r/coontown...are you serious?

[Fallowfox]

Fallowfox, I believe "coon" became a slur for blacks because when you go raccoon hunting, you chase the raccoon into a tree in order to trap and kill it.

Wikipedia said it was derived from a Portuguese word for slave-house.

Okay but it's not.
Do you agree or disagree that there are different breeds of dogs and cats based on origin, size, shape, skull shape, and temperament?

Yes or no.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply?
Yes there is great variation in domestic dog breeds. This wouldn't mean that say, skull shape is proxy for temperament in different human groups.

 

[Volkodav]

Here are some pariah dogs. Pariah dogs are mongrel, native dogs that are not selectively bred, roam freely, and feed off of human scraps. Humans have not played any part in determining their appearance.
Here's an Indian pariah dog: https://podifee.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/900_img_8834.jpg
Russian pariah dog: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Street_Dogs.jpg
and another: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Stray_dog.jpg
Egypt pariah dog: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Yellow_dog.jpg
Australian pariah dog (dingo): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Dingo_walking.jpg
American pariah dog (Carolina dog): http://animalsbreeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Carolina-Dog-2.jpg

The Chihuahua is a breed of dog that originated as a Mexican pariah dog. The Basenji is an African pariah dog.

Now, looking at these pictures, we can tell that based on where a dog was born/lives, his appearance will change through generations based on the atmosphere. Dogs in arid or hot regions will have short coats, long legs. (India, Egypt, America, Chihuahua)
Dogs who live in colder areas will have thicker coats, shorter legs.

Where you live and where you're born will have a changing effect on you as a person, and your offspring.
People who were born in Africa developed dark skin to avoid dying from the heat and sun. People born in northern countries didn't need this and so they have white skin.
Asians developed their unique eye shape, Africans developed their ability to run without needing as much oxygen (higher altitudes in African countries), etc.
RACE IS NOT A SOCIAL FUCKING CONSTRUCT, ANY MORE THAN DOG BREEDS ARE A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

 

[Fallowfox]

I agree that natural selection is a driver of inter generational heritable change.

I disagree that Asians have a unique eye shape and that Africans developed dark skin. Both are primitive features and all humans are descended from a group of people who had dark skin and thin eyes; the San are the closest living group to that ancestor:

I agree that peripatric variation in humans is not a social construct. However how we choose to divide those fuzzy lines is arbitrary [we might choose to view Bantu and Pygmy as separate races, or both as just one race, black africans]

I also think that variations in humans are superficial, and are not indicative of innate character, as they are in dog breeds.

 

[Volkodav]

I agree that natural selection is a driver of inter generational heritable change.

I disagree that Asians have a unique eye shape and that Africans developed dark skin. Both are primitive features and all humans are descended from a group of people who had dark skin and thin eyes; the San are the closest living group to that ancestor:

I agree that peripatric variation in humans is not a social construct. However how we choose to divide those fuzzy lines is arbitrary [we might choose to view Bantu and Pygmy as separate races, or both as just one race, black africans]

I also think that variations in humans are superficial, and are not indicative of innate character, as they are in dog breeds.

Yes, but are these features not unique? Are they not unique to those RACES/ethnic groups?


I know dogs more than I know humans so I grabbed some well-known dogs from different, major countries/continents.
All of these dogs are the exact same species - Canis familiaris, just as all humans are the same species - Homo sapiens.

Are there any differences between these dogs?
What makes them different, if yes?
What makes them the same?
Why do you think they look different?

Dog 1: http://i.imgur.com/jxyppZk.jpg
Dog 2: http://i.imgur.com/tRCcnGr.jpg
Dog 3: http://i.imgur.com/cfmexAM.jpg
Dog 4: http://i.imgur.com/6YON3Hr.jpg
Dog 5: http://i.imgur.com/awTHkb5.jpg

Why does Dog 5 look so different from Dog 2? Why does it look so different from Dog 1?
Why does Dog 3 look so different from Dog 4, but look so similar to Dog 5?
Why does Dog 1 look similar to Dog 4?

 

[Kellie Gator]

Oh boy, this thread's turning into Django Unchained, time to grab some popcorn! :3

(also, humans are very homogenous as a species with incredibly small genetic variations among the six billion of us there are, far too small to make a lot of difference, while genetic variations in, say, a few hundred gorillas are much larger, so dividing humans into races is scientifically inaccurate... either that or my Biology books are lying :V)

 

[Fallowfox]

Yes, but are these features not unique? Are they not unique to those RACES/ethnic groups?


I know dogs more than I know humans so I grabbed some well-known dogs from different, major countries/continents.
All of these dogs are the exact same species - Canis familiaris, just as all humans are the same species - Homo sapiens.

Are there any differences between these dogs?
What makes them different, if yes?
What makes them the same?
Why do you think they look different?

Dog 1: http://i.imgur.com/jxyppZk.jpg
Dog 2: http://i.imgur.com/tRCcnGr.jpg
Dog 3: http://i.imgur.com/cfmexAM.jpg
Dog 4: http://i.imgur.com/6YON3Hr.jpg
Dog 5: http://i.imgur.com/awTHkb5.jpg

Why does Dog 5 look so different from Dog 2? Why does it look so different from Dog 1?
Why does Dog 3 look so different from Dog 4, but look so similar to Dog 5?
Why does Dog 1 look similar to Dog 4?

Dark skin isn't unique to Africans.
It's also present in Australoids: https://hucipher.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/blond-pacific-islander-girl.jpg

Thin eyes aren't unique to east Asians.
They're also present in several African groups, like the khoisan: http://nomadtours.co.za/media/shutterstock_179068370-1180x700.jpg



I'm not disagreeing that there is variation in humans. I don't think that there is unique human breeds, though, and I don't think that temperament can be accurately guessed from which 'breed' a person belongs to.

Human variation is more like a continuous gradation, along with archaic geographical isolates and truncations from successful new groups that have expended rapidly, forming sharp divisions instead of grades.

If you look at a human, you can determine what environment they probably live in from their skin colour and height to circumference ratio.
You can't determine their relative intelligence, though, as one could with dog breeds.

Oh boy, this thread's turning into Django Unchained, time to grab some popcorn! :3

(also, humans are very homogenous as a species with incredibly small genetic variations among the six billion of us there are, far too small to make a lot of difference, while genetic variations in, say, a few hundred gorillas are much larger, so dividing humans into races is scientifically inaccurate... either that or my Biology books are lying :V)

You are correct that we're a very genetically homogenous group. We're also amazing, because we exhibit much more variation that would be expected, given our relative paucity of genetic variety.

Different human races do exist, but it's not always easy to decide where exactly to draw the line. Someone might insist there are 5 races, another person might believe there are 36.
It's just like the Earth's continents; there is no official objective way to divide them up, even though there is clearly more than 1.

 

[Volkodav]

I didn't say dark skin was unique to Africans
I said Africans developed black skin to avoid dying in the sun and heat.
"Australoid" is considered by some to be a fourth race.


Do you agree or disagree that different races develop certain physiological differences based on where they're located?
Do you believe that these physiological differences are what make races races and not a social concept?


I believe that "races" are to humans what "breeds" are to dogs.

"and I don't think that temperament can be accurately guessed from which 'breed' a person belongs to. "
Well, studies done in Scandinavia disagree with you.

"You can't determine their relative intelligence, though, as one could with dog breeds."
False.
The most intelligent race is widely reputed to be Asian, and there are studies to back this up.



https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/

 

[Fallowfox]

I didn't say dark skin was unique to Africans
I said Africans developed black skin to avoid dying in the sun and heat.
"Australoid" is considered by some to be a fourth race.


Do you agree or disagree that different races develop certain physiological differences based on where they're located?
Do you believe that these physiological differences are what make races races and not a social concept?


I believe that "races" are to humans what "breeds" are to dogs.

"and I don't think that temperament can be accurately guessed from which 'breed' a person belongs to. "
Well, studies done in Scandinavia disagree with you.

"You can't determine their relative intelligence, though, as one could with dog breeds."
False.
The most intelligent race is widely reputed to be Asian, and there are studies to back this up.



https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/

Dog breeds aren't natural; they're the result of barriers to gene flow, imposed by humans, and intense selective breeding. This creates distinct and disparate breeds, which are unambiguous.

Human races are natural, and result from differential selection of traits in different regions. Human races grade into each other, so they aren't distinct, and humans are not as physically disparate as dogs, for many reasons; most of our differences are superficial changes, such as hair colour, skin colour, facial features and height. Variation within human races often exceeds average variation between the races.

Africans did not develop dark skin, from an ancestor who lacked this feature. They inherited it from the ancestor to all humans, but this is a nuance between autoapomorphy and plesiomorphy, so I will let it slide.

Differences in human intelligence between the races are likely not intrinsic. We[the races] probably all have a very similar academic potential, and some cultures provide a better environment to facilitate education than others.

A person living on the silk road has a better chance of being educated in maths, than a pacific islander, for instance. This does not mean pacific islanders belong to a race of 'stupid australoids'.

 

[Volkodav]

Human races are natural, and result from differential selection of traits in different regions.

So are pariah dogs.
You haven't commented on my pariah dog comparison though...???
https://forums.furaffinity.net/thre...-you-serious?p=5320882&viewfull=1#post5320882

Differences in human intelligence between the races are likely not intrinsic. We[the races] probably all have a very similar academic potential, and some cultures provide a better environment to facilitate education than others.

So do you believe.. that all humans are the same mentally, and the only reason why one race (asian) would shoot to the top above all others is purely because of environment and nothing else?
Do you believe that there's different acedemic potential between an asian in Japan, and one in Canada?
Why does this supreme intelligence carry across the board, no matter what?

 

[Fallowfox]

Double post

This is what I'm talking about:

Humans are on the left, dogs on the right. It's easy to draw lines between the different dog breeds, because the different breeds' variation is discreet and distinct.

It is difficult to draw lines to divide up the human variation, because a lot of that variation is continuous, rather than discreet.
We might say that there is 'red, brown, white, yellow' or maybe there is 'red, reddish brown, orange, pink, white, yellow' and so forth.

So are pariah dogs.
You haven't commented on my pariah dog comparison though...???
https://forums.furaffinity.net/thre...-you-serious?p=5320882&viewfull=1#post5320882


So do you believe.. that all humans are the same mentally, and the only reason why one race (asian) would shoot to the top above all others is purely because of environment and nothing else?
Do you believe that there's different acedemic potential between an asian in Japan, and one in Canada?
Why does this supreme intelligence carry across the board, no matter what?

I'm not sure whether feral dogs have a natural distribution, or if they stem from domestic populations introduced by humans.
In either case feral dogs are much more like the human races than dog breeds, but there are natural reproductive barriers in their way, whereas humans often don't have any reproductive barriers.


East Asians/the Han are broadly the most intelligent people for the same reason they're the most likely to suffer from Myopia [by a huge margin]: huge cultural pressure to become highly educated, both in domestic and migrant communities of Han.
They're not genetically more likely to be smarter or more likely to develop myopia than anybody else, but they are much more likely to be made to study by pushy parents, which wears out the lenses in their eyes, causing the myopia but also sharpening their wits.

The spread of IQ results in the Han is also much narrower than many other races, which is unusual. It might be because more Han are educated to their full potential, but that the high-pressure culture they have stimmies geniuses who would have benefited from a more relaxed style of education.

 

[Volkodav]

Double post

This is what I'm talking about:

Humans are on the left, dogs on the right. It's easy to draw lines between the different dog breeds, because the different breeds' variation is discreet and distinct.

It is difficult to draw lines to divide up the human variation, because a lot of that variation is continuous, rather than discreet.
We might say that there is 'red, brown, white, yellow' or maybe there is 'red, reddish brown, orange, pink, white, yellow' and so forth.

The differences between races is distinct, this is how we have races in the first place.
Your one example of one tribe in Africa having epicantic eyes doesn't suddenly blur the lines between the Negroid race and the Mongoloid race. It doesn't take away from the fact that the epicanthic fold is a trait of the Mongoloid race.

 

[Fallowfox]

The differences between races is distinct, this is how we have races in the first place.
Your one example of one tribe in Africa having epicantic eyes doesn't suddenly blur the lines between the Negroid race and the Mongoloid race. It doesn't take away from the fact that the epicanthic fold is a trait of the Mongoloid race.

Actually a whole bunch of different non-mongoloid peoples have the epicantic eye. It didn't evolve in east Asians; they inherited it from a common ancestor with the other races.

Humans who don't have epicantic eyes have actually evolved round-eyes, rather than the other way around.


Races are not distinct. Mongolids and Caucasians blend continuously in central asia, where there are ]mongoloid' boys with red hair, for example:

[url]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Uyghur-redhead.jpg





On the subject of intelligent asians:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/76/f3/49/76f349b2202784904b471f8fc649ab0f.jpg[/URL]
http://www.wideangle.ca/images/chineseman.jpg

Would you say both of these men are the same race? I would.
One of them is Han, renowned for being a highly intelligent group which is going to dominate the future world economy.
The other is Mongol, mocked as a congenital idiot in many cultures.

Neither Mongol or Han are congenital geniuses or congenital idiots, or even prone to either option. They're both very similar peoples, and are both classified as Mongoloid in the scientific literature [or 'asian']. The Han live in an agricultural culture that builds empires, whilst the Mongols live a nomadic lifestyle in the deserts of central Asia.

In the 13th century the stereotypes were reversed, and Mongols were the empire builders subjugating the bumpkinish Han, each Mongol warrior killed an average of 210 Han in battle, such was the prowess of Mongol technology at the time, and they briefly conquered all China.

 

[Volkodav]

Both of those guys belong to the Mongoloid race.
I never said anyone is an idiot, I said that ASIANS ARE WIDELY REPUTED TO BE THE MOST INTELLIGENT RACE, AND THERE ARE STUDIES TO BACK THIS UP.

Fuck sakes, man
I'm done discussing this with you, you're not even listening to me.

 

[Fallowfox]

Both of those guys belong to the Mongoloid race.
I never said anyone is an idiot, I said that ASIANS ARE WIDELY REPUTED TO BE THE MOST INTELLIGENT RACE, AND THERE ARE STUDIES TO BACK THIS UP.

Fuck sakes, man
I'm done discussing this with you, you're not even listening to me.

I disagree with your interpretation of these studies. I know that Asian IQ distributions have a higher average than most other races, along with a smaller spread.

But I don't think that this has a genetic cause, which is why I used an example of a genetically very similar group, which doesn't have the same record of intellectual prowess as the Han Chinese.

I am listening to your arguments, and I am trying to convince you that not all observed differences between different races, like temperament, can be assumed to be genetic.

In other words, we're not like dog breeds.

 

[Sheppard]

I'm going to say Fallowfox is right, here. Race doesn't exist except in human minds. What DO exist are minor physical differences between people who have historically come from genetic stock living in certain climates, which are adaptations to make living in those climates easier. In the end, however, that does not make them a different 'race' of people at all. In fact, it has been proven that there is greater genetic diversity between people who are supposedly of the same 'race' or ethnic origin than there is across peoples from two separate 'races' on average.

Ergo, the whole idea of race is a joke, unless it's meant to purely refer to superficial physical differences that ultimately have little to no bearing on the other characteristics of the individual, much unlike breeds of dogs, which are as closely related to each other as apes are to humans.

 

[Volkodav]

Race doesn't exist except in human minds. What DO exist are minor physical differences between people who have historically come from genetic stock living in certain climates, which are adaptations to make living in those climates easier.

Thats what a race is, bud

 

[Sheppard]

Race doesn't exist except in human minds. What DO exist are minor physical differences between people who have historically come from genetic stock living in certain climates, which are adaptations to make living in those climates easier.

Thats what a race is, bud

Not quite. You were comparing different 'races' of humans to different breeds of dogs. Completely different situation there.

 

[Volkodav]

Not quite. You were comparing different 'races' of humans to different breeds of dogs. Completely different situation there.

Dog breeds dont exist except in human minds. What DO exist are minor physical differences between dogs who have historically come from genetic stock living in certain climates, which are adaptations to make living in those climates easier.

 

[Zuriak]

I agree with Volkodav, there are genetic and physiological differences between the ethnic groups. And yes, darker skin was developed to deal with higher levels of solar radiation and evolution backs this up.

 

[Kellie Gator]

Dog breeds dont exist except in human minds. What DO exist are minor physical differences between dogs who have historically come from genetic stock living in certain climates, which are adaptations to make living in those climates easier.

LOL

 

[Sheppard]

Wrong. Dog breeds are the result of selective genetic engineering and inbreeding over hundreds or thousands of canine generations, leading to pronounced and distinct physical, intellectual, and social tendencies between distinct breeds. Humans, on the other hand, aren't really comparable. Not even mutts can ever fully be as genetically diverse as humans are, as a result of this. IF you did the same thing with humans over twenty thousand years as has been done with dogs, it might be comparable.

 

[Victor-933]

Removed from the gene pool? You make it sound like racists can be bred out of existence

In a way... they can. With education. Racism is taught; it isn't inherent. A personal example would be my niece. When she was a toddler she was placed in day-care. The primary teacher was an older white lady, but one day, there was a black substitute. When she picked up my niece, she started freaking out, brushing herself off and shouting "EW! DIRTY! DIRTY!"

Turns out, my niece wasn't doing that because she thought black people were filthy animals. She was doing that because she thought the substitute teacher was covered in dirt, because of her dark skin.

 

[Zuriak]

Wrong. Dog breeds are the result of selective genetic engineering and inbreeding over hundreds or thousands of canine generations, leading to pronounced and distinct physical, intellectual, and social tendencies between distinct breeds. Humans, on the other hand, aren't really comparable. Not even mutts can ever fully be as genetically diverse as humans are, as a result of this. IF you did the same thing with humans over twenty thousand years as has been done with dogs, it might be comparable.

Except you do. Lactose tolerance, sickle cell, athleticism, etc. these are genetic things. I've no doubt humans can be selectively bred like we're doing now with gene therapy for designer babies. Why is this being debated?

 

[Volkodav]

Wrong. Dog breeds are the result of selective genetic engineering and inbreeding over hundreds or thousands of canine generations, leading to pronounced and distinct physical, intellectual, and social tendencies between distinct breeds. Humans, on the other hand, aren't really comparable. Not even mutts can ever fully be as genetically diverse as humans are, as a result of this. IF you did the same thing with humans over twenty thousand years as has been done with dogs, it might be comparable.

How about them pariah dogs huh

 

[Sheppard]

Frankly, those didn't look very different at all. Roughly the same size, same shape of muzzle and ears, and I'd be willing to bet they'd be comparable in terms of intelligence and physical ability, too - Depending somewhat on how good their nutrition was and how hard they had to work to survive on an individual level. The only notable differences were the patterns and thickness of their fur. Also, as someone who has been to India and seen many strays, I can tell you that all of those variations can be found within the same country. Not the best example, in that light.

The crux of this discussion is the defintion of 'race'. We're discussing the distinctive physical differences between humans adapted to live in different climates, right? For some, that's not enough to constitute 'race'. Race would imply, as with 'purebred' dogs, a huge depth of genetic difference to the point they're practically different species of human. And THAT is a myth.