View Full Version : Argument with "anti"

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Sunday, June 1st, 2003, 09:01 PM
"OK, well there is actually no genetic foundation for 'race' - 90% of variation is within populations and only 10% is between..
meaning that you are more different to some people in your own race than your race is to other races. "

Where does this argument come from?? What scientists or studies??

What's it supposed to mean? LOL makes little sense especially the way this guy put it.

Von Braun
Sunday, June 1st, 2003, 10:07 PM
I shall attempt to translate their nonsense. If you have a black who is my exact height and a white who is four inches taller than me, the proponents of this argument will cite that as proof that there are no races, because there is a black out there with whom I have something in common (height) that I do not have in common with most whites.

Vanessa, people who say things like this are either liars or imbeciles.

Sunday, June 1st, 2003, 10:12 PM
Vanessa, people who say things like this are either liars or imbeciles.

They are normally both whether they say any thing or not.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 03:29 AM
Thanks for the explanation Matt. Now it makes sense, though it's still the same bullshit :D

Von Braun
Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 07:55 AM
The argument is just based on a quantitative gene count and says nothing about the significance or quality of differences. The implications, effects and repercussions of the existing racial differences (be they now 15%, 10% or even less of the total human diversity) are obviously severe, as science has documented again and again (see Shockley, Eysenck, Jensen, Herrnstein, Murrey, Rushton, Lynn, Hu, & al.) and as we can observe daily around us, if we decide to observe reality with an open mind

This is the main point. Add weighting factors like you should to the genes that account for differences between races and you shall see that what was 15% is now higher (and correspondingly what was 85% has now decreased so that the sum of the two is 100%).

Say I have 5 large apples and you have 8 small apples. To see who actually has more apple mass, weighting factors have to be added in (i.e. we count the weight of each apple and add them up, rather than say I have 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 = 5 "apples" (and no two apples are identical in size) and that you have 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8 "apples"). "Apple" is not a standarized unit because no two are the same size. Likewise, "gene difference" is not a standard unit because some sites of gene differences have much more significant and profound impact than other sites (and therefore need a higher weighting factor during the counting).

Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 12:17 PM
You've all hit the 'nail on the head.'

My response to Anti: Down Syndrome (Mongoloidism!) is caused by less than 1% difference (it's just a variation in the 21st chromosome), yet the retard's sibling has something like double the IQ! Surely the normal sibling is far more like every other normal child in the land!

Would the Anti then say no, the normal one is closer to his retard sibling because they probably have quantitavely more genes in common? Would he/she deny the existence of mental retardation because the genetic variance that causes it is so negligible? Probably not, but that's how he/she denies the existence of race. That's how he/she belies the importance of these race-defining genes.

Disclaimer: Actually saying this could evoke violence in said Anti!

Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 01:03 PM
There are many questions which remain unanswered. For example, on what criteria did they choose the subjects for their study? Were those subjects classified as "Caucasian" really purely Caucasian? These sort of studies need to be thoroughly checked by third parties and anthropologists in order to verify its objectivity, relevance and validity.

Monday, June 2nd, 2003, 01:15 PM
Caucasian is a PC term to get arabs and jews as White.