"Unfair universe" paradox

@MayCaesar

And what a paradox it is. 2+2=3 that is. We all know we have vulnerabilities but oh how we love it to discover our neighbor has one as well. We all dawn our masks and hope for the best. If only we could learn as a species to put down our masks and strive for the best instead.  

@MayCaesar

That's what makes it an unfair paradox. Keep your masks on you never bond in a meaningful way with anyone, but you hide your vulnerabilities. Take it off and you could gain a deep connection, and you'd be very vulnerable. All psychological curtains we carefully guard.

interesting  . First if the universe were unfair in the way as suggested; then logic alone dictates that either the universe is a conscious being or there is one behind it that directs such unfairness. .Also humans would have to believe or be shown proof of one, for without proof, weather we believe that 2 and 2 equals any number is a mute point. One would have to have indirect or direct knowledge that we would go to heaven or hades depending on what we believe; that if i believe the truth, i would end up in hades; yet of i believe otherwise, after my demise, i would have a heavenly reward. Indirect knowledge would be a belief in books, which is not any different than religion. Direct knowledge would be from the consciousness entity itself and would have to be world wide. So If i had such direct knowledge that if i were to believe what my senses and brain know as to be actually true; yet knowing I would go to blazes for doing so, I would gladly choose the false beliefs after my demise to achieve a better reward; for after all, if such an entity existed; then this world would mean much of nothing in the long run and even though i would be forced to believe in a falsity, i would do so. @MayCaesar

@Bogan

Given the number of stu-pid “debates” on Debate Island that nobody is even bothering to contribute to, it looks like it is up to me again to get things moving?      Although, since I have categorised MayCaesar and Factfinder as trolls who have no intention of debating honestly, and who’s are only interest is in stifling debate on the topic of “Are Races Equal”, it like it is over to you, Maxx?    

Meaning the the facts truth and reality based logic we present destroys your bias erroneous assertions in all the debates you consistently lose. So you get mad, call people trolls and whine about it like right now. Ever consider debating legitimately?

@Bogan

So your answer is 'no' you never tried debating legitimately. 

Argument Topic: The premise of the debate is false - the universe is not unfair

Just-sayin said:

It seems to me that if you have understood your 'universe' correctly then there is no Elysium nor Abyss.  The universe could not be claimed to be unfair, because it is just a material universe responding accordingly.  It would have no intentions of good or evil. 

But if however you are wrong in your perceptions of the universe then it seems your premises are also very wrong.  For example, if Christianity is true, then you are wrong about why someone goes to Elysium or the Abyss.  it is not because they failed to believe, but because of their sins they go to the Abyss.  No one goes to the abyss because they didn't believe in God, but because of their own sin.  That's an important distinction.  This means that the universe is ultimately fair and that each person is rewarded or punished according to their own conduct and choices.  Further, if Christianity is true, then you have wrongly assessed the evidence for God and for Christianity.  While you claimed that the evidence of the resurrection was lacking, in reality, it would mean, your belief in the wrong universe kept you from believing what was indeed true.  It would also suggest that you have inverted which universe is operating on truth and which is not.   You would have placed your faith in a lie.

If there is no God, there is no Elysium or Abyss.  The universe is just matter responding to different physical reactions.  There is no intention of good or evil by the universe, so it would be wrong to say that it is 'unfair'.  If there is a God, specifically the Christian one, then it could not be said to be unfair, because moral precepts of good and evil come from God who judges man by his own conduct - not according to his lack of knowledge. Man is punished for His sin, He doesn't go to the abyss because he didn't believe in God.   

In neither scenario is the universe 'unfair'.  Some may not like it, from their personal perspective, but they have failed to show that the universe treated them in a way that is not keeping with its promises.

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Man is punished for His sin, He doesn't go to the abyss because he didn't believe in God.   

That goes directly against what your bible teaches. Without belief in god, (as you said, specifically the christian god) there is no forgiveness of sin. Indeed it is not sin that sends one to hell according to your cult, it failing to believe in god that sends you there...

Luke 23:39-43: 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

And Revelation 21:8: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

The wages of sin (or punishment) is death (to be separated from God).  A newborn who dies, does not believe in God, yet she will not be punished for her lack of belief. While I am sure hell will have many unbelievers in it, God judges people according to their actions (as if you read Revelation 20 all the way through, you know). 

 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. - Rev 20:11-12

While we are saved by faith, we are punished by what we have done.  

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Man is punished for His sin, He doesn't go to the abyss because he didn't believe in God.   

That goes directly against what your bible teaches. Without belief in god, (as you said, specifically the christian god) there is no forgiveness of sin. Indeed it is not sin that sends one to hell according to your cult, it failing to believe in god that sends you there...

Luke 23:39-43: 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

And Revelation 21:8: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

The wages of sin (or punishment) is death (to be separated from God).  A newborn who dies, does not believe in God, yet she will not be punished for her lack of belief. While I am sure hell will have many unbelievers in it, God judges people according to their actions (as if you read Revelation 21 all the way through, you know).  While we are saved by faith, we are punished by what we have done.  

This is why people question your motives. You don't think I read the whole verse? "Unbelievers" are cast in hell. Do you dispute that? You have no idea how god would supposedly treat an infant who dies. After all only it could know if the child was good before it was formed in the womb or bad, which is meaningless as the question would be would the baby have believed or not? That's how predestination works. Jerimiah was ordained before he was formed in the womb to be a prophet of god, remember? Then you have your statement above saying "we are saved by faith". that's what I said. If we're punished for what we do then believers still deserve punishment but because they have that faith they're not.

The thief on cross who believed was saved, another thief who didn't believe was not saved from the abyss. Why did you ignore the scriptures I provided? You know as well as I do being saved by faith sets the precedent of believing in god. Not being punished for being bad; as the two thieves on the crosses next to Jesus pointed out and Paul reaffirmed...

Ephesians 2:8&9: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

So Just_sayin, are you boasting you were never fearful? Never lied in your life? Never stole a thing? Or are you saved from the abyss because you believe in god? The god of the bible is about seeking faithful worshippers above all else.

You should know we have all sinned.  Salvation is not because we deserve it.  It is a gift of God.  Do you think that unfair?  For it to be unfair it would have to rejected by one involved.  Is God as the judge, and the one who was sinned against, willing to allow the debt to be paid by Jesus' sacrifice?  Yep.  So no problem there.  Was Jesus willing to be that sacrifice?  Yep.  Are you willing to accept Jesus paying the debt you owe by acknowledging what he's done, and your need for it?  If yes, then God allows that agreement.  But rest assured that if you don't want Jesus to pay the price for your sins, and not willing to ask for it and acknowledge your need for it, and you would rather stand before God on your own merits, then know God will accept your decision and judge you accordingly.

@maxx

Maxx quote   actually mr bogan, lay off the bottle on here.

Actually Maxx, I am a lifelong teetotaler. 

 

Maxx quote     You and I completely failed to get anywhere on race.

I failed to get anywhere with PamelaJohnson about whether the earth is flat, that does not mean that Pamela was right and the earth is flat.     Which proves that it is impossible to convince anybody of anything if they just do not want to know that 2+2=4. 

 

Maxx quote  I agreed that certain cultures were not equal and people are not equal;

Which is fair enough, but the topic I am interested in is, whether races are equal?

 

Maxx quote  but there is no way biologically nor scientifically have you proven there is more than one race.

Which is like Lia Thomas claiming that nobody can prove biologically or scientifically that a man an be a woman if he just wants to be one.     Your statement is absurd.     Lefties see race as plain as day when it is convenient, and then vehemently deny it’s existence when it is convenient.   The ability to claim that two diametrically opposed concepts are both valid at the same time is called “cognitive dissonance”, otherwise known as magical thinking.       It is 2+2=3.     So, I find it amusing when you have the gall to attack poor old “just-sayin” for his magical thinking, when you exhibit it yourself?    

 

Maxx quote I have shown that biologists and proven than there are not enough genetic differences. 

You did not “show me” anything.  You claimed that science did not recognise the concept of race and then ran away when I gave four clear examples that it did.      No reply from you at all on that inconvenient fact.     I painted you into a corner, so all you could do was to stay silent on that which you did not wish to acknowledge.     That is all that people can do when confronted by their own 2+2=3 thinking. 

 

Maxx quote      Aside from that, this topic of mays is not even about race.

No, it is about magical thinking.    It is a perfect example of how people with your supposedly superior mindset make fun out of religious people for their 2+2=3 thinking, while engaging in exactly the same thinking yourself on a social issue. 

 If any of you people believe that races are equal then you should be prepared to defend what you believe.     But when you resort to refusing to answer questions, evasions, submitting endless links as “proof” which I can not debate against, prevarications, using AI because you can’t think for yourselves, refusing to even state what it is exactly what you believe in, and only attacking your opponents position while refusing to submit reasoned arguments justifying your own position, that is indicative of people who have a 2+2=3 mindset.     It means that you already know that you are wrong, but you need to believe that 2+2=3, so you do.       Because if you acknowledged that 2+2=4, then just like PamelaJohnson, that would mean that you would have to think about things that you just do not want to think about.   

Max quote  oh come on, scientists and biologists all agree that there is not enough differences in humans for there to be sub races. 

And I would agree with them.    The term "sub races' was an invention of your own mind. 


Max quote    If you wish to be a science denier then go ahead. 

Your last post claimed that science did not recognise race.        If science can not recognise the differences between a Scandinavian and and an African, then whatever "science" that is, is contrary to objective reality.    It is exactly like saying that "science" says that 2+2=3, and since a "scientist says that, then it must be true.      Objective reality says it is not true.    Especially when I have already given three clear everyday examples of science recognising race which most people who have any knowledge of the world around them know is true.   Forensic Anthropologists recognise race.   Geneticists recognise race.   Cognitive metricians recognise race.      People who claim to be anti racist, and claim that race dos not exist, while simultaneously blaming the white race for everything, recognize race.   


Max quote  I agreed that sub races exist, but only in a sociological aspect; however, it is not true in a biological one.

Sub species of almost all living organisms exist, and that is biological reality.    Human beings are living organisms.  



 Max quote      I have asked you many times to show biologically we can be divided into sub races.

Already done by science and the different sub species of humans named by Carl Linnaeus, father of the SCIENCE" of Taxonomy.       Anti racists claim that white people invented racism because in the 19th Century, science began the first studies in identifying racial differences and what they could mean.    Which completely  destroys your false claim that science does not recognise race.      You anti racists should get together and try and get your ideology straight.     Contradicting yourselves is never a good look when you are trying to convince other people that you are right.     
 

Max quote       Another thing is that i could care less if some cultures are inferior, or even more intelligent. It fails to bother me like it does you.  

Okay, that is fair.  The problem is that du-mb and violent populations usually produce du mb and violent cultures.     So, when you import people into your society who are du-mb and violent, and they bring their du-mb and violent culture with them, then your relatively smart and peaceful society goes to the dogs.     Which is where western European countries are headed at this very minute     .     And all because they adopted a nonsensical social ideal, based upon Christian principles, that all people are equal.       Even the super tolerant Swedes don't believe that shiit any more.     Sweden is not Sweden any more.   

     

@maxx

Max quote   you are grasping at straws at this point, and rather believe in botany, to prove than humans are sub races; rather than believe what todays biologists have shown.

 We live in a world today, Max, where even diplomaed professors of Biology can not even define what a woman is.     Your premise seems to be, that Biological classifications which are based upon observable reality, which apply to every living creature on planet earth can, not apply to human beings?     That is complete balderdash.     If you and I were in front of an audience of a couple of hundred intelligent and more or less unbiased people, and you came out with a doozy like that, you would be laughed off the stage.       It is just amazing to what extent people like yourself want to believe in something so much that they simply refuse to acknowledge that 2+2=4. 

 

Max quote  There are a lot of dumb people in this world. I still think it is color that you do not like. I think we agreed that blacks are lacking in aspects of intellect because of genetics. very well.

 Yes, we both agree that the majority of people from certain dark skinned ethnicities do not have the same bell curves of intelligence as lighter skinned people.      So, my premise, that races are not equal, is a slam dunk.      So, your only recourse is to claim that races do not exist.     But they do exist.      Categorisations of everything are human constructs, but that fact that they are human constructs does not invalidate the concept that what these categories explain does not exist in reality. 

 

Max quote       What about mentally handicap, those re-tarded people? They are even dumber than blacks, and It is genetic as well. Are you prejudice to them also?

 Mentally retarded people exist in all races, but if some races have disproportionate numbers of retarded people, I am not aware of it.     But if it could be proven that they did, I am certain that you would go into all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to prove that they did not.   

 

Max quote   What about backwoods hill billys who grew up in the high country with nothing but a 6th grade education? 

All races of people have a broad range of IQ’s.       Every race has some people with very low IQ’s, more with low IQ’s, most with “average” IQ’s, some with high IQ’s, and a very few with very high IQ’s.       The problem is, that these bell curves of IQ differ from race to race.   Jewish people have people with IQ’s above 140 at a rate four times higher than white Europeans.      That is a measurable fact.     Which just happens to perfectly explain why Jewish people dominate the Nobel Prizes for Science.     Once you accept that races are not equal, then that just happens to explain perfectly why some races do well and some races do not.        However, this unpleasant fact is anathema to left leaning people in the western world who so desperately want to believe that 2+2=3.

 

Max   quote      I can see if you justify yourself by being prejudiced to all groups of people who are dumb, but your association tends to run to blacks almost soley; which is color.

On the contrary, Max.    It was because I realised that those who were the loudest in claiming that “all men are equal” were the biggest snobs around, who looked down the noses at me, that I began to figure out that the whole “all men are equal” premise was a hypocritical fantasy.      Why haven’t you figured it out yet? 

 

Max quote   I think you have a deeper psychological reason as to why you dis like blacks simply because they are dumb, violent and blame whites.    

 Well, don’t let your premise just hang in the air, explain to me what my own motivations are? 

 

Max quote  Take the american indian; they blame the whites and for good reason.

My philosophy on that score is a lot less racist than yours.      If US native Americans had all kinds of herdable animals and all kinds of growable crops, while Europeans had nothing but corn and buffaloes, then US native Americans would have achieved civilisation before the Europeans, evolved higher IQ first, and would have gone on to spread their civilisation around the world.   The fact that the opposite occurred is simply an accident of geography.  

 

Max quote  They also are intellectually inferior to whites. probably the inuits as well.

Are they?     I didn’t know that?     Although, if evolved IQ is a measure of length of civilisation, and because of genetic selection or eradication, then your premise would make a lot of sense. 

 

Max quote  They as well as blacks are that way because of the thousands of generations of living where they grew up; lacking the need and knowledge of what Europeans took for granted. Why are you not just as racist to these people?

 Well, to start with, native Americans are not going around blaming white people for their lack of success in this competitive world that we live in.     Nor am I aware of them trashing their own cities and destroying their own supermarkets, and then whining about “food deserts” which they then demand that the government fix.     My hostility is directed at those who are hostile to me, and who blame me and my people for their own genetic shortcomings.

      

Max quote  As for sub races, i seriously think you should do more in-depth research, because science shows differently and like many religious zealots on here; you are allowing false beliefs to over ride the evidence. 

 To the best of my knowledge, the only mammalian species which does not exist as sub species is the polar bear.     All other mammalian species exist entirely as sub species.     That includes mammalian human beings, and that is science.    As for your link, read it yourself, and if you agree with what it says, then submit it as your own argument.   I am not going to do your jobs for you.  

John_C_87 said:

@Bogan
We live in a world today, Max, where even diplomaed professors of Biology can not even define what a woman is.
Sorry, could not resist. A woman is a Presadera.

"Presadera"? Is that a word from some fringe urban dictionary or something? Loose meaning of Spanish female perspectives of some kind? What exactly do you mean by "Presadera"?

@MayCaesar

The Universe is unpredictable, it is not cruel, the lack of consistency in its prediction is what is cruel.

There is a choice which needs to be made MayCaesar is 2 + 2 = 4 or is Pi an approximation and not ratio. The door of interpritations that is abused for the one remains open and has influence elswhere.

When two is an approximation, the result will never be 4. We need in writing two is not an approximation that is ever influenced by Pi in mathematics.

Joeseph said:

Consider that Universe is fundamentally "unfair", that it somehow rewards holding false beliefs. For instance, let us say there are two forms of afterlife: Elysium (a place of eternal serenity and peace), and Abyss (a place of eternal pain and torment). Those who believe that 2+2=4 or are agnostic about it end up in Abyss,

I was told more or less the same thing thing as a child and a former Catholic as in the torments that awaited me if I didn't accept the truths being told me , worse still I was sending myself to Hell by choice for not accepting the truth.

It's impossible to force yourself into believing something if it doesn't feel right inside , you can pretend,  but a god or the system would know you're pretending .

We can be swayed to change our minds if convinced by evidence but that's rare as I think ego gets in the way as we all think.we reached our views through solid  reasoning where to be brutally honest we are just as unreasonable and unbiased as the next.

What you're asking is much more than just changing positions its a denial of reality,  can you convince yourself you're gay? 

Your question seems to be akin to this as in its a denial of core belief.

Humans to me cannot survive without beingg deceitful.and dishonest , humans are the most violent ,selfish, irrational and destructive  thing on the planet., this realisation is to me is  liberating.

Everyone must wear a mask and play the game your survival depends on it. Most humans work in jobs they detest and can rarely be themselves society more or less keeps most firmly in their place or one is cancelled, fired , ostracised.

Thankfully I'm 20 years now doing as I please and answer to no one , very few get that chance and are basically in a prison of their own making and pretending they're free.

There is no  morality there is only approval / disapproval if anyone can prove otherwise I'm listening. 

I agree with your general message - however, I wonder to what extent it is possible to force oneself to make something feel differently inside. It seems to me that one's ability to do so is directly tied to the degree of impact of that. I do not think it is possible to convince myself that I am gay - but I probably can convince myself that Trump is a good presidential candidate if I force myself to consume particular media for a period of time and suspend my disbelief forcefully. And if disbelieving something had terrible consequences, there would be strong additional pressure to try to believe it. If a North-Korean knows that humans cannot read each other's thoughts, yet the government punishes severely anyone who denies that the Dear Leader can do that, then the North-Korean will tend to cling to the most desperate lines of reasoning to make himself believe that. Simply pretending in public that he believes that while knowing well that it is false is painful and unsustainable.

I do not really share your view on humanity regarding deception and dishonesty, but I get where you are coming from. There is this term in pop-psychology - "relatability" - that refers to engagement in behaviors aimed to build social bridges with others. It does not necessarily involve dishonesty or deception. If someone asks me how my day is going and I say, "Fine", even if it is the worst day of my life - that is not really a dishonest answer. It would be dishonest outside of the context, for, strictly speaking, my answer is false. However, in the context saying "Fine" does not mean "My day is fine", but means something like "Thanks for checking in on me". Human language is very complex.

I think deception is more about deliberately providing someone with false information (or omitting crucial true information) in order to gain benefits from them. If I am on a date with a lady, she asks me, "So, where do you live?", and I say, "In your heart" - it should be clear to everyone that I am not trying to deceive her. However, if I then follow up by switching the subject, deliberately avoiding discussing my location - then it is deceptive. Maybe I live in the slums and do not want her to know that - that is, I am trying to make myself look better than I would if she knew everything about me.

As for your last claim, I have also grown to view "morality" skeptically. There is some notion of right and wrong - but those are contextual and highly individualized. I am holding a $20 bill and a homeless guy walks up to me and asks me for it - is it right for me to hold on to the bill, or not? The best answer I can come up with is, "The right course of action for you is whatever aligns best with your values". And values, in turn, are empirically determined rules that, when followed consistently, make one feel comfortable in their own skin. And since human organisms are highly diverse, so will the values be, so will the right and wrong choices be.
There are some empirical rules that seem to lead to decent outcomes when followed consistently, "the golden rule" being one example. But there are also demonstrably situations in which they can and should be violated.

Personally, I found one question that, when I ask myself, always quickly leads me to making the choice that I feel good about. The question is: "Will I regret it if I do not do X?" It is especially useful when considering whether to take on risk or not - apply for a job, approach an interesting person, voice a controversial opinion, drink a mug of beer - but can be used across the board. "Should I give $20 to the homeless guy or not? Well, will I regret it if I do?" I know that, personally, I will: that is just me. I can find a much better use for these 20 bucks, and if I did want to do a kind deed with them, I would buy a nice present for one of my close friends - who means much more to me than all the homeless people in the world combined.

Universe encourages diversity, while rigid ideologies and moral systems abhor it. The concept of "objective morality" is absurd at its core and makes no more sense than the concept of "objective cuisine", or "objective ranking of books".

Max quote   You are disregarding science.

I disregard pseudo science, and I think I have the maturity to differentiate one from the other.      Bit worried about you, though. 

 Max quote      Did you not read the link?

As a matter of fact, I did.      The reason being, because you are doing such a lousy job of presenting any argument at all that races do not exist, that I got bored again and I thought I would go to your source.      As expected, your link was laughable.       It was nothing but diseased English, which was probably written by Sir Humphry Appleby himself.          You probably tried to read it too, but the reason why you could not use it as a source to write a reasoned argument supporting your position, is that not did not make any sense to you, either?      Diseased English is the art of writing blithering nonsense in an authoritative way in order to fool the gullible who want to be impressed.     It did not fool me one whit.     I suppose that I could go through your link, paragraph by paragraph, pointing out the waffle and the meandering logic?     But I have been down that track before, only to have my opponent swamp me with even more stu-pid links.    So, I end up being the one who does all the work while my opponent just submits ever more links, “Dreamer” style.    I challenge you to read your link and if it makes any sense to you, use it to form your own argument.      But that will never happen, because it is just a series of spurious declarations written in an authoritative way, which is impossible to use to form a cohesive argument.  

 

Max quote        Or the many other high quality science links, showing why and how humans are all one race because we are to similar to be classified as sub races except by sociology concepts?

Then you had better find one which is a lot more credible than the one which you submitted in your last post.      Unlike your link, my position is simple to understand and is supported by evidence which most informed people already know is true.     Most informed people know that science does recognise race because they know that the reason why so called “anti racists” claim that “white men invented racism” is because in the 19th century, science itself was very interested in race.   And in those days, science was almost solely the preserve of white European men.       But even today, it is an easily provable premise that science recognises race, regardless of how many woke “scientists” there are who are consider their ideological beliefs to be more important than science.    They know that the people who use their “scientific reports” will never look at them with a critical eye, or verify if they are true.    So, they can misuse the great respect which most people have for science to push that government mandated ideological agenda.

 

Max quote  These links clearly back up my statement.

Your link was supposed to prove that races do not exist.      There was no cohesive argument on that topic at all.       It basically said “I am a scientist and I say that race does not exist.    So there!”      That hardly impresses any person who has any capacity to think, any more than a woke biologist claiming that it is impossible for science to differentiate between a male and female skeleton.     Or, the once respected medical journal Lancet claiming that the Wuhan virus did not originate in a Chinese bio weapons lab in China.       Or, climate scientists claiming that the north pole will be ice free by 2013, and the London and New York subways will both be drowned. 

 

Max quote     You on the other hand, give me a botanist who lived in the 1800s

So did Charles Darwin.     I suppose that his advocacy for evolution should be dismissed entirely because he was just an old white guy who lived 150 years ago?      I sure hope your woke “scientists” don’t decide that evolution is not politically correct, so Darwin should be air brushed out of science too?   All they would need to do to impress you, would be to write some pseudo scientific reports in diseased English claiming that evolution was fake, and you would lap it up without even bothering to turn on your critical analysis circuit to really read the nonsense they were writing? 

 

Max quote   and one you tube video of dubious quality.

Then here is another one which proves that geneticists, who are scientists, recognise race.   

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlGhVgV3Yw&t=176s

  The problem for woke ”scientists” today is that smart people are just too informed with lots of media sources that they can use to keep up with what is going on in politics and science.      They can fool the gullible and the misinformed, but they can’t fool people who like to be aware of what is happening in the world around them, and who can think straight.   

 

Max quote      Give me a few high quality science links that back up your statements.

That would be like the Catholic Church during the Inquisition demanding to know the names of any scientist who supported the idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe.      We live in an age where universities have been taken over by government supported, crazy cultural revolutionaries who shout down, sack from their jobs, destroy the careers, and “cancel” any academic who dares to oppose their government sanctioned worldview.      So, just like in the days of Galileo, if you want to understand the world around you, you have to pick up unbiased bits of information from wherever you can, and link them together to form a picture.    Naturally, you won’t do that, because that would require a sceptical mind and some effort.      Easier to just toe the woke party line, confident that the people who are destroying western civilisation, suburb by suburb, city by city, and country by country, really know what they are talking about. 

 Could I also add that in many western countries today, it is illegal to claim that races are not equal.  This topic is so super sensitive in Canada, that the Trudeau government is legislating that anybody who “offends” their new imported electors should be jailed for life.     Scotland’s new “Hate Laws” mandate seven years jail for saying something racist in your own home.      I live in Australia, and if I lived in the state of Victoria, I could be prosecuted for writing this reply to you.      If you really do have the capacity to think, then you should be able to figure out that when the authorities demand that you not think or write about something, they definitely have got something to hide.        The only reason for political censorship is to protect those at the top with their power, prestige, perks, and privileges.     They have a state ideology which was invented to keep the proles on the bottom and themselves at the top, and they don’t want the proles thinking.     They seem to have succeeded in that nefarious aim with you.

 

Max quote      Yes, conceptually there are sub races; biologically in humans; no.

Your premise is illogical.      If every mammalian life form excepting polar bears (and that for good reason) exists solely as sub species, then it stands to reason that your premise does not make sense.        If not, then I challenge you to write a reasoned argument explaining how it is that human beings are exempt from the same evolutionary forces which have created sub species in every other mammalian species.      It is no good looking up your “authoritative scientific reports” to help you, because the evil little bastards who wrote that cr-ap already know that I am right.        And there will be nothing in their waffling links that will help you.       So, c’mon Max, show us all how you can think.     Show us all how informative and logical your links are.    Since you claim to be just telling the scientific truth, then it should be easy for you to use your “scientific” links that you have such faith in, to prove that whatever evolutionary forces affect the creation of sub species in every other vertebrate creature, can not apply to human beings. 

 London to a brick that you will not answer.    You can’t answer because your premise is illogical.      Which is why your whole idea that races do not exist is logically bankrupt.

@John_C_87
Its good to see you online again.

this is why i previously disengaged from the topic. I have given you biological proof and you still will not accept it; also you keep bringing non primate animals in an attempt to reflect human beings. That is akin to saying we should have gills, wings, tails or scales because all other animals do so. Sub species also tend to eventually evolve into a separate species give evolutionary time.  The similarities in humans are too great to classify us as sub species based on a 2 percent genetic variation. What you are doing, is classifying humans into culture sub species, based simply upon a few minor details; color, culture, diet, and geographical location. That is like taking  a movie, erasing the color, changing some lines in it, and claiming it is a whole new movie. We are 96 to 99 percent genetically the same. we all have the same organs, we all are smart or dumb, we all live on the earth, we all are human. You can not take humans, and say they are biologically different based upon location or diet, morals, ideas and color.  That is mere  sociological classification. Biologically you have no proof at all; and I have asked for such proof many times. an opinion does not count; i have shown the proof in various links. You at this point; are acting like a religious zealot, who refuses to accept the evidence of evolution simply because it goes against your beliefs. I assume you would and do accept science proof in evolution and other matters; so i fail to see why you do not accept evidence that ""biologically" we are too similar to be classified as sub races. This link shows  why there are sub species of bears.  humans never followed such patterns or isolation. Bear - Wikipedia  @Bogan

@maxx

Max quote   this is why i previously disengaged from the topic.

You disengaged from the topic, because I keep painting you into a corner.      I set you a very simple question in my last post to you which you unsurprisingly, did not answer.    You will never answer it because you are painted in. 

 

Max quote     I have given you biological proof and you still will not accept it;

That is complete bu-llshiit.     All you can do is throw endless pseudo scientific links at me written by woke “scientists”, the same ones who probably claim that sex is a social construct, and has nothing to do with biology.    

 

Max quote   also you keep bringing non primate animals in an attempt to reflect human beings. That is akin to saying we should have gills, wings, tails or scales because all other animals do so.

That was the whole point of my simple question, which you unsurprisingly failed to answer.      If every vertebrate species on planet earth with the exception of polar bears exist entirely as sub species, how can humans as vertebrates be exempt from the exactly the same evolutionarily forces which create sub species in every other living organism?      Given that you claim that science supports your position, and you can find endless pseudo science reports which claim to support your position, it should be very easy for you to find the information among all that “science” for you to answer a very simple, but crucial question.      But you can’t.     And the reason why you can’t, is because nowhere in all those pseudo science reports will they address the real issue.     So, we get the rather absurd situation where people claiming to be “scientists” are saying that there is no biological difference between a Zulu and a Scandinavian.      Which is 2+2=3.      And you believe them?       Ama-a-a-a-azing.

 

 Max quote   Sub species also tend to eventually evolve into a separate species give evolutionary time.  The similarities in humans are too great to classify us as sub species based on a 2 percent genetic variation.

I could attack that premise from a couple of directions.  

 1. What is the genetic variation between a Doberman dog and a Labrador?     I will guarantee it is a lot less than 2%?     But Dobermans and Labradors are biologically different breeds of dogs.       Same with Cape Buffaloes, and the three other kinds of African Buffaloes.   Same with Grizzly Bears and Kodiak Bears.      We classify these sub species to be different because it is observable reality that they look different to each other, and they act different to each other.     But your premise, is, that this could not apply to human beings?    But when I keep asking you the very simple question, as to “why this could be so”?     You never answer the question.     You just keep running away.   I have painted you into a corner with a question that you just can’t answer.     Because, they obviously do apply.    Humans are mammalian vertebrates, so whatever evolutionary forces create sub species in every other mammalian vertebrates, must apply to human beings as well.  Unless you think like “just-sayin”, and think that God made humans from a handful of clay?     Which is magical thinking.    It is 2+2=3.   Zulus are Zulus, and Scandinavians are Scandinavians, because they look different to each other, and that is objective observable reality.   Objective observable reality is what science is all about.    Zulus and Scandinavians also appear to act differently to each other, which is why one race is successful within a competitive modern society, and the other is not.

 2.   The Human genome is 3 billion bits of information.   2% of 3 billion is 60,000,000 variations.   That is a lot of variation. 

 

Max quote          What you are doing, is classifying humans into culture sub species, based simply upon a few minor details; color, culture, diet, and geographical location.

What science does, is to classify all living organisms based upon their appearance, which is objective, observable reality.    Science then investigates whether there are other less visible characteristics which differentiate one sub species from another, and it gives them Taxonomic names.       That works with all living organisms.        Human beings are living organisms.    If you claim that human beings can not exist as sub species, like every other vertebrate living organism, then the onus is upon you to look through those reams of “scientific” reports you keep submitting as “proof”, which supports your erroneous position that what applies to every other living organism can not apply to human beings.  

 

Max quote   That is like taking  a movie, erasing the color, changing some lines in it, and claiming it is a whole new movie. We are 96 to 99 percent genetically the same.

So are Dobermans and Labradors.    So are Cape buffaloes and the three other sub species of African buffaloes.    So are the thirty or more sub species of Brown Bears.     But they are categorised as being different, with different Taxonomic names, because those “few minor details” are very significant.    Significant enough for all of them to be classified as different sub species.    The same applies to humans, unless you can think up a viable reason why the same evolutionary forces which cause other species to evolve into sub species, can not apply to humans? 

 

Max quote   we all have the same organs, we all are smart or dumb, we all live on the earth, we all are human. You can not take humans, and say they are biologically different based upon location or diet, morals, ideas and color.

You are claiming that a Zulu is not biologically different from a Scandinavian?     Objective observable reality proves you are wrong.   If they were not biologically different, they would look identical.  You therefore are saying that 2+2=3.    And then you laugh at "Just-sayin" for his 2+2=3 thinking.    

 

Max quote   That is mere sociological classification.

No.  It is classification based upon objective observable reality.    Race can be a social construct, (or it can be objective reality) as evidenced by the ever swelling numbers of white Australians claiming that they are “aboriginal”, in order to get their sticky fingers on the laundry list of welfare benefits reserved for people of the aboriginal race.      A race you claim does not exist, because races do not exist.     With around one third of “aboriginal” welfare claimants believed to be frauds, it is hardly surprising that within Australia, there have been calls for DNA testing to weed out the “white aborigines” fraudulently claiming aboriginal benefits.    Which blows your claim, supported by your pseudo science “reports” that there is no genetic basis for race, right out of the water.

 

Max quote  Biologically you have no proof at all; and I have asked for such proof many times.

And I have provided it many times.    And then you come along and say that I have not provided proof?       I would say that I am writing 5 words to you one, at least.  And more tellingly, I answer your questions.   Because I know my subject, while you are trying to wing it. 

 

Max quote   i have shown the proof in various links.

One of your “scientific” links claimed that there was no genetic basis for race.     Yet I sent you a link to a YouTube video which proved that “scientific” premise wrong.    Did you even bother to click on it?     Since you have not referred to it, I can only presume that you did not?     That is the difference between you and me.    You submit links for me, and I sometimes look at them to see what nonsense they are claiming, because I am not afraid to look at whatever “proof” that you provide.     You, on the other hand are frightened that you will see something on one of my links that proves you wrong, and which you can not explain your way out of.       You want to believe that 2+2=3.     So, you will avert your eyes from any information which tells you that your "scientific proof" is a fraud.  

 

Max quote  You at this point; are acting like a religious zealot, who refuses to accept the evidence of evolution simply because it goes against your beliefs.

Hahahaha!    I would accuse you of the same sort of thinking.  

 

Max quote   I assume you would and do accept science proof in evolution and other matters; so i fail to see why you do not accept evidence that ""biologically" we are too similar to be classified as sub races.

If you really believe that, then answer the bloody question that you keep dodging, and dodging, and dodging.     If all mammalian vertebrates excepting polar bears (who have never migrated away from the original environment they evolved in),  exist entirely as sub species, how can this not apply to human beings, who are also mammalian vertebrates?       You won’t answer that, so………… checkmate.    

Max quote  labs, poodles, Dobermans are dogs; not different sub species. There are huge differences between a breed of an animal and a breed.

The only difference between animal breeds and a sub species, is that animal breeds differ from each other through human selective breeding, while sub species differ from each other from natural adaptations due to differing environmental conditions.     But genetics works the same way, Max, regardless of whether selection is natural or artificial.   In both cases, what results is organisms which look identifiably different from each other, with different physical abilities, different vocalisations, different intelligence levels, and different temperaments.        

 It is very easy to understand, Max.    2+2=4.       Every mammalian vertebrate except polar bears exists as sub species.     Human beings are mammalian vertebrates.      Exactly the same evolutionary forces which cause every other mammalian vertebrate to exist as sub species work exactly the same way with human mammalian vertebrates.        Human “races” are simply human sub species.     They even have sub species Taxonomic names, even though most people outside of science are unaware of that, and the left is trying to air brush that away.          If human “races” do not exist in science, then equating logic, no other sub species of mammalian vertebrates can exist in science, either.           But that is not the case.      It is taken for granted that almost every living organism mainly exists as sub species, but left wing people have an ideological problem with that inconvenient fact applying to humans.   So, they deny it can happen with humans.  But that is illogical.    And you are one of them?  Okay, please explain to me how the same evolutionary forces which cause differences in appearance, physical abilities, mental abilities, and intelligence with every other migratory living organism can not do the same thing with human living organisms?    Answer the farking question.  

 

Max quote  They are but classifications.

Yes.       Human beings try to make sense of the world by classifying everything into groups or types with similar characteristics in order to better understand how they work.     

 

Max quote      One more time, the human race is but one race; we only exist as sub races due to sociological classifications of location and color and culture.

Wrong.          There are two definitions of the word” race” in the English dictionary, and while your claim is correct using one definition, it is completely wrong using the other.   And if race is not biological, please explain how Scandinavians and Zulus do not look identical?     (yet another question you will dodge)   Checkmate.    

 

Max quote      You keep claiming my science links are but pseudo science. now that is bull.  They are high quality links from top science and biologists.

It is not bull at all.   We live in an age where universities in particular have become hotbeds of leftist ideology.      Science has now become so politically correct that “Biologists” are claiming that a man can be a woman if he just puts on a dress and calls himself “Sue.”      I watched a YouTube video where swimmer Riley Gains addressed an audience where she argued against “trans” women competing in women’s sports.     Up jumped a professor of Biology who claimed that males and females are so identical, that Anthropologists can not tell the difference between a male and female skeleton.    The room erupted into laughter.     I have tried, and tried, to find that YouTube link for you, because it is an important piece of evidence that woke academics are so PC today that they are advocating blithering nonsense as “science.”

 Even the “scientific link” you sent to me was so laughable that I really do not understand how you, a supposedly intelligent person, can accept the blithering nonsense that it claimed “proved” that races do not exist?       It was so silly that it makes me wonder if you even bothered to read it yourself? 

 

Max quote      You just can not accept it.

No.  I didn’t accept it when a bunch of western virologists claimed that the Wuhan virus was not man made, either.     I didn’t need a PhD in virology to put two and two together.      Hmmmm, lets see?    A new and unknown bat virus suddenly emerged in Wuhan only a few kilometers from a Chinese Virology institute studying bat virus’s?      Wow!   What a coincidence?   And a bunch of western virologists got together and published a “scientific” report in Lancet which they knew was not true.     The reason being, that they were complicit in unleashing onto the world a new man made virus which killed millions of people.       So, objective science had to be corrupted to protect their arses, and to keep it from the US public, that their public servants got around US laws preventing “gain of function” research, to use US taxpayer funds to finance the banned research to a Chinese bio weapons lab in Wuhan. 

