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

[ApostateAbe]

I will assume it is not a "yes." It is an argument that body density can not be the only causal variable of drowning rates, and I agree with you. I never intended to communicate that body density was the only causal variable of drowning rates, as that would be incredible nonsense on the face, so let's put that miscommunication behind us.

 

[exodiasrightleg]

Also, wow that story. You're an order of magnitude dumber than I thought. The lifeguard saw the child's tube being turned over by a wave, which as far as I know is not a situation that favors whites or blacks. What would an ApostateAbe approved lifeguard do in this situation? Probably letting a white child die on her watch because she's either too busy scanning the pool just for black people, or too slow on the rescue because hey, white people are more buoyant right?

Look to the right edge of the gif. There is another child whose tube overturned. Which child was more likely to drown? We don't even need to pay attention to the physics. We can just rely on the raw drowning rates!

"Too slow on the rescue" it is, then.

Population-wise rates aren't deterministic towards individual cases, Abe. The lifeguard has no way to know how buoyant each children is - just because the bell curve of density for white people is 0.010 g/mL behind the one for black people, it doesn't mean every single black child is 0.010 g/mL denser than every single white child. This is not even population genetics, it's middle school math.

Again, you're just advocating white children be left at a greater risk of drowning for no good reason.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Look to the right edge of the gif. There is another child whose tube overturned. Which child was more likely to drown? We don't even need to pay attention to the physics. We can just rely on the raw drowning rates!

"Too slow on the rescue" it is, then.

Population-wise rates aren't deterministic towards individual cases, Abe. The lifeguard has no way to know how buoyant each children is - just because the bell curve of density for white people is 0.010 g/mL behind the one for black people, it doesn't mean every single black child is 0.010 g/mL denser than every single white child. This is not even population genetics, it's middle school math.

Again, you're just advocating white children be left at a greater risk of drowning for no good reason.

Every single black child is NOT at a greater risk of drowning than every white child. I absolutely agree. The same is true for every factor of risk. Not every 5-year-old child left alone has a greater risk of drowning than every grown adult. But, frankly, you would be profoundly incompetent as a lifeguard to not pay more attention to the 5-year-old child. Not that I am equating the two risk differentials, and not that you should be completely blind to the grown adult as a lifeguard. If you do not think statistically, then you will not do your job well, regardless of what your job may be, and I think it is a principle we commonly take for granted in our day-to-day lives, but we somehow always forget that principle when race is any part of the debate. Maybe because the common strawman racist is an absolutist.

 

[scombrid]

Fear is a major factor in drowning. Ask any lifeguard. People that panic sink, including fat people. Falsely telling people that due to density differences they should be terrified of water, that their attempting to learn to swim is on par with taking up chainsaw juggling as a hobby, is probably counter-productive if reducing drowning risk is a goal.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Fear is a major factor in drowning. Ask any lifeguard. People that panic sink, including fat people. Falsely telling people that due to density differences they should be terrified of water, that their attempting to learn to swim is on par with taking up chainsaw juggling as a hobby, is probably counter-productive if reducing drowning risk is a goal.

That could be a good point. I will ask the next lifeguard I meet. Maybe you were a lifeguard.

 

[tantric]

y'all are arguing about scientific stats, but racial categories don't map to genetic groups, except by accident, and that's really not what they are for. (i'm the guy who tried to create a new system for describing genetics/phenotype/ethnicity - the weurominbantugens guy)

 

[ApostateAbe]

y'all are arguing about scientific stats, but racial categories don't map to genetic groups, except by accident, and that's really not what they are for. (i'm the guy who tried to create a new system for describing genetics/phenotype/ethnicity - the weurominbantugens guy)

weurominbantugens? Please tell me about it.

 

[tantric]

y'all are arguing about scientific stats, but racial categories don't map to genetic groups, except by accident, and that's really not what they are for. (i'm the guy who tried to create a new system for describing genetics/phenotype/ethnicity - the weurominbantugens guy)

weurominbantugens? Please tell me about it.

you posted in it! it died of ennui.

here.

 

[ApostateAbe]

weurominbantugens? Please tell me about it.

you posted in it! it died of ennui.

here.

I remember now! It seemed like a long time ago, like six months to a year. Was it really only a month and a half ago? What is happening to my memory?? The objective reality of races is fundamentally messy, and there really is no way to make it simple. Identifications by ancestral geography--the traditional racial scheme--really does seem to be the best way to go about it. Racial phenotypes correlate with each other, unified by ancestral geography, as it follows largely from the mating patterns of populations (more likely to mate with someone nearby than with someone far away), which isn't to claim that the patterns are perfect. It is in line with the theory of evolution generally.

 

[tantric]

you posted in it! it died of ennui.

here.

I remember now! It seemed like a long time ago, like six months to a year. Was it really only a month and a half ago? What is happening to my memory?? The objective reality of races is fundamentally messy, and there really is no way to make it simple. Identifications by ancestral geography--the traditional racial scheme--really does seem to be the best way to go about it. Racial phenotypes correlate with each other, unified by ancestral geography, as it follows largely from the mating patterns of populations (more likely to mate with someone nearby than with someone far away), which isn't to claim that the patterns are perfect. It is in line with the theory of evolution generally.

no, it's not. what area has a homogeneous racial makeup? at what point in time? what do you call people? let's assume the person has a skin similiar to beach sand or the loams of the great plains (because all people are really dirt colored). is he a Euro-american (or what land his ancestors colonized most recently)? that's phenotype - culture. the problem here is that (other than EUROPE IS NOT A CONTINENT) it doesn't work for shit for 'asian'. 'asian' isn't a phenotype or genotype, it a broad and irrational grouping. you'd think, geographically, that there'd be Asia and the European, Arabian and Indian subcontinents. ....


and anyway, grr - your system has to be artificial if it doesn't use the one drop rule, and i'm assuming you don't? what are american blacks, with the collage DNA?

 

[exodiasrightleg]

Every single black child is NOT at a greater risk of drowning than every white child. I absolutely agree.

Except when you don't. I quote:

Look to the right edge of the gif. There is another child whose tube overturned. Which child was more likely to drown? We don't even need to pay attention to the physics. We can just rely on the raw drowning rates!

Raw drowning rates, in your opinion, determine which of the individual children should be the one rescued, instead of concrete signs of being unable to swim. Being the white child who can't swim in that situation means you're SOL.

The same is true for every factor of risk. Not every 5-year-old child left alone has a greater risk of drowning than every grown adult. But, frankly, you would be profoundly incompetent as a lifeguard to not pay more attention to the 5-year-old child.

But that's not what you're advocating, Abe. You're saying 5 year old children should never be taught how to swim since they're going to drown anyway.

Not that I am equating the two risk differentials, and not that you should be completely blind to the grown adult as a lifeguard. If you do not think statistically, then you will not do your job well, regardless of what your job may be, and I think it is a principle we commonly take for granted in our day-to-day lives, but we somehow always forget that principle when race is any part of the debate. Maybe because the common strawman racist is an absolutist.

I don't need strawmen since your opening statements are basically self-parody. I quote:

I take this [encouraging black people to learn how to swim] to be akin to encouraging the public to learn how to juggle chainsaws, to make it a safe hobby.

Again, your "scientific" racism is oddly indistinguishable from garden variety racism when it comes to the endgame. Almost as if the process didn't matter as much as keeping the same conclusion. Hmmm.

 

[ApostateAbe]

tantric, I will post in your old thread to resurrect it and stay on topic.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Except when you don't. I quote:

Look to the right edge of the gif. There is another child whose tube overturned. Which child was more likely to drown? We don't even need to pay attention to the physics. We can just rely on the raw drowning rates!

Raw drowning rates, in your opinion, determine which of the individual children should be the one rescued, instead of concrete signs of being unable to swim. Being the white child who can't swim in that situation means you're SOL.

The same is true for every factor of risk. Not every 5-year-old child left alone has a greater risk of drowning than every grown adult. But, frankly, you would be profoundly incompetent as a lifeguard to not pay more attention to the 5-year-old child.

But that's not what you're advocating, Abe. You're saying 5 year old children should never be taught how to swim since they're going to drown anyway.

Not that I am equating the two risk differentials, and not that you should be completely blind to the grown adult as a lifeguard. If you do not think statistically, then you will not do your job well, regardless of what your job may be, and I think it is a principle we commonly take for granted in our day-to-day lives, but we somehow always forget that principle when race is any part of the debate. Maybe because the common strawman racist is an absolutist.

I don't need strawmen since your opening statements are basically self-parody. I quote:

I take this [encouraging black people to learn how to swim] to be akin to encouraging the public to learn how to juggle chainsaws, to make it a safe hobby.

Again, your "scientific" racism is oddly indistinguishable from garden variety racism when it comes to the endgame. Almost as if the process didn't matter as much as keeping the same conclusion. Hmmm.

It seems like you disagreed merely with perceived absolutist position that you are reading from that chainsaw-juggling statement. I understand the misinterpretation, and you are free to think it isn't really a misinterpretation, I actually meant to be absolutist and I changed my mind about it. That's fine. Maybe we can come to a rational intermediate agreement, one way or the other. Can we agree on this statement: black children can learn to swim, and, because of the greater average risk following from greater average body density, it is suggested that they receive disproportionate supervision from parents and lifeguards, not left alone in a swimming environment until they have an especially high swimming ability.

 

[Canard DuJour]

. If not genetically heritable differences then not an argunent for races. Just cultures.

