SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

[GIGObuster]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Blacks and whites are members of the same species. No one doubts that. Nevertheless, the differences between them are the same as the differences between sub species of the same animal. For example, mountain lions, panthers, jaguars, and cougars are sub species of the same species the same way that Mongloids, Caucasians, Negroes, and Australian aborigines are different races of the human species.

And as usual, the experts do not agree with your definitions.

Retired Site | PBS

The average person on the street thinks that race consists of differences in physical appearance, in particular things like eye color, eye shape, skin tone, hair type, and aspects of body stature. They also think that from looking at a person’s physical appearance, in the way we just described, that they can find out or know more subtle thing about them such as their potential intelligence or their likeliness to be aggressive, to commit crime, predisposition towards disease

The conventional biologist has a similar, though much more rigorous definition of what they mean by race. Those biologists view race as a subdivision of the human species, that can be consistently defined either by a set of physical characteristics or differences in gene frequencies between those populations, so that the term race in a biologist’s sense usually refers to a subspecies level of division. And subspecies are actually groups on the way to forming new species.

Now, what I’ve pointed out, and many others have pointed out for years, is that race is simply not a level of biological division that we find in anatomically modern humans. There are no subspecies in the human beings that live today. So when we use the term race in the biological sense, there’s no scientific support for such groups existing.

Human populations do differ, but they don’t differ in the ways that most people think, and they certainly don’t differ in the ways that 19th century race scientists thought.

How much genetic diversity exists in humans?

The measured amount of genetic variation in the human population is extremely small, and that’s something that people need to wrap themselves around, that genetically we really aren’t very different from each other. Most of that genetic variability can be found within populations. For example, about 93% of all of the genetic variability that exits on this planet occurs within Sub-Saharan Africans. So, if there were a catastrophe which destroyed the rest of the world’s population, 93% of the genetic variability in the world would still be present in Sub-Saharan Africans.

The reason why we don’t define races in the human species is because the within-group genetic variability is greater than the between-group genetic variability. Now, that’s an elementary component of any statistical tests. If the within-group variability is larger than the between-group variability, then we say that the groups are not different. Now, the way we measure genetic variability in humans, we can do it at a number of levels. You can even use physical variability, and we still wouldn’t reconstruct racial groups. If we looked at even skin color and ask ourselves, “Does skin color map consistently to racial groups?” the answer is no.

Joseph Graves, Jr. is a professor of evolutionary biology at Embry-Riddle University

[cmyk]

The American Anthropological Association, in 1998 declared:

"In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic “racial” groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within “racial” groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, … it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. […] Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called “racial” groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances."

[al27052]

@florez

Does this human cesspool ever stop spewing garbage?

Yeah, the comment about “not performing adequately” was a bit much.

[brazil84]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Blacks and whites are members of the same species. No one doubts that. Nevertheless, the differences between them are the same as the differences between sub species of the same animal.

I would guess that’s true to a large extent, but it doesn’t really matter. Even if racial categories are completely arbitrary, it doesn’t change the facts that (1) the group known as “blacks” has lower average intelligence than the group known as “whites”; and (2) the reason for the disparity is in large part genetic.

[al27052]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Because it has the same rights as any other. Affirmative action on behalf of women reduces strength requirements in jobs like police work and fire fighting. Affirmative action on behalf of blacks and Hispanics reduces intellectual requirements. In the process, physical and intellectual requirements are increased for white men.

This does not negatively impact rich white men, but it does negatively impact working class white men. It makes it more difficult for them to get jobs with the government.

Affirmative action does not create jobs. It shifts them from lower income white men to women, blacks, and Hispanics.

I still think you’re ignoring the importance of retraining blue collar workers for jobs in that require computer use and knowledge.

I have friends who work as linemen for AT&T. The CWA (Communication Workers of America) union that represents most of them is deeply stupid in its approach to the changes in the company.

Instead of trying to retrain linemen as wireless sales and customer service reps, they instead created a rule that makes it literally impossible to transfer from the landline side of AT&T to the wireless side!

Fools. AT&T is becoming a wireless company, more and more, and the CWA would do well to recognize that.

You are displaying the same short-sightedness that the CWA does.

