This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.
"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."
Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..
Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...
I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.
I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.
How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 1:43 (sage)
You have officially been on 4chan too long. It's CULTURAL, not racial.
Go outside and get some air.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 1:55
No he's right. Most of the world lives in sort of a fog, it's sort of like the nasty assholes on dogs. They're there, they're obviously visible, but we just don't see them anymore.
Fact is, blacks are dumb. Maybe not that much dumber than white people, maybe only about five IQ points, and you can't notice it when dealing with individuals, but those five points add up in large populations and cause problems. They also have reduced ability to inhibit their actions, which is what makes them more creative, but also makes them shoot each other for stepping on their shoes.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 2:00
You ever tried to have a conversation with a black person? Beyond simple statments of fact ("That girl booty is HUEG!" "I like me some babecrue and waller-melon") they tend to lose their train of thought, and can't keep up with even relatively simple stuff. I work in a retail store, and if a black person needs me to clarify something on their order, I know that I'm going to be explaining what happened on their tab five times longer than with any other race. Even hispanics who can't speak english can understand it faster through hand signals and gestures.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 2:33
In common parlance, one encounters a statement of the form:
I'm not a racist, but (x)
where x is some ignorant shit.
>>12
We should all show this place the majestic philosophies of the Republic of /b/. I know I will. Lets wait for the weekend though, so the flood will be that much larger.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 0:59 (sage)
>>11
This forum is agonizingly right-wing, with very few exceptions.
>>14
You probably think that because you're one of only two people who post here. See, I think we only have john on the republican side, and only one or two other leftists. Of course you're going to think that there are only right wingers here, when your posts make up 70% or so of the left-leaning ones. But we all see your posts and think the forum leans left
SEe what
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 16:36
>>14
This forum reeks of leftard faggots holding hands smoking weed claiming the world is wonderful and muslims are lovable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 18:33 (sage)
Seems to me this forum is filled with racist rightard radicals. They have victim complexes so they bitch all the time.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 21:02
Here's one thing I could never understand. We obviously take note of and acknowledge the fact that various races are physically different, right? I mean, how could we not? Look at a black person. Look at an Asian person. Look at a white person. Look at the racial diversity within your average NBA team. We do in fact acknowledge the differences between races.
So why, then, is it SO impossible to fathom that perhaps certain races are different from each other mentally? Averyone can see that black people are generally taller, can run faster, jump higher, and have bigger dicks than white people. But GOD FORBID anyone should imply that whites are better at math, literature, and other things that require intelligence. Double standards, anyone?
I'm a staunch liberal, by the way.
Name:
John2005-12-07 21:10
>>19
Are you... >_>
I never figured most liberals as realists...
>>19
As someone already mentioned, the differences are obvious, but liberals don't want you talking about it cuz they know the conmen will take advantage of it. The people in the middle take note of the difference, but also realize it doesn't really matter. So what's your problem? If you're really liberal why do you think it matters that this gets acknowledged?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 16:42
>>22
Well I wasn't saying we should parade the fact around and treat people better or worse because of it. It just pisses me off how so many people insist on keeping their heads in the sand when it comes to this subject. Even if it has negative consequences, I've always been a firm believer that truth should come before what is desired to be true.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 16:56
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 17:01
>>23
Truth is admirable, but imagine a CNN headline "black people scientifically found to be mentally inferior." All hell would break loose. I think we've got enough conflicts to deal with as it is. And if you really want truth then you'll have to announce all people are not equal. You should know that the majority of people are stupid regardless of race. If word gets out to them and they start having a fit, pretty soon we'll be communists.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 18:27
>>24
Who says it's only the stupid (or powerful) who want it altered? Just because you disagree doesn't make it stupid. So go to hell.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 20:19
>>24
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." >>25
"You should know that the majority of people are stupid regardless of race."
OH SHI-
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 21:49
>>19 So why, then, is it SO impossible to fathom that perhaps certain races are different from each other mentally? Averyone can see that black people are generally taller, can run faster, jump higher, and have bigger dicks than white people. But GOD FORBID anyone should imply that whites are better at math, literature, and other things that require intelligence. Double standards, anyone?
Truth and agreement
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 22:55
Black people have pubes on their heads. Fucking niggers.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-10 6:20
>>29
SOMEBODY SMART FINALLY ENTERED THE CONVERSATION. THOSE NIGGERS NEED TO BE DEPORTED, AND KEEP THEIR GOD DAMN AIDS IN AFRICA, WHICH ON A RELATED NOTE IS THE CESPOOL OF THE WORLD FOLLOWING CHINA.
>>31
This could mean they are all liberals who have never experienced how bad black people could be or they are all conservatives who have never experienced how good black peopel can be.
everyone is speaking in an empirical vacuum. That's kind of the point.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-11 9:12
I am not a racist but I greatly dislike spics, spades, and sandniggers.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-11 10:32
There are high class, middle class, and low class black people. A lot of the black people perpetuating negative attitudes are low class, or the hicks and white trash of white people. They seem to be louder and more prolific, revel in their lifestyle with music, and celebrate paycheck to paycheck consumerism to get the latest fashion without thinking about basic needs.
The important black people are accomplished doctors, business leaders, actors, or any professional jobs that demonstrate their capability. This is what white people would like all black people to strive for, but not every can be Morgan Freeman.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-11 10:56
Note that the hick culture is mostly based on blue coller working class activities. Nig culture is based on violent gang activities. Big difference.
Penis shrinkage is part of human evolution? Fuck that shit.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-16 5:06
For the last time.
There is no "white" or "black" gene. Therefore you can not be genetically "black" or "white". The "black gene" can not be the de-evolved gene, nor can the "white gene" be the "evolved" gene when neither gene even fucking exists.
Do you guys follow science AT ALL? There's a new contention that mankind has either (A) reached it's evolutionary apex. And (B) might be actually DE-evolving.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 8:14
You bash people for not knowing science, then truck out a term like "DE-evolving".
There's no such thing as devolving. What makes you think that mankind is at a pinnacle of anything?
Name:
Vinz2005-12-16 11:46
>>41
Devolving is a social, not genetic practice, n00b.
Usually goes hand in hand with a fundamentalist or theocratical government. (no, you don't have to be a theologist to be a fundamentalist, imagine if Jerry Vlasak ran for President, and somehow won. The US would be FUCKED.)
People are becoming stupider because they're not learning the things they're supposed to when they're young. They're nothing but grown-up tantruming babies thanks to a completely useless schooling system. If it were genetic there would be 40 more channels on cable just for talk shows and reality TV. Er, or something equally inane.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-16 15:23
If you fag-babies wanna sit here and nit-pick; be my fucking guest. I never said "de-evolution" wasn't social. Second, I didn't say "pinnacle" or "apex" to infer superiority or progress- I said it to infer inferiority.
The next evolutionary step will be to become something "inhuman", something who's society doesn't at all identify with the current societies of mankind. Neo-sapien.
The next evolutionary step will be giantic leap. It won't be evidenced by a new form of government or the elimination of all racism.
Regardless, the whole "white/black gene" thing stills stands.
What were you nerds bitching about again? :D
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 15:45
Fuck you are retarded. There is no single gene that makes someone white or black. No single gene that makes someone a cow either. It is a huge set of genes that makes a living thing what it is.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 16:46
>>41 is right. There's more genetic variation within races than between races. IOW, your chances of sharing common genes with a random person of another race is greater than your chances of sharing common genes with a person of your own race.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 19:12
>>46
No. Chances of sharing 1 particular gene is greater. But chances of charing a set of genes is very very small.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 19:41 (sage)
I didn't say "pinnacle" or "apex" to infer superiority or progress- I said it to infer inferiority.
If something is inferior, then the other is necessarily superior. Did you not take logic class, or were you born stupid?
The next evolutionary step will be to become something "inhuman", something who's society doesn't at all identify with the current societies of mankind.
You're one of those singularity idiots, aren't you.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 20:38
>>47
No. Do some research. Racist websites don't count.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 21:52
>>49
No. Do some research. Retarded website don't count.
You are WRONG. And shut the fuck up cum-bucket, your breath reeks of cocks. I said "apex" to infer that we are NOT a superior race of humans. What is "the other", you dumbshit noobfaggot? Do you even know?
In *MY* argument it's the concept of "Neo-sapiens". *I'm* saying that we, mankind, just may have reached our limit. That's all. I don't know what's this "singularity" faggotry you speak of, but I'm sure that it- like you- simultaneously fails and loses.
What limit? There's no such thing as devolution. You specifically said "evolutionary apex" in >>41, but there's no such thing. Perhaps you meant optimal survivability within an environment?
PS. C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
As if I couldn't make you appear even more stupid. You have talent, I'll give you that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 6:20 (sage)
Actually, "optimal survivability" is pretty gay too. Let's leave it at "well-adapted".
Who are you gonna believe? Circle jerk neo-nazis or actual scientists? Think carefully now, you don't want to end up hanging with these retards, prancing around in nazi uniforms in their mothers' basements.
Name:
Geneologist.2005-12-17 8:08
So how do you explain the lack of civilisation in Africa? South and central america is strewn with giant structures from the civilisations that dwelled there and they did this all by themselves with no contact with the rest of civilisation and having only been there since the end of the ice age.
Negroes on the other hand have lived in Africa since humans first evolved and with access to agricultural technology and civilisation since it first arose in the fertile crescent, yet have achieved nothing as substantial as the achievements of caucasians in europe and the middle east and mongoloids in east asia.
The AAPA statement is blatant bullshit and as ambiguious as they could make it. Races CAN be defined by a set of already identified haplotypes aswell as observable physical and mental differences, which is not suprising as genes explain physical differences.
Stop being a nignorant fucktard terrified of the fact that your race has achieved nothing and look at the facts for yourself. The intelligent races will eventually gang up on the negro and demand they implement eugenics before they contaminate the rest of human civilisation, the best you can hope for is to look at the facts yourself and declare that eugenics, not genocide is the answer.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 8:33
Stop pretending to be a scientist, nazi kid. "Geneologist", LOL.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 8:54
>>57
stop accuusing people of being nazis. say how they are wrong or whatever.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 9:28
>>58
They're factually wrong, unable to follow an argument, and selective in commenting about the sources provided. It's like trying to explain that the world is round to those who insist that it's flat. The final paragraph takes the cake with it's vicious racism and promotion of eugenics. To answer these people seriously is to give them credit they don't deserve. And I doubt it'll change their minds anyway. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I'm compelled to present the facts from to time in these sophomoric racist discussions to see if it'll have any effect, but it usually doesn't; they want to believe the earth is flat. Also, if these racist assholes can go on and on with their bix nood and nigger bullshit, I can call them nazis and rednecks.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 9:33
OK fine. I'll say how they're wrong. Geneologist does not address the question of genetics AT ALL, which was what I was talking about. The fact is, humans are 99.9% identical genetically speaking. And no, that's not the chance of sharing one gene with a man in Uganda. It's the entire sequence of genes. The links I provided show this. How are you supposed to debate against poor reading comprehension and willful ignorance?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 10:31
Black are in fact the missing link in the evolution between apes and modern humans.
Name:
Geneologist.2005-12-17 10:31
Holy fuck what a bunch of idiots.
>>59
"They're factually wrong, unable to follow an argument, and selective in commenting about the sources provided. It's like trying to explain that the world is round to those who insist that it's flat. The final paragraph takes the cake with it's vicious racism and promotion of eugenics. To answer these people seriously is to give them credit they don't deserve. And I doubt it'll change their minds anyway. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I'm compelled to present the facts from to time in these sophomoric racist discussions to see if it'll have any effect, but it usually doesn't; they want to believe the earth is flat. Also, if these racist assholes can go on and on with their bix nood and nigger bullshit, I can call them nazis and rednecks."
This is your reply to
"stop accuusing people of being nazis. say how they are wrong or whatever."
?
It's just a longer version of
"Stop pretending to be a scientist, nazi kid. "Geneologist", LOL."
Prove you are right fuckwad, just give me a synopsis of your argument, then link me to google so I can follow up on your facts like I did, or something witty like that. I can tell you are one of these marxist mind fuckers who think manipulating stupid people through threats and logical inconsistency is cool and all that. Well I present to you a challenge, convince someone who doesn't have a mental age of 13 to agree with you.
>>60
And we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees, go figure.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 10:39
>>60
It only takes on of those genes to cause cystic fibrosis or that harlequin skin disease. Who's to say it won't take one to make a nigga dumb?
Richard Dawkins:
"We were dealing with the unusually high level of genetic uniformity in the human species, despite superficial appearances. If you take blood and compare protein molecules, or if you sequence genes themselves, you will find that there is less difference between any two humans living anywhere in the world than there is between two African chimpanzees. We can explain this human uniformity by guessing that our ancestors, but not those of the chimpanzees, passed through a genetic bottleneck, perhaps within the last 100,000 years. The population was reduced to a small number, came close to going extinct, but pulled through. Like the children of Noah in the myth, we are all descended from this small population, and that is why we are so genetically uniform."
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 12:02
"We were dealing with the unusually high level of genetic uniformity in the human species, despite superficial appearances. If you take blood and compare protein molecules, or if you sequence genes themselves, you will find that there is less difference between any two humans living anywhere in the world than there is between two African chimpanzees. We can explain this human uniformity by guessing that our ancestors, but not those of the chimpanzees, passed through a genetic bottleneck, perhaps within the last 100,000 years. The population was reduced to a small number, came close to going extinct, but pulled through. Like the children of Noah in the myth, we are all descended from this small population, and that is why we are so genetically uniform."
I am not misinformed or a nazi or whatever you want to call it. About 70000 years ago there was a massive volcanic eruption in which only humans and neandrthals survived and very few humans were left alive. The humans repopulated quickly and began to spread out of Africa unimpeded by competition, but they were unable to compete with the neanderthals in ice age europe. The humans that stayed in Africa continued to evolve slowly as they had no need to change their genes, however those that left faced new environments and had to adapt.
At this point humans were more dependant on their brains to survive than their bodies and thus eolved higher intelligence, those that left, the mongoloids and caucasians thus went on to develop this intelligence and construct civilisation whereas the more stagnant evolved negro race failed to evolve further intelligence.
A good example of this is the aborignes who were the original negrito colonists of Australia. Their mongoloid cousins went north and had to learn how to survive in a cold environment, where as the aborignes had little need to change. There are still some negrito tribes left throughout oceania also.
We are descended from a small population, however we had to wait until the negro colonists of asia and europe evolved into more intelligent races until civilisation could arise.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-17 12:03
Fucky McFuckwit said: "You fail at elementary logic."
No dick-brain, you fail at communication and reading comprehension. The only thing you succeed at is building straw men- which you ceremoniously rape because your crippling lonely brought on by your inability co-exist with people.
Who cares what *you* consider to be "the other" in this instance? That's not *MY* thesis NOR is it at all my argument. *I* defined what "the other" was. Neo-sapiens.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. What *I'm* saying that mankind may have evolved as far as possible- basically- we have no further incentive for our society or our biology to evolve into anything else.
Um, because there is no "nigga" gene, you fuckwit. No black gene. No white gene. No "liberal scientist" is trying to hide some mystery fact from you. It's the truth. Accept it. You can try to find it- but you will only find your latent lust for black cock (not vagina- because u r gay) and the repressed homosexual faggotry contained there-in.
(A) This in NO WAY proves that "blacks" are genetically inferior. Because not everyone on this planet is 100% "white" or "black" or "mongoloid" in the first place. Anything you say is simply voided by the fact that a "black" or "white" people simply does not exist genetically.
(B) Your assumption that "nergoids" (Ha!) or ancient Africans weren't the first to create "civilization" is based on pure ignorance. New Discoveries are being made that refer to a civilization that pre-dates anicent sumeria and the greeks. All you need to do is LOOK.
Consider this: No one *REALLY* knows how exactly everyone got so spread out. The REASON that is, is simply because that information has been lost through out time. Oh yeah- and maybe because as this was happening NO ONE had "civilization".
Another thing you have to realize is that writing, painting, language these are all products of civilization and the anicent Africans from which you are descended HAD these things. Your so-called "mongoloids and caucasians" came into these new enviroments WITH THESE SKILLS ALREADY LEARNED.
Finally, the very concept or idea of "civilization" inherantly fails and is steeped in human arrogance. The Greeks thought they were civilized- by today's standards they'd be likened to thinking savages.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 16:38
Blacks are not genetically inferior. But they are inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 16:52
>>67
not everyone on this planet is 100% "white" or "black" or "mongoloid" but there are degrees.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 16:58
now that everyone else has huffed and vented I will present the correct stance for this issue as post number sixty-nine.
Nearly all racial differences owe, in point of fact, to culture, as opposed to race. Of course, the culture itself stems from races being put into seperate boxes.
Just as Europe once had its Dark Age, Africa is currently in its own.
Unfortunately, almost any research into the question of racial difference is politically suspect. When you step back into reality, racist websites are right out. But is racial difference fictive either? Whatever factual differences may eventually be sorted out in racial physiological differences, it remains the case that 'racial' difference is principally cultural.
And that "degree" isn't a cause for fear, hatred or the notion that one race is superior over the other. That degree still has ZERO importance because a white or black gene simply does not exist. Every racial argument will run into this wall until the end of time. Cash in your KKK-chips now, faggots. You FAIL.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 18:40
Just as Europe once had its Dark Age, Africa is currently in its own.
Only that Europe's dark age was full of castles, cathedrals, and some art, and Africa is full of... totems and AIDS?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 23:18
That degree still has ZERO importance because a white or black gene simply does not exist.
this is stupid. obviously you can distinguish between black and white in many ways. so there are genetic differences.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 23:59
What well made points for such an insipid argument. Listen dickwad, you can tell the difference between blacks and whites in a variety of ways, and it just so happens that one of those is mental(I don't think it's intelligence per se; I think it's attention span and inhibition, but it has the same net result).
Arguing that we're 99% the same genetically and therefore we're the same may be a pretty point to make, but it doesn't bear out. I know there are exceptions, but look at everywhere where black people are the major population; you have all kinds of social problems.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 0:26
Quit dancing around the problem that we all know is there. What do you propose we do about, if anything?
Don't know. Drug therapies maybe, but then we'll be on a slippery slope of constantly improving people's brains to get the most out of them, possible leading to a 100% eugenic society, only the "best" being allowed to reproduce ETC...
I think we'll be much better off when we learn to accept some negativity in the world.
No, what's stupid is you shirking factual science in favor of your own semen coated system of beliefs.
So, what you're saying if that we take two white people- who are identified as being culturally and socially "white"- but one LOOKS slightly more tan, has blond hair and blue eyes- then those two people are fundamentally different genetically?
That's bunk. And instead of owning up to your ignorance and your unreasonable hatred- you prefer to open up your buttcheeks and allow to me to continously rape you in this argument.
"Whites" have systematically disenfranshed the "black race" for CENTURIES. It's completely rediculous for you to make any futher uneducated commentary on Africa's social problems without addressing the very real, hard fact of the endless amount of damage colonialism has done to the contenient.
It's like pointing out that Native Americans "just can't seem to get their shit together". They, like Africa were in the process of getting their shit together until the europeans came and chained up their religion, their culture and their society. History proves that every culture of people take a number of steps of achieve modernization.
What do you think happens when you bust in and chain up a whole people? What do think happens when you invade a people and steal their land and tell them what Gods to worship? What do you think happens when you drop a bomb on an entire culture and impose upon them western culture and judeo-christian values?
You fucking noobs need to pick up a few more fucking books and take some college courses before you step foot into the "race arena" again.
When you guys stop citing the bell curve and those pioneer fund fuckers as referece to "race genetics" - then maybe the rest of the world will take you seriously. Right now you just look like scared little children.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
How many times do I have to state that there's no such thing as "devolution"? In other words, you can't evolve backwards, retard.
You talk science, but you fail unbelievable hard.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 8:24 (sage)
>>78
Take comfort in the fact that such ignorance is mostly found online, and in places where they fuck their sisters.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 9:15
"Whites" have systematically disenfranshed the "black race" for CENTURIES.
For centuries, huh? They ran down there centuries ago and took over the whole place? Have you ever been to Africa? They still have bushmen in many parts, for fuck's sake.
Now, while I disagree with racism, I'd like to raise just one problem I haven't been able to solve: I used to live in South Africa. Visited Zimbabwe a lot too. Despite all the PC bullshit people heard, the place worked. Violence was low, medicine was available for everyone, and most people had a job. Maybe being a servant ain't all that hot, but the money was rolling.
LOOK AT THAT DUMP NOW. The Blacks got South Africa and Zimbabwe on a fucking platter. No major revolution or anythin. The societies worked. Shit, SA used to be a nuclear power! But now it's full of unemployed, AIDS is everywhere, crime is astronomical, and the place is falling apart. Zimbabwe is even worse, with people dying of starvation!
HOW THE FUCK DO YOU TAKE A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY THAT WAS WON THROUGH DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS AND SO COMPLETELY FUCK IT UP IN UNDER A DECADE THAT NO SANE PERSON WOULD WANT TO LIVE THERE?!
Fuck colonialism. That's just an excuse. Look at Asia! Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, even Malaysia and China! In less than 60 years they've dug themselves out of a fucking hole and are well on their way to ruling the world.
SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 12:01 (sage)
Meet the new John, same as the old John.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 12:13
I am tired of seeing negroes and spics everywhere I go. It is hard to get away from the bastards. Iceland is a great place!
Name:
Geneologist.2005-12-18 12:53
Ok I can't be botherred to trudge through all these posts, so I will just highlight some key points.
There are 3 sides to this argument, there is the rational side, then there are the racist and anti-racist sides.
Both sides are illogical. I might say the ancient egyptians were hamitic or arab, some anti-racists would agree, some racists would agree and the assholes on both sides would scream out loud NO THEY WERE BLACK, NO THEY WERE WHITE. At which point I will point out the the egyptians differentiated themselves from both nubians and their mediteranean and middle eastern neighbours, but possessed no negroid features, suggesting they are as they are today. Arabs.
It is simple logic to compose a hypothesis from the facts rather than the other way round. So I'm going to put my key points in the form of observations.
1: Africa is currently extremely poor when compared to the rest of the world.
2: Africa experienced a long period of colonisation by the arabs and later the european powers up until it was replaced by various despots. The middle east, China, India and South east asia experienced the same and apart from their superior culture at the time had experienced no less of the oppression by foreigners than the tribes of sub-saharran Africa had.
3: At around 1000, these non-negroid regions of asia, europe and the mediteranean were about as developped as europe. Some parts of the world were more unified and others more wartorn, but they had large organised agriculture and various industries which allowed them to construct ships, smelt metals etc. Even obscure central America had civilisations to this standard, though ranking with ancient civilisations due to their lack of access to iron and the wheel. The only negro civilisations were satellites to the Islamic caliphates and their governmental system consisted of a patchwork of tribes who constantly fought against each other. The Mali were unified by strong trade ties to their arab neighbours and east Africa was more civilised than the rest of sub-saharran Africa. Africans had had access to the technology of the rest of the world since dawn of civilisation. Having began along the Euphrates flood plains, this knowledge quickly spread to the Nile. Populations increased and their denisty and food surplus allowed them to organise together and build the first towns with grain stores, craftsmen and soldiers. However this movement of civilisation down the Nile began to draw to a close, not due to the environment, the Nile flood plains used the stretch all the way to today's Khartoum (at which point they would still later develop agricultural techniques to irrigate land which did not usually flood). It wasn't until around 2000 B.C. that negro populated areas of the Nile began to leave evidence of civilisation, calling themselves the Kherma at which point the Egyptians began to push south and colonise the area. This wasn't unusual or where the crippling of the negro race all began, it was a standard invasion that every people faced from each other for thousands of years to come. The Mongols used to kill all the men and salt the fields when they came across civilians, but this didn't cripple Russian civilisation for thousands of years. In fact after 500 years of colonisation, Egypt's superpower status in the middle east and the mediteranean began to falter and the people of this region revolted, forming the Kush, then invading Egypt after a Persian invasion to set up Egypt's last dynasty. After the negro peoples invaded Egypt, the civilisation would be a puppet to the Persians, Greeks, Romans and East Roman empire until the Islamic Jihad in the 8th century AD.
Bluh, I can't be botherred to type anymore, just look up haplotypes in google and look at skull shapes like the original poster said.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 13:03
Can't we all just sing We Are The World, donate grain and cans of food, and ask politely that everyone hold hands and not shoot each other?
De-evolution is the closet term to what I was trying to say. *YOU* say that De-evolution refer to a species evolving backwards. *I'M* saying that mankind has no futher incentive to or my be wholly incabable of any further social or biological evolution.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 17:19 (sage)
neegers are low beasts and need to be herded.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 17:47
>>79
I think it would be possible to evolve in a crippling way though, for example, when weaker and less able bodied individuals can succeed just as well as the more able-bodied ones, then the gene pool begins to get diluted with weaker genes. As a result, the race becomes weaker. This is probably a result of our easy life.
>>86
You fail reading x2. Here, let me put this so you can't miss it. Your words:
*YOU* say that De-evolution refer to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
Plus you talk about science. Evolution in a science context refers to... biology!
So what're you doing? Trying to drudge up one misused word for lack of a better term so that it- by some miracle- instantly voids all of the valid unrefutable facts in my argument?
Even so- what I meant by "De-evolution" isn't what *you* mean by "De-evolution". Yeah, evolution in a scientific context does indeed refer to biology. Now only if you could empty your brain of the caked-jizz long enough to realize that I'm inferring that mankind incapable of any _further_ evolution. I'm am NOT saying that we are "evolving backwards". I don't know what the exact word for reaching an evolutionary dead-end is- but that's what I was referring to.
Stop latching onto straw man semantics and start saying something of substance. Oh but wait!
Very simple. Around the time that these cultures took their leaps into Modernism. They were not still under colonial rule and more importantly- their countries, their cultures were still somewhat unified.
One thing you have never seen (and more like, never will see)- is a "Unified" Africa. For example when Japan was trying to catch up to Western technologies- Africa was still very much colonized. And Africa has remained politically, culturally and socially "colonized" in a sense- until, oh say, the last 40 or 60 years of the 20th century.
Japan, Greater Asia and the places you mentioned did not have to deal with the practice of the Aparthied. Now, I can conceed to African culture being abject to modernism- but only as a consequence of colonialism. Africa has never been "left alone" to grow culturally, by their own terms to decide as a people to better themselves FOR themselves and to eventually unify. This is why you still have tribes and their old hatreds.
As a particularly ignorant white person, I don't expect you to look at what "worked" in African terms. It's still very arrogant and intellectually dishonest for you to assume that South Africa "worked" for native Africans. That's why the Apathied system was thrown out in the first place...because what "worked" for white men was Africans being treated as second class citizen in their own homeland.
The cultures that you meantioned were NEVER forcibly uprooted from their culture and their society- from their homes in the name of slavery. It took Japan and China hundreds (300-400) years to "catch up".
Africa is STILL subject in many ways to being used and abused by the west. No matter what you say or believe the US has not been paying attention to Africa- simply because they have already raped the land of it's natural resources.
The only reason (besides the terrorist reason) that we're looking for stability in the middle east is because they have a majority of the oil- outside of our stockpile. If there was no U.N, if none of the World Wars had happened- I can assure you we'd see a VERY similar situation in Middle East as was the situation in Africa 200 years ago.
Your haplotypes don't take into account the fact that given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests. (Not that IQ tests ever really prove anything)
It doesn't take into account the fact that since the spread of human kind across the world that people have cross bred themselves to the point where the idea of their being a evolutionary problem with Africans or any race is pretty much meaningless. If Africans are genetically inept- then so is the rest of the world.
Europeans fucked neanderthals as well. (You DO know that at least, right?) Over all skull shapes and the "visable biology" hold little to no relevance to our species. ALL humans have a neo-cortex, a beast brain and a reptile brain. And the lines between purebreeds is so blurry that it seems archaic to cite this as proof positive that any one race is inferior or superior.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 22:26
niggers disgust me
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 23:10
Why can't we outsource more labor to Africa instead of mostly South America or Asia?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 23:33
>>93
Black children are more hyperactive, even when raised by white stable parents. Intelligence may be even, but behavior is not.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 0:38
Ugh... You're all ignorant if you think that the racial component has nothing to do with the condition of Africa.
Sorry, but in the adult word we require proof for the statements we make.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 2:00
>>98 Sorry, but in the adult word we require proof for the statements we make.
I agree. Please provide some form of support for the following assertion:
a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests.
Don't like IQ tests? Fine, use a variant of WAIS-R. Don't think there's a possible difference in intelligence between populations? Explain the current interest in Ashkenazi Jews.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 2:29
>>92 their countries, their cultures were still somewhat unified.
China? Unified? Singapore? Unified? South Korea? Bah. Even India, with their problems, is doing a lot better than Africa.
For example when Japan was trying to catch up to Western technologies- Africa was still very much colonized.
So what? Explain Singapore then. Used to be some pissant fishing village before investment and endless construction turned it into a first-world trading power. China wasn't exactly trying to catch up with the West either, and they got carved up by Western powers. What about Russia? The sure were backward at the start of this century.
It's still very arrogant and intellectually dishonest for you to assume that South Africa "worked" for native Africans.
Oh? Is it now? They were employed, had free medicine (by some of the best doctors in the world no less), and had a low crime rate. Their housing beat what was available elsewhere in Africa by a mile. In pretty much every metric, SA owned the rest of Africa as a place to live for the blacks, even if it wasn't heaven. Look at the current state. Compared to the rest of Africa then, and all of Africa today, it sure "worked".
And how do you die of starvation in Zimbabwe? Since most the workers were black anyway, all they had to do was keep doing the same work they used to. But no, nobody is doing anything and now there's no food. How do you die of starvation in such a fertile land?
As a particularly ignorant white person,
Ah, just the way to convince me! Keep it up, Mr. Know It All! Every time you don't get your way, you start slinging around poorly-hidden barbs (or your completely juvenile rants, like in >>66 or >>91).
Don't like what I wonder? Then resolve this to my satisfaction. Don't like that I wonder? What a hypocrite.
Name:
Eurolib from Tookie post2005-12-19 3:37
Sad fact is deep, unmixed Africans were never really all that advanced. It was the Islamicized ones who came in contact with the other ancient powers. Once the original larger tribes began to break down into worthless spearchuckers, that was the end of advancement until Zululand. If Zululand had both formed before the middle ages, and didn't suffer an inter-familial battle over lineage, they would've been okay. Zus if I'm recalling correctly were on par with Saracens when they came about, unfortunately Saracens came like almost a millenia earlier. Some things you have to attribute to nothing but plain bad luck and sucky climate. See also Inuit. And if you replace climate with clan infighting, ya's get the premodern Irish.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 3:45
as a side note, everyone bringing up Euro intervention doesn't seem to notice everybody else but the Red man recovered nicely and are now beating the pants off us. If we didn't get them blazingly drunk the Redskins would probably be walloping the anglos by now too.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 11:14
i feel truly sorry for all those tribes who were introduced to alcohol. it's just sad to see normal people become like that when they drink. not to mention the addiction. and deaths.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 12:32
...
Just because you assert something as hard as you can, making up facts to go along with it, doesn't make it true.
The fact is, given an opportunity no worse than what any other race or culture was given, blacks have done nothing. Black children DO NOT score the same on IQ tests.
Name:
Geneologist.2005-12-19 15:08
Sorry anti-chan, but due to the sensitivity and corruption of this subject it has never really been conclusively proven than black people are more or less or of equal intelligence than other races. I have seen many sources and statistics concerning the IQ test aswell as 1 good unbiased source about intelligence and ethnicity and I would guess at best that educated non-negroid communities score at around 115, whereas educated negroid communities score less, but above 100. It seems that any community or section of that community unfamiliar with IQ tests scores about the same, for instance school boys in the hebrides scored the same as school boys in Jamaica, however educated Scots scored higher than educated Jamaicans.
Blacks can become doctors and pilots, no problem, I would say the majority of whites are equal to blacks in intellectual capability. I cannot say whether blacks are a standard deviation behind when it comes to critical thought, but there are very few black philosophers, scientists or general pioneers recorded in history. Arabs, Mongoloids and Whites all have histories steeped in fgamous figures, the Greeks, Turks and Chinese all yielded hundreds of inventors and such like. Again the native americans exceeded negroes with their knowledge of the stars, who's priests are forgotten. Each of these major civilised groups had a form of writing and complex method of intensive farming of some sorts, vital for the creation of an ancient state.
Clearly it is not unreasonable to say that negroes never yielded or yielded very few people who pioneered civilisation.
I would like to mention another key point concerning development. Even the most oppressed and wartorn nations attempted to develop a system of protecting their food and other resources, Africans had plenty of time, space and technology to do this. Even Africa's barren regions could concievably support large towns as the steppe peoples in Kazak and Dhungaria achieved, in fact this occurred in the great Zulu city of Zimbabwe, however this came 3800 years too late and was only due to influence to develop from colonial influences around the coasts. It's almost as if south Africa had traded with the east african settlements for millenia without any hint of thinking they could or should try to achieve something similiar.
Other peoples did this a lot faster, a flood of new technologies, deep sea fishing, bronze, irrigation allowed more parts of the world to increase their populations and form civilisations, but in Africa everything remained stagnant and for much too long. Eventually even the north europeans drained the swamps and burnt down the forests to create farmland. Africa was about as hospitable as Europe circa 3000 BC, Europe wasn't always acres and acres of lush farmland, it all had to be worked for.
You can't "Bah" away the truth forever. Singapore and those other countries are still unified by their history. Africa has no history that doesn't include colonialism in some way. In a way I suppose no country can ever be truly "unified". But then again Africa is bigger that a majority of those countries you mentioned- bigger than the United States.
FACT: Africa has been raped of a majority of it's natural reasources. It's gold, it's oil. FACT: Africa has been raped of it's natural people- who were displaced by a system of SLAVERY up until the last 400 years. Sure, tribes did sell other tribes. But if the Europeans actually did things in Africa's interest- Slavery would've been outlawed anyway.
Africa's culture and social structure were gutted- and a place as big Africa requires an amount of time to decide as a people to go forward into modernizm. It doesn't matter what you say- Africa is unique in it's situation- and it's time for you to own up to the nearly-unrecoverable damage constant over colonization has done.
Comparing Africa to these other places shows a huge ignorance on your part. Dude, the Apathied ended in the EIGHTIES. That's the end of the arguement right now. You're expecting Africa to do in 20 years what took most countries 50-60-HUNDREDS years (China), neverminding the fact that these countries are SMALLER, didn't have to deal with the cultural and social displacement of their peoples.
And then you go on to say that "it wasn't heaven" but that "those niggers should've just dealt with being slaves in everything but name". Ok, just admit it dude- you don't know what the fuck goes on in African society. You don't know how South African's felt about being colonialized.
Say what you want about Africa. The fact is that a system has always been in place to keep these people uneducated, detached from their natural history and culture and riddled with diseases.
And you expect them to get their shit together in 25 years?
Ridiculous.
Hey and you know? PEOPLE STARVE TO DEATH IN AMERICA TOO. What you simply REFUSE to address is the simple fact that America and those other countries just flat out have more money than Africa. That's because they still have their natural resources to export.
Can you please go to the internet and look up the Aparthied and look at how long African has had to deal with whites? Because (A) Whites being somewhere isn't ALWAYS good. and (B) You will find that no continent has had to deal with what African has had to deal with.
An experiment with the proper conditions, taken OUT of the current culural and social context of race- completely isolated- but both raised in a society where "Race" isn't an issue- yes. An experiment like this has never taken place.
Your arguement presents many gray areas, while at the same not addressing any of the gray areas that are already there. No Black philosophers? Ok, dude, suuuuurrre. You need to hit up google for black philosophers, inventors and the like. You can start at the Moors and get back to us when you get to Mbiti, Hountondji, Kante and Wiredu. Jesus was "Black", what about him?
Just because you are ignorant of these people existing, doesn't mean they don't exist. What? Are you going to complain about the quality of the inventions or the philosophy now? I think these people have done alright considering all that Africa and Black Americans have gone through. These people are only still being recognised for their achievements. Blacks barely got the right to vote 60-70 fucking years ago.
Africans didn't have plenty of space, time, money, technology. Stop lying. Or maybe you THINK it's true. But it's not, obviously.
Genologist? LOL. More like Scientific Racist.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 17:05
FACT: Africa has been raped of a majority of it's natural reasources. It's gold, it's oil. FACT: Africa has been raped of it's natural people- who were displaced by a system of SLAVERY up until the last 400 years.
It hasn't been raped of the majority of its resources. Not even close. The mines in South Africa are still chugging along just fine, and they were never really developed anywhere else in Africa. Provide some authoritative data or publication that supports your assertion, because it counters everything I've seen.
It hasn't been raped of its natural people either. A few percentage points is rape now? And even if it was rape, it stopped _several generations ago_. The current African population is about 800 million. Why is New Zealand, with four million people, richer than most the 800 million combined? What the fuck are those 800 million doing?
it's time for you to own up to the nearly-unrecoverable damage constant over colonization has done.
Like what? Europe dominated Asia too! Where are they now? Oh, that's right, they're either economic superpowers or well on their way to being one. What about Africa? Bunch of warlords, dictators, and bushmen.
Amusingly enough, the world has been dumping plenty of money into Africa. As we can see, it's had little effect. It's not the West that can't take responsibility, it's the blacks who squander it. Where did all the money go?
Dude, the Apathied ended in the EIGHTIES. That's the end of the arguement right now. You're expecting Africa to do in 20 years what took most countries 50-60-HUNDREDS years (China)
Yes, it ended in the 80s... with a first world infrastructure. China, Japan, Singapore, India, and all the rest had to **build it on their own**. They didn't have factories, roads, telephone lines, hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure. South Africa was already there (they even had nuclear power!). Zimbabwe was already there. That's what I mean when I say the blacks got a functioning society on a platter.
But then again Africa is bigger that a majority of those countries you mentioned
And small in comparison to China or India. There are numerous examples of countries smaller than Africa, and a few larger, that are all vastly more successful. Why?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 17:13
>>108 An experiment like this has never taken place.
In other words, you have no data to back up your assertion.
Maybe blacks, whites, and asians are equal in intelligence. Then again, maybe they aren't. You still haven't explained away the interest in Ashkenazi jews; apparently some populations are more intelligent than others.
You can start at the Moors
The Moors were Arabs. We all know the Arabs had some impressive societies. Indeed, while Europe was a backwater during the Middle Ages, it was the Arabs who preserved enlightened knowledge from the ancients, and extended it a quite a bit.
When we say "blacks", we mean negros, not arabs. So, what about the other 4/5 of Africa?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 17:16
BTW, I'm certain Arabs will be delighted to be called black.
So, in order to defend "blacks" you're redefining the universally-accepted definition of negros to include arabs as well?
That's pathetic.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 17:25 (sage)
Pardon me, it looks like I was mistaken.
Well ignore that then. Explain away the first paragraph instead. Without data, how do you know all races are equal in intellect?
I expressed no "interest" in Ashkenazi Jews. But since you brought it up...
Ashkenazi Jews come a CULTURE of social selection for intelligence. Which makes IQ an inate hereditary compenent. This proves nothing- in fact- Black Americans in particular were bred for physical attributes NOT intellectual and the Europeans capped this off by keeping these people purposefully uneducated.
If you bred any one human for one particular trait and raised them in a culture where that trait was desirable- you would more than likely get the same effect. The only way you couldn't believe this is if you held the pre-concieved notion that blacks (or any other given race) is genetically inferior.
Still. There is no Black, white or Ashkenazi Jew gene or gene grouping. Espeically for Intelligence.
And No, I don't have the hard data. But then again, I'm not going around saying any one race is BIOLOGICALLY predisposed to unintelligence. Given equal opportunites, equal culture and the proper mind-set, I think that any one human can do anything.
Yeah and um, I'm not ignoring the Moors part. The Moors were VERY, VERY black. Their skin was darker than the skin of modern day Africans (or Blacks). --This, along with the philosophers I've named just goes to show your ignorance when it comes to the subject of African culture.
The very reason the Moors were so successful is BECAUSE they had a society that favored intelligence...just like...oh lets see...your Ashkenazi Jews.
I am truly and utterly sick of you coming back with this "do you have a publication supporting..." nonsense when you have habitually failed to provide the same since the beginning of this argument. Why pretend that you care about any proof I have when you're just going to pull a "well ignore that then".
Listen, I've already outlined WHY Asia is well on their way to being an "economic superpower" (the jury is still out on that one.) There is no way you can say any of those countries have dealt with colonization as long as Africa has.
Yeah, we've dumped money into Africa- (not enough if you ask me) but the very way you used the term "dumped" shows just how much care has actually gone into it. First (and again) Africa is WAY bigger as a country and more myriad as a culture and a nation.
"Where does all the money go?" Good question- maybe if America was so apathetic about the money- there would accountablity in that department. But we only start to care about where the money goes (like the oil-for-food program) when some smashing a plane into one of our skyscrapers. Maybe- when the Africans start bombing US soil- you'll start to ask those questions.
As for SA's "first world infrastructure" - it was still an infrastructure that EXCLUDED the native Africans. THAT'S WHAT THE APARTHIED WAS ALL ABOUT, STUPID.
To further your food analogy- it's like having an African (who didn't teach a lick of governing prowess or even the way your FINANCIAL SYSTEMS work) help a Chinese man make Mandrian Duck by handing him the ingredients never telling him the names of them or what they taste like- they handing some OTHER African the platter and telling him he can only eat it with chop sticks, the African NEVER have seen chopsticks before.
Alright, horrible analogy, but with purpose. Yours was just as bad, Africa hasn't handing ANYTHING on a "silver platter" that's a gross over-simplification of things. Especially when Africans had to FIGHT for that "silver platter."
Are you done bullshitting now?
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-19 19:26
Oh and sorry for the errors, I'm temporary blind in one eye over here and have been on painkillers for the last week and a half.
Don't ask.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 20:20
What happened?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 20:56
>>114 Why pretend that you care about any proof I have when you're just going to pull a "well ignore that then".
Because that "ignore that then" came from research. I knew Moors were Muslim, so assumed they were Arab, but something niggled at me (Shakespeare namely), so I went and looked it up. So clearly I am prepared to change my stance in the face of new evidence.
Now, why should you provide evidence? Actually, instead of that, why aren't you providing evidence? You made the claim, now back it up. I, at the least, lived and traveled across Africa, so I have a basis to work from. I find it quite strange how you aren't crushing my arguments with facts and references.
Why not? Prove I'm wrong. I want you to. I don't like the cognitive dissonance I get from believing that racism is wrong, yet at the same time being unable to develop an explanation about what went wrong in South Africa and Zimbabwe, or what is going on in the rest of Africa. I asked the question, you claim to have the answer. Prove it.
As for SA's "first world infrastructure" - it was still an infrastructure that EXCLUDED the native Africans.
Oh, yes it was. Blacks lived in townships. Even so, they were everywhere. They had medicine, employment, and free education up and including university (albeit rather poor). Why do you think the Afrikaaners kept the blacks around? For cheap employment. So it's not like the blacks were dumped into something new and strange.
In Zimbabwe, many of them were working on farms producing food. So, what happened there? Why are they all hungry? Did they suddenly forget everything they had been doing most their lives? Are you telling me they'd rather do nothing and starve to death?
Are you done bullshitting now?
Are you done being a child? Stop the useless ad hominem attacks ard prove me wrong already.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 20:57
Ashkenazi Jews come a CULTURE of social selection for intelligence. Which makes IQ an inate hereditary compenent. This proves nothing- in fact- Black Americans in particular were bred for physical attributes NOT intellectual and the Europeans capped this off by keeping these people purposefully uneducated.
In short, populations can have different intelligence and physical distributions. So an equal IQ is by no means assured.
YOU HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, THOSE THINGS SHOOT JETS OF SEMEN UP TO 30 FEET!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 22:08
>>>don't like the cognitive dissonance I get from believing that racism is wrong, yet at the same time being unable to develop an explanation about what went wrong in South Africa and Zimbabwe, or what is going on in the rest of Africa.
I found another way to solve that problem myself. I believe that we should just accept that some things will go wrong in the world whatever the reason. To try to solve everything, we'll become a race that constantly tries to improve ourselves at the cost of individuality, like the nazis.
So it's because we value individuality we have to accept dumb niggers.
it's a price to pay, you see. It's just the way it is.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 22:29
I see no changes. Wake up in the morning and I ask myself,
"Is life worth living? Should I blast myself?"
I'm tired of bein' poor and even worse I'm black.
My stomach hurts, so I'm lookin' for a purse to snatch.
Cops give a damn about a negro? Pull the trigger, kill a nigga, he's a hero.
Give the crack to the kids who the hell cares? One less hungry mouth on the welfare.
First ship 'em dope & let 'em deal the brothers.
Give 'em guns, step back, and watch 'em kill each other.
"It's time to fight back", that's what Huey said.
2 shots in the dark now Huey's dead.
I got love for my brother, but we can never go nowhere
unless we share with each other. We gotta start makin' changes.
Learn to see me as a brother 'stead of 2 distant strangers.
And that's how it's supposed to be.
How can the Devil take a brother if he's close to me?
I'd love to go back to when we played as kids,
but things change, and that's the way it is.
I see no changes. All I see is racist faces.
Misplaced hate makes disgrace for races we under.
I wonder what it takes to make this one better place...
let's erase the wasted.
Take the evil out the people, they'll be acting right.
'Cause mo' black than white is smokin' crack tonight.
And only time we chill is when we kill each other.
It takes skill to be real, time to heal each other.
And although it seems heaven sent,
we ain't ready to see a black President, uhh.
It ain't a secret don't conceal the fact...
the penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks.
But some things will never change.
Try to show another way, but they stayin' in the dope game.
Now tell me what's a mother to do?
Bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you.
You gotta operate the easy way.
"I made a G today" But you made it in a sleazy way.
Sellin' crack to the kids. "I gotta get paid,"
Well hey, well that's the way it is.
And still I see no changes. Can't a brother get a little peace?
There's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East.
Instead of war on poverty,
they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me.
And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do.
But now I'm back with the facts givin' 'em back to you.
Don't let 'em jack you up, back you up, crack you up and pimp smack you up.
You gotta learn to hold ya own.
They get jealous when they see ya with ya mobile phone.
But tell the cops they can't touch this.
I don't trust this, when they try to rush I bust this.
That's the sound of my tune. You say it ain't cool, but mama didn't raise no fool.
And as long as I stay black, I gotta stay strapped & I never get to lay back.
'Cause I always got to worry 'bout the pay backs.
Some buck that I roughed up way back... comin' back after all these years.
Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat. That's the way it is. uhh
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 22:50
>>105
There's a reason why blacks say those that become doctors and scientists are "Acting white" you know. Their whole religious and political leadership has come to despise modern technology while still using it to get their point across. Intellectual pursuits have all been designated "white" interests, and are heavily discouraged in their communities now. Essentially black activists, preachers, ministers, and even tribalist "presidential" leaders back in Africa have taken the reigns over from the white man and enslaved their own people to a stereotype in order to hold onto their own power. All black activism is now absolute bullshit and the purveyors know it.
For a non-racial look at this, see: feminism and redefining rape and domestic abuse.
A good quick example would be "Visual Rape" being pushed by Protestant Feminists as of late. They want a charge for ogling a woman with a low-cut neckline to carry the same weight as a full-on penetration.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-20 0:07
A good quick example would be "Visual Rape" being pushed by Protestant Feminists as of late. They want a charge for ogling a woman with a low-cut neckline to carry the same weight as a full-on penetration.
Are you serious? You're joking, right?
Shit, if that's the way it's gonna be, start your engines guyz, might as well enjoy a woman before we're all anal sexing each other in jail!
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-20 0:34
As for my eye, um...I'm just going to say it was an automobile accident and leave it at that. I don't want to go into it over the internets.
Nor is an equal IQ assured among general races either. Your arguement keeps running into the wall of no race genes or gene groupings though. It's not like: "Oh we haven't found them yet". They just flatly do not exist.
And I honestly find it hard to believe you spend any relevant amount of time in Africa. I just sat here outlining all the reasons for "what happened". And truly, if you really gave a shit- you could've ask the Africans. But let's be honest- you don't care. What ever happened- just be sure that it has nothing to do with genetics or the basic biology of those people. It's all culture.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-20 0:53
>>108
You are leaving out many grey areas, whilst I try to address them.
Jesus was arabic and the bible clearly states his mother was a local arab living on the eastern coast of the mediteranean, perhaps you are stating that god is negroid and you believe jesus was half black, though I take it you think I am another [insert political jargon here] and by saying jesus was black I will be somehow offended. Well if he were black I would have no problem saying he was black, just like I have no problem saying blacks can be taught to fly planes and some have the intelligence to become doctors, however jesus wasn't black, which is the reason why I oppose you on this. You have however parrotted dogma which seem to be the standard with afrocentric paranoid racists.
There have been fair IQ tests concerning ethnic groups in universities and other places where you will find educated people and by unbiased demographists. These books you can find in the library and are purely scientific and not steeped in any form of political dogma, except for a by word at the start recgonising the sensitivity of the issue. I can't remember the title of the book I found, but next time I am at the library I will note it down.
I didn't say there were no black philosophers, I said they yielded no or very few people who pioneered civilisation and I am right, for if there were any they certainly had no effect.
Mbiti, theologian, was born in 1969AD, not 1969 BC so could not have done anything to pioneer civilisation. The only benefit of theology is religion and the fact it causes people to question the world without superstition, which human civilisation has already progressed past. I am sure Mbiti is intelligent, but he is no better or useful than any other theologian, not a black Socrates.
Hountondji, prefers oral tradition, something which has held back every civilisation that preferred it to writing. Dare I say, she prefers oral tradition because she feels western writing is a form of imposing eurocentrism on African peoples.
Kante do you mean Kant? He wasn't negroid..
Wiredu, I like this man, if only he were born 4000 years ago, then this conversation wouldn't be taking place and Africa would contain a dense thriving civilisation and culture rivalling the rest of the world.
Bear in mind they have all gained an education in universities outside of sub-saharran Africa and from knowledge derived from non-negroid races.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-20 1:12
>>124 Your arguement keeps running into the wall of no race genes or gene groupings though.
And how would you know? I'm aware of the PC line that many scientists have taken, but I'd like to know their basis for this belief. Few people have had their DNA sequenced yet, so how can scientists be certain? Without a massive amount of DNA from numerous individuals from different populations, there's no way to sequence and statistically analyze if indeed there is no difference.
Different populations have different allele distributions, and the significant difference in appearance between and African and Asian indicates that there's a consistent differences in the genotype. Or are you claiming the phenotype is the result of the environment? How does that explain the appearence of children of mixed descent?
It's all culture.
Thanks. I'd never have figured that out on my own. Perhaps the environment too. Maybe even a bit of biology. Any other obvious tidbits you'd like to enlighten us on?
And I honestly find it hard to believe you spend any relevant amount of time in Africa.
First class! You don't agree with what I've seen, so clearly I wasn't there. What if I was? Have you been there? How would you know if I was wrong? Clearly reading some books has given you great insight!
People in general, were just flat out darker back then. The ancient middle east was full of many different colored people's who considered themselves "Arab" and many of these people have the skin coloring that you would consider "Black".
For certain Jesus's ancestors were black. By the 'one-drop' rule doesn't that automatically make him black?
Just saying.
Seeing as how you can't name these books, I'm going to assume they don't exist. Remember citing anything from the Bell Curve or the Pioneer Fund is an automatic bye.
And, No, I mean Kante. Look him up. Hey and one of those guys was good enough to join a league of philosophers or something (I don't remember exactly which or what) so he couldn't have been that bad.
And what you said was that there were "very few". There's actually many. Also: As for pioneering civilizations- The Moors firmly fit into this as does ancient Africa. Run a search for Black Pharaohs, you can also take a gander at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2677919.stm
Allele distributions deal with physical traits. Not intellectual...the human intellect isn't something so easily gauged in the first place. You implicate that Negroids, Whites, Asians are different species altogether when that is simple not the case. Until you find the gene were race co-relates to say- the effectiveness of ones neo-cortex- you have no case for race-based geneology.
And what I meant was simply was I said. If you didn't even think to ask the PEOPLE OF ZIMBABWE "what happened" then your experience and your knowledge of Africa is superficial. Who cares what you "saw" when you obviously failed to learn anything.
Your mind sounds like a door slamming shut.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-20 11:23
Your arguement keeps running into the wall of no race genes or gene groupings though.
Allele distributions deal with physical traits. Not intellectual...
Intellectual is partly due to hereditary, partly due to environment. Nature nurture tied up in one... except: the correlation coefficient of monozygotic twins reared together is .88, reared apart .75; dizygotic twins reared together is .53; siblings reared together is .49, reared apart .46; unrelated children reared together is .17. How do you intend to explain this?
Your mind sounds like a door slamming shut.
Look who's talking. You ignore science that doesn't fit into your world view. You know jack shit about intelligence and the related twin studies by psychologists, but you pretend to (do you know the relationship between DNA and the development of the neocortex? Do you even realize that the neocortex isn't the sole component of intelligence? HAHA, I bet you didn't!).
Furthermore, your explanation of the experience of others, even though you have none yourself, is it must have been superficial. HOLY SHIT, THEY'RE DYING OF HUNGER. CLEARLY SUPERFICIAL.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-20 13:15 (sage)
NIGGER LOL
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-20 13:17 (sage)
People in general, were just flat out darker back then.
"Ancestry" and Genetic Race are two different things, to be sure. Just because a private company can provide a gene map of your ancestry doesn't automatically mean that ancestory itself has any links to intelligence. For the wide difference in intelligence you're looking for- it would require that all of these races of humans to in-fact seprate species- that is simply NOT the case.
Yes. That "environment" being culture. Culture has long since acted as a sort of feedback system and is mostly responsible for the further evolution of our neo-cortex and consequentally- our intelligence. I don't intend to explain away any of the copy-pasted jargon in italics- though I am curious as to how you feel that poses any relevace to say- the existance of a "black" or "white" gene.
Oh, yeah. IT DOESN'T.
As for "ignoring science", that's simply an outright lie. I have addressed everything you've thrown at me while you have simply glared over my responses- your idea that "Blacks" haven't contributed to philosophy and civilization has been proven completely bunk- you choose to ignore it because it shatters *your* world view. If there's something that you feel I haven't responded to- by all means- pull it out (of your ass).
The difference between you and I is that I've actually done my reasearch into the damage that colonization has done to Africans. It was European carelessness that unleashed AIDS upon Africa and the world. And I don't see how you can sit there and say anything to the contrary when, for instance, a country like Japan isn't exactly doing 100% OK socially and culturally. Anyone can see that the imposition of western (judeo-christian) culture has done irrepairable damage to Japanese civilization. And Japan was never even fully colonized, in that sense. Africa however was- if you can't see the co-relation between the two (or if you choose to ignore it outright) then it is simply from arrogance and an inability to own up to your ignorance.
The neo-cortex, while not a sole component of intelligence...is a very large component...taking up 2/3rds of the total mammalian brain mass, it is where we develop the ability for critical conscious thought and reasoning. It's because of the complexity of the neo-cortex that we have the complexity of the human brain.
Yeah and those philosophers that I mention did indeed go to universities- as for those people pioneering those ideas being white- yeah it's real convientant for your arguement seeing as how "white people" have spent the last thousand years subjegating the planet to it's own over-inflated sense of superiority.
Uh, geeeeee, I dunno.....how about the bible? How about, ALL OF KNOWN HISTORY? "Anglos" or "Whites" simply did not exist _in the form they exist as today_ during the era in which the bible was written. Prove me wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 3:12
I don't intend to explain away any of the copy-pasted jargon in italics- though I am curious as to how you feel that poses any relevace to say- the existance of a "black" or "white" gene.
In short, you're fucking idiot talking out your ass. That is jargon? You mean you've been talking about the neocortex, and you consider that jargon? Are you are complete fucking idiot? That is simple to anyone who has the vaguest clue about science and statistics. Have you studied any psychology and physiology at all, or is the only word you know "neocortex"?
And we're already covered the "black" and "white" gene crap. You trot this dead horse out and flog it yet again because you probably don't know what allele frequencies are. lol distribution? lol population? wazzat bix nood?
Explain it away, you adolescent twit. You're just trying to bullshit yourself out of a tight situation because you've spewed a little too much shit, but can't acknowledge you're wrong. If you wander into areas you don't know, you'll get roasted, especially if you're a conceited fucktard.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 3:16 (sage)
It was European carelessness that unleashed AIDS upon Africa and the world.
Holy fuck. HOLY FUCK. EXPLAIN THAT!
Wait, wait, let me guess: AIDS was made by the White man to kill the Black man, amirite?
Yeah and those philosophers that I mention did indeed go to universities-
You're a fucking idiot. There are several Anonymous arguing you here. BUT THAT'S OKAY, KEEP RAISING POINTS I NEVER MADE.
Several Anonymous are all apart of one singular fucktarded entity known as: Fucktardymous.
Oh and by the way, I didn't say anything even CLOSE to whites *trying* to kill Blacks. You put words into my mouth just like you try to your penis into girl's mouths - with ZERO tact.
I said CARELESSNESS, I.E using DISEASED monkey tissue culture in the production of the polio vaccine. LOL, maybe you should google it, dude.
Yeah, that's right: JARGON, bitch. What? You think I don't know that you're trying to make an argument for a seperation between nuture and nature? You don't even cite where you got that information and you know what? It doesn't even matter- The differentiation is irrelavant to your point. Monozygotic twins can differ because of mutation and even then this applies to physical features (where are the tests for intellect again?).
Nevertheless genetics are a relatively small component of intellect. If you take an Ashkenazi Jew and raise it in a culture or natural enviroment where intellect isn't a desired trait- his breeding will amount to fuck all. And like I keep repeating (because it BEARS REPETITION) all of your talk about intellect boils to just that- BREEDING.
What you're trying to do is create a co-relation between physical features (dark skin) and intellect/behavior where one simply does not exist. You're trying to say that black skin instantly means lack of intellect and that's not the case. Sure, blacks can be bred for stupidity....BUT SO CAN ANY OTHER "RACE". It's not something that unique, irreversable and no matter what you say it's no excuse for PREJUDICE, DESCRIMINATION, HATE or FEAR.
Besides that. The genetic diversity of any given population is IRRELANVENT given the sheer variety of genes any given modern population possesses. All of the human species stem from the same group of ancestors. Like it or not, believe it or not- AFRICAN ANCESTORS. It's rediculous for you to carry on about this when in fact- we've been pretty much recycling the same genes amongst each other since we made the jump to homosapiens.
I gutted your assertions that africans haven't contributed to philosophy or civilization. I've sat here and rebutted everything you've thrown at me and now- you resort to McCarthy-like character attacks. "wahhh, you've been talking bullshit....wahhhh, it's not jargon...."
"I'm wrong"? HOW? WHERE HAVE YOU "PROVEN ME WRONG"? Have I crushed your stupidity with such a finality that the only victory you can glean is from trying to paint me as spewing crap? HAHA, OK SURE BUDDY -- Crap that you've been unable to agrue against FROM THE BEGINNING.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 6:35
Nevertheless genetics are a relatively small component of intellect.
It seems you have no idea what this indicates: the correlation coefficient of monozygotic twins reared together is .88, reared apart .75; dizygotic twins reared together is .53; siblings reared together is .49, reared apart .46; unrelated children reared together is .17.
You haven't countered this.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 6:38
I didn't say anything even CLOSE to whites *trying* to kill Blacks.
Well, no shit, you fail at sarcasm. You still haven't explained this classic:
It was European carelessness that unleashed AIDS upon Africa and the world.
a) Back then HIV wasn't known.
b) There's plenty of literature debunking this claim.
KEEP IT UP CONSPIRATORIAL KID!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 8:14
Last time I checked it was niggers not telling the difference from monkeys and fucking them what got them aids, correct me if wrong, there have been thousands of these theories, which get even more messed up with lies from politically correct faggots.
Yes, I do and yes, I have. If you have any other suggestions as to what it implicates- feel free to elaborate. The whole arrogant-cryptic thing doesn't suit you in light of me pretty much clinically debunking your bullshit since the beginning of this arguement. Ah, and what's this? You've failed again to cite where these stats come from...
I swear to God, dude. If I run that obvious copy-paste into google and I turn up some dude's research paper that's already been contested to death- I'm going to be fucking pissed.
Anyway here we go AGAIN.
Those stats are moot, in the first fucking place. You're trying to cite genetics as the most important component in IQ, when that's not the case. They tried to say the same thing in the Bell Curve and if memory serves me correctly that was shown to be incorrect by a counter-study done of a set of seperated twins being placed into different adoptive families...when this happened they showed the largest differences in IQ. _Despite an identical genetic background_ - It was done by one of the guys arguing against the Bell Curve. Regardless, your stats aren't anything set in stone and they are hardly factual or uncontested- consider that shit COUNTERED.
Genetics has something to do with intelligence but obviously a very small part. I think it's safe to say a good environment can ENHANCE ones IQ regardless of genetics. Humans have the ability to learn- there is no cap or limit as to what one person can learn through intellectual pursuits.
And When it comes to intelligence there's NO WAY to tell what EXACTLY comes from nature and what EXACTLY comes from nature, anyway. It's completely abstract and definately not something you'd want to build the idea of co-related genetic-race (which doesn't even fucking exist) and IQ around.
So until you dechiper this- formulate a test that guages all of this in the context of genetics and environment AND discover a "Race gene" - then you have nothing more than a hopeless and pessimistic view of human intelligence- made even more hopeless by your lust for descrimination, prejudice and fear.
Put it this way: When considering the growing IQ of a child, what do you think does more DAMAGE to it's intelligence?
It's genetic disposition?
Or that child growing up in an environment where it's told that it's inferior (without a priori scientific basis for this) without proper access of nutritious food, shelter, a loving family, a culture that rewards it's intelligence, and the same educational opportunities that are afford to others?
No, you don't, because it renders your initial statement that "given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests" false. Genes play a role, which the study indicates: there is a correlation between intelligence scores and genetic similarity.
You're exactly like John Watson, with the famous beggar-man quote of his, but nowadays we know he was wrong. Read up on the history of behaviorism.
Those stats are moot, in the first fucking place.
Says who? You? It doesn't matter what the stats are, so long as they are significant. If they are significant, to any degree, that renders one of your premises false. Take a look at this:
I find it amusing that you proclaim that the seperation between nature and nurture is false (I won't contest that), yet you equally state that heredity has little to do with intelligence. Isn't this contradictory? How do you know?
Two children have identical experiences in life. They learn the same things. Now you present them the same tests. Will they score the same? Since genes play a role, not just in intelligence, but also in personality and other trains, no matter how large or small, for sufficiently large number of tests the two children probably won't have the same scores.
Now, let's consider a small population: it has certain allele frequencies. This is without contest. Don't believe me? Look up CCR5 and Eyam for a specific example, or just consider speciation. Why would this not apply to larger populations? Again, why do blacks, whites, and asias consistently look a certain way, and what about offspring of dual heritage? If skin colour, facial structure, height, likelihood of certain diseases, etc, can be inherited, why not factors that affect intelligence?
In short, it's quite possible that blacks, whites, and asians, given exactly the same conditions, education, and opportunity, will have different normal distributions of intelligence.
Your comment regarding mutations is also a red herring. The metrics used to measure intelligence already implicity account for this since they're measuring the phenotype's performance. Even so, despite the probably minute differences, there is a strong correlation. Furthermore, even if we ignore the above, errors in DNA replication occur at a rate of ~1E10 nucleotides, which is miniscule.
given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Most the data doesn't fit your claim, so it's unlikely.
Hey, why are you complaining? Perhaps blacks will have a slightly higher intelligence score, and they are held back by history, environment, and/or culture (and why are you so happy to take credit for blacks' apparent physical prowess, but scared to consider the same for intelligence?). Or maybe some population of Asians will win out.
Or maybe it's nothing. Maybe the scores all even out. But we don't know. YOU don't know. QED.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 10:16
>>143
Your very own links indicate that the theory hasn't been properly examined or tested.
Furthermore, HIV was unknown when this is alleged to have happened. How is this careless? Should we ask the monkey if it'll die in a few years?
So why are you making these claims? It seem like you're a bitter conspiratorial nut, desperately looking for anything to validate your hatred of the white man?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 10:49
>>143
Why are you so angry lol, have you got aids yourself?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 16:29
Anti-chan, can't you see yourself? Do you think by claiming only your views are correct and dismissing all evidence to the contrary and then complaining when your opponents do the same you can somehow make your point look right? You have been crushed multiple times in this argument, but you keep on repeating the same nonsense regardless. You are just making a fool of yourself.
Egypt wasn't 100% black and never has been and people can have dark-black skin and not be NEGRO. I am frankly offended that you say I am a negro and my ethnicity's achievements are all negro and then have the nerve to kick me our whenever. Those black pharoahs were conquerors who were the first and only black rulers of Egypt and there were no major migrations of negroes north into ARAB lands. North Africa is ARAB and always will be, the only negroes here are trying to get into europe, or libya..
"What would you think of a one-armed man who suddenly grabs a stranger and starts trying to rip off her clothes? She’s struggling to fend him off, frantically trying to protect herself from humiliating exposure, attempting to hold down her skirt with one hand, and clutching her neckline with the other while he’s doing his utmost to expose more of her flesh and underwear.
Doesn’t that same desperate battle take place whenever a woman with normal feelings is gawked at? The absence of violence makes it no less an assault on a woman’s desperate attempt to preserve her modesty and avoid humiliation. Even if she manages to keep prying eyes out of her private parts, the entire ordeal is an offensive attack on her person. Like struggling with a one-armed man, she has a chance of emerging with some of her modesty intact, but should she have to endure such a degrading battle, tugging at her skirt, calculating how to avoid bending over, knowing that if she relaxes her defenses for a moment filthy eyes could be thrust up or down her dress? Should she have to go through life haunted by the knowledge that at any moment her decency could be violated – even by someone who claims to be a Christian?"
and
"Stealing a look is robbing a woman of her modesty. It is violating her person; stripping her of her decency; invading her private parts. It is denying her the right to appear in public without someone using her for his sexual pleasure or having her physical attributes critically compared with a hundred images of airbrushed sluts distorted beyond what any woman can compete with. Stealing a look is to use her up, spit her out, and move on to the next victim; treating her with less respect than a blow-up plastic dummy. With intrusive eyes boring through her, she is allowed no more right of refusal than if she were taken prisoner, and forced to star in the sordid home-made video playing in someone’s mind. Her consent is not sought, nor is payment offered. A whore is treated with more dignity. The victim has no more control over her degradation than if she were abducted and reduced to a sex slave."
>>125 afrocentric paranoid racists
Hi there McGruder, lolol.
>>132
Bigass sun with no giant houses to shield us with?
lol, seriously though a good amount of...ohh randomnorthafricancountry... Moroccans even now, some of them are blacker'n these southern-buggered niggers in the states. Don't mean they're niggers. Facial features still look Arabic/Caucasion. I bet the poster who thinks all Africans are niggers thinks Carthage was owned & run by niggers.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-21 18:50
|If they are significant, to any degree, that renders one of your premises false.
This is wrong. *Any* degree and a *revelant* degree, revelant enough to build a prejudice upon- those're two different things entirely. I've rendered more of your assertions (about african inventors, philosophers, pioneers of civilization) to be completely false. What response have you given to that display of ignorance?
...and so because you've <i>barely</i> made a dent in *one* of agruements then, what? You win? No, buddy, it doesn't work like that.
The difference between you and I here is that- while I can concede that not all the answers are there (I mean, have we even found an a priori definition of "intelligence", yet?) and my general belief is that while genetics is involved- environment is more prevalent in enhancing ones IQ. (And there's MORE data supporting this than to the contrary.)
I'm also not implictly suggesting that this is a valid reason for descrimination or prejudice against an entire people. There simply is no ethical, moral or scientific excuse for it. Hilter wanted the jews removed from German society because, in fact, they were *too smart*.
Your singular assertion that blacks are generally unintelligent because of genetics is buried under the weight of it's own ignorance and evidence that clearly states other wise. Regardless, it's the power of nuture, the inherant lack of "pure races" that regails genetics to a backseat role in intelliegence when it comes to this particular arguement.
In the end, yeah "But we don't know" is apt. But in that not-knowing shouldn't we just generally treat people with respect and provide people with equal opportunities, regardless?
I think it very much boils down to my closing question in my last post. Btw, Why didn't you answer my closing question, Anon?
DUDE WTF? I NEVER said that Egypt was EVER 100% African. What I'm saying- is that the color of their skin makes them people who YOU would consider "Black".
Cut it with the conspiracy-shit already, douche face. I think the thoery is valid as a testament to the often un-reported careless of the scientific community. Has nothing to do with whites trying to wipe out blacks. GTFO.
As for my other comments, I'm just being funny. I'm not really angry as much as I'm annoyed by how many of you would be so easily willing to sacifice the sancity of science to further your own agenda. I mean- if you hate blacks FINE, but don't sit there and try and trump up a system of prejudice based one man's study of MZ twins...who just happened to be funded by Nazis. ;) (kidding...or am I>:o)
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 19:16
>>150
Wrong reference to >>146; >>146 thinks blacks got aids by having sex with apes, not any conspiration or SCCCCIIIIEEEENNNNNCCCCCCE failed experiment.
The idea that HIV comes from having sex with monkeys is idiotic and totally unproven.
Name:
Dr. Anthro2005-12-21 21:10
The Afro spades caught it from a monkey fighting to keep from getting raped or from the black bastards actually buggering the poor little beasts. Africa is the world center of bestiality, so the latter is not unreasonable.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-21 21:34
Shut the fuck up, loser.
Name:
Dr. Anthro2005-12-21 23:19
Fuck U. Come up with a better answer. Asshole.
Name:
Dr. Anthro2005-12-21 23:19
Fuck U. Come up with a better answer. Asshole.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 23:39
>>147
You are trying to mix up the words black and negro, oh and I understand what these people are getting at, they are racists, but I don't think their arguments were plucked out of the blue. All the evidence shows that people went out of africa into a new environment where the intelligent were more likely to breed and evolved to be a little smarter whereas africans were not in a new environment and their evolution favoured the same not very intelligent humans and negro civilisations aren't all that great. Other races experienced the same problems as negroes, but managed to work through them, including all the wars, famines, plagues and inhospitable terrain. Face it, something's up and not all the evidence shown is made up by racisms. The bell curve has inconsistencies, but after 30 years of civil rights in a country where immigrants from 3rd world countries are becomming heart surgeons and rich business owners I don't think it was plucked out of the blue.
Just think how long it would take to selectively breed a community of black people to have the same traits as native americans. You can't tell me there is something different or that they weren't evolving into a new species like neanderthals evolved from humans.
There are intelligent negroes, sure, but most negroes are not as intelligent as the average. I think we should treat people by their merits and give them equal opportunity, but at least acknowledge that negroes are incapable of reaching the same intelligence as other races.
And yes, I do acknowledge that environment has something to do with it, but the environment can only do so much, in order to excel beyond the abilities of the masses you need to be gifted. Einstein was a jew and worked in a patent office, yet he achieved a lot more than his christian counterparts through sheer intelligence. And no. Intelligence isn't entirely about rememberring things.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-22 0:04
>>155
I'll come up with "something better" when "nigger" doesn't spill out of your mongoloid mouth every 20 second. Weeaboo uber-faggot.
>>157
You keep saying things as if the playing field between Blacks and other races have been absolutely level. That's not the case for the last 200 years. That's not the case for the last 100 years, shit that's not even the case for the last 40 years.
Like or not, there's negro blood flowing through your viens. The gene pool is so diluded that it's asinine to assert any generalities about any one race.
What you and others simply fail to understand about the bottomline about this issue is that there is no gray area. You can't treat people equally based on their merits and give them equal opportunity while at the same implying that they are not equal. Basically, with you are a racist- or you are not.
Genetics are involved with intelligence, but it's been clearly and repeatedly proven that environment can enhance upon nature. This is what it means to be a post-modern human being- to impose your will on nature- instead of nature imposing it's will upon you.
Furthermore, intelligence is still undefined. It's a very abstract subject and I think it's foolhearty to jump to the conclusion that negroes are just naturally unintelligent. We still don't know what "race" is or even what "intelligence" is.
But whatever, keep trying to come up with excuses for your discriminatory behavior. It's truly entertaining to rest of us smart people who use your beliefs to line our pockets and sweep us into office. :)
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 1:19
>>158
I'm sure one of my distant ancestors was a negro, but I don't see why this would make me want to ignore the facts. It may not have been the case in the last 200 years, but from 600 years ago and onwards, when europe was still medieval and had not even discoverred america it was an even playing field. They had the same tech as the egyptians, why didn't they use it? Even though everyone else was war torn, Japan had a better civilisation when they were in a civil war, the mongols aswell and europe in the dark ages could have protected itself from a hypothetical colonial power coming to buy slaves and take over.
Anyway I don't see why colonies are worse than tribes, they built railways in india, why couldn't they build in africa?
I don't think there are any grey areas, grey areas are simply areas that cannot be defined logically and even grey areas can be understood with probability. I am not racist, I am a truthist, meaning I only believe in the truth, those are my intentions. Why would I support racism if it meant I would be bullied and kicked out of the country?
We do know what race and intelligence is, there are entire sciences with very good tests which can acurately define them both. Of course there are communities who's people have absorbed genes from negro to arab, from arab to white and from arab to asian for generations who cannot be defined easily. It's how nature works and no one is denying this. But the haplotypes, history, physical and mental differences are there. You are putting words into people's mouths, like a politician.
Why do you keep repeating ad nauseum "you are black, jesus was black, no one believes you" as if someone gives a fuck anyway? Do you think if you beat the heretic enough he will actually believe in your religion? That's why the inquisition executed certain heretics, because they knew that you can only change certain people's minds through rational debate.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 2:47
Hello, >>149! It's me, >>144! I so missed you, anti-chan!
I also can't help but notice that you're trying to dodge the issue again! I love you so much! It's so easy to have a debate when the other side keeps building straw men and stabbing in the dark! I've provided some evidence and an argument, but instead of addressing it you blow unrelated shit like an squid blows ink! I must congratulate your ability to once again attempt to redirect the issue!
I've rendered more of your assertions (about african inventors, philosophers, pioneers of civilization) to be completely false.
Hey, I told you before, that is another Anonymous. Stop mixing the two of us up. How about just addressing >>144 instead of stabbing in the dark? Your argumentation sucks, man.
Name:
anti-sage2005-12-22 2:47
whut u restin me for?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 2:53
I think the thoery is valid as a testament to the often un-reported careless of the scientific community.
Correct, it's a theory, and one which is still being debated. Indeed, more recent studies don't seem to support it. So why do you go around claiming it as fact, like in >>133:
It was European carelessness that unleashed AIDS upon Africa and the world.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 2:55 (sage)
The idea that HIV comes from having sex with monkeys is idiotic and totally unproven.
On the other hand, being bitten by one isn't.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-22 3:09
Where you and your lot constantly fail is over-presentation and emphasis on physical appearence. This and the percieved differences in culture is the entire basis for race, while race is still not defined genetically. Until you define-provide proof of race genetically and define what intelligence is a priori...the entire idea of the co-relation between race and intellect is moot.
You call yourself a truthist? Truthist isn't even a fucking word. And the truth you claim to serve is by no means absolute. What you have sir, is a belief. Haplotypes, genetics...I mean when it comes to the over-all development of a human being...environment is much, MUCH more important. But you ignore this out of spite and in favor of smaller, more convientant facts. Neverminding what those facts actually imply about your perception of human evolution (a very simplistic view).
This is why no one would dare challenge my assertions about the effect an intellect-retardant culture or society on your precious Ashkanazi Jews. Because it shatters the idea that a uneducated Jew will ALWAYS score higher than a educated blacks or latinos.
Basically- even if it is true that ALL blacks are the neanderthals you're trying to paint them out to be- it doesn't matter. They are still apart of mankind and as humans we have been ingenious in that every act since our reign over the planet has been the outright defiance of the laws of nature.
Like I said, I don't care if you believe me or not because you are ignorant. You lack the cognitive functions to look at the human speicies as a whole. You lack the discipline it takes to question a percieved truth. You haven't done any reasearch as to actually WHY Europe dominates. (Read: Guns, Germs, and Steel) And your type of ignorance isn't to be changed. It's to be used for the benefit of the truly intelligent.
I'm not mixing "you two" up. For all I know, you are the same person. It's not hard to type *anything* into the name field.
My address to >>144 is >>149 - Why do you constantly accuse me of building straw men when you've been literally building your elaborate shit-work scarecrows out of shed pubic hair? LOL, you think if you keep repeating the same thing, you're going to eventually trick someone into thinking that you've got a living, breathing argument?
I apologise for that, I shouldn't have expressed as fact. That was not my intention. However, I think it's fairly reasonable to say that HIV was created out of the...ugh...sexual union of a man and a monkey. That's just fucking stupid.
For all you know. Which you don't. So just address the points in >>144, instead of making guessed references to other posts.
And your so-called "address" refutes nothing in >>144. Indeed, by your very own words you admit you were wrong. Here: given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests my general belief is that while genetics is involved- environment is more prevalent in enhancing ones IQ.
If genetics is involved, then "given equal conditions" the two children won't score the same for a large number of tests.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 4:30 (sage)
This is why no one would dare challenge my assertions about the effect an intellect-retardant culture or society on your precious Ashkanazi Jews.
What the hell? I'm the person who brought up the Ashkenazi jews, but the rest of that entire rant seems about issues I never raised. "Truthist"? Some other guy. Or maybe not, but you don't know that.
Stop raging at a mob, it makes you look like an complete dolt. We don't all believe the same thing. If you mix us all up, no wonder you think we're all crazy.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 4:32 (sage)
Or maybe we are all crazy, but not as nuts as you.
That's because I wasn't fucking talking to you. I understand the advantage to not identifying yourself to your opponent, but pointing out the obvious ("Some other guy" LOL, NO SHIT, LOLZ) makes you look like a jackass fuckwit moron.
|If genetics is involved, then "given equal conditions" the two children won't score the same for a large number of tests.
Sorry, that "if-then" is exactly where I draw the line. Say that genetics affects intelligence- fine. But I come from the general school of thought that when it comes to intelligence and intelligence testing it is nuture that would create the differences in scores- not genetics. The overall affect is so small that it is not something that one should build the prejudice of Blacks not becoming philosophers, pioneers in civilization around. (Yeah, I know YOU didn't say that, but my point still stands)
There's more and less-contested evidence that culture, society and education continuously trumps whatever so-called path genetics lays out. Explain to me savants, or idiot savants. What role does genetics play with their intelligence and how precisely do you gauge that intelligence?
Until you hammer out the existence of genetic race and an a priori definition of intelligence, you have no solid grounds for your claims.
END AND SAGED.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 6:11
it is nuture that would create the differences in scores- not genetics.
In other words, genetics makes no difference. How do you reconcile that with this: my general belief is that while genetics is involved- environment is more prevalent in enhancing ones IQ.
Obviously, you believe genetics is not involved in any significant way, or it would make an impact. How do you reconcile this against the numerous twin studies? How can you be certain that genetics plays such a minor role? How can you say that when you claim that nature versus nurture is false?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 6:13
END AND SAGED.
Translation: I am 15; hear me roar.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-22 7:53 (sage)
| How do you reconcile this against the numerous twin studies?
With the numerous twin studies that have stated to the contrary.
"Farber (1981) also argued that there are the degrees of imperfect separation between the twins so that heritability estimates range from .14 to .67."
There is also the still very unresolved problem of using heritability stats because it's hard to distinguish the effect of genes or enviroment on a particular trait- in this case- intelligence. And you know what else? You can't make an inference on nature or nurture's influences over intellect based on a fucking IQ test.
IQ test measure acquired behaviors- the child's current level of observable performance which is affected by education and upbringing. I.E- NURTURE.
| How can you be certain that genetics plays such a minor role?
Because the role that nuture plays is more prevalent. If genetics were "Stronger" in this case, then an uneducated Jew would score higher in an IQ test NO MATTER WHAT. That is simply not the case.
Moar like: I am 24 and tired of arguing with gay pedofaggot fake Genelogists college students (LOLZ!) over the internets.
OH SHI-
C-C-C-C-C-COMBO SAGE
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 8:28
Farber (1981)
An older book, which couldn't include the Minnesota study. The prior study I noted is newer, and a significant milestone in the field. Find something that contradicts that instead.
Some monozygotic twins were raised apart, and effects of socioeconomic status were taken into account. Despite this there is a strong correlation between genetic similarity and their scores on IQ and WAIS-R.
heritability estimates range from .14 to .67.
0.14-0.67 is not 0.0. This contradicts your claim.
You can't make an inference on nature or nurture's influences over intellect based on a fucking IQ test.
Doesn't this detract from your point? You claim that heredity has no significant role to play, yet the you equally claim that you can't make inferences. So how do you know it isn't significant?
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-22 8:46 (sage)
Who cares if it's an older book? The results still differ from the Minnesota study. What difference does it make if from 1981 or 2001? Doesn't change the results and it doesn't change that your stats and other Bell Curve, Pioneer Funded reasearch blantant ignores similar studies that have been done since.
Ok, that's it, I'm pretty much getting very tired of repeating myself- so it's copy and paste time.
| You claim that heredity has no significant role to play, yet the you equally claim that you can't make inferences. So how do you know it isn't significant?
[] The role that nuture plays is more prevalent. If genetics were "Stronger" in this case, then an uneducated Jew would score higher in an IQ test NO MATTER WHAT. That is simply not the case.
[] There is also the still very unresolved problem of using heritability stats because it's hard to distinguish the effect of genes or enviroment on a particular trait- in this case- intelligence. And you know what else? You can't make an inference on nature or nurture's influences over intellect based on a fucking IQ test.
[] IQ test measure acquired behaviors- the child's current level of observable performance which is affected by education and upbringing. I.E- NURTURE.
You can ask again and again and again, my answer will not change. I'm not going to magically conform to the idea that genetics is MORE important than environment nor the idea that blacks are genetically inferior until-
"you hammer out the existence of genetic race and an a priori definition of intelligence, and proof of genetics absolute sway over IQ you have no solid grounds for your claims."
and "you acknowledge that your basis for genetic IQ is based on a test that measure NURTURES EFFECT on IQ- rendering your slant towards genetics completely moot."
I noticed that you glared over the savant question. Autism is genetic as well- and yet you've got people with enough intelligence to masterfully execute certian skills that higher IQ individuals can't. How do you measure *that*?
Oh well, guess I'll just keep repeating myself until you answer.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 9:00
I'm not going to magically conform to the idea that genetics is MORE important than environment nor the idea that blacks are genetically inferior until-
That was never in debate. Reread >>144 a few times, and point out where I laid claim that blacks will score lower, nor that they are inferior. Did you even read what I wrote? This is right there at the very end.
What is in debate is your assertion that "given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests". Again, this is similar to what John Watson claimed. No, not all people are equal, and given the exact same education, upbringing, and opportunities, it's unlikely they'll score the same. Or maybe they will, but how do you know?
The role that nuture plays is more prevalent.
Oh, so now you acknowledge that genes have a role to play?
I noticed that you glared over the savant question.
I would have thought it supports heredity, particularly in the idiot savant case. Are you claiming that an idiot savant studies an inhuman amount of <whatever>? Some of them can do things even bright but normal people cannot.
Since we're on the topic of examples, if I gave you a down syndrome baby, do you think you could turn him or her into a world-recognized expert on some medical topic given the correct environment?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 9:07
guess I'll just keep repeating myself until you answer.
These points are either all fluff, since they have nothing to do with my stance, or they've already been dealt with, but you just didn't bother to actually read what I wrote. I even quoted in my last post one of lines you just repeated, for crying out loud.
You're skimming. Badly.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 9:11
I forgot this:
What difference does it make if from 1981 or 2001?
Simple: when a flaw is found in a study, future studies attempt to avoid that flaw (or remedy it). Science builds upon itself.
>>157
Wait, is there any difference between black and black in Spanish (negro)? (I'm genuinely interested. I think there are none, and obviously, in Spanish there's only one word.)
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 16:26
lol this is the ultimate racism vs anti-racism site
i think racism is winin though, but i don't think they have much of a case for genocide
And how do *you* know they won't? Genetics? MY contention is that even if they don't score the same- it is more likely that it would have LESS to do with genetics and MORE to due with a environment. This is why I say that Genetics, while playing role, overall plays a *very* small- almost insignificant role when compared to the role nuture plays. My opinion isn't going to change.
Also, there was no "flaw" found in that study. Am I supposed to believe that just because YOU say their was, seeing as how your entire argument hinges on this?
| Are you claiming that an idiot savant studies an inhuman amount of <whatever>?
I'm claiming that the way we gauge IQ doesn't explain savants. There are still many things about intelligence that we simply do. not. know.
| These points are either all fluff, since they have nothing to do with my stance.
I don't care about your stance. My response is to the overall assertion that blacks and other non-white, non-asian racism are inherantly inferior genetically. You asked me why I think given equal opportunities a black and white person would score about the same on an IQ test and I told you. Regardless, even if in fact they *don't* score the same that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY means that the score difference is from genetics. Are you understanding me, now? Genetics are a pin-prick when compared to nurture.
WHY DO I THINK THIS?
[] IQ test measure acquired behaviors- the child's current level of observable performance which is affected by education and upbringing. I.E- NURTURE.
You keep coming back to the same ol' shit, we keep going in circles with this. There's no test to glean which parts of intelligence is genetic or nurture so until that's dealt with the idea unfounded based solely on hypothetics.
Again:
"you hammer out the existence of genetic race and an a priori definition of intelligence, and proof of genetics absolute sway over IQ you have no solid grounds for your claims."
and "you acknowledge that your basis for genetic IQ is based on a test that measure NURTURES EFFECT on IQ- rendering your slant towards genetics completely moot."
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 19:30
And how do *you* know they won't?
Given the research, I think that's a reasonable conclusion. Even the book you noted supports my stance. But that's besides the point: you were the person that stated as fact that they'd score the same. Furthermore, it's obvious you still haven't properly read >>144, because otherwise you'd realize you're arguing against nothing again.
MY contention is that even if they don't score the same- it is more likely that it would have LESS to do with genetics and MORE to due with a environment.
My point was never that genes had the major role - just that they have a role.
Also, there was no "flaw" found in that study.
a) How do you know? By the way, it was a book.
b) In any case, I wasn't talking about Farber's book, I was talking about prior twin studies that Farber's book used. Do you think future twin studies wouldn't take into account weaknesses she noted?
I'm claiming that the way we gauge IQ doesn't explain savants.
Intelligence/Aptitude/blah tests are measurements. They don't explain anything. Does my speedometer explain why my car moves the speed it does?
My response is to the overall assertion that blacks and other non-white, non-asian racism are inherantly inferior genetically.
How can you give a response if you don't care or understand my stance? Ever seen children parallel talk, or argue past each other?
Furthermore, I don't see anything about black inferiority anywhere in >>144.
Regardless, even if in fact they *don't* score the same that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY means that the score difference is from genetics.
Of course not.
Genetics are a pin-prick when compared to nurture.
The jury is out on that, although it looks like it's quite a bit more than a pin-prick.
There's no test to glean which parts of intelligence is genetic or nurture so until that's dealt with the idea unfounded based solely on hypothetics.
No, isolating variables (large samples, double-blind, etc), manipulating/monitoring the independent variable (genetic similarity), and monitoring the response (IQ, WAIS, etc), you can make a reasonable deduction.
a priori definition of intelligence
We have to use some definition, or the word means nothing. Would you call a medical expert more intelligent than a truck driver? How about a large number of them?
This all ignores things like creativity and social intelligence, but then again, people with high characteristics here don't become truck drivers either. There's also the observation that more intelligence people excel in multiple fields of endeavour; a population of medical experts probably can play more instruments than a population of truck drivers.
proof of genetics absolute sway over IQ
A claim never made.
measure NURTURES EFFECT on IQ- rendering your slant towards genetics completely moot
IQ doesn't measure nurture's effect alone. Remember the nature versus nurture debate? IQ is just one possible measure of intelligence; what causes that particular score is outside its scope.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-22 19:59
| My point was never that genes had the major role - just that they have a role.
And my point is that the role is insignifcant *when compared* to the role of nurture.
| The jury is out on that, although it looks like it's quite a bit more than a pin-prick.
Obviously, I disagree. It's my observation that the environment has more of a control over IQ than genetics. If you can make "observations" w/o absolutely empirical evidence- then so can anyone else. This isn't even about facts anymore- this about a difference of opinion and a difference of interpetation of the evidence that even the scientific community ITSELF hasn't resolved.
"That book agree with me." - ok, whatever you say buddy. There's no proof- so I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it? LOL, OK.
| No, isolating variables (large samples, double-blind, etc),
IN *YOUR* OPINION. It's not fact. Why, you ask?
| IQ doesn't measure nurture's effect alone. Remember the nature versus nurture debate? IQ is just one possible measure of intelligence; what causes that particular score is outside its scope.
....because IQ test themselves are geared toward observations of progress that can only be made by nuture. There is no "genetic IQ test" only a nurture test. So your stats? BASED ON NURTURE. More to the point- they don't AT ALL gauge the revelence of genetics on those scores. But from the nature of the test *themselves* we can make certain assertions as to how that person's intelligence was NURTURED.
| you were the person that stated as fact that they'd score the same.
What I find funny is your desperation to expose this as some untruth as if it's going to prove you right, or change my opinion on the nature/nurture dynamic when it comes to intelligence. Obviously they wouldn't score *precisely* the same. But I think that provided that they study the same- under the same teacher- same study habits- same nutrition- environment etc...that they would score within the same range.
Regardless, even if they didn't- there's no way to tell if that is because of genetics or not. Because IQ test scores you, basically, on what your learned _from your environment_.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what >>144 says. The "white/blacks score score the same" comment was a response to the assertion that blacks are genetically less intelligent and unable to become philosophers, brain surgeons, pioneers of civilization, etc. All of which were proved to be completely bunk.
Shall we continue?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 20:18 (sage)
>>183
Except that no race was "nurtured" to construct civilisation, yet the black race failed miserably at this. What is this indicative of? Up until 1400 AD blacks had a minimal amount of hostility from invaders, compared to the invasions of the middle east by the Mongols and Timur, colonisation was a momma's tea party. Why did they fail?
Despite your fallacious attempts to thwart history they never had a civilisation that was destroyed by whites, the Mali and Songhai if anything took more heat from their arab neighbours. Once again nothing compared to the wars the arabs experienced. If they did have a civilisation rivalling the more intelligent races (10 million square miles of goat herders doesn't rival 5 million square miles of intensive farmland, castles, walled towns and cathedrals) why is there no archaelogical evidence left. Even the attempts by the spanish to destroy all evidence of the Aztecs failed. You can hardly walk through Mootxico without bumping into an ancient statue of a serpent!
I await your attempt to dance around these facts.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 21:15
And my point is that the role is insignifcant *when compared* to the role of nurture.
Your basis for that assertion?
If you can make "observations" w/o absolutely empirical evidence- then so can anyone else.
The Minnesota twins study seems empirical to me. The compilation of studies that Farber made for a book are empirical too. Do you think they just pulled numbers out of thin air?
"That book agree with me." - ok, whatever you say buddy.
It does. Like I said: 0.14-0.67 is not 0.0.
IN *YOUR* OPINION. It's not fact.
Isolation of variables is my opinion? This is the scientific process. Evidence accumulates, theories adjust, confidence increases. Of course the theory can be wrong, that's why confidence plays a role.
...because IQ test themselves are geared toward observations of progress that can only be made by nuture.
Progress which is also influenced by a person's ability to learn. The effects of nature and nurture are intertwined, right?
hey don't AT ALL gauge the revelence of genetics on those scores.
No, they don't. Reread my last post, please.
But I think that provided that they study the same- under the same teacher- same study habits- same nutrition- environment etc...that they would score within the same range.
Possibly. Then again, that depends on the role heredity plays.
Because IQ test scores you, basically, on what your learned _from your environment_.
Ah... yes and no. On the one hand you can't study for an IQ test, although you can certainly practice. On the other, environment most certainly has a large effect. But then again, your ability to learn affects your intelligence, so this argument is another red herring.
the assertion that blacks are genetically less intelligent
A possibility, although if it were so, I doubt the normal distribution would be much different from other groups. Even if it was, like you say, their upbringing and attitudes will play a role.
unable to become philosophers, brain surgeons, pioneers of civilization, etc. All of which were proved to be completely bunk.
Someone else raised those issues, and while that's outside my realm of experience (and I disagree with the "unable" part), I'm still curious why there's a dearth of of evidence of ancient civilization in the sub-Sahara.
I suspect it's probably environmental, and partly cultural.
I don't have to dance around anything because they aren't facts. First, I'd like you to genetically define to me what "race" is, oh wait- no, *you can't*. The stuff about "features" is a fucking load and doesn't equate to genetic proof of race, there aren't features that are "Exclusively white" or "Exclusively black" in a genetic sense.
Race is a fucking fever dream. It doesn't exist in nature- it exists in nurture (environment, perception of that environment) and whatever excuse or reason you're looking for a failed civilization is to be found in nurture. Many civilizations of many "races" have "failed" in a since due to modernism and these reasons were environmental, geo-political, cultural and circumstancial- not "natural".
Your very slant is based on race and a complex of race superiority- the idea that some "competition" is taking place and that "whites" are "winning". This is shown in your inherant preference towards white civialization. It's not for you to say which civilization compares to which or which was "better". Why would desert fairing people need insulated houses of stone? Where would they get this stone? Oh right...all the MOUNTIAN RANGES AND FOREST IN THE DESERT....LOL, You are an idiot. And you act as if the conflicts between these civilization was 100% over natural resources. There were other reasons as well, such as religion, the enforcement of ones culture as the "right culture" and factions' simply lust for more power and more terrority - that doesn't connect to the collective IQ of "Blacks" in any way.
But alright, I'll play your game.
Many sub-Sarahan African civilizations remained in hunting-gathering groups because the abundance of resources, the ability to easily survive in their enviroment gave them an isolation that was form of protection from invaders and the pressures of constant migration. It's also been said that in actuality Sub-Sarahan Africans were the first to produce complex metals. So the idea that they were unable to learn certain things from an intellectual stand point is completely false. By the 1400 BC Eastern Africans were producing steel in carbon furnances and the west didn't grasp steel until well into the 18th century.
Alot of these civilizations failed for the same reason any wide number of civilizations failed. War, famine, in-fighting, clashes with other civilizations- these aren't things unique to one race, even one culture. The idea that you interpet the failure of certain "black" civilizations as being genetic while ignoring the failures of "white", "latin" and "asian" civilizations not only exposes your bias towards prejudice (instead of, you know, LOGIC) it shows either a gigantic ignorance of history- or a gross misinterpetation of history itself.
As another point "Blacks" as you call them (I suppose you mean Africans) dealt with colonization on pretty much a non-stop basis. The Romans, the Byzantines, The Greeks, The Arabs. And African colonization is inherantly unique in that it was the only civilization that was legally carved up by modern superpowers. Search for terms like: "Empire's for empires sake", "New Imperialism". The era of African colonization was marred by ultra-nationalism and racial supremist idelogies. (Past colonizers no doubt felt the same way) The idea that the Africans were somehow genetically deserving of this threatment is at the core of every issue with Black people as a WHOLE.
Consider how long Africa has truly been colonized, consider that these people have never been given a chance to unify and express their own solidarity because the greed and lust to control by other countries. Couple that with the fact that the main period of De-colonization didn't begin until AFTER World War 2 and didn't end until the 1980's and you get a very different picture painted.
You're asking African to do in 30 years what it took Japan 200 years to do. Africa has never been isolated, completely unified and it is overall larger and a hell of a lot more people.
Why do you choose to ignore THESE facts? Ignorance? Blind fear? Hate?
>> The role that nuture plays is more prevalent because if genetics were "Stronger" in this case, then an uneducated Jew would score higher in an IQ test NO MATTER WHAT. That is simply not the case.
>> There is also the still very unresolved problem of using heritability stats because it's hard to distinguish the effect of genes or enviroment on a particular trait- in this case- intelligence. And you know what else? You can't make an inference on nature or nurture's influences over intellect based on a fucking IQ test.
Because...
>> IQ test measure acquired behaviors- the child's current level of observable performance which is affected by education and upbringing. I.E- NURTURE.
|| Isolation of variables is my opinion?
Your interpetation of those variables is an opinion. Given the reasons I outlined above- I interept them differently.
|| The effects of nature and nurture are intertwined, right?
Intertwined, like a shoe-string (nature) wrapped around a telephone pole (nuture). But yes, intertwined.
|| so this argument is another red herring.
Um, no it's not. It just completely debunks your bullshit so you're turning bitch and crying about it.
Your ability to learn is nurture as well. Learning isn't something inherant. You have to be taught to learn. If you take a child and put him in a room by himself without human interaction (without an enviroment)- what do you get? A wildchild. An animal. And the case of "wild children" have shown that the effects of being depraved of nurture is for the most-part is irreversable. Modern-day "Wild Child" Genie is STILL not able to form conherant sentances. Genie could have the genes of an Ashkanzai Jew Kike Jap Chink Master Ninja and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Regardless the test is still about environment, environment, environment- the test is designed for the nurture so while we can't say what sway nature held over the score, we can definately make an inference about how that persons intelligence was NURTURED.
Why is this so hard for you understand or accept?
|| I'm still curious why there's a dearth of of evidence of ancient civilization in the sub-Sahara.
There's not. You're just ignorant and haven't bothered to look.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 7:29 (sage)
You're not reading what I write, >>187. All of these points have already been dealt with in previous posts. Some several times.
How am I not reading what you write when I'm responding to direct quotes taken from your replies? You keep asking me how I arrive to the conclusions I have and I've outlined them several times. You just fail at text.
The problem is that you are simply unhappy with my opinion and you are now being purposefully dissonant. Furthermore, you are becoming prone to being repetitive while at the same claiming that "all of these points have be dealt with".
If that's true, then why do you keep asking me "what the basis for this assertion?" over and over?
Face it: The basis for *your* assertion is equal to roach carcass in tiny shit-coffin. I'll do you one better- if the scientific community- those who are responsible for testing intelligence thought that genetics was such a huge factor in ones IQ they would've made a heritability test. A bloodwork test that tells you who were your ancestors and bases your IQ on those results. But the thing is- that stuff truly doesn't matter compared to environment and it would need to operate under the PRE-CONCIEVED, UNPROVEN notion that certain races are *fundamentally* (not through good breeding like the Ashkanzai Jews) genetically superior or inferior.
THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY DON'T HAVE A TEST LIKE THIS.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that I'm 100% right. But I do think that given the nature of IQ testing and the way one aquires intelligence- it's fair to say that the role genetics plays is very small.
Now I DARE you to ask me what "my basis for this assertion" is.
HINT and PROTIP!!!
It's at the beginning of this fucking post.
Also- the post before >>187 gives very plausiable explainations for sub-saharan civilization and a little more insight into African Civilizations. If you care about anyone else view besides your own- feel free to read.
Otherwise: You go ahead and fuck right off.
P.S - Lurk moar.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 8:50 (sage)
niggerz iz niggerz
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 9:28 (sage)
>>189 I'm responding to direct quotes taken from your replies?
You're responding with quotes I've already dealt with. If you read what I wrote you'd notice I found them wanting. I ask you a question, you reply, I note flaws in the reply, ask the question again, you reply with the same reply.
Seriously, look at the text in >>189. I've already covered that at least twice. Why are you trotting out the same arguments yet again? Why aren't you countering the arguments I've made about flaws in your previous arguments? You think repeated lines will fare any better?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 9:30 (sage)
Screw this. You win. We both have better things to do.
>>194
The difference being >>193
is just some random poster who couldn't care less about the subject and you have posted upwards of 15 paragraphs saying the same crap over and over.
You have lost this argument anti-chan, the only way to gain respect from the liberals who now realise blacks are a race apart and less intelligent and succesful than other races and that they should respect only the few black people who's intelligence equals their's (usually conservatives blacks), is to admit that you were wrong and are now a conservative black who wants to look to the future where sentient human beings do not have to be burdenned with disability just to fuel some obsessive racist attitude about preserving the black race.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 21:56
We'll all be brown with Asian features in a millenia anyway.
Now the real isn't intelligence. The question is what the dick and tit size will be.
LOL, dude you can't even fucking type a complete paragraph. If by "lost this arguement" you mean "clincially disected your ignoarant/racist bullshit, and as a result: won the argument and 11 golden internets" - then yeah that's exactly what happened. How very observant, faggot.
Where did I exactly lose? When I asked for you to genetically define race? (Undefinable) When I questioned why IQ stats would have any information about genetics when the tests themselves are completely based on nurture? When some retard said that blacks are unable to become philosophers or pioneer civilization or that "blacks" simply weren't *smart* enough to invent anything important? (Mastered Steel, actually had the first civilization, all before whitey did). Or what about when >>191 kept asking the same questions, and I kept giving him the same unrefutable (appearantly) answers? (You numbers are meaningless, kid. IQ tests are nurture tests, you can't infer anything genetic from a NURTURE test.)
I'm sick of this bullshit, you ask me to explain "why something is". I explain it- provide proof contrary to your world view and then you get upset and accuse me "repeating myself" when you keep asking THE SAME QUESTIONS.
That's fine, thought. Really. Because the thing is:
People like you are not interested in the absolute truth. People like you are born for ignorance, born to be lead around by fear, by the feeling that YOU know something that no one else knows, that you're special. You don't want explainations...you want excuses that void you of any resposibility to your fellow man.
You think in simplistic terms of "liberal/conservative"- everything- absolutely all information must be presented to you as bite-sized ideas and mashed up verbal baby food.
Conservative, Liberal, white, black- your stupidity and the reassurance that you will always thing of things in such childish terms insures that rich stay RICH. And keep you divided.
Stay dumb for me please. Because I will be relying on your poor judgement and poor self image (the only reason to EVER hate anyone else, really)- to sell you more crap you don't need.
Fucking babies.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-24 5:47
>>197
Man, that's some nice delusion you got going there. The guy burned out. You see it ALL the time when people argue against retards: at some point they realize its pointless. But retards never stop, that's what's scary about them. You're still regurgitating the same retarded shit.
But if it makes your ego feel better, believe you won. LOL INTERNETS.
They only thing this argument made me realize is how people like *you*, not the guy I was actually arguing with, will go to any lengths to ignore facts that endanger their world view and their over-inflated sense of self.
Look around fuckface, the big white world where your slanted views and ignorant perceptions of culture were widely accepted is now the equivalent of a sperm-dingleberry on your jizz-encrusted asshole.
Laugh it up, faggot. Your life is a countdown to the inevitable realization of fail and lose. No amount of forum postuering will save you from your fate of total obscurity.
This just in, they found out that it's one amino acid in one gene that determines skin color. So: There goes race. Pretty soon you'll be able to darken or lighten yourself with a pill.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 9:57
>>207
Great, so how do you increase the size of your neo-cortex and alter the shape of your skull to accomodate the increase in brain mass? Is there a pill for that?
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-28 10:12
Black people don't have different shaped skulls, not any different from anyone else, anyway. All homospaiens fall within a certain range of skull shapes, none of which have been proven to have a specific effect on one overall IQ.
There is obvious similarity between the brain encasing bones of caucasians and mongoloids and difference between these 2 and the negro skull. History also speaks for itself.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 12:31
>>210
Lol. And can you tell me, what is the dot on their chin? Because they all have it. I bet, it's the dot of stupidity.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 12:51
>>207
| They found...
Who? Can you tell me? Some sharp-witted scientists in white cloaks? With glasses and full-beard?
Next time before you believe something "they found", try to think. If there were some black/white gene, there will be only white and only black people. Nothing in between. Strewth!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 16:58
I would have thought it was several genes that affect colour, not just one. Or at the very least, several other genes that creat proteins that affect the expression and quantity of the colour genes.
|| Next time before you believe something "they found", try to think. If there were some black/white gene, there will be only white and only black people.
But that's just it, there isn't a gene that deals in two basic extremes like that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 21:52
You laugh at anti-chan like you laugh at a little kid who just learnt the words "penis", "cunt" and "poo" and is mad at anybody else for being right.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 7:26
Scientists studying zebrafish have found a gene that can make them change their stripes. That is, a mutation in the gene changes the color of those stripes.
Zebrafish? Just Zebrafish?
Shit, man, I was expecting something good, like actual tests on human cells or something. You're letting me down here.
The funny thing about this is that it is usually children who are the most pure and "right" in that direct sense until they learn words like "nigger", "chink" and "spic"- start going on about ridiculous shit like skull shapes. LOL. Ok.
Yeah, I saw your link there, chumpy and I don't to see where that says anything about IQ, EQ or all of those particular races actually being different species. What I want to see is cold, hard, absolute true evidence- not stuff where you've got to make a quantum leap of logic to come to a conclusion.
I've come to terms with the fact that there's some people who seem have the ideal of white superiority engrained into their DNA. You've been telling yourself that you're masters for so long that you've actually started to believe it. The thing is: It's fake. You've bullied, raped and colonized everyone in some fashion in order to perpetuate the perception that the white is right- but it's not actual fact.
You don't have valid scientific proof of anything, like the American ecomonist- your fundamental flaw is making a so-called "logical leaps"- without using a ounce of fucking logic or basing any of the shit you say on unrefutable evidence that takes in account all factors and conditions.
Like the typical Randian zealots you outright ignore any evidence of anything opposite of your world view. The underlying coincidence in this is that most people who agree with this stupidity about race are neo-conservatist pigs who's core ideals when it comes to capitalism and immigration is the fear that too many non-whites will saturate "the society" and that you'll have to cage yourselves up in gated-communities.
lol, like you haven't been doing that already.
But, hey whatever right? Think what you want.
Name:
pro-chan2005-12-29 9:16
There isn't a sinlge gene that determines whether people are black or white. There are thousands of genes that have evolved through upwards of 50000 years of evolution. Genes have been passed to and from the racial extremes (nords, south africans, native americans, japanese) and there are peoples in between with various traits that belong to both of these extremes. However the divides are there, even today along the Nile in Sudan and Egypt the divide is obvious despite the fact that the inhabitants are all religious extremists for whom racism is blasphemous. Even in the west were interracial sex and marriage are encouraged heavily by the media interracial sex and marriage remains proportionally low. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the world's racial mix within populations are not as diverse as Northern Europe's and North America's.
The reasons for this divide are geographical, for starters new races evolve in new environments or if their populations are sufficiently large to accomodate sexual selection or specialisation in gatherring food, which was not the case 50000 years ago. The changes in skin colour, the shape of the nose and type of hair are the must haves of the natural world. A negro hunter gatherer would be at a serious disadvantage in ice age europe just as a caucasian would be at a serious disadvantage in the plains of Africa. These changes are pretty irrelevant in the modern world, humans are tool users and many of these inferiorities can be negated easily. What matterred is of course intelligence, which is the primary tool of the human, next to being able to utilise these tools effectively. The pioneers into the deserts of arabia and ice age europe didn't evolve the same way as the neanderthals had done around 200000 years before them, there was finally a need for humans to think of new ways to deal with situations rather than performing the same tasks their tribe had learnt through trial and error for generations. Those humans that could cut it prosperred and those that couldn't adapt were left behind to compete with each other as they had always evolved to do, using gang violence, rape and thuggery to claim territory etc etc...
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 9:24
>>217
Shit! Arey you kidding? A ZEBRAFISH? I have almost wet my pants..
No, no, I've got it. >>217 must have been some fake anti-chan. Good joke.
Is there a racist gene? I called a black kid a nigger when I was 5.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-29 11:17
|||||Those humans that could cut it prosperred and those that couldn't adapt were left behind to compete with each other as they had always evolved to do, using gang violence, rape and thuggery to claim territory etc etc...|||||
And this is precisely where the whole "Blacks are genetically prone to...(insert negativism)" thing falls completely off. Show me instances of where poor uneducated whites or any uneducated people of any race haven't been prone to gang violence, rape, or thuggery to claim territory?
What I'm sick of is the idea that because Blacks do it, it's "in their nature". When whites do it, supremacist can churn out 101 excuses as to why they do it. What do you call the practice of slavery? The Crusades? Using Iraqi has a military staging point in the middle east? World War I. World War II. The Cold War. Vietnam. How is any of that different?
The research is obviously an ongoing thing, but the implications are there if your mind is open to them. If you're prone to a racist mind-set in the first place- you are simply not expected to understand.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 11:54
>>225
Shut up motherfucker, stop impersonating me you son of a bitch
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-29 12:07
>>225
Stop impersonating me, I am not stupid and ignorant enough to want to change the subject and revert to nonsense irrelevant dogma. No one is saying blacks are more or less prone to commit crime, just that they have not achieved the heights of civilisation other races did and continue to fail in the world's most succesful nation in history and the stark differences between negroes and other races. This is the subject at hand and I would be a stupid fucktard to ignore it.
Another lame attempt at impersonating me. First, I would I never cry like a little bitch: "Waaaaaaahhhhh, stop impersonating me." It would be obvious to a group of Thalidomide babies concieved by inbred retards (who got molested) that you're a fake. Why would I give a fuck? This is 4chan.
Secondly, It's not irrelevant dogma. "The heights of civilisation (sic)" as you call it is clearly biased towards what whites consider "civilized".
*You* guys (gays) are the ones referencing "thugish behavior", "crime" and "rape" as "Black traits"...so now it's dogma that you can't explain away the same behavior in your own race? Is that it?
Any differences you find are simply cultural and seeing as how whites and every other post-19th century superpower has at one point or another had a hand in disrupting Sub-sarahan African culture and civilization, seeing as how whites in "the world's most succesful(sic) nation" didn't start out as *slaves* and with the sarlet letter of assuming inferiority over their heads...I don't think it takes a fucking "geneologist" to figure out what's been going on with "the blacks" for the last 300 years.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-29 15:58
*scarlet letter of assumed inferiority
And another thing, did not blacks just barely get civil rights 50 years ago? I don't know what you expect from a people so systematically dogged by the United States Government. What you're expecting is this magical over night change towards your ideal of success.
Black South African's didn't share the white ideal of success and civility, why would American Blacks? I truly don't understand how you expect a displaced people to get their shit together the same way, say, China and Japan has. It took the Japanese 200 years before WWII. China MUCH Longer. History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the irrepairable damage colonialism did to Africa- why is that so hard to grasp if you were not simply another redneck racist more interested in hate than understanding?
You know what most American minorities are tired of? They're tired of every fourteen seconds some white person reminding them how different they are. If blacks truly have all the same opportunites now and if all the old mindsets concerning race have finally been wiped clean- then why do you continue to refer to blacks as "niggers"?
This is just a self perpetuating arguement and you are creating your own "beef" with the black race as you go along. Shit like this doesn't make blacks want to 'step up'. You create a situation of hopelessness with your ideals...but I guess that's beyond you, isn't it?
You don't even consider blacks human.
I seriously wish death upon you.
Just want you to know that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 20:23
NIGGERS
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-29 20:48
WAH WAH WAH WAH MOMMY IT'S THE SYSTEM! WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE BELIEVE IN THE VAGUE UNSUBSTANTIAL BOOGEYMAN I CREATED TO OBSTRUCT THE TRUTH?
Standard second-rate liberal gibberish.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 20:54
>>229
Liberals can't win on the issues or in real debate so they resort to thuggery to impose their failed ideology. No wonder so many of them are socialists.
That's just it though, it's not vague nor unsubstantial. You're just a fucking bigot.
Name:
pro-chan2005-12-30 1:45
I don't know about you anti-chan but I understand their argument completely. Also you still haven't rebuked the scientific facts and historical differences between races they cited.
They are not saying blacks aren't human, only the racists you see on TV say this and thye are very few in number. They are people who believe in eugenices more than racism, they could accept a multi-racial society if they were certain the future wouldn't consist of a population ghetto/trailer trash they occasionally experience. They are frustrated by the fact that liberals consistently claim that they are white supremacists clinging on to some ancient belief of racial superiority and this is capitalised by those atual white supremacists who recruit from such confused people.
It is in fact your denial of the truth that is driving people to racism. If you were to simply acknowledge that a proportion number of black people are not very intelligent, but that we should not deny those intelligent black people opportunities by being racist, then you would cut the head of the serpent off with one stroke of your scimitar. The racists will become eugenicists and what's more.. The road would be set to ensuring future generations have genes that make them intelligent and healthier, free from any possibility of this ideal being used by fascist for their own personal gain.
What you're asking me to do is conform to an ideal that I feel has no basis on the reality of intelligence or race. I have actually over-stated the rebukes to so-called "Scientific facts and historical differences". What I find most distrubing is the habitual lack of debate concerning these points. Even more disturbing that the opposition continuously brushes away these points without so much as a singular factual response. Personally, I see this cognitive dissonance as the very core of the racist mindset.
You're under the naive impression that this is some "new argument" concerning race when, in actuality, it's a debate that's been going on since the Modern Superpowers' colonization of Africa. The issues will always be intertwined and no one will ever be free of the fascist ability to use this so-called information for their own personal gain or to insure that their world view "wins out" over the others. When you make a reference to blacks and Africans-- it's already far too late for that kind of talk.
Your statement was perfectly reasonable until the very end when you brought up "genes" again. Race itself, has no biological definition. IQ tests are based on nuture and have no way of absolutely gauging what intelligence comes from nature and what intelligence comes from nuture. Intelligence itself- when it comes to humam beings lacks an a priori definition. These aren't semantics...these are holes in your "Facts" that you simply refuse to address.
That's precisely why I think the way I do. Now, any other factors such as culture, social standing, environment...these are things that are far more reasonable and far more provable. And if the opposition didn't resort to the polarity of liberal/conservative everytime it comes to address these issues- showing a pointed interest in skirting around them completely- the so-called "liberals" would have no reason to call them ignorant bigots.
If you guys can go around calling "a nigger, a spade" then why can't we?
I think...
Fundamentally your approach to "the truth" is askewed. The opposition's ideas are based on this mutant combination objectivism and social darwinism. Your entire thought process is that of a capitalist or rather, an economist. You operate in "co-relations"- the "after the fact" theory.
You offer up these co-relations as facts or "truth" without taking into account and responding to all known variables. And when someone's not convinced- you accuse them of ignoring the truth. What irks me most about this scientific racism is that there's no true scientific method behind it...and yet the opposition spends so much time claiming "it's science" only to resort to this "liberal/conservatism" nonsense.
In light of all this, how could you blame me for not being convinced?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 6:22
"Race itself, has no biological definition. IQ tests are based on nuture and have no way of absolutely gauging what intelligence comes from nature and what intelligence comes from nuture."
So how do you explain the identifiable haplotypes, visible differences in skull shape that are unique to the negro race and history?
Not to mention the fact that none of the many studies and facts you have just provided links to are reliable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 6:57 (sage)
>>236
Don't bother arguing with anti-chan. Didn't you see what happened to the other two guys in this thread?
An indentifiable haplotype, to me, doesn't constitute the existence of a different biological "race". Plus, I've seen zero evidence that states these haplotypes have an absolute tie-in to intelligence. The differences in intelligence that you continue to imply would only be genetically related if these haplotypes were indications of a seprate speicies. That is not the case.
Moreover, you and I and other modern day human "races" exist as subsets to these haplotypes. Any variation of haplotypes is variation that was already present in ancient homosapiens. Seeing as how Africans were the first to civilize in the most basic sense...I don't see where you get the leap from haplotypes to the definition of biological race and then one race being "better" at civilization than the other. I think your understanding of what the Hap-Map implies is way off and I think you are purposely ignoring history to protect your world view.
This is what I mean when I say there is a difference between using a scientific method to reach a conclusion and using "co-related" theory from your interpetation of the facts.
And yes, I would suspect that you would say that they (my sources) aren't "reliable". It's even funnier that you say so without so much as stating why and without rebuking the studies with findings of your own. I suspect that nothing I show you will be good enough.
Also, if you'd like to make yourself appear more valid (less of a bigot. You could try addressing some of the other issues I've brought up in >>237 - the 2nd paragraph in partic.
>>239
LOL. OK. The other two guys? This is the same guy. Regardless, they ran into the same wall that this guy is going to run into. Any college-kid can make a co-relation, but for it to become fact you actually have to back it up with hard evidence. A set of Haplotypes does not a seprate race make and until there's a study that says exact that (Haplotypes = One pure race), you don't have much of a case. I don't see the difference between skull shapes and skin pigment, these are all superficial (IE. Not pure biological) definitions of race.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 8:03 (sage)
absolute tie-in to intelligence
Here we go again...
Name:
Rape-Chan2005-12-30 8:17
YOU TYPOED THEREFORE YOU LOSE ARGUMENT MUHFUGA
WE ARE YOUR EQUALS!!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 8:27
"as how Africans were the first to civilize in the most basic sense...I don't see where you get the leap from haplotypes to the definition of biological race and then one race being "better" at civilization than the other."
You have the memory of a gold fish, the evidence is at the very beginning of this post and practically throughout. This incredible stupidity and inability to understand and collect simple facts is going against your favour. I think even the most dimwitted readers of this thread are being driven to eugenics and the knowledge of the fact that negroes are a race apart and not very succesful.
Time to give up unless you want to drive them from eugenics to racism. In fact we are past the point where racists will pose as you to make you look even more stupid than you really are with success.
You're only hope is to acknowledge reality and role with the times.
Agree with me.
Admit the black race on average is less intelligent, but that for the sake of those few black people who are as intelligent as the average of other races we should implement eugenics and not racial discrimination.
Put aside your pride and this perverse racist desire to preserve the black race for the sake of it and admit you are wrong. For the future, for your children, so they can live in a world which is truly free from racial discrimination.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 8:38
your***
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 10:54
I'm not a racist...
I am homosexual-communist-hippy-emo-negro. Catch me if you can...
Aw, but sorry :( In the adult world...that's what's known as a "wrong answer". You didn't address any of my statements, at all. (AGAIN) Yet again you claim the evidence is "right there", again you say it "should be obvious". But you flat out refuse to state how this is so. "It should be obvious" simply doesn't work. I need the evidence, sorry man. Ff you can't provide that...then you have no platform.
Yes, it's obviously-obvious to someone who uses the "co-relative" method of thought, but the only thing I'm interested in is hard, unrefutable data. Not co-relative theory. The only thing you've systematically provided through out this whole thread.
I ask for this evidence and your response is "Just agree with me, already!"? More character attacks? Anyone capable of analylical thought is going to ask you to continuously address these other factors that I've continuously outlined (and that you've continously IGNORED) and if you expect to look like anything more than a bigot, then you are going to eventually have address them.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 18:26
Stop calling the kettle black, >>247. Your arguments consist of repeating the same tripe, even if the other party makes an effective argument against it. If you repeat it, it must be true! Just ask Goebbels and Britain's Ministry of Information!
I refuse to repeat myself over and over and over like these other assholes who have tried relentlessly to get you to look at the facts.
Look you see....
We are on the same side of the racist vs non-racist fence. Except that you are psychotically non-racist regardless of liberty or justice and I am pro-eugenics where it does not interfere with liberty or justice. If you want to force an ideal so much it interferes with the freedom of speech and perhaps even the desire to determine the truth itself, then you become a paranoid crazy fuck and people who do care about the truth won't listen to you. They will get confused and feel outcast and then racists under the guise of the truth will attract them.
>>248
Is right, all you do is repeat the same crap. For example.
Anonymous: Black history isn't as rich as the history of other races by a huge margin.
Rape-Chan: white man put them down
Anonymous: What about before colonialism, why were they so unsuccesful then?
Rape-Chan: white man put them down
Anonymous: They had access to the same civilising impulses from the fertile crescent as the europeans, the indians and the chinese. Even the isolated native americans figured it out and even thsoe dwelling in the most inhospitable environments figured a way to create complex civilisation and this was way before arab or white colonialism. Why was there no intensive farming and various metalworking, shipbuilding crafts across Africa?
I want you to read ALL of this, VERY carefully this time.
_______________________________________________
There is no liberty or justice in saying that an entire segment of people are genetically pre-disposed to *any* traits without providing solid unrefutable evidence. Particularly in reference to Euroasian dominance over Sub-Saharan Africa; history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that such ideals have *already* been used for facism, genocide, cultural/social exclusion and a MODERN-DAY supression of an entire "races". Even when you say that a people are genetically pre-disposed to "intelligent behavior" the ideal is used for facism, genocide, death etc. See: The Nazi Movement. You can't just jump into a magic bubble and have this arguement of genetics take place in a world where history didn't happen.
When you continously repeat the same things over and over without solid proof- and there truly is none because if there were you'd just copy/paste it back here- you become apart of the same old argument (bigots) by association. When the modern-day superpowers were getting ready to carve up Africa- they said the exact same things you're saying now.
And do you really think I'm trying to *force* you? I've leaned more towards discussion, direct debates about the issues at hand (and what's written above is a very huge issue). My end phrase is: "Think what you want." not (and I'm quoting) "Just agree with me (everyone else does)." - who's trying to force who exactly?
All I'm saying is that if you wish to say that genetics are the be-all end-all reason for *your preception* that so-called "blacks" have "failed" (NOTE THE QUOTATIONS)- then by all means...have at it.
But. You must provide scientific proof of the biological existance of "race" outside of it's superficial, social and culture leanings. You must provide evidence of "race" having an impact on intelligence from a purely genetic stand-point. You must provide an a priori definition of intelligence. You must show, with empirical evidence, the effects genetics have on ones nuture IQ. And you have to prove that "blacks" haven't contributed to mankind or "failed".
Personally for me, the biggest flaw in your argument is that you're operating under the assumption that this is the end of something. That "the test" or the delusion of a "race competition" is "over". If you were truly non-racist, you wouldn't think of things in such overtly racist terms.
If I used your co-related theory, then I could say that whites are pre-disposed to raping the cultures of others and habitually enforing their way of life on others. Now that *APPEARS* to be the case...would I be right, or "justified" to wipe out their genes for the safety of future generations?
That's your interpetation and you interpet it that way because, you are in fact, a bigot. No where have I said "White man's fault." - you equate it to that because you carry a white or eurocentric persecution complex with you where ever you go. (White man's guilt)
Mine goes a little like this:
Anon: Black History isn't as rich as the history of other races
Me: BZZZZ WRONG. *provides long list of proven civilizations that have existed before "the history of races", shows where they were successful and what they contributed to human civilization as a whole...only to have it habitually ignored and unaddressed*
Anon: What about before colonialism?
Rape-Chan: Wonders why you term as anything non-white as "unsuccessful"...(cont)
Anon: They had access blah blah blah...===> What about before colonialsim?
....Did I mention the first steps towards full-on Modern Colonization started in the 16th century?...etc etc etc = IGNORED, NOT DISCUSSED.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-31 14:30
Holy fuck! We've taken one step in the right direction! Now allow me to crush your arugment so we can progress ont othe more important task of devising a way to teach the rest of the population to the truth of eugenics.
"Me: BZZZZ WRONG. *provides long list of proven civilizations that have existed before "the history of races", shows where they were successful and what they contributed to human civilization as a whole...only to have it habitually ignored and unaddressed*"
The Songhai at their peak in the 15th century were practically still in the ancient age, herding goats, with no navy or intensive farming, despite the fact that they were equal in technical knowledge of the rest of the world.
Bear in mind the Almuhads, later to be known as the Moors, were the reputed invaders of this civilisation. The Moors were mediteranean arabs, not negroid.
The Kush and their descendants and trading posts in east Africa were far more advanced, but why civilisation there did not spread throughout Africa isn't a mystery. The Kush peoples of course were heavily influenced by the Egyptians (and genes) and possibly the only pre-colonial black civilisation to have kept up with the rest of the world. I would also like to mention that whatever gene stunts intelligence in the negro must have been selectively bred out of negro genes which trickled up the Nile into Egypt. Likewise the genetic traits for intelligence trickling down the Nile would have eventually spread through Africa giving the descendants and advantage over their "traditionally gened" brothers. However we are at a time when
The great city of Zimbabwe came into being in the 18th century, well after colonialism, suggesting that colonisation was a civilising influence, even if any native civilisation that arose was eventually comandeered by the colonists.
"HEY AND: Sub-Sarahan Africa was actually the first to make steel"
No. You need precise machine tools, knowledge of chemical analysis and a blast furnace to produce steel.
....Did I mention the first steps towards full-on Modern Colonization started in the 16th century?...etc etc etc = IGNORED, NOT DISCUSSED. "
I already know all of this and accept most of this. Yet I still notice that sub-saharran civilisation was astronomically less advanced than the rest of the world whilst evil european colonists consisted of vikings smashing sharp pieces of iron into monk's skulls across the north sea.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-31 14:32
P.S. AAAAAAAFFFFFRRRIIICCCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! MOORS ARE AFRICANS *imagines hundreds of black male models building pyramids on spanish soil until evil sly looking cretinous blondes come along and destroy all evidence of their grand civilisation due to racism* EVIL WHITEY DONE IT
Wrong. The Moors were many "races", Berber, Arabs, but cheifly amoung them: "BLACKS".
THE RACIAL MAKE-UP OF THE MOORS
To the earlier Greeks, the Moors were “a black or dark people” (Mauros) and to the Romans, Maurus, a black wooly-haired people, known synonymously as Ethiops, Niger (Negro) and Afer (African).
As late as the 5th Century A. D. Procopius, a Roman historian, called the people of Morocco “black.”
In the ‘Chanson of Roland’ (Song of Roland) written after the Moors invaded France in 718 A.D., the invaders are described (verses 145 and 146) as “blacker than ink with large noses and ears” and with “nothing white except the teeth.” (Moriaen. Arthurian Romance No. 4, PP. 29, 39, 41, 103. 1907. Trans. by J. L. Watson).
The Chanson of Roland states that the Moorish army was 50,000 strong and led by Marganice, Emperor of Ethiopia and Carthage. Their most valiant figure is Abisme (that is, Abyssinian), who (verse 126) is described as “black as melted pitch.” In this epic, the Moors are called Sarrazins, in English, Saracens.
In the official coat of arms of Aragon, which has four Moorish kings killed in battle by Pedro VIII, king of Aragon, on November 18, 1096, all the Moors are shown as jet-black. (Biblioteca de escritores aragoneses. Blancas. Comentarios de las cosas de Aragon. Seccion histor. 3, p. 110. 1878.)
Pietro Tacca in his monument to Ferdinand I erected at Leghorn, 1620, has four Moors in chains, which were modeled from originals, one of whom is instantly recognizable as a so Negro. (Raymond M. La Sculpture Florentine, XVIe siecle, pp. 182-3 1900).
Pitch black Negro troops played an important part in the Moorish conquest of Spain especially under Abderrahman I. (757-787), who founded the independent kingdom of Cordova. (Troupes noires. Revue de Paris, p. 62. July 1909 (pp. 61-80). A rival Moorish leader “brought from Africa a great number of Negroes from which he formed a redoubtable regiment of cavalry in 1016” and took over the Caliphate. (Troupes noires. Revue de Paris, p. 62. July 1909 (pp. 61-80).
In 1086, Yusuf ben Tachfln, who is described by Moorish historian Ali ibn Abd Allah as as “dark” and “wooly-haired,” (Roudh ci Kartas, p. 304.) and who was probably a Nigerian, brought in an army composed largely of “pure Negroes” (11. Ency. Brit. Vol. 21 (See SPAIN—Almoravides). Ibn El-Athair. Op. cit. pp. 525 Also pp. 457-60, 462. Scott, S. P. Hist. of the Moorish Empire, p. 622. 1904.)
Another Moor, Yakub el-Mansur, recorded as “the son of a Negro woman,” (Roudh el Kartas, p. 304.) invaded Iberia in 1194 and made himself master of almost the whole of it. The guards of these Moorish kings were specially chosen for their size Negroes, “jet-black and of immense strength, recruited from the Atlas, Tumbuctoo, and Nigeria." (Scott. S. P. History of the Moorish Empire, p. 668. 1904.)
|||||"Yet I still notice that sub-saharran civilisation was astronomically less advanced than the rest of the world"|||||
I'd like to see proof of "less advanced". Proof of sub-saharran Africa consisting of only "Blacks". And finally- PROOF OF THE GENETIC TIE-IN.
And of course, you don't address ANY of the issues in >>253, but it's alright because that's what I expected.
(note the absence of links and the stormfront link... wow what credible sources! (i am being sarcastic by the way, for the record i don't think stormfornt provides many credible sources...))
"I'd like to see proof of "less advanced". Proof of sub-saharran Africa consisting of only "Blacks"."
The lack of proof of civilisation, a landscape litterred with the archaelogical remains of stone temples, walled cities and palaces for instance, is my proof that negroes were astronomically less advanced than the rest of the world. Such achievements are present throughout South America. Even the psychotic conquistadores could not eradicate all evidence of their civilisation, and it was far behind technologically than the actual African civilisations I seem to be the only one discussing.
What I'm more concerned about at the moment was the rise of the Empire of Ghana in the 9th century. Why have you never mentionned this? It would have certainly put a dent in my preconceptions about the black race! However the empire of Ghana was short lived and failed to withstand a small invasion by the Almuhads in 1040 I think. The empire was destroyed, the Almuhads went home and their descendants returned to subjugate the peoples of west Africa once again once they regrouped and formed the Songhai. Why haven't you mentionned this? Don't you know anything about black history?
You will find the original source you provided containing no superficial evidence and discreditting the.. biased... sources you enjoy believing with some sort of... manic fervor.
Today's Morrocan racial make up.
Ethnic groups:
Arab-Berber 99.1%, other 0.7%, Jewish 0.2%
Today's Mauritanian racial make up (some 900 miles south along the west coast of the Saharra from Rabat (the capital of Morroco..)).
Ethnic groups:
mixed Maur/black 40%, Moor 30%, black 30%
It says that these region is experiencing ethnic tensions.
"The country continues to experience ethnic tensions between its black population and the Maur (Arab-Berber) populace."
Maybe they are annoyed because black racist groups are stealing their culture!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-01 13:30
TL;DR version
Antichan loses, everyone wins.
oh and anglo-saxon eugenics is bad, if it were a wiki article there would be a header that says "This Article Needs To Conform To A Higher Standard. editplz"
It's partially true but not objective enough, because English people like looking down on everybody else.
Yes and? Most of Anon's IQ pertcentages were pulled from the Bell Curve. (Pioneer Fund Nazis WTF?)--- This is ridiculous! Because no matter what you say, what co-relation you're begging for everyone to make......
You still don't have genetic proof. How you say that the failure of any one civilization is *genetic*? I mean: Where is this "mystery data" that supports the assertion that the perceieved failure of any civilization is based on genetics?
The one thing the gives your argument any legitamacy is the one thing your argument lacks. The Moors were black. The very term "Moors" means black. Even the ancient berbers were darker than anglo-saxons. When you say "black" people- you are refering to people with the coloring of the Moors.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-01 19:14 (sage)
How you say that the failure of any one civilization is *genetic*?
On the other hand, how can you say it isn't?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-01 20:15
People who are unfamiliar with IQ tests score lower, even if they score the same on other intelligence tests. I still haven't found that book I found once. I will be at the library on the 3rd of January though and I can quote a proper scientific analysis of intelligence, race and culture.
You are trolling, I find it hard to believe you are too blind to wonder why black civilisation was always so far behind, even before colonialism and why other civilisations prosperred better even after colonialism and with less technology. Negroes do have a clearly differnet physical appearance, including the shape of their skulls, these traits occur througout the negro race and are backed up by their haplotypes. We share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees, so yes, than 0.000001% does matter. Anything else?
In empirical studies you are supposed to count everything as a source, even if it is clearly biased, of course there were negroes in morrocco, there were Vikings and Khazars in morrocco at one point, but the majority of the population were mediteranean-arabs. I hope your racist mind can appreciate this, but the caucasian race consists of both whites and arabs. Skin colour is a pretty malleable trait and irrelevant, brain size, bone structure and biological chemistry are not. They were described as black because they had black skin and the sources I have provided prove they were caucasian. If you are suggesting there was some mass migration of negroes across the saharra at one point, then prove it, bearing in mind such a migration would either be an insignificant trickle or result in the starvation of thousands.
Not every medical graduate becomes a doctor, students who are admitted into universities are pushed to their limits and their environment is all the same, yet their grades end up as being different. Not everyone can be as intelligent as Albert Einstein and it isn't all due to the fact that his mom gave him omega 3 oils and played music to her womb. Albert had as much education if not less as his colleagues, yet surpassed them all. He was superior. Throw this blank slate idea of yours into the bin. Stop embracing "diversity" and embrace reality! I know what you are going to say next, "Albert was a jew!" As if expectantly I will reveal myself to be a nazi. I couldn't give a flying fuck.
You, sir, are faced with your worst nightmare, someone who cares more about the truth than anything else.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-02 0:03
...are you done now? Your melodramatic grandstanding is an old and intellectually dishonest ploy. You don't have any data which states: "Civilization A failed because DNA-sequence B" ---Period.
Now the reason I say "civilization failure" isn't genetic is because if you actually look for the answer to why any wide number of "civilizations", from any number of "races" fails... You will find that there are other factors involved (geography, etc).
It's a little something we call "history".
And "Racist mind"? Hahaha, that's funny. I don't even believe in race. Why? No data proving "race" exists in a biological sense.
Do you understand yet? Without absolute data you have a unproven theory.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-02 0:28
niggers is niggers
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-02 1:17
>>263
idiot, explain to me what exactly is required for a "race" to be different from other "races" extra arm? three eyes? elfin ears and slight build?
The perfect troll in a race debate is to tell the guy accusing you of being a "mindless racist" that you don't believe in race. And by "perfect troll" I mean: "perfect way to expose the bigotry that lines beneath his so called 'truth'"
It's funny that you ask me: "Explain to me what exactly is required for a "race" to be different from other "races"?"
LOL! You already know the answer to that question by your implied belief in "race", don't you? (Big nose, Big lips, Dark ass skin...that's a nigger!) Because I don't really know if I'm to give into that kind of thought anymore. It's just so funny to me- the same species of fish can come in different shapes and colors- but they don't segregate themselves.
Is it genetic? Ok, well which genes are the "black" genes? Maybe it's the culture you think makes up a person's "race"? Social structure? Our symbology? Why don't you google the "Caduceus"? It's a symbol that shows up in multiple forms in multiple cultures. (Most of which, had no contact between each other)
Study of culture and history makes you realize how similar we are. You use words like "success" and "fail" as if to say that we've been taking part in some kind of competition or as if we've reached the end of some (snicker) "race". Can we really call this "success"?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-02 11:46
"Okay, so why has there never been a civilization of significance in sub-Sahara? After all, humans have been there the longest..."
You keep asking this as if you have some kind of hidden data relating to this. But where is your proof that the percieved failure of Sub-Sahara Africa is genetic? What do you mean when you say "significant"? Under what criteria do you term "the success" of a civilization?
Can you tell me why the Greenland Norse civilization "failed"? Was that genetic? Ok, well, prove it. Prove that the failure of any one civilization is solely genetic. You're the one making these assertions- not me- so "the burden of proof" is on you, isn't it?
This is another Jared Diamond book called "Collapse" which goes into detail the myriad of reasons "civilizations" fail. Might want to look into it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-02 12:23
>>270
Civilisation fall, yes, the roman empire fell, but it didn't turn Europe into Africa. Roman science and organization left, but what was neccesary remained, the agricultural infrastructure, the towns and cities and the military technology were all preserved due to their neccesity. The Mayan civilisation fell and the region enterred a dark age, but then the Aztecs and various other tribes arose. The mongol plunderred China, but when there was no more plunder they founded the Ming dynasty and focussed on agriculture and protecting their lands as the previous dynasty had done.
Therefore Jared's book is irrelevant. Also negroes were poorly civilised before the colonies so it has nothing to do with guns germs and steel either.
There is no such thing as race? Don't be a moron, if individuals vary in intelligence and the slightest change in genes can give someone cancer or diabetes, then groups of people who have been seperated for generations will evolve different traits. Namely people who left Africa and had to face the ice age and the traits being intelligence and emotional control etc etc..
Name:
RAPIST-chan2006-01-02 12:30
I have not emotional control, therefore I will never see reason. Just kill me.
Jared's book is ultra-relevant, if anything. It answers your type of questions: "Why did this civilization fail?" Like you said, an empirical study requires that you take information- even from bias sources. (though, how Diamond is 'bias' is beyond me)
Your claim that "negroes" were "poorly civilised" needs not only the definition of what a "successful" civilization is, but is always still wanting of the data that supports the assertion that the failure of these civilizations was genetic.
My argument is actually quite devoid of emotion. I am asking you what is asked of any "co-relative" theory...absolutely true data that supports the assertion.
"if individuals vary in intelligence and the slightest change in genes can give someone cancer or diabetes, then groups of people who have been seperated for generations will evolve different traits."
Ok, right, but where is the hard data that supports these people as irrevocably being different "Races"? If anything this statement does less service to the idea of race and more to the similarities of human culture and human intellect.
Why do you constantly ignore points that address the human species as a whole? Why do you willfully ignore the failing civilizations of "whites"? Why is it now looking like western civilization is going to "fail"? Is that genetic?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-03 8:47
>>273
Of course, you are full of shit. Look at Africa's barbaric culture. Look at Haiti. Look at any nigger enclave. All HIV infested savages. Species instead of race? The negro is indeed a lower species. I agree with that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-03 9:00
"Why did this civilization fail?"
Wrong question.
Correct question: why didn't any ever arise?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-03 15:54
I guess this bears repeating, huh?
Your claim that "negroes" were "poorly civilised" needs not only the definition of what a "successful" civilization is, but is always still wanting of the data that supports the assertion that the failure of these civilizations was genetic.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-03 16:03
>>276
1st grade trolling, well done. You win a free 4chan.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-03 22:22
Is the statement really that difficult of an issue for you to address? If you don't have the proof the percieved failure of a civilization was absolutely genetic, then you have no basis for your assertion.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-03 23:12
I don't spend all my time here Rape-chan..
Name:
rape-chan, anti-chan2006-01-03 23:49
What does that even mean?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:26
Fully half of all chess champions are ashkenazi jews. Shut up Anti-chan.
Name:
ANTI-CHAN2006-01-04 19:29
I'M ANTI CHAN AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN RACE BLACK PEOPLE ARE POOR BECAUSE WHITE PEOPLE RAPED BLACK BABIES IN THE BUTTOCKS AND IT HURT AND MADE THEM MAD FOR GENERATIONS SO THEY JUST HAVE TO BREAK STUFF THAT EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE IN RACES!
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS RACE! EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE HAVE BLACK SKIN AND DIFFERENT FACIAL FEATURES THERE'S A MAGICAL WALL AROUND THE BRAIN THAT KEEPS IT FROM BEING AFFECTED BY GENETICS SO THERE'S NO SUTCH THING AS RACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:31
>>282
Anti-chan never said that there was no difference in brain structures, he said that in the end it didn't matter because we're all basically the same.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:33
...so basically he's going to shoo off a ton of empirical data because it doesn't fit with what he wants to believe about reality?
THAT'S SUCH A SOCIALSIT THING TO DO! LIEK FINANALAND! THE ARUGUMENT IS OVER BECAUSE FINLANAD WINS ARGUERMENT!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:34
...so basically he's going to shoo off a ton of empirical data because it doesn't fit with what he wants to believe about reality?
THAT'S SUCH A SOCIALSIT THING TO DO! LIEK FINANALAND! THE ARUGUMENT IS OVER BECAUSE FINLANAD WINS ARGUERMENT!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:36
>>285
No retard, it doesn't matter. Africans are poorer on average because of other factors, not related to their race.
And Finland is an awesome country, I don't care what you say.
>>286
Say that all you want, but we still have studies that show without a doubt that some people are smarter than others. Whether you believe that translates into being able to form a stable civilization or not, it can't be refuted. And it also can't be refuted that intelligence can directly correlate to one's ability to succeed in life. For example, the Ashkenazi jews; they posess 30% of the wealth (thereabouts) and only make up 3% of the population.
And if you do believe that intelligence (or at least inhibition and ability to pay attention to the world around you) plays a role, like me, you have a lot of data to back you up. Why is it that wherever populations of negroids go, there ends up being crime and blight?
Can it all be blamed on culture?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:45
>>288 Can it all be blamed on culture?
Yes. Quite neatly, in fact.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:48
>>289
For example, if the caucasians are so awesome, and if you say the arabs and the semites are the same as aryans, why then is the middle east in such disarray now and Finland so awesome?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:52
That's different. Their civilization went down the toilet when they got a religion that told them to constantly bicker and fight each other. Before that, they were awesome as india. India wasn't all that bad and has never been all that bad.
Europeans aren't infalliable either... They had a dark age.
But throughout history, there has been a consistent pattern of negroids amounting to nothing.
Really, in all honesty, since you all deny that intelligence has anything to do with civilization, we're at a standstill. You're going to keep insisting that culture determines everything, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-04 23:08
What evidence? Where is the data backing the claim that the percieved failure of any civilization is absolutely related to the lack of- or exclusive inclusion of- any set of genes? We aren't at any sort of stalemate, because you simply do not have the data to back up what you're saying.
Also, Africans have similar religions that actually shun the idea of modernism. Frankly, the only way I can see you saying the things you have been is if you're completely ignorant of human history and african culture.
You entire argument is based on the idea that any one "white civilization" has been "successful". Why do you not tell us what makes a "successful" civilization? Why so vague?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 0:48
>>292
Rome, Greece, The British Empire... Ancient asia and india were also similarly well off while the africans NEVER did anything like that. There isn't any analouge for Greece among negroids.
A successful civilization is one that has stability, a set of laws that keeps things peaceful and moving forward, an environment where individuals don't constantly undermine society as a whole.
Ok, so how exactly did Ancient Africa lack these things? Up until around the 1600's Africa did have the kind of prosperity you speak of. Unless of course, you're still trying to convince everyone that the Moors weren't black.
Second point: Rome, Greece and the British Empire? FAILED. Where are they now? A successful civilization is one that *HAS* stability, not *HAD*.
Third point: Where is data supporting the assertion that African civilization "failed" because of poor genetics?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 1:22
European "civilization" is the most unstable in history. Its entire history is made up of wars upon wars, violent upheavals and unparalleled atrocities.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 1:35
>>295
europeans took over the whole world and invented the internets. the wars are mere trifles.
That's the point. Material progress does not a civilization make.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-05 1:59
Many so-called "European/Anglo-Saxon advancements" are the products of things other civilizations have done. Chiefly amoung them were the plainly NON-Aryan civilizations- Asians, Arabs and yes: The Moors (blacks)
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 4:13
300get
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 4:16
>>299
Name these advancements... in fact, name the advancements the moors gave us.
I'm a different guy from the one you've been debating this thread. I'm not arguing that whites are superior but that blacks are inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 4:19
For example: Arabs thought up mathematics (with the chinese) the greeks invented the first clocks and all of philosophy. The romans devised many of the city planning techniques we still use. (BTW, they may be "Moors" now, but back in egyptian times they were semitic. Populations mix over time. Look at the hieroglyphs... do they look african? No, they all have the aquiline noses and foreheads of the indo-europeans)
What have real blacks brought up?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 4:23
>>298
philosphy. fashion. monuments. too many to mention.
Whites: Philosophy, City planning, democracy
Arabs: Trigonometery, engineering
Chinese: Developed math independent of Indo-europeans, Art of War, government organization, stable civilization lasted over 2,000 years
The indo europeans (That includes indians, semitics, mediterraneans and aryans) aren't stable, but they are smart. The chinese are stable AND smart.
What have the blacks given us?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-05 5:09
First off, all civilizations have had their sense of monuments, fashion and philosophy- as to which ones were "great"- that's clearly subjective. An opinion formed by the so-called "winners of history". Not actual fact.
Secondly, I see the contention that certain peoples (in this case, the Moors) "weren't black" is false simply because if you had seen these peoples you would have considered them black. Yes- there were some "white Moors"- but when any reference is made to the Moors it is made to someone with Dark Skin. Tell me: Do you think the comedian Sinbad is black? His skin coloring is what one could call Berber. Frankly, if the Moors weren't black- they would not have been called Moors. The argument is mooted by the very name.
If you want to know what these advancements are I suspect you can google "The advancements of the Moors", can't you? This is what I don't get- all these questions and yet no one has thought to look for these answers before jumping to the conclusion that blacks are genetically inferior.
"Blacks" were the first people on the planet, does it not stand to reason that they founded the first civilization? Look up these peoples: Zingh Empire, Nubia-Kush, Black Caribs, Black Dalits- These are all ancient nations and civilizations long since forgotten due to the very mindset that all advancement came from Europe and Aryans and not Africa and Negroids.
It's a mindset based on assumption- casual knowledge gleaned from "history's winners"
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 5:36
Might wanna look up the Olmec's as well.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 7:29
might want to look at Rwanda,Congo,Sierra Leone, Detroit, and Washington DC.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 7:50
Last time I checked, "blacks" are doing alright in European countries like the UK, at least relative to the US. Especially in terms of racism.
Personally, remember what colour and what steretype goes together is just too much hassle. Everyone sucks. Easier world view imo
Haha, that's right, my friend keep ignoring the facts. Looking up Rwanda, Congo and Detroit still doesn't provide the much needed data to back up your claims about genetics.
See: Older than America, therefore wiser than America. This fucking country (and Canada) has waaaaaaaaaaaay too many race issues. Everytime I've had a "Race debate" with someone on the internet- some brit comes along and aptly reminds me that this shit is a waste of time and boring.
Summary:
White ami nerdboys jealous of hueg black nigger cock and the pussy it gets the nigger, something they'll never get.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 12:16
>>312
europe, including britain, has race problems. don't pretend europe is some kind of utopia.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 13:08
Every country that was dominately white in the 50s is now a multi-cultural "haven", whereas other nations, even though that are wealthier than some european nations like Kuwait and Japan are as monoracial as they were 50 years ago. Why is this?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 13:58
>>315
I think it's mainly influence from America and them letting in guest workers.
Being smart enough to tamp out LOL on the computer, can you honestly say you wouldn't be better off in america or FINLAND than say, Nicaragua?
What about those rape gates and shit?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 0:09
WTF M8!!!!
Dude, have I not been arguing genetic descent and NOT SKIN COLOR were important for the past 50 posts or so?
The "Moors" weren't really negroid. They were semitic, descended from the same stock as the europeans, the jews, and the arabs.
And all of the civilizations (That I could find) that you listed there were nile-based, too far north for their time to have had very much contact negroids.
Yeah, we won history. But there's a reason why.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 0:57
Yeah, we won history.
It ain't over yet.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 3:25
I've heard of these civilizations you speak of, and so far my impression of them has been that either their significance has been played up in a desperate attempt to make the negroids seem important, or the data was fuzzy enough that nobody could tell whether they were negroid or not.
If it is true that the historical significance of ancient black civilization is covered up in some sort of massive aryan conspiracy, why then do we know of the many advanced and successful during their time civilizations of the native americas? (mayas, incas ETC...) Wouldn't it stand to reason that they would simply be covered up as well?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 6:53
The immediate slant with your lot is always towards some aryan conspiracy. Could it be possible that it was just too fucking long ago? Obviously negroids were the "master race" and like it or not- you still have so called "negroid" genes inside of you and humankind ALWAYS will. The arguement for genetics in the case of "failed civilizations" will always run into this wall. Neverminding the fact that you have ZERO, NONE, ABSOLUTELY NO DATA that backs up your claims.
And why is it implausible to believe that one civilization would cover up another? The Catholics did it with Christianity and the story of Jesus. The Greeks did it, so did the Romans, even America wants people to culturally assimilate to the ideas of the west.
I think you really do lack a knowledge of the context of history with your claims. Particularly the discoveries of these "black civilizations". Why would a white european person in the 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 hundreds believe that the black savages they've been subjegating were capable of any advanced civilization? You are expressing the same method of reason used by those who swore up and down the Earth was flat. Back then, they didn't even KNOW that all of mankind came from Africa. This is now common knowledge.
What's irratating most of all is that your definition of negroids is superficial. But when you're shown superficial evidences that some of the oldest civilizations were "Black". You say: "Oh well they weren't black." - That shows me, a purely racist slant in your arguement. Sure, you might not *believe* you're racist- but you are expressing a purposefully leaning towards whites by implying that negroids alone fall outside of the standard genetic caste of the modern homosapien.
How can you look at the Olmec statues and say: "They weren't black"? They certainly don't look like no fucking John Redcorn. How can you sit there and say "The Moors weren't black"? clearly Shakespeare thought so, clearly whomever termed them "Moors" thought so.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 9:11
you still have so called "negroid" genes inside of you and humankind ALWAYS will
we still have monkey genes it us. we still have fish genes in us (apparently fetues have fins first before they have hands or something, don't know much about it). big deal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 9:16
>>325
you said something concrete about Olmec statues
Some writers have pointed to the full lips and broad noses of these monuments as evidence that the Olmec were actually from Africa or (in a more recent variation on the suggestion) that they represent supposed evidence of some Mesoamerican-African intermarriages. Mainstream scholars have remained unconvinced by this suggestion. They have pointed out that not all people with broad noses and full lips are African; some Native Americans of this region still display these traits today without any other evidence of African ancestry. Full lips and short, broad noses are the norm among Mesoamericans and tropical Mongoloids. It is also noted that the colossal heads show eye folds found in the local Mesoamericans, but not in most Africans. Some of these features are also present among the Khoisan and San Bushmen, suggesting a possible connection to the once widely spread Negrito peoples. These are thought to represent an early migratory group, and are still present in parts of Southeast Asia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec#Olmec_colossal_heads]
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 9:34
>>327
read the discussion page on Olmec. it's pretty lol. afrocentrim etc
It's a very big deal in this argument. It throws the entire idea of "genetic failure" right out of the fucking window. "But only the negroids and their faulty genes failed." - Guess what? Whites, Japanese, Chinese, Wap, Dago, Polish, Nigger, Chink, Spic, Kike = *Same fucking caste of genes*
I have wikipedia, too, you know. Obviously there is alot of debate on the subject of the Olmecs- the part that eurocentrics like yourself continuously leave out of just debate regarding the Olmecs is the fact that the modern human developed different physical traits *after* they left Africa. Answer this: Why is it implausable that negroids made it these world destinations first? If humans entered the Americas (or anywhere else) between 30,000 years B.C. to 150,000 years B.C., they would have had to have been Negroid. What about the cultural similarity between the Olmecs and West Africa, in general?
Also: Why did you not include the google/wikipedia return on the Zingh Empire? Should I provide some other civilizations for you to look up? Maybe the Nok Culture? Who jumped from Stone Age to Iron Age *before* "whites" did? Or the Ghana?
Regardless, you failed to see what I was getting at. Why is it- that you don't apply your "black washing" to things that are obviously "black"? "Moors" means black. It doesn't mean "Berber" it doesn't mean "High Yellow/Off-white". Also anonymous... previously you sited the facial features and the bone structure as proof of differences between the "races" - so did you change your mind all of sudden? Or do you morph the relevancy of these physical traits to better fit your arguments as the debate progresses?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 10:24
And another thing.
You have been proven habitually wrong about African civilization throughout this argument. But for me and many others here that's way beyond the point.
What I want to see is data that backs up the assertion that the failure of any chosen civilization is genetic. I want to see a study that says: "This civilization failed because of poor genetics."
>>329 It's a very big deal in this argument. It throws the entire idea of "genetic failure" [..]
How is the fact that I share human genes with negroids related too the fact that negroids cannot create civilization? All mammals have mouths etc. which does not mean that they can talk.
I don't know anything about Olmecs. I looked up Olmecs on wikipedia and just copied it because you seemed to be lying. There is no evidence except from Afrocentrists that Olmecs are negoid but Afrocentrist also say Egyptians were negroid. It is plausible but there is no solid evidence.
"Moors" means black
Ever seen people from Pakistan. There are Paks who are completely black with caucasoid skull structure. Same with Ethiopea, northwestern Africa, south India.
Also anonymous... previously you sited the facial features and the bone structure as proof of differences between the "races" - so did you change your mind all of sudden?
I wasn't that anonymous but... The Olmec statues showed broad noses and thick lips which tropical mongoloids and mesoamericans have. That doesn't mean that they share similar skull structure with negroids. Their skull structure can be entirely different and they could still have broad noses and thick lips.
>>330
Impossible to do a study like that. Civilization have been around for thousands of year and genetics for tens. Negroes have low IQ scores and most negroes I see are far below average intelligence. Intelligence is genetic. So negroes have bad genes for intelligence. Intelligence helps a lot in constructing a civlization.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 17:16
TLDR addendum:
Anti-chan is the biggest fucking nitwit ever.
George Bush angered greatly at being defeated by a durty lihbrul.
thread is lol but longwinded.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 17:33
>>332
Addendum addendum to 332's, if Africans arrived before the modern-day groups occured, it's plausible they could have lived in a small commune for ages before exploding out. This would have allowed them to retain their afro-centric bodily features.
Also: "Archaeologists disagree whether this was an independent development (methods of smelting may have derived form the use of kilns for firing terracotta) or whether the skill was brought south form the North African coast by traders (records suggest that Phoenician traders were crossing (what is now) the Sahara at that time."
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 18:30
The evolution of Homo sapiens occurred in Africa, where, it seems, the first anatomically modern humans developed. Our most recent common female ancestor, whom all living human beings share, probably lived roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. It is thought that a part of the Homo sapiens sapiens population then migrated into the Near East, spreading east to Australasia some 60.000 years ago, northwestwards into Europe and eastwards into Asia some 40.000 years ago, and further east to the Americas ca. 30.000 years ago. Oceania was populated some 15.000 years ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration]
Early migrations took a loong time during which humans changed.
I don't know whether humans had enough technology to cross the Atlantic 30,000 years ago as implied in the theory about West African influence in Olmecs. Especially since it would have had to be a mass migration or frequent communication.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 20:49
--|[ "Impossible to do a study like that. Civilization have been around for thousands of year and genetics for tens. Negroes have low IQ scores and most negroes I see are far below average intelligence. Intelligence is genetic. So negroes have bad genes for intelligence. Intelligence helps a lot in constructing a civlization." ]|--
I'm going to forego the other stuff about human mirgration for now and focus primarily on your assertation about genetics. Also lets, play a game: Everytime you see a question mark- try, you know....repsonding. The very reason my responses have been so long-winded is because I don't casually leave certain concepts out of the discussion.
Ok, what continues to amaze me in this argument is your ability to recklessly declaire things that have been proven either half true or completely untrue as hard evidence or fact. It's not "impossible to do a study like that", it's actually very possible. It's impossiblity stems from the fact that there are no "negroid genes" to base an empirical study upon.
And you've obviously started your own superficial study based on "the negros you've seen". How does your observations of so called "negroid behavior" equate in any way to their genetics? You say that intelligence is genetic. Where is the data supporting that intelligence is solely genetic? Especially seeing as how the tests that guage intelligence are entirely "nuture tests"? Where is the data saying that "negroes lack intelligence" because of defective sets of genes? Do you have this data? Yes or No. Or do you expect us to believe that it's "impossible to do a study like that"?
Now, I can buy that "intelligence helps a lot in constructing a civilization". But by the defintion of civilization- how are any of the Sub-Sarahan African cultures I listed lacking in civilization? With what reasoning to do you say that Africans haven't constructed civilization? Clearly the Mali, the Zingh were civilized. When you input "Sub-Saharan Civilization" into google- what in the results imply that those civilizations weren't civilized? Especially considering that the entire scientific community terms them as civilizations.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 20:53
Also: Do us a big favor and answer the Yes or No questions regarding your empirical data with a simple "Yes" or "No". I didn't ask if you if the study was impossible or not, I asked you if you have the data to back up your claims. Either you do or you do not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 23:03
holy fuck is anti-chan always here? it's friday night
something must have really struck a nerve
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 23:39
Huh? Is this another veiled character attack? Does my social life really come into play here? Am I required to tell you that last weekend involved me being drunk to the point sit-sleeping in some else's piss and all this week my burps have tasted vaguely of vicodin and cocaine? It's the internet- typing 4 paragraphs in a debate ain't shit.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-07 1:01
iii... amm sooooooo pisssseed off with youuu guuyys riiight noowwww
>_<'
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-07 2:13
SCIENTIFIC METHOD AKA ANTI CHAN METHOD
The "scientific method" is the ONLY way yet discovered for discovering truth amid a world of lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
a. Observe some aspect of the universe.
b. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
c. Use the theory to make predictions.
d. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
e. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
__________________________________
ECONOMIST METHOD AKA ANONYMOUS METHOD
Did I ever tell you about niggers? Niggers aren't smart because of their GENES!!
I got this because I look at some marginal UNGENENTIC IQ test scores and just like, you know, looked around me at all the negroids and stuff. They have different haplotypes so it MUST BE TRUE. Hey I'm not racist and even I didn't believe it at first, but sure-enough it was true. Over the last thousands of years Africans have had failed civilizations....
People always try to blame the other races....but we won history! It had to be a reason! We've NEVER subjegated other cultures and peoples. Actually NO ONE HAS. You know what? There are some intelligent blacks out there and I don't know if that's geneitc or WHAT but generally niggers ain't all that bright. So I am beginning to think that the cat actually CAUSED the failure of thier civilizations. Genetics don't lie do they?
Now of course it's debate as to why African civilizations or any number of civilizations failed... I am sure I can find out by studying niggers with my eyes. (Although some say there are virtually an infinite number of explanations for the same observation, and only the "scientific method" can separate fact from fiction.)
What do you think? Are dumb niggers the cause or the effect? Or both? Or neither? Economists run into this problem all the time...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 3:34
One more thing... Moor means in ancient greek, "The color of mud" I think most black africans of that time period were darker than mud... then look at south indians or even non-negroid egyptians... they're about the right shade.
anti-chan, you have repeatedly shown your ignorance or possible even willful misunderstanding of many of the posts made here. We keep talking about negroid people, and then you assert that we're talking about people with black skin.
Also the logical errors you keep making when you assume that just because we share genes with negroids means that we can't say anything about whether their genetics are good or not. A caveman's axe contains iron. Does that mean that it should have the same sharpness and durability.. of a modern galvanized steel version? Well they both contain iron so that pretty much throws your idea of industrial engineering out the window.
>>343
Yes, they do, but he acts like we are only talking about people with black skin, as if skin affects intelligence. Dark skin is favorably selected in populations of humans living in sun-irradiated and hot regions of the world.
Another thing; there are very few civilizations that exist in southern africa. I read an article once about only one that built any structure that survived to this day, while everywhere else, from the americas to australia we can find all sorts of signs of commerce etc... etc... huge routes in the middle of deserts by which people were travelling in convoys.
Now, look at modern egypt. It's mostly arabic in the north (Where the pyramids are) with more negroid genes as you move south. Genetic surveys show THEY (The negroids in the south) only arrived and began mixing within the past 2,000 years.
Two of those very minor civilizations you mentioned existed on the nile, which I and most non afro-centic archealogists have reason to believe was not populated by negroids. Yet they continue to assert this as some sort of evidence of ancient black civilization.
Seriously, Afro-centrists seem to try to find reasons to believe that any old civilizations they find must have been part of the lost black empire. I'm sorry, but it just didn't exist. As much as you'd like to believe that all men are created equal, they aren't.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 3:56
>>330
Moreso than your data says that the nile was populated by blacks. It's circumstantial I'll admit, but in the entire world I only know of about two ancient black african societies that on their own advanced enough to build a city.
And olmec statues honestly look more mongolian to me... The skull is proportionally too small to be negroid.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 5:08
stupid Racists... will you never learn that the last "different" Human Race were the Neanderthals, and they dont exist anymore...and everybody who comes up with this fucking Race-Theories should go and find a work, today! So that this dumbass dont will ever again get so bored of his self-hatred that he has to invent such a crap.
I find your convenient interpetation of what is negroid to be purposefully deceptive. What do you mean when you say negroid? Can you define them genetically? Just earlier did you not say that from what you've "seen" these so-called negroids possess an inferior intelligence? How else do you determine them to be negroid if not by their dark skin? Mere skull shapings? That's it? Well...
...they all still look pretty black to me. Even the "White Moor Boy" looks what in western culture can be easily mistaken for negroid or black. I think you may be confusing the moors that invaded spain with the moors that remained as the christians re-took spain. The moors that invaded spain were negroid or "black". It's right in the name. Furthering my point- it was the Moors who had no problem with race-mixing and willingly lived side-by-side with other cultures. Maybe if they simply wiped them all out, there would be no doubt as to what "race" they were. Regardless, your dodgy interpetitation of what is negroid clearly morphs to fit your argument.
Your iron-to-galvanized steel analogy is completel off-base in that genetically speaking humans have not changed, evolved or "upgraded" - which is what you seem to suggest. You have the exact same genes that negroids have. All of mankind operates within the same cast of genetic possibility. As far as I am concerned- you can *say* whatever you want. As to whether or not what you say is *true* however is a entirely different matter. To be convinced of your claim I'm going to need to see more than "that article your read one time" and these mystery "genetic surveys" you continously cite.
Clearly you're operating in the realm co-relative subjectivity. It seems that only eurocentrics are still trying to state that human evolution and therefore civilization goes to from elsewhere *to* Africa. All mother culture and all of modern mankind comes from Africa. And that is scientific fact. It's not the 1930's anymore, anonymous. For me- even being from the west- this issue of afrocenticity v.s eurocentricity is moot.
Because you have still not answered the "yes or no" question as to if you have absolute evidence that clearly states:
1. X-Civilization failed because of Y-grouping of genes.
2. Lower scores on nuture IQ tests are caused by X-grouping of genes.
Do you have this data?
Yes or No.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 6:54
>>349
What? Oh yeah, maybe the hunter gatherer culture descended from africa, sure. But stonehenge, the greeks and roman cultures ETC... formed after they left africa.
1. I think the point is that x-grouping of genes or whatever the fuck your talking about precluded a certain group ever FORMING a civilization. This is only verifiable by circumstantial evidence, but it's powerful nonetheless.
2. We have plenty of data to back this up. For example, we can trace intelligence between sets of identical twins separated at birth, they usually have a direct correlation regardless of upbringing. They have traced genes back through history that correlate to certain groups forming...
For example, the Ashkenazi Jews are a subset of all jews, and share an almost identical culture with jews at large. They were very inbred, coming from a small group of people during the middle. This has brought out several disorders, including cystic fibrosis, that incredibly sick harlequin fetus disorder, etc... But inbreeding also strengthened several genes that control intelligence, and as a result they were able to rise in medieval culture, creating the stereotype of jews as bankers, money-grubbers ETC...
Nowadays, 70% of jews are of the ashkenazi group. And it is the ashkenazis who are the stereotypical hollywood actors, the successful stock brokers and lawyers. One example: fully half of all chess champions are ashkenazi, while the representation for other groups of jews is proportional to their population with the rest of the country.
bzzzzz wrrrrrooooong, clearly by the very way the ancient moors were termed, this is proven to be the other way around. remember, people knew the fucking difference between white and arab back then. the moors were bix nood, so stfu
Your assertion is that certain civilizations failed or never came into being because of the lack of certain "intelligence genes" or generally poor genetics. Yet, the other civilizations you mentioned were formed using the same caste of genes that are inherant in every modern homospaien. The only differences were skin color and bone structure. Where is the proof that they were fundamentally genetically different?
Secondly, you keep repeating to yourself over and over that Sub-Sahara Africans "never had civilization" despite the overwhelming *non-circumstancial* evidence to the contrary.
Kush, Axum, Ghana, Mali, Bantu, Nok, Zingh etc.
"These Bantu immigrants would eventually found the civilization of the Mwenumatapa, or "Great Zimbabwe" civilization." (Taken from: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/IRONAGE.HTM) ---Keep in mind this is an academic resource, in case you try to call "afrocentricity" again.
Either way, you're (cleverly) dodging the question. In the scientific community circumstancial evidence lacks power until there is at least a reasonable amount of empirical data to back it up. Do you have that data which states that any one civilization failed or did not come into being because of genetics, yes or no? We've been over your so called "data" regarding the twin's IQ. IQ tests are based on *nuture* and have no way of absolutely gauging what intelligence comes from nature and what intelligence comes from nuture.
And it appears that your entire argument constantly comes back to a fringe group of people who just so happened to practice inbreeding. Why do you ignore the fact that the Ashkenazi culture was one centered around intelligence? Yes, intelligence was a highly desirable trait for mating, but only because culture *enforced* that idea. It's highly strange to me, that you've also chosen a people who technically have no "nation" or "civilization" in the traditional sense (the sense in which *you* term civilization). How, are they different from nomadic Sub-Sarahans? The difference seems to me to be completely subjective and superficial.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-07 10:26
Finally, you are never going to get around the race thing with your talk of haplotypes and allele frequencies. With your very arguement you operate under the false "if-then" assumption that: IF race is a surrogate for unknown genetic mechanisms, THEN observed racial differences in IQ and "achievement" can be explained by genetic differences. I just don't see how you can arrive to that conclusion with all of the blank spots in our understanding of human traits controlled by many genes in concert with environmental factors. I.E - INTELLIGENCE.
On top of all that, your "pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- don't know where you're getting the data that says that. Anyway, by definition ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND). The whole thing is a poor effort on your part to biologically define race- but guess what? It doesn't exist. The very term "negroid" greatly over-generalizes and over-simplies a contenient of people who have the greatest number of haplotypes in the world. Different allele frequences only mean that a different parts of a continuum has been sampled.
Your entire argument, to me, seems like one huge illogical and insubstancial leap into retardation. We all know that genetics are involved somewhat with intelligence, but that aside do we still know of a gene that has been attributed to acedemics or IQ? Do we know for sure that any civilization failed because of lack of "IQ boosting" genes? And does race even exist? NO.
>>353
The meaning of Moors is very varied. Generally in Spain in means people from North Africa or just darker skinned people which can mean anybody. The invaders of the iberian peninsula were Semetic arabs and some berbers. There are also black moors who are generally slaves of the moors. I don't think inbreeding with slaves is forbidden in muslim culture because it happens often in Saudi Arabia.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 16:16
Anti-chan: You fucking keep reiterating the same shit over and over. If you had looked at what I said about twin studies, I said that IQ correlated regardless of upbringing (though upbringing did play a big role, by approximately ten IQ points). This is important and you dodge it.
And we can't say that a Civilization failed because you've never really given a good definition. (I am not the original guy who debated you earlier). But what I can say is that most of the great scholastic acheivements were done at the civilizations that we know of. Sure, some negroes might have built a few structures (though not of stone, because they don't even exist today) but they never did anything that warranted remembering them.
And you keep dodging the issue of central and south american civilizations; they were fricken huge, and the native americans were certainly one of the most if not THE most subjugated group in history; yet why do we know these people built big pyramids and stuff? Shouldn't white society have covered it up?
BTW, in that link you provided, "Africans were largely made up of hunter gatherer groups until 200bc" the very first sentence. It just serves to reinforce my stance that their civilization wasn't as great, especially considering that they existed much longer and should have had a drop on the greeks and romans... They were still in the IRON AGE AT THAT TIME.
You keep asking "Where's the proof that civilization xyzinfinity failed because of other variable" then continue to muddle the question into incomprehensibility. Of course we can't show that, because civilizations don't explode when a couple of bad genes get in. But what we can show is a systemic correlation, in which certain people can't get their shit together, and certain people CAN. That's what I've been saying all along, and you keep on dodging it, trying to act like a civilization exploding is the only way to prove my point. All the civilizations you mentioned, sure they existed, but they didn't do anything awesome like anyone else. I have challenge for you; show me an advancement that benefits us today that came from any black african "civilization". It's a far more reasonable request than your whole show me genes and civilization failure thing.
Anti-chan, throughout this argument you show a complete and utter disregard of the facts. Rather than address how twin studies show differences in IQ, rather than address how it only takes one or two genes to make someone's brain the size of a raddish (would they still have the natural IQ capacity then of a rhode scholar? I bet you'd say yes. BECAUSE RACE DOESN'T EXIST!!!!), rather than address the fact that advancement was made by other civilizations at an incredibly much higher rate, you keep on repeating your asenine one-liner propaganda. You keep on insisting that intelligence is some magical thing that can't be affected by genetics, when every single other aspect of humanity (blood pressure, diabetes incidence, lactose intolerance, heart disease) is demonstrated to have descendence within populations.
You aren't an idiot, rather, you're worse; an idiot at least knows when he doesn't know, you're someone who carries very well made arguments from false suppositions. In short, you're a pussy, who'd rather believe a comforting lie than face the real truth.
Good day to you.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 9:12
[IQ]
I haven't dodged shit- the results are trivial because there is no "intelligence gene" in the first fucking place. How many times must it be pointed out that IQ cannot fully measure intelligence? It only measures what we *assume* intelligence to be. It is simple common sense that you cannot 100% accurately measure the attributes of the human mind using the human mind. Objectivity is not possible by virtue of the means used.
Quantum physics has been struggling to uncover the mysteries of objectivity since forever and then you come skipping along claiming to have discovered an objective test for intellect? Here's an example of mental fortitude: SURVIVOR. Why is it that when 20 or so Americans try for 30 days to live like an AFRICAN...their brains turn to mush and they start babbling to themselves and start begging to strip naked for the camera for a bite of peanut butter?
What If I then gave an "IQ test" that asked how many triangles of equal size can fit into a square comprised of a square made from 12 of those triangles? If the subject answers "who gives a shit, I'm fucking *hungry*?". I will score that subject with above average IQ. When we've finally reached a consensus on exactly how every part of the brain works then we will talk about an objective "IQ" test. (Analogy: If you can find a doctor who can explain why the heart loves then we will talk about an objective EQ test.)
Also: One fact you continue to glare over (like it didn't even happen). Is that most of these studies were done during the repression of blacks or the slow acceptable emergence of blacks by whites in various areas of the world during the battle for civil rights fights (spands 1960's -late 70's and even thru the present-day depending on the emergence of one's parents, location and attitude of the area blacks came from at the time since it varied depending on those kids experiences and their previous 'masters' allowances). All of which depended on prior circumstances of the parents, financially, educationally and emotionally. I don't think that is enough time to compare the two races as if they were homogenous populations separated only by genetics and economics.
And yet you want to draw parallels among them all. That's just fucking re-tah-ded.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 9:15
[Civilizations]
First it was "they didn't have civilization", now it's "it wasn't that great." When you say that "negroids haven't contributed to society" you are making a generalizing statement about a "race" of people that is (A) completely subjective and completely dependant upon what is known (or your personal knowledge) of history - and (B) the idea that "negroids" are a seperate race in the first place. Without the African roots of hunting and gathering, without the roots of civilization that the humans of ancient Africa laid down- we wouldn't be here. But this is irrelevant Race is a not a biological construct so IQ can't biologically inheritiable by "race".
Also, I'd like to know how they came up with IQ for people who lived before the IQ test was invented. Was it magic? How do you know, for certain, that discoveries of man weren't previcously discovered (I.E- RE-discovered)? How do you know that the discoveries required a "high IQ" (when "IQ" didn't even fucking exist). Do you think Newton had a high IQ? It's said that it was 190 but the first IQ test for which you could base your assertions wasn't invented until 1905. What about Leonardo De Vinci? Ceaser?
The "systemic correlation" you keep refering to is by no means empirical and it is in no way what anyone intelligent would consider a scientific method. Therefore, it is a theory and not 'truth'. There are certian people who can and can't "get their shit together" in every fucking civilization and society since the beginning of time. The notion that this is solely to do with the western (not completely accepted idea) IQ is a leap of imagination.
Many, if not all of the "achievements" came about with civilizations working in concert with each other. No one civilization achieved anything important by going solo. Also: Your assertions that "ancient negroes" had no wealth, culture or art is completely fucking false. Discoveries are still being made despite eurocentricity and it's far too early to make an assumption like that.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 9:22
[Summing up] (with insults!)
The two abstract concepts of "Intelligence" and "race" are not correlated whatsoever and IQ scores are not a good universal test of intelligence. In fact they are strongly biased based on one's culture and geographic location. (Anyone who's taken Psychology 101 can tell you this) The IQ scores do follow a bell curve model however with vast majority of the population being "average" and a few retards and a few really smart ones (some who were autistic).
For anyone to proclaim to be able to biologically define a person, let alone an entire socially defined 'race' or ethnicity, when we are still trying to figure out the brain itself is a watershed in stupidity. That's skepticism. That's the scientific method. And one thing people used to actually understand about the scientific method is that you can't just do surveys and call it absolute truth. You have to identify the mechanism, not just the results, or else you're wildly guessing as to what's the real cause. What I'm saying is that (brace yourself) ---there's an actual methodology to REAL science! :-O! The simple fact is that the data presented here does not eliminate the chance of some completely different cause, or even other factors producing correlation. Only a queer nazi would keep repeating this dogmatic bullshit over and over like some kind of "I'm gay and that's ok" Mantra.
You are yet another one of these dumb asses that try to make an argument for some kind of racial superiority based on your personal interpetation of statistics and what co-relations you've inferred from your limited knowledge of history. MY question is why do you even bring this shit up? I highly doubt it was in the cause of improving the quantity and quality of education, nutrition, mental health services, and free drug treatment programs in black communities. We don't even have that shit *now*.
But fine! Let's say 'whites' are more intelligent than blacks. Well, whites and asians rule the planet right now and therefore whites and asians are responsible for the negative path that they have put planet earth upon. So much for intelligence and which "race" has more of it. Maybe, in the end, the "savages" had it right.
Alright maybe I'm missing something, but how is that relevant to what was said >>363?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 13:01
>>368
The divide and conquer practices of white colonialists results in predictable ethnic violence.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 13:50
I AM NIGRA, I KNOW NOTHING OF THE WORLD, ALL I KNOW IS THAT WHEN WE HAD SMALL POX AND 50% OF PEOPLE DIED BEFROE THE AGE OF 5 THINGS WERE BETTER, BECAUSE LOGIC WAS MADE BY DEAD WHITE MEN SO BEING ILLOGICAL AND DOWNRIGHT FUCKING STUPID AND IGNORING FACTS IS GOOD!
Your ignorance and your across-the-board inability to address my arguments are noted. And your misinterpetation of my position is testament to the arrogant amd fascist nature that is inherant in all who prescribe to the racist mode of thought.
My ignorance and your across-the-board inability to respond to criticism is evident throughout the entire thread. And my paranoia knows no bounds, I am so deluded I now seem to think that not only criticism against my arguments are racist, but facts and reason itself is "racist" and to be ignored. My actions are testament to the demented and marxist nature that is inherant in all who prescribe to this cultlike fanatic-psychosis mode of thought.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 16:42
I'm done with this.
Anti-chan, you are a retard.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 17:13
Yeah, Anti-chan, all your theories sound good in theory, and in their ability to make people feel good, but they don't work in reality. To assume that there's no phyiscal attribute to intelligence (EG, capacity for abstract thought) is fucking stupid. And your survivor example is also fucking retarded; living in the bush is a skill, and the ability to do that doesn't mean anything for someone's intelligence. In face, an intelligent person might know some of the general principals of nature and where food can be found ETC... Has nothing to do with intelligence. It's just knowledge.
And how is it stupid to try to understand what intelligence is before we understand the workings of the brain? This is your same old "Show me a so I can think b" thing. It's totally unreasonable. Intelligence is a measure of performance, asshole. You don't have to understand how the lamborgini's head cam-double thrust V-tech engine works in order to be able to see that it goes faster than my 4-banger Toyota camry. In fact, finding out that one goes faster than the other is more in line with the scientific method, because we can see that A does B and C does D, without needing to get into spiritual shit to find it. In fact, demanding an intelligence gene is just what you're claiming not to do; it's a dodge.
And race has to do with which population an individual was descended from. There are the black africans, which are the original humans. They've been in africa since the beginning. Then you've got the indians, europeans, ETC who are descended from the semites, who migrated into the middle east around 10,000 years ago. From there, humans migrated just about everywhere. So in short; the blacks came from africa, the semites from populations that migrated into the middle east etc. It has nothing to do with skin color, bone structure ETC.. although you can usually use that to determine what race someone is from. That's my objective definition of what race is, which you (hopefully) can't ignore.
So, when I say the first moors weren't black, I mean that they came from the middle east. And then they mixed with africans creating the moors we have today.
What's so difficult about hunting and gathering in comparison with, I dunno, TRIGONOMETRY that other people's wouldn't have been able to think of it on their own in like ten seconds time? Seriously, that stuff comes instinctually, so to say that a race "gave" it to us (memetically, I mean) is completely retarded.
So. What contributions have sub saharan africans NOT descended from middle easterners given us? Please don't start muddling the issue with your BS as I'm sick of it.
And my knowledge of history is not limited. It's still ongoing now. Look at africa; it's a cesspit. Look in the US; black people don't have much here either. It's not that I think we're better, it's just that I'm sick of people using lies to convince themselves that everything is right with the world when in reality it isn't. You can't just ingore your problems into submission. And the fact remains that whenever black people run anything for themselves, it disappears into chaos. It's a persistent pattern that's existed since the beginning. I myself don't honestly think it relates as much to IQ as it does to personal inhibition and an ability to think about what's good for the group. It's there, it's honestly and truly there, and to deny it will just make the problem worse in the future.
Whites and asians ruining the planet, eh? Well, accomplishing something is better than accomplishing nothing. I subscribe to the human-centric theory, where the only point in anything existing is for us ourselves, the thinking breed of people. Living in harmony with nature and getting killed by saber toothed tigers seems pointless. I don't want a world devoid of natural beauty and all that shit that's just stupid, I think we should use nature to get to a point in technology where we don't have to step on it is all.
In fact, fuck you. So many of your arguments are so far deluded and easy to counter that it's unbelievable. I think your debate strategy is just to get your opponent so busy picking apart the easy stuff that they get sick of it before they get to the big stuff.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 19:06
What proof do you have that my arguments make people feel good? First of all, I never made any assumption nor have I implied that there is no physical attribute for intelligence. Obviously, it's the brain and it's inner workings. What we do know, however, is that there are no definitive genes that determine intelligence. All gene work relating to IQ is purely theoretical.
Your opinion about how much intelligence it takes to survive in the sub-sahara is just that: An opinion. You say that it hasn't anything to do with IQ and is "just knowledge".
Well I have some really bad news for you; Dictionary.com's definition of knowledge:
knowl·edge
n.
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.
Intelligence: The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
Seems to me that you just admitted that the pre-historic sub-saharan humans were pretty intelligent, no? I mean, obviously they understood nature and where to find food or the human race wouldn't be here.
It's not stupid to try and understand intelligence. But it is very, very stupid to infer certain things about the brain biologically based solely on our perception of it's output. It's important to indentify and quantify the *input*, as well. And you're right! "Show me (A) so I can think (B)" is indeed unreasonable. But this is not the scientific method by which we glean truth. You have been *shown* that "blacks" are "less successful" and you "think" the reason is solely genetic. Sorry, kid, but that's not science and there's nothing "spiritual" about it. You have to show *what* genetics "blacks" lack and why.
And No, you don't have to *understand* the V-tech engine in a Lamborgini into to see that goes faster than a toyota. But then again, you aren't merely saying "Whites are better than blacks." If you did, you'd just be a bigot so instead you mask it by saying they are better because of a *reason* (genetics). That is simply not true. You're saying that "whites" naturally and biologically have a better "engine" that blacks. But guess what? They have the same fucking engine.
(cont.....)
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 19:10
As for your talk about human migration...
First off all, humans moved from Africa to Southeast Asia and then spread out from there. The only thing that changed about these people were their physical appearences. And that didn't change until they *got to their destination*. Semites still aren't any different from their African ancestors- they just *look* different. You insist that they were semites under the assumption that this means they weren't African or Black.
Well, I've got some more bad news.
Sem·ite
n.
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
And here a question: When it comes to the current black populations, how can you tell the difference? You do understand the current condition of Ethiopia, right? Hey: They're semites...how come they haven't "gotten their shit together"?
Oh right! Thet were enslaved. :) Just like everyone else with dark "negroid" skin.
You keep saying that you're sick of people "using lies". What lies are you refering to? Slavery happened. The repression of blacks happened. I don't know if you're a racist or not...but the one reason people who take up your position are called racist is because they downplay the severity of the repression of black race by colonialist and an opportunisitic upper class. No mattter how loud you yell or how much you pout- the social and cultural repression of "negroids" is always going to play a factor in their current social and cultural standing in the modern world. Sure, at some point the repression of pass will no long be an excuse- but we have not reached that point yet. When you asked earlier *why* sub-saharan Africans never contributed to civilization- you willfully ignored the rest of that paragraph.
African south of the Sahara lived largely in nomadic, hunter-gatherer groups up until 200 BC. As a result, African populations were very sparse. There are several speculations as to why sub-Saharan Africans remained in hunting-gathering groups, but they are all guess-work. Perhaps the most reasonable explanations involve the abundance of resources and the protection that their isolation gave them from invasion and migration pressures.
What makes you think you know something that a State University doesn't? The very reason they don't say: "Sub-saharans stayed in hunter-gather groups is because of low IQ" is because to pass a western standardized IQ test, it helps if you're educated by the western standard and know how to speak english. They don't know how intelligent sub-saharan Africans were- how would they? So why would the say anything about their genetics or IQ? Why are you?
You say that whenever blacks run things it descends into chaos. When have blacks ever run things in the modern world for longer than 20 years? There's plenty of black politicians in america who're doing just fine. Africa as a whole was just dandy until colonialism.
And hey, if my points are so deluded and easy to counter then you should have no problem doing so without resorting to calling someone retarded, communist or a marxist. And what "big stuff"? Do you think you're saying something new? Something that hasn't been argued since African colonialism? The repression of blacks began under the assumption that whites were born superior to blacks. What do you say to this? Or do you willifully ignore it, per usual?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 21:16
>> They have the same fucking engine.
Proof? Prove to me that black brains are identical to white ones.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 21:27
Every race thinks they are superior to every other race. No big surprise there. But the superior ones will win history (or maybe they already won).
Yet again, you've misunderstand and you're desperately grasping for straws. I didn't say they were exactly identical. No two brains are indentical, even in the same "race". But seeing as how there is no "Race". They both have the same human brain. Are you're implying that the brains have fundamental biological differences? (extra brain stem? 7 layered neo cortex?)
Anyway...what your own theory calls for you to do is to prove that the brain has any co-relation to IQ. Or that brain size always falls along "race". This non-truth has already been addressed by many scientists.
Although Rushton (1988, 1990a, 1991) implied that Blacks are consistently found to have smaller brains than Whites, some of the studies listed in his reviews actually show opposite trends: North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight (see Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9). In general, skulls from people in countries with poverty and infant malnutrition are smaller regardless of race. This trend is apparent even in Rushton's (1990b) tabularly summary of Herskovits' s review: Caucasoids from Cairo had far smaller crania than North American Negroes (see more details in Cernovsky, 1992). In this respect, Rushton (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) also repeatedly misrepresented findings by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) on cranial capacity. Rushton implied that Beals et al. presented large-scale evidence for racial inferiority of the Blacks with respect to cranial size. De facto, extensive statistical analyses by Beals et al. showed that cranial size varies primarily with climatic zones (e.g., distance from the equator), not race. According to Beals et al., the correlations of brain size to race are spurious: smaller crania are found in warmer climates, irrespective of race.
"Intelligence must not be confused with IQ as measured by an IQ test."
W.BODMER (medical geneticist), 1973
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 22:21
Doesn't prove anything. All you proved is that skull size varies by nutrition. This doesn't show that intelligence or brain performance is the same across the board.
And we are not talking about the brain. We're talking about what it puts out. This is just another point that shows your consistent and probably willful misunderstanding of the material presented.
Now, show me that brains are all identical in performance across all races.
>>379
Strange how you find this relevant when you just got through ten minutes ago talking about how the differences in the brain were completely irrelevant.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 23:48
White supremacists are incapable of acknowledging the role of social environment on what they perceive as race. To do so would undermine their whole worldview, even though the facts are widely accepted. Therefore, they prefer to call anti-chan's arguments trollish rather than considering for a moment that they may be true.
Why bother with a response if you're not going to read the material presented to you? You basically asked me to prove something that I didn't say. I never said brain performance is the same across the board. So, explain to me in length why I should prove something I didn't assert in the first fucking place.
The input of the brain (the brain itself) is responsible for what it puts out (output). If you fill one engine with sand and the other one with oil. The one with sand all gunked up into it is going to have a weaker performance. Are you sure you understand the brain? Are you 100% sure you understand what the scientific method is?
Yes. If you notice it's one thing they hasn't addressed through out the entire thread. To not address that issue is to assume the blacks were inferior before european colonialism- which at it's most basic ideal- is white supremacism.
Well, we all know you don't *think* you're a supremacist. But seeing as how you've done everything to dodge the cultural and social implications of the "race-intelligence" arguement, the evidence is pretty damning.
Your arguement basically fell completely apart when it turned out that some semites were black Africans. Ethiopia is one of the most underdeveloped nations in Africa, if they were semites they would be in a better place in the world and have contributed more to it. Why do you think they haven't? Genetics? But don't they have semitic genes?
*waits for brutal lack of response*
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 3:47
Ethiopians may be semites, but they are still semites who are mixed with negroids.
No. They are negroids,period. Ethiopians aren't a mixture of assorted peoples. They are what you (and european colonialst) would percieve to be negroid. Thus: They were rounded up in the slave trade. I think the dictionary and the pictures posted are pretty self explainatory. Otherwise, I'd like it if you perhaps provided proof to the contrary?
The point is moot anyway. The only thing different about "negroids" (LOL, just say nigger...we all know that's what you mean) and semites is their appearence.
By the way, maybe you'd like to explain away this:
North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight (see Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9).
I notice that you left it out of your last few replies and just thought maybe you'd like to comment.
Also: Regardles, a semite is a semite. Their semetic blood should've insured them a throne in the modern world. So why aren't they "ahead of the game"?
Another thing: Are ever going to address the cultural and social implications of the "Race-Intelligence" arguement? I suppose not, eh?
Name:
jem2006-01-09 4:29
>>388,389
If they are negroid "period", then they can't be semetic, retard. Which will it be?
Besides, almost all references to "Semite" today refer to the language. Ethoipians today have Semetic or Cushitic languages.
Name:
jem2006-01-09 4:32
North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight (see Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9).
There has yet to be conclusive evidence relating brain-size to intelligence. Maybe phrenology will help you on your quest*. Besides, quality not quantity. Speed of neurons etc.
I know that. I was making a point about the irrelevancy of brain size and weight, etc. Hey and when you're fully able to quantify the speed and density and such of neurons, divided among race lines- and what relevance this had to IQ...let us know.
Obviously you fail to see the relevance of pointing out the fact that some semetic peoples would qualify as what one would term "negroid". Care explaining what a negroid is in the first fucking place? Biologically? Genetically? If they're semetic- then why don't they "have their shit together"?
Are you going to come along and ignore the other factors relating to poor brain performance as well? If so: Gtfo, we already have one of those.
Um, no. The samples themselves are fine. The point of the whole response to Rushton serves to point out the fallacy in the INTERPETATION of those given samples. These are the same samples that Anonymous has been basing his argument on.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-09 4:55
wait nvm I suck cock
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-09 4:57
And regardless if you think Ethiopians are negroid or not: They ARE semetic and they WERE rounded up and taken to Benin in the American slave trade and they ARE an underdeveloped third world country, right along the line of many of the African countries Anonymous has cited as being "civilization failures".
Hahaha...That's right, keep it up. See the thing is...I actually want you to keep up with the line of insults. When people see this thread- they are going to see one guy debating senisibly using scientific method and empirical evidence and another camp of people shouting "NIGGER, NIGRA, MARXIST, COMMUNIST, COCKSUCKER, RETARD".
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-09 5:05
shit I still suck cock
Name:
jem2006-01-09 5:20
Sem·ite
n. 1. A member of a group of Semitic-SPEAKING peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
No genes involved here. Conclusion: either ethoipians are niggers, they are semites (racially not linguistically) or they are mixed. You say they are niggers -- fine. Then they are not semetic.
yeah yeah yeah, only a pussy hides behind someone else's user name. after this I'm *so* returning to being Anonymous. I understand now why that system was put in place
Well the definition clearly states that Ethiopians are semitic. I realize the fact that they have the inherant traits of Negroids shatters your theories, but you're going to have to sober up to the reality of the facts.
Again: Biologically and Genetically define "Negroid".
Again: Biologically and Genetically define "Semitic"
Again: Proof that Ethiopians are inherantly "mixed" with "negroids".
Seems to me Ethiopains stayed in Africa so they still have dark skin and "negroid" features. Seems to me that semitic peoples have no racial definition. Seems to me that a semitic people "don't have their shit together". Your repsonse?
Also: Are you still leaving out the cultural and social implication of the 'race-intelligence' arguement? Because it's not going to go away, I can assure you.
Irrelevant. These are the same experiments that Anonymous and Rushton draw their conclusions from. Clearly, they purposefully interpeted them differently.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 6:31
>>401
Okay...there are 2 definitions of Semetic. One is linguistic and the other is genetic. These are different things and not closely related. That is, linguistic not equal to genetic.
The Semetic language family consists of a lot of languages which includes Ethiopian languages. Here is a chart of the Semetic Familiy tree: http://www.bartleby.com/61/tree.html. Ethiopians are Semetic speaking people. That precious definition you refer to defines Ethiopians as Semetic-speaking. Please re-read the definition. For your convenience, I shall present it here. Sem·ite n. 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
Another lineage common in the ancestral Arab-Jewish gene pool is found among today's Ethiopians and may have reached the Middle East by men who traveled down the Nile. But present-day Ethiopian Jews lack some of the other lineages found in Jewish communities, and overall are more like non-Jewish Ethiopians than other Jewish populations, at least in terms of their Y chromosome lineage pattern.
What the above sentance says is that Arab-Jews mixed with Ethiopians. So, the Ethiopians are partially Semites but they are probably mostly negroes. They look it anyway. They are mixed. I believe the definition of mixed here is when two different races have progeny.
The ancestral pattern of lineages is recognizable in today's Arab and Jewish populations, but is distinct from that of European populations and both groups differ widely from sub-Saharan Africans.
Using semiticentric websites has a source for the proof of jewish genetic uniqueness is the equalavant of using the afrocentric http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/ to make any points about African empires and genetics. The inherant and invalid racism of Zionism (i.e semitic genetics) has been an issue for the longest. The difference between you and I is that I wasn't stupid enough or silly enough to try and slide such a website by as a source.
But, you know what? Also, unlike you I'm willing respond to every criticism of an arguement.
But First, I'd like you to make clear how this argument will negate a statement that was ignored in >>355, to which I got no response:
"pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- don't know where you're getting the data that says that. Anyway, by definition ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND).
In other words: Given the abstractness of race... this arguement about who's semetic, who's negroid or not is still moot. You also have still not addressed the following:
That....1. The two abstract concepts of "Intelligence" and "race" are not correlated whatsoever because IQ scores are not a good universal test of intelligence. In fact they are strongly biased based on one's culture and geographic location.
2. We have no way of testing the IQ of anicent peoples. And it's a safe assertion that if we tested these people with *our* IQ tests- they'd fail.
3. How do you know that certain discoveries required a what we call a "high IQ" (when "IQ" didn't even fucking exist). Do you think Newton had a high IQ? It's said that it was 190 but the first IQ test for which you could base your assertions wasn't invented until 1905. What about Leonardo De Vinci? Ceaser? Are we just guessing, now? Is that science? Guessing?
Have you addressed these, yet? Because I seriously want to hear your explaination.
My complete and utter shut out of your semitic obsession is forthcoming.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-09 9:20
As for semites:
The only definition there is for semitic is the lingual definition. No other website or scientific institution makes reference to the absolute genetic "racial identity" of semites. The genetic and racial legitimacy of semites has been highly debatable for a very, *very* long time. Let's say that they did, in fact, "mix". (even though you can't mix race if it doesn't exist, stupid) ----If we apply the "one drop" theory that eugentics freaks are so fond of- then they are still semitic and their country is still dilapidated. Explain.
Even more damning in your argument about the semites is that it contains two glaring flaws of logic. One of them is right in the webpage.
These variant spellings are in DNA that is not involved in the genes and therefore has no effect on the body. But the type and abundance of the lineages in each population serve as genetic signature by which to compare different populations.
Meaning that even if semites come from a different lineage...the genetic signature by which we *know* that to be true has "no effect on the body". In other words: No effect on the brain and no effect on intelligence.
2nd: Given what I've said in >>355 (which you ignored) what makes you think that these people weren't descendants of sub-saharan Africans? The ancient and earliest seed of semites stems from the sub-saharans that mirgrated to different enviroments. How do you know for sure that the original semitic Y-chromosome didn't belong to a sub-saharan Ancestor? How do you know that the semitic Adam wasn't in fact a black sub-saharan? Remember humanity came *out* of Africa. Due to what we know about history and about the migration of ancient humans, the location and the physical traits of the Ethiopinas themselves (just a stone's throw away from the sub-sahara) we can make a pretty good assertion that semites...just like everyone else on the planet...share the same "negroid" genes. They only began to *look* different over time due to the environment. Basically: A "negroid or semitic Y-chromosome" doesn't exist. Yes, semitics share a parent Y-chromosome. But does that meat the parent was definately "semitic"? Does that mean they weren't sub-saharan? Do you have proof?
So again: Is it by magic that you gain this information you swear is fact, or what?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 10:30
>>355 Your entire argument, to me, seems like one huge illogical and insubstancial leap into retardation. We all know that genetics are involved somewhat with intelligence, but that aside do we still know of a gene that has been attributed to acedemics or IQ? Do we know for sure that any civilization failed because of lack of "IQ boosting" genes? And does race even exist? NO.
First you acknowledge a genetic link to intelligence, then say you need a "specific gene" to prove that such a link exists. Make up your fucking mind.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 10:44
>>408
Besides that, we have found very many specific genes that relate to intelligence.
<blockquote>That small, reproductively isolated groups of people are susceptible to genetic disease is well known. Constant mating with even distant relatives reduces genetic diversity, and some disease genes will thus, randomly, become more common. But the very randomness of this process means there should be no discernible pattern about which disease genes increase in frequency. In the case of Ashkenazim, Dr Cochran argues, this is not the case. Most of the dozen or so disease genes that are common in them belong to one of two types: they are involved either in the storage in nerve cells of special fats called sphingolipids, which form part of the insulating outer sheaths that allow nerve cells to transmit electrical signals, or in DNA repair. The former genes cause neurological diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's and Niemann-Pick. The latter cause cancer.</blockquote>
So, here is evidence that intelligence increased with certain specific genes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 11:13
Another problem with finding a specific "Gene" that relates to intelligence is that anyone who even thinks about coming out with such research even in the scientific community is immediately branded a racist and an X-supremacist.
No. Everyone is already very well aware of the casual genetic link to intelligence. You what you are doing is misinterpeting that to mean that only certain races are capable of a certain range of intelligence due to genes. At the same time you completely ignore cultural, social, i.e- environmental factors that can effectively "re-write" genetics as far as IQ is concerned.
High IQ's don't materialize out of biology. They need to be cultivated by the environment. Everything that you ignore about the subject is at the heart of the subject itself: Culture. Society.
This is a major fallacy. IQs don't just drop because of genetics. In the case of America's or any other population's IQ dropping is the conditions of the environment. You can't just sweep that shit under the rug like it's no matter.
Did you even look at the comment section there? Or did you leave it out, because it questions the theory? That's fine. I'll cut and paste, myself.
[b]In your opinion.[/n] The only time they are branded as ignorant or as a racist is when they completely ignore totally relevant shit like African colonialsim when bringing up African IQs. Or when they insist that low IQ's led to some supposed "downfall" of Sub-Saharan Africans without backing up the claim with IQ scores from that peroid or at the VERY LEAST acknowledging the cultural, geo-political and social contexts of taking a western standardized IQ test. (Which begs the question why would a bushman need to know how triangle fit into a comprised of 12 of those same triangles.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 12:10
Kevin MacDonald documents eugenic strategies within Judaism selecting for debating skill and business success. These alone may explain the observed neurological changes. The arrow of causality between Jewish occupations and Jewish eugenic practices is of course at issue. I don't think it is as open and shut as Harpending et al claim.
What I think people are failing to discuss, including MacDonald, is the evolutionary pressure on a group that is mobile hence multi-national.
I've described this pressure in two short essays, "The Evolutionary Structure of Hypocrisy" and "The Evolution of Antisemitism". These are two sides of the same coin in many ways and they -- too -- predict the sort of neurological changes discussed by Harpending et al. In other words, if does not posit "antisemitism" as an ultimate cause (as is politically correct to do) but rather _mobility_ as an ultimate cause, you get a different set of predictions -- predictions that overlap with the known data and require fewer assumptions to explain the unique character of "market dominant minorities".
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 15:45
Anti-chan, you are a champion!
How wonderfully you've managed to keep the ignorant racists from dominating this forum with their stupidity.
It is so refreshing to hear someone like you on this forum.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 16:05
>>413
Even discussing that there might be a genetic component to intelligence is taboo. To even do a study that controls for all socio-economic factors (even among black kids say, raised with white parents) is considered racist, so it's never been done.
It's because people are afraid of the result. Because they know, even through all the propaganda like what you post, that the results might not be all that heartening.
In fact, I actually understand why you think what you do. Because it's so easy to believe that your capabilities are not hardwired, that there's some x-factor that might make you or anyone you know as special as Einstein. I understand why you do mental gymnastics to keep believing the way you do, and it really shows in your debating style.
The fact is that the data just doesn't exist, even though most people (And I'm sure you yourself have inklings of it too) know in their heart that it's probably true. The data doesn't exist because nobody wants to be the one to bring that news to the world, because most people who could do that kind of study are smart enough to see where it will lead.
And so people construct elaborate explanations, to show that africans (and don't muddle my definition, you know exactly which group I'm talking about) have always sort of floundered, and in recent history they have really begun to stink.
Most societies, when bordering more advanced ones tend to learn from the more advanced ones, to take what they have that works and use it to strengthen themselves, regardless of culture. You can see it in rome, ancient china, everywhere. They borrow governments, writing systems, ETC... You can see it happening now in India and throughout southern asia. They are borrowing our industrial ideas, strengthening themselves, and coming up to par with us. Even immigrants forcably brought to other countries and treated as low class citizens after a generation or two (in fact, almost immediately after being given the same recognition under the law as anyone else) rise to compete with their former opressors.
But africa isn't doing this, and africans brought to this country aren't, and there's a physical reason. Maybe it isn't intelligence, maybe intelligence isn't all that important in the long run. But there is something.
In fact, you know what? I think people like you actually have a use in this world. I think that maybe calling attention to this might be a bad thing, might lead to certain, em, things happening... Whenever people see a problem or a weakness, their first drive is to fix it. This might be by pouring aid into africa, or it might mean genocide. I don't believe that fixing every "problem" is a good idea, because it might lead to worse problems.
So yeah, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, you can keep on with your overly complicated theories to circumvent simple patterns, and in private I'll support your efforts.
But at least I and a handful of other people can hold onto what's true, no matter how painful it is.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 16:06
>>416
In other words, I concede the debate. Superficially (which is really what your entire argument has been from the beginning) you win.
Name:
jem2006-01-09 16:06
>>406 Using semiticentric websites has a source for the proof of jewish genetic uniqueness is the equalavant of using the afrocentric http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/ to make any points about African empires and genetics. The inherant and invalid racism of Zionism (i.e semitic genetics) has been an issue for the longest. The difference between you and I is that I wasn't stupid enough or silly enough to try and slide such a website by as a source.
The article was published in the New York Times in May 2000. It says right there. But then, NYT is run by a bunch of Jews. All I wanted to say was, stop calling Ethiopians purely negro and semetic (which you are still doing) because that doesn't make sense. It's not black and white. There are greys, percentages etc. Whatever, I am ending this line here.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 16:58
>>418 There are greys, percentages etc
Not to mention ratio of gray matter.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 17:05
I suggest we bring back the global warming is racist thread.
This is by-far, the saddest shit I have ever read in my entire fucking life. Your uncle/dad must've sealed your eyelids shut with an incestual glaze of jizz when he fucked his sister/wife, because you can't see shit.
Discussion of the genetic component of intelligence is just fine. But the very moment your idealogy ignores history, ignores culture, ignores society at large and the very real consequences of evolution's ability to select for certain genetic traits (regardless of race) in favor of race-eugentic dogma steeped in the misguided notion that socially defined race equals genetic race - you start down a path of genetic facism and simplemind bigotry.
Truth doesn't exist without data in matters of science. The only reason my heart tells me to be disgusted with you is because scientific data and the lack of *your* data supports the emotion. You ignore the fact that "negroids" have never had an even playing field with "whites" and "asians" and this is because of eurocentric dogma that declared them inferior and genetically "different" without valid data in the first place! And reprecussions of this is reflected in every country that european colonialism has ever touched. Semitic, european and asian countries are third world failed civilizations as well.
Fine! You want to say whites, semites and asians are better? High IQ has been linked to depression and insanity, as well. The line between human creativity and human psychosis is thin. Look at the world around you. I *just* heard that a religious leader told a million pilgrims in Mecca basically to "prepare for war with the west". Smart people can still wield retarded fucking ideas that lead no where but to the destruction of mankind.
For all your drum beating about intelligence and the success of european, semitic and asain civilizations. What good has it done? What good is intelligence if it has no inherant benefits for the entire human species?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 19:54
You fail anti-chan.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 19:55
I thought this was over. Why you still bitchin', bitch?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 20:20
Anti-chan's plan for argument:
If you prove that there is such a thing as race, he'll tell you that it doesn't affect intelligence.
If you prove to him that race affects intelligence, he'll talk about how it doesn't affect their chances of success. (it was all colonialism's fault)
If you prove that other races/ethnicities/cultures ETC... managed to recover after getting out from underneath the boot of european colonialism, he'll flop right back to talking about how race doesn't exist.
All the while he'll scream about how the scientific method tells him that he's justified believing everything he does, without making it clear just how he used the scientific method. (Scientific method is only valid in experiments... do you have records of experiments where races were pitted against one another in a study controlled for all variables? Or do you just read a book by some crackpot and say that's valid usage of the scientific method?)
Another thing he'll keep screaming is "THERE IS NO RACE!!!!!!!!!!" WHAT IS UP WITH THAT bullshit? What the hell does that even mean? Race is just another word for a population of people with similar genetics. If it's true that there's no race, then, logically, every once in a while a black couple should produce a white blondeheaded daughter? Why hasn't that happened, anti-chan?
Or if all else fails, anti-chan may decide to throw some gay insults at you that only bring to light his own repressed homosexuality.
Race, is unprovable. So called "racial differences" were only classified as such in the first place under false non-genetic, non-biological pretenses. If one person didn't make the mistake, the false assumption that different skin color means different biology...we wouldn't be having this discussion.
All humans have the ability to inherit traits- but everyone on earth stems from one "race" of negroids. Humans are negroids with varied traits selected for by the evironment for better surviviability. Blond hair, blue eyes, brain size, these are just traits. Nothing more, nothing less. And it burns you up inside. You can't stand the fact that you are nothing but a pink negroid.
You can't divide IQ among "racial lines" that don't exist. IQ isn't a good universal guage of intelligence. You have no proof of your ancestors IQs, but considering that we're judgeing them based on the modern IQ test, we know they'd fail. You have no proof that leaps in civilization required a high IQ.
I'm saying that Colonialism didn't disenfranchise "negroids", I'm saying that it disenfranchised a group of people *YOU* termed as negroids out of the human need to classify. The last traces of modern colonialism left Africa in the late 80's. American "Blacks" just got the right to vote 40 or so years ago, stable educated middle class didn't come until a generation later. Negroids were the only people who were *consistant* slaves. Tell me: Is it fair to judge their IQ by european standard? You've excepting them to catch up to everyone else in 20-40 years. How is that fair?
As for the name calling...eh.
Complaining about my name calling is some hypocritical crybaby bullshit. If you can't take it, then don't fucking dish it out.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 21:48
>>424
Actually it's more simple than that. Anti-chan is a grunt not a mastermind in the liberal cult of defying the truth. All anti-chan does is claim our evidence is irrelevant on the grounds that the factors which have harmed and dragged down all peoples only occurred to black peoples.
Anti-chan also request genetic evidence, when genetic evidence concerning race is sketchy at best in the public knowledge thanks to the efforts of marxist-clean-slate types. Go to any library and look for books on intelligence, you will find many cut short references on intelligence and ethnicity. The story goes something like, "whites have higher iqs than blacks because of environmental influences as shown by the differences in IQs of uneducated and educated whites" and cut short here not even comparing the iqs of educated blacks and whites or uneducated blacks and whites. Which if the reader has the initiative to compare results manually can see the differences for himself.
Black people are human, they are sentient and have the intelligence to perform the jobs that the majority of the population of other races do and it would be evil to treat them like dirt, but what is also evil is to ignore the truth and curse future generations with their genes, we can avoid both evils. Some blacks are capable of becomming physicists and doctors, but it is simply a matter of there being a higher proportion of non-blacks capable of doing this compared to the proportion in the black population. Environment plays a strong role, yes, but it's simple maths that extra intelligence allows a civilisation to make the environment a little better, which makes their intelligence a little bit better until they simpler can't go any further etc etc.. By the time the civilisation reaches equilibirum, waiting for iron working to be discoverred by chance before it can progress further for example, the more intelligent civilisation will be visibly more advanced than the other. The Egyptians will have a complex irrigation system allowing farmland to go deep into the desert and a silt layer next to the nile and measuring devices to predict the rate of flood and whether they should open canals or not and will have villages built on elevations next to the Nile so they can live next to a water supply during the flood season, where as the Nubians will simply farm the silt and live on the flood boundary.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 22:13 (sage)
So hey, there's no way I'm reading this abomination of a thread, but anthropologists agree that race is purely a cultural creation and doesn't exist on any biological level. So there's nothing really to be argued about there.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 23:29
>>425
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
I'M NOT LISTENING
LALALALALALALALALALALAALALALALALALALALALALA
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 23:34
>>425 You can't divide IQ among "racial lines" that don't exist
Can you accept, for example, that someone can inherit the trait for skin from their parents? That a gene can code for a certain substance (melanin) can be inherited?
If you answer yes, can you accept that the gene to produce large amounts of melanin can be prevalent within a certain population, to the point where 95-98% would have it?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 0:45
>>429
Just so you know that's not me, who started debating you around 250 or so.
It's someone else who hasn't given up on beating a simple point into your head.
I can accept the first part. But as for the relevance of the second part? A trait doesn't equal a race. Your oldest ancestor is a sub-saharan African negroid. That equals Game Over for this line of discussion.
The drop in IQs that we are seeing among these people are primarily environmental, social, and cultural. Your entire arguement implies that their environmental, social and cultural systems that select for intelligence are perfectly fair and balanced and on par with the rest of the world.
Newflash: They aren't.
And instead of admitting to yourself that they aren't, you'd rather ignore it entirely. And insist that it doesn't matter. It's the *one* thing you've refused to address in this thread. Only racists do shit like that.
Listen... Yeah, that time you got beat up by a group of black guys sucks. And I'm sorry that happened to you. But it happens to everyone, even nerdy black kids who don't "fit in" with current Black American culture. People get beat up by white guys too.
But "All Niggers is dumb." is an exceptional claim. And exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
[i]what is also evil is to ignore the truth and curse future generations with their genes[i]
In short: Less black people in the world. What I don't understand is why do you ignore all the whites who aren't doctors, philosophers and quantum mechancics? What about their genes? Why do you assume they have better genes?
You basically say: If a poor white trash kid doesn't succeed in life, it's because of the fact that he's poor. But if he's a poor black and doesn't succeed. He has shitty genes.
Sorry, but that's just fucking stupid.
You might as well be proving the low IQ causes blackness. And that "blackess" itself means being poor and stupid and never becoming a doctor.
Don't you see how retarded that fucking sounds?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 11:44
>>431 Your oldest ancestor is a sub-saharan African negroid.
Actually my oldest ancestor was a strand of DNA floating in a pool of primordial soup about a billion years ago. Your insistence that this is relevant only puts another nail in the coffin of your repetitive argument.
And through it all you keep repeating over and over again your stupid asenine "THERE IS NO RACE BECAUSE IT'S A HUMAN INSTITUTED IDEA" bs even when I explain that it is and has always been exactly that; a way of grouping certain populations that have certain characteristics.
And that among those characteristics can be genes for intelligence and other areas and brain function, and that those could have contributed to the development of certain cultures that select for intelligence etc... (ghetto nigger culture prefers dumb people, but is it not conceivable that it's because everyone who founded the culture was dumb that it developed that way) Is completely lost on you.
You are just so incredibly brainwashed it's unbelievable. And what's more, even though you seem (relatively) smart, you'll never get anywhere with your line of thinking, except maybe on some denouncing racism show on daytime TV.
>>432 What I don't understand is why do you ignore all the whites who aren't doctors, philosophers and quantum mechancics? What about their genes? Why do you assume they have better genes?
I don't discriminate, if you dumb and there's a law against dumb people reproducing, then it should universally be applied. BUT such a law would always affect blacks more than whites. Because they dumb. At least more of they dumb in proportion to whites.
And hey, then we'd only preserve the SMART blacks, and I have no problem with that.
What I don't like is your constant insistence that race doesn't affect intelligence, when it so obviously affects almost everything else.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 13:24
"In short: Less black people in the world. What I don't understand is why do you ignore all the whites who aren't doctors, philosophers and quantum mechancics? What about their genes? Why do you assume they have better genes?"
I never said that and you know this, you also know I am not a white supremacist, you are just desperate to make it seem as though I am. So this message isn't really for you, seeing as nothing will make you think I am not a white supremacist. I don't see what makes you think I'm white in the first place!
I am a eugenicist, I don't want white people with cystic fibrosis or genetically caused mental retardation to have children. In the future I would like less than 40% of the population to have children decided apon by their health and further on in the future I want only 20% of people to have children decided apon by desirable traits, mainly superior intelligence. This would all be regardless of race, but the fact remains, on average black people yield less doctors and physicists than other races, it is why they didn't do as well before it was too late and other peoples had outpaced them in technology and they couldn't defend themselves. Which was when the "guns, germs and steel" factors began to take effect, before then the genetic factors were visible. In the case of the Aztecs, it was purely environmental, they simply didn't have access to the millions of people across the pacific/atlantic who were all working on ways to kill each oter more effectively. The Aztecs didn't have access to the same technology that the black kingdoms did. The grand remains of their civilisation despite attempts to remove it from the face of the earth by the conquistadores suggests their failure was not genetic also.
"Actually my oldest ancestor was a strand of DNA floating in a pool of primordial soup about a billion years ago. Your insistence that this is relevant only puts another nail in the coffin of your repetitive argument."
Um, no it doesn't you dicklicking retard. If anything it does the exact opposite. You want to be specific? Ok, then your oldest HUMAN ancestor is sub-saharan negroid. I realize it burns you up inside, you fucking hate it. But you are what you hate, motherfucker: Bix nood - Just like your father and his father and just like all of that precious aryan blood you people claim to have.
If those who founded "ghetto nigger culture" (and you expect anyone to believe you're not racist?) were unilaterally "dumb". Then again the question is asked why were they dumb? Was it genetics? Or was the fact that they were slaves with civil right or access to the same education as whites? Hm?
"I don't discriminate, if you dumb and there's a law against dumb people reproducing, then it should universally be applied. BUT such a law would always affect blacks more than whites. Because they dumb. At least more of they dumb in proportion to whites.
That's entirely beside the fucking point, you idiot. You fucking evolutionary dead-end fuckwit. Will you do the human race a favor and take yourself out of the genepool when the time comes?
Because the idea that you can fully ignore the divide in access to nutrition, proper education and the like- all of which exert a GREATER force over a human being's intelligence than genetics- between whites and blacks is fucking astounding. You will literally do *anything* to not address it and pretend it doesn't exist. What I find ironic is that it's usually racists who cry "I don't discriminate" when they obviously do. Shout "there's no such thing as racism" when *they* are the racist.
Race doesn't effect intellienge becauser race doesn't exist. A group of people can be less intelligent because only two reasons: Selection of triats in breeding, and environment, environment, environment.
Tell me something: Take one black guy with an 110 IQ and put him in a school that trains people to become quantum scientists. He can't leave, he has the best teachers, the best nutrition.
Now Take a white guy with an 140 IQ and put him in a trailer house with the school being one that trains people to be plumbers. He can't leave, his teachers are plumbers, and all he can eat is taco bell.
What the fuck do you think is going to happen?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 17:19
>>435
The white man will become CEO of a Fortune 500 company, obviously. Despite the sarcasm, I'm making a serious point about white privilege. While the white plumber might not become a CEO, he'll probably do significantly better than any black man in the same circumstances. The black man, OTOH, will probably not get promoted as fast as his white colleagues. Just throwing something else into the mix.
Dude, I've said over and over again that in twin studies of those separated at birth with similar upbringing, intelligence almost ALWAYS correlates, in addition to a hundread other factors such as personality etc... This kind of suggests that intelligence is at least partially genetic (or at least inborn), though we don't have this data for different races because it doesn't exist. We don't even have any study data that after controlling for environmental factors show that they're all the same. ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT has some effect, true, but the effect is not total.
And I used the words "Ghetto Nigger Culture" facetiously.
>>435 I realize it burns you up inside, you fucking hate it. \
Now you're just grasping at straws, trying to find some reason why I am conducting this argument. Really, I couldn't care less that I'm 98% similar to black people. If I really was a racist, I would consider the genes that manifest themselves differently in whites and blacks enough to separate them. Really, you can't make me dumb just by imagining it (maybe you THINK you can, like they taught you in special school) Do you want to know my real reason? Because it's true and nobody in our culture will acknowledge it. (I've since come to peace with the fact that our society and morality hinges on this lie, and that it's acceptable as long as SOMEONE acknowledges it)
I used to be a "there is no race" person years ago. What really burned inside me was the possibility that humanity, the sould etc... could be nothing more than the substance that made up their bodies. I blamed everything on culture, a vicious cycle. And while to some extent that's true, there's an extra factor there that keeps these people from escaping their degenerative culture. I've never ignored the role of nurture. But still, even if you say they've never been on equal ground, why is it that even with shit that's meant to forceably equalize things, like affirmative action, they haven't managed to amount to anything? Why if they're exactly the same, has the proportion of black doctors ETC... to regular society's production of doctors not increased?
It doesn't matter what you say, the shit that happens has borne it out. Blacks are less capable than whites by and large, and it just burns me up inside how you can just deny it as if that'll fix anything. As if that'll make the world hunky dory again.
>>436
Uh huh, yeah, ever hear of affirmative action? Most employers are required to hire a populationally proportional amount of black/latin/hispano/etc... people, regardless of qualifications. Why hasn't this affected anything?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 2:59
Really, is this thread getting any of you anywhere? I've read about 50+ posts and all it seems like is going on is the same arguments getting repeated over and over again.
I know you think you're warriors or justice or whatever, but is this debate really getting anyone anywhere?
I *countered* the weak-as-fuck twin point already. Listen, you fucking teenager...your entire argument is a co-relative theory. *Not* Science. If you don't provide for all factors involved (ENVIRONMENT) then you aren't presenting the complete and unaudited truth. LOL, "Affirmative action"? *SNORT* Alright settle down RUSH, take an oxycontin.
In any case, I think we can say for certain that you don't have enough hard data to support any of your fucking lamebrain ideas. You concede to that *right in this fucking post*. You're asking all these questions about nurture that you haven't bothered to find an answer to. Any explaination I give won't be good enough because you are *stuck* on this notion. It not like it's 2 + 2 = 4, here. You're reaching for explainations.
Just gtfo, you alreadyconceded that you lost the argument.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 14:01
>>440
SHUT UP TEENAGER! Do you even realize how immature that sounds?
I have already shown how environment is not the be-all end all to what makes up a person. Ever notice how I keep mentioning twin studies? And how even in different environments intelligence still correlates (by as much as ten points)?. Well, I guess you just conveniently ignore that to keep up with your lame brained ideological sorry excuse for a belief.
And instead of responding to my comment on affirmative action, you just ham-handedly lob some ad-hominem shit at me and move on at your leisure.
You are the lame.
(I'm honestly arguing with you to improve my own argument skills.. I thought it would help but it looks like I was mistaken)
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-11 18:52
The debate is over, kid. Which means: I don't have to fucking be nice to you, anymore. Calling you a teenager doesn't sound at all immature, because you *are* a teenager and your knowledge of the world and the way science works is utterly fucking limited. There's nothing ideological about the facts that I state. Never have I termed my postion as a "belief", because unlike you I work in the realm of truth and data.
Your position is the same as me stating that Americans are overall dumber than the rest of the world because of post WWI nuclear testing and the persistance of radiation (from the cold war and information age) in and around America's atomsphere.
Now, would *I* be correct? No, of course, not. The only way I could think this is if I ignored the problem of us having a culture that promotes stupidity and places too much importance on fame.
Now what makes you think you can slide your shitty little theories in here? And then throw up you hands like Pat Robertson, claiming that I don't see the light or some shit? Fuck you.
And Fuck your affirmative action comment. Debating with me is a privilage you uneducated little shithead. Don't ask me "what about, what about, what about" if you haven't taken out the fucking time to figure out that answer *for yourself* before jumping to conclusions about race and IQ. The inherant flaws in Affirmative Action are many and it's shit that people have known about for years. Kid, just face it: You have no data and have NOT done your research.
And improve your argument skills? You have none. Your argument has been filled with hypocritical bitching, racial slurs, a profound disrespect for the scientific method and outright cognitive dissonance. Plus: You lost.
Shut the fuck up, fagbrain. You are the personification of fail, therefore you get no opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 20:34
The debate is over, kid. Which means: I don't have to fucking be nice to you, anymore.
Revisionist history at work here. You never were nice to anyone. Part of your argumentation is valid, yet the other half always has been ad hominem attacks and expletives, even when the other party is civil. You're a jackass, whether you have a point or not.
By the way, have not countered the twin studies at all. Just saying it ain't so doesn't make it false.
Name:
John2006-01-11 20:38
>>444
Motherfucker, I will gouge out your eyeballs, rip your balls off, and shove the latter in place of the former! >:O
Then I'll poke them in until you fucking die! >:O
YOU shut the fuck up! >:O
First: Same with you. You called me retard, cocksucker, stupid, etc etc. If you can't take it, don't try to dish it out in bitch-helpings, you hypocritical loser-fuck.
Second: I realize that you're used to people pissing in your eyes due to your crippling lack of social skills, so I'll excuse your inability to see properly.
TWIN STUDY, IQ
I haven't dodged shit- the results are trivial because there is no "intelligence gene" in the first fucking place. How many times must it be pointed out that IQ cannot fully measure intelligence? It only measures what we *assume* intelligence to be. It is simple common sense that you cannot 100% accurately measure the attributes of the human mind using the human mind. Objectivity is not possible by virtue of the means used.
Quantum physics has been struggling to uncover the mysteries of objectivity since forever and then you come skipping along claiming to have discovered an objective test for intellect? Here's an example of mental fortitude: SURVIVOR. Why is it that when 20 or so Americans try for 30 days to live like an AFRICAN...their brains turn to mush and they start babbling to themselves and start begging to strip naked for the camera for a bite of peanut butter?
What If I then gave an "IQ test" that asked how many triangles of equal size can fit into a square comprised of a square made from 12 of those triangles? If the subject answers "who gives a shit, I'm fucking *hungry*?". I will score that subject with above average IQ. When we've finally reached a consensus on exactly how every part of the brain works then we will talk about an objective "IQ" test. (Analogy: If you can find a doctor who can explain why the heart loves then we will talk about an objective EQ test.)
Conclusion: IQ tests are bullshit in the first fucking place. You have no way of knowing what was culture and what was genetic. You have NO way of knowing the IQ of sub-saharan Africans. And even if you did it would totally fucking irrelevant. Why would a bush man know any of the shit in a Western IQ test? Have you ever asked yourself that, you fucking dunderhead? And by *10* points?!? That's *nothing*. Do you even realize how much the IQ test has changed since that study was done? It's been "re-standardized" about twice now. You know NOTHING of what you speak.
I am saddened that the pedo thread is being outclassed by this. I'm gonna be righteously pissed if a misanthropic anarchist fucknut is the reason we 1000get politics.
Name:
4452006-01-12 0:24
>>449
When did I call you anything? That was my first post to this thread long time. But now I will: you're a fucking idiot par excellence. Nay, a raving lunatic.
How many times must it be pointed out that IQ cannot fully measure intelligence?
I like how you keep repeating "fully". That's because "partly" would make your argument false. Twin studies support that "partly". Please show any studies that support that there is no significant component. Just one miserable reference to a respectable journal? Anything?
You have no way of knowing what was culture and what was genetic.
In science we do something called "isolating variables". What do you think twin studies were designed and refined for? Fun?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 3:06
MISANTHROPIC ANARCHIS FUCKNUT
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 3:22
I am not 452.
I am not misanthropic. I just think it's a bad idea to deny a genetic component to intelligence, because you want to know what? By doing that we preclude any possible remedy.
What if we found certain teaching methods or drugs that could overcome black people's hampered ability to develop. (I've said many times that I don't think their problems are as much intelligence as they are ADD and inhibition control)
Imagine if we were able to find a gene that would help, for example, black children do better in school. Imagine if we found that one magic gene, and that it could be activated by a simple injection (they are figuring out how to do this now, they have a lead, all they have to do is find the technique). If we allow our society to force itself to subscribe to the myth that there's no race, we won't be able to do anything about it because trying it, or reasearching it would be considered racist.
What if everyone was able to manipulate their intelligence however they saw fit, or to manipulate it to the point that they'd be able to do their jobs most effictively. Not everyone would need to be a genius, but almost anyone could if they really wanted to (and wanted to spend their paycheck on it).
That wouldn't be allowed because looking at intelligence and the physical component of it would be taboo. Because of a lot of misguided good intentioned rejects decided it.
Again, "fully" is the end all be-all here because the IQ tests are supposed to be regarded as "full" results. Hey and thank you for ignoring everything I suggested in >>449. That's perfectly alright with me as it proves that you are simply not open even to the possibility that we might be gauging IQ the wrong way in the first place.
And obviously you haven't read any of the criticism of the twin studies...and if you bothered to *look*. You wouldn't have come on here claiming your view as divine mandate.
But hey THAT'S alright too. Ignore the restandardization of the tests...ignore that the twins were not raised by families of different "races". Ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world view! Yay! Now you're always right!
Blah, blah, blah, More bullshit. If we're not trying to give "black" children, poor children better learning environments now. What makes you think they're going to handing out a smart pill to little "black"/poor kids in the future? Are you that fucking young and naive to think that will happen? We can help "black" children do better in school now. - But we're doing fuck all.
Get real.
"That wouldn't be allowed because looking at intelligence and the physical component of it would be taboo. Because of a lot of misguided good intentioned rejects decided it."
You're completely full of shit, kid. How many times must I acknowledge the genetic basis in intelligence? It's just that from what I've been shown... not even a 150 IQ can save you if you're black, live in the poorest neighborhood, and if everyone ASSUMES you have ADD and poor inhibition because you're black. You are completely IGNORANT of what you speak, kid. It's just that simple. You don't understand how the world works.
It's not racist to look into the physical component of IQ until you do so *BY RACE*. Are you having a hard time understanding that your oldest human ancester was a sub-saharan African? The same "race" (snicker) of people you automatically *ASSUME* to have a low IQ?
Remember when I blasted you on your idea that "they just had knowledge"? LOL, you just hear what you *want* to hear, because you actually think you're searching for a way to help mankind. You're doing nothing but affirming an UNTRUE idea that has been perpetuated by white superemists and eurocentrics every since they ENSLAVED blacks and put them in this position in the FIRST place. Their "inferiority" was their excuse to do! Explain to me how your misguided notion is different from theirs?
And now you're trying to use that same BASELESS logic because you want to "help" these "po widdle nigglet chillens"? That's ridiculous! Because first of all, if such a technology comes out, ALL "races" would have to use it and second of all- YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
Economist method, INDEED.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 20:02
IQ tests are supposed to be regarded as "full" results.
How so? And how does a single number indicate that the effects are entirely the result of heredity? It's just a number, which makes no claims about the source of the results, just like a thermometer doesn't tell me why water is a particular temperature.
we might be gauging IQ the wrong way in the first place.
What about WAIS then? Results in school? Socioeconomic status? You realize that twin studies don't rely on IQ alone? Have you read any of them at all? Have you at least read the Minnesota Twin Study?
And obviously you haven't read any of the criticism of the twin studies...
I asked for evidence to support your claim, not another pathetic dodge. Actual studies of any sort that support your position that heredity plays no significant role in intelligence. They don't have to be twin studies either, they just need to have been published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal. Is it really that hard?
ignore that the twins were not raised by families of different "races".
Your point here is what? Why would being raised by a different "race" have any effect on their genetic makeup? The idea is to isolate and manipulate one variable. As it is, most modern twin studies also consider twins raised with different socioeconomic families anyway. Again, have you read any, or are you blowing out your ass again?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-12 22:27
How so? And how does a single number indicate that the effects are entirely the result of heredity? .... Etc.
DUR DUR, my point exactly, stupid.
And you keep repeating to yourself over and over that my position is "nature's lack of a significant role in intelligence". Sorry, but no: That's idiotic, desperate wishful thinking on your part. If I said something along those lines, I recant on that now. Everyone knows nature/nurture work in concert. You learn that shit in grade school.
My position is simply that blacks are not "naturally inferior" to whites in intelligence, genetically. This is an assertion for which you have *no* definitive proof. The only way you can make an absolute assertion like that is if you completely ignore any environmental factors, which you cannot do when it comes to intelligence especially seeing as how the IQ test themselves are based on NURTURE. The results themselves aren't just nurture or just nature. It's both. However, *we don't know which*.
So, tell me again why I would have any studies that support something I'm not asserting? You have to realize: We are not arguing nurture vs nature here, dumb dumb. We are however, arguing if nature has anything to do with the low IQ scores of blacks. We are, however, discussing the gap in IQ among the races. I do have studies about environment's impact on IQ- if you want it. Oh wait! You don't get a choice! :)
However, adoption studies seem to indicate that SES has a strong, causal effect on intelligence, e.g.:
"Well-controlled adoption studies done in France have found that transferring an infant from a family having low socioeconomic status (SES) to a home where parents have high SES improves childhood IQ scores by 12 to 16 points or about one standard deviation, which is considered a large effect size in psychological research." Wahlsten (1997, p. 76).
And
Intelligence at age 5 predicts better than any other variable a child's future educational progress and attainment (Kline, 1991).
Wahlsten (1997):
• delays in schooling cause IQ to 'drop' 5 points per year
• temporary drop in IQ during school vacations
Winship & Korenman (1997):
• 2.7 IQ point advantage for each year of schooling
• thus to predict later IQ, two estimates are useful: early IQ estimates and number of years of schooling
There is however, a criticism to this.
One justifiable criticism levelled at educational enrichment studies conclusions about increased IQ is that what is being modified is performance on a test rather than an actual modification in intelligence. Children in enrichment programmes often receive extensive instruction and practice in test-taking. “What has been temporarily modified in the early stages of early intervention programmes is performance on a test, not the child’s general intelligence” (Herman Spitz, 1999, p. 289).
This criticism is far from justifible. What this addresses is the "Fade out" effect. Where programs like "Head Start" aim to enrich the schooling of disadvantaged children. The results have been mixed and criticized for not living up to expectations in changing IQ. But these programs aren't designed to "improve IQ", in the first place. Only accelerate academic development. IQ change is a bonus. And what good are these programs anyway if the children return to poor, unsupportive, deprived environments, hm? And what else is the IQ but a standardized test? Can't you just 'study' to take the IQ test, like any other?
Intelligence & occupation
"In more than 10,000 studies the average correlation of IQ with occupational success was 0.3...this correlation is certainly a low estimate of its true size...no other variable, either of ability or personality, can approach this figure."
- Kline (1991), p. 139
Herrstein and Murray estimate the relationship between IQ and occupation to be between .2 and .6 (i.e. that IQ explains between 4% and 36% of the variations in occupation). These correlations are slightly higher for skilled, professional jobs, and slightly lower for jobs that require less skill. Whilst this might be useful in describing groups, it means there is questionable value in administering an IQ test to an individual in an attempt to help determine their occupational options. It may be a useful approach, however, to help select the best 100 employees from a 1000 applicants (Howe,1997, p.97).
I'll post more on this as I get the information. I would however, like it if I didn't have to sit here and hold people hands through this shit. If you haven't at the very least looked this stuff up on the net, then you need to not make this argument about Race/Intelligence in the first fucking place.
I'll respond to more about the Minnosota twin studies later, I got to fucking eat or I'm going to die.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-13 0:25
And yes, I have read the Minnisota twin study. I've read enough to know that the test only reaffirm stuff that we already know about genetics. This is *no* way validates your claim about IQ and race, shame on you for using the study to this end.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGISTRY TWINS
Because the total of Black, Asian, and native American minorities is less than 2% in the Minnesota population, we do not identify race nor make any racial comparisons.
Years of education completed by both male and female Registry twins correlated 0.48 with their mothers' and 0.52 with their fathers' educational attainmen
So how exactly does one infer from the Minnisota twins that any low IQ in blacks or any other minority is solely genetic? Sounds like alot of reaching to me. Here's some other tibits that might interest:
Post WWI: 1920’s-1930’s
After World War I, careful reanalysis of the mass of intelligence test data took place. This began to challenge the commonly held view that intelligence was directly, genetically linked to racial differences:
* e.g. blacks from Illinois had higher IQ scores than whites from 9 southern states - a finding difficult to reconcile with the simple idea that whites are intellectually superior to blacks.
Evidence now seemed to support a closer link between social class and intelligence, rather than race and intelligence. As a result, a number of psychologists in the 1920s and 1930s shifted their position towards the environmental camp.
The shift against 'nature' views was given momentum by the backlash against the social consequences of government policies:
* e.g. sterilization laws had been passed in 24 US States, resulting in 20, 000 people being sterilized against their will. 320, 000 people suffered the same fate in Germany.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 4:07
This is *no* way validates your claim about IQ and race, shame on you for using the study to this end.
It wasn't about IQ and race, you dolt, it was about IQ and heredity. Stop trying to stuff words in your opponent's face. Your stance is weak, so you make up your opponent's arguments for them as you go along.
If heredity is significant (plenty of support), and different populations have different allele distributions (plenty of support for small populations), there is the possibility that intelligence distribution may well be different for large populations as well.
You are the one claiming that there is no significance, yet the quote above supports that indeed heredity does. You are the one who denies any possibility. Where is the evidence for such a claim?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 4:08
Correction, s/IQ/intelligence/
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 4:11 (sage)
DUR DUR, my point exactly, stupid.
Not your point exactly, stupid. How do you go from "fully" to "it's just a number"? Only you were claiming it was fully, remember?
Do you suffer from a convenient amnesia? Do I have to cut and paste everything to remind you what you wrote?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 7:30 (sage)
>>1 is a pretty crummy troll. Looks like someone recently read "A Modest Proposal" and decided to try a little satire for themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 8:07
I don't know why you insist on asserting that it bothers me that blacks are the same species, and are 99.99 percent the same as me.
{We can help "black" children do better in school now. - But we're doing fuck all.}
Actually, we're doing all we can... Trying special magnet schools in inner city neighborhoods ETC... But it's really misguided and for the most part isn't working.
{not even a 150 IQ can save you if you're black, live in the poorest neighborhood, and if everyone ASSUMES you have ADD and poor inhibition because you're black. }
LOL this is one of the most bullshit things I've ever heard you say. a 150 IQ would most definately save you; it'd make you realize that you don't need to be spending your time in the ghetto, make you move out to a lower crime area, get a job and wal mart and pay your way through school. Most people who sit in the ghetto and amount to nothing do so because they're dumb and ignorant. A high IQ doesn't mean you won't be ignorant, but it'll make you MUCH better able to realize WHY you're rotting in the ghetto, and make you realize what you can do to combat it. Most ignant giggaboos(sp?) just blame it on the white man and get back to rasin' the roof up in hyere!
And if you're going to play the racism card, I can just point out affirmative action and how most employers are scrambling for the opportunity to hire a qualified black person to fulfill their quotas.
I don't even think you meant this point seriously to be honest. I can't believe you'd be dumb enough to make such an asenine point.
{It's not racist to look into the physical component of IQ until you do so *BY RACE*. Are you having a hard time understanding that your oldest human ancester was a sub-saharan African? The same "race" (snicker) of people you automatically *ASSUME* to have a low IQ?}
Well, if the data's there then...
{Remember when I blasted you on your idea that "they just had knowledge"? }
You never blasted shit. (wasn't me btw, you're arguing with no less than three anonymouses here...) A bushman has knowledge that's passed down for generations, and memorized. A bushman isn't inventing the techniques for survival, just copying them. Just because a white man can't survive in the wilderness doesn't mean that he has a lower IQ or anything.
Now, take the same bushman, and a suburban person, and put them both in the same environment that aren't like anything either have ever been in before, and whoever adapts the fastest and the best can be said to have done so because of IQ.
{LOL, you just hear what you *want* to hear, because you actually think you're searching for a way to help mankind. You're doing nothing but affirming an UNTRUE idea that has been perpetuated by white superemists and eurocentrics every since they ENSLAVED blacks and put them in this position in the FIRST place. }
Everything is the white man's fault, and we're such horrible horrible people. Maybe if they had been able to mount any sort of opposition to european power the situation would be different today. You're doing nothing but perpetuating a lie, which might not even neccesarily be helpful (I'm still undecided on that, to be honest.).
However, you win for the use of the word niglet.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 8:12
>>463
Let me clarify on the 150 IQ thing. If you're smart and focused (key word focused) enough to get a 150 result on an IQ test, then you're smart (and focused) enough to get out of the ghetto.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-13 11:22
>>459
And you keep repeating to yourself over and over that my position is "nature's lack of a significant role in intelligence". Sorry, but no: That's idiotic, desperate wishful thinking on your part. If I said something along those lines, I recant on that now. Everyone knows nature/nurture work in concert. You learn that shit in grade school.
>>461
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? You need a take a reading comprehension class, seriously. I said. "IQ can not fully measure intelligence."
Either way, your argument are semantical and have nothing to do with what one >>1 asserts. The corelation between IQ and race. If you have nothing to add to that and you've come on here to nitpick like everyone jewish mother-in-law, then get the fuck out.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-13 13:20
>>464
Proof, data, evidence? Oh right- like since the beginning of this thread. You have none.
I think the most telling thing about "whites" and the race/IQ arguement is that it always serves as an excusal of "white guilt". There's not a time where a white person in this debate doesn't try to effectively say: "Well see? It's not our fault!" It's a plain effort for anglo-saxons in general to wash their hands of the sins of their fathers. The irony is that when we speak upon things, we aren't attacking the entire white race.
We are attacking the history of a culture of assumed inferiority surrounding blacks, latinos, asians, arabs, shintos, hindus, buddists, etc. Races and religions which were deemed inferior on the grounds of being non-white and non-christian. That is true even now.
A bushman has knowledge that's passed down for generations, and memorized. A bushman isn't inventing the techniques for survival, just copying them.
How is that different from academic education? It's very rare that relevant new ideas are introduced in academia and it was rare, then, new ideas were introduced for survival.
You see: We're simply stating things that happened in history. Things were not equal and are not equal now. And it is the assumption of whites that things, in fact, are equal. Of course they're equal.
For you.
Notice that it's only "whites" that think this. Notice that the one "people" who have a history of doing everything in their power to make sure things are not equal- are the ones claiming everything to be fair and good in the modern world. At the same time you turn around and try to "prove your superiority" with the IQ/race. While saying: "I have no connection to the whites of slavery and colonialism, so I'm not racist." - you turn around at the same time and say: "It's not *OUR* fault. You see *WE* are superior, so you failed." Don't you see the conflict of your words there?
But your apathy to the very real things that have happened to non-whites over this long modern history is at the very heart- the flaw in your debate.
"Well, if the data's there then..."
It's not there. It's only there if you completely ignore the fact that intelligence is nature AND nuture. Which is what you do with you don't address these issues in the race/IQ discussion. You don't address nurture. You already conceded. That's because there's no way around this. But you must desperately believe that you are responsible and NOT responsible at once. It's either one or the other. Either your view is bigotry and white eurocentricity. Or it is not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 17:09
"*we don't know which*"
then why are you arguing this point? if the data's not there then we have no argument, either way. it's all just hearsay. you can say that blacks were persecuted from the beginning, he can say that blacks were floundering since the beginning, but if even YOU admit that we don't know which it is than neither of you have a point.
you'll just have to dig for some data, but I doubt that data exists, what with the whole societal taboo on even doing an experiment to search for it (i mean, even if controlling for all the variables.
It's this fucking delusional, bi-polar thinking of yours that strikes me as ignorant. So who's putting words in someone's mouth again?
I have made no claim that blacks were "persecuted from the beginning". However, what we certainly do know is that generations upon generations upon generations of "blacks" were not only (merely, as you imply) persecuted, but reduced to servitude and deprived very important envirnomental factors that contribute to the growth of intellect. All due to that initial perception of inferiority. A view based on nothing.
The data didn't exist then, it doesn't exist now. We know that genetics have something to do with intelligence, but we don't know exactly what. HOWEVER, what we do know about the environment we can control, yet we have not been putting forth any sort of earnest effort in this regard. Just look at the American education system. Lack of competition = stagnacy. Are you going to say that white Americans are genetically inferior to white Europeans, then?
As for people being afraid of what they would find, that's an ignorant statement. You don't know what the fuck people are afriad of. It's an assumption, which serves your ego and your argument.
You say that assuming people would be afriad: "Wow, blacks really are inferior!" - when honestly, the guys who wrote the Bell Curve could have avoided this maddness by at least attempting to put out a complete study in the first place. We all know why they didn't and why they ignored culture and society in their study. (Pioneer Fund Nazis, FTW)
And It's funny, societal taboos only exist in your camp when it suits you. You completely ignore the fact that 400+ years of blackness being a "societal (and cultural) taboo" could have an effect on future generations' intelligence- while at the same time citing "societal tabboo" as a reason one person wouldn't do an experiment on the genetic basis.
Even if you find negroid genetic inferiority in the latter, the reason for that inferiority is going to be because what we *know as fact* pretaining to the former.
No matter what: You will lose. There's not one side to intelligence and to make any purely genetic arugement regarding *anyone* intelligence is inherantly wrong and goes against everything scientific.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 20:09
If I said something along those lines, I recant on that now.
Good to hear.
So if genetics plays some role, if all other things are equal (education, experience, opportunities, etc), will they have the same intelligence?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-13 21:07
>>469
This is a loaded question, moar like "loaded with shit", because it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion we're having now (About the race-IQ corelation). Elaborate on the relevance or attention whore it up somewhere else.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 21:41
it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion we're having now
Not exactly. If genetics plays a role, and different populations can have different allele frequencies, would it not be possible that different populations have different propensities for learning?
I am not saying this need be the case, but is it possible? If not, why not? It seems the result logically follows.
I've been over allele frequencies already. Getting sick of repeating this shit. Go back and find the page yourself, for a fucking change. But to answer your question: Not if segments of these populations are divided by "race". Not if it's a race that was subjected to 400 yeara of slave culture where education was denied.
If a couple generations of people are selected in breeding specifically for unintelligence, then it affects the following generation and so on and so son. The line of "learning propensities" is liquid- fluidity dependant upon pre and post natal environmental facotrs.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 22:38
I've read your comments on allele frequencies, and I do not see how you refute anything.
Small populations have specific allele frequencies, as any biology major will attest. Does this apply to larger populations? We can't be certain without actually sampling a large population and sequencing their DNA, but the physical characteristics that typically define "race" indicate that it's there.
If allele frequencies don't exist, how can we call someone Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc? Why are these characteristics heritable? Why can we predict the results of inter-racial pairing? Why do these characteristics not vary with changed environment?
From >>355 - unlike the loaded questions you pose, this actually as something to do with the subject at hand.
Finally, you are never going to get around the race thing with your talk of haplotypes and allele frequencies. With your very arguement you operate under the false "if-then" assumption that: IF race is a surrogate for unknown genetic mechanisms, THEN observed racial differences in IQ and "achievement" can be explained by genetic differences. I just don't see how you can arrive to that conclusion with all of the blank spots in our understanding of human traits controlled by many genes in concert with environmental factors. I.E - INTELLIGENCE.
On top of all that, your "pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- don't know where you're getting the data that says that. Anyway, by definition ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND). The whole thing is a poor effort on your part to biologically define race- but guess what? It doesn't exist. The very term "negroid" greatly over-generalizes and over-simplies a contenient of people who have the greatest number of haplotypes in the world. Different allele frequences only mean that a different parts of a continuum has been sampled.
Ace trolling, by the way. Also, if you have a point- stop posing loaded questions and make a statement. I don't have all day to sit here and mince around ideas with you.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-14 3:59
You call it a loaded question because you realize what will happen if you answer it. Answer it: yes or no?
LOL, "Yes or no", what? Do you see a "yes or no" question posed in >>473? I don't. --What I've contended about allele frequencies has remained uncontested since >>355 and when comes to further questions of "why we can define, etc, etc."- that *is* my answer.
Now what do *you* have to say to that, chumpy?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-14 8:33
Also for all your bloated egotistical ramblings, you might want to get started on, you know, actually responding to what I've said in >>466,>>468 and >>472 since you and "you camp" have done everything in your power to dodge these issues since >>1.
But hey if you're too afriad to respond to it, that's alright. I understand why you would be, seeing as how it questions everything about this argument outright. Like Christianity the race/IQ psuedo-science requires a leap of faith on the part of anyone- a total disregard for hundreds of years of real science about the balance of nurture and nature. In addition to that, I think it's safe to say that if you believe- with such fanaticism- in the concept of race, that there is no way to reach you anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-14 20:10
The question was specifically:
So if genetics plays some role, if all other things are equal (education, experience, opportunities, etc), will they have the same intelligence?
Your dodges and your attempts are controlling are pathetic. That's fine, two can play the game of "not responding to each other statements and questions":
My answer: It's not a question of "yes or no", that approach is everything that's wrong with the study of intelligence.
If you finally address the points brought up in >>466,>>468,>>472, I'll be more than willing elaborate further- until then, I'd advise you rephrase your question as a statement representing your viewpoint.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 2:44
I've seen what happens to other people who get distracted by you. I asked a question, and instead of answering, you ask another question. Give me an answer first, then we'll proceed, otherwise this is yet another example of evasiveness that you've demonstrated since the beginning of this thread.
Even though all things were equal, you didn't give a yes or no. With only one changing variable, there are only two possibilities: yes and no. "I don't know" is also acceptable.
See, therein lies the problem. You consider the points (points brought up in >>466,>>468,>>472), the very valid points of nurture's effect to be a mere distraction when- in fact- they are at the very core of the issue.
Do you realize how irritating it is to bend over backwards to address *everything* that's been asked of me in this farce of a debate, meanwhile no one has even given a thought to anything that the opposition has said? You don't even consider it, you ignore it outright, so you have no response when these issues are brought up again and again and again.
Anyway: I have answered. The question now is am I answering the way you want me to? No, I'm not and I won't because I don't think it comes down to a simple yes or no in this case. Read what I've said about IQ (the very way we measure intelligence) in post >>361. Do yourself a favor, do something out of the ordinary and actually *listen* to what I've said. Read the post and ask yourself if I would've ever been inclined to give you a "yes or no" in the first place.
Name:
FuckHeadTodd2006-01-15 12:15
>>481 >>480
both of you assholes need to find a romantic spot and suck eachothers genitals. nobody give a fuck about your debate. eat shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 14:43
I've seen what happens to other people who get distracted by you.
lolololololsss
issit that they end up losing?
people who get distracted - see: "people who are called upon to address anything opposed to their view"
How about anti-chan answers the question? Y/N shouldn't be that hard.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 17:13
Anyway: I have answered.
No you haven't. Your reply effectively states that the study of intelligence is beyond the realm of science. For someone who entered this thread berating others for their lack of understanding regarding the scientific method, yours is pretty thin.
Yes I have. I don't have a "yes or no" response to that question. If you want to take my answer as "intelligence is beyond the realm of science" then feel free. That's not at all what I said or even implied, but by all means if it helps you sleep better at night- go right on ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that you continue to dodge anything so much as disguised as a response to what I've stated pretaining to nurture. (And that's obvious to everyone here) Doesn't change the fact that your question has nothing to do with the co-relation between race and IQ.
I suggest you for everytime you utter "yes or no" you continuously refer to >>479,>>481. You're trying desperately hard to get me to conform to this simple-minded "yes or no" idea regarding intelligence, why? In the end is still doesn't do your arguement a bit of good.
You were all: poopy, poopy, i'm a gay faggot. me kant respond to anti-chan's points because me am will lose. so me dodge. me kant debate anti-chan with statements because he'll be all "ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKE" and i'll be all: =( so me will just go slip a fruity 'yes/no' by him. and if he doesn't conform i'll go- "bite me you moron" and that'll show em >:o >:o >:o
Then I was all:
:o
[i]ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE[/i]
And then God goes:
>>487, YOU ARE MY PERFECT CREATION, HALF-FAIL HALF-LOSE ALL FAGGOT, GO OFF INTO MY WORLD AND SPREAD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AIDS
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 20:00
That's not at all what I said or even implied
I'm afraid it is what you implied, whether you realize it or not. Science works very much in an if-then manner. That's why there's the whole concept of independent, dependent, and confounding variables.
If we treat all things equal, then heredity will have an effect, or it won't. There's no magic pixie dust that will make it both.
That you didn't realize this says a lot about your understanding of science.
Clearly you're delusional. Either that or you haven't been reading my posts. Doesn't suprise me really, you've not addressed one thing in >>466,>>468,>>472,>>355 or >>361, why should I expect you to respond to anything outside of what you believe with your strongly retarded mind? It's what I've come to expect.
It's always nurture and nature working in concert. It's always both. Always. It never comes down to a "yes or no" because it's always both working. Don't you get that? Your entire arguement basically says: "Blacks have lower IQ because of genetics." --- That's huge misinterpetation of all of the data we've collected on nurture and natures impact on IQ, in that you ignore nuture completely.
The problem is that your idea of science goes right back to speculative and co-relative theory (see: the economists' method), ignoring any data that says something contrary to your ideas- in fact- ignoring skepticism. Just like...*drum roll*...Christianity. You know, I always wondered how anyone could possibly be dumb enough to say that science in and of itself is a religion...and now I know why.
It's because of people like you.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 20:58
Don't you get that?
It's the other way around. You seem to think that since nature and nurture are intertwined, that if you manipulate only one (nature or nurture), the result will remain the same (intelligence).
Here, let me put it another way: (x * nurture) * (y * nature) = int, where constants x + y = 1. The point here is not the multiplication, but simply that they are related. You agree that the result of an equation x * y, or x * y, or x / y, etc, depend on both variables? So, using the above equation, if you freeze x, y, and nurture, and vary nature, int will change.
I'm not ignoring nurture at all. However, you are ignoring nature completely, as evidenced by your claim that if genes played a role then population X would always be more intelligent than population Y. Hello?
You just seem to think that it's impossible to manipulate one and observe any effects. I suppose varying a person's body temperature won't make any difference to their health either, cuz it's all so intertwined, ya know...
You've misunderstood. Can't get anymore blunt or simple than that. You keep- quite desperately- coming back to the idea that I think nature has no place in intelligence, when I've stated numberous upon numerous times that it does.
Remember >>465? Why would you basically ask me the same question again? Did you think you would catch me in a slip or something? Hahaha, were you not convinced? Were you so desperate to win, that you fell to deceptive means? Is it because you've failed at addressing anything nurture related to the race/IQ debate?
Or maybe you've misunderstood what this debate is about? This isn't a nature vs nurture debate. Either what you're saying has some relevance to the race debate or it doesn't.
Let me ask you this, and please, for a change: Respond.
What happens if you take two families who may or may not in-fact have the same IQ range. Family X and Family Y.
Family X (for whatever reason) is stripped of it's wealth, the ability to educate itself and deprived of not only an academic environment...but also a proper nutritiion for growth of intellect. The role of family X is to serve family Y.
Now what happens if Family X has to repeat this situation for the next 8 or 9 generations? Family Y meanwhile continues to educate, eats right, keeps up it's socio-economic index and it's intellect grows. Which family is going to end up being generalized as having the lower IQ and why?
I mean, this is of course assuming that we've mastered measuring intelligence and understand it completely (which, we know that we don't). What would happen? How do you explain the difference in IQ? What seems more likely when the prior IQ of both families is unknown?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 23:16
The effects will be obvious: the poor family won't do as well. Nobody here denies the obvious.
Back to the initial issue: if indeed you agree that heredity plays a significant role (statistically, not colloquially) in intelligence, then why won't you say "yes"?
So if genetics plays some role, if all other things are equal (education, experience, opportunities, etc), will they have the same intelligence?
>>494
P.S - It simply has to be understand that it because I agree of nature and nurture's dual roles that you question doesn't get a "yes or no" answer.
Now that you've "answered" (didn't really address anything though) I'm going to add something. What if, these two families were white? And what if their base IQ was the same?
See...I think you're ignoring- purposefully and very simply- nurture's sway over what appears to be heredity are you not? If after 8 or 9 generations shouldn't the base "genetic IQ" (laughable really since there is no such test) be the same? What happens to those "smart genes"? Do they just dissapear? How? Why? Is it magic?
It simply has to be understood that it's because I agree on nature and nurture's dual roles that your question doesn't a "yes or no" answer.***
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 11:11
niggerz iz niggerz
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 17:32
>>496
Dissembling isn't answering. Why no clear yes or no?
Also, the reason I'm here is... 500GET?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-16 18:40
>>500 It simply has to be understood that it's because I agree on nature and nurture's dual roles that your question doesn't get a "yes or no" answer.***
My, you're just chock full of lose aren't you? Nothing to say to >>497? Nothing at all? :) Yes, I thought not. Thanks for subjecting us to your fail. May future generations of inept failures follow in your footsteps so as give the continued success of science further meaning.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 21:47
You said above, if two families have equal potential for intelligence, and you starve one, while heaping good food and education on the other, one will do better than the other. Great, that's nurture. You obviously think it's possible to affect that side of the equation.
But you seen to deny the other side. Instead you conveniently blather on about both their relationship, when you're all too ready to manipulate nurture. Why are you prepared to accept that changing nurture changes intelligence, but changing nature doesn't?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 21:50
You said above, if two families have equal potential for intelligence, and you starve one, while heaping good food and education on the other, one will do better than the other. Great, that's nurture. You believe it's possible to affect that side of the equation.
But you seen to deny the other side. Instead you conveniently blather on about their relationship, yet you're all too ready to manipulate nurture. Why are you prepared to accept that changing nurture changes intelligence, but changing nature doesn't? If you are, why won't you say "yes"?
You said above, if two families have equal potential for intelligence, and you starve one, while heaping good food and education on the other, one will do better than the other. Great, that's nurture. You believe it's possible to affect that side of the equation.
But you seen to deny the other side. Instead you conveniently blather on about their relationship, yet you're all too ready to manipulate nurture. Why are you prepared to accept that changing nurture changes intelligence, but changing nature doesn't? If you are, why won't you say "yes"?
See...I think you're ignoring- purposefully and very simply- nurture's sway over what appears to be heredity are you not? If after 8 or 9 generations shouldn't the base "genetic IQ" (laughable really since there is no such test) be the same? What happens to those "smart genes"? Do they just dissapear? How? Why? Is it magic?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-17 17:17
Why do you think the question specifically states "all other things being equal"? This was specifically referring to nurture:
So if genetics plays some role, if all other things are equal (education, experience, opportunities, etc), will they have the same intelligence?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-17 17:59
My point exactly: "All other things" can never be exactly equal in nurture various reason one of which, happens to be genetics. It's a give and take system, balanced. Which one side is unequal in one generation, it'll effect the other side in the next and so on and so on.
A great photo of New Orleans mayor Ray Nignog Nagin.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-19 0:56
Fails for irrelevance.
Name:
Mountain jack2006-01-19 23:26
Every year Uncle Jake and Aunt Mary have a few spare niggers at the end of harvest. Of course they don’t want to feed the varmints all winter so they usually take ‘em out back and club ‘em. Then they put up about 300 quarts of pickled nigger. Of course Jake and Mary never eat any of it. They feed it to the regular barn niggers throughout the winter months.
Once a jew family moved to town. Mary took them a gift basket of nigger and told them it was pickled lamb. HaHa! Jake didn’t like it that Mary would associate with kikes but thought it was funny that they would be eating nigger with their matzah ball soup. HaHa!
In the safety of anonymous, supposedly ironic humour, the inherent racism of the white man emerges, like the tip of a turd emerging from an asshole.
Discuss.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-22 0:21
>>513
I know. Most white people are racist. They may not act like it, or show any signs in public, but deep down every one of them wants you gone from their environment.
I would say most people are racist and it is a good thing they don't act like it because if so this world would be in constant violence oh wait
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-22 6:22
Most people are racist, but whites have this special kind of racism in which they will go to any idiotic lengths to prove that they invented everything, discovered everything and are better suited for all social tasks. They claim their ancestory when they want to talk about empires and industry, but shirk it when it comes to african slavery, the holocaust and the crusades.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-22 7:14
>>517
Do you expect whites to say that they are proud of slavery and the holocaust?
What I'm saying is that whites generally walk around in this bubble where none of shit they've done to every other race on the planet is supposed to have a bearing on present day. You're a bunch of hypocritical saps and the world hates you for it.
I think it needs to be addressed again and again that history isn't over. As we start to turn back the hands of time we discover that alot of "white discoveries" came much later than the same discoveries by other races. We're even learning that China may have discovered America first. Nothing is concrete and whites themselves...have done more copying and stealing than originating.
You can't take credit for the greeks on minute (anglo-saxon aren't greeks, lol) and then wash your hands of all the fucked up shit greeks did (slavery).
My point exactly. "History" is subjective to and written by those who percieve themselves as "winning" history. Remember when you thought whites were a different race? Remember when you found out all humans came from Africa? Remember when you discovered that the Mali and the Mayans had methods for mapping the stars (before whites)? This is all I'm pointing out.
The sad thing is that if alot of you white people did as much fact checking about the ideas of other cultures and races as you did whites (which is surface fact checking). You'd find out all sorts of neat things. You just don't even bother to look anymore and you do so at your own peril.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-23 8:12 (sage)
You just don't even bother to look anymore and you do so at your own peril.
Coming from someone with a base understanding of history and sociology, colour me unimpressed. It seems you lack eyes and ears too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-23 18:22
Actually, my understanding of history and sociology dwarfs yours and that what emables me to make the statements I make. Why don't you certify your comments? Oh, wait. I know why. It's because you have nothing to say and love to hear yourself speak.
Come back here when you take some college courses.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-23 21:12
An educated person realizes that no major civilizations evolved in a vacuum (although the ones in South America were their own microcosm). They borrowed heavily from each other. This isn't news, except to someone who has never opened a book.
Superiority? Which major civilization didn't believe it was the best/most enlightened/etc? Everybody looked down on everyone else. They still do.
Slavery? Most major civilizations have had slaves at some point. The rest usually had some dreadfully poor class that served in their stead.
Nobody looks at anything anymore? Look at the food you eat, he music you listen to, the methods of production that made them, the languages being taught in schools, the international scientific articles, ad nauseum. It isn't just the crackers, it's everyone.
i thought anti chan died on the way back to his home planet? why don't you respond with reason instead of character attacks? moot made this anon system so that stupid shit like this wouldn't come up in arguments did he not?
what exact did he say in >>523 that you can take certifiable exception to?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 1:41
why don't you respond with reason instead of character attacks?
I'm not responding to any of his comments, since I agree with them. However, his comments smell like anti-chan. Since when is noting that a character attack?
You're a retard. <- THAT'S ad hominem
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 8:24
>>534
the whole point of the anon concept is like, who cares if it's anti-chan or not? why is his identity of any interest to you? why is that so consequencial? clearly, he wasn't addressing you in >>523. he was addressing other white supremists in general.
Oh fuck off, you little cry babies. Here I am, here's your social pariah- anti-chan! The bottomline is that when you argue someone's identity or someone's character: You are participating in a character attack. Stop playing innocent: You didn't point out it was me as a positivism. Everyone got that.
And I know you've got it rationalized in your pea-sized fuckbrains that nothing you do is wrong- because you are the honkey "lawds of the internets" and your penors are small so of course your brains must be BIIIIGGG.
Sorry to rain on your gay pride parade: But you're a bunch of kids. And if it's wrong for me to identify you idioic lot of culturally -handicapped jack offs by your childish character and base my arguments around that. (I'll freely admit that) Then it's wrong when you do the same thing to me. Understand?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 13:47
>>537
Cut the bullshit. If you didn't care you wouldn't have brought it up.
Anyway: My comments were meant to be inflammatory. When I look at this thread it occurs to me that a majority of the white supremist I argued against for some reason thought they could ignore what we know about modern history. They tried to ignore what we know about intelligence and gentics. And that's why the argument drifted right off in the fucking abyss when I said: "It's never nurture or nature in an arguement about IQ/race".
I came armed with a shield made out of skin that flaked off the the God of absolute truth. In my right hand was a sword crafted from the strongest object in the universe: My penis. That shit was forged with lazers and nuclear energy.
You guys came in here with your high school diplomas, your virginity and your obsession with racial slurs. And the resaon I made the comments I did was because I made the distiction between white supremists and those who just wanted to debate properly.
Anyone on here that tries to lord the "many accomplishment of the whites" over you or your race is a white supremist.
Any one here that tries to make their race seem genetically superior when compared to *any* another race is a white supremist. Any one here that exhibits this inate fear of the extention of their so-called race is a white supremist.
And you know how I know this? Because if take the last paragraph and exchange white for black- you get a list of what a white supremist simply DOES NOT want to hear or accept. The idea that they didn't invent everything and they weren't the orginator of all these neat ideas they hold so dear.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 16:15
>>539
Ad hominem, strawmen, propaganda, mentioning your penis... wow. All the known argument failures pulled together in a neat package.
You're kidding right? What argument? Oh you mean the one that I ended about two weeks ago? There's no debate here: I'm just flat out shitting on you. If there was a debate to be had you would've replied with a little more than the play-by-play of your eviscerated self-esteem(s).
However, if you want to sit here and have another long drawn out debate about how you're a human toilet, then by all means I'll part my butt cheeks right now, pry open that porcelian seat you call mouth and serve you up your favorite: turds. Oh and I do hope you like Domino's Pizza...because that's what I had for lunch.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 20:47
Wow, kinky.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 20:49
>>541
Generally people who bring up others' self esteem out of the blue probably don't have much themselves. It's called projection.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 20:52
>>543
Not to mention the obvious homosexual crack that could be made, but I'm sure there's no need for psychoanalysis to point that out to you.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 23:36
Every year Uncle Jake and Aunt Mary have a few spare niggers at the end of harvest. Of course they don’t want to feed the dirty black bastards all winter so they usually take ‘em out back and club ‘em. Then they put up about 300 quarts of pickled nigger. Of course Jake and Mary never eat any of it. They feed it to the regular barn niggers throughout the winter months.
Once a jew family moved to town. Mary took them a gift basket of nigger and told them it was pickled lamb. HaHa Jake didn’t like it that Mary would associate with kikes but thought it was funny that they would be eating nigger with their matzah ball soup. HaHa
It's not out-of-the-blue to point out your overly defensive and especially argumentive nature. This is merely but another strong indictor of the crippling insecurities that surely plague your faggotry riddled mind. You're like a 14-year old girl on her period. When you stand in front of a mirror and look into your eyes you can't help be see your inner queer crawling at the back of pupils begging: "Let me out! I'll suck alllllll the cocks."
You know you will. And it's alright man, when you glean a homosexual act from the very natural function of me delivering my feces into your mouth like my anus was a soft serve machine...you know that's your inner cock mongler begging to get out. So let him out: We won't make fun of you anymore than we already do.
lol so is >>539, mate. your point? from what i've seen you guys have been failing against anti-chan since this whole debate started and now that it's a mud-slinging contest you guys are failing double hard. you can't debate the issues, you can't even insult properly = fail.
That's because >>543,>>544 and >>549 are born losers. It's a genetic disposition due to the severe retardation of their inbred parents and then reinforced by their mothers' "pine sol in the apple juice." method of nurture.
She knew you were failures when she blood-queefed you into the palm of her hand at the dyke parade.
i think you miss the point of what he's saying. maybe it's cos you're white?
a majority of the people are not educated. and if they are, they can put 1+1 together but have a hard time admitting that it equals 2.
'everybody did it' doesn't excuse anything and it doesn't mean we should ignore your history. "white civilization" put their superority into practice against all races. if europe was like china or japan (isolationist) this conversation would not take place. it's not your fault. it's your religion and all relegions that stem from judeo-christian law (islam falls right in with these ideals) - one god (and everyone must believe and obey) have help perpetuated white culture through zealotry and fanatism. you are apart of that whether you like it or not, or believe it or not.
"It isn't just the crackers, it's everyone." - wrong. you still teach "its just the crackers" in your schools. you white wash every culture you touch. everything another culture does it misunderstood by you as inhumane or wrong and it's all based on ignorance- you need a reason to hate and a reason to convert everyone to your thought. tell me i'm lying if i am...
i guess you guys don't get it. people wouldn't trust the nazi's to write the history of the Jews. why people would trust racist whites of the past and present with the history of blacks is beyond me. (maybe its because you're white?
THIS is what is wrong with your country. A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and seeing as how it is built and sustained by white supremacy....it might fall for good reason, IF whites do not get their heads out of their asses and see the truth for what it really is.
I'll keep this in mind the next time you cry about Ad hominem when you start failing in an argument you spent screaming "nigger, bix nood" in between non-points.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-26 22:54 (sage)
'everybody did it' doesn't excuse anything
No, it doesn't. Congratulations.
"It isn't just the crackers, it's everyone."
How about you reread that last paragraph, >>552? It doesn't mean what you think it means.
"its just the crackers" in your schools.
What kind of school have you been going to?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-27 7:28
I do realize I'm arguing against multiple people, right? And that all my enemies are not one person, and that to make generalizations about them as if they were one person is fallacious at best.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-27 7:36
>>557
The whole point of the anonymous system is so that personas (therefore ad hominems) never come into play during a debate over ideals. If you want to be treated as an individual- then use a name.
You guys are all saying the same stupid shit with strong overtones of inherant faggotry- I don't have the energy nor the concern to dice you up into fruity little sub-groups.
1. congratulations on what? if you agree, then why are arguing?
2. "How about you reread that last paragraph, >>552? It doesn't mean what you think it means."
you don't know what I think it means. you're grasping at straws, probably to build a strawman. my point is exactly that: not everyone is educated, not everyone looks at all of history and the world in a bigger picture
"What kind of school have you been going to?"
the same ones you have.
that's my point. see: you're white. your perception of the world is different from other races perspective. you guys thing you're doing just fine in addressing the contribution of other cultures and races to civilization. everyone else sees you for what you are.
case in point- your shitty arguments. you want to agree with me, but your inate slant toward white superamacy leaves you possessed with an inability to see anything beyond yourself. other races have this problem- but with whites it's genetic.
Imply: To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer.
No, I infer inferiority based on the fact that we have not achieved maxium potential. We know the possibility of a human generation greater than us exists because we strive towards that. Humankind doesn't strive toward medoricity.
Evidence supports me, subjectivity supports you. So you imply.
Frankly, the entirely of this specific argument could be subjective. So while you could've expressed your sentiment with a simple "NO U", I instead chose to address possibilities based on evidence. Not create evidence based on possibilities.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 21:44 (sage)
fuck
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 16:40
Legendary.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 16:43
A thread consisting of asinine stupidity and willful ignorance; with a thick serving of troll. This truly represents world4ch.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 16:54
Ok guys, let's recap! The discussion thus far.
1: There are inconsistiencies with liberals.
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: RACIST!!
1: whatevs, there facts are there
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: ignore facts pls and look only at facts i tell u to
1: k, but i will not ignore any facts or i will be wrong
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: RACIST!!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 16:56
Ok guys, let's recap! The discussion thus far.
1: There are inconsistiencies with liberals.
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: RACIST!!
1: whatevs, there facts are there
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: ignore facts pls and look only at facts i tell u to
1: k, but i will not ignore any facts or i will be wrong
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: RACIST!!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 21:37
please guys.
anti-chan owned you in this thread. everytime you came up with something he shut you down with a solid counter argument and then your response was "bix nood, nigger, nigger". then you continued to insistance that you're right even though you addressed nothing he said.
all most of us saw was one guy hammering the truth into a group of guys who used inconsistancies and racial slurs to somehow make themselves seem right.
Sucks at trolling. I'd wish you better luck next time, if I thought you could change your destiny of fail.
The last thing we saw as a counter argument to my statements was this pathetic question of "if nuture was the same/if nature was the same." It's quite a dishonest question coming from a group of people who clearly don't believe in nuture in the first place.
It's exhibit E in a long line of displays of ignorance. You can't approach nature and nurture's controls over intelligence in an either/or manner. It's always both. Always. Always. Always. That's never going to change.
Science clearly agrees with this. This is why scientific racism is referred to as a psuedo science. I've clearly outlined *why* your approaches are non-scientific and *why* your facts form a loose and overly simplistic interpetation of the supposed corelation between race and IQ. I've done it, again and again and again and will continue to do so as long as this thread is here.
And what continues to shock me is that the opposition continuously ignores any facts, any studies that serve as clear evidence to anything contrary to their beliefs.
This is how a debate works.
1. Fact Supported Statement
2. Fact Supported Counter argument.
3. So on, and so on...
This is how this debate has worked:
1. Statement supported by a loose corelation of facts.
2. Fact Supported Counter argument.
3. You're just calling me a racist! You want to rape white wimmin, nigger! Bix nood! Don't use Ad hominems!
4. Fact supported Counter argument.
5. Ignores, repeats everything said in #1 and #3. Then lays down another layer of Ad hominem attacks.
"The last thing we saw as a counter argument to my statements was this pathetic question of "if nuture was the same/if nature was the same." It's quite a dishonest question coming from a group of people who clearly don't believe in nuture in the first place."
I don't get it... How is it dishonest to ask such a question? Nobody who's posted against you up until now has ever completely written off nurture, which is why the question was phrased in such a way if nurture was the same. More to the point, how does the honesty of a question even factor in to whether it's legitimate to bring to a debate or not? Sometimes, to prove a point, you even have to make statements that you would disagree with in order to show the contradictions in your own opponents' argument. You refused to answer that question, when it would have been easy (And probably would have saved you the argument) to just have said that yes, a black kid and a white kid would have grown up the same. But you didn't, which shows that you yourself don't really believe it. Honesty indeed.
And what's all this crap about "pseudo-science"? Most scientists, while not really racist per se, believe in an inborn factor to intelligence. Look at any journal from real scientists (ones that do real experiments on real stuff, not psychology or sociology where the data can be interpreted however the observer sees fit, sciences that are still in what's known as an alchemic phase) where they talk about genetics, and they do believe in it. They just don't speak up because really, it'd be imoral. Scientists are by and large good guys, like most of the human race when they're in public, and none of them wants to be responsable for another holocaust or anything like that... Add to that the fact that it'd be impossible to get funding for anything you'd want to do, EVER if you came out saying anything about one groupd being by and large less intelligent than others.
In the end though, I honestly believe that nurture can play a large part. Given the right conditions, we can turn anyone, even if their genetics disposes them against it, into productive, purposeful, happy individuals, or at least not completely worthless and written off from the start.
It's not about putting anyone in their place, to act like they're a separate class, to appraise someone's value. It's about not lying. It's about honesty.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-03 2:31
>>576 Look at any journal from real scientists ...where they talk about genetics, and they do believe in it.
LOL beliefs
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-03 2:35
>>577
Well, I could say the same about the counter-argument. Really, there's no concrete evidence that's easy to find on the subject, because of the whole social taboo on it. I can't prove it exists satisfactorily just the same as you can't prove it doesn't exist satisfactorily.
I believe it exists, you don't. We both have evidence that leads us to believe the way we do, but it's really not in any way conclusive.
The world doesn't naturally run without deviation based on pre-set organizable, non cognitive-dissonance-causing rules.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-03 2:36 (sage)
Don't bother, >>576. Don't bump. Let this die already.
BTW, many fields of psychology are scientifically quite rigorous, even though it's not a natural science.
This wrong up and down and here's why. The question itself is dishonest for the very reason you asked it: In order to somehow show that I don't prescribe to the absolutism of nature and nurture working in concert at all times.
You (or whomever) assumed a position you didn't agree with in order to disprove my point. Now...this would've worked if I sat here and said nature doesn't matter. It's all nurture. But I didn't.
I said that it's never a matter of either/or (nature/nurture). It's always both. Always. Always. So asking "Well, what if nurture is equal?" is like asking me if I will ever believe that one will ever exert more force over intellect than the other. Clearly, my answer to that is: No.
But with the limited response I was given, a "No" answer would've garnered a response along the lines of: "Oh, so why is that? Could it be genetics!?"
Then, I would've had to clarify: "No, because it's never a matter of all genetics or all environment. One doesn't exert more force over the other. It doesn't work like that."
Then, the opposition: "But you just said that..."
As you can see, the argument would not have been over by any means. The only problem you have is: I didn't fall for your (the opposition's) trap. You phrased the question "Yes or No" because you knew an open answer would leave the matter open to more debate.
I would tell you that it was a nice try at re-framing the debate so that I would be force to defend ideas I don't believe in. But it was really immature and any high school debate club member would've saw that shit coming a mile away.
I will explain myself further, at another point with an example and we'll see what you'll have to say to that (if anything.)
See, but this my point exactly and why it is called a "psuedo science". You look at some statistics and make a corelation. I.E, "a belief." That's not science. The reason that IQ/race have no absolute corelation is because science teaches us that IQ never comes down to only genetics. So, race has no more of a corelation than status, gender, height, skull size, etc.
You don't have evidence. The evidence you would require to back up your belief is something saying that genetics rules absolutely over IQ. It doesn't. It just doesn't.
And here's another thing. If it's a strawman, explain why. Because it seems to me just to be something the opposition says when they're losing or have nothing else to give to the debate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 2:04
ニガ プリズ!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 2:41 (sage)
>>588
Why bother? This thread is dead. Let the trolls have it.
You think you can't convince the other side, and that they're full of shit. The feeling is mutual. All we'll do by continuing is annoy each other.
I don't think that. Like I said clearly there's a bottomline here. That bottomline is that if you believe that race (genetics) absolutely holds any sway over general intelligence or maxium potential for intelligence then you are automatically ignoring nurture as you can't arrive to that conclusion otherwise. Science teaches us that it's always both and when I argued this point on other boards the opposition at least had the honesty or the balls to say that "nurture" is a myth.
Me trying to convince someone of this [why they are wrong] is like convincing a child that 1 + 1 = 2. I, as an adult who uses scientific method has a responsibility to show patience. I've used ad hominem attacks (just as the opposition has) but I am by no means "annoyed". I don't think the other side is full of shit, I just think they are very, very confused and ignorant.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 5:49 (sage)
>>591
No, I don't believe that genetics is absolute. I don't think anyone in this thread ever made that claim. If you disagree, feel free to point out the post in question. That's why I said it's a strawman.
If you want absolutes, talk to anti-chan. He refuses to admit that hereditary plays a statistically significant role. For him it's not nature and nurture intertwined, it's just nurture.
If you want to argue with the trolls on this board, go right ahead. I'm burnt out. You will be too.
I am anti-chan, stupid. This just goes to show, once you drop a name all the unfairly asscioated bullshit gets dropped with the name. Of course heredity plays a role. But so does nurture. And the situations once come across in nuture effective heredity and vise versa and so on.
If you think race absolutely has some invisible hand-like sway over g (general intellect)- then you think genetics plays a bigger or singular role in intelliect. Sure, you don't BELIEVE that, but by prescribing to that belief you are implying it.
>>593
Once your drop the constant attacks, you sound sane.
How does bigger equal absolute? And how does statistically significant equal bigger? I'm afraid I don't see how you get from statistically significant to absolute.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 7:37 (sage)
Forget it. I don't want to get dragged back into this.
it's true that there is genetic variation, but that it is mostly negligible on a person to person basis. Not all blacks are ghetto trash and some whites are trailer trash. However civilisation started after people first migrated out of Africa and not before. Sapiens have left Africa before, but they hadn't yet reached the stage of the negro and instead of evolving to become intelligent they evolved into neanderthals. This time they evolved to be intelligent, it's almost as if the negro is the missing link between humans dependant on brawn and humans dependant on intelligence. Of course it doesn't take much intelligence to survive in food rich jungles so the negro continued to evolve more intelligent much more slowly than those which had left africa, or should I say went up the Nile seeing as how Egypt, Sudan and North Africa are caucasoid.
As a result when the new caucasoid and mongoloid races reached the jungle areas in other parts of the world they thrived, whereas the negro kept sub-saharran africa dark.
These jungles aswell as the rest of the world had a harsh environment. Anti-chan is always on about environmental factors "What about the environment?? how can you build a university in a swamp?", it takes intelligence to improve your environment and construct a civilisation and if these improvements make you more intelligent, then it's pretty obvious why negroes are so far below the rest ofd the world. It takes just that little bit extra intelligence to want to improve your environment and once you've done that you are better off and you have the resources can feed your children a little more and teach them a little more and they can improve the environment a little more and so and so forth. Negroes just never reached this first stage or when they were give nthe technology to progress didn't utilise it quite to the standards of the rest of the world.
Maybe racism isn't the answer, maybe eugenics is the answer if people of slightly more intelligence do a lot better than the stupid, imagine what a nation of people of exceptional intelligence would be like. Whatever the answer, it certainly won't be helped by the presence of screaming whining paranoid ghetto and trailer trash.
But your reason is entirely wrong when you cite solely genetic causes for lack of intellect when it has been over-stated and over-proven that g is a sum of two factors. Nature and Nurture. Not one or the other. Not one over the other.
You see, it really doesn't matter what your opinions on negroid intellect are because the only way you can arrive to these conclusions is by ignoring nurture. Ignoring the impact of environment.
Secondly, the only way you can still maintain that "negroids" didn't want to improve their environement is with an ignorance of history. Negroids forged metal and stonehouses before "caucasiods" and "monogoloids". Caucasiods didn't invent everything or place these things into world wide use in the ancient world. You will find these attributed to the moors, the chinese, the egyptians and the arabs. "Anglos" merely followed suit and copied the greeks- who despite your efforts to lump them in- aren't exactly what *you* would call "caucasiod". History clearly states that most of the groundwork was already laid out by peoples other than the light-skinned chinese and anglos. You keep saying things like "it doesn't take intelligence to do this and that" and "negroids were genetically inferior that's why they..." in hopes that one day- they're going to be true. They just aren't.
Remember who writes history. Would you trust a german nazi with jew history? A chinese with japanese history (or vice versa for that matter)? An American with Iraqi history? Why should I or anyone who perscribes to analytical thought or scientific method ignore evidence that we've uncovered for want of looking? Should we leave what we know is proven out of the argument because you haven't bothered to do more reasearch? For christs sake...you think Sub-Sahara Africa had *jungles*.
I don't want to hear anymore bollocks about attacks. I have been attacked with ad hominems by you and the opposition since the beginning. Your statements are hypocritical.
Secondly, when you're referring an obviously unchangable and uncontrollable factor like genetics, you imply absolutism. If that's not what you intend to do- then you need pay more attention to your argument. Stop trying to hammer home the idea the idea that negroids are genetically inferior in intellect- because intellect just doesn't work like that. It isn't set up in such a way where genetics alone define how intelligent you are.
Let's forget for a moment the accepted fact that IQ doesn't really measure your intelligence in the first place. I'd be very interested in how you aquired the IQs for people who existed before 1904. (When the IQ test was invented and African colonialsim was in full swing.) Assuming a group of people were more or less intelligent because of the "stuff they had" isn't scientific method. It's just not.
It's funny. "Maybe racism isn't the answer." - Yet, you're probably one of the first white guys to cry about "reverse racism.". And in order to make eugenics work you would need a facist and totalitarian government and a nationalist society. 'Nuff said.
Your entire argument is funny when it comes to white people- it's like you can't admit to yourselves that you copied more than invented, merely changed more than evolved and that your temporary rule of earth wasn't exactly what it was: Chance. (and temporary)
You can't accept the fact that for all biological (and therefore genetic) purposes: You and everyone else on this planet is a variation of a sub-saharan negroid. If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect meeded for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their enviroment mattered? Why would skin color make a difference?
People are inherantly different as a generality- but even those black skinned Africans that left African didn't percieve themselves as different races. The very concept of race seems to me to be "different looking negroids, living different ways of life." It didn't "exist" then and it doesn't exist biologically now. I guess I just don't understand this entire approach at all. Maybe that's because the phrase "Maybe racism isn't the answer" wouldn't come out of my mouth.
Heh.
"Maybe."
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 16:52
>> imagine what a nation of people of exceptional intelligence would be like.
It'd be named Norway, and it's the capitol of suicide.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 16:55
The world would be better if developed countries didn't have to drag into progress a continent that is behind time.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 17:33
>>599
Wait, let's make this clear. Unlike you I agree only with facts and science, so I recognise the fact that "anglo" isn't a race. Sorry bud, Aryans don't exist and the biggest gap between anglos and arabs is 200 generations or so and even then we are talking about the isolated Sami in Finland. Take your nazi pseudo science elsewhere!
"Negroids forged metal and stonehouses before "caucasiods" and "monogoloids"."
False.
Do I have to waste any more life on you or will you admit you are wrong? Or at least admit you are lied in these 2 points and never lie again.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 23:14
One thing negroids did have before caucasiods and monogoloids is the HIV virus.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 0:53
>>603
But the population of the firtle crescent were all black dumbass.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 0:55
yeah yo and jesus was black too
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 0:56
yall are juts a bunch of mother fuckin hatin racists. you know that the black man could have been more, but that the white people has opressed us since caveman days.
This entire education process would go alot smoother without you fucking no-life trolls would stop adding in your two cents like some kind of faggot bath-house spit bucket.
Still, early sub-Saharan Africans developed metallurgy at a very early stage, possibly even before other peoples. [/b]Around 1400 BC, East Africans began producing steel in carbon furnaces (steel was invented in the west in the eighteenth century).[/b]The Iron Age itself came very early to Africa, probably around the sixth century BC, in Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Iron technology, however, only spread slowly across Africa; it wasn't until the first century AD that the smelting of iron began to rapidly diffuse throughout the continent.
From the late 10th to the 15th century Zimbabwe was the centre of the great empire of the Karanga. The ruins that can be seen today originate from that period of wealth and achievements. People lived in Great Zimbabwe until the 17th century and possibly longer. The city fell into disuse thereafter. It was rediscovered by Europeans in 1867.
Great Zimbabwe extends over an area of 24 hectares. Much work is still needed to understand its civilization in detail. Elements of the city studied to date include a large fortification in a strategic hilltop location, with many rooms and a complicated array of passageways. In the valley below is an elliptical stone wall next to a tower. Extensive remnants of a drainage system run through the entire valley.
What's that? More?
That great empires existed before and at the time of arrival of the first Europeans is beyond doubt. Ruins of stone houses, walls and fortifications found across today's' Zimbabwe and Mozambique date from the 8th to the 15th century AD. The people had smelters for gold, which they traded along the Indian Ocean coast. Chinese porcelain found in their buildings testifies for their extensive trading contacts.
The Muslim kingdom of Mali flourished in West Africa from the 13th to the 16th century. Its wealth and advanced state of development can be judged from the pilgrimage to Mecca undertaken by its emperor Musa in 1324. On his trip through Mauritania, Algeria and Cairo he was accompanied by 60,000 men including 12,000 slaves. The infrastructure required to feed such a convoy during a long desert voyage is in itself an achievement of an advanced civilization. Everyone including the slaves was wearing the finest brocade and Persian silk. The emperor was on horseback, and 500 slaves walked in front, each carrying a staff with gold decorations. 80 camels at the end of the caravan each carried 300 pounds of gold. Musa's generosity with gold as presents caused the collapse of the Cairo gold market; it took more than a decade to recover.
Musa's voyage effectively put Africa on the world map. The Arab historians of the time could not praise Africa's wealth and culture high enough. Mali's first university was established under Musa's rule.
Unfortunately little is known about the scientific achievements of Africa even from its Islamic times, so systematic has been the destruction when the colonial powers arrived. The kingdom of Benin, known throughout western Africa as a centre of exquisite brass and bronze art, was ransacked and looted by the British colonial army in 1897. The loot, thousands of bronze plaques, is now on display in the British Museum in London. The government of Nigeria and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) are demanding its return to Africa.
MORE?
Here's another very extensive link on the subject:
Now this evidence begs many questions. Are these all lies? Am I supposed trust wikipedia or colleges? Again am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? Just answer the question.
If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect needed for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their environment mattered then, if it doesn't matter *now*? Why would skin color make a difference?
Again: These unanswered questions liken to the overall lack of methodology. This is why you position is referred to as "psuedo science".
You Lose.
Continue?
09
08
07
06
05
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 6:21
>>610
"Around 1400 BC, East Africans began producing steel in carbon furnaces (steel was invented in the west in the eighteenth century)."
This is a blast furnace and you will find it isn't from an evil racist website. http//www.visitcumbe/...
There is no evidence of this, it was fabricated on a whim. The Egyptians were the first to extract iron from near pure iron deposits, the Egyptians had black pharoahs in their last dynasty, therefore black people invented the blast furnace.
Of course there are some things they can't lie about.
"The Iron Age itself came very early to Africa, probably around the sixth century BC, in Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Iron technology, however, only spread slowly across Africa; it wasn't until the first century AD that the smelting of iron began to rapidly diffuse throughout the continent."
So they invented the blast furnace in the 14th century and enterred the iron age in the 6th century. You'd think they'd spend 800 years in the iron age before they invented the blast furnace and not the other way round, though seeing as your website has an .edu at the end you must be right and black people are indeed like gods on earth capable of omnipotent feats.
Well done, you have defeated me in debate, I for one welcome my negroid masters and their amazing ability to defy the laws of physics to which I am bound. How should I serve thee?
Zimbabwe, proves nothing. Zimbabwe was no greater than the cities of anywhere else in the world 2000 years earlier. Except this wasn't 2000 years ago, this was during the time when armoured horsemen dominated the battlefields cathedrals, mosques temples and walled cities existed across the globe, when the Aztecs were building their great pyramids and developping cities which were larger than this (without iron and the wheel), the great wall of China had already been built and the emperor of China, the classical period, the romans, greeks and egyptians had already passed. I never said negroes were animals, just stupid.
Hasty retreating, rushed rationalizations, totally semantical and wrong. Can't put it any other way. If you feel this evidence is in question then prove it wrong. Find a scientist or historian that specifically says: "Oh, that's not true...Africa didn't do that." - I highly doubt these colleges made this shit up "on a whim".
It's not my fault if you want to turn a blind eye to the truth. We can't treat your crippling ignorance until you admit that you were wrong.
And who said anything about blast furances? Are you trying to shift the argument? Because I didn't say anything about blast furnances. I said Iron. And eons ago I mentioned steel.
Zimbabwe proves everything. You (the opposition) said Africans didn't have stone buildings. They did. And one thing you have to understand: Why would sub-sahara Africa...hotter than most, if not all of the regions you listed...need insulated stone buildings? That'd be like living in an oven.
Give me a break here, guy. You asked for proof and this is as good as it gets. .edu carries more weight than wikipedia. It just does. Don't get all butthurt because you got caught in a lie. It's unseemingly when you fail and lose without grace.
"I never said negroes were animals, just stupid"
Suuuuuuuurre. Everything you say implies them being animalistic savages. Sorry...you're wrong. If you can find something saying all this shit didn't happen...then by allllllllll means. :)
The point is: You can't.
Now just answer the questions:
Now this evidence begs many questions. Are these all lies? Am I supposed trust wikipedia or colleges? Again am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? Just answer the question.
If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect needed for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their environment mattered then, if it doesn't matter *now*? Why would skin color make a difference?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 11:22
>>613
Wouldn't it be easy to back up your argument with facts? You claim that some negroes discoverred how to extract iron from normal deposits before this was done in Turkey, the only think I've seen is a sentence in some site which is supposedly mnagical and wonderful becasue it has an .edu at the end of it.
As someone who disagrees with society's beliefs on race surely you must recognise I'm a little more skeptical than the average gullible redneck. Most people think Cleopatra was black because of the all black band "cleopatra comin atcha!" in the 90s, even though she was macedonian. I'm not denying any facts, the pharoahs of the 25th dynasty was black, nefertiti was black, I've said it because it is true and I've seen the facts. However when nefertiti seems to be the only pharoah people here about and posters and fliers appear all over schools and colleges with images of nerfertiti and this particular dynasty and find people like you literally all over the internet, I begin to get a little suspicous. However I won't say that Ancient Egypt was black, or that blacks discoverred how to smelt iron until I've seen more evidence than the whim of some afrocentrist who has control over the affirmative action university of washington and decided to slip in 1 false sentence amongst the truth and hope no one notices.
Your argument is still a semantical one. I have basically pointed out the same thing about the "eurocentric" (chuckle) account of history. But at least I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. You're not really here to learn anything- you just want your world view to win. I can provide less "afrocentric" (chuckle) evidence if you like:
You didn't even click the links, did you? Listen, there's skeptical and then there's refusal of fact. And yes these are the facts.
If you have a problem with history then maybe you take it up with the historian or the colleges themselves! We could here all year! How much more proof do you need? Do I literally have to fly you to Africa? Are you waiting for some great white God to drop out of the sky and nod his head in approval? Why are you even here? You're not interested in the truth, clearly.
It pains me run across people like you because all you have to do write "Stone Houses, African Civilization" into google and you will return with a wealth of information. How can you say something isn't true when you obviously haven't even bothered to look at *once* piece of evidence?
"Gullible redneck" isn't a character that we run arcoss in discussion on African Civilization. We usually run across redneck like you- who won't acknowledge the truth no matter how much credible evidence is presented before them.
Name:
anti-chan2006-02-05 17:25
Now just answer the questions:
Now this evidence begs many questions. Are these all lies? Am I supposed trust wikipedia or colleges? Again am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? Just answer the question.
If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect needed for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their environment mattered then, if it doesn't matter *now*? Why would skin color make a difference?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 18:33
618 GET
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 19:09
619GET
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 21:28
Anti-chan's debate style has changed a lot through this debate. I think he's asking one of his college professors for help.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 21:32
>>620
It used to be emotional overstating of the facts, as well as dumbass strawmen (such as asserting that debaters felt bad when they found out africans did this and that), now it's handing out tons of links. Yes, I believe someone is sharing their bookmark collection with him.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 21:48
>>617
"Now this evidence begs many questions. Are these all lies? Am I supposed trust wikipedia or colleges? Again am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? Just answer the question."
Well, I bet we could find plenty of URLs from .edu domains to support what was written on wikipedia, for sure. But you also have to admit that a LOT of stuff in academia is treated as fact based on the emotions of the scientists. For example, researchers have found very compelling evidence that cro-magnons didn't interbreed with neanderthals, but in fact, in many cases, ate them. They've found evidence that they were more distantly related to each other then each of them was related to chimpanzees. In many textbooks now they outright decry that evidence as "discredited" (without specifying what, if anything, discredits it) because they for some reason want to believe that humans and neanderthals merged. They set up taboos on the subject, and now, any reference to cannibalism with regard to neanderthals is for many people swept under the rug, and anyone who wants to pursue this avenue of thought may find it very difficult to get funding.
But this doesn't have the emotional impact on the general populace that the subject of this debate does. So, therefore, the media is able to broadcast specials detailing these scientists' (I forget their names at the moment) findings without backlash from the general public. The general public has no reason to care what turns out to be true or not, so they just watch it and take what they want to from it.
However, you know what would happen if someone put out a special showing that under the same conditions, raised in similar families in similar towns (anti-chan stop acting like this is an unfair way to lay things out, you're just destroying your argument) certain groups of people turn out different ways (they can do this study now, I'm sure that there are enough black babies and ashkenazi jew babies adopted into white WASP homes to do a study on this with a large enough sample to come to a conclusion). That's right, they're be shuned out of ever working in anything academic or cimematic ever again, their documentary would be destroyed, their data burned, and they would sued back to burning hell for defamation and discrimination, and would be called ignorant regardless of whether their shit was true or not.
You think that the world is rewriting history to ostracize blacks, when really that couldn't be farther from the truth.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 21:54
>>622
In other words, no, I don't have any reason to trust colleges more than wikipedia.
Bullshit. All you have to do is exactly as I said: type "Stone Houses, African Civilization" into google. Type "Sub Haharan African Civilizations" into google as well. You guys are the ones that applied some silly little assumption about my personality to me. My debating style hasn't changed in the slightest. But why should you believe me? You haven't listen or tried to believe anything I've said from the beginning.
If you can find those links, then you should've used them before. Better yet, get them out now. Though what good will anything other than definitive proof that those college links are wrong we do for your argument is beyond me. Whatever you grab still won't debunk my proof in the slightest. It would be a repeat of what was said in wikipedia.
As for the cannibalism/neanderthals thing...honestly: Who cares? Right now it seems like saying Africa did something before anybody else is the bigger or more prevailant tabboo as it shatters old beliefs and charactactures (yes, I said it) of Africans and their history. Similar to how we eventually found out that Columbus didn't discover American and that the earth wasn't flat. These are facts and you aren't going to dash them to the fucking rocks by using every white supremist's old stand-by "Affrimative action." The idea that these facts alone, in their most absolute and purest form are "Afrocentric" is something you're applying to have a negative connotation. Is that thinly vieled bigotry- or are you just afriad to admit to yourself that you didn't know as much as you thought? It can only be one or the other.
As for the rest...again I have to say: So what? This still doesn't go about debunking one of my facts. The very notion that you could do such a study and arrive at a certain result is the very thrust of my argument. The information derived from such a study would be co-realative [i]at best.[/b] Sure, you could do that study----Say that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically smarter than the whole damn world for all I care. But don't make the whole study out to mean something that it doesn't. The study itself wouldn't apply a complete methodology as to why those results occurred. That approach would be similar to how the Bell Curve guy went about their reasearch. It's like: "Ok, we'll just ignore environmental factors and put this out saying it's truth"
*laugh* The term: Truthiness comes to mind.
And I don't think "the world" is doing anything. I think it's a similar situation to what we had about the earth being flat and the universe rotating around. You've got a group of people who want to enforce and continue long held traditions of belief that science and methodology have proven to be false. If all of this was truly wrong- you'd have more to throw back at me then claims of Afrocentricity and claims of Affrimative action.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 0:01 (sage)
I have been attacked with ad hominems by you and the opposition since the beginning.
On the contrary. You lashed out at everyone, even those who made posts without a single attack in them. What do you think the result of that behaviour was?
There have been several attempts in the thread to engage in something resembling civil discouver, but you verbally blugeoned them until they tired and left.
I never attacked until provoked. So you either prove what you say is true, or this is an ad hominem in and of itself.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 2:09
>>469 onwards, for example. Compare what you and your target were saying. Other than a couple trolls sniping from the peanut gallery, you were the only person swearing.
Furthermore, I don't see anyone before >>468 who writes quite like that. A few posts come close, but none were that "cold" (I can't think of a better word).
But let's assume they really were one of the people insulting you, I do not see how that excuses your behavior after >>468, when they posted in a decent fashion.
So all of this is subjective? Because I can write well and the others fail...I'm the worse of the bunch? And you're right it is 4chan, but if you go back to the beginning and onwards it's clear that I treat others the way they treated me: With contempt.
But how this voids any of the facts I've presented here is still in question.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 4:57 (sage)
Being hyperaggressive is writing well? You sure have a good opinion of yourself.
Yeah, it doesn't void anything you said, but nobody sane wants to debate you either. If you like arguing with idiots, you found a fine way to ensure it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 5:21
Again "hyperaggressive" is subjective solely based on the words used. You can't get upset because my well honed prose likens to a nuclear powered missle sword that shoots lazers. And theirs is the equivalent of a rat turd on a stick.
Of course my insults are going to seem hyperagressive in that light.
...but they still started it. ;P
If you're going to censure one person, censure all of 'em, I say. But whatever. My argument still wins.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 8:38
>>634
Especially when you change it about four times.
Anyway, if you would have thought about it long enough, you'd have gotten my point with the whole neanderthal thing. It shows that people will deny that data even exists based on their own emotion, and that this happens a whole lot in academia where everyone is supposedly professional thinkers. If you'd noticed, all your links were from lecture notes for classes ON african civilization, so they'd of course have a vested interest in pointing out the virtures of african civilization... I mean, it's what you took the class for, right?
And why you won't even answer a fucking hypothetical is beyond me. When you respond to a question posed solely for the sake of argument, and one that exists in happy fairy land where environment can really be exactly the same, and eliminates all other factors with your "THAT CAN'T REALLY HAPPEN" it seems very obtuse. It's a thought experiment, and if you'd really believed it you'd answer in the affirmative. Another way out for you would be to say that yes, there would be marginal differences, but not enough to in any way affect their ability to produce and contribute to society. Both of those would save your argument. But you didn't do that, and I really can't figure out why.
My argument hasn't changed. If you think it has: Provide proof. And please...do give us specifics. :)
Neanderthal's are not homosapien. Therefore: Irrelevant rubbish. But regarding your point: Yeah, people will deny data exists based on their own emotion. I know this because you're doing it right now.
I've never *seen* a white guy create the first combustion engine or the first *anything*, but until I find contensious data/empirical evidence that states otherwise...I give it the benefit of the doubt.
Until you can bring something to the debate that at the very leastdirectly contends with what I've said then you're doing nothing but hanging onto a lofty dream-like concept of the truth. Click the links. *Look* at the pictures. *Read* the words. I know you haven't even looked because you refer to them as "lectures". Haha...OOOOooookkkk...the information is presented there in the same way it would be presented on wikipedia.
By the way?
State University's v.s wikipedia: State uni's win. Once you get to college maybe you'll understand that they just don't throw whatever they want up into the curriculum. It's peer reviewed.
Yale is an educational institution.
Wikipedia is the 4chan.org of online encyclopedias.
As for your last bit, I already told you why, baby bird. Did you not read >>580? Did you just ignore it and hope I wouldn't remember that I answered this question already? I can repost it if you want, but I'd rather treat you with some semblance of dignity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 11:01
>>636
Wikipedia is peer reviewed. It still doesn't change the fact that they can say anything they want to if they want to. Plus anyone who disagrees with them is labelled a racist or an ignoramous or whatever.
How obtuse that you mention that neanderthals aren't homosapien... Did I ever even imply that neanderthals themselves had anything to do with this debate? NO. I was using their situation to illustrate a point, that universities aren't exactly the great bastion of truth in our society.
And most of the links you posted that weren't just "look at the pictures we took of this beautiful site!" were lecture notes, dude. I don't consider pictures particularly relevant to this discusssion. Sure, there are ruins there, but we don't know anything about them, and they had no written language and there exists no reliable account of what happened.
And no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that the hittites of the mesopotamian area were the first people to use iron almost 1500 years before any of the information you've presented. Here's a link since you seem to hold .edu shit in such high regard:
They were working with iron, had a written language, and all that shit millinea before the information presented in your dumbass "iron age of africa" link.
All your arguments are failure wrapped up in hype. And all this "oh you're not in college like I am! LOLXORS" shows your fucking immaturity, as well as labels you as being a certain age (why you don't realize that is beyond me). Fucking grow up, damn. You should really read http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1138390786/
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 11:24
and dude, >>580 was a miserable attempt at building a strawman, and did more to weaken your stance than anything else. Because, up until now, you've said that nature can not account for everything that's happening to a certain minority, when in >>580 you just made it sound like you almost believe that nature IS playing a role.
Now, lets add this all up; african society was never all that great in comparison with anything the indo-europeans (caucasoids, the type that exist between india and the nordic countries) or asians came up with, and many of the things that HAVE been attributed to them have been shown to be outright lies or misleading hype (reference hittite iron working). Only twice did pure negroids (I can already see you're going to start in with the whole LOLXORS HOW DO YOU DEFINE A RACE!!!! thing right now) ever come up with a written language on their own, and this was only around the year 0AD in west africa, when written languages were already commonplace.
And then you have during colonial times. Why were african civilizations so easy to destroy and subjugate? Europe had dealt with constant invaders on it's own territory, yet still they were able to get their shit together and GO CONQUER SOMEONE ELSE.
Now in america and africa proper, you can see the trend continuing. While most other enslaved races (the mexicans, the chinese) managed to get their shit together and give whitey a run for his money, the ignorant ass niggers haven't done anything.
I'm not saying the trend is unbreakable, and that niggers are useless sacks of flesh destined for the scrap bin, but culture and nature are constantly reinforcing each other.
BTW, who on a college campus nowadays calls someone something so faggotry as "baby bird" and doesn't expect get an ass whooping for it? :P
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 11:26
My argument hasn't changed. If you think it has: Provide proof. And please...do give us specifics. :)
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS RACE ring a bell?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 11:26
Honestly I'm tired of this debate. sage it back to hell.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 11:27 (sage)
I forgot to sage. Damn. Oh well, seeing as it's already at the top it doesn't make any difference.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 11:28 (sage)
World4Ch needs an auto-sage feature for debates that drag on for too damn long.
If the "you'll just label me afrocentric!" stance is a strawman...then the "you'll just label me a racist/idiot" stance is a strawman. Apparently one without a brain seeing as how you said that then went onto you use the word "nigger" a million times in the next fucking post! Guess what? All that shit you said at the end of >>638? Makes you a racist.
The Hittites: So. What? Have you seen the wikipedia article on these guys? :D There's so much contraversy over who they were or if they even existed that it's almost a moot point. However, what drives it over the edge the fact that: This argument was never about who first discovered iron in the first place.
You said Sub-Saharan Africans didn't have a civilization on par with others: You were wrong. You said Sub-Saharan Africans didn't invent stone buildings or metal tools or contribute to anything: You were wrong.
So Africa got colonialized? So did Europe, Syria, China, Japan, nearly everywhere at some point. Who knows why civilizations fail? Why did the Hittites fail? Gee, you'd think with that 1500 hundred year head start they specifically would've been more dominant. Instead they've been reduced to a near-myth.
African Colonization was a modern colonization, a complete purging of history and culture and it only ended quite literally under 30 years ago!, blacks have had civil rights for around 50 years! It took Japan a good 200 years to get their shit together and took China even longer than that. (China *still* doesn't have it's shit together if you ask me)
In the end it's a single question: What biological proof to you have that any civilization failed because of genetics or lack of intelligence? Where's the proof that Africa's was?
Your arguments has been nothing more than these grand gestures of denial, edging dangerously close to a white supremist slant. Either you use scientific methodology to arrive an assertion or you don't. Educated people know this and if you don't think education makes a difference- then you are uneducated.
I'm not gonna take maturity lessons from a guy that values wikipedia over educational institutions and runs around calling people niggers from the safety of the internets. And people on "college campus" don't "hand out ass whoopings" for calling someone a baby bird. (that's high school shit)
Face it: You *are* a baby bird. There *is* alot of shit you obviously don't understand about human culture and society and how when you take even one step back; there's this creepy almost surreal common thread running through humanity as a whole. Same symbols, similar creation stories and imagery. Some history written, some oral. I just feel bad that you're probably going to spend so much time with your up your ass that you'll never realize it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 19:34
FUCK DIEDIEDIE WHOCARES GODAMIT
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 21:06
>>643
Are you going to provide evidence to back up your statements or not? Where did that guy who said africans had blast furnaces for making steel in the 14th century BC get his facts?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 21:41
646GET
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 0:40
>>645
But the first blast furnace was invented by the Han dynasty in 1st century BC china... Maybe you're thinking about the bloomery, which works at a much lower temperature and produces iron pure enough for steelcraft in much smaller amounts.
I'll answer that in a second- in this thread, mind you. But first I'd like you to simply respond to the frequently ignored questions I set before you. To be sure...the actual argument isn't about who developed iron first. Regardless of when, Sub-Sahara Africa did and did so independantly of other civilizations. Great Zimbabwe had stone buildings. There were Sub-Saharan Civilizations. This is fact. You said they didn't and there weren't. You were wrong.
I'm going to number these points and I'd like it if- for a change- you addressed them in turn.
1. Why did the Hittites's civilization fail? I ask you this despite the fact that the discussion portion of a wikipedia article on Hittites has determined they weren't cacausoid in the first place. But you'd think with that 1500 hundred year head start they specifically would've been more dominant, right? What happened?
2. African Colonization was a modern colonization, a complete purging of history and culture and it only ended quite literally under 30 years ago! Blacks have had civil rights for around 50 years! It took Japan a good 200 years to get their shit together (Fully modernized) and took China even longer than that. ----- I want to hear you acknowledge this, because you've habitually avoided the issue for several pages now.
3. What biological proof or hard evidence do you have that any civilization, particularly Sub-Saharan African civilization failed because of genetics or lack of intelligence?
4. Am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? I didn't ask you about scientists of today and their emotions. I asked you about colonization then, their emotions toward Africans and it's impact on African history and the perception of Ancient Africa now.
Why is it when it comes to this subject- there's a supposed vehement swell of emotion against "white eurocentrics" that makes the study "tabboo" and that is wrong...but it is not wrong to perpetuate this same swell of emtion towards "Afrocentrics"? What is the difference?
[Read these and answer them *before* you complain about the sources I'm about to share below- because *this* is the core of our argument. (Race/IQ)]
Also, do you mind me asking where did the guy that said the Hittites made iron first get his facts? How about you, "Han dynasty" guy? Where are the sources for anything that you've stated here? If you have sources, then by all means share:
---He goes into detail and then cites his sources:
This can be found in Herbert 1993 (description, explanation and interpretation), Childs and Killick 1993, pp.325-329 and de Barros 1997, pp.141-143 (both are concise summaries of present knowledge and ideas).
7. http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi385.htm
Shore, D., Steel-Making in Ancient Africa. Blacks in Science, Ancient and Modern (I. Van Sertima, ed.) New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1983, pp.157-162.
Need anymore proof? If you've actually looked at every link you'll find the evidence is quite contrary to what you say and most of the links here aren't "Afrocentric". If you want more evidence- or if you're refering to something I'm supposed to have access to via the internet; then please specify.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 1:59
>>647
African bloomeries were just termite mounds under which a fire had been started, and would be stoked by blowing into the base. Rather ingenious use of what's available in nature, but demonstrates no real understanding of metalwork. Plus the steel created in this fashion was of much lower quality than steel produced in a blast furnace, it was little better than iron.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 2:18
Anti-chan is gay.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 2:35
Screw this debate. Fine; maybe blacks could have done something awesome with their civilization if things turned out differently. But really, I don't care; I look at them living in the most advanced society the world has known and squandering their opportunities. If you're going to keep saying that it's all the white man's fault that africans are in the gutter, then fine. I'll accept that responsibility (though not any financial restitution for it).
The future belongs to whoever is going to claim it. If Africa is going to be the next society to take the modern world by storm ala China, then so be it. But right now all I see is a bunch of violence and constant backsliding which no other society even in ancient times ever had to deal with. (even russia is a better place to live now than africa, and their upset was arguably a magnitude of times worse than what africa went through).
But it that's all nurture as you say it is, then fine. You can't prove it by splitting hairs with the past. The future is stretched out before them, as finally the white man is relenting (of which you are a testament to). Lets just see how things turn out.
Why did you not address the questions, I laid out? That's automatical fail to start. Guess some people let their emotion take over no matter how much they hypocritical point out the same thing in others.
And I'm not white.
I'll post them one by one, if it helps:
Here's the first:
1. Why did the Hittites's civilization fail? I ask you this despite the fact that the discussion portion of a wikipedia article on Hittites has determined they weren't cacausoid in the first place. But you'd think with that 1500 hundred year head start they specifically would've been more dominant, right? What happened?
Steel is steel. Also where is your proof that it was low quality? Oh right. You have none. Per usual.
3. What biological proof or hard evidence do you have that any civilization, particularly Sub-Saharan African civilization failed because of genetics or lack of intelligence?
Name:
anti-chan2006-02-07 4:36
4. Am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? I didn't ask you about scientists of today and their emotions. I asked you about colonization then, their emotions toward Africans and it's impact on African history and the perception of Ancient Africa now.
Why is it when it comes to this subject- there's a supposed vehement swell of emotion against "white eurocentrics" that makes the study "tabboo" and that is wrong...but it is not wrong to perpetuate this same swell of emtion towards "Afrocentrics"? What is the difference?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 8:46
>>654
Am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history?
>>652
Because I was ceding the debate. Learn to understand context. You're obviously a very well-researched individual, but I don't have time to keep up this debate. You are thick headed at some points, though I admit I too got caught up in the competition of it and forgot to keep my head clear.
This is where I get off. Laters.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 15:02
"Steel is steel. Also where is your proof that it was low quality? Oh right. You have none. Per usual."
Dumbest thing I've ever heard. Though it's funny how crazy it gets when you ask for something simple like evidence and then claims any evidence it doesn't like is all fabricated. Just like cops who were chasing OJ down the highway to the airport planted a disguise, tickets to rio and $5000 dollars or whatever and how this wasn't mentionned in court.
anti-chan: lol blacks invented steel
anonymous: it says here they did it 800 years before they enterred the iron age, where's your proof
anti-chan IT SAYS .EDU AT END OF WEBSITE EVIL RACIST!!
anonymous: no, there is just 1 sentence mentionning it in some corner of a university website where anyone could go on and slip in a sentence like that without gettting much criticism, considerring current afrocentrism and people like you I wouldn't be suprised if it were a lie. Evidence pls.
anti-chan: AM I SUPPOSED TO TRUST NAZIS WHO SAY ARABS INVENTED IRON FIRST IN NORTHERN TURKEY IN THE 12TH CENTURY BC AND NAZIS WHO SAY THAT BLACKS DIDN'T INVENT IRON IN 14TH CENTURY BC??? YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT BLACKS DIDN'T INVENT STEEL!!
In other words: You fail. You didn't answer any of my questions. I showed you the evidence. No response? Don't you have evidence of the hittites and all that?
You need to refer to: >>648 - I provided evidence. Non-"Afrocentric" evidence at that. It's just you're so emotionally attached to the subject that you will never believe any of the facts persented. I suspect with your overuse of the word: "Nigger", that you're a racist or at the very least "eurocentric". Why is it wrong to point that out if it's clearly true?
And Like I said: If it's wrong or unfair for me to point that out then why is it wrong or "Afrocentric" to prove the misinterpetations and characterizations of Ancient Africa wrong? Or to at least show that whites of the latter half of the 18th and early 19th century wouldn't have had African history's best interests at heart?
You say in >>655 that I'm supposed to trust a nazi with with jewish history, therefore I should trust eurocentric historians who haven't even done their research; nor lived among African peoples and share a history of subjegation to the people...so tell me this: Why? Why should I?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 21:53
If whites are so interested in putting themselves above all other races, why do they usually put asians above themselves?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 21:57
You say in >>655 that I'm supposed to trust a nazi with with jewish history,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I was being sarcastic lol
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-07 21:59
Back in that time period, a lot of whitewashing did take place. But we've gotten back the arabic side of what was removed... Why haven't we gotten back the african side?
That's just it, though. They don't. How many American-Asian politians, CEOs, etc...do we have in America? Ah, right- virtually none. The psuedo science crowd always use asians as a fall back. It's like: The "I'm not a racist" default sitting. Well: I like asians, so...nyeh!
Remember the Japanese internment camps? Gooks, Nips, Slanty eye. These are term invented by whites. And Guess what? Just because because you *supposedly* set asians above, doesn't prevent whites from setting *themselves* above other races- blacks, arabs, indians, latinos- etc.
The idea setting *any* race above any other is the racism and implies a racial hierarchy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-08 10:27
>>662
If they're going to pseudo-science up everything, why don't they set themselves on top? As an elaborate ploy to undermine blacks and hispanics?
>>662
There aren't that many asians in america besides.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-08 10:31
>>662
BTW, you seem to have a problem separating real scientists from racists. Even if they privately hold those views, you have to find a way to discredit their research (that wikipedia article is one of the best most .edu reference ordained articles on wikipedia, which has constantly withstood people like you trying to undermine it) without ad hominem. But I guess it's just easier to call them Nazis and ignore them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-08 11:51
This thread sucks, people should think of changing things that are actually changeable... in 50 years, people will be genetically altered and no one will be stupid anymore!
Fuck if I know. The point I'm making is that white still consider themselves above Asians. You can keep asking this question all you want but: The idea setting *any* race above any other is the racism and implies a racial hierarchy.
No, I don't. Like you said people will deny facts in front of their face for emotional reasons- this applies to scientist as well. This is what you don't get. I just sat here and proved the opposition wrong. Do I get: "You're right, I never saw it liket hat"? No: I get "You're a very well researched individual, baby bored now! Baby wanna play! BIX NOOD!"
And my questions have STILL gone unanswered. Should I post them again for effect?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 13:40 (sage)
>>667
Just because you win an argument doesn't make you right. It means you selected your information well and brought it to the table. This wasn't a battle between whites and blacks; it was you refuting a specific post. Which you did a pretty good job of, I'll admit.
I thought someone like you would know that in an argument the point isn't to change someone else's view, but really, to win. To, hopefully, sway those who haven't decided yet over to your cause. I on the other hand have no reason to believe that anything you posted reflected anything other than a worldview that tries its hardest to deny genetic implications for moral reasons.
I've really lost interest, and you just can't seem to comprehend that you won. You should be breakin' it down and dancing in the street because you won an internet argument with a highschool kid with nothing but a passing interest in the subject while you're obviously (taken from the context about what you said in your posts) a person in college with a whole lot of interest in it (as well as a powerful reason to be interested in it), as well as a whole lot of rescources to help you.
I know you're very emotional right now. As soon as I realized who you were I kind of got sick myself; up until a few posts ago I thought you were a skinny hippie liberal white guy. Now that I know that you're not, well, it changes the debate. I was in it for a rousing competition (not saying I don't agree with the genetics to intelligence to success in life thing) while your reasons were very different.
Later.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 13:43 (sage)
>>668
Basically, what I'm saying is that I really don't want to argue with you because of what winning the argument would do. I'd have to concede some points that I held onto for the sake of competition, but I'm closer to that than you think.
I'm not doing it because I don't hate you. Feel free to hate me, you have that right.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 14:41
age
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 19:05
I on the other hand have no reason to believe that anything you posted reflected anything other than a worldview that tries its hardest to deny genetic implications for moral reasons.
On the contrary, you have every reason to *not* believe that because I made it clear that g (IQ) is a reflection of genetics AND environment. If you think that one has greater impact than the other, then you are just simply wrong. Nothing moral or emotional about it really.
But Alright, I'll let it go.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 22:24
neegeroos are mostly idiot-morons.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-11 10:26
>>672
Mostly, which is why we need eugenics! The alternatives are equality and racism.
Equality = dumbasses getting into university and wasting money and the human race generally degrading as the IQ 70s churn out babies.
Racism = Führer Fritag every day of the week..
Eugenics is racism and only the answer if you don't believe nuture holds any sway over IQ. Which, we all know is impossible.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-11 12:36
>>674
Nurture and nature play a role. Einstein had less opportunities than the children of German nobility, yet he was still a genius.
Yes, I'm complimenting a jew at the expense of rich people and I am a eugenicist, therefore I am not a nazi or an evil capitalist or a racist (my parents are from Bangladesh). That leaves you without personal attacks as a form of debate and only the facts to deal with, so either agree with me or fuck off.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-11 17:11
>>675
?Einsteins brain actually had some strange formations in it.
You're an idiot and a racist. If your definition of equality actually existed, there would be a whole lot more white redneck trailer trash idiots in college. You didn't think of that, though, did you? All you had in mind were those dumb fucking niggers.
Just because you're from Bangladesh doesn't void you from racist or facist ideals. The only way to make eugenics work is to through totalitarian and facist means. The government has no business controlling the reproduction organs of the society at large. There are no "facts" to debate here, just ideals. And yours are wrong.
You're fool, btw. Me destroying your shitty ideas with supported facts is winning the *correctness* of the arguement in the first place. It does make me right and makes you 100% wrong.
I wasn't interested in this subject no mmore than the usual person until the racist psuedo science started spreading all over the internets. It doesn't take anyone with any amount of genius to google the information I presented here.
You're just not smart.
Be happy, because im your futuristic eugenics utopia that would mean people like you would be castrated for the benefits of people like me. Now me? I'm a mixture of many races: Asian, African, South Asian. If you met me you would consider me to be a black person with really pretty eyes, yet never the less: inferior because of "black genes".
I know blacks that are on par with my perceived intelligence because they studied. This is why I must assume that you believe more in the perception of blacks and not the actual facts- which is why your scientific dogma is oftern referred to as just as that: insubstanciated dogma steeped in racism and facsism.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-12 9:33 (sage)
Man, this thread just keeps getting more fagged up.
Here's a summary: ur dumb
no! u r!
nu-uh! u!
yeah well ur a fag
u 2!
So, in other words, your black genes wouldn't even harm you.
Does this mean that all races should interbreed? Well, if it'd end the BS, and give humanity an overall boost, then whatever.
Also, while it's been shown that intelligence is correlatable across different races, it doesn't mean one race is overall more stupid than another. For example, while the average IQ of blacks may be say, ten points lower than that of white people, there are still blacks with IQ's that measure in the top one percentile, and not neccesarily at a very much lower rate than whites.
Intelligence is more heritable between members of the same family, really. Read this article, it's probably the best, most well-referenced (and with .edu references to boot) article on wikipedia, not even on just this one subject either.
Just read this stuff and think. While environment can indeed play a big role, the role of natural forces within individuals' brains is being proven more and more.
It really doesn't make you come to any of those conclusions you most fear at all. It makes you realize that all humans are more or less flawed, and that we must search out the best and the brightest regardless of race and what not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-13 1:23
Interesting.
Blacks are still ugly though. I would never interbreed with them.
The point I'm trying to make is that a "black genes" themselves don't control intelligence (intelligence being an abstract concept at best). Nor do they [race genes] "exist" in the way the psuedo science crowd wants them to exist. Having "black genes" is a matter of perception.
What if I were to say that I lied and that I am completely 100% black? If we had this argument face-to-face, you would assume to me 100% black. Your emotions and the emotions of people like you would overtake any logical approach to the argument. This is a fair assumption on my part because the very core of your argument is to say: "Stop looking at people as individuals." You base everything on unproven scientific dogma and the problem is you say to people: "Think.", yes, well...I've thought it over and there is no possible way that one has more control over intelligence than the other.
Just not possible. Even with all that we don't know about "g"- we still know that an intellect without nurture or nature is an incomplete one.
What I find must repulsive about your argument is your implied suggestion to immediately jump ahead to eugenics. We haven't even secured the proper nuture of intellect for all of human beings; even if we increase everyone's IQ to 130, it's not going to change anything. You're just going to have a bunch of smart people starving.
I really think you need to take a step back and really look at what your position is saying. And then ask yourself if all the problems of Africa and other third world country were a matter of genetic "g"- or *way* more obvious environmental factors.
At it's very basic it says: "If your parents were dumb, you will always be dumb and there is nothing you can do about it." And what is implied is: "Because nature is the only aspect that matters in intellect."
That's pure bollocks. My parents are retards compared to me- the difference is that I was pushed by them to be better than they were- to study harder than everyone else. So from my point of view- what's to stop me from saying that NURTURE is being proven more and more each day?
ANSWER: Science.
My suggestion is that my parents do actually have have a high intelligence gene set (particularly my BLACK father), but have had nowhere near the opportunities I've had for education. Until you come to grips that there is no way around the fundamentals of what we know to be true about human intellect, you're always going to lose out.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-13 3:27
>>The point I'm trying to make is that a "black genes" themselves don't control intelligence (intelligence being an abstract concept at best). Nor do they [race genes] "exist" in the way the psuedo science crowd wants them to exist. Having "black genes" is a matter of perception.
Er, not really… If we can find genetic factors for anything, then we can find genetic factors for intelligence. And if we can find that genes are common in certain populations, then it stands to reason that it’s possible that some of those genes may control intelliegence... to a degree. Intelligence still needs a nurturing environment, though you can't always make a genius out of a dummy.
>>What if I were to say that I lied and that I am completely 100% black? If we had this argument face-to-face, you would assume to me 100% black. Your emotions and the emotions of people like you would overtake any logical approach to the argument. This is a fair assumption on my part because the very core of your argument is to say: "Stop looking at people as individuals." You base everything on unproven scientific dogma and the problem is you say to people: "Think.", yes, well...I've thought it over and there is no possible way that one has more control over intelligence than the other.
You’re assuming that I’d have anything against you for being black. You’re the one who brought your own heritage into the argument, I was only pointing out that your black genes would not as a matter of fact be detrimental. And yes, it’s been proven in studies that yes, intelligence does exist independent of the nurture component. While it’s true that environment can mean the difference between the poor house and a CEO’s office, genes can as well.
>>Just not possible. Even with all that we don't know about "g"- we still know that an intellect without nurture or nature is an incomplete one.
We have a relatively complete picture of what it does, and that’s enough.
>>What I find must repulsive about your argument is your implied suggestion to immediately jump ahead to eugenics. We haven't even secured the proper nuture of intellect for all of human beings; even if we increase everyone's IQ to 130, it's not going to change anything. You're just going to have a bunch of smart people starving.
Er, not really. If everyone’s IQ was 130, they’d be farming, or leaving places where food just cant grow, and moving somewhere better. They’d be less likely to destroy society as they tried, and they’d be more likely to provide a better environment for their own children…
My own great grandfather (since we’re talking about our heritage here) was raised a poor ass white trash boy in Appalachia. He was in the middle of a family of four brothers and six sisters. He was never educated, he came down out of the mountains at the age of 16 to look for work after leaving the coal mines.
He taught himself to read and write, and started a small business supplying equipment to the local giant mining industries, and later, making cement. He bought a small tract of land and built a house there, and raised a big family himself (albeit at 30 with a 16 year old wife… he was a deviant, which may also explain some of the things he did). He sent his kids to school, even though he was highly suspicious of people who had to go to a big building to learn (his parents were very critical of “book learnin’” itself, and thought he was fricken crazy for wanting to learn to read instead of learning through just doing things). Though he never pushed his own kids through school, three of the four went on to college.
Why in the hell did he feel like doing all that, when all his brothers and sisters went on to become trash miners, whose descendents are probably festering in the trailer parks of Tennessee to this day? I think he made his decisions because he saw the long view of things, that it was indeed possible for him to rise, and become better than he was. He never really changed his societal caste, but he did make a lot of money, and thrust his descendents into the middle class later on in the 20th century.
His IQ was probably much less than it would have been if he’d been born into a family that valued education, but still, he was definitely wily and smart. He also had depression (which I inherited), and volatile mood swings.
I think that all this contributed to his willingness to go outside the norms of the culture at the time (or maybe to his complete obliviousness to it), and his intelligence made him able to use that to rise above.
Einstein had much less educational opportunity than German royalty, and yet he was still a genius. Why?
>> I really think you need to take a step back and really look at what your position is saying. And then ask yourself if all the problems of Africa and other third world country were a matter of genetic "g"- or *way* more obvious environmental factors.
Well, I believe it’s a combination of both. Culture is assuredly influenced by nature.
>>At it's very basic it says: "If your parents were dumb, you will always be dumb and there is nothing you can do about it." And what is implied is: "Because nature is the only aspect that matters in intellect."
Well, honestly, that’s to some extent true. There are some things you can do about it, for example, study hard, be persistent. But honestly, it’s true that many people may have very little control over their own destiny for this very reason. This is the point of eugenics; so that this quandary doesn’t happen anymore. It’s as good a solution as any.
>> That's pure bollocks. My parents are retards compared to me- the difference is that I was pushed by them to be better than they were- to study harder than everyone else. So from my point of view- what's to stop me from saying that NURTURE is being proven more and more each day?
Why did they push you so hard, instead of telling you to blame everything on whitey like so many black families I’ve seen? It’s really tragic, and admittedly a case where nurture really does play a huge role.
>> My suggestion is that my parents do actually have have a high intelligence gene set (particularly my BLACK father), but have had nowhere near the opportunities I've had for education. Until you come to grips that there is no way around the fundamentals of what we know to be true about human intellect, you're always going to lose out.
That may be true, but as the link I posted earlier showed, naturally dumb people often throw away their opportunities, maybe without even knowing it. We don’t know why this is. Maybe it takes a good deal of introspection to be able to see the long view of things, that possibly it’s much better to concern yourself with building your own life, planning for the future, rather than trying to just take it when you need it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-13 5:57
We have a relatively complete picture of what it does, and that’s enough.
This is once again, where youth and uneducation play a role. No, we don't have a "relatively complete picture" it's more like I said: An abstract. And no, evidenced by this thread, it's very obvious that what we have now is not enough. It isn't the mission of science to stop asking questions and stop using methodology. This is something you keep trying to skirt around.
Einstein had much less educational opportunity than German royalty, and yet he was still a genius. Why?
I'm not answering that until you tell me why the Hittites civilization failed. They were smarter, discovered iron and steel first...where are they? Getting sick of you answering none of my questions and then expecting me to answer yours. I'm not answering any more of your "pointed questions" until you address >>648. Other than that, let's keep it down to raw statements.
Also: The grandfather story is sweet, but doesn't account for the numerical value of his IQ- which I think it's pretty safe to say was in the same ballpark range of his family. (Low) Another gaping hole in your argument that you pretend doesn't exist: "Poverty often effects intelligence *IN GENERAL*." It's rare that Poverty makes one more intelligent than his family- this is proof that leaps in IQ occur on the individual level. Further more you have ZERO PROOF that his decision to leave was genetic or my parents decision to push me were genetic. Maybe it was something in his environment that changed his mind. Are you seeing a pattern here? You're making co-relations without proof. That's not methodology and that's not science.
Why did they push you so hard, instead of telling you to blame everything on whitey like so many black families I’ve seen?
You obviously haven't seen enough. You're white, so you're allowed the ignoranace. The "Blame whitey" langauge doesn't leave a minority's thought process with an increase in IQ. Depending on who you talk to in the high IQ range of minorites it might actually intensify.
It is common fact that whites have a history of unminding others' cultures and branding people inferior without any proof. The entire colonization of Africa was built on the concept that they were genetically inferior- remember this was before a time of IQ tests. You think the problem with black people is that ALL of them are blaming whitey for everything. I'm sure some of them are, a vast majority of them though...eh not anymore than a poor white bum would "blame whitey". There are other factors involved. Factors that you continously ignore because they break down your world view.
naturally dumb people often throw away their opportunities, maybe without even knowing it. We don’t know why this is. Maybe it takes a good deal of introspection to be able to see the long view of things, that possibly it’s much better to concern yourself with building your own life, planning for the future, rather than trying to just take it when you need it.
But none of this really corelates to intelligence does it? I'd like some proof that this is so. This "longview" doesn't guarantee one a job as a quantam enginneer. I want to see proof that (A) these people are irreversibly stupid on a genetic level and (B) that the decisions that they make are because of genetics.
"Just look at them!" or "Just think about it!" isn't methodology, it isn't science and this is why your argument is referred to as the "psuedo science."
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-13 10:27
err, OK. First, how g-factor relates to later success in life. Link:
And on the nature vs nurture thing, yes, I realize that we can't say for sure that his decision to leave was genetic, but he was always the "smart one" in his family, and that link I provided showed that early IQ is indicative of future success, even among members of the same family. I can't conclusively rule out something in the water, or air, or something somebody said to him one day, but then again, you can't conclusively rule out genetics.
And honestly, I believe that yes, something probably did happen to change his mind, his outlook. But he had that capacity, that ability to build to back it up. This is what's linked to g-factor intelligence, which contrary to what you seem to have come to think is actually a pretty well-proven phenomenon. Listening to your story, your parents are very much unlike many of the poor people I've known in the past (I did a lot of volunteer work in my more bleeding-heart days). Most people either didn't care that they were poor, or believed that it was impossible to get out of because someone in power was blocking them from getting ahead. Most of the time, when talking with them, it arose out of a misunderstanding of how society works. They always believed someone was witholding something from them that was theirs, for example, welfare. They thought they had a right to it, not realizing that it was charity. Often times, they will have been passed up for promotions at work, and they'll be unable to comprhend that their superiors might not see them as exactly reliable, and instead blamed it on the fact that they were not well liked, or whatever else they could think of. See the way someone's apprehension of a situation might affect their overall view of it? Many of them told their children that the world was hostile, and would try to bring them down at every opportunity, thought of education as a waste... I've read stories though, about people, even believing things like this managed to rise above it, used it to get ahead. Their parents' resignation to poverty became their own driving force. BTW, most of these people were white, so don't get me wrong.
BTW, that story wasn't so sweet. I know it might have on skimming come across as a propaganda piece, but if you read carefully, you'd know that my great grandfather was an insane person, and well, an asshole. I probably wouldn't have gotten along with him.
Where I said blacks blame whitey, yes, I can agree that that notion doesn't neccesarily disappear with an increase in IQ, what I meant was when they use whitey as an excuse not to amount to anything. I really should have made that clear, and I apologize. I'm really using this point to show how one can overcome cultural influence with the ability to think rationally and make clear decisions. You seem to think I'm cutting you or your race out here, saying that there's no place for you or your people in the future. I'm not.
The hitties, I think, failed because of pressures from the nearby assyrian empire, an altogether more aggressive and powerful empire, though I could be wrong. I THINK that the assyrians had iron at that time as well, but my specialty isn't history, and this is outside the scope of any argument I'm making.
I don't believe a high intelligence actually controls someone's future; this is another place where I'm being misinterpreted. I think that you'll agree with me that a high intelligence, no matter how you believe it is given rise, allows someone the ability to control their future, while low intelligence can easily be said to control someone's future regardless of what they want.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-13 10:46
BTW, I should say also that I believe that it's possible for an environment to completely undercut an individual who would otherwise excel. I don't believe all socio-economic differences are justified.
So, you don't know your grandfather's IQ? Maybe you should find out, you know, compare it to the rest of the family's.
All I can say to the rest of this is that no matter what you may think, or the impression the "scientific community" has given you- we do not know enough about intelligence to implement eugenics as a solution to the percieved problem of "lower IQ" (note the quotations) in human beings. Eugenics requires a totalitarian and fascist government/society to work properly. Those two ideas alone seem to run hand in hand with an under-educated and uninformed populace. You need to study more on intelligence and stop reducing individuals down to generals. It just doesn't work.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-14 11:24
>>697
I don't know his IQ but there were signs early on that he was smart.
Actually, eugenics could be done without any government intervention; almost all parents would want their own kids to be as smart as possible, so that they could succeed.
And I don't know where you're getting this whole IQ as an abstract. The study of IQ is fairly rigorous.
The people who are destroying the economy at large, are white. Come on guys, all non-whites (Espeically blacks) are supposed to be "inferior" right? Well, how can such an "inferior thing" reek such havoc? All the control is in the hands of white people.
The financial systems, the privization of other countries natural resources, a two party system that's looking more and more like a familial monarchy of the richest aristocrats in the world...
That's all white people. Why are "niggers" to blame for a system that systematically creates "niggers". (Of all races).
How is it possible that you do not understand that you are apart of what makes a person "a nigger". You are a part of the negative social evironment blacks often have to deal with. You say that "racism doesn't exist" when you're so obviously RACIST.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-01 18:57
I think niggers should go back on the banana boat
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-01 20:00
>>708
Thank god the world isn't in the hands of negroes. Considerring their crime rates we'd be at world war 8 by now. Thank god white people exist to create the democracies and technology that make your life worthwhile. Sure they're not perfect, but at least the world isn't like Africa!
More like DEpressed. Humanity is becoming a fucking joke.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 8:49
>>607
Actually the only cavemen in existence were white.this was how they transformed into the full fledged whiteman.They werer the cavemen,not blacks.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 8:55
>>709
I think white men should go back to the cold caves of europe from which they were genetically altered.you are so stupid.You are Sub-saharan african whether you like it or not.Negroids are believed to be the first race in existence.If you dont like that then like this:negroid race was in existence before caucasian,which I know you are judging by your stupid comment.I will even go as far as saying I know you are white,and most likely American.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 9:30
Hey, it's a proven fact; black people, outside the ghettos are good for the economy. Who else will buy cell phones, cars, and rap music at almost double the rate that whites will pay for them?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 9:35
>>715
Uh, why does that matter? We all came from apes too, so what?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 9:49
>>703
You are inferior.You can't even spell niggers right,yet I know you love using it on a daily basis among friends,so I think you might be the dumb inferior one.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 10:15
>>718
It was intentional and facetious. God damn, you stupid. You a nigger?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 10:15
>>719
I would guess you could figure out who on this forum is the nigger based on how seriously they take it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 11:13
>>718
How the hell would you know what I do among friends? My friends are all fairly liberal, and would be shocked to hear the word nigger in public, as would I.
You have to be really stupid to use that word in public, and even dumber to think the way most overt racists do. They hate black people and they don't know why. They also hate jews, asians, mexicans, sand-niggers(sorry, internet facetism, I don't hate sand-niggers, just their religion. christianity too.), gays, etc etc etc which is dumb. Hate is stupid.
But frustration at the way current society is set up, in which you can't admit to the facts without being branded a racist is different. This isn't billy-bob ranting about how niggers are destroying the country. It's me, with scientific journals in my hand, admitting to this ugly little human secret, which nobody else will.
There is the ignorance of believing something stupid, yeah. But there's also ignorance in ignoring something, too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 11:37 (sage)
>>716
That is sort of like saying that Death Valley in August, outside of the places where it's hot and dry, is really good for outdoor ice-skating.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 13:21
>>716
I mean, they only have a negative effect in the ghettos. Their own homes, I mean. The only effect whitey ever sees from them is the money that pours in whenever a stupid ass nigger gets some. They waste all their damn money. That's why they po' and stupid.
Clutch to those journals all you want. There are literally hundreds of others with very conclusive counter-arguements. When you ignore mountains of evidence and voids of data that cancel out your world view and start screaming "nigger, nigger, nigger" you become hate-filled Billy-Bob.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 23:34
>>724
Okay, point out these articles. If there are hundreds of them, it shouldn't be hard to dig up some references from a few respected scientific journals.
Also, while I >>724, wasn't the one who made the >>718 comment- I would like to point something out.
You've come on here with misinformed, subjective and emotional arguments. Your ignorance of past civilizations has been more than overstated. Your addiction to the word "nigger" has been noted.
And to top it all off, you expect to be treated the same way you refuse to treat others: As an individual.
Why should I treat you as a individual when you deny that to others? What makes you different from any other bigot or racist that refuses to address reason? What makes you different from other whites (or any race) who implies a genocide for people who *you* deem as "niggers"? Why shouldn't I lump in you with the other ignorant racist "GENEOLOGISTS" (LOL!)?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 4:00
>>726
Point them out? Most the articles are irrelevant (zebrafish) or plain idiotic (WTF, Rolling Stones?).
The only scientific article I saw was the ones about twins. It doesn't seem to support your position. There's also a collection by some woman, but it doesn't seem to support your position either.
Maybe I'm blind. Point out the links and I'll go read.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 4:48
>>728
Well.after reading from 703 to here,728,if you are 703,why dont you have a responce to 727,or would you rather omit that one.After reading your posts,I cannot disagree with you more,and I am caucasian.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 4:56
>>728
I think 726 means the large number of http links through out the entire thread from 1 to me 730.If you dont know they are the underlined phrases within post.
BTW, it's fucking annoying having to defend my posts from people who can't write. FYI, there are spaces after most punctuation; that includes commas and periods.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 5:14
>>731
its the internet,not writing email to a friend or with a pen on paper.Many people on the internet use short hand typing if u will.Noone has time 2 always use quotation marks.This post is becoming really entertaining btw.Keep up the good work.lol
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 7:45 (sage)
>>732
In other news, you're a total fucking retard.
How are you elementary-school buddies on IM doing? lol u tak em 2 da bar|?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 10:02
>>727
Stop with the strawmen. You haven't even tried to understand our argument. All you do is assign us motivations out of the blue and use them to call us ignorant.
Wikipedia's IQ and race article is a very well referenced and researched article, maintained by a few of the pre-eminent experts in the field, as is the article on g theory (the one absolute measure of intelligence that crosses cultural boundaries, try this on for size: http//www.p/... Scientific American, maintained by the university of toronto of all places). The body of evidence that IQ is not only genetic, but that it can determine someone's likeliness to succeed is huge.
Once again, think of it this way;(i'm not the person who made this point originally) a smart person has the ability to choose his or her future, to be a pauper or a doctor, while a stupid person is destined for poverty no matter what he or she may want. Or would you just rather live in fairy-land, and stop human progress? (BTW, eugenics would not be a government controlled endeavor, like Nazism... It'd most likely come about in an evolutionary way, as parents choose genes for their children that will make them most likely to succeed. This includes intelligence. There'd probably be quite a few restrictions put in place on that too, but that's really the realm of speculation)
Your argument is steeped in ignorance and subjective statements that don't make sense. First you said Sub-Saharans didn't have civilization, then you changed it to "Great civilization", then that was proven false. Then you asked why they didn't "get their shit together".
Well, it turns out those Hittites of your discovered metal and a whole bunch of other stuff before the rest of world and they failed. You don't have a race-related answer for that, do you? Of course not, because you percieve whites as a most intelligent so even when their civilizations seem on the brink of destruction, they are given the benefit of the doubt because they are white.
How is that not racism?
Nevermind the fact that I know your ideals can only lead to a facsist and totalitarian society.
These aren't strawmen.
These are the very root of your argument because you made your point singling out a group of people instead of talking about the human race as a whole. When you throw out ignorant bollocks like: "Blacks are naturally dumb and always have been." It's like you're ignoring what we know about nature, nuture and IQ.
Nurture can effect genetics. This is why this argument is so moot.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 18:27
Nurture can effect genetics.
I'm not >>734, and I don't want to get involved, but please be careful what you say. Nurture doesn't affect genes. Genes also place limits on what can be done; you cannot turn a drooling retard into a doctor, no matter how hard you try (you can make a person who has the potential to be a genius a retard though).
>>735
They had some sort of civilisation in Nigeria in 1000 AD, but this was well over 5000 years after the rest of the world became civilised. This only goes to back up the range of intelligence everyone has been proving over and over, that Negroes are capable rather than intelligent. You have never proven that Africa has had a great civilisation.
Once again compared to Civilisations with less technology or in poor environments no african civilisation has excelled. Compared to the Mongols or the Incas african civilisations are frankly pathetic. The only reason they are defined as civilisation is due to their light use of organised agriculture and trade with astronomically superior civilisations.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 22:41
>>736
Since your parents have your genes, nature influence nurture strongly also.
So Nature influence nurture and nurture influences nothing. We don't have the technology to change every single set of dna in a person's body yet.
But I wouldn't say that nurture influences nothing. If you take a person whose parents were both genius, and locked said person in a room since birth, they'll never amount to much.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-04 2:18
>>735
Interesting how you have no real response to the information at hand. Guess now that I cleared one branch of the argument, you have to retreat into another portion of it.
Maybe Africans had some civilization, but I don't know that much about history. (anyone with more information on it?) All I know is that for some strange reason, all the civilizations that had any effect on the rest of the world up until the current era have not been black african. For some weird reason they seem to radiate from the middle east, a predominantly caucasian area. Maybe it's because we won history, and therefore we have the authority to control it, but I'm not so sure. Last I checked, supremacist crackers don't identify with middle easterners (sand niggers).
Also, the hittites failed because the assyrians conquered them. The Assyrians were an even greater empire than the hittites, and they had copied their metal working skill by this time. Things are incredibly random. But one thing is not random; intelligence separated us from all the other animals, enabled us to inhabit every ecological niche on the planet. Is it not conceivable that intelligence can make a difference on a more minor level?
Also, I don't have any ideals. The only, THE ONLY thing I'm saying is that intelligence can make a difference. You have yet to show how such a line of thinking has anything to do with totalitarianism(except in science fiction), unless you mean the totalitarianism of our own genes.
(BTW, in case you're too incredibly stupid to realize it, all my usage of racial epithets is facetious. Don't start using it to assign me motives)
BTW, I'd like to congratulate >>739 >>738 >>736
for turning this thread into interesting discussion.
Umm.Oprah Winfrey,(richest black woman in the world)
Colin Powell,just to name a few.black and some of the most accomplished,sucessful people in the world.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-04 5:11
>>737 Sub Saharan,civilization?As far as I know sub saharan only refers to a region (area)of africa.
Let me put it this way: Environment effects genes "generally" not on the individual level. If you halt a whole "race's" progress and make everyone of them- "High IQ genes" or not- uneducated slaves...you're going to get some effects.
We don't know everything about intellect, but what we *do* know is that Intellect isn't static, it isn't fixed. Also: How can you say with any certainty that the people of the civilizations YOU *SUBJECTIVELY* deem as "superior" had collectively high IQs?
I also, would like you to respond to what I've been saying about haplotypes- you seem unable to understand that there is no biological basis for "race" Why?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-04 20:30
Intellect is the ability to learn things.Environment can affect genes,but this is over many,many centuries.Adaptation.This is why there are different races,in order to survive in the kind of environment,the mental and physical features had to evolve.e.g.If your food source is scattered far and wide across the country plains,you develop differently from people whos food is closer and more readily available.Say longer legs as the generations go on to aid long migrations.This is only the tip of the iceberg.If you had to live in cold weather,you got really hairy and so on.Within recent generations,environment affects only mental and physical development.Think of if you live in a household with fat people who hate school and are uneducated.Chances are you would be fat and uneducated just as they are.If you live in a household with active fit people who stress the importance of education,chances are you will be also.People just choose there own path in life mostly influenced by surroundings.Basicaly,anyone can achieve whta they set their mind to reguardless of race.
P.S. I am not 740.I am 734
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-04 20:36
sorry.Its 747 again.I had to correct my post above.I am not 734,I am 741.I looked at linke number quote instead of large bold number on side.Just to clear it up,cause I don't want to be associated with the views of 734.TY
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-05 21:08
>> Let me put it this way: Environment effects genes "generally" not on the individual level. If you halt a whole "race's" progress and make everyone of them- "High IQ genes" or not- uneducated slaves...you're going to get some effects.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. As far as I can tell you're claiming that people are breeding intelligence out of the gene pool of other groups by keeping them uneducated? That's not how natural selection works. Natural selection occurs when those with genes more suited to survival are able to reproduce. Under the scenario you described, evolution would just halt, and the "IQ-Genes" would neither increase or decrease, because intelligence will have become inconsequential to an individual's survival.
>>Also: How can you say with any certainty that the people of the civilizations YOU *SUBJECTIVELY* deem as "superior" had collectively high IQs?
Nothing subjective about it. Those civilizations had far ranging cultural effects that have lasted to this day, while african civilizations, with similar starting populations, and similar (if not better) envrionments, never did all that much. Middle east for example, left to us the number system and religion that we still use (I'm not religious, just saying). They were bigger and stronger. It's undeniable.
>>We don't know everything about intellect, but what we *do* know is that Intellect isn't static, it isn't fixed.
This isn't about intellect. Intellect is someone's ability to quote famous literature or to discuss current events. Intelligence is something else entirely.
>>I also, would like you to respond to what I've been saying about haplotypes- you seem unable to understand that there is no biological basis for "race" Why?
I don't know why you keep dragging this one out. You seem to be taking someone else's line and repeating it without really understanding what it means. Race is a way for humanity to tell the difference between different groups of people. They use this to tell you that "race" doesn't exist. But race is what it is; a way of describing characteristics inherited from one generation to the next. And those characteristics are influenced by genes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-05 22:21
>>747
Wrong, environment and genes. As shown by how Africa is a paradise, yet their civilisation has left less remains than the technologically less advanced Aztecs and has had less of an impact than the Mongols, who had their own written language and their share of monuments far surpassing any African achievements. If we were all equal Africa would be the center of the world and not the middle east, China or Europe. Unless of course you are one of these afrocentrics who believes that Africa ruled the world in pre-history but evil whitey destroyed all evidence of this.
People can achieve what they set their mind to, what they can achieve and how likely they are to attempt to do so are determinned by genes. Einstein was a dyslexic jew, according to you he should have an IQ of 85. According to me, he was genetically superior and had an IQ over 140 and he had the sense to pursue physics due to his gift.
Please admit you are wrong, this is getting silly now. You have been completely crushed in debate. No one is asking you to say "I am inferior.". Just accept the truth and move on.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-05 23:09
>>750
The whole world was africa back at one time.Do you think egyptians looked white like some of them today.Its not about africa,its about the race of negroids,which ancient egyptians were proven to be.Stop looking for a civilization with the word african in it and start looking at great civilizations in which the peoples primary race,were African.The reason why egyptians look the way they do today is only because of european settlers breeding with the population over the course of many years.How the world and its inhabitants are today,is nothing like how it was centuries ago.People migrated and joined different ethnic and racial groups after new technology enabled them to do so.All those pyramids were built by negroids.God,if you can't admit that egyptians were negro,then your fooling yourself.All they did was started a village on uncharted African land in which they chose a leader,which then developed into a huge civilization.We (Whiteman) have re written history to suit ourselves.I personally dont care who is superrior.I know there are dumb and very smart people in every race.We are not considered more intelligent than mongoloids who btw kicked our ass royaly in vietnam with much less troops and no choppers.You do know that America lost the vietnam war don't you?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-05 23:31
>>750
Exactly. Besides (this is 749 BTW) it makes much more sense to pursue things on the individual level. To not worry about the fate of states and countries and cultures and start worrying about what YOU are going to do. MAybe it'll be painful to forget the myth you nursed yourself on that "your people" had great civilizations etc... You are basically human, and according to the posts you've made here, you're smart enough to make something of it. Stop sifting through the ashes of your pulvurized misery and start worrying about the future.
"Do you think egyptians looked white like some of them today."
"its about the race of negroids,which ancient egyptians were proven to be"
They don't look white, they look arab and they have been for 1000s of years. The genetic evidence suggest this aswell as the statues and paintings of red skinned typical hamitic peoples, Egyptian art distinguishes between themselves and their neighbours clearly showing them to have the same red skin colour as other people in the fertile crescent and showing the black skin of their southern neighbours.
"The reason why egyptians look the way they do today is only because of european settlers breeding with the population over the course of many years."
"People migrated and joined different ethnic and racial groups after new technology enabled them to do so."
Why do you need technology to travel up and down the Nile? The Nile is a calm river not a desert and you don't need to build ocean going ships to travel on it..
The Nile flood plains were (the nile is dammed now) one of the most densely populated region of the planet and has been since agriculture first began and before then it was a very lush environment for hunter gatherers. Since you are stupid, I will point out that dense populations can produce a lot of food in the same place so they are better off being stationary and do not migrate as they do not have to and being densely populated can easily defend against anyone who tries to shift them. There is no evidence of any major migration other than that of the Kushite invasion from the south that marked the end of Egypt's status as a superpower. There was no point when the Nile was inaccesible and then was accesible allowing negroes to wuickly travel north and inhabit Egypt. It has always been accesible and has always had a stationary arab population with immigrants only coming in from other arab populated regions.
"God,if you can't admit that egyptians were negro,then your fooling yourself."
If you can't accept what is very legitimate criticism, you are the fool.
"All they did was started a village on uncharted African land in which they chose a leader,which then developed into a huge civilization."
No they didn't..
"We (Whiteman) have re written history to suit ourselves."
Who said I was white? Last I heard Egyptian universities were not inhabitted by white nazis and skinheads, but by arab Muslims. Maybe you can show me evidence to suggest they are in fact nazis and were all wearing disguises.
"I know there are dumb and very smart people in every race."
So it seems.
"We are not considered more intelligent than mongoloids who btw kicked our ass royaly in vietnam with much less troops and no choppers."
Actually they had more troops, they were armed by Russian and Chinese imports and it cost the lives of 20 vietcong and nva to put 1 US serviceman in a body bag. Though I agree, I never said americans were the master race. You are right, you are being a fag.
Time to admit you are wrong. Come on, put pride aside and embrace humility for a change.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-06 4:26
>>750
I dont know who you think i am but my only posts here are 741,747,748 and of course this one.I am not the one who started this debate.I just discovered this place couple days ago,saw it was free to post so I shared my view.If I am wrong then tell me why.You are the first one who answered my post directly.This seems like a heated discussion among some of you.I wont even respond.I am no longer involved in this racist bickering.Don't asume cause someone responds to your post that its whoever your feuding with.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-06 5:00
>>1
Ever heard of Vancouver canada?The finest asians I believe in the world.Petite,nice compact asses,smooth,thick legs and beautiful facial features.I would say good looking Asians population in Vancouver is 65%.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-06 15:46
>>753
O SNAP. I predict that no one will answer any of your points with anything more substantive than "ZOMG DAT BEEZ RACISMS U R TEH NAZIS!!!!11one"
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-06 21:06
Thread Locked
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 0:07
My anus has been abused so much that shit freely falls out of it.I will be walking around and with no warning, a turd shall drop onto the floor.Did I mention I don't wear pants or anything either?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 1:01
>>747
Uhhh.... You don't understand natural selection.
Natural selection occurs when individuals who aren't fit to survive in a certain environment get killed or otherwise rendered unable to reproduce in greater numbers than those who are more fit. Thus, the hairier people in the cold weather suffer fewer bouts with the flu, or the people with longer legs in sudan are able to move farther and gather more food than their short legged bretheryn.
It isn't some magical force that suddenly takes effect because someone lives in a shitty house or a mansion.
In fact, it isn't even happening anymore, because even the most unfit individuals (those born with birth defects or whatever else you can imagine) can survive, and even reproduce. I won't say it's "dirtying the gene pool" or any racist shit like that, because the gene pool itself was pretty well-off from the start. But the fact remains that the gene pool ISN'T CHANGING.
This is different from nurture though, this only represents built-in capability. Nurture can make the difference between a retard and a genious, but genes still have a built-in limiting factor. If someone has the wrong genes, their IQ can be limited forever to say, 110, no matter how much he studies or is fed good proteins and omega-3's as a kid. On the other hand, some people seem to naturally gravitate to the upward part of the IQ scale, no matter how mediocre or even bad their upbringing was. They have actually found genetic correlations for this.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 1:09
I won't say it's "dirtying the gene pool"
This is a tangent (and has little to do this thread), but:
The incidence of defects per individual is probably rising. After all, people who would have died in the past now survive and procreate. The best and brightest often are too busy being successful, while the more questionable characters reproduce like rabbits. This is no doubt causing a (very slow?) shift.
[blockquote]As far as I can tell you're claiming that people are breeding intelligence out of the gene pool of other groups by keeping them uneducated? That's not how natural selection works.[/blockquote]
I understand that's not how natural selection works, but we're not talking about natural selection. We're talking about a genetic selectiveness for such things as intelligence, culture, etc- done by other human beings.
[blockquote] Nothing subjective about it. Those civilizations had far ranging cultural effects that have lasted to this day, while african civilizations, with similar starting populations, and similar (if not better) envrionments, never did all that much. Middle east for example, left to us the number system and religion that we still use (I'm not religious, just saying). They were bigger and stronger. It's undeniable.[/blockquote]
I quoted this whole mess because it's the underlying thesis to your argument and it's fundamentally wrong. The view of what is an "important" contribution is entirely subjective. Neverminding the fact, that the most important contributions were by NO MEANS "original" or "groundbreaking", the idea that all the "best civilizations" had the highest "genetic" IQs is wrong and until you can find evidence of such a thing your argument is moot. You do understand the difference between co-relative theory and scientific methodology, don't you?
[blockquote]This isn't about intellect. Intellect is someone's ability to quote famous literature or to discuss current events. Intelligence is something else entirely.[/blockquote]
Cut the semantical nit-picking. You know what the fuck I meant.
[blockquote]I don't know why you keep dragging this one out. You seem to be taking someone else's line and repeating it without really understanding what it means. Race is a way for humanity to tell the difference between different groups of people. They use this to tell you that "race" doesn't exist. But race is what it is; a way of describing characteristics inherited from one generation to the next. And those characteristics are influenced by genes.[/blockquote]
I keep dragging it out because your responses generally fail to counter what I'm saying. No race = no genetic relation between IQ and race. You can dice people up into many categories from a wide range of biological groupings other than skin color- are you going to make a "race" out of people with red hair? Are you going to make a "race" out of people with big tits or cleft chins? Such is the concept of "race".
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 20:32
HAI GUYS, LET GO 1000 BY NGET!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 20:32
763GET
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-07 21:03
Jesus Christ.Whites are better at certain thing,especially academic,but we have slower reaction times and aren't as coordinated as blacks.Thats why we can't dance or catch a beat as well.Just end this.Whites = academic,
BLACKS = ATHLETIC AND CREATIVITY.Sheesh.
>>19
Seriously, we all know asians are the superior race. It's a scientific fact. 4chan is proof you white boys are jealous.
>>30
HIV came from San Francisco man. It's supposedly a failed attempt by the government to wipe out the homosexuals or something. Either that or some guy had sex with some primape that was caring the primape strain of HIV. fucking /b/tards.
If evolution is a gradual selection of gene combinations that eventually forms a life form that is well adapted to survive in it's suroundings, then de-evelution must be the lack of selecting gene combinations and there for the life forms that result are maladapted to their environment.
That's all the patience I have for this topic.
so in conclusion,
HURRAY FOR ANONYMOUS!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 3:23
>>767
Wasn't trying to offend.We just seem to do better in school, (academics).More whites graduate than blacks,but because we get better grades on average does not mean we are necessarily smarter in every aspect cause I have black friends who I am not ashamed to say are smarter and quicker than me on certain points and vice versa.I believe that our environment and upbringing plays a major role in what we achieve.Of course you can't have the genes of a retard or near retardation.My black friends has told me some very unfortunate trails and tribulations they had to undergo growing up,suffice to say I do not envy them and glad my upbringing had the white picket fence.This is one aspect that lots of whites don't understand,lots of us just have a one sided view and forgot or try to forget the oppression effects of slavery which actualy prevented them from reading books and getting educated while also segregating them to the most run down resourceless parts of the country.
Although I do remember reading something long time ago about the ice ages and fertille cresent from which came evolved people who were caucasian, mongoloids and black hair black eyed fair skin people (possibly italian like).These peoples skull cavities are said to be bigger and thus possibly more intelligent.Though in nature it seems that animals or species of animals with the biggest brains are not automaticaly more intelligent because of this.You will have to google it yourself.
I just can't type well and don't take my time.thats just it though,you don't have 2 b the best in spelling for you to be intelligent or run a billion dollar company.Thats just book sense.
There have been several groups of homosapiens that have had larger brains, neanderthals being a prime one. There was one group of massive doods that we wiped out a million years ago or so. They were bigger than our predecesors and had larger brains. They were, however, idiots. The brain was big but so were early computers, it took a bit of organisation to make it what it is today.
Humanity has barely changed in the past 100,000 years, if not longer. While there are small genetic defects that pop up (such as being white), sexual selection is a very different thing to overall intelligence. Differences in looks add up to very minor genetic differences, yet don't effect intelligence. However, it will make them more appealing or less appealing, more likely to reproduce, etc.
But the human mind hasn't changed much. There hasn't been much of a reason for evolution to work greatly in ones favour or another. Africa has had it's empires, it's brilliant people through history. Just like good ol' whitey manages to be a complete moron at times. But you treat an entire group of people like crap, subhumam even, and watch what happens to a culture. That's what's happened globally, whether African slaves in the US or Europeans deciding that they knew best and completely ruining things that were working pretty well.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 4:44
>>771 I just can't type well and don't take my time. you don't have 2 b the best in spelling for you to be intelligent or run a billion dollar company.
Those two do not go together. If you're not willing to take a few seconds to ensure you present your ideas well, you're going to be complete roadkill in the competitive world of business.
Is I cared to write a fucking proposal I can god dammit.I hate typing.As long as u know what the fuck I am talking about thats what matters.Spelling mistakes is for your fucking secretary to figure out after she types your fucking draft.Stop being a nip picking asshole.You know what I am trying to say.I am American but don't think english is my fisrt language.I right better english than most Americans anyway.Don't bother reading it if it bothers u.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-08 7:08
>>774
You have to be middle age to see the writing on the wall? Wow, I'd better age right quick; I must be too smart for my age! Get out of the basement, mama's boy.
>>775
You're never going to have a secretary. You'll be serving fries. Who knows, maybe that secretary will be sucking intelligent black cock instead.
This doesn't prove what you're saying as true. What you percieve as "genetic race" is defined socially first and biologically second. It doesn't exist. Then there's the fact that you have no proof that so-called "great civilizations" has the highest IQs on average for the entire human race. NONE. Zero proof.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-09 22:48
>>784
Uhh... What? That link had nothing to do with race. It was about how evolution is still happening.
Right, exactly. But you're trying to make a co-relation between the two- are you not? Basically you're trying to say that whites and asians are somehow "more evolved" than other races?
>>787
So racism in the past was enslaving and murderring people because of their race and racism now is "cultural aggression" or anyone who disagrees with you. I fail to see how freedom of speech is a crime let alone as serious as murder.
Perhaps you can explain. The article didn't.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-10 14:33
>>784
Average IQ of England = 100
Average IQ of China = 105
Average IQ of Zambia = 65
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-10 14:39
>>789
Average IQ is 100 as it is only measured per country.
That's not proof, buddy. I'm assume these are westernized IQ test, correct? I'm assuming you have a source for those numbers as well, correct? Making conjectures about IQ NOW does account for a period of time when there were no IQ test.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-10 20:06
>>766
Can't dance? wtf planet are you on? We can do everything better than those jiggaboos except seizure, which is EXACTLY WHAT BREAK DANCING IS, a controlled seizure.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-10 21:08
China isn't westernized. They simply translated the test into Chinese and that was the score. China is still largely a 2nd world nation, like the US during the great depression. An unskilled labourer would be expected to work 10 hour days 6 days a week for £2000-£4000 a year. The reasons for China's high IQ relative to more nourished western nations appear to be it's racial and cultural homogenity in which parents play a larger role in education and children are less likely to be run down by bullying or vicious parents who bore them out of wedlock which frequently occur in framgented immoral multi-cultural multi-racial societies aswell as the slightly higher brain mass of the mongoloid race. I am not ignorant and don't say everything is due to genetic factors, I have acknowledged the environmental factors aswell.
Hong Kong (PRC) 107 Russia 96 Fiji 84
South Korea 106 Slovakia 96 Iran 84
Japan 105 Uruguay 96 Marshall Islands 84
Taiwan (ROC) 104 Portugal 95 Puerto Rico (US) 84
Singapore 103 Slovenia 95 Egypt 83
Austria 102 Israel 94 India 81
Germany 102 Romania 94 Ecuador 80
Italy 102 Bulgaria 93 Guatemala 79
Netherlands 102 Ireland 93 Barbados 78
Sweden 101 Greece 92 Nepal 78
Switzerland 101 Malaysia 92 Qatar 78
Belgium 100 Thailand 91 Zambia 77
China (PRC) 100 Croatia 90 Congo-Brazzaville 73
New Zealand 100 Peru 90 Uganda 73
United Kingdom 100 Turkey 90 Jamaica 72
Hungary 99 Indonesia 89 Kenya 72
Poland 99 Suriname 89 South Africa 72
Australia 98 Colombia 89 Sudan 72
Denmark 98 Brazil 87 Tanzania 72
France 98 Iraq 87 Ghana 71
Norway 98 Mexico 87 Nigeria 67
United States 98 Samoa 87 Guinea 66
Canada 97 Tonga 87 Zimbabwe 66
Czech Republic 97 Lebanon 86 Congo-Kinshasa 65
Finland 97 Philippines 86 Sierra Leone 64
Spain 97 Cuba 85 Ethiopia 63
Argentina 96 Morocco 85 Equatorial Guinea 59
As long as whites are solely in control of the majority of the world's wealth and financial systems and as long as status is asscioated with their skin color and the anglo west keep successfully exporting their culture to other regions- all the "whites are being invaded!!!" bollocks is going to sound fairly delusional.
But I suspect because of YOUR race and YOUR "identity" you will not under any circumstances accept the fact that the world is naturally pulling away from everything being controlled by one skin tone of people as a means of progression for all of humankind. Your "mult-culti conspiracies" and prophecies of a race war that you assume will have a white victor are entirely bunk.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 8:48
>>798
And the asians don't control a significant portion of that wealth?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 9:16
-----------
As long as whites are solely in control of the majority of the world's wealth and financial systems and as long as status is asscioated with their skin color and the anglo west keep successfully exporting their culture to other regions- all the "whites are being invaded!!!" bollocks is going to sound fairly delusional.
But I suspect because of YOUR race and YOUR "identity" you will not under any circumstances accept the fact that the world is naturally pulling away from everything being controlled by one skin tone of people as a means of progression for all of humankind. Your "mult-culti conspiracies" and prophecies of a race war that you assume will have a white victor are entirely bunk.
----------
Your response sounds pretty delusional to me; you do
bring up some good issues indirectly.
First a little sarcasm.
Yes, you know what, white people are a skin color. Chinese
are a skin color. Japanese is a skin color. Mongoloid
is a skin color. Hottentot is a skin color.
Wait.... White the skin color doesn't refer to white the race!
Ingenious!
Don't try mixing up race with skin color. If you want,
we could simply call 'whites' Aryans. Some 'Aryans' have
darker or ruddier skin. Japanese could be paler than 'Aryans'
in general. Who knows? Never studied their phenotype extensively.
Oh, and white people don't rule this world. This has been
the hubris of white people for a long time, thinking that they're a bunch of all-powerful saints. They all want to
look good and play out being Jesus. It's a bunch of hypocrisy.
They think they know better than the little savages and will
bring happiness and wisdom to all non-Aryans.
That's part of this little allusion that non-Aryans are the
same as Aryans, that there is no difference between an Aryan
and a non-Aryan. It's the desperate cry for cosmopolitanism
that says 'these people are just us like us inside; they just
look different!' Theeaaayyy CAANN BE AAASAAAVVEEEDDDEH! They desperately need to think that they can mold anybody into their
image, no matter what, because they're 'right.'
They are so desperately involved in wanting to be saints that they ignore the normal and sometimes dirty duties of keeping their own people alive and healthy, of preserving anything they hold dear.
White people aren't responsible for this entire planet, we shouldn't be, and the ones that want us to be should be shot.
And any parasitic non-Aryans that are 'white' but not 'Aryan' should be hanged.
We are responsible for ourselves and that's the
way it should be. Get off our back; we're not on yours
no matter what your delusion is. Black on white crime is several
times that of white on black crime. We've got enough problems
to worry about without every other pariah blaming his or her
worries on us when we're just doing our best to survive, except
for the nutzoids that want to buy into crackpot guilt or
saint theories.
As for people waking up from the saint 'whitey' fantasy, I'm all for it. Oh, and I hope that the whole world is never under the control of one race. I hope each race has control over their own affairs. Nobody's more qualified to take care of your family
than your family, and only an idiot would entrust that responsibility to somebody else.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 9:18
Black on white crime is several times that of white on black crime.
No, that's just what gets reported. White on black crime also consists of exploitation, con-artistry, ETC... none of which ever gets shown in the majority of society's statistics.
Whites are commiting just as many crimes on blacks as blacks are on whites. It's just the way society calculates it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 9:20
>>801
That's BS. If you're white, come on now, how many family members do you have who have ever commited a crime that they could get arrested for? Come on now.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 9:20
>>802
That's just the thing. The kind of crimes that w hites could commit aren't exactly arrestable in our country.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 9:22
None. My family is Christian. I'm not, but my mom and my dad would beat the shit out of anybody that even considered it and disown
them. They can be real scary sometimes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 9:25
Invisible uncalculable crimes vs. arrestable
calculable crimes!
Evil Whitey! Kill Whitey!
Sorry, did you forget to take your medicine today?
We all know about what Dr. Freund told you about seeing
invisible crimes today and using them as justifications for
arguments today...
>>804
That's exactly the problem with black culture. You get more respect coming out of jail than you do out of college. If you're getting out of prison, it means you survived the white man's onslaught. If you are out of college, it means that you're trying to rise above them, to become better than them, and it makes them jealous.
Your delusion is deep seeded. What I'm saying is that there is no "you", there is only "us". And for the longest time the mentality had been: "Me, my race, my people."- even if (for whatever reason) you think race is such a big deal that it warrants who much effort and thought on your behalf- it is STILL an outdated and retrogressive form of thought. Obivously- for us to become "post human" we're going to have go beyond the way we normally see ourselves.
There are no benefits to staying within a race, breeding within one race and doing everything under the sun to make sure your skin color is NUMBER ONE. Biologically, socially and culturally. That kind of thing only matter if you're eventually planning to wipe all non-whites off the face of the earth.
And in reality, all this "Aryan" nonsense is a bunch of fluff for the perception of "being white". You don't know what's aryan or what's not, who the "real white people" are or aren't. It's a game people play because they feel like they do not belong and can't relate to themselves as individuals.
White nationalist keep piping off the "Black on white crime" bullshit, while at the same ignoring everything that led to that statistic. I've never understood that. You're able to define the problem- but not able to acknowledge the mechanism for that problem?
The answer: "Niggers is niggers" only works on people who didn't graduate high school. The notion of protecting one race instead of acknowledging the kindred in all of human is no longer acceptable. It isn't moral, it isn't ethical and it's only nessacary if you're re-building the third (or is it fourth?) reich.
What's most puzzling is that your sentiment comes from a place of isolation, feelings of being discriminated and prejudged by the rest of the world. Then you turn around and adopts ideals that have been proven to only lead to encouraging this feeling in others?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 10:18 (sage)
>>810
misunderstands the position of his opponents. They do not ignore what they perceive to be the mechanism at all. The fact that they believe the mechanism to be genetic strikes me as a bit wonky, but they aren't ignoring it--in fact it is the centerpiece of their arguments, such as they are.
LURK MOAR. You cannot refute their position unless you comprehend it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 11:02
>>811
So, basically, what you're saying is that it's ok that whitey took the land from the native americans?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 11:14
The reason why white people are so hated and why so many white people hate their own race is because they go so carried away with it in the past two centuries or so, imposing their will on others, basically showing a will to power. Then, when the moral enlightenment comes up, guess who's at the center of all past atrocities?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 11:24
There wasn't any one aboriginal tribe. You're talking as though
there was a unified nation here. You are talking as though
there was a unified people here. You're also talking as though 'to the victors go the guilt' rather than 'to the victors go the spoils.'
The Chinese should feel guilty for waging war. The Chinese should feel guilty for waging war. Arabic tribes in a war with another tribe should feel guilty for waging war on another tribe and winning. Muslims should feel guilty for taking over nations by conquest, and then slaughtering all the non-believers in a 'righteous' blood-bath. Blacks should feel guilty for raping and killing what's left of South Africa.
White guilt-tripping doesn't work here. I'm just trying to survive and trying to put a mantle of white-hatred on me isn't going to work.
The majority of North America was unoccupied. How can you take
the land from them when there wasn't anybody there?
As for the land we did take by war or trade, that's tough apples. Aboriginals are still around, and they have their own
reservations. We've been nice conquerers.
Did you know about, what was it, the spirit cave man? Apparently over here in North America, the first settlers were European a long, long time ago. The aboriginals killed all these proto-Europeans out, to the very last woman and child. Complete genocide.
So, where are the aboriginals now? The aboriginals have a reservation about 60 miles down the road and are goverment-subsidized.
We've allowed the aboriginals to keep their race and even to have a nation within our borders. The government, including me as I have to pay taxes, pays them money and gives them land rent-free/i.e. tax-free. We don't owe them anything, but white people are generally nice. Ambitious but nice.
Why don't you go pick on somebody that deserves it, and leave white people alone?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 11:29
>>811 Actually brings up a good point. If you accept that islam etc... are basically world domination schemes (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and that they are basically the prototype of this ideaology of bleaching everyone to be the same, does it not follow that thinking all humans are exactly the same and should all follow the same model a form of domination too?
I mean, should black people abandon their culture just because it's a non-racist thing to do? Many blacks would decry that. You can be for goddamned sure that the Japanese and Chinese would too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 11:34
>>814
You may be a racist son of a bitch, but you make a good point.
You're basically saying that we shouldn't believe that we're morally more evolved that the past? And that possibly, directing our efforts toward trying to create this moral shining utopia with equality for everyone might not be such a good idea?
For me, the jury is still out on the whether we should try to be moral or not. I honestly kind of believe that morals don't and can't apply on a national scale, in a way I agree with you.
But this us and them mentality is still a little bit much for me to absorb.
*bows* I used to be a cosmopolitan too, until I heard the counterarguments to it. You can have world peace and still have things like groups, friends/family/nation/race etc, but it's hard work and not as simple a task as making the world
one unified uni-idenity uni-race undiverse pot full of nothing specific.
The world is complicated and diverse, and so too are people and human society. My strategy is to embrace it, instead of rejecting it, and learn how to not only appreciate it but make it work for me.
You can work towards world-peace and the sharing/respect of cultures without having to destroy those cultures/peoples and their unique idenities, which are what ultimately make the world
interesting.
Also, another great thing in my opinion is that by allowing diversity of nations and races, you get unique takes on unique things. I mean, look at the awesome culture that the Japanese produce? Think of what we would have lost if we had forced the Japanese to interbreed with blacks/whites and destroyed all of their culture and their pride...
That was precisely my point, dummy. Any mechnanism that isn't "niggers r genetically dumb!" (which is honestly what all that fervor boils down to) isn't something they are prepared to discuss. Your post = desperate nitpicking.
You are asking yourself the wrong questions and most of it stems from paranoia/fear. Which is probably why you've got these queer notions of race and family- but I'll get to that in a sec.
First off, Alexander's empire fell because Alexander died. You can argue against "Cosmopolitanism" all you want. It's just a very small label for a bigger idea that I'm presenting. In any case, percieved failures of multi-culturalism (comsopolitian is YOUR word) ignore the fact that the strongest and best nations/religions in the world are/were, youuuu guessed it! Multi-Culti in nature. Multi-culturalism became a problem for those empires AFTER the *foundation* of those empires fell, not during and certainly not because of. Dealing with these problems is apart of progress.
And did you really just bring the illuminati into this thread? You put "WORLD DOMINATION" in all caps as if: (A) It's something people should fear and (B) as if your idealogy doesn't implictly imply the same thing under the guise of "white survival". Not only that- those "rich men" you speak of have one thing in common other than being rich- they're BLACK! Psyche! Obviously they're white and with them looking out for you- preserving what *they* believe to the status quo- where's all the paranoia coming from?
1. Race is family writ large.
Classic. You take what I said about your fear of individualism and the simple need to belong and you validate it completely. I really don't think I need to tell you that "race" isn't synomous with "family", do I? Obviously not everyone looks at race like you. And you do realize how subjective it is for you to say (blood related, I'm assuming) families are automatically a good thing? You mean absolutely, no matter the circumstance? Come on, now...what are you? <i>Twelve?</i> Are you Oliver Twist? Grow the fuck up.
Race is based on real genetic relations.
You can keep repeating this little piece of dogma all you want. I've proven that is simply not true. I don't know if you're the same guy I've been arguing with but there's a Haplotypes/Phenotypes post that refutes that claim soundly.
The rest of your arugment is childish drivel. Human is Human. Monkey is Monkey. You know the difference between the two because there is an obvious biological difference. This isn't the same thing as race- where you look at a skin color or facial features and you're able to identity what 'race' that person is. Definitions for race are purely social and were social long before we discovered DNA.
(cont...)
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 13:24
so i herd u like rhetorics
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 14:14
--------
It's been around since Alexander the great demanded that his soldiers interbreed with locals. He wanted to make a huge empire and he didn't want that silly race thing to get in the way.
--------
1. I was pointing out that cosmopolitanism is an old idea. Racial mixing is part of that old idea. You mix everybody into one group, get rid of all diversity, diverse culture and heredity (and the multiple/conflicting loyalties associated with them) so that everybody becomes loyal to one thing. You/your ideology/the state. (You mentioned the Illuminati, but I don't recall mentioning the Illuminati. I don't know much about
All I'm talking about is simple common sense. If you have a global corporation, you want to have the widest market. Ever heard of 'buy american?' Well, that's an enemy of international corporations getting into the market of another country. The Japanese buy Japanese products over American products. Duh, it's the same as brand loyalty, except its national loyalty. They support their nation/race by buying products made by their nation/race so that their nation/race gets the money. Duh.)
The problem with this is that you can't be tall and short at the same time. You can't have blonde hair and black hair at the same time. You can't have a Chinese face and an Aryan's face at the same time. The same goes to the genetic factors on things from personality to the different types of variation within intelligence.
Oh, and as for multiculturalism... Shouldn't people be free to live in a nation that is designed for their culture? The world has already got multiculturalism, but I don't see any reason why my sister should have to cover up her face because Muslims find that sort of risque behavior offensive. Not that I think that Muslims shouldn't be able to practice their own laws somewhere. So, they need their own nation. 'Multiculturalism' is basically trying to appease everyone, and that never works. Also, in the typical 'Multiculturalism' of the West, everybody has got a culture except for white people. Everybody is allowed to form communities except for white people. This is silly and bad for white people, and white people are recognizing this.
2. Family isn't an 'automatically good' thing for you, huh.. *_*
I feel sorry for you. For some reason you don't want people to have families... To have people that are supposed to take care of you, identify with you, and be loyal to you, not based on things that easily change like ideologies and likes/dislikes.
I know that family/race brings with it some responsibities, but I assure you that they are worth it.
You must be very lonely.
Did you ever join any groups during high-school? You probably need to get out more and meet some people. Believe me, you'll feel alot better and begin to understand how people are a social animal. It's quite fun to spend your time around people that you can get along with. Perhaps you wouldn't have so much repressed anger and hatred towards white people if you did. Go ahead, get some friends! You'll feel better, and you won't feel the impulse to go out and hate whitey anymore.
3.White survival implies world domination?
....
*_*
....
....
Chinese survival implies world domination?
Japanese survival implies world domination?
Black survival implies world domination?
Korean survival implies world domination?
....
...
*_*
...
I'll make this simple.
No, it doesn't.
4. You've had a bunch of people already argue against you with the dna thing. Ok, our dna is 99% like a chimp's, our dna correlates 99.5/9 percent with other humans. What's the difference in dna between us an a mammal? Small. What's the difference in dna between us and a chimp? Nothing really. Us and another human? Even smaller. Heck, tapeworms have pretty close dna as well, if I remember correctly.
A small change in dna creates a huge change in phenotype. If you don't believe this, look at chimp and a human.
Mammals have very close dna to us too. Some microorganisms as well. Hey, you know what? There are no human beings and no animals. Only microorganisms. Grouping microorganisms into larger beings is an outdated idea. Just like family and race. You haven't proven anything and you were soundly beaten on this front by other people. Read the whole thread if you haven't what they had to say yet.
Bone-mass, facial characteristics, brain size, skull shape, skin-color, fast-twitch vs slow-twich muscle in the extremities, estrogen and testosterone levels, hormone levels in general, age at which sexual maturity is reached, grey and white matter distribution .... These aren't biological characteristics?
There is a heart-disease medicine out there that is either on the market or being tested that lowers the risk of heart disease only in blacks. It doesn't work in asians or whites.
Also, there is a gene that is found in white people that, if a black person inherits it, then the black person has a HUGELY increased rate of heart disease. However, most whites have this gene and it has no ill-effects for them. It only causes problems within a black genetic super-structure.
My whole point was that you want me to be selective in where I turn on my brain. You want me to see the difference between species and breeds of species, BUT you don't want me to see the difference in breeds of humans.
Look, why are you so desperate to believe that all human beings are equal anyway? Why do you so desperately want to not recognize race? Come on, you're not an idiot. You've got eyes. You've got ears. And, you've got something in between those ears. Look at the differences yourself and put two and two together.
Oh, and of course race is social. Duh. Family is social too. Family is genetic, and family is social. As for people recognizing race.... Do you have any problems recognizing people that are related to you? Do you need to have a genetic test to see when somebody has eyes like you, or has the same awarenesses you do?
Here if you are confused about your race or something, why don't you get yourself tested?
>>819 isn't something they are prepared to discuss.
Read "The Bell Curve" and get back to us, k? Or, if that book is too thick and has too many big words and not enough cheerful colorful pictures, try:
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11(2) 235-294 (2005)
"THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY"
Science 297(5580) front cover (2002) b-catenin can regulate whether neural precursor cells proliferate or differentiate
Or if looking up reference material in referreed scholarly publications of record is too much effort for you, here is the information pre-chewed and pre-digested for you on the Web, ready for spoon-feeding:
>>822
Hey, cracker, stop grouping me in with your Aryan brothers.
I'm cro-magnon, 98%. I'm white european, sure, but I've got the rounded head etc... of a cro-magnon.
Basically, my race was in europe before the middle easterners came and took over. We were the aboriginals.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 20:56
>>827
Cracker?
They weren't negroid, their brain mass is the largest in the world, 10% larger than current europeans and negroes currently record with the lowest brain mass, too much of a distance to be a negrito sub-species. Clearly a sub-species that evolved seperately in the harsh ice age conditions competing with the neanderthals until their inferior negrito traits were bred out, like the mongoloids and caucasians. Even australian aborignes whom black racists love to claim are closer to primates than them are in fact more intelligent with a higher brain mass. Northern europeans have more cro-magnon haplotypes correlating in some areas with the aryan theory.
The rounded head you lie about is in fact a sloped skull cap which has not been rushed to accomodate a larger brain. Cro-magnon is named for it's large straight forehead which is pushed into that shape by adolescant brain growth when the cranial bones have not yet fused.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 21:04
i've been keeping up with this thread but this has gone phenomenally long.... so can some1 quickly sum up whats been discussed till this point?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 21:06
>>829
Your'e gay, you like to eat your brother's feces, you sell crack to aboriginees and your mother is a whore. Did I miss anything?
[center]Are you paranoid? Yes, in order to survive, the Chinese must wipe all non-Chinese off the planet. In order to survive, the Japanese must wipe all non-Japanese off the planet. You sure are unfair to white people. Do you have something against white people? I think you do.[/center]
This is where you and I part ways. There will never again be a point in history where any one "race" will be in such a position and never will others stand idle while entire groups of people are wiped off the planet in a bid for world domination and racial purity of the planet earth. Your dreams of a glorious race war will go unfullifulled. The world is just too small now. I'm sure you believe everything you're saying, I don't doubt it. But I know for a fact that once the skies are filled with screams and the mass graves of brown bodies pile up on your doorstep bringing endless tears to the eyes of your children, only then will your conscious kick in and you'll have to deal with consequences of your antiquated notions of "survival".
[center]You sure are unfair to white people. Do you have something against white people? I think you do. // White people aren't saints. White people aren't gods. White people are just trying to survive and protect their family and their race. Stop picking on us.[/center]
Is this like on Rikki Lake when some fat cow in a size 4 thong says: "You kno I's look gudd, don' haet! don' haet!"? What's the sound of one hand clapping? No one is claiming you're Gods, no one is saying you're saints. The only person that has suggested that thus far- is you. Your suggestion that I have something against white people is some rhetoric you're desperately trying to use to prove your point.
But you already know how I recognise myself as an individual- my mind, my way of thinking isn't reduced down to a skin color or a racial indentity. Why would I conatrict myself in such a way? I'm trying to grow up, not down. "Stop picking on us."? Please. You sound like a child. Don't you understand that this isn't about you, your race or your people- but instead the genocidal rhetoric that you represent?
[center]I mean, should black people abandon their culture just because it's a non-racist thing to do? Many blacks would decry that. You can be for goddamned sure that the Japanese and Chinese would too.[/center]
When that culture is implictly racist? Yes. Of course they should. I've abandoned "it" because "black culture" isn't in the same place it was 30/40 years ago when the civil rights movement ended and people were looking to improve themselves and not blame all of their problems on being black or being picked on because they are black. The Japanese have embraced American multi-culture and as the world gets smaller and smaller- they aren't going to have a choice but to allow other "races" of people to assimilate. And if Japan as a nation is worth their salt they will be stronger for it, not weaker. Conflict isn't going to magically disappear because everyone of the same race lives in the same place. Prejudice exists outside of race as a part of the human condition. If there ever comes a point where there's nothing left but one "race", then that one race will seek out differences among their own to be prejudiced against. History has proven this.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 23:15
|| 3. White survival implies world domination? Chinese survival implies world domination? Japanese survival implies world domination? Black survival implies world domination? Korean survival implies world domination? No, it doesn't.
Yes it does. You *just* said that it does.
And I quote: "Yes, in order to survive, the Chinese must wipe all non-Chinese off the planet. In order to survive, the Japanese must wipe all non-Japanese off the planet."
Are you retarded? How does that not equal world domination?
1. I was pointing out that cosmopolitanism is an old idea. Racial mixing is part of that old idea. You mix everybody into one group, get rid of all diversity, diverse culture and heredity (and the multiple/conflicting loyalties associated with them) so that everybody becomes loyal to one thing.
It's not an old idea. It's new when compared to race as a familial concept and "racial survival". That was around in cradle of civilization of Africa. Multi-culturalism, the notion that we are one human race came afterwards. Civil rights, respect for your fellow man (not fellow white man) comes afterwards. You can't avoid this, you can't argue against it- we are growing away from indentifying ourselves solely by our culture and our skin color/facial features.
Also, in the typical 'Multiculturalism' of the West, everybody has got a culture except for white people. Everybody is allowed to form communities except for white people. This is silly and bad for white people, and white people are recognizing this.
First of all, if whites don't have a culture that not multiculturalism's fault. It's white people's. Second of all, you do have a culture, you're just not connected with it. Again: Not multiculturalisms fault. It's yours. Do I blame multiculturalism because I don't know what tribe my father's ancestors come from? Nope. It's my "fault" because I don't care. Knowledge of self, puts me beyond being defined by my familial bonds. That kind of information is meaningless- I control who I am. No one else.
Your perception that "Everybody is allowed to form communities" stems from past rejections and your own need to belong. I've met many people who only hung out with other jews, whites, etc. And those people who insulate themselves to only hanging around with their own race are just as wrong as any white person. But you aren't going to make people more inclined to get to together without considering race by making your own community with your race being the focal point.
I know that family/race brings with it some responsibities, but I assure you that they are worth it. You must be very lonely.
Oh, well thank you for that Dr. Phil, really! ^_^ --- Family doesn't always have to related by blood. But you knew I meant that when I said it, didn't you? Nice try, though. And when it comes to my race- situations where I found myself responsible for my race meant that would have to sacrifice my indentity as an individual. In other words: Who I percieve myself to be is way more important that how anyone else looks at me. I'm sorry, you haven't developed enough self-confidence to embrace that notion.
And for the rest of the stuff- I have always had friends who were different races. White, blacks, whatever. I'm very uncomfortable in a room where it's all one race of people, no matter who it is. It is BECAUSE I am a social animal living in America that I am able to socialize with different races. I'm sorry if too bogged down by xenophobia and the fear of the unknown to step out of yourself. But I'm not and meeting those who are not like myself has helped me grow as an individual. I don't hate whitey, you fucking idiot. I realize it would make things much easier for you, if I did. But sorry I don't. I dislike idiots like you regardless of race and because of the genocidal- isolationist rhetoric you preach.
As for the rest, I've been over the overall meaningless of pheno and halpotypes. You can sift through the thread if you want, but I'm sick of fucking repeating myself.
You can *believe* whatever you want. But believe isn't truth. Obviously, we're progressing in a direction where morality and ethics are extremely important. The longer the human race exists the more we realize we can never be like the animals. We can never let "survival" be can excuse for immorality and behaviors that hurt the human race as a whole.
I read it and I refuted it in this thread. Stop trying to act like it didn't happen. Stop trying to act like I didn't shut you fuckers down eons ago when this bell curve bullshit. Difference in cognitive ability among the races is environmental. Period. And if you find someone who is genetically dumb it is because of environemtal factors of the previous generation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-16 6:36
My god. This piece of shit thread is going to beat the loli appreciation thread to 1000get? You people are DISGUSTING!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-16 8:18
Shut up. I want 1000GET.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-16 8:49
>>753
Stop.Don't be a fag.(you said it)
Egytian were not Arabs.Arabic is ethnicity and is not a defined race.They like to think they are a race all thier own but even they are wrong.I study this.I guess Hispanic is also a race right?
This is the longest myth ever in existence, which is pedaled as true scholarship and truth. Yet it is an outright myth, deliberately created from 1830 onwards, to explain away Egyptian civilization. During the 1800's there was all kinds of pseudo-sciences floating around about the genetical and inherent inferiority of peoples of African descent, and also a belief blacks are to be colonized because they are uncivilized and savage by nature. This was created to justify colonialism and also denying blacks equal rights in America. In order to moralize their mistreatment of blacks, scientific racism was created. And a part of this was in denying blacks had ever had a civilization. Since Egypt was a very impressive and marvelous civilization, and much of the heritage of the western world (such as writing and the calendar) came from ancient Egypt, it became necessary to whiten Egypt.
The truth is, the ancient Egyptians were not white. Neither were they pure black. The ancient Egyptians were a mixed-race people, especially in Upper Egypt, where Egyptian civilization began. While the earliest inhabitants, the Tasians, are believed to have been of Cro-Magnoid stock, the predynastic Badarian period which starts at 5500 B.C. in Upper Egypt, was quite Negroid. Carleton S. Coon calls the predynastic Egyptian population of Upper Egypt during the Badarian period "Mediterrenean" and denies any black admixture, on account of their thick and wavy hair. But thin and wavy hair is Caucasion hair. Wavy hair that is thick in texture is typical of peoples with African ancestry. The hair-type Coon described can be found amongst many modern-day Nubians, as well as some Northern Ethiopians, and a number of persons of mixed ancestry in Latin America, the Caribbean, and even in the United States. And besides, he described the crania of the Badarian skulls he studied as being dolichocephalic, with short faces, blurred margin (broad noses), and prognathisms. These are distinctly Negroid traits, and are undeniable evidence of black admixture. As for the hair of predynastic Upper Egyptian of the Badarian period, recent studies of their hair, show them to be semi-frizzy, like Mulattoes and many Northeast Africans. [Keita, S.O.Y. Studies and "Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History of Africa 20 (book).] Of the Badarian predynastic Egyptian population, other scholars do not hesitate to call the characteristics of the crania as Negroid and as being due to African ancestry. Dr. Childe V. Gordon, a British anthropologist, spoke of the Negroid traits in Badarian crania. Other Egyptologists and anthropologists have noted the same. Dr. Emile Massourlard, a French Egyptologist, published a work in 1949 called[ "Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt" in which he cites various studies on predynastic and dynastic Egyptian culture. On the Badarians, he quotes a study by Miss Stoessiger. Of her, he states:
"Badarian skulls differ very little from other less ancient predynastic skulls; they are just a bit more prognathous. Next to these, they most resemble primitive Indian skulls: Dravidians and Veddas. They also present a few affinities with Negroes, due no doubt to a very ancient admixture of Negro blood."
Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait. What Massoulard's passage leaves out, is that Miss Stoessiger found the Badarian crania to all possess blurred margin (broad nasal index), just as Coon noted. Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, a well respected and noteable anthropologist did a cranial analysis of his own on various cranias, in his work "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa." His samples included predynastic Badari, predynastic early Naqqada, Kerma (Bronze Age Nubia), 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, Teita East Africa, Gaboon Central-West Africa, and Romano-Britain. Through his experiments he was able to gain several observations. He found that the Badari predynastic Egyptian crania occupied, "a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series."
The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly 'southern'; most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon, and Kenyan groups NO Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the EUROPEAN SERIES. Especially notable is the fact absolutely none of the predynastic Badari crania were Caucasoid. Other anthropologists and Egyptologists whom have noted predynastic Badari and early Naqqada crania possessing "alveolar prognathisms" (protruding upper teeth case; a condition very common amongst African populations, but very rare amongst Europeans and Western Asians.)
It is during the Badari predynastic period which begins at 5000 B.C., that the Egyptians begin farming and domesticating animals, and cease hunting and gathering. This period is noted by distinctive pottery and the use of copper. Here we see, the basic elements which were to become Egyptian civilization being created by a population whom posses distinctive Negroid affinities.
On to late Naqqada predynastic Egyptian. These crania have been found to more heterogenous in nature. But still, all posses Negroid affinities. This is noted by Dr. Emile Massoulard, whom cites a Miss Fawcett, whom studied a number of Naqqada crania, and found them all to posses a combination of Negroid and Europoid affinities. Of this Massoulard states:
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be SUFFICIANTLY HOMOGENOUS to justify speaking of a Naqada RACE. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the ceohalic and facial indexes, this race PRESENTS AFFINITIES WITH NEGROES. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans.
Any study which claims ancient Egyptians had no black admixture is absolutely ludicrous. Besides, according to a DNA study by G. Paoli, the ABO typing of the ancient Egyptians was most closely matched by the Harratins , a Negroid Berber people of southern Morocco, southern Algeria, and northern Mauritania. It has been claimed by some that the Haratins are the descendants of freed Sub-Saharan slaves. But this cannot be established, since the DNA patterns of the Haratins are not found in Sub-Saharans, nor are they found in any of the "white" Berber tribes Haratins are supposed to have been owned by and mixed with. The DNA pattern of the Haratins is very unique, thus establishing them firmly as a Hamitic race. Their presence has been long recorded in the region, and their origins, a mystery.
While the most Caucasian or racially ambiguous images are shown to prove their point, what Eurocentrics do not show you, are images of Egyptians with clear Africoid features.
Contrary to what Eurocentrics claim, the ancient Egyptians were a dark-skinned people with racial affinities to Black Africans. While not unmixed black, were still black enough to be considered black in the western world. They were in truth a mixed-race people. And like all peoples of mixed ancestry, their features morphed from near Negroid to near-Eurpoid, with all kinds of variations in between. The position held by Eurocentrics that the ancient Egyptians were white people or so called Arabic is pure myth and nonsense.
Read a book called Enclyopedia of Egypt which was put out by the Oxford Press.Author is a mainstream egyptologist named Ian Shaw.
>>835
Keep dreaming. It's a shame you can't find any refereed paper that's passed peer review in any scholarly publication, anywhere, EVER, proving conclusively that Negroes and Whites have equal intelligence. If it were so self-evident you'd think it'd be easy to prove. All you've got is "dat beez racisms! u must beez some stupid hillbilly wif flies buzzin round yo head lololololol"
Too bad for you it's been known since the 19th Century that Negroes have on average 15-20% less cranial capacity than Whites and it's been known since the 1920s that the average Negro IQ in the US is around 80 and in sub-Saharan Africa, closer to 55. Which is why they've never produced anything but failed states dependent on aid from the White race for their very survival.
Too bad for you the Human Genome Project is demonstrating day after day the vast gulfs that exist between races. Another few hundred thousand years in isolation and true speciation would probably occur and interbreeding would probably become impossible; the process is already well under way.
Too bad for you it's obvious and observable on a daily basis, from Harlem to Detroit to Haiti to Rwanda to Zimbabwe. Are you some rich White college boy who's never actually had to work for a living, never actually been around the Negro, never actually been the only White person in the apartment building, never actually been the only White person on the job? If you'd ever actually spent any time with the Negro, you would know him for what he is. If you'd ever actually known any of them, when you read the Bell Curve (have you actually ever read it? or are you just copypasting ten-year-old expressions of outrage from liberal magazine book reviewers who've never actually read it either?), you'd think to yourself "Well, yes" or "IQ 85? I don't believe that, maybe closer to 70," not "DAT BEEZ RACISMS LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"
Again, I've been over all of this in the race thread. I refuted every last statement with studies that refuted the opposition's (you) claims. Fish it out if you want, but I'm not going through all that bollock's again. I'm not going to waste my time with a guy that doesn't know that interracial marriage has increased and continues to do so. Ever hear of hyper vigor?
Why should 19th Century statistics be taken at face value considering the fact that the tests themselves are culturally biased? Considering the fact that Europe said alot of fallacious things about "negroes" when they were trying to justify the atrocities of slavery and colonization? Come on now, give it up.
Just curious, why do most Egyptians have that specific eyebrow shape? There was an Egyptian researcher on the history channel and she looked just like the facial features on a gold sarcophagus.
and respond to everything in the below post, or unfortunately you have lost this debate.
***
Your choice of discussion board is slanted towards afro-centric views and anybody looking for a legitimate discussion would be wise to go elsewhere.
"Current archeology find that the egyptain civilization did come from the south,and there was not great migration from Asia,europe,or even Northern Africa. The population looks like it did originate with the nubian kingdom of Taseti,which does hold the oldest inscription of a pharoah. The god of amon was also adapted from the nubians,which is one of the most ancient deities."
Hierakonpolis is the oldest and strongest showing of predynastic egyptian culture. This city is much older than ta-seti, and egyptian culture in the latter resulted from egyptian conquest and occupation--the tale inscribed by pharoah djer.
"The language that the Egyptains spoke was Afroasiatic,which steams from Ethiopia,and then broke off into diffeent language categories. The Hausa tribe in Nigeria speak a form of Afroasiatic,called chadic. The Hausa also have streotypical black features. I am still proud of my race and their accomplisments,and I am not a Liberal either,but I do believe the ancient egyptains were indeed black people."
It's odd that the current classification of that 'afroasiatic' language is 'hamito-semitic.' BTW, what do you think the 'asiatic' part implies?
"You mention the Berber groups that live in Northern Africa,but you fail to mention the tuarege,which phenotypicaly look like black people."
They look phenotypically mixed because the taureg are a proven mixture of mediterranean(berber) and negroid(sub-saharan african). They're also little more than a few separate berber ethnic groups who were probably 100% mediterranean at one point in time.
"MYTH#1 Egyptians were white"
That should be followed by "MYTH#2 Egyptians were black."
I've come across this page on my own time. Does 'kinghorus' ring a bell? It's a slanted article that starts and ends by telling us the ancient egyptians were of mixed race, but all the "proofs" contained within are bolstered arguments about their "negroid" characteristics. Afro-centrists are uncanny, they seem to always use the genetic and cultural work that other scholars have done and twist the language to show how the ancient egyptians were 'black.' You, like many other fornicaters of 'negro egypt,' have twisted the term african to where you feel it only means negroids. Thankfully, there will always be an academic resistance which works on neutral ground rather than manipulating history for socio-political reasons.
I suggest you take a good look at the figures drawn on Ramses the 3rd's tomb;
If you come across the "periodic table of races" that's supposedly drawn here, please show and tell.
Oh, and do yourself a favor and read the entire dialogue from the UNESCO debate ... you'll see who whiped the floor.
***
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-16 23:11
>>844
Read his 1st paragraph.Replace every instance of black with white from your post and you get just the opposite.He may have the african agenda,but its obvious you have the white agenda which is explained in the 1st paragraph.Don't believe the white explanation of history.Whites have lied,stolen and cheated althroughout history.It may be a post from a different site but its undeniably fact.Noone can win this.If your white you say they white,if your black you say t hey are black.He never said they either.They were definitely mixed not Arab and it still shows to this day.So you should all go fuck yourselves cause none will convince the other.No one is listening to you.You are Eurocentric.He is Afrocentric,so who to believe.Judgeing by the decietful history of whites I lean towards his theory.Go test some skulls you Eurocentric.
Name:
Sopdet2006-03-17 0:39
Not that busy.You are very right.This is a cut and paste.Cut and summerised from one of my many 1.44mb floppy disk of my very own.
This is my work and my posts.You will even find this written in french since I am multilingual.I have posted this study on quite a few boards and written articles over the course of 5 years.I have been studying ancient egypt and ancient civilizations for 24 years.
Quite a few individuals belonging to boards I belong to have asked me to use my post on thier own websites,and as I see from you links that people have also cut and paste in other places without prior notice to me.This does not bother me.Knowledge should be free,as long as my words are not misconstrued.
I was reading some of the messages on this board after discovering it on the 14th of March.I had to spread the word.Again.I am the original.I hadn't realised my study had gotten so popular on the internet.This is a good thing.I am mixed race and harbour no bias either way.I just go on facts.
If you want some real adult conversation or want to talk to me withouot bias.I wont be frequenting this board as it is full of adolescent behavior.
BTW.As long as the word Egypt is in the title,I will be their.Goodby kids.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 1:23
>>838
was that a snippet from your publication or was it just an excellent lit review for the predominant simpleton on 4chan? in any case, that was a great effort and very insightful!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 2:23
The bible,which was written some 4000 years ago is one of the examples of people with their own agendas.It has been translated many times and no two translations are the same.Seems like translators either misinterpreted or deliberitly changed whole passages or sentences to reflect what they wanted it to say or what they wanted readers to belive as fact.This is the same with history.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 4:35
>>844 Why should he answer your foolishness when you have already madew up your mind that they are white.Intelligent people don't have time for the likes of you.He who seeks knowledge begins with humbleness. http://www.egyptorigins.com/ginger.htm
This webpage does not save you and most of it is conclusive with what he is saying.E.G Sequenenre (Tao) c.1560 BC, 17th Dynasty:
In life Sequenenre was slender and muscular with a small, long, barrel-shaped head, covered with long black curly hair.
Queen Ahmose-Hentempet, c. 1580 BC, 17th Dynasty:
Photograph shows the head covered with thick dark wavy hair, dressed as in modern style.
Lady Rai, c. 1540 BC, 18th Dynasty:
Rai had abundant hair, arranged in small plaits which were divided into two thick masses on either side of her head.
Amenhotep II, c. 1419 BC, 18th Dynasty:
The head was covered with wavy brown hair which had turned gray at the temples.
Queen Meryet-Amun, c. 1440 BC, 18th Dynasty:
Her hair was brown, with no traces of gray, and is wavy. As seen in other mummies, the natural hair is interwoven with fake braids and tresses of the hair the same color as hers.
They are mixed.Thick,not thin wavy hair = negro ancestry regardless of what this racist Egyptologist (and there are quit a few biased ones)says.You just cannot have wavy hair unless you are mixed with something.Have you ever seen a white man with thick wavy hair?Big curls maybe but not wavy.Mulatoes have wavy hair.Check them out sometime.
White agenda it seems once again
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 5:19
Whites should have been wiped out a long time ago
White people don\'t have a right to exist. The whole world benefits from them being gone. I\'ll be glad when white people are wiped off the face of this planet for their crimes against humanity.
There is nothing worthy in the history of European or American whites. You are complete and utter instruments of evil on this earth. You deserve everything you get. You don\'t have the right to exist culturally or genetically. You\'re just holding everybody else back. Good riddance.
Why fight truth? Why fight good?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 5:26
Have you ever seen a white man with thick wavy hair?
Every time I look in the mirror. Every time I go to a Greek party too. Guess we gotta nigger in all of us.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 5:58
The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.
The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race -- in other words, to abolish the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society.
The way to abolish the white race is to challenge, disrupt and eventually overturn the institutions and behavior patterns that reproduce the privileges of whiteness, including the schools, job and housing markets, and the criminal justice system. The abolitionists do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 6:24
>>851
Thick refers to texture.If you pluck out a single strand of hair from a white person and a single hair from a black person and measured it,you will see that the strand of hair from the white person is thinner than that of the black.Whites don't have wavy hair which is curves that go in all directions but are close nit.Imagine the swells in the sea,now imagine multiple swells really close to each other forming multiple waves.Maybe if you greased your hair down as a whiteman and combed it in an up and down fashion this can be achieved but its not naturally so.You probably dont understand what it means when blacks say he has good hair,but I have mulatto cousins so I can say thier hair is unique.Maybe yours is thin and wavy naturally I cant say.As for Greeks having nigger blood,I have read that some ancient greeks were also mulatto.You will be suprised to know that 1 out of 8 whites in America that have done ad-mixture tests find out they have at least 10% black in them,and also have a bit of native indian in them too.I challenge any white person to do an admixture test.
I am a white man that just can't get enough violet nigger pussy.So tight and sweet and they move that waist in bed like no other.Just grinding on my dick.Ummm Umm good.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 7:02
"Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed." Noel Ignatiev, white Harvard professor and editor of Race Traitor magazine.
"The white race is the cancer of human history." "Philosopher" and liberal guru, Susan Sontag
"When we say 'white people,' we mean the people of greed who value things over people, who value money over people. We know exactly what their values are and where they lead. We have all paid a terrible price for those values." "Diversity consultant," Harris Sussman, in a front-page article in Managing Diversity: a magazine subscribed to by gov't agencies (which are funded by tax-payer dollars), and cited in the Washington Times, 13 February 1997, p. A-10.
"I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing,' and then slap him for my mental health." N. Y. City councilman Charles Barron on the subject of reparations for slavery. (Nat'l Review Online, 6 Jan. '03.)
"Knowing what I know about what my people did, I wouldn't be able to respect myself if I weren't doing everything I can to have ... white people face up to this crime we committed and to right this great wrong." Donna Lamb, member of Caucasians United for Reparations & Emancipation. (Washington Post, 16 Aug. '02.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 7:20
[b]LETTERS[/b]
Are y'all some kind of provocateurs against progress? If there were ever an ideology calculated to sow dissension and division in the struggle for the most equitable social reality and to alienate from it those who must be drawn into it, yours would have to be it. Clues large and small suggest that it is calculation rather than merely egregious analysis and/or psychopathology. Among them are your confusion of what you describe as "white skin privilege" with class privilege, your failure to condemn all notions of racial and ethnic supremacy in addition to white supremacy, and your demonstration of bias in capitalizing black but not white when when the terms are used in the same common adjective/noun context.
Focusing entirely on the real and imagined white privilege you purport to see as the root of all evil not only reproduces, institutionalizes, and ossifies the divisions of race and ethnicity that have wrecked so many revolutionary movements and initiatives, it leaves class and capitalism intact. Verily, your "what we believe" statement does not ever address class and capitalism, implying that those original sources of exploitation and oppression would be cool with you if only white supremacy (and no other kind) were eliminated. Injecting such poisonous nonsense into the body of a revolutionary movement can only be interpreted as an effort to provoke that movement into counterproductive paths.
Bill Dunne, Marion Federal Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois
New Abolitionist responds:
We think any fair-minded reader can tell we are against the capitalist system which exploits all workers regardless of color. But if working-class solidarity is such a good idea, why doesn't it exist already? Why don't all the exploited, downtrodden, cast out and dispossessed whites in this country act together with the other proletarians and get rid of the capitalist system? Why are there so few so-called white people out in the streets against the police compared to the number of others?
One reason is that they settle for being white instead of acting to be free. Does white skin privilege exist apart from class privilege? If a person's color pushes him to the front instead of the back of the jobs line and the back instead of the front of the layoff line, it can't be a class privilege, because that person is still an exploited proletarian. Why are more than half of the residents where the writer lives black? Is that purely a result of class, or does it have something to do with color? We believe that if the rulers control black people by locking them up, they control potentially rebellious whites by not locking them up, at least not in the same numbers. The problem we seek to address is that a whole lot of the slaves think they are part of the master class because they think they are white. Don't blame us for bringing bad news.
The editors differ among themselves on capitalization; while they agree not to capitalize white (because white is not an ethnic group), they leave up to individual writers whether to capitalize black. Finally, if the writer believes we are conscious agents of the oppressor, why does he write us?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 7:35
1 to 858 RACISTS.Such hate and melodrama on this board.Why can't we just live in the present day and love one another.is that so hard.I love and respect all races and frankly don't care who achieved what how and when.All white people are not monsters,all Asian people are not bad at driving,all blacks are not stupid or violent,all east indians don't smell like curry.We must try to coexist as one human race.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 7:51
Can someone tell me what is the scientific name for the people of India.You know,like how whites are caucasoid and asians are mongoliod.Thanks in advance.
I don't care what google says. Indians are not caucasoid. They're just *not*. If Indians are, so are pakis.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-17 20:28
>>863
You're probably getting a bit confused with "caucasian", which has been abused to death thanks to the US deciding it is synonymous with "white" (it isn't).
>>863
Granted they have stark differences to caucasian whites on the other side of the continent, but taking into account the differences between caucasians and mongoloids and the even greater distances between these 2 races and negroes. It is just easier to classify them as Caucasian. There is certainly much more genetic transfer across the middle east than there is across the himalayas. Until the middle ages, the steppes were very lightly inhabitted, so there was a bottle neck in Bengal. Most Indians are not part of this bottleneck.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-19 2:30
Hmm... So, a study in the races of egypt is probably a study in the power of hybrid vigor (not "hyper vigor" as someone stated) rather than in the power of any race.
Which also explains the inteligence of europeans, as they are a mixture or Cro-Magnons and Caucasoids. Continental Asians probably mixed with something at one point, the Japanese are a mixture of the Jomon and Yayoi peoples who inhabited the island in ancient times.
So the most powerful races are mixes. Unfortunately, the black africans are just that; pure black africans.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-19 2:43
>>869
Umm.. Science please. Base your hypothesis on the facts, not the other way round. By your reasonning the sun orbits the earth. Cro magnon man had a larger brain capacity than caucasians, which means this was decreased when they mixed. Black Americans usually have around 30% white ancestors. The Yayoi period only came about due to the sudden stability China experienced and it's expansionist aims. Japan was colonised, not invaded. Also the few Chinese immigrants and the Japanese are very genetically similiar. Sort of like the difference between Germans and Frenchmen.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-19 2:50
>>869
Not neccesarily. The theory behind hybrid vigor is that it's the product of divergent evolution of certain alleles. Other genes for certain traits might evolve in certain populations of people, for example, the genes that increased intelligence in asians might be different from the genes that increased intelligence in the caucasians. Because both populations were under pressure to increase intelligence, both populations did. However, because they did it separately, the genes that control intelligence will be different for each group. This means that both sets of genes, working in tandem, will be able to increase intelligence in a hybrid that much more.
However, if common racist theory proves true, blacks haven't evolved since the other groups left africa. This means, that all the genes that blacks have that control intelligence are not unique to blacks, they also exist in other groups.
Hybrid vigor has only been studied in pairings between Japanese and Caucasians. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist in other groups.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-19 4:52
It seems Japanese/Caucasians were not the only pairings studied:
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study shows US children of African-Caucasian cross-ethnic unions score .47 SD lower on cognitive tests taken at age 17 than adopted children of Caucasian heritage, and .67 SD higher than adopted children of African heritage. (The average IQ of the adopting parents in this study was more than 1 standard deviation above the population mean of 100.) The exact interpretation of this study is disputed.
Name:
A. Wyatt Mann2006-03-19 13:36 (sage)
>>869
Hybrid vigor is hybrid vigor. Sub-Saharan African dominant genes for tiny IQ-55 brains and sociopathy are something else entirely.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-19 22:23
>>871 However, if common racist theory proves true, blacks haven't evolved since the other groups left africa. This means, that all the genes that blacks have that control intelligence are not unique to blacks, they also exist in other groups.
What I'm saying is that even though a black hybrid may be smarter (genetically) than a black person, it is not smarter than than a white person. BUT, an asian mix, or even native american, etc... mix might get some benefit from hybriization. The genes that make asians smart are not the same that, for example, make jews smart. So, when they are combined, they have a chance of BOTH being expressed.
But, because the blacks haven't evolved much since the groups that later became the caucasians and asians etc... left, the genes that allow them to become smart are also present in all the groups the split off from them. Therefore, hybridization can't benefit them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-19 22:28
OH my god these last few posts are so undoubtably 4chan.
Basically, whites should mix with asians but not blacks. Good luck there, whitey. I'm going to go fuck me an asian chick, and father some chiglets.
It's like AIDS only spelled horribly horribly wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-20 11:22
Frogs are actually a higher alien intelligence, living conspicuously among us, biding their time, and waiting for the right moment to strike. That moment will be June or July of 2016, and they will reveal themselves to the world.
We will have no choice but to surrender, and they will no longer be called frogs. We will call them "The Overlords".
The only argument I have seen for the existence of a black ancient egypt is a very shallow argument which suggests that people with straight hair can still be around 10% negro. This doesn't prove conclusively that Egypt was largely negro, just that Egypt's oldest mummy could have been 10% negro.
If I were to acknowledge the fact that DNA tests prove the DNA of ancient early Egyptians consists entirely of genes from the modern arabs living there, then it would completely throw the idea out of a negro egypt out the window. This fact is mentionned in pretty much every western, middle eastern, chinese, russian, south African and Brazilian document by critical scientific and university journals anywhere you can lay your hands on them. It is an innocent little episode in which DNA science was applied to mummies to prove that DNA can be used in archaeology, the results agreed apon by "crackers" and non-whites alike. For some reason all liberals and afrocentrists eject large amounts of faeces in terror when they find people who have heard about this. They would prefer a world where any fact which is contrary to their world view is simply dismissed as racism and that all Egyptians in the media are portrayed as hip hop negroes who's achievemewnts were put down by the white man.
I didn't this fact out of politeness, but this afrocentrist who for some reason never puts a space after each full stop completely ignored it when I asked it to read up on the facts. I think it did notice this fact, but didn't mention it as I am right about afrocentrists knowing Egypt was never black, but striving to manipulate others into believing otherwise.
Newsflash.
Egyptian universities are in charge of the excavations, all of the white explorers who went there were under their supervision and they are arab muslims, not aryan nazis. Egypt wasn't black. Go unearth some Mali and Zimbabwean ruins, if you are not killed/enslaved by the vicious tyrants who currently dwell there.
They have been excavated, not to the degree the scientific community would hope, but enough to recognise that civilization itself travels from the womb of Africa (sub-sahara) *out* to Europe. It is common knowledge that Egypt was a multi-cultural empire and it is common knowledge that at several intervals of Egypt's history- it was ruled by black pharaohs and it was considered a black kingdom. At the very least you should be able to acknowledge that in all likelihood Egypt and most of the culture of Egypt started with black African's not arabs.
Everyone shouts DNA DNA as if we've found "Arab genes" or "Negroid Genes" that are definitive indicators of race. Tests for Haplotypes and the like don't qualify Egypt as being completely Arab. This bears repeating when we're talking about "DNA evidence" and race: [b]"Pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- I have never data that says that. Ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND).
Meaning: Just because you take a set of genetic data and corelate it to certain region doesn't automatically make those people the RACE we would percieve to come from that region. That's just not the way it works.
I think you're mixing up geneology with the perception of race itself and truly by our standards Egyptians of that time were considered to be largely black.
This is the same dialouge we get when we discuss the Moors. Some how because of so-called "DNA evidence" (evidence that people rarely put forth in these arguments) they weren't black, but clearly every instance that refers to the moors, ever picture of a moor is indicated as "black".
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-20 20:58
I am not ther egypt guy but whatever level of negro is still having negro ancestry.Which means that they are not pure.That was his/her point I believe.You may look fully white,but still have negro ancestry and don't even know it.One might also look fully black with very dark skin,but still have white ancestors.95% of blacks in america have at most 20% white or other ancestry which does not show in there hair.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-20 21:45
Are native americans mongoliod?I remember watching a program about chutchi people who came over the bearing straight who were probably the ancestors of Native american indians.They looked almost like eskimos.We call them indians,but they are nothing like the peole of india.What is the scientific name for them.Or were they mixed along the way?
Exactly, so all this talk about IQ and race is purely virtual and entirely dependant on what race you percieve someone is. According to the genetic evidence- hybrid vigor should have effected IQ in positive ways several times over, over many generations of humans.
Obviously the general reason for low IQs among any group of people is firstly: environmental factors.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-20 23:41
Actually, hybrid vigor is not guaranteed at all. It's just a label used when a hybrid is better adapted than its parents. The opposite can also occur.
Doesn't matter. Point still stands. Compare the number of pure bred races to people that are mixed and you'll understand how stupid the argument is.
Name:
A. Wyatt Mann2006-03-21 3:45 (sage)
>>890
It's not whether a stock is pure or not, it's the quality of what went into it in the first place. This is as true of cattle as of humans.
So we have pure stocks:
Ashkenazi Jews, average IQ in the 120-125 range
Japanese, average IQ in the 110 range
Laplanders of northern Finland, average IQ in the 70 range
And mixed stocks:
American Negroes (20% white, 80% sub-Saharan African), IQ in the 80 range
White-Asian hybrids, IQ in the 110-115 range
Human beings are like any other animals: machines built to a genetic blueprint. The brain is like any other organ: its structure and function are decided by the genes. Not all genes are equal. And if individuals can carry different genes, how could you possibly decide that groups of human beings must be genetically substantially identical in the aggregate?
You can hide from the truth, you can deny the truth, but truth can't be hidden forever, especially when it's all around us every day, visible to anyone who has the inner strength to open his eyes and look at it without cringing.
Um, yes it is. That is the debate we're having because "stock" is determined by perception and region not by any absolute biological "racial" indicators. (Do you even understand what this means?)
Facial features and skin color has nothing to do with the brain. I smashed this pathetic notion awhile back when the opposition trumped out the skull shapes argument. Breeding is Breeding. It doesn't matter if the person is black, white or whatever. Dumb genes are dumb genes.
With that in mind it becomes plain to see that your entire argument hinges on the gamble that all Sub-Saharan Africans are "genetically dumb" in the first place and "didn't have civilization". It hinges on the total ignorance of a number of prevalent (more prevalent than genetics) environmental factors that have contributed to the current infrastructure situation in Africa.
These points have been addressed. So much to the point that several have conceeded to it, due to them having no other way to outargue the fact. There are so called "smarter civilizations" that were destroyed *before* so called "dumber generations". What does that tell you about intelligence and our perception of it? Just ask yourself that.
You need to acknowledge that factually speaking general populations of people aren't responsible for the progress of the civilizations: Individuals are.
And the reason those who argue for your viewpoint call you a racist is because race is the focus of your argument. But what about IQ corresponding to height, weight, gender, hair color, social and cultural affiliations?
The reason you don't appeal to these factors is because they support an environmental force over IQ and that destroys the point you're desperately trying to get across: "Whites are supreme."
Even more surprising, you're trying to lump Asians in with whites on the racial heirarchy. The truth is: The very idea of a "white race" is a fallacy to begin with. Maybe you should look into who started calling people "white" and "black" in the first place and for what reasons before you rail off on the relevance of this delusional co-relationship between race and IQ?
The only thing you've smashed is your own credibility. All you have done for almost nine hundred posts is yell "dat beez racisms! ebil whitey beez opressin a brudda!" and "this has already been refuted" and "I already refuted this." You refuse to provide substantive counterarguments to anything I or anyone else here has said.
No proof, no merit, so noted.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-21 13:19
>>892 you're trying to lump Asians in with whites on the racial heirarchy
Nope. We're putting them ABOVE us. (I'm white). A fact's a fact.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-21 13:25
>>894
And how do I reconcile the fact that I'm from an inferior race? Well, rather than rant on how people who say that JEWS or CHINKS are more intelligent on average than whites are lying, and that WHITEY IS SUPREME, I just comfort myself by thinking that as an individual I can be outside the norm for my race.
Maybe you could do the same. Not likely seeing as black pride is such a goddamed high priority on the list of almost every black I've met. Where does white pride rank for me? About... Twelefth. After my status as a student, my status in my family, my job status, the status gained by the fact that I have a better mowed lawn than my neighbor etc. etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-21 13:32
Environmental factors alone are not enough to explain the persistent and systematic failure of the negrito race to catch up to the rest of the world.
You're lying. Address what I've said to the effect of phenotypes and stop resorting to whining about "that be racisms". It's nonsense...because the reality is you have nothing to rebut with- so when I say that there's really no such thing as ethnic allele frequencies what you hear is: "YOU'RE RACIST!". The disconnect lies with you. It's a pattern of behavior that has become your trademark in this thread.
No, you're not putting them above you. You're lumping them in with you on a heirarchy where the perception is that your "race" is above other "races". There's no way around this- your theory is united around a theory of "the darker the dumber".
It's just not the case. Regardless, if Asians are so smart where is their power on the world stage? Maybe intelligence isn't as important as you think it is when it comes to world power and so called great civilizations. <=== This completely shatters any notion that IQ has anything to do with "catching up with the rest of the world". Did you ignore the point I made about the general population >>892 on purpose?
I never you said you were lying. Again: You're only hearing what you want to hear. I said that the reasons for any gaps in IQ aren't genetic- there are several reasons one of them being that Intelligence isn't solely about genetics. Think about it: Genetics alone doesn't contribute to IQ, so genetics alone can't be responsible for IQ difference. What is so hard understand?
Environment is paramount in gaining learned behavior. You only question the black/hispanic student's ability to learn using intelligence and not the white/asain/whatever teacher's ability to use intelligence to TEACH properly. A majority of the teachers in America are white and meanwhile we're behind every other country in pretty much everything academic. What does that tell you about intelligence? What does that tell you about the percieved intelligence of white people? Acknowledge and answer.
Third, you don't even fucking know me. "Black pride"? Yeah, I'm black, what of it? But fuck black people. Don't you see you're doing the exact same thing you accuse the opposition of? By even bringing up black pride, you're calling me a racist. Because that's what "black pride" is: RACISM.
I don't even BLIEVE IN RACE! So how can I be a "racist"? The only thing I have pride in is the absolute truth. You need to just deal with the fact that either (A) You're not smart enough and don't have access to enough information to win this debate. Or (B) YOU ARE WRONG.
I've read this whole thread and haven't responded yet but in the beginning Anti-chan was offering a lot of unsupported things like the opposition and then it was just people going back and forth really not supporting anything.
Later on however Anti-chan continued saying the same thing over and over however with backed up university text. People tried for some reason to say the edu websites were wrong and wikipedia was a much better source??? Antichan continued to smash their arguement until the smarter ones conceded and Antichan fell in to annonymous.
I think the smarter ones are the ones that don't really have an investment in the greater race issues that this debate encompasses.
The dumb ones (IE - the ones still pretending they can win) have a vested interest in the perception of which race holds all the power. They think intelligence = power. It doesn't.
Ernst Mayr of Harvard published some reflections on the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. His conclusion was that the likelihood of success was effectively zero. His reasoning had to do with the adaptive value of what we call higher intelligence, meaning the particular human form of intellectual organisation. Mayr estimates the number of species since the origin of life at about 50 billion, only one of which, he writes, achieved the kind of intelligence needed to establish a civilisation. It did so very recently, perhaps a hundred thousand years ago in a small breeding group of which we are all survivors. (Sub-Saharan Africans) And he speculates that this form of intellectual organisation may not be favoured by selection, and points out that life on earth refutes the claim that "it’s better to be smart than stupid," at least judging by biological success, which is great for beetles and bacteria but not so good as you move higher up the level of cognitive organisation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-21 19:32
900GET, Let racism die!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-21 20:26
Geeez.Here we go again.This thread will never die. It is true that America is behind the world in academics. They don't even know the geography of thier own country, and they are horrible at spelling. Even the people of india get better education when possible for the individual to do so. Just my two cents.
Name:
A. Wyatt Mann2006-03-22 4:05 (sage)
>>897 I say that there's really no such thing as ethnic allele frequencies
Then please explain why people of different ethnic groups look different. If it's not genetic differences so vast that the biological differences are visible at a glance, what is it?
<sound of crickets chirping as you backpedal>
Yeah, that's what I thought.
No proof, no merit, so noted.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-22 10:51
GOd damn you racist motherfuckers... IWANTED 900GET!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-22 10:53
>>899 "And he speculates that this form of intellectual organisation may not be favoured by selection"
'Splain, plz.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-22 13:51
How bizzare... I had just been thinking about this recently myself.
One of the many ironies is that the only reason that black people are anywhere other than Africa is because of slave trade. Is it any coincidence that a culture that is pre-modern (I won't say "sub-", as they are not below modern society, but they belong to a different culture) is frequently seen in "ghettos"?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-22 13:55
The only race is the human race :3
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-22 14:05
So are you saying that everybody else is subhuman? Sounds racist to me.
People of different ethnic groups look different for environmental reasons. Not genetic. And those genetic differences? They aren't vast. Any set of features outside of skin color could apply to anyone. I suspect you could to the same kind of allele frequency tests with people in your own family (unless your family is ALL twins), but you're not breaking them down into different races, are you? Same thing with "pan-ethnic" allele frequencies.
Simple: Intelligence isn't (generally) favored by natural selection. So in the first place- the idea that intellect has any connection to so-called "failed civilizations" as if there is a battle of natural selection playing out between the races is laughable. Which makes whites and asians being somehow more "evolved" than, say a sub-saharan African even more rediculous. Mankind's progress is accomplished by relatively handfuls of people who jump ahead of the others in intellect, but aren't really the 'favorites' of evolution or natural selection. And this is true across the board for every civilization or "race".
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 3:32 (sage)
>>908
So, blacks look totally different from whites, even have different bone structure, different limb lengths and facial shape, macroscopic and microscopically visible differences in muscle tissue from white people, and can't even be treated for glaucoma with the same drugs as white people--but this is all environmental?
Someone tell the New England Journal of Medicine. Someone tell the Nobel Prize committee that we've got a contender here.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 6:23
I am not who you are arguing with.If genetics make whites more intelligent,how would you explain the millions of under achieving white trash that live in white trailor park ghettos that have fights and kill each other over beer,cigarettes, women,bowling and pool. They exist. They are extremely dumb people with seemingly low IQs, and have absolutley no drive or goals in life and produce generations of trailor trash. Hell,they cant even dress dress themselves in a civilised manner. Is this not the same reason you think that blacks have lower IQ. Seems like thier environment plays a big role in thier behavior to me. They act worse than ghetto blacks when around civilised people too. I have seen it.Actually,I think they might be even more absent minded.I have black nieghbours who have very good jobs and have been nothing but polite and civil to me,and my family members. BTW. I am niether black nor white.Just looking through the looking glass.
>>911
So why don't you enlighten us on normal distibution?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 7:25 (sage)
Maaaan, oh, man. You must be remarkably stupid not to know what a normal distribution is, and I know why: you're too fucking lazy to look things up on your own.
You must be either very committed the antiquated notion of race or you must be very fucking stupid.
Yes. Yes those differences are all environmental (cultural, social, etc). They are not fundamentally genetic, which is what you're claiming. If Sub-Saharan African's are a sub-species then so are you. You present your information as if whites and asians are a different species unto itself that evolved from "negroids". That is just simply not the case and your pathetic, snarky attempts of shouting it down will not change that.
And I guess you're just going to ignore what I've said about intelligence and human progress, right? Glaring over points made has been a staple move on your part, as you've proven yourself unable to grasp the simplist of ideals regarding IQ's relationship to Intelligence itself.
IQ tests aren't a great indicator. The tests *are* culturally biased and they *do not* test "Genetic Intelligence*. They only test *environmental* intelligence- therefore all those scores you posted only serves my argument.
Understand: If blacks and hispanics have low IQs it stems from environmental factors because IQ tests only tests 'environemental IQ'.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 8:51
Experts say IQ results don't really mean shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 8:55
Wow.What a big fat waste of energy this whole thread is.Noone is going to convince the other.Stop wasting your life force people.Get a life.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 11:28
>>915
Stop glaring over the shit that we've been posting about the improved IQ test variable 'g' and how it IS a good indicator of intelligence AND later success. How it exists independant of cultural environment.
'g' doesn't just measure school acheivment. For example, questions that rely on vocabulary, which were part of the original IQ test made by sanford and binet, are excluded. Many many other questions that led to an unreliable IQ score were also cut. All that's left are problems that test visual logic, spatial reasoning, as well as verbal ablity (as in, the ability to keep factors straight in your head when they are given in the form of a word problem) and stuff like that.
'g' actually measures cognitive function, and it has been found reliable. It has been widely accepted by the scientific community as accurate, and in any new publication (past 5-10 years) where IQ scores are mentioned, they are generally talking about scores from g-loaded tests.
All this shit about IQ scores being unreliable is outdated.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 11:41
Wait a minute wait a minute
So, this: So, blacks look totally different from whites, even have different bone structure, different limb lengths and facial shape, macroscopic and microscopically visible differences in muscle tissue from white people, and can't even be treated for glaucoma with the same drugs as white people--but this is all environmental?
Someone tell the New England Journal of Medicine. Someone tell the Nobel Prize committee that we've got a contender here.
Gets this as a response:
Yes. Yes those differences are all environmental (cultural, social, etc). They are not fundamentally genetic, which is what you're claiming. If Sub-Saharan African's are a sub-species then so are you. You present your information as if whites and asians are a different species unto itself that evolved from "negroids". That is just simply not the case and your pathetic, snarky attempts of shouting it down will not change that.
All I can say, is, what have you been smoking cracka man?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 11:42
>>919
Illustrates the point. I don't think the race-unification dude even understood what the first guy said before responding.
>>915 Yes. Yes those differences are all environmental (cultural, social, etc). They are not fundamentally genetic
If you can prove that all of modern biology and zoology are wrong, the Human Genome Project is wrong, and all that has been learned about animal and plant heredity since the Victorian Era is wrong, then the Nobel Prize committee will want to get in touch with you.
>>919,>>920
Well, yes. He's been talking out of his ass the whole time. Don't use too many big words, you'll confuse him.
You guys are just bullshitting. You're taking exception to what I'm saying without clearly stating what you're taking exception to and without refuting one word of what's being said. That's because: You can't. You either don't have the cognitive ability or you suffer from a lack of information and understanding.
See, here's >>922's trick: He pretends that by using key phrases like "Human Genome Project" and "Nobel Prize committee" it somehow brings validity to his claims about the relevance of "pan-ethnic" allele frequencies and the fact that the greatest number of halpotypes are found in Africa and yet, Africans themseleves aren't divided up into different "races" and "sub-races". The question is: Why?
It's a question of selectivity. There's no such thing as an objective test for allele frequencies or "genetic race". If they sample from a continuum of blacks- then they say it's a genetic pattern of "black features". All of this is defined socially first, biologically second. In science and in discussion of genetics it is supposed to be the other way around.
"g" isn't the same thing as IQ. There's zero proof that the IQ scores cited in this thread and in books like the Bell Curve are "g-loaded" tests. None. If you have some: Stop your bitching and bring it to the table.
|| All this shit about IQ scores being unreliable is outdated.
What response do you have to the fact that IQ tests are esscentially "environmental" IQ tests? Why is it that when we have this discussion of IQ, that you blithly ignore possible environmental causes for gaps in IQ. You don't address them at all. But just because you won't address them (because they obviously take away from your arguments) doesn't mean they'll go away. Discrimination towards blacks in this regard only serve to contribute to these enviromental factors.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 20:02
>>923
{Africans themseleves aren't divided up into different "races" and "sub-races". The question is: Why?}
I don't see how that's relevant. So what if they have a greater genetic diversity? The fact remains that you can still tell someone's race from their genetic makeup. BTW, if you believe that white skin and red hair is caused by environmental factors, then you are seriously deluding yourself.
{Ok, if you say so.}
What the fucking hell? Those two links you provided aren't even scientific sources, they're just left wing propaganda, which rather than attack the results of the surveys they're against, decide to question their motives.
{Discrimination towards blacks in this regard only serve to contribute to these enviromental factors. }
How convenient. It's the white man holding the black man down all over again.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 20:16
Our friend here is standard of liberalism (or in fact, any idealogy that relies heavily on non-truths). What he does is use vague connections and convenient accusations to assert what he believes to be true. Look at how his argument has evolved from the beginning: at first, he said he didn't believe in race. Then he said that he did believe that genes were transmitted between generations, but that it didn't account for intelligence. Now, (I'm not sure if he's been reading what he himself has been writing) he seems to think that genes don't even control traits visilby expressed.
What's happening is he comes to an argument with a belief, and then he changes his arguments to reinforce that belief as new information is introduced. He believes that by expressing his belief strongly enough, coming out half-cocked with illogical "evidence" he can somehow make his beleifs true.
I don't know whether to call cognitive dissonance or just plain stupidity on this.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 20:18
>>923
What about your trick of mentionning a point made by someone, but instead of addressing the point blabberring on about stupid bullshit or a typo or even the fact that you don't address the point (as you have just done), then pretending "lol i won internet fite".
The most haplotypes are found in sub-saharra Africa because the out of Africa theory is correct and humans evolved from ancestors who originated there. It is a proven fact that this happenned at least 50000 years ago, that's at least 1700 generations (30 years per generation). At most 70000 years ago which is at most 4000 generations (17 years per generation). For dispersed hunter gatherers across the entire land surface of the globe who's total population numbers a few million, how can you tell me evolution doesn't happen and that humanity's most important organ, the brain, remains unchanged whilst skin. muscle and bone structure change substantially (since you refuse to engage this point I will assume you agree with me that it is true)?
P.S. IQ tests are not 100% accurate, but a difference of 10 points or more is enough to create concern.
One of the virtues of communism is their love of demographic science, they believe IQ tests are a wonderful little communal activity which helps them identify the child geniuses in their society, to give them opportunities and find ways to help those who score low. All they did was translate the tests into chinese, print them out and hand them out to schools and various communities so some university students could analyse them and yet their impoverished comrades scored higher than African Americans. Romanians score higher than African Americans. Peruvians score higher than African Americans. Any race in seemingly all environments who's descendants left Africa scores higher than African Americans. Mexican immigrants who experience a lot of racism from concerned southerners score higher than African Americans. African Americans who are settled, educated with white kids and have their own major political groups to support them score lower than illegally immigrated Mexicans who grew up in poverty and spend all day picking fruit or carving meat. It is obvious that Mexican genes prefer brain growth more so than African American genes.
If you are African American and you want to have children, do the right thing and adopt a non-African-American.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 20:21 (sage)
>>920
Lots of poeple just glance through the last set of posts without knowing what the arguement is even about.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 21:06
I am the other guy in this debate, not the there's-no-race guy.
>>926 If you are African American and you want to have children, do the right thing and adopt a non-African-American.
I wouldn't go that far. If African American's want to have kids, we shouldn't be allowed to have any say in what they do. It's their choice, their prerogative. Human rights don't disappear just because you're mal-adapted to your environment.
My problem lies with the outright denial of something which is just so obviously true. If we keep ignoring the problem, it's going ot get larger, and black people are going to continue unfairly blaming white people for their problems instead of finding a solution, whether it be genetically engineered etc.. (And DEFINATELY not controlled by government or any government body).
Our morals shouldn't (and honestly probably won't) disappear just because we acknowledge something, no matter how nihilistic it'll make some people feel. The reason is because even though there's differences between humans, we're still thinking beings.
We can find a way to reconcile this.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-23 21:34
>>928
I asked nicely, I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 0:26
>>928
A MUCH better way is for parents to select genes for their kids that code for best intelligence. You know... Natural selection. Only implemented by man.
That way, one is always genetically engineering someone they love you know, they have an emotional investment in the thing they're creating. They won't become monsters.
You must be confused. You said it's outdated. Clearly there are some who currently dispute the tests themselves. The first link cites references, the second one is yet again an article that cites a contenious view on IQ. Regardless- you don't have a response for what the two links are saying. Or was that it, in >>924?
That's nice. But I'm not a liberal and resorting to the liberal/conservative political dichotomy in a shitty attempt to win the argument (an argument I've already won, btw) is automatic lose.
Also: I've never changed my position. Another lame tactic that was used in this same thread. But, I guess you're going to keep moving the goal-line until you've convinced yourself that you're right.
I don't believe in race. I said it in the beginning and I said it: >>897. - How has that changed?
Then he said that he did believe that genes were transmitted between generations, but that it didn't account for intelligence. Now, (I'm not sure if he's been reading what he himself has been writing) he seems to think that genes don't even control traits visilby expressed.
Wrong.Again/ What I've said was: Intelligence is a combination of nuture and nature. NURTURE and NATURE, do you understand that means? That means there can be no solely genetic disparities in intelligence generally or individually. Because intelligence isn't just genetics. This is fact. Why do I have to keep repeating this shit? Are you all really that fucking retarded?
And LOL @ "New Information" - perhaps you can cite this "new information" present in the thread? Because frankly, you haven't presented jack shit. Just a bunch of stuff without scientific sources- gee now what did I just get accused of? OH RIGHT.
Point out where I did this otherwise it's a product of the everyday dementia that is living in your mind.
how can you tell me evolution doesn't happen and that humanity's most important organ, the brain, remains unchanged whilst skin. muscle and bone structure change substantially (since you refuse to engage this point I will assume you agree with me that it is true)?
FYI: I've addressed numerous times. It's just that you're too fucking obtuse to "Get it". BUT HERE WE GO AGAIN.
"Whites" are not post-human. Nor are Asains, nor is anyone else living. There has been no study what-so-ever that have provided concrete data that we, white, asaian or whatever are going through evolution. Natural selection? MAYBE. Evolution? Absolutely not. Fact: Our genes are NO different than that of sub-saharan africans, ancient egyptians, ancient europeans or chinese. Just because technology has advanced doesn't mean we've broken through our genetic caste when it comes to intellect. I'm sorry if the Bell Curve gave you that impression- but out of all the things I took exception to- I'm fairly sure the book wasn't saying: Whites and Asains are more evolved than blacks and hispanics.
Skin color "race" doesn't correspond to the brain. Skin color doesn't guarantee your chances for high IQ no more than HEIGHT, WEIGHT or any other feature does. Any co-relation between the two is just that- A CO-RELATION. Do you understand that there is concrete difference between Co-relative theory and scientific method?
Also: I'm afraid I don't get your second point. What do you mean by "African American"? Do you mean the 90% of people in American who have 10% non-black blood? What about the percentage of whites that have non-asian/non-white/black blood in them? Or do you just mean dark-skinned people with big noses and lips?
Name:
A. Wyatt Mann2006-03-24 3:19 (sage)
>>923 Mup da doo didda po mo gub dat tum muhfugen bix nood cof bin dub ho muhfugga
You lost all credibility when you claimed that genes don't exist.
You're arguing with someone who claims that genes don't exist, and even if they do exist, have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Mentioning the Human Genome Project, IQ tests, current research, or anything else to him only elicits rather muddled and contradictory claims about racism.
Get what? You're making claim after claim that flies in the face of all of biology, all of zoology, all of medical science, with nothing to back it up but outraged handwaving. "Mup da doo didda po mo gub dat tum muhfugen bix nood cof bin dub ho muhfugga, it beez racisms!"
anti-chan why do you bother? these people arent interested in debate. they are only interested in validating their claims through you because youre black. what would they have said if you agreed with them? that youre 'one of the smart ones'? rubbish.
i dont see what difference it even makes if you provide scientific studies for anything. remember when you did that hundreds of posts back and they claimed it was 'afrocentric' and 'left-wing'? remember when you provided proof the moors were black from a stormfront.org and they tried to say you were wrong? and at the same time they dont provide studies that havent already been refuted by later studies. this is absurdity.
people like >933 will always consider themselves masters. but if we tested their iq scores what's betting they score low? i'm from one of the poorest cities in scotland and these poor sods weren't born dumb, they were bred dumb and had stupidity slowly beaten into them. saying anything is completely genetic is like sayin the whole world doesn't exist. like there are no feelings of hopelessness in the world. or there aint circumstances your born into and can't do nothin about. i personally agree with the 'handful of smart lads' thing because only a handful of us got out of our slum. everyone else left behind are basically chavs now.
All I can say to the rest of this is that no matter what you may think, or the impression the "scientific community" has given you- we do not know enough about intelligence to implement eugenics as a solution to the percieved problem of "lower IQ" (note the quotations) in human beings. Eugenics requires a totalitarian and fascist government/society to work properly. Those two ideas alone seem to run hand in hand with an under-educated and uninformed populace. You need to study more on intelligence and stop reducing individuals down to generals. It just doesn't work.
My problem lies with the outright denial of something which is just so obviously true.
"Just look at them!" or "Just think about it!" isn't methodology, it isn't science and this is why your argument is referred to as the "psuedo science."
Same goes for "it's so obvious".
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 6:41
Anti-chan's greatest hits II
In response to: "Niggers never had great civilization. Their civilization end cos they were dumb.
You and everyone else on this planet is a variation of a sub-saharan negroid. If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect meeded for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their enviroment mattered? Why would skin color make a difference?
Finally: I think I've been over how generally speaking, everyone is dumb until a handful of people initiate change. The decision to come out of Africa was made by a handful of negroids. The advantages of intellect work on strictly individual levels. Not general.
See, but this my point exactly and why it is called a "psuedo science". You look at some statistics and make a corelation. I.E, "a belief." That's not science. The reason that IQ/race have no absolute corelation is because science teaches us that IQ never comes down to only genetics. So, race has no more of a corelation than status, gender, height, skull size, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 6:52
ANTI-CHAN'S GREATEST HITS 3
In response to: Anti-chan thinks genes don't affect intelligence! He doesn't think genes exist!
And you keep repeating to yourself over and over that my position is "nature's lack of a significant role in intelligence". Sorry, but no: That's idiotic, desperate wishful thinking on your part. If I said something along those lines, I recant on that now. Everyone knows nature/nurture work in concert. You learn that shit in grade school.
I haven't dodged shit- the results are trivial because there is no "intelligence gene" in the first fucking place. How many times must it be pointed out that IQ cannot fully measure intelligence? It only measures what we *assume* intelligence to be. It is simple common sense that you cannot 100% accurately measure the attributes of the human mind using the human mind. Objectivity is not possible by virtue of the means used.
THE BOTTOMLINE
Repeated over and over in several posts:
Disparity in IQ can't be attributed to genetics alone because genetics alone do not determine IQ.
As for people being afraid of what they would find, that's an ignorant statement. You don't know what the fuck people are afriad of. It's an assumption, which serves your ego and your argument.
You say that assuming people would be afriad: "Wow, blacks really are inferior!" - when honestly, the guys who wrote the Bell Curve could have avoided this maddness by at least attempting to put out a complete study in the first place. We all know why they didn't and why they ignored culture and society in their study. (Pioneer Fund Nazis, FTW)
And It's funny, societal taboos only exist in your camp when it suits you. You completely ignore the fact that 400+ years of blackness being a "societal (and cultural) taboo" could have an effect on future generations' intelligence- while at the same time citing "societal tabboo" as a reason one person wouldn't do an experiment on the genetic basis.
In repsonse to: YOU'RE JUST CALLING ME A RACIST :( :( :(
I think the most telling thing about "whites" and the race/IQ arguement is that it always serves as an excusal of "white guilt". There's not a time where a white person in this debate doesn't try to effectively say: "Well see? It's not our fault!" It's a plain effort for anglo-saxons in general to wash their hands of the sins of their fathers. The irony is that when we speak upon things, we aren't attacking the entire white race.
We are attacking the history of a culture of assumed inferiority surrounding blacks, latinos, asians, arabs, shintos, hindus, buddists, etc. Races and religions which were deemed inferior on the grounds of being non-white and non-christian. That is true even now.
A bushman has knowledge that's passed down for generations, and memorized. A bushman isn't inventing the techniques for survival, just copying them.
How is that different from academic education? It's very rare that relevant new ideas are introduced in academia and it was rare, then, new ideas were introduced for survival.
You see: We're simply stating things that happened in history. Things were not equal and are not equal now. And it is the assumption of whites that things, in fact, are equal. Of course they're equal.
For you.
Notice that it's only "whites" that think this. Notice that the one "people" who have a history of doing everything in their power to make sure things are not equal- are the ones claiming everything to be fair and good in the modern world. At the same time you turn around and try to "prove your superiority" with the IQ/race. While saying: "I have no connection to the whites of slavery and colonialism, so I'm not racist." - you turn around at the same time and say: "It's not *OUR* fault. You see *WE* are superior, so you failed." Don't you see the conflict of your words there?
But your apathy to the very real things that have happened to non-whites over this long modern history is at the very heart- the flaw in your debate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 10:49
>> Don't you see the conflict of your words there?
What if it's true? Doesn't make you a racist. Racism is defined as IGNORANT characterization. Our beliefs are based on data and information, which is suppressed at every opportunity by moralists and other people who believe they're doing something good.
>> there is no "intelligence gene" in the first fucking place
No single gene. Nobody ever claimed there was one. Yet another of your transparent and idiotic debate tactics. What we have is a constellation of genes that affect an individual's overall intelligence, picked out more or less at random over the years. There is no single gene that controls muscle mass, there is no single gene that controls SKIN COLOR. Yet we know that these factors are genetic (unless I read you properly when you said that all those traits are environmental)
>> It only measures what we *assume* intelligence to be.
This is the same thing as when you said that there is no such thing as race. Race is a measure invented by man to explain empirical observation. Intelligence is the same. It doesn't make it any less valid in the sphere we're talking about here. Especially when intelligence, (g especially) correlates to success in life. If you can cite me a study that refutes that (and isn't just an attack questioning the motives of the experimenters) then by all means do it.
>> You completely ignore the fact that 400+ years of blackness being a "societal (and cultural) taboo" could have an effect on future generations' intelligence- while at the same time citing "societal tabboo" as a reason one person wouldn't do an experiment on the genetic basis
You effectively ignore that condition of black people wherever they go in the world since the beginning of civilization. You can cite a few civilizations if you want, but they were nowhere near as advanced as the white civilizations at the time. They didn't have the building prowess or the engineering skill of ANY of them.
You can say that I'm subjectively calling the Assyrians and the Harappans etc... superior because I'm uneducated about them if you want to, but answer me this; why did none of those civilizations we hear so much about have any lasting impact on the rest of the world?
You can't deny that the system is set up to favor black people nowadays. Colleges have to accept a proportion of them which exceeds their overall population in the country. Quotas everywhere you look. And most white people aren't racist. In fact they're terrified of that label.
>> How is that different from academic education? It's very rare that relevant new ideas are introduced in academia and it was rare, then, new ideas were introduced for survival.
Academic education is harder than surviving in the bush (mentally, not physically) ever was. In academia, you have to come up with original and you have to calculate things. You must tax your brain. To survive, you simply have to follow some simple patterns or some memorization of what plants to eat etc... It was mostly brute strength that prevailed.
>> Disparity in IQ can't be attributed to genetics alone because genetics alone do not determine IQ.
Never said it did. The disagreement we're having relates to the extent to which IQ can be attributed to genetics. Please get your shit straight.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 10:53
>>940
BTW, I'm nice racist. Other guy is mean racist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 10:56
>>940 Assyrians and the Harappans
Those are white civilizations. You aren't black, so obviously you wouldn't know about them. They aren't your ancestors.
Besides that, why did I learn about The Buddha and Confucious and the civilizations they spawned in my history class? Why did I learn about ancient Japan? Could it be because *gasp* they had greater impact on today's world?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 11:13
BTW, to add to the case for a societal taboo, what about the case of the Zebra killings? They killed many more people than son of sam did, and yet nobody's heard of them. Why?
staunch liberal is an oxymoron. i think u have a well-known case of penis-envy. the reason why we cannot say that whites are better at math or literature is because it isn't a proven fact.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 16:14
>>947
It's proven is it? I see no proof, but assuming it is proven I will disprove it by counter point.
Isaac Newton
Shakespeare
I have just crushed you in debate, admit this please.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 19:04
949
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 19:04
950GET!
only 50 more to go guys
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-24 22:01
Fuck, I soooooooo want that 1000! I got 500 already!
>>> What if it's true? Doesn't make you a racist. Racism is defined as IGNORANT characterization. Our beliefs are based on data and information, which is suppressed at every opportunity by moralists and other people who believe they're doing something good.
It isn't true though, and it becomes an ignorant characterization when you ignore envirnomental factors for gaps in intelligence. Which you do when you cite genetics as the sole reasons for such. Regardless, belief in a heirarchy of races makes you racist by definition alone. We don't even have to bring morality into this, because even from an objective stand point; It's indefensible. But, you're so desperate to be right that you're sitting here trying to change the definition of racism. If you're a racist, say you're a racist. I don't give a shit.
>>> No single gene. Nobody ever claimed there was one. Yet another of your transparent and idiotic debate tactics. What we have is a constellation of genes that affect an individual's overall intelligence, picked out more or less at random over the years. There is no single gene that controls muscle mass, there is no single gene that controls SKIN COLOR. Yet we know that these factors are genetic (unless I read you properly when you said that all those traits are environmental)
Then what are these "constellation of genes"? Why is intelligence still considered an abstract? You can pretend all you want that these are "transparent" non-issues- but this is the very argument. Intelligence is an abstract. There's no way around that. Genes alone don't control intelligence, there's no way around that either. Those different physical traits came about because of the environment. They are not fundamentally genetic in the sense that change in traits would've have initiated without reason to do so, environementally.
>> This is the same thing as when you said that there is no such thing as race. Race is a measure invented by man to explain empirical observation. Intelligence is the same. It doesn't make it any less valid in the sphere we're talking about here. Especially when intelligence, (g especially) correlates to success in life. If you can cite me a study that refutes that (and isn't just an attack questioning the motives of the experimenters) then by all means do it.
No, it's not. This is just manuevering on your part. Race doesn't exist the way you want it to. Intelligence does but it's abstract. Race isn't inherant in nature and it shouldn't be treated in the same regard as intelligence. The very fact that we define race socially first and biologically second makes it less valid. At the very least with intelligence we can say that it is biological and based on biology we can make certain assumptions socially.
However, asking me to find a study that says high IQ doesn't equal success is a fairly shitty tactic. Of course it does. But that's the not the argument. The arguement is whether or not reasons for gaps in IQ is solely genetic. Even if someone isn't successful that doesn't mean the reasons for that lack of success is solely genetic. It can't be because environemnt plays a balanced if not bigger role in IQ and this statement is validated by the fact that IQ test are standardized under the assumption that you're testing for all of the environemental factors that go into IQ.
What I would like to see is proof that the scores used in this thread are tests that specifically score for "g" and not for IQ. You're acting like they're the same thing, when they are not.
>> You effectively ignore that condition of black people wherever they go in the world since the beginning of civilization. You can cite a few civilizations if you want, but they were nowhere near as advanced as the white civilizations at the time. They didn't have the building prowess or the engineering skill of ANY of them.
You can say that I'm subjectively calling the Assyrians and the Harappans etc... superior because I'm uneducated about them if you want to, but answer me this; why did none of those civilizations we hear so much about have any lasting impact on the rest of the world?
Again: What you don't understand is that your very question is based on an ignorance of history and subjective leaning towards white civilization no matter how unsuccessful they were or how much of a failure they were. There's a bias here that you're purposely not addressing. High IQ doesn't guarantee you that you civilization will be successful or serve a greater impact. You treat this subject as if all the evidence is in, you treat this subject as if whites of the 1900's during the time of colonization and subjegation of negroid would have ever been inclined to say civilization came out of Africa or that Africa had great civilizations.
>> You can't deny that the system is set up to favor black people nowadays. Colleges have to accept a proportion of them which exceeds their overall population in the country. Quotas everywhere you look. And most white people aren't racist. In fact they're terrified of that label.
Yes I can. While there is a system for colleges and employment, this is done as a reaction to discriminatory mindset prevailent through out society because of the reverberating effects of African colonization and slave culture. Not only that, but you're ignoaring the fact that black people as a whole are still feeling the effects of slave culture and the social stigma surrounding black skin. This is what I mean by: "You completely ignore the fact that 400+ years of blackness being a "societal (and cultural) taboo" could have an effect on future generations' intelligence- while at the same time citing "societal tabboo" as a reason one person wouldn't do an experiment on the genetic basis."
If we already know environment has an impact on "g" and therefore general intelligence. Why is it so hard to believe or understand that 400 years of every negroid, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, being subjegated and denied education would have an impact on the general IQ and the culture of black people? Why do you try to ignore history?
The idea that blacks "have always had problems with civilization" is in fact, an ignorant characterization based on the ideal that the failure of any civilization co-relates to low "genetic IQ". But you have no proof for that. The Hittites were smart and were the first to develop iron. And yet: They failed. How many times must it be stated that high IQ doesn't mean your civilization will "win out"?
>> Academic education is harder than surviving in the bush (mentally, not physically) ever was. In academia, you have to come up with original and you have to calculate things. You must tax your brain. To survive, you simply have to follow some simple patterns or some memorization of what plants to eat etc... It was mostly brute strength that prevailed.
Again; this is pure subjective nonsense. But I'm glad you brought this up because I covered it 600 posts ago.
Your opinion about how much intelligence it takes to survive in the sub-sahara is just that: An opinion. You say that it hasn't anything to do with IQ and is "just knowledge".
Well I have some really bad news for you; Dictionary.com's definition of knowledge:
knowl·edge
n.
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.
Intelligence: The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
Seems to me that you just admitted that the pre-historic sub-saharan humans were pretty intelligent, no? I mean, obviously they understood nature and where to find food or the human race wouldn't be here.
It's not stupid to try and understand intelligence. But it is very, very stupid to infer certain things about the brain biologically based solely on our perception of it's output. It's important to indentify and quantify the *input*, as well.
Never said it did. The disagreement we're having relates to the extent to which IQ can be attributed to genetics. Please get your shit straight.
By saying that the reason blacks are dumber than whites is genetic- is saying that environment has nothing to do with IQ. Or rather: Saying that genetics works to a greater extent than nurture. That's impossible, because it's a balance. Always. Always. Always. It's always a balance between nurture and nature. Maybe you should get <i>your</i> shit straight, child.
Name:
A. Wyatt Mann2006-03-25 2:41 (sage)
>>954
Demonstrate there is any significant non-genetic factor in intelligence, please. Barring brain damage and/or severe malnutrition in early childhood, intelligence, as it is empirically, repeatably measured by IQ tests, appears to be 100% genetic in origin.
Demonstrate that intelligence is anything other than the net information-processing power of a given human brain, please.
You cannot. You will wave your hands, and shout the magic word "racism," but you cannot.
In any event, this is the only logical conclusion given what mainstream anthropologists agree is the sole possible origin of the races.
Somewhere between a quarter of a million years ago and 80,000 years ago, humans migrated to Europe. By the evidence, it looks probable that they did this either during or just before an ice age that rendered Europe a place incomprehensibly hostile to human life, particularly Neolithic human life.
The losses in those early pioneering groups must have been tremendous, yet the survivors persevered and more kept coming. Possibly 90% or more of each generation died before having an opportunity to breed, due to glaciers, dire wolves, and other large and efficient predators already well adapted to this environment. It is impossible to overemphasize how deadly this environment was.
You might say it had a way of killing the stupid along with the weak. Among the early Cro-Magnon peoples, human cranial capacity grew tremendously with each generation. By 50,000 years ago, the Cro-Magnon forbears of the White race were well established, and by the fossil evidence, had cranial capacity equivalent to or slightly larger than modern-day Whites. Thus the average White IQ of 105-110 compared to the average pure-blood Negro IQ of 55-70.
My ancestors conquered a continent during an ice age, and my race today still bears the chromosomes of conquerors. The Negro, on the other hand, has remained static, unchanged, perhaps as much as a quarter of a million years behind the White and Asiatic races in evolution.
This is why the White race has given the world the transistor, penicillin, the airplane, radio, and men on the Moon.
This is also why the African Negro never had any form of writing, or the wheel, or any metal but soft meteoric iron that they could only find and make use of when it literally fell from the sky--this despite living on a continent that is a literal treasure house of metals and metal ores, from copper to tungsten to gold. This is why the Negro never created habitation for himself notably superior than what beavers build, let alone built a city with stone walls, nor domesticated an animal, nor even practiced agriculture or wove cloth until the Arabs taught them a mere few centuries ago.
And this is why the Negro always has been, and always will be, when left to his own devices, utterly incapable of civilization, or even contributing to White civilization in any manner requiring greater cognitive ability than picking the white bits off a cotton plant and stuffing them into a sack. As there are now machines that can do this far more economically, the Negro can never be anything but a burden to his superiors, a net liability wherever he may be.
Truly a waste of bandwidth. Your post was basically you with your fingers in your ears, crying: "LALALALALALA." like some 5 year old who just got told not to shit on the toilet seat.
I'm fucking tired of refuting your bullshit, pigboy. You say that "negros" never had civilization- well, the guys at Yale and other educational institutions think otherwise. Who am I supposed to believe?
The guy who got punched in the face by a black guy one time and then decided the only way he could redeem himself was to become a mindless member of the fictional white race?
Or a college professor?
I've cited from numerous sources where you are wrong. And surprise, surprise you haven't responded or refuted any of them. It's not my fault you're so filled with hate that you ignore all data that flies in the face of your psuedo-science faggotry.
g = Nurture and Nature. How is that "Crying racism"? Are you really that fucking retarded? Did your mom serve your paint chips in milk and told it was "white frosted flakes, not like dem NIGGER FLAKES"
That's a known fact.
Unless....you have a study that says unrefutably intelligence is ALL nature...?
Do you? Because I'd love to see it. :D
Besides, if you really want to test it, why don't you just not teach your child to read when you knock up your sister, Cletus?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-25 3:34
>>956
You haven't refuted anything yet, boy. But this tantrum you're throwing is quite entertaining. Smoke another rock and chimp out some more.
LOL "Boy", alright there Mississippi Burning...you get back to us when you respond to the points I've made instead of crying about people persecuting you for your white skin and calling you a racist.
>>958
Exactly, it's genetic s and the environment. Which is why mexican immigrants are more intelligent than African Americans even though they lived in poverty with less opportunities for education and experience the same if not more racism. Because their genes favour intelligence even when they grow up in such conditions. Not to mention the fact that the genes of a race in a society affects how well they raise their children and develop their economy. A small alteration in intelligence and emotional behaviour can affect a civilisation on a large scale.
The nazis were wrong about it being 100% genetic and the marxists were wrong about it being 100% environmental.
If you had person A and person B of equal age (age could be counted as an environmental factor, this just makes thing simpler), and A was substantially better at calculus we can accertain the following possibilities.
A had a better environment (education) and
:their genes are the same
;A's genes are worse but A's environment was beneficial enough to give A an advantage.
;A's genes are better aswell as A's environment.
A has the same or a very similiar environment as B and
:A's genes are more beneficial.
A has experienced a worse environment than B and
:A's genes are more beneficial.
Unless Mexico's citizens are more well fed and have a better education than African Americans in the US, African Americans must have genes that substantially reduce their ability to learn.
where did anti-chan throw a tantrum? sounds like someone's trying to win via the "nigger nigger nigger" tactic again. it's funny to say nigger on 4chan,but when people come here thinking we're serious it kinda ruins it
Excuse me? But where is the data that says Mexican immigrants do better than African American's in the US? Where's the data that says it's genetic and not just that immigrant fulfilling what the immigrant's environment re-enforced it to do? Do these mystery studies account for where in Mexico these people come from? Do the test account for the environments of these people?
And why are you still acting as if there is "genetic race"? Find me the "negroid genes". Show me where the "white genes" exist. You can't. Because they don't. The only thing you've got is skin color and other physical features- but that doesn't equal race. The cultural component is the most important component in race and by relation environment (culture) is the most important component in "racial IQ"
I'm sorry, but your entire post sounds like conjecture and all the studies you (or other posters) used to qualify your points were contested, if not refuted outright around posts >>200 - >>400.
>> Not to mention the fact that the genes of a race in a society affects how well they raise their children and develop their economy.
That's not a fact because there's no such thing as "genes of a race". There's genes for physical features that adapted to enviornments. But that's it.
A small alteration in intelligence and emotional behaviour can affect a civilisation on a large scale.
Again: Proof. Why is it that throughout history "smarter" civilizations failed as well as "dumber" ones? If we were to believe the bell curve, then the Chinese and Japanese should have the strongest civilization and a majority of the world's power.
Why do you keep stating things as fact without the data to back it up. Why do you keep ignoring history? If you don't have the data you don't have a scientific argument. You have a co-relative theory. Do you even understand the difference between the two?
And please (finally) respond: Why hasn't there been a study on Height and IQ or Weight and IQ? I keep asking why the focus is on race, but I'm getting no answers. If the opposition isn't racist, then maybe we can make a co-relation between height and IQ...the question is: Why haven't we?
How do you not see dividing people up into different races along IQ would be as stupid and ridiculous as dividing people's IQ based on height?
Regardless of the implications to my own argument ("I'm just calling people racist!"), I still question the motives and policies built on the idea that IQ is fate. Clearly, judging by history it isn't- because natural selection doesn't favor intelligence unless people (ashkanazi jews) sexually select for it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-25 7:41
>>963
Perhaps it has to do with religion and not genetics?
They certainly didn't appear to have much of a work ethic when busy sacrificing to temples in the ol' days.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-25 9:57
>>964
Religion counts as a very ineffectual environmental factor, you are either educated or you are not. Religious people tend to be better readers and more patient. Unless you are talking about medieval peasant/cult-like religion.
lol argument from authority. College professors say all manner of stupid things.
There was a professor named John Mack at Harvard, a professor of psychiatry, who wrote books in which he claimed millions of people were being abducted and anally probed by little green men in UFOs.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-25 11:45 (sage)
>>963
re·fute P Pronunciation Key (r-fyt)
tr.v. re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.
Hint: saying "this has all been refuted" does not constitute a refutation.
>>965
Obviously. Compare/contrast the religion of each area. You'll see certain similarities between religions in developed areas, I think.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-25 13:11
Brain structure is determined by society! Humanity is decided by culture! When monkey's society changed they naturally turned into human beings because society determines physical characteristics. If you taught humans to act like dogs then their children would be dogs. Duh. Are all of you stupid? This is also true of amoeba and dogs. If you starting teaching all dogs advanced calculus they would turn into human beings because culture determines physical traits.. Are all of you ignorant?
Um, no. Those too were determined by the environment. Feature like those are developed because of environment changes. They aren't just there to be there in the human genome.
>>965
Wrong. Overly religious people tend to be the most uneducation. True then, true now.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-25 19:26 (sage)
Feature like those are developed because of environment changes.
dense
adj. dens·er, dens·est
1. a. Having relatively high density.
b. Crowded closely together; compact: a dense population.
2. Hard to penetrate; thick: a dense jungle.
3. a. Permitting little light to pass through, because of compactness of matter: dense glass; a dense fog.
b. Opaque, with good contrast between light and dark areas. Used of a photographic negative.
4. Difficult to understand because of complexity or obscurity: a dense novel.
5. Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.
Show me proof that changes in physical features occured without coaxing from the environment otherwise you're just full of hist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-25 22:12 (sage)
>>977
Dude, he was saying that the phenotype is dictated by the genotype (plus some environmental factors, plus random variation).
When we say that your skin colour is based on genotype, we're not referring to how the genotype got that way. Sure, it was due to environmental pressures and cultural preferences over many millenia. So what?
If you're born with white skin, you can get brown with a tan, but no matter what you do, when you're out of the sun, you'll turn white again. Likewise, if you're black, you're not going to magically turn white.
The *how* of the genotype is the core of the race argument. "So what" is your repsonse because it completely smacks in the face of how you percieve race. Race only has cultural and social definitions (environmental)- not biological. So any co-relations between race and IQ- are environmental.
Again, if you can make co-relations between race and IQ. Why not hieght/weight/eye color? Why are you having such a difficult time addressing the ridiculousness of this?
You don't want to confront the fact that the human genome hasn't changed since the sub-saharan African. The base genotype for skin color is black skin. Mankind comes out of Africa. Sorry to keep repeating this, but you think this means that anything that comes after Africa can be somehow more "evolved" than the sub-saharahan African.
Again, show me scientific proof that this is "evolution" and not what it actually is natural and sexual selection for certian traits.
This leads to another question that I've posed numerous time and remains unanswered: Why is impossible that the sub-saharan African didn't already contain the entire potential for intelligence in its base cast of genes?
If you're born with white skin, you can get brown with a tan, but no matter what you do, when you're out of the sun, you'll turn white again. Likewise, if you're black, you're not going to magically turn white.
That's strange, because that seems to be exactly what's happened. Over time depending on where you are- skin color will change to suit that environment. But this is already present in the human genome. It doesn't make the new skin color fundamentally different biologically from the prior.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-25 23:09
980get
Name:
MootCakes2006-03-25 23:14
I don't believe in racial inferiority or anything like that. Personally, I feel the culture is to blame, and it so happens that races are tied to cultures though all members of a given culture aren't necessarily of the same race (see: wiggers, weeaboos)
For example, in the Samoan culture physical violence amongst the family is normal. You hit your wife when she's out of line. You hit your kid to make them show respect. It would be racist to say all Samoans are violent, however it would not be racist to say members of the Samoan culture may have a predisposition to violence.
Same story with blacks. All blacks aren't criminals, but the black culture idolizes 'street life', being a thug, a pimp, a hustler, surviving jail terms as symbolizing toughness, and committing crime simply to make do - after all, without a job you still need money for rent, to eat, etc.
By that measure, being a part of the black culture (and I'm talking specifically about American suburban blacks, not Cajuns, Creoles, Africans, etc.) means you may have viewpoints about these subjects where you find it acceptable to (e.g.) deal drugs in order to make money.
Do all blacks sell crack? No. Is the chance of a black person finding that activity less of a crime moreso than other cultures would think likely? Yes.
Name:
right-mang2006-03-26 0:39
>>979
Well, you can only say that race only has social conditions attached if you ignore the fact that many things which are genetically linked are present in that "race". For the most obvious example, skin color.
That being said, I do believe that most of the inequality between races is primarily social and as you say, environmental. But that doesn't mean that a genetic component to someone's intelligence doesn't exist, or that it should be ignored.
>> Why is impossible that the sub-saharan African didn't already contain the entire potential for intelligence in its base cast of genes?
It's not impossible, not at all impossible. But what matters here is the frequency of certain traits within a genetic group. While there's not yet any accurate genetic survey which maps the genes responsible for intelligence, they have managed to find some genes which do regulate certain nervous system functions that are less prevalent among africans. This doesn't make them inferior at all, if anything they only represent a slight edge that could be made up for in blacks with appropriate education.
What I'm saying is that europeans (cro-magnonoids etc) had a more harsh environment. This did lead to many many changes in allele frequencies... Possibly even some new mutant genes that might have been advantageous (this would be "evolution") but that hasn't been proven. The same goes for caucasoids and asians.
>> It doesn't make the new skin color fundamentally different biologically from the prior.
It's still a change. It doesn't have to be fundamental to be significant. This is an curious debate tactic I've seen you use a lot during this debate, assert that something is not significant just because it doesn't represent a large change. An electric engine runs 30% more efficiently on 240 volt current than it does on 120, yet the change is, speaking from an electical engineering standpoint, insignifcant. Oh well, I'm just a person on the sidelines.
I do have a LOT to say to the racists in this thread though, about their psudoscience and just plain asenine use of intellect. I'll get to that in a forthcoming post.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 0:41
>>979 Again, if you can make co-relations between race and IQ. Why not hieght/weight/eye color?
You can VERY easily make correlations between race and height/weight/eye color. I don't understand why you said that. It seems like such an asenine point.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 0:48
>>966
Actually, that's not really true... Brain size can be correlated to genetics, it's true, but strutcure is an entirely different matter... The form of your brain follows the functions to which it is put to use. For example, if you're someone who thought a lot about abstract equations and theories a whole lot, and paid little mind to everyday matters, your brain might slowly shift to where your right brian becomes more developed. This was shown with einstein, and how his brain was a little different from other people's. You can argue that his brain started out that way sure, but they have actually observed people's brains changing in labs when they are put to new tasks, they have actually been able to see changes in people's brains when they took on a new job that had different demands from their previous one.
It's just like muscles. When you excersize them, their shapes change.
HOWEVER; this doesn't mean there are not genetic components to intellectual capacity. Only that they are not so insurmountable.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 0:58
>>979
I'm a different poster from 983. I just saw this so I thought I would respond.
Family is culturally and socially defined, and biologically defined as well. Extended family is culturally and socially defined, and biologically defined as well. Race, which is another step up from extended family, is culturally and socially defined, and biologically defined as well.
Your belief in race only being a cultural and social construct is incredibly shallow to say the least. Of course race is a social construct. Duh, everything is pretty much a social construct. You're saying this like its something significant. Race, is also biologically significant. That's the whole idea behind race. Sambo blacks with heads shaped like twisted gourds, big fat lips, and IQs below 60 are not white. If you've got blond or red hair, you're a definte shoe in for being white. If you've got a ruddy complexion and a white skull shape, and the higher concentrations of grey matter versus white matter that most white people have, you're a shoe in for being white.
You talk as though something being a social construct is demeaning. That's like saying something that is defined is MERELY a definition. There's no merely about it. Yes, definitions can change, but definitions are also significant and have a reason for being what they are. Yes, green could mean orange, but green DOESN'T mean orange, and that's significant.
White people that are genetically dumb we call retarded. Black people that are dumb are called black. Black people that are average are called smart.
It's all a social construct. But, guess what, EVERYTHING is a freaking social construct. Physics is a social construct. Science is a social construct. School is a social construct. Music is a social construct. America is a social construct. Germany is a social construct. McDonalds is a social construct.
Big deal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 0:59
>>955
This post is so full of psudoscience and just plain inaccuracy that it's unbelievable.
Just because a certain race manages to figure out certain things before another doesn't mean that it's superior. It's very possible that in addition to genetics, white people's culture may have favored scientific inquiry more than others.
>> Demonstrate there is any significant non-genetic factor in intelligence, please. Barring brain damage and/or severe malnutrition in early childhood, intelligence, as it is empirically, repeatably measured by IQ tests, appears to be 100% genetic in origin.
Fine then. How about we take twins. Take one of them, and release him into a field, only let him talk to his parents, give him enough communication skills so that testing will be possible. Take the other one, and send him to private school. Fifteen years later, test them both.
Who do you think will do better on the tests? Well, maybe if the first twins genes are really good, he might be able to score rather high on g-loaded tests. But still, the one who was sent to school hasn't just learned all the answers to the questions he's been asked... He's learned how to think. He's gathered neural connections that allow him to use higher functions of his brain that his brother may not have. Critical thinking. Holding more than one idea in his mind at a time. Excersize, remember?
>> Thus the average White IQ of 105-110 compared to the average pure-blood Negro IQ of 55-70.
This doesn't take into account environmental factors. The real gap, when considering environmental factors, is closer to ten or so points, which is socially insignificant.
Cats don't do well at advanced calculus. People with ADHD have REAL problems that are inheritable. Retarded people have genetic disabilities that no amount of training can truly fix. Dogs smell butts instead of reading sonnets, and you couldn't teach them even if you wanted to. You can't shape something you don't have in the first place.
Most black people are as dumb as a brick in comparison to the rest of the human species. Hardcore truth, but that's what Western Civilization is all about. Next.
Exactly! It is an asinine point, because an argument for killing off all short people or barring them from jobs because "generally speaking short people are dumb" is just as fucking stupid for doing so because the percievednon-biological racial components of skin color.
>> But that doesn't mean that a genetic component to someone's intelligence doesn't exist, or that it should be ignored.
Never said that it didn't exist, never said that it should be ignored. If it's a general rule, fine, I've always known that and accepted it. But, to me, dividing IQ among race- something that is based socially and culturally- is stupider than dividing IQ up by hieght or weight.
>> While there's not yet any accurate genetic survey which maps the genes responsible for intelligence, they have managed to find some genes which do regulate certain nervous system functions that are less prevalent among africans.
Not only that, we do not even have a "genetic IQ test". Only an environmental one. And I have still seen no proof that the scores here are from G-loaded test. Second: I'd like to see proof of what you're saying. Without data you have no scientific argument. Only co-relative theory.
>> What I'm saying is that europeans (cro-magnonoids etc) had a more harsh environment. This did lead to many many changes in allele frequencies... Possibly even some new mutant genes that might have been advantageous (this would be "evolution") but that hasn't been proven. The same goes for caucasoids and asians.
THIS IS SUBJECTIVE. If anything the desert was the most harsh environement. When the whites came to places in Africa that were not like Europe- they couldn't survive. (Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond).
And it's not that "it hasn't been proven" in regards to "mutated genes" it's that: IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST. Regardless, without proof your argument is one for myth, legend and maybes.
PRECISELY. There's not such thing as fate when it comes to genetics. If that was true then WE WOULDN'T HAVE SURVIVED SUB-SAHARA AFRICA AND WOULD HAVE DIED OFF. Regardless of the mental (or genetic) capacity someone is born with we as humans, no, as carbon based lifeforms have the ability to change with enough coaxing from our environment.
continuing on from 987, according to the social theories of reality, biology and GENETICS are social constructs. What you want to do though is play hooky and combine social theory with relativism (there are many different social constructs that could be right) with nihilism (social constructs are JUST/MERELY social constructs so they don't have any value whatsoever) so your social construct of race is not significant, and then pull a 180* and say, "but the social constructs I believe in are not social constructs or not MERELY or JUST social constructs."
It's a very convoluted and hypocritical view.
As for >>988, statistical analysis is a touch and feel sort of thing. If 56% of short people are stupid there probably wouldn't be any relationship there. After all, statistics doesn't say anything about any one individual but instead gives a characteristic of a group. So, 56% probably wouldn't mean anything.
But, what if 95% of short people were extraordinarily dumb... Then we could start making group judgements on short people being dumb.
And, so what? It would be the truth. Smart short people might not like it. Stupid short people might not like it. But, it would be true of short people in this mythical situation. Short people with a little bit of sense would just learn how to live with it or try to better themselves. Screaming at people who are quite frankly just being observant is just silly and backward. Don't complain! Don't blame society! Don't blame the message or the one bringin' it! Become a geneticist and do something about it if it freakin' bothers you so much.
Look, in the case of black people, if you don't like black people being dumb so much, then go out there and isolate the genes for intelligence and get the blacks to willingly undergo somatic gene therapy or an inheritable type. Heck, I wouldn't mind my kids having some extra brains, so count ol' whitey here in as well.
Stop blaming whitey for having eyes to see what nature does!
I would also like to mention that all of this whiney anti-racist bullshit is quite frankly some of the most passive and pathetic drivel I've ever seen. It's the drool and bile of people that go out there and whine instead of dealing with reality and creating real change for the better.
I don't care how shallow you think it is. Humans have barely changed in thousands of years. Humanity is shallow in and of itself as proven by this discussion. Anyone who wasn't shallow wouldn't argue against judging people as individuals and instead judging them based on HASTY co-relations made from MIS-INTERPETED statistics.
Your arguement is so shitty that your low IQ is pretty much a given. Am I to assume by your post that you're RETARDED? Or BLACK? Use your brain.
Everything is NOT "pretty much a social contruct.", you dolt. We have a system for measuring height that is based on numberical measurements of biology.
But we don't divide IQ by hieght: WHY?
That's what you haven't asked yourself and this lack of skepticism and self-questioning is first and foremost the most fundamental reason for ignorance and low IQ. So are you retarded or BLACK? You see the problem your ignorant characterization pose? I don't see people by race, but instead by individual back round.
How do you not you see you're doing the same thing to blacks that you don't want them to do to you (judge you based on your skin color).
Race is a social construct that is based on perception. The problem with perception is that it isn't ALWAYS true. Just because see it, doesn't mean it's always fucking there. You don't know what assortment of halpotypes someone could have in their body because solely based on perception- they're deemed "BLACK" or "WHITE".
There was a time when redheaded people were considered a DIFFERENT RACE altogether. This is what you don't get. Race is a social construct that has done NOTHING for mankind as a whole but divide us and just because something is a "social construct" doesn't make it TRUE.
You do know what absolute truth is, don't you?
PROTIP: It ain't a fucking "social construct".
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:44
'But we don't divide IQ by hieght: WHY?'
Because it doesn't seem to correlate to IQ. Race does.
As for everything being a social construct, everything IS a social construct. I mean, Pierce's pragmatism was practically based off of this. Sociology is pretty much based off of this. It's really a very post-modern idea of science. Language is a social construct, science is a social construct. But, they aren't MERELY social constructs. They aren't haphazard social constructs.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:49
>>989 IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST.
Without proof, you can't say it doesn't exist. It goes both ways. I talked about that cautiously, a skill you should excersize when presenting information that you're not really sure about. "without proof your argument is one for myth, legend and maybes."
>> dividing IQ among race- something that is based socially and culturally-
Well, not really. It's been stated many times in this thread that since you can divide skin color (A genetic trait) along race lines, it follows that it might be possible to divide other traits along them too. All skin color is is a collection of genes that determine certain things; since it's possible to find simlarities between individuals in one trait, is it not conceivable that there are similarities in other traits?
>> 998
We also don't have any genetic strength test, yet we know that some groups of people have greater capacity to build strength than others. It doesn't mean that all people from a certain group will be stronger than all people from another. But the discepency is still there. You can't call them exactly the same because they aren't.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:49
997get
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:49
998gey
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:49
999get
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:49Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:50
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:50Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
"Doesn't seem" based on what fucking study, dipshit? That's right! There hasn't been one! But why? Why don't you guys ever talk about how the Bell Curve was funded by Pioneer Fund Nazis?
And again the problem is that race is defined socially and culturally first and biologically second. Without the social and cultural construct of race already in place- we'd have no grounds for the "biologics" of race. Brown skin would be as meaningless as brown spots on a Cow. Race IS a haphazard social construct. It's only good if you're looking to ethically cleanse people.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:51Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:51
Wow... It says we can't reply anymore but GASP! We CAN!
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:51Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:51
Fuck that was cheap. Nooooo! ;o;
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:51Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:51
Hahaha. Hilarity!
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:51Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:52
>>989 When the whites came to places in Africa that were not like Europe- they couldn't survive.
Someone tell the Boers and the Rhodesians.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:52Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 1:53
>>1003
You can't deny that black people have heavier bones and higher strength than white people. This isn't a social construct.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:53Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
All skin color is is a collection of genes that determine certain things; since it's possible to find simlarities between individuals in one trait, is it not conceivable that there are similarities in other traits?
Because these differences in traits aren't there because of skin color you fucking idiot. This is what you refuse to understand. They are there because of the environment. Food eaten, climate, etc. Asians are smarter because they eat alot of fish, not because they are FUNDAMENTALLY genetically smarter.
Because everyone *is* generally the same. It's the sad truth of humanity, only a small minority of people cause dramatic changes in the course of mankind. "But we're allllll different >:o"
Nope, from what I've seen (and I've had the benefit of leaving my country and my state and actually seeing the world) - we're pathetically the same in our differences. There is no such thing as change without coaxing from the environment.
You want to call black people dumb? Then acknowledge the environmental factors. Like white killing off the intelligent blacks and breeding the biggest, blackest and dumbest. Before their interference in the negroid gene pool they were just like any other culturally identified race and more importantly they weren't just all lumped together.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 1:58Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 2:00
>>1019 these differences in traits aren't there because of skin color you fucking idiot.
lol strawman. The only one making that claim is YOU. Work on your reading comprehension. U FAIL IT, LURK MOAR
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 2:00Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Never said they are genetically identical, you fuckwit. But everything works with a caste of genes that were present in sub-saharan Africans.
You are basically an African with white skin and "white" history and culture re-enforcing your PERCIEVED solidarity from negroids. But you aren't special, you aren't different. Deal with it.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 2:01Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 2:02
>> Because these differences in traits aren't there because of skin color you fucking idiot. This is what you refuse to understand.
You're the fucking idiot. Didn't you just get through saying that you didn't deny a genetic component to intelligence? Give that, since the default skin color (for example, without sun exposure) is DEFINATELY genetic, does it not follow that there are some genes relating to intelligence that could follow?
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 2:02Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 2:05
>>1023
Ah, this shit AGAIN. It doesn't fucking matter that the genes exist in sub-saharan africans. What matters is what combination of genes are prevalent, leading to which genes get expressed. Some combinations may be more well adapted than others.
This is the reason why black prevalent genes are dominant over white prevalent genes in a 4-1 ratio, because the black genes that were mal-adapted to the environments outside of africa were de-selected as it were.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 2:05Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 2:13
>>1023
Typical of blacks. To assume that everyone is as dedicated to race as they are. My only dedication is to the truth, to science. Not to politically correct gibberish.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 2:13Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 4:27
Like white killing off the intelligent blacks and breeding the biggest, blackest and dumbest
You mean evil whitey was culling entire Africa? Hohoho fuck, Hitler would have been proud! Just think of the logistics! It would have been the greatest social undertaking of all time!
Oh ho ho ho...but that's just too bad it's the truth, isn't it? I'm only stating the facts, not trying to slur the opposition. This isn't the first time I've brought this up and no one called "Godwin's Law". Even I was called a Nazi in this thread (albeit in a jocular manner)...yet no one shouted "Godwin's Law" then, so it's a straw man now.
No, it's not a give in and that's what you simply refuse to admit. It's conjecture. Either you have proof that skin color/features and IQ tie-in genetically or you don't. Do you have that proof? If you don't, you have no argument.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 5:56Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
I'll ignore the implied racism in that comment. Claiming that I have an interest in race is a character attack and a straw man. I've said numerous times I don't believe in race. But I guess you're going to continue with those types of statements no matter what...because you know your argument is weak as fuck.
If I was white, it'd be: "You hate your own race." But since I'm black it's: "You just want to protect blacks." - both are strawmen. Though I suppose it can't be helped- because when *you* do it- you not only have convinced yourself that it's the absolute truth but that it's relevant and refutes what I've been saying.
*Awaits your hand-waving excusal of your shitty debate tactics*
But it still begs the question, if you're not dedicated to race, then why not the co-relation between IQ and height/weight? How about vocal tone- that's genetic too right? I'mean sure, "environment has something to do with it, but it's clearly genetic", right? :D
There "doesn't seem to be a co-relation" doesn't fucking cut it because the reason for that is that a study was never done. It's either that or you're just flat out not looking for one. So tell me, why do you think that is? I mean why do you really think that is? Does the quest for truth really bring you here or were you looking for validation for beliefs you already hold?
Um, no, skin color is race. Unless you know of a "white" man with "black" skin...? I'd be interested in what you consider "white" or what you consider "negroid". What is the genetic basis for the term other than "frequent alleles from a region known to populated by "negroids"". (Socially first, biologically second)
This refutes nothing. My point was that every black person if they were from Africa or not was swept up in the slave trade, even ethiopians who were semitic/arabic NOT negroid. You can't uproot the entirety of a race of people from their environment and place them in a culture where natural selection doesn't favor intellect and not expect there to be consequences.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 6:00Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 7:18
haha my thread reached 1000 replies, am i cool yet?
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 7:18Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 9:05
Um, no, skin color is race.
No, it's not. It's only part of it. I've met some remarkably dark Indians, dark enough to be called black, but they most certainly weren't what we normally label as blacks: negros. Likewise, and albino negro is still a negro.
I guess by putting an Asian under the sun we can magically transform them into another race? All those white girls who have tanned themselves deep brown are now Arab? Or what?
My point was that every black person if they were from Africa or not was swept up in the slave trade, even ethiopians who were semitic/arabic NOT negroid.
Wow, back to grand claims. Every, huh? And they managed to uproot every single person in Africa, huh? Sent them to space, then randomly dropped them in different locations on the same continent? Somehow this magically made them all a little dumber? Both in Africa and elsewhere?
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 9:05Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 11:17
>>1037
Not until you create a new thread containing links to the best replies in this thread, along with whatever else, topic should be I'm not a racist, but I am… PartⅡ, or something along the lines of that.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 11:17Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Albinos are a special exception- that goes without saying. But really the question is: How else did you know they were Indians unless they told you? For all you could've known they were black.
And when I say "Swept up" you have to understand that I don't mean completely relocated, but a vast majority of them were relocated/displaced/pitted against each other- regardless (as well you know) ...because the nature of colonization wasn't "live peacefully with the negroid savages".
Keeping them from their environment, preventing them from the knowledge exchange that whites and more developed countries of the time benefitted from was detramental to the development of the kind of modern intellect you say negroids don't have.
Nevertheless, to say that Africans didn't have writing or civilization is the same old discourse of you saying that Egypt wasn't black. It seems to be equally hard for you admit that with Egypt being the first civilization of its kind- that ancient African culture was the precursor to Egypt.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 11:41Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 11:46
It is well to note that the ancient Greeks described the way the Egyptians looked to them: "The ancient Greek writers Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Aristotle all testified …that the ancient Egyptians were ‘black-skinned'" (Asante and Abarry 3-4).
Keep in mind that during that time the Greek were dark skinned themselves. Bronzed, like an Arab. Very far from "white" or "anglo". If THEY thought they were "black skinned" then they were more than likely black. And doggishly saying that they weren't just discredits you.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 11:46Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 12:39 (sage)
>>1045 the Greek were dark skinned themselves.
o rly? Homer himself describes Hercules as blond. The ancient Greeks were a pure-blooded Aryan people, blond and blue-eyed.
The Turks colonized them many centuries later and interbred with them until the Greek-speaking people inhabiting Greece today are, genetically, almost entirely Anatolian Turk stock.
There is no evidence--the feverish confabulations of "Black Studies" professors do not count as evidence--that the ancient Egyptian culture was anything but Mediterranean Caucasoid. Given that they can now do genetic analysis of even mummies, don't you think that if they could prove it, they would be proclaiming it from the rooftops?
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 12:39Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
You are wrong about the Greeks being Aryan, that's just eurocentric nonsense. Greek isn't Aryan, Greek isn't white and it's a tendacy of eurocentrics to lump anyone with light skin into the white race. Even gingers weren't considered "white" until they came over to America.
Secondly, it's a proven fact that Egypt had black pharoahs and this doesn't change the fact that the basis for Egyptian culture is African culture. As more and more is being contributed to Egypt of course whites are going to include Egyptians into "Caucasoids". Of course they're going to claim it's their discovery. It's what you do and it's what eurocentric has done every since they thought Human's began in Europe.
Do you really think I expected you to say otherwise? There is no evidence that I provide you that you will believe. None what so ever. You'll doubt the validity of even the most peer reviewed and and widely accepted notions if they fly in the face of your eurocentricism. Next you're going to tell me the Mali never mapped out the stars.
There's no debate here.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 13:08Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 13:18
>>1047 >>1049
They were racially as they are today minus immigrants from another continent. Egypt was arab, Greece was mediteranean.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 13:18Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 13:31 (sage)
>>1049
PROTIP: making the claim "it's a proven fact" does not in and of itself consitute proof, or even a compelling argument. U FAIL IT, LURK MOAR
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 13:31Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 14:39
>>1033 No, it's not a give in and that's what you simply refuse to admit. It's conjecture. Either you have proof that skin color/features and IQ tie-in genetically or you don't. Do you have that proof? If you don't, you have no argument.
For one thing, it has nothing to do with skin color or features, it has to do with common genetic stock leading to common features being expressed. All this intentional bullshit, how you intentionally misconstrue our arguments to say stupid shit like "black skin makes someone dumber" is really quite infuriating.
For the refuation of this argument, I'll point you to an earlier post where I wrote about the Ashkenazim. Because I think it'd be more work to dig that post out, I'll just reiterate it here...
They actually have records of the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews being more successful in reproduction based on their intelligence, and now they have the highest IQ of any group in the world. In addition, they have many extreme genetic abnormalities, mostly relating to nerve conductivity, and the thickness of the myelin membranes surrounding axons. Their nervous systems are turbo-charged.
Also, your complete and utter butchery of the science of genetics is infuriating as well. Genetics only exist in groups for you when there's no reference to the way those genes may affect behavior.
Even if race is defined socially, it doesn't mean that there's no biological component there. Black parents don't spontaneously produce a white child, or vice versa. The way you argue I'd almost believe you think that's the way things are.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 14:39Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 14:56 (sage)
>>1055
I am well aware of the Ashkenazim and their genetic distinctiveness, particularly as it regards neurobiology and measurable enhancements to their intelligence. You do realize that by even mentioning this, you lend support to my arguments and completely destroy your own, don't you?
Weren't you the one who just finished claiming that all humans were genetically identical, race does not exist, and genetics play no part whatsoever in intelligence or anything else?
U FAIL IT, LURK MOAR
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 14:56Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 15:00
loll
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 15:00Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 15:06
>>1047
Why don't black studies PROFESSORS count? If anything their opinion should mean the most since its their fucking job to know about Black History and achievements and have spents a ton of fucking time researching it.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 15:06Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 15:07
>>1057
Oh my god... There must be more than one other person arguing alongside me. Because at times you seem pretty smart, and at other times you seem like acomplete retard.
BTW: USE THE OTHER THREAD. THIS ONE IS GETTING ANNOYING.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 15:07Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Like I said. Even if I showed you concrete proof, studies done by professors in the field, studies done by experts on Africa you're just going to claim it's Afrocentric. What exactly would be the point in doing something so futile? After all, you could always look it up on google yourself all you have to do is type "Black Egypt", "Black Pharaohs" into the empty field.
Ashkanazi Jews sexually selected for intelligence because their culture (environment) told them to do so. This was said before and smashed the arguement then and it smashes the argument now.
Yet Again: Find me the black and white genes. If you don't have a genetic marker backing up your claims, you have no proof.
No proof, no merit, so noted. :D
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 15:16Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 15:21
USE THE OTHER THREAD./
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 15:21Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 15:29
>>1067
why even bother. the whole of /pol/ is pretty much the race thread
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 15:29Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-26 16:46
This thread has over 1000 niggers.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-03-26 16:46Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-04 7:43
ollololo
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-04-04 7:43Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-04 15:40
>>1105
Failed in the next, flaked out and went home.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-04-04 15:40Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-05 9:28
Christ.. All of this is irrelevant. People are people, blood is blood, skin is skin, nothing more. You can keep printing such childish little racist comics and guffaw at it's rather non-existant truths and humours. I myself am half and half, meaning both white and black. It's impossible to have such views nowadays yes? This so-called genetics is not all it's cracked up to be considering there are whites in the more.. country areas whom aren't the brightest of the lights. Skull sizes? brain mass? skin color? Superiority? Why not make fun of the mentally retarded for being deformed geneticly? I mean it's an equal playing field in this whole genetics argument, right?
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2006-04-05 9:28Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.