- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 3,751
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No they do not.
"All" (aka 100%) is High School Strawman debate Dishonestly trying to get out of a True generalization that may be just higher ON AVERAGE, In GENERAL, May even be 90% or even 99%.
All just gives the person wishing to Mislead an 'out'.
Then before I deal with the rest of your paragraph, you are admitting True generalizations CAN Be made about Racial groups.
That is 'Racist' if not mean-spirited.
Yes of course (GIANT DUH), not "ALL" East Africans are better distance runners than "all" ie, Eskimos, but the Racism of the statement is true nonetheless.
Yes, I just explained that.
Nonetheless East Africans are overwhelmingly better distance runners is true, but of course not "ALL" are.
Jesus, how pathetic this is!
If someone claims one race has a higher IQ than another, they mean ON AVERAGE, they OF COURSE don't mean ALL BILLION of one race are smarter than ALL BILLION of another.
They mean the Average of one or more is significantly higher.
Illustration:
Those show Race hierarchy in IQ and they OVERLAP. They do NOT mean ALL of one race is smarter than ALL of another, but they DO mean generalizations about average IQ of the group CAN be made.
Of course, you would want to time every runner first, but the Racial statement East Africans are better distance runners remains TRUE, if not [duh] "ALL".
As I always say, you Never know who you're shaking hands with regardless of appearance.
He Could be an Ethiopean Astrophysicist, or an Japanese champion Marathoner. It's just NOT nearly as likely as the opposite for Genetic/RACE reasons.
Juvenilely using the superlative/strawman (never claimed) "all" makes a mockery of the debate of truisms.
One in which you admitted Racial tendency/Racism nonetheless.
You seem to be agreeing with the first part of what I said except that you have a more favorable view of racists. Also, I don't assume that (for example) East Africans are better runners becaused of their race, it may be due to other factors such as their environment, culture or nutrition.
The difference between a racist and a non-racist is what you do with those statistics (assuming that they are accurate), which in my opinion, are rarely useful. A racist will use them to discriminate, a non-racist will judge people as individuals.
Also, I don't believe that intellegence is measurable without a cultural bias, largely because there are many too many types of intelligence. Human brain's are too complex to evaluate people with a hierarchal label. I especially question the uncredited graph that you used.
Last edited: