Is This Racist?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but isn't the believe that dark skinned people have darker skin than light skinned people already "racist" by your general definition?

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, recognising skin colour isn't racist.

Yes it is by your definition.

"Racism is defined as the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race"

All members of a dark skinned race have darker skin (characteristic) than members of a white race whites.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes it is by your definition.

"Racism is defined as the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race"

All members of a dark skinned race have darker skin (characteristic) than members of a white race whites.

"All members of a dark skinned race have darker skin (characteristic) than members of a white race whites." You kinda messed up that sentence at the end, I think...but okay.

"a dark skinned race" is that, all dark skinned people, or one "race" in which every member is dark skinned? I'm guessing the latter.

Again, how do you define dark? Where's the cut off point there?

It doesn't matter. I've already said there's no scientific data to show races exist, so, even saying darker skinned people are a different race to lighter skinned people is racist.

I should have used ethnicity in my definition of racist, my bad.

Originally posted by lord xyz
"dark skinned people", what you originally said, isn't a race, so that can't at all be racist.

"All members of a dark skinned race have darker skin (characteristic) than members of a white race whites." You kinda messed up that sentence at the end, I think...but okay.

"a dark skinned race" is that, all dark skinned people, or one "race" in which every member is dark skinned? I'm guessing the latter.

Again, how do you define dark? Where's the cut off point there?

It doesn't matter. I've already said there's no scientific data to show races exist, so, even saying darker skinned people are a different race to lighter skinned people is racist.

I should have used ethnicity in my definition of racist, my bad.

So now even saying "race" is racist?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So now even saying "race" is racist?

The definition of racism is the belief that a race is on an inferior level to another race, wither it be in regards to intelligence, athleticism, etc etc.

Stereotyping isn't racism. They tend to go hand in hand, but they aren't the same thing.

Believing races are anything more than what's superficial is inaccurate, so much that you can't even classify populations as race.

But I can admit that saying there's a common personality within black populations is not racist.

I seem to have gone a bit overboard with this point, but I think we can all admit the mammy is a racial stereotype.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Believing races are anything more than what's superficial is inaccurate, so much that you can't even classify populations as race.

That's sort of true.

There are differences, physically, in Sub-Saharan Africans and, say, true Caucasians (those that settled around the Caucasus Mountains/valleys.)

Medical publications still use some of the "major" social races in their works where appropriate...though it is cautioned against for most things. I see it pop up every now and then. For instance, lactose intolerance is much more common among African Americans than any other race demographic in America. So is sickle cell anemia. You can't really blame that on anything but their Sub-Saharan African origins.

Originally posted by dadudemon
For instance, lactose intolerance is much more common among African Americans than any other race demographic in America. So is sickle cell anemia. You can't really blame that on anything but their Sub-Saharan African origins.

It's probable that these conditions are a combination of many environmental factors as well as genetics. What I'm saying is, these deficits could be avoided if the environmental factors change.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I disagree. Hardly anything is genetically programmed...

Okay...

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's probable that these conditions are a combination of many environmental factors as well as genetics.

Okay...

So you don't even agree with yourself.

But let's stick with facts on science:

Here's some facts:

Lactose intolerance can be caused by a mutation in the LCT gene. This mutation reduces the ability for the intestines to produce an enzyme that breaks down lactose: lactase.

In order to inherit the LCT mutation, both parents have to contribute the gene mutation. This is known as autosomal recessive inheritance/trait.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002052.htm

That's one example down.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I disagree. Hardly anything is genetically programmed...

This is clearly wrong using just one example. In fact, pretty much every trait is directly programmed by your genes. Some traits are "programmed" by what I dub "super genes" mean a combination of multiple genes working together to create a particular trait ( "gene created traits" are what are called phenotypes). Still, others, are a combination of your genetics and environment.

But let's move on to ...

Sickle Cell Anemia.

I don't even have to talk much about this one...I'll just quote it:

Sickle cell anemia is a disease in which your body produces abnormally shaped red blood cells. The cells are shaped like a crescent or sickle. They don't last as long as normal, round red blood cells, which leads to anemia. The sickle cells also get stuck in blood vessels, blocking blood flow. This can cause pain and organ damage.

A genetic problem causes sickle cell anemia. People with the disease are born with two sickle cell genes, one from each parent. If you only have one sickle cell gene, it's called sickle cell trait. About 1 in 12 African Americans has sickle cell trait. A blood test can show if you have the trait or anemia. Most states test newborn babies as part of their newborn screening programs.

Do some more research and reading concerning race and medical differences between the sociological (and sometimes anthropological, but many consider the major three antiquated) labels. It may change your mind a bit on just a few things. It's not ground breaking information or anything because we already know there's significant differences, even in appearance, between the major races. It should come as no shock that the differences are not just skin deep. Humans are definitely different and those differences can be narrowed down to a population living in specific geographics (genetically).

I love the modern world because we are mixing more and more. One day...we may not have race. One day...

Holy shit. I wanted to laugh because of how racist that was. And normally I would, but that was just...kind of disturbing. It almost seems like it could have been a comedic skit, except it was a bit undisguised.

Where is that commercial being advertised?

Originally posted by theICONiac
If the black girl had said 'Here you go massah!' while delivering the lemonade as the black guy was picking cotton in the background would definitely make this racist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay...

Okay...

So you don't even agree with yourself.

Let's spend some time explaining why you're wrong here.

A combination of environmental factors and genetics doesn't mean genetically programmed.

Oh, that's actually easier than I thought.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But let's stick with facts on science:

Here's some facts:

Lactose intolerance can be caused by a mutation in the LCT gene. This mutation reduces the ability for the intestines to produce an enzyme that breaks down lactose: lactase.

In order to inherit the LCT mutation, both parents have to contribute the gene mutation. This is known as autosomal recessive inheritance/trait.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002052.htm

I would like to add there's nothing there about it being more common with those of African origin, or that it something that those of African origin are more likely to pass down, but even if it were, that isn't an argument for the existence of race any more than that gingers are more likely to get skin cancer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's one example down.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is clearly wrong using just one example. In fact, pretty much every trait is directly programmed by your genes. Some traits are "programmed" by what I dub "super genes" mean a combination of multiple genes working together to create a particular trait ( "gene created traits" are what are called phenotypes). Still, others, are a combination of your genetics and environment.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But let's move on to ...

Sickle Cell Anemia.

I don't even have to talk much about this one...I'll just quote it:

Do some more research and reading concerning race and medical differences between the sociological (and sometimes anthropological, but many consider the major three antiquated) labels. It may change your mind a bit on just a few things. It's not ground breaking information or anything because we already know there's significant differences, even in appearance, between the major races. It should come as no shock that the differences are not just skin deep. Humans are definitely different and those differences can be narrowed down to a population living in specific geographics (genetically).

I love the modern world because we are mixing more and more. One day...we may not have race. One day...

I would like everyone to not be fat, but that's because fat people are gross. ermm

But anyway, races don't exist. That's why we use ethnicity and populations instead.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In fact, pretty much every trait is directly programmed by your genes.

I'll wait for you definition of "trait" but my initial reaction is simply that, no, this isn't true. Epigenetics is the new big thing in modern genetics, that the way your genes express themselves can be influenced by factors in your environment.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html

With things like sickle cell you can say "if you have this gene you will have this condition". They were really important to early genetic research because they proved the heritability of conditions. They weren't the final word, though.

Genes have switches, that turn on and off depending on our environment.

This isn't true for all genes, but the majority of them yes.

There's immense research including real human cases that show how different environments cause different biology.

If a person was raised in a dark room for example for the first 5 years of life, because that's when eyes finish development, that person will be blind.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Holy shit. I wanted to laugh because of how racist that was. And normally I would, but that was just...kind of disturbing. It almost seems like it could have been a comedic skit, except it was a bit undisguised.

Where is that commercial being advertised?

Originally posted by lord xyz
You are so annoying. 😐

Let's spend some time explaining why you're wrong here.

A combination of environmental factors and genetics doesn't mean genetically programmed.

Oh, that's actually easier than I thought.

But, see, that's not what it is and I later prove that.

The fact that you said: "I disagree. Hardly anything is genetically programmed..." is very horrible and ignorant statement.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Sure, that seems pretty legit, but I only said probable, so thanks for showing me that.

Let's look at what you really said:

"I disagree. Hardly anything is genetically programmed..."

"It's probable that these conditions are a combination of many environmental factors as well as genetics."

Nope, neither are generally true.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I would like to add there's nothing there about it being more common with those of African origin, or that it something that those of African origin are more likely to pass down, but even if it were, that isn't an argument for the existence of race any more than that gingers are more likely to get skin cancer.

You really shouldn't add anything, but if you must:

http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=661

African American Lactose Intolerance: 75%

Here's another one that talks all about it:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/364583-lactose-intolerance-race/

Originally posted by lord xyz
You're really really condescending and creepy when you post oti. You also take great pride in link dumping and take waaay too much effort replying to me.

You really can't use the "I know you are but what am I?" response because I've already said as much about you (more than once) for following me around on KMC and insulting me or making condescending posts at me. And my post was not condescending at all. The example was my own, not yours. Supporting my own example and saying that supporting is now out of the way in no way reflects on you but directly on me. Context may be required to understand that, but not really. 😬

And in most adult conversations, you should really cite a source...even if you know it off the top of your head. Why? I think it's obvious, but you can tell me why if you want to.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Don't take this the wrong way, but I never trust your opinion.

I'm glad the content wasn't my opinion, then. 😐

Take this the wrong way, but you not trusting science in no way offends me.

Originally posted by lord xyz
We don't have race, and I love the diversity in human populations...I wouldn't want everyone to have the same eye colour, hair colour, everyone to be the same height...etc.

I would like everyone to not be fat, but that's because fat people are gross. ermm

But anyway, races don't exist. That's why we use ethnicity and populations instead.

Sorry, XYZ...but the diversity is slowly fading and homogeneity is increasing.

Eventually, without the interjection of cosmetic gene therapy, we will bread most race types out of humanity in short order.

I don't find fat people attractive either. The vast majority of people, don't either.

