At the time, owing to the utter sh1t that passed for content, I suspected that it might be your handiwork. Given your bollocks Bigfoot contribution on Metapedia, I now think it is you.
Care to confirm or deny?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
At the time, owing to the utter sh1t that passed for content, I suspected that it might be your handiwork. Given your bollocks Bigfoot contribution on Metapedia, I now think it is you.
Care to confirm or deny?
Notably missing from the Hairy Humanoid entry and not found anywhere on the Metapedia site is Carleton Coon's essay:
Also surpising on the Black Africans entry this statement
" There have been occasional remarkable Black African figures such as Marcus Garvey, however, the popular public figures tend be frivilous bread and circus showmen; atheletes, rap and jazz "musicians"
posted
Crazy Eurocentric talk by Faheemduncass.The popular black public figures tend to be frivolous bread and circus showmen;athelets, rap and jazz musicians.
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Crazy Eurocentric talk by Faheemduncass. The popular black public figures tend to be frivolous bread and circus showmen;athletes, rap and jazz musicians.
Unfortunately the duncass is right! All the popular black public figures ARE athletes, music artists (especially rappers) and other entertainers. All the black people that contribute to actual advancement such as engineers like Archibald Alexander and Lewis Latimer or scientists like Percy Julian and Ida Owens get no notice. It's the fault of mainstream (white) American culture in general though even black America seems to be complicit as such intellectual endeavors are ignored over the usual entertainment. Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unfortunately the duncass is right! All the popular black public figures ARE athletes, music artists (especially rappers) and other entertainers. All the black people that contribute to actual advancement such as engineers like Archibald Alexander and Lewis Latimer or scientists like Percy Julian and Ida Owens get no notice. It's the fault of mainstream (white) American culture in general though even black America seems to be complicit as such intellectual endeavors are ignored over the usual entertainment.
This is true. However, African-American entertainers and athletes, by winning hearts and minds globally, and helping to provide us with foundations for a political voice, have played a major role in the progress of black people.
I think people overlook the power of culture, which is seen as one of the three assets of major powers (along with economic, and military resources).
It's true that black scientists don't enjoy the same celebrity as black entertainers and athletes, but then the same could be said for white people.
Even with the issues that certain black communities face now, I wonder what the status and self-image of black people would be like without the disproportionate presence of black entertainers and athletes.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
^^^ haven't looked at this closely yet, white supermacist encyclopedia take on Marcus Garvey
also note Anglo_P is no longer anglo. He converted to Islam and now goes by Faheem. He also adds "dunkers" in tribute to his favorite sport
Posts: 42954 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, what would white supremacists and ardent racists like anglo make of Marcus Garvey and his ideas for Back to Africa? Hmmm. I simply can't even begin to imagine...
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I think he would be all for it (Back to Africa) as the continent is so messed up and mired in political corruption and violence begotten by the Euro-colonialists and perpetuated to this day by the descendants of the Euro-colonialists' native lackeys and puppets.
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @Djehuti
quote: Unfortunately the duncass is right! All the popular black public figures ARE athletes, music artists (especially rappers) and other entertainers. All the black people that contribute to actual advancement such as engineers like Archibald Alexander and Lewis Latimer or scientists like Percy Julian and Ida Owens get no notice. It's the fault of mainstream (white) American culture in general though even black America seems to be complicit as such intellectual endeavors are ignored over the usual entertainment.
This is true. However, African-American entertainers and athletes, by winning hearts and minds globally, and helping to provide us with foundations for a political voice, have played a major role in the progress of black people.
I think people overlook the power of culture, which is seen as one of the three assets of major powers (along with economic, and military resources).
It's true that black scientists don't enjoy the same celebrity as black entertainers and athletes, but then the same could be said for white people.
Even with the issues that certain black communities face now, I wonder what the status and self-image of black people would be like without the disproportionate presence of black entertainers and athletes.
Culture consist of multiple facets. And yes while facets such as art and athletics not bad nor should they be depreciated, I think the ignoring of more intellectual achievements such as science and technology is still a major problem and a virtual loss in its own right. It seems to be promoting the old white supremacist agenda that all blacks have to offer in terms of achievement is their physical prowess through athletics and artistic creativity in things like music though rooted in what past white intellectuals called 'baser emotions' which they identify with black "soul". Of course we know know emotions are intimately tied with intellect, it matters not to white racists who will acknowledge blacks' bodies, and souls, but not "higher minds" or intellects. Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course we know know emotions are intimately tied with intellect, it matters not to white racists who will acknowledge blacks' bodies, and souls, but not "higher minds" or intellects.
I'm not sure we should pay much attention to the whims of white racists. Black people could win the greatest academic prizes in the world every year for decades, and it still wouldn't change the minds of the racists. They would simply move the goalposts and enter into laughable contortions of logic in the same way that Anglo does. So even if there were universal agreement tomorrow that the Egyptians were black Africans, I'm not sure it would do much to erase whatever racism still exists.
