Compliance to "diversity" and "affirmative action" cost 4% of GDP each year.
- Thread starter phenomena
- Start date
Let me guess, you were home schooled...
Say I am the worst hypocrite and the greatest user of logical fallacies...
How does that make those I expose as hypocrites and users of logical fallacies any less guilty of being hypocrites and users of logical fallacies?
Come on Mr. cab driver in the sky, tell me how what I might do wrong, makes those who also do wrong right?
How does that make those I expose as hypocrites and users of logical fallacies any less guilty of being hypocrites and users of logical fallacies?
Come on Mr. cab driver in the sky, tell me how what I might do wrong, makes those who also do wrong right?
Fallacy of distribution doesn't apply, as I've already demonstrated the position:
"In theory, we have the intellectual and moral tools to defuse the dangers. "Is" does not imply "ought." Group differences, when they exist, pertain to averages, not to individual men and women. There are geniuses and dullards, saints and sinners, in every race, ethnicity, and gender. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that people are indistinguishable. Many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points. "
Your accusation is an empty one, based on semantics. By lucrum's criteria, whites would also be a "sub-species", as would asians, et al.
"In theory, we have the intellectual and moral tools to defuse the dangers. "Is" does not imply "ought." Group differences, when they exist, pertain to averages, not to individual men and women. There are geniuses and dullards, saints and sinners, in every race, ethnicity, and gender. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that people are indistinguishable. Many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points. "
Your accusation is an empty one, based on semantics. By lucrum's criteria, whites would also be a "sub-species", as would asians, et al.
Ahh, straight for the PC orthodoxy, PBS, no less... LOL!!!
Sickle cell is evidence of "african-ness", what a coincidence... It's found in the very regions of Europe which are nearest Africa, and have been shown to have African admixutre. Of course, it occurs at a much lower rate than it does in north american or west african blacks...
Notice the innuendo on the wicked and oppressive nature of whites- "they must be "polluted" with African blood". No one said that having African blood constitutes "pollution", it was just another Mccarthyistic pejorative jab to portray whites negatively.
No one in the population genetics world disputes that sickle cell is the result of a genetic mutation which developed in, and is rarely found outside of African or African descended populations.
This is all, of course, to ignore the glaring stupidity which is the notion that the entire case for race being a biological reality rests on sickle cell being an African genetic development (which of course it is).
This is of course to ignore the many other genetic disorder which rarely affect anyone outside of a certain racial group.
This is to ignore the fact that gestation period significantly vary between racial groups.
This is to ignore the fact that various racial groups experience the onset of puberty at differing ages, consistently and reliably.
All of this is willful ignorance, and selective reasoning, so as to wish away the fact of biological races, and replace it with the myth that races don't exist. A myth which is offensive to anyone who is proud of his or her own ancestry.
Sickle cell is evidence of "african-ness", what a coincidence... It's found in the very regions of Europe which are nearest Africa, and have been shown to have African admixutre. Of course, it occurs at a much lower rate than it does in north american or west african blacks...
Notice the innuendo on the wicked and oppressive nature of whites- "they must be "polluted" with African blood". No one said that having African blood constitutes "pollution", it was just another Mccarthyistic pejorative jab to portray whites negatively.
No one in the population genetics world disputes that sickle cell is the result of a genetic mutation which developed in, and is rarely found outside of African or African descended populations.
This is all, of course, to ignore the glaring stupidity which is the notion that the entire case for race being a biological reality rests on sickle cell being an African genetic development (which of course it is).
This is of course to ignore the many other genetic disorder which rarely affect anyone outside of a certain racial group.
This is to ignore the fact that gestation period significantly vary between racial groups.
This is to ignore the fact that various racial groups experience the onset of puberty at differing ages, consistently and reliably.
All of this is willful ignorance, and selective reasoning, so as to wish away the fact of biological races, and replace it with the myth that races don't exist. A myth which is offensive to anyone who is proud of his or her own ancestry.
Oh really? Care to tell me anymore about what *I* think? Care to tell me any more about what my own thoughts are?
You need to play fair. I didn't put words in your mouth, and make up lies about you, why do you feel the need to do so?
An anti-white slur of "racism" against a white, from a non-white. Big surprise there...
It depends on what your definition of "fundamental" differences are, but yes, there are real, biological differences between whites and nonwhites. Also between blacks and non blacks, asians and non asians, so on, so forth. The only distinctions are not uniquely between whites and non whites. To pretend otherwise, and ignore the large plethora of human biodiversity is utter ignorance.
I am also amused by your implicit definition of "racism"- anyone who thinks races exist... LOL!!! If you think races exist, you are a "racist".
Good one... I guess you just indicted much of the scientific world. Time for an inquisition!
You need to play fair. I didn't put words in your mouth, and make up lies about you, why do you feel the need to do so?
An anti-white slur of "racism" against a white, from a non-white. Big surprise there...
It depends on what your definition of "fundamental" differences are, but yes, there are real, biological differences between whites and nonwhites. Also between blacks and non blacks, asians and non asians, so on, so forth. The only distinctions are not uniquely between whites and non whites. To pretend otherwise, and ignore the large plethora of human biodiversity is utter ignorance.
I am also amused by your implicit definition of "racism"- anyone who thinks races exist... LOL!!! If you think races exist, you are a "racist".
Good one... I guess you just indicted much of the scientific world. Time for an inquisition! Well that's good news then. Since races don't exist, "racism" is an absurd notion. Therefore, we should not have any laws against it, or practices which favor one race over another in terms of jobs, education funding, protection under the law, university admissions criteria, or anything else. Since it is imaginary, there shouldn't be any laws regulating it.
Hence, because this is your belief, you should be standing up against any regulation or law against racism. You should be opposed to any racial quotas. You shouldn't be in favor of any "diversity" because any perceived difference is actually imaginary. Hence, "diversity" serves no purpose and is in pursuit of an imaginary goal.
Wolves are canines, so are grey hounds and poodles. Any perceived difference between wolves, grey hounds, and poodles, are imaginary, since they are, after all, all dogs. Any perceived difference between poodles and greyhounds is imaginary, or a product of "breedism".
Hence, because this is your belief, you should be standing up against any regulation or law against racism. You should be opposed to any racial quotas. You shouldn't be in favor of any "diversity" because any perceived difference is actually imaginary. Hence, "diversity" serves no purpose and is in pursuit of an imaginary goal.
Wolves are canines, so are grey hounds and poodles. Any perceived difference between wolves, grey hounds, and poodles, are imaginary, since they are, after all, all dogs. Any perceived difference between poodles and greyhounds is imaginary, or a product of "breedism".