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

[ApostateAbe]

Dogma it is, then.

"Anyone who disagrees with my wild speculation is blinded by dogma" is what every crackpot says when backed into a corner.

If this body density difference is insignificant, then what magnitude would make a difference? Feel free to answer yourself. If there is a good reason for denying that the 15% above whites with respect to water density makes a difference, then you would have a better value. Like, maybe 500% would be the minimum value before it affects drowning rates, as implausible as that may be. Or, maybe physics has absolutely no relevance at all. I am not asking anyone to agree with me. If you disagree with me, it does not follow that dogma has anything to do with it. But, if you can't justify your denials, then maybe it really is just a denial born from dogma. If it is not just dogma, then what is it? Give me a number that you think would affect drowning rates if not 15%.

 

[Canard DuJour]

"Anyone who disagrees with my wild speculation is blinded by dogma" is what every crackpot says when backed into a corner.

If this body density difference is insignificant, then what magnitude would make a difference? Feel free to answer yourself. If there is a good reason for denying that the 15% above whites with respect to water density makes a difference, then you would have a better value.

A good reason, requiring no such additional knowledge or speculation, has been presented several times. It won't go away, however much you try to change the subject.

 

[ApostateAbe]

If this body density difference is insignificant, then what magnitude would make a difference? Feel free to answer yourself. If there is a good reason for denying that the 15% above whites with respect to water density makes a difference, then you would have a better value.

A good reason, requiring no such additional knowledge or speculation, has been presented several times. It won't go away, however much you try to change the subject.

A good reason physics doesn't matter?

 

[Juma]

A good reason, requiring no such additional knowledge or speculation, has been presented several times. It won't go away, however much you try to change the subject.

A good reason physics doesn't matter?

You have the burden of proof: It is up to you to show that it matters.

 

[Malintent]

It could be mainly just one of these explanations, or it could be a combination of all three. I favor the explanation that it is mainly about lung size.

But that doesn't make any sense.

If you know how to swim, you know how to take breaths when you need them.

If you don't know how to swim, even if you're a white college athlete, then a superior lung capacity just lengthens the drowning event.

a topic in which I can rightfully call myself an expert... finally!

Lung volume dictates how buoyant one can make themselves, separate from innate buoyancy that is determined by overall density (fat, muscle mass - bone density can't be that relevant.. never heard of that as a factor in human buoyancy - it would be so small a differentiator). Fat people are more innately buoyant and muscular people are less.

Lung capacity dictates the degree to which you can increase your buoyancy beyond your innate buoyancy. By expanding your lungs through the draw of breath, you increase your overall volume without changing your mass. This makes you more buoyant (less dense). Try it in a bath tub. Lay back, relax, and empty your lungs. You will sink. Try it again, except this time take a deep breath... you rise higher up in the water.

Scuba divers master their lung control and use the depth of their breath to control their depth in the water. a Perfectly weighted diver (weights are used to cancel innate buoyancy) will be perfectly neutral in the water when breathing normally. when breathing shallowly, they descend. When breathing deeply, they rise.

The amount a regular set of lungs can offset your innate buoyancy is incredible. huge. The slightest change in lung size (depth of breath) has a major impact on buoyancy. To that point, I find it highly unlikely that overall lung capacity has any real effect on a person's ability to achieve positive buoyancy. It's just too damn easy to sip the tiniest amount of air and go from negative to positive.

 

[ApostateAbe]

A good reason physics doesn't matter?

You have the burden of proof: It is up to you to show that it matters.

Physics always matters. I can't think of an exception. See post #63 for further details.

 

[ApostateAbe]

But that doesn't make any sense.

If you know how to swim, you know how to take breaths when you need them.

If you don't know how to swim, even if you're a white college athlete, then a superior lung capacity just lengthens the drowning event.

a topic in which I can rightfully call myself an expert... finally!

Lung volume dictates how buoyant one can make themselves, separate from innate buoyancy that is determined by overall density (fat, muscle mass - bone density can't be that relevant.. never heard of that as a factor in human buoyancy - it would be so small a differentiator). Fat people are more innately buoyant and muscular people are less.

