Mikemikev

I think ad hoc non-sequitur attacks on concepts for political reasons qualifies as pseudoscience. Lewontin's fallacy is pretty lame science. We could also look at Franz Boas, who cherry picked data to claim racial head shape changed in different environments. That's pseudoscience.

Lol. I specifically noted a changing definition in the OP. Because it's demonstrably false. Pseudo means false.

None of this contradicts further subdivision. I know. I put Mayr's revised concept in the OP. Of course I have read Darwin. What suggested I hadn't? He is most known for a pseudoscientific idea. Are you familiar with it?

I've no idea what point you are trying to make.

Well that's another definition. As my OP makes clear there are several definitions, my OP references Darwin and Mayr, you reference some online dictionary. That's three different definitions. It's really the point: the concept is as defined. Arguing against something else is strawman. BTW you can divide mankind by ancestry or genetic similarity, no? Your dictionary suggests phenetics, also possible. Why not? Sure how many Marxist pseudoscientists are enough? Shall we start with Richard Lewontin? Well you could say we're all pond scum. At some level of analysis that's true. At a more recent level we split from Africans. You are focussing on a "true" level of analysis. There isn't one. Also OOA theory is questioned.

Well if that's how people define it, then yes they are. Your opinion that they "shouldn't" is of no interest.

How do you define race? Darwin defined it by ancestry. So do I. Why do you think you can tell people how to define words? Who defines it otherwise?

What does it mean for something to be a valid concept? How is race defined? How was it defined historically? What arguments invalidate it, if any? Are there similar concepts in other species? What is your view? My position is that race was historically defined by ancestry by Darwin. He contrasted descent with modification, and descent, and stated descent alone was preferable to describe human races. Mayr later supported genetic similarity regardless of descent as more informative. Both methods in practice are similar, and genetic similarity informs phylogeny. Marxist pseudoscientists have advanced a number of fallacious or arbitrary arguments to attempt to invalidate the idea. These often turn out to be made up rules or basic category fallacies. Sadly PBS tends to broadcast the pseudoscientists, so it has become popular belief. What arguments can contradict ancestry based classification in humans? Is there a more informative way of describing human variation?

Oh really? To me it looked like my premise was described as a slur. If it's not that's good to know. I remember I called some people morons. I apologised three times already. What was the other thing again please? Ah I've found it. I said someone was "incapable of addressing the question". This was after they asked me what psychological problems I had. I said they were making an ad hominem argument because they were incapable of addressing the question. You paint this as me making a personal attack. Should I apologise for that one? This is why you closed the thread? Where is the slur against groups?

What does that have to do with my observation? If an individual calls mentioning group differences in IQ a slur, that person has a problem with differential psychology, no matter how many PhDs are on your forum.

Just a simple yes or no to clarify your policy would be appreciated.

Quite. So the statement that races differ in average IQ is a slur prohibited on this forum?

I read it, it's a paraphrase of Nisbett. All of his points have been responded to in the literature, I gave an example in the OP. The point here is, why can't I respond? Otherwise your cheerleading is vacuous. I'm "ignorant"? Because you say so? No you are. Lol. I'm happy to correct you on these points. They deserve separate threads.

That the observation an individual or group has a low IQ is a slur. It's also a fact n'est pas? I guess you have a problem with differential psychology.

Yes, you gave those reasons before saying you were closing. The other points looked incidental. Your forum prohibits discussion of group differences?

I logged off 10.30 Friday and worked Saturday. How dare you accuse me of lying? Is there a 24 hour time limit on responses? I did define them. By ancestry and IQ. Why do people keep saying this? Does it work to confuse people so often you failed to notice I defined and operationalised both concepts?

Your stated reason was "Moderator Note I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this." if you are now changing this to the fact I made an insult ("OP made an insult. I am closing this"?) fine. I apologise, again, and will not do it again. There has been and will be no political points. Reopen please.

So you closed the thread because of one insult? Is that appropriate among mods here? Does my OP in this thread not show I am here for discussion. Let's be honest here, I made one insult after being subjected to a torrent of abuse. You closed the thread because it's "racist". Not because it's unscientific, or untrue. Not because I was illogical, ignorant or incorrect. That would be my opponents. But I was "racist". Can you explain what this word means?

I meant the OP in this thread. Also there was nothing unscientific in the race thread. Anyway, thanks for your input, you have been reasonable.

My OP here is perfectly sound. The abuse is transparent. If your forum does not allow discussion of race differences then it is your forum that is outside science.

Well it wasn't. Mod is clearly biased ("ridiculous premise") and cut me off before I could respond. The mod himself said there were "rational responses" so your analysis doesn't even make sense. So I had a busy Saturday. Do you normally allow under 24 hours for a response? Let's be frank here.

"Moderator Note I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this."

I have explained. To repeat, I brought up politics to explain politics was of no relevance to terminology in the Caucasian thread, after other posters brought up politics, namely bad things Whites did.

I still do not understand its relevance to this thread, which is about closing my other thread. The stated reasons were "ridiculous" and "rational responses". Was there some other unstated point? OP opposes White genocide in another thread perhaps? Not good enough I fear.

Exactly.