War on white people?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, I glossed it over by dismissing for being dubious.

These claims are perfectly reasonable. Just because they are qualitative doesn't mean they are useless.

If historical discrimination is so important, why aren't the Finns inferior to Russians and Swedes in Finland?


1. They aren't saints, but I'm pretty sure most of them aren't sadists willing to fail at their jobs and hurt society.
2. What makes you think that most people in power hate blacks? If they honestly did, why is saying bad things about blacks considered taboo? Why do blacks get the same college degrees for less work? Why was the death penalty sabotaged for their sake?
Yes they are, at least nominally.

The reason that crack and cocaine is because of public hysteria in the early 1980's, not because of a racist conspiracy.

There also isn't clear boundaries in linguistics, but it's still considered a science.

Really, I thought you'd be better at debate, but I have to keep cleaning up your shit over and over and over. But, here. I will put some things in perspective for you since you decide to go ahead and STILL be wrong.

No, you do not go yelling "OCCAM'S RAZOR!" and hope that make us go "oh okay you have a point". That's not how it fucking works. You make the claim then explain WHY the claim is relevant. You are just using Occam's Razor as an excuse to not bring up conclusions that you know are wrong, that you know are not logically consistent, and that you know are not even remotely close to reality. We have pointed out, REPEATEDLY, how you have decided to forego all logic and post the equivalent of smearing shit on your keyboard and then typing that way like a crazed madman. That is the equivalent of your arguments, and whether you like it or not that is a precise comparison. Mavorpen has shown that your data doesn't only conflict with your claims, but that your claims are bullshit because you are wrapping evidence in the conclusion, and not studying the data and drawing conclusions from it. I have read the report, I have seen them, I call your claims bullshit because they do not address your bullshit you claim they address and that they prove you right.

Your qualitative statements are not accurate statements, which is what we're saying. You don't get a pass simply because your conclusion is such with data, you don't get a pass in comparing fucking kumquats to oranges when you should be comparing oranges to oranges, and you don't get a pass by saying black people are stupid or are liars simply because 5-10% of them rescind from SUBSEQUENT surveys because of a variety of reasons while you apparently conveniently forget the fact white people and hispanics also rescind. I guess that makes you and me liars, no? Oh, and by the way, you don't get to mine the data to say "such and such is true about such and such people" when it is 1) a MINORITY of people who do it and 2) this is true about ALL people tested in the research; that is not only intellectually dishonest, it is the equivalent of taking a newspaper, cutting it out like a chainsaw and say it "see! I am a murderer!".

You are comparing fucking kumquats to oranges here. Finland isn't the United States, and it will never be. The fact you seem hell bent on proving people wrong by going "HEY BUT THEY ARE NOT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THEIR HOMELAND!" even though it isn't our fucking country and their culture is much much different than ours is comical, but sad. Not only because you don't seem to understand basic logic, but because you also are looking at things one-dimensionally and without any other basis. Have you considered differences in beliefs? In religion? In racial makeup? In national heritage? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass like you have been doing and has been pointed out to you at least 10 times here by now?

If you think politicians are not becoming good-for-nothing failures, in PARTICULAR Republicans you are either very naive or you haven't heard of them much. Remember the Republican shutdown and why was it caused? oh, or how about the fact our Gridlock caused by no small participation of our Republican congress?

Also, do you know WHY don't we let white people be racist towards minorities? Because they ARE in power, they ARE the majority still and they STILL cannot overcome the fact that they are privileged in society and they ALSO fail to realize that until the ground is at par for both minorities and white people this is not changing. Also, why are you complaining about college acceptance rates and the death penalty being sabotaged? Unless you want the Death Penalty to actually KILL more people and for college admissions to just be around how white you are then your point has no fucking merit and is a red herring you pulled out of your ass to distract us and to make you seem right simply because you are a racist.

Yes, Cocaine and Crack are more severe punishments. But do you know that More blacks are punished more severely because they kill a white person than white person are punished for killing a black person? The system is not fair with both demographics, and your little point from above that they are treated better is more bullshit you are pulling out of your ass to defend your act.

Also, the problem with racism as a science and linguistics is that one tends to study something we can legitimately observe and study its variations, whereas race is simply so people feel better about themselves, in particular white people and go "SEE! I TOLD YOU THOSE NIGGERS WERE STUPID ASSHOLES!" which, mind you, is nothing short of what you have done throughout this entire thread.

[Mavorpen]

Where, exactly? This is a random-ass paper that has nothing to do with Edwards' work, nor Cavalli-Sforza whom Edwards worked with and whose research I have referenced and linked to several times now,

Yeah, you might want to actually read the source, before spewing bullshit.

And yet this isn't actually true. The majority of researchers, including geneticists, do still use race as a taxonomic tool and agree with the proposition that there are human races. Just as far as anthropologists, which you're citing, are concerned...

69% of physical anthropologists
80% of cultural anthropologists

...agree with the proposition that there are human races and use them as a taxonomic tool...

Psst, um yeah, you might want to actually read what your source says:

Ashley Montagu (1941) challenged the 19th-century
view of “race” partly on the basis of the Mendelian principle
that traits are not transmitted as complexes of characters,
and confirming data were developed in the decades
that followed. Frank B. Livingstone (1958, 1962),
using Julian Huxley’s (1938) cline concept, presented
data on the gradual change in frequency of sickle-cell
genes over a wide geographic area of Africa, the Mediterranean,
and South Asia. Clines provided a concrete
alternative to thinking in terms of races. Identifiable
traits were not confined to one “race” and were not uniform
in frequency within a geographic area. C. Loring
Brace (1964) made a persuasive case for studying human
clinal variation one trait at a time.2 The new views were intensely debated in anthropology beginning in the
1960s, and by 1985 anthropology’s core concept of “race”
had been rejected by 41%of physical anthropologists and
55% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman 1968; Lieberman,
Stevenson, and Reynolds 1989:69). A similar
survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected
by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of
cultural anthropologists (Lieberman and Kirk n.d.). During
the period 1975–79, twice as many university textbooks
of introductory physical anthropology rejected the
concept as accepted it (Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds
1982:642), and during the period 1990–99 no text
explicitly supported the concept (4 of 20 presented the
topic as a debate, and 2 rejected typologies of race). Rushton
does not discuss the weaknesses of the race concept[...]

You see the word in bold, underlined, and in italics? I'll let you figure out what that word means.

67% of biologists
64% of developmental psychologists

...do as well.

And those biologists are wrong, as all of my sources (that you utterly refuse to address by demonstrating their conclusions are wrong) demonstrate. Even BOTH of the sources you've given me here agree that race has no scientific basis.
As your second source states:

For those biologists and anthropologists who continue to use the concept, scientific accuracy can be achieved by the presentation in lecture and text of the following ideas: first, consensus among scientists on the race concept's utility and accuracy does not exist; second, there is more variation within than between so-called races; third, discordant gradations due to natural selection, drift, and interbreeding make consistent racial boundary lines impossible to identify; fourth, past use of the race concept has had harmful consequences; fifth, the most precise study of human hereditary variation maps one trait at a time; and sixth, racial labels are misleading, especially as most populations have a cultural designation.

If your argument is from a pure argumentum ad populum rather than actually giving us legitimate sources that back up your claims and HAVEN'T been refuted, you'd have been better off never posting in this thread.

Race is not just a social construct; there's science behind it too, whether you like it or not.

"And I will post sources refuting my own claims while ignoring anyone else's sources proving me wrong for as long as this debate is alive!"

[Mavorpen]

You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid, I don't know enough Scandinavian history to know what you're asking.

Do you want another example?

1. Well all of history and interpersonal experience disagrees with you.
2. I didn't say most people in power hate blacks at all. I explicitly said a few people combined with historical racism embedded in our system.

You said, 'a few that are in power', which means one of two things: You are either referring to a few people who happen to possess control or you referring to a small group within the group that has power. If it is the former, then you indeed said that those in power are mostly racist. If it is the latter, how would a small percentage of those in power be able to control the actions of the government as a whole? Wouldn't that mean they were the ones in power?

So I refuse to even address those sources, although I'll note that your first claim is completely incorrect as anybody who has had a modicum of experience with college admissions would know.

Tell me why it is incorrect.

"Nominally" doesn't mean anything. You can call anybody anything you want, it doesn't make it true.


The reason that crack and cocaine is because of public hysteria in the early 1980's, not because of a racist conspiracy.

Source? Because that's a claim I've never seen before.

The boundaries in linguistics are significantly more clear.

Not really. Most words in English are Romance and its two special characters are North Germanic, yet English is considered a West Germanic language.

Oh, how cute. Now you're just pretending my posts don't exist.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Race is not just a social construct; there's science behind it too, whether you like it or not.

If there is science behind race then I am sure you can point out the genes that are different in white people, black people, and Asian people without them overlapping into one another.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

-snip-

I am beginning to wonder whether he is seriously debating now or not.

I mean, he's LITERALLY pointing out that because FINLAND isn't discriminating against Russians nor Russians discriminating against Finns that this SOMEHOW means that the U.S. is free from discrimination and that its history of discrimination should be irrelevant.

[Blakk Metal]

Do you want another example?

Yes, I would appreciate that, thank you.

How come the Germans in Silesia aren't dominant, despite the fact it was ruled by Germans before 1945? How come the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims in Bosnia are roughly equal? Shouldn't years of domination by Serbia and Croatia make the Muslims inferior to the Christians?

You said, 'a few that are in power', which means one of two things: You are either referring to a few people who happen to possess control or you referring to a small group within the group that has power. If it is the former, then you indeed said that those in power are mostly racist. If it is the latter, how would a small percentage of those in power be able to control the actions of the government as a whole? Wouldn't that mean they were the ones in power?

No, you're ignoring that part where I said that we have an inherently racist system. It doesn't take many people to maintain that.

An inherently racist system? How is 'the system' built to be racist?

Tell me why it is incorrect.

That's a whole different issue that would require a very long piece of exposition I'm honestly not willing to write right now. The only relevance to the issue at hand is even if your source were true, it wouldn't matter because I didn't say that all people in power hate black people.

You implied most.

Not really. Most words in English are Romance and its two special characters are North Germanic, yet English is considered a West Germanic language.

2. The fact that we have a definitive way of saying that English belongs to this family or that is what makes the classification of languages significantly more rigorous than that classification of races, which are extremely convoluted and contradictory.

How so?

No, I glossed it over by dismissing for being dubious.

These claims are perfectly reasonable. Just because they are qualitative doesn't mean they are useless.

If historical discrimination is so important, why aren't the Finns inferior to Russians and Swedes in Finland?


1. They aren't saints, but I'm pretty sure most of them aren't sadists willing to fail at their jobs and hurt society.
2. What makes you think that most people in power hate blacks? If they honestly did, why is saying bad things about blacks considered taboo? Why do blacks get the same college degrees for less work? Why was the death penalty sabotaged for their sake?
Yes they are, at least nominally.

The reason that crack and cocaine is because of public hysteria in the early 1980's, not because of a racist conspiracy.

There also isn't clear boundaries in linguistics, but it's still considered a science.

Your qualitative statements are not accurate statements, which is what we're saying. You don't get a pass simply because your conclusion is such with data, you don't get a pass in comparing fucking kumquats to oranges when you should be comparing oranges to oranges, and you don't get a pass by saying black people are stupid or are liars simply because 5-10% of them rescind from SUBSEQUENT surveys because of a variety of reasons while you apparently conveniently forget the fact white people and hispanics also rescind. I guess that makes you and me liars, no? Oh, and by the way, you don't get to mine the data to say "such and such is true about such and such people" when it is 1) a MINORITY of people who do it and 2) this is true about ALL people tested in the research; that is not only intellectually dishonest, it is the equivalent of taking a newspaper, cutting it out like a chainsaw and say it "see! I am a murderer!".

I never said that blacks lie always, I just said they do more often.

You are comparing fucking kumquats to oranges here. Finland isn't the United States, and it will never be. The fact you seem hell bent on proving people wrong by going "HEY BUT THEY ARE NOT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THEIR HOMELAND!" even though it isn't our fucking country and their culture is much much different than ours is comical, but sad. Not only because you don't seem to understand basic logic, but because you also are looking at things one-dimensionally and without any other basis. Have you considered differences in beliefs? In religion? In racial makeup? In national heritage? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass like you have been doing and has been pointed out to you at least 10 times here by now?

Tell me how the differences are relevant.

If you think politicians are not becoming good-for-nothing failures, in PARTICULAR Republicans you are either very naive or you haven't heard of them much. Remember the Republican shutdown and why was it caused? oh, or how about the fact our Gridlock caused by no small participation of our Republican congress?

Elected officials don't run the justice system. We have an independent judiciary.

Also, do you know WHY don't we let white people be racist towards minorities? Because they ARE in power, they ARE the majority still and they STILL cannot overcome the fact that they are privileged in society and they ALSO fail to realize that until the ground is at par for both minorities and white people this is not changing.

If they were really in power, why would they let people like you stop them?

Also, the problem with racism as a science and linguistics is that one tends to study something we can legitimately observe and study its variations, whereas race is simply so people feel better about themselves,

Race exists, and has real effects. For example, despite being closer to the origin of AIDS, Mauritania has less of it than Mozambique.

Do you want another example?

You said, 'a few that are in power', which means one of two things: You are either referring to a few people who happen to possess control or you referring to a small group within the group that has power. If it is the former, then you indeed said that those in power are mostly racist. If it is the latter, how would a small percentage of those in power be able to control the actions of the government as a whole? Wouldn't that mean they were the ones in power?

Tell me why it is incorrect.


Source? Because that's a claim I've never seen before.


Not really. Most words in English are Romance and its two special characters are North Germanic, yet English is considered a West Germanic language.

Oh, how cute. Now you're just pretending my posts don't exist.

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:



But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:



Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.



In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases



In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

Cut the nuh-uh crap, then I'll respond.

[Mavorpen]

Cut the nuh-uh crap, then I'll respond.

Then do it, instead of trying every shitty, intellectually dishonest, and childish method of dodging it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf
(Image)

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

(Image)

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

[Jocabia]

Fixed for you

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

For God's sake when will you people realize that people are arrested because they break the law, not because they are victims of racism??? I swear, do you honestly think it is a racist mistake that 85% of crimes are committed by blacks??

I know this is old, but I couldn't help but laugh.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... s/table-43
70% of people arrested in 2011 were white. For violent crimes, it's 60%. There isn't a single crime where black arrests are at 85%. Now, of course, that doesn't prove who commits more crimes, that's only how many of each group are arrested.

http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/arti ... conviction
Now, in cases where DNA exonerated the convicted, so far we're at about 62% black. How odd, when if there wasn't an institutional problem, it should look 60% white, since we're talking about violent crimes.

But, it's easy to see why it's not 60%. That's because even though the arrests of white people is about double the amount of black people arrested, the number of people who are in prison don't quite match that.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim09st.pdf
In 2009, white people accounted for just over one third of all people in jail, even though they were arrested for 70% of the crimes.

So the issue isn't that black people commit 85% of the crimes. White people actually commit around 70% of the crimes. The issue is that black people, for any number of reasons, are much, much more likely to end up in prison for their crimes and to be there longer when they do.

[Mavorpen]

Race exists, and has real effects.

Unless you live in reality.

Where, exactly? This is a random-ass paper that has nothing to do with Edwards' work, nor Cavalli-Sforza whom Edwards worked with and whose research I have referenced and linked to several times now,

Yeah, you might want to actually read the source, before spewing bullshit.

And yet this isn't actually true. The majority of researchers, including geneticists, do still use race as a taxonomic tool and agree with the proposition that there are human races. Just as far as anthropologists, which you're citing, are concerned...

69% of physical anthropologists
80% of cultural anthropologists

...agree with the proposition that there are human races and use them as a taxonomic tool...

Psst, um yeah, you might want to actually read what your source says:

Ashley Montagu (1941) challenged the 19th-century
view of “race” partly on the basis of the Mendelian principle
that traits are not transmitted as complexes of characters,
and confirming data were developed in the decades
that followed. Frank B. Livingstone (1958, 1962),
using Julian Huxley’s (1938) cline concept, presented
data on the gradual change in frequency of sickle-cell
genes over a wide geographic area of Africa, the Mediterranean,
and South Asia. Clines provided a concrete
alternative to thinking in terms of races. Identifiable
traits were not confined to one “race” and were not uniform
in frequency within a geographic area. C. Loring
Brace (1964) made a persuasive case for studying human
clinal variation one trait at a time.2 The new views were intensely debated in anthropology beginning in the
1960s, and by 1985 anthropology’s core concept of “race”
had been rejected by 41%of physical anthropologists and
55% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman 1968; Lieberman,
Stevenson, and Reynolds 1989:69). A similar
survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected
by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of
cultural anthropologists (Lieberman and Kirk n.d.). During
the period 1975–79, twice as many university textbooks
of introductory physical anthropology rejected the
concept as accepted it (Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds
1982:642), and during the period 1990–99 no text
explicitly supported the concept (4 of 20 presented the
topic as a debate, and 2 rejected typologies of race). Rushton
does not discuss the weaknesses of the race concept[...]

You see the word in bold, underlined, and in italics? I'll let you figure out what that word means.

67% of biologists
64% of developmental psychologists

...do as well.

And those biologists are wrong, as all of my sources (that you utterly refuse to address by demonstrating their conclusions are wrong) demonstrate. Even BOTH of the sources you've given me here agree that race has no scientific basis.
As your second source states:

For those biologists and anthropologists who continue to use the concept, scientific accuracy can be achieved by the presentation in lecture and text of the following ideas: first, consensus among scientists on the race concept's utility and accuracy does not exist; second, there is more variation within than between so-called races; third, discordant gradations due to natural selection, drift, and interbreeding make consistent racial boundary lines impossible to identify; fourth, past use of the race concept has had harmful consequences; fifth, the most precise study of human hereditary variation maps one trait at a time; and sixth, racial labels are misleading, especially as most populations have a cultural designation.

If your argument is from a pure argumentum ad populum rather than actually giving us legitimate sources that back up your claims and HAVEN'T been refuted, you'd have been better off never posting in this thread.

Race is not just a social construct; there's science behind it too, whether you like it or not.

"And I will post sources refuting my own claims while ignoring anyone else's sources proving me wrong for as long as this debate is alive!"

[Zelitopia]

Forget what I said earlier. I had more time to review the article in depth.

The human race started off as white. The reasoning is because that is the natural skin pigment of our primate relatives (for example Chimpanzees) and would have been the same as what our ancestors had. It also fits with the fact that our ancestors started off dense tropical forests in which little direct sunlight was allowed through.

Now the researchers have found that, for the most part, vitamins or access to vitamins has played the biggest role in the development of skin color among different groups of people. Therefore, there is a strong correlation between skin pigmentation and the intensity of sunlight you are exposed to.

about 2 million years ago the environment in Africa began to change as most people already know. It went from dense tropical forest with little sunlight to open savannah that very hot and had very intense sun light. Not good for white skinned animals that have no hair. Ultraviolet light destroys folate which a B vitamin. When you deprive a fetus of folate it is born with either no spine or no brain and I mean no brain in the physical sense, just a head filled with fluids. During the transition there were probably quite a few still births on the Savannah in the opening stages of the change. And things had to change.

The first thing that changed was not skin color, it was sweat glands. Now we already had sweat glands on our hands and feet but after the Savannafication of North East Africa, people started being born with sweat glands all over their bodies. Those who did not win the sweat gland lottery all died off from over heating.

Lack of folate also makes men less fertile. So the less folate a guy has the less likely he will be able to impregnate a female. Indeed some modern male contraceptives are based on this premise.

Now here is where vitamin D comes in. Lighter skin is designed to soak more Vitamin D from the sun than dark skin. Darker skinned people have to take in less D otherwise they will over dose from too much sunlight. The weaker the ultra violet light hitting your part of the world, the lighter your skin color will be. Dark skin protects the folate stores from being destroyed by sun damage. In the northern latitudes dark skinned people tend to develop conditions such as rickets when they don't have access to foods rich in vitamin D because they won't get enough from the sun.

For a while the white skin pigment disappeared. But the black and brown pigments coevolved at the same time. The first anatomically complete humans may have been black or they could have been brown like the Arabs. It was from the brown group that the white pigment was resurrected from when brown people, not black skinned people, began colonizing the northern areas. Such that white begat both black and brown and brown turned around begat itself and brought back white. Black just stayed black.

This makes sense because geneticists have found that the oldest split, if you can call it that, was between blacks and everyone else. It was brown skinned people who left Africa. The black groups stayed in Africa. As the brown people spread out over time, they either developed even darker skin pigmentation or lighter skin pigmentation depending on where they ended up settling.

What this means is that our peoples are different yet we are all still the same. All the differences are based on evolutionary adaptation. A poodle is a poodle and german shephard is a german shephard. They could not be more different yet they are the same because they are both dogs and are quite capable of producing fertile offspring together. In the same way humans, genetically, are composed of thousands of unique ethnic groups, breeds (or sub races if you prefer) but they all make up one race or one species.

I am basing this off the following:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 73_04.html

While trying to find the above link I also found this article from National Geographic which supports the above theory by saying that dark skin pigmentation evolved from white as a means of blocking skin cancer.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... os-africa/

[The Land of Truth]

And you can. Based off genetic information, people can be clustered into specific classification groups, and I've already explained how.

Which is irrelevant, because nobody said that you couldn't. The problem is, you're trying to organize people based on skin color, which has nothing to do with anything regarding "genetic information" (if it did, then you can surely produce the gene(s) that is/are unique to individual races, no?).

It's both, and I'm having a hard time here figuring out why exactly you're not grasping this.

Because they're mutually exclusive. A field can either be a natural science or a social science. It cannot be both.

Genetics can tell you what traits they have, what traits they share, and therefore what groups you can cluster them in with, if you examine the loci of specific genes on a chromosome; the more you examine, the more accurately you can classify them. This is old news; 20-ish years old actually. But that doesn't give you the full picture of where they came from, who they intermingled with if anyone, etc., all of which are useful things to understand when examining genetics. For that, you do actually have to turn to other fields for answers. Linguistics studies reveal similarities and differences in languages (and we know linguistics barriers have affected gene flow between populations), cultural characteristic studies reveal the same similarities and differences between groups of people (archaeology is useful here). History and general geography should be obvious enough in how they're useful; did these people migrate, why did they migrate, who did they encounter along the way, etc.?


Basically, the more information you have about a people and their history, the better. To understand their history is to understand who they are and what made them the way that they are.

All of which is aimless rambling that has nothing to do with race. (Can you isolate the "race gene" or not? Because, if not, then 'race' isn't a scientific way of classifying people.)

It's a combination. Genetically, we can be clustered into different groups, because different groups do have different genetic characteristics than others do. Sociological elements, like linguistics and culture, also help cluster us for the reasons previously explained.

I'll repeat myself: No one said you couldn't classify people into different groups based on these things. The problem is (as I've already explained) that you're trying to include race in both of these categories, which are, once again, mutually exclusive--it can be genetic or it can be sociological--it cannot be both.

We don't just "stop at skin color". Hair color and eye color are obviously also useful ways to determine where a person falls in the classification system. People aren't just clustered into the nine groups I mentioned earlier; there's subgroups to those groups as well which have distinct genetic markers to distinguish them (for instance, as I also mentioned, the Northern Chinese and the Southern Chinese).

Except that's what race is. It has nothing to do with hair or eye color (I'm not part of the "blonde race", am I?).

(1)But there's still enough of a genetic dissimilarity between the two that we can plainly tell that, just based off skin color alone, they are different from each other-- hence the reason why they have different skin colors in the first place. The same is true for eye color and hair color. (2)If a person has light skin, fair hair (let's say blonde for the sake of argument), and blue eyes, then they probably have Northern European ancestry, because we know that these are genetic traits which evolved and are still present at high frequency in Northern Europe, and certainly not, say, Africa.

1) So, are you saying that, if you look at two white people, you won't be able to tell them apart because they have the same skin color? Because, that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying. They have different skin colors because their bodies produce different amounts of melanin. Do you seriously not understand how melanin production works?

2) And, yet, that tells you nothing about their actual ancestry. Okay, sure, you can look at their hair and eye color and infer their ancestry (which has its own problems, but I'm getting there), so what? All that tells you is that they probably have some kind of Northern European ancestry. I have (very) dark blonde hair and (very) dark brown eyes. I'm Scots-Irish, German, Norwegian, English, and Lakota. Now, could you have conferred all of that had I not told you? What's that? You couldn't? "It's because a person's eye and hair color can only tell you a tiny bit about some part of their ancestry and nothing about anything else," you say? And, "that's why it's not a useful social organization tool for anything other than eye and hair color"?

SLC24A5 and Thr111Ala are present in SNPs (mutated forms) throughout 99% of the European population and are responsible for the paler skin tone found in them. SLC24A5 regulates calcium in our body's melanocytes and was likely evolved as a response to Europe's low ultraviolet radiation levels. And it also helps us process Vitamin D. Although the original alleles are found in the populations of both Asia and Africa, the mutated forms which are found here in Europeans are not, so that's how we can tell that a person with these genes is of European ancestry or not, and that's how simple it is.

Here's the deal: geographic distribution of ultraviolet radiation is what has affected the genetic differentiation of human skin colors around the world. Areas that are farther from the equator and receive less ultraviolet radiation because they're closer to the poles have lighter-skinned populations which have evolved in response to this fact; areas that are closer to the equator and receive more ultraviolet radiation consequently have darker-skinned populations which have evolved in response to this fact. This is a development that's occurred in our species over the last 50,000-100,000 years; everybody used to be dark-skinned at one time (which makes sense, considering we know that our species originated from Africa), but as populations have migrated and moved to different areas around the world, skin colors have changed dramatically in response.

Which is irrelevant, because nobody said anything having to do with that. The request is not for a gene that one population has more of, but for a gene that's unique to one 'race' and can't be found in any other.

The long and short of it boils down to:

1) Humans are all basically the same, but at the same time, they're different.
2) Different frequencies of alleles tend to cluster differently within different populations.
3) In point of 2, this is where races enter the picture.

Again, irrelevant (see my above response).

[The Land of Truth]

Forget what I said earlier. I had more time to review the article in depth.

The human race started off as white. The reasoning is because that is the natural skin pigment of our primate relatives (for example Chimpanzees) and would have been the same as what our ancestors had. It also fits with the fact that our ancestors started off dense tropical forests in which little direct sunlight was allowed through.

Now the researchers have found that, for the most part, vitamins or access to vitamins has played the biggest role in the development of skin color among different groups of people. Therefore, there is a strong correlation between skin pigmentation and the intensity of sunlight you are exposed to.

about 2 million years ago the environment in Africa began to change as most people already know. It went from dense tropical forest with little sunlight to open savannah that very hot and had very intense sun light. Not good for white skinned animals that have no hair. Ultraviolet light destroys folate which a B vitamin. When you deprive a fetus of folate it is born with either no spine or no brain and I mean no brain in the physical sense, just a head filled with fluids. During the transition there were probably quite a few still births on the Savannah in the opening stages of the change. And things had to change.

The first thing that changed was not skin color, it was sweat glands. Now we already had sweat glands on our hands and feet but after the Savannafication of North East Africa, people started being born with sweat glands all over their bodies. Those who did not win the sweat gland lottery all died off from over heating.

Lack of folate also makes men less fertile. So the less folate a guy has the less likely he will be able to impregnate a female. Indeed some modern male contraceptives are based on this premise.

Now here is where vitamin D comes in. Lighter skin is designed to soak more Vitamin D from the sun than dark skin. Darker skinned people have to take in less D otherwise they will over dose from too much sunlight. The weaker the ultra violet light hitting your part of the world, the lighter your skin color will be. Dark skin protects the folate stores from being destroyed by sun damage. In the northern latitudes dark skinned people tend to develop conditions such as rickets when they don't have access to foods rich in vitamin D because they won't get enough from the sun.

For a while the white skin pigment disappeared. But the black and brown pigments coevolved at the same time. The first anatomically complete humans may have been black or they could have been brown like the Arabs. It was from the brown group that the white pigment was resurrected from when brown people, not black skinned people, began colonizing the northern areas. Such that white begat both black and brown and brown turned around begat itself and brought back white. Black just stayed black.

This makes sense because geneticists have found that the oldest split, if you can call it that, was between blacks and everyone else. It was brown skinned people who left Africa. The black groups stayed in Africa. As the brown people spread out over time, they either developed even darker skin pigmentation or lighter skin pigmentation depending on where they ended up settling.

What this means is that our peoples are different yet we are all still the same. All the differences are based on evolutionary adaptation. A poodle is a poodle and german shephard is a german shephard. They could not be more different yet they are the same because they are both dogs and are quite capable of producing fertile offspring together. In the same way humans, genetically, are composed of thousands of unique ethnic groups, breeds (or sub races if you prefer) but they all make up one race or one species.

I am basing this off the following:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 73_04.html

While trying to find the above link I also found this article from National Geographic which supports the above theory by saying that dark skin pigmentation evolved from white as a means of blocking skin cancer.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... os-africa/

Neither PBS nor National Geographic are peer-reviewed scientific journals. Find better sources.

Also, saying that Albino's have a 'pigment' is like saying bald people have hair.

[United Marxist Nations]

Of course there's not a war on us. Because, if there were, we would have won it by now.

[The Land of Truth]

Of course there's not a war on us. Because, if there were, we would have won it by now.

See?! Even the Communists agree that whites are superior! Whitey! Whitey! Whitey!

[Norstal]

Of course there's not a war on us. Because, if there were, we would have won it by now.

I thought you guys already won? Wait, what's the condition for winning again?

[Othelos]

Of course there's not a war on us. Because, if there were, we would have won it by now.

I thought you guys already won? Wait, what's the condition for winning again?

being white.

[The Land of Truth]

Of course there's not a war on us. Because, if there were, we would have won it by now.

I thought you guys already won? Wait, what's the condition for winning again?

Well, if RISK is any indication, you need to remove all of your opponents' pieces from the board...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I never said that blacks lie always, I just said they do more often.

Tell me how the differences are relevant.

Elected officials don't run the justice system. We have an independent judiciary.

If they were really in power, why would they let people like you stop them?

Race exists, and has real effects. For example, despite being closer to the origin of AIDS, Mauritania has less of it than Mozambique.

You don't have to say it. I already know that's what you're trying to imply by dismissing an entire research because "black people lie more" instead of attacking the point. Or do you need me to remind you that you also have made sweeping statements pulled out of your ass before? How about this little gem from another thread you and I participated?

The most plausible reason for the terrible conditions in Central America is genetics. Letting them in unvetted would result in the deterioration of the US' genepool, most likely resulting in the US turning into Brasil Norte.

I don't need to dig too deep into your bullshit to find out what you REALLY mean by your bullshit statements. Since you were banned for saying stupid shit you now tend to conceal it better, but it is still bullshit and anyone can see through it. The only one who cannot because they honestly believe that we're all idiots is you.

The Differences are relevant because, and this is important, we are talking about two countries. Each country has their own culture, one is Eastern European/Scandinavian and the other one is a mixture of cultures (Spanish, French, African-American, English, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.) it's like comparing England to U.S. culture simply because England owned the first 13 colonies, it would be dishonest.

And yet you were talking about both politicians and police officers, but nice way to dodge the bullet. Stop making up shit and instead of jacking off of the stupid conspiracy shit you're trying to make us believe at least refrain from making stupid, vapid, and childish assumptions.

And race isn't the only factor in the AIDS endemic is it? Come on, go ahead, prove that race is a factor in AIDS endemic spread; and this time don't do it with pulling shit out of your ass like you usually end up doing because it is getting tiring.

[Getrektistan]

How come the Germans in Silesia aren't dominant, despite the fact it was ruled by Germans before 1945? How come the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims in Bosnia are roughly equal? Shouldn't years of domination by Serbia and Croatia make the Muslims inferior to the Christians?

An inherently racist system? How is 'the system' built to be racist?

You implied most.

How so?

lel

So you want me to educate you on the difference between the United States and Bosnia, the multiple and distinct meanings of the word domination, sociology, law, and order, semantics, and linguistics? You simply don't know enough to understand the argument.

[The Land of Truth]

I never said that blacks lie always, I just said they do more often.

Tell me how the differences are relevant.

Elected officials don't run the justice system. We have an independent judiciary.

If they were really in power, why would they let people like you stop them?

Race exists, and has real effects. For example, despite being closer to the origin of AIDS, Mauritania has less of it than Mozambique.

You don't have to say it. I already know that's what you're trying to imply by dismissing an entire research because "black people lie more" instead of attacking the point. Or do you need me to remind you that you also have made sweeping statements pulled out of your ass before? How about this little gem from another thread you and I participated?

The most plausible reason for the terrible conditions in Central America is genetics. Letting them in unvetted would result in the deterioration of the US' genepool, most likely resulting in the US turning into Brasil Norte.

I don't need to dig too deep into your bullshit to find out what you REALLY mean by your bullshit statements. Since you were banned for saying stupid shit you now tend to conceal it better, but it is still bullshit and anyone can see through it. The only one who cannot because they honestly believe that we're all idiots is you.

The Differences are relevant because, and this is important, we are talking about two countries. Each country has their own culture, one is Eastern European/Scandinavian and the other one is a mixture of cultures (Spanish, French, African-American, English, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.) it's like comparing England to U.S. culture simply because England owned the first 13 colonies, it would be dishonest.

And yet you were talking about both politicians and police officers, but nice way to dodge the bullet. Stop making up shit and instead of jacking off of the stupid conspiracy shit you're trying to make us believe at least refrain from making stupid, vapid, and childish assumptions.

And race isn't the only factor in the AIDS endemic is it? Come on, go ahead, prove that race is a factor in AIDS endemic spread; and this time don't do it with pulling shit out of your ass like you usually end up doing because it is getting tiring.

Screw that, I wanna know how he gets "near Mauritania" as the origin of AIDs? The first reported case (well, really, death, but no one what it was at the time, so I'd say that counts) occurred in Montreal (or at least Quebec, iirc). (But, then again, that's full of white people, so I guess it's immune to AIDs?)

[United Marxist Nations]

Of course there's not a war on us. Because, if there were, we would have won it by now.

I thought you guys already won? Wait, what's the condition for winning again?

We probably did. Colonization sure felt like winning.

[Sociobiology]

It's both, and I'm having a hard time here figuring out why exactly you're not grasping this.

Because they're mutually exclusive. A field can either be a natural science or a social science. It cannot be both.

wrong, social science is a natural science.
all science is natural science.

It's a combination. Genetically, we can be clustered into different groups, because different groups do have different genetic characteristics than others do. Sociological elements, like linguistics and culture, also help cluster us for the reasons previously explained.

I'll repeat myself: No one said you couldn't classify people into different groups based on these things. The problem is (as I've already explained) that you're trying to include race in both of these categories, which are, once again, mutually exclusive--it can be genetic or it can be sociological--it cannot be both.

lots of things are both, language, sexual attraction, most behavior in fact.

[The Land of Truth]

How come the Germans in Silesia aren't dominant, despite the fact it was ruled by Germans before 1945? How come the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims in Bosnia are roughly equal? Shouldn't years of domination by Serbia and Croatia make the Muslims inferior to the Christians?

An inherently racist system? How is 'the system' built to be racist?

You implied most.

How so?

lel

So you want me to educate you on the difference between the United States and Bosnia, the multiple and distinct meanings of the word domination, sociology, law, and order, semantics, and linguistics? You simply don't know enough to understand the argument.

He doesn't know enough to understand his own argument, let alone yours.

[Escanthea]

Alabama is full of stupid rednecks, i expected nothing but stupidity from them, and i got it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I never said that blacks lie always, I just said they do more often.

Tell me how the differences are relevant.

Elected officials don't run the justice system. We have an independent judiciary.

If they were really in power, why would they let people like you stop them?

Race exists, and has real effects. For example, despite being closer to the origin of AIDS, Mauritania has less of it than Mozambique.

You don't have to. With the shit I've seen you spread across multiple threads I do not need to actually read too deep into your bullshit and realize that the ONLY reason you don't say that is because you were banned because of trolling after this gem or this one got you flagged and banned.

The differences are relevant because we're talking about the U.S. which is in America, which even their starts are different whem compared to Finland. You cannot compare a Eastern European nation to an American nation. That is both bullshit and intellectual dishonesty. If you really WANT to compare you can compare two cities in America, even two states in America, but I know you won't because it doesn't fit your bullshit assumptions.

And you were talking about both politicians and law enforcement. Oh and you are wrong because the police are part of the executive branch, not the judicial one and the judiciary branch only run the courts. Learn your own law and government before you keep talking more bullshit.

We live in a republic, which is somewhat fair in the way it governs because it governs by representative votes and making sure their constituents' interests are put up front. The reason we CAN stop them is because we had the Civil Rights movement, and the constitution applies to everyone equally as long as they are in the U.S.

And so I am sure you have one single document specifying RACE is the factor why the AIDS endemic impacts more mozambiqueans than Mauritanians. Or is this just another one of your assumptions you are making based on pulling shit out of a cow's ass and then presenting it as evidence?