Jazz Insider
Banned
^i believe we have a test case for dis scenario. i call it Project One Love.
i disagree with your definition of race. How would you explain variations in human appearance? Would you rather call it a breed like dogs or horses? There are different schools of thought on race being a social construct or not, but the undeniable facts are that there are heritable traits that differentiate us from one another. Some groups have light skin, some dark. Some are taller on average, some shorter. Physical dimensions and traits (at least heritable ones) are in no way shape or form a social construct.Race is a social construct. Race is not biological in any sense whatsoever.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i disagree with your definition of race. How would you explain variations in human appearance? Would you rather call it a breed like dogs or horses? There are different schools of thought on race being a social construct or not, but the undeniable facts are that there are heritable traits that differentiate us from one another. Some groups have light skin, some dark. Some are taller on average, some shorter. Physical dimensions and traits (at least heritable ones) are in no way shape or form a social construct.
No, because the genes for intelligence are present in all segments of society-- and intelligence is multi factorial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i disagree with your definition of race. How would you explain variations in human appearance? Would you rather call it a breed like dogs or horses? There are different schools of thought on race being a social construct or not, but the undeniable facts are that there are heritable traits that differentiate us from one another. Some groups have light skin, some dark. Some are taller on average, some shorter. Physical dimensions and traits (at least heritable ones) are in no way shape or form a social construct.
Everyone is different. Race is most definitely a social construct, though. Humans put people into groups that they both create parameters for and label.
In my mind, the idea that you present that the genes for intelligence are the same throughout all humans points to a god governing this part of being human. If that is the case, that is great. But scientifically, it would be possible for a group of humans to have evolved in different facets of anatomy enough to have surpassed others in the race for intelligence. I am not saying this is the case, but it is a distinct possibility. Also, globalization will have already or will shortly equalize most of these evolutionary advantages anyhow, so it's not a particularly meaningful argument that one race is more advanced than the other.
I still disagree that race is a social construct I the strictest sense of the word. If there are groups that display homogeneity of physical traits over one another, what else are you going to call them? Ethnic group? Ok. Call them that. But the idea that there are not heritable differences is wrong. Two black people who mate are not going to produce an Asian in the same way that two white people who mate will not produce a black baby. In this sense, race has absolutely noting to do with social constructs. It has everything to do with who their ancestors were, and what heritable traits they left for their offspring.
its pretty simple i think. u laid out traits, for example.
can u assign any of those specific traits to any one race? no. not with any certainty.
'on average' is a qualifier to justify a social construct.
Race is something totally created by society. The birth-giving scenarios you described have everything to do with genetics and biology and nothing to do with race.
Yes, you can absolutely with certainty appy physical characteristics to certain groups with plenty if certainty to be scientifically correct. To infer otherwise is ridiculous. That is like saying you are going to breed two chihuahuas and have the outcome be a border collie. Not that humans are as genetically dissimilar as different breeds of dogs, but they are far enough apart that the genetic variation of two black people producing offspring has no chance of producing the same genetic match as two Asian people.
Yes, you can absolutely with certainty appy physical characteristics to certain groups with plenty if certainty to be scientifically correct. To infer otherwise is ridiculous. That is like saying you are going to breed two chihuahuas and have the outcome be a border collie. Not that humans are as genetically dissimilar as different breeds of dogs, but they are far enough apart that the genetic variation of two black people producing offspring has no chance of producing the same genetic match as two Asian people.
We disagree on the definition of the word.
The labels you are using - they are a societal construct. Humans observe physical differences between beings, set parameters for different groups, and then give them labels.
"Black" and "white" people just don't exist. Society has to call them that.
So is the sky being a different color than the grass a societal construct? Or is everything in this entire world the same exact thing?
Maybe.
I'm fairly certain that one of the first things taught in every anthropology or sociology 101 course would be that race is a societal construct. I really don't see any way around that line of thought.