Steve King wants to know what "sub groups" contributed as much as Whites have

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2016, 01:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Three. Purple, black, and gold. 

The first sentence of your answer is correct. The second sentence illustrates the point. There are 3 races, from which, infinite hybrids can be created. This does not make the hybrid color any less lovely and in some cases, more so.  Of course 2 of the three colors (purple, gold) that you used as examples are quite ugly.

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2016, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are 3 races

I count 6. Goron, Zora, Hylian, Kokiri, Gerudo, and Sheikah. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2016, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course 2 of the three colors (purple, gold) that you used as examples are quite ugly.

Those colors look lovely in confetti form. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-23-2016, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are 3 races

According to who?  What is the definition of race, "scientifically" speaking?

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2016, 02:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: According to who?  What is the definition of race, "scientifically" speaking?

I think it's "The societal division of humans into groups that share no common gene clusters for the purpose of supporting junk science".

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2016, 06:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think it's "The societal division of humans into groups that share no common gene clusters for the purpose of supporting junk science".

Actually the last time I can remember referring to the 3 base races was during a Forensics (is this the junk science you keep referring to?) section in Anthropology in College. Apparently they can use certain markers to determine if a victim was one of the 3 races (black, white, yellow). I think they could also use it to determine the race of a suspect; given I cannot recall exactly. I don't they had anything they could use to determine their social construct.    

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-23-2016, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually the last time I can remember referring to the 3 base races was during a Forensics (is this the junk science you keep referring to?) section in Anthropology in College. Apparently they can use certain markers to determine if a victim was one of the 3 races (black, white, yellow). I think they could also use it to determine the race of a suspect; given I cannot recall exactly. I don't they had anything they could use to determine their social construct.    

How do you define race "scientifically" to establish three "base" races?

They didn't have anything to determine their social construct other than the color of their skin?

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2016, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually the last time I can remember referring to the 3 base races was during a Forensics (is this the junk science you keep referring to?) section in Anthropology in College. Apparently they can use certain markers to determine if a victim was one of the 3 races (black, white, yellow). I think they could also use it to determine the race of a suspect; given I cannot recall exactly. I don't they had anything they could use to determine their social construct.    

What forensic scientists do is determine a subject's likely racial designation by society. As Sauer explains, when we lump ancestries together and decide that they all share a race, it is easy to then use this identification we have created to find the declared race of a subject based on a physical trait that is shared by a majority within this created group. Also, as Sauer points out, while the concept of race not being biological was shunned in the 60's, by the time this report was written, 1992, half of physical anthropologists agreed that it had no basis in biology and 70% of all cultural anthropologists shared this view. 

http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp206-us15/files/2012/05/Sauer-1992-Forensic-Anthropology-Race-Concept-1.pdf

In more basic terms: people with shared ancestries have shared traits because they are much more closely related to each other (as in being relatives). If we then lump a bunch of these of these ancestries into one group (let's call it a "race") and run a test to see if someone's bones match one of those who fall into this "race", then we will affirm our belief that they are that race. 

The problem becomes that physical anthropologists who study things besides bones can tell us that this is a so much variation within these created "races" that there are NO COMMON GENETIC CLUSTERS within them. Single out one ancestral group within a race. Let's say the Irish. An Irishman is likely to have a lot more in common with another Irishman than a Greek. Despite being in the same "race", an Irishman could have a lot more in common with a Kenyan than he does a Greek. The fact that this is true is a blow to the belief that our race is biological. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html#brace

Here's a good pro and con. Two respected physical anthropologists giving conflicting views on the matter.

tl;dr: if I say ancestries X, Y, and Z are a "race" and I then check if you are related to either ancestries X,Y,Z, of course I am going to then be able to say you fall into that race. Also, genetics cannot find "race". 

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2016, 07:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What forensic scientists do is determine a subject's likely racial designation by society. As Sauer explains, when we lump ancestries together and decide that they all share a race, it is easy to then use this identification we have created to find the declared race of a subject based on a physical trait that is shared by a majority within this created group. Also, as Sauer points out, while the concept of race not being biological was shunned in the 60's, by the time this report was written, 1992, half of physical anthropologists agreed that it had no basis in biology and 70% of all cultural anthropologists shared this view. 

http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp206-us15/files/2012/05/Sauer-1992-Forensic-Anthropology-Race-Concept-1.pdf

In more basic terms: people with shared ancestries have shared traits because they are much more closely related to each other (as in being relatives). If we then lump a bunch of these of these ancestries into one group (let's call it a "race") and run a test to see if someone's bones match one of those who fall into this "race", then we will affirm our belief that they are that race. 

