humans ARE tribal in nature. this doesn't need justification. it's not an ought, but an is.

we are not however, serial murderous in nature.

are you justified in placing greater importance on your mom than your aunt? or your aunt over a more distant relative? or a distant relative over a random person in africa?

or maybe you are so moral, that i am just as important to you as your own siblings (if you have any).

Correct. So if you believe that we 'should' be tribal you're conflating the is with the ought. They're not the same. You need more to move from the one to the other.
You might not be murderous by nature. This doesn't mean it's not in the gene pool. It doesn't mean everyone isn't. If you believe that everyone should do their best to ensure the perpetuation of their own genes (and our family's genes), you must by extension, also believe that murderers, rapists, thieves and pedophiles should do their best to ensure the perpetuation of their own genes.

This is unneeded repetition.

Should a child that's been abused by their parents place greater importance on them?

What are you really saying?

1) never said we should. i said i am. you said i shouldn't

2) just because something exists doesn't mean it's normal. some cows are born with 2 heads. natural? i guess. normal? no.

3) you know exactly what i'm saying. is it acceptable to place greater importance on your family members than to others, solely because they are your family members and others aren't?

you're playing dumb and trying to confuscate. is there anyone in this forum that can argue in good faith?

Did you imply that you should perpetuate your genes and your families genes?
Now you're moving the goal posts. Which is it? Natural or normal or both?
Yes and my question is - should a child with abusive parents place greater importance on them?
Unnecessary.

I've been very clear. I don't care if you care about your genes. I have said that if this is what you care about, then it seems to me your priority should be focused on having lots of kids, but whatever. I also don't really care if you care about preserving the white race from what looks to me like a fake disaster. If you want to argue that I should care about preserving the white race because I'm white, then you'll have to give me an argument which goes beyond a recitation of your own desires because I don't care about your desires. I haven't seen this argument yet, just the claim that it is natural to do so. Okay, doesn't seem natural to me, nor does it being natural mean that I should. You think people are arguing in bad faith, but actually you just keep making false assumptions about other people's views.

you answered yes. let's stay on the subject and avoid semantics and gotchas.

why is it ok to discriminate based on genetic familiarity on one scale but not another?
at what point of your family tree does it become unacceptable to discriminate?

i'm not arguing with you. you are not telling me that i ought not to care about my race. whatever back and forth we had is concluded as far as i can tell.

It is not okay to discriminate when making public policy on behalf of your family, no different for people of your own race. Government works better when it acts fairly towards other people rather than discriminating against some people because of private interests. Are you still just talking about your own desire to discriminate privately against other races? Give me an example.

yes. i'm defending my position of caring about my race more than i care about other races as a position that's not immoral.
for the same reason i view caring about my family more than friends as a position that's not immoral.

You've provided no argument for the morality of race discrimination.

You've stated a bunch of 'isms' and then implied that they're really oughts, without substantiating that implication. Why does it matter that we're tribal historically in terms of deciding whether we should be tribal moving forward? Why does it matter that we've discriminated historically in terms of deciding whether we should discriminate moving forward? Why does it matter that you care about gene perpetuatiom in terms of deciding whether we should care about gene perpetuation moving forward?

You imply that these things matter but you haven't thought through your position very carefully or provided reasons why they should matter moving forward in time.

i'll ask again...

i'm conforming to the natural baseline of humanity.
i don't care whether you do or not.
you are rejecting the natural baseline of humanity.
you are telling me i ought to do the same.

i don't know why i've bothered defending my position. i don't have to. that's all on you buddy.

Because familial bonds are not as arbitrary as race. Racial bonds, for most, are non-existent.

And for good reason.

They're arbitrary.

It's like picking brown coloured hair and arguing that discrimination against everyone without brown coloured hair is the same as discrimination against people outside your family.

False equivalence.

no. there's a reason dna tests can tell you where your ancestry comes from.
yes, race is somewhat arbitrary, as we are all mixed to an extent. we can always further separate human populations from 4 races into 600. but where the most information of genetic difference is by using the traditional phenotype classifications that are innate and obvious. blacks, asians, europeans, inuits, etc.
of course i'm guessing you think you have just as much in common, genetically, with blacks as you do europeans. ... as you've already stated that position about your friend's dog.

and no. it's a completely parallel equivalence.

How so?

Just declaring something to be the case doesn't make it so. Maybe amongst your peer group or family you only need to declare something to make it true. I don't know.
How do you know that the most information of genetic difference comes from traditional classifications? How many geneticists have you spoken to? What books on genetics or research studies have you looked at?

Traditional classifications also differentiate between brunettes and blondes. Doesn't mean these classifications are very important.
It wasn't me who said that, although I'd agree.

If you don't know who you're addressing, how do I know you're even reading or comprehending what I'm writing?

Talk about 'arguing in good faith'...

Human beings have all sorts of ideas about human beings including themselves. It’s almost like it’s part of an adaptation strategy to avoid extinction since we can change our minds about maladaptive ideas we may have in that wide array of ideas human beings have about human beings . Avoiding the ideas which lead to extinction is a strategy of survival and therefore so is knowing those ideas to avoid.

this is how a computer will first organize genetic clusters when fed genetic information with no racial information.

other factors like, propensity to violence, brain size in different areas of the brain, iq, hormone levels, facial features, skin color, criminality levels, etc have the biggest difference between the major racial phenotypes. esp when comparing blacks with east asians in all of these areas, in which the differences are astronomical. whites pretty much always fall somewhere in between these two.

1. What computer? / What software does this?

2. Where can I find the evidence for the claims you've made above?

3. Is there any published research on the above? And where?

Re: population clustering and genetics -- for some discussion see here, particularly the bolded section "Computer software that finds genetic clusters did not prove anything about traditional race categories, and in fact proves that race is a social construction."

For some more discussion about the limitations of using clustering algorithms to classify races, see also this post, this one, and this one.

For further reading on population genetics and racial constructs, there's a lot of useful information in this special issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Some of which is discussed in the first link in this post.

you can also look at the data for yourself. https://www.google.com/search?q=huma...RpQJhc3CTKaOM:

it seems the main argument (including yours) against racial classification is analogous to color classification. that we can arbitrarily set any number of classifications to group genes, or wavelengths. whether we use set the classifications at 3 primary colors or 3 primary races, up to 600 of each, there's never a distinct line. this does not make separate classifications for green and red a "social construct".

in both cases, you're always going to end up with ambiguity in certain sections of colors and people that aren't distinctly one or the other. this doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. these arbitrary lines we draw, can allow us to make inferences that are greater than a coinflip, it makes this information valid.

Of course one can hardly argue with a google image search.

But, it looks like you pasted a link which highlights an image from the Wiki. You'll note that the Wiki page mentions the issues that are called out in the links I posted:

Your own source is agreeing with the central claim made in the sources I linked. If you want to understand why it is the case "that various cluster studies have identified different numbers of clusters with different boundaries", or why it's "difficult, or impossible, to define, once and for good, the main genetic clusters of humankind", the links I provided will help you with that.

Re: the analogy to color groupings and the spectrum -- I can understand why you think the analogy is appealing, but it fails to really capture the actual complexity in the structure of genetic variation. I will expand later...

oh i see, the argument is mostly centered around that there's no racial purity to classify by itself, as you can do with say, blue. ok, i agree.
does this make all racial information invalid?

for instance, if i look at an east asian and a black person, i can infer which one LIKELY has a higher iq, higher propensity to violence, who is likely to carry certain genes, likely to have higher amounts of certain hormones, and can guess where their ancestry originates, simply by looking at them.
these would all be guesses that would show results greater than a coinflip. isn't this the point of classification?

my view is, any classification that can provide information that is not random, is a valid classification.