sundin13 said:
1) The issue is that between-group variation typically overlaps (which is something I said in my last post), leaving you with competing ranges of 70-120 vs 80-130. As such, the majority of the "difference" is virtually indistinguishable. And even still, other factors such as family history tend to be a better indicator of the potential presence of a particular trait than race. 2) Do you consider hypertension to be a natural social division? Were you asked whether you had hypertension when you were taking the SAT? Again, if the doctor wants to know these things, that is fine, but these aren't social divisions. These are not things that are relevant in pretty much any context but the doctor's office (and even still, their relevance there is extremely limited and most of the time irrelevant). As such, to maintain these divisions outside of the extremely limited context where they have any application is to socially construct their importance. Which is what I've been arguing. So the question becomes: do you disagree that the heavy importance and social divisions built around race are socially constructed? 3) Because that is about the potential of being contagious. High blood pressure and male pattern baldness and other diseases with a strong genetic component typically aren't contagious. To bring it up is to kind of sidestep this entire conversation. 4) How is it like that in literally any way? What is that even supposed to mean? 5) No response? |
"The issue is that between-group variation typically overlaps (which is something I said in my last post), leaving you with competing ranges of 70-120 vs 80-130. As such, the majority of the "difference" is virtually indistinguishable. "
its virtually indistinguishable only if you are ideologically controlled
skin cancer for example overwhelmingly impacts white people over black people
is that because of social conditioning?
"Do you consider hypertension to be a natural social division? "
what?
do you not remember that this was the original question?
""since when have we divided humans based on susceptibility to high blood pressure? ""
i'm saying that hypertension is clearly a division based on susceptibility to high blood pressure, what is your response to that?
"Because that is about the potential of being contagious."
huh? isn't the purpose of the vaccine to stop the disease regardless? so why would it matter?
"How is it like that in literally any way?"
attributes that go into the past, your example was high blood pressure, mine was interest in men
