Why you can't have an honest or civil conversation with most racists

That there is nothing but bovine feces.

 

Show me which genes are more prevalent in Africans for brain growth?

 

Your genetic understanding is infantile. You assume that the differences you listed must be caused by genetic differences when environment can explain them. Not only would controlling for these variables not be feasible it would be highly unethical to try which is why it has not been done.

I don't need to do that. To make your case you need to show that Africans have a deficiency in genes that determine brain growth. If you can't identify the genes you can't make the claim. The brain's development is influenced by the expression of many genes so finding one or a few genes that vary in frequency across populations doesn't prove anything.

 

Please do give an environmental factor which can cause infants to walk earlier.

You just nitpick, and give no real substance.

Natural selection makes the most sense to why Africans walk earlier, mostly because of all the predator Animals in Africa, which would make walking earlier as more beneficial.

 

I asked you to bring up which genes cause more brain growth in Africans?

We already know that Africans lack the mutations on MCPH1, ASPM, and DAB1 which cause increased brain growth.

 

Slavery / Colonialism are primarily based upon Capitalist greed, not on racism.

I mean don't forget slave masters bought Africans to the U.S.A, what racist thinks that's a good thing?

Slave masters were greedy vulture Capitalists, who used cheap labor, the same kind of scumbags importing in illegal Mexicans to the U.S.A for cheap labor today.

 

You can't be serious. How is an infant supposed to survive an attack from a vicious predator like a lion? Your just-so story makes absolutely no sense.

On the other hand environmental stimulation such as handling babies and allowing them to walk on the floor can encourage them to walk earlier and it has been shown in studies that White and Black mothers respond differently on tests to questions about how they encourage children to walk.

And as I said if walking early is related to physical maturation then epigenetics could explain the differences which includes factors such as diet. This obsession with natural selection and evolution is way off base.

And I told you I don't need to do that. One or a few genes differing in frequency between populations doesn't prove that there is a significant difference in brain size or function. We know from the fossil record that the human brain tripled in size from its early hominid ancestor so we know for a fact that Africans have genes for brain growth. Just because Europeans and Asians may have different genes related to brain growth doesn't mean that Africans don't also have similar genes.

Those same slave masters tried to justify their enslavement of Africans with racist propaganda about being superior which is the origin of White Supremacy. Ofcourse most modern White Supremacists have more separatist ideas and don't want Blacks in White majority countries however the root of racism in the Western world especially with Whites towards Blacks was the slave trade. In my experience one of the primary insults White Supremacists use to insult Blacks is to make some reference to slavery. I punched a kid in the face for calling me a slave and beat up another one for calling me Kunta Kinte. It is ingrained in the White Supremacist mentality to think less of Blacks because their ancestors were enslaved. Also what about all the other atrocities and injustices I mentioned that were committed by racists? Does anyone honestly think any of that was good?

 

Why wouldn't a toddler who can walk earlier, not be able to survive an attack?

Blacks also generally have better physical ability, probably for the same reason.

Blacks are proven to have more fast twitch muscle fiber, for speed, which can help in Africa in it's hostile predatory environment.

Although Eurasians have more strength, probably how they adapted to dragging logs, and Mammoth carcasses through the snow.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, they thought they were inferior, but they lived with them, and bought them into America, their motivations were definitely greed, not racism.

 

Yes, but in the past 10,000 years brains have shrunk, probably mostly from an increase in cephalic index, as the rear brain which is more primitive shrank, but Africans are clearly very low on the cephalic index.

You can't say otherwise, you can just look at Black people, and notice their skulls stick out more in the rear, or Dolichocephalic.

 

It's probably not only genes that stimulate brain growth.

Delayed puberty appears to allow for more brain growth, as brain growth ends with puberty, thus people with delayed puberty have more time for their brains to grow.

Indeed, if we look at a scale including Asians, Whites, Blacks, Men,Women, and Chimpanzees, we'd see that Asian Men go through puberty later also have the largest brain, while Chimpanzee Women who go through puberty earliest have the smallest brains.

 

Actually the fact that Blacks have more muscle mass, and fast twitch muscle fibers, is probably the main reason why Black babies walk earlier.

Once babies can walk, they generally will.

This environmental influence simply falls short.

 

Just about everyone was racist back then anyways.

But, the slave master is the one who put his greed above his racism, in bringing in Black slaves into American territory, they'd live with them, and even have babies with slave Women.

Clearly greed motivated vulture Capitalism run rampant.

 

This makes no sense, and is a fallacious argument rickysdisciple unpacked on the other thread in a post you have ignored.

Prove it.

According to the Steele article, after adjusting for stereotype threat, there is still a 15 point black-white IQ gap.

So does the Beals study show whites having higher brain volume, or not?

Gould and Tobias also did not have 'conclusions' in the sense they analyzed the data of others.

It's humorous for you to insist there's nothing wrong with Gould's (and Leiberman's) conclusions when Gould's assumption Morton's data was tainted by sampling error in favor of his supposed bias was debunked.

They can't 'critique' anyone since they have no data to critique, nor did Tobias show the correlation between any of his 'variables' and brain size.

The study took a sampling of whites and blacks and found brain volume differences between the two.

Would you cite the study if it showed blacks and whites having equal brain volume? Yes or no?

The point of studies is to extrapolate to the true mean. This is basic science.

 

I don't see anything there that constitutes a beating.

Actually Ray's obviously the most informed one there in this matter.

 

That's your perspective. So care to step up and make your thread?

 

Thanks for sharing the link. It's a pretty good thread.

 

Since you're back to posting full time, when do you care to step up and respond to rickysdisciple's post:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=450687&page=11&p=1066066744#post1066066744

I can't believe you don't have the time for a response.

 

I have responded.

 

1) The HowardJournal Vol 38 No 3. Aug 99 ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 267-282

Male Prison Rape: A Search for Causation and Prevention

GORDON JAMES KNOWLES Lecturer, University of Hawaii

"Many rapists in prison may not be homosexual at all, but heterosexuals raping for power and revenge (Scacco 1975, p. 4). In American prisons, studies by sociologists suggest that more than 90% of rapes are inter-racial and may be motivated more by a need for sexual dominance over another race than by sexual passions (Starchild 1990, p. 145). Many rapes are by blacks on whites, suggesting that it gives the lower-class black, who has felt trod upon all his life, his one chance to dominate a white person (Starchild 1990, p. 145). Consequently, the victims are almost always young white prisoners. Scacco (1982, p. 91) has also noted a disproportionate number of black aggressors and white victims in studies of sexual assaults in jails and prisons. Even if the minority of prisoners are black, the majority of victims are white (Scacco 1982, p. 91). When Lookwood (1980, p. 2, asked 'targets' to identify their aggressors at the time of their rape, most were black (80%), some were Hispanic (14%), and a few were white (6%). "

2) This news page (of a group you hate) has direct links to US DOJ rape data for several years. If you look at the charts and do the math, you'll see that ~50% of rapes committed by blacks was against whites.

 

Why do you continue to use a hissy fit by a zoologist as a "refutation" of Rushton?

Raise your academic bar, dude...

 

This isn't a hissy fit.....

(43:38-45-15) Suzuki: Now remember, neither Rushton nor Jensen is a geneticist. After Jensen published his work in 1969 The Genetics Society of America, the leading Genetics organization in the world, overwhelmingly approved a GSA statement that such work as Jensen's cannot prove a genetic basis for IQ difference in races. World class population geneticists, two of the leading population geneticists in the world, Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Standford and Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford and Richard Lewontin of Harvard have written books on this subject!

In October 1970 of Scientific American, Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza published the definitive popular work entitled Intelligence and Race in direct response to Jensen's work. Their opening sentence is, "To what extent might behavioral differences between social classes and between races be genetically determined?" 11 pages later, and that's a long article in Scientific American, they conclude, "The question of a possible genetic basis for the Race/IQ difference will be almost impossible to answer satisfactorily before the environmental differences between U.S. Blacks and Whites have been substantially reduced. There is no good case for encouraging the support of studies of this kind on either theoretical or practical grounds."

(48:42-49-47) Rushton: I'm very disappointed in Dr. Suzuki's presentation. Dr. Suzuki says my ideas on race are too esoteric and he shows however little more than moral outrage. He says that people like me should be rooted out and if I heard correctly he actually called for me to be fired. Well...that is not a Scientific Argument. I don't know that there is very much of substance in what I he said that I can respond to. He went on about Arthur Jensen and IQ and Genetics and completely ignored all the work on two-egg twinning and the 60 other variables that I mentioned including the ranking of the three races.


(56:30-56:55) Suzuki: My position was very clear. I did not choose to discuss the points he raised because I tried to point out very clearly that Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the genetic relationship or the correlation of the genetic basis that allows comparison between races is simply not possible. And I did not hear you rebut that in any way. And that is the definitive work!

That's just the tip of the iceberg on how the geneticist David Suzuki thrashed Rushton never mind what Joseph Graves did to him. Why don't you take your own advice? By the way did you see how badly Mikemikev and Rayznack got thrashed on Sciforum? Are you brave enough to accept a challenge to debate there? I doubt it. You keep disappearing and popping up to have another go at me but when I make the Nisbett thread I predict that you'll be gone for good or won't make an adequate rebuttal.

 

It's a hissy fit.

Let's repeat: You cannot "thrash" someone on a subject that you have no expertise in, and in spite of that you continue to use these people.

What advice of my own? I'm not the one citing people out of their field of expertise to promote a personal agenda. The only one here doing that is you, and you do it even while accusing Rushton of doing it.

It's hilarious.

I don't "disappear," I just don't live here. I don't live ranting in web forums like you do. I have a life. I have varied interests. Sometimes I go to political forums and sometimes I don't. I do the same with sports forums as well.

As I said, you can't defend Nisbett because he can't defend himself. You do not have the background in psychology to defend his work. And that is why you've ducked out all this time, even while you continue to use Nisbett and attempt to harass and intimidate those of us who point out you are using a source of questionable value which you cannot defend.

The only one that has vanished here is you - when you claimed 2 years ago you'd answer to Nisbett's critics and have engaged in a 2 year vanishing act.

Simply defend your sources or don't use them.

I'm also wondering why you so trash Rushton when you've not even really read him. How can you debunk something you've never taken the time to read? Oh I know -- by citing writings and emails from a group of people attacking him, only one of which is actually in Rushton's field.

 

Who do you define as racist?

 

You don't know what I've read and you don't know what you're talking about. All you do is repeat the same old garbage over and over.

Anyone who is hateful or intolerant based on race.

 

Is this somehow supposed to be a defense of using a guy like Suzuki who rants outside of his area of expertise? All he did in those discussions with/about Rushton was expose himself as an agenda-driven zealot.

Speaking of repetition, you keep invoking correlation-equals-causation fallacy with the environmental theory of IQ regarding "discrimination" lowering black average IQ.

With all the discrimination/persecution/murders/pogroms Jews have dealt with, you'd think they'd have low average IQs or something... LOL...