A Conversation About Race

[lictor616]

I would provide the following references to counter the myth of black people or certain races being less intelligent then others:

http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/526/Race-Intelligence.html

http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60146.pdf

http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_saletans_scandalous_source

http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1I...eVsNurture.html

http://www.spectacle.org/1207/smart.html

http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ra/race_and_i...ontroversy).htm

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custo...;accno=ED074172

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.o.../XT0UW7SVHY.pdf

http://www.unm.edu/~jar/v55n2.html

http://www.schoolracetalk.org/node/8

http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html

most of these provide citations to sociological and even Marxist authors...

Many of these cited materials are egregious deceptions. None of the books or essays mentionned the American Psychological Association's 1995 task force report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns." Many of them talk about the now debunked "Flynn Effect" as if it is true, while ignoring a book by APA entitled "The Rising Curve dismisses the Flynn Effect" of rising intelligence stating that: it is an anomaly that to date has very little meaning.

Other disgusting omissions (though they occur on almost every page of the book) is the treatment of intelligence and brain size. Like Gould, they only mentions the studies carried out over 100 years ago (and now known to be fairly accurate after all). In the last few years, MRI and other imaging studies have shown solid correlations between intelligence and the neocortex, as well as convolutions, density, etc. How could any of these sources not be aware of these numerous studies? Either they are liars or they are very selective in their readings.

Edited September 11, 2009 by lictor616

[Rue]

most of these provide citations to sociological and even Marxist authors...

Many of these cited materials are egregious deceptions. None of the books or essays mentionned the American Psychological Association's 1995 task force report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns."

Other disgusting omissions (though they occur on almost every page of the book) is the treatment of intelligence and brain size.

Firstly, none of the references I provided were from Marxists. Even if they were it would not in itself mean they are lacking in credibility. Unlike you, some of us define credibility on the contents of one's comments not on labels.

Secondly, you will have to expand on what you mean by "sociological" as an adjective, and why an author if "sociological" would automatically lack credibility.

Thirdly, there is no such adjective is sociological.

Fourthly the 1995 task force report you quote has been updated and made obsolete and that is why I did not mention it but anyone can read it to see why it is and why it is not germaine to your contention that blacks ar einferior in intelligence then whites.

Fifthly the references I provided did in fact repudiate the previous studies where persons such as Philip Rushton tried to suggest brain size in whites made them superior in intelligence to the brain size in blacks. All such studies have been repudiated by the very association you ask people to refer to when you raise an obsolete

report.

You are over your head. Go back to Stormfront. This forum in fact has people who can read and write and do take the time to do both.

[Rue]

I will respond to some of Hamibal Lictor's comments I have placed in quotation marks:

"Most of these sources approach the subject (which is necessarily SCIENTIFIC) in a very amateur or innapropriate manner..."

I am sure they would be pleased to take that into consideration coming from someone who is so professional and appropriate, i.e, no doubt you have the appropriate academic designations and your referring to black children as apes was scientifically professional not to mention appropriate...or the the kettle calling his pot white.

YOu stated Graves PRESUMES that racism is some sort of sin... and that race is therefore not real and from that he bases his opinion on many social superstitions...."

No you misrepresent what he actually stated. Read it again. He stated race as in the construct you use is a social one not a biological one. The rest you subjectively inferred.

Your criticism also is rendered meaningless by this subjective reference;

"First, noting only the nuttier notions about race 400 years ago, he disengenuously provides a clumsy example involving greater genetic variation between chimpanzees."

What the above demonstrates is you do not counter his comments with scientific facts to repudiate his contentions, you simply engage in subjective name calling with no basis for your opinion. That evidences what all of us can see in your comments-you have nothing to base your comments other then your own subjective assumptions.

You stated:

"Graves also says that the typical European and African share 99.61 % of their genes in common. Genetic effects tend to be nonlinear; even minute genetic differences can bear large phenotypic consequences. Chimpanzees and humans, for example, have 98.9 to 99.3 percent of their genes in common. "

Interestingly you did not provide any scientific studies to repudiate the above why is that? Isn't that the pith and substance of the point he is making and you claim is not true? Why did you not provide scientific evidence to prove the above wrong?

Instead you state this:

"But one cannot reason a priori that an absolute difference of 0.39 percent is too small to support genetic divergence in IQ."

Again you provide no scientific methodology to explain why a less then.55 difference is too small. You simply repudiate it. Then you use this reference:

"The American Society for Cell Biology revealed their discovery that the prostate tumour found in black men have more than 20 times the level of a certain cancer-promoting substance as the tumours found in white men."

What does this have to do with intelligence? Wait don't tell me, in you believe your testacles are your brains.

You then state:

"Then there are BiDil and other race specific medicines ... which graves of course ignores outright (because it would obliterate his point).. "

No he did not ignore them. Like the substance in tumours of high blood pressure or cholesterol or sickle cell anemia genetic predisposition in blacks, none have anything to do with intelligence. They weren't ignored, they are not germaine to the subject.

You then state:

"In essence Graves adopts the attitude of a cowardly scientist, being careful to misrepresent the case for racial differences... His book therefore is less then worthless... and anything this man says is suspect... "

The above once again is meaningless. You basically name call the author because you do not agree with him. How do you know he is cowardly? Clearly your assumption as to his moral values and level of courage is fabricated-it is a subjective assumption you fabricate. What information did he misrepresent. In fact if one reads your actual criticism you accuse him of omission of unfavourable evidence-so in fact if anything he did not mislead, he did not state facts falsely but you would have us believe he deliberately witheld information-your basis-he did not raise issues that have nothing to do with intelligence.