[cmyk]

@brazil84

Then kindly identify the sets of genes which define ethnic French; ethnic Germans; Labrador Retrievers; and Golden Retrievers.

There’s no such thing as ethnic French ot German genes. Likewise between breeds of dogs. Both examples can share any or all of their traits within their same species.

@brazil84

Then kindly identify what genes cannot be passed from ethnic French to ethnic Germans. And then identify what genes cannot be passed from Labrador Retrievers to Golden Retrievers.

I asked if there were any traits that couldn’t be passed from any human to any other human.

Why are you making things up! Waaa!

All of them, again, can be passed from one to another through breeding, again both examples are part of the same species.

@brazil84

I agree that there are no genes which cannot be passed from one race to another.

And please answer my question from before: Why are you responding to me if you do not dispute anything I have posted?

Where it seems we disagree is that I don’t think race has any influence on intelligence, as if there is a gene or genes responsible for it, it hasn’t been found, nor is it likely that it couldn’t be passed on to other races, because there isn’t any basis for what a race is, genetically.

Seeing how I’m not going down thread to peruse and analyze every post you made, I’m just asking questions to see what your view on race is: Do you believe races can be defined, incontrovertibly by genetics alone? Or do you believe it’s largely a social construct?

If all you had was a swab of saliva from two people’s mouths, each one from a different race, do you believe, at least in theory, you can determine what race these two individuals belong to, just by analyzing their DNA?

[brazil84]

@cmyk

All of them.

Are you saying that each and every gene is different between ethnic French and ethnic Germans? I would really like a cite for that.

Same question about labs and goldens.

I asked if there were any traits that couldn’t be passed from any human to any other human.

Ok, then what traits cannot be passed from ethnic French to ethnic Germans. Same question about Labs and Goldens.

All of them, again, can be passed from on to another through breeding, both examples are part of he same species.

Ok, so is the “genetic idea of dog breeds” meaningless?

And is the “genetic idea of ethnicities” meaningless?

If all you had was a swab of saliva from two people’s mouths, each one from a different race, do you believe, at least in theory, you can determine what race these two individuals belong to, just by analyzing their DNA?

I would guess “yes,” for most people.

as if there is a gene or genes responsible for it, it hasn’t been found, nor is it likely that it couldn’t be passed on to other races, because there isn’t any basis for what a race is, genetically.

Do you think that finding the actual gene or set of genes is necessary?

And what difference does it make whether particular alleles can be passed from race to race? Are you saying it’s impossible that different subsets of a species could vary, on average in some measurable trait and that difference is the result of genetics?

[RickJay]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The mental abilities of black adults in Africa should not be compared with those of white adults in the United States who are mentally retarded, but with those of white children. Many children are bi lingual.

Bilingual children are highly unlikely to have IQs in the 60s.

[cmyk]

This is getting tiring as we’re talking past each other.

In a nutshell:

Ethnicities and race; breeds and groups, are all genetic traits that have been selected for over a great span of time, either due to adaptation or preference.

There is no evidence that shows blacks carry a genetic trait that causes lower average intelligence among the rest of the population. Otherwise, there must be some correlation between, say, darker skin and low IQ scores, or brown eyes and a higher tendency for committing crimes for example. Nothing at all like this has been found to be the case, and the circumstantial data being vomited all over this thread is not evidence for any such correlation.

And to draw such a conclusion like NDD has from it all is a horriffic display in defying logic, reason, common sense and an affront to everything we’ve learned about our genetic make-up in the last few decades.

[cmyk]

To clarify, I’m talking about genetic correlation, not socioeconomic/political correlation.

[brazil84]

@cmyk

This is getting tiring as we’re talking past each other.

No, you are ignoring my question.

There’s no such thing as ethnic French ot German genes. Likewise between breeds of dogs. Both examples can share any or all of their traits within their same species.

Ok, then by your definitions, the “genetic idea of ethnicities” is “meaningless” and the “genetic idea of dog breeds” is “meaningless.”

Right?

There is no evidence that shows blacks carry a genetic trait that causes lower average intelligence among the rest of the population. Otherwise, there must be some correlation between, say, darker skin and low IQ scores,

Why does one necessarily follow from the other?

And are you saying it’s impossible that different subsets of a species could vary, on average in some measurable trait and that difference is the result of genetics?

[cmyk]

Races are not a subset of the human species.

[Imasquare]

@New_Deal_Democrat

My mind cannot be changed by yelling silly insults at me. Instead, prove that most blacks behave and perform as well as most whites.

Why don’t you prove your own assertions?

I’m sure you can point us to studies from reputable organizations. Can’t you?

[cmyk]

Here:

Race - The Power of an Illusion. 10 Things Everyone should Know.

[Kobal2]

@olivesmarch4th

@New Deal Democrat

             Most blacks need to be lead by the equivalent of kindly  plantations owners who treat them like irresponsible children from whom  little should be expected, and much forgiven. White liberals in  positions of responsibility perform that role reasonably well.  Unfortunately white liberals forget that irresponsible children require  discipline.

You are a fucking horror.

This needs to be diligently re-posted in every thread **NDD **ever posts in from here on out. Mother of Christ, this in 2012 ? I am speechless. I really am.

[brazil84]

@cmyk

Races are not a subset of the human species.

Why not? Are ethnicities subsets of the human species?

And why won’t you answer my questions?

Here’s what you said before:

I meant, there’s no set of genes that defines any one race. So races, in a scientific or genetic sense is meaningless.

You have also said this:

There’s no such thing as ethnic French ot German genes. Likewise between breeds of dogs.

So by your own reasoning, ethnicities and dog breeds are meaningless in a scientific or genetic sense.

Right?

And if blacks’ lower intelligence is partly result of genes, why does it follow that there should be a correllation between something like skin color and intelligence?

And are you saying it’s impossible that different subsets of a species could vary, on average in some measurable trait and that difference is the result of genetics?

[cmyk]

@New_Deal_Democrat

My mind cannot be changed by yelling silly insults at me. Instead, prove that most blacks behave and perform as well as most whites.

Also, most blacks are at a serious disadvantage socially and economically (due to the likes of people like you). Wouldn’t you say that factors in quite a bit?

Kinda hard to win a pissing contest, when everyone keeps tying your cock in a knot. But then sure, blame the guy’s underperformance because of his crooked dick.

I don’t know about you, but if I were that guy, I’d be pretty indignant. And sore.

[cmyk]

@brazil84

Why not? Are ethnicities subsets of the human species?

No.

@brazil84

And why won’t you answer my questions?

Because I don’t feel like it. I’m answering most of you questions in a round about way, anyhow.
[snip]

@brazil84

So by your own reasoning, ethnicities and dog breeds are meaningless in a scientific or genetic sense.

Right?

And if blacks’ lower intelligence is partly result of genes, why does it follow that there should be a correllation between something like skin color and intelligence?

And are you saying it’s impossible that different subsets of a species could vary, on average in some measurable trait and that difference is the result of genetics?

No, human ethnicities and dog breeds are not equivalent.

If there is a base genetic subset that defines what it is to be “Asian,” then any trait you choose to group within that subset, like the epicanthic fold and “superior math cognition” must go hand in hand, and never part. Yet, there are Asians who are terrible at math, and are excellent drivers. Those are all cognitive abilities, and everything else being equal, the human brain doesn’t seem to diverge from “race” to “race,” at all.

[brazil84]

@cmyk

No.

How exactly are you defining “subset” such that ethnicities count as subsets but races do not?

Because I don’t feel like it.

I have another rule which is that people must answer reasonable questions so that I can understand their position. See below:

No, human ethnicities and dog breeds are not equivalent.

Please don’t dodge the question:

Let’s break it down:

First, do you agree that according to you there is no set of genes which defines any race?

Second, do you agree that according to you, it is for this reason that race is “meaningless” in a scientific or genetic sense?

Third, do you agree that according to you there is also no set of genes which defines any ethnicity?

Fourth, do you agree that by the same logic, it follows that ethnicity is “meaningless” in a scientific or genetic sense?

If not, why not?

If there is a base genetic subset that defines what it is to be “Asian,” then any trait you choose to group within that subset, like the epicanthic fold and “superior math cognition” must go hand in hand, and never part.

Why?

[GIGObuster]

As anyone can see there is a reason why brazil84 is ignoring what even a professor of evolutionary biology reported, indeed, he is not a calm debater but in reality a clam debater.