Self Preservation Mechanism differ among races?

[f7ben]

Hi folks.....I have this moron I somehow ended up arguing with on another forum who made the following claim

"Persons of Color are more genetically disposed to sanction on the side of self preservation.  Ergo, mass shootings where escape is not really important isn't appealing to most of them."

Now obviously this is bullshit but the guy just will not let it go  .........if there is anyone active on this forum who is credentialed and can provide me some documentation or a study that would prove his premise false I would appreciate it.

I assumed that base instincts like Self Preservation were developed well before there were any separate races and even at that genetically there is essentially no difference between races ragardless.

 

 

Ben

[John Cuthber]

I hold no relevant qualifications, except for my ability to state the bleeding obvious.

I don't understand what he means by 

"Persons of Color are more genetically disposed to sanction on the side of self preservation.  Ergo, mass shootings where escape is not really important isn't appealing to most of them."

Are you able to clarify his position?

(It hardly matters. the burden of  proof falls on him. He says there's a difference. It's his job to prove it.

[Zambroski]

18 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Hi folks.....I have this moron I somehow ended up arguing with on another forum who made the following claim

"Persons of Color are more genetically disposed to sanction on the side of self preservation.  Ergo, mass shootings where escape is not really important isn't appealing to most of them."

Now obviously this is bullshit but the guy just will not let it go  .........if there is anyone active on this forum who is credentialed and can provide me some documentation or a study that would prove his premise false I would appreciate it.

I assumed that base instincts like Self Preservation were developed well before there were any separate races and even at that genetically there is essentially no difference between races ragardless.

 

 

Ben

Well.  It appears you probably got yourself involved in a debate way past your paygrade and intellect.  However, while I am sure this reading will not suite your relativel low comprehension threshold, try this:

Race genetics.pdf

[f7ben]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

I hold no relevant qualifications, except for my ability to state the bleeding obvious.

I don't understand what he means by 

"Persons of Color are more genetically disposed to sanction on the side of self preservation.  Ergo, mass shootings where escape is not really important isn't appealing to most of them."

Are you able to clarify his position?

(It hardly matters. the burden of  proof falls on him. He says there's a difference. It's his job to prove it.

He is stating that the reason POC's are less statistically prone to engaging in school shootings is because the have a differing self preservation mechanism which makes them less apt to involve themselves in premeditated actions where escape is not likely. 

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, f7ben said:

He is stating that the reason POC's are less statistically prone to engaging in school shootings is because the have a differing self preservation mechanism which makes them less apt to involve themselves in premeditated actions where escape is not likely. 

Did he clarify his position at all?

[f7ben]

2 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Did he clarify his position at all?

No...you did not....its a very specific statement requiring no clarification. Would you like to back peddle and clarify it here so we could get someone with some qualification to expound on whether it has merit?

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, f7ben said:

He is stating that the reason POC's are less statistically prone to engaging in school shootings is because the have a differing self preservation mechanism which makes them less apt to involve themselves in premeditated actions where escape is not likely. 

Which basically means that no, he has no data or evidence that would in any way, shape or form substantiate his claim of whether a) there is any indication of any group having higher priority for self-preservation and that b) it does correlate in any form with race. Also note that race is not a biological concept and human groups are not really separated as such. So if at all, the discussion would be within the realm of societal differences rather than biological ones.

That being said, further discussion are pretty useless if no evidence are provided in the first place. Lower rate of mass shooting could also easily be explained by the overall frequency of shootings and demographics, for example.

Edited March 26, 2018 by CharonY

[Zambroski]

Just now, f7ben said:

No...you did not....its a very specific statement requiring no clarification. Would you like to back peddle and clarify it here so we could get someone with some qualification to expound on whether it has merit?

All statements this vauge in subject matter require a verification of position or, clarification if you will.  This was provided.  Many times.  Or at least it was started...to see if a debate could be started.

[f7ben]

Just now, Zambroski said:

All statements this vauge in subject matter require a verification of position or, clarification if you will.  This was provided.  Many times.  Or at least it was started...to see if a debate could be started.

No need for debate.....you made a specific statement which I have linked here and you were asked for any proof or reference material or anything to substantiate you claim .....you provided nothing 

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, f7ben said:

No need for debate.....you made a specific statement which I have linked here and you were asked for any proof or reference material or anything to substantiate you claim .....you provided nothing 

A nice research peice is provided above in a PDF.  

 

[f7ben]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Which basically means that no, he has no data or evidence that would in any way, shape or form substantiate his claim of whether a) there is any indication of any group having higher priority for self-preservation and that b) it does correlate in any form with race. Also note that race is not a biological concept and human groups are not really separated as such.

Excellent post....thank you

[Doctor Evil]

 

 

[John Cuthber]

7 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

A nice research peice is provided above in a PDF.  

 

That PDF seems substantially irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Doctor Evil]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

That PDF seems substantially irrelevant to the issue.

 

 

[Zambroski]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

That PDF seems substantially irrelevant to the issue.

 

I think it sums up a lot of what the original debate was about.  I tried to clarify my position on how races differ in cognitive ablities but he didn't want debate.  

[Doctor Evil]

4 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I think it sums up a lot of what the original debate was about.  I tried to clarify my position on how races differ in cognitive ablities but he didn't want debate.  

Youre embarrassing yourself on 2 forums. You have no shame.  

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

I think it sums up a lot of what the original debate was about.  I tried to clarify my position on how races differ in cognitive ablities but he didn't want debate.  

I think it doesn't mention self preservation.

He's allowed to choose not to debate something irrelevant.

You, on the other hand are sailing rather close to the wind regarding hijacking a thread.

I think the best response to the OP's debating partner is that any assertion put forward without evidence can be dismissed in teh same way.

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, f7ben said:

He is stating that the reason POC's are less statistically prone to engaging in school shootings is because the have a differing self preservation mechanism which makes them less apt to involve themselves in premeditated actions where escape is not likely. 

I looked for all the significant words from both the original (incoherent) claim and this slightly more comprehensible version in the PDF. None of them seem to be in there. I skimmed the article and saw nothing relevant. If anything, it appears to be sceptical of both any connection between genetics and complex behaviours, and between genetics and race. So I fail to see how it supports the prima-facie ludicrous claims of Zambroski (if it is, indeed, him).

Given that, I agree with John: anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed the same way. Especially when it doesn't even pass the "interesting idea, I wonder if its worth looking into" test.

 

[Area54]

44 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Well.  It appears you probably got yourself involved in a debate way past your paygrade and intellect.

A situation, I suspect, that you are intimately familiar with. 

 

56 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

However, while I am sure this reading will not suite your relativel low comprehension threshold, try this:

Race genetics.pdf

Thank you. I have had a disappointing evening, so I found the above really amusing. It cheered me greatly.  Not because it is sub-standard, badly written, or irrelevant, but because you patently do notunderstand its significance. Perhaps you would care to use your superior comprehension skills to explain how the document supports the position you appear to be taking. For example, the following extract (2nd paragraph, page 117) describes a situation that runs exactly contrary to the claim for commonality of behaviour by race.

Most human genetic variation—approximately 85%—
can be found between any two individuals from the same
group (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.). Thus, the vast majority
of variation is within-group variation. Unrelated people
of the same racial, ethnic, or religious group are not particularly
similar to each other. This means that people of
the same race, ethnicity, or religious background do not
necessarily have a great deal of shared or common ancestry;
they are not necessarily closely related.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Zambroski said:

Well.  It appears you probably got yourself involved in a debate way past your paygrade and intellect.  However, while I am sure this reading will not suite your relativel low comprehension threshold

!

Moderator Note

No more of this. Whatever place you were arguing before, here we attack ideas, not people. You will remain civil while you're here, or you can't stay. Don't bother responding to this, just obey the rules, please.

And it's "suit", not "suite".

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

7 hours ago, Doctor Evil said:

Youre embarrassing yourself on 2 forums. You have no shame.  

 

!

Moderator Note

If you would kindly refrain from making such vacuous posts, it would be appreciated. If you would like to contribute, please free to do so with something more substantive, and which addresses the questions raised in the OP.