>Are you not regurgitating something you learned in college? Then where are you regurgitating it from?
What statement are you referring to me 'regurgitating'? I'm college educated but in the field of engineering, I don't recall having a discussion of this sort in college. Your statement is coming completely out of left field and frankly perplexing, again it seems you have some weird axe to grind about higher education.
>It's fair to say you're regurgitating indoctrination because virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense.
If I can 'know' my 'racial background' (which seems to mean race, otherwise this is just a red herring statement) in an 'objective sense', why would the bar be whatever I 'think' myself to be (your first sentence). Objective would mean my own opinions and personal feelings are irrelevant, thus someone else can make the call equally as well as myself with same available facts. Otherwise you would put the word 'subjective' here. What 'objective' facts are we using to determine my race?
That is:
>They would be correctly identified as their middle eastern ethnicities that they think themselves to be.
Contradicts
>virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense.
The second thing I learn from your first statement is that you seem to be saying race is what you(they) 'think themselves to be', and race is determined by self-selection. I honestly don't know what my race is from an 'objective' sense, that's why I'm asking you to provide a clear definition of what the races are and how to place each person in those buckets in an objective and fully defined way.
>Lol, like I'm going to waste my time doing that. Trace back ancestry until the family trees circle in on themselves. Identify and pick out the clusters and subclusters as finely as you think appropriate.
When pressed you clearly fail to either cite an algorithm that predicts self-selected race with 99.9999% parity, nor are you going to 'waste your time doing that.' So it's a completely unsubstantiated claim, along with virtually every other subjective opinion you offer. Presenting completely unsubstantiated claims as fact and then refusing to cite evidence nor 'waste your time' creating it, is precisely why I believe persons such as yourself are engaging in 'pseudo-science.'
Do you disagree with 99.9999%? What do you think the accuracy would be?
Are you actually arguing some banal argument about taxonomic groupings in the edge cases or is it something else, where people can just make up their race?
>Do you disagree with 99.9999%? What do you think the accuracy would be?
I'm unable to come up with a number with a complete lack of evidence that points me towards one. And apparently, neither are you.
>Are you actually arguing some banal argument about taxonomic groupings in the edge cases
Edge case of _what_? We haven't even figured out where the 'edges' are, or even the centers. You've talked about 'objective sense' of 'racial background', so we need to know objectively what you are saying these groups are and define them in a way we know where the edge even is from a factual objective viewpoint. How many races are there anyway, can we list them? Does everyone fit or self-select into a certain list of races, and if not how can we factor that into admissions? What happens during admissions if they're unable to truthfully say what race they think they are?
>They would be correctly identified as their middle eastern ethnicities that they think themselves to be.
You've implied here race is what they 'think themselves to be.' It's not clear to me whether that means they can make up their race, but either you're imposing some races on these people or they are indeed coming up with the race for themselves. Seems to be at odds with your flippant remarks about a circumstance 'where people can make up their race.'
>Please describe the algorithm that makes her non-black.
I never claimed that there was any way to determine 'race', which is such a nebulous concept that it borders on absurd to include it in determining college admission or employment decisions. It's not clear to me that 'black' (in the context of 'race') is objectively defined, but if it is please educated me.
>Please explain why a professor had to resign for "lying" about being black
To determine whether she is lying about being 'black', I would have to know how to define (in context of 'race') 'black.' Is black a race? What determines if someone is black? Is it that they merely consistently say they are black? Is it lying to change your mind about what your race is? Is it lying if you state you are black, while actually being black, but believe you're not telling the truth? If someone looks 'black' but says they are 'white', are they lying? Making hiring and admission decision based on these factors just seems absurd.
The best argument I can find for firing this person is if they were acting maliciously or unprofessionally inconsistent, not because of a racial component. People shouldn't be fired because of their race.
>Please describe the algorithm that makes her non-black.
You're the one who made the claim race had some stochastic parity with self-selection. I personally can't say what 'non-black' even means, neither to you nor from some objective definition. This is a question for yourself, since you've made the assertion 99.9999% parity of DNA with self-selected race (which in one of your early sentences, you did indicate race is self-selected at least for 'middle eastern ethnicities'.)
What statement are you referring to me 'regurgitating'? I'm college educated but in the field of engineering, I don't recall having a discussion of this sort in college. Your statement is coming completely out of left field and frankly perplexing, again it seems you have some weird axe to grind about higher education.
>It's fair to say you're regurgitating indoctrination because virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense.
If I can 'know' my 'racial background' (which seems to mean race, otherwise this is just a red herring statement) in an 'objective sense', why would the bar be whatever I 'think' myself to be (your first sentence). Objective would mean my own opinions and personal feelings are irrelevant, thus someone else can make the call equally as well as myself with same available facts. Otherwise you would put the word 'subjective' here. What 'objective' facts are we using to determine my race?
That is:
>They would be correctly identified as their middle eastern ethnicities that they think themselves to be.
Contradicts
>virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense.
The second thing I learn from your first statement is that you seem to be saying race is what you(they) 'think themselves to be', and race is determined by self-selection. I honestly don't know what my race is from an 'objective' sense, that's why I'm asking you to provide a clear definition of what the races are and how to place each person in those buckets in an objective and fully defined way.
>Lol, like I'm going to waste my time doing that. Trace back ancestry until the family trees circle in on themselves. Identify and pick out the clusters and subclusters as finely as you think appropriate.
When pressed you clearly fail to either cite an algorithm that predicts self-selected race with 99.9999% parity, nor are you going to 'waste your time doing that.' So it's a completely unsubstantiated claim, along with virtually every other subjective opinion you offer. Presenting completely unsubstantiated claims as fact and then refusing to cite evidence nor 'waste your time' creating it, is precisely why I believe persons such as yourself are engaging in 'pseudo-science.'