Merlin Joseph

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@LauraSmith22733 @SignallerVirtue @jadechelsea826 There is a logical flaw in your understanding 🫣

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@MikeMea43598368 @TheHughAnthony Really? You didn’t explain how. DNA can reveal ancestry patterns and genetic relatedness. Nobody disputes that.
What DNA cannot do is produce an objective scientific rule for who is and isn't English or British. So explain the science. This should be good 👀 🍿

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@AmazonUK can you please tell me how you file a formal complaint with Amazon before a chargeback is requested from my bank. Your agents seem to think your 30 day policy overrides consumer laws. You have sent me an item with a vital piece missing.

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@AmazonUK How do I file a formal complaint to Amazon before I proceed with a chargeback? You have sent me an item with a vital piece missing and your agents have said because it is past 30 days that is the end of the issue. As you know your policies do not override uk consumer laws.

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony that can tell you: "This person is 100% objectively English." Scientists can measure ancestry, relatedness, genetic similarity, etc. The point at which someone is declared a member of an ethnicity is a matter of definition. 6/6

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony If it's way simpler than climate change, then why can't you seem to make an argument against the actual point? You just keep repeating "English people are White" as if repetition magically turns it into a scientific explanation. Nobody disputed that historical English 1/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony that humans use to describe a population with shared ancestry, history, culture, and identity. The underlying ancestry patterns are empirical facts. The category "English ethnicity" is a human concept applied to those patterns. That's why there isn't a scientific instrument 5/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony ethnicity, then dressed that definition up as a biological fact. That's the conflation I've been pointing out. English is an ethnicity" is not really a biological fact in the same sense that humans are Homo sapiens or DNA exists. "English is an ethnicity" is a classification 4/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony are a distinct group." "They're recognised as an ethnicity." None of those answer the question. They're just restatements of your conclusion. In fact, you're proving my point. I asked for an objective scientific rule and all you've given me is a human definition of English 3/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony populations were overwhelmingly White. That's another one of your "water is wet" moments.The point you keep dodging is this:What is the objective biological criterion that determines who is and isn't English? So far you've given me, "English people are White." "The English 2/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@MontgomeryToms Hold on, did you just say man-made climate change is anti-science and then tell us to 'soak up as many vitamins as you can'? Yep, the person who thinks the sun emits vitamins can definitely be trusted above all the scientists out there! 🤣

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony where you come up with a truism that is irrelevant to the debate that no-one is disputing ie “water is wet”. Then when you are actually challenged to address what causes climate change you say “climate change is caused by a change in climate”. 2/2

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony This is another problem people like you have. You cannot produce a coherent argument so you start with the insults and think you are not the stupid one. Let me give you an analogy of what you have done so far! It’s like we are having a debate on climate change and out of no- 1/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony as some sort of biological scientific fact when the reality is it’s not. If the original post or yourself called it as it is then fine. It’s your opinion, it’s subjective. If you say “in my opinion only white people can be English” then fine it’s not a biological fact though. 5/5

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony That's circular reasoning! I asked for the scientific basis and your answer was essentially "English people are White because English people are White."
That's not an argument, it's the conclusion repeated as the premise.
More importantly, you're actually making my point. 1/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony applying a human definition. You're conflating the two and presenting that definition as an objective biological fact. This is the problem with people like yourself. You think the push back is on the idea but it’s not. The push back is it being presented 4/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony England. What it can't do is produce an objective biological membership rule that tells us where "English" begins and ends. The moment you move from "these people share ancestry" to "therefore only these people can be English," you've stopped doing science and started 3/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@Capo600x @TheHughAnthony I challenged the claim that it's a biological fact, but instead of providing an objective scientific criterion, you've given me your definition of English ethnicity. Those aren't the same thing.
Science can identify ancestry patterns associated with historical populations of 2/

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@aDoct0r @TheHughAnthony The question wasn't whether population differences exist. The question was how those differences magically become an objective scientific membership rule for "English" or "British." 2/2

[Merlin Joseph @MerlinJ21192]

@aDoct0r @TheHughAnthony Textbook non-response. Nobody claimed Chinese and Africans are genetically identical 🤣. That’s the problem when people are not properly equipped for these conversations. Instead of addressing the actual point being made, you substitute an easier one and argue against that. 1/2