First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Humans is technically only one race
6878 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Temple of Yaoiism
Offline
Posted 12/1/16
I don't see what the point is in worrying about stupid stuff like this.

There are more important things to think about.

18953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 12/1/16

Dogempire wrote:

I don't see what the point is in worrying about stupid stuff like this.

There are more important things to think about.



The fact that people do care is reason enough to care. Racism should be opposed where it actually exists, as is scientific inaccuracies.
38614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 12/1/16 , edited 12/1/16

Artlicker wrote:



That's like saying a German Shepherd is the same as a Chihuahua.
They aren't.


That's a very breedist statement...
11441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/1/16 , edited 12/1/16
There are subtle skeletal and biological differences between races like breeds. I've always viewed race as the human equivalent of a breed although the differences in humans is not nearly as diverse as what you see in dogs. Closer to the domesticated cat breed variations. What's important though is our similarities far outweigh our differences.
10197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/1/16

Krissim wrote:

There are subtle skeletal and biological differences between races like breeds. I've always viewed race as the human equivalent of a breed although the differences in humans is not nearly as diverse as what you see in dogs. Closer to the domesticated cat breed variations. What's important though is our similarities far outweigh our differences.


The variations in human biology we colloquially refer to as "races" are determined geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines". If we really were different races then we wouldn't have nearly as many similarities to one another, we wouldn't be able to be blood donors to one another, for example.
6413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/1/16
i feel that their is a enough genetic differences in various groups of people usually called race,ethnicity or similar term to warrant the use of the term race or whatever term prefer but not enough to consider people of different races as a sub species of human
1042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Online
Posted 12/1/16 , edited 12/1/16
A= Caucasians and Asians
D= Africans
B= Neanderthals
C= Homo sapiens

A--->B&C
D--->C
D--->-B
Therefore, D--->B&C (?)
A--->D or vice versa. (T)

Even though I diverge from your line of thought, due to your argument being nonsensical and illogical-- I harmonize that we are one species. Race is nothing more than social construct, not a biological phenomenon. It seems like you only viewed this from one facet, though, and that's where your approach seems a bit off. However, the concept of human races is very much so a real thing, despite it merely being a fabrication. And among other things, I would forgo using the two terms "species" and "race" interchangeably; I don't think they are capable substitutes of each other, since they are at variance, at least, in terms of connotation. It's as if you put the two terms into a bag, then jumbled them up. That's what leads to a muddled situation, when you use terms you don't fully understand without a second thought.

More to the point, we, as human beings, are undeterred by the actuality that we are identical to one and another; we still categorize-- or stereotype-- by age, race, and gender, because we instinctively to do that. Race, namely, human categorization, is the classification of humans based upon physical traits, ancestry, genetics, etc. In biological taxonomy, race is a somewhat of an unofficial status in the taxonomic hierarchy, because genetic isolation between races is fragmentary, genetic differences aren't sufficient enough to constitute separate species.
38614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 12/1/16

Mogalis wrote:

Race is nothing more than social construct, not a biological phenomenon.



How is pointing out the difference in evolution between these two humans a 'social construct'?



octorockandroll wrote:

we wouldn't be able to be blood donors to one another, for example.



'genetically similar blood is best for patients'
11441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/1/16

octorockandroll wrote:
The variations in human biology we colloquially refer to as "races" are determined geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines". If we really were different races then we wouldn't have nearly as many similarities to one another, we wouldn't be able to be blood donors to one another, for example.
Did you read my post? I said I consider race the human word equivalent of breed when it comes to something like cats/dogs. Different breeds of dogs are perfectly capable of sharing blood, producing viable offspring, etc. The meanings of words tend to evolve over time, which is why the word race is still wildly used in language despite not meeting its original intended purpose.
10197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/1/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

octorockandroll wrote:

we wouldn't be able to be blood donors to one another, for example.



'genetically similar blood is best for patients'


The text in your photo literally says that compatibility is not based on race. Thanks for proving my point.
10197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/1/16

Krissim wrote: The meanings of words tend to evolve over time, which is why the word race is still wildly used in language despite not meeting its original intended purpose.


Race isn't just an ordinary term, it's a concrete part of biology.
38614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 12/1/16 , edited 12/1/16

octorockandroll wrote:


The text in your photo literally says that compatibility is not based on race. Thanks for proving my point.


It also literally says
"Blood that closely matches a patient's ethnicity is less likely to be rejected"
The entire statement was an appeal to African Americans and latinos to donate more blood so there would be less incidents of African American and latino patient's immune systems rejecting blood.

10197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/1/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


The text in your photo literally says that compatibility is not based on race. Thanks for proving my point.


It also literally says
"Blood that closely matches a patient's ethnicity is less likely to be rejected"
The entire statement was an appeal to African Americans and latinos to donate more blood so there would be less incidents of African American and latino patient's immune systems rejecting blood.



So what? I said that if we were really different races we wouldn't be able to donate blood to other ethnicities at all. There's a pretty big difference between rejection happening every once in a while and all the time.
1042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Online
Posted 12/1/16
Maybe I was wrong by saying that, but I was trying to convey the rudimentary idea of unity in humankind. It was a generalization-- kind of a half-truth, sort of. At any rate, I don't know if scientists have identified the alternative forms of alleles, so that one might understand the characteristics of races. Even if alleles have skewed distributions, saying that doesn't necessarily satisfy anything; namely, it doesn't explain the dissimilarity between races

40250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Your friendly nei...
Offline
Posted 12/1/16 , edited 12/1/16
Grammars is technically not your strong suit
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.