So it would appear.
(media.gab.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (208)
sorted by:
Perhaps you should go back and read the original comment?
You seem to dull to understand the difference between Race and race, in the context it was used.
Some friend you are. I try to educate you and you revert back to your projecting, and then you even add a heap of word gymnastics to try to make your error a truth. I guess it just depends on what your definition of the word is is, Slick Willie. #HeBlindedMeWithScience
Only gymnastics going on is on your end there, "buddy".
First you start getting all triggered when you read there is only the Human Race, and other "races" are merely constructs of division created by other humans. Totally ignoring the context in which it was used.
Secondly, you fail to consider that if "race" is a serious biological term that describes the next division below "species", why would it be used to only describe division in humans?
Why aren't canines (for example) divided into different "races" instead of breeds, like they are?
A non-dull person would understand that the term "race", when used in this context, was created not for classification purposes, but for egotistical ones.
A race IS a sub-species. You haven’t seen me triggered; I control my self. No biology book says “human” is the only race, only sentimental saps and hand-heart corny memes. I’m going to assume you’ve been drinking and so I’ll forgive you for your outbursts, your accusations and goofy take in science. If you’re sober, take a nap.
Perhaps you should take your own advice?
Couldn't figure out how to explain why race is used to denote sub-species of humans but breed is used to denote sub-species of canines? What about divisions of other species? Is "race" ever used to describe them?
Why would science change it's methodology unless the term "race" is simply a construct created by other humans?