Does X exist?

Page 1 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Jul 2009, 10:46 pm

skafather84 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Race is a social construct, but it is a real idea that has effects.

so then how can you have medication that's targeted and more effective for one race but not another?

Insofar as skin color indicates genetic relationship there is a statistical grouping that is sloppily valid on medical problems and also there are cultural groupings of common habits and food consumption in ethnic groupings that indicates certain probabilities but certainties are elusive.

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

31 Jul 2009, 12:02 am

Sand, i couldn't have said it any better. <.<

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 Jul 2009, 7:34 am

Sand wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Race is a social construct, but it is a real idea that has effects.

so then how can you have medication that's targeted and more effective for one race but not another?

You may wish to check out "race-specific medication" or maybe BiDil and African Americans.

Pretty effective for elusive certainties.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2009, 9:30 am

skafather84 wrote:

so then how can you have medication that's targeted and more effective for one race but not another?

The targeting is on the basis of genes, not race. You have been victimized by bad science reporting by the press and media.

ruveyn

Michjo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,020
Location: Oxford, UK

31 Jul 2009, 10:40 am

Quote:

Does race exist biologically in humans?

Does time exist?

Does the spiritual world exist?

Does antigravity exist?

Race - Yes
A race is merely an inbreeding group with a pre-determined set of traits. Modern-day society is causing some races to merge together, but it doesn't mean the term is falsified.

Time - Yes
I thought this one would be obvious from experience...

Spiritual World - Unknown
It would be pointless to prove either way, since we'll all be finding out one way or another

Antigravity - Unknown
Until we know the exact cause of gravity and how it's transmitted it would be impossible to know wether it can be counteracted in a specific region of space by eliminating the cause. It would be reasonable to assume it would require extreme conditions however, since it isn't readily seen in nature.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Jul 2009, 11:19 am

Michjo wrote:

Quote:

Does race exist biologically in humans?

Does time exist?

Does the spiritual world exist?

Does antigravity exist?

That there are groups of people with similar genetics such as families, isolated villages and tribes, even nations with intensive interbreeding there is no doubt and also that practice will lead to the very sloppy and amorphous designation of a race if a few outstanding physical characteristics are visually obvious. Skin color is usually considered the most significant but is there a black race or is there a race of Pigmys, a race of Watusis, a race of Ethiopians whose skins are almost purple black as against the lighter browns of others from, say Nigeria? Someone once commented that the black race must be more powerful than the white race because a drop of black "blood" or DNA turns a predominantly white genetic person into a black. The mix is so various and widespread these days with people moving around the world with such facility that race no longer has much actual validity. It seems more ethnic and cultural than anything else and skin color has not much to do with that.

Michjo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,020
Location: Oxford, UK

31 Jul 2009, 11:55 am

Sand wrote:

Most isolated groups usually share most of the same traits as the population around them, even if they do develop one or two different traits. It doesn't make them a different race.

Quote:

Skin color is usually considered the most significant but is there a black race or is there a race of Pigmys, a race of Watusis, a race of Ethiopians whose skins are almost purple black as against the lighter browns of others from, say Nigeria?

No, race is defined by a predetermined set of traits, all of equal value. By focusing solely on skin colour you're mis-using the term "race", so your criticism of it is automatically invalid.

Sand wrote:

Someone once commented that the black race must be more powerful than the white race because a drop of black "blood" or DNA turns a predominantly white genetic person into a black.

They are mis-using the term "race" and clearly have no knowledge of genetics.

Sand wrote:

The mix is so various and widespread these days with people moving around the world with such facility that race no longer has much actual validity. It seems more ethnic and cultural than anything else and skin color has not much to do with that.

Adequately trained, an individual could tell you a lot about your ancestors just by your facial structure and other appearance traits. Of course, the value to using the term "race" is subjective with regards to how it is being used. However, the term "race" has meaning, has validity and has a biological backing.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Jul 2009, 12:10 pm

Michjo wrote:

Sand wrote:

Most isolated groups usually share most of the same traits as the population around them, even if they do develop one or two different traits. It doesn't make them a different race.

Quote:

No, race is defined by a predetermined set of traits, all of equal value. By focusing solely on skin colour you're mis-using the term "race", so your criticism of it is automatically invalid.

Sand wrote:

Someone once commented that the black race must be more powerful than the white race because a drop of black "blood" or DNA turns a predominantly white genetic person into a black.

They are mis-using the term "race" and clearly have no knowledge of genetics.

Sand wrote:

Your denial of the relationship of race to skin color means you are using the term appropriate to your own definition. Race riots never take DNA into account.

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

31 Jul 2009, 12:17 pm

And yet they talk about the "human race" <.< . errr , yeah.

Michjo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,020
Location: Oxford, UK

31 Jul 2009, 12:27 pm

Sand wrote:

Your denial of the relationship of race to skin color means you are using the term appropriate to your own definition.

An albino negro, is still a negro. You're blind insistence that singular traits can define a race, merely highlights your mis-use of the term and the fallacy of your logic.

Sand wrote:

Race riots never take DNA into account.

Because riots have nothing to do with race and are purely sociological, genetics do not cause riots. If anything, you are only highlighting how the term is misused by various different groups in order to benefit their own group (or suppress other groups).

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Jul 2009, 12:43 pm

Michjo wrote:

Sand wrote:

Your denial of the relationship of race to skin color means you are using the term appropriate to your own definition.

An albino negro, is still a negro. You're blind insistence that singular traits can define a race, merely highlights your mis-use of the term and the fallacy of your logic.

Sand wrote:

Race riots never take DNA into account.

And you have totally ignored the fact that a word is defined by its common usage and take it upon yourself to define the word because it satisfies your personal definition.

From Wikipedia:
"'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'".[39] Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies.[39][40][41] One main obstacle to identifying subspecies is that, while it is a recognised taxonomic term, it has no precise definition.[40]

Michjo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,020
Location: Oxford, UK

31 Jul 2009, 1:04 pm

Sand wrote:

And you have totally ignored the fact that a word is defined by its common usage and take it upon yourself to define the word because it satisfies your personal definition.

Words do not have singular concrete definitions on their own, their actual meaning/definition is determined by the words around them. This amazing concept is called context, something you appear to lack. The meaning of the word "race" is altered when veiwed from sociological and biological point of veiws respectively.

I provided enough context as to what i was talking about and the OP provided us the context in his original post when he said...

FireFox wrote:

Does race exist biologically in humans?

And it seems you're edit actually supports everything i have wrote in this thread. You must like shooting yourself in the foot, although in this case i think it would be more accurate to say you have shot yourself in both feet and then sawn both your hands off

Sand wrote:

"'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context.

Sand wrote:

Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'"

Sand wrote:

One main obstacle to identifying subspecies is that, while it is a recognised taxonomic term, it has no precise definition

You're the one giving the word "Race" you're own personal terminology, you're the one who is completely ignoring the context of the discussion in this thread and defining "Race" with a concrete meaning. Just as a side note, there aren't many words in the english language that aren't modified by context, i suggest you read more into context and learn to use it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2009, 2:15 pm

Michjo wrote:

Until we know the exact cause of gravity and how it's transmitted it would be impossible to know wether it can be counteracted in a specific region of space by eliminating the cause. It would be reasonable to assume it would require extreme conditions however, since it isn't readily seen in nature.

Anything that interferes with free fall is an anti-gravity device. For example, the floor on which you stand or the chair on which you sit.

ruveyn

Michjo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,020
Location: Oxford, UK

31 Jul 2009, 2:38 pm

wikipedia wrote:

Anti-gravity is the idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to countering the gravitational force by an opposing force of a different nature, as a helium balloon does; instead, anti-gravity requires that the fundamental causes of the force of gravity be made either not present or not applicable to the place or object through some kind of technological intervention.

That's the meaning of anti-gravity i was using. I've also seen "antigravity" used to describe a hypothetical state of gravity; whereby mass is repulsed. It's generally believed that gravity could not possibly function in this way. There might be a fifth force, that repulses mass (that only acts over extremely long distances), although such a force isn't required in our current theories of the universe.

constantoo
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

10 Aug 2009, 1:16 am

gread illuminating posts

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Aug 2009, 11:01 am

phil777 wrote:

And yet they talk about the "human race" <.< . errr , yeah.

Which is the genus homo, a specialized member of the primate order. Only one species of this genus is now left, namely ours, home sapien sapien. Which is, by definition, "the human race". It is a biological definition, not a social definition.

ruveyn

Page 1 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Does X exist? Post Reply New Topic

Does X exist?