Lung capacity dictates the degree to which you can increase your buoyancy beyond your innate buoyancy. By expanding your lungs through the draw of breath, you increase your overall volume without changing your mass. This makes you more buoyant (less dense). Try it in a bath tub. Lay back, relax, and empty your lungs. You will sink. Try it again, except this time take a deep breath... you rise higher up in the water.

Scuba divers master their lung control and use the depth of their breath to control their depth in the water. a Perfectly weighted diver (weights are used to cancel innate buoyancy) will be perfectly neutral in the water when breathing normally. when breathing shallowly, they descend. When breathing deeply, they rise.

The amount a regular set of lungs can offset your innate buoyancy is incredible. huge. The slightest change in lung size (depth of breath) has a major impact on buoyancy. To that point, I find it highly unlikely that overall lung capacity has any real effect on a person's ability to achieve positive buoyancy. It's just too damn easy to sip the tiniest amount of air and go from negative to positive.

The conclusion seems to conflict with the points leading up to it! When a person has less lung capacity, he or she has to take in that much more air to achieve buoyancy, yes?

 

[Juma]

You have the burden of proof: It is up to you to show that it matters.

Physics always matters. I can't think of an exception. See post #63 for further details.

The sun will not change in any detectable way whatsoever if you throw a stone at it.

You really are stupid.

Bye.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Physics always matters. I can't think of an exception. See post #63 for further details.

The sun will not change in any detectable way whatsoever if you throw a stone at it.

You really are stupid.

Bye.

Physics makes a difference in that case, too.

 

[Malintent]

a topic in which I can rightfully call myself an expert... finally!

Lung volume dictates how buoyant one can make themselves, separate from innate buoyancy that is determined by overall density (fat, muscle mass - bone density can't be that relevant.. never heard of that as a factor in human buoyancy - it would be so small a differentiator). Fat people are more innately buoyant and muscular people are less.

Lung capacity dictates the degree to which you can increase your buoyancy beyond your innate buoyancy. By expanding your lungs through the draw of breath, you increase your overall volume without changing your mass. This makes you more buoyant (less dense). Try it in a bath tub. Lay back, relax, and empty your lungs. You will sink. Try it again, except this time take a deep breath... you rise higher up in the water.

Scuba divers master their lung control and use the depth of their breath to control their depth in the water. a Perfectly weighted diver (weights are used to cancel innate buoyancy) will be perfectly neutral in the water when breathing normally. when breathing shallowly, they descend. When breathing deeply, they rise.

The amount a regular set of lungs can offset your innate buoyancy is incredible. huge. The slightest change in lung size (depth of breath) has a major impact on buoyancy. To that point, I find it highly unlikely that overall lung capacity has any real effect on a person's ability to achieve positive buoyancy. It's just too damn easy to sip the tiniest amount of air and go from negative to positive.

The conclusion seems to conflict with the points leading up to it! When a person has less lung capacity, he or she has to take in that much more air to achieve buoyancy, yes?

No. A given amount of breath will yield the same increase in buoyancy for anyone. People with less capacity have less total buoyancy increase potential.... but my point is that even the smallest of lungs can trivially increase overall buoyancy into the positive. See how much air in your lungs it takes to raise you off the bathtub floor (assuming the water is deep enough in your bathtub).. you may be surprised at how little it takes to float. Most people drown due to panic. If they relax and take a deep breath and breath deeply without letting out all of your breath, it is impossible to drown. You will freeze... but that is a different story.

It's more likely that a person wearing a lot of gold chains around their necks is less able to maintain positive buoyancy. Is there a race that wears gold chains around their necks all the time with a statistical drowning anomaly? =p

 

[Malintent]

It would depend on the anatomy of these ultra-dense extraterrestrial "black people". Perhaps they've evolved webbed appendages, gills and suchlike. Then there's the paucity of water on the moon - difficult to drown at all. I'm gonna have to give this some serious thought.

There are plenty of other possibilities for phenotypic differences, but for now we can just assume that body density is the only change, everything else remaining the same. The purpose is to test whether or not the denial of the significance of the racial body density difference as it exists is rational or merely dogmatic.

as I have been pointing out, differences in body density cannot be the defining factor, as the offset to one's own density (innate buoyancy) from even the smallest of lungs, is far more impactful on total buoyancy.

 

[Canard DuJour]

A good reason, requiring no such additional knowledge or speculation, has been presented several times. It won't go away, however much you try to change the subject.

A good reason physics doesn't matter?

No, just the density range you're on about. Obviously. You know, the one you said would make black people more likely to drown that turns out to be typical of strong swimmers. Mmm?

Pathetic attempt, Abe.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The conclusion seems to conflict with the points leading up to it! When a person has less lung capacity, he or she has to take in that much more air to achieve buoyancy, yes?

No. A given amount of breath will yield the same increase in buoyancy for anyone. People with less capacity have less total buoyancy increase potential.... but my point is that even the smallest of lungs can trivially increase overall buoyancy into the positive. See how much air in your lungs it takes to raise you off the bathtub floor (assuming the water is deep enough in your bathtub).. you may be surprised at how little it takes to float. Most people drown due to panic. If they relax and take a deep breath and breath deeply without letting out all of your breath, it is impossible to drown. You will freeze... but that is a different story.

It's more likely that a person wearing a lot of gold chains around their necks is less able to maintain positive buoyancy. Is there a race that wears gold chains around their necks all the time with a statistical drowning anomaly? =p

In post #63 I did a statistical analysis of the body density distributions of each race, and you may want to review it. The small difference in averages makes a big difference between the two right tail ends of the bell curves. The conclusion is that there are 15 as many young black men as young white men with the extra body density equivalent to five pounds of extra gold chains around their necks.

 

[Malintent]

No. A given amount of breath will yield the same increase in buoyancy for anyone. People with less capacity have less total buoyancy increase potential.... but my point is that even the smallest of lungs can trivially increase overall buoyancy into the positive. See how much air in your lungs it takes to raise you off the bathtub floor (assuming the water is deep enough in your bathtub).. you may be surprised at how little it takes to float. Most people drown due to panic. If they relax and take a deep breath and breath deeply without letting out all of your breath, it is impossible to drown. You will freeze... but that is a different story.

It's more likely that a person wearing a lot of gold chains around their necks is less able to maintain positive buoyancy. Is there a race that wears gold chains around their necks all the time with a statistical drowning anomaly? =p

In post #63 I did a statistical analysis of the body density distributions of each race, and you may want to review it. The small difference in averages makes a big difference in the right tail end of the bell curve. The conclusion is that there are 15 as many young black men as young white men with the extra body density equivalent to five pounds of extra gold chains around their necks.

5 pounds is definitely close to the amount of weight an experienced diver would wear in warm weather (no wetsuit - they are extremely buoyant), fresh water diving. Ocean water is more dense (so you are more innately buoyant) than fresh. Even if a person is as you describe, they are still going to be pretty close to neutrally buoyant. Every gallon of air will counter about 70 lbs of weight (in salt water). How much air difference are we talking about between 'low lung capacity' and 'normal lung capacity'? a few cubic inches?

Math in my head... less than 1 pint of air in the lungs (beyond the 'rest' volume) is all that is needed to cause even the most dense body to become positively buoyant.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I like the gold chains analogy. Suppose two men fell out of a boat in the middle of a lake. These two men are exactly the same--same body density, same swimming ability, and so on--with only one difference: one of them is wearing five pounds of gold chains around his neck. Which one is more likely to drown? Is the difference negligible, in your opinion?

 

[Canard DuJour]

I like the gold chains analogy.

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.

Suppose two men fell out of a boat in the middle of a lake. These two men are exactly the same--same body density, same swimming ability, and so on--[etc]

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.

 

[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.

Suppose two men fell out of a boat in the middle of a lake. These two men are exactly the same--same body density, same swimming ability, and so on--[etc]

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?

"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 except one of them is wearing five pounds of gold chains. Who is more likely to drown? I think you already know the answer so go ahead and avoid it.

 

[scombrid]

White toddlers in the suburbs are among the more common drowning victims. What's their body density.

A watched a black guy from Toronto jump overboard and swim in Anguilla on House Hunters last night.

 

[scombrid]

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.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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.