Racial Fatigue?

[IrezumiKiss]

I can write better than they can

Yes, you can.

and better than you can.

No, you can't.

I am articulate

Yes, you are. When your seams aren't coming undone, that is.

and well informed.

Mostly with your own opinions, yes.

That is what disturbs you.

http://media.tumblr.com/b4dd6c79aec8982c0c2dc2ba411cf758/tumblr_inline_msvt04Oq5N1qz4rgp.gif

Nothing about you "disturbs" me. Please understand this, because you are not a unique, beautiful snowflake.

I cannot be easily dismissed.

Newsflash: you've already been dismissed.

You're just stuck repeating the Bell Curve and other related junk sci-fi because it's the only plastic bullet in your toy pistol, nobody else is buying what you're selling and once you stop repeating it, you become irrelevant, having nothing else for a presence in this thread.

Also, I am a Democrat.

...so? You got wings on your ankles too, to make you fly, like Hermes?

I am someone who would like to disagree with books like The Bell Curve. I agree with them because they are obviously true, and because I believe that the truth matters.

Bullshit. You don't wanna disagree with them. You keep on pushing them like you're the last door-to-door encyclopedia salesman on the planet.

No, you agree with them because they tell you what you want to hear and side with your bias. They are not obviously true and to you, all revised narratives bending towards your racist views on black people is what matters.

http://media.giphy.com/media/IOCXHPvn3WErm/giphy.gif

That was fun. Time for some lunch!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The term "race" has zero meaning in science, not even taxonomy. It is, in fact, a hold-over from now-debunked theories which sought to justify racism using science. See the term, "scientific racism".

Look, if you're a racist, go ahead and admit it.

I am!

 

[PoppingTom]

I want a real conversation....

What are you offering for a real conversation?

If you dictate what the truth is, you obviously lie about what you really want.

 

[1sickbastard]

The claim that "race is only a social construct" is known in logic as a circular argument fallacy. In a circular argument one assumes what one needs to prove.

I did not claim race was a social construct, only pointed out that the term "race" has no valid meaning within current science and particularly within taxonomy. I challenge you to point out where I made the claim that race is a social construct. Furthermore, I challenge you to demonstrate any valid (means has passed solid peer review) current science where race has defined meaning.

If you're going to straw-man me, at least have the courtesy to do it well.

The SickBastard is making an unsupported political statement. Race has definite meaning in the scientific study of say Sickle Cell Anemia, to name one field of endeavor.

Given your demonstrated ability to read, much less understand, the source material which you claim backs up your own politics, I'm certain you won't understand why I feel comfortable in discounting most of your so-called "contributions" to any discussion.
If you care to cite the relevant article, I'll be sure to read it (unlike yourself).

I am!

Quelle surprise!
I at least give you credit for being yourself, despite what a reprehensible character you are.

 

[CandiCame]

That goes to show how limited you are. The Bell Curve was on The New York Times Best Seller List for 15 weeks. It sold over a half million copies in hardback.

Charles Murray has gone on to write other books that have sold well. He has written essays for prestigious newspapers and opinion journals, like Commentary, and The Wall Street Journal.

All before I was born. And it's bad netiquate to underline things for emphasis. It gives the illusion of a link without actually being a link.

 

[The_Trouvere]

All before I was born. And it's bad netiquate to underline things for emphasis. It gives the illusion of a link without actually being a link.

You do not seem do have been educated very well during your brief existence. The names of books and periodicals should be underlined.

 

[unregistered]

 

[The_Trouvere]

I did not claim race was a social construct, only pointed out that the term "race" has no valid meaning within current science and particularly within taxonomy. I challenge you to point out where I made the claim that race is a social construct. Furthermore, I challenge you to demonstrate any valid (means has passed solid peer review) current science where race has defined meaning.

If you're going to straw-man me, at least have the courtesy to do it well.

You are making a rhetorical point. My point is that race is a legitimate biological classification. The races can be determined by appearance, skeleton, and DNA analysis. The different races differ significantly in average ability levels and behavior. (They also differ in susceptibility to various congenital diseases, as vetteman just pointed out.)These differences can fairly easily be explained by different population pressures lasting for thousands of years.

For example, for two thousand years in China young men who passed the Imperial Examinations entered the Scholar Gentry. They were expected to have more than one wife, and many children. Because they received good incomes, they could provide well for their children. Most survived and reproduced.

Consequently, we would expect Chinese on the average to be more intelligent than a population where the best warriors had more than one wife and many children. That is what we do find.

Peer review will only become valid when it becomes perfectly safe to agree with men like Charles Murray.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Also race is just a social construct.

 

[PoppingTom]

Peer review will only become valid when it becomes perfectly safe to agree with men like Charles Murray.

So what to discuss?

Your partisanship?

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's perfectly acceptable to agree with Charles today. The idea that it isn't is insane. Science doesn't work based on wants, it's what is true wins. Every time.

 

[1sickbastard]

Actually, I don't give a shit what you think you're "comfortable in discounting" with your 8th grade education. You made a stupid, politically correct statement commensurate with your lack of proper education. I understand you have a degree in liberal talking points, but it's never going to be enough to keep your dumb ass out of trouble. Go back to school.

Ah yes, the vetteman, once again, cannot support his point, and so resorts to argumentum ad hominem. After so much fail, I would think you'd learn to lose gracefully. Then again, learning requires both an open mind and a willingness to admit error. Neither characteristic would seem to be applicable in describing yourself.

You are making a rhetorical point. My point is that race is a legitimate biological classification. The races can be determined by appearance, skeleton, and DNA analysis. The different races differ significantly in average ability levels and behavior. (They also differ in susceptibility to various congenital diseases, as vetteman just pointed out.)These differences can fairly easily be explained by different population pressures lasting for thousands of years.

For example, for two thousand years in China young men who passed the Imperial Examinations entered the Scholar Gentry. They were expected to have more than one wife, and many children. Because they received good incomes, they could provide well for their children. Most survived and reproduced.

Consequently, we would expect Chinese on the average to be more intelligent than a population where the best warriors had more than one wife and many children. That is what we do find.

Peer review will only become valid when it becomes perfectly safe to agree with men like Charles Murray.

1) Find me a credible source which backs up your assertion that "race" is currently valid scientific term. And by that I mean both credible in that the source is know for eliminating bias and works on best available evidence, as well as science that is current, not 19th century debunked theories or pseudoscience. Do that and I'll happily admit my error. And yes, I will investigate whatever source(s) you present. If I find bias or if it turns out to be propaganda, be sure I'll point that out.

2) Peer review is a self-correcting mechanism. It is designed to be as brutal as possible so as to eliminate errors in methodology, errors in reasoning and faulty conclusions. To say peer review isn't valid because it doesn't support your point of view seems to be a bit of "sour grapes" because it undercuts work which supports your bias.

 

[PoppingTom]

It's perfectly acceptable to agree with Charles today. The idea that it isn't is insane.

"Perfectly safe to agree" means: you can't disagree. You can't call this shit "racist".

 

[NeverEndingMe]

no matter what race you are, you are one only one step above being a carp.

you eat the shit, at the bottom of the lake.

The claim that "race is only a social construct" is known in logic as a circular argument fallacy. In a circular argument one assumes what one needs to prove.

In this case "race" is defined as "a social construct." Definitions are not facts. They themselves are social constructs.

The claim that race is only a social construct is not presented as a topic for debate. It is presented as a theological dogma. Those who present it are not interested in debating it. They want to punish non believers.

The different races differ in the same way as sub species of animal species. They retain the ability to have fertile offspring. Nevertheless, they differ in appearance, and average behavior and ability. These differences have evolved for thousands of years in response to different population pressures.

For decades forensic scientists have been able to determine a person's race by the person's skeleton. Now DNA evidence makes it possible to trace a person's ancestors back to specific countries.

----------

Actress Vanessa Williams Explains How DNA Powers Her Family Tree

The following appeared in the Los Angeles Times, April 27, 2013. Written by Jessica P. Ogilvie.

How did you become interested in finding out about your lineage?

I’ve always been interested, but I was introduced to Ancestry [one of the websites that help people research their family backgrounds] before I even did a show called “Who Do You Think You Are,” so I signed up as a member to document my own family tree, and my DNA analysis was done as a part of doing the show.

We ended up doing two stories on my father’s side. One of my great-great-grandfathers was a soldier in the Civil War, and the other was born a slave but ended up being an educator and principal, and one of the first black legislators in Tennessee back in 1885. The stories are rich and informative and intriguing, but also as an African American, you don’t always have the luxury to know exactly where your ancestors are from.

What did you find out about your DNA?

My DNA breaks down as follows: I’m 23% from Ghana, 17% from the British Isles, 15% from Cameroon, 12% Finnish, 11% Southern European, 7% Togo, 6% Benin, 5% Senegal and 4% Portuguese.
http://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/2013/0...iams-explains-how-dna-powers-her-family-tree/

----------

I do not care if anyone calls me a racist. For too long the fear of being called a racist has interfered with the conversation on race liberals call for while hypocritically suppressing.

I want a real conversation, one with Charles Murray occupying the seat of honor.

Liberals have been terribly hypocritical about race. They complain about the persistence of de facto segregated schools, but they avoid sending their children to public schools with large black populations. This avoidance is motivated by a clandestine agreement with what I have been posting in this thread.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You are making a rhetorical point. My point is that race is a legitimate biological classification. The races can be determined by appearance, skeleton, and DNA analysis. The different races differ significantly in average ability levels and behavior. (They also differ in susceptibility to various congenital diseases, as vetteman just pointed out.)These differences can fairly easily be explained by different population pressures lasting for thousands of years.

For example, for two thousand years in China young men who passed the Imperial Examinations entered the Scholar Gentry. They were expected to have more than one wife, and many children. Because they received good incomes, they could provide well for their children. Most survived and reproduced.

Consequently, we would expect Chinese on the average to be more intelligent than a population where the best warriors had more than one wife and many children. That is what we do find.

Peer review will only become valid when it becomes perfectly safe to agree with men like Charles Murray.

Except race is not a biological classification.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Except race is not a biological classification.

unless you are al shartpon, then you use 'race' to stay out of jail

why pay taxes, taxes are for the little people

it pays to be friends of the Cuckold obama

 

[1sickbastard]

unless you are al shartpon, then you use 'race' to stay out of jail

why pay taxes, taxes are for the little people

it pays to be friends of the Cuckold obama

At which point, Al is using it as a social construct, not as a biological classification.

Also, don't forget he's a reverend, which means he gets the same sort of slide asshats like Ken Ham or Ray Comfort have.

 

[Disgustipated]

You do not seem do have been educated very well during your brief existence. The names of books and periodicals should be underlined.

You do realize that when you use hyperlinks on the interwebs it automatically creates and underline, right? Right?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

You do realize that when you use hyperlinks on the interwebs it automatically creates and underline, right? Right?

The "supremacy" of his "higher intellect through genetics" white brain strikes again!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me44snUaAR1qa6g1m.gif

 

[NeverEndingMe]

At which point, Al is using it as a social construct, not as a biological classification.

Also, don't forget he's a reverend, which means he gets the same sort of slide asshats like Ken Ham or Ray Comfort have.

Al is a criminal as is the obama.

 

[CandiCame]

You do not seem do have been educated very well during your brief existence. The names of books and periodicals should be underlined.

No they shouldn't. They should be italicized. You took 2nd grade computer lab too, you know that. This is why everyone thinks that you're a troll.

 

[1sickbastard]

Al is a criminal as is the obama.

Not until properly convicted in a court of law. Making the claim ain't the same pony as providing the proof. You're not even bright enough to troll well.

No they shouldn't. They should be italicized. You took 2nd grade computer lab too, you know that. This is why everyone thinks that you're a troll.

Grammatical conventions change. It could be that when Trouve was in school, the Apple home computer hadn't been invented and punch-cards were still how data entry was done. Way back when, underlining was the grammatically proper way to write titles. For that matter, web links are still (relatively) pretty recent concepts for those of us who didn't grow up as digital natives (like yourself).

 

[The_Trouvere]

Except race is not a biological classification.

Says you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Except race is not a biological classification.

Race is a bio construct when picking basketball players.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Biology of Race

1) Find me a credible source which backs up your assertion that "race" is currently valid scientific term. And by that I mean both credible in that the source is know for eliminating bias and works on best available evidence, as well as science that is current, not 19th century debunked theories or pseudoscience. Do that and I'll happily admit my error. And yes, I will investigate whatever source(s) you present. If I find bias or if it turns out to be propaganda, be sure I'll point that out.

The biological definition of race is a geographically isolated breeding population that shares certain characteristics in higher frequencies than other populations of that species, but has not become reproductively isolated from other populations of the same species...

Human racial groups compose a number of breeding units that in the past remained geographically and perhaps temporally isolated, yet could interbreed and produce viable offspring within the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Biology-of-Race.html

---------

Race
Definition

noun

(1) A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair).

(2) A descent from a common heritage, ancestor, breed or stock.

(3) A tribe or family of people sharing a common breed or lineage.

(4) A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race

---------

race

1 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group
b : breed
2 : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race