you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CuteAsDuck 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

This seemed to be different in that they accept skin color can be differentiated and is biological, but 1) "it still does not mean someone is of one race based on their skin color", and 2) "skin color is the only main trait categorizing people into races. The lack of any other trait means categorizing people based on their skin color does not correspond to meaningful biological groups that exist outside the human social constructs".

The premises are not properly connected to their conclusions. Shouldn't the conclusions that come from accepting skin color as a biological phenomena be, people can be categorized into one race based on their skin color? How can that categorization be a social construct when it is based on a biological phenomena?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

"Shouldn't the conclusions that come from accepting skin color as a biological phenomena be, people can be categorized into one race based on their skin color?"

Yes "How can that categorization be a social construct when it is based on a biological phenomena?"

It can't, which is how you know they're lying.

Their position is based on lies.

This picture goes through many of the typical lies that they make:
https://i.imgur.com/pVuB9Ho.gif

I noticed that you're a woman, so I just want you to be aware that if you mate with an african, then you put your lineage back by approximately 400 thousands of years. Possibly more if you're "unlucky". This setback is almost PERMANENT meaning that your descendants will be doomed for thousands of years. I don't say that lightly and I don't say that to be "racist". I say it because I care about you and because I want the world to be a better place.

They use obfuscation and confusion to argue their positions. Forexample they say that blacks don't exist because black africans are different from black indians and black australians but that's just nonsense. The fact that these groups are different is the proof you need to talk about race in the first place: Yes, people are different. Yes, race is more than skin color. Yes, races exist.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I just want you to be aware that if you mate with an african, then you put your lineage back by approximately 400 thousands of years. Possibly more if you're "unlucky". This setback is almost PERMANENT meaning that your descendants will be doomed for thousands of years.

Come on now. I agree she shouldn't mate with an African, and she should know the consequences of doing so if she does, but you're exaggerating to a degree it's dishonest. Humans didn't even migrate out of Africa until ~200,000 years ago. To say that it's almost permanent is false because after a couple more generations the offspring would be 87.5% white if they marry back into the race, which is white passing even with black DNA. There are also Africans that have a higher IQ than she does. On the individual level, this "setback" could be eugenic if the African in question is of superior intelligence. Why I say she still shouldn't is because the African in question is far more likely to be dysgenic and if too many people started mixing then they could no longer be white after a few generations.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I am not exaggerating at all, in fact. It is a complicated topic and I don't have a ready able picture to explain it like in the previous example, but to put it simple:
Africans don't have neanderthal ancestry.
The majority part of our genetics come from Africa but that does not mean that we share all of that genetics with all Africans - in fact we do not at all. Our ancestors are but a small part/subgroup of the ancient African humans.
Africans have 2-19% VERY ANCIENT ghost population dna (800k years old)
Based on skull morphology, africans resemble 1.2-0.6 mia humans.

400.000 is not an exaggeration at all. Also common ancestor is just that: 1 common ancestor. 1 out of millions ancestors. It is just jewish manipulation.

87,5% white is not white. It is white passing, but not white. It is 100k thousands years behind in evolution. And that is if her descendants are lucky enough to marry kids that are 100% white. You think whites will be available everywhere free for all in the future?
This mixing is very temporary and expect things to revert back sooner rather than later. I wouldn't get children with someone who is 12,5% black. It would be genetic suicide.

Africans that have higher IQ don't matter, because of reversal to the mean. She could be a dumb white and she still shouldn't get children with an intelligent black. It would be beneath her.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You dont know what youre talking about. Every single sentence in that message is wrong or display a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Your math is also wrong as 87.5% white would be 50,000 years behind according to your 400,000 claim.

      1: Learn math
      2: Learn population genetics

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I will allow you to find your own mistake by reading what I've written. I am not going to repeat myself.