A Conversation About Race

[M.Dancer]

I concede my failure here.

Weak...

[lictor616]

Wrong. The reference to most medical geneticists was not ever referenced to only Liberman and your

attempt to suggest Liberman is the only geneticist that has ever stated that skin colour

and race identifying features poorly coorelate with genetic variations is a deliberate misrepresentation

of what this article stated.

"we know that the grand majority of biologists agree that there are human races" (Lieberman et. al. 1992-2001 ).

The lieberman study and poll has nothing to do with race identifying features... you don't know which research i'm quoting.

[lictor616]

Weak...

fair enough.

[Rue]

Rue, just wow.

4-6 posts in a row absolutely throwing him down to the floor. I love your posts, they are long sometimes, but there is so much gold in there, it is scary. Thanks for the posts!! I am not sure if he can come back from that. You summed up my feelings in those posts. I am not sure why I cannot put them into such words as you do.

Superb job!

Thank you but the only difference between us is I was born yacking and could never shut up.

Lol.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Rue

[Rue]

Lictor is one of these teenagers who thinks he's smart and who simply copies stuff he's read in other racist sites and pastes it here hoping to appear like he knows what he babbling about.

He's neither smart nor convincing as Rue has shown.

And he is not particularly honest as I have shown.

If I knew he was a teenager I would have sicked Serena Williams

on him.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Rue

[Rue]

he also said that blacks are better immunized machines capable of withstanding disease and reacting better to it thanks to melanin.

The fact that someone may be better immunized does not prove your hypothesis of race

being a biologically distinct entity nor does it suggest the person with the particular genetic

trait is superior to another, just better immunized.

Your attempt to suggest your notion of superiority is not based on morality or subjective

beliefs but only genetic traits is not credible precisely because you have made it clear

you use the notion of race subjectively, i.e., to suggest black children look like apes.

This suddden attempt to portray yourself as only meaning to use the word superior to

connotate the existence or non existence of a genetic trait fools no one.

Kind of hard to play the role of logical, unemotional, objective scientist when you

call black children apes.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Rue

[GostHacked]

I think you felt the weakness of that argument ghosthacked... but of course you will never admit to it...

I felt weakness in every one of your posts so far.

yes yes ... Some genetic factors may make us objectively superior... but um not really "because in the end, negro and mongoloid people may have other advantages to make them equal and on par with the rest of humanity"...

Because in the end there is no overall net gain over another for each 'race'. Hence no overall superiority over another 'race'. And even if I was to use 'Race' as you use it, there would be just 3 races. Because that is the most obvious. I have always said the use of race is a dividing factor and sets you up for a crap load of social problems and fallacies. It is a method of divide and conquere. We are grouped, sub grouped, and sub grouped, and cross grouped..to absolute death. There is no homogenus entity anymore. We are all part of the same human race. We should freakin act like it.

How silly is that statement? how indicting is that!? You're relying on some faith or perhaps the divine power of some unnamed deity to sort of round up or "even out" (!) the strengths and weakness and give strengths to some where other have weaknesses... but of course (as you assure us we're all precisely to the tenth decimal equal at the end of the day)...

I am agnostic.

Blacks have greater resilience to serious illnesses such as bacterial infections, skin cancer and some may even have superior running abilities (kenyans) but um, errr, we whites make up for it.... which (of course) in the end makes us equal how? how do we make up for it? A few more IQ points? Blue eyes?

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/02/25/46250.aspx

Researchers led by Jeffrey Browning of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas sought to examine the issue in a large population-based study. They included 2170 African-American, Hispanic and Caucasian participants and examined metabolic factors for each, including total/regional adiposity, insulin resistance, and hypertriglyceridemia. They also measured each patient's levels of liver fat. They sought to understand how ethnic differences affect the interplay of all of these factors.

Ethnicities, not races.

tell me specifically how this works because I find this quite a devastating indictment on your part... because saying that actually means you agree with the racists. You just wiped out your own point! Namely that we're equal and that races don't have any difference in ability or capacity...

