Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Bowser, Jul 4, 2017.
This is a non answer.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
This is absolutely laughable. Would you like to check whether the same pattern exists in China and the Congo?
All of the variables you've listed have been tested and eliminated. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the literature. Even assuming you were right, which you aren't, since you are arguing from a position of ignorance can we take it that you don't know the effects of these variables making a genetic etiology possible in your view?
China has a higher rate of gun violence and gun related murders than the Democratic Republic of Congo. And the DRC has only 1% more of a murder rate, compared to China.
I mean, you are comparing a country that has been in the midst of a civil war for more than 10 years (not to mention the involvement with the Rwandan genocide's aftermath, the famines and spread of disease, the fact that a large portion of its population was decimated throughout its history due to German rule and control), to a country that is not in a civil war and has been stable for decades.
Violent crime rates will of course be higher with the DRC, due to the fact that it has been in a state of war for over 10 years.
What is laughable and frankly repulsive, is the general gist of white supremacism in your post and writings, David. You should be aware that it is not tolerated on this site. So watch yourself. And that is not a friendly request, but a direct warning.
And welcome to the forum.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'll gladly come back to the "lead exposure causes murder rates" hypothesis that seems popular on this forum, but what you've written here seems more concerning. What I've done is argue that racial differences in behavior are significantly the result of genetic differences. I'm in the process of picking apart shoddy arguments by the members of this board. Indeed, my position would indicate that Whites and Asians are superior to Blacks on some traits, on average. Is that "White supremacism"? If not, could you clearly define White supremacism so I can avoid being banned, since you do not tolerate it. Is it White supremacism to not assume a priori and without evidence or reasoning that Blacks and Whites (and indeed Asians) are "equal" in terms of behavioral genetics? Looking forward to your clarification.
Hey, I can add author of the "lead and crime hypothesis" Steven Levitt.
Your suggestion that superiority is dependent on the level of melanin is ridiculous.
Which whites? Which Asians? Which Blacks?
Who do you classify as "white", for example? How about "blacks"? Or are you one of those who looks at the 1% drop rule? Or Asians, for that matter? Do you have strict geographical lines to determine who fits where? A colour chart, perhaps? How much melanin would it take for one to be deemed less superior?
Where do Indians come into it? Are they classified as "black"? Or white? Or Asian? Or will that depend on how 'brown' they are? How about Asians? Are lighter skinned Asians deemed more superior than those with darker skin? I mean, let's look at Singapore.. A multi-cultural hub, with people ranging from being "white" to "black". Are they Asians? There are Indians in the mix, with brown skinned Asians and lighter skinned Asians. They are also deemed to have one of the highest average IQ's in the world.. But a visit to Singapore will show that it is exceptionally multi-cultural and most importantly, to bring down to the gutter where you exist, with various levels of melanin in the population itself.
If we were to apply your colour superiority test, Singapore should not be in the top 3 of the highest IQ's in the world. They are higher than Japan and China, average IQ wise, despite being a country of various 'colours'...
And superior how? Intelligence? Frankly, the fact that it is proven that intelligence is affected by environment more than the colour of one's skin kind of blows that out of the water.
You want an example or a definition of white supremacism?
Sure... Here is a prime example:
Hope that clears it up for you.
Ah, behavioural genetics..
There was a really good article abour "behavioural genetics" in Scientific American a while back. It also cross references a very good paper that appeared in Nature, not to long prior to that.. You should have a read of it..
John Horgan sets out many of the issues that exist around the study of "behavioural genetics". Erika Check Hayden, who wrote the article in Nature, also touches on similar points as Horgan in Scientific American.
To answer your question, David.. Yes it is.
I am sure you will feel quite at home on forums that espouse the ideology you clearly support. This is not one of those sites.
Coupled with your general slant towards white supremacism, it up's the sneer factor as far as I am concerned and I have absolutely no qualms in a) closing this thread and sending it to the Cesspool and b) banning your backside if you persist on pushing white supremacism and general woo, as behavioural genetics delves into woo quite a bit, well, your application of it does at any rate.
I do hope that clears up any confusion you may have! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are saying that if anyone posits a genetic difference in any trait considered to have value between races that's "White supremacism" and not allowed on this board? Isn't it an empirical scientific question and not something one can answer by "feel good" imaginings that races are all equal on any valuable trait?
In combination with your earlier listing of some of those traits - yes. The argument of the white supremacist for centuries has been "whites are inherently superior to blacks due to their heritage." Hence the name.
You are overlooking one word in the phrase "white supremacism." I will let you figure out which word you are overlooking.
I modified my post to include "valuable" traits. If there is a genetic difference in say, IQ, that would be "White supremacism", ergo there is no genetic difference in IQ? This is your argument?
White supremacism is the believe that whites are superior to blacks (and other races.)
I will leave you to your word games.
But your moderator Bells who's threatening to ban me for White supremacism defined it differently:
Well, it's quite refereshing that you at least admit that this is a falsely named pseudoscientific religious-egalitarian board. Could you please stop hyperlinking to articles as if that alone constitutes an argument though. It's embarassing.
No, she didn't define it. She gave an example. Definitions and examples are different.
"White supremacists believe that whites are superior to other races" - a definition of white supremacism.
"Whites are genetically more intelligent than blacks, that's just a fact!" - an example of a white supremacist belief.
No, it's a science board. As a consequence, white supremacists/climate change deniers/creationists/anti-vaxxers are generally going to be called out on their false claims.
I am sure there are many white supremacist/right wing boards that you would enjoy, and where you would find the support you desire for your beliefs.
What colour are your eyes?
If positing genetic IQ differences between races is an example of "White supremacism", and people get banned for White supremacism, then effectively you've decided a priori and without evidence or reasoning that there are no genetic racial differences in any valuable trait. That's pseudoscience. And calling any positing of genetic racial differences in valuable traits "White supremacy" is laughably shrill and dishonest rhetoric. In fact it's anti-White sophistry.
You aren't "calling me out". You're labelling my view and telling me it will be suppressed, without refuting it. And this is while I was demonstrating the falsity of your earlier arguments. How embarassing,
Also, I could associate egalitarians with creationists, with a lot more justification.
Any racial genetic difference is "right wing"? I thought it was a scientific question?
Separate names with a comma.