>>494574289
>You actually proved that race does exist.
Of course it exists, but the boundaries are blurry and liberals use this to play word games. It exists on a sliding continuum with no natural "breaks" that mark where one race ends and another begins. If you don't understand this you'll get circles ran around you if you try to debate a race denier.

>Those "grey areas" are regions of hybrids- which only exist because of the mixing of races.
Those "hybrid" groups have sometimes been around for just as long as the "pure" genetic groups have been, so it's a matter of perspective.

>There are no regions of sub saharan Africa where blue eyes spontaneously appear.
>Because it's a racial trait.
The term "racial trait" is tricky. There are no genes that only White people or Black people or Asians have. It's all the same genes in different amounts, proportions and ratios. A liberal would play wordgames like "what percentage of a population needs to have blue eye related genes before they're White?". There's no objectively correct answer to that question.

>If a black person has blue eyes, it's because they carry European DNA from ancestors.
Persians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs etc. can all have blue eyes, even if they don't have a single European ancestor.

My point is that racial boundaries are arbitrary while race itself provably exists. I'm trying to help you understand the nuances involved in debating a race denier.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/pol/

Thread:

Funny how conservatives sound just like liberals when they talk about race. Saying race is a social construct is straight up commie bullshit.