What's new

Am I racist?

i read a study that being addicted to alcohol and drugs n ish like dat can be passed down within yo dna.
so why not being addicted to hatin black people.
 
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.
 
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.
 
No, because the genes for intelligence are present in all segments of society-- and intelligence is multi factorial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


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 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.

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.
 
Everyone is different. Race is most definitely a social construct, though. Humans put people into groups that they both create parameters for and label.

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.
 
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 think it is possible when you look at intelligence from the point of view that I do. I do believe that some kids are born more intelligent than others. Let's my natural ability to learn is superior to my brother's for instance. I don't think it's very likely that one particular group would have superior intelligence than another, however. Maybe more of a random thing.
 
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.


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.
 
are most succefull peoples more smarter than most unsuccsful peoples? for the most part, i mean. not accountin for peoples who became successful clearly cuz of someone else or by chance like paris hiltons.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.

genetically speakin, the offspring of both of those couples will be xtremely similar. it won't be exact, but no one has exact genetics, cept maybe twins.
 
We disagree on the definition of the word.

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.
 
stuff that humans happen to focus on, these "attributes," that lead to the social construct idea of race (skin color, hair texture, nose width, lip size, etc.) are actualy a very tiny, miniscule % of our DNA.

genetically speakin, humans and bananas share 50% DNA. hopefully dis gives some perspective.
 
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?
 
humans and chimps, bout 98% the same DNA.
humans and mice - 92%.
humans and some plants, like weeds? bout 20%.

think bout dis bro. humans all share 100% the same DNA. its just the order, or sequence, thats different.
 
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?

everythin in dis world is built up of the elements on the periodic table o elements.
on earth, most living things are are pretty much built of the same few handful of elements for the most part.
srs.
 
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.


Anthropology and sociology are social sciences. Humans are different biologically. Biology is a hard science. There is absolutely not a single thing iny biology that would allow me to create an offspring with a white female that would be any other color than white, or the slight variation of white skin color. I can not create black offspring, no matter how much I disagree with the way society labeled me. It's just not in the cards, biologically speaking.
 
Back
Top