The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Louis:
| Quote | Ghosty,
Oops, you didn't "get me" at all. Like I said, what "race" my mother in law or I are (and they are different "races") is of no consequence. All that matters is that we can both be assumed to be foreign/immigrants based on easily obtainable "first impression" type information (e.g. accent, appearance, surname, skin colour, dress etc etc). |
But your refusal to identify your (and your mother in law's) race destroys the value of your anecdote. After all, my contention is that certain nationalities thrive in Western societies while others don't. Obviously, you're trying veeeeery hard to imply that you're a counterexample. So are you a counterexample or not? In other words, is a significant part of your ancestry not traceable to Indian, European, Jewish, or NE Asian heritage? If you are a counterexample, there's no reason to be coy about this. Why can't liberals answer the easiest questions?
| Quote | Tell me Ghosty, on average, is the genetic difference between two human "races" bigger or smaller than the genetic difference within those two same human "races"? Since I already know the answer to this Ghosty, I'll let you in on it. The difference within two human "races" is normally significantly bigger than between the same two human "races". What does that tell you?
|
Louis, you big dummy, if you're going to preen about how well-read you are, then you shouldn't trash your reputation by trotting out this hoariest of liberal chestnuts. Yes, I'm well aware of this fact, because I've read my Lewontin, Gould, and Cavalli-Sforza too. But unlike you, I also read between the lines. And unfortunately for your side, so does Steve Sailer:
| Quote | The New York Times has hailed Genes, Peoples, and Languages, the new book by Professor Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza[....], the dean of population geneticists, for "dismantling the idea of race." In the New York Review of Books, Jared Diamond salutes Cavalli-Sforza for "demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races" [snip citation]
[...]
Don't believe any of this. It’s merely a politically-correct smoke screen that Cavalli-Sforza regularly pumps out to keep his life's work -- distinguishing the races of mankind and compiling their genealogies -- from being defunded by the leftist mystagogues at Stanford.
[...]
This is Cavalli-Sforza's description of the map that is the capstone of his half century of labor in human genetics:
"The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia."
Basically, all his number-crunching has produced a map that looks about like what you'd get if you gave an unreconstructed Strom Thurmond a paper napkin and a box of crayons and had him draw a racial map of the world.
In fact, at the global level, Cavalli-Sforza has largely confirmed the prejudices of the more worldly 19th Century imperialists. Rudyard Kipling, Cecil Rhodes, and Francis Galton could have hunkered down together and whipped up something rather like this map in honor of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.
[...]
Cavalli-Sforza's team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the "genetic distances" separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danes, and the Japanese 59 times. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish. (The genetic distance between Japanese and Bantus is even greater.)
From these kind of tables, Cavalli-Sforza reached this general conclusion: "The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans …"
As you can imagine, this finding could get him in a bit of hot water if the campus thought police ever found out about it. So we should certainly forgive the charade he keeps up to fool the New York Times. But we definitely don't have to agree.
[my emphasis]
|
So I'm not going to start quaking when you display your vast command of population genetics. Flap your wings, little butterfly!
| Quote | Take your racist ideologies and stuff them in the other thread (Paley Goes to the Movies) as that seems to be the best place for them. Rather than keep responding to you here, lets take it over there where other people can play with your ridiculous ideological nonsense more amusingly. Don't ever get the impression you are taken seriously Ghosty, because you're obviously a clueless fuckwit.
|
Ummmm....if you'd been paying attention, you would realise that I don't subscribe to "racist" ideologies. In fact, I just wrote a recent post refuting racial determinism. Ya oughtta read it, ya might learn a thing or two. But if you want to carry the "debate" (more like a one-sided drubbing of a limey trash-talker) over to the other thread, be my guest. I'd just as soon pummel you there as here. But do bring something to the table other than insults.
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
