My parents taught me not to hate anyone because that person is a member of a specific race. That lesson has remained with me.
My parents also taught me that the differences between whites and blacks were minimal, and due to white racism. During the course of my life I have learned that this is not true.
Yes, and I did not see a response to my question in there. Keep in mind, the question at issue was not about the actual genetics of Han Chinese – it was about iiandyiiii’s position.
Are you able to grasp that there is a difference?
I think it’s progressive brain damage.
Then you’d better tell me iiandyiiii’s position as you see it.
I most assuradely have, again, and again, and again.
Lol, the question was purely about iiandyiiii’s position.
It’s not an answer to my simple, reasonable question.
Which you continue to evade.
Great! Your point is not only made, it’s been hammered like a railroad spike by a group of slant-eyed, rice-eating yellow Oriental Chinamen. So why don’t you shut the fuck up now and find another playground to defecate in, you pitiful little dimwit?
Note that the question about my position was answered by Who_me? with a link from my post a few posts after brazil84’s original question.
His position is that a grouping is a “useful genetic grouping” if there is a genetic marker (or markers) which distinguishes people in that group from people who are not in the group.
His position is that there is no such marker for “blacks” versus “non-blacks” and therefore “blacks” is not a “useful genetic grouping”
He has essentially admitted that there is no genetic marker which distinguishes “Han Chinese” from “non-Han Chinese.” Therefore, by his reasoning, “Han Chinese” is not a “useful genetic grouping.”
However, he asserts that “Han Chinese” is indeed a “useful genetic grouping.”
That’s a contradiction.
Only in your own delusional mind.
Ahh, here is the lie that the lying liar brazil84 has fabricated. I did not “essentially admit” this at all.
You forgot the italics and underlining that’s a trademark of NDD.
It should be “your own delusional mind”.
Yup. Apparently brazzie’s massive comprehension failure means you’re a liar. Congratulations.
Then what is your argument based on? I have posted fact after well documented fact to demonstrate that the human races differ significantly in average intelligence and crime. I assert that this is powerful evidence for biological differences.
Just for the sake of argument, I will assume what I doubt very many people really believe: the appallingly high black crime rate is due exclusively to white racism.
So what? It is still a fact that blacks have a rate of violent crime that is nearly eight times the white crime rate. Consequently, race profiling and a high incarceration rate for blacks are legitimate ways to reduce the crime rate.
Also, let us assume that the enduring race gap in intellectual performance is due exclusively to white racism. It still exists. As a result few blacks should be admitted to college, and few should be advanced to positions that require superior intelligence.
Because it was right above your response - that you continue to claim contradiction and lack of response, I could see that your game is boring.
Yes, that was what led me to the false claim. But in truth it can be also he is just very stupid and in reality does not understand.
In fact, I see that you have come back to the genetic marker, which also says that you do not understand the point which was quoted. The genetic marker idea is your own assertion. iiandyiiii pointed to population structures in frequencies. This is correct, not your strange misunderstanding.
Your “facts” have shown nothing but the existence of an achievement gap. You’ve shown no data on an “innate abilities” gap, or a “genetics” gap. Nothing. Zero. Nada.
You don’t seem to get that “achievement” tells you nothing about genetics. It never does, and it never will. If you want to say something about genetics, you need genetic data.
Because there is a thing called coherent genetic structure that links the Han Chinese together as a population that other groups you are sticking together do not have.
You assert, do you?
What the hell kind of lousy science is that, you dimwit?
I assert fluoridation of water increases the likelihood of miscegenation by altering brain chemistry. Evidence: the increasing number of mixed race marriages in the US since fluoridation programs began. Hell, I’ve got as much evidence for it as you do for your pet theory.
Your assertions are complete bullshit. Find a statistics book, learn how real science is done, and come back when you learn how to properly separate biological factors from social, economic, and environmental factors.
Also, figure out that “biological” is NOT the same as genetic.
Examples: every human has fingerprints. That’s biological, not genetic. There are signs that there may be some correlation between the chemical and hormonal status of the womb and homosexuality in the resulting child, i.e. biological but not necessarily genetic.
This is the basic kind of shit you get wrong that makes it obvious you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Not only do you not understand the difference between biologic and genetic, you somehow jump straight to genetic without showing how it can’t be other biologic factors. The number of levels on which you get your own argument wrong is staggering.
I have no idea what you are talking about. But keep evading.
That’s completely false.
Just look at Post #918 in this thread:
(my bolding)
You can apologize any time you like.
Even if that were true, it doesn’t change the fact that iiandyiiii contradicted himself.
I asked him what his test was for deciding whether a group is a “useful genetic grouping,” and he made reference to “genetic markers” – not to “coherent genetic structure.”
See, I am talking about what he actually said – not what you wish or imagine that he said.