Race Realism

[JimC]

Simply, there are no reproductive boundaries whatsoever between any of the geographically variable groups of humans. None. Zilch.

And, the evidence suggests their were no major barriers to reproduction between modern humans, Neanderthals or Denisovians, all of which had much greater differences than between any of the human variants today.

[Hermit]

Galaxian wrote:
In other words, the cross-mating of non-viable sub-species, in humans as elsewhere...

What utter bullshit. There is simply no populations of humans, anywhere, that have reduced fertility with any other group of humans.
Period.

Above pile of "utter bullshit" donated by someone who boasts; "To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research"

Says the man who in all earnestness claims to "visit Mars from time to time", as well as "the more interesting parts of the Solar System" and gets "Paid a good hourly rate as a bonus!" for doing so to boot.

Glaxative, I take the word of someone who has taught science at high school for 40 years rather more readily than a batshit crazy lunatic.

As someone said: "Some are born ignorant. Some attain to ignorance. Some have ignorance thrust upon them. And some are all three"

Let me reply in kind: "It is futile to attempt a discussion with people whose wilful ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance."

[L'Emmerdeur]

No. Galaxian is married to an Rh- hominin.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... lood-group
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... lood-group
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... .tb01926.x

If this is meant as evidence in support of the concept of races, it's a failure. The Rh negative blood factor is found all over the world. A higher prevalence in some populations does not mean that those populations are a different race, nor that those with Rh negative blood within a population are a different race than their neighbors. For instance, Rh negative can be found among the Highland Scots. However nobody (except perhaps you) considers Highland Scots with Rh negative blood to be a different race than Highland Scots with Rh positive blood.

[rainbow]

If this is meant as evidence in support of the concept of races, it's a failure.

Epic.



The blood argument blows the racist idea right out of the water.

Genotype and Phenotype (perceived races) don't correlate.

[NineBerry]

Which blood type do Reptiloids have? You have to factor that in!

[Galaxian]

Look Galaxian mate. You may have shifted your ground away from 'race' and onto 'sub-species' but if your contention that the two terms are functional synonyms, such that a human race is a sub-species of humans, and that races/sub-species of humans exist, then you should be able to articulate the conditions or factors which distinguish one race/sub-species from another generally and how those conditions or factors are expressed in the human population specifically. And when I say 'you should be able to articulate it' I mean YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE IT rather than obliging others to do the leg work of trying to figure out how some asserted self-evident truth is supposed to operate from a series of seemingly random YouTube videos. In other words, taking others to task for not accepting an objective claim depends upon demonstrating the terms in which the claim might be objectively true in circumstances where merely having an opinion echoed by the opinions of others does not render a claim, assertion or declarative statement true or factual or demonstrable by default.

You've been asked for this kind of scrutable definition over and over and have failed at every turm to meet that basic challenge, and consequently you have, by your own hand, rooted your 'argument' in the realm of blind assertion and opinion only.

If race exists then what is the race of a person who is the offspring of a Native Australian and an Inuit, and what is the race of the offspring of that individual and someone whose parents were, for example, Ndebele and Tuvan? What and where are the non-permiable boundaries between races?

Firstly, I have always stipulated that race & sub-species are one & the same... they are merely synonyms.

The banal proposition of "what is the race of a person who is the offspring of a Native Australian and an Inuit" is caused by not grasping the difference between species & subspecies. Subspecies or race is not inability to hybridize (that is kept for species). Subspecies or race is the unwillingness to hybridize or mate. So, a true native Australian (there are many mimics or pretenders) does not generally want to cross-fertilize with an Inuit (& vice versa). IF they did, and had viable offspring, then the progeny would be a hybrid, as you can see in Afro-Caucasians. They are hybrids.

By the way; if two creatures are classed as separate species, but actually hybridize (under natural insemination), then it is obvious that the classification was wrong, and they're actually merely sub-species.

You evidently make a distinctions between human cross-breeds & other animal cross-breeds. It is YOU who needs to define why Leopards (Panthera pardus} & Jaguars (Panthera onca) are defined as different sub-species; hybrid Leguar, or dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris) & coyotes (Canis latrans) arising in the hybrid Coydogs. The above hybrids are, like the human ones, generally fertile.

You may also think about the humanzee hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee widespread in native anecdotes & written about in successful research.

So please stop beating your dead horse about what is the race or subspecies of a mating between various distinct human populations. They are hybrids, exactly the same as happens between other distinct animal races/subspecies. There's no mystery about it. None whatsoever.

