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

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-23-2016, 10:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

You can't converse about the numbers of races "scientifically" if you can't provide a definition of race "scientifically".  Why are you keeping the definition such a secret?  Hiding something?  Until I know the definition, how do you expect me to tell you how many "base" races there are "scientifically"?

Petulant child?  What happened to "attack the message, not the messenger"?  Must be one of those t-shirt moments you mentioned. 

My initial post contained two questions. I apologize if they overloaded your motherboard. Despite the smoke and mirrors at the bfine dog and pony show, your persistent refusal to answer the question is evidence indicating you know exactly what my point is. That's why you keep avoiding the question. But, I'm not going to spoon feed you the answer. Learning requires a little bit of effort on your part. Like the effort required to research the scientific definition of race. 
PS What markers?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-23-2016, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

No one can give you an answer if you continue to refuse to share the definition of race "scientifically."

Tell us the scientific definition of race and someone might be able to answer your question. 

[JustWinBaby]

(07-24-2016, 12:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No one can give you an answer if you continue to refuse to share the definition of race "scientifically."

Do you have a scientific definition of race?  Do you have scientific examples of racism?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-24-2016, 05:41 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Do you have a scientific definition of race?  Do you have scientific examples of racism?

No, I don't have a scientific definition of race. That's why I keep asking for the definition of race from the person who claimed there a three "base" races and asked how many races exist "scientifically".  I can't answer that question until I learn the scientific definition of race IOT determine the number of races. 

Bfine is allegedly all about teaching a man to fish (t-shirt moment), so I'll go ahead and teach him how to bait a hook, Google "scientific definition of race."  What does it say?

[fredtoast]

(07-24-2016, 12:21 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  Despite the smoke and mirrors at the bfine dog and pony show, your persistent refusal to answer the question is evidence indicating you know exactly what my point is. That's why you keep avoiding the question. But, I'm not going to spoon feed you the answer. Learning requires a little bit of effort on your part. Like the effort required to research the scientific definition of race. 

Oh snap.

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2016, 05:41 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Do you have a scientific definition of race? 

There is none

Quote: Do you have scientific examples of racism?

Racism is a cultural phenomenon, though some have tried to use science to explain why we, and most animals, are designed to be cautious of those who are not part of our "group", though what defines that group is then arguably a construct of our social experience, lol, so who knows?

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2016, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

It was from Zelda and the answer you sought had been answered long before. When we repeat arguments and you ask a question you already know someone's answer to, and they know you know the answer, do not expect serious answers since it's a not a serious question.

At this point our discussion should have moved on to you providing scientific evidence to support your argument while we supply scientific evidence to support ours. 

A very legitimate question is: why are there no common gene clusters between these so called races?

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2016, 11:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It was from Zelda and the answer you sought had been answered long before. When we repeat arguments and you ask a question you already know someone's answer to, and they know you know the answer, do not expect serious answers since it's a not a serious question.

At this point our discussion should have moved on to you providing scientific evidence to support your argument while we supply scientific evidence to support ours. 

A very legitimate question is: why are there no common gene clusters between these so called races?

As I mentioned earlier my answer lies in Anthropology and more specifically Forensics; as it searches for physical evidence.

I have further stated that even in the scientific field there is dispute; sometimes you just have to have faith to believe in certain aspects of science. Somewhere along the way it became bigoted to acknowledge there are physical differences between black, white, and yellow so we have steered away from the terms, the genetic make up of humans has not changed. 

Attached is a study that goes along with my way of thinking:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98485&page=1

Anthropologists Disagree About Race and Bones

 

Quote:Forensic anthropologists, experts in skeletons that do work for law enforcement agencies, say they are extremely accurate at deciphering the signs that identify a dead person’s bones as African, Caucasian, Asian or American Indian.

“We produce as much accuracy in race as we do with sex and age,” says George W. Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming and one of the eight anthropologists who are suing the federal government in the Kennewick case.