Game over man

If you like. The differences in drowning rates follow from differences in body densities following from differences in cultures. No more disagreement is needed.

Then there isn't really any race realism case here without first assuming it. Or for race denial "drowning blacks"

And EVEN IF it were entirely genetic or not swamped by swimming ability, we might say black people should be extra careful in the water like ginger people should be extra careful in the sun. But it would no more establish the biological validity of "the black race" (to quote you earlier) than of a ginger race. Just another case of human diversity seen through the distorting prism of race.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The argument is clear. I have done the math. It is not a microscopic difference. The difference means that blacks on average must work 15% harder to stay afloat.

Not really. You're either positively buoyant or not. It might be that fewer blacks are, but what you have is a little-bit-pregnant fallacy. Given positive buoyancy, leaner denser muscle better enables you to propel yourself through water, as through air. And, while most human bodies are positively buoyant, no human head (the densest part of the body) is. Hence drowned/unconscious people float face down. People drown when the head/airway is submerged and, for reasons "scientific racists" incessantly point out, whites might have to work a little harder to keep theirs above water.

Not that any of it makes any significant difference to drowning probability since it's utterly swamped by swimming ability which is overwhelmingly environmental.

 

[Canard DuJour]

That is an interesting result. It means that the body density of the average elite adolescent competitive swimmer is about equal to the body density of the average young black man.

(...)

It is an argument that body density can not be the only causal variable of drowning rates,

No, it's evidence that density variance in the range you're on about makes approximately bugger all difference to swimming ability.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The argument is clear. I have done the math. It is not a microscopic difference. The difference means that blacks on average must work 15% harder to stay afloat.

Not really. You're either positively buoyant or not. It might be that fewer blacks are, but what you have is a little-bit-pregnant fallacy. Given positive buoyancy, leaner denser muscle better enables you to propel yourself through water, as through air. And, while most human bodies are positively buoyant, no human head (the densest part of the body) is. Hence drowned/unconscious people float face down. People drown when the head/airway is submerged and, for reasons "scientific racists" incessantly point out, whites might have to work a little harder to keep theirs above water.

Not that any of it makes any significant difference to drowning probability since it's utterly swamped by swimming ability which is overwhelmingly environmental.

How much denser above water density on average would black bodies need to be before it starts to make a difference, in your rough estimate, if not 15% more than white bodies? 50%? 100%? 200%?

 

[Bronzeage]

Not really. You're either positively buoyant or not. It might be that fewer blacks are, but what you have is a little-bit-pregnant fallacy. Given positive buoyancy, leaner denser muscle better enables you to propel yourself through water, as through air. And, while most human bodies are positively buoyant, no human head (the densest part of the body) is. Hence drowned/unconscious people float face down. People drown when the head/airway is submerged and, for reasons "scientific racists" incessantly point out, whites might have to work a little harder to keep theirs above water.

Not that any of it makes any significant difference to drowning probability since it's utterly swamped by swimming ability which is overwhelmingly environmental.

How much denser above water density on average would black bodies need to be before it starts to make a difference, in your rough estimate, if not 15% more than white bodies? 50%? 100%? 200%?

You've presented a hypothesis that because black people have an average greater bone density, this accounts for poor swimming ability among blacks, resulting in drowning deaths.


It's an interesting idea, but you cannot provide any evidence that this is born out in reality.

 

[fromderinside]

Not really. You're either positively buoyant or not. It might be that fewer blacks are, but what you have is a little-bit-pregnant fallacy. Given positive buoyancy, leaner denser muscle better enables you to propel yourself through water, as through air. And, while most human bodies are positively buoyant, no human head (the densest part of the body) is. Hence drowned/unconscious people float face down. People drown when the head/airway is submerged and, for reasons "scientific racists" incessantly point out, whites might have to work a little harder to keep theirs above water.

Not that any of it makes any significant difference to drowning probability since it's utterly swamped by swimming ability which is overwhelmingly environmental.

How much denser above water density on average would black bodies need to be before it starts to make a difference, in your rough estimate, if not 15% more than white bodies? 50%? 100%? 200%?

Seems to me it would take dwarf star densities to even cause black holes to go "oh, that". Densities would have to be millions of times beyond any range possible for humans who evolved on this planet to even approach a range where it would be visible on any scale of dwarf star and pulsar options.

Your question is not relevant.

 

[ApostateAbe]

How much denser above water density on average would black bodies need to be before it starts to make a difference, in your rough estimate, if not 15% more than white bodies? 50%? 100%? 200%?

You've presented a hypothesis that because black people have an average greater bone density, this accounts for poor swimming ability among blacks, resulting in drowning deaths.


It's an interesting idea, but you cannot provide any evidence that this is born out in reality.

What data is missing, in your opinion? What data would make the hypothesis probable?