You are confused.
WOuld you like to try and ask your question in some other way?
Okay try this:
- Christianity is a claim that Jesus was the Son of God..
- I am an atheist.
I’m not confused at all. Do you even remember your claim, from about 2 or 3 weeks ago, where you identified YOU yourself, as YOUR DNA???
How is that not racist???
God you really have some significant mental and cognitive difficulties.
Jog on!
Do you deny identifying “Yourself” as your DNA???
Yeah… do ya? cough
We’ll take this slow…
Okay…
Read carefully…
Do you think that “yourself” is the same as “your race”?
Now think carefully…
Please answer.
Yes, how can you not be YOUR race???
See now, like in the other thread, it shows me that you don’t know what DNA is or how genetics works.
Do you believe Biologists and Anthropologists can identify a human’s race by his/her bones???
Yes or no, Scalptor?
1 Like
Weyl… if genes are just memes informed in matter, then I’d say form/force expresses or is expressed in both, which are an expression of form/force (essence)—or mediate (modes of) its expression. Not that anybody asked me.
Is this racist?
Memes are the ideological and behavioral expression of Genes.
It’s why actions are harder to lie about and self-deceive than words, or literary Memes.
Genes are the building blocks of conscious cb radios. We are the radio-configuring signals. Best I can do.
Who’s speaking and listening through the broadcasts then? Ghosts? Spirits? Souls? Gods? Aliens? Future AI bots from the year 7000?
Y’just don’t never know.
DUh.
Because race is not a valid, biological or meaningful category.
There are no biological barriers between so-called “races” and the term “race” is just a arbitrary social category.
1 Like
No. I’m a n archaeologist and have studied anthropology too
LOL. You are getting more and more ridiculous
WHo is listening to ghosts??
Is that you?
Genetics is an inheritance of the range you may or may not achieve.
You inherit how tall you can become, or how smart you can become.
Species is about inherited ranges of potentials, so sub-species is also an inherited range.
Nurturing, environmental factors, will, is what determine how much of it you may attain.
That is correct, but…
in the context of humans, is different than all lifeforms. 70% seems like a big number.
Like if we are talking about all lifeforms, then genes effect anywhere from 90-100% of behavior (90-99% if there is a supernatural or free-will component, 100% if there is no free-will.)
But humans are already genetically similar. So if we are talking about in the context of other humans, 70% seems like a big number, compared to only 20% memetic influence
5 posts were split to a new topic: Double Standards Around Abortion [split]
White is a visual description because a lot of culture is visual aesthetics. I wouldn’t describe the Irish as being brown, I wouldn’t describe the Maasai in Africa as being yellow, and I wouldn’t describe the Innuit in Canada as being black. The whole argument is senseless nitpicking and everybody knows what is being conveyed, even with liberal obfuscation set aside.
Also, I would argue you cannot talk about culture without genetics or ethnicity as both describe the history of a culture overtime concerning the specific people that comprise it.
What I am really curious about in this thread is if you and others are going to grandstand with the usual liberal cosmopolitan arguments or not, but keep in mind that not everybody embraces those cosmopolitan values.
Whiteness is a visual description of ethnicity and genetics, so what you’re really saying is that you’re arguing for a definition of culture without genetics and ethnicity, which then I would argue is historically inaccurate.
2 Likes