[pErvinalia]

It is YOU who needs to define why Leopards (Panthera pardus} & Jaguars (Panthera onca) are defined as different sub-species

No they're not. You can tell by the fact they have different species names.

[Brian Peacock]

Look Galaxian mate. You may have shifted your ground away from 'race' and onto 'sub-species' but if your contention that the two terms are functional synonyms, such that a human race is a sub-species of humans, and that races/sub-species of humans exist, then you should be able to articulate the conditions or factors which distinguish one race/sub-species from another generally and how those conditions or factors are expressed in the human population specifically. And when I say 'you should be able to articulate it' I mean YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE IT rather than obliging others to do the leg work of trying to figure out how some asserted self-evident truth is supposed to operate from a series of seemingly random YouTube videos. In other words, taking others to task for not accepting an objective claim depends upon demonstrating the terms in which the claim might be objectively true in circumstances where merely having an opinion echoed by the opinions of others does not render a claim, assertion or declarative statement true or factual or demonstrable by default.

You've been asked for this kind of scrutable definition over and over and have failed at every turm to meet that basic challenge, and consequently you have, by your own hand, rooted your 'argument' in the realm of blind assertion and opinion only.

If race exists then what is the race of a person who is the offspring of a Native Australian and an Inuit, and what is the race of the offspring of that individual and someone whose parents were, for example, Ndebele and Tuvan? What and where are the non-permiable boundaries between races?

Firstly, I have always stipulated that race & sub-species are one & the same... they are merely synonyms.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The banal proposition of "what is the race of a person who is the offspring of a Native Australian and an Inuit" is caused by not grasping the difference between species & subspecies. Subspecies or race is not inability to hybridize (that is kept for species). Subspecies or race is the unwillingness to hybridize or mate. So, a true native Australian (there are many mimics or pretenders) does not generally want to cross-fertilize with an Inuit (& vice versa). IF they did, and had viable offspring, then the progeny would be a hybrid, as you can see in Afro-Caucasians. They are hybrids.

OK, so you say the offspring in that scenario are hybrids, or of 'mixed race' as we used to say (and some still do), but besides the terminology your suggested hybridisation still requires a categorisation of 'varieties of humans' to hybridise from. At this point you have stoically resisted explaining, even in broad terms, what factor or factors do or might distinguish one variety of human from another. Perhaps you'd like to have a stab at that now?

By the way; if two creatures are classed as separate species, but actually hybridize (under natural insemination), then it is obvious that the classification was wrong, and they're actually merely sub-species.

Not really, but you're still not answering the question. If you cannot classify the distinctions between the varieties of humans then in what terms can you classify the hybrid, let alone the more distant varieties of humans in my example which concerned the category or class of the resultant hybridisation of the hybridisation of hybrids from the top-level class you call a race or a sub-species?

Now while I happy to accept, at least for the sake of argument, that there may be some non-hybridised populations of humans, populations that we might be able to say are 'racially pure' so to speak, discrete populations which don't interbreed with other populations, populations which don't hybridise (you get the picture I'm sure), what are the factors which distinguish them from all different but similarly 'racially pure' populations? In other words, and yet again, what and where are those non-permiable boundaries between those top-level populations that we need to define in order to safely categorise them as 'races' in their own right and/or their progeny as a subordinate hybrid class, category, or group?

You evidently make a distinctions between human cross-breeds & other animal cross-breeds. It is YOU who needs to define why Leopards (Panthera pardus} & Jaguars (Panthera onca) are defined as different sub-species; hybrid Leguar, or dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris) & coyotes (Canis latrans) arising in the hybrid Coydogs. The above hybrids are, like the human ones, generally fertile.

I do not need to do that because I have made no claims to that effect. I am not disputing the general scientific taxonomical systems used to categorise plants or animals, I'm asking you to provide the defining factors which justify your personal taxonomies placing particular humans populations into categories called 'races', which you now have to do in order to also justify your claims to the existence of so-called hybrid populations of humans.

You may also think about the humanzee hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee widespread in native anecdotes & written about in successful research.

So please stop beating your dead horse about what is the race or subspecies of a mating between various distinct human populations. They are hybrids, exactly the same as happens between other distinct animal races/subspecies. There's no mystery about it. None whatsoever.

The deceased ungulate I am expending calories on is the one of asking you to support your claim that races exist by demonstrating the factor or factors which do or might distinguish one so-called race from another.

