Debunking Race and Sex

[Cobra]

Look, I’m sick and tired of people saying that everyone is exactly the same. While we are more the same than different, there are notable differences.

Just admit it. Black people are better at sports and music than white people. You’d haft to be blind not to notice it.

What do the NBA, the MLB, and NFL have in common? Blacks! They are dominated by black athletes! Blacks are the best race for playing sports. Why aren’t there many whites in the NFL? Because scrawny 150 pound whites dudes could never compete with 300 pound black dudes in a game. White people lack the strength and agility.

And white people can’t dance. Disagree? Well, who came up with the funky chicken? It certainly wasn’t a black person.

Though, whites do have a positive characteristic: Whites are the best race for inventing things. What did white people invent? A whole lot of shit. Cars, radios, telephones, you name it –whites probably invented it. The Arabs and Chinese invented a lot of stuff too…but neither one of them invented as much as white people.

What did black people invent? The mop? Most Blacks just aren’t good at inventing things. Though I’m sure that once we solve malnutrition problems in Africa the percentage of black inventors will undoubtedly increase.

As it stands now, on average whites have a greater creative capacity to invent things than black people… Except when it comes to sports and music, where blacks are much more creative and inventive than whites.

Asians are the most intelligent race. I base this on the fact that when I was in school Asians always got the best grades on the tests. Who got the best grade on the test? The Asian kid did. It’s always the Asian kid. Damn their superior intelligence! I wanted to have the highest score! Maybe we should all become Asian…but being Asian comes at a price. Asians are physically very fragile. They are even weaker than white people, which is why Asians are rarely seen in pro-wrestling (other than sumo).

And about sex: please stop saying that men and women are the same! They are not! Men are taller and stronger than women. Women are smarter than men. Think of it this way: men are black people, women are Asian people, and heterosexuals are white people. That is not always the case, but it is certainly more often the case than not.

It’s time we admit that skin color is not the only difference between white people and black people. And men really are different from women. And that Asians are really smart. We are constructed differently both physically and mentally. Every people have its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Let’s embrace our differences and celebrate our diversity!

Side note: Just so nobody misunderstands me, I am completely against notions of an “Aryan” master race since “white countries” such as Argentina, Russia, and Eastern Europe are poor while Eastern Asia is quickly becoming rich. White people will soon be slaves to the Asians and the Asians will be the new “master race”. If whites (“Aryans”) are so superior, then how could this happen? I don’t buy the “they were taken by Jews” argument since if Jews were superior enough to take over all these countries then they would be the “Master race” while the Aryans would take their rightful place as being slaves to the Jews, since Jews would clearly be superior to the Aryan. But according to the Aryan master race theory the Jew is Inferior. But how can the Jew make the Aryan its slave if the Jew is inferior to the Aryan? Clearly The Aryan would be inferior. But how can this be? The “great book” states the Aryan is the master of the Jew. Well, the truth is that Aryans are actually Jews. The people posing as Jews are actually of the Aryan race, which is why they will survive in the coming nuclear holocaust. And after Jesus kills you all he will forgive you of your sins. Allah is great! Muhahahaha!

[TheKingOfMercy]

Just admit it. Black people are better at sports and music than white people. You’d haft to be blind not to notice it.

What do the NBA, the MLB, and NFL have in common? Blacks! They are dominated by black athletes! Blacks are the best race for playing sports. Why aren’t there many whites in the NFL? Because scrawny 150 pound whites dudes could never compete with 300 pound black dudes in a game. White people lack the strength and agility.

And white people can’t dance. Disagree? Well, who came up with the funky chicken? It certainly wasn’t a black person.

That depends on the sport, the music, and the dance.
How many black heavy metal gods are there ?
How many black classical composers ?
How many black fencing champions ?
How many black ballroom dancers ?

Sucess in different fields isn't affected by your skin colour, cultural and social pressures will affect what you take part in though.

That my friend, was a crappy generalisation, I know what you're trying to say, but you've left it open to all kinds of flamage from people on here.

[Cobra]

How many black heavy metal gods are there ?
Blacks are too good at composing music to make crap like heavy metal.


How many black classical composers ?
Classical Musical Sucks! Hip Hop and Jazz are light-years ahead of it!


How many black fencing champions ?
Give a black dude a sword and I’m sure he could rip you apart with it.


How many black ballroom dancers ?
Why the hell would a black person become a ballroom dancer? That’s just lame dude.

[Publius]

A lot of it has to with (sadly) breeding.

As Jimmy the Greek was fired for saying, the reason blacks are so successful at sports is that they were (At least in America) bred for physical activity.

Sad but true.

I can also explain how ethnic Jews from Europe are generally more intelligent than other people.

[Mujer Libre]

Wow, bullshit generalisations, and no scientific basis in sight... :rolleyes:

[Publius]

Was any of it factually incorrect?

Blacks were bred, as slaves, to be bigger and stronger.

They would pass on these genes as they procreate.

Therefore,

Blacks today, will be somewhat bigger and somewhat stronger.


And this is exactly why.

All sports USED to be dominated by whites.

Why is that no longer the case? Because blacks could physically outperform the whites.

There is simple logic behind it.

And the reason Jews are generally smarter than the rest of us:

The high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past

THE idea that some ethnic groups may, on average, be more intelligent than others is one of those hypotheses that dare not speak its name. But Gregory Cochran, a noted scientific iconoclast, is prepared to say it anyway. He is that rare bird, a scientist who works independently of any institution. He helped popularise the idea that some diseases not previously thought to have a bacterial cause were actually infections, which ruffled many scientific feathers when it was first suggested. And more controversially still, he has suggested that homosexuality is caused by an infection.

Even he, however, might tremble at the thought of what he is about to do. Together with Jason Hardy and Henry Harpending, of the University of Utah, he is publishing, in a forthcoming edition of the Journal of Biosocial Science, a paper which not only suggests that one group of humanity is more intelligent than the others, but explains the process that has brought this about. The group in question are Ashkenazi Jews. The process is natural selection.

History before science
RELATED ITEMS
From The Economist
Jerky evolutionary change
Dec 16th 2004
Nature via nurture
Apr 10th 2003

More articles about...
Bioethics

Health

Websites
Henry Harpending, who co-wrote the paper with Dr Cochran and Jason Hardy, has a draft of their study. Cambridge University Press has details about the Journal of Biosocial Science.

Advertisment

Ashkenazim generally do well in IQ tests, scoring 12-15 points above the mean value of 100, and have contributed disproportionately to the intellectual and cultural life of the West, as the careers of Freud, Einstein and Mahler, pictured above, affirm. They also suffer more often than most people from a number of nasty genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs and breast cancer. These facts, however, have previously been thought unrelated. The former has been put down to social effects, such as a strong tradition of valuing education. The latter was seen as a consequence of genetic isolation. Even now, Ashkenazim tend to marry among themselves. In the past they did so almost exclusively.

Dr Cochran, however, suspects that the intelligence and the diseases are intimately linked. His argument is that the unusual history of the Ashkenazim has subjected them to unique evolutionary pressures that have resulted in this paradoxical state of affairs.

Ashkenazi history begins with the Jewish rebellion against Roman rule in the first century AD. When this was crushed, Jewish refugees fled in all directions. The descendants of those who fled to Europe became known as Ashkenazim.

In the Middle Ages, European Jews were subjected to legal discrimination, one effect of which was to drive them into money-related professions such as banking and tax farming which were often disdained by, or forbidden to, Christians. This, along with the low level of intermarriage with their gentile neighbours (which modern genetic analysis confirms was the case), is Dr Cochran's starting point.

He argues that the professions occupied by European Jews were all ones that put a premium on intelligence. Of course, it is hard to prove that this intelligence premium existed in the Middle Ages, but it is certainly true that it exists in the modern versions of those occupations. Several studies have shown that intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is highly correlated with income in jobs such as banking.

What can, however, be shown from the historical records is that European Jews at the top of their professions in the Middle Ages raised more children to adulthood than those at the bottom. Of course, that was true of successful gentiles as well. But in the Middle Ages, success in Christian society tended to be violently aristocratic (warfare and land), rather than peacefully meritocratic (banking and trade).

Put these two things together—a correlation of intelligence and success, and a correlation of success and fecundity—and you have circumstances that favour the spread of genes that enhance intelligence. The questions are, do such genes exist, and what are they if they do? Dr Cochran thinks they do exist, and that they are exactly the genes that cause the inherited diseases which afflict Ashkenazi society.

That small, reproductively isolated groups of people are susceptible to genetic disease is well known. Constant mating with even distant relatives reduces genetic diversity, and some disease genes will thus, randomly, become more common. But the very randomness of this process means there should be no discernible pattern about which disease genes increase in frequency. In the case of Ashkenazim, Dr Cochran argues, this is not the case. Most of the dozen or so disease genes that are common in them belong to one of two types: they are involved either in the storage in nerve cells of special fats called sphingolipids, which form part of the insulating outer sheaths that allow nerve cells to transmit electrical signals, or in DNA repair. The former genes cause neurological diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's and Niemann-Pick. The latter cause cancer.

That does not look random. And what is even less random is that in several cases the genes for particular diseases come in different varieties, each the result of an independent original mutation. This really does suggest the mutated genes are being preserved by natural selection. But it does not answer the question of how evolution can favour genetic diseases. However, in certain circumstances, evolution can.

West Africans, and people of West African descent, are susceptible to a disease called sickle-cell anaemia that is virtually unknown elsewhere. The anaemia develops in those whose red blood cells contain a particular type of haemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen. But the disease occurs only in those who have two copies of the gene for the disease-causing haemoglobin (one copy from each parent). Those who have only one copy have no symptoms. They are, however, protected against malaria, one of the biggest killers in that part of the world. Thus, the theory goes, the pressure to keep the sickle-cell gene in the population because of its malaria-protective effects balances the pressure to drive it out because of its anaemia-causing effects. It therefore persists without becoming ubiquitous.

Dr Cochran argues that something similar happened to the Ashkenazim. Genes that promote intelligence in an individual when present as a single copy create disease when present as a double copy. His thesis is not as strong as the sickle-cell/malaria theory, because he has not proved that any of his disease genes do actually affect intelligence. But the area of operation of some of them suggests that they might.

The sphingolipid-storage diseases, Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's and Niemann-Pick, all involve extra growth and branching of the protuberances that connect nerve cells together. Too much of this (as caused in those with double copies) is clearly pathological. But it may be that those with single copies experience a more limited, but still enhanced, protuberance growth. That would yield better linkage between brain cells, and might thus lead to increased intelligence. Indeed, in the case of Gaucher's disease, the only one of the three in which people routinely live to adulthood, there is evidence that those with full symptoms are more intelligent than the average. An Israeli clinic devoted to treating people with Gaucher's has vastly more engineers, scientists, accountants and lawyers on its books than would be expected by chance.

Why a failure of the DNA-repair system should boost intelligence is unclear—and is, perhaps, the weakest part of the thesis, although evidence is emerging that one of the genes in question is involved in regulating the early growth of the brain. But the thesis also has a strong point: it makes a clear and testable prediction. This is that people with a single copy of the gene for Tay-Sachs, or that for Gaucher's, or that for Niemann-Pick should be more intelligent than average. Dr Cochran and his colleagues predict they will be so by about five IQ points. If that turns out to be the case, it will strengthen the idea that, albeit unwillingly, Ashkenazi Jews have been part of an accidental experiment in eugenics. It has brought them some advantages. But, like the deliberate eugenics experiments of the 20th century, it has also exacted a terrible price.



Another reason is that the more intelligent Jews would become the leaders of the group, the Rabbis: The Rabbis were the most respected members, and therefore the most desirable as a husband.

The Rabbis would therefore marry intelligent women.

The Rabbis, being richer and more intelligent, were far more likely to pass on their genes than average Jews, thus raising the average intelligence.

But in Europe, intelligent people moving into the clergy lived a life of celibicy.

IT's really that simple.

[redstar2000]

Cobra, your posts are inexcusably racist and sexist.

I am restricting you to Opposing Ideologies pending a vote in the CC on whether to keep you there, ban you, or lift the restriction.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Economist
THE idea that some ethnic groups may, on average, be more intelligent than others is one of those hypotheses that dare not speak its name.

For pretty obvious reasons. :angry:

There are two glaring difficulties with Mr. Cochran's hypothesis.

The first is that no genes have been conclusively identified with "intelligence".

The second is that we don't know what "intelligence" is.

The "intelligence tests" that we use all the time do not actually test "intelligence" (whatever that might be).

They test our skills at taking "intelligence tests".

If you take one such test, all the test result predicts about you is that you will get a similar score on all such tests.

That's it!

The college entrance exams given in various countries do show a high correlation with success in your first year at college.

But there's an even better predictor of success in college...in fact, it's the best predictor of all.

The higher your parents' class ("socio-economic status"), the more likely you are to succeed in college.

And in life!

Ruling classes have long sought "justification" for their power and wealth in "something more" than chance and circumstance...that, in some way, they "really are superior" to ordinary folk.

The on-going investigations of the human genome are their "last big chance" to do that.

I predict the emergence of many hypotheses seeking to "prove" that our ruling class "deserves" its pre-eminence.

I predict that all of them, without exception, will prove to be junk science.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

Please tell me you don't believe in a blank slate?

If so, modern science has left you behind.

[Publius]

And we get into problems with the class/intelligence debate, namely, does intelligence level force people into these classes, or do classes force intelligence levels?

IT's probably somewhere in the middle, but I'm not sure exactly where.

[KC]

Classes force intelligence levels. Education costs money.

[red_orchestra]

Holy motherfucking shit..... we still have ignoramuses out there who believe that race and intelligence are related. Bullshit. There is no evidence to support that theory what so ever. The very fact that the US among several other countries uses IQ testing to determine intelligence should show the stupidity of those people incharge of Education.

IQ testing does NOT ...I repeat... DOES NOT determine intelligence. It only shows a narrow perspective of knowledge retention in a period of time..or the short term working memory.

[Publius]

Holy motherfucking shit..... we still have ignoramuses out there who believe that race and intelligence are related. Bullshit. There is no evidence to support that theory what so ever. The very fact that the US among several other countries uses IQ testing to determine intelligence should show the stupidity of those people incharge of Education.

IQ testing does NOT ...I repeat... DOES NOT determine intelligence. It only shows a narrow perspective of knowledge retention in a period of time..or the short term working memory.

Do you deny evolution?

Do you deny that more intelligent people continually procreating inside of a group will raise the aggregate intelligence of the group?

[Severian]

I encourage everyone to read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen J. Gould. Debunks the whole history of psuedoscientific racism.

Slate magazine summarizes the scientific argument against The Bell Curve. (http://www.slate.com/id/2416)

As for athletic ability, tiny differences tend to show up large at the extremes of performance, like athletic competitions among the .001% best performers in the population.