More to the point you fail to understand that the issue of having a predisposition in certain people is not because of race, i.e., their skin colour or hair texture-that one sailed right over your head. As I said earlier Hannibal Lictor you can not understand what it is he stated so you make assumptions as to what he stated.

The fact that there may be agenetic predisposition in a group of people does not make that people a race as you define it or a race at all-just a group of people who share a certain set of genetic codes in their dna-any genius can f

figure out for example that the fact that black people have high levels of blood pressure does not make them a distinct race-using your theory then all white people with a genetic predisposition to high blood pressure are blacks.

You stated:

"Most of the "race doesn't exist camp" try to attack the archaic definition of "pure race."

Now that's funny coming from a white supremacist and who claims he is a white man more intelligent then a black man. Tell me are you claiming you are not of a pure race? This I want to hear.

Here is my favourite comment though:

.. most of the speudo intellectuals that claim to attack the concept of race ... argue against old and etiolated notions of purity and other sophisticated pollameré. the arguments of most of your posts Rue are perhaps valid and interesting for 1895. "

No Hannibal Lictor, in fact if you read the references they in fact deal with modern race notions from white supremacists such as yourself claiming white people are more intelligent then black people. The debate as to blacks being less intelligent that these authors address in fact arose in the early 1960's as a direct response to the civil rights movement and the move to de-segregate schools.

You stated:

"You can see the bias written all over the fake talk of the reality of races... "

Right. Once again you engage in subjective name calling which in fact evidences your subjective bias and the fact that when someone doesn't agree with your view on the definition of race, they must be fake as only your version is the true one.

You then evidence your bias by explaining how you engage in subjective stereotyping and negative assumotions as to what people mean without listrening to the context of their words as you say...

"as soon as you hear words such as "racism" "class warfare" "the underprivileged" "hitler" "nazi" or the like..."

That is the point Hannibal Lictor. You label and stereotype and assume. Youd on't engage in reason-you engage in classic bigotry-you assume you know-and the above shows how you label people with negative assumptions to justify not listening to them or acknowledging what they have to say. What the above evidences is ignorance, i.e., that you close your mind to any concept other then the ones you feel suit you. An ignorant mind is measured by its lack of flexability and ability to see more then one possibility-not its actual opinion. An ignorant mind is measured not by the opinion it has but the lack of objective methodology it uses to arrive at that opinion. An amateur as you call it, is someone who thinks he knows and so does not take the time to aquire the proper academic training to begin to even attempt to discuss the subject he professes. An ignorant mind is one that lacks humility and speaks in tones as if its author is the only one who possesses truth and confuses his subjective assumptions with objectively proven facts.

You stated:

" you know that these are only used to cloud reason and to excite the glands of..."

Yes I know. I know you engage in what you do to incite anger, hatred and resentment of black people and excite your glands. Your attempt to create a new scapegoat, "the Liberal" who you then engage in negative stereotyping about is noted, i.e., this statement:

"liberals who have Political Correctness as a religion and use scholarship to go against the purpose of scholarship".

Now that is interesting considering you do not engage in any reference to any scientific studies or statistics as the basis for your opinons. In fact what you project on this mythical stereotype you now call the Liberal is exactly what you do-you use the myth of race and racial superiority as a religion-you don't base the myth on anything but subjective perceptions and what you stated above is a classic example is someone who uses his muth building or his faith beliefs to reject scientific studies-you in fact create the religion of white supremacism complete with uniform, dogma, ceremonies, references to the good (whites) and the infidel (non whites).

Do y ou deny engaging in white supremacist meetings replete with ceremonies?

Come back when you have some objective scientific studies to repudiate the above and here is a hint, try something that is in fact related to intelligence not athlete's foot or hemmeroids.

[lictor616]

I will respond to some of Hamibal Lictor's comments I have placed in quotation marks:

"Most of these sources approach the subject (which is necessarily SCIENTIFIC) in a very amateur or innapropriate manner..."

I am sure they would be pleased to take that into consideration coming from someone who is so professional and appropriate, i.e, no doubt you have the appropriate academic designations and your referring to black children as apes was scientifically professional not to mention appropriate...or the the kettle calling his pot white.

YOu stated Graves PRESUMES that racism is some sort of sin... and that race is therefore not real and from that he bases his opinion on many social superstitions...."

No you misrepresent what he actually stated. Read it again. He stated race as in the construct you use is a social one not a biological one. The rest you subjectively inferred.

Your criticism also is rendered meaningless by this subjective reference;

"First, noting only the nuttier notions about race 400 years ago, he disengenuously provides a clumsy example involving greater genetic variation between chimpanzees."

What the above demonstrates is you do not counter his comments with scientific facts to repudiate his contentions, you simply engage in subjective name calling with no basis for your opinion. That evidences what all of us can see in your comments-you have nothing to base your comments other then your own subjective assumptions.

You stated:

"Graves also says that the typical European and African share 99.61 % of their genes in common. Genetic effects tend to be nonlinear; even minute genetic differences can bear large phenotypic consequences. Chimpanzees and humans, for example, have 98.9 to 99.3 percent of their genes in common. "

Interestingly you did not provide any scientific studies to repudiate the above why is that? Isn't that the pith and substance of the point he is making and you claim is not true? Why did you not provide scientific evidence to prove the above wrong?

Instead you state this:

"But one cannot reason a priori that an absolute difference of 0.39 percent is too small to support genetic divergence in IQ."

Again you provide no scientific methodology to explain why a less then.55 difference is too small. You simply repudiate it. Then you use this reference:

"The American Society for Cell Biology revealed their discovery that the prostate tumour found in black men have more than 20 times the level of a certain cancer-promoting substance as the tumours found in white men."

What does this have to do with intelligence? Wait don't tell me, in you believe your testacles are your brains.

You then state:

"Then there are BiDil and other race specific medicines ... which graves of course ignores outright (because it would obliterate his point).. "

No he did not ignore them. Like the substance in tumours of high blood pressure or cholesterol or sickle cell anemia genetic predisposition in blacks, none have anything to do with intelligence. They weren't ignored, they are not germaine to the subject.

You then state:

"In essence Graves adopts the attitude of a cowardly scientist, being careful to misrepresent the case for racial differences... His book therefore is less then worthless... and anything this man says is suspect... "

The above once again is meaningless. You basically name call the author because you do not agree with him. How do you know he is cowardly? Clearly your assumption as to his moral values and level of courage is fabricated-it is a subjective assumption you fabricate. What information did he misrepresent. In fact if one reads your actual criticism you accuse him of omission of unfavourable evidence-so in fact if anything he did not mislead, he did not state facts falsely but you would have us believe he deliberately witheld information-your basis-he did not raise issues that have nothing to do with intelligence.

More to the point you fail to understand that the issue of having a predisposition in certain people is not because of race, i.e., their skin colour or hair texture-that one sailed right over your head. As I said earlier Hannibal Lictor you can not understand what it is he stated so you make assumptions as to what he stated.

The fact that there may be agenetic predisposition in a group of people does not make that people a race as you define it or a race at all-just a group of people who share a certain set of genetic codes in their dna-any genius can f

figure out for example that the fact that black people have high levels of blood pressure does not make them a distinct race-using your theory then all white people with a genetic predisposition to high blood pressure are blacks.

You stated:

"Most of the "race doesn't exist camp" try to attack the archaic definition of "pure race."

Now that's funny coming from a white supremacist and who claims he is a white man more intelligent then a black man. Tell me are you claiming you are not of a pure race? This I want to hear.

Here is my favourite comment though:

.. most of the speudo intellectuals that claim to attack the concept of race ... argue against old and etiolated notions of purity and other sophisticated pollameré. the arguments of most of your posts Rue are perhaps valid and interesting for 1895. "

No Hannibal Lictor, in fact if you read the references they in fact deal with modern race notions from white supremacists such as yourself claiming white people are more intelligent then black people. The debate as to blacks being less intelligent that these authors address in fact arose in the early 1960's as a direct response to the civil rights movement and the move to de-segregate schools.

You stated:

"You can see the bias written all over the fake talk of the reality of races... "

"Right. Once again you engage in subjective name calling which in fact evidences your subjective bias and the fact that when someone doesn't agree with your view on the definition of race, they must be fake as only your version is the true one.

You then evidence your bias by explaining how you engage in subjective stereotyping and negative assumotions as to what people mean without listrening to the context of their words as you say...

"as soon as you hear words such as "racism" "class warfare" "the underprivileged" "hitler" "nazi" or the like..."

That is the point Hannibal Lictor. You label and stereotype and assume. Youd on't engage in reason-you engage in classic bigotry-you assume you know-and the above shows how you label people with negative assumptions to justify not listening to them or acknowledging what they have to say. What the above evidences is ignorance, i.e., that you close your mind to any concept other then the ones you feel suit you. An ignorant mind is measured by its lack of flexability and ability to see more then one possibility-not its actual opinion. An ignorant mind is measured not by the opinion it has but the lack of objective methodology it uses to arrive at that opinion. An amateur as you call it, is someone who thinks he knows and so does not take the time to aquire the proper academic training to begin to even attempt to discuss the subject he professes. An ignorant mind is one that lacks humility and speaks in tones as if its author is the only one who possesses truth and confuses his subjective assumptions with objectively proven facts.

You stated:

" you know that these are only used to cloud reason and to excite the glands of..."

Yes I know. I know you engage in what you do to incite anger, hatred and resentment of black people and excite your glands. Your attempt to create a new scapegoat, "the Liberal" who you then engage in negative stereotyping about is noted, i.e., this statement:

"liberals who have Political Correctness as a religion and use scholarship to go against the purpose of scholarship".

Now that is interesting considering you do not engage in any reference to any scientific studies or statistics as the basis for your opinons. In fact what you project on this mythical stereotype you now call the Liberal is exactly what you do-you use the myth of race and racial superiority as a religion-you don't base the myth on anything but subjective perceptions and what you stated above is a classic example is someone who uses his muth building or his faith beliefs to reject scientific studies-you in fact create the religion of white supremacism complete with uniform, dogma, ceremonies, references to the good (whites) and the infidel (non whites).

Do y ou deny engaging in white supremacist meetings replete with ceremonies?

Come back when you have some objective scientific studies to repudiate the above and here is a hint, try something that is in fact related to intelligence not athlete's foot or hemmeroids.

