By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Delaware students can now choose their own race (Yes, RACE!) under new regulations.

Locknuts on 20 February 2018
the-pi-guy said:
Locknuts said:

Come on. We aren't even close to understanding the human genome. It's in this ambiguity that people insert their ideology. 

Did you know that you share 50% of your genes with a banana? Slight variations to the frequency of alleles in the genome can produce different results. My point is that in 50,000 years, significant changes have taken place. Not in percentage terms of what we understand of the human genome, but in obvious, observable, testable reality.

We don't know what everything in our genome does, we have a pretty good idea of the differences though.  

There's a large number of things that cause evolutionary differences.  It's not just about time.  

50,000 years is not a ridiculously long time.  Crocodiles haven't changed that much in 65 million years, and you're acting like it's obvious that 50,000 years should have caused lots of huge differences.  The reality is that's not the case, because 1000x longer hasn't been long enough to change crocodiles much at all.  Genetically the tiny differences are what cause the phenome differences.  

There's a variety of things that speed up and slow down how much divergence there is.  Natural selection, genetic drift, and many others.  

Yep, like the freezing cold that humans managed to migrate to. Those without the intelligence to survive simply perished and that kind of intelligence became a desirable trait for the females.

Also, post industrial revolution, the ability to work a repetitive 8 hour work day (not a natural human trait) was a desirable trait as those who couldn't either run a business or work a full work day didn't get paid.

I believe (and there is some evidence to support this) these things accelerated the differences so that great changes happened over a relatively short period of time.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 20 February 2018
Locknuts said:

Yep, like the freezing cold that humans managed to migrate to. Those without the intelligence to survive simply perished and that kind of intelligence became a desirable trait for the females.

Also, post industrial revolution, the ability to work a repetitive 8 hour work day (not a natural human trait) was a desirable trait as those who couldn't either run a business or work a full work day didn't get paid.

I believe (and there is some evidence to support this) these things accelerated the differences so that great changes happened over a relatively short period of time.

@Bold well we don't know if females specifically preferred intelligence at the time but if an individual couldn't survive the cold weather via whether it'd be physiological or neurological adaptations then they wouldn't be passing their genes anyway ... (sometimes entire populations die out as well) 

And yes you have the right idea that evolutionary pressure will escalate natural selection regardless of the span of time ...



Gamer147 on 20 February 2018

Just political correctness going a muck again.



iron_megalith on 20 February 2018

Just like my MMOs



Player2 on 20 February 2018
Vincoletto said:
Player2 said:

It's obvious that the guy on the left is black and the guy on the right is white.

I can relate. My father is white and my mother is black. I ended up being black and my brother white. Same family, opportunities and etc. Its fun how I can have access to some benefits like joinning a public university and my brother dont. 

From a genetic standpoint you have more in common with a white guy (your brother) than anybody else from your race. People should think about it for a moment.

Nobody has said it, but I'd bet that many people in this thread don't consider that the guy on the right (Thiago Alcántara) is white.

As for having it easier to join a public university due to race, the country you live in is the problem.

Last edited by Player2 - on 20 February 2018

Around the Network
Flilix on 20 February 2018
o_O.Q said:
Flilix said:

 

"It is, since that's an abnormality, it's not heritable (I think? If it is heritable, and if a whole dynasty of eight-limbed people arises, then scientists will probably adjust their definition of a 'human'.)

wtf... right here you accept "human" as a valid classification, how can you and still claim that there is no differentiation between different animals?

1) Every single individual is unique, so of course there is differentiation between different animals.
2) I didn't even say whether or not I accept it as a valid classification. I said that scientits use definitions for biological subdivisions such as 'human'. I also said that these definitions are adjustable, which implies that they're not absolute or inherently true.
3) Of course I understand the need to bring structure in the animal kingdom. And scientists try to do this as systematically and as logically as possible. That doesn't make their structures inherently true, though.

 

"Scientists could just as well have considered that the platypus is a bird since it lays eggs"

no, scientists never use one criteria to group animals

we know a bird is a bird because it has wings AND a beak AND feathers AND lays eggs etc etc etc

I never said that they use only one criteria. But I just mentioned this one because it was the most relevant. Platypus have a beak and lay eggs, but don't have feathers.

 

"But you can never draw a clear line to divide the animal kingdom into groups."

you acknowledge that we can and do when we notice that elephants do not swim in fish schools

I said a clear line. It makes sense that we wouldn't consider elephants to be fish, since they lack a lot of the requirements to be considered a fish. (Note: of course, all these requirements are chosen by scientists. They attempted to do this in the most logical way possible, but that doesn't mean these requirements are absolutely true and inherently the only correct ones.)

Are dinosaurs birds or reptiles?

 

"Almost all biological notions, going from 'life' to 'bird' to 'great tit', are created and defined by people/scientists."

"scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology"

so... birds didn't exist until scientists named them?

These animals exist, obviously. However, the concept of 'bird', and the subdivision of this group, is man-made.

 

 

Question: do you believe in evolution?


PSintend0 on 20 February 2018

In that Delaware school they should just take a genetic test and divide students into for example 100 "races" based on that. Western finns and eastern finns would obviously make two of those "races" and so on. They wouldn´t be actual taxonomical races, but would be somekind of divisions based on genetic differences. Those obsessed with the concept of human races would be happy.

Or as races seem to be mostly about skin color they could just measure students darkness of skin and form what ever number of races they want from that. Then those that want to choose race would also be happy as they could affect the skin color by sun bathing or by the Michael Jackson-method.

I personally don´t see much point in reporting "race" to the school regardless of whether you can choose it, its based on genetic tests or others choose it etc.

However the right to choose your own age might be a good idea. Pedofiles would be easy to identify and catch and gun-laws would have to change. But also laws would have to be made to affect people in the same way regardless of age, so that might be a bit problematic. Still for a short period of time it would be great, then we could go back to the old and maybe keep some of the good things that came out of it.
I would identify as 215 years old ;)



PSintend0 on 20 February 2018

This really illustrates the problem and division between biological taxonomic "races" and social "races":

"My father is white and my mother is black. I ended up being black and my brother white. Same family, opportunities and etc. Its fun how I can have access to some benefits like joinning a public university and my brother dont."

From a biological point of view they are of the same race, same geological race, same population, almost same everything, but from a stupid no-logic point of social view they are from two different races. Whats the point in that? Races should be based on biology or just be forgotten, but people seem to like dividing people into different categories based on whatever stupid things like skin color.



o_O.Q on 20 February 2018
Leadified said:
JWeinCom said:

*Sigh*  What's going on is that you've somehow interpreted "let's let people just enter their own race on a form since people are generally capable of doing so without incident and we can always contact parents on an as needed basis if someone is doing anything abnormal" into "THE DELAWARE SCHOOL SYSTEM WILL LET YOU CLAIM TO BE ANY RACE YOU WANT AND PEOPLE IDENTIFYING THEIR OWN RACE IS NEW AND SCARY AND I DON'T WANT TO LIVE ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE!!!"

Seriously, how else would you go about recording race?  Having children report with the option of double checking with parents as need be seems like a perfectly appropriate method.

We cannot trust ordinary people to make decisions such as this, what if somebody does something inappropriate? That would inevitably contribute to the collapse of Western civilization. No, we need a strong, responsible, overarching authority to make these decisions for us!

this coming from a socialist is hilarious lol

i'm still waiting to hear about how hitler privitised everything and yet still controlled the economy of germany

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 20 February 2018

o_O.Q on 20 February 2018
Flilix said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"It is, since that's an abnormality, it's not heritable (I think? If it is heritable, and if a whole dynasty of eight-limbed people arises, then scientists will probably adjust their definition of a 'human'.)

wtf... right here you accept "human" as a valid classification, how can you and still claim that there is no differentiation between different animals?

1) Every single individual is unique, so of course there is differentiation between different animals.
2) I didn't even say whether or not I accept it as a valid classification. I said that scientits use definitions for biological subdivisions such as 'human'. I also said that these definitions are adjustable, which implies that they're not absolute or inherently true.
3) Of course I understand the need to bring structure in the animal kingdom. And scientists try to do this as systematically and as logically as possible. That doesn't make their structures inherently true, though.

 

"Scientists could just as well have considered that the platypus is a bird since it lays eggs"

no, scientists never use one criteria to group animals

we know a bird is a bird because it has wings AND a beak AND feathers AND lays eggs etc etc etc

I never said that they use only one criteria. But I just mentioned this one because it was the most relevant. Platypus have a beak and lay eggs, but don't have feathers.

 

"But you can never draw a clear line to divide the animal kingdom into groups."

you acknowledge that we can and do when we notice that elephants do not swim in fish schools

I said a clear line. It makes sense that we wouldn't consider elephants to be fish, since they lack a lot of the requirements to be considered a fish. (Note: of course, all these requirements are chosen by scientists. They attempted to do this in the most logical way possible, but that doesn't mean these requirements are absolutely true and inherently the only correct ones.)

Are dinosaurs birds or reptiles?

 

"Almost all biological notions, going from 'life' to 'bird' to 'great tit', are created and defined by people/scientists."

"scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology"

so... birds didn't exist until scientists named them?

These animals exist, obviously. However, the concept of 'bird', and the subdivision of this group, is man-made.

 

 

Question: do you believe in evolution?

"And scientists try to do this as systematically and as logically as possible. That doesn't make their structures inherently true, though."

birds fly, bats fly, humans walk and fish swim, is that all inherently true or not

bats have fur and give birth to live young whereas birds have feathers and beaks and lay eggs, is that inherently true or not?

 

"I never said that they use only one criteria. But I just mentioned this one because it was the most relevant. Platypus have a beak and lay eggs, but don't have feathers."

good and that's why your assertion that a platypus could be a bird is nonsensical in the context we are using

 

"I said a clear line. It makes sense that we wouldn't consider elephants to be fish, since they lack a lot of the requirements to be considered a fish."

you just drew a clear line with elephants, why?

 

"Are dinosaurs birds or reptiles?"

dinosaurs supposedly evolved into birds... are you really using that to draw a comparison between birds and reptiles now?

can you identify a reptile that flies? or a bird that is cold blooded?

 

"These animals exist, obviously."

so this is correct? ""scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology""?

 

"Question: do you believe in evolution?"

i accept that scientists claim its a process which occurs over long periods of time in organisms and this is relevant how?