Planet Rugby Forum

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system

Homo sapien. Which is a great ape, and recently we have discovered there's now 7 great ape species rather than 6.

Some biologists obviously do still look at these things.

Edinburgh01 wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system

No I wasn't, I was talking about species, genus, family etc. Do we use that system? If so how? (and yes I do appreciate we could use it with different labels, it is just not leaping out at me that we do).

Yes, we use that system. All humans are the same species, homo sapiens.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system

No I wasn't, I was talking about species, genus, family etc. Do we use that system? If so how? (and yes I do appreciate we could use it with different labels, it is just not leaping out at me that we do).

Yes, we use that system. All humans are the same species, homo sapiens.

Obvious when you say it.

bimboman wrote:

Calculus wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?

Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.

No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.

Where did that come from? I was querying your question about "racially African".

Chuckles1188 wrote:
So what was your Sickle Cell point about?

You know sickle cell only affects people from a particular heritage don't you ? That isn't racist , it's not like profiling at airport security, there's actually scientific and genetic reasons for some things.[/quote]

It's hereditary, yes I am aware. Are you saying that white people can't have sickle cell disease?[/quote]


What "white people" , Northern European origins then the answer is no they cannot as the mutation isn't present in the population and never has been.

It can occur in people from Southern Europe (very rare now) due to earlier eradication of malaria. These this are simple for you to look up yourselve if you're " genuinly curious".

My point regarding sickle cell is there isn't and shouldn't be funds available for myself (being Northern European ) to be tested for sickle cell.

Quite a few diseases and conditions that have genetic components are bias towards certain peoples from certain places or even certain genetic backgrounds. This is actually science n stuff, like the gender things though we now social sciences are allowed to super seed actual science.

Edinburgh01 wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system

No I wasn't, I was talking about species, genus, family etc. Do we use that system? If so how? (and yes I do appreciate we could use it with different labels, it is just not leaping out at me that we do).

Homo sapiens.

One of my lecturers at Auckland U was Vince Sarich who, together with New Zealand biologist Alan Wilson, applied the molecular clock to human evolution.

In their seminal paper in 1967 in Science, Sarich and Wilson estimated the divergence time of humans and apes as four to five million years ago,[2] at a time when standard interpretations of the fossil record gave this divergence as at least 10 to as much as 30 million years. Subsequent fossil discoveries, notably Lucy, and reinterpretation of older fossil materials, notably Ramapithecus, showed the younger estimates to be correct and validated the albumin method. Application of the molecular clock principle revolutionized the study of molecular evolution.[citation needed]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Sarich

Sarich thought that 'races' we're the beginnings if human speciation. Interesting guy.

JM2K6 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Calculus wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?

Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.

No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.

Where did that come from? I was querying your question about "racially African".

I was replying to calculus, I sorry your quoted above the post I replied too.

I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Chuckles1188 wrote:I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?

I don't.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?

I don't.

So only some "white" people can get sickle cell traits ?

It's almost like there's issues with heritage and genetics that can be grouped ..... Now what shall we call these groups.

Chuckles1188 wrote:I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Will you be petitioning the NHS to offer Sickle Cell tests to all prospective parents, as is currently the case with thalassaemia?

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?

I don't.

So only some "white" people can get sickle cell traits ?

It's almost like there's issues with heritage and genetics that can be grouped ..... Now what shall we call these groups.

I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Will you be petitioning the NHS to offer Sickle Cell tests to all prospective parents, as is currently the case with thalassaemia?

No. Why would I?

I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"

Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Will you be petitioning the NHS to offer Sickle Cell tests to all prospective parents, as is currently the case with thalassaemia?

No. Why would I?

Because of their bigoted practices ...

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.

Will you be petitioning the NHS to offer Sickle Cell tests to all prospective parents, as is currently the case with thalassaemia?

No. Why would I?

Because of their bigoted practices ...

Or possibly because the NHS has good scientific reasons for not doing so?

I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

bimboman wrote:

I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"

Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?

What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"

Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?

What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.

It is certainly imprecise when one thinks Muslims and Scientologists are distinct races

bimboman wrote:I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"

Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?

What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.

It is certainly imprecise when one thinks Muslims and Scientologists are distinct races

And that "black" is a meaningful category

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....

No it doesn't

http://m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/1/6/Race ... kplace.pdf

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....

No it doesn't

http://m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/1/6/Race ... kplace.pdf

Did you, uh, read that document before linking it bimbo?

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"

Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?

What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027740?s ... b_contents

You really need to read these things before posting the link at me

The ACAS document does not include religion as a definition of race. It includes two distinct groups Sikhs, and Jews. Not Muslims, Christians, or Scientologists

"Sikh" of course being a term which does not in any way denote belonging to a religion

Chuckles1188 wrote:"Sikh" of course being a term which does not in any way denote belonging to a religion

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....

No it doesn't

http://m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/1/6/Race ... kplace.pdf

Did you, uh, read that document before linking it bimbo?

Yes it includes religion under the heading of "ethnic origin" as an identifier, it doesn't define race by religion directly at all, unless of course you want your own version of definitions used and the way the piece is structured and we will just ignore the "ethnic origin" main heading , then you can say you're correct chuckles.

Such is your own belief and bias, I have no doubt you believe that's a vindication rather than of course he opposite.

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....

No it doesn't

http://m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/1/6/Race ... kplace.pdf

Did you, uh, read that document before linking it bimbo?

Yes it includes religion under the heading of "ethnic origin" as an identifier, it doesn't define race by religion directly at all, unless of course you want your own version of definitions used and the way the piece is structured and we will just ignore the "ethnic origin" main heading , then you can say you're correct chuckles.

Such is your own belief and bias, I have no doubt you believe that's a vindication rather than of course he opposite.

He knows that. He has read the document

Seneca of the Night wrote:

He knows that. He has read the document

Is this the section here:

ethnic origin – this usually refers to the ethnic group to which
someone belongs. An ethnic group will usually have a long, shared
history and its own cultural traditions which set it apart from other
groups. It may also have a shared language, literature, religion and
geographical origin, and may also be a minority or oppressed group.
Examples of ethnic groups include Sikhs, Jews, Romany Gypsies and
Irish Travellers (some of which have their own religions)

???

Does anyone really think that means religion can be swapped in for race in acas's view or that it's a component of ethnic origin (didn't chuckles say ethnic origin was a choice ?)

Why did sickle cell come into this?

bobbity wrote:Why did sickle cell come into this?

Because the people who have it have tended to be black, so bimbo was trying to use it as justification for a scientific use of the concept of "race"

"Ethnic origin" is something which I am very specifically not saying is NOT a choice

bobbity wrote:Why did sickle cell come into this?

I used it pages ago as an example of where "race" or in fact ethnic heritage is a real factor in disease.

Chuckles1188 wrote:"Ethnic origin" is something which I am very specifically not saying is NOT a choice

You just object to it being identified, group and commonly reffered to as "race"

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bobbity wrote:Why did sickle cell come into this?

Because the people who have it have tended to be black, so bimbo was trying to use it as justification for a scientific use of the concept of "race"

"Tended to be black" ? I never once referred to skin colour , later on YOU kept mentioning "white" people. But I didn't say "black people" at any time. Don't lie chuckles.

There's also a very clear genetic reason and people from certain heritages are more prone (by massive percentages) to inherite the trait and therefore the disease.

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bobbity wrote:Why did sickle cell come into this?

Because the people who have it have tended to be black, so bimbo was trying to use it as justification for a scientific use of the concept of "race"

"Tended to be black" ? I never once referred to skin colour ,malted on YOU kept mentioning "white" people. But I didn't say "black people" at any time. Don't lie chuckles.

There's also a very clear genetic reason and people from certain heritages are more prone (by massive percentages) to inherite the trait and therefore the disease.

Ok, but it's based on a geographically tied selection pressure. I'm struggling with it as a proxy or tied to anything. There will be large groups who consider themselves ethnically distinct who are or have been subject to that same pressure, and so carry that gene.