Originally Posted by
JayStar
Oracle:
I'm going to stop you right here. Race is genetic. There is a black gene, as well as a white gene. There are 3 major races in this world.
Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Each race contains distinct characteristics that define a person of that race. Characteristics like skin color, bone structure, and facial make-up.
The rest of what you said seems completely out of place. A lot of what you said doesn't contradict my arguments. So..
thanks for clarifying.
There isn't a gene that dictates race. You can quickly do any search and you will find that the concept of race as biologically defined among humans is horribly outdated. Race is a social construct.
As an example, would you say that a person of African descent is better suited to athletics because of their bone structure? Because that's significantly different from pre-Berlin Olympics thinking, because before then people believed that the "Negro race" was naturally inferior both physically and mentally to the "Caucasian race" and that it was destined for extinction. What caused this change in the perception of the "Negro race"? Because Jesse Ownes dominated track at the Olympics. Suddenly, all "evidence" pointed towards "Negros being more apt to physical work because they were more in tune with the primal aspects of nature".
In addition, 1920s basketball in America was dominated by what "race"? Give up? It was Jewish people. Who aren't actually defined by race by any distinct trait, but by religion, but that's just another reason to support race as a social construct. Regardless, people all said that Jewish people were more apt to play basketball because of their race (race established by religious belief rather than any physical difference), rather than Jewish men were growing up in a less privileged environment, where basketball was the predominant sport played. Rather than a biological reason, the reason was based on economics.
Second, a person can have white skin, but have a bone structure of somebody you might classify as a "Negroid". What determines their race then? Are they "Caucasian" because they are white? Or are they "Negroid" because their bone structure is more similar to that "race". It's also important to note the history behind some of these names. Caucasian only stands to mean white because the person who originated these terms believed that the most beautiful women came from the Caucus region of Russia. Is that the type of reasoning that should be dictating race?
And clearly you don't understand my arguments, because my arguments are routinely against your view. You argue homosexuality is illogical, I argue it is natural and perfectly logical given the biology behind it. You argue homosexuality is influenced by environment, I argue that environmental stimuli is documented to not change sexuality. So you need to either read closely, or bother to inform yourself about your own viewpoints.