So if race is a social construct, what about "breed"?

So if race is a social construct, what about "breed"?
Can humans be identified as pure breed or mixed breed just the way other species are? Or is there only only one breed, the human breed?
Why is it so hard for some to accept "differences"?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gWWK7WZVZ2Q
is2.Sup
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's just a debate that leads nowhere good. Everyone already knows the physical differences between different populations, etc.. Now if you gonna go separating them by pots, be it labeled breed or race, you'll just propagate racism and it'll just end in disaster.
So it isnt wrong and everyone acknowledge the differences but it's a topic that requires caution when handling. Because the wrong people may misuse your findings.

>wrong people

is that a breed?

Breed is a social construct.
If you don't believe a chihuahua can be a great guard dog and protect your family you're a breedist

No.

...

>So if race is a social construct

But it isn't. Humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana. THe 99.9% argument begins to look weak when that comparison is made.

Dogs share almost all the same DNA (some differing based upon interbreeding with wolves, etc.) as humans with other humans. But nobody with even the remotest sense of the world will say that a Pug is the same as a German Shepherd.

You're being lied to.

>bananana

abbo puh-leese. and what kinda fucked up breed mixing did your dogs do?

Problem with separating populations is that humans fuck neighbours all the time, and if you draw a border between two populations on the map, there will be almost no difference near the border.

That's why city states work better.
People need a tribe and it's a lot easier if that tribe looks like them.

not so much that, just identifying "pure" from "mixed". pure white or black or eskimo or whatever from mixed. they do sub categorize these things, like the mexican-canadian mixed breed compared to the pure canadian aka "french".

Don't do that. Mixed breeds are better doggos all around. It's literally the opposite in humans.

where can I get one?

that dog looks like the beast incarnate.

is that thing real?

looks like its georgia, aka north florida. why does this not surprise me?

youtube.com/watch?v=gWWK7WZVZ2Q

Did somebody say "Satan"?

Fuck
is2.Sup Forums.org/wsg/1486047833343.webm

>Why is it so hard for some to accept "differences"?
It isn't though. We have plenty of recognized differences such as halotype.

There's just nothing cohesive enough to draw into a neat little category like with animals, not is there any great advantage to doing so.

what breed of dogger is this?

of course not user
don't pay any heed to the fact that highly unique and specialized dog breeds developed over the course of a couple centuries
humans absolutely haven't changed at all in the past ten thousand years, and saying otherwise is racist

would it be a better "utopia" if we classified by dna?

>There's just nothing cohesive enough to draw into a neat little category like with animals, not is there any great advantage to doing so.
This is such a fucking joke of an argument when we already do precisely that in medicine
The differences are exceedingly obvious and significant, the fact that they blur at the edges is unimportant.

race isn't a social construct. i don't know how mentally deranged you have to be to actually think it's true.

like that sickle cell anemia thing? or is the medical profession racist?

It's considered a social conatruct because it involves personal bias. People in different context will clasify it in different forms. It's a useless task anyway. There's nothing to gain from this except enabling hate narratives. Obsession with this shows the amount of sentiment such topic brings with it.

denying it surely chills the debate

negro por favor.

Acknowledging differences ≠ classification bias

That would be racist. Cant have that.

Any taxonomic category is a social construct. Some are useful, some are inconvenient and some are both.

Dogs have been selectively bred for millenia. Humans have only rarely and inconsistently been 'bred' in that sense at all. A pekingese weighs about 5 lbs max, a st bernard can get well over 200lbs, and it's impossible for them to breed without human intervention. There is no overlap here, you can find the largest pekingese in the world, and the smallest st bernard, the latter is still going to be so much large than the former they might as well be different species.

By comparison the shortest human population (the pygmies) average 59 inches tall, masai average 70 inches. That doesn't even compare to what you see in dogs, and furthermore the pygmys are a very small and isolated group that none of us are ever likely to even see. If we eliminate them and compare say nords with south-east asians the spread is even smaller, and the overlap is enormous.

The dog breed analogy falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.

If you select certain physical characteristics (which are obviously present in the genes, and thus able to be choosen) either intensive enough or long enough yes we could have breeds.

You could have for example in colder northen latitudes people with lighter skin to absorb more sunlight so they can and produce vit D, people from the mountains with better oxigen transportation to be able to live in high altitudes with less oxigen, oh wait...

Yeah I suppose we could go further, like brainless people for experiments, people with more functional fingers to work at keyboards ( we know already the mutation, gotta explore the possibilities, given the scenario, no genetic mistake is a "mistake") etc