My sentiments exactly. This “debate” (or rather, grilling) ended when b84 came out the closet and aired his prejudices. I paraphrase: from simple observation, blacks are not as intelligent as whites.
Considering that he has supposedly taken a college-level course in “Advanced Statistics,” I wonder if he ever learned the terms “representative sample” and “confirmation bias.”
And given that b84 has conceded that intelligence is relatively hard to quantify, unlike height, I wonder how the hell he quantifies other peoples’ intelligence through everyday observation. How many people has he stalked for hours upon end, trying to quantify their intelligence, given that IQ tests typically take an hour or so to complete?
"Does studying height differences between the sexes and analyzing the causes count as “higher biological sciences” for you? Does it fall within a reasonable definition of the phrase?
Quote:
Simple correlations and observations are not sufficient for the understanding of complicated phenomenon.
Does human nutrition, food consumption, and digestion count as a “complicated phenomenon” for you?
Does the incidence of cardiac arrest count as a “complicated phenomenon” for you?
Does human growth (and the influence of genes on that growth) count as a “complicated phenomenon” for you?
Pretty much, yes to all of the above, once you go down the various paths. the understanding of digestion, for example, gets pretty damned complex. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “incidence of cardiac arrest” - actuarially, maybe not, but if you mean understanding the physiology and multiple various possible causes of cardiac arrest, certainly. But where I subjectively would place these various lines is far afield, really. And I wasn’t weaselling, asshole. I just tried to use smaller words and less complex sentences (or perhaps didn’t explain as well as I might have the first time).
Possible cultural false friend here ? To my French self, bachelor level means “end of high school”. It’s the test you have to take when you’re 18 to prove you’ve gotten good at regurgitating high school shit in a variety of topics.
I already answered the epidemiology thing. You haven’t answered what the fuck it had to do with anything.
I missed this, but yeh. It’s how I’m killing time while my machine chugs away in between renders. Poking the racists (one who’s severely impaired in the comprehension department while vehement about it) makes time fly!
“Come 'ere kids, let’s ask the racists something, and see how they respond!”
“Yippee!”
And somehow, brazil84 transcended NDD in blatant ignorance with his sheer obtuse buffoonery and disingenuous debate.
Why are you pretending that the issue ended 150 years ago? Haiti was treated as a colony, (where goods or money are extracted by the colonial power for less than their fair market value and efforts to redress those grievances are torpedoed by the banks of the colonial powers), by France and the U.S., regularly, and Britain and Germany intermittently, right up until 1915. After that, the U.S. “intervened” on multiple occasions to prevent the Haitians from organizing their own country. The Haitians, themselves, clearly have made numerous mistakes, but every effort on their part to correct those mistakes has been thwarted by miltary or economic intervention. For example, the various efforts to remove Papa Doc Duvalier from the presidency/dictatorship to permit a serious effort at reform, were thwarted by the U.S. government. By the time that Baby Doc Duvalier was finally removed from power, the country was in such dire financial straits as to defy the efforts of anyone to correct them. (In contrast, the Dominican Republic, also held in thrall for many decades, was permitted to oust their dictator and was then supplied with a great deal of financial aid to get them on their feet.) If you are unaware of those issues, you really have no business even discussing Haiti. If you are aware of those issues, you are simply engaging in dishonest rhetoric to make a false claim.
A statistician named brazil
seemed a Klein Bottle full of swill.
Said he: “If you can
remove my head from my end,
My shit will endlessly loop downhill.”
So, if three sets of white grandparents are all it takes to produce a luminary in the field of literature, then surely two sets would be sufficient to produce an average individual? If so, isn’t it imperative that whites set about on a philanthropic miscegenation quest?
It’s not the fact that I mention it per se, it’s the fact that you are engaging in it.
No, I’m using it correctly.
You (meaning the most of the people on your side of the debate), make claims along the lines of “race doesn’t exist.” But when your criteria for “doesn’t exist” are applied to other groups (which you seem to accept), suddenly everything changes.
Or conversely, your criteria for accepting other groups would require you to accept race – if applied consistently.
In other words, you have a double-standard.
For example, you assert that “ethnic Germans exist as a self-defined group” But by the same standard, it follows that blacks exist, since one could easily define “blacks” by simply asking people if they are black and including everyone who says “yes.”
It’s special pleading since you refuse to apply the same standards to groups like “Han Chinese.”
Indeed, when I pressed you, you refused to set forth precise criteria for whether a group “exists as a genetic grouping.” Most likely because subconsciously you are perfectly aware of your double-standard.
You also evaded my simple question as to your criteria for “coherent and distinct.”
It will help me to demonstrate that Truman Burbank’s’s claim was false. Since you deny that “actuarial science” qualifies as science, I need to find something else you will accept as “science.” Duh.
Ok, and it’s taught at bachelor’s level or beyond, agreed?
Therefore, according to one of Truman Burbank’s definitions, epidemology is an area where “simple observation won’t cut it.”
But one can reasonably conclude – just based on simple observation – that among people living in the United States, 50 year old men are more likely to get heart attacks than 20 year old girls.
Showing that Truman Burbank’s assertion was wrong.
Ok, so as far as I can tell, by your interpretation of Truman Burbank’s definition, anything which is not taught towards the end of high school does not count as “higher.”
e.g., it would appear that anything which is taught only in college and beyond; or in PhD programs and beyond; etc., does not count as “higher.”