We are all borne with the same potential. It is what you do with that potential that determines your capability. YOur environment will also influence you in ways to become something else or to not take the path you want, you can either call foul and play victim all your life, or you can make lemonade.

Here is your sickle cell stance shot down in a blazing glory.

http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/si...lackdisease.cfm

As we've become more knowledgeable about sickle cell anemia we've discovered that it is not infectious but rather genetic. In other words you can't get sickle cell from exposure to a toxin, infection, virus, or parasite. People with sickle cell are born with the disease. It is inherited when parents pass it on to their children.

While it is true that sickle cell is very prevalent in much of Africa it is entirely untrue that it is confined just to that region. In fact sickle cell is prevalent in parts of all of the following areas:

* Africa

* Mediterranean countries (such as Greece, Turkey, and Italy)

* The Arabian peninsula

* India

* Spanish-speaking regions (South America, Central America, and parts of the Caribbean)

In each region both dark and light skinned people have been found to be sickle cell carriers. The explanation for this particular distribution lies in explanation for the survival of sickle cell over time.

[Rue]

To respond directly to your last comment Lictor,

No the fact medical studies might conclude for example, that people with darker skin

are less likely to get skin cancer, or that for some reason, young girls with blonde hair

and blue eyes from Northern climates,i.e., Scandinavia seem to have higher than usual rates

of juvenile arthritis, etc., does not suggest superiority or inferiority or biological distinction by race

type.

When a scientist talks of strength or weakness in an inherited trait they do not

do so to suggest superiority as you do.

We are in fact both creatures born with genetic traits and predispositions and we

are creatures who adapt and acquire traits and characteristics as we grow.

The line between what we are born with and is destined to come out and what we

learn to develop, i.e., nature v. nurture is impossible to define absolutely.

If science has proven anything it is that everything we define depends on the variables

we work with.

Trying to arbitrarily draw a line which is what you do when you create the construct

of a black and white raceand mix and match the wrong genetic theories to try prove

your theory is illogical.

The feeling that leads you to comment a black child looks like an ape is

not based on scientific methodology.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Rue

[charter.rights]

To respond directly to your last comment Lictor,

No the fact medical studies might conclude for example, that people with darker skin

are less likely to get skin cancer, or that for some reason, young girls with blonde hair

and blue eyes from Northern climates,i.e., Scandinavia seem to have higher than usual rates

of juvenile arthritis, etc., does not suggest superiority or inferiority or biological distinction by race

type.

When a scientist talks of strength or weakness in an inherited trait they do not

do so to suggest superiority as you do.

We are in fact both creatures born with genetic traits and predispositions and we

are creatures who adapt and acquire traits and characteristics as we grow.

The line between what we are born with and is destined to come out and what we

learn to develop, i.e., nature v. nurture is impossible to define absolutely.

If science has proven anything it is that everything we define depends on the variables

we work with.

Trying to arbitrarily draw a line which is what you do when you create the construct

of a black and white raceand mix and match the wrong genetic theories to try prove

your theory is illogical.

The feeling that leads you to comment a black child looks like an ape is

not based on scientific methodology.

I suppose it may be genetic......but I often wonder why racists and bigots are always predisposed to inferior intelligence.......

[Thomas Kwon]

I suppose it may be genetic......but I often wonder why racists and bigots are always predisposed to inferior intelligence.......

people call me a racist, but my IQ is 145, which is in the 99th percentile.

So I ask you, is there concrete statistical evidence on your claim?

[kimmy]

people call me a racist, but my IQ is 145, which is in the 99th percentile.

So I ask you, is there concrete statistical evidence on your claim?

Why do people call you a racist?

-k

[Riverwind]

One thing that pisses me off about these discussions is the abuse of statistics.

In all of these cases we are talking about the means of normal distributions. In most cases, the variation within the group completely swamps the difference between the mean.

However, there is another parameter which is relevant called variance which measures how spread out the distribution us. The higher the variance the larger the difference between the mean and the most extreme individuals. Differences in the variance affect the distribution of people at the extremes and in many areas of human endevours it is the extremes that matter - not the averages.

