Racism is baseless

An unlikly transformation....a very good article ....the damage bigotry can do ... a way out even for the deeply indoctrinated

The white flight of Derek Black
By Eli Saslow October 15, 2016
Whitesupremacy0211474922353.jpg

Derek Black, 27, was following in his father’s footsteps as a white nationalist leader until he began to question the movement’s ideology. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Click to expand...
long read ...worthwhile IMNSHO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.5f9f2ce43a69
 
shuttlt said:
This would depend on the purpose of your taxonomic system surely? You'd probably get an answer to that type of question from a physical anthropologist of the type discussed in this thread already, but they don't really use the word "black" as a category so far as I'm aware. That's more part of the rule of thumb simplified system that the general public use (and is often muddled up with ethnographic ideas of "black"). You certainly can divide the category up more.


What do you mean by meaningful? I take it you accept that it tells one with a good level of reliability where the majority of the persons ancestors lived until, say a couple of hundred years ago - i.e. probably not Finland. It clearly also still maps with some degree of accuracy to ethic groups and related cultural and social information. For a forensic scientist that type of category appears to be useful when, say, assigning a race to a skull. It can clearly also be useful in indicating who you are talking about in a situation where black people are in a minority. Could you unpack what you mean by meaningful?
Click to expand...


Why should I , you are the one the used the phrase, so maybe you should explain yourself. It is not my job to explain your posts, rather yours to answer questions about them.

You used it, you explain
:)
shuttlt said:
There were taxonomy systems before him that didn't label blacks as inferior.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
More confounding evidence, showing how widespread an influence lead has:

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-testing/
Click to expand...

That speaks of elevated lead levels, but never mentions "lead poisoning". How many children actually have "lead poisoning"? And, can you tell a child that is a drooling idiot naturally, from a child who does have lead poisoning?

Just what is the CDC definition of lead poisoning?

eta: they don't even start treating it in children unless it hits 45. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/acclpp/blood_lead_levels.htm

The 5ng/dl number is grabbed out of their ass, it is an arbitrary 97.5 percentile. I call bad science.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
That speaks of elevated lead levels, but never mentions "lead poisoning". How many children actually have "lead poisoning"? And, can you tell a child that is a drooling idiot naturally, from a child who does have lead poisoning?

Just what is the CDC definition of lead poisoning?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should spend a solid 30 seconds looking at the many CDC reports on lead poisoning.

CDC said:
No safe BLLs in children have been identified (1). Permanent neurologic damage and behavioral disorders are associated with BLLs at or below 5 µg/dL (2–5). Studies examining children with high BLLs (≥70 µg/dL) describe severe neurologic problems, including seizures, comas, and death (6). Children aged <5 years are at increased risk because their bodies are growing rapidly and they tend to put their hands or other objects, which might be contaminated with lead dust, into their mouths.
Click to expand...

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6603a1.htm

casebro said:
eta: they don't even start treating it in children unless it hits 45. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/acclpp/blood_lead_levels.htm

The 5ng/dl number is grabbed out of their ass, it is an arbitrary 97.5 percentile. I call bad science
Click to expand...
I realize this may come as a complete surprise to anyone without formal education, who has never had any experience with a physician, or who has never even bothered reading the fine print on a medicine bottle...but many medications, surgical procedures, and other forms of diagnosis or treatment also carry potentially serious adverse or side effects. In prescribing a particular drug or recommending a course of treatment, a physician often has to calculate whether they feel the potential benefits of treatment outweigh the risks.
 
Last edited:
Shadowdweller said:
Perhaps you should spend a solid 30 seconds looking at the many CDC reports on lead poisoning.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6603a1.htm

I realize this may come as a complete surprise to anyone without formal education, who has never had any experience with a physician, or who has never even bothered reading the fine print on a medicine bottle...but many medications, surgical procedures, and other forms of diagnosis or treatment also carry potentially serious adverse or side effects. In prescribing a particular drug or recommending a course of treatment, a physician often has to calculate whether they feel the potential benefits of treatment outweigh the risks.
Click to expand...

I'm tired, bed time for me. I'll read you links in the AM. Meantime, more pertainent to the subject of this thread, what percentage of black children have hi BLL? For it to be a factor in the poiunt of this thread, it has to be an appreciable amount- itr has to be bringing down th enumbers for the whole race.
 
casebro said:
I'm tired, bed time for me. I'll read you links in the AM. Meantime, more pertainent to the subject of this thread, what percentage of black children have hi BLL? For it to be a factor in the poiunt of this thread, it has to be an appreciable amount- itr has to be bringing down th enumbers for the whole race.
Click to expand...

Interesting question, sounds like someone should look into it before ruling out how much of an effect lead has if they plan on making any claims based solely on genetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom