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.
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).