For example, any distribution of IQ for men and women will show that the means are almost identical but the variance is much larger for men. This means in any collection of the smartest or dumbest people you will find that the majority will be men. This is true even if the average woman has an IQ equal to the average man.

What this also means is the quest for equality is between all groups in all cases is a waste of time. Differences in the variance will result in a situation where any collection of people at the extreme will be dominated by one group or another even if there are no differences in the average.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

so when affirmative action selects a black person for a job because of racial quotas.... that's racism...

why is it our official policy then?

and why areN,t liberals (who are supposed to be the real egalitarians) opposing it?

Liberals ARE egalitarians and believe that Blacks are inferior and need a helping hand. They are so proud to be uplifting the black race from there lowly station and giving them the chance to be equal.

Isn't that very white of them!

Now of course they say that there has been discrimination and the Black race has been oppressed and held down by the racist whites so it is just a matter of correcting injustices by granting them opportunity and making it easier for them. Isn't that very white of them.

I do agree that Blacks have been oppressed by the majority whites in America and there is still an element of racism in America. Racism for the Blacks stems from that oppression and is a useful tool. For the whites it stems from past guilt (mostly from the lib-left) and current government policies such as affirmative action (mostly from the right). I also believe that government is the main reason it is so hard to get rid of racism.

In the final analysis Blacks are quite capable of looking after themselves. But thanks, whitey! Got any more goodies for us!

Isn't it refreshing to see that lictor is openly a racist instead of the usual radical Lib-left sanctimonious pretense of self-righteous superiority to the Black Race.

He is willing to debate the issue but generalities will never lead to resolutions. I believe to get rid of racism individuality has to be emphasized. Race must be made irrelevent in the evaluation of the individual. It is governments job to protect the sanctity of person and property. It is individuals who are important not races.

Who cares that lictor is a racist? He, like all of us, has no right to violate the sanctity of person and property. He can think what he wants. I guess the big scare is that everyone who is a sheep and goes along with him may form a mob who could possibly make a discriminatory oppressive law. I must admit as long as there are lib-left do-gooders that follow heart-felt slogans and symbolism around there may be a danger of that.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Pliny

[lictor616]

I suppose it may be genetic......but I often wonder why racists and bigots are always predisposed to inferior intelligence.......

charter.rights .... your anti-white bias and complete native supremacist bigotry would probably corroborate what you say...

[lictor616]

He is willing to debate the issue but generalities will never lead to resolutions. I believe to get rid of racism individuality has to be emphasized. Race must be made irrelevent in the evaluation of the individual. It is governments job to protect the sanctity of person and property. It is individuals who are important not races.

Who cares that lictor is a racist? He, like all of us, has no right to violate the sanctity of person and property. He can think what he wants. I guess the big scare is that everyone who is a sheep and goes along with him may form a mob who could possibly make a discriminatory oppressive law. I must admit as long as there are lib-left do-gooders that follow heart-felt slogans and symbolism around there may be a danger of that.

wow, finally someone who actually advocates for actual equality... and complete racial blindness... none of the radical leftists minded (Rue, Dancer, Tango, Charterrights et al) ever actually came out with such statements...

good word pliny, I don,t think anyone could disagree with your comment here. not even me...

[lictor616]

One thing that pisses me off about these discussions is the abuse of statistics.

In all of these cases we are talking about the means of normal distributions. In most cases, the variation within the group completely swamps the difference between the mean.

However, there is another parameter which is relevant called variance which measures how spread out the distribution us. The higher the variance the larger the difference between the mean and the most extreme individuals. Differences in the variance affect the distribution of people at the extremes and in many areas of human endevours it is the extremes that matter - not the averages.

For example, any distribution of IQ for men and women will show that the means are almost identical but the variance is much larger for men. This means in any collection of the smartest or dumbest people you will find that the majority will be men. This is true even if the average woman has an IQ equal to the average man.

What this also means is the quest for equality is between all groups in all cases is a waste of time. Differences in the variance will result in a situation where any collection of people at the extreme will be dominated by one group or another even if there are no differences in the average.

hear hear!

[lictor616]

capable of withstanding disease and reacting better to it thanks to melanin.

The fact that someone may be better immunized does not prove your hypothesis of race

being a biologically distinct entity nor does it suggest the person with the particular genetic

trait is superior to another, just better immunized.

Your attempt to suggest your notion of superiority is not based on morality or subjective

beliefs but only genetic traits is not credible precisely because you have made it clear

you use the notion of race subjectively, i.e., to suggest black children look like apes.

This suddden attempt to portray yourself as only meaning to use the word superior to

connotate the existence or non existence of a genetic trait fools no one.

Kind of hard to play the role of logical, unemotional, objective scientist when you

call black children apes.

!?!?!?!

The fact that distinct populations with common and recurring gene based faculties and characteristics giving them a SUPERIOR capacity to resist such afflictions as skin cancer and other dangerous diseases doesn't mean they are objectively superior at anything?

huh? come again rue?

Black people have a sliver of our skin cancer rates... but that doesn't mean they are better predisposed towards fighting skin cancer? And saying that black people are better at defending themselves at skin cancer ... is NOT an objective fact?

AND! having populations with gene clusters that broadly differentiates homo sapiens (effectively giving them traits such as black skin, kinky hair and different susceptibility to specific diseases)... somehow doesn't validate the race "theory"!?!? psshhhhh

Wow, I guess you stumped me... next you'll be saying that a tiger's stripes is not a validation of my subjective hypothesis of mtDNA markers.

Sure sure... black people aren't black for genetic reasons... oh NO rue! of COURSE not!!!! No no, black people have black skin and resist skin cancer better because of racism and poverty and social constructs...

does you're brain hurt when you overheat it like that?

Edited September 17, 2009 by lictor616

[charter.rights]

Liberals ARE egalitarians and believe that Blacks are inferior and need a helping hand. They are so proud to be uplifting the black race from there lowly station and giving them the chance to be equal.

Isn't that very white of them!

Now of course they say that there has been discrimination and the Black race has been oppressed and held down by the racist whites so it is just a matter of correcting injustices by granting them opportunity and making it easier for them. Isn't that very white of them.

I do agree that Blacks have been oppressed by the majority whites in America and there is still an element of racism in America. Racism for the Blacks stems from that oppression and is a useful tool. For the whites it stems from past guilt (mostly from the lib-left) and current government policies such as affirmative action (mostly from the right). I also believe that government is the main reason it is so hard to get rid of racism.

In the final analysis Blacks are quite capable of looking after themselves. But thanks, whitey! Got any more goodies for us!

Isn't it refreshing to see that lictor is openly a racist instead of the usual radical Lib-left sanctimonious pretense of self-righteous superiority to the Black Race.

He is willing to debate the issue but generalities will never lead to resolutions. I believe to get rid of racism individuality has to be emphasized. Race must be made irrelevent in the evaluation of the individual. It is governments job to protect the sanctity of person and property. It is individuals who are important not races.

Who cares that lictor is a racist? He, like all of us, has no right to violate the sanctity of person and property. He can think what he wants. I guess the big scare is that everyone who is a sheep and goes along with him may form a mob who could possibly make a discriminatory oppressive law. I must admit as long as there are lib-left do-gooders that follow heart-felt slogans and symbolism around there may be a danger of that.

Our friend's dumbfounding opinions aside, giving minorities preferences is not racism. It is a practice protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5)

Of course he is wrong. Most racist are rarely right.

[lictor616]

Our friend's dumbfounding opinions aside, giving minorities preferences is not racism. It is a practice protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5)

Of course he is wrong. Most racist are rarely right.

ahahaha there you go flip flopping... so now you concede that the canadian charter is RACIALLY BIASED and ANTI-EGALITARIAN AND VERY MUCH ANTI-WHITE! thank you!

Edited September 17, 2009 by lictor616

[GostHacked]

!?!?!?!

The fact that distinct populations with common and recurring gene based faculties and characteristics giving them a SUPERIOR capacity to resist such afflictions as skin cancer and other dangerous diseases doesn't mean they are objectively superior at anything?

It may give them an advantage in one area. If that is your criteria for claiming a group superior over another, then you really need to rethink your whole premise. Your worldview on this is quite narrow and ignores a lot of environmental factors.

Black people have a sliver of our skin cancer rates... but that doesn't mean they are better predisposed towards fighting skin cancer? And saying that black people are better at defending themselves at skin cancer ... is NOT an objective fact?

Does that one thing make them overal superior than caucasions and mogoloids?

AND! having populations with gene clusters that broadly differentiates homo sapiens (effectively giving them traits such as black skin, kinky hair and different susceptibility to specific diseases)... somehow doesn't validate the race "theory"!?!? psshhhhh

No it shows that us as humans are able to adapt and evolve to be able to live in certain conditions. And this is the biggest reason why some people are acclimated to their surroundings in which it gives them an advantage. Anyone living in mountainous regions have the ability to breathe thin air, with little oxygen. I will use Kenya for example, when those runners take a trip in the mountains they are used to the little oxygen they can get. Their bodies are efficient at using the thin air. When they get to lower elevations, they can usually outpace all others that do not have this advantage. Does this make them superior in running/marathons? Yes indeed. But there are many aspects of running/sprinting/marathons. They are not sprinters, so they don't have that advantage, regardless of their ability to take advantage of more concentrated oxygen in the air. It's an advantage in one specific area.

Wow, I guess you stumped me... next you'll be saying that a tiger's stripes is not a validation of my subjective hypothesis of mtDNA markers.

You might want to learn something about evolution and adaptation before you post this again.

Sure sure... black people aren't black for genetic reasons... oh NO rue! of COURSE not!!!! No no, black people have black skin and resist skin cancer better because of racism and poverty and social constructs...

Well, if you live in the desert, let's say Africa, over time, you would have to have a defense built up to combat skin cancer. Might be because they are out in the sun all day, and with Africa being disected by the equator, the sun is at it's strongest because of the direct sunlight. Northern and southern regions of the planets are at an angel to the sun, and therefor the atmosphere filters out much of the harmfull UV rays. So white people have never really NEEDED the defence simply because of where they are geographically. Also see : axis of earth relation to the sun. Take a large population of Sweds and throw them in the dessert, yeah skin cancer about. Take those Africans and put them in Sweden for some time. Somehow I think the cold might be more harmful to them than the white sweds.

does you're brain hurt when you overheat it like that?

No but when we are done with you, your's sure will. I can feel it cramping right now. !!

[Oleg Bach]

Violent and unpredictable white negros abound in the race called Irish Scottish..Last night I spoke to a very street hardened drummer...He was classic Irish genetically speaking - and I knew that he was a lunitic - that could snap and attack you if he misinterpreted something you said. What is also a tradition with this RACE is they are proud of their violent reputaion...I find this type of inbred just as scarey as the decendant of a Jamacian slave packing heat.

[Argus]

Our friend's dumbfounding opinions aside, giving minorities preferences is not racism. It is a practice protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sorry but where do you get the idea that simply because it's acceptable under the Charter it's not racism?

[Argus]

Why do people call you a racist?

-k

I think gnomes are the superior race. Dwarves aren't as smart, and Elves aren't as creative. As for those goofy Draenei, forget it! They have hooves! The Horde are even more inferior. Just look at the quality of their architecture!

[Oleg Bach]

Sorry but where do you get the idea that simply because it's acceptable under the Charter it's not racism?

Anyone can pass a law or draft a charter that says what every the writer intends...It can be a totally evil document --- just because it has a fancey title attatched does not give it goodly legitamacy. Look at the creepy legalists who write laws..that are bad for society and no one questions them because they are "LAW" - Law does not mean the seperation of good and evil - trouncing evil...They should be anti-evil in a just world but it's well known that a lot of laws enhance the power of evil people...and we like twits submit to evil because it is "the law".

[M.Dancer]

I think gnomes are the superior race. Dwarves aren't as smart, and Elves aren't as creative. As for those goofy Draenei, forget it! They have hooves! The Horde are even more inferior. Just look at the quality of their architecture!

I wonder., because I have a high tolerance to alcohol, does that make me superior to Asians or just a drunk?