happycamper

Members
  • Content count

    19,404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About happycamper

  • Rank
    PC Rainbow Cop of the Board
  • Birthday 11/15/1987

Profile Information

  • Team
    Wyoming
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Casper, WY
  • Interests
    Having my undergrad shunned

Recent Profile Visitors

20,558 profile views
  1. No. No, it isn't. At all. Otherwise a dude with a single black great-grandparent would be considered "White", not "Black, full stop". Otherwise there'd be a race spectrum. Otherwise a guy with dark skin and kinky hair but propensity for auto-immune disease, a balance of fast and slow twitch muscle, and a less dense bone structure would be considered "white". Otherwise the same person dropped across the planet wouldn't change race based on his religion or presumed nation of origin. You need to stop being a princess. It's okay to admit that old terms invented to be used by pseudo-scientists aren't scientific. I don't think we've identified any genetic brain differences between any groups of people. Certainly not ones as neat as the ones you mention above. If you abduct a population of geniuses and force them to only +++++ each other, then your result will probably be of a higher intelligence. Of course, the "you marry who you meet in college" thing is already more or less doing this.
  2. Lol. No. The appellation of "race" to humans with different cosmetic differences is unscientific. The basis that was used to define "races" was unscientific and rooted more in culture and religion than biology. The former use of the word as a tool to justify enslavement and exploitation makes it tainted to use in a scientific standpoint without firm disclaimers. Hence why "population" or "ethnicity" is used in its place for more scientific analyses. The social scientists ruined the term for you 200 years ago, Blues
  3. ... By arguing that the concept of race isn't a scientific one? Shouldn't not respecting such a historically and culturally loaded term that is both imprecise and used with a myriad of definitions which often come in conflict with each other make you respect soft science more, as it's actually being rigorous?
  4. Lol. Thanks for the psychoanalysis based on how I treat people who are too stupid to change their "team" on a website and who lecture me about the proper adjectives for places in Wyoming they're unable to locate. My rambling is only incomprehensible if trisyllabic words are too much for you. Apparently it is, given how you append arguments that I didn't make to ones I did.
  5. This is how I feel. However as an aside, it's criminally stupid that every resident of a state doesn't have a free photo ID just from a governing standpoint. It someone doesn't have an ID they're cut off from a lot, they are a pain to law enforcement, and they face barriers for little stuff like buying cigarettes which help state tax revenue.
  6. Paraphrasing, language is the instrument of the republic.
  7. You're a dumbass, a homophobe, and an Air Force fan. If you wanna be a homophobe keep your yapper shut, nobody wants to read your retard ideas.
  8. You can't believe that people commit crimes and that others believe pseudo science? I know this is a play off of the other thread but weak dude.
  9. Basically, because we learned about them and shoehorned them in to our prior definitions. Race today is still defined the same way, Jack. We STILL use the "single drop" system. We STILL look at a person who is, say, 15/16 European ancestry and say "black". We STILL call someone a different "race" based on religion and culture. The fact that you think that a concept that is hundreds of years old has a genetics and biology as a component is telling. Frankly, at this point you're not being ignorant any more, you're being stupid.
  10. ? We haven't painted ourselves into a corner. We pointed out that race is not based in biology, that historically and culturally it is based on superficial differences, that your use of "race" is more appropriately attributed to "populations" or "ethnicities", and that your insistence that there's a basic set of genetic differences in races indicates that you don't really have a firm historical or cultural grounding for what race means or connotations behind that word.
  11. Dude, we're not the ones being revisionist with what "race" is. Also, from your frickin wikipedia source... " While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[17] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[18][19] Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and emotionally charged synonyms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[6][20]" "One result of debates over the meaning and validity of the concept of race is that the current literature across different disciplines regarding human variation lacks consensus, though within some fields, such as some branches of anthropology, there is strong consensus. Some studies use the word race in its early essentialist taxonomic sense. Many others still use the term race, but use it to mean a population, clade, or haplogroup. Others eschew the concept of race altogether, and use the concept of population as a less problematic unit of analysis" And, since you're using wikipedia, here's fun stuff from 'Race and ethnicity in the US" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States "In the United States since its early history, Native Americans, Africans and Europeans were considered to belong to different races. For nearly three centuries, the criteria for membership in these groups were similar, comprising a person's appearance, his social circle (how he lived), and his known non-White ancestry. History played a part, as persons with known slave ancestors were assumed to be African (or, in later usage, black), regardless of whether they also had European ancestry." " The differences had little to do with biology and more to do with the history of slavery and its racism, and specific forms of White supremacy (the social, geopolitical and economic agendas of dominant Whites vis-à-vis subordinate Blacks and Native Americans). They related especially to the different social places which Blacks and Amerindians occupied in White-dominated 19th-century America. "
  12. Oh right, so the article should have said "5 couples caned, all justified" so you would have been happy?
  13. You don't buy the definition of race as the definition of race? Bud. As I said, horrifyingly ignorant. Pick up a history book
  14. Based on your posts, you need it. You've been horrifyingly ignorant about what race even is and how it was defined this whole thread and you turn the arguments from "race isn't a biological indicator of anything because race was arbitrarily defined to validate different political and economic constructs" to "but but but regional genetic differences and soft science strawman!" You discussed genetic differences between different populations and mistakenly took that valid scientific observation and tried to apply the, frankly archaic and unscientific, term "race" to it and then are too stubborn to just say "hey guys I just mentally categorized 'race' as a shorthand for the real population differences I deal with medically, not a separate, older term that is more or less entirely based on historical justifications of atrocities".
  15. How can you say that "the press ignores the heteros that were caned" WHEN YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT THEIR CANING FROM THE PRESS? Jesus you're stupid Being gay is how it sounds but the articles aren't exactly clear other than "aceh province is nuts". Also, gay people make up way less than 20% of the population...