Sammy Boy

Ignorant BS? Ironic. Aren't vacuous posts like this moderated here? So you don't actually bother to find out how your opponent defines race, make up some stupid definition yourself, and then dismiss it as stupid? There's a name for that kind of argument. Who defines race like this? Can you find any examples? Can you find examples of people ending up with wildly different race groupings based on using one or two randomly selected traits? Other than strawman constructing race denying sophists. For example Blumenbach wrote of the importance of using large numbers of non metric traits in combination, especially idiosyncratic and superficial heritable traits which reliably indicate shared ancestry. Darwin echoed this. Neither of them wrote "hey guys let's randomly select one or two traits to infer ancestry lol". Presumably you are unaware of the relevant passages in either. Race scholars aren't. No race scholar has produced any grouping significantly different from the classic Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid first approximation. Your objection seems purely theoretical and detached from any data. Further is a classification based on one or two traits not a biological construct? I get it's arbitrary and pointless, and only used in the context of lame strawman arguments, but why not biological? How are you defining a biological construct? Eye-color is a biological attribute right? So an "eye-color/body-weight race" would be stupid and arbitrary and never used by any serious scientist, but it would be a biological construct.

No, ceteris paribus, all other things being equal. According to my opponent "biodiversity is good" (it's science). Therefore taking the example of IQ genes where the gene reduces IQ and has no other effects, is that biodiversity good? Is it possible that sometimes biodiversity is bad? More precisely he said eugenics (good breeding) is bad because "biodiversity" is good. Is that something you agree with?

So a high IQ population should try to increase the number of genetic morons to increase diversity? Where did "science" make this argument? Are you sure it's not an ethnic political interest based piece of nonsense? "But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive." — Richard Dawkins. All mutations increase your precious "diversity" right? But I thought most of them were deleterious, or in other words reducing fitness. In other words still they were garbage that needed to be removed. But they increased the precious "diversity". I'm confused now. You said "science" agrees with your opinion. That's what's confusing me. It's hard to argue with people who say the word science, even when they appear to be a total moron. Now I'm really getting confused. Science said diversity was good, and I agree because I saw that on TV. But Motoo Kimura calculated this. "Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral." What's going on?

I'd say it's Jewish monopolization of finance which they use to monopolise media and academia to push fake news and fake science in purely Jewish interests, while calling people "anti Semitic" for pointing out this neutral fact and their anti White pro Jewish lies. You might as well call Gandhi "anti British" for objecting to selfish British rule. This book has some good info. url deleted

Lol there's more variation within some species than between them. http://muse.jhu.edu/article/381884/pdf Did you really not know that? Did it not occur to you to check whether variation in other taxa were similar? Does every single piece of DNA have to be different to constitute a different subspecies? Does that make sense given your vast knowledge of biology? Care to admit you're wrong before changing the subject? The AAA board was stacked with leftists and put out that statement with no membership voting. http://en.rightpedia.info/w/American_Anthropological_Association_Statement_on_"Race" (link appears broken due to length, copy paste) Doubtless we're now going to run in circles through all of the race denial fallacies. http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races Fake science, fake everything. Sad.

Race is a biological construct defined by ancestry like other taxa. Biology means the study of living things. Any construct using attributes of living things is by definition biological. The whole "social construct" thing is sophistry meant to imply arbitrary and unimportant. Ancestry is highly correlated with genetic similarity, and genetic similarity allows highly predictive inferences. When you notice variation correlates in humans, it's not an optical illusion. It's a real predictive phenomenon. Classifications based on arbitrary traits are not predictive. Classifications based on ancestry are highly predictive. Here are some actual scientists using the biological construct in a recent interesting paper. http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/06/184853.1 Is it a "social construct"? It's exactly the same as the Darwinian ancestry based race concept and still in use. The virtue signalling SJW pseudoscientists on this forum will lie it's based on "skin color", the differences are "small" based on nothing, they'll sloganeer about "one race the human race" as if categories don't subdivide. They're just liars parroting Marxist slogans because it's fashionable and/or they're afraid of getting Watsonned. Needless to say people like me will be banned from their echo chamber.