If there is some conclusion about minor differences to be drawn from those, it ain't simply "Black people are better at sports", may I point out there's more genetic diversity in Africa , and people of recent African descent, than the rest of humanity put together.

For example, people from a particular area in Kenya, in East Africa, often win marathons; while many people of West African descent have won competitions based on short-distance running. Few people are likely to be extremely good at both.

So anyone making genetic generalizations about "Black people" is obviously talking nonsense right from the start.

Publius:
"As Jimmy the Greek was fired for saying, the reason blacks are so successful at sports is that they were (At least in America) bred for physical activity."

This is the most ridiculous piece of pseudoscience of all. Humans have a long generation time and a couple hundred years is not going to produce a major genetic change. Evolution is slow. Geologic time is measured in tens of thousands, even millions of years.

(So it's worth keeping in mind, that all modern humans elsewhere are descended from people who migrated out of Africa within the past 100,000 years. That's a pretty limited time for important change.)

Publius again:
"And we get into problems with the class/intelligence debate, namely, does intelligence level force people into these classes, or do classes force intelligence levels?"

Feel free. That was actually the main point of the Bell Curve book, overlooked by many of its critics unfortunately: "We're rich because we're smart. We deserve to be rich because we're smart."

But please read the Slate article and its "case studies", first, which explain how the authors of the Bell Curve perpetrated statistical fraud.

[Publius]

This is the most ridiculous piece of pseudoscience of all. Humans have a long generation time and a couple hundred years is not going to produce a major genetic change. Evolution is slow. Geologic time is measured in tens of thousands, even millions of years.

Yes, but simple genetics tells you that these people are inclined to pass on these traits.

For example, the Watusis in Africa are a tribe of people generally over 7 feet tall.

Compare that to the Pygmies, who are generally less than 5 feet tall.

Simple deviation (Through an evolution of sorts) among the human spectrum.

Now are you going to tell me the Wasusis and Pygmies don't exist?

It is obvious they 'evolved' this way, as they werne't created this way.

[Publius]

(So it's worth keeping in mind, that all modern humans elsewhere are descended from people who migrated out of Africa within the past 100,000 years. That's a pretty limited time for important change.)

We have change in height, appearance, skin color, etc, why not intelligence?

[DarthVader]

If race doesn't exist, then why did the whites dominate and conquer the world, intellectually, culturally and economically? Why is ENglish rapidly becoming the most widely spoken language on earth. Why have people in Africa been living in huts and slaughtering eachother for centuries while Europeans and Americans were building civilizations, cities, inventing cures for diseases and advancing technology and learning?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:09 PM
If race doesn't exist, then why did the whites dominate and conquer the world, intellectually, culturally and economically? Why is ENglish rapidly becoming the most widely spoken language on earth. Why have people in Africa been living in huts and slaughtering eachother for centuries while Europeans and Americans were building civilizations, cities, inventing cures for diseases and advancing technology and learning?
....and slaughtering each other? Europe has a longer and more savage history of wars than anyplace, may I remind you. That competition among states, and the geographically determined chronic disunity of Europe, may have been a factor encouraging the development of capitalism there, conceivably.

If race is real, and explains the development of civilization, why was northern Europe still barbarous at a time when the lands around the Mediterranean (including North Africa and the Middle East), Mesopotamia, India, China, etc, had been civilized for millenia?

It's only in the past few hundred years - i.e., with the development of capitalism - that western Europe has pulled into the lead. And history isn't over yet, so why draw conclusions from a snapshot of the present moment?

I recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for an explanation of why civilization has developed more rapidly in Eurasia than on other continents. Based on geography, history, available species of plants and animals for domestication as crops, livestock, draft animals...

[Publius]

If race doesn't exist, then why did the whites dominate and conquer the world, intellectually, culturally and economically? Why is ENglish rapidly becoming the most widely spoken language on earth. Why have people in Africa been living in huts and slaughtering eachother for centuries while Europeans and Americans were building civilizations, cities, inventing cures for diseases and advancing technology and learning?

Watch this PBS show based on Guns Germs and Steel: http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/show/index.html

It explains it well enough.

Quote:


Why were Europeans the ones with all the cargo? Why had they taken over so much of the world, instead of the native people of New Guinea? How did Europeans end up with what Diamond terms the agents of conquest: guns, germs and steel? It was these agents of conquest that allowed 168 Spanish conquistadors to defeat an Imperial Inca army of 80,000 in 1532, and set a pattern of European conquest which would continue right up to the present day.

Diamond knew that the answer had little to do with ingenuity or individual skill. From his own experience in the jungles of New Guinea, he had observed that native hunter-gatherers were just as intelligent as people of European descent -- and far more resourceful. Their lives were tough, and it seemed a terrible paradox of history that these extraordinary people should be the conquered, and not the conquerors.

To examine the reasons for European success, Jared realized he had to peel back the layers of history and begin his search at a time of equality – a time when all the peoples of the world lived in exactly the same way.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:46 PM

This is the most ridiculous piece of pseudoscience of all. Humans have a long generation time and a couple hundred years is not going to produce a major genetic change. Evolution is slow. Geologic time is measured in tens of thousands, even millions of years.

Now are you going to tell me the Wasusis and Pygmies don't exist?

It is obvious they 'evolved' this way, as they werne't created this way.
Not in 200 years, "obviously". Homo sapiens has been living in Africa for at least 195,000 years, and those groups coulda been diverging for most of that, for all we know.

But thanks for that example of how there are bigger genetic differences within Africa than in the rest of humanity put together...as you'd expect, since Africa's where humanity started out. So what's up with the generalizations about "Black people"?

Now in 100,000 years, you can get some changes...e.g. skin color as you pointed out.

But that's a pretty minor and, well, superficial, change. A few straightforward genes involved. Humans just make a big deal out of it 'cause it's obvious to our eyes, and because people way off at one end of the skin color distribution happened to develop capitalism first, due to geographic and social reasons.

It's not accidental that biologists rarely push this nonsense about important racial differences.

Edited out insult since Publius has enough sense to recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

[Publius]

IF certain people are bred for certain traits (for example, size and physical prowess), it does not take many generations for this propensity to be shown.

Need I break out the Punnet squares?

I don't think this is that complicated: Blakcs were bred by slaveowners for physical traits, therefore, there is an increased chance that these physical traits will manifest themselves, therefore, you could rightly say blacks are more physically adept (in some ways) than whites.

The deviation is probably actually very small, but the fact remains the same.

[Pawn Power]

We have change in height, appearance, skin color, etc, why not intelligence?

Examining the brain of a person it is not possible to determine the ethnicity of that person. Nonetheless brain size or mass does not corrolate with inteligence.
That being said "inteligence" as we know it is developed through enviroment and is not strickly inherited. Appearance is a exclusivly physical characteristic, mentality and "intelligence" is cultivated.

[Cobra]

Look, there is no denying the fact that we all came from the same original species. But over time we developed into various sub-species, each suited for there own geographical conditions. I am not saying that white people shouldn’t live in China, or that Chinese should not live Africa. In the future we will all be intermixed so it won’t matter anyway.

So what if blacks are better at sports. So what if Asians score better on tests. Who cares if white people invented a lot of shit. In the scheme of things it really doesn’t matter.

Permanently banning me is probably the best thing to do since things such as these are not worth dwelling over (and I have a tendency to dwell over everything). And the ones who do dwell over these things the most might end up becoming fascist Nazis. It is probably for the best that we do not talk about matters such as these. I probably shouldn’t have brought any of this stuff up, but now that I have I am ready to face my punishment.

