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.

>>576

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.)