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.

>>185

| Your basis for that assertion?

Once again:

>> 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.