[OleMarxco]

Of course, I believe in the evolution of "races" - but the skin-colors were totally meaningless. If the "white" did that "breeding", and "rewarded" the intelligent (like as if you can inherit it? I doubt that, but okay...perhaps still...)
or let the strong survive and killed the week (!) like any other animal, then it would've been us and them "blacks" been the smart. It's all coincidences, and conflict of military power. When the Asian's won shit by a close-judgen' grudge, then they get more wise or vice versa..'tho they learnt quick from the little we Europeans gave them, but it's all bullshit still. Think it, scientist's said once; "You can tell from appearance's who's a criminal (forehead, cheek)" ;)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:12 PM
IF certain people are bred for certain traits (for example, size and physical prowess), it does not take many generations for this propensity to be shown.
Yes, it typically does, in the real world. Where selection is typically weak, especially among humans.

The entire American south, Caribbean, northern Brazil, etc., were not turned into one huge laboratory for the systematic, scientific breeding of human beings. Nor are human beings in fact docile enough to be bred like lab rats on such a scale.

Which is what it would take to rapidly (i.e. within a few centuries) produce the results you suggest.


Need I break out the Punnet squares?

No. Irrelevant to the real world. You ever taken any population genetics? I've been going back to school half-time, and took a course a couple quarters back....

This kind of thing is more relevant (http://www.csuchico.edu/~jbell/Biol207/popgen.html)

And they're discussing the relatively simple case of measurable selection on a single gene. Rather than the more complex traits we're discussing here, which are controlled by a large number of genes.

But it is up to you to provide evidence for your suggestion. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as the Skeptics Society says.

"I don't think this is that complicated:"

Which just shows how little you know. Biology is always complicated. What you're doing is a "just so story". Like "How the leopard got its spots". A simplistic story which will seem superficially convincing to some people.

Also, your unsupported theory only explains part of what it's trying to anyway: it can't remotely hope to explain Kenyan marathon winners, for example.

[Pawn Power]

But over time we developed into various sub-species

That has been scientifically proven to be FALSE.
there are no sub-species under homo sapien sapien period, end of discusion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
Please tell me you don't believe in a blank slate?

I do not believe in a "blank slate".

The question is always what is engraved on that slate and what can be written and even re-written by circumstance.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:52 PM


(So it's worth keeping in mind, that all modern humans elsewhere are descended from people who migrated out of Africa within the past 100,000 years. That's a pretty limited time for important change.)

We have change in height, appearance, skin color, etc, why not intelligence?
Because the things you have listed are far less complex than intelligence in the number of genes involved. Also there is a selection pressure on things like skin colour. For example a dark skin colour is only beneficial in a hot climate and negative in a cold one because it limits vitamin D activation.

One would think that higher intelligence (whatever that may really be, as Redstar pointed out) is never an evolutionary disadvantage and thus that it would not have significantly changed once our ancestors either left or remained in Africa.

[praxis1966]

We have change in height, appearance, skin color, etc, why not intelligence?

The changes are due to diet, not genetics you fucking mook. The more knowledge human beings have gained about nutrition, the larger and more intellectually sophisticated they have become. Go take some more science classes; you obviously have a cumulative understanding of biology and genetics that amounts to exactly nil.

Anyhow, Cobra, you have now won my award for lifetime ill-achievement. Your incessant babble, circular logic, redundancy, lack of vocabulary, and poor grammar have made for what is undeniably the worst posting in the history of Che-Lives/RevLeft.

A sidenote to my fellow leftists responding here: Why the fuck are you even attempting any form of actual debate with these two? They're obvious imbecils, and any form of rational debate with them only lends their arguments credence that it doesn't deserve.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:38 PM

Holy motherfucking shit..... we still have ignoramuses out there who believe that race and intelligence are related. Bullshit. There is no evidence to support that theory what so ever. The very fact that the US among several other countries uses IQ testing to determine intelligence should show the stupidity of those people incharge of Education.

IQ testing does NOT ...I repeat... DOES NOT determine intelligence. It only shows a narrow perspective of knowledge retention in a period of time..or the short term working memory.

Do you deny evolution?

Do you deny that more intelligent people continually procreating inside of a group will raise the aggregate intelligence of the group?
No I don't deny evolution... I disagree with the idea that specific "racial" groups are more intelligent than others. Thats absolutely wrong. Humanity itself increases it capacity for knowledge as we evolve...it isn't based on race...because race is an artifically created barrier to segregate the masses.

[Cobra]

Well, seeing as I’ve already fucked myself over, I might as well continue with my incessant babble.


Originally posted by Revolution is the Solution+--> (Revolution is the Solution)That has been scientifically proven to be FALSE.
there are no sub-species under homo sapien sapien period, end of discusion.[/b]
First off, science is never engrained is stoned but is constantly evolving in light of new evidence. This is the difference between science and religion. You seem to go by religious convictions instead of scientific ones. As a freelance scientist, it will never be an “end of discussion”.

There are people in this world that do seem to have adaptations to there particular geographic area, “sub-species”, if you will. Take the Eskimo for example. The Eskimo has “evolved” to be short and stubby, which is a shape that better retains body heat. For the cold climate of the Arctic the Eskimo is better adapted than a native sub-Saharan African. The sub-Saharan African is adapted to the hot climate of Africa since they have more pigment in there skin to block out the harmful rays of the sun. If a white European went to Africa they would get sunburned and could develop skin cancer. White Europeans are adapted for the milder climate in Europe. I find it within reason to conclude that yes, there are sub-species. But if you have “scientific proof” that disproves what I have said, then please share it.


praxis1966
Anyhow, Cobra, you have now won my award for lifetime ill-achievement. Your incessant babble, circular logic, redundancy, lack of vocabulary, and poor grammar have made for what is undeniably the worst posting in the history of Che-Lives/RevLeft.
Yes, putting others down helps to supplement our egos. Lets all make fun of Cobra. That way we will all feel better about ourselves.

[KC]

Material conditions dictate many of your baseless assumptions, not race.



Just admit it. Black people are better at sports and music than white people. You’d haft to be blind not to notice it.

Asserting that black people are better at sports is foolish. Meaning ALL black people are better at sports than white people. And saying black people are better at music is an opinion. I'd love to see you prove that all black people on the planet are better than other "races".


Why aren’t there many whites in the NFL?

There are plenty.


Because scrawny 150 pound whites dudes could never compete with 300 pound black dudes in a game. White people lack the strength and agility.

Scrawny 150 pound dudes couldnt compete with 300 pound dude period. It isn't about race. And just so you know, white people can weigh 300 pounds too. And white people can be just as strong and agile as black people; there is nothing different between white and black people besides their skin color.



And white people can’t dance. Disagree?

Yes.


Well, who came up with the funky chicken?

Haha. Contrary to your belief, a black man did! The funky chicken was a novelty dance invented by Rufus Thomas in 1969.


Though, whites do have a positive characteristic: Whites are the best race for inventing things. What did white people invent? A whole lot of shit. Cars, radios, telephones, you name it –whites probably invented it. The Arabs and Chinese invented a lot of stuff too…but neither one of them invented as much as white people.

Could you prove this please?



Asians are the most intelligent race. I base this on the fact that when I was in school Asians always got the best grades on the tests.

This is usually because asian society is very strict on school. When parents move from asia with their children, their values come with them. In most of these households (but certainly not all of them) the rule is school work first, free time later.


Asians are physically very fragile.

Prove it.


And about sex: please stop saying that men and women are the same! They are not!

Nobody said they are the same. We just think that they should be treated equally.



