What the hell is that supposed to mean? Just another rant? If Watson has some proof, he should show it, otherwise he should keep his big mouth shut. Remember, he stole the idea of helical DNA structure from Rosalind Franklin, so he's a sexist too.
I think that most people think of committing different sorts of crimes pretty often, but they hardly ever realize them. Punishing thought crime would have an incredibly high false positive ratio, so it would never work. Even if someone stood behind his neighbors door with a rifle, he would have a lot chances to change his mind and not commit the crime. Adding a hypothetical possibility of punishing a crime not yet committed could only decrease the number of those changing their mind at the last moment, as they could as well commit the crime they will be punished for nevertheless.
It turns out he's been a crackpot for a long time: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/James-Watson-Racist-Sexist.htm
I read this somewhere. Don't blacks have some kind of higher ratio of "fast twitch" muscles than whites (or "europeans) that account for better general athletic performance?
Well, apparently that "twitch" muscle is also in the trigger fingers of blacks in the big city ghettos! So, geez, maybe that explains a few things, huh? Baron Max
So, you're saying Dick Cheney was black? Hmmmm... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2203456,00.html
Maybe. My point is that there are clearly fundamental genetic differences between various races, the most obvious being skin color and other physical features. There are genetic diseases that affect different races. There are certainly other genetic differences that we haven't even discovered yet. But the very suggestion that, on average, there might be a slight genetic correllation between intelligence and race is summarily dismissed. Why?
Haha You're a total post-modernist and you dont even know it. Its kind of amazomg how contemporary your views actually are once you strip away all the bluff and bluster.
Because to suggest any of that, or to even study it, would unleash the mass hysteria of people yelling "RACISM!!" And no one can afford that if they're in any way connected to any reputable university or private research company. We bury out heads in the sand, or close our eyes like little kids so the monsters can't see us. That blacks are different to whites is so obvious to everyone, yet no one is allowed to say it for fear of public retribution. Does the emperor have on clothers? Baron Max
Are you calling me a nasty name? Now I know you're calling me a nasty name! Just because I can't figure it out, doesn't mean that I don't know it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
No. Only black people from certain areas of Africa have that. Kenyans, for example, do not. Neither do Andaman Islanders, Australians, Papuans, etc. It's not a racial characteristic - unless you want to define several black races. Every attampt to assign any characteristic other than skin color itself to one of the sociological "races" founders on that reality: the correlation between skin color and almost anything else is mostly, if not entirely, coincidence or circumstance.
Not all Africans - only those in heavily malarial regions. And it is also found in India, around the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and other places not inhabited by people of the same race as the African victims. From wiki: Again, not racial if race is defined by skin color, flat noses, or curly hair. Almost nothing is, except skin color, flat noses, and curly hair itself.
The sub-Saharan Africa, the "black" Africa, has more genetic variance than the rest of the humanity combined, so its no surprise. It would make more sense for someone from there to say that everyone out of their region is of below average intelligence and has a small penis - caucasians, chinese, native-american and even other types of blacks. They would probably cover a smaller variance saying that.
But try to challenge the absurd theory that skin color is determined by light levels and you'll have a fight on your hands.
That comes under the heading of "circumstance", and is very well correlated - not with light levels alone, but with everything governing Vitamin D intake and manufacture (such as an inland diet short of ocean fish). The question is whether that singular and recent adaptation defines a "race".
In biological terms it does not, in biology there are no such things as different human races. Race is a synonym of subspecies, and all living humans are members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.
