Explain to me what justifications you have for race. It's all arbitrary

Explain to me what justifications you have for race. It's all arbitrary.

How can you be sure that you are purely of a single ethnic background?

Where do you draw the thresholds for the different races?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statens_institut_för_rasbiologi
youtube.com/watch?v=wdyu_Fr-pR0
archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Ask Israel, they will only allow you into their country if you're part of their gene pool. No really, just google it, they have websites that will give you a clear answer.

Israel permits anyone to become a citizen as long as at least a single grandparent is documented as being Jewish regardless of ethnicity/race.

Religion =/= ethnicity.

Also, race-mixing produces the most adaptable offspring. So why not?

...

This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Were not talking about nationalities, but rather ethnicity.

...

...

>can create a taxonomy of species of animals
>humans evolved from animals
>humans are still animals
>boy howdy how could anybody possibly create a taxonomy of humans?

Is there a way to filter all posts by Canadians?

my faggot sense is tingling

I really hate you manipulating faggots. black people are generally less compassionate and more prone to violence than non whites PERIOD. this is not a pro "white" thing it is anti black thing.

now reveal yourself as the sjw faggot you are and kindly leave the premises.

There's very limited research in the area since it was mostly banned after World War 2, when we kill the Jews however we can start the Racial Biology Institute in Uppsala again.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statens_institut_för_rasbiologi

Except human gene expression exists in a wider range than most naturally occurring animals due to continuous historical mixing.

African lions are confined to the savanna. African humans can be found in every corner of the world. Even historically, pre-year 1000, Africans could be found in Greece, Rome, the Middle-East and Western Europe. These people have sex.

I think you meant whites rather than non-whites.

There is no backing to that claim. It's all hyperbole.

It was discontinued because it was nonsense. Are you stating that Jews are less adept to modern society than whites? That would be rich considering they run your countries.

>naturally occurring animals
as opposed to the artificial ones? dogs fuck each other just like humans do but somehow nobody sees a problem categorizing dogs.

you should know, its legal to fuck them in your backwards shithole of a country.

Yes, dogs. Dog breeds are created by humans through selective breeding and they are not allowed to mix. If you look at street dogs (mutts) it's impossible to classify them for the same reason it's impossible to classify humans. Because they just fuck any which dog. That makes them have gene expressions that range widely.

Moreover, note that mutts are much more adapted for survival than pure breeds. Interesting isn't it?

It wouldn't be impossible to DNA test a dog and determine the percentage of each breed, all of which would impact survivability.

Some shit tzu chihuahua mix isn't necessarily more likely to survive than a purebred shepherd. Maybe in Canada since the asshole is too small to penetrate.

Check this out
youtube.com/watch?v=wdyu_Fr-pR0

Actually breeds are distinguished based on their genetic phenotype, which is their outwards appearance. Therefore a DNA test would not be any more effective than just measuring its features. Google how breeds are identified.

However, we are not talking about selectively breeds of dogs. A better analogy to the human would be the mutt.

A shit tzu and chihuahua mix is not a mutt. It's just two autistically bred dogs mixed together. It needs more generations to return to being an well-abled dog.

You probably don't know what a real street dog looks like since I doubt you've traveled, but they would rip apart any American house dog. Also, they can't be categorized into breeds, it would be impossible.

pic related

So what say you of the Asians and Jews who consistently outperforming Nordic people?

Racial biology is pseudo-science. Based on preconceived notions. Starting with a conclusion is not science.

Why are you so interested in the subject? Is it because you're not White?

I am white. In my social bubble it seems pretty unanimous that sentiments of racial superiority are ludicrous. However, I wish to understand other people's perspective on the subject. I'm usually only on Sup Forums, but Sup Forums is a more appropriate place to ask such a question.

Also, you keep evading the remarks I bring forward.

Where are the Asian countries?

>Where do you draw the thresholds for the different races?

I have an extremely in-depth and autistic scheme for doing exactly that, but I'm too tired to write it out.

somebody start a risk thread

but.... you just said that some groups out perform other groups....

You are referring to a discovery made in the past century to counter an argument about the modern world.

It is undeniable that China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea are economical powerhouses. These countries are catching up very quickly to the strongest of countries (USA, Britain, France) with discoveries and inventions of this century.

Ignoring the impact of the Asian countries in the modern world is delusional.

Not because of their race, but because of the decisions that were made in their countries/communities to develop thriving economies.

Almost every ethnic group has had a golden age in the past. But, power comes and goes. Attributing the current strength of white-majority countries to race is absurd. It's much more complex than: white == successful nation.

Moreover, power shifts occur even within the same race. In the past 4 centuries the economy was centered around Europe. However, since the 1900s, the economy has been centered around the USA.

Power shifts between regions for many reasons. Wars, laws, public opinion shifts, natural disasters, etc... I takes a few wrong decisions for an empire to fall.

>Explain to me what justifications you have for race. It's all arbitrary.
>How can you be sure that you are purely of a single ethnic background?

What matters not is having a "pure" lineage that dates back to some arbitrary time frame. Yes, it's true that races are clunky things with overlapping ethnicities in some areas.

What matters is having the ultimate bond with your countrymen, that of blood. A nation is an extended family, at its root it is based on a people.

You know what we called multicultural "nations" for the rest of history?

Empires.

Globalists would rather live in an amorphous Empire, because they hope to be the nobility. Nationalists want their people to have the ultimate security of their own land.

Stop arguing disingenuous strawman arguments about thresholds.

>let me post a pic of my exes that'll prove me correct

whatever leaf, hope you get raped to death by a pack of feral niggers

>It was discontinued because it was nonsense.

Efforts to stop the congenitally defective from reproducing were far from nonsense, and IQ is a very strong hereditary component as well.
Almost every other piece of "racial" science form back then was bunkum, but sterilisation of the mentally retarded and other severe genetic defects would save untold millions of lifetimes spent caring for them in the future as fewer and fewer are born.

I was always facinated with the stupidity of the question. My mother tongue is russian and in russian race means anthropological group. In schools pupils are taught that there are some 3-8 main races, e.g. caucasian, negroid, mongoloid (all east asians) etc. So for russians this is a very stupid question. Of course race exists, are you blind? An average person from Nigeria and from Finland have clearly different physical features.
What you guys are talking about is ethnicity and this is a tricky question to which I would answer: who the fuck cares? Ethnicity itself defines nothing (whereas race does) -- the culture is the important thing here. Of course, a child born in a "pure" family, where both parents, all grandparents etc belong to one ethnos (one culture) is more likely to carry that culture and give it to his/her children, rather than one born in a mixed family, but that is completly another matter.

Even your countrymen is an arbitrary term.

Consider 2 men born on either side of a border but in the same town. These two men will be much more likely to have a "bond" than a man from London and this same man.

Where do you define these borders of "countrymenship"?

This is even more obvious in Africa. What is the difference between a Moroccan and an Algerian. Not much, only an arbitrary border drawn out not based on race/ethnicity/people but for share of resource by an external power.

>Race is arbitrary
>Breed is arbitrary
>Subspecies is arbitrary
>Species is arbitrary
>Family is arbitrary
>Genus is arbitrary

This (((Leaf))) has a good point. Everything is arbitrary, a border collie fits in your purse and a chihuahua is for herding cattle. All dogs are dogs. All people are people.

SAGE SLIDE KEKNADIAN THREADS

>Dog breeds are created by humans through selective breeding

Humans have been selecting their OWN mates for our entire history, by definition. Humans can accelerate proliferation of differential traits via controlled breeding of livestock and plants.

We also choose our OWN sexual partners and therefore have an effect here as well. Granted the pace is slower than some other examples because our reproductive cycle is longer, but the point still stands.

>Interesting isn't it?

Interesting in the same way that certain ethnic minority groups notorious for marrying their cousins in arranged marriages have much higher rates of many genetic illnesses.

But wait, that would mean that you could have different genetics between populations, based on their cultural practises!

>ethnicity
>the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Ethnicity contains nationality, dumbass. It also has nothing to do with race.

We're talking about race. Race has to do with ancestry. Thus his post is relevant.

Good to know racists can't string together a proper argument.

IQ is not a proper measure of intelligence. As shown by Jews having significantly lower IQs than whites during WW2 and higher IQs now.

Also, if you believe that race is such an important factor then answer this question: I will assume that your English is sub-par and that's the reason for you not understanding the terms you are using.

Race: Is a based on the number of chromosomes in an organism. All non-retarded humans have 23 chromosomes. Thus we are all of the same race, that includes Nigerians and Finnish people.

What you defined as race is in fact what ethnicity is defined as. I agree with you however (who the fuck cares? It's arbitrary) and that is why I bring forth this question.

Now, I invite you to understand the definition of race and reconsider your first point where you discussed race.

The people in your political entity, you fucking spastic. The people with whom you formally arrange to organise the rules of society. The people who have the same passport as you. It is good to be RELATED to these people in some broad sense, as compared to other societies.

Human in-group preference is entirely natural and justified.

Refer to: and > Humans have been selecting their OWN mates for our entire history

Are you really this retarded. Selective breeding is not the selection of a single mate in a single generation. It's a long-term generational selection process with a goal.

How can you guarantee that every single one of the future members of your genealogy will have the same selective criteria as you have? How can you be sure that your ancestors did not have different selection criteria than you? You might have some Mongol in your blood for all you know.

To clarify, I'm not saying that this is how it IS, I'm saying it's how things should be organised.

North Africa and the Middle East have stupid borders, I agree. I constantly hear liberals mention them as a cause of all the violence and struggle in the Middle East. I'll hear "Well it was us in the West who drew their borders with no regard for the different ethnicities and cultures living there, we just forced all these different groups together."

Yes, Redraw the Middle East to give every major ethnicity a homeland.

No one is white senpai. Browsing Sup Forums has taught me this

Oh no, don't you try to pull the classic trick: redefine the word in a manner that you win the argument by definition.

Race is, and I specially checked english wiki, grouping of people by their phenotype. Would you argue that a black person is, first of has darker skin than white person, and, secondly, generaly better takes sunbath than milk-white person? That's racial feature, nothing else. And yes it does exist, you should be a moron to deny that.

But do you see my point with the two men living in the same town but a different country?

Then how far do you extend this "country"?

I feel closer to NYC than I do to Vancouver. But how "brotherly" until the tie breaks and it becomes an "other"?

I messed up the sentence by re-editing it a couple of times but the idea should be clear

quads of truth

My mistake. I have indeed used the wrong word. English is my second language.

However, my point persists. Race is not binary and exist in a wide array. Refer to: and

I agree Nigerians and Finnish people look different. But the intermediary phenotype genes exist in the geographic regions between these two countries.

So countrymen has nothing to do with race by this definition right?

>Then how far do you extend this "country"?

The country is defined by the ethnic and cultural groups. Your example is a difficult one because your nations are both so young. Those parts of the world have barely been civilised for half a century now.

The USA and Canada would function just dandy as a single nation, and you already have culturally and increasingly ethnically divergent California looking to secede.

That all being said, Canada and Australia will unironically be Chinese vassal states within a century and a half if current trends continue.

>blue and red are colours, sure
>but what about these shades of purple, magenta and lilac?

...

The culture of London is significantly different than Liverpool. Are they your "countrymen"?

They are by nationality. But, not culturally. I'm just concerned that there is no reasonable way to define a clear threshold. It's more of a distance metric. A black and white guy from London are much more similar than an Irish man.

But still it exists. And there are actually a lot of people with a very "pure" ethnic background. For example I know all of my ancestors about 9 generations back and they all were armenians (yes, I have two mother tounges). Because americans and canadians are cooked in melting pots you can not imagine that there may exist homogeneous communities where one can be sure about "purity" of ones background. Of course this "purity" is not 100%, but practically even if 10 generations back I had a non-armenian ancestor it doesn't matter now. It's like what? 1/1024-th?

What is this pic implying? All humans, white or whatever, have common ancestry with chimpsnzees.

Is it implying that there was some convergent evolution that caused blacks to be more like chimpsnzees than whites?

Or are they implying that blacks are "less evolved"??

Like I agree blacks resemble chimps more than whites, I'm just skeptical about the pseudoscientific implications here

Colors are not people.

Is the swede the short black guy?

Also, terrible argumentation. Cherry picking examples.

> Armenians
> Persecuted group
> 100% sure not a product of rape

You're being delusional. You cannot know what happened in the 9 passed generations. How do you know there are no secrets? What happened during the genocide?

How do you know their weren't any promiscuous women in your ancestry?

...

>I'm just concerned that there is no reasonable way to define a clear threshold

There doesn't have to be.
Of course there are different races living all over the Western world, awash with the native culture of the land.

But a black man being born in England ought not to make him English.

If I have a baby in China, the baby is not given Chinese citizenship. And rightly so.

Yes, cultures and races are mingling and overlapping more than they ever have. I'm arguing that this is a bad thing.

archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

>IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

>But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

>where do you draw the threshold

Its usually pretty obvious, there are times when someone is borderline but the rule of thumb is, if you have a shitskin parent or grand parent then you aren't white. That doesn't mean they are fully considered a part of the other race, just that they aren't white.

>how can you be sure that you are purely of a single ethnic background

This is another murky area, at a certain point it doesn't matter. If several generations down the line you have a coon handing from the family tree its so far removed that it really doesn't effect much

>it all arbitrary

That's completely retarded, if you ever need a bone marrow transplant tell the doctor you want the marrow to come from someone of a different race than you

>It's all arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. Sickle cell anemia is a real thing, for example. Another example: Europeans/Asians have ~2% neanderthal genes, while Africans have none.

>How can you be sure that you are purely of a single ethnic background?

The only way to be 100% sure is genetic testing.

>Where do you draw the thresholds for the different races?

I don't believe there is a threshold. If someone has a black grandparent and 3 white grandparents, then I'd say they were 75% white and 25% black. It's just like with any other animal. You can breed a husky and a corgi. What do you get? Obviously a half-husky and half-corgi. But nobody would deny that huskys and corgis exist and are different.

I love Japan, they are a great people.

I'd much like to see Chinese, Koreans et cetera genocided though. And the obvious one, Jews.

Don't they say whites have Neanderthal DNA mixed in and blacks don't?

That would show some indication of slightly different evolutionary paths and perhaps levels

Pic related. She's a Nord.

Jokes, she's Slavic.

What about a black man that is born from a lineage of men that were brought to England unwillingly?

Also, you can become Chinese if you have any respectable job after a few years of living in China. Then, your offspring will also be Chinese. Albeit, not being Han (majority ethnic group in China).

"Beaver’s sample of 133 African American men from the Add Health database included 6% that carried 2R. Overall, 5.6% of the men in the sample reported shooting or stabbing someone at some point in their lifetime. The association between 2R and committing a shooting or stabbing crime was statistically significant. Based on Beaver’s evidence, 2R appears to increase the risk of shooting or stabbing a victim during adolescence or adulthood "

scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/

BACK AT IT AGAIN I SEE

> just that they aren't white
But they are white. They are both white and the other ethnicity.

> you want the marrow to come from someone of a different race than you
This actually doesn't matter. There a number of emerging technologies to test for rejection. In the past this was used because their was a higher chance of a match but it has since been noted that it is not foul-proof.

> Sickle cell anemia is a real thing
A genetic disease does not determine an individuals race.

> The only way to be 100% sure is genetic testing
Genetic testing determines haplogroups and attributes them to specific populations with higher than normal percentages of that specific group. This does not mean they don't exist in other groups.

> But nobody would deny that huskys and corgis exist and are different
Refer to earlier posts, this has been discussed 3 times now.

Retard.

Pic related. You're dead.

Jokes, but you soon will be.

There's also strong correlation between space spending and suicide. Pool drownings and Nicholas cage movies by year.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Sorry that was the wrong picture. Here is the Swede.

But wait, it's a Slav.

You can have a peanut butter sandwich. You can have a jelly sandwich. If you put them together you have a new sandwich, not a peanut butter sandwich (nigger), not a jelly sandwich (white person) but a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (halfbreed)

Good night op

Agreed. But, that's not the point of contention. Where does the border of "whiteness" end, and where does the border of "blackness" end?

Good night to you too.

If they have a nigger grand parent they are not white, so that's at least a starting point

What exactly are you looking for? Ask a mixed race person if they are white and they should be able to clear up some of your confusion

My ancestors are from the Eastern Armenia all 9 generations come from a couple of armenian villages. Even if there was promiscuity, which I doubt, knowing the traditions back then, it was within armenian ethnos. Just as I have said, the idea that there exist homogenous groups is so alien to you guys, that you can not imagine it.

Any biologists here? As far as I can tell, there are subspecies classified by a different phenotype alone and by that logic aborigines and the like can certainly be considered subspecies. However, politically that's far too edgy to claim and they stay the fuck away from it because it doesn't really matter that much. How close to the mark am I?

If you can't draw lines on here to show me where the colours end then I guess they don't exist right

I think you are missing the point because race in the USA is so misconstrued.

What do you consider as white?

Are Moors white?
Are Spanish people white?
Are French People white?
Are Slovenians white?
Are Slavs white?

Before almost none of these groups would have been considered white. Even Irish people were of a different ethnic group than Brits.

That's the point that makes race retarded. There is so much in between that what is "white" and what is "black"?

Are Egyptians black?
Are Sudanese black?
Are Sicilians black?
Are Syrians black?
Are Yemenites black?
Are Turks black?
Are Berbers black?

>But wait, it's a Slav.
She looks like a fucking slav.

>implying we can't tell the difference between different kinds of whites

>continuum fallacy
Neat.

>Correlation does not imply causation.
zzzzzzz

>Correlation does not imply causation.
Yes it fucking does you French rape-baby. What your AIDS-addled brain tried to spew was that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. It certainly wiggles its eyebrows in a suggestive manner at causation.

>IQ is not a proper measure of intelligence.
Lol. this entire thread is just an anti-science rejection of anything that makes OP uncomfortable.

btw, 'race' isn't a scientifically valid term. Haplogroup is, however. Here's a genetic distance chart that could help you, OP.

Cancer thread now hidden.

Sub to what? Subordinate to who exactly?

we should probably refine it further than white but thats good enough
everything non white is obviously trash and must be thrown out of the genetic pool if we want a future
asians can keep their countries too
the rest must go

It's possible. But, it's also possible some USSR officer used your grandmother and birthed your parent.

Please do draw a line to separate the red and orange "races" in your color circle. That is my point, there is no clear line that can be drawn. Wherever you draw this line, some points on wither side of that line could easily be classifed as the other color.

As I already said, it's a distance based metric and not a classified system based on a threshold.

to the species they fall under, subspecies are fall under a species and are distinguished within that species because of some variation

To homo sapience species.
All humans are homo sapience and this is our biological species. Any subdivision defines subspecies.

because black people actually are inferior

So because you are too autistic to do understand simple concepts like you think its retarded?

Would you think calling an African elephant different from an Indian elephant would be retarded of you didn't know how to spot the differences? Are Bengal tigers the same thing as Siberian tigers?

Take a statistics class please. Correlation does not mean causation. The only test for causation is the Granger Test. Which is still weak in conclusion.

Consider the two examples of correlation I provided? Are they causal?

Taking a short test based largely on learned concepts in schools does not give a proper notion of the intellectual potential of an individual.

Refer to: and I agree that it's a distance based metric. Your plot is also grossly over-simplified. What are the axes?

But, what is non-white?

a fucking east coast leaf

Refer to: and then The least you can do is read the thread such that your input advances the conversation in a meaningful way.

Burnt orang is a type of orange, not red, you can clearly see where red stops being red and starts being mixed

That girl is clearly not white, she is probably of mixed race

>mutts are much more adapted for survival than pure breeds
what's interesting about this is that a population of wild dogs which were previously domesticated will return to wolf-like aspects within a few generations, such as long snouts and erect ears

I assure you it is was not the case.

Anyway, there exist homogeneous groups wether you like it or not.

Refering to the colours example, yes the color-space is continious... well, physically it is not, it is discreet at quantum level, but lets assume it is. Human discretize the color space. For example in russian the rainbow (full spectrum) is split into 7 main colours. Same with phenotypes. Yes, there exsist intermediate groups and mixed races, but any decent clusterization algorithm would find well-defined clusters of phenotypes, mainly whites, blacks, asians, maybe mediterraneans (armenians, greeks, semites etc).

You're an idiot.

Is

red = RGB (255, 0, 0)

the same as

RGB (255, 0, 1)

...

Africans can be found all over the world but guess what, even removed from the continent they remain Africans. Africans in America are African American. Africans in Sweden aren't suddenly white Swedes and if they have kids with a white swede the kids won't be white, they will be mixed

You can tell exactly what a mutt on the street is, its a mutt, a random mix of dogs that breed into a fairly homogeneous group, this is the same way you we end up with different "pure" human .communities.

Agreed, I've seen that with my own eyes on islands were dogs were imported as domestic pets and then abandoned.

Actually given the dimensionality of the data (haplogroups) and the distribution of these haplogroups among groups, clustering algorithms would fail. That is why they cherry-pick certain haplogroups that are distributed distinctly between different groups to apply clustering algorithms to get results that match geographic regions.

I don't disagree that clusters can be formed however. I am just saying that these clusters when applied on all the haplogroups in an individual will not be perfectly separable. There are always cases that are on the fence.

Like this example:

You are now arguing about correctness of specific division not about "could we divide the colours/humans in groups?"

Yes, we can, and this groups are called races. Now we could argue about "are slavs white? Which features define whiteness?" But we certainly understand that this group is a valid one, even though we can not give precise and consistent definition right away.

>

Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

Agreed. Their ethnicity does not change based on their change in nationality.

My point was that in year 1000 a number of black people living in Rome were having sex. Therefore, all the future offsprings will have a probability of carrying genes of black heritage.

This is true for every single region since every region was invaded by some other ethnic group. Think Mongols.