Entertainers and athletes have a far greater social profile than scientists and academics - it's why I think the growing number of black players in British soccer is a good thing. It has the potential to serve as a basis for mainstreaming your worldview and interests.
It reminds me of something I've heard young south Asians bemoan - academically and economically, Indians in the UK/the English-speaking West are successful, but they don't have the cultural profile/media presence of black people in the African diaspora. Likewise with the Chinese, they would like greater media representation.
There are certainly elements of/individuals within black popular culture that I dislike, but I certainly wouldn't junk or dismiss the achievements of black celebrities simply because we need more black scientists and academics.
Personally, as a black kid who went to overwhelmingly white schools and lived in overwhelmingly white suburbs in the 70's and 80's, I was glad of the media presence of black celebrities.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course we know know emotions are intimately tied with intellect, it matters not to white racists who will acknowledge blacks' bodies, and souls, but not "higher minds" or intellects.
I'm not sure we should pay much attention to the whims of white racists. Black people could win the greatest academic prizes in the world every year for decades, and it still wouldn't change the minds of the racists. They would simply move the goalposts and enter into laughable contortions of logic in the same way that Anglo does. So even if there were universal agreement tomorrow that the Egyptians were black Africans, I'm not sure it would do much to erase whatever racism still exists.
Entertainers and athletes have a far greater social profile than scientists and academics - it's why I think the growing number of black players in British soccer is a good thing. It has the potential to serve as a basis for mainstreaming your worldview and interests.
It reminds me of something I've heard young south Asians bemoan - academically and economically, Indians in the UK/the English-speaking West are successful, but they don't have the cultural profile/media presence of black people in the African diaspora. Likewise with the Chinese, they would like greater media representation.
There are certainly elements of/individuals within black popular culture that I dislike, but I certainly wouldn't junk or dismiss the achievements of black celebrities simply because we need more black scientists and academics.
Personally, as a black kid who went to overwhelmingly white schools and lived in overwhelmingly white suburbs in the 70's and 80's, I was glad of the media presence of black celebrities.
That is a very mature outlook you have claus, but you are not really addressing the question. Indians and Mongols excel at tasks and professions which require memorization of information and technique. Thus they do very well in medical and scientific schools and professions, but will rarely raise above the common in the practice of the profession.
Blacks excel at CREATING and creativity. Thus, thought there may be fewer Black scientists and Doctors, they will be among the best in their fields. Likewise at sports, Blacks bring not only superior physicality, but also superior creativity. Black entertainment follows the pattern. THAT is why Blacks command the greater public profile.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about Neil Degrasse Tyson? He's pretty famous, well Im a nerd so maybe in my own circle.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Crazy Eurocentric talk by Faheemduncass. The popular black public figures tend to be frivolous bread and circus showmen;athletes, rap and jazz musicians.
Unfortunately the duncass is right! All the popular black public figures ARE athletes, music artists (especially rappers) and other entertainers. All the black people that contribute to actual advancement such as engineers like Archibald Alexander and Lewis Latimer or scientists like Percy Julian and Ida Owens get no notice. It's the fault of mainstream (white) American culture in general though even black America seems to be complicit as such intellectual endeavors are ignored over the usual entertainment.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:All the black people that contribute to actual advancement such as engineers like Archibald Alexander and Lewis Latimer or scientists like Percy Julian
These people were not Negroid. They were all heavily mixed. Archie Alexander, who had light olive coloured skin, and non-woolly hair, was even rejected by most of the African-American community, since he didn't look "Black" enough:
Intelligent or successful people who socially identify as "Black" are NEVER Negroid: Tiger Woods, W.E.B. DuBois, Lewis Hamilton, Frank Snowden, but are mixed [I never said I had a problem with them, Snowden's books I own].
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha,ha,ha: Damn Cass, you must have a database of pictures of every ugly Black person on the planet. But have you ever thought to ask yourself why you would invest so much time and energy in compiling such a database? Um,um, you are one sick puppy Cass!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Intelligent or successful people who socially identify as "Black" are NEVER Negroid: Tiger Woods, W.E.B. DuBois, Lewis Hamilton, Frank Snowden, but are mixed [I never said I had a problem with them, Snowden's books I own].
like I said...
quote: I'm not sure we should pay much attention to the whims of white racists. Black people could win the greatest academic prizes in the world every year for decades, and it still wouldn't change the minds of the racists. They would simply move the goalposts and enter into laughable contortions of logic in the same way that Anglo does.
Now Anglo, about your belief in Bigfoot...
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
"A 2007 peer-reviewed study appearing in the Tropical Journal of Medical Research has noted that contrary to "the popular belief that the black people generally have longer penile sizes" that in reality "there is no convincing scientific background to support the ascription of bigger penile dimensions to people of the Black race". In fact the study discovered that "the average erect length of the American Caucasians was surprisingly longer" than Negroids sampled".
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now my question to you- do you not think it uncommonly strange that,as a grown man, you believe in Bigfoot? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're a bit of an odd ball, really, aren't you? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol. Says you [who created a thread on penis sizes]. Anyway seeming as you like that topic, at least educate yourself on the facts:
"A 2007 peer-reviewed study appearing in the Tropical Journal of Medical Research has noted that contrary to "the popular belief that the black people generally have longer penile sizes" that in reality "there is no convincing scientific background to support the ascription of bigger penile dimensions to people of the Black race". In fact the study discovered that "the average erect length of the American Caucasians was surprisingly longer" than Negroids sampled".
So you don't think it weird that a grown man believes in Bigfoot? You really have no credibility.
Could you find the thread I started on dick length? You won't be able to, because you're a fvcking liar. I think it's you that seems to have this thing with comparative black/white dick size.
Is that another Metapedia page that you pulled out of your arse?
Pathological.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course we know know emotions are intimately tied with intellect, it matters not to white racists who will acknowledge blacks' bodies, and souls, but not "higher minds" or intellects.
I'm not sure we should pay much attention to the whims of white racists. Black people could win the greatest academic prizes in the world every year for decades, and it still wouldn't change the minds of the racists. They would simply move the goalposts and enter into laughable contortions of logic in the same way that Anglo does. So even if there were universal agreement tomorrow that the Egyptians were black Africans, I'm not sure it would do much to erase whatever racism still exists.
Entertainers and athletes have a far greater social profile than scientists and academics - it's why I think the growing number of black players in British soccer is a good thing. It has the potential to serve as a basis for mainstreaming your worldview and interests.
It reminds me of something I've heard young south Asians bemoan - academically and economically, Indians in the UK/the English-speaking West are successful, but they don't have the cultural profile/media presence of black people in the African diaspora. Likewise with the Chinese, they would like greater media representation.
There are certainly elements of/individuals within black popular culture that I dislike, but I certainly wouldn't junk or dismiss the achievements of black celebrities simply because we need more black scientists and academics.
Personally, as a black kid who went to overwhelmingly white schools and lived in overwhelmingly white suburbs in the 70's and 80's, I was glad of the media presence of black celebrities.
That is a very mature outlook you have claus, but you are not really addressing the question. Indians and Mongols excel at tasks and professions which require memorization of information and technique. Thus they do very well in medical and scientific schools and professions, but will rarely raise above the common in the practice of the profession.
Blacks excel at CREATING and creativity. Thus, thought there may be fewer Black scientists and Doctors, they will be among the best in their fields. Likewise at sports, Blacks bring not only superior physicality, but also superior creativity. Black entertainment follows the pattern. THAT is why Blacks command the greater public profile.
That's a fascinating and true observation about Asians I've seen here and heard in Nairobi and from Kenyans in the US. They're hard workers without doubt but they suffer a kind of 'tunnel vision,'a kind of limited worldview that severely limits their horizons. They may not ever reach their true capacity because of this.
Posts: 433 | From: nairobi | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeayea same swan song over and over. Blacks in the us arent negroid and are heavily admixed till you wanna bring up IQ, test scores, crime and some more sh!t..
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure we should pay much attention to the whims of white racists. Black people could win the greatest academic prizes in the world every year for decades, and it still wouldn't change the minds of the racists. They would simply move the goalposts and enter into laughable contortions of logic in the same way that Anglo does. So even if there were universal agreement tomorrow that the Egyptians were black Africans, I'm not sure it would do much to erase whatever racism still exists.
Entertainers and athletes have a far greater social profile than scientists and academics - it's why I think the growing number of black players in British soccer is a good thing. It has the potential to serve as a basis for mainstreaming your worldview and interests.
It reminds me of something I've heard young south Asians bemoan - academically and economically, Indians in the UK/the English-speaking West are successful, but they don't have the cultural profile/media presence of black people in the African diaspora. Likewise with the Chinese, they would like greater media representation.
quote:There are certainly elements of/individuals within black popular culture that I dislike, but I certainly wouldn't junk or dismiss the achievements of black celebrities simply because we need more black scientists and academics.
Personally, as a black kid who went to overwhelmingly white schools and lived in overwhelmingly white suburbs in the 70's and 80's, I was glad of the media presence of black celebrities.
.
On a strictly per capita basis the most influential people in the world outside of China are the Jews.
The Jews are not into sports and music but they control and promote the blacks who excel in such. In fact, 2 of the most dominant soccer teams in the U.K., Manchester United and Chelsea are owned by Jews. They even control black political life and political advancement in places like the U.S. and Britain.
Their control of the media of the Western world is very strong and in places like South Africa they had/have a strong influence in the political conduct and views of the ANC. The PAC(Pan African Congress) was brushed aside for the integrationist ANC.
On what counts in this world: economics and business, the Jews are dominant in controlling the U.S. Central Bank, the IMF[ a sub-branch of the U.S. Treasury] and the World Bank[though now led by a non-economist Asian].
In Europe black soccer players have been successful but that has not prevented fans from regaling them with bananas and monkey calls. Even Neymar, despite his attempts to whiten himself, did not escape the banana pelts in Scotland when--I am not totally positive on the match--Celtic played Santos.
The problem that confronts blacks is the problem of Africa. More than 90% of blacks world-wide live in Africa and despite the persistent desire and actions of most blacks outside of Africa to distance themselves from the continent they are still overtly and subconsciously seen as associated with the continent. The white intellect continuously plays a mental game with blacks when it is suitable: on the one hand separating them from Africa and the other linking them with it under fitting circumstances. Many blacks outside of Africa stay confused on the issue. B
But Africa is not making the desired economic progress because the present leaders are just too willing to "cooperate" with the West. They are always looking to the West for "advice". They West is always "training" their weak "military forces". What the West proposes African leaders always jump and rush to endorse it--on the basis of "cooperation".
Yet when leaders have arise who could make some difference--in most cases they have been murdered by the West and the African leaders are just quiet about and continue to see "cooperation".
Recent case in point: Britain's MI6 recently was shown to have been directly involved in the 1961 murder of Lumumba. The CIA and Belgium were also directly involved.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure we should pay much attention to the whims of white racists. Black people could win the greatest academic prizes in the world every year for decades, and it still wouldn't change the minds of the racists. They would simply move the goalposts and enter into laughable contortions of logic in the same way that Anglo does. So even if there were universal agreement tomorrow that the Egyptians were black Africans, I'm not sure it would do much to erase whatever racism still exists.
Entertainers and athletes have a far greater social profile than scientists and academics - it's why I think the growing number of black players in British soccer is a good thing. It has the potential to serve as a basis for mainstreaming your worldview and interests.
It reminds me of something I've heard young south Asians bemoan - academically and economically, Indians in the UK/the English-speaking West are successful, but they don't have the cultural profile/media presence of black people in the African diaspora. Likewise with the Chinese, they would like greater media representation.
Must have been some kind of error. I did not post the first part of the above. It should be part of a quote from elsewhere.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Badumtish spends his whole life talking about "racism" or race on webforums:
ROFL, "my whole life". You really need to rein in your hyperbole. I've had an interest in 'race' for about a year and occasionally read online journal articles on the topic; in contrast, you've spent who knows how much money on 19th and 20th century textbooks over the course of several years. Stop with this psychological projection.
~40-45 is middle-aged, in my arbitrary opinion. When you can find a post where I say middle-age is an objective concept you have a basis to your claim that I don't apply my logic equally.
quote:Note though that he doesn't say age categorization is a social construct.
Age categorisation is a social construct. I'm not sure why you believe acknowledging this and making use of the social construct are incompossible. It is possible to say "this room is warm" whilst acknowledging it is just your personal opinion.
We've already had a discussion where I've explicitly stated this. Out of interest, what do you believe I mean when I say something is a social construct?
quote:He only selectively applies his "social construct" argument you see.
2 or so months ago he claimed a person in a photo has "long hair".
What is "long hair"?
20. 22cm 50cm 1m? 1. 3455 ?
Yet he has no problem with claiming this and doesn't claim it is a social construct.
There is no such objective thing as 'long hair', as the classification criteria are arbitrary. In my arbitrary opinion, however, I would call certain things 'long'.
You're sounding desperate. I'm having trouble believing anyone, even you, is this obtuse, so I'm presuming you're being wilfully ignorant. Or maybe your autism is causing you to infer that every time I use a descriptor/adjective I am claiming that descriptor/adjective is objective/existent. You would be wrong to infer this.
I also find it strange that you apply my argument against me in order to undermine (what you wrongly believe are) my claims that certain things are objective, yet refuse to acknowledge the validity of that same argument when I apply it against you. If my argument were false you would not try to use it against me to refute claims (that I never made) of something being objective.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also how can "racism" exist if "races" don't?
Because the social construct of 'race' has agency.
Equally, xenophobia exists despite the nation being a social construct. People persecute 'witches' or members of 'different castes', despite these concepts being imaginary.
Children might be scared to look underneath their bed because they believe in the bogeyman. In this case, the psychological emotion of fear/distress has arisen from a socially constructed concept.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you ever tire of lying? This is probably the fifth or sixth thread where you've claimed I don't apply my logic consistently, and each time I have demonstrated otherwise.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not spend "hours online each day talking about them". WTF are you talking about? I can't stop laughing.
The evidence is linked. You post about race all the time. It's been more than a year.
Democracyforums [the user] who is uneducated on race nontheless asked a good question: why do you prioritise denying race, say over denying apples and orange varieties exist. Now, your answer was revealing: you claimed the belief in race in man has "consequences". When I brought that up here you failed to elaborate. Can you explain what these are?
quote:No, you haven't. You make a few posts that I refute then stop responding, only to repeat the cycle in a new thread.
Your arguments have been debunked.
"Ian Hacking provides a list of almost forty categories that have recently been claimed to be ―socially constructed. The prime examples are race, gender, masculinity, nature, facts, reality, and the past. But the list has been growing and now includes authorship, AIDS, brotherhood, choice, danger, dementia, illness, Indian forests, inequality, the Landsat satellite system, the medicalized immigrant, the nation-state, quarks, school success, serial homicide, technological systems, white-collar crime, women refugees, and Zulu nationalism. This whole enterprise is based on an unstated theory of human concept formation: that conceptual categories bear no systematic relation to things in the world but are socially constructed (and can therefore be reconstructed). Is it a correct theory? In some cases it has a grain of truth some categories really are social constructions: they exist only because people tacitly agree to act as if they exist. Examples include money, tenure, citizenship, decorations for bravery, and the presidency of the United States. But that does not mean that all conceptual categories are socially constructed. Concept formation has been studied for decades by cognitive psychologists, and they conclude that most concepts pick out categories of objects in the world which had some kind of reality before we ever stopped to think about them." (Pinker, 2002)
Also note how you don't assert individuals and reality itself is a social construct. You can't even get philosophy right. The genuine philosophers who use your argument apply it universally as summarised by Pinker and also Hacking: "reality" itself being also a social contruct, along with genes, quarcks, cells and individuals. Yet your philosophy accepts all these latter as supposedly objective.
Time to give it up Badumtish. Basically you've stolen a philosophy but then corrupted it to say x, y, z it doesn't apply to such as individuals because your own personal biased outlook relies on liberalism/"individualism". If you want to be taken seriously, you need to apply your logic across the entire board. I can just use the same logic, and then not apply it to ducks, or cars... that's all you are doing, but for individuals.
quote:Where did I say that?
In the conversation with democracyforums. Race according to you has "consequences". But why doesn't fruit categorization?
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or maybe your autism is causing you to infer that every time I use a descriptor/adjective I am claiming that descriptor/adjective is objective/existent. You would be wrong to infer this.
Desperate attempt to save yourself. The fact is you don't highlight or question them, therefore there is zero evidence you question their level of objectivity. But for race or ethnicity its a whole different matter. Once again we have the scenario where you (a) don't apply your logic universally or at least consistently and (b) the fact you seperate or only focus on race above everything else. Why are the vast majority of your posts denying races exist? Why not star clusters? Can you explain? Why do you dwell on race? What makes race special or different?
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
- Anyway Badumtish, I must actually thank you. Despite the fact you are a race denial loon who perverts philosophy to fit your agenda, you actually introduced me to philosophy which I now know is very good at defending the biological reality of race and has even taken me deeper to defend it. Those old arguments between you and myself introduced me to Pinker and countless others who use philosophy to defend race. And yes, this updates my book collection from Simpson, Mayr, Coon etc. I just bought Pinker's book and am really enjoying it, so thank you. Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evidence is linked. You post about race all the time. It's been more than a year.
What evidence?
No, I post about 'race' where it is relevant.
quote:Democracyforums [the user] who is uneducated on race nontheless asked a good question: why do you prioritise denying race, say over denying apples and orange varieties exist. Now, your answer was revealing: you claimed the belief in race in man has "consequences". When I brought that up here you failed to elaborate. Can you explain what these are?
See Pena (2011), Megyesi et al. (2011), Hunt (2008) and Hunt and Megyesi (2006). Its use as the independent variable for things other than medicine is also highly problematic. See my discussion with Chi019 (The 'what do you think of the statement black people are more intelligent than white people' thread) for an explanation of this.
I deny both exist objectively. It just happens to be the case that people make thread related to 'race' and intelligence/crime/existence/etc. than they do about apples and oranges, so obviously more of my posts concern this.
quote:Your arguments have been debunked.
"Ian Hacking provides a list of almost forty categories that have recently been claimed to be ―socially constructed. The prime examples are race, gender, masculinity, nature, facts, reality, and the past. But the list has been growing and now includes authorship, AIDS, brotherhood, choice, danger, dementia, illness, Indian forests, inequality, the Landsat satellite system, the medicalized immigrant, the nation-state, quarks, school success, serial homicide, technological systems, white-collar crime, women refugees, and Zulu nationalism. This whole enterprise is based on an unstated theory of human concept formation: that conceptual categories bear no systematic relation to things in the world but are socially constructed (and can therefore be reconstructed). Is it a correct theory? In some cases it has a grain of truth some categories really are social constructions: they exist only because people tacitly agree to act as if they exist. Examples include money, tenure, citizenship, decorations for bravery, and the presidency of the United States. But that does not mean that all conceptual categories are socially constructed. Concept formation has been studied for decades by cognitive psychologists, and they conclude that most concepts pick out categories of objects in the world which had some kind of reality before we ever stopped to think about them." (Pinker, 2002)
You haven't debunked anything. Refute Zagefka (2009) then get back to me.
