Whites abuse drugs just as often as blacks? Nope.

[fromderinside]

Face it ApostateAbe, whither it be Gould, Diamond, Wilson, Hooper, or Gazzaniga, referenced in your posts the "I"s have it. Right after that comes 'racist' and 'black' about rope and neck. Congratulations. You've found attention getting words to attract growls from most here on this liberally biased rational forum.

The question for me about what you write is why do you do the same thing over and over and over then try to claim learning. Is there a lesson in learning in what you do?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In other words, if courts are unfairly sentencing blacks to tougher sentences than whites for the same crimes, then they are punishing blacks for being black and not for committing that particular crime.

That doesn't follow. We already know black people in America tend to be disproportionately poorer than non-black people. The prima facie interpretation is that courts are punishing blacks for not being able to afford good lawyers. You'd have to control for SES in order to conclude they're getting punished for being black.

Good point. This sort of factor often gets lost in the mix as people point at race.

 

[exodiasrightleg]

Instead of honestly considering why most elite swimmers are White or Asian

IIRC the Japanese used to be terrible at competitive swimming before the 1930s (around the time when they began innovating in training methods). They also were, on average, really short so I guess the ApostateAbes of the time would be crowing about how they'd never be any good at volleyball.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Instead of honestly considering why most elite swimmers are White or Asian

IIRC the Japanese used to be terrible at competitive swimming before the 1930s (around the time when they began innovating in training methods). They also were, on average, really short so I guess the ApostateAbes of the time would be crowing about how they'd never be any good at volleyball.

Good example. I remember my high school's female volleyball team to be freakishly tall, and I expect tallness would be an advantage. Do you take the average shortness of the Japanese race as a disadvantage that they had to overcome with other advantages in order to effectively compete with taller races in competitive volleyball? Or, do you think that the average shortness of the Japanese has no significance at all, one way or the other, like they could be pygmies and it wouldn't matter?

 

[Godless Raven]

How big of you. If you keep taking baby steps like that one, and humans find a way to live forever, you could get there some day! I have faith.

You know...whatever differences there are between what were calling "races" are so negligible in the big picture of what makes us human, I think you're spending a large portion of your time on Earth worrying about something that's not that big of a difference. Instead of honestly considering why most elite swimmers are White or Asian, you've gone and blown it way out of proportion, like your chainsaw analogy. Which, frankly, is just goofy.

Ever wonder why Black boxers easily dominate White boxers? Is it because the races are so different and Black boxers are just way better...and that getting a White boxer to dominate in boxing (with a few exceptions) is like speed skating uphill?

Well...it's not. It has to do with opportunity and options. There used to be great fighters of Jewish, Irish, Italian descent. Some of the greatest of all-time. (I'm not talking about those who would not "Cross the color line" and fight blacks like Jack Dempsey.

If one took a look at real statistical data from 1970-2000, they would probably come away thinking that Black's are simply better at boxing, or their bodies are more adaptable to that sport. 3 decades of data.

And in the end...that data would mean nothing.

Just like it used to be poor Jewish/Irish/Italian boxers, fighting to get out of poverty, and then Black fighters doing the same, now, from 2000-2015 you can see a massive rise in Latin American contenders and champions as well as Eastern European fighters that dominate entire divisions. It turns out, those groups are also impoverished and that has more to do with why they were "tougher", more adaptable to the sport, have more "heart". When it's a fight to get out of being dirt poor, a person will do almost anything, including risk injury or beat the shit out of another person if that's what it takes.


Being so open minded and being open to changing your opinion, that swimming example can't be the biggest one that sticks out to you, is it? How about something more significant, where you had to challenge a very deep belief and you realized you were dead wrong.

I normally wouldn't challenge someone to come up with examples like these because people are uber resistant to changing their core beliefs, and it's all uphill. But you're one of the first people I've seen openly claim to be very interested in counter information and open to changing their mind, so I think it's fair in this case.

"How about something more significant, where you had to challenge a very deep belief and you realized you were dead wrong."

