re: #66 Obdicut

Even that doesn’t actually exist. For any feature you mention, you can find a member of that ‘race’ who doesn’t have it.

Of course, but it’s all about averages. Most people of African descent have wider noses than most people of European descent. Most Africans have darker skin than most Irish.

You can acknowledge the uneven global distribution of certain superficial phenotypic traits without going down the road of assuming that these differences indicate the existence of more fundamental mental and physical differences, a claim for which there is no evidence.

Yes, there are light skinned Africans, Dark skinned Irish, and black people with narrower noses than mine. If anything, those exceptions prove the rule that individual variation within subgroups vastly exceeds the variation between subgroups.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to discuss this kind of nuance without some moron (whose moronic nature has nothing to do with his/her ethnic background) asserting that these kinds of variations simply must extend to the realm of intellectual capacity.

Whether “race” is a real thing depends entirely on how you define it. Some find it entirely too tempting to try to define “sub-species” of Homo sapiens, when really, the reality is that there are superficial regional adaptations in our species, much like how grey squirrels appear to exhibit slight variations in size and coloration over the extent of their range. They are still grey squirrels, whether they have light grey fur, or black fur, and individual variability vastly exceeds “racial” variability.

Imagine for a moment the absurdity of trying to break squirrels down into “racial” groups to fit the racist meme of variability=speciation.

They still all eat nuts, can interbreed, and share 99.999% of their genetic material.

Then again, this is a really retarded debate to get into. Why did I type this again?