Are Races Equal?

[sprintcyclist]

This is a very bad and misleading title. Humans all belong to the human race irrespective of colour or creed or culture. In that regard we are equal however this is not a topic about the quality of the human species rather this topic is about ethnicity and which of those is the best or better than the other.

As George Orwell said in 'Animal Farm' .... All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[Bogan]

Non de Plume

This is a very bad and misleading title. Humans all belong to the human race irrespective of colour or creed or culture. In that regard we are equal however this is not a topic about the quality of the human species rather this topic is about ethnicity and which of those is the best or better than the other.

That equates with saying that "talking about evolution is bad and misleading, because it implies the non existence of God."

This topic is for those who want to explore and discuss difficult and interesting issues, NDP. If you object to the topic being discussed, what on Earth are you doing on a debate site?

If you think that races are equal, state why you think that this is so. Give us at least 300 words so that I can examine your logic.

[Nom De Plume]

Non de Plume

This is a very bad and misleading title. Humans all belong to the human race irrespective of colour or creed or culture. In that regard we are equal however this is not a topic about the quality of the human species rather this topic is about ethnicity and which of those is the best or better than the other.

That equates with saying that "talking about evolution is bad and misleading, because it implies the non existence of God."

This topic is for those who want to explore and discuss difficult and interesting issues, NDP. If you object to the topic being discussed, what on Earth are you doing on a debate site?

If you think that races are equal, state why you think that this is so. Give us at least 300 words so that I can examine your logic.

Sappho is always up for debate but I’m not so sure that you’re capable of same.

That equates with saying that "talking about evolution is bad and misleading, because it implies the non existence of God."

That is not what is implied at all and the perfect counterexample to you would be the theistic evolutionist who believe in God and who also believe that it was God that controlled evolution by putting in place the tools necessary for same.

Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness

Many human societies classify people into racial categories. These categories often have very real effects politically, socially, and economically. Even if race is culturally real, that does not mean that these societal racial categories are biologically meaningful. For example, individuals who classify themselves as “white” in Brazil are often considered “black” in the U.S.A., and many other countries use similar or identical racial terms in highly inconsistent fashions (Fish, 2002). This inconsistency is only reinforced when examined genetically. For example, Lao et al. (2010) assessed the geographical ancestry of self-declared “whites” and “blacks” in the United States by the use of a panel of geographically informative genetic markers. It is well known that the frequencies of alleles vary over geographical space in humans. Although the differences in allele frequencies are generally very modest for any one gene, it is possible with modern DNA technology to infer the geographical ancestry of individuals by scoring large numbers of genes. Using such geographically informative markers, self-identified “whites” from the United States are primarily of European ancestry, whereas U.S. “blacks” are primarily of African ancestry, with little overlap in the amount of African ancestry between self-classified U.S. “whites” and “blacks”. In contrast, Santos et al. (2009) did a similar genetic assessment of Brazilians who self-identified themselves as “whites”, “browns”, and “blacks” and found extensive overlap in the amount of African ancestry among all these “races”. Indeed, many Brazilian “whites” have more African ancestry than some U.S. “blacks”. Obviously, the culturally defined racial categories of “white” and “black” do not have the same genetic meanings in the United States and Brazil. The inconsistencies in the meaning of “race” across cultures and with genetic ancestry provide a compelling reason for a biological-based, culture-free definition of race. Another reason is that humans are the product of the same evolutionary processes that have led to all the other species on this planet. The subdivision of a species into groups or categories is not unique to our species. Since evolutionary biology deals with all life on this planet, biologists need a definition of race that is applicable to all species. A definition of “race” that is specific to one human culture at one point of time in its cultural history is inadequate for this purpose. Therefore, a universal, culture-free definition of race is required before the issue of the existence of races in humans (or any other species) can be addressed in a biological context.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

Now, What is Race again?

[The Reboot]

Non de Plume

This is a very bad and misleading title. Humans all belong to the human race irrespective of colour or creed or culture. In that regard we are equal however this is not a topic about the quality of the human species rather this topic is about ethnicity and which of those is the best or better than the other.

That equates with saying that "talking about evolution is bad and misleading, because it implies the non existence of God."

This topic is for those who want to explore and discuss difficult and interesting issues, NDP. If you object to the topic being discussed, what on Earth are you doing on a debate site?

If you think that races are equal, state why you think that this is so. Give us at least 300 words so that I can examine your logic.

Sappho is always up for debate but I’m not so sure that you’re capable of same.

That equates with saying that "talking about evolution is bad and misleading, because it implies the non existence of God."

That is not what is implied at all and the perfect counterexample to you would be the theistic evolutionist who believe in God and who also believe that it was God that controlled evolution by putting in place the tools necessary for same.

Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness

Many human societies classify people into racial categories. These categories often have very real effects politically, socially, and economically. Even if race is culturally real, that does not mean that these societal racial categories are biologically meaningful. For example, individuals who classify themselves as “white” in Brazil are often considered “black” in the U.S.A., and many other countries use similar or identical racial terms in highly inconsistent fashions (Fish, 2002). This inconsistency is only reinforced when examined genetically. For example, Lao et al. (2010) assessed the geographical ancestry of self-declared “whites” and “blacks” in the United States by the use of a panel of geographically informative genetic markers. It is well known that the frequencies of alleles vary over geographical space in humans. Although the differences in allele frequencies are generally very modest for any one gene, it is possible with modern DNA technology to infer the geographical ancestry of individuals by scoring large numbers of genes. Using such geographically informative markers, self-identified “whites” from the United States are primarily of European ancestry, whereas U.S. “blacks” are primarily of African ancestry, with little overlap in the amount of African ancestry between self-classified U.S. “whites” and “blacks”. In contrast, Santos et al. (2009) did a similar genetic assessment of Brazilians who self-identified themselves as “whites”, “browns”, and “blacks” and found extensive overlap in the amount of African ancestry among all these “races”. Indeed, many Brazilian “whites” have more African ancestry than some U.S. “blacks”. Obviously, the culturally defined racial categories of “white” and “black” do not have the same genetic meanings in the United States and Brazil. The inconsistencies in the meaning of “race” across cultures and with genetic ancestry provide a compelling reason for a biological-based, culture-free definition of race. Another reason is that humans are the product of the same evolutionary processes that have led to all the other species on this planet. The subdivision of a species into groups or categories is not unique to our species. Since evolutionary biology deals with all life on this planet, biologists need a definition of race that is applicable to all species. A definition of “race” that is specific to one human culture at one point of time in its cultural history is inadequate for this purpose. Therefore, a universal, culture-free definition of race is required before the issue of the existence of races in humans (or any other species) can be addressed in a biological context.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

Now, What is Race again?

Maybe repost without the italics? It's tedious to read

[Bogan]

NDP wrote

Sappho is always up for debate but I’m not so sure that you’re capable of same.

I have no idea who "Sappho" is. And how you come to think that I am not capable of debate I have no idea. Especially as I gave a clear concise answer to the question that is the theme of this topic, and explained why I had this opinion. And whereas you appear to be saying that you think that all races are equal, you have yet to explain why you think that way.

NDP wrote

That is not what is implied at all and the perfect counterexample to you would be the theistic evolutionist who believe in God and who also believe that it was God that controlled evolution by putting in place the tools necessary for same.

I have no idea what you are even trying to imply with this statement. Your first post said that the question upon which this topic is based is "misleading". That implies that as far as you are concerned (why don't you just write plainly instead of in implications?) that there is only one race. So using that PC logic, my question does not make sense.

But it does make sense. Dictionaries list more than one definition of the word "race". It can be used to imply a singular, (as in the human race), or that almost all people who speak the English language regard the human race as divided up into at least three main "races", and various other ethnicities which can also be called "races." If you object to the dictionary definitions of the word "race" because you want to create Big Brother's newspeak, and air brush out the words that you don't want people to write or say, then perhaps this topic is beyond your intellectual capacity?

NDP cut and pasted something.

Blah, blah.

Look NDP, I don't debate against links. If you agree with what the link states, then summarise it's points and submit it to me in the form of a reasoned argument. All I know about your position so far, is that you don't even recognise any other definition for the word "race", than as a singular entity. This implies that you think that all races are equal because in your opinion, there is only one race.

But you will have to change the dictionary meaning of the word "race" before you can validly submit that as a premise. You will need to convince all of the people who speak that language that your definition of "race" is the only one that must be used. Good luck with that quixotic task.

[brian ross]

Thank, Bogan for confirming, in your own words what I have maintained all along - "race" is a social construct and has no scientific validity. You keep arguing from a social viewpoint (ie "the dictionary definition") not from a scientific one based on Genetics, which is what Nom has done.

There is no Genetic basis and remember, Genetics is what determines a human to be human and not a banana for the concept of "race" as you use the term. You are talking about the social consequences of the concept of "race". Genetically we all share the same genetic pool and makeup. There is more differences within the various "racial" groupings than between them. All you're reacting to is the physical aspects of evolutionary adaptations - Mellanin/Epicanthic fold/thicker lips/kinky hair/etc. Genetically all humans are humans. They all belong to the only race, the human one. Until you face reality, that reality, you're just a Racist, Bogan, carping about the different shape/size/colour of your human brothers and sisters. Tsk, tsk.

[billy the kid]

Perhaps the topic should have been "Are nationalities equal"....

[Neferti]

...

Screenshot_2019-09-10 Urban Dictionary Racist.png

[Nom De Plume]

Perhaps the topic should have been "Are nationalities equal"....

I think you are right. Check out the top 3 definitions of race...

race
[reɪs]

NOUN
a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, etc. to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.
"Hill started from pole position and won the race"
synonyms:
contest · competition · relay · event · fixture · heat · rally · trial · time trial · head-to-head
a strong or rapid current flowing through a narrow channel in the sea or a river.
"angling for tuna in turbulent tidal races"
synonyms:
channel · waterway · watercourse · conduit · sluice · spillway · aqueduct
a water channel, especially one built to lead water to or from a point where its energy is utilized, as in a mill or mine.
a smooth ring-shaped groove or guide in which a ball bearing or roller bearing runs.
VERB
compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.
"the vet took blood samples from the horses before they raced" · [More]
synonyms:
compete · take part in a race · run · contend · compete against · [More]
move or progress swiftly or at full speed.
"I raced into the house" ·
https://www.bing.com/search?q=race&qs=n ... BAA453FDA2

[Bogan]

Gee willackers. Brian Ross, a man who is a racist himself, pens an opinion that denounces racism? Boing. Boing. Boing.

If races do not exist, Brian, then how do you explain your own racism towards the white race? How do you explain your telling opponents that stereotyping is wrong when you not only do it yourself, you have no intention of ever stopping it? How do you explain your claim that individuals must not be judged by their group associations, when you have always done it and you have no intention of stopping it? How do you explain your contradictions and double standards where whites are always held to one standard, and non whites to another?

Brian Ross wrote

Thank, Bogan for confirming, in your own words what I have maintained all along - "race" is a social construct and has no scientific validity.

Socialists like yourself once claimed that "class" did not exist and that it was a social construct. That fell on it's face because Socialists are the biggest social snobs around and obsessed with their class and social position. Now they claim that sex does not exist and it is a social construct, which everybody on planet Earth who does not possess a humanities degree greets with total hilarity. And I dispute that race has no basis in science. Scientists were the ones who were initially most interested in racial differences after the publication of "Origin of Species". And forensic pathologists, who are scientists, can usually tell the race of a skeleton simply by looking at it's bone structure. Science is in the business of classifying everything and that is exactly what the term "race" does. It is a classification. The term "race" equates directly with the scientific term "sub species" as it relates to animals categories.

Brian Ross wrote

You keep arguing from a social viewpoint (ie "the dictionary definition") not from a scientific one based on Genetics, which is what Nom has done.

NDP did not introduce any genetics into her opinion at all. Her opinion was based upon a one eyed view of the definition of the word "race." And I am arguing from a social and a scientific viewpoint. You are arguing from a purely ideological viewpoint which you violate and contradict yourself whenever the winds of logic blow in another direction.

Brian Ross wrote

There is no Genetic basis and remember, Genetics is what determines a human to be human and not a banana for the concept of "race" as you use the term.

There is a genetic basis because genetics determines appearance, and different races have very different appearances. People are laughing at you for that premise. Even a 12 year old would know better. Please keep up the potty premises, Brian. It helps my side immeasurably.

Brian ross wrote

You are talking about the social consequences of the concept of "race". Genetically we all share the same genetic pool and makeup. There is more differences within the various "racial" groupings than between them. All you're reacting to is the physical aspects of evolutionary adaptations - Mellanin/Epicanthic fold/thicker lips/kinky hair/etc. Genetically all humans are humans. They all belong to the only race, the human one.

Human beings evolved differently to adapt to very different environmental conditions which resulted in very marked differences of appearance. These differences in appearance are genetic and are categorised by the term "race". And if people look so different that we can categorise them into different races, then the premise that they have different levels of intelligence, personality, and physical attributes is logical and reasonable. Aepecially since IQ is measurable, and the fact that some races have different physical abilities is evident.

Brian ross wrote

Until you face reality, that reality, you're just a Racist, Bogan, carping about the different shape/size/colour of your human brothers and sisters. Tsk, tsk.

Coming from an unrepentant white hating racist that is funny. Would you like me to post up your racist quotes and stereotypes about white people again, Brine? Then you could fall down on your knees in front of Nicole, Reboot, and Black Orchid, like Jimmy Swaggard, and cry out "Ah have siinned, Lord!!!"