"Race doesn't exist," and the myth is drowning blacks

[Canard DuJour]

I bet you do but it isn't a good one. Five pounds of gold chains round your neck is an obvious mechanical impediment to swimming whereas the extra body density is typical of strong swimmers. It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.


WHOAH, whoah - the main objection was about swimming ability (and other acquired not-the-same-ness). That's just trying to assume it away again.

"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat."

How so? How is a denser body buoyantly different from wearing extra gold chains?

In the way I just spelled out. Both theoretically and evidentially.

"WHOAH, whoah - the main objection was about swimming ability (and other acquired not-the-same-ness). That's just trying to assume it away again."

We already agree that psychological swimming ability affects drowning probability. If two men fell out of a boat and they were exactly the same except one of them had more psychological swimming ability, then the man with swimming ability is more likely to survive. It matters. I am not trying to assume it away. Now it is your turn. These two men are exactly the same [..etc].

Then you are indeed trying to assume it away. Pathetic.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat."

How so? How is a denser body buoyantly different from wearing extra gold chains?

In the way I just spelled out. Both theoretically and evidentially.

You seemed to have spelled out your belief but not your reasoning. Try doing it in terms of physics. This is an equation of buoyant force (let me know if you need a proof for this equation). Buoyant force is the upward force due to gravity on a body immersed in a fluid.

Buoyant force = (weight of body)*(density of fluid)/(density of body)

For easy comparison to keep the "weight of body" the same, we can compare (1) a 175-pound man with (2) a 170-pound man, the same as the 175-pound man but slightly scaled down in height and he is wearing five pounds of gold chains. Both systems each weigh 175 pounds, so the weight of body is the same between them, the density of fluid is the same between them, and the only difference between them is the density of body. Person #2 combined with the gold chains he is wearing can be considered a single system. As the gold chains are very dense (19 g/cc), as in the same mass but less volume, that means system #2 has greater density than system #1. As the "density of body" is a denominator, system #2 has less buoyant force than system #1. It is essentially no different than if gold chains were no part of it and person #2 has a greater body density due to bone density, lung size and/or muscle mass.

 

[Bomb#20]

I bet you do but it isn't a good one. Five pounds of gold chains round your neck is an obvious mechanical impediment to swimming whereas the extra body density is typical of strong swimmers. It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.

"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat."

How so? How is a denser body buoyantly different from wearing extra gold chains?

In the way I just spelled out. Both theoretically and evidentially.

You seemed to have spelled out your belief but not your reasoning. Try doing it in terms of physics<snip>

In terms of physics, both of you are doing it correctly. His reasoning proceeds from the premise of positive buoyancy. Yours proceeds from the premise of negative buoyancy.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I bet you do but it isn't a good one. Five pounds of gold chains round your neck is an obvious mechanical impediment to swimming whereas the extra body density is typical of strong swimmers. It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.

"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat."

How so? How is a denser body buoyantly different from wearing extra gold chains?

In the way I just spelled out. Both theoretically and evidentially.

You seemed to have spelled out your belief but not your reasoning. Try doing it in terms of physics<snip>

In terms of physics, both of you are doing it correctly. His reasoning proceeds from the premise of positive buoyancy. Yours proceeds from the premise of negative buoyancy.

You mean his reasoning about the "mechanical impediment"? I didn't know what he meant by that, but I suppose he means the chains would get in the way of the paddling arms or whatever. It is missing the point. My only consideration is the addition of density, like the gold chains can be stuffed inside the pockets, no mechanical impediment, and the effect of extra density is the same. As staying afloat is a function of buoyant force and buoyant force is an inverse function of body density, it seems unlikely for anyone to claim that body density doesn't affect drowning probability with an appreciation for the truth and without a reaction of shame.

 

[Bomb#20]

I bet you do but it isn't a good one. Five pounds of gold chains round your neck is an obvious mechanical impediment to swimming whereas the extra body density is typical of strong swimmers. It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.

"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat."

How so? How is a denser body buoyantly different from wearing extra gold chains?

In the way I just spelled out. Both theoretically and evidentially.

You seemed to have spelled out your belief but not your reasoning. Try doing it in terms of physics<snip>

In terms of physics, both of you are doing it correctly. His reasoning proceeds from the premise of positive buoyancy. Yours proceeds from the premise of negative buoyancy.

