Race and ill health

Scrambling for nurture excuses, are we?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25526/

Fails to account for IQ, social mobility isn’t equally possible.

The participant with a higher visual acuity gets the pilot position.

Unless they’re seriously suggesting we should dole out positions and their responsibility (legal) on the incompetent? That sounds more like a curse on them.

The simpler explanation (Ockham) is that health impacts the ability to strive and lower IQ causing poorer lifestyle choices compounds the ill health as a permanent feature.

How to truly test this?
Within a race, some castes do poorly and this is both represented in lower IQ scores than their genetic kin as well as “poor” health. Where one caste e.g. Western-living Indians, represents a middle-class (as in the UK), white people are at a distinct disadvantage – disproving and debunking the privileged status hypothesis. So-called “positive discrimination” or reverse racism, leads more opportunities to the class who least deserve it (financially stable) purely on the basis of race (racist).

Race isn’t a qualification. To treat it as any sort of meaningful status opposes the Race Relations Act.

The BBC should’ve been stripped of taxpayer funding the moment it refused to hire white people, the taxpaying majority. As a point of fact, how come they’re allowed to turn a private profit? Isn’t that also a monopoly?

You can’t study class and discrimination without classism but ah! They won’t do that!

Wonder why.

How hard do white natives work to reach a given position, eh?

The question never published nor studied.

Who has it easier? It would be easy to study but I’ve seen nada.

Does meritocracy cease to apply if your skin has a certain level of pigment?

Is this the new coffee-coloured aristocracy? Reign of error.
When you hire someone on the basis of skin colour, you make everyone who looks like them look similarly incompetent. Who’s racist?

Public interest, equality in hiring/promotion/wages and all that.

Favouring one party is a direct oversight spurning the other.

Over-representation is treason. i.e. Should whites govern Africa?

Bias is scientifically proven, ruling over the outgroup impartially is impossible for all races.

Whose interests do they represent in practice? That would prove neutrality, if they also plugged white and poor causes. …No? Have they ever represented the majority …. in a democracy? Anything less is indeed treason.

It comes down to this: who pays the academic’s share of taxes for these divisive papers?

Are the poor working two or more jobs expected to slave away for those who write inciteful documents encouraging their oppression?

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s