It’s time we admit that skin color is not the only difference between white people and black people.

It's time that you admit that skin color IS the only difference between white people and black people, and the cultures of black-dominated groups and white-dominated groups create this and not their race.


And men really are different from women.

What's your point? They should still be treated as equals. Because they ARE.


And that Asians are really smart.

All asians? Prove that.


You provide no evidence at all, and are even flat wrong on most of your points (as most humorously pointed out by the chicken dance!)

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:17 AM




The changes are due to diet, not genetics you fucking mook.

...

Ha.

You cannot be serious.


http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditio...geopygmies.html (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/lessons/10/g912/geopygmies.html)

# Why are Pygmies short? (Pygmy babies are unable to process the hormones needed for normal growth.)

This is GENETIC.

There is nothing in their diet:

http://www.pygmies.info/hunting.html

http://www.pygmies.info/fishing.html

http://www.pygmies.info/food.html

that causes it.

At best, it may be a comibination of a POOR diet and a lack of growth hormone, but they are not malnourished, simply short.

Here: http://srs.sanger.ac.uk/srsbin/cgi-bin/wge...ID:265850%5D+-e (http://srs.sanger.ac.uk/srsbin/cgi-bin/wgetz?%5Bomim-ID:265850%5D+-e)

CLINICAL FEATURES

Efe Pygmies from the Ituri forest of northeast Zaire have the shortest mean adult stature of any population on earth, with a mean adult male height of 4 feet, 8 inches, and a mean adult female height of 4 feet, 5 inches (Diamond, 1991).

BIOCHEMICAL FEATURES

Rimoin et al. (1969) found that African Pygmies failed to respond to exogenous human growth hormone (GH; 139250) in the presence of normal serum levels of growth hormone and somatomedin, or insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF1; 147440), suggesting a defect in end-organ responsiveness to one or both hormones.

Merimee et al. (1981) demonstrated isolated deficiency of IGF1 in Pygmies of the Central African Republic, and proposed a genetically determined basis of growth deficiency in this population. However, protein deficiency may also have been responsible for the low IGF1 levels (Underwood et al., 1982). In African Pygmies in Zaire, Merimee et al. (1987) found that prepubertal Pygmy children and controls did not differ in linear growth or in serum concentrations of IGF1 and IGF2 (147470). However, they found that adolescent Pygmy boys and girls had one-third the mean serum concentration of IGF1 of control adolescents who were similar in age and Tanner stage of development. IGF2 and testosterone levels were normal in all groups. Merimee et al. (1987) postulated that short stature in Pygmies was due to the absence of accelerated growth during puberty and that IGF1 was a principal factor responsible for normal pubertal growth.

In cultures of B lymphocytes derived from Pygmies, Merimee et al. (1989) found a significant decrease in IGF1 secretion when stimulated by GH compared to normal control cells (4.24 ng/ml compared to 12.3 ng/ml in controls), although the cultures had similar cell density.

In a longitudinal growth study comparing Efe Pygmy children and children of non-Pygmy rural African farmers of known age from birth to age 5 years, Bailey (1991) found that suppression of Pygmy growth occurs from birth, not solely at puberty. Bailey (1991) emphasized that previous studies of Pygmy growth were of individuals of estimated, not known, age.

In 5 of 7 Pygmies, Geffner et al. (1995) found a decrease in IGF1 levels compared to controls. In vitro studies on T cells isolated from the Pygmies showed no colony growth in response to IGF1 or to growth hormone compared to controls. There was no difference in growth response of the cells to insulin. By in vitro analysis of 6 cell lines from Pygmies, Hattori et al. (1996) determined that the Pygmy-derived cells showed markedly decreased cell surface expression of IGF1 receptors (IGF1R; 147370) compared to controls, although the affinity of IGF1 binding to the receptor was similar in the 2 cell lines. There was a substantially decreased level of IGF1 receptor mRNA (2 to 13% of control) in the Pygmy cells, with a normal mRNA half-life. Moreover, the IGF1 receptors in the Pygmy cells were not autophosphorylated and did not transmit an intracellular signal in response to physiologic levels of IGF1, indicating a functional defect. Hattori et al. (1996) concluded that the short stature of African Pygmies is related to IGF1 receptor insensitivity, and suggested that human stature in general may be genetically regulated via control of expression of the IGF1R gene.

MOLECULAR GENETICS

Bowcock and Sartorelli (1990) found no difference in the distribution of IGF1 RFLPs in Pygmies versus non-Pygmy black Africans. There was also no correlation of IGF1 genotype with height in the Pygmies. Suspecting an abnormality in the transcriptional regulation of the IGF1 gene in Pygmies, Bowcock and Sartorelli (1990) performed direct sequencing of a DNA region 330-bp upstream of the IGF1 initiation site; no mutations were identified in that region.

Hattori et al. (1996) detected no pathogenic mutations by sequence analysis of IGF1R cDNA from transformed T lymphocyte lines derived from Pygmies.

In 2 non-Pygmy patients with short stature and IGF1 resistance (see 270450) due to decreased number or function of cell surface IGF1 receptors, Abuzzahab et al. (2003) identified mutations in the IGF1R gene (147370.0001-147370.0003). Abuzzahab et al. (2003) noted that the finding of a reduction in the number of IGF1 receptors in Pygmies was based entirely on in vitro studies of transformed lymphocytes.

ANIMAL MODEL

The mouse mutation called pygmy (pg), a recessive that maps to mouse chromosome 10, has only similarity of name to the human condition. In pg mice, Xiang et al. (1990) identified a mutation in the pg gene (HMGA2; 600698).


Take your insipid insults and shove them up your ass.

[Pawn Power]

We have change in height, appearance, skin color, etc, why not intelligence?

On intelligence: "If we were to select the most intelligent, imaginative, energetic and emotionallu stable third of man-kind, all 'races' would be represented." p79 Anthropology and Modern Life by Franz Boas


As a freelance scientist, it will never be an “end of discussion”.
By your logic we should bring back up the debat of whether the earth is flat or not. :lol:
Some things have been scientifically proven to be true and there is not much room for future debate, like the earth is not flat and there are no sub-species to homo sapien sapien.


There are people in this world that do seem to have adaptations to there particular geographic area, “sub-species”, if you will. Take the Eskimo for example. The Eskimo has “evolved” to be short and stubby, which is a shape that better retains body heat. For the cold climate of the Arctic the Eskimo is better adapted than a native sub-Saharan African. The sub-Saharan African is adapted to the hot climate of Africa since they have more pigment in there skin to block out the harmful rays of the sun. If a white European went to Africa they would get sunburned and could develop skin cancer. White Europeans are adapted for the milder climate in Europe. I find it within reason to conclude that yes, there are sub-species. But if you have “scientific proof” that disproves what I have said, then please share it.

You are very confused. The are not adaptations these are inherited traits that are better suited for a specific environment. And these traits that are 'inherited' not 'adapted' are passed down from, not different 'races', but from family lines.

Some verification since you asked: "For large 'racial' groups acceptable proof of marked mental differences due to organic, not social, causes has never been given." p59 Anthropology and Modern Life by Franz Boas
This is just a quote from a book has sceintific and historic backing for the breaking down of the idea of "sub-species" and 'race' superiority. Franz Boas spent a life times investigating this field and since the publication of this book and the development of modern Anthropology it has been exstensivley agreed apon by scientists and intillectuals that 'races' as sub-species do not exist.


Cobra or Plublius: If you would like to spend a life time studing race and Anthropology to disprove these widley understood and accepted facts then you better get started.

[bunk]

Much of this is about environment. Asian culture is to study very hard and their parents are very strict. Dancing could just be down to whether the area/family you live in has music playing a lot.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:17 PM
A sidenote to my fellow leftists responding here: Why the fuck are you even attempting any form of actual debate with these two? They're obvious imbecils, and any form of rational debate with them only lends their arguments credence that it doesn't deserve.
Good question.

It's true their arguments betray deep ignorance.

But frankly, a lot of other people aren't better informed. I think a lot of people who want to disprove widespread racist ideas aren't well-armed to do so.

[praxis1966]

Yes, putting others down helps to supplement our egos. Lets all make fun of Cobra. That way we will all feel better about ourselves.

Answer me this. Why should I even bother considering your arguements when they're obviously based on such an undereducated narrow perception of reality and lack any semblance of statistical data or a working knowledge of science? If you're going to make those kinds of arguments around here, you better come with it in terms of knowledge. Case in point:


Asians are physically very fragile. They are even weaker than white people, which is why Asians are rarely seen in pro-wrestling (other than sumo).

I would give my next three paychecks to witness you saying this to any professional Muay Thai kickboxer. You have no idea what you're talking about, my friend!


Ha.

You cannot be serious.

# Why are Pygmies short? (Pygmy babies are unable to process the hormones needed for normal growth.)

What the fuck does that even prove? If the Pygmies had a sudden injection of extra protien in their diets I'm quite certain that it would counterract at least some of the effects of this genetic defect, which incidentally is the exception since there is a barrier present which would certainly cancel out most of what a change in diet would effect. On the other hand, look at the Japanese. They have no such defect present, and an increased amount of beef in their diets over the last couple of generations has in all likelihood resulted in an apparent upswing in average height. Once again, you two have shit for arguments.

Come back when you can't stay long.

[deus ex machina]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 29 2005, 03:04 PM

We have change in height, appearance, skin color, etc, why not intelligence?

On intelligence: "If we were to select the most intelligent, imaginative, energetic and emotionallu stable third of man-kind, all 'races' would be represented." p79 Anthropology and Modern Life by Franz Boas


As a freelance scientist, it will never be an “end of discussion”.
By your logic we should bring back up the debat of whether the earth is flat or not. :lol:
Some things have been scientifically proven to be true and there is not much room for future debate, like the earth is not flat and there are no sub-species to homo sapien sapien.


There are people in this world that do seem to have adaptations to there particular geographic area, “sub-species”, if you will. Take the Eskimo for example. The Eskimo has “evolved” to be short and stubby, which is a shape that better retains body heat. For the cold climate of the Arctic the Eskimo is better adapted than a native sub-Saharan African. The sub-Saharan African is adapted to the hot climate of Africa since they have more pigment in there skin to block out the harmful rays of the sun. If a white European went to Africa they would get sunburned and could develop skin cancer. White Europeans are adapted for the milder climate in Europe. I find it within reason to conclude that yes, there are sub-species. But if you have “scientific proof” that disproves what I have said, then please share it.

You are very confused. The are not adaptations these are inherited traits that are better suited for a specific environment. And these traits that are 'inherited' not 'adapted' are passed down from, not different 'races', but from family lines.

Some verification since you asked: "For large 'racial' groups acceptable proof of marked mental differences due to organic, not social, causes has never been given." p59 Anthropology and Modern Life by Franz Boas
This is just a quote from a book has sceintific and historic backing for the breaking down of the idea of "sub-species" and 'race' superiority. Franz Boas spent a life times investigating this field and since the publication of this book and the development of modern Anthropology it has been exstensivley agreed apon by scientists and intillectuals that 'races' as sub-species do not exist.


Cobra or Plublius: If you would like to spend a life time studing race and Anthropology to disprove these widley understood and accepted facts then you better get started.
Here's an interesting excerpt from Gene Expression on a debate between Time wise and Jared taylor concerning race:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004046.html


”generally biologists or geneticists argue, this is the generally accepted science, that in order for two groups or any multiple of groups to be considered subspecies or races or breeds of the same species, they must differ, or they usually will differ, in fact they always will, there will be more difference between the breeds, between the subspecies, between the so-called races, than there will be within the so-called breed, within the so-called subspecies or within the so-called race."

Generally “biologists or geneticists” argue no such ludicrous thing, and Wise’s “generally accepted science” isn’t accepted by one scientist much less all of them. Wise argues that recognized sub-species will always differ more between than within; this claim is absurd, scientists don’t even have this sort of genetic information for but a tiny handful of animals, and this information is worthless for what scientists communicate with classification (Wise also exaggerated his own lie by arguing that races almost always differ by “10" and “20" times as much between than within. This is another Wise invention). Since genetic distance and/or variability is not even what determines species (which is simply determined by the presence or absence of breeding in natural zones of contact) much less sub-species, differences within species (not just races) can easily be greater than differences between species (not just races). If we used the within-between statistic to classify nature it would destroy the biological species concept! Wise’s confused blarney is just a dubious interpretation of Richard Lewontin’s already dubiously interpreted non-fact about why the human species doesn’t have races (and the fault lies with Lewontin just as much as it does with Wise). Thanks to the Endangered Species Act the criteria scientists really use for determining subspecies in nature is more or less standardized. John Goodrum notes:


In response to questionable interpretations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and to help ensure the evolutionary significance of populations deemed ‘subspecies,’ a set of criteria was outlined in the early 1990s by John C. Avise, R. Martin Ball, Jr.[10], Stephen J. O’Brien and Ernst Mayr [11] which is as follows: “members of a subspecies would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.” Furthermore, “evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically based traits.”[12] This is known as the phylogeographic subspecies definition, and a review of recent conservation literature will show that these principles have gained wide acceptance.

Contrary to Wise and what you might’ve heard in the media (though, not in the New York Times), we know that the grand majority of biologists agree that there are human races (Lieberman et. al. 1992 ). Ernst Mayr’s definition of sub-species is the standard one accepted by scientists (the record is in the scientific literature, look in it and see how many scientists are using the nutty Lewontin “within-between” formula to determine sub-species of animals - about as many that are using “punctuated equilibrium” I would guess) and has been the standard since the initiation of the Darwinian New Synthesis. Mayr has publicly addressed the misinformation that evolutionary biologists believe there aren’t human races:


There is a widespread feeling that the word race indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as there are no human races.
Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals . . . the geographic races of the human races established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact.

[redstar2000]

I will reserve judgment on deus ex machina's link and discuss rather its implications "if it were true".

Humans may indeed have differentiated into sub-species or "races". What conclusions could reasonably be drawn from that?

Do these "sub-species" differ in any significant respect with regard to social behavior?

That's the "sticking point", is it not? No one (with any sense) cares about skin color or hair texture or muscular physiology or susceptibility to particular diseases.

Who's "naturally smart" and who's "naturally dumb"? Who's "naturally civilized" and who's "naturally savage"? Who "invents things" and who "can really sing and dance"? Who is "fit to rule" and who "must be ruled for their own good"?

Those "questions" are really what is at the core of this controversy, are they not?

Who is "genetically entitled" to be "the master sub-species"?

The pretense that this is a "scientific" question with an "objective" answer is, in fact, nothing more than an attempt to advance a racist social agenda!

And the disguise fools no one -- not the racists who fund such "research" nor the anti-racists who vigorously object to it.

Putting "White Subspecies" and "Colored Subspecies" signs next to the water fountains is not "scientific", it's just plain old racism.

And racism, even with a Ph.D., is still racism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[deus ex machina]

Do these "sub-species" differ in any significant respect with regard to social behavior?

They may. As of now, we don't really know to what extent human behavior is genetically determined and how much is socially determined.


That's the "sticking point", is it not?

Not really. I suppose if you view it through a politically charged perspective then it would, but from a scientific standpoint it is only one characteristic to be considered amongst a multitude of others.


No one (with any sense) cares about skin color or hair texture or muscular physiology or susceptibility to particular diseases.

A scientist interested in human physiology would.


Who's "naturally smart" and who's "naturally dumb"? Who's "naturally civilized" and who's "naturally savage"? Who "invents things" and who "can really sing and dance"? Who is "fit to rule" and who "must be ruled for their own good"?


Those "questions" are really what is at the core of this controversy, are they not?

It depends on who you talk to. Scientists interested in advancing a political agenda are obviously going to be biased in favor of research that supports that agenda. This is true for all sides of the political spectrum. Ideally, the good scientist should strive to be as objective as humanly possible.


Who is "genetically entitled" to be "the master sub-species"?

This is a political question that has no bearing on whether human subspecies or races exist at all. If they exist, they exist.


The pretense that this is a "scientific" question with an "objective" answer is, in fact, nothing more than an attempt to advance a racist social agenda!

See above.


And the disguise fools no one -- not the racists who fund such "research" nor the anti-racists who vigorously object to it.

Again, see above.


Putting "White Subspecies" and "Colored Subspecies" signs next to the water fountains is not "scientific", it's just plain old racism.

I don't see what the existence or non existence of human subspecies has to do with segregation.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:35 AM
Take your insipid insults and shove them up your ass.
I insist...you first! Its a genetic trait of yours :lol: anyways. I'm sorry I will have to decline your offer. :lol:

Your genetic theories are purely based on the environment...its an adaptation. Capitalist pigs are usually best at "shoving it up their asses" anyways.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by deus ex machina
As of now, we don't really know to what extent human behavior is genetically determined and how much is socially determined.

No we don't...that's the correct answer. But who has a material interest in "proving" that social behavior is genetically determined? Who benefits from "scientific" propositions that humans are ranked by "objective genetic superiority"?


Scientists interested in advancing a political agenda are obviously going to be biased in favor of research that supports that agenda. This is true for all sides of the political spectrum. Ideally, the good scientist should strive to be as objective as humanly possible.

Evasive bullshit! What kind of "scientist" would be interested in "the question of human subspecies" if he didn't have a racist agenda?

And who would fund such "research" unless they likewise had a racist agenda?

Platitudes about "objective scientists" who live on Mount Olympus are irrelevant.

This entire area of "research" has only one purpose...and everyone knows what it is! :angry:


I suppose if you view it through a politically charged perspective then it would, but from a scientific standpoint it is only one characteristic to be considered amongst a multitude of others.

Are you seriously that fucking naive?

Is there anything more "politically charged" in the U.S. than "race" -- oh, excuse me, "human sub-species"???


This is a political question that has no bearing on whether human subspecies or races exist at all. If they exist, they exist.

"If they exist" then what political conclusions follow from that?

You sound like those dumbasses in the Manhattan Project during World War II. "Well sure, we're making a bomb that can destroy an entire city...but, hey, its use is a political question. We're just worker bees here, doing our job."

What fucking planet do you live on? :o


I don't see what the existence or non-existence of human subspecies has to do with segregation.

Yeah...it was all just sheer coincidence. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:36 AM
Just admit it. Black people are better at sports and music than white people. You’d haft to be blind not to notice it.

The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, The Clash, The Doors, none of them are black. If anything, black people basically made up new genres but they didn't necessarily bring them to their peak. However, we have, for example, Jimi Hendrix, who was a great player but not the best songwriter.

So?

The "best of" is mixed if you ask me. Hendrix was the best guitar player, but Entwistle was the best bass player (and he is NOT black). Bob Marley was a great songwriter, but Lennon and Bob Dylan was even better. So there are jews, whites and blacks in there. Therefore, you are wrong. Sorry.

And how many africans are there in Formula 1 nowadays? None. Does this mean that africans (or, say, black people) are worse at it than europeans and south americans? No. Why am I pointing this out?

Because you completely miss the fact the people are born in a certain cultural background and are surrounded by different people during their lives and live in different economical situations.

In other words, if you give a 3 years old african kid which is starving a karting, he might become the next Schumacher or the next Senna. But how are you supposed to know that? Maybe I'd have been better than Michael Jordan if I'd have started playing basketball earlier than I did and would have continued to do so. But I didn't so it's impossible to tell. Anyone is a potential marathon winner than can beat the Kenyans that always win, but it's impossible to tell.


What do the NBA, the MLB, and NFL have in common? Blacks! They are dominated by black athletes! Blacks are the best race for playing sports. Why aren’t there many whites in the NFL? Because scrawny 150 pound whites dudes could never compete with 300 pound black dudes in a game. White people lack the strength and agility.

So? What about the NHL? I doubt there are many black players in there, although I might be wrong.

You count the hits and ignore the misses.


Though, whites do have a positive characteristic: Whites are the best race for inventing things. What did white people invent? A whole lot of shit. Cars, radios, telephones, you name it –whites probably invented it. The Arabs and Chinese invented a lot of stuff too…but neither one of them invented as much as white people.

But how do you measure this? By "amount of inventions"? Inventions help future inventions. You can't know if black people living in the same situation to those inventors would have invented more, less or the same. Your point is meaningless.


Most Blacks just aren’t good at inventing things.

It's not like black people living in American ghettos or starving in Africa have many chances of inventing computers and such stuff. White people, however, already have more stuff, better education, etc. This helps them greatly.


Except when it comes to sports and music, where blacks are much more creative and inventive than whites.

No. You could say that


Asians are the most intelligent race. I base this on the fact that when I was in school Asians always got the best grades on the tests. Who got the best grade on the test? The Asian kid did. It’s always the Asian kid. Damn their superior intelligence! I wanted to have the highest score!

Pseudo-scientific bullshit. There was an asian girl in my school once, she was really smart, her cousin wasn't. And "best grades" do not equal "intelligence". I used to get high notes at school (at least higher than most other people's), but not always, and it can be changed by studying. Maybe studying less is actually smarter sometimes: you get more time to do other stuff and then you copy your answers from somebody else. If you're smart you can make that. But it also depends on how much you can risk.


And about sex: please stop saying that men and women are the same!

Nobody says that.


They are not! Men are taller and stronger than women. Women are smarter than men.

But there are exceptions.


It’s time we admit that skin color is not the only difference between white people and black people. And men really are different from women. And that Asians are really smart. We are constructed differently both physically and mentally. Every people have its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

So? Who gives a damn???


Let’s embrace our differences and celebrate our diversity!

Actually, I'd prefer this issue to be ignored...it makes no difference at all in our society. It's irrelevant, untestable and pseudo-scientific. It's discussion can lead to even worse differences amongst "different" people.

[redstar2000]

Why haven't there ever been any great baseball players from France?

Are the French missing the "baseball gene"? :lol:

Or does it have something to do (you think? maybe?) with the fact that baseball is not a game that people in France play...or are even interested in???

The French "Babe Ruth" spent his whole adult life working in a warehouse...never knowing the fame and fortune that he missed by being born in the wrong country.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[deus ex machina]

But who has a material interest in "proving" that social behavior is genetically determined? Who benefits from "scientific" propositions that humans are ranked by "objective genetic superiority"?

I honestly don't care who "benefits". I would just like to know. Should we cover up scientific findings and stifle research in certain areas because it offends the political sensibilties of certain groups?


What kind of "scientist" would be interested in "the question of human subspecies"

A scientist interested in human physiology and evolution.


And who would fund such "research" unless they likewise had a racist agenda?

Medical colleges? Universities?


Platitudes about "objective scientists" who live on Mount Olympus are irrelevant.

A scientist should strive to be as objective in his research as he possibly can.


This entire area of "research" has only one purpose...and everyone knows what it is! :angry:

Not all scientists have secret agendas that they try to push on the public.


Are you seriously that fucking naive?

No need for insults.


Is there anything more "politically charged" in the U.S. than "race" -- oh, excuse me, "human sub-species"???

It should be irrelevant to the scientist.


"If they exist" then what political conclusions follow from that?

Who cares what "political conclusions" might be drawn from it?


You sound like those dumbasses in the Manhattan Project during World War II. "Well sure, we're making a bomb that can destroy an entire city...but, hey, its use is a political question. We're just worker bees here, doing our job."

Apples and oranges.


Yeah...it was all just sheer coincidence. :lol:

I fail to see how scientific research into the existence of human subspecies or races necessarily implies the use of forced segregation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by deus ex machina
I honestly don't care who "benefits". I would just like to know. Should we cover up scientific findings and stifle research in certain areas because it offends the political sensibilities of certain groups?

Ah, I see. You think that your "sub-species" is going to "come out on top" in the "genetic lottery".

So you can adopt the pretense of "the simple search for truth without fear or favor".

"I would just like to know"...that I really am a member of the "superior" subspecies.

And it's not really about "offending political sensibilities", is it?

It's about building a "convincing case" that your subspecies is "top dog" because it "genetically deserves to be"...and the attempt to propagandize "inferior sub-species" to accept their inferior status.


Not all scientists have secret agendas that they try to push on the public.

But all the ones "researching" human subspecies do...what else would be the point?


No need for insults.

It was a question...and one which you failed to answer.


It should be irrelevant to the scientist.

I see...he is the one that you suggest is hopelessly fucking naive. He "has no idea" that he's entered a minefield -- that people will use the "results" of his "studies" for the most heinous of purposes.


Who cares what "political conclusions" might be drawn from it?

You do! And so does everyone else in this "field" of research...otherwise they would not bother.


I fail to see how scientific research into the existence of human subspecies or races necessarily implies the use of forced segregation.

Because it won't stop with that. The people involved with this shit are not simply interested in the abstract question of whether or not subspecies "exist"...as you very well know.

If they "exist", then the next task is to "prove" that some of them are "genetically superior" and others are "genetically inferior". And once that is "accomplished", then the "inferiors" must be forced to accept their "inferiority" and submit to the rule of their "superiors".

Isn't it time for you to come out of the closet? And bring your white robe and pointy hat.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by deus ex [email protected] 30 2005, 08:12 PM
I honestly don't care who "benefits". I would just like to know. Should we cover up scientific findings and stifle research in certain areas because it offends the political sensibilties of certain groups?
Oh, BS. It's the exaggerators of between-group differences who are covering up scientific fact....and always have.

Yes, scientists should seek to be as objective as possible. No, scientists are not objective, nor is anyone else. The prevailing bias in society favors human inequality, and that bias has encouraged and covered up a lot of crap science for centuries.

At one time the scientific consensus was that white men have the world's biggest brains, and bias led scientists to "cover up scientific findings and stifle research in certain areas because it offends the political sensibilties of certain groups" in order to perpetuate that (now disproved) belief. Fortunately that bias is weaker (though not gone) today.

You're right that some biologists think different human groups can be considered races or subspecies. Others disagree, and think the lines are too fuzzy.

But nobody serious agrees with the likes of Murray and Hernstein that there are major genetic differences between "races" on intelligence or anything else socially important.

For example, you quote respected biologist Erst Mayr saying that "Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact." In that same article (http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html) he also says " At the same time, nothing could be more meaningless than to evaluate races in terms of their putative "superiority."" and " It is generally unwise to assume that every apparent difference in traits between populations of human beings has a biological cause." - using as an example the Asian-American students' test scores mentioned in this thread - and "There is also no scientific evidence known to me that the genetic differences we do discover among the human races have any influence at all on personality."

And it's not as if people - especially scientists trying to prove the superiority of their own group - haven't tried to find such evidence...for centuries.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:40 AM
Isn't it time for you to come out of the closet? And bring your white robe and pointy hat.
He kinda already has. In this thread, favorably quoting "white nationalist" Jared Taylor. In others, posting long excerpts from a book by fascist Francis Parker Yockey.

Yockey proclaimed, in that book: "The hierarchy of races is a fact of which policy must take cognizance." Based on a completely different, and now discredited, set of pseudoscientific bullshit that Deus is pushing now.

Yockey was a fan of skull measurements and the supposed "influence of the soil" on races. (The latter, of course, completely contrary to modern understanding of evolution.) His modern equivalents draw the same conclusions from IQ tests. What's constant is the (preconceived) conclusion...different piles of pseudoscientific BS are piled up to "prove" it.

Praxis was right, then....debunking the pseudoscience (more than has already been done) is a waste of time here.

[viva le revolution]

Let me give my two cents here.
1. 'RACE' does exist.
2. Not giving superhuman abilities like intelligence over others nor superhuman strength.
3. There is no such thing as a 'pure' race.
4. One thing about jews i don't understand.

1. Race does exist no doubt about it. Caucasian, negroid and mongoloid These are only physical traits evolved over time as a means of coping with the enviornment once the humans dispersed all over the globe. These are strictly PHYSICAL differences nothing to do with ability nor capacity. Science has proven that all humans are the same species, all are Homo sapiens and all share the same mental traits. The only differences are physical ,that as a result of enviornment.

2. If the theory of racial superiority holds ground, how come it can never account for those who are the 'exception' contributing to fields that were ascribed to be the domain of another race? Why does it not account for inequality of opportunity to develop?If race truly were determinig factor, then why the fuck is the first-world so hell bent on not allowing the third-world to develop? If it were due to race then they would not have to worry about would they?

3. Science has proven that all homo sapiens came from the continent of Africa, then according to theory they would be the only 'pure race' History is full of intermingling of peoples. Even more so in today's world. All of us share genes from different racial groups through historical contact. Take me for example, I am from the Pathan ethnic group. I share Slavic as well as indian blood. By appearance i am from the subcontinent, but does that negate slavic blood in my genes. Appearance doesn't mean shit! Dominant genes come into play, does that negate the existence of reccessive genes? In this regard no group on earth is a pure race not only because that is impossible to determine but also because that is a historical impossibility.

4. Everybody treats Jews as a different race. as a separate one no matter where they are. Don't they live in different countries, don't they mingle in different societies. I mean in palestine you could tell an arab jew from an arab muslim or christian. there is only the difference of religion not race.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:21 AM



I insist...you first! Its a genetic trait of yours :lol: anyways. I'm sorry I will have to decline your offer. :lol:

It wasn't an offer.

It was an order.



Your genetic theories are purely based on the environment...its an adaptation. Capitalist pigs are usually best at "shoving it up their asses" anyways.

My genetic theories are purely based on the environment?

Do you have any proof of this. Or are you, to use some scientific jargon, lying like the stupid sack of shit you are?

And I see that you spelled 'capitulation' incorrectly. You obviously meant to say "Capitulating pigs are usually best at 'shoving things up their asses' anyways", a statement I wholeheartedly agree with.

In fact, you're a perfect example.