 

Max quote I will tell you what; you give me a highly respected biologist and i will find what he says on if there are sub races of humans based upon biology. 

Somebody asked me that a year or so ago.    It may even have been you?    So, I got onto wiki and typed in “Taxonomic names for human sub species” and there it was, in glorious black and white.      But I just did it again, and whadyaknow?      The wiki references about human sub species been taken down.   Looks like the “cancel culture” warriors have been at it again? 

 

Max quote    Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics - PMC (nih.gov)   read the damn link.

Read it yourself, and do what you are supposed to do, use it to formulate your own reasoned argument.     Then I can tear it to shreds. 

 

Max quote  what more do you freaking need as proof? 

Somebody who can explain to me how science does not recognise the observable biological reality that Scandinavians and Zulus are obviously genetically different.     And somebody who will answer the question as to why humans can not exist as sub species, when every other migratory living organism does exist as a sub species?       And somebody who can explain to me how science does not recognise race, when it is observable and easily verifiable reality that Forensic Anthropologists, Cognitive Metricians, and Geneticists obviously do.    

@maxx

Max quote so what if scandanavians and zulas look different. 

 Then using plain, easily understandable logic, “science” can not claim that human beings are genetically identical.     As a matter of fact, it never did until recently.   Science had always been interested in racial differences and this fact has been called “scientific racism.”      According to my research, this began to change in the 1960’s, when our universities began to be taken over by loony lefties who invaded the classrooms of “racist” professors and disrupted them.      Politicians got into the act with their advocacy of identity politics, and they sacked or refused to fund the research of any scientist who dared to suggest that racial differences could be in any way responsible for minority dysfunction.     Science was being corrupted and intimidated.    Even the UN got into the act.    In 1965, the UN General Assembly adopted The International Convention Against All Forms of Racism, and made that an international covenant binding upon all nations, which had the effect of repressing the examination of racial differences by scientists.    Under such conditions, it is perfectly understandable that any scientist who knows what is good for him should either , or get accolades and generous stipends from The Party by toeing the anti racist Party line.

 

Max quote Do you not know anything about genetics?

Enough to put 2 and 2 together.   Why can’t you do it?

 

Max quote    All it takes is a 1 percent difference for humans to appear differently. That is simply looks.

That is a ridiculous premise.    Japanese Akita dogs look different to Labradors, and they are very different dogs.      Cape buffaloes look different to the other three sub species of African buffaloes and they are much more dangerous.    Grizzly bears look different to the other 30 odd sub species of brown bears and they are much more aggressive than any of them.     Claiming that differences in appearance can not equate to differences in other characteristics of an organism is not logical, especially when observable reality proves that you are wrong.    

 

Max quote  I read this and it discusses a different linage of humans, not different cultures. perhaps you should read it again; it also says humans themselves are not sub races within each other.

Then pure logic tells me that statement is wrong.      Which is why I want to debate with “anti racists” like your good self because I can not question links, or the people who write them.    Although, that hardly matters since you never answer any crucial questions I set for you anyway.     Which proves to me that my opponents can not think straight or even justify their own thoughtless opinions.  

 

Max quote  why do scandanavins and zula people look different? first pigmentation.                                       2nd, because of generations of geographical location. When humans began migrating from africa(not all did) they entered cooler climates, in which they simply did not need the darker skin to protect them from the climate, so they evolved out of that skin color. Thousands of generations of diet, different diet, way of living, hunting; you name it; all  contributed to a modification of features. 

Which is why all species change into sub species.     And that must include human beings.     Unless you can answer the question that you always dodge, and explain to me how the principles of genetic adaptation to environment caused by evolution works with every other species, but can not work with human beings?

Max quote  Next thing you will be saying, is that they are mutants.

 Now you are just being silly.     Which shows me how desperate you are.   I have you panted into a corner and I am not letting you out until you start thinking straight.   

 

Max quote  There is less than 2 percent genetic differences between humans and chimps.

 And your point is…..?     You are grasping at straws, Max.     2% of 3 billion is 60,000,000 differences.

 

Max quote   Guess what mr. bogan, your reasoning means we are a sub race to chimps.

No, it means that chimpanzees and humans had a common ancestor.      But this ancestor evolved into sub species, and these sub species evolved away from each other to such an extent that eventually, they could no longer reproduce to create fertile offspring.    When that happened, they became separate species, and the forces of evolution geared to environmental adaptation began to work on the new species to create sub species of these new species.   This is how the famous “Tree of Life” works.   And that works with every species, Max.     Human beings are not exempt from that.     Human races are simply human sub species.  And that fact was recognised by science until recently, when science was intimidated by identity politics and political correctness.

 

Max quote  You can believe what you wish; but biologically you are incorrect and you offered no actual proof to the contrary, aside from the link on taxonomy in which i suggest you read more carefully. I really expected better from you considering your replies upon other posts

 I originally thought that you might have a brain that was capable of logical thought and unbiased reasoning?    But I can see that I was wrong there.     You have been brainwashed by your culture to think in a particular way, and you can not think past the mental block which your culture has inserted into your receptive head.     Throughout history, Max, it was the guys who thought past whatever prevailing dogma was dreamed up by the elites to keep the proles in check, who are considered to be the original thinkers who broke the chains of human ignorance. 

@maxx

Maxx quote  We didn'tleave africa untilabout 75 thousand years ago.  We simply had no time to evolve into a sub species. 

Yeah?      Sounds like I have got you doing some research, at least?    I don't know if humans left African 75,000 years ago, I will have to dig out my old BBC DVD "The Incredible Human Journey" to find out.    But it could be correct.   As for it taking longer than that for a monotypic species to turn into sub species. all I could find is a quote from Google definitions which said "Evolution has no single schedule. Sometimes, new species or varieties arise in a matter of years or even days. Other times, species remain stable for long periods, showing little or no evolutionary change."

@maxx

Max quote   one thing here bogan;You claim my links are far left simply because they go against your beliefs, however if i posted links from the same sites on a subject you believe in, you would accept and agree.

I do not agree with anything unless I have good reason to believe it, Max.        I held my council on Anthropogenic Climate Change for years, until I worked out which side was lying, and which side was telling the truth.   My problem with this modern idea that races are equal is because it is contradicted by everyday reality, and it’s ideology even contradicts it’s own logic.      When somebody tells me that “race has nothing to do with biology”, when it quite self evidently does, it makes me wonder whether the person who said that is even sane?   It is 2+2 =3. 

 

Max quote   So it is not the link or organization that bothers you, but what they say. If i posted pub med on evolution is real, you would accept it; but not pub med on race.

I have read three of your “scientific” links Max, and they were illogical.     One claimed that there was no genetic basis for race.     I have already given you two Youtube videos that proved that premise wrong, and I will bet that you never even bothered to look at them?     That is the difference between you and I, Max.    I do look at the opposing views for two reasons.    1.  To examine faults in their logic.    And 2.   Because they are often so convinced that they are preaching to the converted, that they often give away information that they should have about.   Remember when you wrote that science does not recognise race?    And I gave you three examples where it obviously did?     Well, now I have a fourth.    I read some link by an anti racist only today, where he moaned about the Osteoporosis FRAX Association claiming that black people did not get osteoporosis.   So, I checked with their website, and he was right.   Here is the quote from FRAX, (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool)    

“The aim of FRAX is to provide an assessment tool for the prediction of fractures in men and women with use of clinical risk factors with or without femoral neck bone mineral density. These clinical risk factors include age, sex, race, height, weight, body mass index, a history of fragility fracture, a parental history of hip fracture, use of oral glucocorticoids, rheumatoid arthritis and other secondary causes of osteoporosis, current smoking, and alcohol intake of three or more units daily.”  

Got it now?    You and your “scientific” websites claim that science does not recognise race, but I keep finding examples that it does.     Which side is lying, Max?     I put it to you that it is the side which has a deep ideological commitment to deny that race does not exist, because if it does exist, their entire ideological house of cards would collapse in a heap.

 

Max quote  Take a good look at this link, it is pure science, evidence and proof.

If it tries to tell me that that there is no biological basis for race, and that modern genetics “proves” that races do not exist, then whatever it is, it is not science.    Since you won’t look at the youtube videos which proves beyond doubt that race can be determined by genetics, then I have posted up a picture for you.    Geneticists can not only tell your race  from your DNA sample, they can even pin down your nationality.    One site can work out your racial proportions to one tenth of a percent.    Whoever is claiming that modern genetics "proves" that races do not exist, is lying.    Goebbels would be proud of them.  

 Max quote     There is no reason to make this up.

There is a very good reason to make it up.       Leftist ideology insists that everybody is equal.    Races do not exist.   Classes do not exist.     If some ethnicities are always dysfunctional within white western society, it must be white societies fault.     No other explanation can be considered.     Everybody must accept this explanation and free speech is being curtailed in the western world to make sure that the public      only thinks along this line.  Then that justifies CRT and DEI.     If African blacks are very disproportionately represented in very serious violent crime and are incarcerated at a much higher rate than any other race, it is because the white society is at fault.    The solution is to realise that black criminals are oppressed and discriminated against by whites.   This injustice can only be rectified by no cash bail and making organised shoplifting legal.    Racial quotas must be set for every trade and profssion to cheive racial “equity”.    The whole thing is insane, and you are a part of that insanity if you will not understand that the reason for black and Hispanic dysfunction is in their genes.     “Let the truth be told, though the heavens may fall.” 

 

Max quote       You have a very paranoid conviction that anything that goes against your beliefs is an attempt by the far left to undermine society. You are to the point in where you can not set aside your convictions and look at the evidence objectively .

The proof is in the pudding, Max.     Every state and city in the USA run by woke people with your worldview is turning into a third world shiithole, where the productive are taxed to death to support the du-mb and the criminal, who’s populations keep increasing through unchecked immigration and birth rate differentials.     Extrapolate forward and the entire western world is going to look like a scene out of Blade Runner, if they don’t collapse into civil wars.        It is not the Right which is shutting down free speech with onerous “hate” speech laws, it is your side, the Left.  Smart and productive people are fleeing these cities and states.     London is not London anymore.   Paris is not Paris anymore.    I would have thought that championing abject failure is not what intelligent people do?      I would have especially thought that you, who considers yourself a far seeing liberal, would smell a rat when the Left is trying to shut their opponents up, and even trying to jail the leading contender of President of the USA?   

Who suggested the Universe is founded upon fairness, equity or that these are somehow relevant in our Creator's divine plan?

i can not argue or debate if you refuse to accept the science. That deal from frax or whatever says nothing about race either. And your dubious you tube videos, aside from being far right attitude, shows no actual biological charts of evidence as my biological links do. Sub races are an invention to justify slavery. I also never claimed  that "races" are equal, for everyone are people and there is less or more equality in everyone. The first link explains the answer to your question as to why lower animals are divided into sub races, but not humans. The second link gives charts, studies and evidence as to why there are not enough genetic differences in humans to be biologically be a sub race. This is a debate site, not a place for opinions; and i have given you plenty of links to scientifically support the premises. Looks, diet, location; nor morals or ideas, are not enough to produce a sub race. If that were true, then my neighbor would be a sub race to me, or I to him. You can not change my mind upon this; nor apparently can I change yours. I thought about it long and hard on if i could be wrong on this topic, but the evidence supports me. I also went through all of your reasons as to why you think we are sub races and it does not add up; looks, diet, and location is not going to do it; i am asking about genetic proof in which you fail to give. Tell me, just how much gentetic differences in animals and or humans does it take to create a sub race? There is more genetic differences in chimps on a hillside in africa than there is in all the humans on earth. There is not enough genetic differences in humans to justify your beliefs. Give me proof as to that, for i have given you plenty.  Another thing; it is odd that you posted something from wikipeadia when you refused to accept the same site on race. I even recall you saying wiki was but a far left site. @Bogan

@maxx

Max quote   i can not argue or debate if you refuse to accept the science.

Science really got going after the creation of the Royal Society in England, 400 years ago.    For almost all of that time, science recognised race and proposed all kinds of theories trying to explain racial categories and differences.        Some of those theories could best  be described as quaint, but we are talking about a time when there was still widespread belief in an all powerful God, even among scientists.    And, there was no knowledge at all of evolution, much less continental drift or varying sea levels.        It was not until the publication of “Evolution of Species” by Darwin that racial theories started to become more logical, even though some of them were still a bit bizarre according to what we know today.    But the fact is that science still recognised both race and racial differences.       This was even called “Scientific Racism.”

  It was only after WW2 that social and political factors began demanding that science stop being scientific and instead publish only “scientific” information which their government paymasters wanted published.     Those scientists who were real scientists got “cancelled” (like James Watson) and/or had their careers destroyed and ended up flipping burgers at McDonalds.    Scientists who did not want to lose their careers learned to keep their mouths shut, at least in public.   Although, just as in the days of Galileo, they still exchanged information among themselves which would get them metaphorically burned at the stake if they said it publicly.      The fact that international genetic conferences today are held in camera with the press pointedly excluded, attests to that fact.    In addition, I have a news report that states that in the USA, any scientific subject related to race and genetics is so nuclear, that US geneticists have taken to publishing their papers in the UK.

 Even one of your own links asked a series of questions in which scientists were asked about racial questions, and it gave the proportions of scientists who agreed with this new “scientific” interpretation of race.    The proportions were around 60-80% of scientists who agreed with the questions relating to whether race did not exist.       This I suppose, was meant to prove that the majority of scientists agreed that race did not exist?     But what it really displayed is, that there is at least a scientific dispute about that.     This “scientific” link you gave also claimed that those scientists who opposed the view that that race did not exist, were scientists who were just “old white men “, which is hardly scientific, nor even politically correct.

 You submitted a “scientific” link to me which I examined and discovered at least four verifiable lies in it.    Any well informed person with even a smattering of high school genetics, a knowledge of human history, and a brain capable of reasoned thought, could see those lies.     I got up this morning hopeful that you read my reply and the penny had dropped, and you could see that you were being lied to?   Instead, you just went back to chanting your mantra that races do not exist, when they plainly do exist. 

 

Max quote  That deal from frax or whatever says nothing about race either.

You claimed that science does not recognise race.   That is provably wrong.   FRAX named race as one of the risk factors for osteoporosis.     If you did not see the word ”race” in their statement of risk factors, then go back and read it again.     Here was yet another scientific organisation, which like Forensic Anthropology, Cognitive metricians, and Genetics, which plainly recognises race and racial characteristics.      I would have thought that being proven wrong might have given you pause to think?     But it looks like your faith is so all consuming, that you are not going to let the facts get in the way of your religious beliefs?

 

Max quote  And your dubious you tube videos,

You did not even look at them, did you?   You were frightened that you would see something that you just did not want to see?     This is why I am all over you like a rash, Max.    I am not afraid to look at my opponent’s sources and figure out where they went wrong.   The undeniable fact is Max, that what your “scientific” links claim, is disputed by all sorts of everyday media accessible to anybody.    Your “scientists” can claim until the cows come home that genetics does not recognise race, but that sure looks silly when any informed person knows that there are DNA labs that can determine a person’s race or racial mixture down to one tenth of a percent.     Once again, you were faced with the fact that what you were being told by “science”, just happened to be provably wrong.    That at least should have given you pause to think?     But no amount of proof can prevent people from believing what they so desperately want to believe. 

 

Max quote   aside from being far right attitude, shows no actual biological charts of evidence as my biological links do.

The Left wing socialists today want you to believe that anybody who opposes their loony left ideology is “far right,” which they equate with Nazis.     It is just another way of them trying to prevent people thinking straight about their own bizarre beliefs.      And since western science recognised race and racial differences for almost all of it’s existence, I am sure that I could find all sorts of scientific charts from before WW2, which made all sorts of claims, some of them just plain silly.

 

Max quote   Sub races are an invention to justify slavery.

I gave you a full, scientific explanation as to what sub species were, and I gave you the characteristics defined by science as to what defined sub species.    I showed you how all of these characteristics were obviously applicable to human beings.     Pure, unbiased logic should have made you admit that what I submitted as evidence was obviously true.     Human races equate exactly to sub species.    But instead of acknowledging the truth of a rational argument, instead you come out with an ideological declaration that “sub races” were invented to justify slavery.    It is just amazing how far well meaning ideologues will go to deny self evident reality.     People will believe that 2+2=3 if they really want to believe it.

 

Max quote   I also never claimed  that "races" are equal, for everyone are people and there is less or more equality in everyone.

The Big Question today is, are races equal?    Your position on that question is more sophisticated than most of my opponents.     You know that racial differences are so glaringly obvious that no sane person can deny them.    So, you have retreated to a more defensible position.   You claim that races do not exist at all.      You can not justify your belief with a reasoned argument, all you can do is submit “scientific” links which supposedly proves your contention.   As a favour to you, I have examined one of your “scientific” links, and I thought that I had proven to you that it was in no way scientific at all?     Once again, I would have thought that it would have given you pause to think again?    But no, we are dealing with absolute belief here.

 

Max quote    The first link explains the answer to your question as to why lower animals are divided into sub races, but not humans.

Which was laughable.   Unlike me, it did not explain to you what a sub species was, because it did not want you to think about it.    It just made an airy declaration.    It claimed that humans could not be sub species because humans could not have evolved in the 75,000 years after they left Africa, which is disingenuous.    First, it presupposes that humans did not begin evolving while still within Africa to Africa’s already widely divergent environments.    As a supposedly intelligent person, you should have picked up on that one right away?    It also uses the fact that few people know how long it takes for a mammal to evolve to “prove” that humans could not have evolved in that timescale.     Okay, that presents a gap in my knowledge.     This is why I like debating this subject because people often come at me in ways I do not expect.    So, you can bet that I am going to try and find out how long it takes mammals to turn into sub species, to close that gap in my knowledge.    Next time, I will be even better prepared. 

 

Max quote     The second link gives charts, studies and evidence as to why there are not enough genetic differences in humans to be biologically be a sub race.

Your second link is 6000 words long, according to my word counter.    If you think that anything it says is relevant, then the onus is upon you to read it yourself, summarise it, and submit it as a reasoned argument.      You can even cut and paste entire sections of it, including graphs and charts, as long as you present it as your own argument.     I examined your first link because it was reasonably short, and it was easy to prove that whoever wrote it was lying.     But I am not going to do it with a 6000 word link.    Especially since you did with my last post what you usually do, just ignore most of it and just concentrate on anything that you think you can get some mileage out of.     I often wonder if you even bother to read all that I write to you? 

 

Max quote      This is a debate site, not a place for opinions; and i have given you plenty of links to scientifically support the premises.

This is a debate site, not a link exchange site.

 

Max quote   Looks, diet, location; nor morals or ideas, are not enough to produce a sub race.

According to the science of Taxonomy, what differentiates a monotypic from a polytypic species is the fact that the polytypic species is composed of a number of sub species which have certain characteristics.     Now, you and your “scientists” are claiming that the human race is monotypic.     What is a monotypic species?   A monotypic species is where all populations exhibit the same genetic and phenotypical characteristics.     Okay, now put your thinking cap on.   

Do humans all look exactly the same?    No.    Humans look so different to each other that most people can tell at a glance where another person’s ancestry evolved.      That fact alone proves that the human race is not monotypic, it is polytypic.     A polytypic species consists of sub species.    Are human beings genetically identical?    No.   Your own claim is that all humans are 99.9% identical, but that is still not identical.    And you and I do not know if that 99.9% difference applies is typical of all sub species, which I strongly suspect that it is.       But you can bet that I will try and find that out.    And I will bet that you will not try to find that out because you just do not want to know.

 A polytopic species of any living organism, (and humans are living organisms) has differences in phenotypes, physical abilities, mental abilities, behaviour, diet, and even vocalisation.     Any one of these characteristics can define one sub species from another.     The living organism called “humans” has all six, and you are still claiming that your “scientific” experts are right?      I would dearly love to cross swords with your “scientific” experts, but unless you can find the dishonest sods who write these clearly wrong woke “scientific” reports, and get them onto Debate Island, then it is you who is in the hot seat.      

 

Max quote   If that were true, then my neighbor would be a sub race to me, or I to him.

If your neighbour is of a different race to you, then he is of a different sub species to you.     His ancestor’s evolved in isolation in an environment that was different from where your ancestors evolved.   

 

Max quote  You can not change my mind upon this; nor apparently can I change yours.

I could not change PamelaJohnson’s claim that the world is not flat, either.    But what this topic is about, is how people like yourself sneer at Pamela and just-sayin for their 2+2=3 mentality, while exhibiting exactly the same mindset with their own particular social fantasies.

 

Max quote    I thought about it long and hard on if i could be wrong on this topic, but the evidence supports me.

Your “evidence” is disputable and illogical.  

 

Max quote  I also went through all of your reasons as to why you think we are sub races and it does not add up; looks, diet, and location is not going to do it; i am asking about genetic proof in which you fail to give.

I gave you two youtube video’s, and one image from those video’s, which proved that science does recognise race.    I also gave you other examples which proved that science recognised race.     But because you so desperately want to believe that science does not recognise race, you simply dreamed up a lame excuse that your “scientific” links must be the only valid evidence, even though I tore one of them to bits and exposed it’s woke lies. 

 

Max quote  Tell me, just how much gentetic differences in animals and or humans does it take to create a sub race?

Sub species.  I do not know Max, but unlike you, you can bet I will try to find it out.    But since humans are a sub species, and humans are 99.9% genetically identical, then I would say 0.1% for all other living organisms as well.     And since the human genome is 3 billion bits of information, (which may be typical of all mammals, especially primates) then 0.1% x 3,000,000,000 = 3,000,000.     3 million genes is a lot of genetic diversity.

 

Max quote  There is more genetic differences in chimps on a hillside in africa than there is in all the humans on earth.

How do you know that?     I would say that some PC correct woke scientist who is not an “old white man scientist” just said it and you parrot it without bothering to even think about whether it is true of not?  We know that all humans on earth are 99.9% identical, now you tell me how much genetic diversity exists within a tribe of chimps on a hillside? 

 

Max quote      There is not enough genetic differences in humans to justify your beliefs.

If the oft quoted claim that all humans are 99.9% identical (one source I read claimed it was 99.8%) 3,000,000 genetic differences say that you are wrong.

 

Max quote     Give me proof as to that, for i have given you plenty. 

You have given me numerous “scientific” links which you probably did not even bother to read yourself.    One of them was child’s play to show it was based upon half truths and worse.

 

Max quote  Another thing; it is odd that you posted something from wikipedia when you refused to accept the same site on race. I even recall you saying wiki was but a far left site.

If wiki has an entire chapter on human sub species and even names them, then 18 months later that chapter completely disappears from it’s web page, it sure looks to me like just like other online media sources like Twitter, it has a left wing bias.   While it can be trusted to provide information which is usually correct, on subjects relating to woke ideology, I give its information a healthy dose of suspicion and deep mistrust.