x
FJ should now work well with mobile. Try it out on your mobile/tablet browser!
Click to expand

reaperssprint

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Video Games Played: Plenty of them
X-box Gamertag: ReapersSprint
Date Signed Up:12/07/2011
Last Login:3/05/2015
Location:Pennsylvania
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8436
Highest Content Rank:#9684
Highest Comment Rank:#1091
Content Thumbs: 43 total,  74 ,  31
Comment Thumbs: 6313 total,  8314 ,  2001
Content Level Progress: 81.35% (48/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 48% (48/100)
Level 261 Comments: Pure Win → Level 262 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:0
Content Views:11420
Total Comments Made:2846
FJ Points:6276

Funny Text/Links

Funny Pictures

YouTube Videos

  • Views: 729
    Thumbs Up 3 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +1
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 10/17/14
    Ebola Not Scary Ebola Not Scary
  • Views: 686
    Thumbs Up 1 Thumbs Down 3 Total: -2
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/25/13
    Them Damn Deer Them Damn Deer

latest user's comments

#201 - I like how it is now. Good work admin, you dun good. 9 hours ago on FJ is mobile friendly 0
#70 - Hmm, I'll have to look into it. I've never really done much re… 03/03/2015 on My New Years resolution is... 0
#40 - The only issue I have with what you said is the civil war. I'm…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/03/2015 on My New Years resolution is... 0
User avatar #43 - angelious (03/03/2015) [-]
gettysburg. basically south i believe, had a bigger force in the battle and could have won the fight if they had manouvered around the forces of north. but instead they charged up a hill and got rekt.
User avatar #70 - reaperssprint (03/03/2015) [-]
Hmm, I'll have to look into it. I've never really done much reading into the civil war, I just knew that the North was better armed. I agree with your point though by the way.
#52 - I'm not sure, but based on your story I think your friend has … 03/03/2015 on Another shitty problem -1
#249 - Never said differences don't occur, only that race is a social…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/02/2015 on Mahatma Gandhi (OC) 0
User avatar #253 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.[1][2][3] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[4][5][6]

Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[7] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[8] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[9][10][11][12][13]

Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[14] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[9] or simplistic way,[15] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[16][17]
I agree depending on your definition of race.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context
#244 - Pangea existed at least 272 million years ago. Humans today (h…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/02/2015 on Mahatma Gandhi (OC) 0
User avatar #245 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Oh you're right Pangea was to far back.

So you follow the out of Africa theory eh, while it does seem the most reasonable theory it still only shows a common ancestor over 1.6 million years ago then divergence do to environment and breeding with Neanderthals etc occurs causing very noticeable differences in bone structures,immune systems etc.

www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/
User avatar #249 - reaperssprint (03/02/2015) [-]
Never said differences don't occur, only that race is a social construct.
User avatar #253 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.[1][2][3] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[4][5][6]

Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[7] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[8] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[9][10][11][12][13]

Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[14] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[9] or simplistic way,[15] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[16][17]
I agree depending on your definition of race.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context
#242 - 1 Scientists speaking against decades of research. There needs…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/02/2015 on Mahatma Gandhi (OC) 0
User avatar #250 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
click on the little eye icon
#241 - No, by no means do I disagree that it is a complicated issue. …  [+] (7 new replies) 03/02/2015 on Mahatma Gandhi (OC) 0
User avatar #243 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Well execpt for the fact that when you trace the genomes back that far the would was one super continent at the time so africa as we know it didn't exist yet.
User avatar #244 - reaperssprint (03/02/2015) [-]
Pangea existed at least 272 million years ago. Humans today (homo sapiens) evolved about 125,000 years ago, human-like species began moving out of Africa around 1.8 million years ago.

Please, explain that one to me.
User avatar #245 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Oh you're right Pangea was to far back.

So you follow the out of Africa theory eh, while it does seem the most reasonable theory it still only shows a common ancestor over 1.6 million years ago then divergence do to environment and breeding with Neanderthals etc occurs causing very noticeable differences in bone structures,immune systems etc.

www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/
User avatar #249 - reaperssprint (03/02/2015) [-]
Never said differences don't occur, only that race is a social construct.
User avatar #253 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.[1][2][3] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[4][5][6]

Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[7] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[8] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[9][10][11][12][13]

Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[14] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[9] or simplistic way,[15] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[16][17]
I agree depending on your definition of race.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context
#78 - There is no scientist worth their salt that claims that any ra…  [+] (32 new replies) 03/02/2015 on Mahatma Gandhi (OC) +4
#173 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
User avatar #185 - IHaveADHD (03/02/2015) [-]
Freaked me out, that's my first and middle name....
User avatar #181 - Shiny (03/02/2015) [-]
This is is just an appeal from ignorance. Jared Diamond being a hack doesn't mean what he contended can't be proven with other, good evidence.

www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-troubling-tome
User avatar #186 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
This bquote better explains what I was trying to say "the fact that there are no qualitative, biologically determined differences between human groups does not deny the fact that, as presently organized, human social aggregations tend to be structured around ancestral genetic identity."
User avatar #188 - Shiny (03/02/2015) [-]
"there are no qualitative, biologically determined differences between human groups"

Thanks for admitting reapersspirit was right. :^)
User avatar #191 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
I never said reaperssprit was wrong I was just trying to point out it's a complicated issue.
User avatar #241 - reaperssprint (03/02/2015) [-]
No, by no means do I disagree that it is a complicated issue. Overall, the large majority of scientists argue against the construct of race in terms of placing any one race as superior to any other. The issue being that every race itself has developed different adaptations and phenotypes better suited for a wide variety of environments in many different situations.

The social construct of race generally creates a wedge between races based on ignorance and stereotypes. In terms of having the capacity to be a human, every race is equal. Most biologists tend to disregard the idea of race on the grounds of genetics and the (current) fact that the human genome can be traced all the way back to African descent. Generally meaning we all come from Africa.

There is no doubt among the community that there exist noticeable differences between current races, however these differences occur by location, not skin color or physical structure. Blacks in America who do not have to deal with the same hardships and diseases as those in Africa will not develop the same genetic alterations, much like Rabbits in America versus Rabbits in Europe. So although there is a distinct difference between the two populations, people still lump Black Americans with Africans.

Overall, it is easier to deconstruct racial boundaries than it is to explain the complexity of genes and evolution to the common public.
User avatar #243 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Well execpt for the fact that when you trace the genomes back that far the would was one super continent at the time so africa as we know it didn't exist yet.
User avatar #244 - reaperssprint (03/02/2015) [-]
Pangea existed at least 272 million years ago. Humans today (homo sapiens) evolved about 125,000 years ago, human-like species began moving out of Africa around 1.8 million years ago.

Please, explain that one to me.
User avatar #245 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Oh you're right Pangea was to far back.

So you follow the out of Africa theory eh, while it does seem the most reasonable theory it still only shows a common ancestor over 1.6 million years ago then divergence do to environment and breeding with Neanderthals etc occurs causing very noticeable differences in bone structures,immune systems etc.

www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/
User avatar #249 - reaperssprint (03/02/2015) [-]
Never said differences don't occur, only that race is a social construct.
User avatar #253 - timmywankenobi (03/02/2015) [-]
Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.[1][2][3] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[4][5][6]

Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[7] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[8] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[9][10][11][12][13]

Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[14] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[9] or simplistic way,[15] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[16][17]
I agree depending on your definition of race.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context
User avatar #107 - nimba (03/02/2015) [-]
y'know apart that one Nobel prize winner.

Race is a shit concept and even Darwin recognised that grouping variety within a species was arbitrary due to gene flow.
#164 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
User avatar #192 - nimba (03/02/2015) [-]
You've shown me this before, and it's certainly possible to make an educated guess at the lineage of an individual based on skull morphology and phenotypes but it totally disregards individuals in genetic flow zones. An endemic arab, for example will share phenotypes with both north africans and caucasians. Every population is a bell shaped curve and these archetypes only hold true for the 40% in the centre, with 40% on either side being slight variations and the 20% outside those who will be significantly different. So when you apply race to any given group it will only hold mostly true for 40% of the individuals, which as I hope you'll appreciate, makes it untrue for the majority. That is why race is a shit concept.
#195 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
There were a lot of cultural enrichments but the point still stands. You can identify a Caucasian by a common Caucasian skull, you can identify a Australoid, by the Australoid skull, etc.
>An endemic arab, for example will share phenotypes with both north africans and caucasians.
Last time I checked, Semites are Caucasian.
User avatar #196 - nimba (03/02/2015) [-]
Check again, is iraq south or noth of the caucasus mountains?
User avatar #197 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
So, only people in the who are from the caucasus mountains are caucasian now?
User avatar #198 - nimba (03/02/2015) [-]
Caucasian people are descended from groups that moved across the caucasus mountain range in a given period of time - as per the out of africa theory
User avatar #199 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
Out of Africa theory was proven to be as much accurate as the out of Mars theory.
User avatar #210 - nimba (03/02/2015) [-]
haha maybe in the pseudoscience circles; I'm still waiting to get my hands on the dataset that disproves it.
#212 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
Prepare your anus.
Mitochondrial Eve is based on assumptions that have since been proved to be false.

All people have the same origin, and it is most likely from a primate that evolved in Africa. The issue is the years that this occurred.

Out of Africa theory states that all modern humans came out of Africa 80,000 - 125,000 years ago to populate the entire Earth. All other humanoid groups perished during this time.

This theory was created before we had the technology to verify it with genetics. With genetics, we know that Out of Africa theory can only be possible if humans, and only humans, are evolving at a rate up to 30x faster than any other known organism.

The spread between the genetics of some modern humans suggest a separation of up to 600,000 years or more between some groups.
User avatar #242 - reaperssprint (03/02/2015) [-]
1 Scientists speaking against decades of research. There needs to be a lot more evidence and research done by colleagues to disprove a current theory.
User avatar #250 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
click on the little eye icon
User avatar #236 - nimba (03/02/2015) [-]
Oh deary deary dear. You appear to have found this on the website "wakeup-world" who peddle all sorts of nonsense including curing diabetes with a spice, homeopathy, auras, chakras, astrology, meditation, bogus pop psychology, radiation paranoia, mental reprogramming of autosomal genetic code, chemtrails and misunderstanding what junk DNA is - read by people who seem to have no concept of how genetics, epigenetics or evolution works. I found one individual who thought that homo erectus is still extant!
Alternatively you found this on this atlantean gardens website which I mistook for satire. This is a source who also has the bizarre agenda of proving ATLANTIS was real and some sort of white eutopia.
Good gracious me schnizel, you really scraped the bottom of the barrel on this one, and even if you did not come to that particular website it still ran the same, agenda'd BS. The first thing you learn when somebody bothers to teach you real science is how to identify a BS story from which BS sites run it. The second thing is how to read a paper critically and my-oh-my is this paper a gold mine of methodological trickery and scientific no-nos. Find me another or I'll have to explain to you exactly what's wrong with this one. Before you do I feel it's only fair to mention that I have retraced the out of africa theory using a very large and inclusive dataset loaned from the human genome project, and it follows the fossil record very nicely indeed. Until you have the skills and understanding to really appreciate what that means these conversations will never be anything more than a curio to me I'm afraid. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled by a faker scientist who'd rather contribute to his infamy than the body of knowledge.
User avatar #238 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
Calm your tits woman, other than bitching and whining what else did you say?
User avatar #239 - nimba (03/02/2015) [-]
>read
#240 - schnizel (03/02/2015) [-]
I did.
User avatar #144 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/02/2015) [-]
I'm guessing you're referring to the one who stole the accomplishment that got him the Nobel Prize to begin with.

Yes, yes it is shit. Phenotypical differences between groups mean little in terms of actual differences between groups, but races are based entirely off of those outward differences and don't account for genetic difference at all.
User avatar #194 - nimba (03/02/2015) [-]
He didn't steal it, his accomplishment was his own. He did fail to acknowledge the ground work laid by franklin and didn't source it legitimately but crick and watson resolved the structure of DNA nontheless.
Yes, yes I'm glad you agree with me.
#305 - Not many of us do, but we are still here. 03/01/2015 on Name color strawpoll in... 0

user's channels

Join Subscribe deadpooltime
Join Subscribe doctor-who
Join Subscribe fallout

items

Total unique items point value: 2421 / Total items point value: 5581
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#12 - hazenberdan (01/15/2015) [-]
Nice avatar.
User avatar #13 to #12 - reaperssprint (01/15/2015) [-]
Oh,I like that picture there too. Louise was my favorite in there no matter what, idk why but I liked the relationship.
User avatar #14 to #13 - hazenberdan (01/15/2015) [-]
Probably because it was the actual relationship, I have no idea why every girl suddenly decided they wanted saito.
User avatar #15 to #14 - reaperssprint (01/15/2015) [-]
Mysterious other worldly guy I suppose. Kirche was mostly just being an asshole, the maid was obsessive. Then tiffania was just put there to be a pain in the relationship. I was annoyed that he was her familiar too, just had to make it complicated.
User avatar #6 - amissingmouse (05/28/2013) [-]
Hey,
You don't know me, and I don't know you, but I saw your post on that post about the rejection. :3
It's sad about how it all started when you were so young, however, I'd like you to know, that I'm here for you if that makes you feel any better. You might not want to get to know me, but I'm still willing to be someone in which you can talk to. If you don't want to do such a thing, then don't, obviously, however, it typically makes people feel much better knowing that there is someone in-which they can either confide in, or just talk to when they're feeling down.
I know you don't know me, but I'd just like to put that offer forwards, you may reject (ironically) if you wish.
Thanks for reading.
:3
Hope you start feeling better about rejection, and everything else soon, as it will have an unfortunate large effect on your life in the future, both socially, and professionally when you eventually do go into a career, or even when you start out with just basic jobs, as you might actually get rejected from many job offers, before eventually then getting one you want.
So yeah, I'd like to say I'm here for you, and Sorry if I have simply been a bother to you.
User avatar #7 to #6 - reaperssprint (05/30/2013) [-]
Not at all. I truly appreciate this. I'm glad to see people care and it really helps. I'll definitely keep in touch and talk when I need it. Thanks a lot friend
User avatar #8 to #7 - amissingmouse (05/31/2013) [-]
No problem. ^^
User avatar #5 - uhidk (10/08/2012) [-]
i like your icon, bro.
User avatar #3 - Bacula (08/30/2012) [-]
Op delivers.
#4 to #3 - reaperssprint (08/30/2012) [-]
Indeed he does, indeed he does.
Indeed he does, indeed he does.
#1 - retardfridge (08/16/2012) [-]
Happy Birthday man!
Happy Birthday man!
#2 to #1 - reaperssprint (08/17/2012) [-]
A happy birthday wish on my profile? My mind is blown. Thank you by the way!
 Friends (0)