Nobody has ever claimed race wasn’t a sociological race. Only that it was not a genetic one.
Find ONE quote among any of your detractors on this board that claimed otherwise.
And if it’s a sociological one, it means people treat them as a single race, even if there’s no genetic basis for it.
The fact that you don’t get even this basic point after several weeks is mind-boggling. It displays a fundamental inability to process information that is shocking in any normal, functioning adult human.
Encore, politics and his social resentments, not science and not genetics.
It is well understood, your resentments, but they are boring. If you want to talk about provincial american politics, do so.
Except it does not. You are quite unartful when you ignore again and again the refutations, staying silent on the lowness of your indicator, crime where it is inconvenient to you, moving the populations that you want to prove a point from one “race” to another in a fashion ad hoc with no scientific logic at all.
Everyone has noted this.
This is not evidence of anything but the cultural problems you have in your country. You make this your argument of inherent difference? It is nothing but an argument of cultural bigotries.
Mangificent, hybrid races appear when he needs them for his arguments, and disappear when he wants to make his The Blacks They Are Bad Bad Bad.
No logic or science at all. Only naked prejudice and illogic.
Poor Orientals have lower crime rates than blacks. Poor Oriental children perform better in school than blacks. When the Chinese were developing one of the greatest civilizations in existence the ancestors of American blacks were stone age savages eating each other. Cannibalism is still a problem with African blacks.
You mean you have asserted this when you need to. But what is the genetic distinguishing of this sub race?
I know, you will provide us with the various ad hoc cultrual and sociological arguments from your provincial anglo experience, and then hadn wave yourself into declaring there must be genetic differences.
That would be me, and once again you demonstrate that your memory genes are faulty.
As I said before, after more than 10 years of working in administrator’s offices and substituting, I can tell you that it does not matter if the student is black, Hispanic white or “oriental”, the most important difference will be that both parents or even one are involved with the education of their children.
So, you need to drop this idea that you are being polite in this discussion, the fact is that you are telling all others that they are liars with virtually no evidence to support you, telling others that people from education will sing your tune only if they tell the truth is insulting x100
The cliche “correlation is not causation” is repeated by those who do not want to recognize obvious causes.
No, it is noted by those who have the **most very basic, elementary understanding **of science and statistics. Your ignorance, it burns…:smack:
Higher standard of living and averaged over an entire country.
Parts of Detroit also have high crime rates compared to the rest of the world. It’s no accident that the crime rate spiked when manufacturing jobs left.
So, AGAIN, where’s your analysis that properly controls for socio-economic factors?
Not all of them. And it still ignores the example of Japan. And the fact that the Chinese civilization pretty much collapsed. Or any of the civilizations that rose up in Africa (that subsequently also collapsed, as China, Rome, and other empires have done from time to time).
And among peoples from Fiji to Papua New Guinea and other underdeveloped parts of the world.
Now, you’re just posing a new hypothesis. Where’s your evidence that cannibalism has a genetic component?
You haven’t shown a SINGLE DNA test that links to intelligence. Zero. Zilch, Nada.
You’ve also completely IGNORED tests showing that black children in the UK and Germany perform on par with their white socioeconomic peers. That’s what we mean by controls.
There’s no achievement gap in the UK but there is one in the US. But your conclusion is obviously to jump to race, rather than eliminate other potential factors. That’s what we mean by bad science. If there’s a contrary data point, you don’t simply dismiss it. You need an explanation for it. If I gave our clients the same kind of reasoning you did, we’d be out of business quickly. They have little patience for haphazard reasoning and a lack of actual scientific evidence.
Nor have you shown, despite the absolutely humongous amount of contrary evidence, the genetic basis for grouping all sub-Saharan Africans together.
It’s like linking lions with zebras because they’re both from Africa. Other than an accident of geography, you haven’t shown that all those populations are more closely related to each other than to other human populations elsewhere.
That is illogical with an attempt at some reason tacked at the end, but I see that your brain is finally beginning to rub the few synapses in there. **Some **whites think they are. Regardless of evidence.
Already explained by others, so stop playing the naive card.
And for that to be genetic other that a societal issue you will have to point at the genes responsible for that, in any case, it was absolutely stupid for you to say that educators would sing your tune.
They’re not revealing race, though they may reveal population ancestry, which can then be assigned to the “sociological” race. For example, DNA tests may reveal one’s ancestry is mostly Bamileke, which sociologically is considered “black”. But the sociological definition ignores real-world evidence, like the fact that the Bamileke are closer, genetically, to “whites” and “Asians” than to many other “black” groups like the Kikuyu.
I do not detest those who are unwilling to recognize the reality of innate racial inequality. I do regret their control over the public discussion.
The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly the media’s fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors their jobs. But while the public’s misconception is understandable, it is also getting in the way of clear thinking about American social policy.
What we need is a real dialogue on race in which it will be safe to discuss black social pathology and the enduring race gap in intelligence and performance.
They are also very useful in identifying disease and genes that can help or prevent others.
But the most important thing to take into account here is that racists are very keen on using medical research that is dedicated on finding specific genes that can cause diseases or be a factor in them to be evidence of races or that then we should therefore treat races differently, conveniently forgetting that medical researchers are against those interpretations, and they have good reasons for that in medicine.
In the most ironic development a recent case of a drug made for black people was found to be beneficial also for all other “races” that also had many of the same genes that could incite the heart condition, the worst item in this affair was that there was little evidence to point to specific genes that caused the condition and that the medicine would be useful when those genes were present. Point being that once again we are one race and the irony is that many white people did not share the benefits of this research until later.
