Hate to tell you but they already believe that.
Anyway, since you’ve accused me of “failing to answer simple questions” about “[my] position” please show me what “simple questions” I failed to answer.
We know that you’re extremely stupid, but it shouldn’t be too difficult.
Lol, nice evasion. Thank you.
You have not posted any demonstration that the human “races” you propose even exist, let alone that they differ in a systematic way in any characteristic. Asserting nonsense over and over again doesn’t make it so.
Who has made that argument here? This is a strawman that came from your own delusional mind.
Why do you hate America? This is fundamentally against the principles of the American system of government.
You’re not only a fucking moron, ethically you’re a piece of shit.
What the fuck do you want me to answer now?? There is no genetic marker for Han Chinese but there is the coherent genetic structure which make the Han a useful genetic grouping. And that’s what iiandyiii said.
It’s rare that someone on the Dope actually and openly promotes oppression based on race.
Nothing, I’m simply noting your attempt to distract from your earlier evasions.
If he said that, then he changed his position. Of course there’s no shame in changing one’s position – if it’s acknowledged. Otherwise you are a dishonest weasel.
Also, he makes the common mistake of “intelligence = good test scores” and “good test scores = all that matters”.
If intelligence is actually fully dependent on genetics (which is itself a very iffy proposition, especially given what we know about how drug use by the mother during pregnancy, repeated blows to the head, exposure to various toxins, etc can affect a child’s intellectual development - many of which are, again, biological but not genetic factors), then denying college admission based on testing that knowingly doesn’t properly measure intelligence is monstrous to even consider.
“If” I said that.
I think brazil84 doesn’t realize that on this thing called the internet people can actually go back and see what one wrote in the past.
Do you want me to quote his post 1100 in this thread (that you won’t read) again?
Yes, it’s clear that continuing to squeeze this thread will only result in more poo. Good day, gentlemen.
Here it is…
No, I’m not interested in debating him by proxy. There are two possibilities: Either he said the same thing in post 1100 that he said in Post 918 or he said something different. Either way, one of the two of you is weaseling.
Here’s our exchange from before:
Please stop pretending that this exchange did not take place.
I said “There are no genetic markers that distinguish “whites” from “non-whites” or “sub-Saharan Africans” (or blacks) from “non-sub-Saharan Africans” (or non-blacks).”
This is factually accurate. Through further reading, I determined that “coherent genetic structure”, which is the phrase used by the Nature article, is a better phrase to use than “genetic markers”, so I used that new phrase.
I never changed my position or contradicted myself. I would say any idiot could see the point I was trying to make, but I see that a particular idiot apparently can’t (or chooses not to), and would rather nitpick the minutiae of phrasology rather than address the (absolutely correct) point I was making.
brazil84’s a liar.
So anyway Brazzy, what “simple questions” about my “position” did I refuse to answer?
I honestly don’t even remember what caused you to throw a shitfit and “ignore” me, though you obviously don’t know the meaning of that word.
If I genuinely refused to answer “simple questions” then it should be easy for you to reproduce them.
Of course, if you were lying and covering for the fact that I made you look stupid(admittedly not a difficult thing to do), … well that’s a different story.
In post 918 he says there are no genetic markers to differentiate between blacks and non-blacks and in the second he talks about the Han… How can they contradict each other when there are no discernible connections between them?
He says more than that since he was answering a general question I asked which was not limited to blacks, whites, or races. Or are you saying that he gave an evasive non-answer to my question?
The top post was the post he was responding to. Although you say it wasn’t limited to blacks, whites, or races… the “And do you agree that if I pick two random white people, they are likely to be more closely related to each other than if I pick a random white person and a random non-white person?” specifically refers to white people.
Here is an exact quote of Post #918:
Please stop trying to re-write history.
Agree, but that’s not the question he was answering. He ignored that question.
Ummm… so he edited out part of your post in his quote… it’s still the post he responded to. It’s you rewriting things to try to make your lame arguments seeming less stupid. Guess what? You’re failing.
So what? The reasonable interpretation of Post #918 is that he was answering the question he quoted.
I realize you wish he hadn’t said what he said (just like you wish that blacks and whites had equal genetic propensity for intelligence) but wishing don’t make it so.