The OFFICIAL Race Thread II

[Cliche Guevara]

I know what you're proposing, Jew, and why you support this thread.

You want our speech to be controlled and compartmentalized.
This thread is a cluster fuck and nearly impossible to stay on topic in, that's why you support it.

I've heard your opinions before. You want threads/forums for racist so that if we speak about racial issues of any kind anywhere else on Zoklet we could be banned.

You're a dick. Plain and simple.

continued from http://bbs.zoklet.net/showthread.php?t=11225&page=13

[Ron_Smythberg]

View Post
I know what you're proposing, Jew, and why you support this thread.

You want our speech to be controlled and compartmentalized.
This thread is a cluster fuck and nearly impossible to stay on topic in, that's why you support it.

I've heard your opinions before. You want threads/forums for racist so that if we speak about racial issues of any kind anywhere else on Zoklet we could be banned.

You're a dick. Plain and simple.

I think it is only fair that legitimate threads be allowed to stay on topic. Right now, many upon many threads are Hi-Jacked by moronic racists. They are taken off topic and as a consequence many members are already banned for this behavior.

Yes I do want off topic threads a bannable offense, it detracts heavily from the quality of this forum. If you were a big racing fan and everywhere you constantly made posts on you favourite Race-Car drivers, etc, we would be angry aswell. The fact is Race-Car fans have the common courtesy to shut up when it is out of place, a trait most of you racist scum seem to lack.

Most of the time these racist rants are completely out of place and they are drawing people away from this community. In order to be fair to both the regular folks and extremists such as you, a section of some kind is necessary.

[Dread_Lord]

I think it is only fair that legitimate threads be allowed to stay on topic. Right now, many upon many threads are Hi-Jacked by moronic racists. They are taken off topic and as a consequence many members are already banned for this behavior.

Yes I do want off topic threads a bannable offense, it detracts heavily from the quality of this forum. If you were a big racing fan and everywhere you constantly made posts on you favourite Race-Car drivers, etc, we would be angry aswell. The fact is Race-Car fans have the common courtesy to shut up when it is out of place, a trait most of you racist scum seem to lack.

Most of the time these racist rants are completely out of place and they are drawing people away from this community. In order to be fair to both the regular folks and extremists such as you, a section of some kind is necessary.


Tell you what then, Jew.
From now on I will not post any new threads dealing with race or Jews as long as this fucked up thread exists.
What I will do, in place of that, is go into other posts where I feel race or Jews are partly the issue and introduce everyone to my views on the subject in that regard.

Since I am doing it for you I will double my output until this thread is gone.

You think I was born yesterday, Jew?

I recommend all racists to do the same just don't break the derailing thread rule. Make sure you comments are legitimate and relevant to the topic you're posting in.

If this Jew and the Moderator want to push us then push back.


Fuck this thread.

[Struwwelpeter]

Cliche Guevara, could you please stop fucking this forum up, what you are doing is nothing more that clustering Inhumanities, creating a series of disorganized threads that make the forum look even less appealing to any newcomers. You were doing a great job until this.

[Ron_Smythberg]

Tell you what then, Jew.
From now on I will not post any new threads dealing with race or Jews as long as this fucked up thread exists.
What I will do, in place of that, is go into other posts where I feel race or Jews are partly the issue and introduce everyone to my views on the subject in that regard.

Since I am doing it for you I will double my output until this thread is gone.

You think I was born yesterday, Jew?

I recommend all racists to do the same just don't break the derailing thread rule. Make sure you comments are legitimate and relevant to the topic you're posting in.

If this Jew and the Moderator want to push us then push back.


Fuck this thread.

ooh wow, you do that little boy :biggrin:

[Struwwelpeter]

Why are people so concerned about "thread derailment"?

Truth is they just want to use it as an excuse to ban racists.

[Dread_Lord]

I don't know it's stupid. Anything could be considered thread derailment and they can blame anyone for it. It's an undefined retarded rule.

[Struwwelpeter]

Yeah exactly.

[lord]

I don't know it's stupid. Anything could be considered thread derailment and they can blame anyone for it. It's an undefined retarded rule.

Your name is slightly like my name. I now like you :)

[Dread_Lord]

ooh wow, you do that little boy :biggrin:

Oh does that make you happy?
Okay then I will continue to post more threads as well as in more threads. :D

I was going to anyways.

[Cliche Guevara]

Ok heres what Ill do, Ill talk it over with the new mod and see what happens.

[Slave of the Beast]

Cliche Guevara, could you please stop fucking this forum up, what you are doing is nothing more that clustering Inhumanities, creating a series of disorganized threads that make the forum look even less appealing to any newcomers. You were doing a great job until this.

He has shown his true colours by siding with the devious Jew kind and their attempts to confuse and disrupt this damning exposé of their activities.

We must resist! Resist!

[crazzyass]

No one's trying to oppress you, but threads like:

OP: So, does anyone have any tips on picking up dates?


You: FUCK ALL U NIGGAZ!


Gets really fucking old after a while. But on that note, I completely support you making your views relevent to the thread, if you can. Go for it. But there has been excessive amounts of thread derailments lately.


Oh, and I'd love if you'd go back and refute some of my points, Jim. Especially the part about black people being stupid because their women have narrow hips. :)

[Dread_Lord]

Ok heres what Ill do, Ill talk it over with the new mod and see what happens.

Thank you good sir.

[Slapshot]

.Nice try, but there are no "regular" folk here on zoklet, and that's what makes it so attractive to the fringe. I think that you and your "newspaper and coffee" types should have your own forum called "douchbags and pissants".

[Struwwelpeter]

^ LOL, thank you.

[crazzyass]

^ LOL, thank you.

So...when am I gonna get that reply? I've asked twice now...

[Struwwelpeter]

Crazzyass narrow hips influence the intelligence of babies thanks to the principle of constriction, as there is greater pressure on the babies skull it's cellular growth is inhibited during pregnancy and thus the brain mass is less than that of white children, which of course influences intelligence in human beings.

Your claim that hormones do not influence behavior is insurmountable because of the ignorant nature and the vagueness of it all. The greater testosterone that is flowing through one's body, the more irritable, less patient, and less attentive one is at any given time, please rephrase what it is you want to discuss if you want to do just that.

[crazzyass]

Crazzyass narrow hips influence the intelligence of babies thanks to the principle of constriction, as there is greater pressure on the babies skull it's cellular growth is inhibited during pregnancy and thus the brain mass is less than that of white children, which of course influences intelligence in human beings.

Your claim that hormones do not influence behavior is insurmountable because of the ignorant nature and the vagueness of it all. The greater testosterone that is flowing through one's body, the more irritable, less patient, and less attentive one is at any given time, please rephrase what it is you want to discuss if you want to do just that.

Could you post a link to a reliable study proving that black women have narrower hips? I was under the impression they were known for wide hips...
but anyways, every race goes through constriction at birth. The skull is literally crushed into a cone shape because it is mostly cartiledge at that point, then it reforms. As far as I am aware, blacks do not experience any more crushing than anyone else. Their vaginas/birth canals are designed the exact same way as everyone elses.

*sigh* I'll say it for the third time...I never have claimed that hormones have nothing to do with behavior. Your claim was that blacks are less intelligent because they have different hormonal secretions. I said that the hormonal secretions that are different from say, whites, (because there are mild differences, yes) are hormones that have no effect on intelligence. Not that hormones in general have no effect. But the hormones that do affect intelligence and brain function are ones that the races share equal amounts of. That was my claim. Please stop putting words in my mouth and twisting my statements to make my arguments look less credible. It makes you look immature.

[Struwwelpeter]

I find it somewhat insulting that you are asking for a legit source when I have already provided you with Rushton's documents. You act as if my sources are illegitimate yet your evidence is that because the majority of people understand black women to be more voluptuous because of what they see in the media, which has nothing to do with the width of the pelvis, that the information is wrong.

All races go through constriction in utero, what is your point? Anti-racists always make these arguments, that not all blacks are less intelligent, not all of them are criminals, etc. The point is not that the other races do not undergo constriction. White and Asian babies undergo less constriction as whites and Asians have wider pelvises, and thus less constriction. It has been demonstrated although I'm not sure if it has been verified that women with wider hips also have more intelligent children as their children have greater supply of EFAs relative to surface area.

As for hormonal secretion, my argument is not that they secrete different hormones, but more hormones, particularly male sex hormone, which does influence intelligence performance.

[crazzyass]

I find it somewhat insulting that you are asking for a legit source when I have already provided you with Rushton's documents. You act as if my sources are illegitimate yet your evidence is that because the majority of people understand black women to be more voluptuous because of what they see in the media, which has nothing to do with the width of the pelvis, that the information is wrong.

All races go through constriction in utero, what is your point? Anti-racists always make these arguments, that not all blacks are less intelligent, not all of them are criminals, etc. The point is not that the other races do not undergo constriction. White and Asian babies undergo less constriction as whites and Asians have wider pelvises, and thus less constriction. It has been demonstrated although I'm not sure if it has been verified that women with wider hips also have more intelligent children as their children have greater supply of EFAs relative to surface area.

As for hormonal secretion, my argument is not that they secrete different hormones, but more hormones, particularly male sex hormone, which does influence intelligence performance.

Your document is as illegimate as welfare babies. I posted a link full of refutations to it by the entire scientific community attacking his biased sources and slanted experiments, not to mention outright falsified data. And even that document didn't claim that black women have narrower hips.
You are going to have to post a better reason than "cause I said so". And that includes biased, debunked "reports" that spit in the name of true science. As I have already requested, post a link proving your statement.


Okay then. Feel free to post a link supporting your statement.

[Struwwelpeter]

You did not post a link full of refutations, what you did is post a biased wikipedia article (90% of the article wasn't even about RE&B) in which a few alleged scientists say that the data was manipulated, nothing more, nothing less. There is no reason given, just quotes in which scientists, all of whom have their own leftist agenda, in which they claim he is biased. No where do they offer a follow up document, they only claim "some data" was skewered.

It's hilarious you claim to have enough knowledge in this subject to argue about it's validity, you clearly haven't even read the fucking document because the first blocks of text within it concern the very issue you are claiming it does not discuss.

And I quote:

White men can't jump. Asian men can’t either. But according to Jon Entine’s new book, Taboo:
Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, Black men — and women
— sure can. The usual reason given for Black athletic success is that Blacks have little chance to get
ahead elsewhere. But Entine’s new book shows that in sports, Blacks have a genetic edge.
The physical facts Entine reviews are quite well known. Compared to Whites, Blacks have
narrower hips which gives them a more efficient stride. They have a shorter sitting height which provides
a higher center of gravity and a better balance. They have wider shoulders, less body fat, and more
muscle. Their muscles include more fast twitch muscles which produce power. Blacks have from 3 to
19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates
into more explosive energy.
Entine points out that these physical advantages give Blacks the edge in sports like boxing,
basketball, football, and sprinting. However, some of these race differences pose a problem for Black
swimmers. Heavier skeletons and smaller chest cavities limit their performance.
Race differences show up early in life. Black babies are born a week earlier than White babies,
yet they are more mature as measured by bone development. By age five or six, Black children excel in
the dash, the long jump, and the high jump, all of which require a short burst of power. By the teenage
years, Blacks have faster reflexes, as in the famous knee-jerk response.
East Asians run even less well than Whites. The same narrow hips, longer legs, more muscle, and
more testosterone that give Blacks an advantage over Whites, give Whites an advantage over East Asians.
But admitting these genetic race differences in sports leads to the greater taboo area — race differences in
brain size and crime. That is why it is taboo to even say that Blacks are better at many sports.
The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners
is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women
had to have a wider pelvis. Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless
in school and prone to crime.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

You have no right to detract from the validity of my sources, when you yourself have given no source other than hearsay.

[crazzyass]

You did not post a link full of refutations, what you did is post a biased wikipedia article (90% of the article wasn't even about RE&B) in which a few alleged scientists say that the data was manipulated, nothing more, nothing less. There is no reason given, just quotes in which scientists, all of whom have their own leftist agenda, in which they claim he is biased. No where do they offer a follow up document, they only claim "some data" was skewered.

It's hilarious you claim to have enough knowledge in this subject to argue about it's validity, you clearly haven't even read the fucking document because the first blocks of text within it concern the very issue you are claiming it does not discuss.

And I quote:



http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

You have no right to detract from the validity of my sources, when you yourself have given no source other than hearsay.

Oh my god. You post from the same study that was debunked...great source, faggot.

And they were very specific with criticisms! It appears that it is you who is not reading what is posted. These "alleged" scientists as you call them gave point-by-point reasons why the study was bogus. The only alleged scientists here is the one who is literally making his data up, and incidentally the one who wrote your source. I can post my link again if you want to brush up on how little you pay attention.

And you know, if the part you quoted had scientific validity, I would heartily agree with you. But it has been demonstrated that the data has been skewed, not through baseless assumptions, but through detailed analysis of his sources which rendered little in the way of supporting his baseless statements that he then bound together and called a "study".

[Struwwelpeter]

Where was it proved that the data that suggests black women have narrower hips skewed? Truth is none of it was shown to be skewed, you do not have access to the data you're only taking the other people, whom you know nothing about, and couldn't name their first and last names off of the bat without going back to the wikipedia article and searching for them, because they fuel your natural perversion to defend the black race. It's obvious you can't see the world for how it truly is, so why do you continue to post here?

[crazzyass]

Where was it proved that the data that suggests black women have narrower hips skewed? Truth is none of it was shown to be skewed, you do not have access to the data you're only taking the other people, whom you know nothing about, and couldn't name their first and last names off of the bat without going back to the wikipedia article and searching for them, because they fuel your natural perversion to defend the black race. It's obvious you can't see the world for how it truly is, so why do you continue to post here?

Hahaha, I like your evasions. While the part about narrower hips wasn't proven wrong, its effect s on intelligence were. the parts about all blacks having an average lower brain weight, and therefore intelligence, was completely debunked.

What does naming them have to do with anything? I'm starting to think you are either an idiot or a troll.

You still haven't addressed anything.

[Struwwelpeter]

Where was it proven wrong? And what did I evade?

[crazzyass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior


You were evading the debunkings, calling the critics "alleged scientists" and not actually addressing the issue that your one and only source is widely accepted as being SCIENTIFICALLY UNSOUND.

[crazzyass]

"Other critics have also charged that his interpretations, conclusions and methods are "sloppy" and "unscientific"[7]. For example, Rushton's diagram of cranial capacities is in error, as Neanderthal in fact had a greater cranial capacity than modern humans [8]. Genetic studies also show that there is greater genetic diversity within African populations (for example between Khoisanid Capoid, Mbuti pygmy, Sudanese Nuba, West African Negro and Ethiopian Cushitic populations, than there is amongst any two groups outside Africa rendering aggregation methods applied here nul and void [9].
"

Here is a specific quote, as you are unlikely to read my link.

[Struwwelpeter]

Check the link of the source that suggests neanderthals have a greater brain capacity. Source 8 on the wikipedia page.

They based the claim that neanderthals have a greater cranial capacity based on the finding of one nine year old European neanderthal.

In other words, one white neanderthal.

This is why you should pay greater attention before slamming away on a keyboard, try actually reading the sources instead of agreeing with anyone who is against racism.

I'm sorry, where did that mention anything about hip ratios? Fail.

That entire wikipedia page is an epic failure, try bringing a legit source to the table.

[crazzyass]

The argument that it is irrelevant because neanderthals had a greater cranial capacity than modern humans is fallacious; modern humans are not neanderthals.

I'm sorry, where did that mention anything about hip ratios? Fail.

That entire wikipedia page is an epic failure, try bringing a legit source to the table.

...oh. My. God. I have already said that there are no disputes about narrower hip ratios. The quote I posted was a testiment to his bad science, nothing that we have specifically mentioned.

...oh, sorry. Next time I'll try to get a source that the entire scientific community has accepted as ridiculous and unscientific, like you. :rolleyes:


..."averaging does nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement, and such flaws are abundant in the cited literature. For example, among the 38 reports on brain weight, all but two gave figures for only one group, with most cases being people living in the nation of their ancestors, such as an article on Japanese living in Japan and another on Kenyans living in Kenya. The obvious differences in environment make all of these data of dubious worth for testing hypotheses about genetic causes of group differences.[5]"

"The first problem for his theory is that there need to be major races. That is, the differences between "Oriental," "Black," and "White" need to be more than skin deep. In claiming that these old racial categories correspond to large biological differences, Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation.[11]"


Here are a few more basic refutations of your "legit" source. ^

[Struwwelpeter]

I have recanted my statement upon reading the source given on wikipedia, respond to my edited comment.

[Struwwelpeter]

...oh. My. God. I have already said that there are no disputes about narrower hip ratios. The quote I posted was a testiment to his bad science, nothing that we have specifically mentioned.


Hahaha, I like your evasions. While the part about narrower hips wasn't proven wrong, its effect s on intelligence were.

:facepalm:

[crazzyass]

I have recanted my statement upon reading the source given on wikipedia, respond to my edited comment.

Sure. Just respond to my last post as well.

[crazzyass]

:facepalm:

Uh...what exactly are you getting at? No, hip ratios are not mentioned. No one has disputed his claim that they have narrower hips...however, they HAVE disputed his claim that the narrower hips caused smaller brains and less intelligence, because his data supporting that claim was corrupt.

So...what are you saying?

[crazzyass]

Check the link of the source that suggests neanderthals have a greater brain capacity. Source 8 on the wikipedia page.

They based the claim that neanderthals have a greater cranial capacity based on the finding of one nine year old European neanderthal.

In other words, one white neanderthal.

This is why you should pay greater attention before slamming away on a keyboard, try actually reading the sources instead of agreeing with anyone who is against racism.

I'm sorry, where did that mention anything about hip ratios? Fail.

That entire wikipedia page is an epic failure, try bringing a legit source to the table.


Almost all recovered neanderthals have had larger craniums. The specific link that was cited, however, mentioned that particular find. That doesn't meant that it's the only one that has a larger cranium, though. You are twisting data in a way that your dear expert Rushton did. How ironic.

[Struwwelpeter]

..."averaging does nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement, and such flaws are abundant in the cited literature. For example, among the 38 reports on brain weight, all but two gave figures for only one group, with most cases being people living in the nation of their ancestors, such as an article on Japanese living in Japan and another on Kenyans living in Kenya. The obvious differences in environment make all of these data of dubious worth for testing hypotheses about genetic causes of group differences.[5]"

Yet in the very same wikipedia article, the authors reference once website in which one case of less than five neadnerthals with a large cranial capacity in Europe. This quote also doesn't take in to account the numerous studies performed in Australia, The Americas and Europe in which blacks enjoy the same geographical area and yet the same IQ differences.




"The first problem for his theory is that there need to be major races. That is, the differences between "Oriental," "Black," and "White" need to be more than skin deep. In claiming that these old racial categories correspond to large biological differences, Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation.[11]"

This is not true, anthropologists do consider race to be important, they just label it as population instead of race.

These are the words of leftist fringe pseudo-science race deniers, not scientists.

[Struwwelpeter]

Almost all recovered neanderthals have had larger craniums. The specific link that was cited, however, mentioned that particular find. That doesn't meant that it's the only one that has a larger cranium, though. You are twisting data in a way that your dear expert Rushton did. How ironic.

Not true, only the specific neanderthals (which accounted for less than five) had larger cranial capacity, the other neanderthals accounted for, outside of that general area near Uzbekistan, (and check that very link) had low cranial capacity. Where did I twist data?

[Struwwelpeter]

Uh...what exactly are you getting at? No, hip ratios are not mentioned. No one has disputed his claim that they have narrower hips...however, they HAVE disputed his claim that the narrower hips caused smaller brains and less intelligence, because his data supporting that claim was corrupt.

Really? They disproved it? Then how about, for my third request, you provide me with an example where they disproved that hip ratios have no correlation.

[crazzyass]

Yet in the very same wikipedia article, the authors reference once website in which one case of less than five neadnerthals with a large cranial capacity in Europe. This quote also doesn't take in to account the numerous studies performed in Australia, The Americas and Europe in which blacks enjoy the same geographical area and yet the same IQ differences.




This is not true, anthropologists do consider race to be important, they just label it as population instead of race.

These are the words of leftist fringe pseudo-science race deniers, not scientists.

That refutation didn't mention IQ, it mentioned brain weight. Get your bullshit straight.

They have since moved away from race in the skin-color sense of the word, as it has been demonstrated to be meaningless. For instance, some subsect of Africans may have more similar body and chemical make-up with white people of east european ethnicities than they do with other Africans. Anthropologists are not denying that people are broken up into categories with noticable physical differences, just that those differences have little if any correlation with skin color. As such, Rushton's seperation of subjects into catergories of Blacks, Whites, and "Orientals" speaks to his lack of knowledge about anthropology and objectivity.

[crazzyass]

Not true, only the specific neanderthals (which accounted for less than five) had larger cranial capacity, the other neanderthals accounted for, outside of that general area near Uzbekistan, (and check that very link) had low cranial capacity. Where did I twist data?

By implying that just because a source lists one specific example, that's the only example there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Distinguishing_physical_traits

Study up on neanderthals a bit.

[Struwwelpeter]

fatality

[crazzyass]

Really? They disproved it? Then how about, for my third request, you provide me with an example where they disproved that hip ratios have no correlation.

Jesus Christ. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT HIP RATIOS MENTIONED, GODDAMMIT!
They did demonstrate, however, that his claim about reduced brain size was not made with accurate data. So...if the brains are the same size...then even if they do have narrower hips, it has caused no difference in brain function.

I don't know if you are intentionally being vindictive, or if you are just thick.

[Struwwelpeter]

What part of you have been owned, you flip-flopping, trolling piece of shit, don't you understand? Get the fuck off of this website, you're an embarrassment.

[crazzyass]

fatality

...because you are capable of ignoring facts faster than I can produce them? In that case, yes, you are probably correct.

[Struwwelpeter]

You can produce a lot more than facts where you're grabbing them.

[crazzyass]

What part of you have been owned, you flip-flopping, trolling piece of shit, don't you understand? Get the fuck off of this website, you're an embarrassment.

Hahaha, so now that every single one of your ridiculous claimes have been refuted, you have resorted to name-calling. How childish.

[crazzyass]

You can produce a lot more than facts where you're grabbing them.

Like...from scientifically verified sources? Yeah, I see what you're saying there.

[Struwwelpeter]

Where were those claims verified?

Where did I lose?

[Struwwelpeter]

And where have my claims been refuted? And by whom?

[crazzyass]

You posted refutations to my link that debunks your one and only source supporting racism.

I refuted those.

You...called me mean names.

Is that a concession or is your fragile, irrational mind coming up with excuses?


It was verified by a plethora of scientists that demonstrated his data is corrupt. You tried to point out their inaccuracies. I then refuted those, and you have yet to reply to my refutations. I consider that verified, if the numerous scientists weren't verification enough.

[zuperxtreme]

PKqSPf-hKR4

:(

[crazzyass]

PKqSPf-hKR4

:(

Empirical evidence right there...

[El Monstruo]

Cliche you fucking idiot. Quit derailing Zoklet by trying to hide Race discussion in a topic.

You're the typical liberal non-white drug addict piece of shit that ruins the world.

[Struwwelpeter]

You posted refutations to my link that debunks your one and only source supporting racism.

I refuted those.

You...called me mean names.

Is that a concession or is your fragile, irrational mind coming up with excuses?


It was verified by a plethora of scientists that demonstrated his data is corrupt. You tried to point out their inaccuracies. I then refuted those, and you have yet to reply to my refutations. I consider that verified, if the numerous scientists weren't verification enough.

That's cute.

[crazzyass]

That's cute.

Thanks for proving me right...again. :cool:

[Struwwelpeter]

What is it with the number of people so adamant when it comes to making the world known that they have "owned" me? First Rust, then Ants in my Poptarts, now this kid. It would appear I have bred a generation of insecure, angsty young internet progressives who would kill to say they have owned me. Keep comforting yourself crazy, hate to break it to you but you haven't owned anyone here, but I must say that I have missed something for my own argument: neanderthals were more intelligent than modern humans.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-to-survive-15264.shtml

[crazzyass]

What is it with the number of people so adamant when it comes to making the world known that they have "owned" me? First Rust, then Ants in my Poptarts, now this kid. It would appear I have bred a generation of insecure, angsty young internet progressives who would kill to say they have owned me. Keep comforting yourself crazy, hate to break it to you but you haven't owned anyone here, but I must say that I have missed something for my own argument: neanderthals were more intelligent than modern humans.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-to-survive-15264.shtml

No one cares about "owning" you, but if you come into enough threads and make enough ridiculous statements and claims, people are finally going to say "fuck it", and debate you for the hell of it, just to see where your argument goes. And as we've seen clearly here, it goes to namecalling and whining about how everyone keeps picking on you trying to "own" you.

And I never claimed to "own" you, fucktard, I just said that you keep proving yourself wrong everytime you ignore my posts and resort to personal attacks. And saying "own" makes you sound like a 12 year old gamer. Which I'm starting to suspect you might be.

Oh okay...so you've definately proven yourself right by ignoring all of my posts and resorting to childish practices and denial of reality.

Mkay. And what does your link prove again? I think I'm the one who actually posted the fact that yes, neanderthals universally had larger craniums, not just the one that was referenced that you attempted to turn around to imply that only the one found had a larger skull...so did you concede your point there or are you just continuing to be hypocritical and downright delusional?

[Struwwelpeter]

Oh my god. You post from the same study that was debunked...great source, faggot.

Name calling? You started it.. ;)


Mkay. And what does your link prove again? I think I'm the one who actually posted the fact that yes, neanderthals universally had larger craniums, not just the one that was referenced that you attempted to turn around to imply that only the one found had a larger skull...so did you concede your point there or are you just continuing to be hypocritical and downright delusional?

What's hypocritical? When did I say that Neanderthals had small craniums? I said that the sample in which less than five neanderthals were found near Uzbekistan had large craniums, and that there was genetic variance within Neanderthals, those found outside of Europe generally had small craniums, those in Europe had cranial capacity greater than that of man. The source I just linked you to suggests that Neanderthals who had a greater cranial capacity were more intelligent, which means you're the one evading an argument, and that you're the one proving yourself wrong by posting that laughable wikipedia article, and that now the burden of proof lies in you to demonstrate the relevance of the cranial capacity of neanderthals, as they have been demonstrated to be more intelligent, albeit less socially skilled than modern homo sapiens.

[rabbitweed]

For instance, some subsect of Africans may have more similar body and chemical make-up with white people of east european ethnicities than they do with other Africans. Anthropologists are not denying that people are broken up into categories with noticable physical differences, just that those differences have little if any correlation with skin color. As such, Rushton's seperation of subjects into catergories of Blacks, Whites, and "Orientals" speaks to his lack of knowledge about anthropology and objectivity.

Does Rushton give a definition for these races in his book? I read it once upon a time but seemed over simplified and with a clear political agenda.

If he defines black as Negroid African, (distinct from Capoid, or the various more caucasian groups in eastern africa) it may make more sense.

[crazzyass]

Name calling? You started it.. ;)



What's hypocritical? When did I say that Neanderthals had small craniums? I said that the sample in which less than five neanderthals were found near Uzbekistan had large craniums, and that there was genetic variance within Neanderthals, those found outside of Europe generally had small craniums, those in Europe had cranial capacity greater than that of man. The source I just linked you to suggests that Neanderthals who had a greater cranial capacity were more intelligent, which means you're the one evading an argument, and that you're the one proving yourself wrong by posting that laughable wikipedia article, and that now the burden of proof lies in you to demonstrate the relevance of the cranial capacity of neanderthals, as they have been demonstrated to be more intelligent, albeit less socially skilled than modern homo sapiens.

Indeed, because I actually posted facts along with my insults. :)

Point A, supported by reference A, blah blah....you are a faggot. -Me

Whatever. You just want to own me, fucking liberal trash. -You

There's a considerable difference. Faggot.



:facepalm:
When I posted the links slamming Rushton, you said that their source was stupid because it based it off of one example of neanderthals having large skulls. I said that it was simply an example, and then posted a link supporting that indeed all neanderthals are generally accepted as having larger craniums. Now you are trying to turn it around for some reason.

How am I evading an argument??? You are the one that instead of addressing my last posts, stopped for a couple posts of insults, then brought the larger skulls up again while leaving our previous debate unfinished, with you having no response.

So they were more intellgent? What's your fucking point??? I suppose you are trying to imply that because blacks have smaller heads, they are less intelligent, and thus save Rushton. Well, what really matters is BRAIN MASS, which is Rushton himself claims! I have since demonstrated that his data erronously stating that blacks have smaller brains has been debunked. You are ignoring all parts of my argument that disagrees with you and are instead nitpicking pieces here and there and attempting to construe my argument as something other than what I've intended it as. I have argued with people like this before, and while it's very effective during verbal discussion (and I'm sure you've stumped people with it before) it just makes you look like a moron when one can go back and just READ the posts that are still up...

God. You even suck at logical fallacies.

[Struwwelpeter]

In Rushton's book, Asians means those from the far East, Caucasoids generally north, south and Eastern Europe, and of course some parts below that, and Negroids are generally sub-Saharan Africans, with a few exceptions for all.

Directed at rabbitweed.

[Struwwelpeter]

Indeed, because I actually posted facts along with my insults. :)

Point A, supported by reference A, blah blah....you are a faggot. -Me

Whatever. You just want to own me, fucking liberal trash. -You

There's a considerable difference. Faggot.

There's a difference.. When it's crazyass doing it, of course.



:facepalm:
When I posted the links slamming Rushton, you said that their source was stupid because it based it off of one example of neanderthals having large skulls. I said that it was simply an example, and then posted a link supporting that indeed all neanderthals are generally accepted as having larger craniums. Now you are trying to turn it around for some reason.

The link does not say all neanderthals, it says neanderthals in general, thus it is easy to conclude that they are talking about those found in central, east, west and southern Europe, such as those found in Uzbekistan. When did I turn anything around?


How am I evading an argument??? You are the one that instead of addressing my last posts, stopped for a couple posts of insults, then brought the larger skulls up again while leaving our previous debate unfinished, with you having no response.

So they were more intellgent? What's your fucking point??? I suppose you are trying to imply that because blacks have smaller heads, they are less intelligent, and thus save Rushton. Well, what really matters is BRAIN MASS, which is Rushton himself claims!

Larger cranial capacity = more brain volume.

Learn the difference between mass and volume.

I have since demonstrated that his data erronously stating that blacks have smaller brains has been debunked.
Where? You haven't demonstrated anything other than the opinions of a few individuals, where are there documents, can you post them here?


I have argued with people like this before, and while it's very effective during verbal discussion (and I'm sure you've stumped people with it before) it just makes you look like a moron when one can go back and just READ the posts that are still up...

God. You even suck at logical fallacies.

It just gets funnier when he calls me an idiot for name calling, and then does it himself, repeatedly.

[crazzyass]

"Other critics have also charged that his interpretations, conclusions and methods are "sloppy" and "unscientific"[7]. For example, Rushton's diagram of cranial capacities is in error, as Neanderthal in fact had a greater cranial capacity than modern humans [8]. Genetic studies also show that there is greater genetic diversity within African populations (for example between Khoisanid Capoid, Mbuti pygmy, Sudanese Nuba, West African Negro and Ethiopian Cushitic populations, than there is amongst any two groups outside Africa rendering aggregation methods applied here nul and void [9].
"

Here is a specific quote, as you are unlikely to read my link. "


Here is one of my former posts, and here is your reply:


"Check the link of the source that suggests neanderthals have a greater brain capacity. Source 8 on the wikipedia page.

They based the claim that neanderthals have a greater cranial capacity based on the finding of one nine year old European neanderthal. "



I then linked a source stating that neanderthals are generally known to have larger craniums and is generally accepted in the scientific community.

You ignored my post and are now acting like you were saying that they had larger craniums all along. You are becoming even more and more pathetic as your fantasy world crashes around you.

[Struwwelpeter]

What's hypocritical? When did I say that Neanderthals had small craniums? I said that the sample in which less than five neanderthals were found near Uzbekistan had large craniums, and that there was genetic variance within Neanderthals, those found outside of Europe generally had small craniums, those in Europe had cranial capacity greater than that of man. The source I just linked you to suggests that Neanderthals who had a greater cranial capacity were more intelligent, which means you're the one evading an argument, and that you're the one proving yourself wrong by posting that laughable wikipedia article, and that now the burden of proof lies in you to demonstrate the relevance of the cranial capacity of neanderthals, as they have been demonstrated to be more intelligent, albeit less socially skilled than modern homo sapiens.

Learn how to read.

[crazzyass]

There's a difference.. When it's crazyass doing it, of course.



The link does not say all neanderthals, it says neanderthals in general, thus it is easy to conclude that they are talking about those found in central, east, west and southern Europe, such as those found in Uzbekistan. When did I turn anything around?


How am I evading an argument??? You are the one that instead of addressing my last posts, stopped for a couple posts of insults, then brought the larger skulls up again while leaving our previous debate unfinished, with you having no response.


Larger cranial capacity = more brain volume.

Learn the difference between mass and volume.
Where? You haven't demonstrated anything other than the opinions of a few individuals, where are there documents, can you post them here?



It just gets funnier when he calls me an idiot for name calling, and then does it himself, repeatedly.

No, the difference is I have a source when I do it. :thumbsup:


Read my other post. You acted like it was ridiculous that neanderthals had larger craniums, a fact that Rushton's models actually denied.

Uh...any time I have insulted you I have also provided either an argument or source with it...you just periodically go "fatality!", reinforcing my opinion that you may be a litte younger and more immature than you are letting on. But since that hasn't been verified, I'll let it go.

What?? When did I even reference a similaruty between mass and volume?? That has nothing to do with what I've said. Please read my other post, again. I am starting to think you are posting things acting like I supported or said them in an attempt to throw me off or to keep you as delusional as possible...

It doesn't make you an idiot to namecall, but it is a logical fallacy when you have no evidence supporting you position.
For instance, refer to the post I'm about to make in order to demonstrate that.

[Struwwelpeter]

No, the difference is I have a source when I do it. :thumbsup:

Even though your source is hearsay?


Read my other post. You acted like it was ridiculous that neanderthals had larger craniums, a fact that Rushton's models actually denied.

Where did it deny that?


What?? When did I even reference a similaruty between mass and volume?? That has nothing to do with what I've said. Please read my other post, again. I am starting to think you are posting things acting like I supported or said them in an attempt to throw me off or to keep you as delusional as possible...


You mistook mass for volume.

It doesn't make you an idiot to namecall, but it is a logical fallacy when you have no evidence supporting you position.
For instance, refer to the post I'm about to make in order to demonstrate that.

I have provided you with plenty of evidence; you dismiss it as fallacious.

[crazzyass]

In Rushton's book, Asians means those from the far East, Caucasoids generally north, south and Eastern Europe, and of course some parts below that, and Negroids are generally sub-Saharan Africans, with a few exceptions for all.

Directed at rabbitweed.

"The first problem for his theory is that there need to be major races. That is, the differences between "Oriental," "Black," and "White" need to be more than skin deep. In claiming that these old racial categories correspond to large biological differences, Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation.[11]"


:thumbsup:

Another area that Anthropologists attacked him for.

[rabbitweed]

In Rushton's book, Asians means those from the far East, Caucasoids generally north, south and Eastern Europe, and of course some parts below that, and Negroids are generally sub-Saharan Africans, with a few exceptions for all.

Directed at rabbitweed.

In which case the book has extremely poor definitions for race.

[Struwwelpeter]

In which case the book has extremely poor definitions for race.

The book does not define race, it takes the most relevant races (i.e. the most intermixed in western societies), sub-saharn negroids, far east Asians and european Caucasoids, and takes the data from those. There are very few capoids and northeast African Negroids in the USA and Europe, it's irrelevant to take them in to account, not just for that fact but because they are already racially mixed from the get go, some Kenyans are nearly completely caucasoid.

[crazzyass]

Even though your source is hearsay?



Where did it deny that?



You mistook mass for volume.



I have provided you with plenty of evidence; you dismiss it as fallacious.

My sources are hearsay, but yours aren't? Your one, single source supporting racism is by one scientist. Critics of the book number are double digits of scientists all demonstrating how his research methods were flawed and bias. Which has more legitamacy?

His models were inaccurate, as I have posted that quote over, and over, and over. Not to mention I've posted the source of the quote as well.

And where was that? If so, I apologize.


I don't dismiss it as fallacious; every scientist that has ever wrote anything about his book has. I have yet to find a single scientist that concurs with his report. Even reserachers that he quoted have come out and said that he didn't accurately represent their data and they wanted no citation for his work.

[Struwwelpeter]

"The first problem for his theory is that there need to be major races. That is, the differences between "Oriental," "Black," and "White" need to be more than skin deep. In claiming that these old racial categories correspond to large biological differences, Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation.[11]"


:thumbsup:

Another area that Anthropologists attacked him for.

One anthropologist said that, and perhaps you missed the post where I already tried to explain this for you: anthropologists still study race, they just use the word population over race, it's a matter of semantics. Haplogroups, skull type, facial features and so on are still of the utmost importance to anthropologists and other fields of expertise, take for example the fact that they are using anthropologists to determine the race of offenders via blood semen and hair sample in criminal justice.

[crazzyass]

In which case the book has extremely poor definitions for race.

Indeed. Anthropologists have agreed that his defining of races as basically skin-deep violates thirty years of genetic research, as some subsects of Africans resemble some subsects of Europeans better than they do other Africans.

In fact, any scientist that has commented on his report has done so negatively.

[Struwwelpeter]

My sources are hearsay, but yours aren't? Your one, single source supporting racism is by one scientist. Critics of the book number are double digits of scientists all demonstrating how his research methods were flawed and bias. Which has more legitamacy?

Rushton demonstrates how the data that was used by other scientists was flawed and skewed. Why do you not take his word for it? The "double degit" (lie) number of scientists that have come out and criticized him too had a political agenda, why do you take their opinion as fact over his? How are they more legit than Rushton? And you have failed to show me how his data was flawed, you have only said that there are scientists on that wikipedia article that said his data was flawed, giving little more than their words and description of data, but no concrete proof, example or demonstration in a conveniently organized web page, pdf, or other form of electronic document.

His models were inaccurate, as I have posted that quote over, and over, and over. Not to mention I've posted the source of the quote as well.

Learn how to read.

And where was that? If so, I apologize.

This is not true, anthropologists do consider race to be important, they just label it as population instead of race.

I don't dismiss it as fallacious; every scientist that has ever wrote anything about his book has.

Brazenly false.

I have yet to find a single scientist that concurs with his report.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

RACE, EVOLUTION,
AND BEHAVIOR:
A Life History Perspective
2nd Special Abridged Edition
Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2
2
Acclaim for J. Philippe Rushton’s
Race, Evolution, and Behavior
“(An) incendiary thesis....that separate races of human beings evolved different reproductive strategies to cope with
different environments and that these strategies led to physical differences in brain size and hence in intelligence.
Human beings who evolved in the warm but highly unpredictable environment of Africa adopted a strategy of high
reproduction, while human beings who migrated to the hostile cold of Europe and northern Asia took to producing
fewer children but nurturing them more carefully.”
---Malcolm W. Browne, New York Times Book Review
“Rushton is a serious scholar who has assembled serious data. Consider just one example: brain size. The empirical
reality, verified by numerous modern studies, including several based on magnetic resonance imaging, is that a
significant and substantial relationship does exist between brain size and measured intelligence after body size is
taken into account and that the races do have different distributions of brain size.”
---Charles Murray, Afterword to The Bell Curve
“Describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences in such
characteristics as intelligence, brain size, genital size, strength of sex drive, reproductive potency, industriousness,
sociability, and rule following. On each of these variables, the groups are aligned in the order: Orientals, Caucasians,
Blacks.”
---Mark Snyderman, National Review
“Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior...is an attempt to understand [race] differences in terms of life-history
evolution....Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social
science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.”
---Henry Harpending, Evolutionary Anthropology
.“This brilliant book is the most impressive theory-based study...of the psychological and behavioral differences
between the major racial groups that I have encountered in the world literature on this subject.”
---Arthur R. Jensen, University of California, Berkeley
“The only acceptable explanation of race differences in behavior allowed in public discourse is an entirely
environmental one...Professor Rushton deserves our gratitude for having the courage to declare that ‘this emperor
has no clothes,’ and that a more satisfactory explanation must be sought.”
---Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
“The remarkable resistance to racial science in our times has led to comparisons with the inquisition of Rome, active
during the Renaissance.... Astronomy and the physical sciences had their Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo a few
centuries ago; society and the welfare of humanity is the better for it today. In a directly analogous fashion,
psychology and the social sciences today have their Darwin, Galton, and Rushton.”
---Glayde Whitney, Contemporary Psychology
“The data are startling to the uninitiated....Race, Evolution, and Behavior confronts us as few books have with the
dilemmas wrought in a democratic society by individual and group differences in key human traits.”
---Linda Gottfredson, Politics and the Life Sciences
“Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his
work....Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse
of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis.”
---Hans J. Eysenck, University of London
“Should, if there is any justice, receive a Nobel Prize.”
---Richard Lynn, Spectator.

Even reserachers that he quoted have come out and said that he didn't accurately represent their data and they wanted no citation for his work.

Oh really?

[crazzyass]

One anthropologist said that, and perhaps you missed the post where I already tried to explain this for you: anthropologists still study race, they just use the word population over race, it's a matter of semantics. Haplogroups, skull type, facial features and so on are still of the utmost importance to anthropologists and other fields of expertise, take for example the fact that they are using anthropologists to determine the race of offenders via blood semen and hair sample in criminal justice.

No. Fucking. Shit.

They also acknowledge that skull type and facial features are not exclusive to skin color! To the point that, as I have said repeatedly while citing Anthropologists, that skin color is all but irrelevant.

So Rushton breaking the groups into Whites, Blacks, and Orientals spits in Anthropolgies face.

But your one scientist's opinion is definately more valid than the scientific communities'. :rolleyes:

[Struwwelpeter]

Indeed. Anthropologists have agreed that his defining of races as basically skin-deep violates thirty years of genetic research, .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JOkCTQf7EY

And yet, just yesterday you were arguing that black people were physically superior?

as some subsects of Africans resemble some subsects of Europeans better than they do other Africans

False.




In fact, any scientist that has commented on his report has done so negatively.

Again with the lies.

[crazzyass]

Rushton demonstrates how the data that was used by other scientists was flawed and skewed. Why do you not take his word for it? The "double degit" (lie) number of scientists that have come out and criticized him too had a political agenda, why do you take their opinion as fact over his? How are they more legit than Rushton? And you have failed to show me how his data was flawed, you have only said that there are scientists on that wikipedia article that said his data was flawed, giving little more than their words and description of data, but no concrete proof, example or demonstration in a conveniently organized web page, pdf, or other form of electronic document.


Learn how to read.







Brazenly false.


http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

RACE, EVOLUTION,
AND BEHAVIOR:
A Life History Perspective
2nd Special Abridged Edition
Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2
2
Acclaim for J. Philippe Rushton’s
Race, Evolution, and Behavior
“(An) incendiary thesis....that separate races of human beings evolved different reproductive strategies to cope with
different environments and that these strategies led to physical differences in brain size and hence in intelligence.
Human beings who evolved in the warm but highly unpredictable environment of Africa adopted a strategy of high
reproduction, while human beings who migrated to the hostile cold of Europe and northern Asia took to producing
fewer children but nurturing them more carefully.”
---Malcolm W. Browne, New York Times Book Review
“Rushton is a serious scholar who has assembled serious data. Consider just one example: brain size. The empirical
reality, verified by numerous modern studies, including several based on magnetic resonance imaging, is that a
significant and substantial relationship does exist between brain size and measured intelligence after body size is
taken into account and that the races do have different distributions of brain size.”
---Charles Murray, Afterword to The Bell Curve
“Describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences in such
characteristics as intelligence, brain size, genital size, strength of sex drive, reproductive potency, industriousness,
sociability, and rule following. On each of these variables, the groups are aligned in the order: Orientals, Caucasians,
Blacks.”
---Mark Snyderman, National Review
“Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior...is an attempt to understand [race] differences in terms of life-history
evolution....Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social
science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.”
---Henry Harpending, Evolutionary Anthropology
.“This brilliant book is the most impressive theory-based study...of the psychological and behavioral differences
between the major racial groups that I have encountered in the world literature on this subject.”
---Arthur R. Jensen, University of California, Berkeley
“The only acceptable explanation of race differences in behavior allowed in public discourse is an entirely
environmental one...Professor Rushton deserves our gratitude for having the courage to declare that ‘this emperor
has no clothes,’ and that a more satisfactory explanation must be sought.”
---Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
“The remarkable resistance to racial science in our times has led to comparisons with the inquisition of Rome, active
during the Renaissance.... Astronomy and the physical sciences had their Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo a few
centuries ago; society and the welfare of humanity is the better for it today. In a directly analogous fashion,
psychology and the social sciences today have their Darwin, Galton, and Rushton.”
---Glayde Whitney, Contemporary Psychology
“The data are startling to the uninitiated....Race, Evolution, and Behavior confronts us as few books have with the
dilemmas wrought in a democratic society by individual and group differences in key human traits.”
---Linda Gottfredson, Politics and the Life Sciences
“Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his
work....Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse
of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis.”
---Hans J. Eysenck, University of London
“Should, if there is any justice, receive a Nobel Prize.”
---Richard Lynn, Spectator.



Oh really?

They have more legitamacy through the sheer number of scientists and their use of documented fact to counteract his claims. Like him breaking races into White, Black, and Oriental. Modern Anthropology rejects this as false. Yet you ignore that. Every scientist I quote that gives a point by point breakdown of criticism, you dismiss as opinion.

Much of that praise is given to the brain weight (his data was shown to be skewed). If the data wasn't skewed, I would likely praise it too. :rolleyes:
Also, the scientists you posted are merely "opinion", as well. And in fact have less credibility in their statements as the critics of the report cite reasons why it is wrong. Your scientists (and "spectator". Not all of em are acutally experts) say nothing more than "It's great! I like it!"

Yes, really. Do I need to post that link again? Or are you just going to keep ignoring it?

[crazzyass]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JOkCTQf7EY

And yet, just yesterday you were arguing that black people were physically superior?



False.






Again with the lies.

Yeah, I said if that if one race is superior to the other, than if anything, it is blacks. But no, I don't believe that one is expressly better than the other. Blacks, if of the right ethnicity, tend to be better athletes. Not because of skin color, but different body make-up.

Your video proves nothing because it doesn't address anything I've said. I never said that there aren't races, just that the classifications fall beyond skin color. So if you want to discriminate, there are going to be some white people than you are going to have to discriminate against, too.


Hahaha. No refutations, either. Just "Nope. Anthropologists are full of shit. 17th century thinking is far more advanced than they could ever hope to be!"

[rabbitweed]

The book does not define race

Then how can you claim it's a scientific source at all!?

That is seriously the stupidest thing I've read all day. The ueber scholarly book on race and intelligence doesn't even define race.

What's that smiley all the kids are using these days? Ah, that's right :facepalm:.

[Struwwelpeter]

They have more legitamacy through the sheer number of scientists and their use of documented fact to counteract his claims.

You have yet to provide any of this; only hearsay (wikipedia) in which it is claimed they have contradicted Rushton.

Like him breaking races into White, Black, and Oriental. Modern Anthropology rejects this as false. Yet you ignore that. Every scientist I quote that gives a point by point breakdown of criticism, you dismiss as opinion.

It is opinion, until they provide the facts.

caucasoid mongoloid negroid = white, black, oriental

The three major races of man.


Much of that praise is given to the brain weight (his data was shown to be skewed).

And for the 3000000000th time, where was it shown to be skewed?

If the data wasn't skewed, I would likely praise it too. :rolleyes:

What reason do you have to believe that it is skewed?

Also, the scientists you posted are merely "opinion", as well.

Thank you for conceding that the links you are given are hearsay, now that you have admitted this, why were you concealing your double standard for so long?


And in fact have less credibility in their statements as the critics of the report cite reasons why it is wrong. Your scientists (and "spectator". Not all of em are acutally experts) say nothing more than "It's great! I like it!"

And? Yours say nothing more than "it's racist", "I hate it!".

[Struwwelpeter]

Then how can you claim it's a scientific source at all!?

That is seriously the stupidest thing I've read all day. The ueber scholarly book on race and intelligence doesn't even define race.

What's that smiley all the kids are using these days? Ah, that's right :facepalm:.

The book has nothing to do with defining race, but rather using the already understood racial definitions and the study of the races to determine why the races behave and perform so differently. Perhaps you should try reading the document some time.

[crazzyass]

You have yet to provide any of this; only hearsay (wikipedia) in which it is claimed they have contradicted Rushton.


It is opinion, until they provide the facts.

caucasoid mongoloid negroid = white, black, oriental

The three major races of man.


And for the 3000000000th time, where was it shown to be skewed?


What reason do you have to believe that it is skewed?


Thank you for conceding that the links you are given are hearsay, now that you have admitted this, why were you concealing your double standard for so long?



And? Yours say nothing more than "it's racist", "I hate it!".

Than you have lost credibility with me completely. White, black, and oriental are not the only distinctions and similarities, Anthropoligists across the board acknowledge that. And what about intelligent productive black people? Aren't they an anomally if we suscribe to your viewpoint? Of course, I'm sure you hate them just the same regardless of what they do...

http://www.jstor.org/pss/682972


"...averaging does nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement, and such flaws are abundant in the cited literature. For example, among the 38 reports on brain weight, all but two gave figures for only one group, with most cases being people living in the nation of their ancestors, such as an article on Japanese living in Japan and another on Kenyans living in Kenya. The obvious differences in environment make all of these data of dubious worth for testing hypotheses about genetic causes of group differences.[5]"


Oh, and many scientists did indeed applaud his figures until it was discovered to be inaccurate.

http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html



There are some links. If you want more sources, you can refer to my Wikipedia link and click on the citations yourself. But you'd rather deny reality.

Besides, I have thought of another question...what if there is a race that isn't intelligent? Isn't that the equivalent of being born with a mental or physical disability? Why should we discriminate based on that? That is, of course, if you can find a valid scientific source supporting your statements.

Double standard my ass! You are the ones that has been calling any scientists I reference "just an opinion", while stating that your scientist isn't an opinion, and is in no way biased. While every other scientist is. Right. I was only making the point that if the entire scientific community is guilty of using only opinion (albeit opinions supported by science...) than your scientist's report is surely just an opinion piece. I have yet to absolutely declare him as using just an opinion though, and have opted to refute it with facts supported by research and many scientists. You have chosen to ignore this.

[Struwwelpeter]

Than you have lost credibility with me completely. White, black, and oriental are not the only distinctions and similarities, Anthropoligists across the board acknowledge that. And what about intelligent productive black people? Aren't they an anomally if we suscribe to your viewpoint? Of course, I'm sure you hate them just the same regardless of what they do...

I'm well aware they aren't the only, I said they were the three major races of man, with numerous sub races within them. Intelligent black people are anomaly but that is not to say that they do not exist, stupid whites exist as well, however there are more stupid blacks than stupid whites, on average.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/682972


"...averaging does nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement, and such flaws are abundant in the cited literature. For example, among the 38 reports on brain weight, all but two gave figures for only one group, with most cases being people living in the nation of their ancestors, such as an article on Japanese living in Japan and another on Kenyans living in Kenya. The obvious differences in environment make all of these data of dubious worth for testing hypotheses about genetic causes of group differences.[5]"

You have already posted this before, and I have already countered it: this does not take in to account the fact that the same racial differentiations occur in the US, where the culture and the development of the nation is the same. While culture and background do have an effect on IQ, it can vary, ultimately race has a bigger effect, and if you read Rushton's documents you would have learned this already.

Oh, and many scientists did indeed applaud his figures until it was discovered to be inaccurate.

http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html

In that link, I see a document written by one man, where are the "numerous scientists" that found it to be inaccurate?

There are some links. If you want more sources, you can refer to my Wikipedia link and click on the citations yourself. But you'd rather deny reality.

How have I denied reality?

Besides, I have thought of another question...what if there is a race that isn't intelligent? Isn't that the equivalent of being born with a mental or physical disability? Why should we discriminate based on that? That is, of course, if you can find a valid scientific source supporting your statements.

It is not the equivalent because only individuals are born with mental disorders, there isn't a race of retards out there. An individual with a birth defect should be accepted and tolerated by society, however a race that is unintelligent as a whole should not be discriminated against either, they should not live amongst an intelligent race, but rather amongst their own people, as the differences create inedible lines between them and causes nothing but trouble, in the words of Thomas Jefferson.

Double standard my ass! You are the ones that has been calling any scientists I reference "just an opinion", while stating that your scientist isn't an opinion, and is in no way biased.

You have been doing the same thing.
I was only making the point that if the entire scientific community is guilty of using only opinion (albeit opinions supported by science...) than your scientist's report is surely just an opinion piece.

The entire scientific community does not support what you are saying, in the words of rust, prove that or admit you cannot. Your lies are an insult and an embarassment to science.

I have yet to absolutely declare him as using just an opinion though, and have opted to refute it with facts supported by research and many scientists. You have chosen to ignore this.

You have, you have said that he is nothing more than a racist and that is data is skewed, despite the fact that you have no evidence to believe that is so, other than the fact that on wikipedia, people have added some quotes from individuals, all of whom are known for their scientific and political agendas, have said so.

[crazzyass]

Food Stamp Recients:

41 percent of participants are white; 36 percent are African-American, non-Hispanic; 18 percent are Hispanic; 3 percent are Asian, 2 percent are Native American, and 1 percent are of unknown race or ethnicity.



http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/faqs.htm#20


Yeah, "those damned niggers" leech off society more than anyone else. :rolleyes:

How bout we just hate on anyone who is stupid and unproductive, not just black ones? That sounds like a better option. Hell, I do that already...



Oh, and the stereotype of black teenage mothers with five kids being the majority of Welfare recipients?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm


Race
--------------
White 38.8%
Black 37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4

Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3

Age of Mother
------------------
Teenager 7.6%
20 - 29 47.9
30 - 39 32.7
40 or older 11.8




Damn. Those niggers are taking all our hard-earned money. :rolleyes:

[Struwwelpeter]

Food Stamp Recients:

41 percent of participants are white; 36 percent are African-American, non-Hispanic; 18 percent are Hispanic; 3 percent are Asian, 2 percent are Native American, and 1 percent are of unknown race or ethnicity.



http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/faqs.htm#20


Yeah, "those damned niggers" leech off society more than anyone else. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_Ame ricans

Black people make up twelve percent of the population. White people make up nearly 80% of the population, arguably. The fact that blacks make up nearly half of the population receiving foodstamps, despite being twelve percent of the population, means that they do leech more than anyone else. Better luck next time.

How bout we just hate on anyone who is stupid and unproductive, not just black ones? That sounds like a better option. Hell, I do that already...


Self-hate is a pitiful thing, you should seek help about that. The problem is, the stupidity of black people is correlated with their savagery, as IQ has been shown to correlate with criminality, twelve percent of the USA population and the make up 52 percent of the prison population.

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Oh, and the stereotype of black teenage mothers with five kids being the majority of Welfare recipients?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm


Race
--------------
White 38.8%
Black 37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4

Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3

Age of Mother
------------------
Teenager 7.6%
20 - 29 47.9
30 - 39 32.7
40 or older 11.8




Damn. Those niggers are taking all our hard-earned money. :rolleyes:

Miserable failure.

[crazzyass]

I'm well aware they aren't the only, I said they were the three major races of man, with numerous sub races within them. Intelligent black people are anomaly but that is not to say that they do not exist, stupid whites exist as well, however there are more stupid blacks than stupid whites, on average.


You have already posted this before, and I have already countered it: this does not take in to account the fact that the same racial differentiations occur in the US, where the culture and the development of the nation is the same. While culture and background do have an effect on IQ, it can vary, ultimately race has a bigger effect, and if you read Rushton's documents you would have learned this already.

In that link, I see a document written by one man, where are the "numerous scientists" that found it to be inaccurate?


How have I denied reality?


It is not the equivalent because only individuals are born with mental disorders, there isn't a race of retards out there. An individual with a birth defect should be accepted and tolerated by society, however a race that is unintelligent as a whole should not be discriminated against either, they should not live amongst an intelligent race, but rather amongst their own people, as the differences create inedible lines between them and causes nothing but trouble, in the words of Thomas Jefferson.


You have been doing the same thing..

The entire scientific community does not support what you are saying, in the words of rust, prove that or admit you cannot. Your lies are an insult and an embarassment to science.



You have, you have said that he is nothing more than a racist and that is data is skewed, despite the fact that you have no evidence to believe that is so, other than the fact that on wikipedia, people have added some quotes from individuals, all of whom are known for their scientific and political agendas, have said so.

Link supporting that blacks on average are more stupid?



But he didn't sample data from the US, I thought, because of the mix of races. Hell, you even said that it is a mixture of races and shouldn't be used.


That is one example. You are absolutely free to look at the full list of references found on Wikipedia. Your article was written by one man, don't forget that. Evasions aside, can you refute what the man wrote or are you going to criticise him for being one person? All the while your source has only one, as well. :facepalm:


You are blatantly ignoring multiple scientists' accounts. You aren't even refuting them, just saying "Well, they're biased. And it's only an opinion, after all."
If they could be so easily debunked, why haven't you done it yet?


That's essentially what you are saying! If the black people are fundamentally retarded compared to whites, it is a similar situation.
But wait, you have admitted there are intelligent blacks and stupid whites. Why not segregate stupid people from intelligent ones? Why would we force out the black people that are more intelligent and have contributed to society more than you and I both combined? Why will you only punish stupid black people, not stupid people altogether? Especially if your claim is that you only discriminate against their inferiority, not just their skin color. Why not discriminate against all inferiority?

Ah, well then I'd love a link pointing out every single one of those scientists personal agendas, and proof thereof.

[crazzyass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_Ame ricans

Black people make up twelve percent of the population. White people make up nearly 80% of the population, arguably. The fact that blacks make up nearly half of the population receiving foodstamps, despite being twelve percent of the population, means that they do leech more than anyone else. Better luck next time.

Self-hate is a pitiful thing, you should seek help about that. The problem is, the stupidity of black people is correlated with their savagery, as IQ has been shown to correlate with criminality, twelve percent of the USA population and the make up 52 percent of the prison population.

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm



Miserable failure.

They are still not a majority of welfare beneficiaries.

I would argue that it is due to social conditioning. Their ancestors were uneducated slaves, and the vast majority of black people have had no opportunity for advancement until around now. On top of the fact our culture tells them they are owed everything. It has nothing to do with their skin and everything to with their social conditioning. Given a little more time and perhaps a different attitude, those numbers will subside.

And I can also provide data where Asians have a lower ratio than whites. Does this mean that Asians can discriminate against us because they have a lower percentile in prision?


Edit: Another point: the majority of blacks have not served prison time or are on welfare. Therefore, unproductive blacks would be the anomaly, not the productive ones.

[Struwwelpeter]

They are still not a majority of welfare beneficiaries.

They are a majority, they are simply not accepting the majority of the welfare, it is expected that whites would be the majority of welfare recipients, given that they make up more than seventy percent of the population, when you take in account that blacks make up just under forty percent of welfare recipients, despite being twelve percent of the population of the USA, it is obvious that they are a race of leeches.



I would argue that it is due to social conditioning. Their ancestors were uneducated slaves, and the vast majority of black people have had no opportunity for advancement until around now.

My ancestors, from Wales, were enslaved by vikings and other ancestors of mine lived under the oppression and the terrorism of the British Empire, why are they not gang banging, murdering, raping, thieving at record rates and why are their IQs not 85? The buddhists in China, why are they not raping, killing, thieving and of course making record low IQ scores? Why didn't the Eastern Europeans, after living under more than 50 years of the oppression of communism, in which 45,000,000 white men, women and children were subject to the progroms and killed, go on to act like black people? Why have the Chinese, under Mao Zedong, come to be criminals? The North Koreans who live in a horrible dictatorship who immigrate to Korea, China and Japan are all law-abiding, what's their problem? Truth is, social conditioning can have an effect but it is never as significant as race.



On top of the fact our culture tells them they are owed everything. It has nothing to do with their skin and everything to with their social conditioning. Given a little more time and perhaps a different attitude, those numbers will subside.


Take it away from them and they'll cry racism. What are the black people on welfare going to do when you take it away from them? Go back to school, go to college and succeed?

And I can also provide data where Asians have a lower ratio than whites. Does this mean that Asians can discriminate against us because they have a lower percentile in prision?


No, because the difference is five IQ points on average, not fifteen as compared to black people. Asians and whites, in the USA have historically gotten along, the majority of interracial relationships are probably between white men and Asian women. We get along because of our common identity. Not that that is a good thing. I feel that the Asians have a right to their own society, and caucasoids have a right to their own societies. You must also take in to account, just as you failed to do so with blacks, that there are very few Asians in the USA. Asians are also well known for their hatred of blacks.

Edit: Another point: the majority of blacks have not served prison time or are on welfare. Therefore, unproductive blacks would be the anomaly, not the productive ones.

There are a significant amount of blacks on welfare and in prison compared to the other races, even despite their minority status, failing to take in to account relativity they are still the most dangerous, unproductive race. A significant number, perhaps a majority of them are on welfare. The number of blacks in prison is so significant it is highly noteworthy, and that's not taking in to account the number of blacks who have been released or not yet incarcerated for their crimes.

[Ron_Smythberg]

Crap

Hey Jim. You spend all day trolling this forum. Get a life!

[Struwwelpeter]

Link supporting that blacks on average are more stupid?

Are you really that lazy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png


But he didn't sample data from the US, I thought, because of the mix of races. Hell, you even said that it is a mixture of races and shouldn't be used.

He did sample them, I said that the mixed races in Africa (capoid and those in East Africa) should not be used, as they are a minority and racially mixed.

That is one example. You are absolutely free to look at the full list of references found on Wikipedia. Your article was written by one man, don't forget that. Evasions aside, can you refute what the man wrote or are you going to criticise him for being one person? All the while your source has only one, as well. :facepalm:

My article was written by one man, but I'm not the one claiming that numerous people support what I have to say (not to say that they do not).

After all, you're the one who is claiming that the majority of scientists support you.

And that document was written by more than one person, it even mentions that in the link you have given me.


You are blatantly ignoring multiple scientists' accounts. You aren't even refuting them, just saying "Well, they're biased. And it's only an opinion, after all."

To take critique the article you posted, it would take a significant amount of time, but I will do it when I have the free time.

If they could be so easily debunked, why haven't you done it yet?

Unfortunately this evening I am unable to direct all of my attention to refuting the article you have posted here.


That's essentially what you are saying! If the black people are fundamentally retarded compared to whites, it is a similar situation.

It is not, because the majority of white people are not born retarded, a birth defect you can tolerate but a race of "natural" birth defects you should not.


But wait, you have admitted there are intelligent blacks and stupid whites. Why not segregate stupid people from intelligent ones?

Why would it matter? They would be a significant minority, around ten percent of the black population has an IQ above 110. Why would we leave them along? They have a right to be amongst their own community and to put in work for their own people.


Why would we force out the black people that are more intelligent and have contributed to society more than you and I both combined?

Because somewhere out there, there are millions of white people that contributed more than them.

What would it feel like to be told that your race is not worthy and that you are an anomaly? It's a violation of human rights to do something like that to someone. Let them work for their own people and in a few years after some outside support and communication with the rest of the world, they have uplifted their community, I will admit I am wrong and move to Africa and run around a lion infested part of the sahara ass naked with a three foot long sausage hanging out of my asshole.

Why will you only punish stupid black people, not stupid people altogether? Especially if your claim is that you only discriminate against their inferiority, not just their skin color. Why not discriminate against all inferiority?

I said that black should not be discriminated against, but that all races should be segregated, racial prejudice is a horrible thing to waste your time on, against anyone of any kind.

Discriminating against inferiority is not what this is about. Why would you discriminate against someone who cannot control what they are born with?

Ah, well then I'd love a link pointing out every single one of those scientists personal agendas, and proof thereof.

Okay, later.

[Rust]

What is it with the number of people so adamant when it comes to making the world known that they have "owned" me? First Rust, then Ants in my Poptarts, now this kid. It would appear I have bred a generation of insecure, angsty young internet progressives who would kill to say they have owned me.

Huh? I didn't even mention the word "own" in the thread. All I did was show how utterly incorrect you were; it's not my fault you were wrong.

As for insecure, angsty young internet kids...

Owned.


The wonders of arguing this website, didn't Zok say this guy "owns" him or something? Hilarious.


Owned.

I think now's the time when you shut the fuck up.

[Struwwelpeter]

Look at him, he just came along and proved my point, any time I mention his name he shows up within less than three hours and makes sure people know that wouldn't go without notice.

[Rust]

Well yes, I am guilty of pointing out how utterly wrong you are, again. I apologize. I'll go ahead and apologize for all the times it's going to happen in the future.

[Struwwelpeter]

There you have it ladies and gentleman, that train is never late.

[crazzyass]

Are you really that lazy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png



He did sample them, I said that the mixed races in Africa (capoid and those in East Africa) should not be used, as they are a minority and racially mixed.


My article was written by one man, but I'm not the one claiming that numerous people support what I have to say (not to say that they do not).

After all, you're the one who is claiming that the majority of scientists support you.

And that document was written by more than one person, it even mentions that in the link you have given me.


To take critique the article you posted, it would take a significant amount of time, but I will do it when I have the free time.


Unfortunately this evening I am unable to direct all of my attention to refuting the article you have posted here.



It is not, because the majority of white people are not born retarded, a birth defect you can tolerate but a race of "natural" birth defects you should not.



Why would it matter? They would be a significant minority, around ten percent of the black population has an IQ above 110. Why would we leave them along? They have a right to be amongst their own community and to put in work for their own people.


Because somewhere out there, there are millions of white people that contributed more than them.

What would it feel like to be told that your race is not worthy and that you are an anomaly? It's a violation of human rights to do something like that to someone. Let them work for their own people and in a few years after some outside support and communication with the rest of the world, they have uplifted their community, I will admit I am wrong and move to Africa and run around a lion infested part of the sahara ass naked with a three foot long sausage hanging out of my asshole.


I said that black should not be discriminated against, but that all races should be segregated, racial prejudice is a horrible thing to waste your time on, against anyone of any kind.

Discriminating against inferiority is not what this is about. Why would you discriminate against someone who cannot control what they are born with?



Okay, later.


First off, in formal rules of debate, you are expected to provide a source for your statements; the burden of proof is on you, as any statement without a source can be dismissed without one, as well. So it is not lazy to expect such a thing. I've posted my fair share of links, as well.

Second, touche. I walked into that one. I do indeed agree that they have lower average IQ, but like with their other undesirable traits I am still convinced it is social conditiong. One element that is missing from your other exampels of rascism is that after the fact, the victims weren't mollycoddled (such an odd term...). There is such widespread reverse racism in the media today it is ridiculous. A group of blacks abduct, rape, and murder a white woman, and you are lucky if it is mentioned in the local news. One black guy gets mugged by a white dude, and you'll have Reverend Sharpton and half the country sweeping in and calling hate crime. This attitude, the gangster subculture, and sense of entitlement that is brainwashed into them is more than sufficient explanation. IQ results are a result of logic and reasoning abilities, and it takes a lot of analysis and drive to figure some of the questions out. The lack of education, lack of caring would make the score drop. However, the successful ones that break out of the mold do well. This leads me to believe that without the biased media and culture, they could perform as well as whites. But I will admit that I have empirical evidence to support this beyond other scientists' hypothesis.

I still see it as identical. If you regard us all as humans, and certain humans are born with deficiencies, why would you segregate those deficiencies only if they're black??


...okay, you absolutely have proven that you are racist based on skin color and nothing else. You claim that you are racist because blacks are lazy, stupid and unproductive. I said that several are very intelligent, not to mention several whites are stupid, too. Regardless, you would still segregate the intelligent productive ones! And still let the stupid and lazy whites be considered superior. So it has nothing to do with their actions and everything to do with their skin. You've destroyed your credibility with that one. I am prejudiced to a degree in the sense that I acknowledge differences and inequalities between people. However, I base this off of actions, not something as vain as skin color. If you are willing to segregate based solely on that, than you just have a bad case of xenophobia.


Hahaha...so Asians can't hate on us because we're only a little stupider than they are, but we can hate on blacks because the margin is wider. I guess nothing can soil or criticise the great white race, right? :rolleyes:

Precisely! If inferiority doesn't matter, and we shouldn't discriminate because of the way someone is born, why do you propose shipping all blacks back to Africa because they are stupid and lazy, while letting the same kind of white person continue to leech off of us???

[crazzyass]

They are a majority, they are simply not accepting the majority of the welfare, it is expected that whites would be the majority of welfare recipients, given that they make up more than seventy percent of the population, when you take in account that blacks make up just under forty percent of welfare recipients, despite being twelve percent of the population of the USA, it is obvious that they are a race of leeches.



My ancestors, from Wales, were enslaved by vikings and other ancestors of mine lived under the oppression and the terrorism of the British Empire, why are they not gang banging, murdering, raping, thieving at record rates and why are their IQs not 85? The buddhists in China, why are they not raping, killing, thieving and of course making record low IQ scores? Why didn't the Eastern Europeans, after living under more than 50 years of the oppression of communism, in which 45,000,000 white men, women and children were subject to the progroms and killed, go on to act like black people? Why have the Chinese, under Mao Zedong, come to be criminals? The North Koreans who live in a horrible dictatorship who immigrate to Korea, China and Japan are all law-abiding, what's their problem? Truth is, social conditioning can have an effect but it is never as significant as race.



Take it away from them and they'll cry racism. What are the black people on welfare going to do when you take it away from them? Go back to school, go to college and succeed?


No, because the difference is five IQ points on average, not fifteen as compared to black people. Asians and whites, in the USA have historically gotten along, the majority of interracial relationships are probably between white men and Asian women. We get along because of our common identity. Not that that is a good thing. I feel that the Asians have a right to their own society, and caucasoids have a right to their own societies. You must also take in to account, just as you failed to do so with blacks, that there are very few Asians in the USA. Asians are also well known for their hatred of blacks.



There are a significant amount of blacks on welfare and in prison compared to the other races, even despite their minority status, failing to take in to account relativity they are still the most dangerous, unproductive race. A significant number, perhaps a majority of them are on welfare. The number of blacks in prison is so significant it is highly noteworthy, and that's not taking in to account the number of blacks who have been released or not yet incarcerated for their crimes.

You know, almost all black people hate niggers about as much as you do, if not more, because there is a discernable difference. I really believe you have a skewed vision of blacks. I know several intelligent hardworking ones. I am friends with a few. I can't find any difference between them and a white person. None. They have a wife and kids, they pay the mortgage, work hard and earn their money at their job, and they bitch about niggers on Welfare taking their money. And guess what: whites can be niggers, too. It all comes down to actions. If you have some ghetto-fied black guy dressed like a wannabe gangsta stealing hubcaps while living on Welfare, yes you have a nigger on your hands. But the white trash redneck doing the same thing is a nigger as well. But the productive and intelligent blacks I know? They don't begin to fit the bill as a nigger. I think if you ever really got the chance to know a black person (a nonnigger one) you would be surprised at the similarities between yourself and he/she.

So if you really want to discriminate and ship a bunch of people off to a foreign country, let's do it to the stupid unproductive people from across the board of races, not just the blacks. if you proposed that, i'd be behind you 100% man.

[Rust]

There you have it ladies and gentleman, that train is never late.

Yes, much to your chagrin. :)

[Struwwelpeter]

Crazyass thanks for your posts, unfortunately I don't have the time to respond to them at the moment.

[crazzyass]

Crazyass thanks for your posts, unfortunately I don't have the time to respond to them at the moment.

Take your time.

*lights cigar*

[Ron_Smythberg]

You know, almost all black people hate niggers about as much as you do, if not more, because there is a discernable difference. I really believe you have a skewed vision of blacks. I know several intelligent hardworking ones. I am friends with a few. I can't find any difference between them and a white person. None. They have a wife and kids, they pay the mortgage, work hard and earn their money at their job, and they bitch about niggers on Welfare taking their money. And guess what: whites can be niggers, too. It all comes down to actions. If you have some ghetto-fied black guy dressed like a wannabe gangsta stealing hubcaps while living on Welfare, yes you have a nigger on your hands. But the white trash redneck doing the same thing is a nigger as well. But the productive and intelligent blacks I know? They don't begin to fit the bill as a nigger. I think if you ever really got the chance to know a black person (a nonnigger one) you would be surprised at the similarities between yourself and he/she.

So if you really want to discriminate and ship a bunch of people off to a foreign country, let's do it to the stupid unproductive people from across the board of races, not just the blacks. if you proposed that, i'd be behind you 100% man.

Yes, the average quote unquote "Ni**er" is about just as bad as your usual trailer hick. There are unproductive wastes of spaces on each side and singling out black people is just plain stupid.

There is no credible evidence backing up the claim "Blacks are inferior" and most of their problems can be explained via sociological reasoning.

Oh and DreadLord, watch Louis and the Nazis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fd0-5ZDInE) and you can get to know your friend Tom Metzger a little better.

[Dread_Lord]

Oh and DreadLord, watch Louis and the Nazis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fd0-5ZDInE) and you can get to know your friend Tom Metzger a little better.

I have watched the video. What is your point?

[Ron_Smythberg]

I have watched the video. What is your point?

Made me laugh, especially the parts that show him with his Peurto-Rican buddy.

[Dread_Lord]

Made me laugh, especially the parts that show him with his Peurto-Rican buddy.

I'm sure it did. I can imagine you think all racists are anti-everything but white.

Being racially aware and supporting racial segregation does not mean you cannot associate with non whites or have mutual interests. Some choose not to but tom doesn't and neither do I.
As I have said before I will preach to any choir. All races should accept racial segregation and work towards those goals. I am sure tom can do just fine if his friend didn't live in his country.

Aside from this it's nearly impossible, thanks to forced integration, to deal with only your race. We are forced, in many cases, to accept certain things but we do draw lines.

Why don't you go listen to his radio show.

[Ron_Smythberg]

Being racially aware and supporting racial segregation does not mean you cannot associate with non whites or have mutual interests. Some choose not to but tom doesn't and neither do I.
As I have said before I will preach to any choir. All races should accept racial segregation and work towards those goals. I am sure tom can do just fine if his friend didn't live in his country.



So no sooner would you befriend a "non-white" then would you have him and his entire family deported based on their ethnicity.

What about people of mixed races? How would you decide which country they are to go to?

[Dread_Lord]

So no sooner would you befriend a "non-white" then would you have him and his entire family deported based on their ethnicity.

What about people of mixed races? How would you decide which country they are to go to?

You don't understand. We aren't trying to deport people based on our hate for them but because we understand it would be better all around, for all races.
Tom and myself, we know our priorities. Friend or not it's for both parties benefit and it has to be done.

I think it would benefit your understanding of what I believe to know that I am a Northwest Migration supporter. I support the formation of a whites only country in the pacific northwest and work towards that goal. It doesn't harm other races. Yes, other races live there, but all we want is a small chunk of the US they can have the rest for all we care.

[crazzyass]

What about biracial marriages? ^^^



And still no has told me why we shouldn't just deport the lazy assholes of all races. I mean, if a black guy is working hard and contributing, why does he need to go? What is he hurting?

[Azure]

twelve percent of the USA population and the make up 52 percent of the prison population.


And ironically, black people make up about 12% of drug users, while accounting for the majority of drug convictions.

Weird how that works out, isn't it?

[rabbitweed]

And ironically, black people make up about 12% of drug users, while accounting for the majority of drug convictions.

Weird how that works out, isn't it?

All that tells me is blacks deal drugs more than whites.

[Azure]

All that tells me is blacks deal drugs more than whites.

Trafficking convictions make up a smaller percentage than possession convictions.

Anything else? :rolleyes:

[Struwwelpeter]

Azure could you show me some statistics that suggest what you have presented?

[rabbitweed]

Trafficking convictions make up a smaller percentage than possession convictions.

Anything else? :rolleyes:

1. Blacks living in areas with generally higher crime rates, and so more likely to have police around, as opposed to rich white people smoking crack in mansions.

2. Probably racial profiling by police.

This is all pretty hypothetical since you have no facts to back up your claims.

[Azure]

1. Blacks living in areas with generally higher crime rates, and so more likely to have police around, as opposed to rich white people smoking crack in mansions.

2. Probably racial profiling by police.

This is all pretty hypothetical since you have no facts to back up your claims.

Drug Use in Thousands, 12 and Older, 1999-2000 Annualized Average
Race/Ethnicity Used Any Illicit Drug
In Lifetime
White 67,807
Black 9,186

[Struwwelpeter]

Yeah that's fine, just give us the link to the source.

[Azure]

Yeah that's fine, just give us the link to the source.

Fuck, I thought I listed it.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1308/Drugs-Drug-Users-By-Race-Ethnicity.html

[Struwwelpeter]

Wonderful, in other words you have a statistic that is based not on the actual proof of whether or not these people were on drugs, but whether or not they answered honestly. You cannot submit these as evidence that whites use more drugs, until you've got a survey that involves drug testing. It's well-known common sense that blacks and mestizos use drugs more than Asians and Whites. The simple fact that they traffic them more than whites, in addition to the general knowledge of the public that they use drugs more often, is evidence enough that there are more black drug users than white users. If anything that statistic shows that non-whites are pathological liars.

[Dread_Lord]

What about biracial marriages? ^^^



And still no has told me why we shouldn't just deport the lazy assholes of all races. I mean, if a black guy is working hard and contributing, why does he need to go? What is he hurting?

Wouldn't be an option in an one race country. If they wanted to race mix they can go to another country for that.

Where exactly would you deport the lazy to?

As for the hard working black man, he can be hard working in his own country.
Let me ask you this, what about his children and their children?

[crazzyass]

Wouldn't be an option in an one race country. If they wanted to race mix they can go to another country for that.

Where exactly would you deport the lazy to?

As for the hard working black man, he can be hard working in his own country.
Let me ask you this, what about his children and their children?

Then that is pretty fucked up. What about couples already married? Going to split them up?

Where exactly would you deport blacks to?

Then you are racist based on skin color and nothing else. For all of your talk about how they are lazier and more unproductive, that is actually just an excuse, because you still discriminate against the hardworking black American.
What about his/their children? Are you referring back to biracial marriages or what?

[Struwwelpeter]

The question of children lies in the fact that random genetic mutations occur. While the black American may have been fortunate enough not to inherit the genetic predisposition to crime or may have had an unusually gifted ability to suppress that urge, there is no telling who is children may be. It's not uncommon to have a child with blue eyes and blond hair from a brunette family or a child that inherited chron's disease in a family of people without it. But that's beside the point, I already explained that the number of white hardworking people far outnumbers the black, and that the black community has a right to their hardworking genetic Gods just as we have a right to our own. You can't keep someone behind and tell them that they were genetic exceptions in a race of buffoons, it's a violation of their human rights, and the human rights of the black race, who need their geniuses more than we do.

[crazzyass]

A better way of putting that is to let the human race have the intelligent hardworking ones.

You have yet to prove that laziness is a gene. Even if it was, white people are lazy, too. Therefore, we wouldn't know if our children would have it. So...is no one allowed to reproduce? Or what?

In all liklihood, the hardworking black would teach his/her children to have the same work ethic.

[Dread_Lord]

Then that is pretty fucked up. What about couples already married? Going to split them up?

No, they can both leave the country. I am not talking about all of the US I am talking about the pacific Northwest. As in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Many of us have already moved there. I am working towards that goal.

Where exactly would you deport blacks to?

If it were a white only country formed in the Pac Northwest then we would force them out into the US. There are 47 other states they can live in.

Now answer my original question.


Then you are racist based on skin color and nothing else. For all of your talk about how they are lazier and more unproductive, that is actually just an excuse, because you still discriminate against the hardworking black American.
What about his/their children? Are you referring back to biracial marriages or what?

I am trying to make you understand that because one person is meets some standard or other that it changes nothing and the status quo continues.

[Struwwelpeter]

Laziness, violence and criminality in general are not genes however a genetic predisposition to all three has been identified, and that genetic predisposition, in practical terms has shown to be demonstrated more in the black race, the mestizo people, south Asians, aborginies and so forth. There are lazy whites, but less lazy whites than the black race, by far. The genetic mutation will not occur as often in the white race as the black race.

And humans are a group of primates with individual races, we may all be human but we are not all equal. Suggesting that we want even the hardworking blacks out of the USA because we hate their skin color is ludicrous.

[crazzyass]

Laziness, violence and criminality in general are not genes however a genetic predisposition to all three has been identified, and that genetic predisposition, in practical terms has shown to be demonstrated more in the black race, the mestizo people, south Asians, aborginies and so forth. There are lazy whites, but less lazy whites than the black race, by far. The genetic mutation will not occur as often in the white race as the black race.

And humans are a group of primates with individual races, we may all be human but we are not all equal. Suggesting that we want even the hardworking blacks out of the USA because we hate their skin color is ludicrous.

Then why do you want them out? If you want blacks out because they are lazy and unproductive, than it would stand to reason you'd allow hardworking blacks to stay in addition to deporting the lazy whites. Only makes sense.

Proof that these genetic predispositions are more common with blacks?

[Struwwelpeter]

The proof is in the pudding.

I want them out because of the random mutations and the fact that the black people are entitled to their own talent, to leave the blacks on their own without any form of support or an intelligent caste would be a crime against humanity, essentially a form of genocide.

There's also the problem of sorting out the 50,000,000+ blacks and determining who is worthy and who is not, it's a form of eugenics that is not only impractical but unethical.

[crazzyass]

The proof is in the pudding.

I want them out because of the random mutations and the fact that the black people are entitled to their own talent, to leave the blacks on their own without any form of support or an intelligent caste would be a crime against humanity, essentially a form of genocide.

There's also the problem of sorting out the 50,000,000+ blacks and determining who is worthy and who is not, it's a form of eugenics that is not only impractical but unethical.

Oh, but determining who is worthy based on skin color as opposed to their own merit is ethical. :rolleyes:

[Struwwelpeter]

It has nothing to do with skin color, it's about their performance as a race, which is not determined by their skin color.

[rabbitweed]

It has nothing to do with skin color, it's about their performance as a race, which is not determined by their skin color.

You're going to need more than that unscientific Rushton trash to convince me performance is race based.

Then again, finding out once and for all whether there is a correlation between race, intelligence and behaviour would be a monumentally massive scientific endeavour requiring serious funding, and who the hell is going to sponsor something so controversial?

So we stay in the dark, arguing circular arguments on the internet.

[crazzyass]

It has nothing to do with skin color, it's about their performance as a race, which is not determined by their skin color.

So...you aren't discriminating based on race, correct? Just perfromance?

THEN THROW OUT THE WHITE TRASH, TOO, AND KEEP THE HARDWORKING BLACKS WHO ARE A MAJORITY!

[Struwwelpeter]

Yes I am judging their performance as a race, I have never denied that white trash exists however the ratio of white trash to good whites is much lower than the ratio of black trash to good blacks, and that's just at a nationwide level. I don't see how it can be so hard for you to understand this, and I do not understand why you are defending the black race like this. I'd like to add that the worst activity white trash engage in is meth dealing, there aren't any redneck gangbangers killing in record rates nor are white trash going around raping, thieving, kidnapping, etc, to the degree that black trash are, even despite the fact that whites are the majority in this country.

[crazzyass]

Yes I am judging their performance as a race, I have never denied that white trash exists however the ratio of white trash to good whites is much lower than the ratio of black trash to good blacks, and that's just at a nationwide level. I don't see how it can be so hard for you to understand this, and I do not understand why you are defending the black race like this. I'd like to add that the worst activity white trash engage in is meth dealing, there aren't any redneck gangbangers killing in record rates nor are white trash going around raping, thieving, kidnapping, etc, to the degree that black trash are, even despite the fact that whites are the majority in this country.

I'm not defending the black race, I'm defending the people you are unjustly attacking. I always tagged you as a conservative individualist, not a collectivist. But anyways, people should be judged as individuals, not groups of people. You are throwing good people in with bad unjustly.

[Struwwelpeter]

Individuals are to be judged as individuals, an entire race on the other hand is judged by statistics. More blacks = more crime is a simple fact of life. You are more likely to get robbed in a black neighborhood than a white neighborhood, if you're classist a poor black neighborhood than a poor white neighborhood. Call me what you want, I choose not even to indulge in either of those two terms any more as they are as limited as the left vs right political spectrum, personal convictions are not comprised of positives and negatives, everything has a grey area.

[crazzyass]

Individuals are to be judged as individuals, an entire race on the other hand is judged by statistics. More blacks = more crime is a simple fact of life. You are more likely to get robbed in a black neighborhood than a white neighborhood, if you're classist a poor black neighborhood than a poor white neighborhood. Call me what you want, I choose not even to indulge in either of those two terms any more as they are as limited as the left vs right political spectrum, personal convictions are not comprised of positives and negatives, everything has a grey area.

No, you're more likely to be robbed in a crime-ridden neighborhood, which statistically may be predominantly black.

What you fail to see is that it is a correlation, not cause and effect.

[The Methematician]

No, you're more likely to be robbed in a crime-ridden neighborhood, which statistically may be predominantly black.

What you fail to see is that it is a correlation, not cause and effect.

Lets see.....

Cause : Lots of black populating a neighborhood.

Effect : The said neighborhood became crime-ridden...

What you phailed to see is the correlation between the effect...and it's cause.

[crazzyass]

Lets see.....

Cause : Lots of black populating a neighborhood.

Effect : The said neighborhood became crime-ridden...

What you phailed to see is the correlation between the effect...and it's cause.

You're a fucking idiot. Do you even know what a correlation is?

There is a higher majority of good productive blacks than there are welfare/criminal blacks. If anything, they are the abnormality.

Besides, I think it is pretty easy to infer that social conditioning is a key component to the issue. They're raised to think they are owed everything by everyone, and then we are surprised when some of them live off of welfare and commit crime. All of this reverse racism where being a white male means you have virtually no chance of getting schlorships or a job if there is a black guy or a woman applying, isn't helping. We're all on even ground now.

And when you consider the fact that slavery and segregation are only decades back in our history, it will take a while for them, as a race, to get on their feet, so to speak. Now that they mostly have even footing, we need to start phasing out all of these programs that are racist against everyone except blacks, and so on.

But it has nothing to do with skin color or their genetics. Just social conditioning.

However, I do know that Jim is only racist because of skin color, he's demonstrated that very well. He wants to ship out blacks because they're lazy and unproductive, but he won't ship out lazy whites, and he won't keep hardworking blacks...so you're basically discriminating based on skin color and skin color alone. You can say genetics, but for the most part skin color is a poor indicator for what anthropologists define as race. There aren't just "whites, blacks, and them thar Orientals" as I'm sure Jim calls them. There are dozens of subclasses of humans, and many of them overlap between skin color and what is commonly defined as race.

Perhaps the lazy whites and lazy blacks in our country share similar genetic traits that foster procrastination and unproductivity? In which case, why not discriminate based on their "race"? Of course, we do actually, do a degree. If you are lazy and don't work, you don't get any money. Of course, social programs have engineered it now to foster unproductivity, but whatever. Bottom line: You're a faggot who needs to get over their homoerotic preoccupation with the black people.

[Struwwelpeter]

You're a fucking idiot. Do you even know what a correlation is?

There is a higher majority of good productive blacks than there are welfare/criminal blacks. If anything, they are the abnormality.

Besides, I think it is pretty easy to infer that social conditioning is a key component to the issue. They're raised to think they are owed everything by everyone, and then we are surprised when some of them live off of welfare and commit crime. All of this reverse racism where being a white male means you have virtually no chance of getting schlorships or a job if there is a black guy or a woman applying, isn't helping. We're all on even ground now.

And when you consider the fact that slavery and segregation are only decades back in our history, it will take a while for them, as a race, to get on their feet, so to speak. Now that they mostly have even footing, we need to start phasing out all of these programs that are racist against everyone except blacks, and so on.

But it has nothing to do with skin color or their genetics. Just social conditioning.

You have no evidence and thus no reason to believe that it is the product of social conditioning. The physiological evidence, as well as the fact that there has never been a successful black African country, even the two that are resource-rich, and that never once in the history of this planet as a black man ever made an innovative contribution to humanity. The evidence points to the fact that blacks are mentally inferior as a race. To believe anything else is to believe in something which there is no evidence to support. You have your own fucktarded theory, I have history and science behind me.


However, I do know that Jim is only racist because of skin color, he's demonstrated that very well. He wants to ship out blacks because they're lazy and unproductive, but he won't ship out lazy whites, and he won't keep hardworking blacks...so you're basically discriminating based on skin color and skin color alone. You can say genetics, but for the most part skin color is a poor indicator for what anthropologists define as race. There aren't just "whites, blacks, and them thar Orientals" as I'm sure Jim calls them. There are dozens of subclasses of humans, and many of them overlap between skin color and what is commonly defined as race.


I have made numerous posts on this website attempting to educate people about skin color and it's irrelevancy in determining race, as well as the races of man, which constitute what you have described. You have continually made the argument that I hate them because of their skin color; yet you have provided nothing more than the fact that I would still ship out the productive blacks. It is irrational to assume that I would do this because of their skin color, from what reasoning do you gather such a presumption? I have tried to explain to you numerous times the reasoning why I would not do that, particularly random mutation and human rights, as well as the redundancy of such procedure as the number of blacks on par with whites are a minority.


Perhaps the lazy whites and lazy blacks in our country share similar genetic traits that foster procrastination and unproductivity?

If that were true whites would engage in the same forms of "procrastination" and "unproductivity" (LOL) as blacks, such as gang banging, drug dealing, raping, murdering, car jacking and other forms of violent criminality, at record rates. That isn't the case.

In which case, why not discriminate based on their "race"?

Because for the one millionth time, I have tried to explain this to you, that this is not a form of discrimination and it has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. I am against the discrimination. I am a racial separatist. I believe that the races should be segregated to their own confines of land. It would seem that attempting to explain some things to you is a hopeless effort.

Of course, we do actually, do a degree. If you are lazy and don't work, you don't get any money. Of course, social programs have engineered it now to foster unproductivity, but whatever. Bottom line: You're a faggot who needs to get over their homoerotic preoccupation with the black people.

Really? Social programs foster "unproductivity"? Did they foster the Crips and the Bloods as well? How about that record high gang rape statistic? Did they foster the deaths of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom? It would seem these social programs not only enable blacks to be "unproductive" but the most violent, undesirable race on the planet. The cause of the effect lies not in social programs, but the genetic predisposition of blacks towards criminality. One's external environment plays a role, but not as significant as one's DNA.

[The Methematician]

You're a fucking idiot. Do you even know what a correlation is?

*chks dicktionary*

Well,....yes.

There is a higher majority of good productive blacks

LIES !!!!!

than there are welfare/criminal blacks. If anything, they are the abnormality.

But.....but when we look at the statistic ..... statistic of this productive/non-productive niggers in comparison to productive/non-productive whites or even the ratio of productive/non-productive asians be they chinese, japanese or koreans,....we can see that the ratio of productive niggers to non-productive niggers are always ..... lower,....much lower in comparison with other races. These statistics.....a testament.....proof undeniable to the CORRELATION between the sorry state of certain neighborhood (effect) to the overwhelming presence of them niggers (ie; the cause).

And if abnormality had to be pointed out...... that...."abnormality" has to be .... according to statistics,..... the upright and upstanding niggers. Productive niggers are indeed.....an abnormality. Statistics don't JEWS*. They just don't unless they're collected and churned by the jews themself.....

*---JEWS; adjective= behave like JEWS.
Noun= the act[s] of spinning truths and peddling half-lies like a jew.
Verb=To jew the information[s].


Besides, I think it is pretty easy to infer that social conditioning is a key component to the issue.

A revolution is the result of "social conditioning". The same crime-inclined-niggers in all the seven continents wherever niggers are present, irregardless of who or what race they're living side by side with.....IS NOT THE RESULT OF SOCIAL CONDITIONING.

They're raised to think they are owed everything by everyone,

NO. You are raised to believe that.

and then we are surprised when some of them live off of welfare and commit crime.

After looking at other minority races, it's really....really surprising.....you kno.

All of this reverse racism where being a white male means you have virtually no chance of getting schlorships or a job if there is a black guy or a woman applying, isn't helping. We're all on even ground now.

A.....A. Doesn't looked like an acronym for Even Ground to me...... you ???

And when you consider the fact that slavery and segregation are only decades back in our history[1], it will take a while for them, as a race, to get on their feet, so to speak.[2]

[1] You mean we have nigger slaves a few decades ago ???

[2] Yeah ??? The asians, the chinese in particular,.....had it far worse than them niggers, but didn't took them centuries to "get back on their feet" so to speak......explain !

Now that they mostly have even footing, we need to start phasing out all of these programs that are racist against everyone except blacks, and so on.

By "we" you meant "u alone".....rite ???

But it has nothing to do with skin color or their genetics. Just social conditioning.

Yea.....and it just so happened that them niggers received the same "social conditioning" wherever they go......all over the world...

However, I do know that Jim is only racist because of skin color, he's demonstrated that very well. He wants to ship out blacks because they're lazy and unproductive, but he won't ship out lazy whites, and he won't keep hardworking blacks...so you're basically discriminating based on skin color and skin color alone.

Well....the thing is that we live in a DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. And.....and according to the principle of DEMOCRACY where the majority defines what we are and what we want,......and according to statistics.... a majority of them niggers are indeed ..... crime-inclined and unproductive......we.....as the people can safely say that *all* niggers are indeed ...... unproductive and are ....... criminals.....

It's a democratic thing to do.

You can say genetics, but for the most part skin color is a poor indicator for what anthropologists define as race.

But it was GENETICS....ie; your genetic information contained in your DNA that will ultimately define what skin color you have and what shape your skull would be. So, while "race" might not be entirely defined by genetics alone .... genetic certainly does,........have a say in what "race" you get categorized into......

FACT....

There aren't just "whites, blacks, and them thar Orientals" as I'm sure Jim calls them. There are dozens of subclasses of humans, and many of them overlap between skin color and what is commonly defined as race.

But since you had acknowledged there exists "different" race of humans.....(the sub-classes)...then we can certainly categorize them into "superior" sub-class of human,....and the inferior "sub-class" of humans. Rite ???

Perhaps the lazy whites and lazy blacks in our country share similar genetic traits that foster procrastination and unproductivity?

If we take a closer look at them,....we'll discover that both the lazy whites and the lazy blacks unproductified and procrastinates in different ways. One more intelligently,....while the other....less intelligently.

In which case, why not discriminate based on their "race"? Of course, we do actually, do a degree. If you are lazy and don't work, you don't get any money.

Until advent social security......

Bottom line: You're a faggot who needs to get over their homoerotic preoccupation with the black people.

Bottom line: You're a faggot who needs to get over people who have their homoerotic preoccupation with the nigger people.

[Struwwelpeter]

LOL, I missed this guy, Methematician. Good post.

[El Monstruo]

There are countless resources available both in print and on the web that prove that the black race, as a RULE, has at least a 15% deficiency in average IQ when compared to whites. There are a few studies that say this is false, but reality mandates that it is, in fact, true.

Can you point me to some scientific data that can prove that blacks have the same learning abilities as whites, or Asians for that matter?

As non-scientific proof of the black race as a whole and as a rule having a lower average or even combined IQ as compared to the Asian and Caucasian races, just look at the economic conditions of Africa and then compare it to Europe and North America, which is largely led by White folks. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the numerous studies that prove that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites are in fact, absolute.

What are your thoughts? And please, keep it scientific as I do not wish this to turn into a racist issue. Just the facts please.

[Toothlessjoe]

What does it matter, either way?

[ArmsMerchant]

^Plus, it can't be proven or disproven. Here's the thing--IQ tests do NOT measure IQ--they measure how good a person is at taking IQ tests.

Raw IQ score is affected by many factors unrelated to native intelligence--one's verbal ability; general education; blood sugar; general health and nutrition status; biorythm status; and many others.

[driveby]

The reason people believe niggers are dumb, is because the governemt has gone to great lengths, to keep them that way. Also in the case of spics, injuns, and other mud people. Some find that OK, but what about whites, who grew up in the wrong school district, become alienated from white culture, and end up faceing the same social adversities as niggers, and spics? They become white trash, or wiggers.

[Toothlessjoe]

What exactly is "white" culture?

This is a poorly disguised thread for extolling racist values.

[driveby]

I don't know, being stuck up, being rude, being a coward, being a snitch. Being a nerd. Being gay.

[Chron John Silver]

I don't know, being stuck up, being rude, being a coward, being a snitch. Being a nerd. Being gay.

Extraordinarily rascist, overt even. True none the less...i know quite a few white people like that....but then again where I'm from I'll just as likely see bitchy black kids, bitchy latino kids, bitchy asian kids....in fact i see a plethora of suburban fascism that is so lame it doesn't even have a race.

soo...uh, your point please?

[yawanur]

What are your thoughts? And please, keep it scientific as I do not wish this to turn into a racist issue. Just the facts please.

My thoughts indicate that you are either racist or ignorant. In my psych class we're learning about intelligence right now, and we've been talking about the environment vs genetics [nurture/nature] debate for the whole year, so I have some good insight on the cause of this.

We recently read an article on a study [my teacher is an avid media whore, and is constantly photocopying recent articles that highlight class topics] that showed an even spread of score among races on an aptitude test. This test was done on babies, which are the least affected by nurture as possible.

I'm going to assume your reference to the IQ test was one performed on adults. Adults have been interacting with their environment for far longer than babies, and this shapes them [along with their genetics of course, though nature has proven to take a more significant role in terms of cognition] into the person they are.

If you look at the economic status of blacks vs whites, it's quite obvious that on average whites are better off. Families with a higher income are more likely to be focused on getting their kids a good education, because they have the funds to remain stable [kids don't have to work] and they have more access to better educational facilities.

For example, I am a white upper middle class kid going to school in MA. My parents picked this community solely because of the educational system, and lo and behold, my school is full of white upper middle class kids whos parents can afford the taxes to live here. The vast majority of these parents have a college degree and make a living in the booming high tech business. My school is ranked something like #6 in our state, most of my teachers are great people who devote a lot of time to teaching us well, and we have tons of extra things like ~5 computer labs, a dark room for photography, and a decked out wood shop that make our education that much better.

Blacks, in general, are limited to where they can live because of their lower economic status. Shittier schools, less money, and parents stretched to thin with work to help their kids in the same way means these kids are more likely to drop out and end up in the same economic situation their parents were in.

Connect the dots here. Nurture matters a whole lot, and since on average the quality of nurture black kids get is much lower than the nurture white kids get [by NO fault of the parents, don't go there], black adults have a lower IQ than white adults.

I look forward to a response, and it will be interesting to read what others have to say about my argument. Oh Jim? Where are you? ;)

[Cliche Guevara]

this belongs in the race thread

[El Monstruo]

Shut up Asian scum

[Cliche Guevara]

butthurt because I moved your shitty fucking thread? If you're going to be a racist moron, at least do it with a little flare, instead of just regurgitating things people have already said. You aren't being radical and cool you're being a fucking cum licking dumbass. At least fuck latinos was interesting.

[yawanur]

Individuals are to be judged as individuals, an entire race on the other hand is judged by statistics. More blacks = more crime is a simple fact of life. You are more likely to get robbed in a black neighborhood than a white neighborhood, if you're classist a poor black neighborhood than a poor white neighborhood. Call me what you want, I choose not even to indulge in either of those two terms any more as they are as limited as the left vs right political spectrum, personal convictions are not comprised of positives and negatives, everything has a grey area.

Defend your arguement against the reasoning I gave four posts up.

Lets see.....
Cause : Lots of black populating a neighborhood.
Effect : The said neighborhood became crime-ridden...

What you phailed to see is the correlation between the effect...and it's cause.

:picard:

[Struwwelpeter]

My thoughts indicate that you are either racist or ignorant. In my psych class we're learning about intelligence right now, and we've been talking about the environment vs genetics [nurture/nature] debate for the whole year, so I have some good insight on the cause of this.

We recently read an article on a study [my teacher is an avid media whore, and is constantly photocopying recent articles that highlight class topics] that showed an even spread of score among races on an aptitude test. This test was done on babies, which are the least affected by nurture as possible.

I'm going to assume your reference to the IQ test was one performed on adults. Adults have been interacting with their environment for far longer than babies, and this shapes them [along with their genetics of course, though nature has proven to take a more significant role in terms of cognition] into the person they are.

If you look at the economic status of blacks vs whites, it's quite obvious that on average whites are better off. Families with a higher income are more likely to be focused on getting their kids a good education, because they have the funds to remain stable [kids don't have to work] and they have more access to better educational facilities.

For example, I am a white upper middle class kid going to school in MA. My parents picked this community solely because of the educational system, and lo and behold, my school is full of white upper middle class kids whos parents can afford the taxes to live here. The vast majority of these parents have a college degree and make a living in the booming high tech business. My school is ranked something like #6 in our state, most of my teachers are great people who devote a lot of time to teaching us well, and we have tons of extra things like ~5 computer labs, a dark room for photography, and a decked out wood shop that make our education that much better.

Blacks, in general, are limited to where they can live because of their lower economic status. Shittier schools, less money, and parents stretched to thin with work to help their kids in the same way means these kids are more likely to drop out and end up in the same economic situation their parents were in.

Connect the dots here. Nurture matters a whole lot, and since on average the quality of nurture black kids get is much lower than the nurture white kids get [by NO fault of the parents, don't go there], black adults have a lower IQ than white adults.

I look forward to a response, and it will be interesting to read what others have to say about my argument. Oh Jim? Where are you? ;)

When has anyone ever denied that nature has a hand in this? I have not. The fact is while nurture is of importance, and IQ is dynamic, when blacks and other non-whites or non-Asians are raised in culturally white manners the intellectual "stair-case" remains the same with blacks and Australoids at the bottom, the American Asiatic ("Latinos" or simply mestizos, "native Americans") above them, "whites" (caucasoids) and then east-Asian mongoloids. This is demonstrated in the following:

www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf

Anyone who proclaims that nurture takes a greater role over nature has forfeited their right to an opinion on the subject. Crazyass thanked your post. However, just a few weeks ago he posted some statistics that showed there are more whites on welfare than blacks. The percentage was something like fifty-two percent of welfare recipients are white, while thirty-eight percent were black. I tried to point out to him that whites are the majority in the USA and that it would be expected that there are more of them on welfare, and that the fact the blacks make up nearly half of the welfare recipients in the USA despite being a little under fifteen percent of the population demonstrates their inferiority as a race; but he was too egotistical to admit to it. The fact is there are more poor whites in this nation than blacks; yet none of them are gang-banging, murdering, stealing and raping at record rates like the negroes. Negroes make up more than half of the prison population. It is obvious that their socioeconomic background plays an insignificant role in their criminality compared to their genetic predisposition or susceptibility to what we define as criminality; and that their socioeconomic background too is a cause of this predisposition.

[Struwwelpeter]

I must add that Cliche Guevara's avatar is simply disgusting.

[crazzyass]

When has anyone ever denied that nature has a hand in this? I have not. The fact is while nurture is of importance, and IQ is dynamic, when blacks and other non-whites or non-Asians are raised in culturally white manners the intellectual "stair-case" remains the same with blacks and Australoids at the bottom, the American Asiatic ("Latinos" or simply mestizos, "native Americans") above them, "whites" (caucasoids) and then east-Asian mongoloids. This is demonstrated in the following:

www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf

Anyone who proclaims that nurture takes a greater role over nature has forfeited their right to an opinion on the subject. Crazyass thanked your post. However, just a few weeks ago he posted some statistics that showed there are more whites on welfare than blacks. The percentage was something like fifty-two percent of welfare recipients are white, while thirty-eight percent were black. I tried to point out to him that whites are the majority in the USA and that it would be expected that there are more of them on welfare, and that the fact the blacks make up nearly half of the welfare recipients in the USA despite being a little under fifteen percent of the population demonstrates their inferiority as a race; but he was too egotistical to admit to it. The fact is there are more poor whites in this nation than blacks; yet none of them are gang-banging, murdering, stealing and raping at record rates like the negroes. Negroes make up more than half of the prison population. It is obvious that their socioeconomic background plays an insignificant role in their criminality compared to their genetic predisposition or susceptibility to what we define as criminality; and that their socioeconomic background too is a cause of this predisposition.


No Psychologist in the world will agree with your stance that nature is infinitely more important than nurture. You can take someone born a psychopath and in some cases "nurture" them out of it. Similarly, you can take a perfectly healthy, normal person, give them really shitty parents, and watch them go insane. Anyone who denies the role of nurture in someone's development is so ignorant about the subjects they are debating on that you literally defeat your own purpose.

Oh, and I know that you consider any scientist other than the one that espouses your viewpoint to be wrong, but I've debunked that report you keep posting over and over again. It was written by a fringe scientist that had his mind made up before the study. I've posted numerous links and quotes debunking his flawed data, and you've yet to produce another source.

[Struwwelpeter]

LOL ^^^^

[Ron_Smythberg]

No Psychologist in the world will agree with your stance that nature is infinitely more important than nurture. You can take someone born a psychopath and in some cases "nurture" them out of it. Similarly, you can take a perfectly healthy, normal person, give them really shitty parents, and watch them go insane. Anyone who denies the role of nurture in someone's development is so ignorant about the subjects they are debating on that you literally defeat your own purpose.

Oh, and I know that you consider any scientist other than the one that espouses your viewpoint to be wrong, but I've debunked that report you keep posting over and over again. It was written by a fringe scientist that had his mind made up before the study. I've posted numerous links and quotes debunking his flawed data, and you've yet to produce another source.

I appreciate you trying to talk some sense into these morons..but I really think they are brainwashed..

[yawanur]

When has anyone ever denied that
nature has a hand in this? I have not.
When have I accused you of denying nature's hand in this? I have not. I know you understand that my view involves nature and nurture working differently than your view, please don't generalize to "if you're not with us, you're against us."

The fact is while nurture is of importance, and IQ is dynamic, when blacks and other non-whites or non-Asians are raised in culturally white manners the intellectual "stair-case" remains the same with blacks and Australoids at the bottom, the American Asiatic ("Latinos" or simply mestizos, "native Americans") above them, "whites" (caucasoids) and then east-Asian mongoloids. This is demonstrated in the following:

www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf

Not going to read a 50 page pdf over a 5 paragraph internet flame war. You cannot claim that blacks, whites, etc are raised in the same culturally white manners. There's no way you can generalize that, especially seeing how races are economically different, as groups.

Anyone who proclaims that nurture takes a greater role over nature has forfeited their right to an opinion on the subject.
Wow.
Quick example on the importance of nurture- We recently read an article on developmental "critical periods" for the brain. An experiment was carried out in which a kitten was raised inside a container with vertical lines all over the wall, and a cone on the kittens head prevented it from seeing anything but these lines. The cat grew up unable to recognize horizontal lines, and would subsequently walk right into a horizontal metal bar that was placed in it's path.

We need nurture to be able to do something as basic as perceive horizontal lines, and you're telling me that genetics are what make blacks lazy and criminally inclined?

Crazyass thanked your post. However, just a few weeks ago he posted some statistics that showed there are more whites on welfare than blacks. The percentage was something like fifty-two percent of welfare recipients are white, while thirty-eight percent were black. I tried to point out to him that whites are the majority in the USA and that it would be expected that there are more of them on welfare, and that the fact the blacks make up nearly half of the welfare recipients in the USA despite being a little under fifteen percent of the population demonstrates their inferiority as a race; but he was too egotistical to admit to it.

Yes, you're right- You can interpret percentile statistics in terms of overall population size! I already addressed why, as a race, blacks are worse off than whites; your debate with another poster is not a valid response.

No, this has nothing to do with my argument. Nice tangent though.

The fact is there are more poor whites in this nation than blacks; yet none of them are gang-banging, murdering, stealing and raping at record rates like the negroes.

Just to point out ONE major difference in nurture, look up the geographic distribution of these groups of people. Most of the whites are in rural Appalachia, most of the blacks are in poor inner city ghettos. But of course, nurture has such minimal effects, let's ignore those facts.

Negroes make up more than half of the prison population. It is obvious that their socioeconomic background plays an insignificant role in their criminality compared to their genetic predisposition or susceptibility to what we define as criminality; and that their socioeconomic background too is a cause of this predisposition.

So you're saying that although socio economic background plays a role, their genetics are really the driving force behind these statistics? You can't just take the effects of completely different environments on different people, and attribute it to race. Correlation does not indicate cause and effect.

[Struwwelpeter]

Not going to read a 50 page pdf over a 5 paragraph internet flame war. You cannot claim that blacks, whites, etc are raised in the same culturally white manners. There's no way you can generalize that, especially seeing how races are economically different, as groups.

Read the PDF.


Wow.
Quick example on the importance of nurture- We recently read an article on developmental "critical periods" for the brain. An experiment was carried out in which a kitten was raised inside a container with vertical lines all over the wall, and a cone on the kittens head prevented it from seeing anything but these lines. The cat grew up unable to recognize horizontal lines, and would subsequently walk right into a horizontal metal bar that was placed in it's path.


Cats are not comparable to human beings nor are such experiments comparable to the human living condition.


We need nurture to be able to do something as basic as perceive horizontal lines, and you're telling me that genetics are what make blacks lazy and criminally inclined?


Wrong, kittens need.

Yes, you're right- You can interpret percentile statistics in terms of overall population size! I already addressed why, as a race, blacks are worse off than whites; your debate with another poster is not a valid response.

You did address it, and I corrected you.




Just to point out ONE major difference in nurture, look up the geographic distribution of these groups of people. Most of the whites are in rural Appalachia, most of the blacks are in poor inner city ghettos. But of course, nurture has such minimal effects, let's ignore those facts.


And? There are more poor trailer park whites than there are blacks in this nation. Why haven't they created gangs, started banging, or killing, raping and stealing in record rates? Why are blacks 53 percent of the prison population despite being less than 15 percent of the population? Certainly, given that whites are the majority both overall and in poverty terms, they would be doing the same thing.

So you're saying that although socio economic background plays a role, their genetics are really the driving force behind these statistics? You can't just take the effects of completely different environments on different people, and attribute it to race. Correlation does not indicate cause and effect.

Read the PDF's I posted.

[Dark Feather]

The proof is in the pudding.

I want them out because of the random mutations and the fact that the black people are entitled to their own talent, to leave the blacks on their own without any form of support or an intelligent caste would be a crime against humanity, essentially a form of genocide.

There's also the problem of sorting out the 50,000,000+ blacks and determining who is worthy and who is not, it's a form of eugenics that is not only impractical but unethical.

Well, firstly do you speak this as an individual or for the betterment of your society ijn general..
I assume the latter by the way you speak and because you have not mentioned any personal grief.
i am not a black*but dont you think that white society should be act responsibly to this situation.
Whites brought them from Africa as slaves. I think they should have thought then about consequences of bringing them. Did whites think that these blacks will remain slaves forever?? Or perhaps they will just disappear once they have outlived their utility...
Grow up mate, world dosent work that way, you reap what you sow.
History comes a full circle .. You can perhaps wait for few hundred years.. And hope for the best..no good complaining if thats the best you can do..

[Struwwelpeter]

i am not a black*but dont you think that white society should be act responsibly to this situation.
Whites brought them from Africa as slaves. I think they should have thought then about consequences of bringing them.


They did.


Did whites think that these blacks will remain slaves forever?? Or perhaps they will just disappear once they have outlived their utility...

The founding fathers intended to deport them as they soon realized the dire consequences of what they had done as well as the immorality of it all, however unfortunately some people south of that decided they were going to keep them.

Grow up mate, world dosent work that way, you reap what you sow.
History comes a full circle .. You can perhaps wait for few hundred years.. And hope for the best..no good complaining if thats the best you can do..

By claiming that whites have to reap what they sow you are not only claiming that whites today who had nothing to do with slavery are guilty of the problems of dead people, that is, guilt by association of race, and that blacks are entitled to reap the ills of living in a white society. It is a misanthropic stance as both sides of the fence have nothing to gain and everything to lose. We do not punish ourselves for what happened in the past, we give black people their own place in the world and let them be.

[yawanur]

I must add that Cliche Guevara's avatar is simply disgusting.

It gets me hard :thumbsup:

Read the PDF.

Read my last post. Feel free to claim victory here if you would like- as much fun as it is to analyze your logic, I don't care enough to read 50 pages.

Cats are not comparable to human beings nor are such experiments comparable to the human living condition.

I disagree- If you don't realize how basic of a cognitive function recognizing a horizontal line is, I pity you.

Wrong, kittens need.

....?

You did address it, and I corrected you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlate

And? There are more poor trailer park whites than there are blacks in this nation. Why haven't they created gangs, started banging, or killing, raping and stealing in record rates? Why are blacks 53 percent of the prison population despite being less than 15 percent of the population? Certainly, given that whites are the majority both overall and in poverty terms, they would be doing the same thing.

Why do you instantly group people by race, even though that is only one factor that differentiates the population? Have you considered that there are other major differences that split up the population? Big ones are geographic location and income, and ancestry [in terms of cultural heritage, not genetics].

Read the PDF's I posted.
Read my last post.

[Slapshot]

If you have some ghetto-fied black guy dressed like a wannabe gangsta stealing hubcaps while living on Welfare, yes you have a nigger on your hands. But the white trash redneck doing the same thing is a nigger as well. But the productive and intelligent blacks I know? They don't begin to fit the bill as a nigger. I think if you ever really got the chance to know a black person (a nonnigger one) you would be surprised at the similarities between yourself and he/she.

The difference here is the sheer numbers of blacks who act like niggers vs. the handful of Whites who do the same. I would gladly re-post the FBI's homicide statistics regarding blacks if I haven't done it a hundred times already. Black males account for 6-7% of the US population, and this small population has managed to commit 52.2% of all homicides in the US.

I know there are successful law-abiding blacks as much as I know there are non-poisonous snakes. I don't care to waste the energy trying to differentiate, as anybody who handles snakes will get bit eventually. The same is true with blacks, they have such a high propensity for criminal activity that anybody who pals around with them has a much greater chance of becoming a victim.

[Ron_Smythberg]

Thought I'd share a great tune with you guys:


JtXoKOwTo2M

[Dread_Lord]

Thought I'd share a great tune with you guys:

UfqK52MI_H4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfqK52MI_H4

[Ron_Smythberg]

My song is catchier.

[Dread_Lord]

Not by a long shot.

[Ron_Smythberg]

Not by a long shot.


Please...:rolleyes:

[Raptor Ribs]

I thought this said 'official rape thread' at first.

[Roll Fizzlebeef]

Racism: Herd Mentality, cowardice at it's finest.

It's a Dog Eat Dog world, which is too much for all of you so you band together in hopes of survival.

But know this, your only salvation will be a knife in the back.

[Dread_Lord]

Racism: Herd Mentality, cowardice at it's finest.

It's a Dog Eat Dog world, which is too much for all of you so you band together in hopes of survival.

But know this, your only salvation will be a knife in the back.

Funny, we say the same thing about you guys.

[Azure]

Funny, we say the same thing about you guys.

Funny, that's how most ad-hominem arguments play out.

[Ron_Smythberg]

Funny, that's how most ad-hominem arguments play out.

I highly doubt he knows the meaning of that word...:p:D

[Dread_Lord]

I know what it means, and if either of you were to pay attention the person I replied started the whole thing, so go bitch about ad hominem to someone else cause I don't give a shit.

[Ron_Smythberg]

I know what it means, and if either of you were to pay attention the person I replied started the whole thing, so go bitch about ad hominem to someone else cause I don't give a shit.

Judging by the quality of debate that you provide, it's obvious you don't...:D

[Dread_Lord]

Judging by the quality of debate that you provide, it's obvious you don't...:D

You mean because I call you names and make fun of you because you look like one of the characters off a WWII Jew poster?

[SyncMaster]

given the smugness in this thread I'm tempted to side with the racists

[Azure]

I know what it means, and if either of you were to pay attention the person I replied started the whole thing, so go bitch about ad hominem to someone else cause I don't give a shit.

If you were paying attention, you'd see that I was attacking both sides of the "argument".

[Dread_Lord]

If you were paying attention, you'd see that I was attacking both sides of the "argument".

One of the sides being me, remember?

[Azure]

One of the sides being me, remember?

I was speaking in general of the race argument(along with political arguments- especially those following the L/R format, and most religious debates for that matter), not this particular instance.

[ACE_187]

I highly doubt he knows the meaning of that word...:p:D

Actually it's the name of a NSBM band so I do. :)

Oh and....niggers :D

EDIT: Jews.

[ACE_187]

http://sherizampelli.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/lynching.jpg

http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/event_omaha_courthouse_lynching.jpg

Thank you Ipoopinyourcereal for those pictures. They are nice. And they belong here :)