I'm not a racist, but I am...

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.

http://unicast.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=1

"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.

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

>>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.

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!

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.

>>118

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.

>>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.

>>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!

>>125

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".

http://www.godonthe.net/wasblack.htm

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

>>126

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.

Your arguement keeps running into the wall of no race genes or gene groupings though.

http://dnaprint.com/welcome/productsandservices/anestrybydna/

o lawd. is this some finding out what your race is by looking at you genes?

i don't know about genes being related to intelligence though but here is a bit of discussion and links:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/29/20293/9910

Adam and Eve were black.

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.

NIGGER LOL

People in general, were just flat out darker back then.

Basis for this assertion?

>>128

"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.

>>130

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.

>>132

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.

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.

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.

>>136

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.

>>135

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.

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.

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!

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.

>>139

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?

Answer honestly, now. :)

>>140
>>141

You guys are the dumbest bunch of dicklicks that ever put their fingers to a keyboard. After your father's finish molesting you, go here:

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/curtis.htm
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/

There's also a documentary you can find.

Google this phrase: "The Origin of AIDS, Documentary"

Ignorant fucksuckers.

>>142
Yes, I do and yes, I have.

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:

http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html

There are plenty of others like 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.

>>143
Your very own links indicate that the theory hasn't been properly examined or tested.

And then of course there's two links in return, which are from far more respectable sources than "Rolling Stones" (you must be joking), or some arts website of a minor university:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6832/abs/4101045a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5517/743

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?

>>143
Why are you so angry lol, have you got aids yourself?

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..

>>123
http://net-burst.net/porn/peep.htm

"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.

|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? 

Oh right. I know why.

>>147

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".

>>146
>>145

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)

>>150
Wrong reference to >>146; >>146 thinks blacks got aids by having sex with apes, not any conspiration or SCCCCIIIIEEEENNNNNCCCCCCE failed experiment.

>>151

Excuse me? I was refering to >>145

The idea that HIV comes from having sex with monkeys is idiotic and totally unproven.

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.

Shut the fuck up, loser.

Fuck U. Come up with a better answer. Asshole.

Fuck U. Come up with a better answer. Asshole.

>>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.

>>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. :)

>>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.

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.