The Weehawkenese can be divided into a sub species, nevertheless none of them behave or perform as well as everyone else.
The gays have a fairly stable gene pool, but the beneficial genes were dispersed and absorbed, so they are not as impressive as the other Albanians.
And although there have been expensive efforts to to help the Kosovar Albanians, they will always be less intelligent, and will never learn to behave or perform as well as the average white poodle.
And these racial tendencies also explain the crime rate, penis size, and high IQ scores of the Jews.
I have posted plenty of evidence that there are strong correlations between race, crime, and average intelligence. The races that have practiced agriculture and civilization the longest period of time have the lowest crime rates and the highest average IQs. I have patiently and politely documented this again and again. I have tried of trying to push facts into your closed and narrow mind.
Your definition of race is deficient and inconsistent, and you’ve ignored questions about it. Your suggested link between the practice of “agriculture and civilization” and crime/IQ has no supporting evidence and appears to be something you just made up.
Again, all you’re doing is restating your hypothesis, over and over again. A genetic conclusion requires genetic evidence, period. It doesn’t matter that some things that people in the past thought (like heredity of physical traits) was later supported by genetic analysis- your conclusion has zero supporting genetic analysis.
Real science is hard.
You have posted random bits of data and made various assertions about them. Which is also true of your claims about genes.
What you continue to overlook is that you never fill in the missing middle, which is to actually prove the causal link between the two. Instead, you just re-assert it over and over, which means that either you’re assuming the conclusion that is to be proven or you’re just arguing very sloppily. Either way, it’s still a poor argument.
You are losing your composure because you lost the argument some time ago. Anyone who lacks an ideological commitment to the egalitarian hypothesis can tell that.
There are two reasons why I do not post sentences like, “F*cking drooling cretin.” The first is that my parents raised me not to. The second is that I know I am right. I am confident that nearly everyone else who has read my comments is at least privately aware of this also.
For all of your bluster you cannot explain why some individuals are better than others at everything they do, why members of some racial groups tend to out score members of other racial groups on all the mental aptitude tests however they are designed, and you cannot explain persistent racial patterns of performance and behavior that have always existed, and that exist everywhere in the world.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that at some time in the future the different races will perform and behave identically.
I find it very funny this demarche of trying to claim some “egalitarian hypothesis” when the people arguing against you have never made such claims. It is transparent as a piece of rhetoric. Like the manner in which you ignore refutations and contrary data to your aged and tired ideas of criminality (as like the low crime in Senegal, Morocco or the blackness of some Berber speakers of ancient roots).
Colibri is simply pointing out the dishonesty and incoherence with all its internal contradictions of your standards that respond to no logic at all.
I always find it rather telling whenever someone on this board argues that the only reason other people don’t agree with them is due to wilful ideological blindness and/or lying even though the other people “know” that they’re wrong. Inevitably this turns out to be a spectacular case of projection.
And all races don’t have to be equal for your argument to be wrong. Even if your conclusions were somehow vaguely correct, your argument would still be wrong for the reasons indicated in my previous post. You have asserted much and proven nothing. When come back, bring actual science.
The assertion, “Race is only a social construct,” is an axiom. That is to say it is, “a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.”
Another way of putting it is that “Race is a social construct,” is accepted as true by definition. What is race? It is a social construct.
Actually, definitions of words are social constructs. For example, “to suffer,” once meant “to allow.” Then the meaning shifted to, “to endure.” Currently it means, “to experience pain.”
One can trace the meaning of suffer through the following quotes:
Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
The Declaration of Independence: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
My definition of race is not an axiom; it is a series of testable assertions. A race is a gene pool of humans who have evolved in a specific location, facing similar population pressures for a period of many centuries or thousands of years. Races differ cosmetically. A person’s race can be determined by the person’s skeleton or a tissue sample for DNA testing.
The only possible exception may be that an Ashkenazi Jew cannot be identified by skeleton. Despite my admiration for Jews I cannot always identify one by appearance. An Ashkenazi can certainly be identified by DNA.
The Ashkenazim are a sub race within Caucasians. I only mention them because they have a higher average IQ than Orientals, who have a higher average IQ than white Gentiles.
You do realize that tests have been done and this definition fails on all counts, right? If you’re going to offer a testable hypothesis it would be best if those tests haven’t already been performed and shown the basic assumptions to be incorrect. Again, you’ve managed to prove yourself wrong at every turn. It’s almost as if you really don’t understand the scientific process.
**
That is absolutely a false assertion.**
The assertion is based on the genetic data which have been presented here many times.
The genetic data are very clear, that the old classical races of the 19e century do not make any sense based on the genetic variations that are found.
You make this strange assertion, it’s quite laughable since we have seen the data that show this. It is clear, there is no more doubting it. Just as there is no more doubting of African origins of humanity.
So instead of responding to the real criticisms of your incoherent arguments, you try to make a counter assertion to disguise that you have no genetic datas of any kind to support your views and that your views are incoherent and self-contradictory as they are being tailored to fit american social prejudices.
And I find it funny he uses skeletons. In this review here it is noted that the old skeletal measurements (here they are not bothered with race) are being abandoned as not reliable: http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~dlubell/Ency_Maghreb.pdf
Are you sure it isn’t because of your inherent genetic superiority?
I do not believe that everyone who disagrees with me on this or other topics privately agrees. I accept the intellectual integrity of those who respond courteously to my assertions with facts and logic.
Nevertheless, those who respond to my assertions with emotionally charged language do expose clandestine agreement. People do get angry when beliefs they are confident of are challenged.
If I am mistaken it should be easy to prove me wrong. Prove that after the civil rights legislation of the 1960s was signed, and after the War on Poverty was declared black rates of crime and illegitimacy declined, while their school performance improved. Demonstrate that No Child Left Behind has left no child behind, and that this goal, “When President Bush signed his sweeping education law a year into his presidency, it set 2014 as the deadline by which schools were to close the test-score gaps between minority and white students that have persisted since standardized testing began,” has been achieved.
After this has been asserted and documented, one should point to the black countries of sub Saharan Africa, and described how they are thriving since the end of European Rule. Describe how during the past two centuries Haiti has demonstrated what can be accomplished by black majority rule.
I did a search for “skeleton” and “skeletal,” and could not find anything.
Prove to me first that any of that has anything to do with genetics, other than your mere assertion that it does.
It is of course helpful to read. Page 135. next to last paragraphs. Osteological is the term used by science.
All your arguments are just old american racial politics, they are not science and not genetics. It is very sad.
There is no evidence that the performance these numbers show (and we aren’t arguing about these numbers) have any genetic component. Your thesis is that the best explanation for the achievement gap is genetic difference between “races” (though your use of race is poor, I’ll accept that you mean “populations” or something like that). You’ve provided zero evidence to support your explanation.
Once again, education and crime statistics say nothing about genetics, and they never can. The only thing that can say anything about genetics is actual genetic data.
Well, obviously. Genetically, you’d be surprised who is
Jewish. As I pointed out several days ago. Which point you’ve still failed to address, BTW.
NDD- if one subspecies of Chimpanzees has more genetic diversity within it than the entire human race, why does it make sense at all to divide humans into subspecies?
As they are incapable of making a good hypothesis, I will do the favour: if somehow population genetics had a very strong influence on criminalities, they should be able to point to strong differences between parts of the population that is mixed and that is not, so that very heavily mixed black populatins should be like their european counterparts. It is the only logical result of such a population structuring.
And on his other claims, the same effects. It is of course illogic to put all Africans in with a american population that is so heavily mixed.