And the same argument shows conclusively that “Han Chinese” has no validity, genetically speaking. Except that it apparently does, by your own admission.
No, it wouldn’t weaken it at all. What “society” accepts has little to do with what really is. Pre- Civil War America accepted that black were inferior to whites and any testing would have probably been in line with this. Of course the black population included slaves that had much less (if any) opportunity for education.
To the extent that “the races” exist, sure. The problem is that even if true, this provides no useful basis for changes in public policy.
That fact that people can make arbitrary groupings means nothing about that group.
The fact that in his mind NDD can say someone is black or white means nothing on a biological level, thus does not fit his claims that blacks are dumb, need to live on plantations where they are cared for by whites and stealing jobs from blue collar whites.
The fact that I can put you in a group of individuals with nicks that start wtih b has no use as a predictor of your traits.
If you wish to claim there is a correlation it is you, as the one defining the category to prove that link and why it is valid.
e.g.
Racists,
a group including you and NDD
are ignorant.
(I posit this is true because you belive arbitrarying groups based on one feature automaticly means there is a correlation to other traits as deminstrated by the posts on this thread) but at this point, my arbitrary grouping only contains two individuals for the purposes of this claim.
But NDD is claiming the “black” are dumb because they didn’t evolve as fast you bet you need to show that blacks are even genetically groupable separate from whites.
This has not been done…because although racism is directly correlated to be ignorant skin color does have a total correlation to historical migration patterns or family lines.
Nope, I didn’t say this. Try again.
Here’s what you said:
Here’s what I asked you:
And here was your response:
Thus, by your own logic, there must be a genetic marker which distinguishes “Han Chinese” from “non-Han Chinese”
However, are unable to point to any such marker – except by trying to make a joke.
You have completely contradicted yourself.
I don’t think you understand what the word “contradict” means.
“Blacks” (or Negroes or sub-Saharan Africans) is not a useful genetic category because there are populations of “blacks” that are more closely related to “whites” (or Eurasians) than other “blacks”. Note that I’m talking about populations, not individuals. However, Han Chinese is a single population, genetically speaking (though of course there are many mixed Han individuals). So by definition, the Han Chinese population is more closely related to itself than any other population.
I’ve explained this concept several times, at a roughly 5th grade level. If you don’t get it by now, you’ll never get it.
I did Debate in HS.
You have lost very, very badly, beginning and ending with the fact that your opposition has absolutely shredded your sources without any effective rebuttal from you.
If that’s the argument, yes. As I said though, some supporters of AA are of the mindset that there are differences so that’s why there should be positive discrimination.
So if you’re against AA, as I am, then asserting that some races are brighter than others is not the way: it doesn’t necessarily refute AA even if everyone agreed that the assertion is correct.
No; the whole “orientals are even smarter” thing is just to give a veneer of objectivity (starting with the book and continuing with NDD).
You notice that at any provocation NDD goes back to saying, basically, “show me a black guy who’s equal to a white guy”. And in discussing the “gaps” between races he has stressed several times that the gaps between whites, “orientals” and Jews are small, whereas the gap to black people is very large.
How dumb can you get?
There is no single such marker. Even among the Ashkenazim, there is no single such marker. But there are markers (PLURAL, PLURAL, PLURAL) which exist within the population from which you can develop profiles.
But that’s not even the logic, anyway. The logic is ONLY that Han Chinese have some common genetic markers. That’s it. There’s nothing else implied in the logic.
Here’s the wiki on Y-chromosome haplogroups. Knock yourself out.
At any rate, here’s one haplogroup that’s more prevalent among Koreans and Japanese than other East Asians (though, as is natural, some fuzziness does occur). So, yeah, there do exist genetic marker that can be used to help differentiate people within Asia.
There’s no single test for individuals, but some groupings (Japanese, Vietnamese, Han Chinese, etc) do happen to show different genetics when large enough populations are considered.
But the definition of a black “race” that NDD tries to use has no such common grouping. Try and find one, if you can. Trying to find a genetic basis for lower test scores then means the genetic basis exists BEYOND (NOT WITHIN) the artificial racial construct NDD has developed for “Black”, which contradicts his inane position.
Of course, Garbage In, Garbage Out, but GIGOBuster has shown that apparently we all sometimes fail to actually Bust GIGO in the face of massive willful ignorance and stupidity.
Lol, you are the one who does not understand.
Ok, let’s break things down:
(1) Do you agree that according to you, there is no genetic marker which separates “blacks” from “non-blacks” and therefore “blacks” is not a “useful genetic grouping”?
(2) Do you agree that there is no genetic marker which separates “Han Chinese” from “non-Han Chinese”?
(3) Do you agree that therefore, according to your logic, “Han Chinese” is not a “useful genetic grouping”?
Yes, I have a hard time believing contradictory things simultaneously.
Nope. We’re done on this particular tangent. You keep putting words into other posters mouths (or fingers). I never said this, just as no one in the thread has advocated for “the egalitarian hypothesis”.
My mind, it is blown. I had never grokked that poster’s name :o. Thanks, mate !
No problem.
Now, if you could figure out the source of my handle, I’d be grateful. It was bestowed upon me by somebody who persistently refuses to explain it.
Sure, and some people enjoy opera.
I’m not sure what you mean by “AA,” but I will assume it includes discrimination lawsuits (and the threat of lawsuits) which result in employers relaxing their standards and avoiding objective tests in order to get a more politically correct racial balance. Yes, acceptance that whites are genetically smarter than blacks does not “refute” AA, but it undermines arguments in favor of AA. On balance, those who oppose these sorts of lawsuits and policies would be better off if society accepted genetic differences in intelligence between racial groups.
:shrug: NDD seems to sincerely believe that Orientals are smarter than Whites.
Ok, and so we are clear, you deny that such markers and profiles exist which can distinguish between people of European descent and people of sub-Saharan African descent?
I would WAG it has something to do with Bob (do you, perchance, present a total void of slack ?) ; but not knowing the somebody in question…
Again, how dumb can you be?
SOME populations of sub-Saharan Africans can be distinguished from SOME European populations. That’s borne out through the data.
You and NDD seem to believe ALL sub-Saharan Africans (labeled as “Black” by NDD) share enough common genetics to be placed in a single grouping, while the truth is there are several sub-populations that are closer to some groups of non-Africans than any other group of Africans on the continent.
Likewise, you somehow imply that all people of European descent can be grouped together easily. Show how that is the case. It’s not even the case among East Asians, as I’ve pointed out earlier.
Show some common genetic grouping for “Black” and show how it is correlated at all with intelligence, crime, or any of the other nonsensical things that have been claimed.
Lol. Dude I QUOTED you. Here it is again:
Never said what?
And how exactly am I misrepresenting your position? Please give quotes.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
Ok, so you are asserting that there are SOME sub-Saharan African populations which cannot be distinguished from European populations?