Total posts: 468
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You miss the most important step which is to define 'subspecies'. Once we have a definition it is trivial to see if humans have subspecies or not. The problem is coming up with a definition that a) doesn't pre-judge what you want b) gets widespread acceptance from biologists.
a) There is pre-judging in the sense that the number of human races is socially constructed (i.e. whether we want to use a filtration of 3 races, or whether we want to use 25 races, is socially determined). However, after conducting numerous tests (in this thread, I've only cited a few), and when we have near 100% correspondence to genetic cluster and geography, we find that there is rhyme and reason to human races, hence making them non-trivial.
b) I'm not entirely sure what your threshold is for "widespread acceptance from biologists", or why it matters that much, but there is certainly some level of acceptance of race in biology.
Ann Morning (2008) found that in the medical realm, at least 90% of biology textbooks were using race in their medical descriptions (as of 2002: http://www.academia.edu/632351/Reconstructing_Race_in_Science_and_Society_Biology_Textbooks_1952-2002). That's about as close as you'll get to surveys of biologists (especially recent ones), because they simply don't exist (at least I can't find them). I have plenty of data that demonstrates anthropologists seems to accept human races, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Genetic changes brought on by natural selection influenced by the particular environment.Black pigeons are not a different "race" from white pigeons. Physiological differences do not make different "races". There are very large physiological differences even within families. Many people have siblings who are darker, or shorter, or bigger, not to mention the differences inside that we don't see.You need to stop involvement in this convo until you have read a little on basic genetics. As it is, you are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance even if you don't know it.
The only thing that consigns the so called white, black, red and yellow people to different races, is racism. And most intelligent people would agree, racism is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
A case for the existence of human races is best made by answering two questions:
(1) is there sufficient variation within humans for there to be subspecies?
(2) if so, is there sufficient variation to sort data into discrete subspecies?
Let's address (1):
When comparing humans to other species with sufficient variation to necessitate subspecies (race), we find that humans reach an comparable levels. Woodley (2009) compared the heterozygosity in humans with other species, all of which had wide ranges (https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf). Just so we're clear, heterozygostiy is the probability that, at any given gene location, two organisms of that species will have a different alleles (gene variant) at that specific location. Despite humans being anywhere from 99.5-99.9% the same (humans are 98.7% the same as chimpanzees, too (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics)), it is possible to have more instances of variance than similarity, it's just that the magnitude of those differences accumulates to 99.5-99.9%.
Woodley's data is under the heading "Table 2" in the first link provided.
His conclusions (found under the heading "discussion" were that,
"There are strong grounds for suggesting that the hypothesis thatH. sapiens is polytypic rather than monotypic is at least plausible ... Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there exists a considerabledegree of diversity (as measured by morphology, heterozygosityand FST) within this taxon, which is structured in such a way thatis suggestive of the existence of around five major clades (continentalpopulations) corresponding to biological subspecies. Andsecondly, as the phylogenetic species concept does not recognizethe validity of subspecies as a division, opting instead to labelthe most basic monophyletic unit as ‘species’, a case could be madefor the minor clades (sub-continental/racial populations) withinHomo qualifying as phylogenetic species in their own right, especiallywhen considered in light of the evidence suggestive of theidea that lineage admixture is in fact fairly peripheral and is probablynot negating the evolutionary distinctiveness of those groups."
Thus, yes, there is sufficient variation between humans to warrant subspecies.
Now let's address (2):
The best way to sort human genetic data into discrete groups (subspecies) is through correspondence between genetic cluster and geography. Using as little as 3 human subspecies categories (K=3: African, Asian and European), Bamshad (2003) was able find almost 100% correspondence between cluster genetic and geographical location, given that 160 loci (a fixed position on a chromosome) were used (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/).
Alloco (2007) conducted a somewhat similar study, looking at random locations of SNPs (a variation in a single nucleotide that occurs at a specific position in the genome). Using only 100 randomly selected SNPs, 97% correspondence between self-reported ancestry and best-fit genetic cluster (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828730/pdf/1471-2164-8-68.pdf).
In both cases, there was sufficient variation to sort data into discrete subspecies (race), as pre-defined races fit genetic clusters with near-perfect accuracy.
Hence, the human races exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Greyparrot
If race isn't responsible for human differences, then what is? For example, how is it that some people have dark skin, and others have white skin?
