Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I call your bluff on that too...I don't think no shade of man is genetically more prone to anything any more or less than any other shade of man...
Unless it runs in a family line...but that's different...
Also...with all the different people around the world, why is there only 4 major blood types?
In other words, if you needed a blood transfusion...and were in Africa...how come a 3 foot tall pigmy man, would have your same blood type?
(where as your own brother standing next to you might not)
If man was different, than every shade of man would have their own distinct blood type...but that's not the case...
there may be people in your own family that you don't share blood type with, yet an Eskimo from Alaska may be your match....hmm...
what a strange argument. blood types are defined by a small part of genetic information. yes, the genetic differences between races are infinitesimal, but the one area they exist is in predispositions to certain diseases. you can dispute it if you like but you are merely shouting at a brick wall of evidence.
for example it has been observed directly that usher's type 1 is most prevalent among ashkenazi jews of europe and french-acadian people of lousiana. usher's type 3 is most prevalent among the finnish. that's just what the numbers point to.
huntington's disease is much more prevalent among people of european descent than of those of asian or african descent. again, it's fact, not opinion. it's what the numbers show.
sickle cell anemia is more prevalent in africa because of the presence of malaria. having the gene for sickle cell also makes you immune to malaria, so populations that have more exposure to malaria have higher rates of sickle cell anemia.
it's not racism, it's science. and it's genetics that goes way beyond blood type. genes code for proteins. blood cells are just a small fraction of all the proteins coded for in our dna. so the blood type argument doesn't discount the fact that certain groups of people are more genetically prone to certain diseases.
And again, I'm not blaming you, but I even reject that sickle cell thing I've heard for years....why?
Cause of all the 'black' people and families I've met over the years, been friends with, associated with, not a single mention of anyone in there family or anyone they ever knew...having sickle-cell...not a single mention…
were these black people in america or africa? i ask because the rate for americans of african descent is at .25% whereas for continental africans, it's at 4%. that's a rate 16 times higher in africa than in america. did you go around interviewing blacks, expecting 1 in 3 blacks to have sickle cell anemia? even 4% is a very small percentage of the population.
to add, it's actually the heterozygous gene that is most immune to malaria. those that have the homozygous gene display full-blown sickle-cell anemia, but heterozygotes (one gene for sickle cell and one gene for regular cells) often have no symptoms and even when they do, the symptoms are minimal. the heterozygotes have the ultimate advantage cause they don't have full-blown sickle-cell anemia but also still benefit from immunity to malaria.
you can't look at a person and know they are heterozygous for sickle-cell, so that's not even something you can see directly among black people unless you're performing family tree histories and dna testing.
were these black people in america or africa? i ask because the rate for americans of african descent is at .25% whereas for continental africans, it's at 4%. that's a rate 16 times higher in africa than in america. did you go around interviewing blacks, expecting 1 in 3 blacks to have sickle cell anemia? even 4% is a very small percentage of the population.
to add, it's actually the heterozygous gene that is most immune to malaria. those that have the homozygous gene display full-blown sickle-cell anemia, but heterozygotes (one gene for sickle cell and one gene for regular cells) often have no symptoms and even when they do, the symptoms are minimal. the heterozygotes have the ultimate advantage cause they don't have full-blown sickle-cell anemia but also still benefit from immunity to malaria.
you can't look at a person and know they are heterozygous for sickle-cell, so that's not even something you can see directly among black people unless you're performing family tree histories and dna testing.
Sickle cell is also found in people of Mediterranean descent and in areas where Malaria is endemic.
Exactly.
But the ironic thing is that those NPR listeners think they are getting a non-biased take on news/world events.
You will never find a news source that is completely without some kind of bias. Everybody has opinions and their viewpoints will inevitably surface. That said, I find NPR to be more neutral than MSNBC or it's polar opposite FOX NEWS. One of the things that I really like about NPR is their anti-sound bite delivery style. Their stories have more depth and give you a better understanding of what's really going on. It's not uncommon for them to do a 5 to 10 minute segment on a story that would only garner a few seconds in the Lame Stream Media.
As for Mr. "Time and Space" his observations seem to be a tad on the paranoid side. A little hint: cut down on the Ganja bro.
They clearly have a one sided leftist/progressive/liberal agenda and root for democrats only.
If leftist/progressive/liberal agenda means, thoughtful, well researched, erudite, and exceedingly informative on a broad range of subjects, then you are right.
PS - unlike other news organizations, NPR makes no endorsements.
In my book, NPR is not perfect but it is way better than the rest of the news organizations - especially the ones that specialize in shrill emotional BS.
not a game at all. i grew up listening to npr. i've been inside their studio when my mom was featured on one of their shows. honestly, i don't recall any sort of whites vs. blacks pattern going on. if anything i remember being impressed with how the viewpoints on npr were diverse and interesting. but maybe i just didn't notice it. if you can point it out to me then maybe i'll see the pattern too.
i'm not trying to give you a hard time by asking for transcripts. i can't listen to npr anymore cause i 1) don't have radio 1) am deaf. and combing through the website archives takes forever to do through a screen reader. so if you could point me to some examples, that would be great.
I believe you are genuine...
But they, NPR, do it in a very subtle manner...I can't tell you when and where these stats will come up...all I know is at least once a day, they'll do a segment or interview someone, where they will emphasize negitave stats for blcks...
Like clock work...at least once a day...
Black is just to much a generic term to really have scientific meaning anymore...there's just to many variables between lifestyles, and class today, to lump all people with 1% or more of African decent as 'black'...
At best, you can only compare people by region...living in simular conditions...
For instance...you can't take stats gathered from Michael Jordan, and stats from a Haitian refugee, and average it out....
Michael Jordan has more in common with Bill Gates than he does a Haitian boat refugee...
All I'm saying is in todays world, color isn't the most profecient way to lump people together...
There are other variable that determine why people are the way they are that go way beyond color...Kapeesh??
NPR should be shut down. They are a government (WE the People) funded entity.
They clearly have a one sided leftist/progressive/liberal agenda and root for democrats only.
Quote:
Stations receive support from several sources - listener contributions, corporate sponsorship, in-kind and direct support from universities (for those licensed to a college or university, foundation grants and major gifts, and grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and in some cases state and local governments. Contributions from listeners have been the largest source of revenue for many years, and generally the most reliable regardless of the economic climate. Sponsorship from local companies and organizations (also known as Corporate Sponsorship or Business Support) is the second largest source.
NPR's revenue comes primarily from fees paid by our member stations, contributions from corporate sponsors, institutional foundation grants, gifts from major donors, and fees paid by users of The Public Radio Satellite System. We receive no direct federal funding for operations. The largest share of NPR's revenue comes from program fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR programs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
