Funny, Strange, Random Pics

[Dethfang]

reposts

[Dethfang]

try to avoid a discussion on the white moose

[Dethfang]

stay on target...

[Dethfang]

dump

[Dethfang]

it for now... try to remember why we are here

[Indiana]

This has got to be the least convincing argument against drinking EVER.

[Brad2770]

Originally Posted by Indiana

This has got to be the least convincing argument against drinking EVER.

I fapped to it.

[Abysmal]

ghjhjh

[homsar]

Originally Posted by Dethfang

This and that asian girl with the contacts are rediculously cute.

[Quineloe]

Originally Posted by Occido

Wikipedia (imo) is never a good source for information. Cause it's information is only as good as the dumbasses editing it. I've seen a lot of false information and people's "opinion" rather than straight facts.

Then go fix them.
Wikipedia is an excellent source of information until someone can proof that the ARTICLE quoted is wrong. The few errors on a few articles do NOT make the 2 million good articles bad information.

[Lowk]

I have a dream...

A dream that we can live in a country that we hate ALL poor and stupid equally

Honestly I hate white trash, mexicans and blacks the same. I'll throw in anyone in that grouping who isn't pushing for a higher tier of life. Being content with stupidity should receive the same punishment as any hate crime.

[Brad2770]

Originally Posted by homsar

This and that asian girl with the contacts are rediculously cute.

I know youre not talking about this chic, but she is fucking hot.... and yes, a repost of a girl I posted. who fucking cares... she is hot.



But yeah, this girl here... If I could date a girl like this, the hair and eyes would ALWAYS have to look like this:

[homsar]

Originally Posted by Brad2770

But yeah, this girl here... If I could date a girl like this, the hair and eyes would ALWAYS have to look like this:

Yeah about 70% of the reason I find them attractive is there image. Other then that there wouldnt be anything that great about them really.

[Zest]

Generalized racial differences are just a result of natural selection.

People usually assume that someone of African American descent will be of higher physical prowess, and to an extent they are correct. For thousands of years the only way you could live in Africa was by chasing down game and killing it. Obviously the people more adept at this would survive better and attract a larger number of mates, which would lead to their genetic traits being passed on. Given enough time and breeding the area's population will see a physical improvement. The same is true for pretty much any perceived racial traits.

The differences people see are based on humans being long term inbreeders. Black people couple with black people. White people couple with white people. Hispanic people couple with hispanic people. If we'd all been fucking each other there wouldn't be any differences because the social and economic background for the average person would be the same.

[vurt]

Originally Posted by Zest

People usually assume that someone of African American descent will be of higher physical prowess, and to an extent they are correct. For thousands of years the only way you could live in Africa was by chasing down game and killing it. Obviously the people more adept at this would survive better and attract a larger number of mates, which would lead to their genetic traits being passed on. Given enough time and breeding the area's population will see a physical improvement. The same is true for pretty much any perceived racial traits.

I have a theory (completely unsubtantiated conjecture) that the slave trade was effectively one big selective pressure. The unfortunate Africans first nabbed by the slavetraders were initially selected for their physical prowess, and then the terrible overseas voyages that killed huge proportions of the slaves went even further.

To figure out if this bears any truth, you'd have to compare black populations in North America relative to the native populations of Africa. I'm such a racist.

Originally Posted by Abysmal

you're still choosing to ignore critical pieces of information. every single trait found in every "race" can be found in every other one. this means that there are no traits exclusive to any "race" and therefore the traits you're choosing as examples (slanted eyes, skin color) cannot be used to classify these people as a "subspecies." again, you're still choosing to ignore what makes a subspecies a subspecies. you're using your own definition, not the accepted one used in biology and genetics.

"race" is still used in modern medicine because it is a good "rule of thumb" when considering who is at risk for certain diseases. the paramount point you're still missing, is that unless all members of the "race" share the trait/gene exclusively they cannot be classified as a subspecies. even if every "native american" was lactose intolerant, this has no significance. why? because that gene is not unique to them and can be found in every other "race."

every time you drift away from this simple conclusion you're no longer talking about science, you're talking about philosophy and your own opinion about how these words are defined.

You know what? You're right. Scientifically, race or even subspecies is not the correct word.

The problem is that you try to get away with comments like "'race' is still used in modern medicine because it is a good 'rule of thumb' when considering who is at risk for certain diseases." Clearly, we're both talking about the same thing; we all know what we mean by race. Yes, cline is a better word to describe the population dynamics, but race is a good rule of thumb (sans quotes!) to distinguish its manifestations.

Like I said, you are right. The reason the races aren't "races" is because there is continuous genetic transmission along the cline. Fine. But you can't get away from the fact that, along this cline, we get differences!

There was an active push during the civil rights movement of the 60's to highlight the equality and sameness of humanity. But now that that concept has been firmly ingrained in our society, we're slowly making our way back to the objective reality that people from different places of the world do bear differences -- however slight and insignificant they may be.

Lewontin's Fallacy highlights my point:

While Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of specific loci between individuals, the probability of racial misclassification rapidly approaches 0% when one takes into account more loci. This happens because of correlations between the loci frequencies within each population. In Edwards' words, "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data." These correlations can be extracted using commonly-used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. As Edwards showed, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual's race based on a single locus is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability based on 10 loci can drop to just a few percent.

There are subpopulations of humans that do share certain genetic traits. They are gradations along a cline, but the end result is that we get people who are recognizably different. To call these differences racial may not be scientifically correct, but, like you said, it's a good rule of thumb.

PICTURE!