Akwesi said:Comte De St. Germain said:realologist said:Akwesi said:It is actually scientifically established that mixed-race kids are more likely to suffer from mental illness. Doesn't take much time to figure that out, either. I get it, it sounds racist. But it's true. Research from the US, the UK, and Canada:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/mixed-race-children-at-greater-risk-of-mental-health-issues
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13557858.2017.1315374
What does that have to do with one individual though?
I could say it's more likely that people that are on the internet x amount of hours a day are more likely to be autistic. Especially dudes on this forum. Does that mean every person on the internet is autistic? Fuck no.
Judge each person as you meet them and don't have government statistics on your mind when your talking to another human being. If they end up being a shitty person then by all means, but I bet that won't be the case most of the time.
Idiots love quoting studies.
Correlation does not equal causation. Until they find the specific gene or chemical reaction that makes people of mixed race more predisposed to mental illness(or as some people would argue black people more predisposed to violence and whites/asians as the smarter races) I frankly don't give two shits about these studies.
The Soviets tried to order society through these kinds of studies once upon a time. And to say they ended in massive failure would be an understatement.
And any soft science outside of applied Psychology(and to dependent degrees certain bits of Freudian Psych) is utterly bullshit and not worth looking at. Philosophy, Applied Science, and(for those of faith) Religious Belief are the only things worth looking at with any serious conjecture.
Derail over.
"Idiots love quoting studies?". Yeah, scientists are the real idiots. Tell the truth: is it the concept of studies, or quoting studies, that is difficult for you to deal with, or the results of these particular studies?
Quoting studies is actually a pretty important part of science and rational discussion, although it doesn't win on the internet. I would recommend you read Grafton's work on the history of footnotes, but since it is a) not a hard science, b) a study, c) quotes other studies, and d) talks about quoting studies, it would probably be too idiotic for you.
A good argument stands on its own merits. All you had to do was state the facts as to why rather than something being definitive. You wouldn't have to justify your opinion, which is obviously not the clear consensus in the field, if you could flat out say the complete and utter rational proven FACTS(genes, environmental issues, et al), but of course you're gonna back peddle off soft science like sociology and use the alleged numbers as your justification.
So keep linking your studies and deflect the possibility of being wrong on to someone else.
PS science is reductive. If you had a STEM degree you would know that all you're doing is proving something doesn't work with science until something you can't prove wrong sticks as a rational reason. And sadly you haven't proven that mixing races DIRECTLY leads to mental disorder by isolating what genes cause it and linking them to race mixing. Then you could link the exhaustive research/experimentation used to prove that to corroborate and citing your sources properly(usually there are more than one explaining one facet). This would be the proper way to argue your point.
TL;DR learn your shit. Signed someone well versed in a STEM field.