• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

Is it OK for Blacks to Bash Whites for Comedy Purposes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 77.1%
  • No

    Votes: 16 22.9%

  • Total voters
    70
Yes it does, race is the shared phenotypic characteristics of a geographically linked population.

How many races are there then?

What phenotypic characteristics do black people have in common? White people?
 
Color doesn't exist because you can't tell us precisely how many colors exist in the spectrum.

The color black can be qualitatively represented on any of the various color scales; the race black cannot be qualitatively represented scientifically in any way.
 
How many races are there then?

I dunno, depends on how you define each race.
What phenotypic characteristics do black people have in common? White people?

You answered your own question there, black people have black/brown skin, white people have white/pale skin.

Race in humans is exactly the same concept as breeds in dogs, same species with different phenotypic traits depending on geographical location, and in the case of dogs, selective breeding. Of course I'm sure you're going to argue there's no scientific difference between corgis and great danes.
 
Last edited:
You answered your own question there, black people have black skin, white people have white skin.

What level of melanin denotes a "black" person? What of a white? What of a "white" person who tans enough to get above this arbitrary threshold? Are they now "black"? What of "black" people who are light skinned and fall below this arbitrary threshold? Are they now white?

Are you now going to try to be the first person in history to finally define the distinctions between races, here on this message board, where thousands - perhaps millions - of others have tried and failed?

Race in humans is exactly the same concept as breeds in dogs

Except it's not similar at all. The fact that you'd dredge up this tired old pseudo-argument is telling of your complete lack of knowledge on what you're attempting to discuss.
 
Last edited:
What level of melanin denotes a "black" person? What of a white? What of a "white" person who tans enough to get above this arbitrary threshold? Are they now "black"? What of "black" people who are light skinned and fall below this arbitrary threshold? Are they now white?

Are you now going to try to be the first person in history to finally define the distinctions between races, here on this message board, where thousands - perhaps millions - of others have tried and failed?

Well melanin content isn't the only indicator, there's facial structure, predisposition to diseases, physical build etc. You're being deliberately obtuse, the concept of race isn't built upon an individual, but on a population, if a single individuals traits vary, it's a mutation, or a different gene being expressed to what normally is, if a population of a given geographical area exhibits a trait, then it's a racial trait. Perhaps, if there's no scientific basis for race, you can tell me why the indigenous population of Somalia doesn't exhibit the same skin colour characteristics of the indigenous population of Germany. After all, if there's no race, then surely the genes for that can spring up anywhere?

Except it's not similar at all. The fact that you'd dredge up this tired old pseudo-argument is telling of your complete lack of knowledge on what you're attempting to discuss.

What's the difference then? Why does a group of phenotypic variations unique to a given area denote a different breed in dogs, but not in humans?
 
What level of melanin denotes a "black" person? What of a white? What of a "white" person who tans enough to get above this arbitrary threshold? Are they now "black"? What of "black" people who are light skinned and fall below this arbitrary threshold? Are they now white?

Define the color yellow.
 
Well melanin content isn't the only indicator, there's facial structure, predisposition to diseases, physical build etc.

What facial structure does the indigenous population of Somalia have in common? What physical build does the indigenous population of Germany have in common?

You're being deliberately obtuse, the concept of race isn't built upon an individual, but on a population

No, the concept of race is taking obvious observances and abstracting out unrealistic conclusions based on broad and unsubstantiated generalizations.

Perhaps, if there's no scientific basis for race, you can tell me why the indigenous population of Somalia doesn't exhibit the same skin colour characteristics of the indigenous population of Germany.

Differing general traits such as skin pigmentation over geographic expanses does not equal races existing.

You apparently think a group of people that look the same denotes a race.

After all, if there's no race, then surely the genes for that can spring up anywhere?

I wouldn't bring genetics into this, you're already struggling as it is and I'm trying to save you the trouble of looking like too much of a dunce.

What's the difference then?

Domestic dog breeds have a high level of genetic isolation and differentiation between breeds due to, you know, domestication. Blacks and whites have more in common than different breeds of dog due to endogamous breeding. Also, different breeds of dogs are not different species, they all fall under the same subspecies.
 
Last edited:
I'll focus on the important bits here:

Differing general traits such as skin pigmentation over geographic expanses does not equal races existing.

That's the entire concept of race, that a geographic area leads to selection of certain advantageous traits over less advantageous traits, and the population of that area shares those traits, hence they become a distinct race. In the broadest terms, it's whites have white skin to be able to get more vitamin D is colder climates, blacks have black skin to offer more protection against the sun in warmer climates.

You're just flatly denying this because you don't want to acknowledge it.

Domestic dog breeds have a high level of genetic isolation and differentiation between breeds due to, you know, domestication. Blacks and whites have more in common than different breeds of dog due to endogamous breeding. Also, different breeds of dogs are not different species, they all fall under the same subspecies.

But you said that different traits over an area don't make a race, and here you're saying it does, that genetic isolation makes breeds in dogs, but nor races in humans, make up your mind already. Or perhaps it's the level of genetic difference, so if I were to breed a Labrador with a Chihuahua, and then keep breeding the offspring which Chihuahuas, at what specific level of genetic similarity would it stop being a Labrador x Chihuahua and become a Chihuahua?
 
I'll focus on the important bits.

That's the entire concept of race, that a geographic area leads to selection of certain advantageous traits over less advantageous traits, and the population of that area shares those traits, hence they become a distinct race.

The bold part does not follow.

You're just flatly denying this because you don't want to acknowledge it.

What is Tiger Woods?

But you said that different traits over an area don't make a race, and here you're saying it does, that genetic isolation makes breeds in dogs, but nor races in humans, make up your mind already.

No, I am not. I am saying that breeding dogs causes distinct breeds to emerge based on "pure-breeding". For your argument to be true (i.e. that different "breeds" of humans exist) we would need to pure-breed humans in order to genetically isolate them from one another. Unfortunately for you (and the white power movement in general), humans never were "pure-bred". You are dismissing this difference as if it is of no importance when it completely discredits your dated argument.

Or perhaps it's the level of genetic difference, so if I were to breed a Labrador with a Chihuahua, and then keep breeding the offspring which Chihuahuas, at what specific level of genetic similarity would it stop being a Labrador x Chihuahua and become a Chihuahua?

I think this is a question that you need to answer. Better yet, please identify what race this man is:

Roy_Campanella_October_1953.jpg

And what is 254-255-0?

You tell me. Better yet, draw a line on this color chart of where yellow starts and stops:

spectrum_chart.jpg
 
Last edited:
Finally an interesting discussion.
 
The racial IQ gap does not exist because race does not exist in any meaningful scientific form.

This is what is called a non-sequitur. I agree that the concept of race doesn't really have any substance when it comes to scientific validity. But the IQ gap is still there. What's troubling is many people seem content with the theory that this means that somehow blacks are inherently stupider.
 
Last edited:
If race has no scientific validity than a correlative or causative statement based on race does not either.
 
If race has no scientific validity than a correlative or causative statement based on race does not either.

Disagree. Poor and rich are not biological or scientific concepts. But that doesn't mean that the claim that "poor people have lower IQs" has no validity, or that it doesn't warrant examination.
 
Not to be too picky, but if there is no race, what is either side of the supposed gap?
 
This is a matter of political correctness so, yes. It's okay for either race to bash the other.
Call it tough love if you want, but controlling speech is wrong.

People should control themselves with something called "civility".
 
Disagree. Poor and rich are not biological or scientific concepts. But that doesn't mean that the claim that "poor people have lower IQs" has no validity, or that it doesn't warrant examination.


Yes I agree. Race as a social construct can be used to make such statements; race as a biological classification, however, cannot.
 
Can anyone provide empirical evidence that evolution left the overall intellect of all races absolutely equal? What can you say about the Chinese with their civilizational progress many thousands of years ago? And if race supposedly doesn't exist, how can you argue that evolution blessed everyone with absolutely equal intellect?
 
Can anyone provide empirical evidence that evolution left the overall intellect of all races absolutely equal? What can you say about the Chinese with their civilizational progress many thousands of years ago? And if race supposedly doesn't exist, how can you argue that evolution blessed everyone with absolutely equal intellect?

There is no absolute equal in anything, evolution or otherwise. That also means that within any specific ethnic classification there will be variants, deviations, and averages. And regionally, you'll see even more convolution.

That also means there is no absolute perfect test for intelligence. Evolutionary and cultural differences will skew the mean. As many posts as RiverDad has made about IQs for blacks being lower, he's never been able to acknowledge that there are just as many (if not more) studies which show beyond question that those IQ tests were an inaccurate measure of intelligence due to a failure to adjust for cultural variations.
 
Last edited:
This is what is called a non-sequitur. I agree that the concept of race doesn't really have any substance when it comes to scientific validity. But the IQ gap is still there. What's troubling is many people seem content with the theory that this means that somehow blacks are inherently stupider.

Exactly, instead of using the IQ as proof that African Americans have been held back by years of oppression, these two are actually claiming that they just do not have the mental capacity. It seems to me that there would be some sort of scientific evidence of this, but I have seen none yet. It also seems to me that education of cultural group is an exponential function, not linear, meaning the it could take a while for them to catch up, but once they gain speed they will be here in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
There is no absolute equal in anything, evolution or otherwise. That also means that within any specific ethnic classification there will be variants, deviations, and averages. And regionally, you'll see even more convolution.

That also means there is no absolute perfect test for intelligence. Evolutionary and cultural differences will skew the mean. As many posts as RiverDad has made about IQs for blacks being lower, he's never been able to acknowledge that there are just as many (if not more) studies which show beyond question that those IQ tests were an inaccurate measure of intelligence due to a failure to adjust for cultural variations.

So basically your first paragraph disagrees with Khayembii Communique in that you state there is absolutely no equal in anything. Ero, if race exists, then there are races you have a higher overall intellect than others. I'd agree there are also many other factors.

To be frank I've never been given a universal definition for intelligence. Strange. Race, morality, intellect... all clouded by the murky waters of obscurity.

Perhaps it is indeed true that all beliefs cannot be proven, ever.

"...due to a failure to adjust for cultural variations..." Huh. Do you mean we need to adjust to the incompetence of students of certain races? If by adjustment do you mean affirmative action? Doesn't work. With public schools there's only one classroom. If you have to lower the bar... the level of competence... then the whole classroom of students gets affected. If I recall, and I do believe I can if you want me to, there was a case in which the qualification exam for police officers was lowered to a "D" in order to be deemed "passing". Affirmative action is a failed notion because it lowers te level of competence in a perverse attempt to be "fair". It's institutional racism to prefer one race over the other. The solution? Leave the test as is and if people truly cared they'd push that mental mass between their brains and achieve their dreams. Look at e. I'm a black registered nursing student who absolutely HATES affirmative action.

Think about it. White people and other seemingly and currently more intelligent students like Asains hate it for obvious reasons because even though they're qualified they'll be overlooked in favor to a "less fortunate" race. Competent black people like me will also hate it because the spectre will be haunting me. The spectre of knowing that people will think I wasn't competent, and that I was let into this program based on my race along with the preconceived notions of those who created such a politically correct system.
 
Exactly, instead of using the IQ as proof that African Americans have been held back by hears of oppression, these two are actually claiming that they just do not have the mental capacity. It seems to me that there would be some sort of scientific evidence of this, but I have seen none yet. It seems to me that education of cultural group is an exponential function, not linear.

Do you really think that evolution created this plethora of differences within the races, yet magically didn't touch one iota of intellect?

I haven't seen conclusive proof of either or. Ergo, that valid question will always remain.
 
Back
Top Bottom