# SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 29, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489 "2012-05-29T22:59:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 116
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2301 "2012-06-21T03:24:05Z")
That explains it! UV radiation has intelligence enhancing powers. The yellow sun’s rays, just like Superman, are able to penetrate deeper into the Caucasianzoloid’s skin, and deeper yet into Asianozoloidial skin. Deep tans or naturally intense occurrences of melanin block out the powerful brain enhansing UV rays, and are therefore correlated to Negronizolioids, or Italiazolions on the shores of New Jersey. So it _is_ biological, not genetic. It does however come at the cost of increased chances of skin cancer and super-tiny penizoids. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2302 "2012-06-21T03:27:57Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > That explains it! UV radiation has intelligence enhancing powers. I refer you to the research of [Infantino and Fox.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.Q._(comics)) ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2303 "2012-06-21T03:34:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I refer you to the research of [Infantino and Fox.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.Q._(comics)) Great scott! Hasn’t anyone looked any further into this “Zeta” end of the electromagnetic spectrum since the '60s?! That’s smack dab in the middle of the civil rights movement. I smell a suppression of this knowledge by various, Big Brother-like, overseeing governmental bodies. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2304 "2012-06-21T04:20:51Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If I met anyone who could lay out the “anti-racist” position in a way that stood up to scrutiny, then I would change my mind. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > To begin with, the burden of proof here is on **you.** [Specifically:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) > [@](#): > > **Null hypothesis** > > If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it. > > The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis. > > If they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold. [Null hypothesis:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis) > [@](#): > > **Null hypothesis** > > The **null hypothesis** (H0) is a statistical and scientific tool used to help test hypotheses. It is usually refers to a default state that is considered true until disproved. Think of it as the “killjoy hypothesis.” > > e.g.: > > **Blood pressure lowering drug X:** that drug X is not effective in lowering blood pressure. > > The null hypothesis is considered true until sufficiently strong evidence is presented that it is not true. > > **Pseudoscience** > > This can be applied more broadly, particularly when dealing with pseudoscience: > > - **Homeopathy:** that water prepared by dilution and succussion is indistinguishable in its medical effects from water that has not. > - **Nanobots:** that matter at nanoscale does not behave as hypothesised by Drexler. > - **Cryonics:** that information in the brain is not sufficiently preserved by the freezing process. > > The burden of proof is presently on the person advocating the idea to present convincing evidence which would disprove the null hypothesis. Were that to happen the burden of proof would fall to the person against the idea who would have to refute or explain the evidence. > > **Science** > > The following cases are examples where sufficient evidence has been presented and the null hypothesis can be regarded as disproved. > > - **Climate change:** that human influence has not changed Earth’s climate. > - **Evolution:** that species are not changed by natural selection to fit an ecological niche. > > Given that the null hypothesis has been disproved it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming or evolution to present their counter-arguments. The burden of proof is on them. You do **not** have “considerable and well-tested evidence” for your position here. Therefore, the null hypothesis in this case is, “There are no significant genetically determined differences in IQ, nor in intelligence otherwise defined, between different “racial”/ethnic/population groups.” Therefore **you** have the burden of proof ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2305 "2012-06-21T04:52:19Z")
The proof is his raw, naked and turgid logic which us simpletons just simply cannot comprehend, nevermind the liars who don’t want to admit to these obvious truths, lest our Liberal Excuse Machines™ explode and destroy our way of life. See, science and its methods are too restricting and cumbersome for his unbounded brain of infinite knowledge and intuition. He needs not the ways of the Liberal Left™, except for computers, television, modern medicine, phones, cars, electricity, anal lubricant, and all other applications of science (i.e. technology). Nope, other than that, all the proof he and the rest of the world needs is in his head. Those unfortunate few who dare argue with him are banned from communing and partaking in his abundant wealth of intuited knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2306 "2012-06-21T09:48:59Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > You believe it based on…? From what I have heard about DNA testing in the popular media. (Note that it’s not necessary for my main position.) Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2307 "2012-06-21T09:53:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’d rather just get to the basics - identifying (in the general) the racial groups, then getting specific to the genetic markers that distinguish these groups, then discussing how these genetic variations lead to the observed social variations, i.e. one group being on average more intelligent, more prone to crime/violence, more immune to disease, etc. > > At the very least, it would lay the necessary foundation for later discussion. If you disagree, that’s fine. I do disagree, because you are basically trying to make me own a position I have not taken. I believe that the intelligence gap between blacks and whites is largely genetic, but it’s not necessary to have a precise (genetic) definition of “black” or “white” to reasonably reach this conclusion. If you have questions for me, fine, but those questions should be about arguments I am actually making – not arguments you wish or imagine I were making. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2308 "2012-06-21T10:02:59Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > This is a serious question. If it were serious, you would have attempted to refute the link provided by Belowjob 2.0 [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15151167&postcount=1203), instead of attempting and failing to introduce an example of a country that was not historically oppressed by the US. > [@brazil84](#): > > not necessary to have a precise (genetic) definition of “black” or “white” to reasonably reach this conclusion. To be accepted at all scientifically, you have to propose a mechanism for disproof - the null hypothesis BrainGlutton linked to. Otherwise you’ll be considered “[Not even wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong)”. Historic precedence doesn’t cut it. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2309 "2012-06-21T10:03:09Z")
> [@Heart\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And here, you’ve been repeating my statement as though it supported your ideas, when it actually refutes them quite neatly. Not exactly . . . . the statement you made concedes a point to my side of the debate. Then you shift to a new argument but the concession is still there. Of course, unfortunately for you, I “neatly” refuted your new argument too. By the way, I would appreciate answers to the questions I asked you in Post #2200. Among other things, please explain what you mean by “determining factor” Also, do you agree that it’s regularly and prominently disputed that genetics plays a significant role in the achievement gaps between blacks and whites? Next, are you aware that there are people out there (with political power) who obsess over disparate racial outcomes and insist that it must be due to discrimination? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2310 "2012-06-21T10:06:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, it’s conceivable that the evolutionary pressures that lead to increased melanin production interfere with, I dunno, neuron linkage or something. Thus even a white population, moved to an equatorial region, would show increasing stupidity after twenty generations or so, assuming they don’t use artificial defenses against UV exposure like sunscreen. Or hats. It’s also possible that a few genes for intelligence popped up randomly in Europe and Asia and never made it across the Sahara desert for whatever reason. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2311 "2012-06-21T10:07:35Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Without exception? Yes, unless you’re assuming the conclusion that is to be demonstrated (a logical fallacy) OR are introducing other evidence into your argument not previously stated. Based on the argument you presented, you cannot logically come to the conclusion you did. You also seem to think that this means that if the conclusion is not proved the opposite conclusion (that there is no genetic connection) is somehow proved. That would similarly fail on logical grounds. Really, this is basic logic. > [@](#): > > Oh, and please answer my question from before: > > Can “ethnic Germans” be “grouped by their genes?” Can “Ashkenazim” be “grouped by their genes?” > > If so, how? By looking at their genes. If you’re comparing genes, you need to look at genes. Why is this so hard to grasp? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2312 "2012-06-21T10:08:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I do disagree, because you are basically trying to make me own a position I have not taken. I believe that the intelligence gap between blacks and whites is largely genetic, but it’s not necessary to have a precise (genetic) definition of “black” or “white” to reasonably reach this conclusion. > > If you have questions for me, fine, but those questions should be about arguments I am actually making – not arguments you wish or imagine I were making. Sweet the mythical unfalsifiable hypothesis!!! Some how there is a genetic component that manifests as a “intelligence gap” yet there is no way to put your “races” into genetic buckets!!! We can’t test it so it must be true!!! Woohooo! lets give a shout out for some good old bigotry wrapped in a steaming pile of pseudo-scientific charlatanism! ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2313 "2012-06-21T10:17:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You do **not** have “considerable and well-tested evidence” for your position here. Therefore, the null hypothesis in this case is, “There are no significant genetically determined differences in IQ, nor in intelligence otherwise defined, between different “racial”/ethnic/population groups.” Therefore **you** have the burden of proof I already responded to this argument in Post #314. Basically, it’s not clear who has the burden of proof but it doesn’t really matter since the overwhelming evidence (i.e. the universality of black underachievement in space and time) indicates that genetics are a substantial cause of the achievement gap. Anyway, in Post #1220 you accused me (among other things) of posting a torrent of lies. I asked you to quote 3 of these supposed lies (or failing that apologize) and you failed to do so, ignoring my request. I’m not interested in engaging with someone who makes accusations like that and then refuses to back them up. Bye. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2314 "2012-06-21T10:24:09Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > If it were serious, you would have attempted to refute the link provided by Belowjob 2.0 😕 I’m just trying to ascertain your position on this issue. Do you believe that historical treatment (of blacks) leading up to the present accounts for the achievement gap? It’s a very simple question. > [@](#): > > To be accepted at all scientifically, you have to propose a mechanism for disproof I have no problem laying out what would disprove my position: If a few large groups of blacks start performing as well as whites. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2315 "2012-06-21T10:26:26Z")
I think we need to revisit this statement: > [@brazil84](#): > > Why is that if you want to claim that groups are genetically less intelligent, then you most certainly need the concept of a “genetic group”? \ Because it’s what we’re talking about. If you’re claiming that the group has genetic factors that make it different from other groups, then the group has to have discrete common genetic factors. Until you understand this EXTREMELY BASIC point, there is no value in arguing with you. It’s like having a discussion about advanced algebra and discovering that someone in the conversation doesn’t know what a variable is. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2316 "2012-06-21T11:24:17Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I think we need to revisit this statement:\ Because it’s what we’re talking about. If you’re claiming that the group has genetic factors that make it different from other groups, then the group has to have discrete common genetic factors. > > Until you understand this EXTREMELY BASIC point, there is no value in arguing with you. It’s like having a discussion about advanced algebra and discovering that someone in the conversation doesn’t know what a variable is. Exactly. It’s like saying “creatures with four legs have a genetic inclination to be stupider than creatures with two legs”; because there are many four-legged creatures that are much closer to two legged creatures than to many other four-legged creatures, it doesn’t make any sense to separate them genetically. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2317 "2012-06-21T12:21:24Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Yes, unless you’re assuming the conclusion that is to be demonstrated (a logical fallacy) OR are introducing other evidence into your argument not previously stated. Ok, now that I understand what you are saying, I can easily demonstrate that you are wrong. First, do you agree that “Race 1” and “Race 2” as I defined them in Post #1148 is “arbitrarily defined”? Second, do you agree that one can observe various average differences between the people of Race 1 and Race 2? (For example, people in Race 2 are significantly more likely to have blue eyes than people in Race 1.) Third, do you agree that some of these differences are the result of genetics? For example, nobody would seriously claim that the difference in eye color are the result of cultural or environmental differences. Thus, I have given a real life example where your claim does not hold. Further, my conclusion is logical. Since you stated that your claim holds “without exception,” you are clearly wrong. > [@](#): > > You also seem to think that this means that if the conclusion is not proved the opposite conclusion (that there is no genetic connection) is somehow proved. Please quote me where I stated or implied this. Failing that, please admit that I made no such claim and apologize. > [@](#): > > By looking at their genes. If you’re comparing genes, you need to look at genes. Ok, so you are claiming that “ethnic Germans” and “Asheknazim” can be “grouped by their genes.” Right? And the way one would do it is simply by “looking at their genes.” Do I understand you correctly? And what exactly would I look for? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2318 "2012-06-21T12:25:07Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Sweet the mythical unfalsifiable hypothesis!!! > > Some how there is a genetic component that manifests as a “intelligence gap” yet there is no way to put your “races” into genetic buckets!!! There are plenty of ways of categorizing people by race. The easiest it to simply ask people what race they are. Besides which, there is a group of people out there pointing at racial disparities and insisting that these disparities must be the result of discrimination. So one could use whatever categorization technique they use. In any event, I’ve already laid out what would disprove my position. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2319 "2012-06-21T12:29:27Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Please quote me where I stated or implied this. Failing that, please admit that I made no such claim and apologize. Every time 84 asks someone to apologize, take a drink. Or don’t, 'cause you’ll probably keel over pretty quick. I wonder if he’s like this in real life- does he ask for an apology in every conversation he has? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2320 "2012-06-21T12:33:06Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I think we need to revisit this statement:\ Because it’s what we’re talking about. If you’re claiming that the group has genetic factors that make it different from other groups, then the group has to have discrete common genetic factors. No it does not. “Race 2” as I defined it in Post #1148 does not have “discrete common genetic factors” Same thing for “Race 1.” And yet people in Race 2 are more likely to have blue eyes than people in Race 1. And the difference is a result of genetics. > [@](#): > > Until you understand this EXTREMELY BASIC point, Lol, you are the one who needs to understand a basic point, which is that “discrete common genetic factors” are not necessary for group differences to be the result of genetics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489.md?page=115) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489.md?page=117)