Yes, I bet the Japanese are just aching to be like France or Sweden.

"So much immigration, so much multiculturalism, so much joy! We can't wait to sign up to get some of it ourselves! We can't wait for the increase in criminality and to become a minority!" -- Said no Japanese person, ever.

And that gives me joy.

Stian Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:

Stian Wrote:EDIT: I thought "race" was "ethnic group" in layman terms? That's my interpretation of it...

It can be if you're just talking in laymens terms, yeah, but Toshiromiballza is using the term in the biological sense, which has a seperate definition, and is therefore not interchangable with "ethnic group".

You shouldn't deny that there are some genetical differences between Europeans and East Asians. However, that doesn't justify Neo-Nazi ideologies and other "racial purity" bs.

??

...I'm not sure where you think i've said this? Of course there are some genetic differences. The problem is, when you find the markers for, say, a different type of hair, it turns out to be largely irrelevent to how similar the rest of the genes are. You can analyse the population into clusters, based on frequency of shared genes. This doesn't mean you can divide humans into subspecies, because the borders are way too fuzzy, and there is too much overlap between different populations. Also because subspecies is something which has a fixed definition, and homo sapiens are, as i mentioned, a monotypic species.

wikipedia Wrote:Definitions of "race" are rooted in taxonomic classifications first developed in 18th- and 19th-century Europe. "Race" has overlapped with a debate about species known as the species problem.

Since the 1960s scientists have understood race as a social construct imposed on phenotypes in culturally-determined ways, rather than a biological concept. A 2000 study by Celera Genomics found that human DNA does not differ significantly across populations. Citizens of any village in the world, in Scotland or Tanzania, have 90 percent of the genetic variability humanity has to offer. Only .01 percent of genes account for a person's appearance.[21] Biological adaptation plays a role in bodily features and skin type. According to Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, "From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence. It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. However, the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection".[3]

*****

Toshiromiballza Wrote:Regardless if one believes in the OoA or the multiregional hypothesis, certain races have Homo ancestors which others do not. The San people are the "purest" humans, everybody else is a "mutt."

Every human has homo sapiens ancestors. Yes, there was some amount of hybridisation with Neanderthal populations. I guess we're all a lost cause, just dirty halfbreeds, and only the San people are worth keeping then?

Hey toshiromiballza I've got an idea, how about we just let people breed with whoever the fudge they want to and see what happens? If you wanna preserve the master race then go find some of your fellows and get cracking making babies.

toshiromiballza Wrote:

Your poor 'thick-headed' professor. I hope he gets paid well enough that it makes it worth his while to put up with you.

IceCream Wrote:This doesn't mean you can divide humans into subspecies, because the borders are way too fuzzy, and there is too much overlap between different populations.

Wrong. There are overlaps between all taxonomical conventions, but this becomes an "issue" only when it comes to the human races. I've already said this.

IceCream Wrote:Also because subspecies is something which has a fixed definition,

Wrong again. Neither species, nor sub-species has a fixed definition. These are conventions and there are overlaps between them.

IceCream Wrote:I guess we're all a lost cause, just dirty halfbreeds, and only the San people are worth keeping then?

I already told you, I believe all people have a right to exist and to have their homeland. When you're replacing native people by bringing in millions of foreigners, I consider that an act of evil.

nadiatims Wrote:If you wanna preserve the master race then go find some of your fellows and get cracking making babies.

I don't want to preserve the "master race," I want to preserve all the races. Do you understand that? I'm the biggest diversity supporter you'll ever meet, that's why I'm completely against multiculturalism, because I know it leads to the extinction of the host people.

@quark, I don't know why you posted that picture, since I'm neither American and I consider the Europeans as the "foreign hordes" in America.

toshiromiballza Wrote:@quark, I don't know why you posted that picture, since I'm neither American and I consider the Europeans as the "foreign hordes" in America.

Because it's all the same hateful thinking, regardless of what country you live in or what race you're trying to 'preserve'.

@toshi
so basically you're against immigration and therefore against personal liberty? I thought you were anti-communist.

quark Wrote:Because it's all the same hateful thinking, regardless of what country you live in or what race you're trying to 'preserve'.

Trying to preserve a population = hateful thinking. Ok, got it! Here, let me kick you in the face as an act of love.

nadiatims Wrote:@toshi
so basically you're against immigration and therefore against personal liberty? I thought you were anti-communist.

When you're talking about massive 3rd world immigration, as is happening in Western Europe right now, you're going against the liberty of the host people. The people don't have a choice, because the corrupt Marxist politicians forced the law onto the people. This has not happened in Japan, and it probably never will, and that makes me incredibly happy.

Am I going against the "human liberty" of the immigrant, by not letting him migrate? Maybe, but the citizens of a certain country have more rights in their own country and the borders are there for a reason. We're not living in a communist utopia with no nations and borders, thankfully. Edit: Except in the EU.

He can try his luck elsewhere, or go back.

toshiromiballza Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:This doesn't mean you can divide humans into subspecies, because the borders are way too fuzzy, and there is too much overlap between different populations.

Wrong. There are overlaps between all taxonomical conventions, but this becomes an "issue" only when it comes to the human races. I've already said this.

IceCream Wrote:Also because subspecies is something which has a fixed definition,

Wrong again. Neither species, nor sub-species has a fixed definition. These are conventions and there are overlaps between them.

Yes, there are overlaps, but that doesn't mean you can just take any old overlap and break it down into a classification. I've explained to you already about polytypic and monotypic species. When any village in the world contains around 90% of human variation, and only 0.1% of variation goes into phenotypes that were historical predictors of "race" , there is no good argument for splitting humans into seperate subspecies.

toshiromiballza Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:I guess we're all a lost cause, just dirty halfbreeds, and only the San people are worth keeping then?

I already told you, I believe all people have a right to exist and to have their homeland. When you're replacing native people by bringing in millions of foreigners, I consider that an act of evil.

Well, for starters, you still haven't defined what "a people" are. Then, you're gonna have to explain why a specific "people", which anyway was never some static thing, but emerged from the historical mixing of populations from other countries, is so much more important than any new culture that emerges from a new mixing of populations. There is no "pure" nation or people.

ugh, i probably don't need to be doing this now, what Tzadeck said was right...

IceCream Wrote:ugh, i probably don't need to be doing this now, what Tzadeck said was right...

Bingo. Just accept that he's a bad person and he should feel bad.
By the by, the rocket packed with puppies and cupcakes and other awesome things is waiting for us. It's far more fun and productive than trying to talk some sense into someone with such a 'thick head'.

hehe true. I'll bring some icecream and great books!!!

IceCream Wrote:Yes, there are overlaps, but that doesn't mean you can just take any old overlap and break it down into a classification.

Again, there are overlaps between taxonomical conventions such as species and sub-species. A lot of the times scientists don't know whether to consider something as a new species or as a new sub-species, etc. Sometimes there are just one or two notable differences between two variants, but they get classified as two separate species because that one little difference made cross-breeding impossible between the two. Again, the only times scientists (read: pseudo-scientists) have a problem with this is when it comes to the human races, because it's politically incorrect.

IceCream Wrote:When any village in the world contains around 90% of human variation, and only 0.1% of variation goes into phenotypes that were historical predictors of "race" , there is no good argument for splitting humans into seperate subspecies.

This percentage argument has been going on since that pseudo-scientist Lewontin. Maybe try reading some of the papers that discredit him and this ridiculous "argument."

IceCream Wrote:Well, for starters, you still haven't defined what "a people" are. Then, you're gonna have to explain why a specific "people", which anyway was never some static thing, but emerged from the historical mixing of populations from other countries, is so much more important than any new culture that emerges from a new mixing of populations.

Wrong, I already have.

toshiromiballza Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:Yes, there are overlaps, but that doesn't mean you can just take any old overlap and break it down into a classification.

Again, there are overlaps between taxonomical conventions such as species and sub-species. A lot of the times scientists don't know whether to consider something as a new species or as a new sub-species, etc. Sometimes there are just one or two notable differences between two variants, but they get classified as two separate species because that one little difference made cross-breeding impossible between the two. Again, the only times scientists (read: pseudo-scientists) have a problem with this is when it comes to the human races, because it's politically incorrect.

It has nothing to do with political incorrectness. Yes, there are problems with classifying species and subspecies, and classifications might change based on how you do it. However, a species is usually determined by whether populations can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Obviously this is true of all human populations.

To define a subspecies, the populations can interbreed, but you still have to be able to sensibly divide them into biologically significant categories. This just isn't possible for humans existing today, due to excessive gene flow. It was the case for neanderthals and homo sapiens, which is why they are classified as seperate subspecies, and, e.g. australians and indians are not. All homo sapiens subspecies except homo sapiens sapiens are now extinct.

ok, really now, i'll stop. >< hahah. Definitely got better ways to spend my time...

toshiromiballza Wrote:When you're talking about massive 3rd world immigration, as is happening in Western Europe right now, you're going against the liberty of the host people. The people don't have a choice, because the corrupt Marxist politicians forced the law onto the people. This has not happened in Japan, and it probably never will, and that makes me incredibly happy.

Am I going against the "human liberty" of the immigrant, by not letting him migrate? Maybe, but the citizens of a certain country have more rights in their own country and the borders are there for a reason. We're not living in a communist utopia with no nations and borders, thankfully. Edit: Except in the EU.

He can try his luck elsewhere, or go back.

What about the freedom of an employer to hire someone to do an undesirable job that no one else wants to do? What about when you need welders, taxi-drivers, super market cashiers and plumbers but half the local young people are busy studying liberal arts degrees on borrowed money.

Immigration is not a problem in Europe. Socialism is.

Toshiromiballza it might help your cause if you could quote some sources. Maybe just a link to an abstract... Or name a scientist?

IceCream Wrote:However, a species is usually determined by whether populations can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Obviously this is true of all human populations.

"Usually." There are animals who are considered different species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Heck, there are animals of different genus that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This goes to show how there is no clear definition for any of this.

IceCream Wrote:To define a subspecies, the populations can interbreed, but you still have to be able to sensibly divide them into biologically significant categories. This just isn't possible for humans existing today, due to excessive gene flow. It was the case for neanderthals and homo sapiens, which is why they are classified as seperate subspecies, and, e.g. australians and indians are not. All homo sapiens subspecies except homo sapiens sapiens are now extinct.

It's very much possible, take a look at any PCA chart. Hell, take a look at a PCA chart made by the race-denying scientists. Here, I googled one:



Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why Africans and Asians don't cluster together, but apparently it does take one to comprehend that this "somehow, magically," translates almost the same as the old concept of race. Refusal of this fact is entirely due to political correctness. You said "The concepts of race / subspecies and population clusters are seperate concepts, they aren't interchangable.", which is an inaccurate PC statement. It's exactly the same thing, except one has a "racist" connotation attached to it, and the other is a PC term. It's entirely semantics.

Neanderthals, Sapiens, Erectus, etc. are separate species, not sub-species. Homo sapiens sapiens is the sub-species of Homo sapiens. You can further categorize these things as these are all conventions. You can call different dog breeds as sub-sub-species instead of breeds. You can call human races breeds. You can call them "population clusters," whatever you want. The fact is, the differences are there and scientists can easily differentiate between them. Race is especially important when dealing with bone marrow transplants.

Australian Aboriginals and Caucasian Indians are different races, any PCA chart will tell you that. Australian Aboriginals and Dravidian Indians would map closer, because Dravidians are mixed with both. The existence of overlapping populations does not disprove the fact that races exist. Only in the minds of ignoramuses, perhaps...

nadiatims Wrote:What about the freedom of an employer to hire someone to do an undesirable job that no one else wants to do? What about when you need welders, taxi-drivers, super market cashiers and plumbers but half the local young people are busy studying liberal arts degrees on borrowed money.

Immigration is not a problem in Europe. Socialism is.

The "employer," especially when dealing with large corporations, is in most cases the very definition of scum, and the only "freedom" they should enjoy is a one-hour walk around the prison premises. But I'm not going into that. In any given country, there's enough unemployed people to successfully fill all the required job positions. There is zero need for immigration, it's just that the scum, sorry, employers, want to pay less, so they favour immigration. Scummy politicians favour in a similar way. That's all there is to it.

@blackbrich
Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Philippe Rushton
Race, Genetics & Society, Glayde Whitney
Race: The Reality of Human Differences, Vincent Sarich

Or hell, take one of the most famous race-denying works, The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza et al., who explicitly claim they are not describing "races," yet one who wears no PC glasses can only shake their head in disbelief and confusion when reading the book and remembering that statement. (Edit: It's not really a book about the denial of race, it's about the differences in the genome between human populations, but the authors are all race deniers. Maybe they should try reading their own book.)

Or do you want a paper/abstract for some specific point I made?

That'll be sufficient I think. I don't necessarily hold a view one way or the other, but it just looked like you were just saying things with no proof. Not saying that the proof you provide is correct or incorrect.

arghhh

Do you even understand what a PCA chart is?

It's cluster analysis. Like i've been talking about all day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysis

Just because you are obviously incapable of understanding the distinction between genetic clustering and subspecies, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

wikipedia Wrote:Serre and Pääbo (2004) make a similar claim:

The absence of strong continental clustering in the human gene pool is of practical importance. It has recently been claimed that “the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level” (Risch et al. 2002). Our results show that this is not the case, and we see no reason to assume that “races” represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history.

In a response to Serre and Pääbo (2004), Rosenberg et al. (2005) make three relevant observations. Firstly they maintain that their clustering analysis is robust. Secondly they agree with Serre and Pääbo that membership of multiple clusters can be interpreted as evidence for clinality (isolation by distance), though they also comment that this may also be due to admixture between neighbouring groups (small island model). Thirdly they comment that evidence of clusterdness is not evidence for any concepts of "biological race".[9]

and so on.

(Also, you shouldn't post random charts with low sample sizes and no reference to where you got it from, or which genes it is analysing, as it becomes completely useless to anyone without context.)

Even if you are incapable of understanding the distinction between genetic clustering and biological race, surely you should be able to understand that even if you were correct, you STILL wouldn't be able to draw the type of conclusions you are trying to. There is no "should" in biology, only "can't" and "don't". So if it's so terribly important to you to make analogies between humans and dogs, fine, whatever. But there's nothing to say that anyone "should" preserve a certain dog breed just because it happens to exist either.

toshiromiballza Wrote:

nadiatims Wrote:If you wanna preserve the master race then go find some of your fellows and get cracking making babies.

I don't want to preserve the "master race," I want to preserve all the races. Do you understand that?

Soooo, what's the plan for doing this? Do you plan to outlaw inter-"racial" marriage? How about preserving ethic groups - outlawing inter-group marriage? What about the offspring of such relationships that already exist? Some of those go back generations. Shall we round them up? Sterilize them? Get rid of those "mud" people?



http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/2e8b

nadiatims Wrote:What about the freedom of an employer to hire someone to do an undesirable job that no one else wants to do? What about when you need welders, taxi-drivers, super market cashiers and plumbers but half the local young people are busy studying liberal arts degrees on borrowed money.

Immigration is not a problem in Europe. Socialism is.

This.

@IceCream

And yet again you parrot the crap of the race-denying pseudo-scientists, as if their opinion is factual or even common in the field.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2...that-hard/

"Just because you are obviously incapable of understanding the distinction between genetic clustering and subspecies, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist."

Don't get angry at me if your brain is incapable of understanding the connection between genetic clusters/populations and human races. Not my fault your brain is so susceptible to unscientific garbage from pseudo-scientists. Doesn't mean race doesn't exist. Perhaps it's your brain that doesn't exist?

Once again, thank god most Japanese understand the difference between actual science and pseudo-science, and would only ever give citizenship to people like you to lock them up in an asylum.

By the way, what's the root cause of your obsession of trying to eradicate established ethnicities out of existence? Are you bi/multi-racial and don't have a sense of identity? Too bad, the Japanese have one, and they won't give it up any time soon.

@Immigration not being a problem in Europe. Tell that to all the rape and murder victims. 100% of rapes in Norway in 2012 have been committed by immigrants, mostly Muslims. Sweden is no different. Girls dye their hair black out of fear. Seems just like paradise...

toshiromiballza Wrote:@Immigration not being a problem in Europe. Tell that to all the rape and murder victims. 100% of rapes in Norway in 2012 have been committed by immigrants, mostly Muslims. Sweden is no different. Girls dye their hair black out of fear. Seems just like paradise...

Really, 100%? Wow. Where did you read that exactly? By the way, Muslim isn't a race, it's people who follow the religion of Islam. But please, go ahead and call the other people on this forum, your professors, and scientists ignorant because they don't subscribe to your racist diatribes.

quark Wrote:Really, 100%? Wow. Where did you read that exactly? By the way, Muslim isn't a race, it's people who follow the religion of Islam.

Was wrong about the year, it's 2010. Who wants to bet the numbers for 2011 and 2012 weren't any different?

Muslims aren't a race? You don't say. I didn't know that. I was talking about immigrants in general, not what race they were.

did you get that from stormfront.org (white pride worldwide)?

Because that's what comes up when i google those terms.

I'm not going to link it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_%28website%29

Which terms?