Lost in your torrent of mistaken assumptions and wild accusations, cuold you keep to the topic at HAND which was not and still isn't me personally.. whether I am label A B C D or what have you...

take this for instance:

I said: "Then there are BiDil and other race specific medicines ... which graves of course ignores outright (because it would obliterate his point).. "

to which you replied:

"No he did not ignore them. Like the substance in tumours of high blood pressure or cholesterol or sickle cell anemia genetic predisposition in blacks, none have anything to do with intelligence. "

he spoke of no such ailment as sickle cell anemia (you really didn't read his book did you...

and I said nothing of either race being more intelligent in this instance.. again that's not even my point:

I'm asserting that different races have different genes... and that these have real effects and meanings IN REAL LIFE.

I brought up the drug BiDil to illustrate how medicine often has to be RACE SPECIFIC in order to have effective treatment! How you jump to that to suggest that by saying that blacks have different ways of responding to heart disease treatment that i'm ACTUALLY saying blacks are inferior intellectually is simply evidence of your emotional unreason towards this subject... Look at how you lash out in temper tantrums and crazy assumptions!

that races... are CLUSTERS OF GENES... my comments said nothing about the superiority or INFERIORITY of any race... In fact by you're logic, one could say that I'm an asian supremacist... since I routinely show data which puts asians at the apogee of IQ and intelligence... so you're assertion not only false but irrelevant..

SUPERIOR or INFERIOR... is not what's at issue here... it is whether we are different genetically as human clines (which EVEN YOUR sources would concede).

nice try,

Edited September 15, 2009 by lictor616

[Moonlight Graham]

All of you completely FAIL in this debate because you barely dispute my central thesis: the descriptive idea that whites are discriminated against as second class citizens and that humans are naturally racists AND the normative idea that they ought to be able to go their own way. Instead, you spend your time disputing the idea that other races are inferior. That I may or may not think that is not essential to my argument. It's totally superfluous.

It's clear to me that you sincerely want an intellectual discussion on race. I'll give it a shot. I skimmed through the film you linked in this thread. Has some good points, but also weak ones, like definition of racism. My definition of racism is: discriminating against someone based on their race. That's pretty close to the official defs found on the web, but simplified.

You said: "...the normative idea that they ought to be able to go their own way". What do you mean by "go their own way"? As in races should be able to remain segregated from each other and/or keep to their own culture/geography?

Edited September 15, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[lictor616]

You said: "...the normative idea that they ought to be able to go their own way". What do you mean by "go their own way"? As in races should be able to remain segregated from each other and/or keep to their own culture/geography?

I mean that the state shouldn't have the right to regiment the way people interact with each other... I believe in complete freedom of association. I think that when left to themselves, people tend to "segregate" naturally...

And I reject the notion that diversity (of the kind we're asked to celebrate) is a strength.

Edited September 15, 2009 by lictor616

[Rue]

I said: "Then there are BiDil and other race specific medicines ... which graves of course ignores outright (because it would obliterate his point).. "

to which you replied:

"No he did not ignore them. Like the substance in tumours of high blood pressure or cholesterol or sickle cell anemia genetic predisposition in blacks, none have anything to do with intelligence. "

he spoke of no such ailment as sickle cell anemia (you really didn't read his book did you...

I never said he did. Read what I wrote in response to you. I was giving my own example.

Your assumption I claimed he talked about sickle cell anemia is just that.

[lictor616]

I never said he did. Read what I wrote in response to you. I was giving my own example.

Your assumption I claimed he talked about sickle cell anemia is just that.

and I gave you mine... again I repeat... I spoke of neither superior or inferior... I spoke of DIFFERENT...

You're implication that my pointing to racial differences (based in genetic differences... since different races have different genes) has no relationship with talk of superior or inferior beings... that's not even my point!

Yet you keep insinuating it.

You aren't even responding to my actual point. so what are we doing here?

[Rue]

Lictor you stated to me in your defence that:

"I'm asserting that different races have different genes... and that these have real effects and meanings

IN REAL LIFE."

Yes and I provided just some articles that clearly suggest that races are a social construct not a biological one, that they do not have sufficient genetic differenation to suggest one race is distinct from another but in fact the exact opposite.

I then asserted that not only is race as a biological distinction absurd, but that your attempt to suggest you can suggest one race is more intelligent then another is equally as absurd and what you call "real" is simply your subjective feelings, i.e., something is "real" if it conforms to your subjective assumption.

You stated:

"I brought up the drug BiDil to illustrate how medicine often has to be RACE SPECIFIC in order to have effective treatment!"

Your example is erroneous for two reasons. One- it is not race specific because it treats sickle cell anemia in black people or Tay Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews or juvenile arthritis in blue eyed, blonde haired girls of Scandinavian or Northern European ancestry. While it does note how for example, black men are prone to high blood pressure and high cholesterol or the above groups I mentioned to the diseases I mentioned, it does not make them race specific. The genetic factors noted are not race specific and once again you reflect your ignorance of tracking genetic predisposition in population patterns to suggesting they are specific to one race but not another. What patent nonsense.

The fact that black men have high rates of high blood pressure does not mean equal amounts of whites suffer from the same infliction. What an absurd thing to state that if blacks were not a distinct race no one could be able to treat their high blood pressure.

Not only is your example nonsensical and an insult to what geneticists and pharmacologists do and research but it displays how you see what you want to see. You start off assuming there is a race difference and so you think specific higher rates in people of certain ancestries is race specific when the common ancestral link is not race specific but based on other genetic patterns that have nothing to do with race as you construct it.

As I also stated for you to suggest the same genetic tracking that finds high rates of blood pressure in black men is the same manner in which intelligence in blacks can be defined is equally as nonsensical.

You stated:

" How you jump to that to suggest that by saying that blacks have different ways of responding to heart disease treatment that i'm ACTUALLY saying blacks are inferior intellectually is simply evidence of your emotional unreason towards this subject..."

I did not say blacks have different ways of responding to heart disease. I said and I say it again, I used blacks as an example to state, it can be said black men have higher rates of high blood pressure. The fact that this pattern emerges does not prove blacks are a distinct race as you construct it or they all respond the same way to heart disease. You misquoted what I actually stated and the reason I used the example-you misquoted because once again you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear and that is if I say blacks are reported in medical journals to have higher rates of blood pressure it must mean they are a distinct race. No that is not how genetics works. No that is not how tracking rates of inherited diseases work and until you make an effort to find out why, your comments to me are irrelevant to the actual context in which they are properly used.

Now your sudden attempt to suggest you are not on this board to suggest blacks are inferior intellectually and claim it is an "emotional unreason" to the subject is a good one.

You came on this board to refer to black children as monkeys not me.

Do you deny you are a white supremacist whose agenda is to come on this board and denigrate black people?

Don't play the role of intellectual with me. You are no Argus. Don't think you can jump into his threads and think you have found a way to insult black people and pretext it as intellectual discourse with me. I don't buy it.

If you think I display "emotional unreason" towards your comments, then let me confirm I do. You want to call black children monkeys don't come on this board and attempt to play intellectual with me. I will take the cross you want to burn on my lawn and place it somewhere a geneticist would not study but a proctologist would.

You want to take on the role of intellect, go on provide a study that proves blacks are less intelligent then whites.

I am still waiting.

You stated:

" Look at how you lash out in temper tantrums and crazy assumptions! "

Yes imagine the audacity of mycalling you out for being a racist and engaging in racial insults against black people by referring to black children as apes.

You stated:

".... races... are CLUSTERS OF GENES..."

No they are not. The above reflects the comment of someone who can not understand what genes are a reflection of but makes assumptions they cluster let alone when they cluster they form a race.

You stated:

"..my comments said nothing about the superiority or INFERIORITY of any race..."

Play dumb with someone else. Anyone can read back the words you have used including the words that insult black people's physical characteristics.

You stated:

"In fact by you're logic, one could say that I'm an asian supremacist... since I routinely show data which puts asians at the apogee of IQ and intelligence... so you're assertion not only false but irrelevant."

No in fact your comment is illogical. If you routinely show data to claim Asians are a distinct genetic race, I would say you are equally as erroneous as your suggesting blacks or whites are. I would also suggest the statistics you refer to as to i.q. levels are not conclusive and the very nature in which they are determined show they do not prove races are distinct but that the constructs used to define which group's i.q. rate to study as predicated on a subjective assumption not biological one and you would know that had you read the studies.

You would also know that the determination of i.q. level is not accurate between different groups particularly because of cultural differences not accounted for in the tests used.

I would also call you a racist if you started making fun of the physical characteristics of Asians and suggested their babies look like apes.

You stated:

:SUPERIOR or INFERIOR... is not what's at issue here... "

That is precisely your issue. I am calling you out as a white supremacist with the specific agenda of advising the proposition that blacks are inferior to whites. Do you deny that is what you believe and that you are not a white supremacist? Go on-answer. You want to talk around it in circles? You think your couching what you are doing changes what you are doing?

You stated and I have no idea what you meant when you stated your true agenda..

"..is whether we are different genetically as human clines (which EVEN YOUR sources would concede)".

What I have stated and provided references for repeatedly is that no what you assume is a genetic difference between races is not and never was . What I have stated is that what aou think is a genetic predisposition for skin colour, hair texture, and that such differences are real, in biological terms are NOT and are irrelevant to determining the genetic commonality between humans.

What I have stated is you engage in a subjective assumption that because someone has darker skin colour it makes them different. It may make them different to you because you have been brought up to see skin colour as a subjective construct and assign negative assumptions to dark skin colour but to a geneticist the pigment in skin does not create a distinction between races or even prove a race.

Humans are the same species. Race is something you desire to create to justify assuming blacks are different then you. No more, no less.

Go on provide one study that proves one's eye colour, hair texture, skin colour, nose shape, defines a distinct race. Go on.

I can't wait.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Rue

[Rue]

Knock yourself out Lictor proving the following discussing erroneous I can't wait:

source: http://www.drpeterjdadamo.com/wiki/wiki.pl...nomic_construct

Discussion

Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept, not a biological one. That is, it stigmatizes some individuals as different and reinforces the privileges of others. There is no evidence that there are large groups of biologically distinct human beings (i.e. subspecies) that correspond to what people refer to when they talk about "race." Furthermore, to base any kind of biological category on a single physical characteristic, such as skin color (which, in itself is incredibly varied and determined by multiple genes), is clearly nonsense.

At the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists questioned, and subsequently abandoned, the claim that biologically distinct races are isomorphic with (related to) distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups. Then, the rise of population genetics led some mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon. Those who came to reject the validity of the concept, race, did so for four reasons: empirical, definitional, the availability of alternative concepts, and ethical (Lieberman and Byrne 1993).

The validity of human races is a subject of much debate. The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological research, states that "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species."

The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors (Boas 1912) and Ashley Montagu (1941, 1942), who relied on evidence from genetics. Zoologists Edward O. Wilson and W. Brown then challenged the concept from the perspective of general systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies" (Wilson and Brown 1953). Claude Lévi-Strauss's Race and History (UNESCO, 1952) enforced this cultural relativist thesis, by the famous metaphor of cultures as trains crossing each other in different directions, thus each one seeing the others as immobile while they themselves are progressing.

One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as they are affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations called "clines" . This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observe, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995).

Finally, geneticist Richard Lewontin, observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not between populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" was an appropriate or useful way to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). This view is described by its opponents as Lewontin's Fallacy. Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic FST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation2. However, because of technical limitations of FST, many geneticists now believe that low FST values do not invalidate the suggestion that there might be different human races (Edwards, 2003). Meanwhile, neo-Marxists such as David Harvey (1982, 1984, 1992) believe that race is a social construct that in reality does not exist, used instead to extenuate class differences.

These empirical challenges to the concept of race forced evolutionary sciences to reconsider their definition of race. Mid-century, anthropologist William Boyd defined race as:

"A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950).

In the face of these issues, some evolutionary scientists have simply abandoned the concept of race in favor of "population." What distinguishes population from previous groupings of humans by race is that it refers to a breeding population (essential to genetic calculations) and not to a biological taxon. Other evolutionary scientists have abandoned the concept of race in favor of cline? (meaning, how the frequency of a trait changes along a geographic gradient). The concepts of population and cline are not, however, mutually exclusive and both are used by many evolutionary scientists.

Lewontin's Fallacy

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy is an academic paper published in 2003 by A.W.F. Edwards that attacks the conclusion of Richard Lewontin that race is an invalid taxonomic construct.

Lewontin, in a 1972 paper, 'The apportionment of human diversity' and again in a 1974 book, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, argues that because the probability of racial misclassification of an individual based on variation in a single genetic locus is approximately 30% that race is an invalid taxonomic construct.

Edwards argues that when one takes into account more loci, the probability of racial misclassification rapidly approaches 0%. Edwards argues that the information which distinguishes races is "hidden in the correlation structure of the data."

Edwards argues that both ordination and cluster analyses can reveal the correlation structure of multilocus data.

A caricature of Lewontin's argument is that because humans share 50% of their DNA with carrots, we must be 50% the same

Links

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"

Race, The Power of Illusion -PBS

[Rue]

Then do provide your scientific arguments to contradict this Lictor:

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/

[Rue]

http://www.csub.edu/~ctate/Tate&Audette2001.pdf

Then provide the argument to me why race should NOT be studied as a

purely cognitive concept that influences social perception by showing me where the above

writer is wrong.

[Rue]

Here lictor is a direct rebuttal to your attempt to suggest BiDil is a race specific drug:

(source:http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/)

"The new drug BiDil has been hailed as a racial pill.16 It reduced the death rate from congestive heart failure in African Americans 43% compared to those given a placebo. BiDil is a combination of a nitric oxide donor isosorbide dinitrate and the anti-oxidant hydrazaline, which also acts as a vasodilator. Nitric oxide is a gas that plays a role in a variety of neurally mediated events including regulating heart processes, programmed cell death, as an anti-microbial agent, and even assisting penile erection in men. Anti-oxidants protect cells against oxidative damage that result from normal cellular respiration and poisons that accumulate over time. In addition, it has been recently shown that oxidative damage to human cells can be heightened by periods of prolonged stress.17 The African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) trial was motivated by studies showing that people self-identified as “black” had lower levels of available nitric oxide and greater amounts of oxidative stress than those self-identified as “white.”18

Actually, these results do not indicate that BiDil is a “racial” pill. What we know about the mechanism supports that assertion. Nitric oxide is synthesized by individual cells and this is catalyzed by an enzyme known as endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS). Genetic variation at position G894T in this enzyme influences arterial stiffness (after controlling for sex, age, body mass index, insulin, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure).19 African Americans that had the T allele had less elasticity than those with the G allele. European Americans showed no significant difference between T and G, but the trend was similar. However, they also found that the frequency of T was 0.131 in African Americans v. 0.321 in European Americans, respectively. This of course means, if all other factors were equal, that more “whites” should have less elastic arterioles than “blacks.” If so, BiDil should help whites more than blacks, yet present data do not support this, meaning that other factors must be at play."

[Rue]

Oh Lictor here is article entitled: Why Genes Don't Count For Racial Differences In Health.

Knock yourself out:

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/90/11/1699.pdf

[Rue]

Finally Lictor here is an essay directly repudiating your use of the concept of

genetic clusters in medical treatments to suggest they prove distinct races.

source: http://stanford.edu/~joelv/teaching/167/lo...ng%20humans.pdf

It states among other things:

"Interestingly, most medical geneticists and pharmacogeneticists

concede that skin colour and other race-identifying

features poorly correlate with the genetic variations

that shape the risk of disease and the treatment response."

"Needless to say, concepts concerning clusters within

Homo sapiens evoke a higher attention than those regarding

other species, such as Canis familiaris, Melleagris gallopavo,

or Felis catus. Centuries of irrational prejudices

on how to cluster humans on the basis of skin colours,

anthropometrical sizes, and other phenotypic traits have

lead the discussion down a slippery road where either vacuous

and ideological political correctness or still existing

prejudices oblige us to be particularly careful."

"But is it possible

to face the problem of the human clusters without falling

into vacuous and ideological political correctness or

irrational prejudices? We think it is. We think also that it

is necessary because before clustering something, we should

know what a cluster is both from a methodological and

from an epistemological point of view."

"...determining boundaries and clusters

is a methodologically and epistemologically complex

procedure involving not only one property, but at least

three properties: 1) the property according to which the

MC is fixed (the main property); 2) the property according

to which the MC is investigated (the investigating property),

which sometimes is only hypothesized; 3) the property used

heuristically to attribute a significance to the cluster (the

catalyzing property)."

"...Since the clustering

process is property dependent, and the properties are chosen

by the geneticist-observer, this process is geneticistobserver

dependent. It naturally follows that even the

resulting clusters are geneticist-observer dependent. Therefore,

varieties, or races, or whatever you like to call these

groups, are strictly tied to the way in which we draw boundaries

and build clusters on the basis of properties, or correlation

of properties."

".....problems arise when clusters

are used in a way that obscures or hides the properties by

means of which they have been drawn, thereby obscuring

or hiding their epistemological status and the methodological

steps that have led to them. As a consequence clusters

could be wrongly reified, that is, a misleading ontological

significance could be attributed to them, in this way supporting

an unsafe and extremely perilous racist ideology."

"..we

need boundaries, since we need clusters both to achieve

group-oriented diagnostics and therapeutics, and to grasp

the evolution of Homo sapiens. Of course these clusters

must be named in some way."

Bottom line, its not the word "race" per se I challenge but the method

in which Lictor uses it to define the clusters he thinks he has defined.

He can call his cluster anything he wants-I will still question

its accuracy and credibility if it misrepresents the ontological significance of the

differentiations he refers to.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Rue

[Oleg Bach]

Every race has it's inferiours..every race has it's set of super beings also. Funny about nations that have had violent revolutions..or man made famines along with persecutional agendas....ONE clever person moblizes ten thousand idiot peasants and convinces them to kill are the smart well breed people - Then like magic the semi-smart dictator is the brightest and most capable person to rule, because the competition is gone. OR in the alternative - take all the very smart and energetic kids from the lower levels of society and drug them, stunt their growth and burn away their cerebral cortex...with Ritalin or some other harsh compound - Racism and incrimental genocide takes place within the same race..where is the humane society when you need them?

[lictor616]

Finally Lictor here is an essay directly repudiating your use of the concept of

genetic clusters in medical treatments to suggest they prove distinct races.

source: http://stanford.edu/~joelv/teaching/167/lo...ng%20humans.pdf

It states among other things:

"Interestingly, most medical geneticists and pharmacogeneticists

concede that skin colour and other race-identifying

features poorly correlate with the genetic variations

that shape the risk of disease and the treatment response."

"Needless to say, concepts concerning clusters within

Homo sapiens evoke a higher attention than those regarding

other species, such as Canis familiaris, Melleagris gallopavo,

or Felis catus. Centuries of irrational prejudices

on how to cluster humans on the basis of skin colours,

anthropometrical sizes, and other phenotypic traits have

lead the discussion down a slippery road where either vacuous

and ideological political correctness or still existing

prejudices oblige us to be particularly careful."

"But is it possible

to face the problem of the human clusters without falling

into vacuous and ideological political correctness or

irrational prejudices? We think it is. We think also that it

is necessary because before clustering something, we should

know what a cluster is both from a methodological and

from an epistemological point of view."

"...determining boundaries and clusters

is a methodologically and epistemologically complex

procedure involving not only one property, but at least

three properties: 1) the property according to which the

MC is fixed (the main property); 2) the property according

to which the MC is investigated (the investigating property),

which sometimes is only hypothesized; 3) the property used

heuristically to attribute a significance to the cluster (the

catalyzing property)."

"...Since the clustering

process is property dependent, and the properties are chosen

by the geneticist-observer, this process is geneticistobserver

dependent. It naturally follows that even the

resulting clusters are geneticist-observer dependent. Therefore,

varieties, or races, or whatever you like to call these

groups, are strictly tied to the way in which we draw boundaries

and build clusters on the basis of properties, or correlation

of properties."

".....problems arise when clusters

are used in a way that obscures or hides the properties by

means of which they have been drawn, thereby obscuring

or hiding their epistemological status and the methodological

steps that have led to them. As a consequence clusters

could be wrongly reified, that is, a misleading ontological

significance could be attributed to them, in this way supporting

an unsafe and extremely perilous racist ideology."

"..we

need boundaries, since we need clusters both to achieve

group-oriented diagnostics and therapeutics, and to grasp

the evolution of Homo sapiens. Of course these clusters

must be named in some way."

Bottom line, its not the word "race" per se I challenge but the method

in which Lictor uses it to define the clusters he thinks he has defined.

He can call his cluster anything he wants-I will still question

its accuracy and credibility if it misrepresents the ontological significance of the

differentiations he refers to.

key sentence: "most medical geneticists and pharmacogeneticists

concede that skin colour and other race-identifying

features poorly correlate with the genetic variations"

first off as previously cited liberman et al 2001.. not MOST geneticists... actually a minority say that.... but actually that's another brazen misrepresentation... YOU DON'T ASCERTAIN RACE OR CLINE BASED on SINGULAR OR INDIVIDUAL SO CALLED RACE IDENTIFYING FEATURES...

skin color is not RACE ... it is a tiny ASPECT of race... a fraction of a genetic cluster... People with dark skin may be of very different races... the Tamils and Dravidians have black skin... yet straight hair... and short statures and share very little commonality with sub saharan africans... in fact they are close to Whites then Blacks... they may have straight noses, similar facial angles etc.

again skin tone is not a correlative factor controlling for race...

the entire article is mere confetti thrown in your face... it begins on an obvious misrepresentation of was race or cline is... and even dishonestly tells you that geneticists say this and that about it...

beware of academic fraudulence. you seem to be a habitual victim of it... try to read SCIENTIFIC and MEDICAL journals instead of politically motivated sociological and ideological hit pieces.

[lictor616]

Here lictor is a direct rebuttal to your attempt to suggest BiDil is a race specific drug:

(source:http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/)

"The new drug BiDil has been hailed as a racial pill.16 It reduced the death rate from congestive heart failure in African Americans 43% compared to those given a placebo. BiDil is a combination of a nitric oxide donor isosorbide dinitrate and the anti-oxidant hydrazaline, which also acts as a vasodilator. Nitric oxide is a gas that plays a role in a variety of neurally mediated events including regulating heart processes, programmed cell death, as an anti-microbial agent, and even assisting penile erection in men. Anti-oxidants protect cells against oxidative damage that result from normal cellular respiration and poisons that accumulate over time. In addition, it has been recently shown that oxidative damage to human cells can be heightened by periods of prolonged stress.17 The African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) trial was motivated by studies showing that people self-identified as “black” had lower levels of available nitric oxide and greater amounts of oxidative stress than those self-identified as “white.”18

Actually, these results do not indicate that BiDil is a “racial” pill. What we know about the mechanism supports that assertion. Nitric oxide is synthesized by individual cells and this is catalyzed by an enzyme known as endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS). Genetic variation at position G894T in this enzyme influences arterial stiffness (after controlling for sex, age, body mass index, insulin, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure).19 African Americans that had the T allele had less elasticity than those with the G allele. European Americans showed no significant difference between T and G, but the trend was similar. However, they also found that the frequency of T was 0.131 in African Americans v. 0.321 in European Americans, respectively. This of course means, if all other factors were equal, that more “whites” should have less elastic arterioles than “blacks.” If so, BiDil should help whites more than blacks, yet present data do not support this, meaning that other factors must be at play."

thank you once again for quoting a sociological source: the "Social Science Research Council", which might as well be called the Marxist Leninist "science" center...

with such notable self confessed communists such as Paul Sweezy, and Craig Calhoun as prominent members... the SSRC is staffed with many political scientists and sociologists... but not many medical doctors, geneticists and almost no biologists of any repute.

Again you tackle a SCIENTIFIC, BIOLOGICAL, MEDICAL phenomena with sociology and something as unscientific as political ideology... not wise.

and about bidil... "Perhaps that's why members of the Congressional Black Caucus voiced support for the clinical trial. So did the Association of Black Cardiologists, which is helping recruit patients for the trial. B. Waine Kong, the organization's head officer, put it simply: "It is in the name of science that we participate." bidil is a racial drug because doctors rely on their ability to ascertain race to ascribe treatment... race is definitely a huge factor here... Saying it isn't IN SPITE of the evidence is just childish rejection ...

[lictor616]

Oh Lictor here is article entitled: Why Genes Don't Count For Racial Differences In Health.

Knock yourself out:

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/90/11/1699.pdf

funny thing is that the author cited, Alan H Goodman, actually opines that the black race is a superior race and genetically better suited to a variety of survival conditions:

he was referenced in the eminently disposable and crypto black supremacist lie-rag named "Africa Resource"

knock YOURSELF out:

http://www.africaresource.com/index.php?op...&Itemid=360

Edited September 15, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

funny thing is .....

http://www.africaresource.com/index.php?op...&Itemid=360

funny thing is, Lictor is his usual not so bright dishonest self.

He isn't quoted in the artle. (so sad too bad)

He is rather referenced.

Speaking of dishonest, when you going to post a cite regarding the southshore cops and their racial arrests quotas, specifically about not arresting a black drug dealer in a stolen car?

[lictor616]

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/90/11/1699.pdf

wow pretty weak mnided stuff ... again! brazen misrepresentatation of race:

"Despite the disproof of race-asbiology, genetic variation continues to be used to explain racial differences.

Such explanations require the acceptance of 2 disproved assumptions: that genetic variation explains variation in

disease and that genetic variation explains racial variation in disease."

race is "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species."

Edited September 15, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

wow pretty weak mnided stuff ... again! brazen misrepresentatation of race:

"Despite the disproof of race-asbiology, genetic variation continues to be used to explain racial differences.

Such explanations require the acceptance of 2 disproved assumptions: that genetic variation explains variation in

disease and that genetic variation explains racial variation in disease."

race is "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species."

An excellent example of not refuting an argument

[lictor616]

funny thing is, Lictor is his usual not so bright dishonest self.

He isn't quoted in the artle. (so sad too bad)

He is rather referenced.

Speaking of dishonest, when you going to post a cite regarding the southshore cops and their racial arrests quotas, specifically about not arresting a black drug dealer in a stolen car?

thanks for the heads up,

to quote again Ernt Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", and what might might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, in his "Systematics and the Origin of Species"

"Even though all of us are in principle equal before the law and ought to enjoy an equality of opportunity, we may be very different in our preferences and aptitudes. And if this is ignored, it may well lead to discord"

[GostHacked]

Rue

Bottom line, its not the word "race" per se I challenge but the method in which Lictor uses it to define the clusters he thinks he has defined.

Why do we not us Race being appplied to animals in any way? Why is this strictly a human applied term?

[M.Dancer]

Rue

Why do we not us Race being appplied to animals in any way? Why is this strictly a human applied term?

Because animals as far as we know aren't racist.