Hector he was a race-denier?
I don't bother defending them because they aren't useful when debating someone that is competent.
yes
just define your terms and you'll be fine
they are useful
tbh
the PhD doesn't know what he's talking about
Well, I tried that and did not go anywhere in convincing him
tell him that a race is merely a genetic cluster
When I started bottom up, I got somewhere and got him to give ground
if you didn't convince him then you failed
differences in groups have been known for thousands of years
this is nothing new..
he was literally just hung up on a term like a retard
probably didn't have a good grasp of the history of the word
like 40% of the anthropologists in the west believe in race, but like 80% of the rest of the world knows it's real
you are in the minority
learned in school it meant something it doesn't actually mean
If you start with the race concept, it inherently puts you on the defensive since he can just change the definition. I start with a process of evolution and develop a concept
the anthropologists who don't believe in race are cultural anthropologists
btw
what do you mean 'he can change the definition'
@Nerthulas I am talking about convincing race deniers, not winning. winning is easy. convincing is another thing
that's why you define your term
then lecture him on the meaning of the word 'race' and its history
I think he had valid responses.
there are no valid responses
lol
way more than 40% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/
not believing in race just happens to coincide perfectly with this equality bullshit.. it's magic!
i love these coincidences
I am a biology major. I know what you are talking about
I am not an idiot
But you won't convince anyone with this stale arguments
Instead, you turn the definition into a process
and premises
that's true
NO ONE here is gonna start believing race isn't real
the conversation can only go 1 way
and you must assume we know better
If he denies the evolutionary process, he is not worth your time.
