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.
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:
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
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.
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.
If it were serious, you would have attempted to refute the link provided by Belowjob 2.0 here, instead of attempting and failing to introduce an example of a country that was not historically oppressed by the US.
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”. Historic precedence doesn’t cut it.
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?
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.
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.
By looking at their genes. If you’re comparing genes, you need to look at genes. Why is this so hard to grasp?
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.
<sigh> 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.
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.
Please quote me where I stated or implied this. Failing that, please admit that I made no such claim and apologize.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I’m just trying to ascertain your position on this issue.