But, according to DeepThought, the Eugenics of WWII, or, for that matter, the ethnic cleansing in Serbia/Croatia (and wherever else) wasn't racially motivated, because they're all Europeans.
SAM Says Blacks are Dumber Than Whites
- Thread starter Balerion
- Start date
- Status
But, according to DeepThought, the Eugenics of WWII, or, for that matter, the ethnic cleansing in Serbia/Croatia (and wherever else) wasn't racially motivated, because they're all Europeans.
Hey, I'm sure your aware that I have consistently pointed out on this forum that the so called 'beneficial mutation' from dark to light skin is absurd. I have plenty of black friends who live in Europe and none of them suffer from vitamin D deficiency. I've never heard of any such widespread problems amongst black Europeans.
The stock answer to that is, "once upon a time, a long, long time ago, black people never had access to much vitamin D in their diet [insert your reasons here], so when they all started magically transforming into white people, hey presto! The mutation stuck."
And now I will read you an excerpt from Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
I knew it was all bullshit, by the way, and my research proved me right. Primates are hard wired for race:
In fact, I can tell you that an approximate estimate based upon the time line of primate evolution suggests to me that racial characteristics have been preserved over a period of more than sixty five million years.
That is way back to bang on the boundary of the K-T extinction event.
You certainly suggested it.
I will use the analogy of mountain ranges to explain this. Minds like Newton or Einstein represent the intellectual peaks of the white phenotype, in order to get these peaks, however, you need the body of the mountain, which is the majority of whites. If you mix the majority of whites with blacks then you will automatically lower those peaks. Genetic diseases are like the inhospitable weather you encounter as you go higher, something you have to suffer for the heights you can reach and what you can see from up there.
(Coincidentally, there are very few high mountains in Africa, most are in Europe and Asia.)
Yes, and look how much you despise them.
I truly believe that mixed race Westerners hate blacks, that is from my experience with them.
You play the game Bells by posting racial science which says white people are inbred and in need of breeding with blacks, and then you accuse me of racism?
I certainly don't think white people are 'superior', they did not create themselves, so how can they be the final judges?
Last edited:
How is that different from talking about races?
I can only conclude that the use of the word 'pool' is to make the whole thing seem more watery and nebulous.
It's vastly different.
I could also talk about the Pan-american gene pool (North and South America) and the Eurasian Gene pool, or the Global gene pool.
What is vastly different?
In your mind is there actually any connection between genes and human appearance?
Is it my genes which determine my appearance or vice-versa? How did Darwin make his observations about humans and primates without any genetic evidence and yet be spot on?
Why is it that genes only confirm what is already visible on the surface?
Because Gene-pool is objective and measurable, whereas race is subjective and a matter of opinion.
Race is based on Apperance (but can include other things such as culture), there's more variation between individuals within a race than ther is between the various 'racial groups'.
Tell me, if Barrack Obama were an Albino, how would you know if he was black or white?
Or, for that matter, how would you tell an Albino Solomon Islander from an Albino Nigerian?
I know how much you love these hippie slogans which preach global relativity but they're just nonsense when you examine them in any detail.
There's more difference between two blond Scandinavians than between Scandinavians as a whole and Congolese?
Your going to have to explain that one.
Obama's thick lips, wide nose and tightly curled hair would give away the black in him.
Sigh... In the case of the Solomon Islander and the Nigerian it would be harder, but remember that these people are more closely related than say Swedes and Nigerians.
Darwin held various opinions about this matter:
We have barely begun to feel the impact of Darwin's work only a century or so after its publication:
Last edited:
Again, your misrepresenting what I said.
The other difference is this: The definition of 'race' is based on skin colour and cranial structure, which is a small portion of the Human Genome. When you talk about the African Gene pool, you're talking about the entire Human Genome, and all of the variations that are present in that geographical region.
Take a look at Mick Jagger and try the lips thing again. I've also known redheads and blonds that would make Obama's hair look straight, so try again on that count as well.
Proove it - Archeology says the Solomon Islanders have been there since 30,000 bc.
I'm calling BS on this one. You're twisting his words to suite your purpose.
'Savage Races' is generally a reference to pre industrial cultures, generally it was/is applied to modern stoneage cultures.
Ironicaly, I think I actually understand what Darwin was saying.
At some point, at least, form the perspective of a 19th century educated european, the more 'advanced' cultures in the world, must wipe out less 'advanced' cultures (you would expect an industrial culture to wipe out a stone age one, not the other way around, whether it be by warfare, interbreeding, or novel pathogens), and at the same time, they will probably also wipe out anything else (including anthromorphic apes) that remind them of their own primitive origins - and there was already evidence of this beginning in Darwins time.
I can, however, understand how the likes of you could mis-interpret this as being a racial statement, rather than a cultural one (and it's as much a comment on the politics and attitudes at the time it was made as anything else).
Try again, try harder.
If your so superior it should be a cinch to make a mockery of a touchy feeley liberalist.
Feel free to put me right and explain in detail what you really meant.
Race is based on numerous physiological and psychological factors. You should consider reading Phillipe Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior. It's a powerful and provocative catalog of racial data accompanied by Rushton's thesis which to the average herd mind will appear quite shocking.
Reading it is a bit like discovering you really are in the middle of some kind of global conspiracy. At first I couldn't believe some of the material. Then I went away and confirmed it for myself.
It has completely changed my thinking about the world I live in.
Don't be so childish, this has nothing to do with Mick Jagger or blonds with curly hair.
Of course they have, their ancestors originally migrated out of Africa and followed the southern coast of Asia into the Pacific region.
If they were black to begin with, it would explain their current appearance.
Race is defined by skin tone, and cranial structure, anything else (generally speaking) uses race as a justification.
Well, inbreeding has been known to cause insanity.
It can also affect short term memory.
Barrack Obama:
Mick Jagger:
Note the similarity in the lips, one of the things you said would give Obama away as being Black if he were an Albino.
I let you figure out teh rest of my point.
Ha ha ha!!
Oh it is a cinch little Trippy.
Is it so easy for you to lie to yourself like this?
To replace words you find so uncomfortable and challenging with crappy euphemisms?
What does it mean to 'exterminate' and 'replace' something?
To simply alter it in a cultural sense?
Were stone age cultures in Europe 'exterminated'?
And according to you when he mentions 'races' he actually means 'cultures' but when he mentions 'apes' he really does mean apes? You'd think that a scientist of Darwin's caliber wouldn't be so vague and metaphorical in his use of vocabulary.
Words like Caucasian, Negro and Australian seem especially strange in this context.
And why does he speak of the gap between Negroes and gorillas being less than that between Caucasians and baboons?
Or is it that you don't really understand what Darwin is saying?
And how many times are you going to accuse me of misrepresenting this or that when you yourself seem incapable of explaining what you mean?
Dippy Trippy.
Race is defined by skin tone, and cranial structure, anything else (generally speaking) uses race as a justification.
Well, inbreeding has been known to cause insanity.
It can also affect short term memory.
Barrack Obama:
Mick Jagger:
Note the similarity in the lips, one of the things you said would give Obama away as being Black if he were an Albino.
I let you figure out teh rest of my point.
Do I have to post pictures of millions of sub-Saharan Africans all with big lips, wide noses and curly hair along with millions Europeans without any of these characteristics to prove this?
Or are you going to stop being so childish?
I've even suggested some literature to read on the subject but you've simply dismissed it.
I think your just trolling now.
Your debate is at an end, it's time for you to exit gracefully.
You're spent already?
My point, which you've either missed, or ignored, is that if Obama was an Albino, big lips and a flat nose would not be enough to give him away as being black, because those features, although not neccessarily prevalent, are certainly present in the European population, so those criteria alone would not be sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that Obama is of African heritage.
Mick Jagger being simply one well known example.
What part of 'wipe out' do you have trouble understanding?
And yeah, the stone age cultures that were incapable of withstanding teh bronze age and Iron age ones were either incorporated or destroyed - those that were incorporated were modified.
But, the key point you're apparently ignorant of is that the difference between a bronze age culture and a stone age one is a lot less then that of a post industrial one and a stone age one, and as such is more likely to survive in some form.
In Darwin's time Culture had a specific meaning that was very different from the way it is used now.
In Darwin's time, ONLY Europeans had Culture, and they were bringing it to the rest of the world, whether they wanted it or not (although I suppose that it might have been argued that the Chinese,a nd possibly Japanese also had culture).
No, not really.
This point is just stupid, and I already addressed the point to boot, you apparently just didn't understand it.
I understand it, I also understand the context of the culture he was immersed in.
As often as your dishonest about what people are saying.
The funny thing is that you seem to be the only person having trouble understanding my points.
Perhaps English isn't your first language?
In short, you've apparently run out of 'arguments' (and I use the term loosely) so you've resorted to aby\use and name calling...
And you're calling me childish?
- Status