Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE
https://youtu.be/TAN9ahGEaI0
---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------
It's Sad @ NOBLE, trying to win an argument by semantics or exceptions.
Or finding where I misspoke to win an argument, of zero importance.. eeeww you got me!
Black, white and Semitic are common ways of describing common ancestry yet you took issue with me using the word Semitic, why? Semantics. You have no substantive argument so you argue about definitions. When clearly there's a social standard already set in place. Second, if you want to use obscure definitions you should make sure we both agree on the definitions so there's no confusion.
Regardless, of anything you say Berbers are a distinct racial group. I don't 'subscribe' to the racial classifications myself but for the sake of argument i simplified things. I'm not a faggot.
---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------
If you don't believe me Sufis dance ask this guy pal
https://youtu.be/jBJlAn-0v5A
|
I don't think I'm "winning" this argument at all, and neither am I trying to...because we're arguing opinions and not fact. Race isn't a scientific fact. Sure, there are science-related fields like forensics that can determine the race of an unknown perpetrator based on evidence left behind like hair follicles or the genetic profiles of their DNA. However, those findings are based on probabilities and use inductive reasoning. They don't have enough deductive force to be considered science because it is possible for something to be true statistically but factually wrong. Even when they do paternity DNA tests, they can only say someone is the father with 99 point something percent accuracy, not 100% because it's based on probability and statistics. It's the same thing with the question of what race a particular hair follicle or DNA sample belongs to. I remember watching a series where Henry Louis Gates (an African American scholar) was interviewing some black celebrities and helping them find which tribe in Africa their DNA mostly matches. When he did himself, he found out he was actually more European genetically than African. Lol! So if he commits a crime and left some DNA evidence, forensics could conceivably think they are looking for a Caucasian individual rather than someone who is visually black. Research the "problem of induction" and you may understand why race cannot be scientific. Race is more of an opinion than anything else.
What makes this argument even more absurd, and why I don't think either of us can win the portion about race, is the fact that we are debating the race of a people neither one of us are claiming to belong to. You are not a Berber and neither am I. That's why I said I'd defer to a Berber speaking for themselves as to whether they consider themselves black, white, Arab, or none of the above. I think the way someone defines themselves takes precedence over the way they are defined by others. Your wife, for example, may be a Berber and claim to be white. I have also met Berbers who claim to be black..so even when they speak for themselves, they may not all agree. Like I said...arbitrary opinion. But on an individual level, I respect someone's right to define themselves. If you tell me your name is Muhammad Ali, I'm not going to insist on calling you Cassius Clay, no matter what your birth certificate says, because I'm not an asshole like that. It isn't my opinion or your birth certificate that ultimately defines your identity. It is you who define it, and I respect that.
The portion about history is more concrete and winnable as a debate item. But the thing about history is...we mostly get the side of the winners and it can be told from many angles. For example, the perspective with which I was taught about the War of 1812 growing up in the US is rather different from the perspective that I learned was taught here since moving to Canada. This brings me to what you were saying about black and white revisionists. Yes, there are historical revisionists, both black and white or otherwise, who twist history to suit their own agenda or to make themselves feel better or their ancestors look better in the past than they actually might have looked. However, history being revised isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's actually history being corrected. Like I said, history is mostly told from the perspective of the winners. "Until lions have their own historians, tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter"....or so the saying goes. Particularly for people who have been marginalized or have been the losers of historical events, you can't always take for granted that what we were all taught is 100% factual. An alternative version of history can be wrong, but it isn't wrong simply because it is alternative, if you get what I'm trying to say.
Either way, it's been an interesting chit-chat. Keep elevating!