Please show me where I attempted to “rank and rate and classify and order everybody neatly by genetics.” Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I did no such thing and apologize.
DNA tests can not only determine a person’s race, they can determine which countries one’s ancestors came from.
Sure, and you can name a star after somebody too! How about a cite from somebody not trying to sell something?
The willful blindness burns.
For literally weeks now, several posters have said that population genetics are meaningful but grouping sub-Saharan Africans into a single genetically related race has little biological reality or significance.
And yet still NDD can’t understand how his own sites contradict that.
Let me put it another way: Being able to tell what country somebody’s ancestors comes from CONTRADICTS the notion of 3 (or 4) unified races. It means there are as many “races” as there are countries, which is a different point altogether.
Drink!
It depends what kind of affirmative action we’re talking about. If it’s just a matter of spending more on underachieving schools then I have no problem with that. It might be unrealistic to think you can make all schools equal in performance, but you’ll probably get more students over the bar.
That kind of thing wouldn’t even be considered AA in europe.
I meant setups where students from different ethnic groups, genders or even religious backgrounds have different entry or even pass requirements.
I’ve said several times now why I believe NDD’s choice of words betrays what his actual motivation is and just why he’s fixated on race.
If you’re asking me do I have proof of NDD’s motivations…surprisingly the answer is no.
So what?
I believe that sums up your beliefs.
If I’m confused, simply state that you believe it’s not possible to rank and rate and classify and order everybody neatly by genetics, in a direct quote, here.
Failing that, please pull the stick out of your ass and apologize.
Sorry, lance, I thought it needed a little more.
Sorry, jack, did you say something? You’ll have to speak in larger type.
Do not worry, **84 is welll known for his strange behaviours:
**
Well there you go. The best argument against NCLB-type programs is that they are futile. The “fairness” argument doesn’t really hold water.
So what? We’re talking about all policies which are based on the false assumption that disparities in performance are the result of discrimination or mistreatment. Not just affirmative action.
Can you give me an example?
But you can’t provide any quotes to justify it. Sorry, but I have no interest in engaging with people who misrepresent my position.
Goodbye.
What? No “Goodbye, Liar”?
That doesn’t count for a drink, for those playing along home. What a rip-off.
I’m not going to do a dissertation summarizing what you’ve said here. It’s there. You can simply tell me I’m wrong by stating what I asked. Just tell me I’m wrong.
I like this part of his debating rules:
“For example, if you believe I have misrepresented your position, you should tell me so and give me a chance to correct any misinterpretation. I will do the same for you.”
So tell me how I’ve misrepresented your position, 84.
Not according to conditional probability. We can roughly work out how likely it is that a criminal will be a black person, but the required information is how likely a specific black person is to be a criminal. Race may not be a salient factor even with large disparities and the NYPD have dismissed its use for stop and frisks.
Yeah, like desegregation. Except rates of illiteracy have been steadily declining.
Which fails as a scientific hypothesis, because you have not defined your term “blacks” in a consistent manner, nor have you defined “large groups”. Not to mention the existence of extraneous variables prevent this from ever being credence scientifically.
You’re shifting the goalposts. I almost believe you volitionally introduced Haiti as an example, anticipating the fact that it was a particularly ignorant choice, in order to pursue this red herring.
Do you retract this claim:
?
As it stands, I’ve also proposed a mechanism which accounts for some portion of the attainment gap even when controlling for other environmental factors.
This is a poor argument based on a hasty generalisation. Neil DeGrasse Tyson could be the smartest man in the world and if intelligence testing measured a coherent concept g, then the black mean for g could still be significantly lower than that for thewhite population.
Would you place the professional rugby team into a different genetic group to the average rugby team and claim such groupings were immutable and had historic precedence?
That’s fair. But it seems the fundamental objection (which seems reasonable to me) is that intelligence is so difficult to measure. But while it may be different to measure than say, height or skin color, it a perfectly sound possibility that different races might have different levels of intelligence, just as they might have different levels of melanin or tend to be taller or shorter. Is that right?
It’s a possibility, which nobody has denied.
What has been consistently denied (repeatedly and vehemently) is the idea that there is already genetic evidence of this possibility. Or even any studies that show the slightest hint of a correlation.
Of course, one reason such studies don’t exist is that, genetically, “blacks”, “whites”, “Mongoloids” aren’t properly defined, by NDD or anybody else.
Further, even accepting we use population level genetics, the concept of 3 races (+Aboriginal Australians) that NDD espouses doesn’t make much sense.
Even NDD has to make some convolutions to make it work (by splitting “Mongoloids” into “Orientals”/others, for example). And it ignores the fact that even among the “black” race, there are significant differences in genetics (even in melanin levels) such that intelligence would end up being the only thing all “blacks” had in common genetically if such a correlation was found.
The entire argument fails on so many different levels that it requires a convoluted set of premises to state and necessarily has multiple exceptions for cases that don’t fit.
DNA testing can not only demonstrate ancestry in Europe or in North East Asia, it can tell which countries there a person’s ancestors came from. Those with European and North East Asian ancestry average higher IQs than the rest of the world. Right now I am including the Ashkenazim as European whites, but much of their ancestry comes from Israel three thousand years ago.
I have repeated this many times. There is nothing “overly simplistic” about it.