But I'm happy to throw you a bone here: if races exist, such that we can reliably determine either the race category of any individual or their level of hybridisation in relation to that asserted higher order category, then might we find those distinguishing factors between individuals in such areas as anatomy, bio-chemistry, or geography, or perhaps by a combination of those or similar factors - and if so what are those factors?

In other words, would you care to answer the question now? II await your reply with earnest indifference.

[rainbow]

Firstly, I have always stipulated that race & sub-species are one & the same... they are merely synonyms.

...and you've always been wrong. Stop repeating the same old drivel, nobody is impressed by idiotic statements.

[Galaxian]

No. Galaxian is married to an Rh- hominin.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... lood-group
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... lood-group
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... .tb01926.x

If this is meant as evidence in support of the concept of races, it's a failure. The Rh negative blood factor is found all over the world. A higher prevalence in some populations does not mean that those populations are a different race, nor that those with Rh negative blood within a population are a different race than their neighbors. For instance, Rh negative can be found among the Highland Scots. However nobody (except perhaps you) considers Highland Scots with Rh negative blood to be a different race than Highland Scots with Rh positive blood.

There are some on this forum that I don't bother interacting with, such as Hermit. Their posts are sooo inane that one should not dignify them with a reply.
But here, L'Emmerdeur proves that he does NOT know the definition of 'species' or 'subspecies/race'. He thinks that it's restricted to colour of skin. That's why he says that Rh+ & Rh- (in Scotland) are the same race... because they're both white! One does not and can not argue with such retardation. The person who made it is either stupid or pretends to be, because of innate bigotry. Galaxian may as well go out into a field & expalin things to the sheep. They just bleat & run in all directions.

Epic.



The blood argument blows the racist idea right out of the water.
Genotype and Phenotype (perceived races) don't correlate.

rainbow, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If that's true, your knowledge is very little & very dangerous!
It must be obvious that histo-incompatibility leads to a divergence of organism characteristics. Otherwise we'd all still be the same as the primordial origin. But then, perhaps it's only obvious to those endowed with sufficient intellect, eh?
Galaxian doesn't give a rat's arse. Educating a soon to be extinct species doesn't interest me

[Galaxian]

...But I'm happy to throw you a bone here: if races exist, such that we can reliably determine either the race category of any individual or their level of hybridisation in relation to that asserted higher order category, then might we find those distinguishing factors between individuals in such areas as anatomy, bio-chemistry, or geography, or perhaps by a combination of those or similar factors - and if so what are those factors?
In other words, would you care to answer the question now? II await your reply with earnest indifference.

Repeat:

The banal proposition of "what is the race of a person who is the offspring of a Native Australian and an Inuit" is caused by not grasping the difference between species & subspecies. Subspecies or race is not inability to hybridize (that is kept for species). Subspecies or race is the unwillingness to hybridize or mate. So, a true native Australian (there are many mimics or pretenders) does not generally want to cross-fertilize with an Inuit (& vice versa). IF they did, and had viable offspring, then the progeny would be a hybrid, as you can see in Afro-Caucasians. They are hybrids.
...By the way; if two creatures are classed as separate species, but actually hybridize (under natural insemination), then it is obvious that the classification was wrong, and they're actually merely sub-species.
...You evidently make a distinctions between human cross-breeds & other animal cross-breeds. It is YOU who needs to define why Leopards (Panthera pardus} & Jaguars (Panthera onca) are defined as different sub-species; hybrid Leguar, or dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris) & coyotes (Canis latrans) arising in the hybrid Coydogs. The above hybrids are, like the human ones, generally fertile.

Sub-species have a spread of multiple factors that dominate in one or the other. It's true for both human & other animals.

You cannot hide behind the vague arm-waving that you have not made this or that claim. The Principle of Mediocrity stipulates that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Otherwise you're making false demarcations to suit a political agenda. That's pure & simple religiosity; a social justice warrior, new-age, born-again woo. Galaxian doesn't buy into that nonsense, no matter who was the ignoramus that you got it from, with how many letters after his/her name. There's been plenty of crap that has flowed under the bridge, and plenty more to come... just ask Greta Thunberg!

[pErvinalia]

Shouldn't you be on Mars or something?

[rainbow]

rainbow, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Indeed you know so little that you're only a danger to yourself.

Was the map too complicated for you to understand?

[rainbow]

Galaxian may as well go out into a field & expalin things to the sheep. They just bleat & run in all directions.

Indeed. Keep to your intellectual equals.

[JimC]

All this pretend science crap is just camouflage; a racist arsehole is a racist arsehole...