• 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
Wake said:
So show me evidence that I should even consider you question and you'll get an answer. In other words, you have yet to prove that your question is worth considering.

Absolute proof doesn't exist for anything, which is absolutely ironic because here we have people arguing over beliefs that have not been absolutely proven.

I have another question.

Do you also think evolution didn't touch the physical capabilities of all races? That all races are, in general terms, equal in physical terms? Can you tell the class exactly what evolution did and didn't touch among all races so we can see what is indeed absolutely equal among races?
Click to expand...

Evidence is not absolute proof. Why do you think lady justice is represented with a scale?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It would be similar, yes, if height wasn't biological or scientific. The ability to "sort" different people into races depends entirely on the social environment.
Click to expand...

A computer program can sort people into racial groups by analyzing genetic material and these groups have near perfect overlap with the social meaning of race.


For each person in the study, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within genes, but are simply genetic signposts on chromosomes that come in a variety of different forms at the same location.

Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.

"This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," Risch said.​
 
RiverDad said:
So are you admitting that there is no such thing as the color yellow?

Do you think that you're being clever? If there is no such thing as race because the boundaries cannot be precisely defined then the same applies to the color spectrum and the color yellow. Race, like color, has fuzzy boundaries. Yellow exists and is defined within fuzzy boundaries and so too does race exist and it too exists within fuzzy boundaries.
Click to expand...

Yellow does not exist as a concrete. Where is yellow? Yellow is an abstraction and describes a group of things that we call yellow. The particulars exist. A yellow banana exists, yellow pieces of fabric or a yellow page may exist. Yellow does not exist separate from the things it describes. Yellow is descriptive of existing objects not an existing object in itself.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
From your link:

"This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. "
Click to expand...

Which is also true about color. Race and color are simply ways that we group certain things, but these groupings are based entirely on agreed upon conventions.

If I were to say that this is the same color as this, some people might try to "correct" me, but the truth is that, for me, they are the same color.

If all humans perceived color as I perceive color, we'd have a totally different naming system.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
The ability to "sort" different people into races depends entirely on the social environment.
Click to expand...

What a random stroke of luck that the US Dept. Of Health And Human Services has found the following:


Spotlight on Diabetes Disparities

November is American Diabetes Month. More than 20 million people have diabetes in the United States, and pre-diabetes is far more common than previously believed. About 40 percent of U.S. adults ages 40 to 74, or 41 million people, currently have pre-diabetes. Racial and ethnic minority groups, especially the elderly among these populations, are disproportionately affected by diabetes. On average, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Hawaiians, and American Indian/Alaska Natives are more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites. African Americans are also more likely to suffer complications from diabetes than non-Hispanic whites.​
 
RStringfield said:
Yellow does not exist as a concrete. Where is yellow? Yellow is an abstraction and describes a group of things that we call yellow. The particulars exist. A yellow banana exists, yellow pieces of fabric or a yellow page may exist. Yellow does not exist separate from the things it describes. Yellow is descriptive of existing objects not an existing object in itself.
Click to expand...

The wavelengths of light that most English speaking people would call yellow exists concretely, but yellow itself does not exist concretely.
 
RiverDad said:
This is the stupidest leftist trope I've ever heard. You're using a social construct to invalidate the biologic construct.

This is like arguing that height doesn't exist as a biological feature and only exists as a social feature and then sorting people by height into different groups but saying that those groups don't represent anything to do with biology, only how we perceive people to be tall or short or in between.
Click to expand...

Tall and short, as you are using them here are relative terms. I may be taller than you but shorter than Joe. Am I tall? How can i be taller and shorter at the same time? Because we define these in relative terms. It is another type of abstraction. "Tall" does not exists in and of itself and what I perceive as tall Joe may perceive as short.
 
Tucker Case said:
Which is also true about color. Race and color are simply ways that we group certain things, but these groupings are based entirely on agreed upon conventions.
Click to expand...

We can say the same about all categories which have fuzzy boundaries. Define PRECISELY what "family" means. Does family mean only mother, father, brother and sister? What then is the cousin? How about 2nd cousin? How about 3rd cousin?
 
RiverDad said:
A computer program can sort people into racial groups by analyzing genetic material and these groups have near perfect overlap with the social meaning of race.
Click to expand...

Obviously, human beings can be divided into groups based on ancestry. However, we can be divided into many other types of groups as well and call those races since they have just as much variation.

Can genetic information be used to distinguish human groups having a common heritage and to assign individuals to particular ones? Do such groups correspond well to predefined descriptions now widely used to specify race? And, more practically, does dividing people by familiar racial definitions or by genetic similarities say anything useful about how members of those groups experience disease or respond to drug treatment?

In general, we would answer the first question yes, the second no, and offer a qualified yes to the third. Our answers rest on several generalizations about race and genetics. Some groups do differ genetically from others, but how groups are divided depends on which genes are examined; simplistically put, you might fit into one group based on your skin-color genes but another based on a different characteristic. Many studies have demonstrated that roughly 90 percent of human genetic variation occurs within a population living on a given continent, whereas about 10 percent of the variation distinguishes continental populations. In other words, individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. Human populations are very similar, but they often can be distinguished.

Scientific American: Does Race Exist?
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Case said:
The wavelengths of light that most English speaking people would call yellow exists concretely, but yellow itself does not exist concretely.
Click to expand...

Which wavelength of light? Most people would define yellow as a range and the distinction between yellow and orange is not clear.
 
RiverDad said:
We can say the same about all categories which have fuzzy boundaries. Define PRECISELY what "family" means. Does family mean only mother, father, brother and sister? What then is the cousin? How about 2nd cousin? How about 3rd cousin?
Click to expand...

Family is also a social construct. It means very different things in various cultures.
 
RStringfield said:
Evidence is not absolute proof. Why do you think lady justice is represented with a scale?
Click to expand...

Evidence is not absolute proof. There is probable evidence for both sides of this question, as with most other scientific and philosophical questions.

According to one of my Mental Floss magazines, there was a man named James Watson, responsible for the discovery of DNA with a Nobel prize to boot. I know there's some controversy about him so whatever you dredge up about him to make him look bad won't surprise me. A man of science like him, who follows science, should not be punished if he speaks about whatever evidence science has provided.

To make it short, I don't refuse to consider scientific questions that may have scientific proof even if society will be incredibly offended by it. So what if blacks, as an overall average, has less intelligence? So what if the Chinese have slightly more average intellect? If science provides evidence, don't think I'll shut my mouth in hopes of not offending the ignorant.
 
RStringfield said:
Which wavelength of light? Most people would define yellow as a range and the distinction between yellow and orange is not clear.
Click to expand...

I said wavelengths. Specifically, yellow is how people with "normal color vision" will perceive light with a wavelength between 570-590 nm. Orange is typically considered to be between 590-620 nm.

I am color blind, so the way I perceive certain wavelengths of light is dramatically different.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Tall and short, as you are using them here are relative terms. I may be taller than you but shorter than Joe. Am I tall? How can i be taller and shorter at the same time? Because we define these in relative terms. It is another type of abstraction. "Tall" does not exists in and of itself and what I perceive as tall Joe may perceive as short.
Click to expand...

What the hell does tall mean? You're using a real unit to sort people into social categories. The same is going on with race. You can call whites "hoppyhops" and sort them and the sorting will still use real features which can be quantified by a statistical sorting mechanism. The social layer that you impose on hoppyhops doesn't erase the genetic layer's meaning.
 
Tucker Case said:
Family is also a social construct. It means very different things in various cultures.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing. I haven't said boo about race not having social meanings. There are plenty of social connotations associated with race but simply because some people see these social connotations doesn't mean that race is strictly a social construct divorced from genetics, just like family has many social connotations but it is also built on, for most of humanity, a real genetic relatedness and with fuzzy boundaries.
 
RiverDad said:
We can say the same about all categories which have fuzzy boundaries. Define PRECISELY what "family" means. Does family mean only mother, father, brother and sister? What then is the cousin? How about 2nd cousin? How about 3rd cousin?
Click to expand...

Exactly. What you call family someone else might not. "Family" is just a generally agreed upon label and it is defined differently across various cultures.
 
RiverDad said:
What the hell does tall mean? You're using a real unit to sort people into social categories. The same is going on with race. You can call whites "hoppyhops" and sort them and the sorting will still use real features which can be quantified by a statistical sorting mechanism. The social layer that you impose on hoppyhops doesn't erase the genetic layer's meaning.
Click to expand...

There is no defining feature. They are just general categories that we have constructed to describe various groups. How we define the categories is subjective and arbitrary.

Is Obama white or black?
 
RiverDad said:
I'm not disagreeing. I haven't said boo about race not having social meanings. There are plenty of social connotations associated with race but simply because some people see these social connotations doesn't mean that race is strictly a social construct divorced from genetics, just like family has many social connotations but it is also built on, for most of humanity, a real genetic relatedness and with fuzzy boundaries.
Click to expand...

Race is a strictly social construct, though. Just like family is a strictly social construct.

Don't confuse the social construct of family with mere biological relationship.
 
Tucker Case said:
I said wavelengths. Specifically, yellow is how people with "normal color vision" will perceive light with a wavelength between 570-590 nm. Orange is typically considered to be between 590-620 nm.

I am color blind, so the way I perceive certain wavelengths of light is dramatically different.
Click to expand...

Typically, yes.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
From your link:

"This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. "
Click to expand...

That is not the same as "there is no biological difference that could be defined as "race"", which is essentially what you said. The passage I quoted clearly states that a specific portion of DNA shows a large enough commonality amongst those we socially classify as belonging to one race or another.

In other words, we socially classify people, and a minute part of DNA confirms that classification.
 
RStringfield said:
Exactly. What you call family someone else might not. "Family" is just a generally agreed upon label and it is defined differently across various cultures.
Click to expand...

And I can test any members of that family and tell you whether they share a genetic relationship and the precise nature of that relationship.
 
RiverDad said:
And I can test any members of that family and tell you whether they share a genetic relationship and the precise nature of that relationship.
Click to expand...

I have two adopted sons, they share no genetic relationship with me whatsoever, but they are definitely part of my family. I also have people with whom I share a common ancestor two generations removed that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. :shrug:
 
OscarB63 said:
I have two adopted sons, they share no genetic relationship with me whatsoever, but they are definitely part of my family. I also have people with whom I share a common ancestor two generations removed that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. :shrug:
Click to expand...

This is because mere biological relationship =/= family.
 
RiverDad said:
And I can test any members of that family and tell you whether they share a genetic relationship and the precise nature of that relationship.
Click to expand...

This can be done with any two people, not just people who are family. You aren't testing to see if they are family, you are testing to see what their biological relationship is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom