Identity

submitted by Tarrock from media.communities.win

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I couldn't help but notice that what you said to /u/NuclearBadger is laughable Wakanda-style fiction.

So there is some gene which expresses itself behaviourally

Brains and bodies are complex.

There are multiple genes that form compounding conditions that are a person's abilities and behaviors and noticeably different tendencies across the spectrum, as for intellect, aggression, impulses, strength, physiology and on and on.

So let's say a person with pale pigmentation and a person with dark pigmentation make a baby together.

You keep shapeshifting your argument back to "skin color" in isolation, the typical duplicitous leftist tactic, even though I previously mentioned everything is always a genetic argument and skin color only happens to be a high correlative vestige of its respective races. So if you want to use it for argumentative rhetoric you should make it clear that it's "pigment tied to a white man" and "pigment tied to black man" at minimum.

According to your hateful pseudoscience, only one such person has the additional gene for stealing metal for scrap.

The roll of the dice with multiple causes for traits becomes a mostly 50-50 chance game of averaging in the middle (intelligence, behaviors, body, skin color, etc.) over the aggregate, while on the individual level the offspring may have large tilts one way or the other (higher or lower intelligence, higher or lower aggression, skin color more white or more black than the averaged, body shapes, etc) through the luck or unluck of the draw of what minimum and maximal genes the parents have. In other words, a white and black breeding is on average likely to have an average between them. When blacks have a population with a higher percent of people who carry the higher traits of psychopathy and violent impulsiveness and a lower percent of people with higher brain capacity (physically/mentally), for example, then those breeding cases with whites over time will (it goes without saying) result in their offspring exhibiting and perpetuating those traits in higher numbers (vs. non-interracial whites breeding).

It shouldn't be hard to understand. Nature is rather simple even when it's complex underneath. Evidence is obvious and empirical and all around you once you take off your ideological blinders. Jumping through hoops to falsely explain the world with a causation based solely on not wanting your feelings to be hurt is the antithesis of truth.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

So if you want to use it for argumentative rhetoric you should make it clear that it's "pigment tied to a white man" and "pigment tied to black man" at minimum.

Another tautology. I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.

Ok professor. So, whitehood and blackhood are properties that exist outside of pigmentation. Fantastic. What are they then. What is whiteness or whitehood or the property of being white - and by God your answer had better be a scientifically detectable marker which is present in pale indo-european ethnicies and pale finno-ugric ethnicies but missing in darker Indo-European ethnicities and missing in darker finno-ugric ethnicies

The roll of the dice with multiple causes for traits becomes a mostly 50-50 chance game

No, the scenario I set up was 75-25, not 50-50. And I don't think you're going to try and tell me again that there is some detectable property of blackness in darker pigmented people's genetic code which doesnt cause birth defects in mixed offspring....because reality shows otherwise

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

There is no tautology happening except your conflation of two different things: your interchanging them as the same when you want to dishonestly deflect. You find it rhetorically convenient to dismiss the fact that "white" and "black" are commonly used to refer to specific groups of people racially (genetically) because it became the common verbal shortcut due to their skin color highly correlating to those colors.

You're confused.

I wasn't referring to your random scenarios that don't matter to anyone, but rather to the larger important facts of people breeding in general.

Are you aware that blacks and whites are so distant genetically that the offspring of a black and white wouldn't be able to receive bone marrow from a parent?

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

There is no tautology happening except your conflation of two different things:

And again I am asking you to please explain it. Two different things. Two. One is skin colour. The other is ...what? A mirage?

"white" and "black" are commonly used to refer to specific groups

A social construct. That's the second thing. I Right there in your own words. A social construct.

Are you aware that blacks and whites are so distant genetically that the offspring of a black and white wouldn't be able to receive bone marrow from a parent

This is selfawarewolves territory. You're trolling me now. Nobody could be this stupid.

Yes, a person's ethnic makeup is a factor in bone marrow transplants. But you have not discovered some rule of Pokémon. There is not some alchemical formula which, when white and black mix, cannot accept bone marrow.

Instead. A person's ethnic makeup is what determines which bone marrow you need, in a transplant.

If the majority of bone marrow donors were children of mixed ethnicity couples, then the offspring in your example in need of a transplant, would easily find a match in the population of bone marrow donors.

If most bone marrow donors are from one ethnicity then people who aren't that ethnicity, are gonna have a hard time finding a match.

Your silly factoid is true in my world too. You have not found a successful argument here. Because you're wrong that race is anything more than a social fabrication for colonial people to make sense of their new neighbors

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Two. One is skin colour. The other is ...what? A mirage?

The other is the rest of the DNA.

A social construct.

Language describing reality is constructed. Words which you call "social constructs" don't negate the existence of differences in DNA.

This is selfawarewolves territory. You're trolling me now. Nobody could be this stupid. Yes, a person's ethnic makeup is a factor in bone marrow transplants. But you have not discovered some rule of Pokémon. There is not some alchemical formula which, when white and black mix, cannot accept bone marrow. Instead. A person's ethnic makeup is what determines which bone marrow you need, in a transplant. If the majority of bone marrow donors were children of mixed ethnicity couples, then the offspring in your example in need of a transplant, would easily find a match in the population of bone marrow donors. If most bone marrow donors are from one ethnicity then people who aren't that ethnicity, are gonna have a hard time finding a match.

Your retarded drivel about pokemon and other dumb stuff isn't even a funny troll. Try harder.

You're intentionally missing the point in meaningful differences existing. There is a stark difference in average and high end intelligences and violent impulses, between blacks and whites, for more important examples. That doesn't mean every black person is stupid or violent, but that their population genetics produce a very measurably higher rate of stupid and violent behaviors, proportionally, in comparison. This is abundantly obvious in examining their civilizations and abilities, from distant history to the modern day, and in understanding their higher acts of randomly acting out in violent criminality and psychopathy (higher rates of aggression, low impulses, lack of ability to empathize and form abstract role playing hypotheticals). It would be bad enough if it were a large 20% (1.2x) higher criminality but it's closer to 10,000% (10x) higher criminality. The forms of western civilization everyone takes for granted today could never have been born out of middle Africa because they are very different populations with different capabilities. Those populations didn't have written languages and other more complex inventiveness because they lacked the foundational platforms (brains/bodies) that allows for and rewards such ability.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

No, that's horrible and factually wrong. I feel like I've asked 100 times and gotten nowhere so I'll try a 101st time then just write you off as fully retarded.

the existence of differences in DNA

(Between people you're calling white and the people you're calling black)

Show me the difference. I am telling you it doesn't exist, you're telling me it does, so link me to some reputable evidence.

There is no such scientific biological evidence - no genome or haploid or allele - which accounts for what you're describing. Show it to me. Because I know it's your fake news pseudoscience, literally on the level of Pokémon make believe. So prove it. Any time during your last 40 retarded posts to me you could have but didn't. So go and do it or just admit you're pulling it all out of your racist ass

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You're too incompetent to even so much as acknowledge genetic differences exist between whites and blacks.

I have to assume you're trolling.

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1658/42/1658424136699618.png

There are countless ways people's DNA can be studied for different things: intelligence, violence, and so on, so it depends on what's being studied. There are already hundreds of genes found to be causal of intelligence and ones found to be causal of violent impulses, and humans are barely scratching the surface yet on this field. And it lacks proper public dialogue about it now because of people like you who are freaks and make it taboo to state facts that every sane random person on the street can even witness through observation. The evil of your emotional religious cult even culture-canceled genetics and DNA-pioneer Dr. James Watson over merely stating these tame facts.

Everything I've said is correct.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

As if you would bring evidence that confirms my argument and not your own. You must be far more mentally deficient than we expected.

Hey moron.

Look at that image which you selected and linked.

Notice how it doesn't say "white" or "black" anywhere?

Do you see how 25 through 39 are the indo Europeans ....your chart shows that ENGLISH and DANISH ethnicities are CLOSER to SOUTHWEST ASIANS and INDIANS than they are to the "white" Italian SARDINIANS and Baltic LAPPS

Your chart clearly shows that white and black are imaginary concepts

It clearly shows that whiteness encompassing both Baltic and Germanic ethniticies, and excluding Iranians and Indians, is a social construct and not backed by what you are offering as the science

Trolling. You have to be trolling. You selected an image which fully proves my point and falsifies your own. I suggested earlier that you might be fully retarded - here you have looped all the way around to support my case and negate your own. A retard would select evidence with no bearing on the dispute at all. Only a troll would summon this image. You're a troll. Get lost

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

That chart is just one of many showing a general grouping. There are many ways to examine difference in evolution and all of the different genetic differences.

It shows there are 5 or so major groupings like I said originally.

You're a delusional idiot who thinks there's no difference between whites and blacks.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That chart is just one of many showing a general grouping

Well it's the only one which you sought out, selected, and sourced in your comment. It's the one single chart which you pulled

It shows there are 5 or so major groupings like I said originally.

There are five on the chart. Not five in the world.

You're a delusional idiot who thinks there's no difference between whites and blacks.

What I have consistently said throughout this thread is not those words which you're trying now to put in my mouth.

I have consistently said that whiteness and blackness are not scientific concepts but instead are social constructs. And as proof, I point to that chart which you sought out and linked as evidence, which shows "white" Danish people being closer to Indians than other "white" Baltic people.

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

*Watson: https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1547/62/1547624525815.webm