Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socio-Politics: Race Doesn't Exist

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:18:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wouldn't go quite as far, but I broadly agree. It's a lazy way of catagorising people who share a 'family portrait' of characteristics like overlapping physical features, culture, history and so on. It's a vague notion and essentialism is bunk, but it's useful. Black people have a particular gene that determines their skin colour, and that gene has no effect on other characteristics like intelligence or athletic ability, but it does correlate with some characteristics and that makes it useful.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:23:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 4:18:13 PM, Kinesis wrote:
that gene has no effect on other characteristics like intelligence or athletic ability

Actually, those aren't the useful ones. The useful characteristics to politicians are voting records, policy positions etc.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:25:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.

We know this to be true. But our conscious minds will not allow us to think in
an unconventional manner. This is life.
falconduler
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:39:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.

Anthropologists classify according to race. As well as many nobel prize winning biologists and geneticists. you are an apologist for liberal marxists.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:40:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 4:39:18 PM, falconduler wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.

Anthropologists classify according to race. As well as many nobel prize winning biologists and geneticists. you are an apologist for liberal marxists.

The clown is back you guys........
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:41:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 4:39:18 PM, falconduler wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.

Anthropologists classify according to race. As well as many nobel prize winning biologists and geneticists. you are an apologist for liberal marxists.

That may be so, but that does not mean that science conclusively defines humanity.
falconduler
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:42:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 4:41:07 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/10/2012 4:39:18 PM, falconduler wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.

Anthropologists classify according to race. As well as many nobel prize winning biologists and geneticists. you are an apologist for liberal marxists.

That may be so, but that does not mean that science conclusively defines humanity.

really? who does then ,the naacp?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:51:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.

You can actually use genetic cluster analysis to group people based on their self-identified race. But, the race realist position can concede that race is a "social construct". That wouldn't change that those who self-identified themselves as a certain race have differing levels of IQ which can be must attributed to variations in genetics.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 5:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 4:39:18 PM, falconduler wrote:
Anthropologists classify according to race. As well as many nobel prize winning biologists and geneticists.

You have no knowledge. You are false.

http://genomebiology.com...
http://www.nature.com...

you are an apologist for liberal marxists.

You are collectivist pawn of divide and rule fascism. I have Rand Paul in my avatar, how can I be Liberal Marxist. I am anti-Liberal ant-Marxist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 5:03:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.

The world doesn't and never will follow your ideology. Race has and will continue to be a sociological dividing and cultural factor.

Sorry.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 5:10:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 5:03:38 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:33:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Race inside the human species does NOT exist. Race realists have the burden to prove scientifically that race does in fact exist. As it stands now, most modern scientists find biological essentialism obsolete and that todays race classifications are based on folk taxonomies with no biological basis. There is homo sapien sapiens, but there is no scientific subdivision beyond that. There's human race and that's it. Fact.

2. Poltical decisions should not be based on non-existent "races." Politicians should not be pandering to so-called racial groups. Race is a tool of divide and rule. Clash groups against eachother while the elite sit on the top sipping wine watching the ignorant suboids fight with eachother over nonsense.

3. Categorizing people into groups is a collectivist ideology. Collectivism is dangerous, deadly, and genocidal eugenics. When you classify people into groups and generalize people in that group, you destroy the individual. Individuals must be recognized, but artificial pre-defined groups ignore the individual and their unique traits.

The world doesn't and never will follow your ideology. Race has and will continue to be a sociological dividing and cultural factor.

Sorry.

Appeal to nature/tradition?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 5:15:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Correlation =/= Causation. Very basic principle.

Just because statistics might show that a sample from an African population has lower IQ than a sample of an Asian population, doesn't mean that skin color CAUSED the lower IQ.

Would you ever say "black person x is IQ 90 because of his skin color"? I would say "Obama and Neil Degrasse Tyson have that skin color and they have very high level intelligence. Why didn't their skin color and ancestry cause them low IQ?"

That's because skin color doesn't cause low functioning brain. That is an absurd notion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 5:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 5:15:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Correlation =/= Causation. Very basic principle.

Just because statistics might show that a sample from an African population has lower IQ than a sample of an Asian population, doesn't mean that skin color CAUSED the lower IQ.

Would you ever say "black person x is IQ 90 because of his skin color"? I would say "Obama and Neil Degrasse Tyson have that skin color and they have very high level intelligence. Why didn't their skin color and ancestry cause them low IQ?"

That's because skin color doesn't cause low functioning brain. That is an absurd notion.

Of course its an absurd notation. Its genetic differences as well. There are physiological and morphological differences between different races besides skin color. Africans are also shown to have smaller brain sizes on average then other races.

Africans evolved to have darker skin color due to differences in temperature. Hotter climates have more UV light, which causes skin cancer which kills people. Likewise, people in colder climates have lighter skin since sunlight increases vitamin D, and there's less sunlight in cold weather so they need lighter skin to absorb the sunrays.

This isn't controversial knowledge and many people already know about this. However, do you really think that these are the only 2 differences between races that occurred based on natural selection. Such a claim is quite absurd.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 5:31:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 5:24:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 5:15:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Correlation =/= Causation. Very basic principle.

Just because statistics might show that a sample from an African population has lower IQ than a sample of an Asian population, doesn't mean that skin color CAUSED the lower IQ.

Would you ever say "black person x is IQ 90 because of his skin color"? I would say "Obama and Neil Degrasse Tyson have that skin color and they have very high level intelligence. Why didn't their skin color and ancestry cause them low IQ?"

That's because skin color doesn't cause low functioning brain. That is an absurd notion.

Of course its an absurd notation. Its genetic differences as well. There are physiological and morphological differences between different races besides skin color. Africans are also shown to have smaller brain sizes on average then other races.

Africans evolved to have darker skin color due to differences in temperature. Hotter climates have more UV light, which causes skin cancer which kills people. Likewise, people in colder climates have lighter skin since sunlight increases vitamin D, and there's less sunlight in cold weather so they need lighter skin to absorb the sunrays.

This isn't controversial knowledge and many people already know about this. However, do you really think that these are the only 2 differences between races that occurred based on natural selection. Such a claim is quite absurd.

And again, all races evolved from the Negro race of people.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 5:45:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 5:24:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Of course its an absurd notation. Its genetic differences as well. There are physiological and morphological differences between different races besides skin color. Africans are also shown to have smaller brain sizes on average then other races.

1. I reject your classification of "Africans."

2. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a bigger brain than Ray Comfort. If not then higher intelligence regardless of brain size. Explain that.

3. You are being a collectivist. There are Africans with high intelligence and Caucasians with low intelligence, a fact you can't run from.

Africans evolved to have darker skin color due to differences in temperature. Hotter climates have more UV light, which causes skin cancer which kills people. Likewise, people in colder climates have lighter skin since sunlight increases vitamin D, and there's less sunlight in cold weather so they need lighter skin to absorb the sunrays.

So what. Yes, skin and nutrients in the skin are different among people with different skin color. This is obvious.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 6:52:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 5:45:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 5:24:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Of course its an absurd notation. Its genetic differences as well. There are physiological and morphological differences between different races besides skin color. Africans are also shown to have smaller brain sizes on average then other races.

1. I reject your classification of "Africans."

Alright, but you recognize that people have different skin color, and those with different skin color then other people also tend to have physiological and cognitive differences on average. Do you doubt that people with dark skin also tend to be taller on average.

2. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a bigger brain than Ray Comfort. If not then higher intelligence regardless of brain size. Explain that.

When I said bigger brain, I literally meant bigger brain. Don't think we actually know the brain sizes of the two. I said its based on averages. I acknowledge that some blacks are smarter then some whites. Duh.

3. You are being a collectivist. There are Africans with high intelligence and Caucasians with low intelligence, a fact you can't run from.

I don't run from the fact. I acknowledge it. You apparently don't understand what a mean is.

Africans evolved to have darker skin color due to differences in temperature. Hotter climates have more UV light, which causes skin cancer which kills people. Likewise, people in colder climates have lighter skin since sunlight increases vitamin D, and there's less sunlight in cold weather so they need lighter skin to absorb the sunrays.

So what. Yes, skin and nutrients in the skin are different among people with different skin color. This is obvious.

So you acknowledge that differences in environment can cause differences in outcome.

And agricultural-based society which were more predominate in Eurasia, required a written language, people to save, and budgeting using monetary units while sub-sahara africa didn't.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 6:59:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@darkkermit

Italy has a higher IQ than Britain, Britain has a higher IQ than France.

Is French a race? British a race? Italian a race?

What distinguishable traits can you group based on? Breeding populations? If that's the case, are the Amish a race? If so, are they superior or inferior?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:02:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 6:59:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@darkkermit

Italy has a higher IQ than Britain, Britain has a higher IQ than France.

Is French a race? British a race? Italian a race?

Do they really? By how much and what's the source.

What distinguishable traits can you group based on? Breeding populations? If that's the case, are the Amish a race? If so, are they superior or inferior?

You can't. They are arbitrary. But just because society classified them, doesn't mean you can't find differences between these groups that society classified.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:20:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 6:52:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 5:45:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. I reject your classification of "Africans."

Alright, but you recognize that people have different skin color, and those with different skin color then other people also tend to have physiological and cognitive differences on average. Do you doubt that people with dark skin also tend to be taller on average.

On average, artificially, arbitrarily defined group x on average, drinks more chocolate milk than group y.

You will find disparity in numbers everywhere but it means nothing.

You think that in order to disprove your theory the numbers need to look like this:

Africans: 66% high IQ on average. 34% low IQ.
Caucasians: 66% high IQ on average. 34% low IQ.

That's unrealistic.

2. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a bigger brain than Ray Comfort. If not then higher intelligence regardless of brain size. Explain that.

When I said bigger brain, I literally meant bigger brain. Don't think we actually know the brain sizes of the two.

I know.

Either a. Tyson has a bigger brain thus disproving your generalization or b. Tyson has a smaller brain but still smarter, thus rendering brain size between humans irrelevant.

I said its based on averages. I acknowledge that some blacks are smarter then some whites. Duh.

3. You are being a collectivist. There are Africans with high intelligence and Caucasians with low intelligence, a fact you can't run from.

I don't run from the fact. I acknowledge it. You apparently don't understand what a mean is.

I do, but it's meaningless. It's just a number at worst, a correlation at best.

So what. Yes, skin and nutrients in the skin are different among people with different skin color. This is obvious.

So you acknowledge that differences in environment can cause differences in outcome.

I acknowledge that differences in environmental climates can causr differences in outcome of skin color. I don't believe that climates control brain function.

And agricultural-based society which were more predominate in Eurasia, required a written language, people to save, and budgeting using monetary units while sub-sahara africa didn't.

Take an African baby, put him through American private schools then onto Harvard and compare him to a caucasian infant thrown into an African desert or forrest and grow up with no education. You will soon realize how race is irrelevant.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 7:19:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can we go back to saying the Irish are a different race than Whites? The racist jokes were much better back then.

but that would only further increase the IQ gap between blacks and whites.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:21:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 7:19:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can we go back to saying the Irish are a different race than Whites? The racist jokes were much better back then.

I like how if I go to Brazil, I'm a different race than if I'm in Cuba, Colombia, or if I'm the U.S. or Spain. It's kinda cool. I feel like some kinda superhero.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:25:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 7:02:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 6:59:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@darkkermit

Italy has a higher IQ than Britain, Britain has a higher IQ than France.

Is French a race? British a race? Italian a race?

Do they really? By how much and what's the source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Compare Netherlands to Turkey. Big difference in IQ. Both Euro-Caucasian.

What distinguishable traits can you group based on? Breeding populations? If that's the case, are the Amish a race? If so, are they superior or inferior?

You can't. They are arbitrary. But just because society classified them, doesn't mean you can't find differences between these groups that society classified.

So you concede that it's arbitrary social construct.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 7:21:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 7:19:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can we go back to saying the Irish are a different race than Whites? The racist jokes were much better back then.

but that would only further increase the IQ gap between blacks and whites.

So? I like having as many races as possible. I call it racial micro-targeting. Make stereotypes more accurate.

Should the Jews get their own race, or should we toss them in with the whites?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:30:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 7:20:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 6:52:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 5:45:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. I reject your classification of "Africans."

Alright, but you recognize that people have different skin color, and those with different skin color then other people also tend to have physiological and cognitive differences on average. Do you doubt that people with dark skin also tend to be taller on average.

