The Jewish problems

The Soviets caught on eventually, then the Jews and AMERICA became best friends. Wonder who they'll latch onto next when America finally clues in.

the chinese probably

Why did you post the picture of a subhuman?

why are you pretending to be autistic?

nice bait.

When I said that modern anti white male affirmative actions is probably worse that this shit, ant got downvoted as hell.

Given that blacks vote for white genocide, it is more than justified.

>you
Not an argument.

Why did you post the picture of a subhuman?

>white
No such thing.

>being willfully obtuse

>no evidence
Thanks for your input.

You're doing it again.

>still no evidence.
?

Not him, but forensic science for example assumes there's such a thing:
unz.com/isteve/in-forensic-science-race-does-exist/
>In phenotyping, scientists scan a person’s genes for variations known to influence traits like skin color, eye color, geographical ancestry and freckling. They then plug those markers into a set of algorithms to generate a profile. In recent years, pharmaceutical companies like Parabon NanoLabs of Virginia have begun recreating faces.
>Parabon’s tests revealed that Monique was primarily of sub-Saharan African descent, and not white as investigators had believed based on the color of the skin found on her remains.

>apparent phenotype judgements define genotype
Wrong.

Race is not science, user.

Wrong. Forensic science is science.

>defending the claim apparent phenotype judgements define genotype
Contradicting genetics facts 2 times in a row?

And race is still not science. Sorry, not sorry.

Forensic science is science no matter how much it hurts your feelings.

Show me evidence of race being science then.

jenjdanna.com/blog/2012/7/10/forensics-101-race-determination-based-on-the-skull.html

Note I'm not a /pol/tard, but there are actually 6 different "races" of people which are identifiable by their inner mouth and nasal cavity.

These are Amerindians, Europeans, Africans, two types of Asians and Polynesians (well, eastern pacific peoples.)

>mention of race=scientific validity
Wrong.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28627249
There you go, mentions of astrology.

Race is not science.

>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race lol

Forensic science is a science.
A nontrivial part of forensic science involves identifying race from human remains.
It's science, this is not even in question. It's more grounded as a science than a lot of the other disciplines uncontroversially recognized as science since their work is applied to life or death situations like stopping a killer or making sure the wrong guy isn't given state administered lethal injection over a misinterpretation of evidence for a criminal investigation.

Then show me evidence of race being science.

Tell me where along the EM spectrum is the exact wavelength where red ends and orange begins.
Oops, you can't, looks like you've proven colors don't exist.

>color consensus=genetics consensus
Wrong. Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience.

>Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype.
Just because you can identify thing A using method B with C quantified reliability doesn't mean method B defines thing A.
It's science because they don't just make up random techniques, they actually check their results and publish peer reviewed papers with findings replicated by others.
I'm going to go ahead and take the well established stance of an entire major discipline responsible for determining life or death decisions on a routine basis as more credible than you're crying about a retarded "phenotype defines genotype" anti-race sound byte argument you probably heard in lecture one day and have been repeating ever since.

>it's science
As it literally contradicts a genetic studies fact, it's not science.
>just because
Yet the categorizations are still influenced by appearance judgements, which implies that phenotype defined genotype.

As race is not science, then race is pseudoscience.

Not sure what you imagine counts as "evidence" science is science, but there are many forensic science papers published in academic journals and many of them make frequent reference to race, not just in passing like with your astrology strawman or as something a subject said which the researchers themselves haven't endorsed, but as fundamental and inextricable components to the actual, formal, scholarly, peer reviewed, and result replicated studies they're carrying out e.g.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1402749
>The Trotter and Gleser female formulae are tested using data from the Forensic Data Bank at the University of Tennessee. For whites, the femur and tibia yield stature estimates differing from one another by about 3 cm. Using femur and tibia lengths from modern forensic cases and modern height data from anthropometric surveys, new regression intercepts are calculated for Trotter and Gleser's female formulae. The new intercepts improve the performance of the formulae on modern individuals. The Trotter and Gleser formulae for black females require no adjustment. Both blacks and whites have experienced a secular increase in bone length, but whites have experienced a change in proportions as well.

Better go tell all the universities to get rid of their forensic science professors, and burn all their academic journals, and shut down all their state endorsed criminal investigation work.
Or maybe you're the idiot here and forensic science is science.

>ant got downvoted as hell
Go back.

ffs call it what you want it's subgroups of Homo Sapien Sapiens

>mentions
Yes, here are mentions of astrology too: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28627249
>frequent reference to race
Guess, here is a page of astrology mentions too ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=astrology

Anything else?

>better go tell
Yet race is still not science as race literally implies with its appearance based classifications that phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong. Therefore race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
>call it
Except race is not science, user. Race is pseudoscience.

>this autist pretending race isn't real

I'm sorry but race is still not science. Why are you forcing your pseudoscience?

There is a science behind the different subgroups of homo sapiens. We can identify what subgroup people belong to based on their skulls alone. I don't give a fuck if you want to call it race of different shitskins but there is a difference between given populations depending on where their ancestors spend most of the last 20,000 years and you cannot refute it.

>difference between individuals
Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race lol

Brainlet attempt. Try again.

So do a lot of whites, so what's your point? Brainlet

>white
No such thing.

Society doesn't agree.

>Muh social construct
>Muh no such thing
Guess what, there is no such thing as economy, money, colors, etc. by following your muh's.

>society beliefs determine scientific facts
Huh?

>if i don't agree with it, it doesn't matter
huh

>strawman
Wrong. Race is not science, user.

...

>society beliefs determines scientific facts
So now you have confirmed this claim. lol

Brainlet attempt.
Yet, race is still not science user. Why do you still force your pseudoscience?

>Muh strawman
Your logic:
Economy is not a science, therefore there is no such thing as economy. QED
Kys

>So now you have confirmed this claim. lol
Terrible reading comprehension, are you pretending to be autistic?

>your
Not "my" logic. It's easy to understand it. Astrology is as real as race. Do you understand now?

Wasn't "Society doesn't agree." your post?

Yes, please don't respond if you're going to feign ignorance again.

Astrology is based on bullshit, cons and beliefs.
Race is based on phenotype. Not scientific, but it exists as distinguishing phenotypes. Economy exists too.

Then you agree with me. Great.

I don't, you're being ignorant for the sake of it.

Astrology uses empirical categorizations and non-scientific beliefs.
Race uses apparent judgements for its categorizations implying that phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong. Therefore race is not science.

>i don't
How so?

>Race is not science
I think it's more that forensic science is science and race is something they recognize and use e.g. diseases aren't themselves a science but they are recognized and used as terms in medical science papers.
How are you defining what constitutes "science" by the way? And is your definition rigorous, or is "science" more of an informal label and isn't necessarily universally agreed on as far as what it does or doesn't cover?

I think this post covers up your questionsRace contradicts science, thus it cannot be science. Then, race is pseudoscience.

Race is real in the eyes of society regardless of whether or not you like it or even its basis in science and spouting your beliefs about it not being real is completely pointless.

That doesn't answer either question.

I'll post it a few more times until you answer them:
How are you defining what constitutes "science" by the way? And is your definition rigorous, or is "science" more of an informal label and isn't necessarily universally agreed on as far as what it does or doesn't cover?

>race is
Race is real as astrology. Already explained before.
>basis
Its basis contradicts science, therefore race is not science.
>spouting your
Scientific rigorousness is not "mine".
>How are you
>is your
I'm not defining anything.
Here is the definition of science:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Thus, race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

I'm beginning to think you are unironically autistic, either way I'm bored with you.

As a computer scientist who only really needs discrete mathematics, I couldn't solve any of those.
Problem 18 looked interesting, the one with [math]125^100 [/math]
I might have been able to solve that if I had like half an hour to work on it.

Leftypol bot once again.

>i'm
Yet race is still not science, therefore race is pseudoscience.

>i'm bored
Too much of a brainlet?
haha

Pseudoscience lovers are so entertaining.

Read "caucasian" then.

>"caucasian"
No such thing.

How about people of germanic and english ancestry? Just taking a subset for the ease.

There is no germanic nor english genocide.

>Germanic genocide
Roflll

How about people with a sufficient amount of ancestry from 1500AD Europeans? So before slavery to keep out the modern african genes.

There is no genocide of "people with a sufficient amount of ancestry from 1500AD Europeans".

Sure there is. Take 80%. A Chinese person is not white. Someone with at least 80% ancestors living in Europe at 1500. It's objectively measurable, but we don't have instruments to measure it.

>The Wikipedia article on science is a rigorous definition.
>But Forensic Science isn't science.

>sure there is
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
lol
>white
No such thing.

........................................................................
below this line is now an ashkenazi intelligence thread

What makes them so smart? My theory is that they clearly mixed with europeans to a large extent and the only europeans that would marry jews were woke af.

Show me evidence of race being science then.

Gonna need a rigorous definition for "science" first.

Already gave you an entire page of science definition to begin with.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

>The Wikipedia article on science is a rigorous definition.
>But Forensic Science isn't science.

I am not talking about genocide.
I just described my definition of white.
Do you still have any objections?

>my definition of white
>objections
You are free to have your "own" definition. I have objections with pseudoscience.
>forensic science
Show me evidence of race being science then.

They are chosen by God to be smarter and lead us as the cattle that we are.

Gonna need a rigorous definition for "science" first. Because if your version of "science" either can't be defined or is defined by Wikipedia then you aren't really talking about anything of substance when you use that word.
Also you keep on confusing race with Forensic Science. Forensic Science is the science, race is a major part of the subject matter covered by Forensic Science. Get your terms straight.
And as one more also, I'll again point out there are a number of accredited universities that have Forensic Science departments and a number of PhD holding academics whose subject is Forensic Science. It's a science by any reasonable standard, which is why the burden is on you to clearly define what your alternative version of "science" refers to specifically.

>your
It's not "mine". It's the consensus definition of the so called science.
>you keep
I asked evidence of race being science, while you keep talking about forensics.
>burden is no you
Then, show me the consensus of race being science. I showed you the reason why race is not science here.Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience.

>consensus definition
Consensus definition is that Forensic Science is science.
Accredited universities recognize it as science and teach it as science.
Try again.

>forensic science
Show me evidence that race is science then.

Forensic Science is the science, race is a major part of the subject matter covered by Forensic Science. Get your terms straight.