I don't see why your opinion as to what insults me is even relevant. The reference to the Nazis was used to establish that you both work in the same framework, i.e., a nonpersonal and ethnically-based assignment of tasks/properties/abilities to people, and I apologize for phrasing it in a way that is somewhat antagonizing. Nontheless, if you find yourself uncomfortable with the truth, that's another issue.

But I digress.

You will have to tell me what kind of operative meaning this discussion has, in your opinion. What, concretely, does it mean that every culture has its own abilities, that every culture has things that its members are better at doing. Does it mean that when two people, a and b, from two cultures, A and B, A considered better at, say, agriculture than B, go to be interviewed for a farming job, a should be selected even though b has better written qualifications? Or should his ethnic roots be given some weight in that decision? How much weight? If a person from culture B tries to hide the fact that he's from culture B, and instead says that he's from culture A, should he be given punishment? Should people wear identifying tags, so that there is no chance to confuse their cultures?

That's my specific problem with this discussion. You speak on the abstract, using irrefutabilities and such, thus perhaps lowering the readers` guard, while this might lead to sordid conclusions, which the readers will be forced to accept, in order to save face.

I'm waiting for some concrete examples.