But thats what i gather was going on. I dont like "whatabout" but hillary and her hot sauce and super predator bs, and appealing to BLM is equivalent for me. Obvious pandering and supporting (feel free to disagree) a hate group constructed based on racialization is not what i want to see in our country. I think its been divisive and has had awful reprocussions.
Again this nonsense about BLM being a
"hate group;" it's foolish and founded on nothing. What is to be gained by such disinformation?
This is an aside, but what was potentially written to refute my points last week has bothered me.
Assuming you're referring to my post, then it should; your understanding of the facts is in error. Moreover, you don't seem to understand what "race" means. Race is not biological; and yet, not understanding this, you continue to attempt to derive biological causative associations with a sociological phenomena -- it's an absurdity.
No idea what it could have been and i dont want to waste my time fighting with someone in particular, but ill back up the only things i can think of that someone had issue with briefly.
Not sure what the bolded means, but let's go through them.
Immigration comment: some libertarians basically advocate open borders and to make immigrating drastically easier. Thats what i was commenting on. Im not against immigration, but i care about US citizens first and want to make sure people were letting in to our country hold our values and effect our economy the right way. Vets, for example, should be taken care of before refugees of another country.
There's nothing wrong with your personal position, many share it. But with that said, it's important to point out that there's nothing about libertarianism here either.
A libertarian, by definition, doesn't want anyone "taken care of," by the government. That's not the role of government. Moreover, the ideology of libertarianism would surely not be compatible with a government or a people establishing a government that projects normative "values" in the sense that you describe, surely. So unless you mean values in the broadest possible sense imaginable, which is likely not what you mean, then I don't think there's anything libertarian about your statement at all.
Lastly, libertarians do not attempt to use government policies and regulations/restrictions on domestic policies to enhance the economy. This is an anti-free market position and again, calls for government intervention where the government has no role, and by a libertarian view, has no authority.
There simply are differences between races.
Not biological ones, which, is scientifically established. Again, you may not understand what "race" actually is; which is part of the problem here.
No, not enough to warrant a separate sub species, and you can debate causation all you want and i wont have a problem with it. Im merely speaking to correlation.
This statement makes no sense.
Again, correlation without causation has virtually no meaning. So if you're simply pointing to race, and looking at correlations to race, without any concern to causative effect; then you're not engaging in a meaningful conversation either with anyone else or yourself. Why? Because causation is telling you that there is a cause and effect association between two things -- what you're doing is saying "I don't care if race causes effect x, it's highly correlated, so, race causes effect x;" which, is obviously self-contradictory and oxymoronic.
A few notable ones are suicidality (white people have a higher suicidality rate than blacks.. However you can find strong correlation with class..
But there is no biological basis for this. It's a sociologically measurable effect, sure, but with respect to class and culture; not biology.
The same goes for testing statistics. Iq, sat, some races kill it.. Asians particularly. But causation also could be linked to other factors, such as wealth and the nuclear family).
It's not that it could be linked; it's the entirety of the causative effect. Race has nothing to do with what causes this phenomena; and yet, you still put forward it is without demonstrating evidence.
Many studies conclude that young black people have higher testosterone than young white people, even after controlling for many factors, by 15%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741
But, surely you didn't bother to read the paper and the conclusions of the people who wrote it. IF you did, you'd see they reject the notion that race is the causative effect behind what drives testosterone levels, and instead, it has a lot more to do with other factors.
Here's the tl;dr for those not inclined to reading scientific studies:
"In conclusion, in this large, nationally representative sample, there was no difference in circulating testosterone concentrations between non-Hispanic black and white men overall. However, black men had the highest estradiol level overall across all ages, which was not explained by racial differences in the prevalence of factors that influence hormone levels. Mexican-American men had hormonal profiles similar to non-Hispanic white men, with the exception of higher testosterone. Given these findings, it may be equally if not more important to investigate levels of estradiol than testosterone in relation to diseases that show racial disparity, such as prostate cancer."
The underlined here is very important, as it demonstrates that country of origin played a key role in the correlation.
The theory put forward by the study you cited as well as the several other studies referenced points not to biological predisposition but early life environmental and metabolic conditions that effect the rate of middle aged occurrences of prostate cancer.
Lastly, one can simply look at the incidence rate of prostate cancer between Western and Northern Europe compared to Southern and Western Africa and one can see that a causative association based on any color/racial-based ethnic grouping fails to hold as (generalized) Black Africans have a lower incidence rate of prostate cancer than (generalized) White Europeans, both groups being the ethnic origins the current American population, ethnically speaking.
Thus, this reinforces the studies findings that these differences are based on early life environmental and metabolic conditions, rather than ethnicity - and certainly race is not causative here.
There are differences in levels of inhibition. Etc.
What??
That's utter nonsense.
Of COURSE most of this isnt biological and you can find causation elsewhere.
Obviously.
But there are general differences that correlate with different races. It doesnt mean genetics are causal.
What?
I'm not sure what you mean by this...
Herrnstein and Murray go on to note (the bell curve) even after controlling for socioeconomic differences, there are still differences but the gap is narrowing. You can discuss that if youd like, but theyre not my words. I know that book is controversial, so before someone comes trying to rain down haymakers on someone not defending the point or even reading the responses, dont.
Then why offer up The Bell Curve to support this point?
First off, I have to ask if you've read the book? If not, where are you getting your interpretation of the authors points from? The notions that were presented therein may have made sense decades ago, given what we as a society thought we knew at the time, but we know quite a bit more about intelligence since that time period.
The Bell Curve largely supports an outdated eugenic view of hereditary intelligence that directly links to the the notion of social predisposition towards various proclivities including various forms of criminality. It attempts to work backwards to fit African-Americans, in particular, into a sub-class not because of historical consequence but because of genetic inferiority directly caused by a genetic predisposition to lower intelligence.
Murray's work has largely been discredited since the 1990s. And Murray himself has made many controversial statements regarding his views on what would amount to eugenics, while lamenting those who view his work as unscientific.
The problems with the approach in the book are not only well documented, but demonstrable in numerous (dozens of) studies between 1997 and 2016.
And the only reason one would think to cite The Bell Curve today is because they don't have a more recent, valid, and accepted scientific work to back up their conclusions.
Upon the completion of the Human Genome Project, these kinds of ideas just make no sense because we know now (that we didn't know in 1994) that race is not biological. Yet, The Bell Curve is based on the false assumption that it is; among several other false assumptions that I'm sure you are aware of and yet, you still presented this book as authoritative on the matter.
I suppose it begs the question... at what point do you conclude that your opinion is in error? Or.. are you in search of evidence to back up a preconceived notion about race?
Sorry if that opens a can of worms, feel free to dissect that or to leave it alone. Just a general defense.
And here's a response to your defense.
