Message from @ApplicationBot
Discord ID: 577111080640446476
read muh seeje
@DoobyCooby hes negroid and that image is from pintrest
@ApplicationBot the term isnt a biological term, this doesnt means that the ppl dont exist, you jew
this guy is actaully berber
and caucasoid
by american legal definition all these ppl are white
>legal definition
what are you trying to prove
idk, but i just got a link posted in a attempt to prove me wrong, but in fact it kinda sums up my point in the abstract "Race was once thought to be a real biological kind. Today the dominant view is that objective biological races don't exist. I challenge the trend to reject the biological reality of race by arguing that cladism (a school of classification that individuates taxa by appeal to common ancestry) provides a new way to define race biologically. I also reconcile the proposed biological conception with constructivist theories about race. Most constructivists assume that biological realism and social constructivism are incompatible views about race; I argue that the two conceptions can be compatible."
How did that dude even think that this was a sceintific source reverence ?
if you make a webpage slap the word science on there,ppl wwill think it is factual and 100% truth
science is simply a method
one of many
oke what else is there besides testing something , to then getting the same results doing the same test every time
reason
but with science just because you test something and get repetitive results doesn't mean it's the truth
there might be undiscovered variables
dude
you are mistaking paid vs non paid
paid isnt sience
what
that is finding a otest to get x outcome
when you say most are flawed
you mean research right
i mean articles that claim to be backed by scientific data
sure there are valid tests that are useful
its mainly because of introduced bias to get a out come
but it's all kinda all over the place seems to me
you can use science in that way but that is just cherry picking data
also it works on the basis of previous discoveries
yes
well
here is the thing , a lot of articles just write shit , post some random link that involves the subjeckt and acall that source
that isnt the same as cold research data
based on a pre layed out varrible
yes
then ther is the cherry picking data