I am hitting 10k with you right now: ask me 10 questions - Page 5

the · 09-07-2006, 03:39 PM

where does the whole in the pretzel go when the pretzel is gone?

mxzombie · 09-07-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ella

no no no, tell me how you would prove the biological idea of race. What evidence would you use? What would your argument be?

i'm not criticizing the content of your argument (although i think it's pretty stupid). i'm saying that logically, your argument doesn't make sense. by disproving something underneath the umbrella of biology, you can't rule out that there isn't some other branch of biology that can prove that thing. meaning that there is no logical reason to assume that since it has supposedly been disproven genetically, you can rule out all other biological sciences and say that it has been disproven as a biological trait. so please, don't be so dense

ella · 09-07-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxzombie

i'm not criticizing the content of your argument (although i think it's pretty stupid).

What exactly is stupid in regards to my argument? or is it just the fact that you don't understand....

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxzombie

i'm saying that logically, your argument doesn't make sense. by disproving something underneath the umbrella of biology, you can't rule out that there isn't some other branch of biology that can prove that thing. meaning that there is no logical reason to assume that since it has supposedly been disproven genetically, you can rule out all other biological sciences and say that it has been disproven as a biological trait. so please, don't be so dense

please... if there is any other way to prove that there is a biological basis to race.... enlighten me... BUT if the only way that you can biologically prove the idea race is by DNA.... then obviously there is no biological evidence supporting race.

So tell me, since biology is such a vast science, how would you prove the biology of race...? this will be what? the third time i've asked you this question? lets see what you can come up with... to support your argument.

the · 09-07-2006, 07:17 PM

almost everybody in this thread has been coming up with valid arguments that pretty much blew your stupid I HEARD IT ON DIXCOVERY theory to zillions of pieces.
what else do you need...

mxzombie · 09-07-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ella

What exactly is stupid in regards to my argument? or is it just the fact that you don't understand....

please... if there is any other way to prove that there is a biological basis to race.... enlighten me... BUT if the only way that you can biologically prove the idea race is by DNA.... then obviously there is no biological evidence supporting race.

So tell me, since biology is such a vast science, how would you prove the biology of race...? this will be what? the third time i've asked you this question? lets see what you can come up with... to support your argument.

i'll say it again: i'm not arguing anything about race specifically here. i am simply criticizing the lack of logic you're using in your argument. what you've done is committed a logical fallacy, that's all. also, who said that the only way that you can "biologically prove the idea of race" is through dna? the discovery channel?

ella · 09-07-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the

almost everybody in this thread has been coming up with valid arguments that pretty much blew your stupid I HEARD IT ON DIXCOVERY theory to zillions of pieces.
what else do you need...

well

you are making yourself look like quite an imbecile.

I took a semester class on cultural minorities

... i know the subject forwards.... and backwards.

and you have nothing to support your argument (or lack of

) whatsoever.... therefore..... you make irrational conclusions and assumptions that just make you look idiotic.

have you added anything of substance to this thread yet? no....

mxzombie · 09-07-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ella

I took a semester class on cultural minorities

... i know the subject forwards.... and backwards.

we're talking about biology here

mxzombie · 09-07-2006, 07:39 PM

not anthropology or sociology

ella · 09-07-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxzombie

i'll say it again: i'm not arguing anything about race specifically here. i am simply criticizing the lack of logic you're using in your argument. what you've done is committed a logical fallacy, that's all. also, who said that the only way that you can "biologically prove the idea of race" is through dna? the discovery channel?

My argument is based purely on logics.... haha obviously.

I have not committed a 'logical fallacy'... point it out.

Exactly... that is the only possible way of proving the biological idea of race.

You seem to forget i took a semester on cultural minorities.... What has more educational value?? --a 1hr tv program on the issues of race.. or a semester class? hahaha yeah... lets give credit where it is deserved.

Give me proof that race exists biologically.... ???? Support the criticism that you dish out so willingly.

Fourth time i've asked this question......----- How would you prove the biological idea of race? Please.... be my guest.... explain.

mxzombie · 09-07-2006, 07:46 PM

i've had enough. you are a ridiculous, ridiculous person.

mxzombie · 09-07-2006, 07:49 PM

ella · 09-07-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxzombie

i've had enough. you are a ridiculous, ridiculous person.

yes, that's what i thought... You can't answer my question...you can't seem to come up with any possible proof biologically besides something that is ultimately connected with genetics/dna.

yes yes yes.

discussion closed.

Thank you...

myosis · 09-07-2006, 07:51 PM

hi ella you're fucking dumb

mxzombie · 09-07-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ella

yes, that's what i thought... You can't answer my question...you can't seem to come up with any possible proof biologically besides something that is ultimately connected with genetics/dna.

yes yes yes.

discussion closed.

Thank you...

i wasn't trying to come up with any proof

ella · 09-07-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxzombie

del

"Strong, like most people in the field, insists that race and racial differences are a social construct that is not backed up by genetics -- rather, the field of genetics shows that under the skin, we're more closely related than we ever imagined"

You just ruined your whole argument...
if you had actually read the whole article.... you might've realized that.

ella · 09-07-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxzombie

i wasn't trying to come up with any proof

because there is no proof.

mxzombie · 09-07-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ella

because there is no proof.

no, because i never argued your point. i argued against your logic, and apparently that was too much for you to handle

ella · 09-07-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myosis

hi ella you're fucking dumb

oh myosis...you just talk a lot of bullshit.

I love it how a few of you can't support your arguments... so you just tend to dish out the harsh onesided criticisms... such oh ella, you're dumb...

but, of course you don't have the mental capacity to actually illustrate my act of idiocy...

Luke de Spa · 09-07-2006, 07:59 PM

Denying the antecedent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denying the antecedent (also known as vacuous implication) is a type of logical fallacy.

Suppose in an argument one were to deny the "if" part of a conditional (the antecedent) first, and conclude with the denial of "then" part (the consequent).

If P, then Q.
P is false.
Therefore, Q is false.

This argument form has the name denying the antecedent, because in arguing this way one does indeed deny the antecedent in the second premise. This is a non sequitur (irrelevant conclusion). If we argue this way, we make a mistake. One can see this with an example:

If I'm asleep, my eyes are closed.
I'm not asleep.
Therefore, my eyes are not closed.

Clearly, the fact that my eyes are closed when I sleep does not exclude the possibility that I might close my eyes while being fully awake.

When embedded in a more complicated argument, an invalid inference of this kind may be convincing because of confusion between the meanings of if and if and only if. Denying the antecedent is valid if the first premise asserts "if and only if" rather than "if", such that I not only always close my eyes when I'm asleep, but I also only close my eyes when I'm asleep (not when I'm awake).

ella · 09-07-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxzombie

no, because i never argued your point. i argued against your logic, and apparently that was too much for you to handle

So now you do admit to having an argument. i see.

ok, so you're say that i'm being illogical by stating that the only way that race can biologically be proven is by genetics/dna.... blah blah biology is a vast science...right?

and i've asked you repeatedly to prove biologically the idea of race?
-- but you can't seem to do that...obviously because you are aware that the only way one could prove the biological idea of race is by admitting that genetics/dna would have to be directly involved with the proof.

so, your argument is useless.

myosis · 09-07-2006, 08:10 PM

i don't think it's my duty to spell out for you that you cannot reason. especially since you would need to be able to reason to understand it.

Luke de Spa · 09-07-2006, 08:11 PM

he doesn't have to prove a biological basis for race in order to disprove your logic.

ella · 09-07-2006, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

Denying the antecedent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denying the antecedent (also known as vacuous implication) is a type of logical fallacy.

Suppose in an argument one were to deny the "if" part of a conditional (the antecedent) first, and conclude with the denial of "then" part (the consequent).

If P, then Q.
P is false.
Therefore, Q is false.

This argument form has the name denying the antecedent, because in arguing this way one does indeed deny the antecedent in the second premise. This is a non sequitur (irrelevant conclusion). If we argue this way, we make a mistake. One can see this with an example:

If I'm asleep, my eyes are closed.
I'm not asleep.
Therefore, my eyes are not closed.

Clearly, the fact that my eyes are closed when I sleep does not exclude the possibility that I might close my eyes while being fully awake.

When embedded in a more complicated argument, an invalid inference of this kind may be convincing because of confusion between the meanings of if and if and only if. Denying the antecedent is valid if the first premise asserts "if and only if" rather than "if", such that I not only always close my eyes when I'm asleep, but I also only close my eyes when I'm asleep (not when I'm awake).

oh but i've not committed that fallacy.

I understand that biology is a large science.... and should be looked at from various perspectives.
But how would one prove the biological idea of race without the use of genetics/dna? --since biology is such a vast science.
If you can't find proof without genetics or dna being involved... then you don't have an argument.

Luke de Spa · 09-07-2006, 08:16 PM

you have committed that fallacy

If P, then Q.
P is false.
Therefore, Q is false.

if there is a genetic basis for race, then there is a biological basis for race
there is not a genetic basis for race
therefore, there is not a biological basis for race

that's your argument. by pointing out that biology is a broad area of science not restricted solely to genetics, your fallacy is exposed. one need not give an alternative biological basis for race in order to display that your conclusion "no genetic basis = no biological basis" is unsound

maybe there is such an alternative biological basis; maybe there isn't. that simply has no bearing on whether or not your argument is valid

ella · 09-07-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

he doesn't have to prove a biological basis for race in order to disprove your logic.

that's the reason he says that i'm being illogical.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxzombie

i'm not criticizing the content of your argument (although i think it's pretty stupid). i'm saying that logically, your argument doesn't make sense. by disproving something underneath the umbrella of biology, you can't rule out that there isn't some other branch of biology that can prove that thing. meaning that there is no logical reason to assume that since it has supposedly been disproven genetically, you can rule out all other biological sciences and say that it has been disproven as a biological trait. so please, don't be so dense

if the only way that you could prove that the biological idea of race exists is through genetics/dna... then you can rule out all other forms of biological sciences (being that they can give no support or relevant information to the biological idea of race). Only genetics/dna is relevant.

ella · 09-07-2006, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

maybe there is such an alternative biological basis; maybe there isn't. that simply has no bearing on whether or not your argument is valid

But it has extreme bearing to the argument at hand.

mpp · 09-07-2006, 08:24 PM

denying the antecedent is by far my favorite logical copout

in all seriousness, though, there are 2 things on here:

1. ella has been fed a bunch of liberal shit at school re: race
2. there is no biological basis for race; sorry folks!

Luke de Spa · 09-07-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ella

if the only way that you could prove that the biological idea of race exists is through genetics/dna... then you can rule out all other forms of biological sciences (being that they can give no support or relevant information to the biological idea of race). Only genetics/dna is relevant.

but you haven't shown that that's the only way. the burden of proof is on your shoulders here — if you want to say "genetics is the only possible biological basis for race" then it's up to you to demonstrate that, not for someone else to prove the opposite

mpp · 09-07-2006, 08:25 PM

``The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically,'' according to a policy statement by the American Anthropological Association. ``It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race' has no validity . . . in the human species.''

Although few people would mistake a group of Arapahos for Finns, or Malays for Tutsis, anthropologists can find no clear racial boundaries to show where one ``racial'' group stops and another begins.

ohnoitsbonnie · 09-07-2006, 08:26 PM

it's wonton, baby

09-07-2006, 08:26 PM	#150
ohnoitsbonnie Banned Location: somerville, nj Posts: 23,383	hey ella it's wonton, baby

09-07-2006, 03:39 PM	#121
the Minion of Satan Location: ajksaksak. Posts: 7,794	where does the whole in the pretzel go when the pretzel is gone?

09-07-2006, 07:17 PM	#124
the Minion of Satan Location: ajksaksak. Posts: 7,794	almost everybody in this thread has been coming up with valid arguments that pretty much blew your stupid I HEARD IT ON DIXCOVERY theory to zillions of pieces. what else do you need...

09-07-2006, 07:39 PM	#128
mxzombie Braindead Location: i like traffic lights, but only when they're green. Posts: 15,578	not anthropology or sociology

09-07-2006, 07:46 PM	#130
mxzombie Braindead Location: i like traffic lights, but only when they're green. Posts: 15,578	i've had enough. you are a ridiculous, ridiculous person.

09-07-2006, 07:49 PM	#131
mxzombie Braindead Location: i like traffic lights, but only when they're green. Posts: 15,578	del

09-07-2006, 07:51 PM	#133
myosis Minion of Satan Location: the institute Posts: 6,431	hi ella you're fucking dumb

09-07-2006, 07:59 PM	#139
Luke de Spa someone more...punk rock? Location: Ice cream pig out in M1-aud is why i don't play plug in baby the wrong way, like you Posts: 22,217	Denying the antecedent From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Denying the antecedent (also known as vacuous implication) is a type of logical fallacy. Suppose in an argument one were to deny the "if" part of a conditional (the antecedent) first, and conclude with the denial of "then" part (the consequent). If P, then Q. P is false. Therefore, Q is false. This argument form has the name denying the antecedent, because in arguing this way one does indeed deny the antecedent in the second premise. This is a non sequitur (irrelevant conclusion). If we argue this way, we make a mistake. One can see this with an example: If I'm asleep, my eyes are closed. I'm not asleep. Therefore, my eyes are not closed. Clearly, the fact that my eyes are closed when I sleep does not exclude the possibility that I might close my eyes while being fully awake. When embedded in a more complicated argument, an invalid inference of this kind may be convincing because of confusion between the meanings of if and if and only if. Denying the antecedent is valid if the first premise asserts "if and only if" rather than "if", such that I not only always close my eyes when I'm asleep, but I also only close my eyes when I'm asleep (not when I'm awake).

09-07-2006, 08:10 PM	#141
myosis Minion of Satan Location: the institute Posts: 6,431	i don't think it's my duty to spell out for you that you cannot reason. especially since you would need to be able to reason to understand it.

09-07-2006, 08:11 PM	#142
Luke de Spa someone more...punk rock? Location: Ice cream pig out in M1-aud is why i don't play plug in baby the wrong way, like you Posts: 22,217	he doesn't have to prove a biological basis for race in order to disprove your logic.

09-07-2006, 08:16 PM	#144
Luke de Spa someone more...punk rock? Location: Ice cream pig out in M1-aud is why i don't play plug in baby the wrong way, like you Posts: 22,217	you have committed that fallacy If P, then Q. P is false. Therefore, Q is false. if there is a genetic basis for race, then there is a biological basis for race there is not a genetic basis for race therefore, there is not a biological basis for race that's your argument. by pointing out that biology is a broad area of science not restricted solely to genetics, your fallacy is exposed. one need not give an alternative biological basis for race in order to display that your conclusion "no genetic basis = no biological basis" is unsound maybe there is such an alternative biological basis; maybe there isn't. that simply has no bearing on whether or not your argument is valid

09-07-2006, 08:24 PM	#147
mpp Minion of Satan Posts: 7,577	denying the antecedent is by far my favorite logical copout in all seriousness, though, there are 2 things on here: 1. ella has been fed a bunch of liberal shit at school re: race 2. there is no biological basis for race; sorry folks!

09-07-2006, 08:25 PM	#149
mpp Minion of Satan Posts: 7,577	``The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically,'' according to a policy statement by the American Anthropological Association. ``It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race' has no validity . . . in the human species.'' Although few people would mistake a group of Arapahos for Finns, or Malays for Tutsis, anthropologists can find no clear racial boundaries to show where one ``racial'' group stops and another begins.