Seems a Ukrainian born, but living in Nihon (Japan for the idiots) since 5 years of age and totally officially naturalised as a Nihonese citizen...
Winning a prestigious 'Miss' Pageant of beauty with her European looks (why not Australian, Canadian or Argentinian looks, etc?).
Has she done a Pascoe Dark Emu on Nihon?
Is Nihon 'only' for Yellow people?
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/japanese-in-spirit-outrage-over-white-model-winning-miss-japan/ar-BB1hzGsu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=ACTS&cvid=3109cfed8a49405a8d0c016f08ec9f5d&ei=18

https://youtu.be/yH3LY5cF5lQ?si=wr1ZD0RciFdf_lSx

imagine if this interview had been on australian television instead

they'd of been interrupting jared every 2 seconds to call him racist and portraying him with every camera shot in dark lighting and sinister music

Why doesn't Japan need vibrant cultural enrichment?


And those vibrant cultural enriches - why don't they enrich their own Muslim or African cuntries, insh'allah?

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Well its pretty apparent that the Nihonese are more racist than a lot of countries. Yellow Nihonese ONLY policy (death to the indigenous Ainu too).

Seems Yellow Asia and Black Africa don't want 'others' in their regions.
They don't even like it when Blonde males mate with blonde females, Red-haired males mating with red-haired females because it might strengthen their Racial appearance to look even more White and Red than they are.

And here we are getting called White Supremacists, etc.  ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

https://jkalin.weebly.com/charles-darwin.html


https://jkalin.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695125/3932625_orig.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Dickhead virtual signal attempt.
That's like saying there are NO STATES - just 'America'.  ;D ;D ;D
You twat!  ;D ;D

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Lmao you are an absolute f___cking moron, taxonomic illiterate

Bobby. wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 5:21pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:16pm: There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) https://jkalin.weebly.com/charles-darwin.html https://jkalin.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695125/3932625_orig.jpg

Genetically there is no difference in humanity as far as "Race" is concerned.  "Race" as used by many humans is a myth, a social construct, without any scientific basis.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

JC Denton wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 7:36pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:16pm: There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Lmao you are an absolute f___cking moron, taxonomic illiterate

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img673/4087/gIlzsx.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

What interbreeding are YOU the product of, idiotic cockwomble?


Are you African? Abo? Chinese?

brian did you get your phd in a box of nutri grain

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 7:38pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 7:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:16pm: There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Lmao you are an absolute f___cking moron, taxonomic illiterate https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img673/4087/gIlzsx.jpg

Very Eurocentric, you racist, racist, RACIST shill.   :'(

Despicable white supremacist Eurocentric, slaver!!

JC Denton wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 7:42pm:

brian did you get your phd in a box of nutri grain

Mail order. There is no such degree as 'Doctor of Divinity' except by mail order. It's  a vanity thing with Bbwian.

The stupid cockwomble will NEVER tell you the awarding institution.  It's a load of vain, preening BS.  Like everything he utters.

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

Quote:

There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans,

https://i.imgur.com/8R7EXmc.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/gPMpYL6.jpeg

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 7:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:16pm: There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) https://jkalin.weebly.com/charles-darwin.html https://jkalin.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695125/3932625_orig.jpg Genetically there is no difference in humanity as far as "Race" is concerned.  "Race" as used by many humans is a myth, a social construct, without any scientific basis.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Bbwian - why are you so stupid?
Maggie made you?

brian thinks theres no genetic difference between his pet dog and a wolf

i hope he adopts a wild wolf as his pet actually

JC Denton wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 7:53pm:

brian thinks theres no genetic difference between his pet dog and a wolf i hope he adopts a wild wolf as his pet actually

Bbwian is mentally negligible.  Not evan stupid.
Stupid takes effort. Bbwian is just himself, he is just naturally as he is. He can't be otherwise.

Aphasia. Drooling on one side.  But he looks down on everyone. You can smell the stale urine just by reading his posts.

Good graph JC Denton.

You get the Virtual Signallers all saying "We are all One Race", but they say this flippantly without respecting and recognising the 'differences' - the same differences that peoples like Aborigines, Amerindians, Ainu and many more consider 'themselves' as different.

The isolationism of Negroid Africans and Australian Aborigines is pretty substantial - even with 'isolated' groups within these two.

It goes on with all the other 'Races' that make up Sapiens as the umbrella title.

But idiots like Brian don't recognise the States that make up America, Australia or the nations that make up Europe or Asia, etc.
Instead - he tries to void them and call everyone 'exact duplicates of the one genetic model' as a whole and only a whole. He doesn't recognise the different Regions, he only virtual signals that there is only Earth (well Brian, its actually 'Ocean-Earth' and for better reason than 'just' Earth).

Seem Brian tried to make himself appear intellectually superior again without really thinking things through.

To understand Racism, you really do have to acknowledge the 'differences' BEFORE you can see the 'true' oneness of them all. If you don't - then you really don't understand the 'one race' concept beyond just virtual signalling yourself.
...which is what Brian did.  ;D

You see Brian. When an egg is fertilised, it begins as 'one' - but then splits into many.
Sapiens may have been 'one' longer ago when they only numbered about 10,000 or less (the bottleneck), but the Sapien journey is for them to split into many 'different' cells around the world - this creates genetic diversity and from that diversity comes the 'oneness' again but through another step up process.
This is how DNA works - it joins, it splits and so on.

So the Sapien, in its small population was 'one'.
Then as is happening now - it is splitting and has already split, with the European races splitting into four distinct and the already split Yellows, Blacks merging in another region of the world, etc.
The Euro mix splitting out into the world as Blue, Red, White and Grey (Northern, Western, Eastern and Southern European foundations).
While the Browns, Greens, Yellows and Blacks merge from their isolated backgrounds.
But of these 8 Races that will each have a representation in each of the 8 habitable Regions (because 'Equality' always rules) - there is the 9th (like the mysterious 9th planet) race of all those who are 'mixed' from all - the Purple People. They are the 'cement' that binds all the different bricks.

I can go on more about this, as I have studied Racism, Culturalism and all the other isms involved. I wouldn't have been able to see the 'true' Oneness of it all, without understanding the 'differences' of it all in the first place - for BOTH exist 'equally' in accordance.

There is One God, but there are Many Gods too.
There is One Star, but there are Many Stars too.

Next time Brian, use 'both' sides of your brain before you open your yawning trap like a 'half'wit you are.  :P ;D

In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058

its called the species problem https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534701021450#:~:text=The%20species%20problem%20is%20the,'%20into%20a%20philosophical%20conundrum.

it is often hard to produce definite and consistent boundaries for how we define taxonomic groups, even species, but unlike doo doo brains such as bbwan or linus who think that must mean certain groups therefore can no longer be classified for political expedenice or that classifications are meaningless, we still maintain and apply specieal delimitations regardless because we're not f__cking dumb

domestic dogs and wolves are considered a separate species even though are capable of producing fertile offspring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog), but i doubt even brian would be dumb enough to invite a wolf into his house

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, we have some deniers of modern science.  Genetics replaced eugenics because there is no difference genetically between different "racial" groups.  As I have already explained different "races" have no problems interbreeding.  None at all.  You know you fools can attempt to deny it but Genetics has significant scientific evidence backing it.  The human genome is basically identical across all the so-called "racial" groups.  There is only one "race", the human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Not really. There's over a billion 'orcs' among us and I think you're one of them.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 3:27pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, we have some deniers of modern science.  Genetics replaced eugenics because there is no difference genetically between different "racial" groups.  As I have already explained different "races" have no problems interbreeding.  None at all.  You know you fools can attempt to deny it but Genetics has significant scientific evidence backing it.  The human genome is basically identical across all the so-called "racial" groups.  There is only one "race", the human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

you dont know what eugenics means you stupid idiot

JC Denton wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 4:14pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 3:27pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, we have some deniers of modern science.  Genetics replaced eugenics because there is no difference genetically between different "racial" groups.  As I have already explained different "races" have no problems interbreeding.  None at all.  You know you fools can attempt to deny it but Genetics has significant scientific evidence backing it.  The human genome is basically identical across all the so-called "racial" groups.  There is only one "race", the human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) you dont know what eugenics means you stupid idiot

Then why not explain it to me EmpNap?  Or would that be too difficult?  Afterall, you are the one claiming superior knowledge, afterall, now aren't you?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

its the process of artifically manipulating conditions to increase (positive eugenics) or decrease (negative eugenics) the prevalence of a socially desirable/undesirable trait in a human population

giving good looking people money to have more children would be a non-coercive example of positive eugenics

paying ugly people to undertake a sterilising procedure would be a non-coercive example of negative eugenics

JC Denton shoots and nothing but net!
Suck it up Bwian.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 3:27pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, we have some deniers of modern science.  Genetics replaced eugenics because there is no difference genetically between different "racial" groups.  As I have already explained different "races" have no problems interbreeding.  None at all.  You know you fools can attempt to deny it but Genetics has significant scientific evidence backing it.  The human genome is basically identical across all the so-called "racial" groups.  There is only one "race", the human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Everyone understands that humanity has had different hybrids, that is, races.

It's not a miracle or a random accident that two Sudanese parents will have a bllack kiddie or that two Irish parents won't.



The differences are readily perceived by everyone. Are blacks less intelligent, statistically, than East Asians? Yes. Is that  genetic? Up to a point but not entirely.
Is black ghetto culture stupid and toxic? Absolutely.
Are you stupid and confused. No doubt.

To add.
The Negroid Africans are very genetically isolated (physical isolation) compared to the other races like Caucasoids and Mongoloids. All three are relatively 'young' races genetically, compared to those older ones that spawned the likes of San, Ainu, North Sentinalese, Adaman Islanders, Tasmanian (Denisovian) Aborigines, Melanesians, Indigi Tibetans and more. Neanderthal and Denisovian being even older.

The 'Culture' (mentality isolation) of the Mongoloid Asians is also very isolated.

Thus the perception (possibly the 'old' perception) of the Negroid being the Physical and Mongoloid being the Mental is still in play and especially used by the 'Western' Caucasoid view (which is why it might be the 'old' view) unlike what an Eastern Caucasoid in Australian might perceive with the 'mentality' of Black Africa through the Aborigine 'portal' and the 'physicality' of the Mongoloid (via Polynesian) in reverse as the 'new'.

Don't you just love this world?  :)

JC Denton wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 5:29pm:

its the process of artifically manipulating conditions to increase (positive eugenics) or decrease (negative eugenics) the prevalence of a socially desirable/undesirable trait in a human population giving good looking people money to have more children would be a non-coercive example of positive eugenics paying ugly people to undertake a sterilising procedure would be a non-coercive example of negative eugenics

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, you seem to be glossing over the bad aspects of Eugenics, EmpNap in an effort to keep it in a good light.  The Racists used Eugenics to force people to breed in the way they believed to benefit their views.  The Nazis took it one step further and attempted to eliminate Untermensch, such as Gypsies, Gays and Jews.  The Racists in southern North America bred Blacks and used them in medical experiments against their wills.  Genetics has proven Eugenics to be a false belief based on false premises.  There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 9:14pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 5:29pm: its the process of artifically manipulating conditions to increase (positive eugenics) or decrease (negative eugenics) the prevalence of a socially desirable/undesirable trait in a human population giving good looking people money to have more children would be a non-coercive example of positive eugenics paying ugly people to undertake a sterilising procedure would be a non-coercive example of negative eugenics Oh, dearie, dearie, me, you seem to be glossing over the bad aspects of Eugenics, EmpNap in an effort to keep it in a good light.  The Racists used Eugenics to force people to breed in the way they believed to benefit their views.  The Nazis took it one step further and attempted to eliminate Untermensch, such as Gypsies, Gays and Jews.  The Racists in southern North America bred Blacks and used them in medical experiments against their wills.  Genetics has proven Eugenics to be a false belief based on false premises.  There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

thats literally what it means

it can be coercive or non coercive, applied reasonably or misapplied, i didnt say otherwise

point was the original context you used the word made no sense at all

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 9:14pm:

There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

How do those characteristics get passed on if not genetically, cockwomble?

Quote:

There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

those so-called "superficial characteristics" assuming your argument is true that those are the only phenotypes that differ between human continental population group (note: they arent) are literally the basis for how sub-specieal taxonomic classifications are defined you absolute nong  :D :D :D :D

Insects breed with Plants.
My pumpkin flower got a good fertilisation from a bee this morning. Other flowers have been rooted and there are already some preggy looking pumpkins growing.

Definitely not a one race thing there.

Frank wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 7:56am:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 9:14pm: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) How do those characteristics get passed on if not genetically, cockwomble?

The point is that different "Racial" groups contain individuals which exhibit the same characteristics.  So, you have Jews with small noses, you have Asians with straight eye lids, you Africans who are pale, you have Indigenous Australians who look like Europeans... Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian even breeds with little hominids.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 9:22am:

Quote: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes those so-called "superficial characteristics" assuming your argument is true that those are the only phenotypes that differ between human continental population group (note: they arent) are literally the basis for how sub-specieal taxonomic classifications are defined you absolute nong  :D :D :D :D

Taxonomy has been turned on it's head since the arrival modern Genetics, EmpNat.  Whereas taxonomy relied on physical characterists today it relies on Genetic differences.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 7:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 9:14pm: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) How do those characteristics get passed on if not genetically, cockwomble? The point is that different "Racial" groups contain individuals which exhibit the same characteristics.  So, you have Jews with small noses, you have Asians with straight eye lids, you Africans who are pale, you have Indigenous Australians who look like Europeans... Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Yeah, because they are three quarters or more Europeans.  Genetics.

Two Japanese parents will never produce an african kid, nor the other way around.  These characteristics are disctinctive, instantly recogisable and are genetically transmitted.

Black Pride, Aboriginal Voice, White Man's Burden - these are not about superficial nose shapes.

Quote:

You have Indigenous Australians who look like Europeans

LMAO

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 11:17am:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 9:22am: Quote: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes those so-called "superficial characteristics" assuming your argument is true that those are the only phenotypes that differ between human continental population group (note: they arent) are literally the basis for how sub-specieal taxonomic classifications are defined you absolute nong  :D :D :D :D Taxonomy has been turned on it's head since the arrival modern Genetics, EmpNat.  Whereas taxonomy relied on physical characterists today it relies on Genetic differences.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

and human populations literally have genetic differences (unless you apply that b.s lewontian sleight of hand linus tried to pull on us a few months ago here) because if they didnt, they f_cking wouldnt look different

if there were no individual genetic differences, everybody would be an identical clone of each other like monozygotic twins are; if there were no group differences, everybody would look like the same race

holy sh1t man

Frank wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 5:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 3:27pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, we have some deniers of modern science.  Genetics replaced eugenics because there is no difference genetically between different "racial" groups.  As I have already explained different "races" have no problems interbreeding.  None at all.  You know you fools can attempt to deny it but Genetics has significant scientific evidence backing it.  The human genome is basically identical across all the so-called "racial" groups.  There is only one "race", the human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Everyone understands that humanity has had different hybrids, that is, races.

....who can interbreed.


Quote:

It's not a miracle or a random accident that two Sudanese parents will have a bllack kiddie or that two Irish parents won't.

Indeed.


Quote:

The differences are readily perceived by everyone. Are blacks less intelligent, statistically, than East Asians? Yes.

Q: where do 'Aryans' fit, on the IQ scale; why were Europeans the ones who began the Industrial Revolution?   


Quote:

Is that  genetic? Up to a point but not entirely.

well - ok...what are the "not entirely" factors?


Quote:

Is black ghetto culture stupid and toxic? Absolutely.

Surely you aren't denying non-genetic factors...


Quote:

Are you stupid and confused. No doubt.

Careful there - it's mirror time.

Quote:

where do 'Aryans' fit, on the IQ scale;

100

the within group heritability of IQ is about 90%

the heritability of IQ itself is less interesting than the heritability of g though, which is more heritable and important than IQ (iq is to a great exent just an imperfect proxy measure of g)

the between group heritability is probably about the same as the within group heritability and by default assuming otherwise always seemed insane to me

sub-saharan africans in africa probably have a smaller between group heritability compared to other groups (depending on what those other groups are) vs sub-saharan africans in other places mainly due to biological environmental deficits that are actually operative in sub-saharan africa but are not meaningful in industrialised countries elsewhere

the rushton suzuki debate, an oldie but a goodie, is still relevant today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY

measuring admixture in individuals is much more sophisticated and easy today compared to 1989 which has enabled some really convincing ways of measuring between group heritability effects; i'd say those study designs are practically dispositive on this question. i'd like to see them repeated with abos here, but no one will ever let you do that

35mins in and so far Suzuki has just attacked Rushton as a person, his studies and the Campus and playing to the audience and media narrative. So far, just being a 'personality' media savvy.
Ahh, now - he's getting into 'the research finds' finally.

50mins in and Suzuki has still just offered quotes from other Academics and just attacking Rushton as Academic. David so far hasn't even attempted to confront the stats, etc. David coming across as a Racist so far - supporting the 'sweep racism under the carpet' method, rather than bring it out into the open for the brave to face to understand and rise above it.

Jasin wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 2:17pm:

50mins in and Suzuki has still just offered quotes from other Academics and just attacking Rushton as Academic. David so far hasn't even attempted to confront the stats, etc. David coming across as a Racist so far - supporting the 'sweep racism under the carpet' method, rather than bring it out into the open for the brave to face to understand and rise above it.

46.30 - Suzuki just wants to cancel Rushton. That's his entire stance.
But as Rushton says, that is NOT a scientific argument.

1hr in and Suzuki's comeback is a bit better.
Rushton is just putting his research out there as right and he is right.
Suzuki though has still tried to just say he is wrong, as his right.

Just a big Media-Savvy-narrative show to attack Rushton as a person, more than his work.
So Suzuki wins the crowd for a day, but the work of Rushton (the non-cool media savvy) wins the war.

The only flaw of Rushton's research is that he disengages his three samples into 'Black' (race), Caucasian (Gene) and Oriental (culture) - this in itself doesn't equalise the three right from the start.

It is a messy subject, but Suzuki's (Lefty for sure) just floating his celebrity career against a Mr nobody un-cool Rushton.

It's also interesting to see that these two see things really from the N.American perspective. The Australian perspective of Africa is far 'different' to that of the N.American one and that is reflective of the difference of that 'race' in wether they want to be like a Labourer in USA or a Clerk in Australia.

The Audience questions were pretty much embarrassing for any Uni.

Not bad over-all. Interesting, entertaining and proof that one side of the brain refused to accept that the other side works as well.

Rushton just puts out stuff that the Lefties there just find hard to cope with, that's all.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 1:26pm:

the within group heritability of IQ is about 90% the heritability of IQ itself is less interesting than the heritability of g though, which is more heritable and important than IQ (iq is to a great exent just an imperfect proxy measure of g) the between group heritability is probably about the same as the within group heritability and by default assuming otherwise always seemed insane to me sub-saharan africans in africa probably have a smaller between group heritability compared to other groups (depending on what those other groups are) vs sub-saharan africans in other places mainly due to biological environmental deficits that are actually operative in sub-saharan africa but are not meaningful in industrialised countries elsewhere the rushton suzuki debate, an oldie but a goodie, is still relevant today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY measuring admixture in individuals is much more sophisticated and easy today compared to 1989 which has enabled some really convincing ways of measuring between group heritability effects; i'd say those study designs are practically dispositive on this question. i'd like to see them repeated with abos here, but no one will ever let you do that

What would it prove, or how would it enable government to close the gap?

You are all still ignoring (or unaware of) the fact that good government can eradicate systemic poverty.

Which is why you are trying to blame poverty on genetics, so you don't have to bother about eradicating poverty.

Deplorable.   

Quote:

What would it prove, or how would it enable government to close the gap?

it would give some indication as to whether "the gap" is even closable at all; it may also absolve the  people who are inevitably blamed for creating or perpetuating 'the gap' in some way or another that are willing to accept the results

but hey, it's just taxpayer money we are wasting on achieving something that might be completely impossible (at least without resorting to measures even i think would be a waste of time)

also i would personally like to know  :D :D


Quote:

You are all still ignoring (or unaware of) the fact that good government can eradicate systemic poverty.

getting real bored of this repetitive dogma buddy - put up something more interesting than what is an effect the sociologist's fallacy over and over again or you're not getting another response from me

DEPLORABLE - wanker

JC Denton wrote on Feb 15^th, 2024 at 12:47pm:

Quote: What would it prove, or how would it enable government to close the gap? it would give some indication as to whether "the gap" is even closable at all;

Of course it is; a suitable above poverty job (ie, useful work, matched to the indivdual's abilities) by definition will eradicate systemic poverty.


Quote:

it may also absolve the  people who are inevitably blamed for creating or perpetuating 'the gap' in some way or another that are willing to accept the results

Nonsense, and YOU are not absolved: anyone can perform useful work, regardless of identity. 


Quote:

but hey, it's just taxpayer money we are wasting on achieving something that might be completely impossible (at least without resorting to measures even i think would be a waste of time)

If you insist on remaining ignorant about money, including "taxpayer money"  so be it.

But stop blaming blacks for the egregious gap your ignorance is responsible for. 

Note: a currency-issuing government doesn't NEED your money, by definition. That's just a convention still hanging over from the middle ages when even kings had to borrow money from the local usurer/banker. 


Quote:

getting real bored of this repetitive dogma buddy - put up something more interesting than what is an effect the sociologist's fallacy over and over again or you're not getting another response from me

"Sociologist's fallacy"? Actually it's a brain-dead mainstream economists' fallacy. 

We are well past the classical era of scarcity in the face of  unlimited wants.

In the age of AI and IT, there  is no scarcity of essentials, so it's time for practitioners of 'the dismal science' to think again.

[eg the farmers' protests in India: good harvests mean prices fall and farmers can't pay their debts....absolute economic madness.]


Quote:

DEPLORABLE - wanker

Ignorance is indeed deplorable.

Suzuki doing his 1980's 'Yellow' impression of the recent Chinese Sci-Fi novels 'The Three Body Problem'

"everybody should just work in good paying jobs bro that'll eliminate poverty"

:D :D :D :D

what an absolutely amazing and brilliant plan nobody has ever thought of this before


Quote:

Nonsense, and YOU are not absolved: anyone can perform useful work, regardless of identity.

even in your peabrained utopia somehow getting everyone into doing "'useful" work (however the f_ck you define that lol) will not actually eliminate the gap (as defined just by income anyway) though cuz there'll still be income differentials stratified by ability levels genius

fmd i know exactly where your dumb beliefs lead to: dei & hiring retards to do jobs they're not capable of doing etc all to satisfy your monomaniac obsession with eliminating group differences

might as well mandate that a certain % of midgets can play in basketball tournaments to eliminate the midget-non midget professional basketball representation gap  :D :D :D :D


Quote:

"Sociologist's fallacy"? Actually it's a brain-dead mainstream economists' fallacy.

the sociologists fallacy is a term for a specific fallacy you commit frequently lol im not explaining it to you myself

JC Denton wrote on Feb 15^th, 2024 at 6:21pm:

"everybody should just work in good paying jobs bro that'll eliminate poverty" :D :D :D :D what an absolutely amazing and brilliant plan nobody has ever thought of this before

Well - bypassing your poor comprehension skills (a good paying job is not the same as an above-poverty minimum wage job) someone HAS thought of it before:

https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/the-case-for-a-job-guarantee/

One of the most enduring ideas in economics is that unemployment is both unavoidable and necessary for the smooth functioning of the economy. This assumption has provided cover for the devastating social and economic costs of job insecurity. It is also false.


Quote:

even in your peabrained utopia somehow getting everyone into doing "'useful" work (however the f_ck you define that lol) will not actually eliminate the gap (as defined just by income anyway) though cuz there'll still be income differentials stratified by ability levels genius

You need a definition of useful work? ...and you speak about peabrains?
'nuff said.


Quote:

fmd i know exactly where your dumb beliefs lead to: dei & hiring retards to do jobs they're not capable of doing etc all to satisfy your monomaniac obsession with eliminating group differences

Everyone is capable of doing useful wok,  even if in a sheltered workshop  (ie protected from the competitive "invisible hand" job market). 


Quote:

might as well mandate that a certain % of midgets can play in basketball tournaments to eliminate the midget-non midget professional basketball representation gap  :D :D :D :D

It would be better if you got a brain, and defined terms such as useful work yourself, instead of asking me to do your thinking for you.


Quote:

the sociologists fallacy is a term for a specific fallacy you commit frequently lol im not explaining it to you myself

But economics, not sociology, is the issue -  eg useful work funded by the government, not the greed-based  'invisible hand ' market. 

Economics. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

But economics, not sociology, is the issue -  eg useful work funded by the government, not the greed-based  'invisible hand ' market.  Economics.

... or to give it it it's full, proper name, political economy.

anyway, the market is not based on greed but on self-interest. NOT the same thing at all.

imagine being incapable of detecting obvious sarcasm - then accusing another person of having poor reading comprehension skills

:D :D :D :D

newsflash: having abos work in sheltered workshops and tard factories if you can somehow arrange that isnt going to eliminate "the gap"

why do you respond in that annoying line by line way? its something straight out of 2007 internet, especially on this forum which is so antiquated and makes it so much of a PITA to have to format responses to you


Quote:

But economics, not sociology, is the issue -  eg useful work funded by the government, not the greed-based  'invisible hand ' market.

no, the sociologists fallacy is a specific term that refers to a specific fallacy that you invoke on a regular basis

Frank wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 10:58am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 10:51am: But economics, not sociology, is the issue -  eg useful work funded by the government, not the greed-based  'invisible hand ' market, for example.   Economics.  ... or to give it it it's full, proper name, political economy. anyway, the market is not based on greed but on self-interest. NOT the same thing at all.

Ok....self-interest.

But the market driven by self-interested individuals seeking money/profit doesn't place a money value on a well maintained public park.

Only the non-market-based community can do that. 

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 11:09am:

imagine being incapable of detecting obvious sarcasm - then accusing another person of having poor reading comprehension skills

O  dear,  low IQ as well; your "sarcasm"  ie "everybody should just work in good paying jobs bro that'll eliminate poverty".  is both sarcasm AND  false, as I patiently explained:   "good paying job' - your straw man -  versus above poverty jobs, my proposition:

https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/the-case-for-a-job-guarantee/

  One of the most enduring ideas in economics is that unemployment is both unavoidable and necessary for the smooth functioning of the economy. This assumption has provided cover for the devastating social and economic costs of job insecurity. It is also false.



Quote:

newsflash: having abos work in sheltered workshops and tard factories if you can somehow arrange that isnt going to eliminate "the gap"

The point is: Job Guarantee jobs exist outside/alongside  jobs in the competitve 'invisible hand'  market.


Quote:

why do you respond in that annoying line by line way?

To expose the error in your every utterence, line by line....


Quote:

its something straight out of 2007 internet, especially on this forum which is so antiquated and makes it so much of a PITA to have to format responses to you

This forum isn't a social network echo chamber



Quote:

no, the sociologists fallacy is a specific term that refers to a specific fallacy that you invoke on a regular basis

Irrelevant, we are talking about a Job Guarantee, to eradicate entrenched poverty, and hence the gap. 

Quote:

The point is: Job Guarantee jobs exist outside/alongside  jobs in the competitve 'invisible hand'  market.

this wont eliminate the gap - either in schooling or in earnings

use your head to try to figure out whats wrong with this logic

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 12:05pm:

Quote: The point is: Job Guarantee jobs exist outside/alongside  jobs in the competitve 'invisible hand'  market. this wont eliminate the gap - either in schooling or in earnings

The gap in earnings doesn't matter, access to above poverty enployment DOES matter, as the basis for ending poverty-level welfare dependency and eliminating the gap (as defined in government stats). 

As for schooling, provision of quality education is the responsibility of government.

Ofcourse, family (and community) dysfunction will hinder access to education also. 


Quote:

use your head to try to figure out whats wrong with this logic

I just did "use my head" - to figure out where your errors lay.

Blacks = physically lazy
Yellows = mentally lazy (ie: they just 'copy' everyone else)

Quote:

The gap in earnings doesn't matter, access to above poverty enployment DOES matter, as the basis for ending poverty-level welfare dependency and eliminating the gap (as defined in government stats).

this is the sociologists fallacy yet again, its origin dates back a long time

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2018/12/sociologists-fallacy-origins-of-the-term/


Quote:

The Tulkin article referred to by Dr. Alfert is one of the 43 published studies of Negro-white IQ differences which attempted to control for socioeconomic status (SES) and/or other environmental factors. In all but three of these studies, the white mean was higher than the Negro within SES groups; the remaining mean difference, over all studies, with SES “controlled,” was 11 IQ points (Shuey, 1966). Tulkin statistically “controlled” both for SES and a number of more subtle family variables. He concluded: “When family differences were also statistically con- trolled, there were no significant racial differences on test scores in the upper socioeconomic group, although differences remained significant in the lower socioeconomic group. ” But the statistical matching of racial groups on SES and other environmental factors is an invalid method in any of these studies, since it presumes that SES, etc., are entirely causal variables. Since there is substantial evidence that there are genetic as well as environmental differences between SES groups (within races), a matching procedure (statistical or actual) results in some degree of matching on the genetic as well as the environmental factors involved in mental development. Thus the independent and dependent variables in these experiments are hopelessly confounded. Paul Meehl has written cogently on this “sociologists’ fallacy”: "While every sophomore learns that a statistical correlation does not inform us as to the nature of the causality at work (although, except for sampling errors, it does presumably show some kind of causal relation latent to the covariation observed), there has arisen a widespread misconception that we can somehow, in advance, sort nuisance-variables into a class which occurs only at the input side. This is, of course, almost never the case. The usual tendency, found widely among sociologists and quite frequently among psychologists (particularly among those of strong environmentalist persuasion) is to assume sub silentio that there is a set of demographic-type variables, such as social class, domicile, education, and the like, that always operate as nuisance variables to obscure true relationships, and that function primarily as exclusively on the input side from the standpoint of causal analysis. This automatic assumption is often quite unjustified. Example: We study the relationship between some biological or social input variable, such as ethnic or religious background, upon a psychological output variable, such as IQ or achievement. We find that Protestants differ from Catholics or that Whites differ from Blacks. But we find further that the ethnic or religious groups differ in socio-economic class. We conclude, as an immediate inference and almost as a matter of course, that we have to ‘control’ for the socio-economic class variable, in order to find out what is the ‘true’ relationship between the ethnic or religious variable and the psychological output variable. But of course no such immediate inference is defensible, since on certain alternative hypotheses, such as a heavily genetic view of the determiners of social class, the result of such a ‘control’ is to bring about a spurious reduction of unknown magnitude in what is actually a valid difference (Meehl, 1970)"

"above poverty employment" will not eliminate the gap if somehow you could get every single abo into "above poverty employment" (lmao), if there are cognitive differences between abos and white people and those cognitive differences are partially or entirely genetic

again we are getting back to what i was talking about before on the prior page, which you hand waved - what if there were differences in cognitive ability between aboriginals and white people in australia, and those differences were at least 1% genetic? how can you eliminate the gap in earnings etc by somehow 'eliminating' poverty when it isnt actually poverty that causes those behavioural differences in that instance (assume that its true)? poverty would merely CO-INCIDE with inherent cognitive differences, because stupid people generally dont earn as much as smarter people

hence the sociologist's fallacy - the equation of an environmental condition (in this instance, 'poverty') with a coinciding phenotype, and immediately assuming causation between the two, when the relationship could be mediated by a deeper variable, in this instance, genotypic differences

& jensen wasnt necessarily correct in that very old article, in that controlling for SES often doesnt make test score differences between groups go away at all in the american context

https://i0.wp.com/randomcriticalanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/google-chrome76.png

https://i.imgur.com/YPOIMnJ.jpeg

resource here: https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/25/no-the-sat-doesnt-just-measure-income/

not much as changed since, including your chitty theories

Frank wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 11:49am:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 7:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 9:14pm: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) How do those characteristics get passed on if not genetically, cockwomble? The point is that different "Racial" groups contain individuals which exhibit the same characteristics.  So, you have Jews with small noses, you have Asians with straight eye lids, you Africans who are pale, you have Indigenous Australians who look like Europeans... Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Yeah, because they are three quarters or more Europeans.  Genetics. Two Japanese parents will never produce an african kid, nor the other way around.  These characteristics are disctinctive, instantly recogisable and are genetically transmitted. Black Pride, Aboriginal Voice, White Man's Burden - these are not about superficial nose shapes.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, that would not explain the case of Sandra Laing who was born as a white South African but under their strange laws was counted as black because she looked black.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

JC Denton wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:17am: JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 9:22am: Quote: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes those so-called "superficial characteristics" assuming your argument is true that those are the only phenotypes that differ between human continental population group (note: they arent) are literally the basis for how sub-specieal taxonomic classifications are defined you absolute nong  :D :D :D :D Taxonomy has been turned on it's head since the arrival modern Genetics, EmpNat.  Whereas taxonomy relied on physical characterists today it relies on Genetic differences.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) and human populations literally have genetic differences (unless you apply that b.s lewontian sleight of hand linus tried to pull on us a few months ago here) because if they didnt, they f_cking wouldnt look different if there were no individual genetic differences, everybody would be an identical clone of each other like monozygotic twins are; if there were no group differences, everybody would look like the same race holy sh1t man

There is no significant Genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  Indeed there is more Genetic differences within each "Racial" group than there is between them.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 4:46pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:49am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 7:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 9:14pm: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) How do those characteristics get passed on if not genetically, cockwomble? The point is that different "Racial" groups contain individuals which exhibit the same characteristics.  So, you have Jews with small noses, you have Asians with straight eye lids, you Africans who are pale, you have Indigenous Australians who look like Europeans... Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Yeah, because they are three quarters or more Europeans.  Genetics. Two Japanese parents will never produce an african kid, nor the other way around.  These characteristics are disctinctive, instantly recogisable and are genetically transmitted. Black Pride, Aboriginal Voice, White Man's Burden - these are not about superficial nose shapes. Oh, dearie, dearie, me, that would not explain the case of Sandra Laing who was born as a white South African but under their strange laws was counted as black because she looked black.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

"Sandra's parents fought several legal battles to have her classified as white, based on her documented ancestry through them. Her father underwent a blood-typing test for paternity in the 1960s, as DNA tests were not yet available. The results were compatible with his being her biological father. Although such tests are extremely imprecise due to the small number of blood types that most people can have, and the tests could not prove that he was her father, at least they did not disprove it."

lmao

hate to break it to ya brian but that guy probably wasn't the father and he got cucked by tyrone's 8 inch BBC

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 4:54pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 12:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:17am: JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 9:22am: Quote: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes those so-called "superficial characteristics" assuming your argument is true that those are the only phenotypes that differ between human continental population group (note: they arent) are literally the basis for how sub-specieal taxonomic classifications are defined you absolute nong  :D :D :D :D Taxonomy has been turned on it's head since the arrival modern Genetics, EmpNat.  Whereas taxonomy relied on physical characterists today it relies on Genetic differences.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) and human populations literally have genetic differences (unless you apply that b.s lewontian sleight of hand linus tried to pull on us a few months ago here) because if they didnt, they f_cking wouldnt look different if there were no individual genetic differences, everybody would be an identical clone of each other like monozygotic twins are; if there were no group differences, everybody would look like the same race holy sh1t man There is no significant Genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  Indeed there is more Genetic differences within each "Racial" group than there is between them.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Nevertheless, racial differences ARE passed on genetically, not randomly and inexplicably.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 4:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 4:46pm: Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:49am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 7:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 9:14pm: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) How do those characteristics get passed on if not genetically, cockwomble? The point is that different "Racial" groups contain individuals which exhibit the same characteristics.  So, you have Jews with small noses, you have Asians with straight eye lids, you Africans who are pale, you have Indigenous Australians who look like Europeans... Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Yeah, because they are three quarters or more Europeans.  Genetics. Two Japanese parents will never produce an african kid, nor the other way around.  These characteristics are disctinctive, instantly recogisable and are genetically transmitted. Black Pride, Aboriginal Voice, White Man's Burden - these are not about superficial nose shapes. Oh, dearie, dearie, me, that would not explain the case of Sandra Laing who was born as a white South African but under their strange laws was counted as black because she looked black.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) "Sandra's parents fought several legal battles to have her classified as white, based on her documented ancestry through them. Her father underwent a blood-typing test for paternity in the 1960s, as DNA tests were not yet available. The results were compatible with his being her biological father. Although such tests are extremely imprecise due to the small number of blood types that most people can have, and the tests could not prove that he was her father, at least they did not disprove it." lmao hate to break it to ya brian but that guy probably wasn't the father and he got cucked by tyrone's 8 inch BBC

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, excuses, excuses, Sandra Laing was classified as "white" until she looked "black".  She was DNA proved to be White.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Frank wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 4:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 4:54pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 12:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:17am: JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 9:22am: Quote: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes those so-called "superficial characteristics" assuming your argument is true that those are the only phenotypes that differ between human continental population group (note: they arent) are literally the basis for how sub-specieal taxonomic classifications are defined you absolute nong  :D :D :D :D Taxonomy has been turned on it's head since the arrival modern Genetics, EmpNat.  Whereas taxonomy relied on physical characterists today it relies on Genetic differences.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) and human populations literally have genetic differences (unless you apply that b.s lewontian sleight of hand linus tried to pull on us a few months ago here) because if they didnt, they f_cking wouldnt look different if there were no individual genetic differences, everybody would be an identical clone of each other like monozygotic twins are; if there were no group differences, everybody would look like the same race holy sh1t man There is no significant Genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  Indeed there is more Genetic differences within each "Racial" group than there is between them.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Nevertheless, racial differences ARE passed on genetically, not randomly and inexplicably.

No one is denying that, Soren.  "Racial" differences however as meaningless Genetically.  Genetically, everybody is essentially identical.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 4:54pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 4:46pm: Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:49am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 7:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 9:14pm: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) How do those characteristics get passed on if not genetically, cockwomble? The point is that different "Racial" groups contain individuals which exhibit the same characteristics.  So, you have Jews with small noses, you have Asians with straight eye lids, you Africans who are pale, you have Indigenous Australians who look like Europeans... Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Yeah, because they are three quarters or more Europeans.  Genetics. Two Japanese parents will never produce an african kid, nor the other way around.  These characteristics are disctinctive, instantly recogisable and are genetically transmitted. Black Pride, Aboriginal Voice, White Man's Burden - these are not about superficial nose shapes. Oh, dearie, dearie, me, that would not explain the case of Sandra Laing who was born as a white South African but under their strange laws was counted as black because she looked black.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) "Sandra's parents fought several legal battles to have her classified as white, based on her documented ancestry through them. Her father underwent a blood-typing test for paternity in the 1960s, as DNA tests were not yet available. The results were compatible with his being her biological father. Although such tests are extremely imprecise due to the small number of blood types that most people can have, and the tests could not prove that he was her father, at least they did not disprove it." lmao hate to break it to ya brian but that guy probably wasn't the father and he got cucked by tyrone's 8 inch BBC Oh, dearie, dearie, me, excuses, excuses, Sandra Laing was classified as "white" until she looked "black".  She was DNA proved to be White.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

absolutely zero mention of any DNA test being conducted on her in her wiki article, only a blood test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 4:46pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:49am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 7:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2024 at 9:14pm: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) How do those characteristics get passed on if not genetically, cockwomble? The point is that different "Racial" groups contain individuals which exhibit the same characteristics.  So, you have Jews with small noses, you have Asians with straight eye lids, you Africans who are pale, you have Indigenous Australians who look like Europeans... Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Yeah, because they are three quarters or more Europeans.  Genetics. Two Japanese parents will never produce an african kid, nor the other way around.  These characteristics are disctinctive, instantly recogisable and are genetically transmitted. Black Pride, Aboriginal Voice, White Man's Burden - these are not about superficial nose shapes. Oh, dearie, dearie, me, that would not explain the case of Sandra Laing who was born as a white South African but under their strange laws was counted as black because she looked black.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Oh, so Sandra Laing is your idea of genetic inheritance, cockwomble.
A white father cuckolded in Africa in the 50s - to genetic inheritance is therefore totally random.

Just look at all those kids across the world, who are all racially different to their parents.  Mill i b.s. and millions of Asian parents with negro and scandi looking kiddies. African parents have Chinese or red indian kiddies.

There is NOTHING stupid that you do not enthusiastically embrace and approve, cockwomble.

Quote:

Yeah I’ve already siad this a million times to people but here it goes again. There was never a DNA test done, There were no DNA tests back then. They did a blood type test and a blood type test is not a DNA test.

Quote:

she looks nothing like her so-called white dad…her eyes are different from both parents, her nose is not the same as either parent, her features are not similar to her “dad” at all. She has the same air brows as her mom, but we all know that IS her mom. The question is if that man is her father, and most likely he is NOT.

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/sandra-laing-a-black-girl-born-to-white-parents/

this is the dumbest f_cking story i've ever seen brian

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 5:02pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 4:54pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 12:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:17am: JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 9:22am: Quote: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes those so-called "superficial characteristics" assuming your argument is true that those are the only phenotypes that differ between human continental population group (note: they arent) are literally the basis for how sub-specieal taxonomic classifications are defined you absolute nong  :D :D :D :D Taxonomy has been turned on it's head since the arrival modern Genetics, EmpNat.  Whereas taxonomy relied on physical characterists today it relies on Genetic differences.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) and human populations literally have genetic differences (unless you apply that b.s lewontian sleight of hand linus tried to pull on us a few months ago here) because if they didnt, they f_cking wouldnt look different if there were no individual genetic differences, everybody would be an identical clone of each other like monozygotic twins are; if there were no group differences, everybody would look like the same race holy sh1t man There is no significant Genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  Indeed there is more Genetic differences within each "Racial" group than there is between them.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Nevertheless, racial differences ARE passed on genetically, not randomly and inexplicably. No one is denying that, Soren.  "Racial" differences however as meaningless Genetically.  Genetically, everybody is essentially identical.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

They are not meaningless if they are INVARIABLY passed on, bozo.

https://www.akc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Chihuahua-standing-in-three-quarter-view.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Eastern_wolf_in_Algonquin_Provincial_Park_01.jpg/640px-Eastern_wolf_in_Algonquin_Provincial_Park_01.jpg

WAIT

WAIT A MINUTE

hold the phone here

brian just said this, in the post above


Quote:

She was DNA proved to be White.

Quote:

She was DNA proved to be White.

Quote:

She was DNA proved to be White.

Quote:

She was DNA proved to be White.

Quote:

She was DNA proved to be White.

how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place?

yep - gotcha.

Wiggle out of that one Brian. ;D

Frank wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 5:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 5:02pm: Frank wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 4:54pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 12:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 11:17am: JC Denton wrote on Feb 14th, 2024 at 9:22am: Quote: There are, as I have explained no genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  The belief that Blacks and Asians and so on, are separate sub-species is poppycock, utter bullshit based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, eye shape, frizziness of hair and the size of noses.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes those so-called "superficial characteristics" assuming your argument is true that those are the only phenotypes that differ between human continental population group (note: they arent) are literally the basis for how sub-specieal taxonomic classifications are defined you absolute nong  :D :D :D :D Taxonomy has been turned on it's head since the arrival modern Genetics, EmpNat.  Whereas taxonomy relied on physical characterists today it relies on Genetic differences.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) and human populations literally have genetic differences (unless you apply that b.s lewontian sleight of hand linus tried to pull on us a few months ago here) because if they didnt, they f_cking wouldnt look different if there were no individual genetic differences, everybody would be an identical clone of each other like monozygotic twins are; if there were no group differences, everybody would look like the same race holy sh1t man There is no significant Genetic differences between the various "Racial" groups.  Indeed there is more Genetic differences within each "Racial" group than there is between them.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Nevertheless, racial differences ARE passed on genetically, not randomly and inexplicably. No one is denying that, Soren.  "Racial" differences however as meaningless Genetically.  Genetically, everybody is essentially identical.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) They are not meaningless if they are INVARIABLY passed on, bozo.

If you can ID a Black person from their Genetic print, Soren, lets see it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 5:17pm:

how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place? yep - gotcha.

Really?  Can you ID a Black person from their Genetic print, EmpNat?  Lets see you do it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 6:58pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 5:17pm: how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place? yep - gotcha. Really?  Can you ID a Black person from their Genetic print, EmpNat?  Lets see you do it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 7:09pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 6:58pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 5:17pm: how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place? yep - gotcha. Really?  Can you ID a Black person from their Genetic print, EmpNat?  Lets see you do it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Obviously you cannot, can you EmpNat?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another Racist who denies modern Science.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 7:11pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 6:58pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 5:17pm: how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place? yep - gotcha. Really?  Can you ID a Black person from their Genetic print, EmpNat?  Lets see you do it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Obviously you cannot, can you EmpNat?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another Racist who denies modern Science.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

dont ask me, take it from yourself

https://i.imgur.com/jjKdvb0.png

so apparently you in fact can determine race from dna

;D
Brian fails again!

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 7:28pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:11pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 6:58pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 5:17pm: how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place? yep - gotcha. Really?  Can you ID a Black person from their Genetic print, EmpNat?  Lets see you do it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Obviously you cannot, can you EmpNat?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another Racist who denies modern Science.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) dont ask me, take it from yourself https://i.imgur.com/jjKdvb0.png so apparently you in fact can determine race from dna

You can determine ancestry from DNA.  You cannot determine "Race" from DNA, EmpNat.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 7:55pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:28pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:11pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 6:58pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 5:17pm: how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place? yep - gotcha. Really?  Can you ID a Black person from their Genetic print, EmpNat?  Lets see you do it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Obviously you cannot, can you EmpNat?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another Racist who denies modern Science.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) dont ask me, take it from yourself https://i.imgur.com/jjKdvb0.png so apparently you in fact can determine race from dna You can determine ancestry from DNA.  You cannot determine "Race" from DNA, EmpNat.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Lmfao

JC Denton wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 1:19pm:

Quote: The gap in earnings doesn't matter, access to above poverty enployment DOES matter, as the basis for ending poverty-level welfare dependency and eliminating the gap (as defined in government stats). this is the sociologists fallacy yet again, its origin dates back a long time https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2018/12/sociologists-fallacy-origins-of-the-term/   (.....article quoted.......) "above poverty employment" will not eliminate the gap if somehow you could get every single abo into "above poverty employment" (lmao), if there are cognitive differences between abos and white people and those cognitive differences are partially or entirely genetic

"Somehow" is easy -  the government acts as employer of last resort. Everyone except the profoundly disabled can engage in useful work. 

So your 2nd point is irrelevant, as far as finding useful work for everyone is concerned, ie, work which is compatible with the individual's abilities.   



Quote:

again we are getting back to what i was talking about before on the prior page, which you hand waved -

Explained above; you keep talking irrelevancies about genetics and IQ.


Quote:

what if there were differences in cognitive ability between aboriginals and white people in australia, and those differences were at least 1% genetic?

Doesn't matter, as explained above, nearly everyone can do useful work  of one sort or another.


Quote:

how can you eliminate the gap in earnings etc

I already explained the gap in earning doesn't matter, what does matter is availability of an above poverty job for everyone...spot the difference?


Quote:

by somehow 'eliminating' poverty when it isnt actually poverty that causes those behavioural differences in that instance (assume that its true)?

??   

Poverty causes all sorts of behavioural  changes; but it is caused by lack of a job compatible with the individual's abilities, leading to welfare dependency. 

I suspect your inability to grasp that simple point is due to your mainstream economics fallacies about the 'market-value' of work. Work has social value as well.

[eg the market 'values' the CEO of Coca-cola in the $millions, when in fact she is responsible for a diabetes and obesity epidemic; the person keeping a local public park tidy is "worth" far more, for the community's well-being]. 


Quote:

poverty would merely CO-INCIDE with inherent cognitive differences, because stupid people generally dont earn as much as smarter people

All explained above. Government can act as employer of last resort, despite mainstrean economic theory about 'market value'.


Quote:

hence the sociologist's fallacy - the equation of an environmental condition (in this instance, 'poverty') with a coinciding phenotype, and immediately assuming causation between the two, when the relationship could be mediated by a deeper variable, in this instance, genotypic differences

That's your error, not mine, as explained above. 


Quote:

resource here: https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/25/no-the-sat-doesnt-just-measure-income/ not much as changed since, including your chitty theories

SAT  - or even  IQ tests - are NOT relevent to the state ensuring everyone has an above-poverty job (rather than forcing people onto the unemployment scrap heap)   

Ensuring the nation most efficiently mobilizes its available  resources (including labour)  is relevant; SAT and IQ tests are only some of the issues the government needs to take into account to ensure real full employment. 

.

Quote:

Doesn't matter, as explained above, nearly everyone can do useful work  of one sort or another.

this still wont close the gap

somehow in your utopian world getting all these abos to do "useful work" (however you define that) will not result in incomes between whites and abos to be the same unless you artificially pay abos more. there will also be health gaps, education gaps, crime gaps, etc, because those things simply are consequential effects from IQ (and other personality) differences and if those iq differences have an inter-group genotypic etiology they can't be deleted by removing whatever you define as "poverty". there is simply no getting around this.

closing the gap requires them to have the same outcomes as white people, not all be doing "above poverty useful work" which is also a pipe dream

JC Denton wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 1:50am:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:55pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:28pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:11pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 6:58pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 5:17pm: how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place? yep - gotcha. Really?  Can you ID a Black person from their Genetic print, EmpNat?  Lets see you do it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Obviously you cannot, can you EmpNat?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another Racist who denies modern Science.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) dont ask me, take it from yourself https://i.imgur.com/jjKdvb0.png so apparently you in fact can determine race from dna You can determine ancestry from DNA.  You cannot determine "Race" from DNA, EmpNat.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Lmfao

Still unable to face facts, EmpNat?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 1:16pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 17th, 2024 at 1:50am: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:55pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:28pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:11pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 7:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 6:58pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 16th, 2024 at 5:17pm: how do you DNA prove someone to be white if there are no racial differences brian and we're all the same in the first place? yep - gotcha. Really?  Can you ID a Black person from their Genetic print, EmpNat?  Lets see you do it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Obviously you cannot, can you EmpNat?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another Racist who denies modern Science.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) dont ask me, take it from yourself https://i.imgur.com/jjKdvb0.png so apparently you in fact can determine race from dna You can determine ancestry from DNA.  You cannot determine "Race" from DNA, EmpNat.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Lmfao Still unable to face facts, EmpNat?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

how is your corny and obviously intellectually bankrupt equivocation even remotely factual

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12^th, 2024 at 7:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:16pm: There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) https://jkalin.weebly.com/charles-darwin.html https://jkalin.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695125/3932625_orig.jpg Genetically there is no difference in humanity as far as "Race" is concerned.  "Race" as used by many humans is a myth, a social construct, without any scientific basis.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Some say that the whiter you are - the closer you are to the creator.


https://jkalin.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695125/3932625_orig.jpg

JC Denton wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 1:11pm:

Quote: Doesn't matter, as explained above, nearly everyone can do useful work  of one sort or another. this still wont close the gap

The gap due to time spent in prisons, and the gap due to ill-health and shorter life expectancy associated with poverty?


Quote:

somehow in your utopian world getting all these abos to do "useful work" (however you define that)

Anything which we can do - including implementing permanent full employment -  is not utopian, even if deluded mainstream economists think it is.



Quote:

will not result in incomes between whites and abos to be the same unless you artificially pay abos more.

That's not the goal. Please pay attention.


Quote:

there will also be health gaps, education gaps, crime gaps, etc, because those things simply are consequential effects from IQ

Yes,  but eradication of poverty-level subsistence (aka welfare dependency) will reduce the gaps to the outcomes consistent with different abilities.

Poverty is a political choice, not an economic necessity, since there is no shortage of the essentials, in the nation.   


Quote:

closing the gap requires them to have the same outcomes as white people, not all be doing "above poverty useful work" which is also a pipe dream

No, it's matter of eradicating poverty; any gaps which persist due to lower wealth levels, as opposed to actual systemic poverty, will be small and not of concern to anyone.

Increasing social cohesion and less criminality will likewise eventuate, as the debilitating and demoralizing effects of poverty are eliminated via maintenence of real full employment.   

Bobby. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 1:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 7:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 12th, 2024 at 5:16pm: There is basically no difference between that various Races genetically.  In fact there is more differences within each Racial sub-group than between them.  It is why Indigenous Australians have no difficulty interbreeding with Europeans, Europeans have no difficulty interbreeding with Africans, Africans have no difficulty interbreeding with Asians, Asians have no difficulty breeding with South Americans and so on.  There is only one Race and it is the Human one.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) https://jkalin.weebly.com/charles-darwin.html https://jkalin.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695125/3932625_orig.jpg Genetically there is no difference in humanity as far as "Race" is concerned.  "Race" as used by many humans is a myth, a social construct, without any scientific basis.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Some say that the whiter you are - the closer you are to the creator. https://jkalin.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695125/3932625_orig.jpg

wiki

There is a correlation between the geographic distribution of UV radiation (UVR) and the distribution of skin pigmentation around the world. Areas that have higher amounts of UVR have darker-skinned populations, generally located nearer the equator. Areas that are further away from the equator and generally closer to the poles have a lower concentration of UVR and contain lighter-skinned populations. This is the result of human evolution which contributed to variable melanin content in the skin to adapt to certain environments

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 2:42pm:

wiki There is a correlation between the geographic distribution of UV radiation (UVR) and the distribution of skin pigmentation around the world. Areas that have higher amounts of UVR have darker-skinned populations, generally located nearer the equator. Areas that are further away from the equator and generally closer to the poles have a lower concentration of UVR and contain lighter-skinned populations. This is the result of human evolution which contributed to variable melanin content in the skin to adapt to certain environments

That's true and I see you've finally sorted out your avatar pic?

https://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/avatars/xena.gif

Great Divide is a woman.  ;D

Jasin wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 8:08pm:

Great Divide is a woman.  ;D

Trans?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 7:08pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 17th, 2024 at 2:42pm: wiki There is a correlation between the geographic distribution of UV radiation (UVR) and the distribution of skin pigmentation around the world. Areas that have higher amounts of UVR have darker-skinned populations, generally located nearer the equator. Areas that are further away from the equator and generally closer to the poles have a lower concentration of UVR and contain lighter-skinned populations. This is the result of human evolution which contributed to variable melanin content in the skin to adapt to certain environments That's true and I see you've finally sorted out your avatar pic? https://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/avatars/xena.gif

Is it true in Africa? Just wondering.

Jasin wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 8:08pm:

Great Divide is a woman.  ;D

See ......the Right banging on about identity, when they can't debate the issues...

fyi, I loved 'Xena Warrior Princess'   (a TV show from NZ). 

.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 18^th, 2024 at 11:11am:

Jasin wrote on Feb 17th, 2024 at 8:08pm: Great Divide is a woman.  ;D See ......the Right banging on about identity, when they can't debate the issues... fyi, I loved 'Xena Warrior Princess'   (a TV show from NZ).

You go girl!  :D
Genetics innit.

I accept your surrender, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 18^th, 2024 at 11:11am:

Jasin wrote on Feb 17th, 2024 at 8:08pm: Great Divide is a woman.  ;D See ......the Right banging on about identity, when they can't debate the issues... fyi, I loved 'Xena Warrior Princess'   (a TV show from NZ).

;D ;D ;D

What does that make you??

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 21^st, 2024 at 6:43pm:

I accept your surrender, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

You are lost again and talking to yourself, cockwomble.

Frank wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2024 at 2:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 21st, 2024 at 6:43pm: I accept your surrender, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) You are lost again and talking to yourself, cockwomble.

Really, Soren?  You don't know or understand the matter under discussion so you continue your denial of it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 21^st, 2024 at 6:43pm:

I accept your surrender, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

You can't even turn up to the battle with a decent force of argument Troll. Hard to surrender to someone who doesn't even show up with anything.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2024 at 4:11pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 23rd, 2024 at 2:29pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 21st, 2024 at 6:43pm: I accept your surrender, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) You are lost again and talking to yourself, cockwomble. Really, Soren?  You don't know or understand the matter under discussion so you continue your denial of it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Your only 'contribution to any discussion is yawning, eyerolling anfpd tut-tutting, you inarticulate old duffer.

Frank wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2024 at 4:11pm: Frank wrote on Feb 23rd, 2024 at 2:29pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 21st, 2024 at 6:43pm: I accept your surrender, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) You are lost again and talking to yourself, cockwomble. Really, Soren?  You don't know or understand the matter under discussion so you continue your denial of it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Your only 'contribution to any discussion is yawning, eyerolling anfpd tut-tutting, you inarticulate old duffer.

Better that than appearing to be an ignorant fool like you, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

At least Frank and others offer up something for their argument and discussion.
You're just a Troll Brian who offers up nothing like a boring yawn.

Jasin wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2024 at 7:53pm:

At least Frank and others offer up something for their argument and discussion. You're just a Troll Brian who offers up nothing like a boring yawn.

It'd be interesting to see a thread taken up in replies to each post as Brian does. One rolls their eyes, the next responds and quotes with tut tuts, the next poster quotes them both with a yawn, on and on for pages. I think Brian's form of debate should be emulated by all.


Quote:

[quote]tsk tsk

::) ::)[/quote]
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Setanta wrote on Feb 17^th, 2024 at 8:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 17th, 2024 at 7:08pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 17th, 2024 at 2:42pm: wiki There is a correlation between the geographic distribution of UV radiation (UVR) and the distribution of skin pigmentation around the world. Areas that have higher amounts of UVR have darker-skinned populations, generally located nearer the equator. Areas that are further away from the equator and generally closer to the poles have a lower concentration of UVR and contain lighter-skinned populations. This is the result of human evolution which contributed to variable melanin content in the skin to adapt to certain environments That's true and I see you've finally sorted out your avatar pic? https://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/avatars/xena.gif Is it true in Africa? Just wondering.

google

"Africa is the only continent through which the Tropic of Cancer, the Equator and the Tropic of Capricorn pass."

Frank wrote on Feb 21^st, 2024 at 7:21pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 18th, 2024 at 11:11am: Jasin wrote on Feb 17th, 2024 at 8:08pm: Great Divide is a woman.  ;D See ......the Right banging on about identity, when they can't debate the issues... fyi, I loved 'Xena Warrior Princess'   (a TV show from NZ).  ;D ;D ;D What does that make you??

Dunno , you tell me....

Maybe a feminist?

Meanwhile you are content with your genetic determinism  to defend your conservative "poverty is always with us" ideation;  eg, in your reply to Brian: 


Quote:

Genes are not meaningless if they are INVARIABLY passed on, bozo.

So - nothing to see here, some people are genetically dumb**, and can't be lifted out of poverty.

** unike you, being mentally incapacitated by your 'natural individual rights' delusion.

Lets face it.
The Nihonese are 'extreme' Racists.
They don't accept any other race as 'Nihonese',
not even the Ainu (former Jommu who occupied the whole of the islands long ago before invasion by the now Nihonese).
They see their part of the world as solely for Nihonese 'Race' only.