• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Why half of all drowners are black: physical proof (now with less offensive heavy metal)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ApostateAbe

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:33 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,272
---
Location
MT
American blacks are many times more likely to drown than whites (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6319a2.htm#tab), fulfilling the crude racial stereotype that "blacks can't swim." It could be just a cultural difference (fewer blacks have learned to swim therefore more drowning), but the physical data seems to have predictive power: blacks are more likely to drown due to different body densities. I will lay out the data and the math. Check the math, if you are so kind. I don't claim the math is infallible.

The study "Prediction of Body Density from Skinfolds in Black and White Young Men," (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470565/) published in Human Biology in 1988, found that young white men have an average body density 1.065 g/mL, with a standard deviation of 0.012 g/mL, and young black men have an average body density of 1.075 g/ml, with a standard deviation of 0.015 g/mL. The difference in body densities may follow from a difference in bone density (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.long), a difference in muscle mass (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11505469), a difference in lung size (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/9/893.full.pdf), or a combination of these differences. This would not be to imply that blacks have a selective disadvantage: the greater bone density of blacks may mean significantly less incidence of osteoporosis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431462).

The average weight of a young man with the given densities per the study is about 80 kg or 175 lbs.

For an 80 kg black man, his volume is: 80 kg/(1.075 g/mL)= 74.4 L

For an 80 kg white man, his volume is: 80 kg/(1.065 g/mL)= 75.1 L

It is a difference of 0.7 L, or 0.7 L*(1.07 g/mL) = 750 g = 1.65 lb of extra buoyancy force for whites than for blacks.

So, the average black man in a swimming pool is like the average white man but wearing an extra 1.65 lb of platinum chains (platinum chains are used as an example for their very high density). 1.65 pounds don't seem like so much, but it makes a bigger difference when looking at the right tail ends of the body density distributions of each race.

Given a racial density difference of 0.01 g/mL, this means the average body densities of whites and blacks are about 0.83 white standard deviations apart and about 0.66 black standard deviations apart.

Using a z-score calculator (https://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/analysis/zCalc.html), assuming an extra weight of 1.65 lb, with z=0.66 black standard deviations, Q is 0.25, and it means that 75% of blacks are like the average white but with at least an extra 1.65 lb of platinum chains. With z=0.83 white standard deviations, Q is 0.20, so only 20% of whites are like the average white with at least an extra 1.65 lb of platinum chains.

Now we look at the right tail ends. What if it is a body density equal to an extra 5-pound weight of platinum chains? For whites, this is 5 lb*(0.83 SD/1.65 lb)= 2.52 standard deviations above the white mean. This means Q is 0.005868, or 1 in 170. One in 170 whites have a body density equal to an extra 5-pound weight in platinum chains. But, for blacks, this is 5 lb*(0.66 SD/1.65 lb)= 2 black standard deviations above the white mean and equal to 2 minus 0.66 black standard deviations equals 1.33 black standard deviations above the black mean. Another way to calculate this is that 5 pounds of extra weight for the average white is just 5-1.65=3.35 pounds of extra weight for the average black, and 3.35 lb*(0.66 bSD/1.65 lb) = 1.34 black standard deviations above the black mean. For z=1.34, this means Q is 0.090123 or 1 in 11.

So, 1 in 11 black men is like the average white man but with an extra five-pound weight in platinum chains, and this is 15 times as many blacks as whites.

The amount of air in the lungs needed to compensate for five pounds worth of extra density is:

5 lb/(density of fluid) = 2.26 kg/(1 kg/L) = 2.3 L

So, 2.3 extra liters of air are needed to compensate for five extra pounds of platinum chains. The extra air intake above normal intake from extra inhalation is 3.0 liters (IRV = 3.0 L per http://www12.homepage.villanova.edu/thomas.chubb/anatomy/S04/Measurements04.htm), an intermediate portion of which is typically necessary to achieve positive buoyancy, as all human bodies at rest are denser than water; without taking in an extra breath of air while swimming, you are more likely to sink. The 2.3 L is a significant cut.

Therefore, American blacks are much more likely to drown than American whites.

None of this is to claim that differences in average body density is the dominant explanation for any and all group differences. Differences in psychological swimming ability also have a significant effect, and they PROBABLY have an effect on the racial drowning differences. But, if there exists differences in psychological swimming ability between the races, then differences in average body density would likewise predict that, too: you are less likely to learn to swim if such learning is physically more difficult. And, regardless, any significance of such an explanation does not minimize the predictive power of the data concerning body densities and the physical predictions that follow.

So, how can this information be useful? Spot the drowning child.

pF7Gl94.gif


Full story at The Daily Mail.
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Yesterday 8:33 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
So does that mean black men drown so much because their giant dick drags them down?
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
So does that mean black men drown so much because their giant dick drags them down?
Yes. They're so big that we know with certainty that blacks swim proportionately to other races in pools of equal depth and under equal lifeguard supervision.

What's more, now House'll show up and justify it through phrenology.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,779
---
I was diving the other day. As we built a lake in some wet areas. To fish trout. But it wasn't cleaned up very well so there is a lot of stuff to make fishers loose their equipment. As is why I dive, to find it, as it's expensive stuff. So I'm a floater. It takes a whole lot of effort to go down when I see the blink from the shiny metal. I actually thought everyone was like me, floating. But if I read the OP correct, there are a whole lot of people who are actually sinking?
 

ApostateAbe

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:33 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,272
---
Location
MT
I didn't find it offensive.... that might mean that I am racist... hmmm....
Yeah, could be, and I say: "Don't care." Racial differences is one of those topics where just about anything related to it is taken as a perfectly good excuse for censorship in otherwise-free media.
 

ApostateAbe

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:33 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,272
---
Location
MT
I was diving the other day. As we built a lake in some wet areas. To fish trout. But it wasn't cleaned up very well so there is a lot of stuff to make fishers loose their equipment. As is why I dive, to find it, as it's expensive stuff. So I'm a floater. It takes a whole lot of effort to go down when I see the blink from the shiny metal. I actually thought everyone was like me, floating. But if I read the OP correct, there are a whole lot of people who are actually sinking?
Yeah, the average body density is a little greater than the density of water, so most people are sinkers. If they take in a breath of air, then they are typically floaters. Some people have body densities less than water, so they float no matter what--could be true for fat people or people with large lungs. In more saline water, everyone is a floater. You can't possibly sink in the Great Salt Lake or the Dead Sea, though you can drown if your body is flipped face down on the surface and you can't flip back.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
i'm getting real tired of this stupid-ass feelers worldweeping club forum.

mods, unlock the old thread and quit sillying.
 

Rook

enter text
Local time
Today 6:33 AM
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,544
---
Location
look at flag
All the human's technology will never trump their stupidity and ignorance.

With the instant knowledge of the internet a new generation has sprung up that feed only their biased opinions, and do not allow their minds to explore additional information about this damnable universe.

That's it.
I have finally lost all motivation to change the minds of random circular hicks.
Destroy yourselves.
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Yesterday 8:33 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
I was diving the other day. As we built a lake in some wet areas. To fish trout. But it wasn't cleaned up very well so there is a lot of stuff to make fishers loose their equipment. As is why I dive, to find it, as it's expensive stuff. So I'm a floater. It takes a whole lot of effort to go down when I see the blink from the shiny metal. I actually thought everyone was like me, floating. But if I read the OP correct, there are a whole lot of people who are actually sinking?

I actually do sink. I cannot even backfloat because my head goes under water before I reach boyancy. I have after many years developed a method for staying afloat but it requires an enourmous amount of energy. I am very skinny and have little muscle or fat. I also have long arms and legs and a small torso. Large lungs are very important.
 

ApostateAbe

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:33 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,272
---
Location
MT
All the human's technology will never trump their stupidity and ignorance.

With the instant knowledge of the internet a new generation has sprung up that feed only their biased opinions, and do not allow their minds to explore additional information about this damnable universe.

That's it.
I have finally lost all motivation to change the minds of random circular hicks.
Destroy yourselves.
Yes, when the topic closely relates to a common ideology, most people can not be persuaded by the soundest of arguments. Only somewhat rational people and the gadflies can be so persuaded. But, even for the strong ideologues who will never reverse their beliefs, sound arguments make it less likely that they will further promote their bad ideas with the same force.
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
i'm getting real tired of this stupid-ass feelers worldweeping club forum.

mods, unlock the old thread and quit sillying.
Are you dense? :D [bimgx=500]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Feelers_(PSF).png[/bimgx]
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
Of course while they might be more likely to drown their body composition brings a host of other benefits/hindrances. Kinda makes sense, a Caucasian European population would need the ability to swim/a more insulating body while the hostile fauna and warmer climate of Africa would benefit from a denser body.

I really don't see this as a bigger thing than the rather accepted fact that we have different skin tones because of differing environmental factors
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
All the human's technology will never trump their stupidity and ignorance.

With the instant knowledge of the internet a new generation has sprung up that feed only their biased opinions, and do not allow their minds to explore additional information about this damnable universe.

That's it.
I have finally lost all motivation to change the minds of random circular hicks.
Destroy yourselves.

your pretty words don't hide your supreme arrogance.

please provide arguments instead of stupid, inconsiderate, uninformed moralism.

i'd also advice you to a more tasteful definition of "knowledge" if you're gonna play smoke and mirrors on the internet for no reason.
 

Deleted member 1424

Guest
your pretty words don't hide your supreme arrogance.

please provide arguments instead of stupid, inconsiderate, uninformed moralism.

i'd also advice you to a more tasteful definition of "knowledge" if you're gonna play smoke and mirrors on the internet for no reason.


Capitalization is tasteful. It's typically mastered in the first grade.
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
your pretty words don't hide your supreme arrogance.

please provide arguments instead of stupid, inconsiderate, uninformed moralism.

i'd also advice you to a more tasteful definition of "knowledge" if you're gonna play smoke and mirrors on the internet for no reason.
What basis does OP have to form his hypothesis if there isn't conclusive evidence that blacks drown more than other races when pool depth, lifeguard presence, lifeguard experience, income/S.E.S., intoxication, geographic location (distance to and response time from first responders), and actual risk exposure aren't adequately controlled for?

"But I had a Nigerian friend who couldn't swim!!!1111"

Why bother arguing against that?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
What basis does he have to form his hypothesis if there isn't conclusive evidence that blacks drown more than other races when pool depth, lifeguard presence, lifeguard experience, income/S.E.S., intoxication, geographic location (distance to and response time from first responders), and actual risk exposure aren't adequately controlled for?

"But I had a Nigerian friend who couldn't swim!!!1111"

Why bother arguing against that?

those factors aren't prior (to whom would that be anyway? what is science?) just because they don't have to do with innate anatomical characteristics.

the bulk of his argument was from statistics, not anecdote. meanwhile your only argument is from a false, diluted, ideologically screwed concept of science.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
i'm considering beginning to list all the potential non-arguments i can see a mile ahead any time i post. will he go kuhn on my ass? will he pretend i'm speaking another language? will he joke himself out of it? will he find another convoluted indirect way of referencing the holy grail notion that discussing race always means racism (because he actually realizes it's bullshit and so he can't say it out loud)? will he begin discussing something tangentially related expecting me to bow before his trivia and forget the matter at hand?

possibilities. wow. i'm euphoric.
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
lol... The bulk of his argument is pure anecdote based on flawed research. My main argument isn't against him, but the shit source he based his assumptions on. His stats show beyond a doubt that blacks have denser bodies than whites. Doesn't do a thing to relate it to drowning.