And you're case about "race" is one of word games...

"...it is self-evident that there are genetic differences between people who have been geographically segregated into mating populations, just as there are genetic differences for all species and subspecies...”
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050128_racefrm.htm

Why is that so obvious for some but not for others? Sure, the "let's hold hands and pretend that there are not genetic differences in our population" is quite loving and happy. But that's not really true. There are differences...those differences are based on geographics.

If humans weren't so dang smart and moved around all the time, those differences would become much more dramatic in less than 100,000 years.

It's hard for me to think of a scientist as being serious when they say, "there's not such thing as race: as far as the genes are concerned" when the medical and pharmaceutical industry has to actively be aware that, yes, there are genetic differences that manifest in medical and pharmacoactive manners and ingoring those can be bad.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
[B]I'll wait for you definition of "trait" but my initial reaction is simply that, no, this isn't true. Epigenetics is the new big thing in modern genetics, that the way your genes express themselves can be influenced by factors in your environment./B]

So your reason for why genetics don't produce most of our traits, directly, is that there are some that are expressed through epigentics (which I already referenced as "super genes"😉.

If that's how you define it, then, no, I disagree. In order to disagree, you must make a case that the vast majority of our traits (traits is such a broad definition...phenotypes is actually how I defined it) is defined by something other than genetics.

Note my post also said:

"Still, others, are a combination of your genetics and environment."

Originally posted by dadudemon
So your reason for why genetics don't produce most of our traits, directly, is that there are some that are expressed through epigentics (which I already referenced as "super genes"😉.

Epigenetics is not at all what you defined as "super genes" (apparently any gene interactions complex than a binary on/off thing). Epigenetics means your phenotypes can change based on environmental factors.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If that's how you define it, then, no, I disagree. In order to disagree, you must make a case that the vast majority of our traits (traits is such a broad definition...phenotypes is actually how I defined it) is defined by something other than genetics.

I'd say you need to at least start by making a good cased for "nearly everything" about a person is defined by genetics. Let's see:

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.114-a160

Twin studies have found epigenetic changes in various cells (stomach, liver, kidneys, bladder, esophageal, lymph, mouth, fat, muscle).
In mice epigenetics can alter fur color. Childhood care can alter the chemical make up of mice children as they age.
Cancer has apparent links to epigenetic effects.

But frankly I don't really see how either of us would make much of a case unless we're prepared to go through the literature on every possible aspect of humanity and see what causes it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Still, others, are a combination of your genetics and environment."

I'd argue that from what is known about how far reaching epigenetics can be it's reasonable to expect that in humans a lot of things are going to be defined by interaction with the environment rather than set in stone by your genes.

Mind you, I'm not taking the position like xyz that "nearly everything" comes from environmental interactions, I'm taking issue with the sort of genetic destiny you seem to be pushing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Epigenetics is not at all what you defined as "super genes" (apparently any gene interactions complex than a binary on/off thing). Epigenetics means your phenotypes can change based on environmental factors.

I was wrong in calling "epigenes", supergenes...mostly because I used the wrong "above" prefix.

But I did requote portions of my post that show environmentally influenced expression. (genotypes becoming phenotypes).

However, environmentally influenced genetic expression is definitely not the only type of epigenetics.

Contrast my use with gene complexes. Super-genes are real and in the way I used it. So are gene complexes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say you need to at least start by making a good cased for "nearly everything" about a person is defined by genetics. Let's see:

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.114-a160

Twin studies have found epigenetic changes in various cells (stomach, liver, kidneys, bladder, esophageal, lymph, mouth, fat, muscle).
In mice epigenetics can alter fur color. Childhood care can alter the chemical make up of mice children as they age.
Cancer has apparent links to epigenetic effects.

But frankly I don't really see how either of us would make much of a case unless we're prepared to go through the literature on every possible aspect of humanity and see what causes it..

No, I absolutely will not entertain this line of reasoning.

1. You're using a strawman for my point.
2. You're asking me to prove that genes are the direct foundation for almost all traits. Really? I mean...really?

I definitely will not entertain such a silly demand.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd argue that from what is known about how far reaching epigenetics can be it's reasonable to expect that in humans a lot of things are going to be defined by interaction with the environment rather than set in stone by your genes.

Mind you, I'm not taking the position like xyz that "nearly everything" comes from environmental interactions, I'm taking issue with the sort of genetic destiny you seem to be pushing.

I take issue with your taking issue with that. Yes, I'm serious. I think it's a silly "I'm bored" sem-troll attempt.

I mean, REALLY? You want to talk about genes not influencing the vast majority of eukaryote traits? Why would any normal person take that seriously?

You can say there's genes for determining skin colour and eyelid composition, sure.

Calling that a race or a subspecies is just stupid. Saying genes concretely define who we are is also stupid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a lot of things are going to be defined by interaction with the environment rather than set in stone by your genes.

Mind you, I'm not taking the position like xyz that "nearly everything" comes from environmental interactions, I'm taking issue with the sort of genetic destiny you seem to be pushing.

Btw, where's inimalist? Me and him had quite an interesting chat about epigenetics.