SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@iiandyiiii

This assertion is laughable. Sailors throughout history have had a reputation for “spreading their seed” in every port, and wars notoriously leave waves of single, pregnant young women in their wake. The fathers didn’t all die- some of them just went back home.

Before historical times those children had high mortality rates.

[GIGObuster]

And that does not have an environmental component also? Geography did and does influence also that, and once again, that is the environment, not genetics.

I mean, besides wiping groups of people, it is clear that the environment for many families did change when warriors got into a war path. Unless you are making the point that those maneuvers by ancient people were mostly genetically driven, it is hard to see what point you are making here.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Little_Nemo

No, your argument is completely flawed. Because you keep insisting that any inferiority that’s observed must be genetic. And at the same time, you admit that no such genes have ever been discovered.

Without the genes, your genetic theory has no proof whatsoever. It’s based on nothing except wishful thinking.

You’re a racist. So you’ve chosen to believe a unproven theory is true despite the lack of evidence because that theory supports your racist beliefs.

I have presented a null hypothesis for my theory that racial differences are primarily biological. What is the null hypothesis for your theory that the races are biologically equivalent?

[kidchameleon]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Jews choose to circumcise their male children. Are you arguing that black parents choose to make most of their children stupid, and many of them criminal?

No, I’m saying it could be equally genetically related, according to your hypothesis. And it’s up to the opponent to somehow disprove the assertion.

And then we could always bring white trash into this. They have high crime and low tests scores in their society, are they a different race?

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@kidchameleon

No, I’m saying it could be equally genetically related, according to your hypothesis. And it’s up to the opponent to somehow disprove the assertion.

And then we could always bring white trash into this. They have high crime and low tests scores in their society, are they a different race?

The Jewish practice of circumcision is part of their religion, and consequently it is part of their culture. There is nothing genetic about it it at all.

This is the third or fourth time I have posted this:

Two low-income areas outside of Boston – South Boston and Roxbury – were featured several years ago in U.S. News & World Report. They had similar socio-economic profiles: high levels of unemployment; the same percentage of children born to single-parent households; and the same percentage of people living in public housing. But the violent crime rate in Roxbury, predominately black, was four times higher than that of South Boston, predominately white.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/17/japanese_earthquake_looters_--_mia_109252.html

[kidchameleon]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Because of the persistence of racial differences throughout the world, and throughout history, the burden of proof is in those who maintain that they are environmental.

No, that’s not ho the scientific method works. It is your assertion that ‘blacks’ are inferior because of their genes, its up to you to prove your assertion. Anyone claiming that poor performance of ‘blacks’ is environmental would also have to prove their assertion.

[cmyk]

Here’s a fact, since you love them so much:

You have provided factual data and statistics. Your interpretation is faulty and in err because of your biased stance at the start. You’re already going into your hypothesis with bias and prejudice. This is a very well known factor when interpreting data in scientific fields, and the reason why many experiments and data interpretation call for blind or double-blind studies.

If you’re unfamiliar with double-blind studies, it’s integral to the way we draw conclusions in any scientific sense. Why? Because we can’t trust our direct experience.

Your conclusion on racism is invalid.

That’s fact.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@kidchameleon

No, that’s not ho the scientific method works. It is your assertion that ‘blacks’ are inferior because of their genes, its up to you to prove your assertion. Anyone claiming that poor performance of ‘blacks’ is environmental would also have to prove their assertion.

Science rarely conclusively proves anything. Previous theories are overturned by more evidence. Nevertheless, the preponderance of existing evidence is that low average intelligence for blacks is mainly caused genetically.

[BrainGlutton]

@brazil84

BTW I don’t engage with this poster because of his refusal to answer a simple, reasonable question about his position.

Same reason you won’t engage him on climate change, eh? :rolleyes:

[GIGObuster]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Science rarely conclusively proves anything. Previous theories are overturned by more evidence. Nevertheless, the preponderance of existing evidence is that low average intelligence for blacks is mainly caused genetically.

Even you admitted that there is no such evidence.

There is however plenty of evidence that biologists do see the sources that you rely on, like the writer of the 10,000 year explosion, as cranks.

Crank science is as crank science does | ScienceBlogs

Mr Cochran’s flaw is in his premise. There is no reason to assume that the frequency of every allele in a population must be the product of a selective advantage. The mathematics was worked out in the last century, and we know that even deleterious alleles can go to fixation in a population. His frenzied scribblings and off-the-wall database searches were driven by a need to reconcile the facts with his naïve and erroneous vision of evolution, and are not very convincing.

Here’s another explanation: this isolated subgroup of Ashkenazi Jews also had a culture with a deep historical respect for scholarship, and emphasized and supported education and learning to a greater degree than the larger culture surrounding them. Their children therefore begin life with a leg-up on intellectual pursuits. We don’t need a genetic explanation for their better performance (on average) on academic tests. Note also that this does not exclude a genetic component, but now at least we’re talking about an environmental factor that favors selection for intelligence. Again, though, I haven’t seen any convincing evidence for such a thing; personally, I think our intelligence is built on a shared genetic/development core that enables a wide range of kinds and degrees of intelligence to be expressed in response to environmental conditions.

But here’s the final confirming evidence that Cochran is a crank and a non-scientist.

It would be easy to test the theory, said Steven Pinker, a Harvard cognition researcher: “See if carriers of the Ashkenazi-typical genetic mutations score higher on IQ tests than their noncarrier siblings.”

Cochran and Harpending readily acknowledge the need for such experiments. But they have no plans to do them. They say their role as theorists is to generate hypotheses that others can test.

“One criticism about our paper is ‘It can’t mean anything because they didn’t do any new experiments,’ ” Cochran said. “OK, then I guess Einstein’s papers didn’t mean anything either.”

I don’t agree with Pinker that it would be easy — there’s going to be a lot of individual variation in performance, and I think it’s very hard to split the variables of culture and genetics apart in these kinds of tests. But at least he’s offering a positive approach to the problem, and that would be a good starting point.

But Cochran isn’t interested in doing them? He’s just a theorist? That’s where he begins to sound exactly like an intelligent design creationist.

[cmyk]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Science rarely conclusively proves anything. Previous theories are overturned by more evidence. Nevertheless, the preponderance of existing evidence is that low average intelligence for blacks is mainly caused genetically.

You’re mistaking evidence for fact. Proofs are for mathematics.

Facts come first. Then you build a hypothesis upon those. You conduct experiments and research to gather evidence to support your hypothesis, if it agrees with the facts observed, then you can upgrade it to a theory.

So, you’ve got all these facts, and a hypothesis, but absolutely zero basis for a theory. You’ve no evidence to support your hypothesis that can uphold a theory, largely because your biases are influencing how you’re interpreting circumstantial data.

To add more: If you’re claiming a genetic basis for this hypothesis, where’s your evidence?

[brazil84]

@BrainGlutton

Same reason you won’t engage him on climate change, eh? :rolleyes:

I don’t understand your question. I don’t engage with GIGOBuster on anything at all whether it’s climate-change related or not.

The reason is that I asked him a simple, reasonable question about his position (more than once) and he refused to answer.

I’m not interested in debating with people who insist on hiding their position behind a cloak of ambiguity.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@cmyk

You’re mistaking evidence for fact. Proofs are for mathematics.

Facts come first. Then you build a hypothesis upon those. You conduct experiments and research to gather evidence to support your hypothesis, if it agrees with the facts observed, then you can upgrade it to a theory.

So, you’ve got all these facts, and a hypothesis, but absolutely zero basis for a theory. You’ve no evidence to support your hypothesis that can uphold a theory, largely because your biases are influencing how you’re interpreting circumstantial data.

To add more: If you’re claiming a genetic basis for this hypothesis, where’s your evidence?

I have posted my evidence again and again. I get tired of posting the same fact based and logical arguments again and again, and getting the same cliches and insults.

Where is the evidence that the Negro race is biologically equal to the white race? I mean, where?

[cmyk]

And you can trust me on that, because I’m whiter than you are.

[GIGObuster]

@brazil84

I don’t understand your question. I don’t engage with GIGOBuster on anything at all whether it’s climate-change related or not.

The reason is that I asked him a simple, reasonable question about his position (more than once) and he refused to answer.

I’m not interested in debating with people who insist on hiding their position behind a cloak of ambiguity.

Meh, the only reason was that I insisted that he should deal with the science, my position is not important as I’m not an expert, the science is what is important. What is clear is that brazil84 will only be a “clam debater” he already has his conclusions made up before looking at the science.

The point stands, brazil84 just expects that his “experts” have support where it counts.

9 Climate Change Meet the Scientists from potholer54

[cmyk]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I have posted my evidence again and again. I get tired of posting the same fact based and logical arguments again and again, and getting the same cliches and insults.

Where is the evidence that the Negro race is biologically equal to the white race? I mean, where?

No, you dolt.

You have posted facts. Like IQ scores, crime rates, murders per-capita. Shit like that.

In the context of the scientific method, evidence is factual results arrived at after blind experimentation and/or research. Also, if you want yourself a theory, it has to be able to make predictions, so you (or anyone) can test the validity of that theory. Over and over and over again.

You’re the one claiming there must be a genetic difference to explain the 15 point discrepancy on a very non-comprehensive test of human intelligence between the black and white population. There is no genetic evidence for this — at all.

How can you provide scientific, genetic evidence for this?

Hint: This may require a doctorate or two, several decades of experimentation, documentation and research, lots of grants and money, and a thorough, if not brilliant knowledge and understanding of human genomics. You should be able to manage, you’re white.

Now, get to work.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@cmyk

You’re the one claiming there must be a genetic difference to explain the 15 point discrepancy between the black and white population. There is no genetic evidence for this — at all.

How can you provide scientific, genetic evidence for this?

You might say that there is no proof. Nevertheless, the persistence of the discrepancy is impressive evidence.

Again I ask: where is there any evidence that the Negro race is biologically equal to the white race?

[holmes]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I have posted my evidence again and again. I get tired of posting the same fact based and logical arguments again and again, and getting the same cliches and insults.

Where is the evidence that the Negro race is biologically equal to the white race? I mean, where?

Now the ‘negro’ is biologically inferior to the white race? In everything? Is that what level you have finally sunk to?

[GIGObuster]

Of course what one can notice from the examples in the video is how many of the fake experts are calm debaters,** it is virtually the only angle they have**, they do not care that the science is misrepresented, only their ideology is important.

[kidchameleon]

@New_Deal_Democrat

You might say that there is no proof. Nevertheless, the persistence of the discrepancy is impressive evidence.

Again I ask: where is there any evidence that the Negro race is biologically equal to the white race?

Genetically define “negro race” and “white race” first and maybe we can have a place to start.