Stefan Molyneux Exposed.

[Stosh]

Why is anyone saying anything after I posted the final truth of the matter? 

[Apech]

57 minutes ago, Brian said:

Ignoring for the moment that inconvenient "often" in the bolded Wiki quote -- and ignoring that no one has claimed "race" or "breed" equate to "species" -- I find it somewhat disturbing that you apparently see no difference between a dachshund and a mastiff, or between a Percheron and a Shetland.

 

When did I say that?

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

I read somewhere but cannot remember where, that dogs have a genetic makeup which makes them especially able to produce morphological variety beyond other mammals.  The different breeds of dogs are all essentially dogs and can interbreed hence the existence of mongrels -  so yes they are essentially the same.

 

Oh and I don't speak butterfly so I can't ask them if they agree or not.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Brian said:

A Percheron:

 

A Shetland:

 

5 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

When did I say that?

I suggest they are not essentially the same.  Acknowledging that distinctions exist between breeds of horses is important if you want one to help you plow a field or pack coal out of a mine, for example...

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

 

 

I suggest they are not essentially the same.  Acknowledging that distinctions exist between breeds of horses is important if you want one to help you plow a field or pack coal out of a mine, for example...

 

 

Essentially meaning basically they are all horses - or all dogs??? You don't agree???

 

Perhaps it would help if you say what you think the races of man are.  Then I can get some idea of your point of view.

[Brian]

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

Essentially meaning basically they are all horses - or all dogs??? You don't agree???

 

Perhaps it would help if you say what you think the races of man are.  Then I can get some idea of your point of view.

The argument was that intraspecies distinctions are cultural fabrications.  I say that's politically-correct nonsense -- that's all.

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

The argument was that intraspecies distinctions are cultural fabrications.  I say that's politically-correct nonsense -- that's all.

 

I don't remember saying that.  So ... tell me what the races of man are.  How many are there and how do you define them?

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

Why is anyone saying anything after I posted the final truth of the matter? 

 

 

Forgive me for posting oh mighty Stosh!

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

I don't remember saying that.  So ... tell me what the races of man are.  How many are there and how do you define them?

42, obviously.

 

 

No, I don't think you did say it, Apech.

 

Not sure why you would want to get persnickety about the definitions of particular races when the definitions of species aren't fully nailed down (won't be and can't be, I suspect).  Groups like the AKC have invested considerable energy in nailing down definitions of breeds within other species.  I agree that this is a potentially dangerous when applied to the human species and I'm not advocating for "race standards" like this but it seems silly to me to maintain that distinctions between broad groups of people simply don't exist.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Brian

[Stosh]

43 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Forgive me for posting oh mighty Stosh!

Actually its a pretty humble presumption that anyone would know the truth if they saw it ,  rather than being all macho like bull elephants in musth . 

[Apech]

29 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Actually its a pretty humble presumption that anyone would know the truth if they saw it ,  rather than being all macho like bull elephants in musth . 

 

I wasn't trumpeting.

[Apech]

39 minutes ago, Brian said:

42, obviously.

 

 

No, I don't think you did say it, Apech.

 

Not sure why you would want to get persnickety about the definitions of particular races when the definitions of species aren't fully nailed down (won't be and can't be, I suspect).  Groups like the AKC have invested considerable energy in nailing down definitions of breeds within other species.  I agree that this is a potentially dangerous when applied to the human species and I'm not advocating for "race standards" like this but it seems silly to me to maintain that distinctions between broad groups of people simply don't exist.

 

Ok.

[Apech]

Just some science rather than opinion:

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics

Quote

 

People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations.

 

Early studies of human diversity showed that most genetic diversity was found between individuals rather than between populations or continents and that variation in human diversity is best described by geographic gradients, or clines. A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity isaccounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. In general, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). These results show that when individuals are sampled from around the globe, the pattern seen is not a matter of discrete clusters – but rather gradients in genetic variation (gradual geographic variations in allele frequencies) that extend over the entire world. Therefore,there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between peoples on different continents or "races." The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that "races" represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history. An exception may be genes where different selection regimes have acted in different geographical regions. However, even in those cases, the genetic discontinuities seen are generally not "racial" or continental in nature but depend on historical and cultural factors that are more local in nature’ (Serre and Pääbo 2004: 1683-1684).

 

 

[Brian]

Just some science rather than opinion...

 

 

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 10:42 PM, Brian said:

 Human classification into "race" in English is referred to as "breed" or "variety" for many other species.

 

A grayhound is faster than a pug but isn't as smart as a border collie and doesn't have the sense of smell of a bloodhound.  A Plott hound is better at bear hunting than a King Charles cavalier spaniel.

 

Many of the variations in domesticated animals are intentional results of human manipulation but often they are accentuations of pre-existing traits.  For undomesticated species, the variations are naturally occurring based on small travel ranges or geographic boundaries or other limiting factors.

 

The idea that variation within a species is a meaningless cultural invention is nonsensical political correctness which would be properly rejected for any other species but is somehow considered appropriate when speaking of our own.  There have undoubtedly been historical abuses based on and falsely justified by such variations but those incidents of abuse don't negate the existence of such variations.

 

https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/variation-within-species-4308521

 

[Apech]

31 minutes ago, Brian said:

Just some science rather than opinion...

 

 

 

 

It is the imprecision of the term 'race' in English which is the problem.  It is a vague term which indeed has been abused.  It is not necessarily political correctness to avoid its use but perhaps caution against broad misapplied generalisations.  I was seeking some scientific basis for its use which does not appear to exist although I suppose the term phenotype is closest i.e. a combination of genetics and environment.  Anyway I feel this subject is exhausted for now and am departing this thread.

 

 

[Marblehead]

Two races of man:  Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals

 

Homo Sapiens won the race.

 

[MooNiNite]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I don't remember saying that.  So ... tell me what the races of man are.  How many are there and how do you define them?

 

Are you arguing that different races of humans don't have defining characteristics? Or that the idea of race is ambiguous?

 

If the second, I would argue that every idea conceived by a human is ambiguous; it's pointless to just say everything is relative. 

[Apech]

37 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

 

Are you arguing that different races of humans don't have defining characteristics? Or that the idea of race is ambiguous?

 

If the second, I would argue that every idea conceived by a human is ambiguous; it's pointless to just say everything is relative. 

 

Oh dear I've come back

 

What I am saying MooNiNite is that once someone can identify a race which has some validity to it - then I will look for defining characteristics - its not ambiguity exactly but more vagueness and lack of clearly defined scientific basis.  I am not saying all humans and groups of humans are identical - that would be ridiculous - for instance one tends to resemble one's own family and this is for the clear reasons of sharing genes and so on.  If your children bear a close resemblance to the Pizza delivery man this could be cause for concern.

 

But first someone name a race and explain what it is and then we can discuss defining characteristics.

 

 

[Brian]

26 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

It is the imprecision of the term 'race' in English which is the problem.  It is a vague term which indeed has been abused.  It is not necessarily political correctness to avoid its use but perhaps caution against broad misapplied generalisations.  I was seeking some scientific basis for its use which does not appear to exist although I suppose the term phenotype is closest i.e. a combination of genetics and environment.  Anyway I feel this subject is exhausted for now and am departing this thread.

 

 

I totally agree with you, Apech.  Part of the problem is that every term we use to discuss these broad and hereditary groupings of intraspecies variations becomes tainted.  With dogs or horses, there is no negative connotation to the term "breed," but we can't use it in polite company when talking about humans even though the concept is the same.

[Brian]

I propose a mental filter which replaces the word "race" with the  phrase "morphologically differentiated population."

[Apech]

12 minutes ago, Brian said:

I propose a mental filter which replaces the word "race" with the  phrase "morphologically differentiated population."

 

 

As long as we don't use that awful 'people of colour' expression

[MooNiNite]

36 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Oh dear I've come back

 

What I am saying MooNiNite is that once someone can identify a race which has some validity to it - then I will look for defining characteristics - its not ambiguity exactly but more vagueness and lack of clearly defined scientific basis.

 

You do understand that a scientific basis is a relative proportion or percentage right? So even the depth of a scientific basis is relative. Anyways,

 

Anyways, here is what you're looking for:

 

http://www.geographynotes.com/human-geography/major-physical-characteristics-of-racial-groups/1012

 

[MooNiNite]

 

23 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

As long as we don't use that awful 'people of colour' expression

It is only bad based on your intent. The expression itself isnt evil. Although society has imprinted a bad connotation towards the phrase.

Edited June 29, 2017 by MooNiNite

[Stosh]

54 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Oh dear I've come back

 

What I am saying MooNiNite is that once someone can identify a race which has some validity to it - then I will look for defining characteristics - its not ambiguity exactly but more vagueness and lack of clearly defined scientific basis.  I am not saying all humans and groups of humans are identical - that would be ridiculous - for instance one tends to resemble one's own family and this is for the clear reasons of sharing genes and so on.  If your children bear a close resemblance to the Pizza delivery man this could be cause for concern.

 

But first someone name a race and explain what it is and then we can discuss defining characteristics.

 

 

1)  Bushmen, genetically and culturally somewhat distinct ,

(but when asked who they themselves should be lumped with , I'm told , they figured the best fit was with east asians.)

[Apech]

14 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

 

It is only bad based on your intent. The expression itself isnt evil. Although society has imprinted a bad connotation towards the phrase.

 

 

Well its the bastardisation of the English language I object to - 'people of colour' is a strange construction and could include purple or green people presumably.  I didn't say it was evil but it does lump together everyone non-white as if they form some kind of homogenous group.  Which they don't.

[Apech]

23 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

You do understand that a scientific basis is a relative proportion or percentage right? So even the depth of a scientific basis is relative. Anyways,

 

Anyways, here is what you're looking for:

 

http://www.geographynotes.com/human-geography/major-physical-characteristics-of-racial-groups/1012

 

 

I think the definitions are problematic for a number of reasons.