Transracial?

[Bomb#20]

Dude: Politesse has actual science on their side. That trumps anonymous people typing away on the internets.

Dudette: Politesse is an anonymous person typing away on the internet, just like me, just like you. Your unsupported assertion that he has actual science on his side does not make his claim to know better than me more than the unsupported claim of an anonymous person typing away on the internet that it is.

So why do you believe him rather than me, when from where you sit we're both just anonymous people typing away on the internet? Do you have actual science on his side? If you do, feel free to post it. (Preferably where it belongs, over in the science forum instead of here in PD.)

If you don't, then you are merely assuming he's right. And you're doing it either based on the fact that he agrees with what you already believe, which is not a good reason since you don't have actual science, or else because he's an authority and I'm not, which is not a good reason because Ernst Mayr is a weightier authority than Politesse is and Ernst Mayr said my position was right. [In case you don't know the name Ernst Mayr, he was pretty much the 800-pound gorilla of evolutionary biology. Google him.]

As the saying goes, don't believe everything you think.

Politesse has expertise: knowledge, experience and learning in this particular field of study.

Ernst Mayr also had expertise: knowledge, experience and learning in this particular field of study. But Politesse has one more thing: ideological commitment. He is not psychologically prepared to give the existence of races fair consideration, because he uses three-valued logic instead of binary logic -- true, false and evil. He has prejudged the hypothesis as evil. We can tell, because he calls it "racist" even though there's self evidently nothing actually racist about it. You would therefore be wise to study the matter for yourself, or else find a less biased expert to rely on the expertise of.

Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Ernst Mayr did. Surely you do not deny that he was a biologist.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course, Bomb#20 has actual science on his side...

He actually doesn't

Do you believe your unsupported assertion that I don't, plus Politesse's unsupported assertion that I don't, add up to a better argument than Politesse's unsupported assertion that I don't, all by itself?

 

[skepticalbip]

So, we have some disagreement here over if race exists. Do we all agree that gender exists? If so, then it seems gender is a firmer concept than race.

So, if I can get you to regard me as a woman, because I identify as a woman, why can't I get you to regard me as a Latina because I identify as that?

Hola, chica.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, we have some disagreement here over if race exists. Do we all agree that gender exists? If so, then it seems gender is a firmer concept than race.

So, if I can get you to regard me as a woman, because I identify as a woman, why can't I get you to regard me as a Latina because I identify as that?

Hola, chica.

Hola senor

 

[Politesse]

Dudette: Politesse is an anonymous person typing away on the internet, just like me, just like you. Your unsupported assertion that he has actual science on his side does not make his claim to know better than me more than the unsupported claim of an anonymous person typing away on the internet that it is.

So why do you believe him rather than me, when from where you sit we're both just anonymous people typing away on the internet? Do you have actual science on his side? If you do, feel free to post it. (Preferably where it belongs, over in the science forum instead of here in PD.)

If you don't, then you are merely assuming he's right. And you're doing it either based on the fact that he agrees with what you already believe, which is not a good reason since you don't have actual science, or else because he's an authority and I'm not, which is not a good reason because Ernst Mayr is a weightier authority than Politesse is and Ernst Mayr said my position was right. [In case you don't know the name Ernst Mayr, he was pretty much the 800-pound gorilla of evolutionary biology. Google him.]

As the saying goes, don't believe everything you think.


Ernst Mayr also had expertise: knowledge, experience and learning in this particular field of study. But Politesse has one more thing: ideological commitment. He is not psychologically prepared to give the existence of races fair consideration, because he uses three-valued logic instead of binary logic -- true, false and evil. He has prejudged the hypothesis as evil. We can tell, because he calls it "racist" even though there's self evidently nothing actually racist about it. You would therefore be wise to study the matter for yourself, or else find a less biased expert to rely on the expertise of.

Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Ernst Mayr did. Surely you do not deny that he was a biologist.

Uh, Mayr's views on race were nothing like yours... Do you even read things before posting them? I mean, I disagree with Mayr, but he wasn't babbling on about there being four races of man or whatever forgotten nonsense still has currency with the WN crowd.

 

[RavenSky]

I read the threads. He does. But if you have a counter argument, or counter evidence, etc., I'd like to see it.

You have been presented with the factual arguments (many times over many threads), and ignored them.

 

[Toni]

Dudette: Politesse is an anonymous person typing away on the internet, just like me, just like you. Your unsupported assertion that he has actual science on his side does not make his claim to know better than me more than the unsupported claim of an anonymous person typing away on the internet that it is.

So why do you believe him rather than me, when from where you sit we're both just anonymous people typing away on the internet? Do you have actual science on his side? If you do, feel free to post it. (Preferably where it belongs, over in the science forum instead of here in PD.)

If you don't, then you are merely assuming he's right. And you're doing it either based on the fact that he agrees with what you already believe, which is not a good reason since you don't have actual science, or else because he's an authority and I'm not, which is not a good reason because Ernst Mayr is a weightier authority than Politesse is and Ernst Mayr said my position was right. [In case you don't know the name Ernst Mayr, he was pretty much the 800-pound gorilla of evolutionary biology. Google him.]

As the saying goes, don't believe everything you think.


Ernst Mayr also had expertise: knowledge, experience and learning in this particular field of study. But Politesse has one more thing: ideological commitment. He is not psychologically prepared to give the existence of races fair consideration, because he uses three-valued logic instead of binary logic -- true, false and evil. He has prejudged the hypothesis as evil. We can tell, because he calls it "racist" even though there's self evidently nothing actually racist about it. You would therefore be wise to study the matter for yourself, or else find a less biased expert to rely on the expertise of.

Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Ernst Mayr did. Surely you do not deny that he was a biologist.

Ernst Mayr was, in fact, critical of the idea of the use of race and subspecies. Humans show a smaller amount of genetic diversity than do other animals, actually. Including close relatives such as chimpanzees.

 

[Politesse]

Dudette: Politesse is an anonymous person typing away on the internet, just like me, just like you. Your unsupported assertion that he has actual science on his side does not make his claim to know better than me more than the unsupported claim of an anonymous person typing away on the internet that it is.

So why do you believe him rather than me, when from where you sit we're both just anonymous people typing away on the internet? Do you have actual science on his side? If you do, feel free to post it. (Preferably where it belongs, over in the science forum instead of here in PD.)

If you don't, then you are merely assuming he's right. And you're doing it either based on the fact that he agrees with what you already believe, which is not a good reason since you don't have actual science, or else because he's an authority and I'm not, which is not a good reason because Ernst Mayr is a weightier authority than Politesse is and Ernst Mayr said my position was right. [In case you don't know the name Ernst Mayr, he was pretty much the 800-pound gorilla of evolutionary biology. Google him.]

As the saying goes, don't believe everything you think.


Ernst Mayr also had expertise: knowledge, experience and learning in this particular field of study. But Politesse has one more thing: ideological commitment. He is not psychologically prepared to give the existence of races fair consideration, because he uses three-valued logic instead of binary logic -- true, false and evil. He has prejudged the hypothesis as evil. We can tell, because he calls it "racist" even though there's self evidently nothing actually racist about it. You would therefore be wise to study the matter for yourself, or else find a less biased expert to rely on the expertise of.

Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Ernst Mayr did. Surely you do not deny that he was a biologist.

Ernst Mayr was, in fact, critical of the idea of the use of race and subspecies. Humans show a smaller amount of genetic diversity than do other animals, actually. Including close relatives such as chimpanzees.

Well, Mayr was a hold-out on the idea of race; he did think that it had some usefulness still. He was a vocal critic of Boas and the other early biological anthropologists. But his description of it was very different from what has been proposed in his thread.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Senors and Senoritas, I would like to remind you all that this is now far off topic from the OP. Gracias.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I read the threads. He does. But if you have a counter argument, or counter evidence, etc., I'd like to see it.

You have been presented with the factual arguments (many times over many threads), and ignored them.

That is false. I've seen the arguments on both sides (including analysis of relevant papers, etc.). I read them carefully. The position that races are not real was soundly defeated, many times.

 

[RavenSky]

I read the threads. He does. But if you have a counter argument, or counter evidence, etc., I'd like to see it.

You have been presented with the factual arguments (many times over many threads), and ignored them.

That is false. I've seen the arguments on both sides (including analysis of relevant papers, etc.). I read them carefully. The position that races are not real was soundly defeated, many times.

Wrong.

Knowledgeable people with the facts on their side just realized the futility of continuing to respond to people like you.

And Jolly Penguin is correct for a change... you are dragging this thread far off topic.

EOD

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Senors and Senoritas, I would like to remind you all that this is now far off topic from the OP. Gracias.

The OP says "Within the framework of identity politics, affirmative action, etc, SHOULD we be allowed to change our race?"
What framework is that?
When it comes to "identity politics", I see people engaging in things like group thinking, group blaming, group victimizing, etc., and generally holding epistemically irrational beliefs in a way very disparaging to others, demonizing, etc. We should not do it.

As for affirmative action, it's discrimination based either on race or on other differences involving ancestry and/or skin color. I don't think it's okay, either, unless removing it would result in too much social conflict.

As for changing one's race, I don't know. On one hand, that would tend to support the view that race is changeable, which is false. On the other hand, it might just neutralize affirmative action. But I think in practice it would not. Instead, it would result in more irrational decisions from courts or whoever boards have to decide. So, I would say it's not a good idea (probably).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is false. I've seen the arguments on both sides (including analysis of relevant papers, etc.). I read them carefully. The position that races are not real was soundly defeated, many times.

Wrong.

Knowledgeable people with the facts on their side just realized the futility of continuing to respond to people like you.

And Jolly Penguin is correct for a change... you are dragging this thread far off topic.

EOD

Your first sentence is false, unwarranted, and also an unjust attack (i.e., "people like you").

As for the second one, if the existence of races is OT in a thread in which it is asked whether we should be allowed to change our race in some context, I do not know why that is. But in any case, the singling out is unwarranted.

 

[poster]

I believe that once one enters a race and the race begins they would do well to finish the race. So I would not change races once it begins. As for racing itself, that's a personal choice. This type of race is real. The other is an illusion drempt up by racists. Ah, but you ask, how can one be racist if race is not real? That's easy, just like God and reality, you make it up. Why you ask? Because the people making it up are racists. And so it goes.

 

[skepticalbip]

So, we have some disagreement here over if race exists. Do we all agree that gender exists? If so, then it seems gender is a firmer concept than race.

So, if I can get you to regard me as a woman, because I identify as a woman, why can't I get you to regard me as a Latina because I identify as that?

Hola, chica.

Hola senor

Actually, you can legally identify as a Latino. When that term first appeared on the census form I called the census bureau and asked for clarification. It turns out to be completely invented. Anyone who is or who's ancestors are from a Latin American country regardless of if their ancestor's were Native Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. When I pressed them for something more specific, they said that if I thought I was Latino then I was. Why it is one of the options for "race" on the census form, I have no idea.

 

[Politesse]

It's been a major problem for them as well; it's known that "Latinos" categorize themselves very inconsistently when faced with a forced-choice race question. American race categories simply don't match up well with the racial categories used in the Caribbean and South America. I understand they are thinking about asking it as two-tiered question on the next census. An issue of some concern to my employers, since our status as a "Hispanic serving institution" is based partly on census data, and affects the state funding structure.

 

[Bomb#20]

Senors and Senoritas, I would like to remind you all that this is now far off topic from the OP. Gracias.

I for one am perfectly willing to take the question of whether there really are biological races in the human gene pool to the Natural Science forum if others are amenable, since that's clearly where it belongs. But can you explain why you think whether or not there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether someone is, say, Caucasoid, is not pertinent to the question of whether the rest of us should take his word for it when some apparently Caucasoid person claims not to be?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hola senor

Actually, you can legally identify as a Latino. When that term first appeared on the census form I called the census bureau and asked for clarification. It turns out to be completely invented. Anyone who is or who's ancestors are from a Latin American country regardless of if their ancestor's were Native Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. When I pressed them for something more specific, they said that if I thought I was Latino then I was. Why it is one of the options for "race" on the census form, I have no idea.

Oh wow cool. So I actually AM a latino, being half Filipino (Philippines was colonized by the Spanish).

 

[skepticalbip]

Hola senor

Actually, you can legally identify as a Latino. When that term first appeared on the census form I called the census bureau and asked for clarification. It turns out to be completely invented. Anyone who is or who's ancestors are from a Latin American country regardless of if their ancestor's were Native Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. When I pressed them for something more specific, they said that if I thought I was Latino then I was. Why it is one of the options for "race" on the census form, I have no idea.

Oh wow cool. So I actually AM a latino, being half Filipino (Philippines was colonized by the Spanish).

¡Felicidades! hombre

lo siento, ¡Felicidades! chiquita

 

[Politesse]

Hola senor

Actually, you can legally identify as a Latino. When that term first appeared on the census form I called the census bureau and asked for clarification. It turns out to be completely invented. Anyone who is or who's ancestors are from a Latin American country regardless of if their ancestor's were Native Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. When I pressed them for something more specific, they said that if I thought I was Latino then I was. Why it is one of the options for "race" on the census form, I have no idea.

Oh wow cool. So I actually AM a latino, being half Filipino (Philippines was colonized by the Spanish).

In the area where I grew up, Filipinos are widely considered to be such! When I was a kid, I had no idea that Filipinos (ie a lot of our neighbors) were from the Phillipines (to me, an exotic foreign island where my aunt had done missionary work) or that Tagalog was not a dialect of Spanish. It was a pretty working class town; I think a sense of class loyalty prevailed over language and geographical distinctions as far as the workers themselves were concerned.