and a descriptive group

Like red heads

or blondes

Just throwing that out there. I'm going to continue arguing as though I believe in the current construct of races, but I was stating that historically we didn't consider races as color of skin and such until the late 1700s.

or people with blue eyes

Its a fairly new idea.

In the history of the world.

they serve utility with regards to the description of people

and so does race

Yews

Im just claiming

but it serves very little utility scientifically speaking, if not any.

Sure

I can accept that

You can define race as broadly or as small as you want

GG @Yiddlemethisgoyim, you just advanced to level 3!

The problem is that the statistics about black people having lower IQs don't account for any sort of genetic, environmental, or additional factors. There is zero context.

It doesn't necissarily prove anything.

But then once again you know I'll come back to my earlier argument

GG @lemonsaw, you just advanced to level 3!

you use race when you need it

but deny it when you don't like the facts

Yes, when it serves utility.

I said scientifically speaking it doesn't serve any.

Who are you talking to lemon.

"Black people" are incredibly different

You give an advantage to black people in America because statistically they are not treating fairly

Exactly

But we find that this same group of people

Has a lower IQ in general

Now we can't use race

It's too "broad"

Why?

Cause thats not how science works

Then you can't use affirmative action

Do you agree

No, we can use race. Its just that that statistic is incorrect. In fact most statistics are unreliable points of information used to push an agenda.

Affirmative action isn't science you melonhead.

So

Do you agree with affirmative action?

Yes.