SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

[Ramira]

Ah it is very spcial. 84 has created his own standards and meanings so as to declare victory. and continue to ‘ban’ and ‘ignore’ the inconvenient.

[iiandyiiii]

@brazil84

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.

But “discrete common genetic factors” are necessary for group differences to be the result of genetics for any reason other than random chance.

It’s true that if you take some random assortment of genetic samples (like “people whose last names start with S”) and compare it to some other random assortment, one group may be taller on average, or have lighter skin, or have a lower crime rate. But it won’t be for any reason other than random chance. And you and NDD don’t seem to be asserting that random chance is responsible for lower test scores and higher crime rates for some groups.

[Evil_Economist]

@brazil84

I take it you agree with him when he said this?

I agree with him because I read his words in the context he provided.

Thanks to my astonishing IQ, which is damn near 3 digits, I can read a sentence while remembering the content of one (sometimes even two!) of the preceeding sentences!

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

And the difference is a result of genetics.

No, it isn’t. The individual eye colours are the result of genetics, but the difference is a result of your arbitrary grouping.

[Who_me_1]

@brazil84

The person who makes a claim has the burden of explaining the basis for the claim and what exactly is being claimed.

Well you’re the one making the claim…

@brazil84

No . . . do you? This is a serious question. Do you believe that historical treatment leading up to the present accounts for the achievement gap?

How do you explain the lack of achievement gap in the UK and Germany?

[Evil_Economist]

@Heart_of_Dorkness

Well, thanks. I’m really glad you and others found my post helpful. But as I take pains to mention frequently, I really am a total layman in regard to genetics. I’ve just done a bit of reading. I make a point of saying this often, not only because I think it’s funny that brazil84 “called me out” on it, when it was literally the first thing I posted, but also so that those who don’t have any more expertise than I do are aware they should take what I say with the appropriate dose of salt, and those who do have expertise can correct, amend, or complete my statements as needed.

There’s a wealth of great information posted in this thread, by Colibri, cmyk, iiandyiiii, Great Antibob, and everyone else, a few of whom are in fact experts, I believe, and I greatly appreciate all of it. Hell of a Pit thread ya’ got here, Miz Olives.

It was your post that clarified to me the argument that the others were making. I think you have a skill for explaining things well, like Expo Mapcase (not positive I got the name right).

[Gyrate]

@brazil84

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”?

Yes.

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.)

Yes.

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.

Bzzt. Argument failure. See below.

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.

Remember where I said the bit about “assuming the conclusion that is to be demonstrated (a logical fallacy) OR are introducing other evidence into your argument not previously stated”? That’s what you’ve just done. Right there. You started with:

The point is that even with arbitrarily defined “Races,” it’s still logically possible to (1) observe average differences between those races; and (2) conclude that much of the difference is due to genetics.

from which criteria you cannot conclude differences due to genetics. You then, in your last post added an assumption that differences in those criteria are genetic.

For example, nobody would seriously claim that the difference in eye color are the result of cultural or environmental differences.

You can of course reasonably prove that differences in eye color are genetic but not without introduction of evidence which shows that eye color is genetically determined. So either you assume that the differences are genetic (the aforementioned fallacy) or you introduce evidence that the differences are genetic (which means that you must actually have the evidence).

The fact that the evidence for your particular example exists is irrelevant to my point because it is additional to your original proposal. My point is that you cannot just say “Well of course the differences are genetic”, which is what you and NDD have been doing. Which is illogical.

So no, I’m not wrong. At all.

Please quote me where I stated or implied this. Failing that, please admit that I made no such claim and apologize.

If it is not the case, you would not require proof of equal performance between racial groups in order to disprove your arguments. All that would be required would be to demonstrate that your argument fails on its own merits. Which it does.

But I’m sorry this argument continues.

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?

No, you do not understand me entirely correctly. I am not saying that they can be grouped by their genes. I’m saying that in order to determine **whether **they can be grouped by their genes you have to look at their genes. You can hypothesize the existence of a grouping but you cannot assume it.

I think we’ll work on basic reading comprehension before we get to comparison of alleles.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Who_me_1

How do you explain the lack of achievement gap in the UK and Germany?

We investigate the racial gap in test scores between black and white students in Britain both in levels and differences across the school years. We find that there is an increasing racial gap in test scores between ages 7 and 11, and a decreasing one between ages 11 and 16. The importance of racial differences in parental engagement in children’s schooling in shaping this racial gap and its evolution is uncovered. We find that a non-negligible part of the racial test score gap can be
explained by these cultural differences. In particular, we show that if black parents would invest in education of their 11 year-old children as much as white parents do, then the racial test score gap in reading and mathematics would be reduced by 16.5 and 7.3 percent, respectively.
http://www.economia.unimore.it/Bertocchi_Graziella/bologna/patacchini.pdf

But the “racial test score gap” would still exist, and it is not the fault of white parents that most black parents - or in many if not most cases the black parent - does not care.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@brazil84

I do disagree, because you are basically trying to make me own a position I have not taken.

Well, then screw you and I’ll throw that question out to anybody who wants to take a shot at answering it because the same deal will apply - if someone wants to claim one race has characteristics another does not, on an on-average advantage another does not, it behooves them to make some token effort at scientifically defining “race”.

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.

Hey, that’s great, but why should I take you seriously? You may as well be talking about what kind of religion you follow, or anything else you accept without evidence.

If you have questions for me, fine

Beyond the one in this particular post… no, I guess I don’t have any questions for you. Or to be more precise, any questions I have for you are contingent on getting an answer for that one first.