Distinguishing Characteristics
Gill is one of about 60 certified forensic anthropologists in the U.S. and Canada to assist in the detection of crime through evidence found on human bodies. He is also an expert in assessing race from skeletons. His methods for combining several skeletal traits to evaluate ancestry are widely used in the field of forensic anthropology.


Using measuring tools called calipers — with adjustable pieces that slide or spread apart to measure length or thickness — forensic anthropologists take hundreds of measurements from a skeleton to assess race. The measurements include length, width and projection of the nasal bones, the form of the chin, the shape of the skull and brow and the way bones have fused together, among dozens of others.


These measurements are compared to the indexes made from thousands of measurements of major population groups, which can tell scientists generally where a person’s ancestors came from. 

I can only assume that Forensics is this "junk science" you keep referring to. As I have said I am no scientist; I can only go by what I was taught and I was taught that a person with minimal protrusion of the lower, retreating cheekbones, a narrow nose, and skin a various hue of tan is a Caucasian regardless of his social construct.

That may make me bigoted or "wrong" in the eyes of some, but it is not the first time and I doubt it will be the last.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-24-2016, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anthropologists Disagree About Race and Bones

Can you read that aloud?

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2016, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I mentioned earlier my answer lies in Anthropology and more specifically Forensics; as it searches for physical evidence.

I have further stated that even in the scientific field there is dispute; sometimes you just have to have faith to believe in certain aspects of science. Somewhere along the way it became bigoted to acknowledge there are physical differences between black, white, and yellow so we have steered away from the terms, the genetic make up of humans has not changed. 

Attached is a study that goes along with my way of thinking:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98485&page=1

Anthropologists Disagree About Race and Bones

 

I can only assume that Forensics is this "junk science" you keep referring to. As I have said I am no scientist; I can only go by what I was taught and I was taught that a person with minimal protrusion of the lower, retreating cheekbones, a narrow nose, and skin a various hue of tan is a Caucasian regardless of his social construct.

That may make me bigoted or "wrong" in the eyes of some, but it is not the first time and I doubt it will be the last.

You know that race sciences is the "junk sciences" i am referring to, but please keep acting ignorant. 

Quote:These measurements are compared to the indexes made from thousands of measurements of major population groups, which can tell scientists generally where a person’s ancestors came from. 

This was addressed by Sauer and just verifies the error he highlighted. If I say the Irish, Germans, and Italians constitute a race and then I found that your bones match one of theirs, then I can say you were that race too. That doesn't mean they have the same bones, just that we pooled them together and identified the subject from that pool. 

That's why genes show nothing in common between the created races. Because if they truly were unique races, there would be something in the code that showed commonality. There isn't. Again, the fact that I can have more in common genetically to a black man who is 5'10" than I do a white man that is 5'4" is a blow to the argument that race is  biological. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2016, 06:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You know that race sciences is the "junk sciences" i am referring to, but please keep acting ignorant. 

I seriously did not know; as I have never heard of Race Science. No acting involved, I was ignorant of what you were referring to as junk science. 

As to the rest, Yep, just more disagreeing amongst those of the scientific community. Also as I have said: The science has never changed, just the words to be more PC. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-24-2016, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I mentioned earlier my answer lies in Anthropology and more specifically Forensics; as it searches for physical evidence.

I have further stated that even in the scientific field there is dispute; sometimes you just have to have faith to believe in certain aspects of science. Somewhere along the way it became bigoted to acknowledge there are physical differences between black, white, and yellow so we have steered away from the terms, the genetic make up of humans has not changed. 

Attached is a study that goes along with my way of thinking:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98485&page=1

Anthropologists Disagree About Race and Bones

 

I can only assume that Forensics is this "junk science" you keep referring to. As I have said I am no scientist; I can only go by what I was taught and I was taught that a person with minimal protrusion of the lower, retreating cheekbones, a narrow nose, and skin a various hue of tan is a Caucasian regardless of his social construct.

That may make me bigoted or "wrong" in the eyes of some, but it is not the first time and I doubt it will be the last.

1) That is a news article, not a study. I don't know how anyone could even confuse that with a study. You understand what a study is as well as you understand what a social construct is. 

2) Please note "can tell scientists generally where a person’s ancestors came from" is not the same as can tell a person's race or skin color. Probably too subtle for many to understand. 


3) That "study" doesn't define race "scientifically."  On the contrary, it reinforced my point there isn't a scientific definition for race. 


4) Thanks for going to all the trouble of providing a "study" undermining your point. The forensic anthropologists who initially studied the Kennewick man skeleton determined it wasn't related to modern Native Americans. However, forensic science in the form of DNA testing determined the remains were related to modern Native Americans and the forensic anthropologists along with their caliper measurements were, in fact, incorrect. You wouldn't dismiss forensic science, would you?

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2016, 07:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The science has never changed, just the words to be more PC. 

Not really. Science disproves previously held notions. They didn't abandon the concept of race because it isn't PC, because they acknowledge that ancestry makes humans diverse, they just rejected a categorization of humans that science cannot prove exists, one that was created by people who wanted to use science to say that they were superior to those they were subjugating. 

As we have unlocked the human genome, we now see that nothing in our genes makes us related to those in our "race". 

Even the the guy in my link that was one the side that race is biological admitted that the other side has compelling arguments and he's just barely leaning towards his side.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-24-2016, 07:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Also as I have said: The science has never changed, just the words to be more PC. 

Writes the guy who can't provide a scientific definition of race. How can you claim the scientific study of race, we'll call it raceology, hasn't changed if you can't even define what it is raceology is supposed to have studied?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-27-2016, 10:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I prefer my position to be clearly stated.

Then feel free to clearly state the "scientific" definition of race. Or the cyclic rate of an M4.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I've only read a couple posts on the last page of this discussion.

There is only one race of people.

What the hell? Why do these discussion alway evolve into these childish "What If?" and trillions to one scenarios?

Here's what some of these questions sound like

If a guy walking down the street steps in gum and stops walking which causes another guy to change direction making a guy coming out of a store stop which causes someone else to bump into the guy coming out of the store spilling coffe on the floor which cause a lady to slip and pull her neck muscle then the guy driving the red Ford Explorer is responsible. If only he was driving a white Ford Escape, he'd be ok.

It really is stupid.

[tigerseye]

Did Hillary start this thread? Or her supporters? This is how she gets votes.

Try to divide people by race, make the situation combative and get votes by proclaiming villains. (Same with gender).

Us v Them.

Just don't look at Hillary on her own merits/ethics.

Lets inflame people over race with the MSM.

Idiots and good people come in all colors, lets not let the idiots and the instigators in the MSM/Gov/Global financial elite divide the good people of these United States of America.

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and

Who Dey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fredtoast]

(07-30-2016, 02:16 PM)tigerseye Wrote: Did Hillary start this thread? Or her supporters? This is how she gets votes.

Try to divide people by race, make the situation combative and get votes by proclaiming villains. (Same with gender).

Us v Them.

Just don't look at Hillary on her own merits/ethics.

Democrats are the party of inclusion.

Republicxans are the ones talking about building walls and refusing Muslim immigrants.  The guy running for the State legislature in Tennessee who put up the "Make America White Again" was a Republican.

And that is why this thread was started by the stainch conservative Republican Steve King.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2016, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Oh snap.

The ironic thing being that his initial point applies to over 90% of your posts as well.

[Benton]

(07-30-2016, 02:16 PM)tigerseye Wrote: Did Hillary start this thread? Or her supporters? This is how she gets votes.

Try to divide people by race, make the situation combative and get votes by proclaiming villains. (Same with gender).

Us v Them.

Just don't look at Hillary on her own merits/ethics.

Lets inflame people over race with the MSM.

Idiots and good people come in all colors, lets not let the idiots and the instigators in the MSM/Gov/Global financial elite divide the good people of these United States of America.

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and

Who Dey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

isn't that what trump is doing, dividing people by race and religion? I'm anti Hillary as much as I'm anti trump, but her issues of race are a kiddy pool compared to trump's tsunami.