Black people

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by devils_reject, Feb 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    You have to hand it to Mr Wells - his Eloi and Murlocks both came from the same race

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ugabuga Banned Banned

    Messages:
    17
    Could you elaberate on that yes?

    Time and place maybe?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ugabuga Banned Banned

    Messages:
    17
    AUSTRALIA POPULATION
    15 million

    Jobs - Unemployment
    Aboriginals are 4 times more likely to be unemployed than other Australians.

    INCOME
    Aboriginal households receive 60% of the income of white households.

    EDUCATION
    80% of adult Aboriginals have no educational qualifications.

    HOUSING
    National figures are not available but a survey of Aboriginal housing in Queensland in 1979 found that:

    63% was totally unacceptable
    34% was acceptable but needed repair
    3% was on par with normal white Australia standards.
    HEALTH
    National figures unavailable but survey in New South Wales in 1980 found that infant mortality among Aboriginals was 52 per 1000—four times the national average.

    LIFE EXPECTANCY
    Aboriginal life expectancy is 52 years, 20 years less than the national average.

    LAW
    In West Australia, Aboriginals are only 4% of the total population, but 33% of the prison population. In Victoria an Aboriginal has 45% more chance of going to jail than a white.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    time: now

    place: outside the US.
     
  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    are aboriginals blacks?
     
  9. ugabuga Banned Banned

    Messages:
    17
    Yes

    The aboriginal inhabitants of the island were Black people who probably went there by crossing an ancient land bridge that connected Tasmania to the continent of Australia.

    http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/tasmania.html
     
  10. ugabuga Banned Banned

    Messages:
    17
    Thats what I thought, nowhere.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,518
    ugabuga:

    You refer to Australian aborigines, which is another example which supports my argument.

    Did you know that until 1972, Australia had an official "white Australia" policy, which prevented immigration by non-white people?

    The initial British settlers of Australia declared the land "terra nullius" (empty), despite the fact that it was obviously populated by indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, they took control of all the good land, and persecuted the indigenous people.

    As in America, there remain deep inequities in Australia's treatment of black people.
     
  12. firecross Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    104
    I'm not sure why you object to the European colonizers preserving their culture and values. Surely there were indigenous peoples in Australia, but they accomplished nothing and are thousands of years backwards, though perhaps are of interest to anthropologists.

    People of the world always prefer themselves, their culture, and their values. Do you really think Australia would benefit by having more people live in mud huts without civilization?

    While those who lose their nation to new visitors can call it unfair, that is just the natural the way of history. Now westerners are being displaced in their nations and soon Muslims will dominate Europe and Australia, while mestizos will dominate the United States. Just as cows might argue that slaughter for hamburger is "oppressive" or "inhumane", that is just their position against a larger order where no compromise is available.
     
  13. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    Indeed.
     
  14. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    That's what I thought. You are an idiot. Even white people have it better outside the US. Why not black people? Anyway. I thought aborigines (australian ones) had their origin in India.

    I think your definition of black cannot be maintained. It seems to include a diverse group of people with hardly anything in common except the colour of their skin.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,518
    firecross:

    So, if somebody rolled up to your house and claimed the land as their own, you'd be fine with it?

    Wrong. They survived for 40,000 years in Australia before the British arrived. That is hardly zero accomplishment.

    Who lives in mud huts without civilisation? Do you think a mud hut community is by definition uncivilised? What do you require? TV sets, dust busters and creepy-crawly pool cleaners?

    But compromise is an easily available choice.
     
  16. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    This takes the cake, firecross.
    Your namesake is what I originally suspected.
     
  17. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Lewontin's argument is derived from poor logic. He is measuring statistics, not data.

    Also, the Gould counterargument is NOT a strawman; it's based on the construction of Gould's argument, which IS a strawman.

    Best.
     
  18. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    Oh, you won't support that without resorting to A.W.F. Edwards' "Fallacy" paper directly.

    Whatever you meant eludes us both. Characterization is essential to grouping loci coherently.

    If it is what I suspect, you'll find your "source" and any or all that refer to it on even shakier ground, because Edwards' likelihood function is misapplied at best; irrelevant at worst, and by contrast the worst one can actually say of Lewontin is that his argument was one-sided, once upon a time...


    If this is the crowning achievement of your persuasiveness and ability to postulate beyond mere assertion, this transparent tu quoque; then all that's left... is to part amicably-

    Same.
     
  19. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Oops, it turns back on you: your assertion had no supporting evidence, thus not only do you fail, but you're a hypocrite. GOOD WORK.
     
  20. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Nope - meaning is clear to those who understand what must be understood to see the truth of this topic. You, however, may not be familiar with those skills. Not my problem

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    The assertion which you appear to be referring to has the supporting evidence of your very own words (which preceded it); either you do not know what "tu quoque" means or you're referring to some other unspecified assertion, which I would gladly clarify.

    The meaning of "He is measuring statistics, not data" is unclear, and evidently beyond your will or ability to articulate.

    ...

    If this isn't a strawman, then you can cite the reference directly from Gould or his peers:

    ...

    There must be a silent plea of "no contest" when one excludes AWF Edwards' analysis of Lewontin's discovery: that greater genetic distances within karyotypes than between phenotypes indeed means that there is no scientific basis for "race" as a taxonometric division among HSS, unless you are willing to declare dozens of races and thousands of sub-races of Humanity; one for each permutation of phenotypic combinations just to satisfy a "statistical certainty of non-misclassification."

    The end synthesis of Edwards' complaints of Lewontin amount to one reasonable conclusion, that the fewer loci one examines leads one to less certainty of cross classification, however, the absurdity is in the corollary expressed by the chart on page 799 (of this ref) of Edwards' essay, which is that "one can be sure that races are properly identified when one looks at more and more genetic loci"... absurd because 100% certainty can never be obtained.

    ...

    Your first problem, so far, is apparently misunderstanding the subject matter; that "race" just isn't a workable scientific taxonomy for Humans living today.

    What one calls "black" or "white" is relative, culturally, and demonstrably superficial.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2006
  22. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    climate,

    hot = darker skin

    cold = lighter skin,


    and thats all there is too it, races are just simply due to climate and enviroment with adaptations to the terrain/weather,


    what more is there to it than weather and enviroment?,


    evolution.


    peace.
     
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Well, they start to think that maybe a black skin helps the immunosystem fight of infections. Some other fuction of melanin.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page