I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

But I was debating with people IRL (!) about this and I remember seeing a statement that I'm trying to figure out whether I like it or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Race is a social construct because it is an oversimplification of human genetic diversity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now I do...

Re: I can\'t beleive I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I was debating with people IRL (!) about this and I remember seeing a statement that I'm trying to figure out whether I like it or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Race is a social construct because it is an oversimplification of human genetic diversity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now I do...

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a view. One thing that seems certain is that people who make claims about race are entirely unable to give any sort of useful definition. Not even those who claim scientific conclusions.

chez

Re: I can\'t beleive I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I was debating with people IRL (!) about this and I remember seeing a statement that I'm trying to figure out whether I like it or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Race is a social construct because it is an oversimplification of human genetic diversity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now I do...

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a view. One thing that seems certain is that people who make claims about race are entirely unable to give any sort of useful definition. Not even those who claim scientific conclusions.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument form me there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Race is a social construct because it is an oversimplification of human genetic diversity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are species (we arbitrarily decide how much or what kind of difference it takes to call two different animals a different species).

So is every human concept. They're arbitrary forms of classifications designed for a particular use.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
So are species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Species according to Mayr - groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.

So, interspecies reproduction cannot make fertile offspring.
You see that as a construct?

Also, what's the designed use for classifications of race?

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.

So, interspecies reproduction cannot make fertile offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the latter just restating the former?
"reproductively isolated" = "cannot make fertile offspring".


cubes are stable. so, cubes don't push over easily.

seems like something is missing??

luckyme

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the latter just restating the former?
"reproductively isolated" = "cannot make fertile offspring".

[/ QUOTE ]

I intentionally restated it to pre-empt the liger argument.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Species according to Mayr - groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.

So, interspecies reproduction cannot make fertile offspring.
You see that as a construct?


[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly a construct. I have two different 'species' until I put them in geographical proximity and they interbreed. There a dozen different definitions of 'species' for the same reason there is no universally accepted definition of race.
[ QUOTE ]

Also, what's the designed use for classifications of race?

[/ QUOTE ]
Identification of members of the species most likely to share my genetic material, and hence to create offspring that tend to reproduce my genes.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

I agree with the statement in OP, but would rephrase it as following:


[ QUOTE ]
Race, as largely defined by skin color , is a social construct because it is an oversimplification of human genetic diversity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The division of humans into groups based predominantly on skin color is pretty arbitrary. H-omo (I can't believe it censors that word) sapiens could just as easily, and perhaps more usefully, be divided into groups based on lactose-intolerance, in which case North Africans and Swedes would be one group, and Sub-Saharan Africans and Asians would be another.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I was debating with people IRL (!) about this and I remember seeing a statement that I'm trying to figure out whether I like it or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Race is a social construct because it is an oversimplification of human genetic diversity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now I do...

[/ QUOTE ]

Is 'pit bull' a social construct? I know exactly what it means when I see the name. I don't give a rip if the genetic difference between a pit and a poodle is tiny, the information in the pit bull designation is quite valuable. I know that this small segment of the species correlates with certain behaviors. Ignore this at your peril.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is 'pit bull' a social construct? I know exactly what it means when I see the name. I don't give a rip if the genetic difference between a pit and a poodle is tiny, the information in the pit bull designation is quite valuable. I know that this small segment of the species correlates with certain behaviors. Ignore this at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. It is a valuable construct for avoiding sneaky Chinamen, greedy Jews, violent blacks, etc.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly a construct. I have two different 'species' until I put them in geographical proximity and they interbreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss the point that they cannot produce fertile offspring?

[ QUOTE ]
Identification of members of the species most likely to share my genetic material, and hence to create offspring that tend to reproduce my genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kin selection is dependent on close relatives. You're drifting into Washburn's fallacy here. "Race as an extended family" for the purposes of kin selection has been rejected by evolutionary scientists. Look at Maynard Smith's stuff or Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for explanations.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

I like the fix.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is 'pit bull' a social construct? I know exactly what it means when I see the name. I don't give a rip if the genetic difference between a pit and a poodle is tiny, the information in the pit bull designation is quite valuable. I know that this small segment of the species correlates with certain behaviors. Ignore this at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. It is a valuable construct for avoiding sneaky Chinamen, greedy Jews, violent blacks, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done. Backhandedly lable me racist and ignore my post's content. Very progressive. You're in good company.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the latter just restating the former?
"reproductively isolated" = "cannot make fertile offspring".

[/ QUOTE ]

I intentionally restated it to pre-empt the liger argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Race' as a classification suffers from tha lack of useful definability.
Black Race - has black skin.
"what's different about them"
Their skin is black.

We can categorize anything, but until there are some spin-off information that is meaningful to us, that's all we've done is create a category.