[Fool_in_the_Rain]

Wow! What an amazing expose of genetics.

I can honestly say I’ve learned four things reading this thread - and I’ve read the whole thread.

1. I learned a lot about genetics, a lot more than I thought was involved, and opened my eyes and mind to a much greater realm of thinking.

2. There are some pretty intelligent and reasonable people on this board, that fought my ignorance.

3. NDD is a pure unadulterated racist, albeit I give him credit for researching in attempt to prove his position, even with questionable authority and resources.

4. brazil84’s position can simply be boiled down to this quote (from post #2307).

@brazil84

<snip>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. <snip>

@brazil84

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.

Nope, no questions. You’ve made your position clear to me, and I have no need to question it. My simple observations brought me to the conclusion that I do not agree with it in any way.

[VinylTurnip]

@New_Deal_Democrat

We investigate the racial gap in test scores between black and white students in Britain both in levels and differences across the school years. We find that there is an increasing racial gap in test scores between ages 7 and 11, and a decreasing one between ages 11 and 16. The importance of racial differences in parental engagement in children’s schooling in shaping this racial gap and its evolution is uncovered. We find that a non-negligible part of the racial test score gap can be
explained by these cultural differences. In particular, we show that if black parents would invest in education of their 11 year-old children as much as white parents do, then the racial test score gap in reading and mathematics would be reduced by 16.5 and 7.3 percent, respectively.
http://www.economia.unimore.it/Bertocchi_Graziella/bologna/patacchini.pdf

But the “racial test score gap” would still exist, and it is not the fault of white parents that most black parents - or in many if not most cases the black parent - does not care.

You do realize that the study you just cited contradicts your notion that black underachievement is due to genetic inferiority, right? And provides evidence for a cultural/environmental explanation?

So are you finally realizing the error of your ways, or just too lazy to read and understand what you’re citing?

[Bryan_Ekers]

If I may venture some speculation - what does race really matter? The real prize here is isolating genetic markers for intelligence. If (and it’s a huge “if”) somebody with some credentials published the following:

“We found 20 genetic markers that directly boost intelligence. On average, Asians have 12 of them, Caucasians have 11 and Negroes have 10, blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc.”

• my response is that we should use genetic engineering to try to produce embryos with 18 or more of these markings. If the resulting individual ends up looking black or white or Asian or whatever - who gives a fuck, those are only petty superficial phenotypes anyway.
  And then the world will be brave and new…

[Great_Antibob]

@Evil_Economist

Thanks to my astonishing IQ, which is damn near 3 digits,

I guess you didn’t get the news, but in NDD-cuckoo-land, a 99 IQ (damn near 3 digits, as far as I’m concerned) is apparently “above average”.

[cmyk]

@brazil84

There are plenty of ways of categorizing people by race. The easiest it to simply ask people what race they are.

so, if it’s beneficial for an African American to claim he’s white if he’s being interviewed by a raging bigot such as yourself, he has a far better chance of landing the job.

Your logic is brilliant. Will you teach me your ways?

[cmyk]

Quick! Somebody reverse the polarity on their brains!

They just keep proving how ludicrous they are. It’s astounding. Like the others here, I’m learning so much by the group effort in debunking their impossible ignorance. It doesn’t matter that they’re not going to concede. We knew that by page 2.

Thanks to everyone who’s actively shot brain bullets at bigot84 and **New Discriminatory Democrat’**s kevlar helmets of stupidity. The spray of debris and flak it gives off is able to be examined like physicists looking at the results from a particle accelerator. You know who you are.

You just can’t gut racists anywhere else on the internet like you can here.

47 pages and a movie!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@cmyk

Thanks to everyone who’s actively shot brain bullets at bigot84 and **New Discriminatory Democrat’**s kevlar helmets of stupidity. The spray of debris and flak it gives off is able to be examined like physicists looking at the results from a particle accelerator. You know who you are.

I believe that there are indeed quite a few posts of scientific and philosophical merit in this thread, but I’m too lazy to look for them. Could you do me the personal kindness of listing some of your favourites? The post numbers alone will suffice.

Thanks.

[cmyk]

@Bryan_Ekers

I believe that there are indeed quite a few posts of scientific and philosophical merit in this thread, but I’m too lazy to look for them. Could you do me the personal kindness of listing some of your favourites? The post numbers alone will suffice.

Thanks.

I’ll do so as soon as I can. It’s been a long, hairy thread with much more noise to signal, but it’s certainly proved enlighting for me in more ways than one.

Overall, I find this sort of close-minded, unmoving and appallingly false mindset, especially in the face of everything modern science has exposed in this day and age, to be fascinating in a psychological way; it goes against common sense and every fiber of rational thought in my being where it seems utterly alien.

ETA: I just got wooshed by a b84 mock post, didn’t I?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@cmyk

ETA: I just got wooshed by a b84 mock post, didn’t I?

From me? No. As you say, it’s a long and hairy thread and if you could easily find a post that impressed you (because you remember some key words) then I’d like to see them, if it’s no trouble.

It’s a sincere request, I assure you.
ETA: It occurs to me that all this politeness does tend to suggest irony, so [Breaking Bad]show me one of the good posts, bitch.[/BB]

[cmyk]

You quote Breaking Bad, then I’m your bitch, BITCH!

[samclem]

@VinylTurnip

You do realize that the study you just cited contradicts your notion that black underachievement is due to genetic inferiority, right? And provides evidence for a cultural/environmental explanation?

So are you finally realizing the error of your ways, or just too lazy to read and understand what you’re citing?

OOh! Ooh! Call on me, Mr. Kotter!