If I were to look back over the last five years of thinking about such topics, I figure it would be an evolution of my thinking about human races from discrete groupings to fuzzy sets. The books that introduced me to the topic of race were Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel and Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. I loved Jared Diamond's book, providing the first coherent explanation I have seen for inequalities among the races. Stephen J. Gould's book, though it was widely popular among the people I loved, did not sit nearly so well with me. I expected a good rebuttal of scientific racism, and instead I got rebuttals of historical figures and arrogant ideological rhetoric. From Gould's book, I expected that the scientific racists were right. So, I checked out Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, and those expectations were met. It was a very good statistical case for the theory that there are intelligence differences both within and between races, those differences were largely genetic, and they were a strong causal effect on wealth differences. They wrote positively of J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist who wrote a book that explained an evolutionary theory of races, so I read that book, too, and the case seemed complete. But, there was one essential point where those books had misled me: they wrote as though races were discrete sets with sharp boundaries between them. Those authors were not evolutionary biologists (Stephen J. Gould was an evolutionary biologist but did not discuss the biology of races) so I went about with the wrong idea about races. I figured maybe I could find a good taxonomic family tree of the races, with branches and sub-branches representing the taxonomic divisions of the human species, with the three major branches on the top and all the small divisions below. I was slow to discover, however, that races did not work that way. Races are fundamentally spectral, they always mixed with their geographic neighbors, and they can not be accurately represented with family trees, but they must be represented with cluster analyses or principal component analyses of allele combinations. And I discovered that this is the way biological races have long been understood among evolutionary biologists. It should have been obvious to me, as such a model of races is essential for evolutionary divergence to lead to speciation (and I have long argued in favor of the theory of evolution).

There are some differences statistically between races, although statistics on things like this that really need a proper pool of the entire planet as their test group are not "written in stone". There are also differences between women and men, boys from men, girls from women, young from old and in between. And there are tons of exceptions.

I think you keep missing the real point here...there are actually 3.

1. The differences you are spending a whole lot of time thinking about (to justify your self proclaimed racism apparently) are not that statistically significant in the history of our species or who we are today. There are some variations on average between different "Asian" populations. If we looked at the statistics 10,000 years ago, their would be different differences as well. But again...in the scheme of the big picture...our existence on this planet with one another...none of those statistics are significant.

2. You are nearly identical genetically to the BLACKEST, and I mean BLACKEST mother fucker you've ever dreamed up in one of your many "Black man is out to get me" night-terrors. And that sir...is a fact. Literally nearly 100% identical...to the point where my 1st point repeats itself. It's not statistically significant in the grand scheme of who we are, where we come from and where we are going (which leads to point #3).

3. Think about every post you've made on this board, and others over all your years on the net. Well...in the time it took you to write your racist rants about, insignificant variances among different groups of our species, 1,000 interracial couples conceived a beautiful baby. And... ... we're talking 10,000 plus posts in total. Think of the numbers. Now with global networking...people that used to be secluded with only their own 'type' are exposed to real life black people and even some real life LGBT people too! And they get to find out some of them were their classmates and friends and family. So Abe...and in some bizarre way, I feel for you here...you're missing out on a lot of experiences that are pretty sweet and amazing.

BTW Abe...that darkest mother fucker on the planet that haunts your every waking moment...he's also living his life raising more dark skinned family members and probably would think you were wasting a lot of your time for very little results. Try smiling for a change

Show

All so you can spend a decade trying to figure out if Asians truly are the worst drivers in the world.

For Abe's eyes only please:

Show

I knew you'd look!

 

[Godless Raven]

IIRC the Japanese used to be terrible at competitive swimming before the 1930s (around the time when they began innovating in training methods). They also were, on average, really short so I guess the ApostateAbes of the time would be crowing about how they'd never be any good at volleyball.

Good example. I remember my high school's female volleyball team to be freakishly tall, and I expect tallness would be an advantage. Do you take the average shortness of the Japanese race as a disadvantage that they had to overcome with other advantages in order to effectively compete with taller races in competitive volleyball? Or, do you think that the average shortness of the Japanese has no significance at all, one way or the other, like they could be pygmies and it wouldn't matter?

BTW Abe, I much prefer a self proclaimed racist, regardless if I think almost everything they say is sort of a big waste of time. You have the courage of your convictions and you've clearly thought...a lot about it...like way too much, but whateves. I'd still rather know someone like you rather than some rabid racist that only does it behind closed doors and tries to harm people for no apparent reason.

I 100% support your freedom of speech and to express your...psuedoscienctific beliefs however you choose to.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"How about something more significant, where you had to challenge a very deep belief and you realized you were dead wrong."

If I were to look back over the last five years of thinking about such topics, I figure it would be an evolution of my thinking about human races from discrete groupings to fuzzy sets. The books that introduced me to the topic of race were Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel and Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. I loved Jared Diamond's book, providing the first coherent explanation I have seen for inequalities among the races. Stephen J. Gould's book, though it was widely popular among the people I loved, did not sit nearly so well with me. I expected a good rebuttal of scientific racism, and instead I got rebuttals of historical figures and arrogant ideological rhetoric. From Gould's book, I expected that the scientific racists were right. So, I checked out Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, and those expectations were met. It was a very good statistical case for the theory that there are intelligence differences both within and between races, those differences were largely genetic, and they were a strong causal effect on wealth differences. They wrote positively of J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist who wrote a book that explained an evolutionary theory of races, so I read that book, too, and the case seemed complete. But, there was one essential point where those books had misled me: they wrote as though races were discrete sets with sharp boundaries between them. Those authors were not evolutionary biologists (Stephen J. Gould was an evolutionary biologist but did not discuss the biology of races) so I went about with the wrong idea about races. I figured maybe I could find a good taxonomic family tree of the races, with branches and sub-branches representing the taxonomic divisions of the human species, with the three major branches on the top and all the small divisions below. I was slow to discover, however, that races did not work that way. Races are fundamentally spectral, they always mixed with their geographic neighbors, and they can not be accurately represented with family trees, but they must be represented with cluster analyses or principal component analyses of allele combinations. And I discovered that this is the way biological races have long been understood among evolutionary biologists. It should have been obvious to me, as such a model of races is essential for evolutionary divergence to lead to speciation (and I have long argued in favor of the theory of evolution).

There are some differences statistically between races, although statistics on things like this that really need a proper pool of the entire planet as their test group are not "written in stone". There are also differences between women and men, boys from men, girls from women, young from old and in between. And there are tons of exceptions.

I think you keep missing the real point here...there are actually 3.

1. The differences you are spending a whole lot of time thinking about (to justify your self proclaimed racism apparently) are not that statistically significant in the history of our species or who we are today. There are some variations on average between different "Asian" populations. If we looked at the statistics 10,000 years ago, their would be different differences as well. But again...in the scheme of the big picture...our existence on this planet with one another...none of those statistics are significant.

2. You are nearly identical genetically to the BLACKEST, and I mean BLACKEST mother fucker you've ever dreamed up in one of your many "Black man is out to get me" night-terrors. And that sir...is a fact. Literally nearly 100% identical...to the point where my 1st point repeats itself. It's not statistically significant in the grand scheme of who we are, where we come from and where we are going (which leads to point #3).

3. Think about every post you've made on this board, and others over all your years on the net. Well...in the time it took you to write your racist rants about, insignificant variances among different groups of our species, 1,000 interracial couples conceived a beautiful baby. And... ... we're talking 10,000 plus posts in total. Think of the numbers. Now with global networking...people that used to be secluded with only their own 'type' are exposed to real life black people and even some real life LGBT people too! And they get to find out some of them were their classmates and friends and family. So Abe...and in some bizarre way, I feel for you here...you're missing out on a lot of experiences that are pretty sweet and amazing.

BTW Abe...that darkest mother fucker on the planet that haunts your every waking moment...he's also living his life raising more dark skinned family members and probably would think you were wasting a lot of your time for very little results. Try smiling for a change

Show

All so you can spend a decade trying to figure out if Asians truly are the worst drivers in the world.

