring equality while not looking for proof (in case they don't find it) is not scientific.
@MartinJWillett Dude I said I had to gloss over the comment cause I had to go to class, dude I know your not using this to promote hate, but why do you see it essential to even give a damn about the minute diffefences ?
@26scienceguy Truth matters. That is why. It is NOT TRUE that human are all equal under the skin. There are differences, these differences are far too small to justify racism but they exist and denying their existence damages science and truth itself.
@26scienceguy Toxonomic? Interesting coinage. I think I'll steal it.
Toxonomist, noun, person terrified of human genetic difference and the potentially toxic political consequences of uncensored scientific research into human genetics, anatomy and taxonomy.
The Middle East, Persia, Afghanistan through to Pakistan were once capable of producing hugely successful civilisations. However, since their domination by Islam they have been unable to produce a single original scientist, mathematician, physician or thinker for 1,000 years. Compare the intellectual achievements of the Ottoman with the British Empire and the contrast is dramatic. Islam retards, Sharia retards absolutely.
@ritchloui That is a bit exaggerated, not to say factually inaccurate. Muslims had the best physicians up to less than four hundred years ago and they were clearly ahead of Europe in many fields a thousand years ago. It does no good to exaggerate, those who wish to dismiss you will find it easy to do so.
Race realists deflate quickly when presented with billions of racially ambiguous people like Mediterraneans,North Africans, San Khoisians and East Africans,Indians,Near Easterners,South and Central Asians, South East Asians and Malays. Genetic anomalies like Melanesians, Papuans, Sards, Basques, Sami, and others throw the monkey wrench in their pipe dream as well. Only Jet Black 'Negroids', 'Master Race' Euros, and Nerdy East Asians give them wet dreams. Taxonomy ain't a science,more a religion.
@demerc Reality is complicated, too many people expect it to be simple, or need it to be simple and are prepared to blur the edges to make it seem so. The ideas of racists and anti-racists require reality to be simple, but reality doesn't cooperate.
@MartinJWillett You are right,reality doesn't cooperate. "Race" is a continuum. A continuum, reality, can not be divided except arbitrarily. It is already blurred by the very nature of it's reality. Separating it is inherently subjective. Subjectivity is like anathema to science. Race's 'appendages', which racialists equate to race, were only born through isolation. 'Race' equals isolation. Unfortunately for racialists,isolation is only one of many realities of the history humans.
@demerc But it is not true to suggest that all the races blur together in one big continuous arc of variation. There are people who have not shared a common ancestor for 60,000 years or so and there are no intermediate forms between them. To deny that these two separate populations are races is just a perversion (or castration) of the word. If race doesn't cover the difference between Europeans and Australians what other word does and what does the word race cover?
@MartinJWillett It is blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes that an Englishman and an indigenous Australian look quite different and share very different cultures. One does not need to invoke the ideology of race to do so. Separating the Australian from the South Indian, or the Papuan is where the reality of the continuum shows the inherent fallibility of the dogma of the religion of race.
@demerc Ideology? What are you going on about? Races are facts not myths. Australians have been genetically isolated for tens of thousands of years. Fact. That is a truth. There has not been any breeding between the populations of Southern India and Australia in all that time. They have been isolated and they have evolved separately under different conditions. That is what races are:- separate breeding populations of the same species, huge phenotypical differences are not required.
@MartinJWillett Now we get into the slippery slope race argument about whether 'race' is genetic difference, phenotype, or both. Which is it? If it's just genetic difference Basques are really a different race from their neighbors even though they all look the same? These are the inevitabilities when you insist race is real. Surely you are not naive enough to insist there was never any gene flow between Australasia and Indonesia?
@demerc Why are you obsessed about the label? If you abolish the word and even the concept of race from biology you have not undermined racists in any way, all you have done is ensure that people see science as the established religion of too clever for their own good damn liberals.
Whether there was gene flow between Indonesia and Australia is a matter for evidence not for faith, there are no surelys involved here. I am not insisting on anything except the honesty to look at all the evidence.
@MartinJWillett A label is a superficial semantic.Race is an ideology,not a label.I don't advocate 'abolishing' anything,I am not a Liberal.Just that people wake up to the spuriousness of the religion of race.Science already is a religion,for many people.You use the word 'believe' in your above video,when speaking about race,so despite your best intentions,there's plenty of 'faith' being exercised on your behalf.There WAS gene flow between Australia,NG,Indonesia and therefore India.Continuum.
@demerc Nonsense. How much gene flow and how? Genes do not carry on the breeze. One survivor on a raft every thousand years does not constitute an appreciable amount of gene flow even if it is measurable, that just proves how good your measurements are.
There is a difference between a belief and a faith. If I say I believe X that does not mean that I am willing to submit to torture before I will admit that X is not true. Faith is belief weaponized with bloody-minded arrogance.
@MartinJWillett You're exercising your faith right now.Only a 'faithful believer' in the pseudo science of race would presume there were no geneflow between such extremely close geographies,especially considering phenotypical evidence and an understanding of the nomadic nature of 'hunter gatherer' lifestyles and indigenous peoples.'Island hopping' in this area is not a controversial 'theory'.Look at Andamans and other Melanesians. You are being blinded by your faith.
@demerc If there was contact between these populations there would be trade. Precious stones, words, technology, symbols and myths would be exchanged over greater distances than genes. Evidence of such contact would have been apparent a good century before the first genetic evidence could be seen. This is basic anthropology!
The Australians got to Australia via the coast of India and Indonesia and left populations along the way, that is why they are genetically related but culturally distinct.
@demerc If there was contact between these populations there would be trade. Precious stones, words, technology, symbols and myths would be exchanged over greater distances than genes. Evidence of such contact would have been apparent a good century before the first genetic evidence could be seen. This is basic anthropology!
The Australians got to Australia via the coast of India and Indonesia and left populations along the way, that is why they are genetically related but culturally distinct.
@MartinJWillett So now race is 'culture'. Thank you. You've just admitted to the continuum yet insist that the difference that makes them a distinct race is now culture. I rest my case. And for the record, even culturally, there is plenty in common or at least enough to question the 'distinctness' between Aboriginals and Papuans and subsequently the whole geographical area.
@demerc No. Culture is culture. There is no evidence of a continuous culture between India and Australia. People can share culture (trading goods and ideas) even without sharing genes, wheat agriculture and the concepts of wheels and writing spread from Ireland to Japan but very few genes spread the whole width of Europe and Asia. Australia was an isolated island continent with negligible cultural or gene flow. So were the Americas. What kind of faith does it take to need to believe otherwise?
@MartinJWillett You just aren't getting it. You keep building strawmen by trying to directly connect different geographically separate 'populations'. The continuum means there need only be a connection between the Aborigines of Australia and those of the nearest place, which of course there is, for there to be an indirect connection with Indians.Separating populations by invoking the doctrine/ideology of race is where you turn Science into religion.Religion is for the mislead or the misleaders.
@demerc It is you who isn't getting it. You need to believe in a continuum because that negates the idea of race, so promoting the continuum is an anti-racist act. But there is very little evidence for the continuum you need to exist, but you won't let that stop you believing in it, and proclaiming evidence for it which you cannot produce.
I don't need to believe in races. That's the difference between us. I do not require faith, I follow the evidence.
@MartinJWillett The continuum is a biological self-evident reality.There's nothing to 'believe'.It just is.Whether or not i see it or not.Race is a supposition.You stated in one of the first responses to me that there were no 'intermediate forms'.That is either a lie or a delusion of your belief induced coma.I think it's the latter.You admitted Abs were connected to various populations you claim they left behind on their way to Australia.You've defeated your whole argument.You follow your dogma.
@demerc You are wasting your time. You clearly need to believe that I am a racist and you are not interested in changing your views. Just go away, you're disgusting me.
@MartinJWillett You are projecting! I never even mentioned Racism at all. The fact that until now,a polite discussion between 2 people, emotes disgust in you, shows anyone what a loaded issue it is for you. My views evolve and are subject to keep evolving.But they aren't going to do an about face, that would negate the nature of reality.
@demerc The fact that you spell racism with a capital letter speaks volumes. You are trying to believe that all mankind exists in an arc of continuity with every population breeding with every one of its neighbours continually. That is not the nature of human history at all. There has been isolation for thousands of years at a time with no interbreeding and scarcely any contact at all. It is absurd politically motivated revisionism to see continual gene flow between Australia and India.
@MartinJWillett LOL.Not as many volumes as you saying i need to believe you are a racist when i never insinuated or even mentioned the word.So you admitted that Abs left behind people on their way to AU.That means these people,who look either indistinguishable with the Abs or very similar already had their characteristic looks before the so-called isolation.That means the degree with which one uses the isolation to define a race is quantitatively subjective. The whole theory becomes moot.
@demerc Australians have not had significant contact with any other groups for tens of thousands of years, this can be seen by their culture, language, tools and their dogs. When they first arrived there would be a continuous chain of populations leading back to Southern India. In subsequent centuries many of those groups have been wiped out or interbred with other groups. The continuity was broken. There was negligible contact between Australia and Asia in that time.
@MartinJWillett Your definition of race bounces all over the place.First, you contested merely that there were no 'intermediate' types.Now,it's morphed into some sort of not outwardly physical but strictly genetic definition,the degree of which constitutes a separate 'race' apparently only you alone know in your head and change as you go along to adapt to your argument.So what exactly is race to you?
@demerc I don't have a definition of race! I don't need one. The reality of human history and geography is complicated, it is not a neat continuum of everybody breeding with their neighbour and neither is it a story of a small number of completely separate populations breeding true over the millennia. There are populations which have been genetically isolated from all neighbours for tens of thousands of years. There are also populations which share ancestry with earlier human species.
@MartinJWillett Well that's very convenient.No definition of race,yet you fiercely defend it's existence in the most irrationally dogmatic way.Just a tad intellectually dishonest.Its patently obvious aborigines lived in a degree of isolation for a significant period.How much you make out of this by attaching the doctrine of race to it,completely changes the dynamics,because it becomes inherently subjective how you differentiate them from others who are indistinguishable like NGs and Australoids.
@demerc Truth has no duty to be convenient, politically correct or simple.
I do not defend the existence of races, how can I when I don't know what they are? I object when people lie to make out that there is nothing in the concept of human differences at all, races are meaningless, IQ tests measure racism but they don't work, there are no human differences and everybody is related to everybody else and everybody's grandmother was a Jewish Eskimo aborigine.
@MartinJWillett I assume because I've exposed the fallacy of your logic you've veered off course and mistakenly lumped me into the 'we're all brothers and sisters,kumbaya' category even though nothing about my actual argument insinuates such.It would be nice if you'd stick to the discussion without projecting your own defensiveness and insecurities. As for correcting my grammatical errors, that is just trite and childish.
@demerc You made errors, correcting errors is the scientific process, is it not? Where is my thanks?
What is your problem with the concept of race? It's a poorly defined concept with no one universal definition but surely it is significantly easier to understand than numerous other woolly concepts intelligent people take in their stride such as manliness, heavy metal, conservative, Art Deco and spicy. If you really try very hard you can fail to grasp it, but why do you want to fail to grasp it?
@MartinJWillett ahh, OK, thanks then. The concept of race is logically fallacious, as I've demonstrated.You accuse libs,of which i am not(i am a political atheist) of dismissing race because of a desire for political correctness all the while you pretend to be indifferent to the concept yet you clearly believe in it based on your own psychological tendencies and political persuasions and play both sides of the fence. You're not being wholly honest with me or yourself.
@demerc Population differences,which exist,at least for the moment defy and bely macro categorization. Much of the testing until now is so scattered,incomplete and done with specific racialist agenda that it is not even remotely realistic to conclude anything, especially any macro race oriented agenda. Furthermore on a socio-political level macro categories inspire irrational collectivist attitudes that are completely detrimental to humanity.
@demerc But still people do conclude that races don't, can't and shouldn't exist, that all observed differences reveal racism not racial difference and that anybody who doesn't agree with the consensus is a right wing ignorant unscientific bigoted racist. Population differences exist, the term race was first used with these differences in human populations in mind. The word means the same as it always has, notwithstanding the failures of making neat categories in the past.
socially race or better use ethnicity is very real in the social sciences. Biology not being a social science. The African American ethnicity is so extremely diverse that there are people where you need to ask what their "race" is. The problem with what you are saying is that you ignore environmental factors, you ignore history of social sciences, science, you ignore history of racial relations in the US.You ignore world history,and how Europeans became dominate
In the whole of human civilization. Western civilization experienced a rise nearly 500 to 600 yrs ago. I like to say 600 yrs ago because this is when the christian reformation era starts which led to some interesting developments that got Europe out of its 1000 yrs of dark ages. Now considering europe was in a dark age for so long,it would be fair game to say its evidence of inferiority to the others. but that actually doesn't make sense. You simplify the human experience
That is the problem. It wouldn't be fair to say Europeans are inferior because they spent 1,000 yrs in a dark age. We have to fast forward to the US. It is something to note the cultural & structural violence that has been applied to African Americans. A group of people oppressed that long, you think that there wouldn't be an achievement gap? Of course there will when you collectively oppress entire groups and bar them from certain fields and careers and education attainment
@lordblazer What defined the dark age as a dark age? You can't have a dark age unless you have previously demonstrated a period of high culture. Nobody says that Australia awoke from a sixty thousand year long dark age, do they? Dark in this usage is a relative term, it is never used as an absolute, even in the phrase darkest Africa.
As with Australia yes, it is understood that they didn't have what we would call civilization, of course the aboriginals in fact weren't recording history in such instances we call that pre-history. My overall point is that you need to rethink your hypothesis, you are omitting important qualitative and quantitative data. You ignore Dennis Sandole's Three Pillars Principle when it comes to research in social sciences. Why should believe that anything in this vid has credibility?
@lordblazer Writing to length is an important skill. If you don't think I have credibility you are welcome to fuck off and take your patronizing attitude with you.
Anyway getting off of this. I find the things you say is very much 19th century. I wish I could say join the 21st century, but I do not have the time to explain why you should. Anyway all I can say is study biology and genetics a bit more. the skin tone differences between populations is mostly superficial. I know what you are trying to do, but you shouldn't try too hard to merge biology with the social sciences. Anyway goodluck with the cognitive dissonance.
@lordblazer You have time to make four comments when one is the limit and yet you don't have time to explain why you are being so predictably patronizing? You clearly seem to think that I am a racist who believes that blacks are inferior to whites because of nineteenth century thinking.
There is no evidence of human equality at all. You believe in it on faith, in a typically 21st century way, all evidence of inequality is seen as evidence of white racism not of racial difference.
Since you say you have no definition of race the true test of your sincerity would come in the form of your opposition or acceptance to the idea of separating populations into micro-categories without linking them to so-called macro races.
@demerc Congratulations for consistent fuck-ups, you used it's when you should have used its and its when you should have used it's. Take whatever rule you are using and spin it 180 degrees. Possessive its has no apostrophe.
Except for the last comment, however revisionists refute much that of the propaganda dogma.
Either way the same groups are still alive today that where active then and this time they've destroyed their only real opposition, thus really a waste of time, all the pc niceties is simply a face, put on for show on their behalf, when one engages with them, their manipulative character comes out, and their real intentions become apparent
Greatest acheivment? de-politicising the masses with Entertainment
@derrybear18 It's simple: people understand what dog breeds are and they are not paralysed and preventing from thinking at all least they think The Wrong Thing in the way that they so often are when it comes to people. Many people are so terrified of being called a racist that they refuse to comment about the subject at all. That's a class thing: racist is code for common and uneducated, people liberals can't be seen to hate openly so calling people racists gives then a licence to hate them.
@MartinJWillett I just wanna ask you how the absence of the word "breed" in biology relates to your theory that races do exist. Now let me ask you this, are you aware that there are only two differences between a black persom does than another person, one extra muscle and pigmentation. "Negros" have the same 22 bones that we have and in your social criteria argument, you forgot nature vs nurture and socioeconomics dude, btw im a psychology ajor in biology class.
@jo3jo3221 It doesn't have any effect at all. Whether you use terms such as breed, race, subspecies, cline or haplogroup makes no difference at all. There are differences between human populations, pretending that these cannot possibly be measurable or significant simply makes you look over-instructed to the point of gross stupidity.
If you think any member of our species has a mere 22 bones or that races should have a different fundamental anatomy you haven't studied biology very well at all.
@jo3jo3221 If human skulls could never be sorted into racial groups you'd have a point that race was only skin deep but that is not the case. Human remains have been sorted using racial categories since well before scientists were told that they shouldn't be able to do it and they haven't stopped doing it just because it makes leftists feel squeamish.
@MartinJWillett race is a social construct, there is no scientific category called race, and your argument is wrong about percentage of neanderthal dna
@jo3jo3221 patently absurd, social-engineering dogma, utterly refuted by science, common sense, and obvious reality. the "race is a social construct" crowd makes young-earth creationists seem brilliant and educated by comparison.
@jo3jo3221 I understand your faith position here, obviously I must be wrong, you're just not sure exactly how. What is wrong about Neanderthal DNA? You need to be specific or you just come across like a petulant child.
There does not need to be a biological category called race for there to be real genetic differences between human populations. "Golden retriever" is not a formal taxonomic category either. Your point carries no weight at all.
@jo3jo3221 None. Taxonomy is the science of putting things into categories. It's filing with attitude. If scientists don't want to maintain particular categories they will be ignored. Why would anybody want to be responsible for categorizing and labelling people? It is much easier all round to declare it a problem too hard to solve and have a quiet life so these days officially races don't exist as a scientific category. If there was money in defining races things might change back again.
@MartinJWillett im not arguing that there is no difference, im arguing that the differences are so minute that it should matter, and in response to your last message, thats why its a social construct.
@jo3jo3221 You have been arguing that races don't exist, that categories don't exist, that dividing humanity is unscientific and wrong. You have not been arguing about the size of differences and you have not offered any evidence about the size of differences because you clearly believe that no evidence is required, that equality is self-evident. It isn't self-evident or even to be expected. Equality needs to be 1] proved to exist and 2] explained. Equality isn't a common natural phenomenon.
@MartinJWillett so which race is better than, which one is higher on the ladder of social heiarchy, and im saying four to 6 percent of our dna comes from homo erectus, but everyone has that, and worldwide there is a less than one percent difference in our dna
@jo3jo3221 You're really not getting this at all, are you? You are prejudiced. You think that anybody who doesn't toe the line that races don't and can't exist is A Racist, they are white and they believe that The White Race is Superior and they are A Science Denier. That is just your prejudice. I am open minded and willing to accept whatever the evidence suggests is true rather than only that which is politically acceptable.
