Originally posted by The Ellimist
Here's a better answer you could've given: Spoiler:
no.
A person debating in good faith would just go "oh, a misunderstanding, I tried to be cute and he didn't get it", and not "lol you missed my subtle figure of speech, now I'm going to try to imply that the rest of his rebuttal isn't worth responding to by proxy".
But anyway. Be sure to respond to my questions about your positions on group differences too. 👆
So, I have to be constantly literal or you'll misunderstand? This is essentially what you're telling me. You go on and on about people addressing shit but ignored the fact that your usage of modus tollens is broken because it would be necessary for me to have been literal in order for it to function.
You were so caught up on an opportunity to say something really amazing and latin because latin is so goddamn cool that you missed where it was pretty fucking clear I disagree with the notion that races have any meaningful intellectual differences.
Not going to happen. Our discussion is basically done. You're a slimy fucking dude. Chalk it up as a "win" or a "concession" that you totally earned but you're untrustworthy to talk to. It's a waste of time anyway. I saw your post and it's rife with inconsistencies and actually incorrect information (after laughably claiming I was behind on the science. Great edit speed, btw! 10/10!)
I'll give one example before I finally wash my hands of you. You'll respond. It doesn't matter. It'll be wrong. Here:
There are clear phenotypic differences between most Jews and most caucasians.
Now with regards to phenotypic expression, it is not the case that black populations have greater variances in measurable traits than most other ones. So your claim is merely that we could employ a different metric if we wanted to, not that it is socially constructed.
All you're establishing is that the racial groups each encapsulate an uneven range of genetic variance. That different groups capture a different sample space of possibilities doesn't invalidate the idea that there are biological differences between them. And here we have the first example of the sophistry rampant throughout your post: you pick at "issues" with the classification scheme without explaining how they prove it was "socially constructed".
THERE IS NO METRIC. For a metric to be a metric it has to be standard. Biologists have never agreed on a standard taxonomy for races and it's not my responsibility to prove it's "socially constructed." You asking me to prove that race is "socially constructed" is absolutely laughable. The scientific consensus is that biological essentialism is outmoded and that same community also happen to disfavor explanations concerning race when it comes to differences in behavior/physical traits.
What metric should be used? Skin color? Skull shape? How do you decide what’s a race and what’s a sub-race? If someone is of mixed race, where do you sort them? Is that a new race?
In order for race to be scientific in the sense you obviously propose, it has to be scientifically meaningful in that same context. If no scientists can agree on a way to categorize races, then it’s useless scientifically. Without a scientific foundation, race can only have a social meaning. This is especially true considering it already does. The only remaining argument would be proving biological meaning. That's where it becomes tougher or where someone could come along and quite easily conflate race with what is clearly ethnicity.
But no, you keep on trying to snag "gotcha" moments because you posted a lot of text and made claims without reinforcement, which you apparently detest.