'Black Lives Matter' Organizer Outed as White?

[PRB]

I think you are going too far here, lumping bunch of unrelated issues together.

I didn't say they're related, I just find them equally hypocritical that suddenly somebody demands 100% certainty (on vaccines too).

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Everybody has African ancestry.

Doesn't that mean everybody should be eligible for black quotas, black scholarships & whatever?

 

[erowe1]

Doesn't that mean everybody should be eligible for black quotas, black scholarships & whatever?

Yes. That's what I've been saying. The guy in the OP got a scholarship for black people, and I doubt that there is a case that he did anything illegal in claiming to be black to get it.

 

[erowe1]

I didn't say they're related, I just find them equally hypocritical that suddenly somebody demands 100% certainty (on vaccines too).

You made the claim that you it would prove this guy was lying about being black if he took some test that showed he had 0% African ancestry. Obviously that's not the case unless there exists some test that can do that with 100% certainty.

Honestly though, regardless of the level of certainty, it's ridiculous to think that there could ever exist a test that could prove that none of a person's ancestors were ever born in Africa, and equally ridiculous to claim that proving that would equate to proving the person wasn't black.

 

[erowe1]

Populations (genetic term) and ancestry are essentially the same thing scientifically.

Source?

Also, conspicuously, you still seem not to be able to find an answer to my question. Where is there a list of objective criteria that can be used to determine that a person is or isn't black?

 

[erowe1]

What's the certainty of paternity tests?

Very close to 100%. Not remotely comparable to low degree of certainty of the results of the kinds of tests you're talking about that can supposedly tell someone where percentages of their ancestors were born based on something in their DNA.

 

[tod evans]

Yes. That's what I've been saying. The guy in the OP got a scholarship for black people, and I doubt that there is a case that he did anything illegal in claiming to be black to get it.

My sons mother tried to suck the tribal tit by claiming indian heritage... (blonde haired, blue eyed Nordic lookin' broad)

Don't remember which tribe but I do remember her eyes glassing over with thoughts of casino dollars she never earned.....

They sent her packin'.


If the "black" freebie organizations are to stupid to weed out the imposters then they deserve to be inundated with them...

Or is it an issue of who/what actually provides the benefits sought?

 

[erowe1]

My sons mother tried to suck the tribal tit by claiming indian heritage... (blonde haired, blue eyed Nordic lookin' broad)

Don't remember which tribe but I do remember her eyes glassing over with thoughts of casino dollars she never earned.....

They sent her packin'.

But that's based on actual ancestry. There is a legal requirement for someone to be a certain percentage Indian calculated from who their actual grand parents and great grandparents were.

There is no such definition for "black."

 

[tod evans]

But that's based on actual ancestry. There is a legal requirement for someone to be a certain percentage Indian calculated from who their actual grand parents and great grandparents were.

There is no such definition for "black."

So are you proposing one?

What exactly is the point you're trying to make over the last several pages, apparently I'm too stupid to figure it out?

 

[erowe1]

So are you proposing one?

I don't think we can do better than self-identification. If someone identifies as black, then nothing more should be required for them to qualify for anything that is supposed to be exclusively for blacks.

 

[tod evans]

My sons mother tried to suck the tribal tit by claiming indian heritage... (blonde haired, blue eyed Nordic lookin' broad)

Don't remember which tribe but I do remember her eyes glassing over with thoughts of casino dollars she never earned.....

They sent her packin'.


If the "black" freebie organizations are to stupid to weed out the imposters then they deserve to be inundated with them...

Or is it an issue of who/what actually provides the benefits sought?

So are you proposing one?

What exactly is the point you're trying to make over the last several pages, apparently I'm too stupid to figure it out?

I don't think we can do better than self-identification. If someone identifies as black, then nothing more should be required for them to qualify for anything that is supposed to be exclusively for blacks.

First off you ignored two questions I asked of you, if you'd rather not address them please have the decency to say so...


Now on to this novel idea of "self-identification".........Help me understand the difference between the dude in the OP sucking scholarship dollars by claiming to be "black" and my ex trying to suck tribal dollars claiming to be "indian"?

There are countless programs available right now for folks displaced over in Sandville, regardless of their religious affiliations or skin tone, some privately funded and others by tax dollars.

Should a person be able to "self-identify" as one entitled?

Or should this only apply to "blacks"?

Or only to entities funded by tax dollars?

Or has this discussion moved back into claiming to be a lollipop?

 

[PRB]

Very close to 100%. Not remotely comparable to low degree of certainty

By what basis do you say it's low degree of certainty?

 

[PRB]

I don't think we can do better than self-identification. If someone identifies as black, then nothing more should be required for them to qualify for anything that is supposed to be exclusively for blacks.

A person can look, smell, taste, feel and act black. But whether he has African ancestry can be settled genetically.

Is black synonymous with African? Pretty close. But again, skin color is neither sufficient nor necessary to determine ancestry, I've given you the list of 128 ancestry informative markers which scientists use to determine ancestry & geographical origin. Either you accept they are reliable or you don't.

If you don't accept them, then you pretty much believe Barack Obama is equally Japanese as every Japanese person is equally black, am I missing something? If you believe there's such thing as ancestry, then you must believe there's a way to test it, which one is it?

 

[PRB]

You made the claim that you it would prove this guy was lying about being black if he took some test that showed he had 0% African ancestry.

You're the one who doesn't even know what 50% African and 100% African means.

Obviously that's not the case unless there exists some test that can do that with 100% certainty.

So anything that's not 100% certainty is as good as 0% certainty? Courts be damned if no evidence or test can prove something is 100% true or 100% false.

Honestly though, regardless of the level of certainty, it's ridiculous to think that there could ever exist a test that could prove that none of a person's ancestors were ever born in Africa, and equally ridiculous to claim that proving that would equate to proving the person wasn't black.

It's not ridiculous, because you can take genome samples of people representative of African countries and pool them, then compare them to people living in Japan, India, Australia, the Amazonian rainforests, this is where you'll find patterns of differences.

 

[erowe1]

By what basis do you say it's low degree of certainty?

It's impossible for it not to be. If you can prove me wrong about that, please do.

 

[PRB]

It's impossible for it not to be. If you can prove me wrong about that, please do.

Why do you say that? It's not possible for paternity tests to be high certainty, prove me wrong.

 

[erowe1]

A person can look, smell, taste, feel and act black. But whether he has African ancestry can be settled genetically.

How?

No matter what genes my parents have, they could have been born anywhere in the world, they could have given birth to me anywhere in the world, and their parents could have been born anywhere in the world. Africa is not a gene. It's a place.

And what does it have to do with being black?

I've given you the list of 128 ancestry informative markers which scientists use to determine ancestry & geographical origin. If you don't accept them, then you pretty much believe Barack Obama is equally Japanese as every Japanese person is equally black

First, whether i accept them or not is irrelevant, because none of those markers say anything at all about whether or not a person belongs to any race, such as the so-called "black" race. Second, nowhere in any of the links you've provided does anyone make any claims that bear any resemblance to the claims you've been making in this thread.

Third, despite the fact that you keep repeating this, no, it is not true. Even if I disputed the reliability of these tests to show whatever it is that they are supposed to show, no, that would not mean that I must believe that everyone is equally Japanese. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea, but there's nothing the slightest bit logical about it.

 

[erowe1]

Why do you say that? It's not possible for paternity tests to be high certainty, prove me wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_testing

the probability of parentage is typically 99.99% when the alleged parent is biologically related to the child.

 

[PRB]

How?

No matter what genes my parents have, they could have been born anywhere in the world, they could have given birth to me anywhere in the world, and their parents could have been born anywhere in the world. Africa is not a gene. It's a place.

Africa is not a gene, therefore everybody is equally African.

 

[PRB]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_testing

So if I found a wikipedia article you'll STFU?

Looks like you don't know how to read anyway, it says the result shows a parent is 0-99.99% his parent, it doesn't mean 99.99% certainty. it means there's 99.99% of all evidence pointing to the fact, it has nothing do with whether you can clone a person and make him the actual parent, which this test cannot prove.

this is not a t test, p test of confidence level.