byron
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2024
That is equal parts Special Pleading (rules for thee (other species) but not for me (humans)) and Appeal to Consequences (we can't use this criteria because it'll make black people feel bad!!)
So, two logical fallacies there. Not good.
Europeans carry DNA from homo neanderthalensis because in the distant past, homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis mated and produced healthy, fertile offspring ...despite being two different species.
Sub-saharan africans carry DNA from another species, it's not clear which but it might have been homo habilis. Regardless, they have that DNA because in the distant past, homo sapiens and that other species mated and produced healthy, fertile offspring.
This alone, with no additional information, is a slam-dunk argument that Europeans and Sub-Saharans are distinct species.
Correct. If you can't produce fertile offspring then you aren't the same species. We agree on that. Where we seem to disagree is on this proposition: if you aren't the same species then you can't produce fertile offspring.
If you want this expressed as a logical syllogism, here's what we agree on: not P then not Q
But here's what a lot of people believe this implies: not Q therefore not P
But that doesn't follow from the first statement. If you want an analogous construction: if an animal does not have four legs, then it is not a horse <--- true
that animal is not a horse, therefore it does not have four legs <--- does not follow, and is analogous to if we were not the same species, then we wouldn't be able to have fertile offspring
We might also approach this issue from other side. Instead of asking me for proof that we're not the same species, try presenting proof that we are the same species.
What is the evidence that sub-saharans are the same species as whites?
(1) well, we can produce fertile offspring. But no, we've already rejected that as evidence. We have counter-examples.
(2) we are closely related, genetically. Sadly no, that doesn't prove it either. There are other species with the same or lower FST that are acknowledged to be different species.
(3) there's more genetic diversity within either population than between the two populations. That's the Lewinton fallacy. It's true of EVERYTHING. Consider the height difference between men and women. The difference between the groups is under 1 foot, but the variation within each group is much larger. This is just how bell curves work. To claim that this proves the two groups are actually the same is entirely fallacious.
What other arguments are there?? If we're being honest, it comes down to what you said above: most people wont go for it. Most people simply cannot countenance the possibility that we're different. They're terrified of the consequences.
Most believe believe that the only possible consequence of accepting this fact, is the complete subjugation and dehumanization of blacks. But that's simply not true! Human rights should apply to all humans, regardless of species.
All that it really means, to accept this truth, is that we stop making excuses for them. When we see that they're more violent, as a group, we explain that as a consequence of them being a different species ...not a consequence of some imagined oppression at the hands of the evil white man.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my TED talk. Here's a thread tax: people have discovered that you can make a Waymo taxi come to a complete stop, and then you can harass it.
How long until one of them has the bright idea to do this as it's crossing railroad tracks?[/b][/b]
He basically goes "because MAGA men are so delusional, that they fall for a AI scam, this proves all the hot chicks are on the left", despite scientific data saying otherwise.