Know what? All the blacks who drowned have different textured hair than the whites. Different skin too. Higher proportion of brown eye color. And a higher incidence of the nE1b1aE2 haplogroup. Let's stop beating around the bush. These are the real reasons they drowned. Most of them have far stronger correlations than body density.

You probably think that wearing bigger shoes makes you taller too.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
lol... The bulk of his argument is pure anecdote based on flawed research. My main argument isn't against him, but the shit source he based his assumptions on. His stats show beyond a doubt that blacks have denser bodies than whites. Doesn't do a thing to relate it to drowning.

Know what? All the blacks who drowned have different textured hair than the whites. Different skin too. Higher proportion of brown eye color. And a higher incidence of the nE1b1aE2 haplogroup. Let's stop beating around the bush. These are the real reasons they drowned. Most of them have far stronger correlations than body density.

You probably think that wearing bigger shoes makes you taller too.

so you're simply taking issue with the word "proof" here. then say that. his hypothesis still is well-thought.

no one should take the word "proof" seriously anyway.
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
i'm considering beginning to list all the potential non-arguments i can see a mile ahead any time i post. will he go kuhn on my ass? will he pretend i'm speaking another language? will he joke himself out of it? will he find another convoluted indirect way of referencing the holy grail notion that discussing race always means racism (because he actually realizes it's bullshit and so he can't say it out loud)? will he begin discussing something tangentially related expecting me to bow before his trivia and forget the matter at hand?

possibilities. wow. i'm euphoric.
The only thing I pegged as racist was his gold chains trolling B.S., which he himself admitted to.

If you want to actually make an argument, you're welcome to it. :p
so you're simply taking issue with the word "proof" here. then say that. his hypothesis still is well-thought.

no one should take the word "proof" seriously anyway.
Pure conjecture.
 

The Gopher

President
Local time
Today 3:33 PM
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
4,674
---
You probably think that wearing bigger shoes makes you taller too.

But that's true! Every year I got bigger shoes and every year I got taller. I only stopped getting taller when I stopped getting bigger shoes.
 

ApostateAbe

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:33 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,272
---
Location
MT
lol... The bulk of his argument is pure anecdote based on flawed research. My main argument isn't against him, but the shit source he based his assumptions on. His stats show beyond a doubt that blacks have denser bodies than whites. Doesn't do a thing to relate it to drowning.

Know what? All the blacks who drowned have different textured hair than the whites. Different skin too. Higher proportion of brown eye color. And a higher incidence of the nE1b1aE2 haplogroup. Let's stop beating around the bush. These are the real reasons they drowned. Most of them have far stronger correlations than body density.

You probably think that wearing bigger shoes makes you taller too.
"Most of them have far stronger correlations than body density."

There can not possibly be data to back that claim, as no correlation data between body density and drowning has been collected. When it is published, then it would either prove or falsify the case. Since the differential drowning rates are directly expected from the physics, it is a strong case all the same. Both the racial drowning difference and the male/female drowning difference follow from what we know of physics: denser bodies sink quicker. There is no physics that relates eye color to drowning.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
as ApostateAbe's above post again demonstrates, THD is just hung up on the label "proof" or some nebulous perception to that effect. ApostateAbe is not denying the need for empirical validation. clearly he is putting forth a hypothesis and supporting its pursuit with relevant arguments.

the lack of Ti around here is alarming lately. now someone might falsely accuse me of pulling the "typology card". yawn. i'm simply lamenting.
 

Yellow

for the glory of satan
Local time
Yesterday 9:33 PM
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
2,897
---
Location
127.0.0.1
Okay, so I'd like to catch up here. The idea itself doesn't seem offensive, nor the conclusion that one race of people is more likely to produce a higher muscle mass/bone density than another.

However, from what I understand, the whole "black people can't swim" stereotype is sometimes used as a second-hand racial slur, right? The comparison of black people to nonhuman apes, who are believed to be unable to swim?

Is there a way to separate this chunk of bigotry from a statistic?
As a side note, I drowned or nearly drowned so many times as a child, that I developed a fear of water that took years to overcome. I still can't float above water. With a lung-full of air, I can float about 6 inches below the surface, for all the good that will do me. Anyway, I'm not black.
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
"Most of them have far stronger correlations than body density."

There can not possibly be data to back that claim, as no correlation data between body density and drowning has been collected. When it is published, then it would either prove or falsify the case. Since the differential drowning rates are directly expected from the physics, it is a strong case all the same. Both the racial drowning difference and the male/female drowning difference follow from what we know of physics: denser bodies sink quicker. There is no physics that relates eye color to drowning.
Not more strongly correlated to drowning, but more strongly correlated to being black, which is apparently more correlated to drowning if the premise of your article is accurate and someone actually draws up an experimental design that controls for extraneous variables.

You're coming up with an explanation of a "fact" that may not actually exist. On top of that, nowhere is the physics of swimming actually explored here.
is this saying you'd be thinking of this OP as meritless bullshit even if the reasoning in it wasn't labelled "proof"?
as ApostateAbe's above post again demonstrates, THD is just hung up on the label "proof" or some nebulous perception to that effect. ApostateAbe is not denying the need for empirical validation.

the lack of Ti around here is alarming lately. now someone might falsely accuse me of pulling the "typology card". yawn. i'm simply lamenting.
*watches bronto fight the phantoms in his head*

You know, I am wrong sometimes. But not this time. :p
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
if you understand that he's not really claiming to have proof in the strict sense, and that there is no racist fallacy around - what's wrong with the idea?

this is lucid. argue.
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
I know this is a hard one (take your time, pop some adderall, whatever floats your boat (which will probably be made of dense metal and powered by a muscular gasoline engine nowadays)), but which has more to do with the process of drowning resulting in death?:

A) body density of the victim
B) presence of a lifeguard trained to save victim regardless of body density
C) pool depth which prevents drowning when a victim can stand, regardless of body density
D) efficacy of first responders, who treat victims regardless of their body density
E) the act of swimming itself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSJoDuU328k
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
Capitalization is tasteful. It's typically mastered in the first grade.

get some reading comprehension skills.

if Rook cares about projecting that intellectual trickster sage persona, then my suggestion is good stylistic advice. me, i don't care about that.

giving advice to someone with different circumstances and goals from your own does not constitute hypocrisy.

and yes, the advice was dealt in a context of antagonism, serving a belittling and sarcastic purpose. don't bother non-arguing that line.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
I know this is a hard one (take your time, pop some adderall, whatever floats your boat (which will probably be made of dense metal and powered by a muscular gasoline engine nowadays)), but which has more to do with the process of drowning resulting in death?:

A) body density of the victim
B) presence of a lifeguard trained to save victim regardless of body density
C) pool depth which prevents drowning when a victim can stand, regardless of body density
D) efficacy of first responders, who treat victims regardless of their body density
E) the act of swimming iteslf

does the plausibility of these factors exclude the possibility of the density factor being significant in addition?

if we are to entertain your list of factors, i'd like to say that i doubt most drownings occur in pools and stuff with lifeguards available. maybe the thread is about pool drownings specifically. if so i've missed that and i apologize for the inconvenience. maybe pool drownings even are the bulk. it doesn't damage the main argument anyway.
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
The goal of science is to achieve accuracy and validity to build a foundation for future research and application, so variables are excluded in their order of likelihood.

Notice the steps in the scientific method before hypothesis formation? He's missing a pretty big chunk of that orange stuff.
2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
yeah, i see the steps. you think ApostateAbe did no relevant research? he did research and it suggests density could affect drowning rate.

science should not operate by excluding what is deemed unlikely beforehand. science is about questioning the beforehand by reason and empirical study.

in this case it's not even that unlikely beforehand. you really don't get to complain at all.
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
If he did the relevant research, he'd have actually explored things relevant to death by drowning. If you don't exclude the most relevant variables first, there's no evidence you're not exploring a spurious relationship.

In this case, the beforehand is blind acceptance that blacks are more susceptible to drowning.

You're not even trying anymore. I r disappoint. lern2science
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
no. the beforehand is blind acceptance that the cause or a cause cannot and must not be innate.

he's making a hypothesis. you're the one excluding by preconception.

lern2science
 
Local time
Today 4:33 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
no. the beforehand is blind acceptance that the cause or a cause cannot and must not be innate.

he's making a hypothesis. you're the one excluding by preconception.

lern2science
So cute. I haven't excluded anything. I'd simply test the most likely possibilities first, whereas testing an unlikely hypothesis first is by default excluding more likely hypotheses. Try harder, or at least be less boring.
burn-irl_o_1670391.jpg

tumblr_m7xpvp6wtZ1qarcjno1_500.gif
 

ApostateAbe

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:33 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,272
---
Location
MT
Okay, so I'd like to catch up here. The idea itself doesn't seem offensive, nor the conclusion that one race of people is more likely to produce a higher muscle mass/bone density than another.

However, from what I understand, the whole "black people can't swim" stereotype is sometimes used as a second-hand racial slur, right? The comparison of black people to nonhuman apes, who are believed to be unable to swim?

Is there a way to separate this chunk of bigotry from a statistic?
I think there is an assumption that, if we were to accept the biology, then bigotry must follow. My suspicion, though, is that attributing the difference to culture alone is even worse. If blacks tend to be less able to swim because of their genetics, then they have a good reason for tending to not swim and to drown. But, if blacks are presumed physiologically equal to whites, then their tendencies can easily be attributed to "blacks fear the water" or "blacks are too poor to swim" or "blacks are so stupid that they jump in the deep end before knowing how to swim" or "blacks drink and take drugs so much that they drown in pools." One way or the other, the raw drowning stats are all that is needed to uphold the racial slur that "blacks can't swim." A deeper understanding of the science would help: racial body densities like all racial patterns are normal distributions, which means you can make judgments of probabilities by race but not absolutes, so the absolutist claim of "blacks can't swim" would be wrong. "Swimming tends to be more difficult for blacks" would be better. But, there is always a wrong way to go about solving this problem and other such problems, and that is to try to change the science to suit wishful thinking.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 1:33 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
The study was published in 1988. That's like almost 3 decades ago.

Also, on the study in published in 2014 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6319a2.htm#tab):
2my23h2.png

And in the "What's already known on this topic" paragraph, it states: "Black children and adults also report having more limited swimming ability than whites"

Seems more like blacks don't know how to swim, more than anything.

In the discussion section within that report, it cites some references as well, (7, 8)

And this part is worth reading:
Additionally, the lack of critical information on death certificates limits more detailed analyses to explore causes of disparities. Death certificates do not include details on known risk and protective factors such as the victim's activities and swimming skill, the body of water, weather conditions, health conditions, use of life jackets, type and functionality of fences or barriers, supervision type and quality (e.g., impaired), presence of lifeguards, alcohol use, and whether CPR was performed by a bystander. These measures could be used to further explain disparities and would be helpful to guide targeted prevention programs.
I don't think body density has to do much with drowning. People move, after all, they aren't immutable objects.
 

Rook

enter text
Local time
Today 6:33 AM
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,544
---
Location
look at flag
your pretty words don't hide your supreme arrogance.

please provide arguments instead of stupid, inconsiderate, uninformed moralism.

I'd also advise you to a more tasteful definition of "knowledge" if you're gonna play smoke and mirrors on the internet for no reason.

You are deeply mistaken sir.

That is not an argument, it is a subjective lament as to my internal state of mind.


As stated, I have no intention to argue here.
You are implored to not impose your beliefs upon what constitutes correct and proper internet conduct upon me, it bores me so.
I am arrogant and narcissistic, I do not need outside validation to realize it.

Humans are subjective, they have opinions, they have internal monologues that will differ from what others perceive to be right.

Accept this, or don't.
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Yesterday 8:33 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
If he did the relevant research, he'd have actually explored things relevant to death by drowning. If you don't exclude the most relevant variables first, there's no evidence you're not exploring a spurious relationship.

In this case, the beforehand is blind acceptance that blacks are more susceptible to drowning.

You're not even trying anymore. I r disappoint. lern2science

He has good evidence for why blacks cannot swim as well on a general basis and on a professional basis but not why they drown.

I would like to explore a cultural difference. If blacks, on a general basis, do not know how to swim they are less likely to pass on the knowlege to their children. Also, when talking about youth, where the greatest difference occurs, I think life-gaurds should be the last option to the safety of children and not the first. Where are the parents? Is it culturally acceptable to allow children in a pool wihtout direct parent supervision? I personally would never let my children near a pool without parental supervision. And it would be very unlikely they would drown with proper supervision regardless of their abilities.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
So cute. I haven't excluded anything. I'd simply test the most likely possibilities first, whereas testing an unlikely hypothesis first is by default excluding more likely hypotheses. Try harder, or at least be less boring.
burn-irl_o_1670391.jpg

no, having one hypothesis is not excluding others. saying one hypothesis shouldn't be tested is excluding that hypothesis.

"i'd simply" no, that's not it. you'd simply throw a fit if someone talks about race. that's the simple.

and oh, you seemed to have missed the most likely factor yourself according to onesteptwostep's source. what gives?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:33 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
You are deeply mistaken sir.

That is not an argument, it is a subjective lament as to my internal state of mind.


As stated, I have no intention to argue here.
You are implored to not impose your beliefs upon what constitutes correct and proper internet conduct upon me, it bores me so.
I am arrogant and narcissistic, I do not need outside validation to realize it.

Humans are subjective, they have opinions, they have internal monologues that will differ from what others perceive to be right.

Accept this, or don't.

okay. i don't. i am subjective-bla-bla too you know. doesn't change the falsehood of your subjective opinion. you're saying nothing.

i know it wasn't an argument. that was the problem. strong derisive claims, no argument. why are you telling me something i told you like it would be a relevant counter?
 

Rook

enter text
Local time
Today 6:33 AM
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,544
---
Location
look at flag
. why are you telling me something i told you like it would be a relevant counter?

Well.........to confuse you?
To force you to argue with yourself, giving you no choice but to concede victory, for triumphing against your own words would mean that you were wrong in the first place.

Perhaps, yes.

Or maybe I am simply not taking life seriously.





 

ApostateAbe

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 10:33 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,272
---
Location
MT
The study was published in 1988. That's like almost 3 decades ago.

Also, on the study in published in 2014 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6319a2.htm#tab):
2my23h2.png

And in the "What's already known on this topic" paragraph, it states: "Black children and adults also report having more limited swimming ability than whites"

Seems more like blacks don't know how to swim, more than anything.

In the discussion section within that report, it cites some references as well, (7, 8)

And this part is worth reading:
I don't think body density has to do much with drowning. People move, after all, they aren't immutable objects.
The 1988 date of the body density study should not be taken as a reason to dismiss it. It is seemingly the only study of body densities by race available, and the existence of significant differences are corroborated by known significant differences in lung size, muscle mass, and bone density. Blacks don't know how to swim, yes, and physical differences predict that, too: you don't learn something that is physically difficult to learn.

"I don't think body density has to do much with drowning. People move, after all, they aren't immutable objects."

They aren't immune to the laws of physics, either! You don't think that 15 times as many blacks as whites wearing five pounds of platinum chains in the pools, lakes, rivers and oceans would make a difference in drowning rates? Because we all move?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom