-->
@coal
1. Do not address me as "big boy."
Alright, small boy.
2. Your nonsense about race is unpersuasive. For example, you linked a blog that is non-responsive to what I wrote written by an individual who lacks familiarity with the subject matters on which he opines. To illustrate this point: I reviewed some of his other writings. He clearly does not understand such basic concepts as psychometric testing, and yet purports to use data he doesn't understand to argue a point that is over his head.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether human races are real/equal. This is just ad hom against Ryan Faulk.
The website quotes numerous papers and data-points that show human races are a valid genetic concept. The fact that you don't think this disproves your argument ("Race has absolutely nothing to do with nature"), is either extremely bad faith or totally ignorant.
You further tried to make a point about skull shape. That point was incoherent, and non-responsive to what I wrote. Google the term "phrenology," and consider whether arguing with me over skull shapes is an efficacious use of your time.
Unless you think human skull shapes are shaped purely by "culture", the image very clearly shows that human races have distinct skull shapes. To even being fathoming that human skull shapes, across various races, are PURELY determined by culture and not genetics, if mind-warpingly stupid.
You totally dropped my point on phenotypic traits showing through albinism. I can't even begin to imagine how phenotypic traits (such as flatter noses for Africans) is something determined PURELY by culture.
3. Your comment that "If that's too complicated for you" will surely result in me not taking you or anything else you have to say seriously. That is particularly where, as here, you have been taken for a ride by a series of ideas that are devoid of any kind of scientific or other evidentiary basis.
Lol you're thin skinned.
You're not saying anything of substance. You're just finding fancy ways to say 'you're wrong'.
It's not even clear you can correctly repeat what, for example, Murray wrote on race and IQ; much less understand how Murray's methods were wrong, why or on what grounds.
More Ad hom and a red herring. Even if I personally couldn't cite ANYTHING Murray wrote verbatim, how does that make human races an invalid concept? It doesn't, and the perhaps even you know that, hence why you continue to deflect with ad homs are irrelevant waffling.
Furthermore, there's plenty of data/research on this topic that isn't Charles Murray's work. The fact that you think the only race realist arguments I've referred to are Charles Murray's is objectively wrong, and everyone can click the link to see how ridiculous you are https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/ .
To wit, exactly nothing you have put forward can be taken seriously.
I don't know why you bothered to repeatedly ad hom and write 'you're wrong' in a pretty fancy way several times. If you're going to do that again, don't bother.
What a complete waste of time you've been so far.