The problem becomes that physical anthropologists who study things besides bones can tell us that this is a so much variation within these created "races" that there are NO COMMON GENETIC CLUSTERS within them. Single out one ancestral group within a race. Let's say the Irish. An Irishman is likely to have a lot more in common with another Irishman than a Greek. Despite being in the same "race", an Irishman could have a lot more in common with a Kenyan than he does a Greek. The fact that this is true is a blow to the belief that our race is biological. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html#brace

Here's a good pro and con. Two respected physical anthropologists giving conflicting views on the matter.

tl;dr: if I say ancestries X, Y, and Z are a "race" and I then check if you are related to either ancestries X,Y,Z, of course I am going to then be able to say you fall into that race. Also, genetics cannot find "race". 

So what you just spent about a half page explaining is that it is inconclusive? I think I mentioned that earlier. For every study you post I can post a counter-study. 

Of course we both want to think we are right. I'll admit, science was not my Major; I can only go by my teachings and in the forensics class they were concerned with the physical make up of the perp and victim and used indicators to determine each. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-22-2016, 07:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you claim there are three races in the world, you are ignoring science. What is the definition of race, scientifically?  What race were Adam and Eve?

(07-23-2016, 02:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: According to who?  What is the definition of race, "scientifically" speaking?

(07-23-2016, 07:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How do you define race "scientifically" to establish three "base" races?

They didn't have anything to determine their social construct other than the color of their skin?

Is there anything you care to add to the discussion besides consistently asking questions? If you want to make a point, please feel free to do so. If you want to play 20 questions look elsewhere. 

[GMDino]

(07-23-2016, 07:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is there anything you care to add to the discussion besides consistently asking questions? If you want to make a point, please feel free to do so. If you want to play 20 questions look elsewhere. 

Day late and a dollar short after you got called out for doing the exact same thing! 

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2016, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So what you just spent about a half page explaining is that it is inconclusive? I think I mentioned that earlier. For every study you post I can post a counter-study. 

Of course we both want to think we are right. I'll admit, science was not my Major; I can only go by my teachings and in the forensics class they were concerned with the physical make up of the perp and victim and used indicators to determine each. 

In the same sense that climate change or evolution are "inconclusive", sure. If that's all you took away from that, then I guess that's all you are willing to let yourself to know about it.

However, as we improve upon our ability to explore the genetic make up of man, we find that there is no genetic marker for race. It just isn't something in our code. 

[GMDino]

(07-23-2016, 08:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In the same sense that climate change or evolution are "inconclusive", sure. If that's all you took away from that, then I guess that's all you are willing to let yourself to know about it.

However, as we improve upon our ability to explore the genetic make up of man, we find that there is no genetic marker for race. It just isn't something in our code. 

Pat just agree with him that whites are better than all other races.

That's what King said.  

All Larry is trying to do what he always does, befuddle the OP by forcing his "definition" of a single word into a nine page off-topic riff.

King said anyone who isn't white is a "subgroup".

And that they haven't contributed to anything of note.

Anyone who wants to defend that by trying to define what the subgroups are isn't worth the time it takes to respond.

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2016, 01:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You keep moving the target of what is relevant discussion in a thread. In another thread I was considered  "not understanding" because I was talking in line with the title of the thread. In this instance I am considered "not understanding".

Folks brought up Babylons, I mentioned they were white, because the title of the thread says white. Nothing more, nothing less. 

And you failed to read the original post again.  You don't ubderstand the context of the discussion.  Nothing more nothing less.

And what happened in the other thread was that you ignored what was in the title and again made commentts that were out of context.

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2016, 08:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: All Larry is trying to do what he always does, befuddle the OP by forcing his "definition" of a single word into a nine page off-topic riff.

King said anyone who isn't white is a "subgroup".

And that they haven't contributed to anything of note.

Anyone who wants to defend that by trying to define what the subgroups are isn't worth the time it takes to respond.

Rep.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-23-2016, 07:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is there anything you care to add to the discussion besides consistently asking questions? If you want to make a point, please feel free to do so. If you want to play 20 questions look elsewhere. 

Were you the person who stated there were three "base" races?

(07-21-2016, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not ignoring science,  I say there are 3 races in the world.

Yep.

And were you the person who asked others how many races we thought were in the world, "scientifically" and all?

(07-21-2016, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many races do others say their are scientifically?

Yep.  Again.

So if you want me to tell you how many races there are in the world "scientifically" then I'm gonna need your help by giving me the scientific definition of race.  I'm also going to need to know who came up with three "base" races based upon this "scientifically" based definition of race.

If you don't wish to give me "scientifically" based answers, then don't ask me "scientifically" based questions.


PS  What markers?

[Rotobeast]

(07-23-2016, 07:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What forensic scientists do is determine a subject's likely racial designation by society. As Sauer explains, when we lump ancestries together and decide that they all share a race, it is easy to then use this identification we have created to find the declared race of a subject based on a physical trait that is shared by a majority within this created group. Also, as Sauer points out, while the concept of race not being biological was shunned in the 60's, by the time this report was written, 1992, half of physical anthropologists agreed that it had no basis in biology and 70% of all cultural anthropologists shared this view. 

http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp206-us15/files/2012/05/Sauer-1992-Forensic-Anthropology-Race-Concept-1.pdf

In more basic terms: people with shared ancestries have shared traits because they are much more closely related to each other (as in being relatives). If we then lump a bunch of these of these ancestries into one group (let's call it a "race") and run a test to see if someone's bones match one of those who fall into this "race", then we will affirm our belief that they are that race. 

The problem becomes that physical anthropologists who study things besides bones can tell us that this is a so much variation within these created "races" that there are NO COMMON GENETIC CLUSTERS within them. Single out one ancestral group within a race. Let's say the Irish. An Irishman is likely to have a lot more in common with another Irishman than a Greek. Despite being in the same "race", an Irishman could have a lot more in common with a Kenyan than he does a Greek. The fact that this is true is a blow to the belief that our race is biological. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html#brace

Here's a good pro and con. Two respected physical anthropologists giving conflicting views on the matter.

tl;dr: if I say ancestries X, Y, and Z are a "race" and I then check if you are related to either ancestries X,Y,Z, of course I am going to then be able to say you fall into that race. Also, genetics cannot find "race". 

So, it's being said that it's "regional", not "racial".
Seems realistic.
I mean... you can spot a guy with a large forehead and heavy brow and make an educated guess that he's from Boston.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2016, 08:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And you failed to read the original post again.  You don't ubderstand the context of the discussion.  Nothing more nothing less.

And what happened in the other thread was that you ignored what was in the title and again made commentts that were out of context.

Okey Dokey

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2016, 09:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Were you the person who stated there were three "base" races?


Yep.

And were you the person who asked others how many races we thought were in the world, "scientifically" and all?



Yep.  Again.

So if you want me to tell you how many races there are in the world "scientifically" then I'm gonna need your help by giving me the scientific definition of race.  I'm also going to need to know who came up with three "base" races based upon this "scientifically" based definition of race.

If you don't wish to give me "scientifically" based answers, then don't ask me "scientifically" based questions.


PS  What markers?

I don't remember asking you much of anything about race. I tried to help you find an answer to one (of your  numerous) questions by posing a question that was corollary to yours.

I really don't "want" you to do anything more that stop being the petulant child that continues to ask questions instead of providing any opinions. Of course you have every right to continue to play the inquisitor, just know that you will have to find someone that is intrigued by your line of questions; as I am not. 

Pat at least provides counter-points and that is why I can converse with him and others; even though we disagree on basically everything. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2016, 08:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In the same sense that climate change or evolution are "inconclusive", sure. If that's all you took away from that, then I guess that's all you are willing to let yourself to know about it.

However, as we improve upon our ability to explore the genetic make up of man, we find that there is no genetic marker for race. It just isn't something in our code. 

Oh no, I also took away that we look like our family,

If you don't believe in big A little a, big B little b; that's your choice, but don't assume your theory is any more correct than the next person's. 

All I asked was scientifically speaking how many races are there. No one has answered (I think you listed Pokemon or something: I didn't bother researching) ; only looked to discredit an answer provided.