SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

That was an epic smackdown. One of the most satisfying posts I’ve read in a long time.

In other words there are genetic differences between racial groups. As more is learned about these differences it will be better understood why some racial groups have higher average IQs and lower crime rates than other groups.

A 100 percent Negro is one whom a DNA test would not reveal any non Negro ancestry.

The populations cited do not correspond to your “racial groups”. They’re totally different.

Considering that “Negro” is pretty much meaningless with regards to genetics, that sentence is pretty meaningless.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

NDD didn’t even bother examining any of that material or figure out how it doesn’t say what he thinks it says. Or the fact that his “black African” race can’t be picked out on any of the population groups in those studies.

Just declare victory and move on, like NDD does. All we’re missing is a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner.

I still really think that he can’t, he wants to give himself credit for ability and education he just doesn’t seem to have. Sadly, he lacks to the humility to address his shortcomings, and maybe improve and learn. Rather, like so many White Supremicists, he comforts himself with baseless self esteem tethered to the accident of his skin color.

I just want to post this link from Mr. Dibble a few posts ago, again, because it completely obliterates NDD’s views on “racial groups”.

The New York Times November 11, 2007

When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.

But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.

Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.

At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas…

Certain superficial traits like skin pigmentation have long been presumed to be genetic. But the ability to pinpoint their DNA source makes the link between genes and race more palpable. And on mainstream blogs, in college classrooms and among the growing community of ancestry test-takers, it is prompting the question of whether more profound differences may also be attributed to DNA…

“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming.

Ignoring, for a moment, this absurdly transparent attempt to sidestep and obfuscate, my post was in response to your request for evidence that African populations are more genetically diverse and less related to each other than other racial groups. You are attempting to sidestep this into other topics. So how about it? I have provided evidence to back up my claim. What is your response to that particular claim? Am I correct or wrong? If I am wrong, please explain how. If I am correct, please acknowledge that you were incorrect.

If you refuse to do either, please stop pretending that your views are in any way influenced or backed up by science and are anything more than your own prejudiced opinions.

Way to ignore, yet again, the phyologenetic tree that shows that your “racial groups” do not exist when speaking of the genetic relationship between populations. “Black” or “Negro” is not a genetic population- and this article does nothing to support your notion that it is.

[QUOTE=NDD]
A 100 percent Negro is one whom a DNA test would not reveal any non Negro ancestry.
[/QUOTE]

You are mind-numbingly obtuse. I literally LOLed.

You don’t get egregious examples of begging the question like this one very often. Well done.

NDD, are you 100% Caucasian?

Should we only classify people who are “100 percent Negro” to be “black” or there a different definition for who is and isn’t “black”?

I’ll take Circular Reasoning for $400, Alex !

See, it is like playing chess with a chicken.

You advance your rook and put him in check.

He pecks at one of his own pawns and swallows it, then crows loudly.

By that criterion, there are no 100% white people. You, in fact, are a Negro.

Very unproductive, but very, very well done.

The First Rule of Tautology Club is the First Rule of Tautology Club

  • I know that’s not the precise fallacy being perpetrated here, but I love that cartoon