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.

>>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. :)