For Abe's eyes only please:

Show

View attachment 3951 I knew you'd look!

1. The differences you are spending a whole lot of time thinking about (to justify your self proclaimed racism apparently) are not that statistically significant in the history of our species or who we are today. There are some variations on average between different "Asian" populations. If we looked at the statistics 10,000 years ago, their would be different differences as well. But again...in the scheme of the big picture...our existence on this planet with one another...none of those statistics are significant. ​

Significance is a subjective judgment, but it has always struck me as odd that the implications of this science can be dismissed as insignificant. David Suzuki made such a point in his debate against Rushton in 1989, and Rushton had a snappy comeback, starting at 1h 8m 5s.



Jared Diamond's book was all about explaining racial inequalities, and it won all kinds of awards, not just because it provided an alternative to scientific racism, but also because it provided a coherent explanation for racial differences in economic success. Anything in our politics that relates to racial inequalities or class inequalities, in fact, would strongly depend on who is right and who is wrong. If this stuff isn't significant in the big picture, then I suppose nothing is. It is a nihilistic universe where absolutely nothing is relevant.

2. You are nearly identical genetically to the BLACKEST, and I mean BLACKEST mother fucker you've ever dreamed up in one of your many "Black man is out to get me" night-terrors. And that sir...is a fact. Literally nearly 100% identical...to the point where my 1st point repeats itself. It's not statistically significant in the grand scheme of who we are, where we come from and where we are going (which leads to point #3).
​

This is a common argument, and it is what I call "the 99.9% fallacy," because that is the value so often cited. I discussed it in the Bill Nye thread. All humans have 99.9% of our DNA in common. That isn't actually true (more like 99.0%), but that isn't the main problem. The number is not so high in light of the fact that the typical human shares about 98% of his genome in common with the typical chimpanzee. Humans have a brain size about three times that of chimpanzees, and the genetics responsible for that differences is wrapped up in just a small portion of that 2% difference.

3. Think about every post you've made on this board, and others over all your years on the net. Well...in the time it took you to write your racist rants about, insignificant variances among different groups of our species, 1,000 interracial couples conceived a beautiful baby. And... ... we're talking 10,000 plus posts in total. Think of the numbers. Now with global networking...people that used to be secluded with only their own 'type' are exposed to real life black people and even some real life LGBT people too! And they get to find out some of them were their classmates and friends and family. So Abe...and in some bizarre way, I feel for you here...you're missing out on a lot of experiences that are pretty sweet and amazing.
​

I have actually never discouraged interracial mating, not in the least. I should say: I don't remember ever doing so. In the past I thought about issues relating to hybrid vigor and hybrid depression, and I don't remember if I talked about it in this forum. Hybrid vigor is where hybrids of two different strains would have the advantage of fewer homozygous recessives (fewer inbreeding diseases), but hybrid depression would be where such hybrids have internally incompatible phenotypes, internally incompatible genotypes, or be maladapted to the environments of either of his or her parents, needing an environment intermediate to both. For example, a child of a Scandinavian father and a Nigerian mother may need to live in the Middle East for an environment best adapted to his or her own skin color. An example of internally incompatible phenotypes would be that c-sections are more common among interracial couples, plausibly due to the pattern of the racially-tall father contributing the genes for a head and/or body too large for the racially-short mother's birth canal to accomodate. Still not important enough that interracial mating must be discouraged, in my opinion. Racists may discourage interracial mating only to preserve the existence of their own race and save it from the corruption of the inferior races, but that is not my interest nor my framework for thinking about these things.

Good example. I remember my high school's female volleyball team to be freakishly tall, and I expect tallness would be an advantage. Do you take the average shortness of the Japanese race as a disadvantage that they had to overcome with other advantages in order to effectively compete with taller races in competitive volleyball? Or, do you think that the average shortness of the Japanese has no significance at all, one way or the other, like they could be pygmies and it wouldn't matter?