@jo3jo3221 Superior in what way? Blacks are superior in coping with small temperature falls (summer night hiking trip) but are far more likely to die in severe cold. You only need to watch the Olympics to see that West Africans excel at sprinting and East Africans at endurance running but few blacks make it in swimming. When it is self evident it is called anecdote, only when it is invisible and counter-intuitive do they call it unimpeachable scientific evidence of equality.
@jo3jo3221 Where do you get that 4 to 6% from and how do you square that figure with the total of only 1% difference or is that sort of thinking above your pay grade?
@jo3jo3221 If that proportion comes from one ancestral species where does the rest come from?
What proportion of genetic difference would be considered big enough to account for a significant difference? What do you think the percentage of genes difference between me and my sister is? You are tossing numbers around as if they prove something but you have no context. Would 0.001% be enough or 0.1%? 1%? 10%? Surely what matters is phenotypic difference not some arbitrary difference in genes.
@jo3jo3221 Actually you're not arguing anything at all, you just seem to think I must be wrong because I'm not making PC noises. There are differences, it would be crazy to think that there would not be. As for ostracism whoever suggested it would be justified? Not me.
@MartinJWillett I am arguing a point that you fail to recognizee, yes there are genetic differences, but your followers or viewers are using your vid to promote thier views not urs
@jo3jo3221 You are not arguing with any relevant facts, you don't like the tone as you imagine it inside other people's heads. It's my tone on my video and I'm not going to apologize for it.
@MartinJWillett Im arguing with complete facts, not my fault you cant see them. Also, I dont care what tone you use, im just saying I like how ur defense degraded to the "Its my channel" arguement.
@jo3jo3221 What facts are these? Is it 22 bones in the human body or White African Americans living in Papua New Guinea? You passionately believe that you have science on your side yet you can't actually marshal any facts into any form of logical argument because you don't know what you are trying to prove or how you could prove it.
Go away. Finish your education. Return when (if) you're worthy.
@MartinJWillett im worthy right now, thats why ur argument has degressed to "This is my channel", im hot on your tail with facts and you cant stand that someone who is not confused by your weaving of facts and lies, and can actually challenge you, thats why you never responded to ZOMGitsCriss either, and even though me and her have philosophical differences, we both have you nailed to the wall on this one.
@jo3jo3221 I do not run my channel to entertain people who want to make out they have defeated me. I don't do drama or responses or debate by video. If you make a video in response to one of my videos without asking me first you will be blocked from my channel and you will get no response. Also you will be blocked if you insult me. Like you have just done.
@MartinJWillett Dude you know I corrected myself, YOU KNOW I SAID 22 IN THE HUMAN HEAD THAT FUSE AS A CHILD AND 206 IN THE BODY, also the white peoplein Africa which you point out, plus the neanderthal dna that everyone has, even though neanderthals where homo erectus and not homo sapien like the cro magnon's. There are many things ive educated you on, and the 1% difference between all of humankind, and the fact that we all have the 4 to 6% neanderthal dna.
@jo3jo3221 What has the number of bones got to do with whether or not races are equal? A dachshund and a Great Dane have the same number of bones in their skulls too. You don't know what you are arguing and you don't grasp what I am arguing either. Neanderthals were absolutely NOT Homo erectus, they are either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, very much more advanced than Homo erectus. Everybody does NOT have Neanderthal DNA, sub Saharan Africans (of various kinds) do not.
@MartinJWillett and actually, there is a bit of a difference in blacks vs everyone else, and thats that they have one extra muscle that we dont have, but I believe this is present in the tribe of white africans in papua new guinea, YES WHITE AFRICAN AMERICANS
@jo3jo3221 Blacks have no genetic legacy from Neanderthals, a different species. This simple fact has the "we're all just equal get used to it we just fucking well are OK, that's science" lobby looking even more stupid than they already did. I am not arguing that racial differences are wide or deep, merely that they exist and cannot be dismissed as if they were social inventions which appears to be the current dogma.
@MartinJWillett Explaining to a none Chinese child that the kid with very dark brown skin, thick black curls, broad nose and big lips. Is just the same as they are, is doomed to failure. Kids have a way of dispelling the politically correct delusions of adults. Using the comparison of dog breeds is far more useful and accurate. Racism only comes into it when claims are made of superiority. BTW, there are sound genetic reasons why the smartest, healthiest and longest lived dogs are mongrels.
@SissingPyd your comparison of dog breeds is what they say i guess, but these people arn`t around dogs much. the most imbread of all dogs is the wolf brother and sister often breed, and wolfs are one of, if not the oldest breeds on the planet. and far smarter stonger and fiter than any domestic dog.. also race horses.. you can bring your multi breed horse and i`ll just have the geen pool of danhill and galilao. and you`ll see who loses there money. like breeds like. with animals
@jo3jo3221 Would you care to explain? "African American" is a political construct, it is not a synonym for black and it has very little to do with biology. For a person to be a white African American they would have to be a US citizen from an African country, and white. Anywhere north of the Sahara would do. The natives of Papua New Guinea are neither white nor American and they are by definition not African even if 60,000 or so years ago their ancestors (or most of them) were.
@MartinJWillett ok and do you think its possible that those white people there could have at least shared some genes with thier african ancestors? you advocate for racial differences, but are you aware of the percentage of difference among all people are less than one percent. Btw dont use the whole neanderthal argument againsed me, we both know they are not classified as homo sapiens, but we do share common genes with them too.
@jo3jo3221 If Neanderthals are classed as a different species then the fact that some of our species are related to them and some are not is hardly good evidence that our species doesn't have any differences! I do not advocate racial differences, I acknowledge they exist and are not especially significant.
All humanity shares genes with Africans but that does not mean there are no differences or that we are all in any way variously bleached Negroes or that racists are wrong about everything.
@jo3jo3221 Approximately 4% of the DNA of non-Africans is from Neanderthals. Clearly both figures (1% total difference and 4% Neanderthal contribution) cannot be referring to the same thing or one of them isn't true. As there isn't a figure which could possibly get the anti-racists to say they were wrong it's as significant as arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
If you are a christian, and hold the bible to be true, then you are a racist. Right up front in the bible it states that god cursed cain (for murdering his brother) with a dark skin. Hence, since you hold the bible texts to be entirely true, then every time you see a person with dark skin, you are thinking that he is one of the group that are cursed by god.
What better racist comment or attitude than to believe that dark skinned people are cursed by your god.
Asians have higher IQs than Europeans, who have higher IQs than Africans, who have bigger dicks than Europeans, who have bigger dicks than Asians. Does that mean "The bigger your dick, the dumber you are " PS When referring to women we should use the analogy "Butt " So" the bigger a babes butt , the dumber she is" ???? Racism is fear-based.
@arealbladeofgrass It is an interesting correlation, I doubt it holds true to the point at which it would be a useful predictive tool for individuals, although I did have a job once where I was looking after children who were quite literally drooling imbeciles and I couldn't help noticing that one seemed to have some degree of phallic compensation for cephalic inadequacy.
@MartinJWillett Maybe we're on to something here. I must say, I think my correlation holds as true as any other correlation one cares to propose. What I find equally interesting is that slaveholders saw the advantages of inter-breeding races. eg. Asian+ African or Asian +European + African ( mongrel) gave them strong intelligent breeds, that were far more useful than so-called pure race people. You get my drift methinks. What is a pure race anyway ? Freckley-faced red-heads maybe ?
@arealbladeofgrass There is something in crossing different races, in species where you can make such observations without being accused of being a monster the phrase used is crossbreed or hybrid vigour, outbreeding enhancement or heterosis. It apparently only works with the F1 hybrids (like Barack Obama and Lewis Hamilton) with much lesser effects when crossed crosses are crossed, although Brazilian women look rather hot to me.
b@MartinJWillett Yeah ! I was thinking of Brazil when I made that comment. Israel has also got an amazing amount of seriously hot fanny !! Is there an example of a pure race or are they extinct, or is race a dynamic, evolutional, ever- changing, natural phenomena. No national or political movement has a monopoly on race. Basically, no one can lay claim to being pure of race except, naturally Red-haired, Freckle - faced beautiful Celtic, English/ Irish/ not Jewish individuals like myself !
@j1mmyZeta Jews are an "ethno-religious" group much like Armenians, Croats, Mormons, Serbs, Tibetans and many others. Not all Jews are Semitic and Jews are not a race, so terms like anti-semitic or racism do not apply . Ethno-religious, google it ! Israel is therefore a Theocracy. And a Jewish Atheist ( Karl Marx ) is a misnomer like a Christian Atheist.
@arealbladeofgrass I don't think you are right about the Jews being an 'ethno-religious' group. They are perhaps a 'Nation'. It is not a misnomer to refer to an atheist Jew, such as Karl Marx or Christopher Hitchens. They are no less Jewish for being atheist. I don't know if it was a typo but Israel is not a theocracy and never was, it was always secular.
@ritchloui Only Jews would refer to themselves as a nation. And once you have been labeled a Jew, because your mother was Jewish, there is no denying or escaping that fact, at least not according to Jewish doctrine. Jews are humans just like other humans. The rest is culturally, historically, politically, religiously based bullshit and it seems ironic that the Jews seem to be more nationalistic than the "Aryan" Nazis.
Wikipedia " Who is a Jew? " If you want to see what a farce it all is.
@arealbladeofgrass That's the whole point. Being Jewish isn't really a matter of choice, you are one whether you like it or not. You can hide it, deny it, be an atheist it is not your choice. In fact you can be entirely assimilated, as were most German Jews. Unlike our grizzly Muslim invaders who want to pretend it is racist to despise Islam; Islam is an ideology and a despicable one at that; openly treasonous toward their host countries and wish to see them become Islamic hellholes.
@arealbladeofgrass More nationalistic than "Aryan" Nazis? Are you fucking retarded? Read some books about Nazi Germany, then visit Israel. The differences are stark.
@ritchloui I still believe Israel to be a theocracy much like the USA is "One nation under God" or " In God we trust" or "God bless America" and the fact that no U.S presidential candidate would ever admit to being atheist for fear of being shunned by the majority of voters. What about a Jew who was born in Ireland, brought up a catholic, emigrated to America and became a US citizen. Is that person still a Jew ?, and is it because Rabbinic law or Nazi doctrine determines it to be so ?..contd
@arealbladeofgrass It's crazy I know. Such a person could simply not tell anyone. Christiopher Hitchens mother took the secret to her grave, presumably hoping her children would never find out. He only found out after her death. Yes, the US is unlike any other advanced civilisation in its religious fanaticism. Freedom 'of religion' simply became a tax-free business model for frauds; the promise of an afterlife is just such a great product cos you don't have to deliver till the buyer is dead!
@j1mmyZeta Jews are a Nation, not a race or religion. They can and do believe what they like. There is a traditional religion, Judaism, that some ascribe to. However, there are many openly atheist Jews, agnostic Jews and anti-theist Jews. The Nazis made no distinction and there were no doubt many Jews who did not even know they were Jewish until the SS found out for them. This is the case today, in fact many Europeans are discovering they have Jewish ancestry that was kept utterly hidden.
@Piatasify Is that before they are acceptable to those who want to accept them or before they are acceptable to those who would not want ever to accept them just in case they prove what they require never to be proved?
@MartinJWillett What I mean is, iq tests are still to simple to determine something that is too complicated. This does not mean i want to invalidate the example as you use it, because it certainly can indicate something. I'm just weary of iq tests being used as a credential or a score seen as something permanent. I think it still needs a lot of tweeking while we still lack sufficient knowledge of how thinking really works.
If you, or anyone else, separates people into categories of race to determine or affirm that they should be treated differently or that 'equal opportunity' should not be adhered to, then you, or that anyone else, is racist.
The way you use the term 'scientific racism' is misleading. Scientific racism was a tool people used to separate races into categories to administer different treatment. It is not a scientist that uses race to identify a person.
@MiIitantPeaceist Agreed. Affirmative action is racist. I am not a racist. I don't believe in absolute biological equality in anything so I react with scorn to those who claim that races can't exist BECAUSE all humans MUST be equal. There is no equality in nature in anything. Expecting equality or huge discrepancy is wrong. There must be overlapping bell curves, it could not be otherwise unless magic intervened. Equality of opportunity is always right, enforced equality of outcome is wrong.
@FairPhilip You claim you can't think of any therefore there can't be any and just to be sure races don't exist, they have got that agreed by a consensus so it must be true, and only racists would be interested in knowing such things anyway so there can't be any differences. Can there?
But still nobody has ever managed to demonstrate any equality, in any measure, at all and for good reason - there is no mechanism by which equality could be generated or maintained, regardless of the labels used.
@FairPhilip Of course not. Denying people a chance to compete is absurd but expecting identical outcomes among all groups is equally absurd. Discrimination, positive or negative, is profoundly unfair. All should compete fairly as individuals and nobody should give a shit what happens to the groups - because people are not groups. If all individuals are treated fairly on their demonstrated merits that is fairness. Membership of a group should never buy special treatment, either better or worse.
I agree to a degree but the differences heyruka and everyone speak of are not as prolific as they claim. They have no impact on people aside from social.
@LegendaryAsshole Not as big as they claim. Thank you. That is all I want to hear. It is so much better than people claiming there are no differences, there can't be, it's racist to think there could be, and unscientific and don't you know races don't exist scientifically and all this has been proved and how dare you suggest there could be any differences you NAZI BIGOT racist piece of shit.
Nothing in nature has ever been found to be equal. Imagining our species is an exception is absurd.
@MartinJWillett You are losing focus...AGAIN. I admit there are differences, slight bone structure variation, nothing significant such as brain development. In that regard, regardless of ethnicity all human beings are inherently equal to all other human beings. The only significant differences are regarding abundance of resources. Difference exists, I never said it doesn't but that doesn't mean we arent all equal. to say anything to the contrary is disingenuous at best.
@LegendaryAsshole I am focussed on my beliefs and my opinions, I don't care about your focus. NOTHING is off limits for variation and therefore nothing in biology is inherently, by definition equal. Only a belief in the absence of evidence (faith) or magic could make it otherwise. Brains vary as much as any other organ and nothing exists which could ensure that such variation is uniform across this or any other species. If humanity is equal in brain power I would regard it as evidence for a god.
@MartinJWillett There we go, there's why we can't agree. You drop logic and reason, evidence and fact when your OPINION and BELIEFS conflict.. We are done here.
2 Mathematics a symbolic expression of the fact that two quantities are equal; an equation.
Equality is for mathematical quantities, possibly legal systems, not biological entities. Equality doesn't belong in biology in the same way submission holds don't belong in chess.
@MartinJWillett Ah I see, you are being finicky with definitions you allow to be used. You need to learn to accept that people are free to use other definitions too.
I just wanna ask you, do you think the difference in IQ could be a socioeconomical issue like nature vs nuture, or conditioning?
26scienceguy 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy Of course! It almost certainly is to a very large degree, but nobody has demonstrated to me that it could ONLY be due to such factors. Believing that race could not possibly have any effect upon it is going beyond the evidence and is a faith-based stance. Haven't you picked up that CENTRAL MESSAGE yet?
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
But I never insulted you
26scienceguy 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy You said I was lying. Where I come from that is an insult.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett Where I come from, we call it like we see it. I did make some errors and im sorry, you were not completely wrong, but you were wrong to a degree
26scienceguy 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy Data that you do not fully accept are not lies. If that is your definition of a lie will you apologize for LYING about the number of bones in the human body and the relationship between Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis? No? Well I have not lied to you and you have not shown anything I have said to be incorrect. You argue about tone imagined in the minds of people listening, not about the information I offer.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
the only difference is that Africans have one more muscle than everyone, and thats true.
26scienceguy 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy ONLY difference? That is clearly nonsense as any human skeleton with most of the skull present can be assigned a racial make-up by a half-trained anatomist. Go back to your precious biology book (is it lonely?) and check whether it actually says that there is only one difference rather than saying that there is a difference.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett ok dude I made a typo, and its the only anatomical difference
26scienceguy 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy That is not a typo! A typo is a slip of the typing finger, typo does not include faulty reasoning. It is NOT the only anatomical difference! If it was it would be impossible to tell the race of a body which lacked soft tissue and that is clearly not the case - ask any forensic anthropologist. I discussed this matter with a bloke who was involved in excavating mass graves in Bosnia. Telling the skulls of blacks from whites is easier than determining their sex.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy Which muscle is this? Searching for this on Google just brings a huge wall of ignorant denial as white liberals fall over each other to strenuously deny the possibility that Negroes have an extra muscle while clearly having no clue as to what this extra muscle is supposed to be and who suggested that it exist. I am disgusted at how people can be so adamant and arrogant out of ignorance and faith.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett Try the "Ethnic differences in triceps surae muscle-tendon complex and walking economy".study. If anything this proves that we have different genetics
dolphwong 3 weeks ago
Martin, I never insulted you. There is a continum or racial flow that is very close knit. You were right, neanderthals were not erectus, nor are they sapiens, they are homo neanderthalis and im not sure if you said that in your last comment before you blocked me, but you were still wrong too. Also the number of neanderthal dna is 2 to 4% not 4 to 6%, and for my errors, im sorry. You also said that if "Races" which still not a toxonomic level of categorization, have different anatomy, your wrong.
26scienceguy 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy Read the fucking comment! I said they were either H n or H s n, that says nothing about reality being in doubt just about academic dick-waving among taxonomists. The figures are approximately 4% for Neanderthal among all non-African humans and up to 6% for Denisovan DNA among Austronesians. Our species is not a single race, we do not all share a single genetic history, therefore declaring equality while not looking for proof (in case they don't find it) is not scientific.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett Dude I said I had to gloss over the comment cause I had to go to class, dude I know your not using this to promote hate, but why do you see it essential to even give a damn about the minute diffefences ?
26scienceguy 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy Truth matters. That is why. It is NOT TRUE that human are all equal under the skin. There are differences, these differences are far too small to justify racism but they exist and denying their existence damages science and truth itself.
I will never let it lie.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@26scienceguy Toxonomic? Interesting coinage. I think I'll steal it.
Toxonomist, noun, person terrified of human genetic difference and the potentially toxic political consequences of uncensored scientific research into human genetics, anatomy and taxonomy.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
The Middle East, Persia, Afghanistan through to Pakistan were once capable of producing hugely successful civilisations. However, since their domination by Islam they have been unable to produce a single original scientist, mathematician, physician or thinker for 1,000 years. Compare the intellectual achievements of the Ottoman with the British Empire and the contrast is dramatic. Islam retards, Sharia retards absolutely.
ritchloui 3 weeks ago
@ritchloui That is a bit exaggerated, not to say factually inaccurate. Muslims had the best physicians up to less than four hundred years ago and they were clearly ahead of Europe in many fields a thousand years ago. It does no good to exaggerate, those who wish to dismiss you will find it easy to do so.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
Good essay. Glad you have the nards to talk about "that which shall not be mentioned."
mydogbanjo 3 weeks ago
Race realists deflate quickly when presented with billions of racially ambiguous people like Mediterraneans,North Africans, San Khoisians and East Africans,Indians,Near Easterners,South and Central Asians, South East Asians and Malays. Genetic anomalies like Melanesians, Papuans, Sards, Basques, Sami, and others throw the monkey wrench in their pipe dream as well. Only Jet Black 'Negroids', 'Master Race' Euros, and Nerdy East Asians give them wet dreams. Taxonomy ain't a science,more a religion.
demerc 3 weeks ago
@demerc Reality is complicated, too many people expect it to be simple, or need it to be simple and are prepared to blur the edges to make it seem so. The ideas of racists and anti-racists require reality to be simple, but reality doesn't cooperate.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett You are right,reality doesn't cooperate. "Race" is a continuum. A continuum, reality, can not be divided except arbitrarily. It is already blurred by the very nature of it's reality. Separating it is inherently subjective. Subjectivity is like anathema to science. Race's 'appendages', which racialists equate to race, were only born through isolation. 'Race' equals isolation. Unfortunately for racialists,isolation is only one of many realities of the history humans.
demerc 3 weeks ago
@demerc But it is not true to suggest that all the races blur together in one big continuous arc of variation. There are people who have not shared a common ancestor for 60,000 years or so and there are no intermediate forms between them. To deny that these two separate populations are races is just a perversion (or castration) of the word. If race doesn't cover the difference between Europeans and Australians what other word does and what does the word race cover?
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett It is blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes that an Englishman and an indigenous Australian look quite different and share very different cultures. One does not need to invoke the ideology of race to do so. Separating the Australian from the South Indian, or the Papuan is where the reality of the continuum shows the inherent fallibility of the dogma of the religion of race.
demerc 3 weeks ago
@demerc Ideology? What are you going on about? Races are facts not myths. Australians have been genetically isolated for tens of thousands of years. Fact. That is a truth. There has not been any breeding between the populations of Southern India and Australia in all that time. They have been isolated and they have evolved separately under different conditions. That is what races are:- separate breeding populations of the same species, huge phenotypical differences are not required.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett Now we get into the slippery slope race argument about whether 'race' is genetic difference, phenotype, or both. Which is it? If it's just genetic difference Basques are really a different race from their neighbors even though they all look the same? These are the inevitabilities when you insist race is real. Surely you are not naive enough to insist there was never any gene flow between Australasia and Indonesia?
demerc 3 weeks ago
@demerc Why are you obsessed about the label? If you abolish the word and even the concept of race from biology you have not undermined racists in any way, all you have done is ensure that people see science as the established religion of too clever for their own good damn liberals.
Whether there was gene flow between Indonesia and Australia is a matter for evidence not for faith, there are no surelys involved here. I am not insisting on anything except the honesty to look at all the evidence.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett A label is a superficial semantic.Race is an ideology,not a label.I don't advocate 'abolishing' anything,I am not a Liberal.Just that people wake up to the spuriousness of the religion of race.Science already is a religion,for many people.You use the word 'believe' in your above video,when speaking about race,so despite your best intentions,there's plenty of 'faith' being exercised on your behalf.There WAS gene flow between Australia,NG,Indonesia and therefore India.Continuum.
demerc 3 weeks ago
@demerc Nonsense. How much gene flow and how? Genes do not carry on the breeze. One survivor on a raft every thousand years does not constitute an appreciable amount of gene flow even if it is measurable, that just proves how good your measurements are.
There is a difference between a belief and a faith. If I say I believe X that does not mean that I am willing to submit to torture before I will admit that X is not true. Faith is belief weaponized with bloody-minded arrogance.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett You're exercising your faith right now.Only a 'faithful believer' in the pseudo science of race would presume there were no geneflow between such extremely close geographies,especially considering phenotypical evidence and an understanding of the nomadic nature of 'hunter gatherer' lifestyles and indigenous peoples.'Island hopping' in this area is not a controversial 'theory'.Look at Andamans and other Melanesians. You are being blinded by your faith.
demerc 3 weeks ago
@demerc If there was contact between these populations there would be trade. Precious stones, words, technology, symbols and myths would be exchanged over greater distances than genes. Evidence of such contact would have been apparent a good century before the first genetic evidence could be seen. This is basic anthropology!
The Australians got to Australia via the coast of India and Indonesia and left populations along the way, that is why they are genetically related but culturally distinct.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@demerc If there was contact between these populations there would be trade. Precious stones, words, technology, symbols and myths would be exchanged over greater distances than genes. Evidence of such contact would have been apparent a good century before the first genetic evidence could be seen. This is basic anthropology!
The Australians got to Australia via the coast of India and Indonesia and left populations along the way, that is why they are genetically related but culturally distinct.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett So now race is 'culture'. Thank you. You've just admitted to the continuum yet insist that the difference that makes them a distinct race is now culture. I rest my case. And for the record, even culturally, there is plenty in common or at least enough to question the 'distinctness' between Aboriginals and Papuans and subsequently the whole geographical area.
demerc 3 weeks ago
@demerc No. Culture is culture. There is no evidence of a continuous culture between India and Australia. People can share culture (trading goods and ideas) even without sharing genes, wheat agriculture and the concepts of wheels and writing spread from Ireland to Japan but very few genes spread the whole width of Europe and Asia. Australia was an isolated island continent with negligible cultural or gene flow. So were the Americas. What kind of faith does it take to need to believe otherwise?
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett You just aren't getting it. You keep building strawmen by trying to directly connect different geographically separate 'populations'. The continuum means there need only be a connection between the Aborigines of Australia and those of the nearest place, which of course there is, for there to be an indirect connection with Indians.Separating populations by invoking the doctrine/ideology of race is where you turn Science into religion.Religion is for the mislead or the misleaders.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc It is you who isn't getting it. You need to believe in a continuum because that negates the idea of race, so promoting the continuum is an anti-racist act. But there is very little evidence for the continuum you need to exist, but you won't let that stop you believing in it, and proclaiming evidence for it which you cannot produce.
I don't need to believe in races. That's the difference between us. I do not require faith, I follow the evidence.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett The continuum is a biological self-evident reality.There's nothing to 'believe'.It just is.Whether or not i see it or not.Race is a supposition.You stated in one of the first responses to me that there were no 'intermediate forms'.That is either a lie or a delusion of your belief induced coma.I think it's the latter.You admitted Abs were connected to various populations you claim they left behind on their way to Australia.You've defeated your whole argument.You follow your dogma.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc You are wasting your time. You clearly need to believe that I am a racist and you are not interested in changing your views. Just go away, you're disgusting me.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett You are projecting! I never even mentioned Racism at all. The fact that until now,a polite discussion between 2 people, emotes disgust in you, shows anyone what a loaded issue it is for you. My views evolve and are subject to keep evolving.But they aren't going to do an about face, that would negate the nature of reality.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc The fact that you spell racism with a capital letter speaks volumes. You are trying to believe that all mankind exists in an arc of continuity with every population breeding with every one of its neighbours continually. That is not the nature of human history at all. There has been isolation for thousands of years at a time with no interbreeding and scarcely any contact at all. It is absurd politically motivated revisionism to see continual gene flow between Australia and India.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett LOL.Not as many volumes as you saying i need to believe you are a racist when i never insinuated or even mentioned the word.So you admitted that Abs left behind people on their way to AU.That means these people,who look either indistinguishable with the Abs or very similar already had their characteristic looks before the so-called isolation.That means the degree with which one uses the isolation to define a race is quantitatively subjective. The whole theory becomes moot.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc Australians have not had significant contact with any other groups for tens of thousands of years, this can be seen by their culture, language, tools and their dogs. When they first arrived there would be a continuous chain of populations leading back to Southern India. In subsequent centuries many of those groups have been wiped out or interbred with other groups. The continuity was broken. There was negligible contact between Australia and Asia in that time.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett Your definition of race bounces all over the place.First, you contested merely that there were no 'intermediate' types.Now,it's morphed into some sort of not outwardly physical but strictly genetic definition,the degree of which constitutes a separate 'race' apparently only you alone know in your head and change as you go along to adapt to your argument.So what exactly is race to you?
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc I don't have a definition of race! I don't need one. The reality of human history and geography is complicated, it is not a neat continuum of everybody breeding with their neighbour and neither is it a story of a small number of completely separate populations breeding true over the millennia. There are populations which have been genetically isolated from all neighbours for tens of thousands of years. There are also populations which share ancestry with earlier human species.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett Well that's very convenient.No definition of race,yet you fiercely defend it's existence in the most irrationally dogmatic way.Just a tad intellectually dishonest.Its patently obvious aborigines lived in a degree of isolation for a significant period.How much you make out of this by attaching the doctrine of race to it,completely changes the dynamics,because it becomes inherently subjective how you differentiate them from others who are indistinguishable like NGs and Australoids.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc Truth has no duty to be convenient, politically correct or simple.
I do not defend the existence of races, how can I when I don't know what they are? I object when people lie to make out that there is nothing in the concept of human differences at all, races are meaningless, IQ tests measure racism but they don't work, there are no human differences and everybody is related to everybody else and everybody's grandmother was a Jewish Eskimo aborigine.
Possessive its has no apostrophe.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett I assume because I've exposed the fallacy of your logic you've veered off course and mistakenly lumped me into the 'we're all brothers and sisters,kumbaya' category even though nothing about my actual argument insinuates such.It would be nice if you'd stick to the discussion without projecting your own defensiveness and insecurities. As for correcting my grammatical errors, that is just trite and childish.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc You made errors, correcting errors is the scientific process, is it not? Where is my thanks?
What is your problem with the concept of race? It's a poorly defined concept with no one universal definition but surely it is significantly easier to understand than numerous other woolly concepts intelligent people take in their stride such as manliness, heavy metal, conservative, Art Deco and spicy. If you really try very hard you can fail to grasp it, but why do you want to fail to grasp it?
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett ahh, OK, thanks then. The concept of race is logically fallacious, as I've demonstrated.You accuse libs,of which i am not(i am a political atheist) of dismissing race because of a desire for political correctness all the while you pretend to be indifferent to the concept yet you clearly believe in it based on your own psychological tendencies and political persuasions and play both sides of the fence. You're not being wholly honest with me or yourself.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc Population differences,which exist,at least for the moment defy and bely macro categorization. Much of the testing until now is so scattered,incomplete and done with specific racialist agenda that it is not even remotely realistic to conclude anything, especially any macro race oriented agenda. Furthermore on a socio-political level macro categories inspire irrational collectivist attitudes that are completely detrimental to humanity.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc But still people do conclude that races don't, can't and shouldn't exist, that all observed differences reveal racism not racial difference and that anybody who doesn't agree with the consensus is a right wing ignorant unscientific bigoted racist. Population differences exist, the term race was first used with these differences in human populations in mind. The word means the same as it always has, notwithstanding the failures of making neat categories in the past.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett
socially race or better use ethnicity is very real in the social sciences. Biology not being a social science. The African American ethnicity is so extremely diverse that there are people where you need to ask what their "race" is. The problem with what you are saying is that you ignore environmental factors, you ignore history of social sciences, science, you ignore history of racial relations in the US.You ignore world history,and how Europeans became dominate
lordblazer 1 day ago
@MartinJWillett
In the whole of human civilization. Western civilization experienced a rise nearly 500 to 600 yrs ago. I like to say 600 yrs ago because this is when the christian reformation era starts which led to some interesting developments that got Europe out of its 1000 yrs of dark ages. Now considering europe was in a dark age for so long,it would be fair game to say its evidence of inferiority to the others. but that actually doesn't make sense. You simplify the human experience
lordblazer 1 day ago
@MartinJWillett
That is the problem. It wouldn't be fair to say Europeans are inferior because they spent 1,000 yrs in a dark age. We have to fast forward to the US. It is something to note the cultural & structural violence that has been applied to African Americans. A group of people oppressed that long, you think that there wouldn't be an achievement gap? Of course there will when you collectively oppress entire groups and bar them from certain fields and careers and education attainment
lordblazer 1 day ago
@lordblazer What defined the dark age as a dark age? You can't have a dark age unless you have previously demonstrated a period of high culture. Nobody says that Australia awoke from a sixty thousand year long dark age, do they? Dark in this usage is a relative term, it is never used as an absolute, even in the phrase darkest Africa.
MartinJWillett 1 day ago
@MartinJWillett
As with Australia yes, it is understood that they didn't have what we would call civilization, of course the aboriginals in fact weren't recording history in such instances we call that pre-history. My overall point is that you need to rethink your hypothesis, you are omitting important qualitative and quantitative data. You ignore Dennis Sandole's Three Pillars Principle when it comes to research in social sciences. Why should believe that anything in this vid has credibility?
lordblazer 14 hours ago
@MartinJWillett
in advance I apologize for the typos, and missing conjunctions and participles. The character limit is extreme annoying.
lordblazer 14 hours ago
@lordblazer Writing to length is an important skill. If you don't think I have credibility you are welcome to fuck off and take your patronizing attitude with you.
MartinJWillett 9 hours ago
@MartinJWillett
Anyway getting off of this. I find the things you say is very much 19th century. I wish I could say join the 21st century, but I do not have the time to explain why you should. Anyway all I can say is study biology and genetics a bit more. the skin tone differences between populations is mostly superficial. I know what you are trying to do, but you shouldn't try too hard to merge biology with the social sciences. Anyway goodluck with the cognitive dissonance.
lordblazer 1 day ago
@lordblazer You have time to make four comments when one is the limit and yet you don't have time to explain why you are being so predictably patronizing? You clearly seem to think that I am a racist who believes that blacks are inferior to whites because of nineteenth century thinking.
There is no evidence of human equality at all. You believe in it on faith, in a typically 21st century way, all evidence of inequality is seen as evidence of white racism not of racial difference.
MartinJWillett 1 day ago
@demerc You have not demonstrated anything except ego.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
Since you say you have no definition of race the true test of your sincerity would come in the form of your opposition or acceptance to the idea of separating populations into micro-categories without linking them to so-called macro races.
demerc 2 weeks ago
@demerc Congratulations for consistent fuck-ups, you used it's when you should have used its and its when you should have used it's. Take whatever rule you are using and spin it 180 degrees. Possessive its has no apostrophe.
MartinJWillett 2 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett to be honest, im not sure of the name but ill look into it
26scienceguy 2 weeks ago
Except for the last comment, however revisionists refute much that of the propaganda dogma.
Either way the same groups are still alive today that where active then and this time they've destroyed their only real opposition, thus really a waste of time, all the pc niceties is simply a face, put on for show on their behalf, when one engages with them, their manipulative character comes out, and their real intentions become apparent
Greatest acheivment? de-politicising the masses with Entertainment
CelticAngloPress 3 weeks ago
Well said.
CelticAngloPress 3 weeks ago 2
Very well said Martin.
SissingPyd 4 weeks ago
I think you hit the essence of political correctness at 11:15 to 12:03. They don't want facts- they want their faith to be proven true.
videowilliams 1 month ago
I don't understand why you're comparing humans to dogs.
derrybear18 1 month ago
@derrybear18 It's simple: people understand what dog breeds are and they are not paralysed and preventing from thinking at all least they think The Wrong Thing in the way that they so often are when it comes to people. Many people are so terrified of being called a racist that they refuse to comment about the subject at all. That's a class thing: racist is code for common and uneducated, people liberals can't be seen to hate openly so calling people racists gives then a licence to hate them.
MartinJWillett 1 month ago 2
@MartinJWillett I just wanna ask you how the absence of the word "breed" in biology relates to your theory that races do exist. Now let me ask you this, are you aware that there are only two differences between a black persom does than another person, one extra muscle and pigmentation. "Negros" have the same 22 bones that we have and in your social criteria argument, you forgot nature vs nurture and socioeconomics dude, btw im a psychology ajor in biology class.
jo3jo3221 1 month ago
@jo3jo3221 It doesn't have any effect at all. Whether you use terms such as breed, race, subspecies, cline or haplogroup makes no difference at all. There are differences between human populations, pretending that these cannot possibly be measurable or significant simply makes you look over-instructed to the point of gross stupidity.
If you think any member of our species has a mere 22 bones or that races should have a different fundamental anatomy you haven't studied biology very well at all.
MartinJWillett 1 month ago 6
@MartinJWillett Sorry, I meant 22 bones in the human head, there are a total of 206 in the human body, sorry for the typo
jo3jo3221 1 month ago
@jo3jo3221 If human skulls could never be sorted into racial groups you'd have a point that race was only skin deep but that is not the case. Human remains have been sorted using racial categories since well before scientists were told that they shouldn't be able to do it and they haven't stopped doing it just because it makes leftists feel squeamish.
MartinJWillett 1 month ago 10
@MartinJWillett race is a social construct, there is no scientific category called race, and your argument is wrong about percentage of neanderthal dna
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 patently absurd, social-engineering dogma, utterly refuted by science, common sense, and obvious reality. the "race is a social construct" crowd makes young-earth creationists seem brilliant and educated by comparison.
PumpingSmashkins 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 I understand your faith position here, obviously I must be wrong, you're just not sure exactly how. What is wrong about Neanderthal DNA? You need to be specific or you just come across like a petulant child.
There does not need to be a biological category called race for there to be real genetic differences between human populations. "Golden retriever" is not a formal taxonomic category either. Your point carries no weight at all.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett you also fail to see that we have only decoded 5% of our dna
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 Can you explain how you deduce that?
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett which level of taxonomy uses is labeled race
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 None. Taxonomy is the science of putting things into categories. It's filing with attitude. If scientists don't want to maintain particular categories they will be ignored. Why would anybody want to be responsible for categorizing and labelling people? It is much easier all round to declare it a problem too hard to solve and have a quiet life so these days officially races don't exist as a scientific category. If there was money in defining races things might change back again.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett im not arguing that there is no difference, im arguing that the differences are so minute that it should matter, and in response to your last message, thats why its a social construct.
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 You have been arguing that races don't exist, that categories don't exist, that dividing humanity is unscientific and wrong. You have not been arguing about the size of differences and you have not offered any evidence about the size of differences because you clearly believe that no evidence is required, that equality is self-evident. It isn't self-evident or even to be expected. Equality needs to be 1] proved to exist and 2] explained. Equality isn't a common natural phenomenon.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett so which race is better than, which one is higher on the ladder of social heiarchy, and im saying four to 6 percent of our dna comes from homo erectus, but everyone has that, and worldwide there is a less than one percent difference in our dna
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 You're really not getting this at all, are you? You are prejudiced. You think that anybody who doesn't toe the line that races don't and can't exist is A Racist, they are white and they believe that The White Race is Superior and they are A Science Denier. That is just your prejudice. I am open minded and willing to accept whatever the evidence suggests is true rather than only that which is politically acceptable.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 Superior in what way? Blacks are superior in coping with small temperature falls (summer night hiking trip) but are far more likely to die in severe cold. You only need to watch the Olympics to see that West Africans excel at sprinting and East Africans at endurance running but few blacks make it in swimming. When it is self evident it is called anecdote, only when it is invisible and counter-intuitive do they call it unimpeachable scientific evidence of equality.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 Where do you get that 4 to 6% from and how do you square that figure with the total of only 1% difference or is that sort of thinking above your pay grade?
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett my biology book
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 If that proportion comes from one ancestral species where does the rest come from?
What proportion of genetic difference would be considered big enough to account for a significant difference? What do you think the percentage of genes difference between me and my sister is? You are tossing numbers around as if they prove something but you have no context. Would 0.001% be enough or 0.1%? 1%? 10%? Surely what matters is phenotypic difference not some arbitrary difference in genes.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett yes 0.01 percent is enough, I know there are differences, im arguing that its not an excuse to ostracize them
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 Actually you're not arguing anything at all, you just seem to think I must be wrong because I'm not making PC noises. There are differences, it would be crazy to think that there would not be. As for ostracism whoever suggested it would be justified? Not me.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett I am arguing a point that you fail to recognizee, yes there are genetic differences, but your followers or viewers are using your vid to promote thier views not urs
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 This is my channel, I express my views on it. If you want somebody to express your views get your own channel.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett I obviously have my own channel lol im commenting to you. I like how ur argument degressed to "This is my channel"
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 You are not arguing with any relevant facts, you don't like the tone as you imagine it inside other people's heads. It's my tone on my video and I'm not going to apologize for it.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett Im arguing with complete facts, not my fault you cant see them. Also, I dont care what tone you use, im just saying I like how ur defense degraded to the "Its my channel" arguement.
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 What facts are these? Is it 22 bones in the human body or White African Americans living in Papua New Guinea? You passionately believe that you have science on your side yet you can't actually marshal any facts into any form of logical argument because you don't know what you are trying to prove or how you could prove it.
Go away. Finish your education. Return when (if) you're worthy.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett im worthy right now, thats why ur argument has degressed to "This is my channel", im hot on your tail with facts and you cant stand that someone who is not confused by your weaving of facts and lies, and can actually challenge you, thats why you never responded to ZOMGitsCriss either, and even though me and her have philosophical differences, we both have you nailed to the wall on this one.
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 I do not run my channel to entertain people who want to make out they have defeated me. I don't do drama or responses or debate by video. If you make a video in response to one of my videos without asking me first you will be blocked from my channel and you will get no response. Also you will be blocked if you insult me. Like you have just done.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett Dude you know I corrected myself, YOU KNOW I SAID 22 IN THE HUMAN HEAD THAT FUSE AS A CHILD AND 206 IN THE BODY, also the white peoplein Africa which you point out, plus the neanderthal dna that everyone has, even though neanderthals where homo erectus and not homo sapien like the cro magnon's. There are many things ive educated you on, and the 1% difference between all of humankind, and the fact that we all have the 4 to 6% neanderthal dna.
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 What has the number of bones got to do with whether or not races are equal? A dachshund and a Great Dane have the same number of bones in their skulls too. You don't know what you are arguing and you don't grasp what I am arguing either. Neanderthals were absolutely NOT Homo erectus, they are either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, very much more advanced than Homo erectus. Everybody does NOT have Neanderthal DNA, sub Saharan Africans (of various kinds) do not.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett and actually, there is a bit of a difference in blacks vs everyone else, and thats that they have one extra muscle that we dont have, but I believe this is present in the tribe of white africans in papua new guinea, YES WHITE AFRICAN AMERICANS
jo3jo3221 1 month ago
@jo3jo3221 Blacks have no genetic legacy from Neanderthals, a different species. This simple fact has the "we're all just equal get used to it we just fucking well are OK, that's science" lobby looking even more stupid than they already did. I am not arguing that racial differences are wide or deep, merely that they exist and cannot be dismissed as if they were social inventions which appears to be the current dogma.
MartinJWillett 1 month ago
@MartinJWillett Explaining to a none Chinese child that the kid with very dark brown skin, thick black curls, broad nose and big lips. Is just the same as they are, is doomed to failure. Kids have a way of dispelling the politically correct delusions of adults. Using the comparison of dog breeds is far more useful and accurate. Racism only comes into it when claims are made of superiority. BTW, there are sound genetic reasons why the smartest, healthiest and longest lived dogs are mongrels.
SissingPyd 4 weeks ago
@SissingPyd your comparison of dog breeds is what they say i guess, but these people arn`t around dogs much. the most imbread of all dogs is the wolf brother and sister often breed, and wolfs are one of, if not the oldest breeds on the planet. and far smarter stonger and fiter than any domestic dog.. also race horses.. you can bring your multi breed horse and i`ll just have the geen pool of danhill and galilao. and you`ll see who loses there money. like breeds like. with animals
noFinPIKEY 4 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 White African Americans? What are they, recent immigrants from Morocco?
MartinJWillett 1 month ago
@MartinJWillett not at all
jo3jo3221 4 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 Would you care to explain? "African American" is a political construct, it is not a synonym for black and it has very little to do with biology. For a person to be a white African American they would have to be a US citizen from an African country, and white. Anywhere north of the Sahara would do. The natives of Papua New Guinea are neither white nor American and they are by definition not African even if 60,000 or so years ago their ancestors (or most of them) were.
MartinJWillett 4 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett ok and do you think its possible that those white people there could have at least shared some genes with thier african ancestors? you advocate for racial differences, but are you aware of the percentage of difference among all people are less than one percent. Btw dont use the whole neanderthal argument againsed me, we both know they are not classified as homo sapiens, but we do share common genes with them too.
jo3jo3221 4 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 If Neanderthals are classed as a different species then the fact that some of our species are related to them and some are not is hardly good evidence that our species doesn't have any differences! I do not advocate racial differences, I acknowledge they exist and are not especially significant.
All humanity shares genes with Africans but that does not mean there are no differences or that we are all in any way variously bleached Negroes or that racists are wrong about everything.
MartinJWillett 4 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett and there is less than a 1% genetic difference between all of us
jo3jo3221 3 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 Approximately 4% of the DNA of non-Africans is from Neanderthals. Clearly both figures (1% total difference and 4% Neanderthal contribution) cannot be referring to the same thing or one of them isn't true. As there isn't a figure which could possibly get the anti-racists to say they were wrong it's as significant as arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@derrybear18 I take it biology is not your strong point.
SissingPyd 4 weeks ago
If you are a christian, and hold the bible to be true, then you are a racist. Right up front in the bible it states that god cursed cain (for murdering his brother) with a dark skin. Hence, since you hold the bible texts to be entirely true, then every time you see a person with dark skin, you are thinking that he is one of the group that are cursed by god.
What better racist comment or attitude than to believe that dark skinned people are cursed by your god.
grahambkk 3 months ago in playlist Race and IQ
Asians have higher IQs than Europeans, who have higher IQs than Africans, who have bigger dicks than Europeans, who have bigger dicks than Asians. Does that mean "The bigger your dick, the dumber you are " PS When referring to women we should use the analogy "Butt " So" the bigger a babes butt , the dumber she is" ???? Racism is fear-based.
arealbladeofgrass 4 months ago in playlist Race and IQ
@arealbladeofgrass It is an interesting correlation, I doubt it holds true to the point at which it would be a useful predictive tool for individuals, although I did have a job once where I was looking after children who were quite literally drooling imbeciles and I couldn't help noticing that one seemed to have some degree of phallic compensation for cephalic inadequacy.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett Maybe we're on to something here. I must say, I think my correlation holds as true as any other correlation one cares to propose. What I find equally interesting is that slaveholders saw the advantages of inter-breeding races. eg. Asian+ African or Asian +European + African ( mongrel) gave them strong intelligent breeds, that were far more useful than so-called pure race people. You get my drift methinks. What is a pure race anyway ? Freckley-faced red-heads maybe ?
arealbladeofgrass 4 months ago
@arealbladeofgrass There is something in crossing different races, in species where you can make such observations without being accused of being a monster the phrase used is crossbreed or hybrid vigour, outbreeding enhancement or heterosis. It apparently only works with the F1 hybrids (like Barack Obama and Lewis Hamilton) with much lesser effects when crossed crosses are crossed, although Brazilian women look rather hot to me.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
b@MartinJWillett Yeah ! I was thinking of Brazil when I made that comment. Israel has also got an amazing amount of seriously hot fanny !! Is there an example of a pure race or are they extinct, or is race a dynamic, evolutional, ever- changing, natural phenomena. No national or political movement has a monopoly on race. Basically, no one can lay claim to being pure of race except, naturally Red-haired, Freckle - faced beautiful Celtic, English/ Irish/ not Jewish individuals like myself !
arealbladeofgrass 4 months ago
Antiracist = antiwhite.....diversity is not a strength, its a weakness...AND race DOES exist.
Liberal douchebags don't believe this.
Also, only white people can be racist according to liberal douchebags.
FlankerVT 4 months ago
@FlankerVT What is a white person ?
arealbladeofgrass 4 months ago
@arealbladeofgrass What is a Jew?
j1mmyZeta 3 months ago
@j1mmyZeta Jews are an "ethno-religious" group much like Armenians, Croats, Mormons, Serbs, Tibetans and many others. Not all Jews are Semitic and Jews are not a race, so terms like anti-semitic or racism do not apply . Ethno-religious, google it ! Israel is therefore a Theocracy. And a Jewish Atheist ( Karl Marx ) is a misnomer like a Christian Atheist.
arealbladeofgrass 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arealbladeofgrass So, on that basis, you are saying that Jews are an ethnic group.
Was your question "What is a white person?" implying that white people aren't?
j1mmyZeta 3 months ago
@arealbladeofgrass I don't think you are right about the Jews being an 'ethno-religious' group. They are perhaps a 'Nation'. It is not a misnomer to refer to an atheist Jew, such as Karl Marx or Christopher Hitchens. They are no less Jewish for being atheist. I don't know if it was a typo but Israel is not a theocracy and never was, it was always secular.
ritchloui 1 month ago 2
@ritchloui Only Jews would refer to themselves as a nation. And once you have been labeled a Jew, because your mother was Jewish, there is no denying or escaping that fact, at least not according to Jewish doctrine. Jews are humans just like other humans. The rest is culturally, historically, politically, religiously based bullshit and it seems ironic that the Jews seem to be more nationalistic than the "Aryan" Nazis.
Wikipedia " Who is a Jew? " If you want to see what a farce it all is.
arealbladeofgrass 1 month ago
@arealbladeofgrass That's the whole point. Being Jewish isn't really a matter of choice, you are one whether you like it or not. You can hide it, deny it, be an atheist it is not your choice. In fact you can be entirely assimilated, as were most German Jews. Unlike our grizzly Muslim invaders who want to pretend it is racist to despise Islam; Islam is an ideology and a despicable one at that; openly treasonous toward their host countries and wish to see them become Islamic hellholes.
ritchloui 1 month ago 2
@arealbladeofgrass More nationalistic than "Aryan" Nazis? Are you fucking retarded? Read some books about Nazi Germany, then visit Israel. The differences are stark.
Pseudologic 1 month ago
@Pseudologic Could you suggest some books I could read that would inform me about Nazi Germany ? Maybe the ones you have read would do the trick.
arealbladeofgrass 1 month ago
@ritchloui I still believe Israel to be a theocracy much like the USA is "One nation under God" or " In God we trust" or "God bless America" and the fact that no U.S presidential candidate would ever admit to being atheist for fear of being shunned by the majority of voters. What about a Jew who was born in Ireland, brought up a catholic, emigrated to America and became a US citizen. Is that person still a Jew ?, and is it because Rabbinic law or Nazi doctrine determines it to be so ?..contd
arealbladeofgrass 1 month ago
@arealbladeofgrass It's crazy I know. Such a person could simply not tell anyone. Christiopher Hitchens mother took the secret to her grave, presumably hoping her children would never find out. He only found out after her death. Yes, the US is unlike any other advanced civilisation in its religious fanaticism. Freedom 'of religion' simply became a tax-free business model for frauds; the promise of an afterlife is just such a great product cos you don't have to deliver till the buyer is dead!
ritchloui 1 month ago 2
@arealbladeofgrass You seem to be obsessed with Jews. Add to that the gross intellectual negligence and you pass the moron test in my book.
Pseudologic 1 month ago
@j1mmyZeta Jews are a Nation, not a race or religion. They can and do believe what they like. There is a traditional religion, Judaism, that some ascribe to. However, there are many openly atheist Jews, agnostic Jews and anti-theist Jews. The Nazis made no distinction and there were no doubt many Jews who did not even know they were Jewish until the SS found out for them. This is the case today, in fact many Europeans are discovering they have Jewish ancestry that was kept utterly hidden.
ritchloui 1 month ago 2
my only issue with this woul be that I think IQ tests still have a long way to go.
Piatasify 4 months ago
@Piatasify Is that before they are acceptable to those who want to accept them or before they are acceptable to those who would not want ever to accept them just in case they prove what they require never to be proved?
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett What I mean is, iq tests are still to simple to determine something that is too complicated. This does not mean i want to invalidate the example as you use it, because it certainly can indicate something. I'm just weary of iq tests being used as a credential or a score seen as something permanent. I think it still needs a lot of tweeking while we still lack sufficient knowledge of how thinking really works.
Piatasify 4 months ago
If you, or anyone else, separates people into categories of race to determine or affirm that they should be treated differently or that 'equal opportunity' should not be adhered to, then you, or that anyone else, is racist.
The way you use the term 'scientific racism' is misleading. Scientific racism was a tool people used to separate races into categories to administer different treatment. It is not a scientist that uses race to identify a person.
MiIitantPeaceist 4 months ago
@MiIitantPeaceist Agreed. Affirmative action is racist. I am not a racist. I don't believe in absolute biological equality in anything so I react with scorn to those who claim that races can't exist BECAUSE all humans MUST be equal. There is no equality in nature in anything. Expecting equality or huge discrepancy is wrong. There must be overlapping bell curves, it could not be otherwise unless magic intervened. Equality of opportunity is always right, enforced equality of outcome is wrong.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
Don't want to be labelled a racist? Dont be a racist
Moragnth 4 months ago
@Moragnth That hasn't worked. It seems you can only prove you're not a witch by loudly denouncing a witch. And even then you can never be safe.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
Comment removed
ourhandsaretied 4 months ago
@ourhandsaretied Thank you removing that.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@Bornofbadger We are not equal, so quit lying and saying we are. What is wrong with that? Honesty is the best policy. Nothing is nature is equal.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett What are the racial differences/characteristics, I cannot think of any? Not physical differences but ones which have significants.
FairPhilip 4 months ago
@FairPhilip You claim you can't think of any therefore there can't be any and just to be sure races don't exist, they have got that agreed by a consensus so it must be true, and only racists would be interested in knowing such things anyway so there can't be any differences. Can there?
But still nobody has ever managed to demonstrate any equality, in any measure, at all and for good reason - there is no mechanism by which equality could be generated or maintained, regardless of the labels used.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett I'm very confused, so are there any significant differences between races; any significant enough to deny them equality?
How can you demonstrate equality is working?
FairPhilip 4 months ago
@FairPhilip Of course not. Denying people a chance to compete is absurd but expecting identical outcomes among all groups is equally absurd. Discrimination, positive or negative, is profoundly unfair. All should compete fairly as individuals and nobody should give a shit what happens to the groups - because people are not groups. If all individuals are treated fairly on their demonstrated merits that is fairness. Membership of a group should never buy special treatment, either better or worse.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett I agree!
FairPhilip 4 months ago
@FairPhilip Most people who have thumbed down this video
A] haven't watched it
and
B] haven't understood it.
But fuck'em, if I had to limit myself to expressing only ideas they could understand there wouldn't any point in taking my next breath.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett
A- watched it
B - Understood it
I agree to a degree but the differences heyruka and everyone speak of are not as prolific as they claim. They have no impact on people aside from social.
LegendaryAsshole 4 months ago
@LegendaryAsshole Not as big as they claim. Thank you. That is all I want to hear. It is so much better than people claiming there are no differences, there can't be, it's racist to think there could be, and unscientific and don't you know races don't exist scientifically and all this has been proved and how dare you suggest there could be any differences you NAZI BIGOT racist piece of shit.
Nothing in nature has ever been found to be equal. Imagining our species is an exception is absurd.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett You are losing focus...AGAIN. I admit there are differences, slight bone structure variation, nothing significant such as brain development. In that regard, regardless of ethnicity all human beings are inherently equal to all other human beings. The only significant differences are regarding abundance of resources. Difference exists, I never said it doesn't but that doesn't mean we arent all equal. to say anything to the contrary is disingenuous at best.
LegendaryAsshole 4 months ago
@LegendaryAsshole I am focussed on my beliefs and my opinions, I don't care about your focus. NOTHING is off limits for variation and therefore nothing in biology is inherently, by definition equal. Only a belief in the absence of evidence (faith) or magic could make it otherwise. Brains vary as much as any other organ and nothing exists which could ensure that such variation is uniform across this or any other species. If humanity is equal in brain power I would regard it as evidence for a god.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett There we go, there's why we can't agree. You drop logic and reason, evidence and fact when your OPINION and BELIEFS conflict.. We are done here.
LegendaryAsshole 4 months ago
Two ants drones are equal, two dogs of the same breed are equal, The list goes on,.
LegendaryAsshole 4 months ago
@LegendaryAsshole Similar. Not equal.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett Define equality.
LegendaryAsshole 4 months ago
@LegendaryAsshole
equality
n noun
1 the state of being equal.
2 Mathematics a symbolic expression of the fact that two quantities are equal; an equation.
Equality is for mathematical quantities, possibly legal systems, not biological entities. Equality doesn't belong in biology in the same way submission holds don't belong in chess.
MartinJWillett 4 months ago
@MartinJWillett Ah I see, you are being finicky with definitions you allow to be used. You need to learn to accept that people are free to use other definitions too.
LegendaryAsshole 4 months ago