Created:
-->
@mustardness
How did you reach these conclusions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Again, there is no such thing as "Asian genetics". Asia has many different "races".
Races in humanity are not even a scientific concept.
Literally within the same post.
You're a contrarian. Shoo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You even admit mixing DNA means races are irrelevant.
Please quote me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I did...show me a pure Kenyan.Does not exist.
All you're doing now is re-stating your position, like a dogmatic ideologue, despite me saying different things.
Not worth my time.
Created:
^
If people on this website think this is a well-supported, worthwhile comment, then I don't belong on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
The fundamental issue with utopias is that humans are ugly, toxic creatures, as is life on Earth. It's only due to human's woeful nature that anything as stupid as religion could be necessary. Humans are eternal consumers, never satisfied with what they have for all kinds of reasons (boredom, jealousy, physical hunger, sexual desire etc.) Conceptions of utopias often manifest as Police State extremes, as we can see in this thread, and as we can see in Thomas Moore's famous Utopia, in order to counter-act the pathetic, corruptible nature of humans.
I think there is a case to be made for ending life on Earth, due to the pointless mass suffering. There's nothing to be won. There is no grander goal to accomplish. It's just wicked creatures trying to fill bottomless holes. You either consume until you get to the top, and then fall into oblivion like everything else (making your efforts and suffering all for naught), or you live an unfulfilled life in attempting to satisfy your perpetual hunger to consume (this is what the majority does), only to find that you are unable to do, and so you suffer until you die. It's like a crazed heroin addict constantly looking for his/her next fix -- he/she never realises how possessed and miserable he/she is. Thus, it is likely that you were better off never coming into existence, in that the utopia for life is death.
If life needs to be sustained in its current form, perhaps virtual reality would be the best utopia for human life. That way, all of the suffering could be removed, and we could structure such an existence with a continual bettering of the individual's state (all done in isolation, away from other real humans).
If transhumanism is capable of totalling redesigning the human mind, then perhaps many of the current human flaws could be removed. However, I don't have a clear conception of what this would look like. I also think this is highly dangerous, if the redesigning process fell into corrupt or ignorant hands. It's still a possibility, nonetheless.
Created:
-->
@Reece
"Racism" is a term steeped in slander, hysterics and murkiness, and thus should not be used: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174).
Instead, "racial hatred" might be useful as a replacement for "racism", in your thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol no it's not. Show me a pure Kenyan lol....
Please address content in this post directed at you: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/797?page=2&post_number=32).
Created:
Posted in:
Lol the goalposts are just fine. There exists no pure races for you to make your analysis.
Your "no pure races" argument is eloquently addressed in this post: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/797?page=2&post_number=31
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Firstly, you've changed your argument, likely to save face from failing to recognise the way I was using colour (i.e. not in regards to skin colour). Given your new argument (one which doesn't display your embarrassing mistake), I presume that you dropped the old one.
And you were wrong in doing so.Many hues of red are still considered red, that is not the case with race. Any dilution means a person can no longer be considered pure. Your analogy suffered from the fallacy of false equivalency.
Even if there is genetic admixture (i.e. racemixing) involved, would you not agree that certain populations, that grew up in certain environments, express certain characteristics? For example, do you think it is purely coincidental that a particular Kenyan tribe is completely saturating the Olympic marathon scene? (https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/how-one-kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners). Is it just purely random that all of these Kenyans have black skin? If these Kenyans were to start breeding with Asians, do these Kenyan genetics suddenly disappear because they are no longer "pure?" Does not this bred child have Kenyan and Asian genetics?
Again, if we call various colours red, despite not all of them being pure, why do we treat various types of humans as being all the same race, even if not all of them being pure?
In any case, your conception of human genetics is extremely radical. Without races, you're implying that genetic expression is purely random, in that there is no consistency or rhyme to genetic expression (i.e. race). You'll no doubt deny this, but this is the alternative to denying racial reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely not.If we were not able to replicate or observe a pure red wavelength in a lab, then no sane scientist would conclude that the color red must exist somewhere. On blind faith of course.
Racial genetic admixture has become a reality of human existence, given globalisation. Despite this, there is nearly 100% correspondence between genetic cluster and geography, with as little as 160 loci (even when k=3) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/).
Again, we still call many hues red, despite them not all being a "pure red wavelength". Do you refuse to call anything red, if it's not a "pure red wavelength?" Do you seek the council of colour scientists, whenever you need to label a colour something, just to make sure the colour is "a pure wavelength?" Leave the goalposts alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I was using colour as an analogy to race, not referencing skin colour and therefore ascribing race. Please don't post with knee-jerk reactions, in the future, and actually attempt to read the comments before you post.False equivalence. Color does not equate to race
Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
Part of the issue of living in this information-centric age, is the default understanding that humans are logical, and given enough explanation, could understand why things need to be done certain ways. This thread exists to demonstrate how woefully illogical, and thus unobjective, humans are.
The Asch Conformity Experiments (1950s) were conducted to see how humans would yield or defy the majority opinion (using very simple questions, simple enough for a toddler to get correct). When the majority were giving the wrong answers, only 63.2% of the test subjects were able to get the answer right. On all tests, only 5% were always swayed by the crowd, but only 25% constantly defied the majority's wrong opinions. Therefore, the rest were swayed by the majority's wrong opinion some of the time. From these experiments, we can see humans distorting reality to fit in with the majority.
Cognitive dissonance is another example of human inobjectivity. Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) conducted an experiment to observe how humans deal with cognitive dissonance. The experiment used a Stanford University student (not some random dummy) to complete a boring task. Once the task was completed, the student was then offered a large sum of money to set the experiment up for someone else, provided the student said that the experiment was interesting. Despite the student initially saying that the task was boring, when the student was offered money to say that it was interesting, he suddenly found explanations as to why it was interesting, and the researchers found that the student was starting to believe the experiment was interesting. Cognitive dissonance distorts reality, based on one's own interest.
The Halo Effect is the idea that a singular positive trait seen in a person will result in other people viewing that person with all their traits as being good. Nisbett & Wilson (1977) found that when two sets of students watched the same lecture, but with the lecturer in different moods. If the students saw the lecturer in a happy mood, they would attribute other positive attributes to the lecturer, and vice-versa. Students stood by these judgements, despite being informed of this bias, and also given opportunities to revoke their judgement. Most people are completely not aware of this Halo Effect, and how irrational they are being when it's in play.
Perhaps the most fascinating conclusion we can draw from human unobjectivity is that ideas of Democracy are lauded, despite most human's inability to vote with any kind of objectivity (and also the myriad of other problems with Democracy: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/136)). It takes surprisingly little for humans to become unobjective, and thus illogical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The inability to trust anyone leads to never being able to connect with people intimately/personally, which is quite a cold existence, not to mention a fearful one. At least, that's my opinion, but i think it's sufficiently self-evident to agree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Color is not a "construct" it is an actual entity.
I think we agree on this. Colour exists in reality, but the terms we use to define colours are social constructs. Would you not agree?
We cannot [...] observe a pure human race.
Again, does red stop being red if it's not pure? Are we only allowed to call pure reds red? Can you see how you're moving the goalposts?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@Mopac
You know, if you are going to get on me for something, you shouldn't be doing it yourself.
Writing something that could be found in a novel/speech, of which is clearly not intended to be a scientific analysis (my OP), is not the same as writing one sentence of opinion: "I don't think that traditional marriage is any more humiliating for the woman as it is for the man". My OP has far greater depth than yours, to start with, and it is clearly attempting to capture the human condition.
For example, people don't read 1984 or A Clockwork Orange, and then ask, 'where are the sources?' Rather, they think about whether what is written parallels reality. My OP is akin to that.
Congratulations on being a post man hating woman. My married life is very fine, and we are Orthodox. That's about as traditional as you can get.
Yep, I'm sure your singular experience is all we need to understand global marital trends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Racist/racism are terms which slander; they do not accurately define the world: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174
Besides, attraction is derived from subconscious drives (such as detection of pheromones, something completely subconscious). Negative attribution to a phenomenon, beyond the control of those experiencing it, seems rather harsh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
>ethang5 makes a thread exploring ways to counter-act bullying
>resorts to bullying by calling other users retards and morons
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The goalposts do not need to be moved to such a ridiculous extreme.
Many a time a human has called a colour red, when a different hue is also considered red. When does red stop being red? When does orange start being red?
Similarly, as we realise colours are social constructs, race categories are, too. However, once the categories are established, the filtering is not socially constructed, but rather filtered through genetic clustering. In other words, if we agree that red is red, and that green is green, due to the hue values, you cannot put green into the red category and say that it belongs there.
