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.
1. congratulations on what? if you agree, then why are arguing?
2. "How about you reread that last paragraph, >>552? It doesn't mean what you think it means."
you don't know what I think it means. you're grasping at straws, probably to build a strawman. my point is exactly that: not everyone is educated, not everyone looks at all of history and the world in a bigger picture
"What kind of school have you been going to?"
the same ones you have.
that's my point. see: you're white. your perception of the world is different from other races perspective. you guys thing you're doing just fine in addressing the contribution of other cultures and races to civilization. everyone else sees you for what you are.
case in point- your shitty arguments. you want to agree with me, but your inate slant toward white superamacy leaves you possessed with an inability to see anything beyond yourself. other races have this problem- but with whites it's genetic.
Imply: To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer.
No, I infer inferiority based on the fact that we have not achieved maxium potential. We know the possibility of a human generation greater than us exists because we strive towards that. Humankind doesn't strive toward medoricity.
Evidence supports me, subjectivity supports you. So you imply.
Frankly, the entirely of this specific argument could be subjective. So while you could've expressed your sentiment with a simple "NO U", I instead chose to address possibilities based on evidence. Not create evidence based on possibilities.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 21:44 (sage)
fuck
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 16:40
Legendary.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 16:43
A thread consisting of asinine stupidity and willful ignorance; with a thick serving of troll. This truly represents world4ch.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 16:54
Ok guys, let's recap! The discussion thus far.
1: There are inconsistiencies with liberals.
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: RACIST!!
1: whatevs, there facts are there
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: ignore facts pls and look only at facts i tell u to
1: k, but i will not ignore any facts or i will be wrong
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: RACIST!!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 16:56
Ok guys, let's recap! The discussion thus far.
1: There are inconsistiencies with liberals.
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: RACIST!!
1: whatevs, there facts are there
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: ignore facts pls and look only at facts i tell u to
1: k, but i will not ignore any facts or i will be wrong
rapeawhitewimminz-chan: RACIST!!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 21:37
please guys.
anti-chan owned you in this thread. everytime you came up with something he shut you down with a solid counter argument and then your response was "bix nood, nigger, nigger". then you continued to insistance that you're right even though you addressed nothing he said.
all most of us saw was one guy hammering the truth into a group of guys who used inconsistancies and racial slurs to somehow make themselves seem right.
Sucks at trolling. I'd wish you better luck next time, if I thought you could change your destiny of fail.
The last thing we saw as a counter argument to my statements was this pathetic question of "if nuture was the same/if nature was the same." It's quite a dishonest question coming from a group of people who clearly don't believe in nuture in the first place.
It's exhibit E in a long line of displays of ignorance. You can't approach nature and nurture's controls over intelligence in an either/or manner. It's always both. Always. Always. Always. That's never going to change.
Science clearly agrees with this. This is why scientific racism is referred to as a psuedo science. I've clearly outlined *why* your approaches are non-scientific and *why* your facts form a loose and overly simplistic interpetation of the supposed corelation between race and IQ. I've done it, again and again and again and will continue to do so as long as this thread is here.
And what continues to shock me is that the opposition continuously ignores any facts, any studies that serve as clear evidence to anything contrary to their beliefs.
This is how a debate works.
1. Fact Supported Statement
2. Fact Supported Counter argument.
3. So on, and so on...
This is how this debate has worked:
1. Statement supported by a loose corelation of facts.
2. Fact Supported Counter argument.
3. You're just calling me a racist! You want to rape white wimmin, nigger! Bix nood! Don't use Ad hominems!
4. Fact supported Counter argument.
5. Ignores, repeats everything said in #1 and #3. Then lays down another layer of Ad hominem attacks.
"The last thing we saw as a counter argument to my statements was this pathetic question of "if nuture was the same/if nature was the same." It's quite a dishonest question coming from a group of people who clearly don't believe in nuture in the first place."
I don't get it... How is it dishonest to ask such a question? Nobody who's posted against you up until now has ever completely written off nurture, which is why the question was phrased in such a way if nurture was the same. More to the point, how does the honesty of a question even factor in to whether it's legitimate to bring to a debate or not? Sometimes, to prove a point, you even have to make statements that you would disagree with in order to show the contradictions in your own opponents' argument. You refused to answer that question, when it would have been easy (And probably would have saved you the argument) to just have said that yes, a black kid and a white kid would have grown up the same. But you didn't, which shows that you yourself don't really believe it. Honesty indeed.
And what's all this crap about "pseudo-science"? Most scientists, while not really racist per se, believe in an inborn factor to intelligence. Look at any journal from real scientists (ones that do real experiments on real stuff, not psychology or sociology where the data can be interpreted however the observer sees fit, sciences that are still in what's known as an alchemic phase) where they talk about genetics, and they do believe in it. They just don't speak up because really, it'd be imoral. Scientists are by and large good guys, like most of the human race when they're in public, and none of them wants to be responsable for another holocaust or anything like that... Add to that the fact that it'd be impossible to get funding for anything you'd want to do, EVER if you came out saying anything about one groupd being by and large less intelligent than others.
In the end though, I honestly believe that nurture can play a large part. Given the right conditions, we can turn anyone, even if their genetics disposes them against it, into productive, purposeful, happy individuals, or at least not completely worthless and written off from the start.
It's not about putting anyone in their place, to act like they're a separate class, to appraise someone's value. It's about not lying. It's about honesty.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-03 2:31
>>576 Look at any journal from real scientists ...where they talk about genetics, and they do believe in it.
LOL beliefs
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-03 2:35
>>577
Well, I could say the same about the counter-argument. Really, there's no concrete evidence that's easy to find on the subject, because of the whole social taboo on it. I can't prove it exists satisfactorily just the same as you can't prove it doesn't exist satisfactorily.
I believe it exists, you don't. We both have evidence that leads us to believe the way we do, but it's really not in any way conclusive.
The world doesn't naturally run without deviation based on pre-set organizable, non cognitive-dissonance-causing rules.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-03 2:36 (sage)
Don't bother, >>576. Don't bump. Let this die already.
BTW, many fields of psychology are scientifically quite rigorous, even though it's not a natural science.
This wrong up and down and here's why. The question itself is dishonest for the very reason you asked it: In order to somehow show that I don't prescribe to the absolutism of nature and nurture working in concert at all times.
You (or whomever) assumed a position you didn't agree with in order to disprove my point. Now...this would've worked if I sat here and said nature doesn't matter. It's all nurture. But I didn't.
I said that it's never a matter of either/or (nature/nurture). It's always both. Always. Always. So asking "Well, what if nurture is equal?" is like asking me if I will ever believe that one will ever exert more force over intellect than the other. Clearly, my answer to that is: No.
But with the limited response I was given, a "No" answer would've garnered a response along the lines of: "Oh, so why is that? Could it be genetics!?"
Then, I would've had to clarify: "No, because it's never a matter of all genetics or all environment. One doesn't exert more force over the other. It doesn't work like that."
Then, the opposition: "But you just said that..."
As you can see, the argument would not have been over by any means. The only problem you have is: I didn't fall for your (the opposition's) trap. You phrased the question "Yes or No" because you knew an open answer would leave the matter open to more debate.
I would tell you that it was a nice try at re-framing the debate so that I would be force to defend ideas I don't believe in. But it was really immature and any high school debate club member would've saw that shit coming a mile away.
I will explain myself further, at another point with an example and we'll see what you'll have to say to that (if anything.)
See, but this my point exactly and why it is called a "psuedo science". You look at some statistics and make a corelation. I.E, "a belief." That's not science. The reason that IQ/race have no absolute corelation is because science teaches us that IQ never comes down to only genetics. So, race has no more of a corelation than status, gender, height, skull size, etc.
You don't have evidence. The evidence you would require to back up your belief is something saying that genetics rules absolutely over IQ. It doesn't. It just doesn't.
And here's another thing. If it's a strawman, explain why. Because it seems to me just to be something the opposition says when they're losing or have nothing else to give to the debate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 2:04
ニガ プリズ!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 2:41 (sage)
>>588
Why bother? This thread is dead. Let the trolls have it.
You think you can't convince the other side, and that they're full of shit. The feeling is mutual. All we'll do by continuing is annoy each other.
I don't think that. Like I said clearly there's a bottomline here. That bottomline is that if you believe that race (genetics) absolutely holds any sway over general intelligence or maxium potential for intelligence then you are automatically ignoring nurture as you can't arrive to that conclusion otherwise. Science teaches us that it's always both and when I argued this point on other boards the opposition at least had the honesty or the balls to say that "nurture" is a myth.
Me trying to convince someone of this [why they are wrong] is like convincing a child that 1 + 1 = 2. I, as an adult who uses scientific method has a responsibility to show patience. I've used ad hominem attacks (just as the opposition has) but I am by no means "annoyed". I don't think the other side is full of shit, I just think they are very, very confused and ignorant.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 5:49 (sage)
>>591
No, I don't believe that genetics is absolute. I don't think anyone in this thread ever made that claim. If you disagree, feel free to point out the post in question. That's why I said it's a strawman.
If you want absolutes, talk to anti-chan. He refuses to admit that hereditary plays a statistically significant role. For him it's not nature and nurture intertwined, it's just nurture.
If you want to argue with the trolls on this board, go right ahead. I'm burnt out. You will be too.
I am anti-chan, stupid. This just goes to show, once you drop a name all the unfairly asscioated bullshit gets dropped with the name. Of course heredity plays a role. But so does nurture. And the situations once come across in nuture effective heredity and vise versa and so on.
If you think race absolutely has some invisible hand-like sway over g (general intellect)- then you think genetics plays a bigger or singular role in intelliect. Sure, you don't BELIEVE that, but by prescribing to that belief you are implying it.
>>593
Once your drop the constant attacks, you sound sane.
How does bigger equal absolute? And how does statistically significant equal bigger? I'm afraid I don't see how you get from statistically significant to absolute.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 7:37 (sage)
Forget it. I don't want to get dragged back into this.
it's true that there is genetic variation, but that it is mostly negligible on a person to person basis. Not all blacks are ghetto trash and some whites are trailer trash. However civilisation started after people first migrated out of Africa and not before. Sapiens have left Africa before, but they hadn't yet reached the stage of the negro and instead of evolving to become intelligent they evolved into neanderthals. This time they evolved to be intelligent, it's almost as if the negro is the missing link between humans dependant on brawn and humans dependant on intelligence. Of course it doesn't take much intelligence to survive in food rich jungles so the negro continued to evolve more intelligent much more slowly than those which had left africa, or should I say went up the Nile seeing as how Egypt, Sudan and North Africa are caucasoid.
As a result when the new caucasoid and mongoloid races reached the jungle areas in other parts of the world they thrived, whereas the negro kept sub-saharran africa dark.
These jungles aswell as the rest of the world had a harsh environment. Anti-chan is always on about environmental factors "What about the environment?? how can you build a university in a swamp?", it takes intelligence to improve your environment and construct a civilisation and if these improvements make you more intelligent, then it's pretty obvious why negroes are so far below the rest ofd the world. It takes just that little bit extra intelligence to want to improve your environment and once you've done that you are better off and you have the resources can feed your children a little more and teach them a little more and they can improve the environment a little more and so and so forth. Negroes just never reached this first stage or when they were give nthe technology to progress didn't utilise it quite to the standards of the rest of the world.
Maybe racism isn't the answer, maybe eugenics is the answer if people of slightly more intelligence do a lot better than the stupid, imagine what a nation of people of exceptional intelligence would be like. Whatever the answer, it certainly won't be helped by the presence of screaming whining paranoid ghetto and trailer trash.
But your reason is entirely wrong when you cite solely genetic causes for lack of intellect when it has been over-stated and over-proven that g is a sum of two factors. Nature and Nurture. Not one or the other. Not one over the other.
You see, it really doesn't matter what your opinions on negroid intellect are because the only way you can arrive to these conclusions is by ignoring nurture. Ignoring the impact of environment.
Secondly, the only way you can still maintain that "negroids" didn't want to improve their environement is with an ignorance of history. Negroids forged metal and stonehouses before "caucasiods" and "monogoloids". Caucasiods didn't invent everything or place these things into world wide use in the ancient world. You will find these attributed to the moors, the chinese, the egyptians and the arabs. "Anglos" merely followed suit and copied the greeks- who despite your efforts to lump them in- aren't exactly what *you* would call "caucasiod". History clearly states that most of the groundwork was already laid out by peoples other than the light-skinned chinese and anglos. You keep saying things like "it doesn't take intelligence to do this and that" and "negroids were genetically inferior that's why they..." in hopes that one day- they're going to be true. They just aren't.
Remember who writes history. Would you trust a german nazi with jew history? A chinese with japanese history (or vice versa for that matter)? An American with Iraqi history? Why should I or anyone who perscribes to analytical thought or scientific method ignore evidence that we've uncovered for want of looking? Should we leave what we know is proven out of the argument because you haven't bothered to do more reasearch? For christs sake...you think Sub-Sahara Africa had *jungles*.
I don't want to hear anymore bollocks about attacks. I have been attacked with ad hominems by you and the opposition since the beginning. Your statements are hypocritical.
Secondly, when you're referring an obviously unchangable and uncontrollable factor like genetics, you imply absolutism. If that's not what you intend to do- then you need pay more attention to your argument. Stop trying to hammer home the idea the idea that negroids are genetically inferior in intellect- because intellect just doesn't work like that. It isn't set up in such a way where genetics alone define how intelligent you are.
Let's forget for a moment the accepted fact that IQ doesn't really measure your intelligence in the first place. I'd be very interested in how you aquired the IQs for people who existed before 1904. (When the IQ test was invented and African colonialsim was in full swing.) Assuming a group of people were more or less intelligent because of the "stuff they had" isn't scientific method. It's just not.
It's funny. "Maybe racism isn't the answer." - Yet, you're probably one of the first white guys to cry about "reverse racism.". And in order to make eugenics work you would need a facist and totalitarian government and a nationalist society. 'Nuff said.
Your entire argument is funny when it comes to white people- it's like you can't admit to yourselves that you copied more than invented, merely changed more than evolved and that your temporary rule of earth wasn't exactly what it was: Chance. (and temporary)
You can't accept the fact that for all biological (and therefore genetic) purposes: You and everyone else on this planet is a variation of a sub-saharan negroid. If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect meeded for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their enviroment mattered? Why would skin color make a difference?
People are inherantly different as a generality- but even those black skinned Africans that left African didn't percieve themselves as different races. The very concept of race seems to me to be "different looking negroids, living different ways of life." It didn't "exist" then and it doesn't exist biologically now. I guess I just don't understand this entire approach at all. Maybe that's because the phrase "Maybe racism isn't the answer" wouldn't come out of my mouth.