On average, artificially, arbitrarily defined group x on average, drinks more chocolate milk than group y.

You will find disparity in numbers everywhere but it means nothing.

You think that in order to disprove your theory the numbers need to look like this:

Africans: 66% high IQ on average. 34% low IQ.
Caucasians: 66% high IQ on average. 34% low IQ.

That's unrealistic.

So you agree that on average, africans have lower IQ then Caucasians. This shouldn't be up for debate. What most people debate is the cause.

2. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a bigger brain than Ray Comfort. If not then higher intelligence regardless of brain size. Explain that.

When I said bigger brain, I literally meant bigger brain. Don't think we actually know the brain sizes of the two.

I know.

Either a. Tyson has a bigger brain thus disproving your generalization or b. Tyson has a smaller brain but still smarter, thus rendering brain size between humans irrelevant.

The correlation between brain size and IQ is 0.4. It doesn't need to be the case that one with a brain size must always have a higher IQ. Do you not understand a correlation?

If you found an american that lived shorter lifespan then an African, would that prove that Africans don't have a shorter lifespan then Africans. No, of course not.

I said its based on averages. I acknowledge that some blacks are smarter then some whites. Duh.

3. You are being a collectivist. There are Africans with high intelligence and Caucasians with low intelligence, a fact you can't run from.

I don't run from the fact. I acknowledge it. You apparently don't understand what a mean is.

I do, but it's meaningless. It's just a number at worst, a correlation at best.

Right, so can you agree that Africans have on average a lower IQ then Europeans and Asians. That's half the race realist position.

So what. Yes, skin and nutrients in the skin are different among people with different skin color. This is obvious.

So you acknowledge that differences in environment can cause differences in outcome.

I acknowledge that differences in environmental climates can causr differences in outcome of skin color. I don't believe that climates control brain function.

What about indirectly? How about not climate but environmental factors.


And agricultural-based society which were more predominate in Eurasia, required a written language, people to save, and budgeting using monetary units while sub-sahara africa didn't.


Take an African baby, put him through American private schools then onto Harvard and compare him to a caucasian infant thrown into an African desert or forrest and grow up with no education. You will soon realize how race is irrelevant.

I acknowledge that differences between intelligence are based on environmental factors. Obviously, that's an extreme example. However, in nations like the US where there are less differences in environment, differences in IQ are largely due more to variations in genetics.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:34:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 7:26:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/10/2012 7:21:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 7:19:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can we go back to saying the Irish are a different race than Whites? The racist jokes were much better back then.

but that would only further increase the IQ gap between blacks and whites.

So? I like having as many races as possible. I call it racial micro-targeting. Make stereotypes more accurate.

Should the Jews get their own race, or should we toss them in with the whites?

It doesn't matter. Although Sephardi jews have a higher IQ on average then the average white.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:49:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Brain surface area, and not brain size, is what matters. Smaller brains that are more compact and efficient are more intelligent. This is why the average female is more intelligent than the average male.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:52:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 7:34:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 7:26:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/10/2012 7:21:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 7:19:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can we go back to saying the Irish are a different race than Whites? The racist jokes were much better back then.

but that would only further increase the IQ gap between blacks and whites.

So? I like having as many races as possible. I call it racial micro-targeting. Make stereotypes more accurate.

Should the Jews get their own race, or should we toss them in with the whites?

It doesn't matter. Although Sephardi jews have a higher IQ on average then the average white.

Well, if there's a significant IQ difference between two groups, that justifies racial groups, so I figure we should give the Sephardics their own race on those grounds.

However, we should also discriminate, using Rushton's own data, between races. South Indians have a median IQ of 81 while South Eastern Asians have median IQ of 90. The difference between asians and europeans is six points (106 and 100).

Central asians (IQ 82) should be a different race than Northeast Asians (IQ 105), South east Asian also needs it owns race (IQ 90). Also, if you parse the same data for head size, you'll find that once you get past averaging the picture is far from clear.

People with large heads can have high (european countries) or low (Vietnamese 99.5) IQs. The smallest heads in the world are found in Southeast Asia and South India, not Africa. Amerindians have larger heads than Europeans.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com...