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.

This thread is strong proof that the American school system has failed.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
John2290 said:
RolStoppable said:
This thread is strong proof that the American school system has failed.

You are strong proof the society as a whole has failed.

Not only that, I am also proud of it. I voted Trump.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Aeolus451 said:
SuaveSocialist said:
About 20 school shootings in America this year, but apparently having the choice over which box to check on an application form is crossing the line. Social Conservatives need to stop playing Identity Politics and start coming up with solutions to problems that actually exist.

20 school shootings? That's a flat out lie. Conservatives don't care about identity politics because they don't pander to groups based on race, sex or sexuality like the left does in the states does.

Literally the entire point of a party system is to pander to identity politics. It's the entire foundation of  the system ... which do you identify with. Besides, just go on any Fox news broadcast and you'll hear at least : 3 digs at CNN's ratings, 6 roundabout jokes about feminism, and 2 different ways of making white people feel like victims. If that isn't subtle identity politics than I don't know what is.

John2290 said:

I hear this 20 number a lot. Same as in early 2017 and 2016, lots of misinformation going about after every big school shooting. Anyway, have you thought that raising your kids NOT to shoot up schools and get to the route of the problem that way might be a better idea than using it as a flag to shame others talking about "lesser issues".

What? This doesn't even make sense. Everyone knows not to shoot up schools. You don't have to be specifically raised to believe so. Is this just sarcasm to make a point?



SuaveSocialist said:
About 20 school shootings in America this year, but apparently having the choice over which box to check on an application form is crossing the line. Social Conservatives need to stop playing Identity Politics and start coming up with solutions to problems that actually exist.

The school shooting statistic is a bunch of bs because of how school shootings are classified. For example, one of those "school shootings" turned out to be some guy who committed suicide in his car that was parked near a school that had been closed for 7 months at the time. Basically, any incident involving a gun going off within the vicinity of what the government considers a school zone is considered a school shooting. It doesn't matter if the shooting took place in the school. It doesn't matter if school is in session. In the case of the suicide guy, it doesn't even matter if the school is currently operational or not. 

 

As far as colleges go and this SJW crap, I think it is morally wrong for an institution of education to deny objective truth and allow students to lie to themselves. However, I take a free market stance on this. If they're privately run, they can do as they please. However, if they receive any kind of government handout, then they should have to abide by some kind off standard. Personally, I don't think they should receive any handout and should have to compete. 



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

John2290 said:

I'm not getting into this debate, don't want the hassle or the headache but you are the only country that has this recurring problem at this scale and it ain't the guns man, guns are just a tool, sort the minds that get to the point of pulling that trigger or figure out the factors that cause them to do it. 

Then don't comment in the thread. The whole "guns are just a tool" thing is so stupid. It's called a school shooting for a reason, it has to be done with a gun. And other forms of weaponry are nowhere near as efficient as guns. So how are guns not part of the problem? 

Saying that we should just teach people not to commit mass shootings doesn't even make sense. Because if we didn't teach people, and the lack of teaching was a systemic issue, then mass shootings would be even more common then they already are. If people literally lacked the self awareness not to commit a mass shooting because they were never raised in an environment where it was brought up or where it had a negative connotation, then we would see mass shootings all the time because by that logic the problem is that american parents just don't teach their kids not to commit mass shootings. But those environments are non-existent in a public setting, these shooters didn't NOT know to commit mass shootings, they knew exactly what they were doing and knew it was wrong. 

The issue is more about mental health but even that feels more like a strawman to wiggle out of gun legislation. Nobody is saying that there isn't an issue with the mental health of school shooters and that guns just magically made them shoot up schools. What people ARE saying is that a part of the solution IS to stop the shootings by getting rid of easily accessible guns that should obviously be restricted. And I don't think you get the irony in saying that this is only an american issue, while then saying it has nothing to do with guns. Yeah .....



Around the Network
PSintend0 said:

The world is not black and white and the taxonomic system is by no means perfect. All of its boundaries are not clearly cut, but it still serves a purpose and is meaningful. As for races the different populations of human species are just too similar to each other, they are nowhere near meeting the minimum criteria for mammal species for having races.

No, no ... 

What is "meaningful" is purely subjective and there is a valid evolutionary history as outlined by Rosenberg to biologically group these human populations ... 

The so called "criteria" is worthless too if these exceptions exist hence why there is no "hard" rule as to how groups may be defined ... 

PSintend0 said:

Its just so and isn´t up to you, its up to the scientific community, who (not all but many) by the way started studying human genetics with the assumption that there would be races and all kinds of different attributes like intelligence being higher with white people when compared to black people. That was not the case and science moved on as it should. Science is based on the most recent information and tries to adapt to better explain the world around us.

And it's not up to Marxist ideologists like yourself to determine what the scientific community can or can't rule ... (that is why liberals are dishonest when it comes to the subject of genetics and should just stick to just climate science and it should instead be the alt-right that funds genetics research more often)

As for your other half of the paragraph and independent study published by the APA says https://www.mensa.ch/sites/default/files/Intelligence_Neisser1996.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca">otherwise ... 

PSintend0 said: 

Evolution is often very slow and it takes time for races to form and from them to form new species. This also doesn´t only go in one way and isolated populations may start to become less isolated and mix more with other populations making them more similar again.

One of the classifications of a species is that different species cannot produce offspring that are able to reproduce. Two closely related species can sometimes still reproduce, but the offspring cannot reproduce (for example mule).

The concept of human race has much more to do with history and politics than biology. Its really quite interesting.

This is not entirely true, there are most definitely fertile offsprings produced by 2 different species such as the polar bear/grizzly and let's not forget that humans used to do interspecies breeding with the Homo Neanderthalensis and possibly the Homo Erectus. It's one of the many reasons why geneticists are able to order populations such as those with Sub-Saharan ancestry having the least amount of neanderthal DNA while those with East Asians/Oceania ancestry have the highest concentrations of neanderthal DNA ... 

If the concept of human race couldn't be biologically ordered then then there wouldn't any evidence for it and it would be the end of discussion but what's more is that the vast majority of current evidence so far has yet to be discredited ... 



fatslob-:O said:

And it's not up to Marxist ideologists like yourself to determine what the scientific community can or can't rule ... (that is why liberals are dishonest when it comes to the subject of genetics and should just stick to just climate science and it should instead be the alt-right that funds genetics research more often)

This is a joke, right?



Leadified said:

This is a joke, right?

Half of it is since it's ironic and as for the half, there's obvious political roadblocks to research ... 



fatslob-:O said:

No, no ... 

What is "meaningful" is purely subjective and there is a valid evolutionary history as outlined by Rosenberg to biologically group these human populations ... 

The so called "criteria" is worthless too if these exceptions exist hence why there is no "hard" rule as to how groups may be defined ... 

And it's not up to Marxist ideologists like yourself to determine what the scientific community can or can't rule ... (that is why liberals are dishonest when it comes to the subject of genetics and should just stick to just climate science and it should instead be the alt-right that funds genetics research more often)

As for your other half of the paragraph and independent study published by the APA says https://www.mensa.ch/sites/default/files/Intelligence_Neisser1996.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca">otherwise ... 


This is not entirely true, there are most definitely fertile offsprings produced by 2 different species such as the polar bear/grizzly and let's not forget that humans used to do interspecies breeding with the Homo Neanderthalensis and possibly the Homo Erectus. It's one of the many reasons why geneticists are able to order populations such as those with Sub-Saharan ancestry having the least amount of neanderthal DNA while those with East Asians/Oceania ancestry have the highest concentrations of neanderthal DNA ... 

If the concept of human race couldn't be biologically ordered then then there wouldn't any evidence for it and it would be the end of discussion but what's more is that the vast majority of current evidence so far has yet to be discredited ... 

It's entirely arguable whether neanderthalensis and homo sapiens are considered to be separate species.  

Which is why some call them homo sapiens neanderthalensis.  

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39664/how-could-humans-have-interbred-with-neanderthals-if-were-a-different-species

"Short answer

The concept of species is poorly defined and is often misleading. The concept of lineage is much more helpful. IMO, the only usefulness of this poorly defined concept that is the "species" is to have a common vocabulary for naming lineages.

Note that Homo neanderthalis is sometimes (although it is rare) called H. sapiens neanderthalisthough highlighting that some would consider neanderthals and modern humans as being part of the same species.

Long answer

Are neanderthals and modern humans really considered different species?

Often, yes they are considered as different species, neanderthals being called Homo neanderthalisand modern humans are being called Homo sapiens. However, some authors prefer to call neanderthals Homo sapiens neanderthalis and modern humans Homo sapiens sapiens, putting both lineages in the same species (but different subspecies).

How common were interbreeding between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalis

Please, have a look at @iayork's answer.

The rest of the post is here to highlight that whether you consider H. sapiens and H. neanderthalisto be the same species or not is mainly a matter of personal preference given that the concept of species is mainly arbitrary.

Short history of the concept of species

To my knowledge, the concept of species has first been used in the antiquity. At this time, most people viewed species as a fixed entities, unable to change through time and without within population variance (see Aristotle and Plato's thoughts). For some reason we stuck to this concept even though it sometimes appears to not be very useful.

Charles Darwin already understood that as he says in On the Origin of Species (see here)

Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species- that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at the rank of species; or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other in an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage.

You might also want to have a look at the post Why are there species instead of a continuum of various animals?

Several definitions of species

There are several definitions of species that yield me once again to argue that we should rather forget about this concept and just use the term lineage and use accurate description of the reproductive barriers or genetic/functional divergence between lineage rather than using this made-up word that is "species".

I will below discuss the most commonly used definition (the one you cite) that is called the Biological species concept.

Problems with the definition you cite

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction.

Only applies to species that reproduce sexually

Of course, this definition only applies to lineages that use sexual reproduction. If we were to use this definition for asexual lineages, then every single individual would be its own species.

In practice

In general, everybody refers to this definition when talking about sexual lineages but IMO few people are correctly applying for practical reasons of communicating effectively.

How low the fitness of the hybrids need to be?

One has to arbitrarily define a limit of the minimal fitness (or maximal outbreeding depression) to get an accurate definition. Such boundary can be defined in absolute terms or in relative terms (relative to the fitness of the "parent lineages"). If, the hybrid has a fitness that is 100 times lower than any of the two parent lineages, then would you consider the two parent lineages to belong to the same species?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/05/pizzly_bears.html

 



Jon-Erich said:
SuaveSocialist said:
About 20 school shootings in America this year, but apparently having the choice over which box to check on an application form is crossing the line. Social Conservatives need to stop playing Identity Politics and start coming up with solutions to problems that actually exist.

The school shooting statistic is a bunch of bs because of how school shootings are classified. For example, one of those "school shootings" turned out to be some guy who committed suicide in his car that was parked near a school that had been closed for 7 months at the time. Basically, any incident involving a gun going off within the vicinity of what the government considers a school zone is considered a school shooting. It doesn't matter if the shooting took place in the school. It doesn't matter if school is in session. In the case of the suicide guy, it doesn't even matter if the school is currently operational or not. 

 

As far as colleges go and this SJW crap, I think it is morally wrong for an institution of education to deny objective truth and allow students to lie to themselves. However, I take a free market stance on this. If they're privately run, they can do as they please. However, if they receive any kind of government handout, then they should have to abide by some kind off standard. Personally, I don't think they should receive any handout and should have to compete. 

Then I'll pose to you the same question I've yet to have answered.  If you think the way Delaware is entering their data on race is immoral, what better way do you propose?  Besides the student themselves and their family, I don't see who else would be qualified to provide this information, and this system allows the school to use either or to report on race.