ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

A Churchian Response, part IV

This is the fourth and final part of my critique of the Churchian response to the 16 Points of the Alt-Right. The first part, covering Points 1-4, is here. The second part, covering Points 4-8 is here. The second part covering Points 9-12 is here.
13. I have already talked about laissez faire economics. By rejecting free trade, they reject the one of the foundational economic principles of conservatism and political freedom. I reject their absolute ignorance and their ridiculous opinion.
International free trade is not, and has never been, one of the foundational economic principles of conservatism or political freedom. It was Karl Marx, not Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk, who actively supported free trade. When this guy talks about absolute ignorance and ridiculous opinions, he is projecting as badly as any SJW.
14. I completely disagree with this racist garbage. Nothing about being “white” matters in any conceivable way. This is pure racism. I fully reject the Alt Right’s racism.
He claims that nothing about being white matters and he completely disagrees that the survival of white people is a moral imperative. This guy is a racist, white-hating monster. He's actually more akin to a Slav-hating Nazi than a well-meaning cuckservative.
15. Let me see if I can nail down what’s wrong here. “Human sub-species.” As I type I am aware of my righteous indignation. I am typing this paragraph rather slowly because the words “human sub-species” make me so furious that I am trying my best not assume God’s authority in who is and is not damned. Let me make this clear, any fool who believes there are “human sub-species” necessarily believes some people are better than others. The Alt Right just expressed something so detestable that opposition to it was the very reason I served in the military. It is absolutely contemptible. It stands against the very nature of God and His creation of mankind in His own image. I hate, no loathe, everything about that deceitful statement. I condemn it with every fiber of my being.
He doesn't just hate white people, he also hates and fears science. Human sub-species absolutely exist. There is absolutely no question about this. In fact, depending upon how strictly one defines species, humanity today is not even all the same species, due to the fact that some people are pure Homo sapiens sapiens while others are not even full Homo sapiens. He can condemn reality all he likes, but genetic science is what it is.
16. There is a lovely Greek term the Apostle Paul uses, σκύβαλον (skubalon). It means a pile of feces and that is what this statement is. After fifteen increasingly vulgar hate-filled statements of sheer ignorance and pride, these creep slapped this disclaimer on their platform like a surgeon general’s warning on a pack of cigarettes. “We advocate a bunch of racists, misogynist, elitist, nationalist, fascist putrescence, and march around with literal torches and automatic weapon; but hey, if any violence irrupts from all our instigation, we’ve got a CYA (cover your @$$) policy in place. We’re all about peaceful social change, like Gandhi.” It is skubalon. You cannot preach “diversity + proximity = war” knowing you live in a diverse society and then say, “I value peace.” Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20) The fruit of the Alt Right is poison. They are hate filled liars seeking to destroy and steal. I reject every part of their message.
It's remarkable how the point about diversity, war, and peace flies right over this guy's head. The point of preaching diversity + proximity = war in a diverse society is to warn people and discourage them from making what is already a serious challenge even worse. Conflict is coming to every diverse society, but with a proper understanding of why that conflict is inevitable, we can hope to mitigate it somewhat, even if we can't reasonably expect to entirely avoid violence and bloodshed.

As for Matthew 7:15-20, we already recognize the evil fruits of Churchianity, chief among which is the enthusiastic acceptance of the rule of Antichrist. They are the deceived of whom the Apostle John warned in his Book of Revelation. They call good evil and evil good.

Labels: , ,

96 Comments:

Blogger Stilicho February 11, 2018 11:31 AM  

The sad part is that the enemy has deceived these churchians so thoroughly that many of them actually believe they are following scripture when they spout leftist talking points. Of course, a generous portion of self-deceptions helps them get there: it's very easy to believe what you already want to believe.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a leftist to enter into the kingdom of heaven... for much the same reasons as the original ascribed to the rich man.

Blogger phunktor February 11, 2018 11:37 AM  

Who can avoid laughing out loud when considering the precedent of the Northern Spotted Owl being declared a separate species? In derision, to be sure..

But wait, there's more. Consider the intersectionality with Loving. Of course, this could be the argument used to legalize bestiality. We'll have to see.

Blogger Positive Dennis February 11, 2018 11:43 AM  

I do not think he understands the word sub in this context. Subpar means below the average. Sub species does not have the meaning of below average.

Blogger Cecil Henry February 11, 2018 11:53 AM  

'Nothing about being “white” matters in any conceivable way. This is pure racism.'


First sentence completely discredits him, shows he's an anti-White bigot, evil.

Its also, it a gross example of arrogant virtue signalling blindness, completely misses the reality that the first sentence IS the 'racism' he pretends to decry.

Evil. Call him OUT.

Blogger Jack Amok February 11, 2018 11:57 AM  

As someone already pointed out, the fact he had to disagree with every single point discredits his response. He wasn't analyzing The 16 Points and reaching conclusions, he was post-hoc justifying his existing position.

For instance, I can understand decent people who disagree about identity or free trade or who get uncomfortable about the implications of the 14 words. Those are the truths that say the world so many people earnestly worked for is doomed, and that makes them hard truths to accept. So I get that. People like that are just a little ways behind the rest of us on the same path, we just have to be patient with them.

That's not this guy. This guy is so far gone he has to argue the alt-right is not even an alternative to the establishment right. For me though, his attack on the 4th point is the Rubicon. He hates Western Civilization, so nothing else really matters.

Blogger HoosierHillbilly February 11, 2018 12:02 PM  

We do value peace. But we also realize the serpent eats his tail and are trying to warn them about history.

"In peace and prosperity both states and individuals are actuated by higher motives, because they do not fall under the dominion of imperious necessities; but war, which takes away the comfortable provision of daily life, is a hard master and tends to assimilate men's characters to their conditions." -Thucydides, ch 82

Blogger Mocheirge February 11, 2018 12:06 PM  

tfw someone makes a moral judgement of a term because of a Latin preposition.

Blogger rainman February 11, 2018 12:09 PM  

Lol your response to #15 is something I've used before on a friend who was dreadfully uninformed about human diversity. He said that humanity = homo sapiens and any internal distinctions were irrelevant, to which I informed him he was clearly a hateful bigot as he was unpersoning the billions of people who were, in fact, homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis hybrids

Blogger Man of the Atom February 11, 2018 12:14 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:
That's not this guy. This guy is so far gone he has to argue the alt-right is not even an alternative to the establishment right. For me though, his attack on the 4th point is the Rubicon. He hates Western Civilization, so nothing else really matters.


He's clearly possessed by the demonic neo-cuck spirit, Wilcrystul. He should take it home. He needs to take it back.

Blogger Michael Maier February 11, 2018 12:19 PM  

These pricks are so wedded to their vision of themselves as "good persons" that they attack anything remotely differing.

They are the enemy. And they will cheer on us being literally murdered for "the greater good".

Blogger Dangeresque February 11, 2018 12:21 PM  

I love the foaming at the mouth about sub-species... This guy doesn't even understand basic taxonomy. A sub-species is simply a finer grained categorization than species. If dog is a species, then poodle and rottweiler are sub-species. Does this guy not believe that different breeds of dog exist?

Blogger Lovekraft February 11, 2018 12:39 PM  

The left is either slandering the alt-right via shoddy arguments, or doing its best to ignore and dismiss.

What it hasn't been able to do is pinpoint any real evidence that would be the death knell of any movement. Eg. any street skirmish always shows the marxists as the initiators or willing participants.

We are still watching the slow and steady decline of the left. They've been coddled for so long that they've lost their intellectual rigor.

The alt-right has to keep the course and avoid falling into the same complacency and over-confidence that the left has. Take the Berkeley article of yesterday. To me, that's an attempt to falsely engage us in discourse without them first offering severe concessions.

Blogger Cecil Henry February 11, 2018 12:45 PM  

The Churchian:


Virtue Signalling is no virtue. Its theft: of people's lives, their past and future.


https://i.imgur.com/gevCTM0.png

Blogger stevo February 11, 2018 1:17 PM  

I wondered why the press never mentions Vox Day. They can't handle the truth

Blogger CM February 11, 2018 1:20 PM  

I don't think Christ will return until we've gone through the anti-Christ.

One of my struggles with all this is a strange desire to hasten Christ's return, but to hasten Christ's return is to condemn more of humanity to the gates of hell.

While there's nothing wrong with hoping for Christ's return, praying for it, longing for it, and preparing for it, it is not my job to help it get here faster.

To do so is to hasten the others to damnation. This is God's time. He doesn't need our help. And if we follow scripture, we push the end back. At some point, I suppose we will be overwhelmed. It seems to be happening as we speak, but its happened before and been pushed back.

When we are overwhelmed, then our King will come and rescue us. But we are still supposed to fight against it as best we can.

Blogger CM February 11, 2018 1:23 PM  

Hit enter too soon -

I think Churchians think its their job to help Christ get here sooner rather than to just obey him and prepare their hearts and spread the Gospel.

Abandon Israel, pursue Globalism, weaken the church.

Blogger cheddarman February 11, 2018 1:28 PM  

can we just shoot him? Asking for a random passer by.

Blogger Danby February 11, 2018 1:29 PM  

"By their fruits you shall know them."

And what are the fruits of cuckservative churchianism?
What are your fruits @comicshoud?

Blogger Eze Garcés February 11, 2018 1:34 PM  

'Nothing about being “white” matters in any conceivable way. This is pure racism.'
White guilt and racial denialism at It's finest.Also,the fact that he needs to emphasize how much he hates a point or an idea shows how much he is seeking validation from the churchian/SJW crowd

Blogger Lance E February 11, 2018 1:40 PM  

The way he got so triggered at "sub-species" has a whiff of SJW about it. He self-evidently doesn't understand the meaning of the words, but is anxious and upset over the way they sound, because they sound like something that might be racist.

I noticed something similar in Kraut's meltdown on YouTube. The race-denialists are trying to push the narrative that race cannot be a similar concept to subspecies because they are not exactly the same thing - misunderstanding the subspecies analogy entirely, or intentionally misrepresenting it.

Getting angry about language is usually a prelude to trying to police the language, like they're doing now with chain migration. Look for attempts to ban the use of the phrase "sub-species" in biology and anthropology in the near future.

Blogger Felix Bellator February 11, 2018 1:53 PM  

"I am typing this paragraph rather slowly because the words “human sub-species” make me so furious that I am trying my best not assume God’s authority in who is and is not damned."

But just thinking it is a sin! Confess!

"It is skubalon."

He loves being the great educator. He cannot just use the word, he is compelled to explain it. Like a poor comedian trying to explain a lousy joke.

Where is his compassion for the Alt-Right? Or he is coming at this from a righteous anger standpoint? Thereby validating righteous anger. I am sure he is physically capable of driving the money changers from the temple all by himself.

And in his pictures on Instagram, where is his wife? Or did he steal the kid?

Blogger Stilicho February 11, 2018 1:55 PM  

@cheds, when are we going back to the range?

Re: sub-species-he's simply retarded. His progenitors were rather niggardly in passing on certain attributes.

Re: white- if nothing about being "white" matters, then nothing about being "black" matters. Why does he hate negroes so much that he claims their self-defining characteristic is irrelevant? I guess black lives don't matter after all.

Blogger DonReynolds February 11, 2018 2:21 PM  

13. I have already talked about laissez faire economics. By rejecting free trade, they reject the one of the foundational economic principles of conservatism and political freedom. I reject their absolute ignorance and their ridiculous opinion."

Please....do not make this more painful than necessary. Tell him to read up on Alexander Hamilton, first secretary of the treasury, who also started the American policy to protection for domestic industries. Free trade has NEVER been an American tradition....quite the opposite.

"The Alt Right just expressed something so detestable that opposition to it was the very reason I served in the military."

I also took the oath and served in the regular US military. It must have been very difficult for an egalitarian to serve in the military, since it is the LEAST egalitarian place on Earth. There is nothing equal in the military. It is all about inequality.

“We advocate a bunch of racists, misogynist, elitist, nationalist, fascist putrescence, and march around with literal torches and automatic weapon; but hey, if any violence irrupts from all our instigation, we’ve got a CYA (cover your @$$) policy in place. We’re all about peaceful social change, like Gandhi.” It is skubalon. You cannot preach “diversity + proximity = war” knowing you live in a diverse society and then say, “I value peace.”

Only parts of this society could ever be described as diverse, the vast majority of the counties are not diverse in the least. Just why the Devil do torches create so much excitement? Everyone must know that our world has been lit by fire for all of human existence. It has been less than a century since much of this country had any access to electricity.

Yes, we can value peace, we can even be willing to fight for peace. Diversity does not promise peace...it only promises eventual conflict. That is not what Alt-Right preaches, it is human history....which this person has refused to read.

Blogger DonReynolds February 11, 2018 2:37 PM  

I don't believe I have ever read so much "hate-filled" name calling, most especially by a person claiming to be a Christian, in my entire life.

It only convinces me that there can be no compromise, no negotiation, no bargain, no deal, no quarter. THEY have made this into a struggle for survival. For us to survive, they cannot. For them to survive, we cannot. We cannot co-exist, or share the same country, or live in peace near each other. Either we must separate or one of us must be destroyed. Since I value peace...I hope we will try separation and partition. It is the most humane solution, but there are other solutions that are less humane.

Anonymous Anonymous February 11, 2018 2:45 PM  

What. An. Idiot.

I would suspect he was one of the heathen SJW horde. But even though they are every bit as stupid, they usually don't go to this kind of trouble to prove it.

He is a believer, of sorts, but so puffed up with himself. He is the Pharisee who thanks God that he is not one of the unrighteous. He makes an idol of his virtue and calls it piety, while blindly serving the Prince of this World.

Blogger James February 11, 2018 2:58 PM  

Forget it, Jake, it's The Berkeley Institute.

Blogger tuberman February 11, 2018 3:22 PM  

I think it would be hard to have any more contempt then life has given me for having to look upon such fools as Churchians. Ugh!

Blogger pyrrhus February 11, 2018 3:50 PM  

As they say on some other websites, another confidence target has been added to the list...

Blogger pyrrhus February 11, 2018 3:55 PM  

It only convinces me that there can be no compromise, no negotiation, no bargain, no deal, no quarter. THEY have made this into a struggle for survival. For us to survive, they cannot. For them to survive, we cannot. We cannot co-exist, or share the same country, or live in peace near each other. Either we must separate or one of us must be destroyed. Since I value peace...I hope we will try separation and partition. It is the most humane solution, but there are other solutions that are less humane.

Indeed, we all pray for a humane solution, but we must prepare for the worst outcome, because that is our duty to our families, neighbors, righteous friends, and nation.

Blogger pyrrhus February 11, 2018 3:58 PM  

Ignorance this breathtaking indicates that reason will never enter into the debate, it's just a waste of time to try...

Blogger Patrick Kelly February 11, 2018 4:08 PM  

If nothing about being white matters then
nothing about being black matters
nothing about being jewish matters

they never consistently follow their logic outside their smug, self-righteous bubbles.

Blogger tublecane February 11, 2018 4:34 PM  

"Literal torches," guyz. Literal. Torches. I can't stress enough the fact that people actually carried actual physical torches somewhere.

That means...something.

Blogger Scott C February 11, 2018 4:36 PM  

In fact, depending upon how strictly one defines species, humanity today is not even all the same species, due to the fact that some people are pure Homo sapiens sapiens while others are not even full Homo sapiens.

This raises the question: at what point in natural history did "people" begin to appear? If some living individuals were wholly another species, would they count as people?

Blogger The Cooler February 11, 2018 4:39 PM  

Ignorance this breathtaking indicates that reason will never enter into the debate, it's just a waste of time to try...

Most of them aren't equipped to understand when they've been beaten. And the ones that are will pretend to have won if for no other reason than most of one's audience, most of the time, are not equipped to understand when someone's been beaten.

Blogger tublecane February 11, 2018 4:41 PM  

"As I type I am aware of my righteous indignation."

This guy is beyond parody.

He can't narrate his indignation, about which no one cares, and keep it at that. He can't even narrate himself typing through indignation. No, the really interesting story is that he's aware of the fact that he's typing while indignant.

It's a little psycho-drama: experience the inner workings of this man's mind as he types.

Oh, and he's righteous, or at least his indignation is. In case you didn't know, he'll tell you. Because announcing your self-righteousness is perfectly normal.

Blogger tublecane February 11, 2018 4:45 PM  

@3-He's already inclined to see us as Nazis, obviously. Saying "sub-species" sounds like unter-menschen, if you're an idiot.

Blogger Peaceful Poster February 11, 2018 4:47 PM  

If some living individuals were wholly another species, would they count as people?

"Peoplekind" is literally non-inclusive. SJW's are gonna turn on Trudeau now.

Blogger VD February 11, 2018 4:52 PM  

It's a little psycho-drama: experience the inner workings of this man's mind as he types.

I told you he was a Gamma.

Anonymous Anonymous February 11, 2018 4:59 PM  

As I type I am aware of my righteous indignation. I am typing this paragraph rather slowly because the words “human sub-species” make me so furious

Totally fake anger.

It's like when Mitt Romney said that he fell down with tears of joy when Mormons allowed blacks to be made priest. My thought was, that he's either a liar or mentally ill.

Blogger tublecane February 11, 2018 5:00 PM  

"You cannot preach 'diversity + proximity = war' knowing you live in a diverse society and then say, 'I value peace.'"

I'm going to assume, because he's an idiot and/or liar, he thinks the formula "diversity + proximity = war" means the alt-right wants to start a war because it doesn't like diversity. But given the truth, here's what his argument sounds like:

You cannot say some catastrophe looms on the horizon, then say you value the opposite of catastrophe.

You cannot say one country bombing another constitutes an act of war, then say you value peace.

You cannot say men tend to want to defend their families against home invasion, then say you value peace.

Blogger The Lab Manager February 11, 2018 5:16 PM  

I wonder the churchian quoted would think of this situation:

High school science fair project questioning African American intelligence sparks outrage

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article199440204.html


"She said the student who prepared the report has a history of making racist remarks in class. He is described by peers as a boy of Asian descent and a participant in the accelerated Humanities and International Studies program, or HISP. The Sacramento Bee did not speak to the student and is not identifying the minor."

Blogger DBSFF February 11, 2018 5:32 PM  

"Let me make this clear, any fool who believes there are 'human sub-species' necessarily believes some people are better than others."

Lol, what? Speak for yourself, champ. He virtue signals so hard he doesn't realize that he's the only one suggesting one sub species is "necessarily" "better" than another.

Blogger Lovekraft February 11, 2018 5:36 PM  

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/

Blogger Phillip George February 11, 2018 6:26 PM  

DNA Adam
Mitochondrial Eve. [facts of science]

What's sub about one and only one human race? Then later

Noah and his wife.
1 man. 1 woman. 3 sons [though were they all to the one wife?]
3 Daughers in Law/

So what's a Sub? A semantic technical definition. Who cares?

Wittgenstein did "fuzzy word" arguments. cheers.

So here's my 'triggered': A biblical synopsis.

Blogger Phillip George February 11, 2018 6:37 PM  

https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

an inconvenient article

Blogger StrongCoffee61 February 11, 2018 6:37 PM  

Western religious organizations are bureaucracies that are increasingly dependent on nonwhites for their power, so it's not surprising that they're going to pander to the racial and economic fantasies of their new flock.

Here in America, mestizos and other nonwhites want Whites to be a piñata. A defenseless and deprided racial group that can be beaten with impunity for psychological satisfaction and economic goodies.

"The fruit of the Alt Right is poison. They are hate filled liars seeking to destroy and steal"

The fruit of the Alt Right IS poison to corrupted institutions including religious ones whose greed for power has converged them into an anti-White and globalist mindset.

The Alt Right IS hateful to those whose political and economic greed are severely damaging the West. It's a healthy righteous hatred like a fierce mother Grizzly protecting her cubs.

Seeking to destroy and steal?
This is pure SJW projection. Destroy and Steal is practically the unspoken motto of the Western Left, whereas the Alt Right is about unapologetically and aggressively protecting the West from destruction and thievery.







Blogger Robert February 11, 2018 6:47 PM  

Off topic, but I guess we can confirm that Megan Fox of PJ Media reads Vox: https://pjmedia.com/trending/left-wing-blogger-calls-drowning-conservative-students/

The article ends with: "Rest assured that whatever the left is accusing you of, they are doing it twice as fast and with more efficiency because SJWs always project."

Blogger Koanic February 12, 2018 2:35 AM  

> Totally fake anger.

I strongly suspect they both narrate genuine experiences. Lies are self-serving, not self-tooling.

Blogger Nathan February 12, 2018 4:58 AM  

"Human sub-species absolutely exist. There is absolutely no question about this. In fact, depending upon how strictly one defines species..."

Could someone explain this to me a bit better? It is easy for us to talk about how some things exist because they are clearly before our eyes. In other words, we do not need to say that *it matters how we define it*. But in this case, we are talking about how something "absolutely exists" though how we define it is integral to the process. What are some examples of a human "sub species" and are there examples of human species that are not "sub"? Thanks ahead of time to anyone who can help me get this better.

Blogger VD February 12, 2018 8:44 AM  

What are some examples of a human "sub species" and are there examples of human species that are not "sub"? Thanks ahead of time to anyone who can help me get this better.

Look up the difference between:

Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo denisova

Neanderthals are generally classified by paleontologists as the species Homo neanderthalensis, having separated from the Homo sapiens lineage 600,000 years ago, but a minority consider them to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)

Blogger Nathan February 12, 2018 10:14 AM  

Vox,

You said "Human sub-species absolutely exist."

...but those you give me are extinct. I was assuming you are saying they exist today.

If there are no "sub-species" that we can point to that exist today, then when I say "in this case, we are talking about how something 'absolutely exists' though how we define it is integral to the process" then that statement is even doubly true, as I guess we are defining "exists" differently as well...

Blogger tublecane February 12, 2018 6:03 PM  

@51-Why don't you try looking up "human" or "subspecies" on Wikipedia (or Infogalactic) before posting here? I find this statement in the first paragraph of the "subspecies" article: "a species will be recognized as either having no subspecies at all or at least two (including any that are extinct)."

That's the way science works: the categories exist even though examples are extinct.

Homo sapiens sapiens like you (I assume) are a subspecies of homo sapiens, and you definitely are not extinct.

Neanderthals are sometimes considered a separate species, but are also classified as homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They are extinct, but they interbred with the ancestors of modern humans while they existed. Therefore, though they died out, their genetic material lives on.

Not all modern humans have Neanderthal DNA. Sub-Saharan Africans by and large don't.

Modern humans also may have interbred with another group of "archaic humans": homo sapiens denisova. Either that, or we share common ancestors. Their DNA also lives on.

Other recognized subspecies of homo sapiens are out there, including homo sapiens idaltu.

Blogger Silvermute February 12, 2018 6:48 PM  

@Vox Day

You use this quote to justify your claim that there are human subspecies:

"Neanderthals are generally classified by paleontologists as the species Homo neanderthalensis, having separated from the Homo sapiens lineage 600,000 years ago"

Yet you have been quite vehement in your refusal to accept evolution. How do you rationalise using speciation to support your case when you don't accept the mechanism that drives speciation? And if you contend that there are modern human subspecies, can you give an example of one? Or are we just using minor differences in phenotype (such as the amount of melanin in a person's skin - which, as "Cheddar Man" demonstrates, is something that can change significantly over just a few thousand years) as a means to categorise and denigrate groups of people?

Blogger Danby February 12, 2018 7:53 PM  

Silvermute wrote:And if you contend that there are modern human subspecies, can you give an example of one? Or are we just using minor differences in phenotype (such as the amount of melanin in a person's skin - which, as "Cheddar Man" demonstrates, is something that can change significantly over just a few thousand years) as a means to categorise and denigrate groups of people?
Look, yet another equalitarian virtually denying race claiming that 1) skin color is the only possible definition of race and 2) skin color is minor.

"Just a few thousand years" is plenty of time to create a new subspecies. If you're an evolutionist, it's plenty of time to create an entirely new species, mutation rates be damned.

Blogger Danby February 12, 2018 8:03 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Danby February 12, 2018 8:08 PM  

For our sadly, not mute friend:
What is the species relationship difference between Ursus Arctos Horribilis, U.A. Middendorfi and U.A. Dalli? They are consistently and reliably cast subspecies, yet the actual genetic difference is orders of magnitude smaller than that between, i.e. Aborigines and Europeans, and there is no actual genetic isolation to speak of. The relationship between those human sub-species is probably closer to that between the Brown bears and Polar bears.

Which you would probably class as only a difference is coat color, which can be changed in only a few decades, and hence not a real sub-species at all.

Do you even know what a sub-species is?

Blogger Silvermute February 12, 2018 8:15 PM  

Danby wrote:Look, yet another equalitarian virtually denying race claiming that 1) skin color is the only possible definition of race and 2) skin color is minor.

Of course I "deny" race: we are all members of the same species and it is well established that the genetic variation within a population is far greater than the variation between "races" (q.v. Long, J. C. & Kittles, R. A. "Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races." Human Biology, vol. 81 no. 5, 2009, pp. 777-798. etc etc).

I'm still quite keen to know why Vox Day uses an argument predicated on speciation (which in turn relies upon evolution) to justify the claim that subspecies of human exist at the present time, by the way.

Blogger Silvermute February 12, 2018 8:25 PM  

Danby wrote:What is the species relationship difference between Ursus Arctos Horribilis, U.A. Middendorfi and U.A. Dalli? They are consistently and reliably cast subspecies,

But they are not. It may be the case that they are so called in a casual sense, but more formally they are all seen as morphological variations on the brown bear.

Cronin, M. A.; Armstrup, S. C.; Garner, and E. R. Vyse, G. W.; Vyse, E.R. (1991). "Interspecific and intraspecific mitochondrial DNA variation in North American bears (Ursus)".

Rausch, R.L. (1963). "Geographic variation in size in North American brown bears, Ursus arctos L., as indicated by condylobasal length". Canadian Journal of Zoology

Blogger Danby February 12, 2018 9:27 PM  

But they are. They have been and are still generally, counted as sub species, although there is some discussion about U. A. Horribils and U. A. Dalli, there is none whatsoever about U.A. Mittendorfi, due to it's different skull shape.
And how about the brown bears of the Tongass, who are matrilinearly descended from polar bears? Are they a separate species, or a sub-species?
Silvermute wrote:Of course I "deny" race: we are all members of the same species and it is well established that the genetic variation within a population is far greater than the variation between "races"

No, it is asserted, in accord with modern official pieties, that race does not exist, which is a plain lie. The tell is the use of manufactured definition for "does not exist". Saying that the variation within the species is greater than the variation between races is a facile tautology. If there is more than one race within the species this will always be true. The variation within the species includes the variation between all the races, as well as all the outliers and extremes of all the races.
It is precisely the same as saying "Because Pygmies are shorter than Bantus, there is no racial distinction between Bantu and Mongols.

It's precisely the same as saying, "There's more variation within the species domestic dog than there is between Elkhounds and Samoyeds, therefore breeds of dog do not exist."

It's precisely the same as saying "There's more variation within the Rhinoceros genus than between the White Rhino an the Black Rhino, therefore there are no separate Rhinoceros species."

Your conventional, cut-and-pasted response is ludicrous, self-evidently stupid and incredibly wrong, and you were too dumb to notice before you repeated it.

You're not tall enough for this ride.

Blogger Danby February 12, 2018 9:45 PM  

The existence of race is established by the answer to one question.
Can people be reliably separated into groups by specific genetic traits that occur in tandem?
The answer is an obvious "yes".
Blacks have darker skin, broader noses, rounder butts, narrower feet, a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibres and countless and countless other distinguishing genetic traits. That a White may have one or two of those traits (and that only rarely) doesn't mean that the grouping doesn't exist.
All of your handwaving is an attempt to distract

Blogger Silvermute February 12, 2018 10:45 PM  

Danby wrote:The existence of race is established by the answer to one question.

Can people be reliably separated into groups by specific genetic traits that occur in tandem?

The answer is an obvious "yes".

Blacks have darker skin, broader noses, rounder butts, narrower feet, a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibres and countless and countless other distinguishing genetic traits. That a White may have one or two of those traits (and that only rarely) doesn't mean that the grouping doesn't exist.

All of your handwaving is an attempt to distract


So, given that "a White may have one or two of those traits" and you define race as being the answer to the question "can people be reliably separated into groups by specific genetic traits that occur in tandem?, you are effectively saying that there exists a probability that a white person may actually be "black" if they demonstrate two or more of these genetic traits that you yourself say exist in the white population? What a charmingly dim take on genetics: kudos. Never before have I seen a "scientific racism" argument so witless that it implies people with Down's syndrome form their own species

I also assume you can point to the genes that specify "rounder butt" and are not just pulling these "genetic traits" from the sphincter in that same general area. Although your "There's more variation within the species domestic dog than there is between Elkhounds and Samoyeds, therefore breeds of dog do not exist" argument actually gives the right answer: breeds of dog are not subspecies. Well done. Shame you don't know what a tautology is.

I do so love these "please find me a scientific way of feeling superior to other people" arguments you guys formulate to compensate for the interminable dullness of typing "ls -lrt" all day. And your inability to counter actual science with anything better than evidence-free assertion is just the icing on the cake. Not a single citation from you, I note. Quelle surprise.

Blogger tublecane February 12, 2018 10:45 PM  

@53-"as 'Cheddar Man' demonstrates"

"Cheddar Man" doesn't demonstrate that. But I see the propaganda is working.

"a means to categorize and denigrate"

Who's denigrating? Unless to categorize is to denigrate, like separate was inherently unequal to the Brown Court.

@57-We are members of the same species, yes. At least as currently classified. But how is that an argument against the existence of races? There wouldn't be different races if we weren't one species.

I see the Lewontin Fallacy is alive and well.

Blogger tublecane February 12, 2018 10:58 PM  

@61-"breeds of dogs are not a subspecies"

But you admit they exist. Yet, somehow race doesn't. Because the former is an example of clusters of shared phenotypical traits, whereas the latter is...

Since the subspecies argument has gone over your head, let me clarify. Domestic dogs are a subspecies of Canis lupus: the gray wolf. They are known as Canis lupus familiaris.

There are more than 30 other subspecies of Canis lupus. Which is more than the subspecies of Homo sapiens. I don't know if this is the case, but let's say for argument's sake one breed of Canis lupus familiaris has one of the other Canis lupus subspecies in its blood. Let's also say this genetic material is completely absent in other breeds. Might that not be significant? Possibly.

That actually is the case with homo sapiens sapiens and different breeds/races as regards the Neanderthal subspecies.

Blogger Silvermute February 12, 2018 11:16 PM  

tublecane wrote:

"Cheddar Man" doesn't demonstrate that. But I see the propaganda is working.


UCL would say otherwise: "The discovery suggests that the lighter pigmentation now considered to be a defining feature of northern Europe is a far more recent phenomenon."

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0218/070218-Face-of-cheddar-man-revealed

tublecane wrote:We are members of the same species, yes. At least as currently classified. But how is that an argument against the existence of races? There wouldn't be different races if we weren't one species.

That isn't the argument. My case is that "race" is meaningless when applied to humans because it isn't supported by our genetics as a species. An opinion supported by the data and made explicit by "even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population"(Witherspoon, D. J. et al. “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations.” Genetics 176.1 (2007))


It doesn't matter how desperately you might want race to be a thing, if it isn't supported by the biology, it is meaningless. If a members of one "race" are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population, I'd say that Lewontin has seen off A. W. F. Edwards

Blogger Silvermute February 12, 2018 11:29 PM  

tublecane wrote:Since the subspecies argument has gone over your head, let me clarify. Domestic dogs are a subspecies of Canis lupus: the gray wolf. They are known as Canis lupus familiaris.

There are more than 30 other subspecies of Canis lupus. Which is more than the subspecies of Homo sapiens. I don't know if this is the case, but let's say for argument's sake one breed of Canis lupus familiaris has one of the other Canis lupus subspecies in its blood. Let's also say this genetic material is completely absent in other breeds. Might that not be significant? Possibly.

That actually is the case with homo sapiens sapiens and different breeds/races as regards the Neanderthal subspecies.


I have no problem with saying that Neanderthals are a subspecies of homo sapiens. Or that domestic dogs are a subspecies of the grey wolf. The same cannot be said for contempory humans. As discussed above, if individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population, the idea that we can categorise human "races" by their genotype becomes laughable. And I really have no idea what point you might be trying to make regarding the occurance of Neanderthal genes in modern humans.

Blogger tublecane February 12, 2018 11:32 PM  

@64-The discovery of course was not "Cheddar Man" as they presented him, but the underlying evidence that made them jump to that conclusion. Which could easily be interpreted other ways. But they wanted the public to see ancient Britons as black with blue eyes, so that's what they presented.

