| MDMAlliance said: Your argument in a nutshell: "I've cherry picked all the data I could find that supports what I already believe, therefore I am right and you are wrong." “There are many, many who claim these use of (racial) categories may not have any biological meaning, only social meaning, and basing medical decisions on them may be problematic,” said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Medical Center for Biomedical Ethics. So stop pretending like you know this subject better than the people who actually study it. |
Ideological argument ...
Race is biologically real and there's a drug to prove it regardless of what the other assertion says in my linked article and nothing is going to change that population genetics exists ...
I don't pretend to know the subject either, these are my findings with my conclusion too and if you don't like it then you find a liberal echo chamber to bounce off your ideology ...
| Aeolus451 said: That wasn't about if race within humans exists. It was on whether humans races fit the definition of biological race or not. Science doesn't have one or two definitions of race. Humans have different geological races. Even so there's biological differences between races in humans beyond skin color. They have different health issues/benefits. Asians tend to have a problem with dairy products. They get cancer less. What the word "race" is used to describe is not a social construct. |
Exactly ...







