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.

>>398

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.

Lol I got you all good

>>400

Irrelevant. These are the same experiments that Anonymous and Rushton draw their conclusions from. Clearly, they purposefully interpeted them differently.

>>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.

Semetic genetics are a different thing and not related to languages. Racially (genetically) Semetic people are Jews, Palestinians, and Arabs. I refer you to the site here: http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/WebPage/semiticGenetics.html/ which is fairly recent.

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.

Definitions:
"Negroes" : Sub-Saharan Africans
"Semites" : genetically Jews/Arabs/Palestinians

People, please distinguish between linguistic and genetic especially when referring to Semites here.

here is the link properly: http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/WebPage/semiticGenetics.html
(yeah. the previous was me)

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.

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?

>>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.

>>408
Besides that, we have found very many specific genes that relate to intelligence.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002812.html

<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. 

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. 

I'm a nigger. GTG AFAIK LMAO

>>408
>>409

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.

>>410

[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.) 

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".

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.

>>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.

>>416
In other words, I concede the debate.  Superficially (which is really what your entire argument has been from the beginning) you win.

>>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.

>>418 There are greys, percentages etc
Not to mention ratio of gray matter.

I suggest we bring back the global warming is racist thread.

>>416
>>418

Ok, so now that the debate is over...

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?

You fail anti-chan.

I thought this was over.  Why you still bitchin', bitch?

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.

>>424

Note you said: "If"

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.

>>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.

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.

>>425
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
I'M NOT LISTENING
LALALALALALALALALALALAALALALALALALALALALALA

>>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?

>>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.

>>429

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.

>>426

[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?

>>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.

"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.

>>433

"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?

>>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.

>>435
BLAH BLAH BLAH

COME UP WITH SOMETHING ORIGINAL

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?

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 suggest we break out the dueling pisols.

>>438

BLAH BLAH BLAH, STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOURSELF
BLAH BLAH BLAH, STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOURSELF
BLAH BLAH BLAH, STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOURSELF
BLAH BLAH BLAH, STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOURSELF
BLAH BLAH BLAH, STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOURSELF

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.