I don't know what "seen off" means, but Edwards is hardly the only person to debunk Lewontin on this topic.

In Lewontin's case I imagine he knew he was engaged in sophistry. I don't know about you, but not seeing something as obvious as race requires a level of obtuseness or silliness that only smart people can fool themselves into believing.

Blogger tublecane February 12, 2018 11:39 PM  

@65-The point about Neanderthal genes in modern humans was simply to bring the discussion back on topic. You know, "some people are pure Homo sapiens sapiens while others are not even full Homo sapiens."

Blogger Silvermute February 12, 2018 11:40 PM  

tublecane wrote:The discovery of course was not "Cheddar Man" as they presented him, but the underlying evidence that made them jump to that conclusion. Which could easily be interpreted other ways. But they wanted the public to see ancient Britons as black with blue eyes, so that's what they presented.

What other interpretation is there? My understanding is that the genetic evidence for dark skin is very good, so I'd be fascinated to see what the other options are. Do tell.

tublecane wrote:I don't know about you, but not seeing something as obvious as race requires a level of obtuseness or silliness that only smart people can fool themselves into believing.

If the only thing you look at is the colour of someone's skin, then I'm sure "race" becomes, as you say, "obvious". It's only when you look a little closer that it becomes even more obvious that the whole concept is meaningless for our species. The genes don't lie.

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 12:15 AM  

tublecane wrote:"some people are pure Homo sapiens sapiens while others are not even full Homo sapiens.

Yes, what a loathsome position to take. Not to mention biologically nonsensical. There isn't a sliding scale using the metric of the proportion of Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA in your genome that states how human you are. Would we do the same with endogenous retroviruses?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 13, 2018 12:25 AM  

Watch him spun and dance folks! A masterful display of agility! Gamma cuck dodges Left, then Left again, and again Left, all while moving the goalposts, changing definitions on the fly, andfaking sneering contempt rather than presenting an argument.

Look, moron, providing a citation rather than argument is the logical fallacy of Argument By Authority. It's not only not persuasive, it's not even logical.
Yes, there is a genetic trait for the shape of the as. Why wouldn't there be? We're not talking about 2 traits, as you dishonestly asserted. We're talking about literally thousands of traits, all of them genetic, all of them inherited, all of them typical of specific racial groups.

You, of course, will ignore, redefine, and move the goalposts again. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to reply, except arrogant stupidity pusses me iff.

Tell you what, now that you've finalky admitted the existance of them, why don't you provide a definition of sub-species, so we can nail your prancing, dancing feet to the floir.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 13, 2018 12:31 AM  

If the only thing you look at is the colour of someone's skin, then I'm sure "race" becomes, as you say, "obvious". It's only when you look a little closer that it becomes even more obvious that the whole concept is meaningless for our species. The genes don't lie.

No they don't. But you do.

It's only when you refuse to look at the evidence with an absolute denial of the existence of race already fomulated as an unalterable dogma, and redefine race into a meaningless concatenation if words that will always be false that race becomes less than obvious. Only by closing the eyes tightly and chanting "there is no race" can you not see it.

Why us "race" meaningless only for our species?

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 12:54 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Watch him spun and dance folks! A masterful display of agility! Gamma cuck dodges Left, then Left again, and again Left, all while moving the goalposts, changing definitions on the fly, andfaking sneering contempt rather than presenting an argument.

Can you point to any examples where I've changed definitions on the fly? Because I think my argument is quite simple to follow - race is a meaningless concept when applied to humans because individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Please let me know if you need that stating in more simple terms.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Look, moron, providing a citation rather than argument is the logical fallacy of Argument By Authority.

You'll note that the citations are all there to support my argument. I'm sorry that you appear unable to find evidence to support your case, but you appear to be gamely applying bluster to compensate, so all's well etc

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Tell you what, now that you've finalky admitted the existance of them, why don't you provide a definition of sub-species, so we can nail your prancing, dancing feet to the floir.

The floir? Heavens forfend. So here's my definition: a subspecies is a population that shows a distinct phenotype and genetic commonality (and strictly doesn't actual exist as a taxonomic rank in zoology). And as we've already established that in humans individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population, the concept is meaningless.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:arrogant stupidity pusses me iff.

Quite. Or quilt.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 13, 2018 1:08 AM  

And as we've already established that in humans individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population, the concept is meaningless.
This is true only if you consider traits in isolation. It is demonstrably false if you assess the much larger set of known racial traits, and exclude known hybrid populations.
It is simply false. But that's what your "experts" were determined to find, so they found it. And it's what you're determined to believe, evidence be damned.
You're dishonest even to yourself.

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 1:23 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:And as we've already established that in humans individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population, the concept is meaningless.

This is true only if you consider traits in isolation. It is demonstrably false if you assess the much larger set of known racial traits, and exclude known hybrid populations.


Such as? It would be awfully nice if you could support some of these assertions with, you know, evidence. Which I'm sure you can do. Any second now.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:It is simply false. But that's what your "experts" were determined to find, so they found it. And it's what you're determined to believe, evidence be damned.

You're dishonest even to yourself.


Given that I've provided the evidence, whereas you only appear to have assertion on your side, I find the irony of "evidence be damned" to be simply exquisite.

The endless struggle to find some group that you can look down upon is an example to us all. Stay strong brother: I sure there's someone out there you can feel superior to. Well, reasonably sure.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 13, 2018 1:32 AM  

The evidence is directly in the mirror, fuckwit.
But you've got yourceyes screwed shut, and are chanting "There's no thing like race, there's no thing like race, there's no thing like race..." like a cut-rate, half-wit, thoroughly dishonest Dorothy Gale.

Blogger Nathan February 13, 2018 6:34 AM  

Silvermute, thanks for providing those definitions. I am appreciating this discussion, and commend you for sticking with it…. I hope Snidely will attempt an answer as well.

You said above:

“If a members of one "race" are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population, I'd say that Lewontin has seen off A. W. F. Edwards”

Do you see this as going along with what I suggested in another thread? (in a question that did not get answered):

“Am I wrong to think that all of the progeny of a mixed race couple will be closer genetically than this or that randomly chosen person from a given race? And here, I think, is a corollary thought: while we have probably pushed the limits when it comes to dog breeds -- seeing about all the variety that is possible -- is this yet the case with human beings?”

You also said: “I have no problem with saying that Neanderthals are a subspecies of homo sapiens. Or that domestic dogs are a subspecies of the grey wolf. The same cannot be said for contempory humans. As discussed above, if individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population, the idea that we can categorise human "races" by their genotype becomes laughable.”

Could we then also say, perhaps, that all of the progeny of a mixed dog breed will be closer genetically than this or that randomly chosen specimen from a given dog breed?


Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 13, 2018 7:07 AM  

@silvermute,
You have not provided evidence, only a dishonest definition of race. The fact that you got your false definition from an academic has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Academics have no more tendency to honesty here than anyone else, perhaps less, given the penalties for heresy.
The evidence you seek is literally in front of you. It is, literally, in your own family.
Growing up in Seattle, as a child I could distinguish Chinese from Korean from Japanese, merely from facial features. If you cannot distinguish a Han from a Bantu (and that is literally your assertion), then it can only be because you do not wish to see.

Why not tell us again how virtuous and moral you are for not seeing what is in front of your face.

How many lights are there?

Do you love Big Brother?

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 7:27 AM  

Nathan, I have no empirical data to base a conclusion on (and I'm not entirely sure that I've completely understood your question), but given that meiosis and genetic recombination are still only operating on the genomes of two individuals, it doesn't seem a stretch to assume that siblings will generally be closer genetically than to a random individual from a different population.

If this is a subject that interests you, I'd recommend A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Stories in Our Genes by Dr Adam Rutherford. Human genetics is both fascinating and far more subtle than we usually think. Dr Rutherford thinks the concept of multiple contemporary human "races" is nonsense, too.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 13, 2018 7:30 AM  

To further clarify, the dishonest definition of race provided is "a difference in phenological attribute between one group and another greater than any possible difference within either group". Nobody, any time, anywhere in the world, has ever used that definition of race before it became vogue a few years ago among academics eager to prove their anti-racism virtue.

This is errant nonsense. One can say that Blacks have darker skin, while noting that American Blacks (who are substantially White in genetics) sometimes have paler skin than some whites from areas with substantial Black admixture, like Greece, Italy and Portugal. One can see that Orientals have epicanthic folds and Whites and Blacks do not, while noting that Downs victims of any race often have them as well.

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 8:00 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:To further clarify, the dishonest definition of race provided is "a difference in phenological attribute between one group and another greater than any possible difference within either group". Nobody, any time, anywhere in the world, has ever used that definition of race before it became vogue a few years ago among academics eager to prove their anti-racism virtue.

It must be frightening when your naive understanding of human genetics and the world-view based upon it are challenged by reality, but that is your problem. The definition of race based upon phenological difference is self-evident and logical. And you should note that it really came into vogue following the results from the Human Genome Project. As in this became the accepted definition when we gained a much better understanding of our genome. Which is almost like greater understanding led to better definitions. How radical. Although if you think you have a better definition, by all means state it here

Snidely Whiplash wrote:This is errant nonsense. One can say that Blacks have darker skin, while noting that American Blacks (who are substantially White in genetics) sometimes have paler skin than some whites from areas with substantial Black admixture, like Greece, Italy and Portugal.

And this is just nonsense. Do you genuinely think that the darker skin shown by people from southern Europe is due to a genetic contribution from sub-Saharan Africans? I'd really like to see a citation supporting that claim.

Given the astonishing ignorance you have demonstrated so far, I really think you need to do some reading and research before you embarrass yourself further. Here would be a good place for you to start:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 13, 2018 9:42 AM  

No, your definition did not result from or contribute to the Human Genome Project. It was formulated by a geneticist specifically in order to "disprove" the mere fact of race. The definition is neither self-evident nor logical.

No one has ever said, for instance "all Blacks are darker than any Whites, therefore, there is a Black race."
Your continual assertion of this definition is a sure sign of your emotional rather than logical reasoning.

So, how about it, can you see, with your own eyes, the difference between an Ibo tribesman and a Hakka Chinese?

And frankly, if you believe there is no significant admixture of African genes in southern Italians, you're the one that needs to do some research.

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 2:07 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:No, your definition did not result from or contribute to the Human Genome Project. It was formulated by a geneticist specifically in order to "disprove" the mere fact of race. The definition is neither self-evident nor logical.

More evidence-free assertion deserving of Hitchen's Razer ("That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"). However, I shall try and lead by example, so have a quote demonstrating your wrongness. You're welcome

In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

Snidely Whiplash wrote:No one has ever said, for instance "all Blacks are darker than any Whites, therefore, there is a Black race."

I have no idea what this gibberish is meant to indicate beyond the standard wingnut tendency to capitalise the wrong nouns. That being said, I'd still be interested in seeing what your definition of race is.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:And frankly, if you believe there is no significant admixture of African genes in southern Italians, you're the one that needs to do some research

You'll note that I actually said "do you genuinely think that the darker skin shown by people from southern Europe is due to a genetic contribution from sub-Saharan Africans?", which is a quite different question to whether there are any African genes in the population in southern Italy. But either way, I assume you can support your claim with evidence.

You can, can't you?

And that brings us to the consistent omission of anything resembling evidence in your comments. You have presented nothing but assertion and misunderstood/misrepresented science. So I'll ask again: can you support any of your arguments with verifiable data or citations? Because the evidence-free assertions of some anonymous derp on the internet in a subject domain that he/she clearly has very limited understanding of is essentially worthless. I have supported my claims with citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers from major journals, you have provided nothing.

So: got any evidence to support your claims? I can wait.

Blogger Danby February 13, 2018 2:10 PM  

Answer the question, you dishonest toad.
Can you tell the difference between an Irishman and an Aborigine?

Blogger Danby February 13, 2018 4:18 PM  

Mr. "No evidence" Dishonest McVirtueSignal has abandoned the field.

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 4:35 PM  

Danby wrote:Mr. "No evidence" Dishonest McVirtueSignal has abandoned the field.

Not really. You've just mistaken my lack of interest in your tedious comments for something more general. I want to see if Whiplash can come up with some evidence to support his case, not deal with your drivel.

Blogger Danby February 13, 2018 4:45 PM  

Silvermute wrote:You've just mistaken my lack of interest in your tedious comments for something more general. I want to see if Whiplash can come up with some evidence to support his case, not deal with your drivel.

So, you are unable to lie your way out of answering his question? Or perhaps just afraid to, because it completely undermines your argument?

Answer the question, this is the 3rd time it's been asked directly.
Can you tell the difference between a Dravidian and a Finn?

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 5:18 PM  

Danby wrote:Can you tell the difference between a Dravidian and a Finn?

Individuals from respectively southern India and northern Europe? I'll hazard a guess that there will be differing levels of skin pigmentation. And I'll also have a punt on individuals from each population sharing more genetic markers with individuals from other populations than with their own.

I'll direct you to Witherspoon et al (2007) again. As stated there: "even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population"(Witherspoon, D. J. et al. “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations.” Genetics 176.1 (2007))

In other words, "race" is a purely social construct in humans. With only those people desperately clinging to the idea that they may belong to an inherently superior "race" giving it any credence. Which is rather sad.

On the other hand, I do get the intensely amusing pantomime of your bluster and aggression as you pursue your ideological comfort blanket, so at least the idiocy is tempered with schadenfreude. Which is nice.

Blogger Danby February 13, 2018 5:46 PM  

you'll "hazard a guess" that you can tell the difference? There "might" be a difference in skin pigmentation? I can think of 20 differences off the top of my head, without even getting into genetic markers.
Trying to split the difference? That's your style, alright; slyly fail to answer the question honestly, then immediately change the subject and re-iterate your nonsense point. Yes, we know you have LOTs of dishonest biologists who will fudge the evidence of their own eyes and deny the existence of their own families if necessary to deny the existence of race. Argument by authority is barely argument at all. It proves NOTHING.

And speaking of genetic markers, did you know they can be used reliably in places like England to tell which side of a river your ancestors dwelt on?

Let's try this again, so everyone can see what a dishonest lying jackass you are.

Answer honestly this time, forthrightly, let your yes be yes, let your no be no.

Can you tell the difference between an Aztec and a Hidalgo?

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 7:04 PM  

Danby wrote:you'll "hazard a guess" that you can tell the difference? There "might" be a difference in skin pigmentation? I can think of 20 differences off the top of my head, without even getting into genetic markers.

I'm sure you can think of many "racial" differences: you clearly spend a lot of time obsessing about this subject. That doesn't change the fact that the individuals concerned may well share more traits with each other than they do with members of their respective populations. And it also doesn't change the fact that it is impossible to say if it will be easy to categorise these individuals without seeing them


Danby wrote:Yes, we know you have LOTs of dishonest biologists who will fudge the evidence of their own eyes and deny the existence of their own families if necessary to deny the existence of race. Argument by authority is barely argument at all. It proves NOTHING.

[translated by Bing]

"I have no scientific theory or empirical evidence to support my bigotry, so it looks like I'll have to continue with the bluster and evidence-free assertion and hope nobody notices. I'll just chuck in some CAPSLOCK and a ridiculous conspiracy theory where the scientific world is lying to me and I'll be golden"

Now I think it's your turn to do a request. So can you give your definition of race? With supporting evidence to justify any sciency bits?

Blogger Danby February 13, 2018 7:36 PM  

Silvermute wrote:That doesn't change the fact that the individuals concerned may well share more traits with each other than they do with members of their respective populations.
This is absolutely and completely a lie. This is not a definition of race, as you well know.

A race is a population group sharing a common descent, and a group of morphological (or phenotypic) similarities that distinguish them from other groups.

You will note, there is no relative index of shared alleles, which is all your fake definition wants to rely on.
Now answer the question, without lying, sneering (oops, sorry, not possible for you), changing the subject or equivocating.

Can you tell a Bushman from a Mongol?

Literally everyone else on the planet can, including the blind and mentally retarded. Have you intentionally made yourself less perceptive than they?

Blogger Silvermute February 13, 2018 8:23 PM  

Danby wrote:Silvermute wrote:That doesn't change the fact that the individuals concerned may well share more traits with each other than they do with members of their respective populations.

This is absolutely and completely a lie. This is not a definition of race, as you well know.


You're quite correct. It's empirical evidence showing that race is meaningless when applied to humans. So for the nth time:

"even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population"(Witherspoon, D. J. et al. “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations.” Genetics 176.1 (2007))

Danby wrote:A race is a population group sharing a common descent, and a group of morphological (or phenotypic) similarities that distinguish them from other groups.

You will note, there is no relative index of shared alleles, which is all your fake definition wants to rely on.


Yes, the fact that you intentionally exclude genetics from your "definition" is very telling. The complete reliance upon phenotypic similarity makes it very easy for you to disregard all that inconvenient genetic dissimilarity. And it also makes your "definition" so weak that it could apply to any level of the taxonomic hierarchy. You've never actually studied biology, have you?

Danby wrote:Can you tell a Bushman from a Mongol?

Once again, I'll assume that I probably can. Which once again has no bearing on whether they form races. I can differentiate between members of different families - does that make them separate races?

Off you go to prepare the next helping of evidence-free assertion and general biological ignorance.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 13, 2018 8:55 PM  

You just keep repeating your pointless assertion.
Your stupidity is not only stupid, it's boring.
You're wrong, and you can't even reformulate your hypothesis in an intellugent manner so that you can examine it.
"There is more variation within a product line than between product lines, therefore, product lines don't exist."
"There is more variation within books than between books, therefore books don't exist."
"There is more variation within philosophies than between philosophies, therefore philosophy doesn't exist."
"There is more variation within a sea than between the seas, therefore oceans don't exist."

It's nonsense, but, by God, if you keep repeating it, you'll never have to feel bad.

Blogger Silvermute February 14, 2018 10:00 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:You're wrong, and you can't even reformulate your hypothesis in an intellugent manner so that you can examine it.

Ah, yes: intellugence (sic). So let's consider some of your more witless statements.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:"There is more variation within a product line than between product lines, therefore, product lines don't exist."

This is almost perfect. I find it immensely amusing to consider a factory that produces two products, only sometimes product A actually more resembles Product B than other members of its own product line. So which product line should these example of A be categorised with?

Snidely Whiplash wrote:"There is more variation within books than between books, therefore books don't exist."

Not a big market for books that vary, mate. Strangely, readers generally like to see the author's original text.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:"There is more variation within philosophies than between philosophies, therefore philosophy doesn't exist."

"Within"? "Between"? Do tell how these prepositions function in this sentence. Lol.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:"There is more variation within a sea than between the seas, therefore oceans don't exist."

And then there's me thinking oceans are defined by size and geographical location.

You're quite special, aren't you?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 14, 2018 12:15 PM  

You see, thus is the communication gap Vax talks aboyt. Mr 110 IQ has his manrea. He doesn't really understand it, but it makes him feel superior every time he repeats it.
You're a moron, silvermute, and you're pleased to death about it.

Blogger Silvermute February 14, 2018 12:43 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:You see, thus is the communication gap Vax talks aboyt. Mr 110 IQ has his manrea. He doesn't really understand it, but it makes him feel superior every time he repeats it

Mens rea? Mantra? We really need to talk about (or "aboyt") your grasp of English as wot she is wrote, me old china. Attempting withering superiority from amidst a sea of malapropisms and/or typos doesn't really work. Funny, though.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:You're a moron, silvermute, and you're pleased to death about it

Ah, ad hominem. Is one to assume that you've got no reasoned argument to deploy? Fear not: you can still hate black people if you want. Bigotry doesn't need justification.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 14, 2018 12:49 PM  

Nor does your bizarre sense of superiority. Which is good, because it hasn't any.
Take care lest you engage in self criticism some day and realize what you are.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts