'Black Lives Matter' Organizer Outed as White?

[erowe1]

If a genetic test shows no African ancestry, then any ancestry that exists from Africa is so far back, that it is not in that person's genome. This is exceedingly fucking simple.

Of course, it could be the case that both of my parents were born in Africa and still have the test show these results.

 

[erowe1]

"Most scientists" (weasel words) do not agree with you. People who claim that there is some consensus on this are liars, in either direction.

Most does not equal consensus. But yes, most scientists do agree with me.

 

[Danke]

BLM is gonna try to disrupt the MN state fair on the 29th. Should I go?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Of course, it could be the case that both of my parents were born in Africa and still have the test show these results.

WTF are you talking about? Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry, you stupid little fucktard!

 

[erowe1]

No, because you are not in complete agreement with them.

On what point do they differ with anything I've said?

 

[erowe1]

WTF are you talking about? Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry, you stupid little fucktard!

In that post I quoted you referring to "ancestry from Africa" being "so far back."

What did you mean by that, if not ancestors being born in Africa?

Why are you connecting DNA to places on the globe if, as you now say, "Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry"?

Of course you are right about this. Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry. But that's been my point all along. To get back to what PRB was talking about above, it is simply not possible to perform some genetic test that can ever show that a person has 0% African ancestry or that the person in the OP is lying.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Most does not equal consensus. But yes, most scientists do agree with me.

No they don't. There is a lot of diversity of opinion on this issue. Egalitarians like to pretend the issue is settled, but that's a ploy to avoid the debate. There's also a tremendous amount of social pressure when it comes to this issue. James Watson (one of the most important scientists in the history of genetics) was drummed out of his field when he said that there were genetic cognitive differences between the races.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

In that post I quoted you referring to "ancestry from Africa" being "so far back."

What did you mean by that, if not ancestors being born in Africa?

Why are you connecting DNA to places on the globe if, as you now say, "Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry"?

You can be born in Africa, with genetics that originate in Europe. Do I really ​have to get this fucking remedial?

 

[DFF]

James Dobson (one of the most important scientists in the history of genetics) was drummed out of his field when he said that there were genetic cognitive differences between the races.

Liberals love free speech, until somethings said they don't agree with.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Liberals love free speech, until somethings said they don't agree with.

My mistake, it was James Watson. James Dobson is an Evangelical minister.

 

[erowe1]

You can be born in Africa, with genetics that originate in Europe. Do I really ​have to get this fucking remedial?

What you refer to as "genetics that originate in Europe" don't really originate in Europe. They may be more characteristic of people in Europe than people elsewhere. But people in other places have those genetics too, and always have. There's not some gene that at first didn't exist in the human race, and then came to exist in Europe, and then just stayed with people in Europe for millennia until airplanes were invented.

And yeah, given that you're the one who said, "ancestry that exists from Africa is so far back, that it is not in that person's genome," getting back to that remedial level is needed, not for my sake, but for yours.

 

[pcosmar]

ok, so where do we disagree?

Not sure.
Unless you are arguing in favor of racial superiority.

I simply reject the concept of different races of humans. In Totality.

I saw this as nothing more than another in a series of race baiting threads..

 

[erowe1]

No they don't. There is a lot of diversity of opinion on this issue. Egalitarians like to pretend the issue is settled, but that's a ploy to avoid the debate. There's also a tremendous amount of social pressure when it comes to this issue. James Watson (one of the most important scientists in the history of genetics) was drummed out of his field when he said that there were genetic cognitive differences between the races.

Yes they do.

You keep saying "egalitarians." Why do you use that label? I haven't said anything about being "egalitarian."

It makes it sound like your real agenda is to be something other than egalitarian, and to say that, not only do these races exist as objective categories independent of social construction of them, but that they can be ranked from better to worse (i.e. not egalitarian).

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What you refer to as "genetics that originate in Europe" don't really originate in Europe. They may be more characteristic of people in Europe than people elsewhere. But people in other places have those genetics too, and always have. There's not some gene that at first didn't exist in the human race, and then came to exist in Europe, and then just stayed with people in Europe for millennia until airplanes were invented.

European genetics came about when the people living there adapted to their environment. That's why they're called "European genetics". It looks like I do ​have to get this fucking remedial.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Yes they do.

No, they fucking don't! Race and gender differences are science's last taboo. Read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.

You keep saying "egalitarians." Why do you use that label? I haven't said anything about being "egalitarian."

It makes it sound like your real agenda is to be something other than egalitarian, and to say that, not only do these races exist as objective categories independent of social construction of them, but that they can be ranked from better to worse (i.e. not egalitarian).

I have never said anything of the kind. I use the word "egalitarian" because that is the self-identifying moniker that social constructivists use.

 

[erowe1]

European genetics came about when the people living there adapted to their environment.

Assuming that's true, that adaptation happened by way of the selective breeding of traits that were already present in the diverse genetic pool that already existed prior to that.

We could do the same thing all over again today: take a large population of people who, according to the tests PRB referred to, have no ancestry from Europe, and selectively breed their descendants to have all the right genes so that their tests would show them to have European ancestry. And we could do the same again for any race or genetics associated with any place.

 

[erowe1]

I use the word "egalitarian" because that is the self-identifying moniker that social constructivists use.

That's not true. Some may use that moniker, but if they do, they are referring not to their belief in the social construction of races, but their egalitarianism, which is something else entirely.

And if you go back and read through your own use of that label, it's clear that you use it in such a way as to distinguish yourself from the egalitarians. This implies that you do not consider yourself egalitarian or want others to think you are.

I don't object to being against egalitarianism. I just find it odd how you kept trying to force that idea into this thread.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Assuming that's true, that adaptation happened by way of the selective breeding of traits that were already present in the diverse genetic pool that already existed prior to that.

That is what happened, idiot. Genes are plastic to the environment. They change over time depending on where the population is. That is how evolution works.

 

[TheTexan]

What about Yellow Lives Matter, for all the asians out there? Does nobody care about the Asians suffering under the same persecution??

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That's not true. Some may use that moniker, but if they do, they are referring not to their belief in the social construction of races, but their egalitarianism, which is something else entirely.

No, that's what they're referring to. Those that want it to mean something else specify. The aforementioned Steven Pinker, for example.

And if you go back and read through your own use of that label, it's clear that you use it in such a way as to distinguish yourself from the egalitarians. This implies that you do not consider yourself egalitarian or want others to think you are.

I don't object to being against egalitarianism. I just find it odd how you kept trying to force that idea into this thread.

Well yes, I'm not an egalitarian. I do not believe in descriptive or prescriptive equality.