Pinker's generic statement doesn't achieve this. I need you to demonstrate what is incorrect about what Zagefka said.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evidence is linked. You post about race all the time. It's been more than a year.
What evidence?
No, I post about 'race' where it is relevant.
quote:Democracyforums [the user] who is uneducated on race nontheless asked a good question: why do you prioritise denying race, say over denying apples and orange varieties exist. Now, your answer was revealing: you claimed the belief in race in man has "consequences". When I brought that up here you failed to elaborate. Can you explain what these are?
See Pena (2011), Megyesi et al. (2011), Hunt (2008) and Hunt and Megyesi (2006). Its use as the independent variable for things other than medicine is also highly problematic. See my discussion with Chi019 (The 'what do you think of the statement black people are more intelligent than white people' thread) for an explanation of this.
I deny both exist objectively. It just happens to be the case that people make thread related to 'race' and intelligence/crime/existence/etc. than they do about apples and oranges, so obviously more of my posts concern this.
quote:Your arguments have been debunked.
You haven't debunked anything. Refute Zagefka (2009) then get back to me.
Pinker's generic statement doesn't achieve this. I need you to demonstrate what is incorrect about what Zagefka said.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also note how you don't assert individuals and reality itself is a social construct. You can't even get philosophy right. The genuine philosophers who use your argument apply it universally as summarised by Pinker and also Hacking: "reality" itself being also a social contruct, along with genes, quarcks, cells and individuals. Yet your philosophy accepts all these latter as supposedly objective.
Why are they not objective?
You have not been able to refute anything I've said: my philosophy seems right to me.
quote:Time to give it up Badumtish. Basically you've stolen a philosophy but then corrupted it to say x, y, z it doesn't apply to such as individuals because your own personal biased outlook relies on liberalism/"individualism". If you want to be taken seriously, you need to apply your logic across the entire board. I can just use the same logic, and then not apply it to ducks, or cars... that's all you are doing, but for individuals.
I've asked you to explain in the other thread but you stopped responding.
quote:In the conversation with democracyforums. Race according to you has "consequences". But why doesn't fruit categorization?
Both have consequences.
quote:Age categorisation is a social construct.
So is a born baby an "old man"?[/QUOTE]It depends on what you arbitrarily consider to be old. There is no objective answer to that question.
quote:Desperate attempt to save yourself. The fact is you don't highlight or question them, therefore there is zero evidence you question their level of objectivity. But for race or ethnicity its a whole different matter. Once again we have the scenario where you (a) don't apply your logic universally or at least consistently and (b) the fact you seperate or only focus on race above everything else. Why are the vast majority of your posts denying races exist? Why not star clusters? Can you explain? Why do you dwell on race? What makes race special or different?
In virtually every discussion I've had with you I've explicitly said that categorisation systems are arbitrary. I've also quoted Zagefka (2009) several, several times. There is plenty of evidence that I question their objectivity.
Because I have an interest in 'race' in the same way people have interests in anything. I'm not sure why you're so confounded.
quote:- Anyway Badumtish, I must actually thank you. Despite the fact you are a race denial loon who perverts philosophy to fit your agenda, you actually introduced me to philosophy which I now know is very good at defending the biological reality of race and has even taken me deeper to defend it. Those old arguments between you and myself introduced me to Pinker and countless others who use philosophy to defend race. And yes, this updates my book collection from Simpson, Mayr, Coon etc. I just bought Pinker's book and am really enjoying it, so thank you.
And I can refute any arguments you present to me, like I have been doing for the past year or so. I don't need to refer to books to defend my philosophical paradigm: it's common sense. Feel free to try to undermine my position, though. Your displays of incompetence are always humorous.
From a brief look at the Pinker book, it is already clear that Zagefka's argument remains standing. Notwithstanding the fact that he begs the question, let's look at one section:
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If it's a duck, it's likely to swim, fly have a back off which water rolls, [etc.] [...] This kind of inference works because the world really does contain ducks, which really do share properties. If we lived in a world in which walking quacking objects were no more likely to contain meat than any other object, the category "duck" would be useless and we probably would not have evolved the ability to form it. If you were to construct a giant spreadsheet in which the rows and columns were traits that people notice and the cells were filled in by objects that possess that combination of traits, the pattern of filled cells would be lumpy. You would find lots of entries at the intersection of the "quacks" row and the "waddles" column but none at the "quacks" row and the "gallops" column. Once you specify the rows and columns, the lumpiness comes from the world, not from society or language"."
Sure, we may say it waddles, quacks, flies, etc.; therefore, it is a duck. But that is just one of many categories that can be formed. Why not construct a category based on things that waddle and quack and call it 'quaddlers'? Why not refine it further and say things that waddle, quack, fly and have a spot 1.23 cm above their right foot are called 'dusots'? These are just one of the many categories that can be formed. We share things with multiple objects and can be categorised on a variety of bases. You have not and cannot refute that Zagefka quote.
Declaring certain categorisation systems are more important than others is arbitrary and is a social construct. Why you're referring to a cognitive psychologist to refute this is beyond me; I've never denied some categories are more important to survival than others. It doesn't make them any less arbitrary or socially constructed.
Pinker's argument doesn't seem to relate to mine and using it is a straw man. It is another variant of the following: Me: 'Race' is a social construct Opponent: OMG ARE YOU SAYING EVERYONE IS THE SAME? OMG ARE YOU SAYING YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN AFRICAN AND A EUROPEAN?
We all share some things and differ in other things. These can be categorised. Choosing to give some categories importance is the social construct. Choosing to combine various possible categories (nose, hair, skin, etc. and not blood type, height, Tay-Sachs disease, etc.) to form new ones is the social construct. I can't simplify this further... I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Why are you so slow and stupid?
Read Zagefka.
"Given the multitude of dimensions along which people and objects might be perceived as either dis-similar or similar, the question remains why some dimensions become salient and important for categorisations and others do not. For instance, Medin and Wattenmaker (1987) point out that plums and lawnmowers are unlikely to be categorised together, even though they are clearly similar on a number of dimensions (both weigh less than 1000 kg, both cannot hear, both have a distinct smell, both can be dropped). It is not the case that one comparison dimension is objectively more relevant than another one, and that empirical reality would dictate which dimension should be attended to. Rather, the choice of comparison dimensions is informed by socially constructed meaning. However, if the choice of relevant dimensions is subjective rather than objective, judgements of relative similarity between objects are necessarily subjective too. Thus, again, perceived similarity does not straightforwardly stem from objective similarity – there is a disjunction between the two" (Zagefka, 2009).
A cognitive/evolutionary psychologist does not undermine this in the slightest.
They clearly can be reconstructed. We can decide to categorise things by their weight, ability to hear, smell, be dropped, etc. and we would find what we call 'plums' and 'lawnmowers' in the same category. We can call that category 'adwdfdwfdafsadf'. There is no objective reason to not do this.
He even says this: "the category "duck" would be useless and we probably would not have evolved the ability to form it." 'Useless' necessarily invokes social meaning. It is a category based on real phenomena that has been given importance via socially constructed necessity; it has no more objective relevance than any other category.
Why are you posting stuff like this online, when you are allegedly married?
The OP opened was a discussion on the attractiveness of black people. If black people are so ugly - as you constantly say - then why are there white women who are such easy game for black men?
In the OP, could you find the specific references you claim I made? No, of course you can't, because you're a fcvking liar.
BTW, I've NEVER said that I'm married. And there's nothing in the OP that I haven't discussed with my other half. Anecdotally, it's something she and other black and mixed-race women have observed and commented on.
So now what?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
“quantitative differences are small in biological terms, and they are found to a far greater extent among the individual members of an ethnic group or race than between ethnic groups or races”- Pinker
Posts: 42954 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Badumtish, that wasn't the point at all. The point was -- if you use crisp logic, everything is a social construct, including reality itself and individuals. However as Pinker and others show, the whole premise here is a fallacy. Reality or the world you interact with is not a two-valued system (0, 1) but has multiple values, hence "categorization does not require discreteness" (Sarich & Miele, 2004).
If you want to be consistent with your logic, you must also claim individuals, cells and quarks are social constructs, and reality itself. You don't do this though. This is what Pinker criticizes: People only select certain categories, over others, to deny because certain concepts/categories are social taboos.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish, that wasn't the point at all. The point was -- if you use crisp logic, everything is a social construct, including reality itself and individuals. However as Pinker and others show, the whole premise here is a fallacy. Reality or the world you interact with is not a two-valued system (0, 1) but has multiple values, hence "categorization does not require discreteness" (Sarich & Miele, 2004).
If you want to be consistent with your logic, you must also claim individuals, cells and quarks are social constructs, and reality itself. You don't do this though. This is what Pinker criticizes: People only select certain categories, over others, to deny because certain concepts/categories are social taboos.
And you still haven't justified why this is the case or how the recognition of individuals is somehow equivalent to the concept of 'race'.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish, that wasn't the point at all. The point was -- if you use crisp logic, everything is a social construct, including reality itself and individuals. However as Pinker and others show, the whole premise here is a fallacy. Reality or the world you interact with is not a two-valued system (0, 1) but has multiple values, hence "categorization does not require discreteness" (Sarich & Miele, 2004).
If you want to be consistent with your logic, you must also claim individuals, cells and quarks are social constructs, and reality itself. You don't do this though. This is what Pinker criticizes: People only select certain categories, over others, to deny because certain concepts/categories are social taboos.
“quantitative differences are small in biological terms, and they are found to a far greater extent among the individual members of an ethnic group or race than between ethnic groups or races”-Steven Pinker
you should use this quote to change your life the priorities of how you view things and look at individuals first instead of your preconceived notions
Posts: 42954 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: The OP opened was a discussion on the attractiveness of black people. If black people are so ugly - as you constantly say - then why are there white women who are such easy game for black men?
Well, it's not what I say. I post the science behind physical attraction. Measures of symmetry in the human body and face correlate with attractiveness (Gangestad et al. 1994; Mealey and Bridgstock 1999).
Beauty = symmetric. Ugly = asymmetric.
The explanation here is quite simple: symmetric faces are preferred because symmetric stimuli of any kind are more easily processed by the visual system than their asymmetric counterparts.
That's all i've ever said.
When we get to races, certain racial types are more symmetric than others. It just so happens Negroids are the least symmetric.
Coiled or wooly hair is ranked lowest in beauty aways because it doesn't run or flow in straight lines. This is why it is universally regarded as ugly [esp in relation to the face]. Even 99% of "Black" women accept this fact, which is why they are en masse artificially straightening their hair.
Where are you in London? I'm regularly in Clapham, which has many "Blacks". I've never seen a single "Black" female with their natural hair texture [they all have fake wigs, weaves etc] and all the men have shaved heads to the root, so no coiled texture can appear. Why are they doing this then? Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish, that wasn't the point at all. The point was -- if you use crisp logic, everything is a social construct, including reality itself and individuals. However as Pinker and others show, the whole premise here is a fallacy. Reality or the world you interact with is not a two-valued system (0, 1) but has multiple values, hence "categorization does not require discreteness" (Sarich & Miele, 2004).
If you want to be consistent with your logic, you must also claim individuals, cells and quarks are social constructs, and reality itself. You don't do this though. This is what Pinker criticizes: People only select certain categories, over others, to deny because certain concepts/categories are social taboos.
And you still haven't justified why this is the case or how the recognition of individuals is somehow equivalent to the concept of 'race'.
Human sensory perceptions are vague and fuzzy(the brain interprets and categorizes non-discretely). Hence if your assumption is categorization requires discreteness you cannot trust your own senses and reality itself is a social construct, alongside everything else.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish, that wasn't the point at all. The point was -- if you use crisp logic, everything is a social construct, including reality itself and individuals. However as Pinker and others show, the whole premise here is a fallacy. Reality or the world you interact with is not a two-valued system (0, 1) but has multiple values, hence "categorization does not require discreteness" (Sarich & Miele, 2004).
If you want to be consistent with your logic, you must also claim individuals, cells and quarks are social constructs, and reality itself. You don't do this though. This is what Pinker criticizes: People only select certain categories, over others, to deny because certain concepts/categories are social taboos.
And you still haven't justified why this is the case or how the recognition of individuals is somehow equivalent to the concept of 'race'.
Human sensory perceptions are vague and fuzzy(the brain interprets and categorizes non-discretely). Hence if your assumption is categorization requires discreteness you cannot trust your own senses and reality itself is a social construct, alongside everything else.
You've reached a new low. Using a sci-fi film to prove your point? Yeah, it is possible that we're all in a Matrix-style world and everything is an illusion, but that is an unassailable point that fails the scientific method. It cannot be proven or disproven. Occam's Razor suggests we are not. Is there any evidence of something breaking the laws of physics? No? Then I have no reason to believe it is possible for a spoon to bend like that.
I don't care what the brain does. I've already told you that machines and other non-biological devices are capable of detecting objective differences.
Something tells me that there is a lot of equivocation on that list in respect to "social construct". I need confirmation that all the authors are describing the same thing when they use that term. Similarly, 'race' has many different meanings to different people.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've already told you that machines and other non-biological devices are capable of detecting objective differences.
Your senses are fuzzy, so how are you detecting "objective differences"? That EM reader you earlier posted still fails, since you are using your senses to interpret the data [you are not viewing it externally].
"Perceptions are intrinsically imprecise, reflecting the bounded ability of sensory organs and, ultimately, the brain, to resolve detail and store information” (Zadeh, 2002)
There's no way around this. If you want to apply your logic to race, you also must apply it to your senses, and reality itself. This means you cannot say you objectively exist, or anyone else.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm not sure why you believe acknowledging this and making use of the social construct are incompossible. It is possible to say "this room is warm" whilst acknowledging it is just your personal opinion. 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic