/lit/ - Literature

>>16877137
>I haven't seen one difference which can be attributed to race.
I gave you at least two examples here >>16876936
and as I stated who an anon I thought was you here >>16877129 you changed your stance from "racially inherent biological trait" to "racially inherent disease" to get around these.
>I don't think a racial classification is indicative of the differences in the best way possible.
I don't believe you've given a "better" classification.
>If anything whatever informs the differences would be informed by something which founds it and so on. With this we can have an actual method for developing anything.
Not sure what you're getting at here.
>>16877143
>I grew up in the deep south where its about 60/40 white black. Guess what. We all got along, played sports together, drank together.
I grew up in the north where it's even more black, and we didn't get along. We stuck to our own groups for the most part with some intermingling. The blacks grew up to be felons and such for the most part. I had multiple black friends, and they either grew up to hate whites or grew up to sell drugs. Even so, both of these are anecdotal and not tangential to the conversation. I've given you proof of racially-inherent DNA affecting biological traits like Alzheimer's and heart attacks. I've also shown you that there are "racially-inherent" differences between races through the difficulties with regards to bone marrow transplants. I don't know how you continue to take this stance that all differences between races aren't inherent to the race.
>If anyones subhuman its you fuckin creeps and you're bullshit science that doesnt hold to scrutiny
It holds scrutiny to those that don't completely memory hole it.
>>16877172
>I'm half Basque
So middle Eastern?
>If your claim of race doesn't meet the extreme aspect of racial-separation on a biological level in diseases then I don't get the whole point of racial conversations.
See pic related. Also note the impossibilities of bone marrow transplates between races, and the massive differences in successful birthrates between mixed race couples and homogenous couples, indicative of radically different DNA. We can apply Haldane's rule, in which the heterogametic sex are much more rare than females in the offsping of black-white mixed couples.
>I think it doesn't offer any solutions to put it at race fundamentally and that it has no relevance in anything is just derivative.
Except, it does. If we ignore the genetics themselves (which I believe is one of the worse arguments against multi-culturalism), you still have in-group bias which is impossible to get rid of, in-group attraction, the correlation of similarity and happiness in relationships, the fact that 3rd cousin marriages are the most fertile and successful (suggesting the benefits of mating within one's ethnic/racial group), and more.