'Species' as tough as it is to define, serves us by making evolutionary and genetic study easier to work with.

To use the Pit Bull example . To divide them into Brown and Black Pit Bulls, while it's an identifiable category, doesn't give us anything to work with because nothing comes with it. We merely end up looking at two groups of dogs, one brown on black.

Race is much worse. Coming up with a clear definition seem next to impossible and by the time it's broad enough to cover the groups involved it loses most ( all?) of it's secondary information and we are essentally left at the 'Black people are black' starting gate.

luckyme

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is 'pit bull' a social construct? I know exactly what it means when I see the name. I don't give a rip if the genetic difference between a pit and a poodle is tiny, the information in the pit bull designation is quite valuable. I know that this small segment of the species correlates with certain behaviors. Ignore this at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. It is a valuable construct for avoiding sneaky Chinamen, greedy Jews, violent blacks, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done. Backhandedly lable me racist and ignore my post's content. Very progressive. You're in good company.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

Also, I'm assuming that the "in good company" remark refers to the irritating habit liberals have of correctly identifying someone as a racist when they're behaving that way. I'm sure you must be sick of it.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Race is a social construct because it is an oversimplification of human genetic diversity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are species (we arbitrarily decide how much or what kind of difference it takes to call two different animals a different species).

So is every human concept. They're arbitrary forms of classifications designed for a particular use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but in this case they were either designed for sinister uses or are being misapplied. The idea that intragroup variation is higher than intergroup variation is what people mean when they say race does not exist. That is all.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

race is a social construct.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

I find myself agreeing with everything Rduke has said in this thread.

It seems to me that the only purpose race serves is racial profiling. So if you agree with the latter, then race is a necessary social construct.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correlation does not equal causation. There are parts of Russia that are many times more dangerous statistically than urban American centers. Are the residents of these areas black? (Hint: no.)

Let me also ask you, would you feel more likely to be mugged by a black man who makes $100,000 a year, or a low-income white?

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

I just don't see how race can be anything but a social construct since nobody can come up with any genetically based classification system for race.

Also, HeavilyArmed, I don't get it. You make your pit bull argument, someone calls you out for advocating a racist viewpoint, you get pissed off and take offense, but then you completely admit that you actually do hold that viewpoint.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part is obvious to the point of being absurd. White flight in no way supports your argument.

The problem I see with racial profiling is analogous to issues with medical screening tests. If the risk for a woman having breast cancer is 5%, and we have a diagnostic test that is 80% effective, a positive result means she is STILL unlikely to have cancer. So, the question is: Does your screening test (black or not, for example) have a higher sensitivity for crime than 80% or does your population (all black people) have a higher incidence of criminality than 5%? I think both of those are obvious no's. So, while it may be entirely valid that a positive result for 'being black' modifies the risk of criminality, it is still overwhelmingly unlikely they are a criminal.

For this reason, most medical societies would never recommend screening tests like the above (most of the screening tests we use either have better sensitivity or the prior risk is higher) or at the very least using them cautiously. The reason I would be opposed to racial profiling is not because of its statistical inaccuracy, necessarily (after all, it has some outcome as long as its done correctly) but the ACTIONS that are then taken from that. We just don't modify the risk enough to really justify ANY sort of action that could have negative consequences (like alienating an entire group of people, trampling on liberty, etc.)

Maybe I am in the minority here, but if this test conferred something like a 98% sensitivity, I would be in favor of it. The amount of discomfort would clearly be justified IMO by the amazing efficacy of the test. We could dramatically cut crime. But this is nowhere near the case.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correlation does not equal causation. There are parts of Russia that are many times more dangerous statistically than urban American centers. Are the residents of these areas black? (Hint: no.)

Let me also ask you, would you feel more likely to be mugged by a black man who makes $100,000 a year, or a low-income white?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know if I like this argument. I mean, its obviously valid, but in a meaningless way. Yes, the low-income white is going to be far more likely to commit a crime. But HA is supposing that the only readily-available metric is their race (or skin color if you prefer, which I do). So, sure, it would be better to do something like "Complete Profiling," but that is not feasible, whereas racial profiling (barely) is. So you really have to argue RP on its own merits, not simply compare it to a better, ideal and unfeasible alternative.

To continue my analogy, wouldn't complete excisional biopsy detect breast cancer far better than mammography? Of course, but we aren't going to just start cutting everyone open, we have to decide if mammograms are worth the cost(downside).

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

Does anybody have crime statistics for poor whites vs. poor blacks? I would be very interested in the numbers on that one.

And RDuke I'm sorry this thread has gotten away from your initial question, but that tends to happen in discussions about race.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
And RDuke I'm sorry this thread has gotten away from your initial question, but that tends to happen in discussions about race.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly does, which is why I almost didn't post the OP.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to some extent, I am with him. I mean, its valid as long as it confers some properties and allows for some differentiation. Categorizing "American blacks vs. American non-blacks" definitely confers some differences and is 'valid.' Its really a question of HOW valid. Is it the most useful? I'd say there are many more useful groupings, depending on what you are trying to measure (although if its skin pigment, this is probably a pretty decent one).

I don't know if this is 'scientifically' valid, but it is defnitely statistically valid. Its just not 'very' valid for determining things like criminality.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to some extent, I am with him. I mean, its valid as long as it confers some properties and allows for some differentiation. Categorizing "American blacks vs. American non-blacks" definitely confers some differences and is 'valid.' Its really a question of HOW valid. Is it the most useful? I'd say there are many more useful groupings, depending on what you are trying to measure (although if its skin pigment, this is probably a pretty decent one).

I don't know if this is 'scientifically' valid, but it is defnitely statistically valid. Its just not 'very' valid for determining things like criminality.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big point we're getting away from is that I'm talking genetic classifications. Also, I'm not talking about other levels of groupings (ethnicity, etc.), I'm talking about "race".
If someone wants to say american blacks score lower on standardized tests then there are a number of very good possible reasons for that which have nothing to do with genetics. That's a different subject.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to some extent, I am with him. I mean, its valid as long as it confers some properties and allows for some differentiation. Categorizing "American blacks vs. American non-blacks" definitely confers some differences and is 'valid.' Its really a question of HOW valid. Is it the most useful? I'd say there are many more useful groupings, depending on what you are trying to measure (although if its skin pigment, this is probably a pretty decent one).

I don't know if this is 'scientifically' valid, but it is defnitely statistically valid. Its just not 'very' valid for determining things like criminality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking biological/genetic classifications. Also, I'm not talking about other levels of groupings (ethnicity, etc.) I'm talking about "race".

[/ QUOTE ]

But then we are back at the beginning. Race is useful as long as you have a useful definition of race. I agree with you that we currently do not have one, and that what most people think of when they think about race is really just skin color, or some other sort of superficial characteristic that probably conveys very little information about other similarities.

Considering I have a genetics exam in like 20 hours, I am a FAR bigger fan of the 'ethnicity' characterization than I am the 'race' one. Ashkenazi Jews are the greatest thing ever to happen to genetics students, they are ALWAYS the answer.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
But then we are back at the beginning. Race is useful as long as you have a useful definition of race. I agree with you that we currently do not have one, and that what most people think of when they think about race is really just skin color, or some other sort of superficial characteristic that probably conveys very little information about other similarities.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more my point. Also, you got my post before I edited it.

[ QUOTE ]
Considering I have a genetics exam in like 20 hours, I am a FAR bigger fan of the 'ethnicity' characterization than I am the 'race' one. Ashkenazi Jews are the greatest thing ever to happen to genetics students, they are ALWAYS the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

A problem I've run into in these discussions on this board is people not understanding differences between smaller groupings, such as ethnicity, and race as commonly defined.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But then we are back at the beginning. Race is useful as long as you have a useful definition of race. I agree with you that we currently do not have one, and that what most people think of when they think about race is really just skin color, or some other sort of superficial characteristic that probably conveys very little information about other similarities.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more my point. Also, you got my post before I edited it.

[ QUOTE ]
Considering I have a genetics exam in like 20 hours, I am a FAR bigger fan of the 'ethnicity' characterization than I am the 'race' one. Ashkenazi Jews are the greatest thing ever to happen to genetics students, they are ALWAYS the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

A problem I've run into in these discussions on this board is people not understanding differences between smaller groupings, such as ethnicity, and race as commonly defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is that really their fault? I mean, race is popularly defined to suit whatever ideologue happens to be sermonizing at the moment. I am not even sure that my own, first-impression understanding of what race is is actually the correct one. But I'm pretty comfortable simply dismissing it in general, and sticking with the far more useful (and similarly easy-to-determine) classifications of ethnicities. It is far more important for me to know that a person is French-Canadian than it is to know that they are caucasian, and its (generally) just as easy to find out. Look at them, they are white. Ask them, they are French-Canadian. The enormous difference in the usefulness of the two classifications makes the tiny task of asking or determining ethnicity well, well worth it.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

How about we restate the question as the following:

Is separating people by skin color and facial features a socially constructed way of classifying humanity?

I say yes since those particular features don't tell us anything else about a person's genes.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about we restate the question as the following:

Is separating people by skin color and facial features a socially constructed way of classifying humanity?

I say yes since those particular features don't tell us anything else about a person's genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course, but that isn't really the question you are asking. What we want to know is if it is an obvious and useful classification, from a genetic standpoint. And the answer is probably no. Its an obvious one from a superficial, 'social' standpoint though. Its probably not a useful one at either of those levels.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correlation does not equal causation. There are parts of Russia that are many times more dangerous statistically than urban American centers. Are the residents of these areas black? (Hint: no.)

Let me also ask you, would you feel more likely to be mugged by a black man who makes $100,000 a year, or a low-income white?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't live in or plan to go to Russia. I'll also ignore the tortured 'logic' involved in your analogy. I already dismissed the idea of causation as not bearing on this issue. You failed to address a single question I asked, no surprise. You are an excellent parrot. Your professors are no doubt proud. Your parents, not so much.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correlation does not equal causation. There are parts of Russia that are many times more dangerous statistically than urban American centers. Are the residents of these areas black? (Hint: no.)

Let me also ask you, would you feel more likely to be mugged by a black man who makes $100,000 a year, or a low-income white?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't live in or plan to go to Russia. I'll also ignore the tortured 'logic' involved in your analogy. I already dismissed the idea of causation as not bearing on this issue. You failed to address a single question I asked, no surprise. You are an excellent parrot. Your professors are no doubt proud. Your parents, not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

For as much as you complain about parroting and shallow thinking, you make essentially this same exact response in nearly every thread you post in. You say something that you know will elicit emotional response, and then dole out your canned retort, basically some random combination of 'college professor, liberal, race card, mindless and naive.' Are you an attempt at a Turing machine?

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correlation does not equal causation. There are parts of Russia that are many times more dangerous statistically than urban American centers. Are the residents of these areas black? (Hint: no.)

Let me also ask you, would you feel more likely to be mugged by a black man who makes $100,000 a year, or a low-income white?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't live in or plan to go to Russia. I'll also ignore the tortured 'logic' involved in your analogy. I already dismissed the idea of causation as not bearing on this issue. You failed to address a single question I asked, no surprise. You are an excellent parrot. Your professors are no doubt proud. Your parents, not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

For as much as you complain about parroting and shallow thinking, you make essentially this same exact response in nearly every thread you post in. You say something that you know will elicit emotional response, and then dole out your canned retort, basically some random combination of 'college professor, liberal, race card, mindless and naive.' Are you an attempt at a Turing machine?

[/ QUOTE ]

And also, you tend to ignore the posts which actually challenge your points and instead choose to respond only to the weak-sister, easy-target posts as in the above example. No doubt this post will draw your ire.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how race can be anything but a social construct since nobody can come up with any genetically based classification system for race.

Also, HeavilyArmed, I don't get it. You make your pit bull argument, someone calls you out for advocating a racist viewpoint, you get pissed off and take offense, but then you completely admit that you actually do hold that viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

The modern play is to call 'racist' and that ends the argument. Turns out this joker was just that, an empty suit, no back up, no ideas.

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You say something that you know will elicit emotional response, and then dole out your canned retort, basically some random combination of 'college professor, liberal, race card, mindless and naive.'

[/ QUOTE ]

It's kinda like a freeway car wreck. I just can't help but look. SOme day I'll tire sparing with the indoctinated youth.

There's 'ignore' you know. What's your excuse?

Re: I can\'t believe I\'m starting a race thread...
 

I cringe any time I see the words "social construct."

Race exists. It is beyond ignorant to deny this. Take some human children from any country or culture in the world. It doesn't matter what society they are from, or whether they've even had any exposure to people of a different race. Show them, individually, a few slides of black people and tell them that these people are "black." Show them some slides of chinese people and tell them that these people are "asian." Show them some American wasps and tell them that these people are "white." Now show them various images of people and ask them to identify whether they are black, white or asian. Common sense should tell you that, even in the absence of an explanation of what race is, each answer will have an extremely significant percentage (I'd guess 90% or more) indicating what race the person is. Nesrly all the children will identify Jerry Seinfeld as white, Chris Rock as black, and Jet Li as asian, regardless of the context of the picture.

I know this test has been done before, and I'm not even going to bother looking for it because it is so painfully obvious. If children of different societies repeatedly show the ability to identify something with great agreement, then there must be something there.

Just because race isn't identified by a scientifically functional, discontinuous property (like species) does not mean that it does not exist. It's a readily identifiable phenotype that any five year old can understand. If civilization hadn't exploded when it did, the races would have speciated too. Are we to believe that inter-group phenotype differences do not exist until the arbitrary point when they can no longer produce fertile offspring?

Mainstream academia does a great disservice to society by making such idiotic claims like "race does not exist." Yes, racism is a problem. It has existed in every multi-cultural society in the history of the world. Is trying to pretend that race doesn't exist really the solution? I don't think so.