Message from @troglodytes
Discord ID: 639199577563463690
@BabygottBach You're the one accusing a Ph. D scientist of strawmanning, you could at least show us a statement I've made which you believe is not supported by the paragraphs.
you just strawmanned him again
@BabygottBach It's DOCTOR JF to you
... crickets.
<:JFGOD:439598359628611604>
@BabygottBach like I said, I am willing to give you a thoughtful and serious debate.
How DARE you not know random details about the person who got randomly quoted with no context
@JFGariepy, does the quote say that race realists claim that races are homogenous?
It does not. So why did you say that it did?
"the possibility that human history has been characterised by genetically homogeneous groups ("races") distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence"
genetic bottlenecks and isolation is the easiest case to prove genetic groups must exist
Nerth showed you it did
even on intelligence
it quite literally says it.
When you put a word in parenthesis after a statement, it's a way of saying "which is to us, a definition of what races are"
Where does it say that race realists say that races are homogenous? It says instead that racial homgeneity is not consistent with genetic evidence.
` Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.`
it MAYBE make for a fun "debate"
if he's willing
Ok, I've banned this guy
<:CHAD:396569198404435969>
because the quote was literally stating this. goodbye
lol
Did he block me?
thanks papa JF
he's completely dishonest person anyway
he's majority han chinese
with soem euro
Lol
Fuguer btfo
is he wrong tho
he's been here 2 times
aaaaaaaand the bitch is gone
well, he did give us all a chance to try to hone our debating skills.
It's race denialism bullshit. Among other things, it relies on the conception that cognitive effects of evolution must have happened before migration rather than after, for which there is no evidence at all other than some supposition made by the author. Furthermore, it denies the differences existing between groups of people that find themselves in different conditions (i.e. perhaps cooperation is good in a winter if you live on average 1 km away from anyone, but not at the equator if you live with 40 people around you all the time who may have increased violent tendencies). It then commits the error of thinking that genetic diversity as measured on a per-letter-of-DNA basis is a good quantification to affirm or deny the presence of distinct evolutionary pressures applying to different groups. It doesn't. We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups. Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.
everything was strawmen and projection
imagine reading all that shit
It's race denialism bullshit. Among other things, it relies on the conception that cognitive effects of evolution must have happened before migration rather than after, for which there is no evidence at all other than some supposition made by the author. Furthermore, it denies the differences existing between groups of people that find themselves in different conditions (i.e. perhaps cooperation is good in a winter if you live on average 1 km away from anyone, but not at the equator if you live with 40 people around you all the time who may have increased violent tendencies). It then commits the error of thinking that genetic diversity as measured on a per-letter-of-DNA basis is a good quantification to affirm or deny the presence of distinct evolutionary pressures applying to different groups. It doesn't. We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups. Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.
It's race denialism bullshit. Among other things, it relies on the conception that cognitive effects of evolution must have happened before migration rather than after, for which there is no evidence at all other than some supposition made by the author. Furthermore, it denies the differences existing between groups of people that find themselves in different conditions (i.e. perhaps cooperation is good in a winter if you live on average 1 km away from anyone, but not at the equator if you live with 40 people around you all the time who may have increased violent tendencies). It then commits the error of thinking that genetic diversity as measured on a per-letter-of-DNA basis is a good quantification to affirm or deny the presence of distinct evolutionary pressures applying to different groups. It doesn't. We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups. Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.
It's race denialism bullshit. Among other things, it relies on the conception that cognitive effects of evolution must have happened before migration rather than after, for which there is no evidence at all other than some supposition made by the author. Furthermore, it denies the differences existing between groups of people that find themselves in different conditions (i.e. perhaps cooperation is good in a winter if you live on average 1 km away from anyone, but not at the equator if you live with 40 people around you all the time who may have increased violent tendencies). It then commits the error of thinking that genetic diversity as measured on a per-letter-of-DNA basis is a good quantification to affirm or deny the presence of distinct evolutionary pressures applying to different groups. It doesn't. We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups. Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.