Agreed, but the difference is big enough that a rigorous assessment is not necessary.
Not at all, it’s just a tangent resulting from another poster’s failed aspersions on my statistical knowledge. Nice attack on my motivations, though.
After 37 pages, it’s safe to say that NDD et alia can not shut up. Pity that they have found a board willing to let them promote their cause.
The interesting question is whether their inability to shut up is genetic.
It’s obvious to me that criminals are generally poorer than average. It’s obvious to me that, on average, the poorer have more offspring.
So it’s not at all obvious to me that those in prison or even those executed have fewer children. It’s very possible (“obvious”, even), that many or most criminals have already fathered multiple children before they are caught.
Basically, you’re saying you made this up and you have absolutely no evidence for it. Because it’s certainly not “obvious”.
DNA can reveal the population much of one’s ancestry came from. For example, it may determine that someone has roughly 50% Yoruba ancestry, 25% French, 12% Cherokee, and 12% Carib ancestry.
You’ve never given any sort of answer as to why it makes any sense at all why I should consider all sub-Saharan African populations to be the same “race” when many of these populations are closer to “white” and “Asian” populations than to other sub-Saharan African populations.
Brazil: Anyway, if you had even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, you would interpret my words in a reasonable way.
That’s rich, considering the BS you’re trying to generate with my casual definition of “higher sciences”, and then your counter examples of age/height. Do you really think the hypothesis of a genetic causal difference of IQ between races is on the same order of simplicity.
I even offered you can interpret my term* in any reasonable way*, BUT NOOOOOO! /end Belushi.
You are so full of shit I can’t even think of a suitable simile…
And your arguement seems to have reduced thusly:
- I believe blacks are inferior intellectually and behaviorally, and I believe this is genetic. This is a science fact, I so assert.
- But the vast majority of accepted genetics research, which is all science-y, doesn’t support my claim on a multitude of levels, including the lines I’d like to draw around the races.
- That’s OK, though, I don’t need no stinking science, which is hard, my observations and impressions alone, based upon my personal experience, are enough to prove my science-y hypothesis!
- Win!
Well, I has hoping for more of a sequence of logically phrased propositions, but I guess I have to work with what I get.
There are many problems with this statement.
-
How can it be ascertained which “genes” determine “criminal inclinations”? How do they manifest within populations over time? Is it a single gene or a combination? Is it recessive or dominant? Is it the result of an established genetic lineage or rather a persistently recurring mutation?
-
Leaving aside for the moment the larger questions of the actual transmission of criminal inclinations genetically, why do you apparently assume, as noted by iiandyiiii, that criminals have historically been executed before procreating?
-
Why is crime still extant in every human society on Earth today?
What is your evidence for this assertion? Using homicide rate as a proxy for a nation’s overall crime rate (as you yourself have repeatedly done), I can readily provide counter-evidence. For example, Pakistan, which has exhibited advanced urban civilization for over 4,000 years had a homicide rate of 7.3 per 100,000 in 2009, whereas Norway, whose oldest city is little over 1,000 years old, had a homicide rate of 0.65 for the same year.
You have not established that this process is “biologically beneficial”, nor have you even attempted to define what would constitute a “biologically beneficial” state or telos. Leaving that aside, you should be aware that the practices of capital punishment and forced labor have a long and frequent history of being actually practiced in many, if not most, human societies from antiquity to the present. Given that that is so, why is crime still a not infrequent occurrence in all societies?
As previously noted, it seems as though you assume that criminals have not procreated before their execution or time of incarceration. If this is not the case, and they have in fact procreated before such time, then the only way to prevent their genetic code from being passed onto future generations would be to either sterilize, imprison, or murder their descendents. Would you be in favor of treating criminal descendents in such a manner? Furthermore, as noted previously, you have not defined the mechanisms by which criminal tendencies are genetically expressed and transmitted. In the absence of such knowledge, it is not improbable that some descendents of criminals may be prohibited to procreate (or to live freely, or even to live) even though there is no indication that they themselves would exhibit the criminal tendencies of their forbears. Would you feel that it is just to treat individuals in this manner?
I would argue that society as a whole benefits when it prohibits the brutalization of any of its members, but as this essentially an example of moral judgment rather than science, I would simply say that I disagree with you and leave it at that.
This is a very sweeping and broad assertion. Do you really adhere to it in all instances? What about criminals who have done productive work for society, in addition to their crimes? Also, as noted, what of the issue of criminal descendents who need not necessarily become criminals themselves? Is society also better off if they hadn’t been born?
Depending upon which society you live in, these are societal benefits to which every citizen or resident is entitled, even from birth. How has a newborn in any sense “earned” any of these benefits?
I agree with you. Criminals do have an obligation to repay society for their crimes. However, remedial education and job training (as well as medical care) can often be the prerequisites by which a criminal can significantly increase their social productivity. There is also the matter of recidivism to reconsider. In cases where a criminal is to be eventually released and re-integrated into society, would you posit that their brutalization while incarcerated would make them more or less likely to re-offend and commit future, perhaps even worse, crimes?
It is not obvious.
First, you are making the strong presumption there is a prison system. This is a idea that has no basis in history. It is a superficiality taken from recent Western history. And your ideas of prison based on North American prisons. They are nonsense and provincial ideas.
Even that does not say any single thing about the rate of natality of persons who have been imprisoned. The history of the English and the French and the deportations and work houses for so called criminal poor, there is no sign of lower natalities.
and we even ignore here the great usage of what would presently be called the criminal justice systems for the crimes that are not but those that are the religious crimes or the political crimes, that is to say, have no thing to do with criminality as NDD would seem to be thinking about it. It is again incoherence.
Again we find an idea you have simply invented for yourself as a fact.
No that is not obvious.
The idea of criminality is only something that is from itself a certain form of civilisation.
But what is the long history of civilisation? What is the criminality. These vague concepts are put out with no rigour.
Russia, it has terrible crime. But it is white in NND schema. So are the Balkans. The Balkans has been exposed to civilisation in what would seem to have your definition from the classical ancient period. But we find
You are again engaging in creation of Fables of Esope. Story making to support the fabulation of explanations.
I am against these calls for banning. I have without any doubts much more reason than you to be agaced by their discourse, but I dislike greatly banning them. It is cowardice and stupidity. What has made them more ridiculous? Banning them because of your discomforts? Or for everyone to see the constant contradictions, the incoherences between one idea and another. The ad hoc manner of the definitions and the constant exceptions and the lack of logic? Me, I say it is the later.
Et ainsi, une verité est exposée. So we now know a Truth. No rigour do you need, only your prejudices.
Not that it was not evident, but this a fine statement of reality.
They reveal probable descendence from specific geographic populations. Yoruba is not synonym to Peul.
You see differences in behaviours etc through your lens, they have no sense relative to genetic groupings.
Amusing.
It is rather, a brief American occupation of a well-educated country with important infrastructure and institutional base is used as a magic card.
It is odd that the Americans like to forget the Philippines and the catastrophe they achieved there. And even that this population should be super rich and progressed because they are “Orientals” in the archaic scheme of NDD and 84 (as I have been inspired by the reading of the Aliens discussions and they have reminded me of the badly loved Aliens 3, although I liked this film).
No, not in truth. But we have already seen the statement from 84, about not needing rigour. he needs no rigour in knowledge, his prejudices are fine.
Again this a fabulation of Esope. It has no sense in history.
In the history of the justice systems it is impossible to say that except in the cases of murders crime that the execution was used in a regular manner. And one needs to give a credibility to ancient justice decisions, which used no proofs often and in the case of the very white Germanics, used the proof of combat, which has no sense at all about impact on criminality.
This is fantasy without any root in any history or even any knowledge of the past.
Except it is not true by any of the comparative data, although I have no great confidence in criminal data among countries as this data. some countries of large populations that NDD should call black have very low crime rates - including Senegal, which should by his schema have higher crime rate than the Balkans historically.
It also of course introduces a back door for him to escape the incoherencies of his argument - the races matter until some historical-cultural reasons explains an exception need for his schema. It is entirely based on the ad hoc needs of his Esope stories.
This is the naked Fascism. I confess I must suspect this is only trolling and not a true opinion. If it is a true opinion, well, NDD is in effect a transplant from 1930.
He would be better to produce first the evidence supporting even the basic datas historical to justify even the elaboration of his presumptoins
So… Anyone see the latest C0nc0rdance video? ^^
This “truth” regarding the dichotomy between male and female height has been ascertained through scientific research rather than the observations of one person.
In other words, I accept the dichotomy between male and female height because of the existence of this (a valid research paper):
Note that the research paper was not based on mere observation as it was based on actual measurement and quantification.
Wikipedia is a shitty source.
BTW, you’ve yet to explain what constitutes “a caucasian” and what constitutes “a negro” since you’ve insisted that neither Pushkin nor Barack Obama are black.
Holy mother of god, you really are that stupid.
Are you even vaguely aware of what this whole discussion is about? I mean, you’ve participated in umpteen pages of this thread and the GD thread; I kind of assumed that you knew this was about genetics.
I confess, I may have been foolish enough to assume that when I said “blacks don’t exist” when discussing NDD’s claims that there are three main races which can be distinguished by their genes, readers would understand that I meant it in the same context rather than, say, people who couldn’t pass the paper bag test or people eligible to win a MOBO or members of the New Zealand rugby squad. There is a difference between “special pleading” and “knowing what the hell we’re talking about”. No one is saying that black people are mythical creatures like blue unicorns named Henry. They exist and can be grouped by socio-economic background, by subculture, by self-identification, by phenotypical traits, or by other factors depending on context. What we are saying is that they cannot be grouped by their genes. That’s why blacks “don’t exist” when we try to compare genetic populations.
I am astonished that you’ve been secretly nurturing this imagined “gotcha” all this time, as if your misunderstanding of what I said counted as an inconsistency on my part. It’s like watching someone argue that the 2006 IAU were involved in special pleading because they failed to consider these planets in their classification discussion - technically yes, they’re “Planets” but they have nothing to do with what was being talked about. I guess in future I’ll have to lower my assumptions of the intelligence level of my audience here, just in case you’re reading it.
No, it’s because you demonstrate a continuing lack of comprehension of any of my answers unless they can be answered as “Yes” or “No”.
I now understand why the word “simple” figures so heavily in your posts.
Here’s a fun point. Do you remember what started us off on this diversion into semantic stupidity? It was because New Deal Democrat has repeatedly asserted that “blacks” (referring to them as a unified racial group) are genetically predisposed to lower intelligence, criminality and all sorts of other bad things. It has subsequently been pointed out, by me and many others, that blacks are not a unified racial group genetically - none of the various cites provided have shown anything to this effect, and several competing cites have shown the opposite to be true.
So here you are, quibbling over what I mean by a “coherent and distinct” genetic group. You want to know what I mean? I mean what NDD means when he talks about how blacks all over the world exhibit the same traits based on their genes. So guess what? You’ve been arguing with him by proxy.
And the upshot of this is: if there exist populations that can be grouped by distinctive genetic traits, my argument stands. But if there don’t, NDD’s argument fails utterly because all his claims about inferior genes would be meaningless. And although most of your posts have been tangential nonsense, you appear to have hitched your wagon to that particular star too.
Enjoy your moment of rhetorical zugzwang. Your move, Kasparov.
Just checked out a few of them. Thanks for the lead.
The Science of Human Races, Part I
Do Human Races Exist?
The Genetic Bucket Chain, Part I
The Genetic Bucket Chain, Part II
Granted, these are largely beyond the comprehension of our resident racialists, but they do contribute to the broader fight against ignorance.
Thank you for a most hilarious response, showing a complete lack of self awareness of your own behavior.
How many new recruits do you think they’ve enlisted from their posts here?
Not to immerse myself in this debate too deeply, but a question: if there was no research paper looking at the differences between male and female height, would you simply discount the proposition completely? If not, to what degree would you allow more anecdotal evidence, including your own observation, to steer your thinking?
Pushkin and Back Obama are mulattoes who owe their high IQ genes to white ancestry.
If there is any value in those websites, tell what they say in your words. If you cannot do that, you do not understand those argument yourself.