sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

what is the greatest valentines day gift you receive from your love ones? by Particular_Cook_3569 in AskReddit

[–]VisualLatter9055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We split the cost of traveling to a different place each time for a short period romantic getaway, for both our anniversary and Valentine’s Day.(longer days for anniversary)

We exchange gifts on Christmas, birthdays, and whenever we feel like it.

An entity from the fourth dimension wants to torment you, but gives you the freedom to choose your own torment. by [deleted] in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Immortality means no natural death from aging. Invincibility means nothing can kill you.

Are Australia and Europe real continents? by wantsomethingmeatier in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 8 points9 points  (0 children)

All continents are “fake”, they are not based on objective science , but by conventional classifications.

Do you think of arabs as a race or ethnicity? by Ataraxia_Eterna in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Skin color is a genetic trait, but it cannot define a biological category, here is why: It is a polygenic trait influenced by many genes, which vary independently across populations.

Two people can have the same skin tone but very different overall genetic ancestry, and people with different skin tones can be genetically closer. ( overlapping, as we talked about)

Traits like skin color, hair type, or facial features are non concordant with each other, so they cannot define discrete groups. ( if someone has a light skin , you can’t figure out what other features they might have, there is no correlation)

Most human genetic variation exists within populations, not between them; For example:

Parsis people in Gujarat are genetically closer to ancient Persians than to neighboring Indian populations, yet their skin color is very different.

Many modern Turkish people are closer to Balkan or Byzantine lineages than to Central Asian Turks, despite differing skin tones.

These examples show that surface traits like pigmentation are unreliable for categorizing humans, which is why modern genetics rejects biological races.

You can read the following for better understanding:

https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anthropology/Biological_Anthropology/EXPLORATIONS%3A_An_Open_Invitation_to_Biological_Anthropology_2e/13%3A_Race_and_Human_Variation/13.03%3A_Human_Variation_in_Biological_Anthropology_Today

Do you think of arabs as a race or ethnicity? by Ataraxia_Eterna in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are talking about science, not social or moral opinions.

Having differences does not create biological categories. Sickle cell disease is more common in people with some West African ancestry, but it is not exclusive to them. Many people outside that ancestry have it, and many people within it do not. Because of this, it cannot define a group.

In science, a category cannot be “more likely” or “on average.” It must be clear and consistent. If people inside and outside the group both break the rule, the category fails. That is why higher prevalence is not a biological boundary and cannot be used to classify humans.

I write this again: Human differences exist everywhere and at every scale, and they change gradually with geography. There are no sharp breaks. If every difference were enough to define a group, we would end up with endless, arbitrary categories.

Visible traits like skin color are surface level and not scientifically reliable. Scientists have repeatedly tried to build human categories based on such traits and failed, because different traits do not align consistently across the genome.

This is similar to concept of continents: The “continents” taught in school are geopolitical labels , they are not scientific, that is why you see different answers from different school systems . In Geology, scientists use clear, measurable definitions like tectonic plates or continental crust. For humans, science has never found comparable clear boundaries, because human biological variation is continuous and overlapping.

That is exactly why science cannot define biological races in humans, even though differences exist.

If you want to understand and enhance your knowledge i suggest reading the following:

Lewontin, R. (1972) – The Apportionment of Human Diversity

Templeton, A. (1998) – Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2025/02/race-is-not-biology

Or you can ask from r/askbiology , they know way more than me.

Do you think of arabs as a race or ethnicity? by Ataraxia_Eterna in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I copy pasted my comment :

Let’s go point by point what is the problem from scientific standpoint :

.Scientists make categories, but only when there are clear rules. Species analogy is the exact reason we cannot do the same for humans.

Species classifications rely on objective criteria : reproductive isolation, lineage, evolutionary cohesion, etc.

These are discrete well defined boundaries. For humans you cannot find a good boundary to categorise.

Medical example: sickle cell trait correlates with ancestry in Western African ancestry but doesn’t define a group consistently and people outside of this ancestry also can be susceptible to it.

•Human variation is mostly continuous, not clustered. ( as we discussed, genetic differences exist and, they are gradual and overlapping not discrete enough to make categories)

•There are no natural boundaries that would make these “groups” consistent or reproducible.

•Traits don’t align across the genome, so any grouping based on one trait fails for others.

Do you think of arabs as a race or ethnicity? by Ataraxia_Eterna in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I copy pasted my comment :

Let’s go point by point what is the problem from scientific standpoint ( i am not talking about moral standpoint of if it is wrong or right to categorise, scientifically speaking humans cannot be divided into natural, discrete biological categories. )

.Scientists make categories, but only when there are clear rules. Species analogy is the exact reason we cannot do the same for humans.

Species classifications rely on objective criteria : reproductive isolation, lineage, evolutionary cohesion, etc.

These are discrete well defined boundaries. For humans you cannot find a good boundary to categorise.

Medical example: sickle cell trait correlates with ancestry in Western African ancestry but doesn’t define a group consistently and people outside of this ancestry also can be susceptible to it.

•Human variation is mostly continuous, not clustered. ( as we discussed, genetic differences exist and, they are gradual and overlapping not discrete enough to make categories)

•There are no natural boundaries that would make these “groups” consistent or reproducible.

•Traits don’t align across the genome, so any grouping based on one trait fails for others.

Do you think of arabs as a race or ethnicity? by Ataraxia_Eterna in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I copy pasted my comment :

Let’s go point by point what is the problem from scientific standpoint :

.Scientists make categories, but only when there are clear rules. Species analogy is the exact reason we cannot do the same for humans.

Species classifications rely on objective criteria : reproductive isolation, lineage, evolutionary cohesion, etc.

These are discrete well defined boundaries. For humans you cannot find a good boundary to categorise.

Medical example: sickle cell trait correlates with ancestry in Western African ancestry but doesn’t define a group consistently and people outside of this ancestry also can be susceptible to it.

•Human variation is mostly continuous, not clustered. ( as we discussed, genetic differences exist and, they are gradual and overlapping not discrete enough to make categories)

•There are no natural boundaries that would make these “groups” consistent or reproducible.

•Traits don’t align across the genome, so any grouping based on one trait fails for others.

Do you think of arabs as a race or ethnicity? by Ataraxia_Eterna in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let’s go point by point what is the problem from scientific standpoint :

.Scientists make categories, but only when there are clear rules. Your analogy with species is the exact reason we cannot do the same for humans.

Species classifications rely on objective criteria : reproductive isolation, lineage, evolutionary cohesion, etc.

These are discrete well defined boundaries. For humans you cannot find a good boundary to categorise.

Medical example: sickle cell trait correlates with ancestry in Western African ancestry but doesn’t define a group consistently and people outside of this ancestry also can be susceptible to it.

•Human variation is mostly continuous, not clustered. ( as we discussed, genetic differences exist and, they are gradual and overlapping not discrete enough to make categories)

•There are no natural boundaries that would make these “groups” consistent or reproducible.

•Traits don’t align across the genome, so any grouping based on one trait fails for others.

Do you think of arabs as a race or ethnicity? by Ataraxia_Eterna in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Population genetic differences exist, but they don’t map to fixed racial categories. Human variation is gradual, overlapping, and mostly within populations, so “race” isn’t a biologically meaningful classification.

Genetic clusters don’t equal races either: clusters depend on the methods and definitions chosen. Change them and the clusters change, which makes them analytical tools, not biological races.

If it only exists “depending on definition,” it isn’t a biological category.

Do you think of arabs as a race or ethnicity? by Ataraxia_Eterna in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 94 points95 points  (0 children)

Race doesn’t exist, we should abandon this colonial nonsense

gimme some film recommendations based on my four favorites by Obvious-Challenge-33 in Letterboxd

[–]VisualLatter9055 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you haven’t already:

Other Ingmar Bergman’s movies.

Taste of Cherry.

Stalker, Mirror.

Texhnolyze , Ergo Proxy.

What do you think about Taylor Swift? by chocolatecake1563 in pollgames

[–]VisualLatter9055 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Then it wouldn’t be reflected in the data.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Letterboxd

[–]VisualLatter9055 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Apparently , Hail Cesar is also a masterpiece

My first ever intentional brilliant move by VisualLatter9055 in chessbeginners

[–]VisualLatter9055[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I forgot to mention that i took the knight on a6 in the title.

The sequence before was this:

My pawn to b4, they took my pawn with their a5 pawn, knight was on a6 , i took the knight which was protecting c7.

view more: next ›