BTW Abe, I much prefer a self proclaimed racist, regardless if I think almost everything they say is sort of a big waste of time. You have the courage of your convictions and you've clearly thought...a lot about it...like way too much, but whateves. I'd still rather know someone like you rather than some rabid racist that only does it behind closed doors and tries to harm people for no apparent reason.

I 100% support your freedom of speech and to express your...psuedoscienctific beliefs however you choose to.

Thank you!

 

[Malintent]

- From your link....


Why the fuck are all these White Mother Fuckers a bunch of whino, no good alcoholic's?

Abe are you concerned with the alarming rate of alcohol abuse among White people? The difference between Whites and Blacks abusing alcohol is significantly wider than that of drug abuse. Are you campaigning relentlessly to help your people? They appear to have a serious fucking problem.

Also...over 70% of the "drug abuse" you're reporting is for Marijuana. Can you please explain how in the fuck one would "abuse" Marijuana? The chances of a crime or domestic violence is significantly increased when Alcohol is abused vs someone smoking a half an ounce of weed and abusing their carpet with Dorito crumbs.

Have you drank alcohol in the last 30 days? You may be part of the serious problem with alcohol among Whites and therefore probably way too close to this Forest for the Trees.

Maybe you think I am trying to make the white race look good and the black race look bad? No, not really. The white race has plenty of their own problems, but it is not about which race is better or worse than another. Instead, I am trying to correct a common abuse of statistics, and I am failing among those who miss the point.

I understand your point. Blacks are statistically more apt to lie about drug use than whites (for WHATEVER reason)... and thus, conclusions about drug use between cultures, based on SELF-REPORTING, is flawed. Simple enough. Flaws in 'survey' response conclusions are rampant across the board. If I had to guess, Whites are more apt to lie about annual income than Blacks... It can be tested similarly to the survey / drug test method.. Survey / IRS document inspection.

Raven, I am trying to understand your response. Care to explain your rejection of this observation? Is it a parody of a knee-jerk automated black-persons response in denial of anything negative sounding related to something black-people related, just to be funny?

 

[exodiasrightleg]

Good example. I remember my high school's female volleyball team to be freakishly tall, and I expect tallness would be an advantage. Do you take the average shortness of the Japanese race as a disadvantage that they had to overcome with other advantages in order to effectively compete with taller races in competitive volleyball? Or, do you think that the average shortness of the Japanese has no significance at all, one way or the other, like they could be pygmies and it wouldn't matter?

BTW Abe, I much prefer a self proclaimed racist, regardless if I think almost everything they say is sort of a big waste of time. You have the courage of your convictions and you've clearly thought...a lot about it...like way too much, but whateves. I'd still rather know someone like you rather than some rabid racist that only does it behind closed doors and tries to harm people for no apparent reason.

I 100% support your freedom of speech and to express your...psuedoscienctific beliefs however you choose to.

I, on the other hand, would rather deal with a racist that actually expresses what they think in no uncertain terms. Abe's bullshit is boring to read and never gets to the point, because he doesn't want to give away his endgame and leave it clear that he's the same as every other racist dunderhead.

 

[ApostateAbe]

BTW Abe, I much prefer a self proclaimed racist, regardless if I think almost everything they say is sort of a big waste of time. You have the courage of your convictions and you've clearly thought...a lot about it...like way too much, but whateves. I'd still rather know someone like you rather than some rabid racist that only does it behind closed doors and tries to harm people for no apparent reason.

I 100% support your freedom of speech and to express your...psuedoscienctific beliefs however you choose to.

I, on the other hand, would rather deal with a racist that actually expresses what they think in no uncertain terms. Abe's bullshit is boring to read and never gets to the point, because he doesn't want to give away his endgame and leave it clear that he's the same as every other racist dunderhead.

The most plausible explanation for anyone's "endgame" is what they express. Maybe it would pay to look behind the curtain if I were running for political office, but I am unlikely to get elected on this platform. This YouTube video is a summary of what I believe and why. I won't ask you to believe the claims within it, but... do you think there is a plausible reason to doubt that it is what I believe? Is the motivation not apparent? What do you think I am not telling you?