Created:
Posted in:
^ Says the guy so unhappy he had to block me lol.
If the truth isn't on your side, silence those who speak it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
I will appeal to common sense.
In other words: Circular reasoning.
50 women do NOT want to breed with a male whom has Down's syndrome.
How likely is it that a random man will have Down's syndrome, let alone the alpha male of a tribe?
You are clutching at straws in your (perhaps unintentional) attempt to miss the point.
The tragic part is that 50 men MIGHT want to breed with a female whom has Down's syndrome.
Although we're digressing here, it's not tragic. It's simply sexual dimorphism in action. Mass insemination is an effective male breeding strategy, even at the expense of a higher infant mortality rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
No, but we mutually enjoy the benefits of eachother's labors. Don't daresay that, I stand by my observation, your labors fruits are most recognized by some one downstream of your efforts.
Ah but the original, quoted retort to summarising women's behaviour was "work hard", with the implication that is was for women. Your conception here, that you *both* enjoy each other's labour (I don't think is accurate, but I won't digress), is not reflected in my OP's quoted retort. Moreover, my issue is that discussion of men's issues is derailed with redirection of focus (towards women).
I agree. Your point didn't address one of the most salient aspects of human sexuality: preference. Males have a preference. Females have a preference. The fifty male and one female vs fifty female and one male relation removed human preference. Is that something you care to address?
Demonstration of breeding capacity need not control for preference, barring that the 50 women and 1 man, and the 50 men and 1 woman, are not likely/certain to produce the same amount of offspring (which, prima facie, is absurd. Feel free to prove otherwise).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
I am so tired of race baiters judging by skin color when we are all one human race.
As long as sufficient loci are used (160 is a good amount), human heterozygosity disproves the "all one human race" conception.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Keith is saying that it is disingenuous to suggest that Anal's attitude towards blacks is different from Hitler's anti-semetism.To which Anal responded:
Thank you both for posting reasonable interpretations of what I wrote.
I was being sarcastic lol. Go back and re-read the posts, and see how Keith misses my points.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I respect feminists like Oprah and Michelle Obama who have a view of equal pay for women. They have stats to prove this and I can respect their opinion. They are educated and it is morally unfair to pay women less than men in a workplace
The conception ofgender pay equality is currently given axiomatic credence of being agood idea. However, I think a deeper analysis of gender pay equalityreveals serious issues.
We need to considerthat women are hypergamous (and there's nothing necessarily wrongwith that). They really don't like marrying men poor or poorer thanthemselves.
So, when gender payequality is mandated, women suddenly lose numerous potential datingpartners, simply because these men are not making sufficient money.Unless you would like to argue that a plummeting birth andmarriage-rate is preferable, gender pay equality isn't as rosy as onemight initially think.
Not that I supportTraditional Conversatism in discouraging/preventing women fromworking (let alone getting equal pay), but at least it allowed forsocieties to exist and grow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You look very sad in that mask. Maybe you realised how retarded you look when you rant without sources.
If only you had posted a source...
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think that traditional marriage is any more humiliating for the woman as it is for the man.
More useless, unsupported opinion.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
"humiliating shackles of conservative traditionalism" is not an argument either.Opinion for opinion.
So, you intentionally posted an unfounded opinion. Thanks for keeping the standards of the site high.
Anyway, the piece was more poetic than anything else.
Besides, I think the economic (not allowed jobs) and cultural (shamed into marriage) oppression of women is sufficient grounds for humiliation. In England not too long ago, women weren't charged for any crimes they committed, as the husband took full responsibility for her crimes. She was forced to produce babies and look after them -- there are the shackles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
The odds of this are pretty much confirmed, there are outliers to the stereotype.
Literally, yes; however, the conversational function of NAWALT is a digression (in that, rather than speaking about a summary of women, the topic is shifted towards women who are outliers).
Conversation isn't singularly dimensional.
To lend credence to the point, you need to say "enough women are like this..." which would really go miles to your observation.
Again, literally, this is a better way of expressing the sentiment. I'm not adverse to your correction, either (I think it's great).
Whatever that means.
Precisely. Similar to the conception of racism, it is a nebulous term filled with emotional manipulation.
Work hard, in general, or work smart in general. The nature of a capitalist society is you are working for some one else. Own the means of production, or choose whom shares the wealth of your ability.
Is your wife your employer? I daresay my point has been missed.
Duh. If you have grievance, ground it in reality, demonstrate your issue.
I think the expression of "stop whining" hints at the sinister underlying psychological phenomenon of near-complete apathy of male emotions. Even when concerns are grounded in reality, the apathy persists (I've seen this happen dozens of times; I provided the workplace death statistics to support it, too).
Find me a random sampling of 50 men, I assure you, there will be some people you won't want to mate with.Were I to supply you 50 women, do you have a preference, or do you have an order?
My point here didn't address mate selection. My point addressed the effects of sexual dimorphism on reactions to male suffering. Please read it again.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Women have the most amazing ability to give birth to a child. A woman who doesn't want to raise up a family isn't appreciating the gift she has been given. The gift of womanhood.
You are conflating child-rearing with Traditional Convervatism. The two are not necessarily mutually inclusive.
Humiliating shackles of conservative traditionalism? Sounds like self centered petulance to me.
Tone-policing is not an argument.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Who posted a similar thread here:
My OP here is an updated version of that. Please keep in mind that humans aren't bound by homeostasis.
In the other thread, Zarroette explicitly links black IQ as a predictor of their ability to "function" in society.
Whilst you didn't link this thread, I'll save effort and time by agreeing with these words. In short, 85 I.Q. makes societal functionality far more difficult than 100 or 115 I.Q. -- hardly a controversial comment.
On other web sites, Zarroette has identified them as having a greater degree of probability of having undesirable genetics:
The prevalence of the MAOA gene (Warrior gene) in Black people, relative to Whites and Asians, supports that conclusion. There are other negative genetics more commonly found in Blacks (and also positive ones, to be fair), too. My comment represented conclusions from verifiable data.
Oh, and she outlined an argument whose title was "Racism is Moral"
I like to use these websites as learning tools, wherein I test new/unpopular ideas. I don't necessarily agree with my argument, nor do I see any attempt from you to debunk it.
When someone dresses up as a KKK member and starts burning crosses, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that they are a KKK member and are racist.
You beg the living daylights out of the question. It's not whether I'm a racist. I made this OP specifically to address the apparently axiomatic conception of "racist". You need to address the criticism of this OP, in that you need to show that usage of the terms "racist" or "racism" is accurate.
Again, you are using profoundly sloppy language, inundated with clumsy conflation -- it's mostly hysterical nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I think IQ is an excellent indicator of intelligence, I don't know about the whole educational level or occupational level corresponding to intelligence. Maybe I'm biased because I am a bit of an outlier...
Yes, you're an outlier.
In my personal life it can intimidate people for whatever reason.
I can understand wanting to suppress this in the workplace, but your private life shouldn't be marred by withholding information from those who you can trust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Nope, I have no qualms with your factor analysis description. As you've already said, it would be silly to ask for sources on mere description. I have qualms with this:You're asking for sources on how to perform a mathematical operation
it is all about factor analysis, with the exception that I pointed out.
You admitted that your whole post wasn't about factor analysis (I underlined the part for you), and then you knowingly failed to cite sources. I won't even get into the fact that I think you made several points which required sources, but you've already admitted that your whole post wasn't about factor analysis.
Anyway, I'm done dealing with the blow-out of correcting your know-it-all ego. Either provide sources for the claims you admitted were unsourced, or be quiet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
"many claims" lol.With the exception of how much variance in performance g factor accounts for, the entirety of that post is just factor analysis explained. Asking for sources on how factor analysis works means nothing more than that you know absolutely nothing about how to perform factor analysis, and likely statistics in general. Go learn it before you start talking about real factor models, ignorant pup.
You have to be a special kind of know-it-all to admit that your post wasn't entirely an explanation of factor analysis, in that it has bare assertion(s), and then knowingly fail to provide evidence for your bare assertion(s).
Your know-it-all-ism is amusing, as always.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
1) Pinker wasn't referring to the validity of that.It's really hard to take anyone in Academia seriously when they still hold the 1800's science regarding the existence of human races as anything other than junk science, especially after the mapping of human DNA.
2) This is dangerously wrong. I will eventually tax myself to explain in detail, but treat this as a taster: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/
Created:
-->
@Kasmic
I agree that Pinker's comment isn't bright, but all three of those terms have been hijacked by Tabula Rasa nonsense from the Progressive left.
Created:
-->
@Type1
Debating panders to economic sophistry. Forums do not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
You think Zeichen is a man
I provided screencaps showing that he's literally admitted to being a man, before sending me death threats.
and YYW
I've already said plenty of times that I only suspect Zeichen/Emilrose is YYW.
Nonetheless, I have overwhelming proof that Zeichen doxxed and threatened to kill me, and is also suspected of multiple crimes (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/197?page=8&post_number=188). You seemed to have dropped that point, and gave it the silly label of "obfuscating".
All in all, I really don't care if you're unable to click on the link. I have the Australian Federal Police and the UK Missing Person's Unit working to find out who this man is, and whether he committed the crimes he claimed. I already got my ex in gaol for criminal offences he loved to brag about. I know that Zeichen will end up in gaol, too.
But you just continue to label my screencapping as "obfuscation" lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Everything that Zarro does in that post is pure obfuscating.
Lol so posting screencaps of a conversation is "obfuscating" xD
I'm so sorry. Next time, I'll just wildly assert things, all without evidence, to avoid obfuscation haha
Created:
-->
@EvilNom
Yes it does and no, they do not. In a court of law, only the claimant holds the burden of proof. The defendant (i.e. me) can make whatever claims he likes in his own defence.
It's incredibly difficult to do, but if you could open your eyes, you would see this is an internet forum, not a court of law.
This is not evidence that Jews have a superior IQ. This is a blind link drop. It is furthermore a blind link drop which concerns only one denomination of Jews (i.e. Ashkenazis), which are not Semites. The Ashkenazis are descended genetically from paganite Greeks and Iranians who converted to the religion of Judaism as recently as 2,000 years ago. There is absolutely no genetic relationship between them and the original Israeli Jews.
Ah, this is where the confusion is. When I refer to Jews, I refer specifically to the Ashkenazis Jews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews). My apologies is that wasn't clear.
Dr Eran Elhaik of the University of Sheffield used a computer modelling system to convert Ashkenazi Jewish DNA - the Jewish communities historically located in Europe - data into geographical information, which revealed that 90 percent of Ashkenazi Jews descend from the Greeks, Iranians and others who colonised northern Anatolia (now northern Turkey) more than 2,000 years ago before converting to Judaism.
There could be truth to this -- I don't know off the top of my head.
You are flagrantly attempting to conflate correlation with causation. Conservatives do this all the time when they break down crime statistics on the basis of race. Here are some of my own statistics:-80% of World Chess Champions have blue eyes.96% of Germans have two legs.
My argument was inductive, and whilst that isn't as strong as deductive reasoning, it can be quite strong if multiple data points are given (which is exactly what I provided). Whilst I cannot argue that, based on my data points, that Jews are achieving so much due solely to intelligence, it makes a strong case for it.
Obviously, this is a fallacy, as is the implication that your own statistics evidence Jews have superior intelligence. They do not. Multiple more plausible explanations exist, such as Jews enjoying greater economic privilege than non-Jews. The reason you don't see many geniuses coming out of Africa and winning science prizes is because they are too busy looking for things to eat. not because they are somehow less intelligent than geniuses from elsewhere.
You're committing the same alleged "fallacy" you're accusing me of, lol.
In any case, you're provably wrong. Whilst I didn't address your claim in depth here (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/194?page=1&post_number=13), I do briefly touch on the White-Black I.Q. gap (since Black Americans were shipped from Africa, this is relevant to your claim here). In short, environmental factors simply cannot make a genetically stupid person smart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I think you should stop responding to her when she pokes you, Radman.
It's not poking and nor is Zeichen a she.
He's been doing it at least for about 5 years, over multiple accounts. It's possible that Zeichen is also YYW, and thus has been abusing people for well over a decade. He's not only continually verbally abused people, but he's also sent death threats and potentially committed crimes irl.
Here is the ever-expanding documentation of Zeichen's malicious trolling: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/197?page=8&post_number=188
I'm in contact with the AFP and the UK Missing Person's Unit, over Zeichen documented actions. This is far more serious than people seem to realise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@XLAV
Besides referring to PUBG, it's literally word-for-word what I wrote. He/she is just trying to get under my skin.
Created: