6 ms·

"Differences in groups are real" doesn't mean anything, everyone agrees that differences between groups is a thing, that is the entire purpose of groupings, wha

"Differences in groups are real" doesn't mean anything, everyone agrees that differences between groups is a thing, that is the entire purpose of groupings, what you've failed to prove is that racial groupings represent anything other than "what the eyes see". The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what your eyes tell you because "eyes" are not a sufficient tool for genetic analysis, otherwise something like a paternity test would never be necessary because it would be apparent by looking at a father and child that they are directly related. Your eyes provide a crude signal for some genetic traits, not a definitive description. Your reasoning is akin to sorting boxes into groups based on their weight and then suggesting that weight classes are sufficient to describe the content of boxes because years of analysis based on weight has yielded statistical trends about particular weight class groupings.

michaelbuddy 10y ago
It's not just what the eyes see. It's susceptibility to diseases, it's how it responds to environmental situations over short and long term. It's whether various medical treatments work and do not, it's personality, organization, temperament, child bearing. You may feel unconfortable with group differences being labeled 'race.' That's your problem, no reality's problem. And just because heritage can be about a thousand other markers, doesn't mean that there's not advantage to general highly useful but maybe less than absolutely perfect information such as forensically one can tell the race of an individual based on their remains.
- vectorpush 10y ago
  > You may feel unconfortable with group differences being labeled 'race.' That's your problem, no reality's problem. You keep trying to paint your opponents as unwilling to concede to your argument because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but pushing those imagined assumptions onto someone else's argument does not help your case. > It's not just what the eyes see. It's susceptibility to diseases... You can extrapolate statistical correlations based on any grouping criteria, so listing off correlations based on race does not prove that race is a fundamental description of genetics. I can list off numerous and similar statistical correlations based on finger length ratios but that doesn't prove that the length of your fingers is anything other than an arbitrary grouping; race just happens to be a socially convenient grouping mechanism because its criteria are based off of traits that are readily apparent to the naked eye.
- roywiggins 10y ago
  "Susceptibility to disease"- yes, there's a genetic basis to many diseases and they can run in communities. Ashkenazi Jews have a particular constellation of diseases that are more common for them. But they are not a race. Nobody in America who isn't an anti-Semite will say you can't be Jewish and White.

michaelbuddy 10y ago

It's not just what the eyes see. It's susceptibility to diseases, it's how it responds to environmental situations over short and long term. It's whether various medical treatments work and do not, it's personality, organization, temperament, child bearing. You may feel unconfortable with group differences being labeled 'race.' That's your problem, no reality's problem. And just because heritage can be about a thousand other markers, doesn't mean that there's not advantage to general highly useful but maybe less than absolutely perfect information such as forensically one can tell the race of an individual based on their remains.

vectorpush 10y ago
> You may feel unconfortable with group differences being labeled 'race.' That's your problem, no reality's problem. You keep trying to paint your opponents as unwilling to concede to your argument because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but pushing those imagined assumptions onto someone else's argument does not help your case. > It's not just what the eyes see. It's susceptibility to diseases... You can extrapolate statistical correlations based on any grouping criteria, so listing off correlations based on race does not prove that race is a fundamental description of genetics. I can list off numerous and similar statistical correlations based on finger length ratios but that doesn't prove that the length of your fingers is anything other than an arbitrary grouping; race just happens to be a socially convenient grouping mechanism because its criteria are based off of traits that are readily apparent to the naked eye.
roywiggins 10y ago
"Susceptibility to disease"- yes, there's a genetic basis to many diseases and they can run in communities. Ashkenazi Jews have a particular constellation of diseases that are more common for them. But they are not a race. Nobody in America who isn't an anti-Semite will say you can't be Jewish and White.