Old_Gold comments on Should we admit it when a person/group is "better" than another person/group? - Less Wrong

0 Post author: adamzerner 16 February 2016 09:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (64)

Comments (64)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Old_Gold 19 February 2016 02:55:15AM 4 points [-]

There's far more difference between a black-skinned person whose ancestors have lived in America for five generations and a black-skinned person whose ancestry remains rooted in Africa, than there is between the black-skinned American and a white-skinned American

Genetics science says otherwise. Or do you believe that genes have no impact on who someone is?

Am I from a small tribe in Polynesia because I have an unusual crown formation? Maybe I'm American Indian because of the way my roots wrap around my jawbone?

I don't know, are you? You can trace your ancestry or get genetic tested if your curious.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 19 February 2016 01:19:43PM -2 points [-]

Genetics science says otherwise. Or do you believe that genes have no impact on who someone is?

This fails to even remotely respond to what I wrote.

I don't know, are you? You can trace your ancestry or get genetic tested if your curious.

Yes, in all cases, and since you apparently don't understand the concept being conveyed here: There are no pure-blooded aryans here. There are no pure-bloods at all.

Comment author: Old_Gold 20 February 2016 04:22:30AM *  4 points [-]

There are no pure-blooded aryans here. There are no pure-bloods at all.

There's also no such thing as 100% pure water, that doesn't mean "water" or even "fresh water" is a meaningless or "socially constructed" concept, and it definitely doesn't mean it's a good idea to drink a glass of sea water.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit