Pemalite said:
I have only made a single claim. |
Bolding, Italicizing and underlining something doesn't make it more true.
You could have avoided this, but since you're practically begging for it, here goes.
You have clearly made multiple claims. A few are:
1) You can predict the geographic area someone is from based on a single photo. (You obviously can't using your "citation" but I'll get there)
2) Your picture from an article regarding predicting the hypothetical skin tone people should have in 2007 based on UV index, skin reflectance of "indigenous people", and Vitamin D3 synthesis amongst others, supports this claim. (Yeah, I did read the citation days ago. It's pretty clear you didn't because you completely misrepresented it right from the start, and had the audacity to insult the intelligence of anyone who dared question you)
3) The criteria for determining "indigenous people" in the article is not arbitrary (It is defined in your citation as" those which had existed in their current locations for a long time prior to European colonization." Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, especially considering they use it to predict the skin tone of what people from Europe should be.)
I think that's enough.
Here's my citation. Here's an older version of your citation that's freely available, since the current version is locked behind a paywall.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/011d/4ccb74f32f597df54ac8037a7903bd95038b.pdf
If you are unaware of what a citation is... I am more than happy to educate you on the matter.
Now go tell an Innu and an "Indigenous" Irish person they have the same skin tone with a straight face. K. Thanks. Bye.







