Would you be okay with race mixing if it produced pure breed children, as opposed to mixed ones?

purity as relates to what, faggot?

By pic related, no. As it still produced niglets.
If it only produced 100% hwhite children, yeah

No because that would mean that I would have to live next door to a nigger in my own country.

would you be okay with datamining if it produced pure breed data, as opposed to mixed data?

im already ok with this, its just i dot find black girls pretty and i wouldnt risk my kid not looking like me

you would become brazil. But thats okay since non whites have their own homelands.

No

race mixing is based

No such thing. When you say race mixing you mean "hurr durr, you don't fit my arbitrary designation of race". A hundred years ago the half of "white" people didn't consider the other half to be "white" and an Irish person fucking a Slav was considering race mixing.

No such thing

bump for the redpill

Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.

have a natural and organic bump

I do not know how genes work
-the post

genes != race

...

Let me put it this way, retard:
if a white and a nigger have sex, half would be white and half would be black. Not just in terms of skin color but also in terms of intelligence, facial structure, mannerisms etc. Literally everything about the nigger half will be nigger and literally everything about the human half will be human: No admixture whatsoever.

Yes it does. That is literally what people refer to when they say "race:" the genetic makeup of those who's ancestors come from certain regions as opposed to others.

yes it is, you fucking retard.
genes, but more specifically, transcripts determine everything you are.
just the example of lactose-tolarance, sickle cell disease and much much more are all race related. that the one gene for melanocyte activity isn't there doesn't mean all the other race-specific genes aren't. that's basically saying that if you are a carrier for a genetic disease,you are identical to a healthy individual genetically.

oh, yeah I agree with you when you put it like that

You're both having trouble understanding the difference between "race", which is a colloquial designation and lineage / genes.

My point is a white is not a white is not a white. A black is not a black is not a black. "Race" is extremely broad. Some fucking inbred from Luxembourg is genetically distinct from some degenerate Slav, but they're both "white".

We're ALWAYS race mixing. How you decide to define a race doesn't necessarily reflect on their genetic lineage.

Can you possibly be anymore of a pseudo-intellectual yid?

...

KIKE
I
K
E

yes, there is genetic variation within races no matter how narrowly you define race. But there are definite trends, even in genes where behavioral links are proven to exist, between the races as defined today.

You are right that race is a bit of a wishy washy concept which is hard to define in a clear cut manner, but it has undeniable consequences.

fine, if you want to play that little game, sure. since you have trouble understanding the meaning of race, let me spell it out for you, k?
human beings are inherently group-forming, thereby forming general group-insulated genomes. While these may spread in other groups, and while groups will form larger super-groups consisting of a larger subset of genes. this has been known since the start of the population genomics projects, which can accurately predict the location of a native human based solely on their genomic sequence.
you need to realise that most populations are still very much native. just fucking google population genomics, you utter fucking waste of space, and you would have come to the same conclusion.

no, intentionally trying to misinterpret the word used, when the context of our sentences should be enough for you to realise what we specifically meant with 'race' is the reason why you are a pseudo intellectual. hell, you're not even that.

Race doesn't matter, genes do. 90% of the mongoloids on this site are degenerate, sub-human, genetic dead-ends. Given the reproductive viability between "nigger chad" and some bed-wetting autist I think we can see how genes are of more importance.

Right. My point is that defining race as "white" or "black" you're referring to entire continents of people who couldn't be more different. No one denies there aren't links and trends.

Doesn't dispute anything I said.

To add, yet again, the definition of "race" changes over time and place. A half-black person in America is considered "black", the same person in certain parts of Africa is considered "white". It's stupid.

...

No, disagreeing with them makes you a pseudo-intellectual. You'd be a genius if you used exactly the same logic to reach a conclusion which they liked.

Except we see many trends even among such broad categories.
For example: the 2R allele of the MAO-A gene is 55x as likely to be found in a black individual as opposed to a white. This gene has been strongly correlated with violent, irrational behavior. While this gene is quite rare even among blacks (5.5% of the population has it) that still means that in a group of randomly selected 13 blacks, you have a greater than 50% likelihood of finding at least 1 with this gene as opposed to 715 whites being the same threshold.

IQ is 100% genetic
niggers have lower IQ then whites
so if a white makes a child with a nigger, then I child would have a lower IQ then if they made it with another white, so we are at a lower point then we were before.
the only way this wouldn't be so is if the white has a low IQ like a nigger, or the nigger has a high IQ, this unlikely, because race does matter.

you haven't 'said' anything, or do you count "black is not black is not black" as an argument or something?
so lets just jump to cutting your word game here. you and i both realise that 'white' is used in terms of Caucasian heritage.

ah, so we are going with what the general population thinks, instead of actually looking at the lineage of such people, huh? no, surely we should use genetics to determine one's heritage. i mean, we can base race of colour alone, right, even though that just one single gene out of dozens that are divergent between populations, specifically between the genome supergroups of afrika, europe and asia, right? no, lets'just fucking go for what your average joe thinks about it, that's a good and logical way of doing such research.

Race is defined by genetics, faggot.

5.5% of the black population*
0.1% of the white population.

FYI : IQ is around 70-80% heraditary, just want to make sure this would-be-intelectual doesn't strawman you on that.

White

Black

By definition, racemixing always produces mixed children.
And if you're thinking that somehow it could produce the other half of the genes needed for a child out of nowhere, then I'd still say no, because no white should ever disgrace themselves to the level of mating with a nigger.

Race is a colloquial human invention, it has little to do with genetics and more to do with OBVIOUS VISUAL FEATURES, such as the color of your skin, which YES are defined by genetics, but not an accurate predictor of your actual lineage.

He's right though. Race is not an accurate definition in terms of genetic populations.
This isn't saying that there aren't genetically distinct populations, but that it's not the same thing as "race".

No, it isn't. It's correlated with genetics, but fundamentally that's not where the distinction arose from.

To sum it up, the average definition of race came before the genetic differences between populations.

Keep in mind, it being X% hereditary doesn't mean that 50% of your IQ is determined by genetics. It means 50% of the variance in IQ is due to genetics.

...

those "OBVIOUS VISUAL FEATURES" have a very strong correlation to many other genes though. I'm sure you could find one guy who has all the aesthetic negroid traits and none of the behavioral ones, but those are a massive outlier if anything.

Maybe? I don't know. Considering how similar all mammals are, how similar humans are to other apes, and how similar humans are to other humans … I can't imagine there is a lot of human source code devoted to the amount of melanin in your skin.

what are you even on about? do you even udnerstand the absic concept of phenotype and genotype? when we are talking about heredity, it's specifically the genotype we are talking about.
that the phenotype of IQ is 78% hereditary means that that that is the amount which is determined entirely substantially by genes. it doesn't tell you anything of variance, i i'm wondering why you even brought that up. you don't know if that remaining 22 percent is based on phenotype or variance, but you do realise variance in genes when talking about heredity is single nucleotide point or SNP at most, right?

Jesus christ get some reading comprehension.
let's say there's only ONE gene that determines skin coloration (yes, we know that's bullshit but let' assume that to err as far towards your position as possible). There are many DIFFERENT genes that tend to come along with this gene, not because of the gene itself, but because these genes come from the same region of the earth. Due to genetic drift between human populations as they migrated apart from one another, we see higher frequency of some genes over others in certain areas. While skin coloration and skeletal features are among the most visually obvious, there are many other genes which influence behavior and intelligence which are found to correlate with the same regions that these more visual traits correlate with.

Was that simple enough for you to understand?

No. Heritability is defined as the (standard deviation of gene / standard deviation of phenotype).
That's the definition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

(((a "virgin" woman gets impregnated with the child of god, her cuc-… i mean strong manly husband accepts that its the child of god and mankinds savior, years later he gets hung on a cross and comes back to life)))