Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are "breeds" and "races" the same thing?

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have thought of an idea to support my perspective on human "races" or genetic classifications.

We say that Dogs have "breeds" correct?

We say that humans have "races" correct?

We can see certain behavior patterns associated with dog "breeds" among the majority of the "breed", which is obviously physiological. Yet when I state that human "races" can be seen the same way, people start getting angry and bashing me as a racist.

I see the basic concept of "breed" and "race" being very similar if not the same. Should we be calling the concept of genetic classification human "breeds" instead of human "races"?

What are your thoughts?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:05:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM, Tiel wrote:
I have thought of an idea to support my perspective on human "races" or genetic classifications.

We say that Dogs have "breeds" correct?

We say that humans have "races" correct?

We can see certain behavior patterns associated with dog "breeds" among the majority of the "breed", which is obviously physiological. Yet when I state that human "races" can be seen the same way, people start getting angry and bashing me as a racist.

I see the basic concept of "breed" and "race" being very similar if not the same. Should we be calling the concept of genetic classification human "breeds" instead of human "races"?

What are your thoughts?

breed =/= race ...That should be enough to refute that entire argument.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:13:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM, Tiel wrote:
I have thought of an idea to support my perspective on human "races" or genetic classifications.

We say that Dogs have "breeds" correct?

We say that humans have "races" correct?

We can see certain behavior patterns associated with dog "breeds" among the majority of the "breed", which is obviously physiological. Yet when I state that human "races" can be seen the same way, people start getting angry and bashing me as a racist.

I see the basic concept of "breed" and "race" being very similar if not the same.
Breeds in the loosest sense of the word are lineages, stocks, and strains that were genetically manipulated through cross and selective breeding. Morever, breeds often refer to groups of animals that were "developed and maintained by humans".Races however are not, thus making them not the same.

Should we be calling the concept of genetic classification human "breeds" instead of human "races"?
Nope.
What are your thoughts?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:19:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM, Tiel wrote:
What are your thoughts?
Your argument lies on a faulty base...which is that breeds and race are similar (to a close extent, I presume), so therefore if that premise is proven false, then your entire argument collapses.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:27:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I hope someone enters this forum that is scientifically intelligent and actually understands the intended meaning of the questions.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:29:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:05:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM, Tiel wrote:
I have thought of an idea to support my perspective on human "races" or genetic classifications.

We say that Dogs have "breeds" correct?

We say that humans have "races" correct?

We can see certain behavior patterns associated with dog "breeds" among the majority of the "breed", which is obviously physiological. Yet when I state that human "races" can be seen the same way, people start getting angry and bashing me as a racist.

I see the basic concept of "breed" and "race" being very similar if not the same. Should we be calling the concept of genetic classification human "breeds" instead of human "races"?

What are your thoughts?

breed =/= race ...That should be enough to refute that entire argument.

Why? If you have something intelligent to argue, then do so. Don't derail my thread with nonsense.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:30:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:27:27 PM, Tiel wrote:
I hope someone enters this forum that is scientifically intelligent and actually understands the intended meaning of the questions.

Tiel, a scientifically intelligent person would easily dismiss the nature of your claims, which are based on specious reasoning.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:34:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:13:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM, Tiel wrote:
I have thought of an idea to support my perspective on human "races" or genetic classifications.

We say that Dogs have "breeds" correct?

We say that humans have "races" correct?

We can see certain behavior patterns associated with dog "breeds" among the majority of the "breed", which is obviously physiological. Yet when I state that human "races" can be seen the same way, people start getting angry and bashing me as a racist.

I see the basic concept of "breed" and "race" being very similar if not the same.
Breeds in the loosest sense of the word are lineages, stocks, and strains that were genetically manipulated through cross and selective breeding. Morever, breeds often refer to groups of animals that were "developed and maintained by humans". Races however are not, thus making them not the same.

You saying "often refer to" is not relevant to the application of this topic. The human species cross and selective breeds itself. The argument is not saying that they are the same by definition, but the same in concept. I'm surprised that the meaning of the topic went over your head.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:38:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:34:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:13:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM, Tiel wrote:
I have thought of an idea to support my perspective on human "races" or genetic classifications.

We say that Dogs have "breeds" correct?

We say that humans have "races" correct?

We can see certain behavior patterns associated with dog "breeds" among the majority of the "breed", which is obviously physiological. Yet when I state that human "races" can be seen the same way, people start getting angry and bashing me as a racist.

I see the basic concept of "breed" and "race" being very similar if not the same.
Breeds in the loosest sense of the word are lineages, stocks, and strains that were genetically manipulated through cross and selective breeding. Morever, breeds often refer to groups of animals that were "developed and maintained by humans". Races however are not, thus making them not the same.

You saying "often refer to" is not relevant to the application of this topic.
Focusing on a miniscule part of the argument will not help you prove your point. How about I focus on the last sentence, 'the meaning of the topic went over your head' and argue that it isn't pertinent to the case?

The human species cross and selective breeds itself.
Not by the will of others, as demonstrated in the case of selective breeding of groups of animals (specifically, domestic animals).

The argument is not saying that they are the same by definition, but the same in concept. I'm surprised that the meaning of the topic went over your head.
Definition is the essence of what are...saying that they are the 'same in concept' is ridiculous...especially when they are not the same, or similiar, in concept.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:40:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:29:00 PM, Tiel wrote:
breed =/= race ...That should be enough to refute that entire argument.

Why? If you have something intelligent to argue, then do so. Don't derail my thread with nonsense.

1. That was a completely relevant reply, and 2. you don't own threads. Try treating the people who take the time to reply to you with a little more courtesy next time.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:41:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tiel, is it me or that you refuse to acknowledge views contrary to your own? I've written that breeds are not equal, or same, even in concept, to a race, and you instead make a comment about 'scientifically intelligent' people to comment on your thread...Are you willing to respectfully disagree with our arguments, or merely call them ignorant and based on lack of knowledge?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:43:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:30:19 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:27:27 PM, Tiel wrote:
I hope someone enters this forum that is scientifically intelligent and actually understands the intended meaning of the questions.

Tiel, a scientifically intelligent person would easily dismiss the nature of your claims, which are based on specious reasoning.

On what premise?

If all you are going to do is give your biased opinion with nothing to support it, then you have already done so and are of no further use to this thread. If you have some logic or evidence to support your argument, then please do so instead of wasting my time.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:45:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:43:19 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:30:19 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:27:27 PM, Tiel wrote:
I hope someone enters this forum that is scientifically intelligent and actually understands the intended meaning of the questions.

Tiel, a scientifically intelligent person would easily dismiss the nature of your claims, which are based on specious reasoning.

On what premise?
That you are conflating two 'concepts'--a breed and a race--to fit your views and justify your beliefs.

If all you are going to do is give your biased opinion with nothing to support it, then you have already done so and are of no further use to this thread.
I have only come because I myself have compared the relative definitions and concepts of the two (race and breed) and found them dissimiliar.

You're the one who continue to refuse to listen to our views and instead dismiss them as being 'biased'--which it might be, though that same prejudice applies to your own comments and beliefs.

If you have some logic or evidence to support your argument, then please do so instead of wasting my time.

You have offered no line of reasoning or evidence, which you are obliged to do as the instigator (who has the burden of proof).
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:47:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll stop arguing with Tiel since I realized that several members have argued with him, and yet all he does is continue to justify his views with no facts and then demand others to do so.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:24:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:29:00 PM, Tiel wrote:
breed =/= race ...That should be enough to refute that entire argument.

Why? If you have something intelligent to argue, then do so. Don't derail my thread with nonsense.


1. That was a completely relevant reply, and 2. you don't own threads. Try treating the people who take the time to reply to you with a little more courtesy next time.

1.) The reply was in no way relevant. 2.) You should respect the intent of the person who created the thread, instead of trolling or derailing every thread that you touch.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:46:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:47:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
I'll stop arguing with Tiel since I realized that several members have argued with him, and yet all he does is continue to justify his views with no facts and then demand others to do so.

1.) In my opinion, you post like an unintelligent idiot.

2.) You constantly troll and/or derail threads.

3.) All you have said is "No they aren't the same". That is not an argument, it is a simple opinion which is not even an argument in itself and has nothing to support it. All you have stated is a difference in opinion and/or a disagreement without any reasons or supporting evidence.

4.) You keep posting on my comments, and ask why I don't asnwer... yet you are too dense to realize that you have your messages and comments turned off. Tha being the reason why I am not responding.

5.) Give me an argument and I will argue with you. Give an argument with some logical reasons and/or supporting evidence. You stating the definitions as different is an argument fit for a 5th grader. A truck and a car are different by definition, yet are the same in concept. Don't start barking up my tree until you have something to back it up with. You post meaningless nonsense that is no better than trolling. You have posted how many times? How many of those posts are progressing towards something? How many of them consist of a logical argument with reasons and evidence to support your perspective? None. Your first post was a close start, then you fell a part after that.

Let's get this back on point. I'm not going to waste my time arguing over the obvious. The definitions arent the same as they are talking about two different species and are referenced according to each terms history. Let's move on from that. I am talking about the basic concept behind the terms. Each word is a term which describes a genetic classification within the species. A classification which seems to differ very little when you break it down.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:50:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:41:18 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Tiel, is it me or that you refuse to acknowledge views contrary to your own? I've written that breeds are not equal, or same, even in concept, to a race, and you instead make a comment about 'scientifically intelligent' people to comment on your thread...Are you willing to respectfully disagree with our arguments, or merely call them ignorant and based on lack of knowledge?

No, I acknowledged it. It's just that there is a lack of logical reasons and supporting evidence. Therfor, there is nothing more to be said. Your argument was weak and short lived.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:52:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:47:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
I'll stop arguing with Tiel since I realized that several members have argued with him, and yet all he does is continue to justify his views with no facts and then demand others to do so.

There are no facts to be given on my position, as my position is a question. You don't seem to comprehend even the basics involved with communication. The topic is a question, yet you want facts to support the question. You're a funny kid.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:54:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:24:22 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:29:00 PM, Tiel wrote:
breed =/= race ...That should be enough to refute that entire argument.

Why? If you have something intelligent to argue, then do so. Don't derail my thread with nonsense.


1. That was a completely relevant reply, and 2. you don't own threads. Try treating the people who take the time to reply to you with a little more courtesy next time.

1.) The reply was in no way relevant. 2.) You should respect the intent of the person who created the thread, instead of trolling or derailing every thread that you touch.

wow, what an @$$hole.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:02:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM, Tiel wrote:
I have thought of an idea to support my perspective on human "races" or genetic classifications.

We say that Dogs have "breeds" correct?

We say that humans have "races" correct?

We can see certain behavior patterns associated with dog "breeds" among the majority of the "breed", which is obviously physiological. Yet when I state that human "races" can be seen the same way, people start getting angry and bashing me as a racist.

I see the basic concept of "breed" and "race" being very similar if not the same. Should we be calling the concept of genetic classification human "breeds" instead of human "races"?

What are your thoughts?

Well at the risk of sounding racist, you are in essence correct.

It's not a mystery that black people make black babies, white people make white babies, and asian people make asian babies. Some people like to pretend that there are no such things as "races" in the human gene pool, but a cursory look at the people around you will clearly show that this is not the case - there are indeed genetic markers for the different races, and it's patently evident in things like black peoples' propensity for sickle cell anemia.

The question that makes you racist or not isn't "do you think there are genetic breeds among humans", but rather "do you think it matters?"

In any event, for behavioral issues, there's a problem of separating culture from genetics....
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:06:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suppose if superior beings were to colonise Earth they might keep humans as pets. In this case they may refer to the different races as ‘breeds'.

"Hello, Qzzzxx, what's happening space-dude?"

"Hi Kwwjj, I've got a new human."

"Really? What breed is it?"

"It's a cross breed: its mother was a great Dane called Freda and it's father was a German shepherd called Fritz."
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 11:06:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Breed - "A stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection."

http://www.google.com...

Race - "1.Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

http://www.google.com...

There is a reason that "breed" only really applies to pets and live stock, because it refers to intentional manipulation.

Races are closer to subspecies (only finer).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:16:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 3:02:56 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:04:01 PM, Tiel wrote:
I have thought of an idea to support my perspective on human "races" or genetic classifications.

We say that Dogs have "breeds" correct?

We say that humans have "races" correct?

We can see certain behavior patterns associated with dog "breeds" among the majority of the "breed", which is obviously physiological. Yet when I state that human "races" can be seen the same way, people start getting angry and bashing me as a racist.

I see the basic concept of "breed" and "race" being very similar if not the same. Should we be calling the concept of genetic classification human "breeds" instead of human "races"?

What are your thoughts?

Well at the risk of sounding racist, you are in essence correct.

It's not a mystery that black people make black babies, white people make white babies, and asian people make asian babies. Some people like to pretend that there are no such things as "races" in the human gene pool, but a cursory look at the people around you will clearly show that this is not the case - there are indeed genetic markers for the different races, and it's patently evident in things like black peoples' propensity for sickle cell anemia.

The question that makes you racist or not isn't "do you think there are genetic breeds among humans", but rather "do you think it matters?"

In any event, for behavioral issues, there's a problem of separating culture from genetics....

I'm glad to see that someone get's what I ma saying.

Do I think it matters?

That depends. If I was building an Olympic sprinting or marathon team I might think it matters. It depends on the subject and what that specific human genetic classification (breed) has shown in relation to the subject. It all comes down to preference and opinion in the end.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:23:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 11:06:03 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Breed - "A stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection."

http://www.google.com...

Race - "1.Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

http://www.google.com...


There is a reason that "breed" only really applies to pets and live stock, because it refers to intentional manipulation.

Races are closer to subspecies (only finer).

No, it is also used to classify dogs in a certain way. You can say that you are breeding a dog, but the dog will still already be of a current do "breed". It would matter very little in concept if we changed the word into dog "race". You breed this race of dog with this race of dog and get a new racial classification of dog. The same thing happens when you mix two human genetic classifications, you get a new genetic classification of human. In concept, the two terms "human race" and "dog breed" are used in the same kind of way. Though when you say that you are breeding something, it is used differently. What I am talking about is how the word "breed" is used as a genetic classification of the dog species. The word "race" is used in a similar way in the genetic classification of the human species.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:36:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 3:23:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/25/2011 11:06:03 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Breed - "A stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection."

http://www.google.com...

Race - "1.Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

http://www.google.com...


There is a reason that "breed" only really applies to pets and live stock, because it refers to intentional manipulation.

Races are closer to subspecies (only finer).

No, it is also used to classify dogs in a certain way. You can say that you are breeding a dog, but the dog will still already be of a current do "breed". It would matter very little in concept if we changed the word into dog "race". You breed this race of dog with this race of dog and get a new racial classification of dog. The same thing happens when you mix two human genetic classifications, you get a new genetic classification of human. In concept, the two terms "human race" and "dog breed" are used in the same kind of way. Though when you say that you are breeding something, it is used differently. What I am talking about is how the word "breed" is used as a genetic classification of the dog species. The word "race" is used in a similar way in the genetic classification of the human species.

"Breed" as a verb, has a different meaning than "breed" as a noun. "breeding" something (using as a verb) simply means reproducing, often implying a selective process.

A "breed" (as a noun) occurs after generations of selective "breeding" (as a verb). Races were not formed for intentional selection, but from habitat.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:55:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 3:36:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:23:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/25/2011 11:06:03 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Breed - "A stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection."

http://www.google.com...

Race - "1.Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

http://www.google.com...


There is a reason that "breed" only really applies to pets and live stock, because it refers to intentional manipulation.

Races are closer to subspecies (only finer).

No, it is also used to classify dogs in a certain way. You can say that you are breeding a dog, but the dog will still already be of a current do "breed". It would matter very little in concept if we changed the word into dog "race". You breed this race of dog with this race of dog and get a new racial classification of dog. The same thing happens when you mix two human genetic classifications, you get a new genetic classification of human. In concept, the two terms "human race" and "dog breed" are used in the same kind of way. Though when you say that you are breeding something, it is used differently. What I am talking about is how the word "breed" is used as a genetic classification of the dog species. The word "race" is used in a similar way in the genetic classification of the human species.

"Breed" as a verb, has a different meaning than "breed" as a noun. "breeding" something (using as a verb) simply means reproducing, often implying a selective process.

A "breed" (as a noun) occurs after generations of selective "breeding" (as a verb). Races were not formed for intentional selection, but from habitat.

Correct. Breeds are only generations of animals that were selectively reproduced by humans, whereas races have no such implications.

I wish Tiel at least tried to understand this difference without calling whoever disagrees with him not scientifically challenged or claiming that we 'misunderstood' his point.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:56:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:06:08 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I suppose if superior beings were to colonise Earth they might keep humans as pets. In this case they may refer to the different races as ‘breeds'.

"Hello, Qzzzxx, what's happening space-dude?"

"Hi Kwwjj, I've got a new human."

"Really? What breed is it?"

"It's a cross breed: its mother was a great Dane called Freda and it's father was a German shepherd called Fritz."

What was their hybrid offspring, Brian?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 4:48:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 3:36:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:23:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/25/2011 11:06:03 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Breed - "A stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection."

http://www.google.com...

Race - "1.Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

http://www.google.com...


There is a reason that "breed" only really applies to pets and live stock, because it refers to intentional manipulation.

Races are closer to subspecies (only finer).

No, it is also used to classify dogs in a certain way. You can say that you are breeding a dog, but the dog will still already be of a current do "breed". It would matter very little in concept if we changed the word into dog "race". You breed this race of dog with this race of dog and get a new racial classification of dog. The same thing happens when you mix two human genetic classifications, you get a new genetic classification of human. In concept, the two terms "human race" and "dog breed" are used in the same kind of way. Though when you say that you are breeding something, it is used differently. What I am talking about is how the word "breed" is used as a genetic classification of the dog species. The word "race" is used in a similar way in the genetic classification of the human species.

"Breed" as a verb, has a different meaning than "breed" as a noun. "breeding" something (using as a verb) simply means reproducing, often implying a selective process.

A "breed" (as a noun) occurs after generations of selective "breeding" (as a verb). Races were not formed for intentional selection, but from habitat.



1.) You have no way to prove this.

2.) Humans choose their partners one way or another, this is hardly different from breeding. It just breeding in a different sense of the word. We create our own intentional selection through choice. If the man is the only one who chooses, they both choose eachother, the woman chooses, or the parent's choice, it is still a choice and is barely different from how the term breeding is used or what the term breed represents.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 3:55:39 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:36:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:23:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/25/2011 11:06:03 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Breed - "A stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection."

http://www.google.com...

Race - "1.Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

http://www.google.com...


There is a reason that "breed" only really applies to pets and live stock, because it refers to intentional manipulation.

Races are closer to subspecies (only finer).

No, it is also used to classify dogs in a certain way. You can say that you are breeding a dog, but the dog will still already be of a current do "breed". It would matter very little in concept if we changed the word into dog "race". You breed this race of dog with this race of dog and get a new racial classification of dog. The same thing happens when you mix two human genetic classifications, you get a new genetic classification of human. In concept, the two terms "human race" and "dog breed" are used in the same kind of way. Though when you say that you are breeding something, it is used differently. What I am talking about is how the word "breed" is used as a genetic classification of the dog species. The word "race" is used in a similar way in the genetic classification of the human species.

"Breed" as a verb, has a different meaning than "breed" as a noun. "breeding" something (using as a verb) simply means reproducing, often implying a selective process.

A "breed" (as a noun) occurs after generations of selective "breeding" (as a verb). Races were not formed for intentional selection, but from habitat.

Correct. Breeds are only generations of animals that were selectively reproduced by humans, whereas races have no such implications.

False.

A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals of the same species.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:42:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 4:52:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
False.

A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals of the same species.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Despite the fact that you repudiate other members for using definitions, you are now doing so yourself.

Note that even by that definition, it still does not equal a race ("races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences" http://en.wikipedia.org...)....If the breed is not usually classified scientifically, then it cannot be a legimitate group or even population (according to that same Wikipedia article), than how can it be considered a race...

Moreover, it's embarrassing to see that the same article confirms our assertions that breeds are genetically manipulated: "The breeder or breeders who initially establish a breed, do so by selecting individual animals from within the groups gene pool that they see as having the necessary qualities needed to enhance the breed model they are aiming for. These animals are referred to as "breed foundation", or "breed origination". Further, the breeder mates the most desirable from his point of view representatives, aiming to pass such characteristics to their progeny. This process is known as selective breeding. A written description of desirable and undesirable breed representatives is referred to as a breed standard."

You have not proven that races are not engineered by other factors (such as in this case, the will of the breeder who seeks the desired qualities for 'breed foundation'). You have written that members of a race ("humans") "choose their partners one way or another, this is hardly different from breeding", but how is the same as breeding? You assert it is so, when I shall argue it is not:

Breeding in particular lies on one important fundaments: the need of desired qualities to improve the model (for example, the enzymes of a kind of fish were inserted, by means of biomedical engineering, into a genre of strawberry to prevent frost from developing on its exterior). Does reproduction serve this function, I ask? Do humans reproduce entirely to "create our own intentional selection through choice", or for other reasons? Moreover, the process of reproduction you have described in your response to Orele_E, does not conform to breeding. Breeding, as demonstrated in the basic procedure described above, occurs when a breeder selects the best trait needed in a model (animal or plant). A man and a wife choosing each other to take hands in marriage is not equal to this, obviously, nor do they choose to do so for purposes of 'bettering' their offspring in all occasions.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau