hubber
Thankyou for that. Indeed, we have a job to finish! Heil H.
lmao
If someone was robbing a bank, and a lunatic started interfering with law enforcement attempting to apprehend the suspect, wouldn't you expect the lunatic to be dealt with? What do you want to happen?
There are tens of millions of foreigners in the country illegally. They are actively committing a crime against the citizens of the US. I expect law enforcement to apprehend and remove them (it's nice that this is finally starting to happen!) and I expect any lunatics abetting the criminals to be reasonably dealt with.
You're sympathizing with the wrong people. You're championing criminals. You're advocating evil.
You might have more sway if the government's actions were immoral - if the lunatics were "the good guys" - but it's the first time in a while they're actually doing something right. Get out of their way.
Please be bait...
There are tens of millions of people in the country illegally. They must go. The one time the government actually does its job and we have lunatics putting their lives on the line to interfere!? I don't understand it. Just let them get the job done.
You're so caught up on "the cold winter theory". I'm telling you that you can completely let it go. It's one (pretty good) theory to explain one selection pressure that may have contributed to some of the aggregate divergence we see across races.
Even if you started with two seperate genetically-identical groups in identical environments, over enough generations you would expect at least some variation to emerge due to random chance (accidental deaths, mate selection, DNA recombination, cultural practices, etc). That is the point I would like you to take away from this exchange.
Some may excel in some areas, some in others, some may generally be good at more things than others. That is entirely natural and expected.
I think it is reductionist in the extreme to say "Europeans smarter because Winter cold". I never said that. I would say that it's a reasonable explanation for some of the aggregate behavioural differences we can observe (both "good" and "bad") between Danes and Congolese, for example.
These are difficult to quantify, but in every attempt we seem to find that there are differences evident between disparate ethnic groups. IQ is the most commonly discussed one, while we also have statistics around criminality, sexual behaviours, family structure, academic achievement, income and wealth, addiction, mental illness, etc.
So much of this involves the brain - a physical organ with structure largely determined by genetics. We can physically observe the varying size and shape of the brain and its regions among different groups. There are various mental and intellectual conditions that we know affect certain ethnicities at higher rates than others. Why wouldn't there be myriad tiny variations that influence behaviours and potentials, to varying extents? Why wouldn't you assume that? How is it that you are so sure that everything we can't see inside this black box must magically be identical, even as so much that we can observe is not?
I, frankly, don't know what one stands to gain by denying these differences. It's genuinely confusing and irrational behaviour to me.
How would you explain how geographically distant groups in radically different conditions could, over millennia, converge on all of the exact same non-visible traits without even minor variations? I truly can't imagine a way that this would be possible aside from the infinitesimally unlikely product of completely random chance.
It would actually be quite the story if the races were somehow identical in all of these traits.
Both of these positions are untestable. One, however, is extremely likely while the other would be a miracle even in the wildest fantasies of the wokest progressive.
You sure could! Why wouldn't you? Do you reject the concept of evolution via natural selection in all species or only humans?
You say that as if it dismisses any reason for non-visible traits to diverge, but it's commonly theorised that this is actually the main reason. Taking early Europeans, for example, there are very clear and extreme selection pressures introduced by the long, barren, freezing, dark winters.
Come to think of it, even without these pressures it would be highly unlikely, in the Out-Of-Africa model. What are the chances that each and every small group migrating to each corner of the globe all across time all happen to be a perfectly average representation of their larger former tribe? It's absurd to suggest that the few individuals to first settle Australia must have been completely identical in every non-visible way to the few individuals that first settled Iceland.
If you selected two random groups of 100 people from the same 'tribe' today, and managed to quantify various mental and intellectual attributes, you would certainly find variation between them! Then put these two groups in radically different environments for thousands of generations...
>not only is there not extraordinary evidence for it, but the evidence we have is mostly countervailing
A lot of people try to explain away correlations between race and IQ, criminality, wealth, relationship statistics, etc, but I've never seen someone suggest that these phenomena just don't exist. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond.