Apatheid in Africa was a good thing
the media made the Holocaust and Apatheid look alot worse than it is etc
do it in PMs
man I'm going to visit Chef and Bort on Monday and will be gone till Saturday at the earliest!what
man I'm going to visit Chef and Bort on Monday and will be gone till Saturday at the earliest!
didn't he visit corel once and creep out his parents or something??
I gaze into the doorway of temptation's angry flame. Unfortunately, this is Steel's debate, so I'll stay out of it!
man I'm going to visit Chef and Bort on Monday and will be gone till Saturday at the earliest!
Thats irrelevant I used that line to illustrate the obviousness of the difference between races, not as an parallel for the genetic variation between them. However if you want me to use an analogy which is the same situation it would be like calling a pitbull a poodle or a st bernard a chihuahua.
wurdsI just have to butt in and say that out of all the things Afura listed that you apparently believe, this is the only one I can sort of agree with, however you take the wrong approach to arguing for it and blow up the point a bit too much so that in the end, even though the individual sentences you're saying do make sense, what you're actually communicating is arrogant tripe, and a needlessly radical and shocking message that you're intentionally setting up in a way that people will never listen to you. Summed up in one single word, it's nothing more than flamebait. In the end the only line you said that I could side with is that 'people can be categorised into logical "races" by their physical traits, historical geographic origin and particularly genetic make up'. You need to learn to argue your points without coming off as a dickhead if you want people to listen to you, or maybe you don't want people to listen and just get a kick out of shocking people.
you take the wrong approach to arguing for it and blow up the point a bit too much so that in the end, even though the individual sentences you're saying do make sense, what you're actually communicating is arrogant tripe, and a needlessly radical and shocking message that you're intentionally setting up in a way that people will never listen to you.
Dredd, I would just like to say that I have to disagree. I am currently in a place now where I live (sort of like a job training camp) is evidence that it isNo matter how much you disagree, personal experience isn't worth anything in a debate, is not evidence of anything, and is a pretty bad argument in general.
However I would argue that studies also show north east asians are in fact smarter again, making whites not the most intelligent race and therefore not the "master race" talked about by nazis and most traditional white supremist organisations.how much anime do you watch
So by definition racism is the belief that your race is superior to all others genetically. My belief is just that people of different races have different mentalities and intelligences and that this is not entirely due to environment but partly due to their genetics. Therefore i'm not racist. Some may say this is the same thing as studies show whites are more intelligent than blacks. However I would argue that studies also show north east asians are in fact smarter again, making whites not the most intelligent race and therefore not the "master race" talked about by nazis and most traditional white supremist organisations.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
The fact that different races have different mentalities and intelligences is a widely accepted fact and is proven by every study ever done on intelligence difference between races. The part that is controversial, however, is the cause of this difference. The behaviouralists believe that this is entirely due to their environment and that the reason african americans end up with lower paying jobs and do worse in school in the united states is due to "the white man keeping them down". This view is not based on any evidence, however, and is only the most widely held view because it is what people want to believe. As can be seen in this journal (http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/235-2.html), there is an overwhelming amount of research that proves there is an indisputable correlation between IQ and race. I'm not going to go into detail about each experiment because it'd take too much time; if you're interested read the article.
A common argument to this point is that IQ and race are both abstract social constructions. You may try and discredit IQ tests and say they only prove you're good at taking IQ tests but there is also an indisputable correlation between your IQ and academic success and between IQ and average income. So although its hard to define "intelligence" or a way to unquestionably test it, we can say that these tests prove your chance of academic success and earning potential. The idea that race is also an abstract social construction is based on the idea that people have more of a continuous variation in their genes and traits rather than clear cut categories. This is true now partly due to mixing of races. However, I would still argue people can be categorised into logical "races" by their physical traits, historical geographic origin and particularly genetic make up. These races are rational and are not abstract due to the fact that aside from half casts everyone falls into an indisputable category. You can't say an african is an asian anymore than you can say a cat is a dog. It's not abstract its a fact that can be seen by their physical characteristics and indisuptable proved by their DNA. Half casts now don't fall into one of these categories and may belong to two or more categories meaning they have genes made up from all these races.
So I conclude that these logical 'races' have been proven to have different IQs and they are an indication of their academic and financial success.
This view is very unpopular in modern society. Today's media pushes the idea that anything said by a white person that is negative towards another race is automatically "racist" and therefore the person saying it must be very stupid, as evil as hitler and deserves to die a painful death. We are all for freedom of speech but if it's racist then that person must be silence, right?
I would also like to add that this conclusion doesn't mean that anyone is any less of a person based on their race. I don't hate people because on their race, I have friends who are other races, I even used to go out with an asian chick. A lot of people, particularly of minorities proven to have a lower intelligence really don't like this view. It is logically very hard for them to take and most often they will make up some mental justification for it being wrong or try to find some bullshit irrelevant hole in the argument. These people can continue to lie to themselves and say "it's not true" but if they really open their eyes they will see it is.
I've tried to answer the question as best I can without being arrogant or offending anyone but this is impossible because no matter how I word my argument the argument itself is offensive. Nearly everyone reading this thread probably thinks im a completely arrogant dickhead and to be honest I don't blame you. Western society views people with views like mine as 'racist' and automatically associate them with being a stupid, arrogant redneck, probably just like you did the moment you read the subject of this thread.
It's hard for a person to be open minded to a view they've been told to hate their whole life. Due to this I don't think this 'debate' is really going to be that constructive. Even if I give an infallible argument supporting my point of view most of you won't accept it and will leave this thread with the same view you had from the beginning, not to mention feeling a bit angrier.
some kind of FREETHINKING REBEL
Summarize: their are people who are just naturally better than in you in certan fields; but it's not "race" dependent.I dunno man. Asians are really good at ping pong.
Hey guys
I'm Afura's flatmate.
So by definition racism is the belief that your race is superior to all others genetically.
My belief is just that people of different races have different mentalities and intelligences and that this is not entirely due to environment but partly due to their genetics.
Therefore i'm not racist.
Some may say this is the same thing as studies show whites are more intelligent than blacks.
However I would argue that studies also show north east asians are in fact smarter again, making whites not the most intelligent race and therefore not the "master race" talked about by nazis and most traditional white supremist organisations.
The fact that different races have different mentalities and intelligences is a widely accepted fact and is proven by every study ever done on intelligence difference between races.
http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/235-2.html
we talked about how silly this was in the other topic, but the ranges for the average black intelligence in this article range from 70 to 85. this would make a good proportion of blacks legally mentally retarded
Any differences in genetic makeup between humans are so fucking tiny they're completely irrelevant (and you're an bloody imbecile for even considering it).Oh really then I would like to hear your explanation for (NWS NMS) Harlequin (http://images.google.com/images?q=Harlequin%20fetus&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) Fetus (http://www.scalyskin.org/content.cfm?ContentID=99&ColumnID=14)
Oh really then I would like to hear your explanation for (NWS NMS) Harlequin (http://images.google.com/images?q=Harlequin%20fetus&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) Fetus (http://www.scalyskin.org/content.cfm?ContentID=99&ColumnID=14)
Oh really then I would like to hear your explanation for (NWS NMS) Harlequin (http://images.google.com/images?q=Harlequin%20fetus&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) Fetus (http://www.scalyskin.org/content.cfm?ContentID=99&ColumnID=14)
genetics is only "tiny" on the grandscale?, but what about the varaibles that genetics controls 100%?
Like the length of my arms, in boxing everyone knows the person with the farther reach will dominate.
What about my hieght, everyone knows that the taller I am the more advanatage I have in a game of basketball. And the shorter I am the better I am at ice skating.
I mean, I suppose those don't seem like big "differences" but to me these differences riddle everything we do.
I mean, Is is racist to say that asains are usualy shorter than black people?
man that first site has a SAY NO TO PSYCHIATRY image thats kind of dumb.
I'm so incredibly excited...
I get sick of people who cite a single obscure piece of research, and ignore the other mounds of contradicting evidence.
They developed steel works and complicated manufacturing, built ships, learnt science and built cities. Meanwhile others lived in mudhuts and chased zebras around with spears. Come on people you've got to be kidding me. Ofcourse we're different. Before they met white people sub-saharan africans were only a very small step up from monkeys.
A great deal of the racist pseudo-science attacking blacks and other minorities has been sponsored by something called the Pioneer Fund, an outfit tracing its roots to the American eugenics movement of the first half of the twentieth centuryand more.
Show me some contradicting evidence fuckwitppkay wait right here i'll brb and get it okay?
Define intelligence.Hidden content (Click to reveal)Hey guys
I'm Afura's flatmate.
So by definition racism is the belief that your race is superior to all others genetically. My belief is just that people of different races have different mentalities and intelligences and that this is not entirely due to environment but partly due to their genetics. Therefore i'm not racist. Some may say this is the same thing as studies show whites are more intelligent than blacks. However I would argue that studies also show north east asians are in fact smarter again, making whites not the most intelligent race and therefore not the "master race" talked about by nazis and most traditional white supremist organisations.
The fact that different races have different mentalities and intelligences is a widely accepted fact and is proven by every study ever done on intelligence difference between races. The part that is controversial, however, is the cause of this difference. The behaviouralists believe that this is entirely due to their environment and that the reason african americans end up with lower paying jobs and do worse in school in the united states is due to "the white man keeping them down". This view is not based on any evidence, however, and is only the most widely held view because it is what people want to believe. As can be seen in this journal (http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/235-2.html), there is an overwhelming amount of research that proves there is an indisputable correlation between IQ and race. I'm not going to go into detail about each experiment because it'd take too much time; if you're interested read the article.
A common argument to this point is that IQ and race are both abstract social constructions. You may try and discredit IQ tests and say they only prove you're good at taking IQ tests but there is also an indisputable correlation between your IQ and academic success and between IQ and average income. So although its hard to define "intelligence" or a way to unquestionably test it, we can say that these tests prove your chance of academic success and earning potential. The idea that race is also an abstract social construction is based on the idea that people have more of a continuous variation in their genes and traits rather than clear cut categories. This is true now partly due to mixing of races. However, I would still argue people can be categorised into logical "races" by their physical traits, historical geographic origin and particularly genetic make up. These races are rational and are not abstract due to the fact that aside from half casts everyone falls into an indisputable category. You can't say an african is an asian anymore than you can say a cat is a dog. It's not abstract its a fact that can be seen by their physical characteristics and indisuptable proved by their DNA. Half casts now don't fall into one of these categories and may belong to two or more categories meaning they have genes made up from all these races.
So I conclude that these logical 'races' have been proven to have different IQs and they are an indication of their academic and financial success.
This view is very unpopular in modern society. Today's media pushes the idea that anything said by a white person that is negative towards another race is automatically "racist" and therefore the person saying it must be very stupid, as evil as hitler and deserves to die a painful death. We are all for freedom of speech but if it's racist then that person must be silence, right?
I would also like to add that this conclusion doesn't mean that anyone is any less of a person based on their race. I don't hate people because on their race, I have friends who are other races, I even used to go out with an asian chick. A lot of people, particularly of minorities proven to have a lower intelligence really don't like this view. It is logically very hard for them to take and most often they will make up some mental justification for it being wrong or try to find some bullshit irrelevant hole in the argument. These people can continue to lie to themselves and say "it's not true" but if they really open their eyes they will see it is.
You've entirely missed the point of this debate. I'm talking about the difference in intelligence between races. Not condoning treating people badly based on the colour of their skin.
It doesn't mean i'm an entirely insensitive bastard who thinks certain races should be treated any worse than others. Although I believe they have different average intelligences it doesn't mean I think blacks or any other race are any less human than I am. I tried to outline this in my first post but everyone had the "lets bash the racist" mentality and it didn't get me anywhere.
They developed steel works and complicated manufacturing, built ships, learnt science and built cities. Meanwhile others lived in mudhuts and chased zebras around with spears. Come on people you've got to be kidding me. Ofcourse we're different. Before they met white people sub-saharan africans were only a very small step up from monkeys.
you can quote all the left wing black cunts views you like
You've entirely missed the point of this debate. I'm talking about the difference in intelligence between races. Not condoning treating people badly based on the colour of their skin.No-one said that. It's just your lack of understanding of how genetics and biology really work that produce this laughable(and sad) ideology of yours.
Why's it so hard for people to get that iq differences between races doesn't mean I'm gonna go lynch me a nigger. It doesn't mean i'm an entirely insensitive bastard who thinks certain races should be treated any worse than others.
Egypt is not sub-saharan for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsaharan_AfricaWhat does this have to do with anything
Define intelligence.
Egypt is not sub-saharan for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsaharan_Africa
So basically your defence is BUT THEY'RE DOCTORS!!! I don't feel like mocking Rushton and Jensen for the fourth time today, so I'd suggest you actually look at some of the stuff I posted. They're racist shills, who get their information off other racist shills (our old friend Lynn again), who fudge the data (so a half-assed and biased study from the 20s is given exactly as much scientific weight as one from today) and who leave out any results that they think contradict their hypothesis. I'll just post three samples here:He doesn't have to go to the things you've posted, all he has to do is look at the things HE'S posted himself, like where it says on the Slate.com article:
Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote in a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006 that psychologists should critically examine the science employed in Rushton's race-realist research. Through a re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper they assert that the testing methods were in fact biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology such as the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.
Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that Rushton has ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He has not changed his position on this matter for 30 years.
Ok guys you can try to discredit them all you like. Hey their views are hated by a lot of people so I'm sure you'll have no problem finding quotes from people "discrediting" their research. Hey probably any black guy with a doctorate will be happy to add his name to the list. But is there any evidence to support your point of view? any evidence at all? trying to disprove my point of view doesn't do this. Can anyone name an iq test that blacks have actually scored equal to whites? How do you explain that blacks whites and hispanics all adopted into upper class white families with the same average income and given the same learning opportunities still have the same order of intelligence from the age of 3. Shit that might be a hard one.asjdhgasjdgajdg what
Sorry should've been clearer, by that I meant asians smarter than whites, smarter than hispanics, smarter than blacks.man seriously what are you even talking about
Again, I want to stress that the whole argument is a moot-point.
We retarded spicks and lowbrow negroes may do in average worse in calculus, IQ tests, or whatever. However, whether it is because of genes or social standing, it lacks of any political significance because still there are black people that can do better in IQ tests than loads of mighty Aryans, regardless if in average they do worse. It is like finding a correlation between tall or fat people, and finding out that they do in average worse in IQ tests than the average short, skinny person, and then making a political statement saying that because tall people are in average more stupid we should segregate them.
It has no political significance whatsoever.
Thats an interesting article Wil. However, it doesn't say that the data was inaccurate but rather that he regrets taking part in it due to the potential social ramificationsoh and also that part where he said it was incredibly incomplete and inconclusive and that basing conclusions on the data it presented would be irresponsible, socially and intellectually
Thats an interesting article Wil. However, it doesn't say that the data was inaccurate but rather that he regrets taking part in it due to the potential social ramificationswhy do you refuse to reply to most comments on this page
Oh and btw I know half of you won't bother linking to those sites but heres some useful evidence based on research conducted by medical institutions:
Studies on over 700 participants show that words words words
Thats an interesting article Wil. However, it doesn't say that the data was inaccurate but rather that he regrets taking part in it due to the potential social ramificationsI know it doesn't, it says.. well what headphonics just said, but also addresses how you're viewing and dealing with the entire question.
why do you refuse to reply to most comments on this page
is it because I am a hairy mediterran?
EDIT:also guys give me some racist slurs towards us greeks, all I have been called so far is hairy, which is hardly a slur
This is just about averages and there are some really smart black people out there just like there are some really stupid asian people. It's all about averages and just because a certain race might be less intelligent on average doesn't really mean that an individual who is part of that race can't achieve just as much or be just as intelligent as someone from any other race.
well if you havn't noticed jack its one person arguing with 7 or 8 and i hardly have time to reply before getting something else i have to respond to. I havn't been responding to you in particular because you are obviously slightly retarded and have no idea of whats going on in the thread. Perhaps you should sit back and leave this discussion to people with atleast a slight degree of intelligence:rolleyes:
well if you havn't noticed jack its one person arguing with 7 or 8 and i hardly have time to reply before getting something else i have to respond to. I havn't been responding to you in particular because you are obviously slightly retarded and have no idea of whats going on in the thread. Perhaps you should sit back and leave this discussion to people with atleast a slight degree of intelligencemaybe users with pink names have lower intelligence degrees or something idk?????
btw it's pretty funny how a lot of the past three pages have been UHHH IQ TESTS ARE PRETTY SILLY AND INTELLIGENCE IS NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT TO MEASURE and you never seemed to acknowledge that in the slightest
oh and also that part where he said it was incredibly incomplete and inconclusive and that basing conclusions on the data it presented would be irresponsible, socially and intellectually
I like how about five seconds ago you used the term black cunts and then you try be nice about it.
What about how it makes you angry seeing a black guy with a white girl?
Magical negro made the response to this that correlation doesn't imply causation which I havn't responded to yet. The answer is that I'm not saying it is causation. If you like we can say the correlation with iq also means correlation with success as these two are correlated together. You could say that success is actually due to some third external factor that in fact is also correlated with IQ but either way it's the same result.
Yeh thats a really good point I did address right in my first post though where i talked about the argument that IQ is an abstract social construction. Pretty much its that you're right that intelligence is hard to define but there is proven correlation between high iq and high success academically, financially and socially. So although we can not say that such tests mean someone is more "intelligent" we can say that they're likely to score higher academically, financially and socially etc. Magical negro made the response to this that correlation doesn't imply causation which I havn't responded to yet. The answer is that I'm not saying it is causation. If you like we can say the correlation with iq also means correlation with success as these two are correlated together. You could say that success is actually due to some third external factor that in fact is also correlated with IQ but either way it's the same result.none of these have anything to do with intelligence. modern academia is notoriously misguided and not especially indicative of intelligence, so it doesn't mean anything at all if there's a correlation between iq score and academics, aside from maybe that most iq tests are setup in a way that people who are inclined to do well on them are also inclined to do well in academics because of the similar structure. note that, again, even this minor correlation doesn't relate to intellect whatsoever. what's more, it correlates to financial and social success because it correlates to academic success, and academic success in turn correlates to financial success which in turn correlates to social standing. at no point in time does intelligence ever enter into any of this.
So... you admit that IQ tests are shaky grounds, and that you need to correlate them with real life. Ok. But financial, academic and social (And what does that mean? they go down well at cocktail parties, or what?) success, which you are so often hold up as evidence of lesser intelligence is ignoring the fact that people are constantly discriminated against simply because of their skin colour. It's not that they're dumb, and so can't be CEOs- its that the other members of the board are all white and would prefer them to be janitors...
Ok, but this was addressed before; even if you put the kid in another family, you can't remove the colour of their skin, and they'll always be discriminated against for that reason. The only way you could really test this was if society was completely unbiased, and that's just not possible
Ok guys you can try to discredit them all you like. Hey their views are hated by a lot of people so I'm sure you'll have no problem finding quotes from people "discrediting" their research. Hey probably any black guy with a doctorate will be happy to add his name to the list. But is there any evidence to support your point of view? any evidence at all? trying to disprove my point of view doesn't do this. Can anyone name an iq test that blacks have actually scored equal to whites? How do you explain that blacks whites and hispanics all adopted into upper class white families with the same average income and given the same learning opportunities still have the same order of intelligence from the age of 3. Shit that might be a hard one.
i think it's pretty funny they are fuming at each other from a few feet awayyeah this is exactly what i meant. like i sort of wonder if they are just going to see each other in the kitchen in five minutes and pretend none of this is happening or give each other the silent treatment or what
COME OUT OF YOUR ROOM AND SAY THAT
NO YOU!
The most likely reason why larger brains are, on average, more intelligent than smaller brains is that they contain more neurons and synapses, which make them more efficient. Haier et al. (1995) tested the brain efficiency hypothesis by using MRI to measure brain volume and glucose metabolic rate to measure glucose uptake (an indicator of energy use). They found a correlation of −.58 between glucose metabolic rate and IQ, suggesting that more intelligent individuals have more efficient brains because they use less energy in performing a given cognitive task. Several other studies supporting the brain-size/efficiency model were reviewed in Gignac, Vernon, and Wickett (2003). In any individual, however, energy use increases with the increasing complexity of the cognitive task.I am laughing so bloody hard right now. First, more synapses means your brain is fundamentally slower, since signals have to pass, get this, more synapses, which takes time (it's also completely irrelevant). Second, neurons need glucose to live, not to function as neurons (it's also, again, completely irrelevant). It's actually suggesting smart people have less neurons (oh, and 'efficiency', what the fuck? How is that relevant, like, at all?).
4d are you sure about the synapse thing.A synapse is the space between the axon of one neuron and the dendrite of another, and requires a transmitter to be released and that transmitter to bind to the receptor. The point is, synapses are mostly chemical, meaning slower, while conduction along an axon is mostly electrical, meaning faster. It's basically the difference between going down a water slide and falling down stairs. But it doesn't matter anyway since a higher number of synapses does not automatically cause a higher 'intelligence', e.g. kids have 10^16 synapses while adults have 10^15. It's like saying that because your lego castle is made out of more lego blocks that the other it's inherently better designed. Also, someone's brain might be active as fuck but it's not going to do him much good if all it's wired to do is counting to blue. A person who gives answers really quick, but always gives the wrong answer isn't most people's definition of intelligent, and basic 'processing speed' like that is all biophysics can reasonably be asked to cover.
because I heard women have smaller brains but more synapses which made them smarter (indicating brain size has nothing to do with brain activity) so was that just wrong?
i think it's pretty funny they are fuming at each other from a few feet away
COME OUT OF YOUR ROOM AND SAY THAT
NO YOU!
yeah this is exactly what i meant. like i sort of wonder if they are just going to see each other in the kitchen in five minutes and pretend none of this is happening or give each other the silent treatment or what
Of course Magical Negro is an idiot, since it's scientificially accepted that Negroes aren't as bright as us light-skinned folk.sorry but you fail to factor he is no ordinary "negroid" but a magical negroid. let me pull a quote on you here:
sorry but you fail to factor he is no ordinary "negroid" but a magical negroid. let me pull a quote on you here:This is like the greatest post in all of GW.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - dead guy
clearly he is a time traveling nignog from the 23rd century where darkies have evolved to get more IQ points
yeah I was telling him on IRC this could only be a mistake. Rashid got on IRC once and Chef immediately said SO I LOVE BLACK DICK and he's forever thought those were the people I was most like.Dude! That was me! I said that to DISCREDIT you.
blackdicklovers.
A synapse is the space between the axon of one neuron and the dendrite of another, and requires a transmitter to be released and that transmitter to bind to the receptor. The point is, synapses are mostly chemical, meaning slower, while conduction along an axon is mostly electrical, meaning faster. It's basically the difference between going down a water slide and falling down stairs. But it doesn't matter anyway since a higher number of synapses does not automatically cause a higher 'intelligence', e.g. kids have 10^16 synapses while adults have 10^15. It's like saying that because your lego castle is made out of more lego blocks that the other it's inherently better designed. Also, someone's brain might be active as fuck but it's not going to do him much good if all it's wired to do is counting to blue. A person who gives answers really quick, but always gives the wrong answer isn't most people's definition of intelligent, and basic 'processing speed' like that is all biophysics can reasonably be asked to cover.