Two Ferguson Police Officers Shot

[cowslinger64]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/

 

[possum123]

Everybody. It is a traditional and entirely reasonable standard of debate.

Wrong. Not everybody decided on that rule and it damn sure is not reasonable. If you want to prove me wrong all you have to do is come up with a study that shows mine to be false. I may be wrong, it would not be the first time. But to give me something to think about you will have to come up with something.
If you can not come up with something I will just have to consider you may not know a single damn thing about the subject. Which I do suspect might be the truth.

 

[possum123]

It's in the "Standard Leftist Field Manual On Dialogue" under the chapter on "Debate." Essentially you state an opinion that in some way violates, refutes, or ridicules their narrative or ideology, they immediately ask for a scientific study that proves your point, and if it isn't endorsed by their left wing sources it's null and void.

I understand. That way they do not have to know anything about the subject and do not even have to try to learn. They can just repeat what they are told to say.
It would look like after a while they would get tired of being told what to think and what to say. Guess some people do need others to do the thinking for them.

 

[possum123]

How is it an argument between physical science and social science? The question is whether there are innate, hereditary differences. That is a question for psychology and genetics and no other sciences. The only relevance of social science to resolving it is in determining what non-genetic social factors must also be accounted for in the study.



"Altered" how?

But you fail to come up with a study. Sort of like arguing with a small kid. They don't know anything about the subject other than they disagree. Don't know why they disagree but they do.

 

[possum123]

It boils down to one side saying it's hereditary, and the other saying it's environmental. On one side you have physical scientists lined up, and the other you have social scientists lined up. Neither side is going to capitulate so why bother?

Here is one about heredity.

Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins, published in the past decade by a group led by Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., of the University of Minnesota and other scholars, show that about 40 percent of IQ differences among preschoolers stems from genetic differences but that heritability rises to 60 percent by adolescence and to 80 percent by late adulthood. With age, differences among individuals in their developed intelligence come to mirror more closely their genetic differences. It appears that the effects of environment on intelligence fade rather than grow with time. In hindsight, perhaps this should have come as no surprise. Young children have the circumstances of their lives imposed on them by parents, schools and other agents of society, but as people get older they become more independent and tend to seek out the life niches that are most congenial to their genetic proclivities. ...
Research has shown that although shared environments do have a modest influence on IQ in childhood, their effects dissipate by adolescence. The IQs of adopted children, for example, lose all resemblance to those of their adoptive family members and become more like the IQs of the biological parents they have never known.[40]

 

[cowslinger64]

But you fail to come up with a study. Sort of like arguing with a small kid. They don't know anything about the subject other than they disagree. Don't know why they disagree but they do.

Like this??? All you offer is opinion and conjecture. If you're gonna make such bold claims, back it up.

Everyone with an IQ in the double digits know colored people commit more crimes than any other race. It stands to reason they would be stopped, arrested, and shot more than any other race.
Look at the numbers.

 

[possum123]

Like this??? All you offer is opinion and conjecture. If you're gonna make such bold claims, back it up.

Not my opinions. It is a study. How about you come up with something that is different?

 

[cowslinger64]

Not my opinions. It is a study. How about you come up with something that is different?

That's not how it works. You make what I believe is an opinion born of racism and ignorance. You're mister think for yourself.. Show me where you're right or play it like vette and his girls do and just deflect and disappear when necessary.

That always makes me laugh, BTW... Seeing someone post that free thinker thingy then post someone stupid they saw on Fox news.

Enlighten the class.. When I read your statistics tomorrow, if you're correct.. I'll admit to it.

Real stats that is, not Vettefacts

 

[possum123]

That's not how it works. You make what I believe is an opinion born of racism and ignorance. You're mister think for yourself.. Show me where you're right or play it like vette and his girls do and just deflect and disappear when necessary.

That always makes me laugh, BTW... Seeing someone post that free thinker thingy then post someone stupid they saw on Fox news.

Enlighten the class.. When I read your statistics tomorrow, if you're correct.. I'll admit to it.

Real stats that is, not Vettefacts

That is how it works when two intelligent people have a discussion.
I can understand why you would think it works different.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wrong. Not everybody decided on that rule and it damn sure is not reasonable.

See Burden of proof.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you want to prove me wrong all you have to do is come up with a study that shows mine to be false.

Start here. RationalWiki is the beginning of wisdom. The studies are in the footnotes.

Scientific consensus

The vast majority of modern biologists maintain that variation between human populations is too small and continuous to justify intraspecific classification (i.e. subspecies, races):

"Specifically, between human populations, including smaller groupings, genetic differences may be detected. These differences tend to increase with geographic distance, but the basic genetic variation between populations is much less prominent. This means that human genetic diversity is only gradual and presents no major discontinuity between populations. Findings supporting this conclusions defy traditional classification of races and make any typological approach totally inadequate."[4]

Despite a common straw man argument from racialists, no scientist denies that race captures some genetic or phenotypic variation within Homo sapiens, instead the consensus is that it does not capture enough of it, or capture it in a good enough fashion to justify the recognition of human races in taxonomy. The biological anthropologist John H. Relethford (2009) therefore has described the application of the race concept to humans as being too "crude" and not a convenient tool to study human variation:

"The boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept; the number of races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary. The race concept is at best a crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species."[5]

Similarly, in their paper "Race reconciled?: How biological anthropologists view human variation", Edgar and Hunley point out:

"Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation."[6]

As a comparison, breeds of dogs are recognized by most scientists to be a useful intraspecific construct or meaningful entity, because on average a dog breed captures six times more genetic variation than geographically separate populations of humans (30% versus 5%) while most breeds also have more discrete ancestral boundaries (where they were domesticated).[7] Sewall Wright's Fixation Index (Fst) has also shown human populations are much less genetically differentiated than most subspecies of other animals. However a few examples of intraspecific animal population structure, are similar to humans. Fischer et al. argue that there are no chimpanzee subspecies or races and that chimpanzee variation is mostly characterized by continuous gradients of gene frequencies and phenotypic clines, with ongoing gene flow between populations.[8]

Forensic anthropology

In sharp contrast to the overwhelming consensus that there is no biological basis for talking about racial difference, the concept of race is still dominant in forensic anthropology. Sauer (1992) though cautions in his paper subtitled "If races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?":

"...race identification by forensic anthropologists has little to do with whether or not biological races exist. The race controversy in anthropology is a debate about natural groupings of human biological diversity, a question of taxonomy...The successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the [biological] race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category."[9]

As Sauer goes on to explain, forensic anthropology deals with a socially constructed (not biological or taxonomic) concept of race where mean craniometric variation among populations allows a forensic anthropologist "to estimate, with varying degrees of specificity, a person’s place of ancestry from their physical features" based on their skull, but "to identify a person as having ancestors from, say, Northern Europe does not identify a biological race of Northern Europeans". A known fallacy among racialists is to quote forensic anthropology in supporting the existence of human biological races, when it does nothing of the kind. For example forensics can distinguish populations such as the French and Southern Japanese, which are not considered to be races by any racialist. Ousley et al. go further to point out that: "white [American] males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races".[10] Again, no racialist would support such a notion. As Relethford (2009) concludes, while there are statistical (mean) differences between populations in certain cranial measurements - there is no abrupt discontinuity in phenotypic variation across space, populations mostly grade into one another; races cannot be demarcated without imposing subjective, or vague boundaries:

"...there are no abrupt breaks in the relationship between phenotypic and geographic distance... indicating that decisions for subdivision into clusters (or races) are going to be subjective."

More recently more neutral terms have been introduced to forensics such as "geographical ancestry".

Race in medicine

Classification of race (e.g. "Caucasian", "Black") is still sometimes considered to be useful by doctors. This however has been criticized on the grounds studies on disease rarely control environmental factors and so a genetic etiology is assumed without testing. That said, no doctor denies that some diseases are heritable and found at high frequency in some populations, low in others. While information about ethnicity may be informative for biomedical research: "it is imperative to move away from describing populations according to racial classifications such as 'black', 'white' or 'Asian'... Because there can be considerable genetic heterogeneity within a region, it is most useful to be as specific as possible about geographic origins, ethnicity or tribal affiliation".[11] Those diseases that show considerable inter-group difference, are only confined to local populations or small ethnic groups, that are often more inbred (e.g. ethno-religious sects such as the Samaritans) rather than major regions, or continents.

 

[possum123]

See Burden of proof.

is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it.

This is from your own Burden of proof.

I didn't present a new or remarkable idea. It was a study. It wasn't new. It wasn't remarkable.
It is something most people who wanted to know any information about could find with a little research.

 

[KingOrfeo]

is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it.

This is from your own Burden of proof.

I didn't present a new or remarkable idea. It was a study. It wasn't new. It wasn't remarkable.
It is something most people who wanted to know any information about could find with a little research.

Oh, I know it's a very old idea -- but still a remarkable one in this day and age.

 

[possum123]

Unfortunately, in today's climate of political Multiculturalism and Political Correctness, scientists investigate or reveal differences between the races at their peril. Those scientists who publish such information, more especially if their findings show any "inferiority" on the part of non-Europeans, may be harassed, persecuted, and abused by Multiculturalists

 

[possum123]

Considering that racial differences can be relevant in medical treatments, this is "political correctness" gone mad. Apparently, some Multiculturalists would prefer that people get sick and die, rather than admit to distinct differences between the human races

 

[mark_j]

Well that would be a terrible thing too... Feel free to post something other than that to back it up.

NO RIGHT WING BLOGS PLEASE.

Follow your own rules...

NO LEFT WING BLOGS PLEASE..

 

[possum123]

Because of the prevalence of misconceptions about race, discrimination is presumed to exist whenever outcomes differ. However, because of race differences and the nature of our highly technological society, outcomes will always differ and are steadily diverging. There is firm evidence that the growth in overall black success peaked in about 1970 and has been relatively flat since then. Discrimination has been substantially reduced since 1970, but misconceptions about race encourage the belief that it is still widespread and even increasing

 

[phrodeau]

Because of the prevalence of misconceptions about race, discrimination is presumed to exist whenever outcomes differ. However, because of race differences and the nature of our highly technological society, outcomes will always differ and are steadily diverging. There is firm evidence that the growth in overall black success peaked in about 1970 and has been relatively flat since then. Discrimination has been substantially reduced since 1970, but misconceptions about race encourage the belief that it is still widespread and even increasing

Uh huh. So discrimination still exists.

What level of racism is acceptable, in your opinion?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Uh huh. So discrimination still exists.

What level of racism is acceptable, in your opinion?

Given the majority of his posts during his tenure here, enough to satisfy his opinion when the racism agrees with his opinion.

The main whine about political correctness is because it's always been the vinegary bane of privilege. When poured, it ruins a formerly hegemonic collective's superiority salad parties real quick.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Unfortunately, in today's climate of political Multiculturalism and Political Correctness, scientists investigate or reveal differences between the races at their peril. Those scientists who publish such information, more especially if their findings show any "inferiority" on the part of non-Europeans, may be harassed, persecuted, and abused by Multiculturalists

Or, they may be refuted by better scientists, as they have been.

 

[KingOrfeo]

BTW, check out The Bell Curve Wars, it's well worth a read, and cites and discusses many studies refuting the notion of black hereditary mental inferiority. E.g., AA GIs in Germany during and after WWII fathered some babies on German women, which babies were raised as Germans; those kids were studied, and no IQ differential was found from pure-white German kids. Many developing Third World nations have raised their average national tested IQ a full standard deviation since WWII, and not because of any changes in the gene pool -- the improvement is apparently due to improved education, nutrition, sanitation and health.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Considering that racial differences can be relevant in medical treatments, this is "political correctness" gone mad. Apparently, some Multiculturalists would prefer that people get sick and die, rather than admit to distinct differences between the human races

Well, no.

Race in medicine

Classification of race (e.g. "Caucasian", "Black") is still sometimes considered to be useful by doctors. This however has been criticized on the grounds studies on disease rarely control environmental factors and so a genetic etiology is assumed without testing. That said, no doctor denies that some diseases are heritable and found at high frequency in some populations, low in others. While information about ethnicity may be informative for biomedical research: "it is imperative to move away from describing populations according to racial classifications such as 'black', 'white' or 'Asian'... Because there can be considerable genetic heterogeneity within a region, it is most useful to be as specific as possible about geographic origins, ethnicity or tribal affiliation".[11] Those diseases that show considerable inter-group difference, are only confined to local populations or small ethnic groups, that are often more inbred (e.g. ethno-religious sects such as the Samaritans) rather than major regions, or continents.

Not one bit of that is "'political correctness' gone mad." It's all just sound medical science.

 

[CandiCame]

Well, no.



Not one bit of that is "'political correctness' gone mad." It's all just sound medical science.

It's so weird that he thinks that medical science is "political correctness gone mad". But it is possible to use science to be racist, and I genuinely think that some people don't know the difference.

For example stating the true fact that many Native American people have an unusually high occurrence of addictive personality disorder is not racist. In fact, it is a necessary thing to talk about because it can help underrepresented communities with necessary medical supplies/help individuals asses their risk factors. But there's a big difference between saying, "this person is at risk for addictive personality disorder" and "based on his race, that guy's probably a drunk".

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Reading through the last two pages of this thread it seems like Possum123 is Trouv's slightly less overtly racist cousin. Only slightly mind you.

All that's missing is an insistence that the Ashkenazi Jews are "genetically superior".

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Technology didn't spread from Africa, out. Africa has always been an artesian spring for slaves, to handle the worlds heavy lifting. They fed the big cats in the gladiator arenas.