You mean his reasoning about the "mechanical impediment"?

No, I meant his reasoning about "It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.". A block of oak doesn't have to put out any more effort to stay afloat than a block of balsa does; and if you put enough gold into the block of balsa to make it as dense as the block of oak, it still takes it no effort to stay afloat, even though staying afloat is a function of buoyant force and buoyant force is an inverse function of body density. You two keep talking past each other because everything you say is only valid for objects that are denser than water, and everything he says is only valid for objects that are lighter than water. You two need to come to grips with each other and try to reach agreement as to whether people are heavier or lighter than water.

 

[Canard DuJour]

In the way I just spelled out. Both theoretically and evidentially.

You seemed to have spelled out your belief but not your reasoning. Try doing it in terms of physics. This is an equation of buoyant force (let me know if you need a proof for this equation). Buoyant force is the upward force due to gravity on a body immersed in a fluid.

Buoyant force = (weight of body)*(density of fluid)/(density of body)

For easy comparison to keep the "weight of body" the same, we can compare (1) a 175-pound man with (2) a 170-pound man, the same as the 175-pound man but slightly scaled down in height and he is wearing five pounds of gold chains. Both systems each weigh 175 pounds, so the weight of body is the same between them, the density of fluid is the same between them, and the only difference between them is the density of body. Person #2 combined with the gold chains he is wearing can be considered a single system. As the gold chains are very dense (19 g/cc), as in the same mass but less volume, that means system #2 has greater density than system #1. As the "density of body" is a denominator, system #2 has less buoyant force than system #1. It is essentially no different than if gold chains were no part of it and person #2 has a greater body density due to bone density, lung size and/or muscle mass.

which is no counterargument as the point was that the differential isn't compensated for by mechanical effort -flapping, kicking etc- but largely cancelled out by inhalation conferring positive buoyancy. The physics you need to cite is that which says the denser of two bodies necessarily sinks. The flapping about you then do is not to stay afloat but to stay upright i.e. keep the head/airway out of the water. If you eventually become too exhausted/unconscious for that, you float face down, nil mechanical effort. Ironically many people drown because they basically think what you think so they thrash and panic, trying to stay afloat by mechanical effort. Because they're not used to the water.

 

[Canard DuJour]

As staying afloat is a function of buoyant force and buoyant force is an inverse function of body density, it seems unlikely for anyone to claim that body density doesn't affect drowning probability with an appreciation for the truth and without a reaction of shame.

Good thing no one's saying it then. What pretty much everyone's saying is that density differentials in the range you're on about are likely insignificant next to environmental factors, particularly swimming ability. As evidenced by the higher density you associate with increased drowning probability being, in fact, typical of strong swimmers (an observation that does NOT obligate anyone to speculate about how great a density would be significant).

 

[RavenSky]

How's this for an analogy.

Black Americans having a higher drowning rate is analogous to poor southern Christians having a higher teen pregnancy rate.

Preaching abstinence as advocated in the opening post of this thread fails in both cases.

That's respectable. Maybe discouraging blacks from swimming would have little or no effect. At this point, perhaps the best courses of action in response to this knowledge would be:

(1) Stop encouraging blacks to swim.
(2) Bring awareness to lifeguards about the reason for the high drowning risk for blacks. Maybe they are already told that blacks are more likely to drown, but an accurate physical reason would encourage vigilance, with no room for doubt about the data. More attention would be directed toward blacks, much like toward young children or seniors (not exclusive attention).
(3) Stop presuming that the inability or difficulty of learning to swim is a personal failure for blacks, reflecting poorly on his or her intelligence. Some schools, I am told, require learning to swim, which I take to be a bad idea.

WOOSH!!!

That is the sound of the pointing going right over Abe's head.

Abe, is it also your position that there is some genetic difference in poor white Southern Christian women's bodies that cause them to get pregnant easier than all other women in spite of every other variable being the same (including education and use of birth control)?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I bet you do but it isn't a good one. Five pounds of gold chains round your neck is an obvious mechanical impediment to swimming whereas the extra body density is typical of strong swimmers. It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.

"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat."

How so? How is a denser body buoyantly different from wearing extra gold chains?

In the way I just spelled out. Both theoretically and evidentially.

You seemed to have spelled out your belief but not your reasoning. Try doing it in terms of physics<snip>

In terms of physics, both of you are doing it correctly. His reasoning proceeds from the premise of positive buoyancy. Yours proceeds from the premise of negative buoyancy.

You mean his reasoning about the "mechanical impediment"?

No, I meant his reasoning about "It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.". A block of oak doesn't have to put out any more effort to stay afloat than a block of balsa does; and if you put enough gold into the block of balsa to make it as dense as the block of oak, it still takes it no effort to stay afloat, even though staying afloat is a function of buoyant force and buoyant force is an inverse function of body density. You two keep talking past each other because everything you say is only valid for objects that are denser than water, and everything he says is only valid for objects that are lighter than water. You two need to come to grips with each other and try to reach agreement as to whether people are heavier or lighter than water.

Thanks for the explanation. Human bodies of both races are on average denser than water. The statement, "It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy"--I agree with that part, mostly--"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat"--I disagree with that part. A body of greater density must take in a larger breath of air to have positive buoyancy, which really is more mechanical effort. If he has too much extra body density (like maybe equivalent to five pounds of gold chains) AND smaller lungs, then he may not ever reach the point of positive buoyancy regardless of the size of the breath intake. It would mean that exceptional psychological swimming ability and/or swimming athleticism is needed to save one's self from drowning. Even an intermediate difference--suppose one of them can stay afloat with a small breath intake and the other can stay afloat with only a large one--that is likewise expected to make a difference, as there would be a difference in energy, time of positive buoyancy and odds saving one's self given less swimming ability.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That's respectable. Maybe discouraging blacks from swimming would have little or no effect. At this point, perhaps the best courses of action in response to this knowledge would be:

(1) Stop encouraging blacks to swim.
(2) Bring awareness to lifeguards about the reason for the high drowning risk for blacks. Maybe they are already told that blacks are more likely to drown, but an accurate physical reason would encourage vigilance, with no room for doubt about the data. More attention would be directed toward blacks, much like toward young children or seniors (not exclusive attention).
(3) Stop presuming that the inability or difficulty of learning to swim is a personal failure for blacks, reflecting poorly on his or her intelligence. Some schools, I am told, require learning to swim, which I take to be a bad idea.

WOOSH!!!

That is the sound of the pointing going right over Abe's head.

Abe, is it also your position that there is some genetic difference in poor white Southern Christian women's bodies that cause them to get pregnant easier than all other women in spite of every other variable being the same (including education and use of birth control)?

Possibly, and I think that would be an interesting topic of discussion for another thread, if you would like to start one.

 

[RavenSky]

Abe, is it also your position that there is some genetic difference in poor white Southern Christian women's bodies that cause them to get pregnant easier than all other women in spite of every other variable being the same (including education and use of birth control)?

Possibly, and I think that would be an interesting topic of discussion for another thread, if you would like to start one.

Bullshit, and trying to pretend that you would seriously consider that a possibility in order to pretend there is a valid basis for your claims here just shows how ridiculous this entire thread is.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Possibly, and I think that would be an interesting topic of discussion for another thread, if you would like to start one.

Bullshit, and trying to pretend that you would seriously consider that a possibility in order to pretend there is a valid basis for your claims here just shows how ridiculous this entire thread is.

These topics are emotionally charged for anyone who has strong feelings about the genetic equivalence of races. Maybe you feel so strongly about it that all you can contribute is denunciation, and I think it would be a good idea to have a thread just for denunciation of me and my positions, to keep the productive threads from being sidetracked. I think you should do that.

 

[RavenSky]

Bullshit, and trying to pretend that you would seriously consider that a possibility in order to pretend there is a valid basis for your claims here just shows how ridiculous this entire thread is.

These topics are emotionally charged for anyone who has strong feelings about the genetic equivalence of races. Maybe you feel so strongly about it that all you can contribute is denunciation, and I think it would be a good idea to have a thread just for denunciation of me, to keep the productive threads from being sidetracked. I think you should do that.

I think you should stop pretending that you are posting from a place of non-emotion. This pseudo-intellectualism coupled with a false condemnation of everyone who has pointed out the fatal flaws in your arguments is the same crap you pulled on the other board too. It was boring then, and it is boring now.

As for my contributions in this thread, I (along with many others) have already logically and factually destroyed your arguments. There is nothing left except you rather hysterically repeating the same discredited claims over and over.

 

[scombrid]

(1) Stop encouraging blacks to swim.

So you are advocating for abstinence-only education?

(2) Bring awareness to lifeguards about the reason for the high drowning risk for blacks. Maybe they are already told that blacks are more likely to drown, but an accurate physical reason would encourage vigilance, with no room for doubt about the data. More attention would be directed toward blacks, much like toward young children or seniors (not exclusive attention).

Are young children and seniors less buoyant than average? Seems if buoyancy were the issue then fat grannies and chubby white toddlers in the burbs should never drown.

(3) Stop presuming that the inability or difficulty of learning to swim is a personal failure for blacks, reflecting poorly on his or her intelligence.

That's an odd presumption on your part.

Some schools, I am told, require learning to swim, which I take to be a bad idea.

Some schools, I am told, require sex education including basic information about contraceptives.

Which is the bad idea: Telling people "just don't do it"? Or teaching people about the honest risks and how to go about it safely?

It should be clear that the average black body is not too dense to swim based on the data provided in sports science journals about competitive swimmer body composition. Yet you are here telling us that the best course of action with regard to the drowning rate gap between American blacks and whites is to tell black people to just stay the hell away from the water. Pretty sure that is the message they got in the past and it works as well to prevent drowning as leaving kids ignorant about sex and suggesting that they just not do it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

These topics are emotionally charged for anyone who has strong feelings about the genetic equivalence of races. Maybe you feel so strongly about it that all you can contribute is denunciation, and I think it would be a good idea to have a thread just for denunciation of me, to keep the productive threads from being sidetracked. I think you should do that.

I think you should stop pretending that you are posting from a place of non-emotion. This pseudo-intellectualism coupled with a false condemnation of everyone who has pointed out the fatal flaws in your arguments is the same crap you pulled on the other board too. It was boring then, and it is boring now.

As for my contributions in this thread, I (along with many others) have already logically and factually destroyed your arguments. There is nothing left except you rather hysterically repeating the same discredited claims over and over.

OK, let me remind you that I asked you for information about drowning rates by race in the UK. I investigated that claim, and I could not find data about it, because the data seemingly does not exist, but it must exist because you claimed it. Please do me the service of specifically citing that data for me. Thank you.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So you are advocating for abstinence-only education?

(2) Bring awareness to lifeguards about the reason for the high drowning risk for blacks. Maybe they are already told that blacks are more likely to drown, but an accurate physical reason would encourage vigilance, with no room for doubt about the data. More attention would be directed toward blacks, much like toward young children or seniors (not exclusive attention).

Are young children and seniors less buoyant than average? Seems if buoyancy were the issue then fat grannies and chubby white toddlers in the burbs should never drown.

(3) Stop presuming that the inability or difficulty of learning to swim is a personal failure for blacks, reflecting poorly on his or her intelligence.

That's an odd presumption on your part.

Some schools, I am told, require learning to swim, which I take to be a bad idea.

Some schools, I am told, require sex education including basic information about contraceptives.

Which is the bad idea: Telling people "just don't do it"? Or teaching people about the honest risks and how to go about it safely?

It should be clear that the average black body is not too dense to swim based on the data provided in sports science journals about competitive swimmer body composition.

scombrid, you said, "Seems if buoyancy were the issue then fat grannies and chubby white toddlers in the burbs should never drown."

"Seems if buoyancy were the issue..."

No, that would presume that I presume that buoyancy is the ONLY issue and nothing else matters.

I thought I was clear on this point, and I will make it clear again: both psychological swimming ability and body density affect drowning probability.

Let me repeat that, in very large font this time. Please excuse me if it comes off as rude, but I really do need to make sure this is absolutely clear, and I am getting frustrated about it.

Both psychological swimming ability and body density affect drowning probability.

Tell me whether or not you agree with this position. You seem to have the position that psychological swimming ability is the only relevant variable and body density variations have jack-all to do with it, but maybe I have perceived wrongly.

 

[Malintent]

I bet you do but it isn't a good one. Five pounds of gold chains round your neck is an obvious mechanical impediment to swimming whereas the extra body density is typical of strong swimmers. It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.

"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat."

How so? How is a denser body buoyantly different from wearing extra gold chains?

In the way I just spelled out. Both theoretically and evidentially.

You seemed to have spelled out your belief but not your reasoning. Try doing it in terms of physics<snip>

In terms of physics, both of you are doing it correctly. His reasoning proceeds from the premise of positive buoyancy. Yours proceeds from the premise of negative buoyancy.

You mean his reasoning about the "mechanical impediment"?

No, I meant his reasoning about "It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy, given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat.". A block of oak doesn't have to put out any more effort to stay afloat than a block of balsa does; and if you put enough gold into the block of balsa to make it as dense as the block of oak, it still takes it no effort to stay afloat, even though staying afloat is a function of buoyant force and buoyant force is an inverse function of body density. You two keep talking past each other because everything you say is only valid for objects that are denser than water, and everything he says is only valid for objects that are lighter than water. You two need to come to grips with each other and try to reach agreement as to whether people are heavier or lighter than water.

Thanks for the explanation. Human bodies of both races are on average denser than water. The statement, "It's perfectly possible for bodies of different densities to have positive buoyancy"--I agree with that part, mostly--"...given which it takes no more mechanical effort to keep the denser one afloat"--I disagree with that part. A body of greater density must take in a larger breath of air to have positive buoyancy, which really is more mechanical effort. If he has too much extra body density (like maybe equivalent to five pounds of gold chains) AND smaller lungs, then he may not ever reach the point of positive buoyancy regardless of the size of the breath intake. It would mean that exceptional psychological swimming ability and/or swimming athleticism is needed to save one's self from drowning. Even an intermediate difference--suppose one of them can stay afloat with a small breath intake and the other can stay afloat with only a large one--that is likewise expected to make a difference, as there would be a difference in energy, time of positive buoyancy and odds saving one's self given less swimming ability.

My point, though, was that while more lung inflation is needed for the slightly more dense body, that difference is insignificant. We are talking a few square inches of volume. Remember, 1 gallon of air offsets about 70 lbs of weight. 5 lbs of extra density requires a fairly trivial amount more lung expansion... a sip of air.

 

[Malintent]

Drowning is either caused by mechanical action (being held underwater by something or someone), or by fear. It is never due to negative buoyancy. Thrashing about and breathing in the way humans breath when they are scared causes drowning.

I would not be looking at physiological differences. I would be looking at social / cultural differences... such as a cultural innate fear of water or how one psychologically deals with fear.. how easily the onset of panic is self-mitigated.

Is there a cultural group of people that tend to be more 'uppity' than others?

 

[ApostateAbe]

My point, though, was that while more lung inflation is needed for the slightly more dense body, that difference is insignificant. We are talking a few square inches of volume. Remember, 1 gallon of air offsets about 70 lbs of weight. 5 lbs of extra density requires a fairly trivial amount more lung expansion... a sip of air.

5 lb = 2.26 kg

The average body density of a young white man is 1.065 kg/L, so, to compensate for five pounds of extra weight downward, such a person would need to inhale this much air:

2.26 kg/(1.065 kg/L) = 2.1 L

According to Wikipedia (citing Ganong, William. "Fig. 35-7". Review of Medical Physiology 21st ed.), the average inspiratory reserve volume (IRV) for men is 3.0 L. The IRV is the volume of air that is the difference between the top peak of the curve of lung volume after FORCED inhalation and the top of the peak of the curve of lung volume after normal inhalation. So, 2.1 liters versus 3.0 liters. Maybe a normal person carrying five pounds of gold chains can stay afloat after taking in a big breath of air, but we know sure as hell the chains make a big difference! And it follows that racial body density variations likewise make a big difference.

 

[Bronzeage]

[

My point, though, was that while more lung inflation is needed for the slightly more dense body, that difference is insignificant. We are talking a few square inches of volume. Remember, 1 gallon of air offsets about 70 lbs of weight. 5 lbs of extra density requires a fairly trivial amount more lung expansion... a sip of air.

It's actually 7 lbs of weight, but you are still on point. When all the factors which lead to a drowning death are considered, the density of bones is an insignificant factor.

Abe is so desperate to find someone who will concede some merit in his racist hypothesis, he wants to reduce it to a simple mathematical proof, and then demand everyone agree it is true. It doesn't matter that none of his hypothesis is supported by actual observation or common experience. He has the numbers on his side.

This discussion is silly on an elite level. No one ever stood over a waterlogged dead body and lamented, "If only his bones had been less dense."