Go on then, how does science define it?
FYI, there is some great scientific discussion on the issue if you are to spend some time researching it as opposed to making ridiculous statements about your so called âscientific knowledgeâ⌠There are many more papers on this if you take a bit of time to educate yourself
Because the wording above above came from a dictionary definition of the the word race
And from the equality act 2010
Whatâs meant by race?
If you want to make a discrimination claim, you need to find out if youâre someone who mustnât be discriminated against under the Equality Act 2010 .
The Equality Act says itâs only unlawful discrimination if youâre treated unfairly because of certain reasons. These reasons are called protected characteristics . Race is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
Race discrimination is when youâre treated unfairly because of one of the following things:
- colour
- nationality
- ethnic origin
- national origin.
You mean something that agrees with your agendaâŚ
1 Like
Nope, guys with bigger minds than mine and definitely yours are having a more rational scientific discussion on how its an unhelpful (and unnecessary) segmentation
Thats a legal distinction to enable legislation and outlaw forms of discrimination, its not necessarily a definition that has a scientific basis
What is the legal definition of race?
If you say there is no race how is there racism?
What about Roma people who see themselves as a different race?
Iâd say youâre going down a slippery slope here so I suggest you write with a bit more thought.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, so laws enshrined protect a race yet scientifically those races being protected in law donât exist?
I suggest you read up on genetic variation within and between your so called definition of races and âlearnâ how the traditional view is no longer helpful or rational.
Put it this way⌠If you ran a DNA sequence on all the leaves on a single oak tree, the natural genetic variation between them would be greater than the genetic variation between so called races in human beings relative to the number and length of chromosomes⌠Is a tree suddenly made up of multiple races? or is it that because the genotypic variation is not expressed phenotypically and so less easy to âlabelâ?
Our labels of races, is simply because we CHOOSE to differentiate by phenotypic variation and cluster human beings because of it despite us being more genetically varied within these clusters than between themâŚ
Its artificial because it suited historic purposesâŚ
It makes perfect sense⌠the law is based on observed phenotypic variation⌠science says there is more genotypic variation within this segments than between them, but its just convenient to base it on how we look⌠which is part of problem because it emphasises differences that are irrelevant
There are races, of course there are, legally and scientifically there are, youâre wrong and youâre coming from an idealist perspective, nothing wrong with that but youâre wrong none the less.
I know youâre batshit crazy irrespective of race.
Not idealist, simply scientific and no amount of shouting âyouâre wrongâ is going to add weight to your argument⌠go read up on the scientific discussion and come back when you are better informed on the matter.
My mental state is irrelevant to the facts that scientifically the weight of thinking and evidence is against your old fashioned thinking
Well if youâre going to disregard legal and scientific facts I donât really know what to say, what do you call BLM?
First factual thing you have said⌠as mentioned, go read up on the science.
BLM is based on the fact that human beings have segmented people based on phenotypic variation to justified abhorrent behaviours⌠it has nothing to do with science
So therefore people shouldnât BLM as that differentiates from others, can you be Black and proud or is that incorrect? Or is context going to be used as an excusing diversion?
The legal definition of race is absolutely what is relevant - it is what peoples behavior is judged against in a court of law.
If I say do something that contravenes that definition I would be guilty of racism.
1 Like
You are missing the point somewhat⌠being that whilst a legal definition is useful to determine if a criminal act has occurred, it is the very fact we are segmenting human beings based phenotypic variation (how the genotypic variation might be expressed, eg appearance), is not, in fact its counter intuitive to resolving the issue of equality. We persist in catagorising and labelling to suit our purposes when it is unnecessary and the scientific community would agree
Oh dear⌠whoosh. The fact we need BLM is a result of the high level of remaining institutionalised racism that still exists built on years on ingrained classification of human beings based on visual appearance and assumptions (which are not valid scientifically)
As for âBlack and proudâ - it is perhaps less helpful in this context as I suspect Dr M King would have preferred to proud of ones actions and behaviours and achievements rather than in skin colour