Home Politics and Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Define White

15678911»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd like to welcome you all back to - The Thread That Would Not Die...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    The 'end product' is genetic stabilisation.
    I don't know which text book you pulled 'genetic stabilisation' out of, but no, still no 'end product' to natural selection. Feel free to think otherwise, though.
    Errr...no. I'm suggesting you ask someone who's properly qualified to clear up your confusion over the fundamentals of biology.
    I guess that wouldn't be you, then?
    I don't know what his views are. I do agree with his statement of scientific fact - that race exists - just as I'd agree with someone who is arguing that the Earth is round.
    So you 'don't know' XXXX's views. Does your next sentence amount to 'yes', in answer to the question; Do you think that dark-skinned Africans, say, and pale-skinned Europeans are separate races?
    I'm disagreeing with you because you're treating long-established biological fact as fallacy and making absolutely false claims (such as that 'race' cannot be applied to sub-species and breeds of animal and plant).
    Just to humour you, I Googled 'race of dogs'. I even added 'biologist'. Try it yourself, and see how many times a particular breed is described as a 'race'...

    This thread is on page 2.

    Don't take it too personally if I continue to think that you're talking hooey. We'll just agree to disagree...

    MOK - Quiet, you! :grump:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    I don't know which text book you pulled 'genetic stabilisation' out of, but no, still no 'end product' to natural selection. Feel free to think otherwise, though.

    I'm not talking about an 'end product' in the wider evolutionary sense - I used the term in reference to the completion of the process which makes for a race - which means, as already stated, for a sub-group to become stabilised and which breeds true. That is what I mean by the 'end product'.

    Having no understanding of what you're talking about, again you miss the point.

    So you 'don't know' XXXX's views. Does your next sentence amount to 'yes', in answer to the question; Do you think that dark-skinned Africans, say, and pale-skinned Europeans are separate races?

    Obviously, given that I've been arguing for the existence of race since page 1.
    Just to humour you, I Googled 'race of dogs'. I even added 'biologist'. Try it yourself, and see how many times a particular breed is described as a 'race'...

    Add 'breed' instead of 'biologist'.
    Don't take it too personally if I continue to think that you're talking hooey.

    Yeah, I'm so offended. :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Add 'breed' instead of 'biologist'.
    Googled 'race of dogs breed', as suggested. Was it supposed to have made a difference?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Googled 'race of dogs breed', as suggested. Was it supposed to have made a difference?

    Try "races of dog" and "breed".

    Or better still, look up wiki for a definition of 'breed' and then check out the definition for 'subspecies'. You'll find 'breed' equated with 'subspecies' and 'subspecies' in turn equated with 'race'.

    And if wiki isn't authoritative for you...i'm sure the E. Britannica will suffice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Try "races of dog" and "breed".
    No. Try it yourself and paste the link, if it exists. All you're doing now is putting off having to admit that the proof you need doesn't exist anywhere on the 'net.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    It's just this thread is going in circles and stuff, and geting nowhere. Seeker doesn't help.

    I tried. And failed ?

    I`ll try again.

    May I suggest that you( and indeed, everyone viewing this thread) read all the posts by the poster XXXX ?

    I have found them to be erudite and informative.

    Furthermore, as one who is alleged to "only pick other posts to pieces", I tried that very technique with those said posts, and was found wanting.

    My suspicion is that those who have challenged XXXX`s posts haven`t read was has actually been said ( or perhaps "processed" the words to suit their map of the world).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    No. Try it yourself and paste the link, if it exists. All you're doing now is putting off having to admit that the proof you need doesn't exist anywhere on the 'net.

    I've told you where to find the proof. If you want to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, that's up to you. Rather infantile for a 40 year old though, I must say.
    look up wiki for a definition of 'breed' and then check out the definition for 'subspecies'. You'll find 'breed' equated with 'subspecies' and 'subspecies' in turn equated with 'race'.

    And if wiki isn't authoritative for you...i'm sure the E. Britannica will suffice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    I've told you where to find the proof. If you want to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, that's up to you. Rather infantile for a 40 year old though, I must say.
    All a far cry from the nonsense you started in with...
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Of course there is a Doberman race, just as there is a Poodle race, a Dachshund race and so on. Likewise there are different races of foxes, birds, plants etc.

    The only difference is that people tend to use the term 'breed' instead of 'race' (at least nowadays).

    This is all basic biology. Didn't you get taught this in school :confused:

    Btw, does "lingering racism" also lead the dog-breeder to consider his Dobermans as 'other' to his Poodles? 'Coz that's your logic.
    You can equate your arse with your elbow if you do it in steps, but the rest of us will still have no problem knowing the difference. And you can state that of course there is a Doberman race, if you choose to believe the steps you had to take were reasonable, but you still come up short of biologists who agree with your conclusion, and try to shift the goalposts instead.

    Why do you continue to obsess over a point you haven't managed to persuade anyone of? Have you even bothered to participate in another thread since you fixated on this?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    All a far cry from the nonsense you started in with...

    You can equate your arse with your elbow if you do it in steps, but the rest of us will still have no problem knowing the difference. And you can state that of course there is a Doberman race, if you choose to believe the steps you had to take were reasonable, but you still come up short of biologists who agree with your conclusion, and try to shift the goalposts instead.

    Shifting the goalposts? Don't think so.

    Since you're too lazy/obtuse here the first search result of "race" and "breed"...


    Race defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:

    5. Biology.
    a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
    b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

    And by the Houghton Mifflin medical dictionary as:

    3. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

    All of which can be found on http://www.answers.com/topic/race-1
    Why do you continue to obsess over a point you haven't managed to persuade anyone of? Have you even bothered to participate in another thread since you fixated on this?

    If it's beyond you to look up a definition and yet you still carry on arguing, what do you expect?

    And yeah, about 3.

    ETA: also check out Darwin in Origin of the Species - http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/on-the-origin-of-species/ebook-page-15.asp
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know, I don't care if a Rottweiler is a breed or race of dog. What I do know though is that you are both exhibiting one of their traits - not letting go.

    Christ, I know I'm bad for arguing a point but damn fellas, give it a rest willya? :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You may feel that that you have nothing more to contribute to this thread, MoK. Why, then. are you still posting to it?

    I 'agreed to disagree' a few posts back. I'm perfectly happy for Spliffie to go through life referring to dog breeds as races, and I'll be boringly conformist and stick with the vast majority of humanity instead. I don't even need to know why it was so important for him to take up cudgels on behalf of a poster who hasn't been back since. If no-one wants to answer my question to XXXX, that's cool...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Before I go, though...
    seeker wrote: »
    p.s. "NEVER" seems like a long time to me
    Yep :D
Sign In or Register to comment.