RACE IS NOT REAL

So, my Jewish lecturer called me a racist today.

I stated that Alien scientists would want to preserve the human races, just as we wish to preserve giraffes, lions and other lively animals.

He called me a racist. He said that race isn't real, that it is a social construct.

He said the only differences are in the phenotypes.

I told him that he was pandering to weak people, that he didn't want to say anything that would offend them.

How can he call himself an Ashkenazi Jew, call me a white racist and then say that race doesn't exist?

Fuck him.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AA9cb0Z8ab8
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

slide

>He said the only differences are in phenotypes

Lmfao.

Phenotype means the outward expression of genes, i.e. visibly apparent genetic differences.

"Race doesn't exist if you ignore all of the things which clearly define its existence!"

No true scotsman fallacy at its finest.

race is merely an illusion goy

It is not gentle to point to untermenschen that they are inferior.
It s a taboo now

wut

I just watched the new murdoch murdoch recently too.

youtube.com/watch?v=AA9cb0Z8ab8

Which Uni / state lad?

Western Sydney University, Milperra.

this, also what class
sounds like some cultural anthropology nonsense

ask him why he denies evolution?

>humans aren't a race
he is a cuck

>Western Sydney University

Fuck your life lad, western Sydney is such shithole. Have some m8's going to parra campus and they tell me that they play spot the European because there's so many slantys and shitskins, how many years left?

tell him how can you call me a racist if race doesn't exist.
let him figure that one out

Lots of gooks and lots of Arabs.

I'll finish my teaching masters next year.

Thing is, I'm a 36 year old male, well educated with two university degrees. I've been around.

This fuck is some 27 year old kike who has been to too many protests.

His brain is warped.

It seems you two had different definitions of the word "race". Too often arguments seem to be based around differing definitions with neither party bothering to explain what their definition is. I suggest you ask him for his definition, and try to understand how it's different from yours.

It's a part of my philosophy major. I can't name the unit for privacy reasons, but I will say that it is a unit that forces people to look at what it means to be alive.

Before you cry foul, I'm majoring in philosophy because it gives me the opportunity to write papers that will give me academic pull in later teaching years.

If I can show that I have studied the human mind, I can justify what I teach the children.

I did ask him.

He stated that race doesn't exist, and that was that.

I gave him the essentialist view, that race exists due to a few very select differences.

He said that I didn't know what I was talking about, and that I was an idiot if I thought I could go against what biologists are saying, as if all biologists are saying the same thing.

sounds like your professor is essentially denying micro-evolution. allele frequencies are simply not the same between groups of humans that evolved in relative geographic isolation from one another. the problem really comes down to definition. i hear that "race is a social construct" catchphrase thrown around all the time, but i've never really wrapped my head around it. from what i can infer they're basically saying "people can't agree on a definition of race therefore race doesn't exist", but by that same logic species do not exist either. they're simply methods of classification that we use to group organisms, so in some sense they're social constructs, but their basis lies entirely in biology.

I thought we DID have an accepted definition of species: it is the 'does not produce viable offspring' one, isn't it? And by that definition, there is only a single human race.

no, there's many, and defining it tends to be difficult. the one relating to viable off-spring tends to be the most common and perhaps biologically significant, but it's not without flaws.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
>And by that definition, there is only a single human race.
you're confusing race and species. you are correct in that we are the same species, we never speciated, there was never a speciation event, but you can't ignore significant micro-evolutionary changes. similarly, we divide domesticated dogs into breeds despite them all being the same species, but it's clear that pugs and irish wolfhounds don't have identical gene frequencies. ergo, race and breed are useful classifications

Always with the personal attacks.

The thing is you are a racist because you make the distinction but there is nothing wrong with that.

Evolution demonstrates different adaptive traits in humans which, while still having the ability to procreate, splits them into many different races. Blacks are able to tolerate warmer, sunnier weather. Whites are able to live in colder and darker locations with minimal vitamin d from natural light. Asians can't drive.

All these things are characteristic of racial differences.

Not to mention IQ tests etc if you want to go there.