I wasn't talking about tearing families apart. I was talking about the fact of biology that white females can only come into being if there are white men to father them. In any case, I simplified my comment into just one point.
Actually white females can come into being if the definition of white is expanded. Initial conceptions of whiteness didn't include Scottish and Irish people, and recently Richard Spencer said he thinks 80% of Italians are white. This would have been an unthinkable statement even in the 1970s.
White is a fluid category with no real objective basis. I recently saw a very amusing argument between an American, English and Polish troupe. The American said that Poland was a great example of a pure white ethnostate. The Englishman said the American was an idiot - Polish people were Slavic. The Polish nationalist said they were both idiots - Polish people are Polish, not Slavic nor White.
I challenge anyone to come up with an objective definition of whiteness.
I am very interested in a serious conversation about the initial topic. If you want to talk about that, I would be happy.
But in the meantime I will play along with this tangent, since I guess it could be fun, too.
Embracing a new definition of the White race does not cause more white females to be brought into being (at least, not in any easily predictable way). It simply causes females that had already been brought into being to be reclassified from non-White to White.
And their fathers would have to be White, too.
At no point in time are there White females who do not have White fathers.
Interesting. When did the first white father exist? Could you provide historical and scientific evidence of that person's existence and proof of their whiteness?
I think some Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe mated with some Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and that's where the white skin came from. Maybe. But this was a very long time ago and there's no historical record or way of using DNA evidence to narrow anything down to a specific date or a specific person. Even if we did know the person whether we met the conditions for being white would depend on what kind of definition of the White race we were using. For example, whether we were using a definition that focused on the current point in time, or one that was interested in the White race as it exists and evolves throughout the past and future.
Oh interesting, so you're saying the definition changes through time and those changes can change the amount of white people in the world.
That also seems to suggest there's no objective definition of white, which also seems to suggest that any claim that all white people need to have a white father would be utter garbage.
> so you're saying the definition changes through time
No, I was saying you could have a static definition that accepted the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations.
I will also say now that there are many definitions of the White race and that to whatever extent there is one "the definition" of the White race, it changes over time, too.
And you have at the end made a logical error. Just because there are a range of possible definitions of the White race does not mean that all possible definitions of the White race are acceptable. Just because there are components of and aspects of the definition of the White race that my change, does not mean that there are not components and aspects which may not change. And, while there may be edge cases, in general, one needs to have White parents to be White. That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
> the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations.
Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible.
Another way of saying there's edge cases for a rule is that the rule isn't a rule at all.
> That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
Not true! You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white. Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective. The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly. I'd consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
> Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for example, the 100th generation of White people would be different from the 10,000th generation of white people.
White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now.
> You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white
not a contradiction
> Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective
Biological race is just ancestry.
> The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly
What about ancestry.
> d consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
I'm not sure whether they would have. Doesn't matter either way. Racialist beliefs could have a totally illogical origin and yet be entirely correct. Beware the fallacy fallacy.
> White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now.
The white race is continually being formed, which is evidenced by the changing attitudes towards whether Italians, Greeks, Irish, Scottish and Polish people are white - amongst others. You'll find a tonne of people that disagree over whether Polish people, and others, are white. There's no central authority that definitively decides.
> Biological race is just ancestry.
What's the scientific definition of race? Feel free to use biology papers for this discussion.
There's no "the" scientific definition of race. There are various definitions of race that could be called scientific, although I'm not totally sure what it means for a definition to be scientific. The only thing that could be called "the" scientific definition of race is the very unscientific definition that generally emerges like this:
> Genetic variation is greater within groups than between them :^) There is no biological justification for racial groupings :^) Race is purely a social construct :^)
Which admittedly isn't much of a definition but does make it clear (incorrectly) that there is no valid biological justification for racialism.
I define a race just like dictionaries did before the race-doesn't-exist-except-as-a-social-construct movement was established did:
During what period (please tell me the years so I can understand) were white people "largely or totally isolated" from other people? In what area (would be great if you could show on a map) were they isolated?
Alright, fair enough. I just haven't seen a map or a time period laid out that's ever explained this mythical whiteness. I don't think such a map exists, and all the racists I talk to always struggle to provide one. It'd be good to get a solid historically and biologically accurate outline from an intellectual heavyweight like yourself!
Thanks for playing!
What year did they originate and where, by the way?
I'm not an intellectual heavy-weight. I am good at formal logical and, also relevantly, at countering the statement "there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them". I also care about the truth more than anything else which I guess is a good first step toward being an intellectual.
I don't think I could make a good map of where the White race has lived over time even if I watnted to. I think it started somewhere in Europe in like 15,000 BC (very roughly), then spread throughout Europe, then had a colonial period during the last millennia where it colonised all over the world. Certainly I'm very far from an expert on this and it would depend obviously on the exact definition of the White race being used.
> I don't think I could make a good map of where the White race has lived over time even if I watnted to. I think...
But let me stop you right there and ask you, if you think the white race is a real thing. Because if it requires at a minimum to be "largely" isolated from others, but you and I can't collectively identify with certainty where or when that isolation happened - I don't think either of us can definitively even say if "white" is a real race based on those requirements.
I mean, something in Europe was isolated at beginning at some point in time continuing to today. Whether I know their location at each year since their inception doesnt seem to matter that much
I mean at this point this is just hilarious, because you've said white people are a real thing, and they were isolated from other people at some point (15000 BC???) which made the race form but you can't say exactly when or where that happened. So you, supposedly great at "formal logic" have no idea when or where this thing started existing, its existence by your definition would have been passed down to now from that point through ancestry, and yet you are somehow certain that it exists.
