+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 107

Thread: In the genes?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    I'll come back to it later. I've been up all night and I'm going to bed.

    My first impression isn't great though. If malnutrition affects IQ then it MUST close the gap between whites and blacks. Either the author has to show that malnutrition has no affect on IQ at all, or they have to show that whites and blacks had equal issues with malnutrition. Both of these are obvious non-starters. Looking at the other articles by the same author and seeing "...after race was controlled for" I expect to see some clever math inventing his point for him, which will lead to Marou claiming VK doesn't get maths and declaring himself the victor again... but I get extra cynical when I'm tired.
    No, what he is saying is that malnourished kids of different races still have different IQ differences. Furthermore:



    What is really interesting, is that at the 143 countries he looked at race is a better predictor of IQ than malnurishment. In other words, both race and Malnurishment have an effect, but RACE is the bigger effect on IQ.

    I didn't really expect that to be the case. It's kind of amazing.
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-23-2017 at 08:28 AM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    884

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    I'll come back to it later. I've been up all night and I'm going to bed.

    My first impression isn't great though. If malnutrition affects IQ then it MUST close the gap between whites and blacks. Either the author has to show that malnutrition has no affect on IQ at all, or they have to show that whites and blacks had equal issues with malnutrition. Both of these are obvious non-starters. Looking at the other articles by the same author and seeing "...after race was controlled for" I expect to see some clever math inventing his point for him, which will lead to Marou claiming VK doesn't get maths and declaring himself the victor again... but I get extra cynical when I'm tired.
    One issue you may not account for is that whites can be just as malnourished as blacks, and as a generally higher % of the overall population with many living in rural areas poor whites can be worse off(less access to resources) than poor blacks in urban areas. This is iffy on my part though, but could explain how the mal-nutrition effect is 'leveled'. (since zav ninja posted before me, i'm keeping my information bound to the US as 'world wide studies' *to me* run into so many more confounding issues than I believe researches allow themselves to believe.)

    This is just another confounding variable on the part of the USA population though. We are such a huge landmass with so many varied cultures and lifestyles that generalizations often only hold true for the urban 'worldly' cities that share the same generic pop-consumer culture.

  3. #28

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Interesting posts Pyrrhus.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    No, what he is saying is that malnourished kids of different races still have different IQ differences. Furthermore:



    What is really interesting, is that at the 143 countries he looked at race is a better predictor of IQ than malnurishment. In other words, both race and Malnurishment have an effect, but RACE is the bigger effect on IQ.

    I didn't really expect that to be the case. It's kind of amazing.
    Yeah, amazing the numbers he made up to modify everything line up perfectly with the audience he's making belief-confirming articles for.... I need to look at what those are based on and I'm just not up for that right now.

    Hunting shrikes until I fall asleep at the keys.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Interesting posts Pyrrhus.




    Yeah, amazing the numbers he made up to modify everything line up perfectly with the audience he's making belief-confirming articles for.... I need to look at what those are based on and I'm just not up for that right now.

    Hunting shrikes until I fall asleep at the keys.
    Both data sets are linked in the article. I look forward to hearing your analysis.

    As for the site and core audience, it makes the claim to be devoted to the numbers. I have no evidence one way or the other if they are biased but, like I said they show all the work and where they did the work. My question for you is: Is there anything that is possible that could sway your opinion? If so what would it take?

    Edit: And just to reiterate, the data does back up your assertion that Nutrition is significant-- just that it's less so than race. What I meant was "kind of amazing" was that I was trying to visualize the results in practice. Thinking about some half starved Asian child still being about as equal (or higher) in intelligence as a thriving black kid. That's just weird and counter-intuitive.
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-23-2017 at 09:00 AM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  5. #30

    Default Re: In the genes?

    I don't see why you bother kvetching about *WHY* details VK.

    Either you admit IQ differs among races (this is what all the data supports), or you don't. *WHY* it differs is comparatively less important. When you have 1.2 billion people with 70 IQ *why* their IQ is 70 is less important than the fact that you have 1.2 billion people with the IQ and impulse control of a white kinder-gardener, but the hormones and impulses of a grown ass man. When you view the world with this illuminating lens, *why* Africa is a complete shithole makes tons more sense.

    Bill Gates has been on a crusade to save Africa for decades now. He alone has raised the African population growth by probably 10%. Thus far their IQ's have not been noticeably improved. We shouldn't be feeding them, at all. We shouldn't be providing them any aid at all. We just disrupt their natural lifespans and ecosystem, we should leave them the fuck alone.

    We're trying to turn Africans into white people. It's not going to fucking happen, and who the fuck are we to say that's what should happen? Fuck that white supremacist paternalistic nonsense. Would I be happier being a hunter/gatherer? Fucking probably. So, let's take all these people that have been *successfully* living that way for tens of thousands of years and make them just like us, by force or whatever other means necessary. That's moral, right? Need more cogs for the capitalistic technocratic machine, more tools for the system - and pay no attention to the fact that they'd continue to be successful, albeit primitive humans, if we'd just leave them the fuck alone. Liberals and religious people treat blacks like people that don't have children treat dogs, and it disgusts me.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    884

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Both data sets are linked in the article. I look forward to hearing your analysis.

    As for the site and core audience, it makes the claim to be devoted to the numbers. I have no evidence one way or the other if they are biased but, like I said they show all the work and where they did the work. My question for you is: Is there anything that is possible that could sway your opinion? If so what would it take?

    Edit: And just to reiterate, the data does back up your assertion that Nutrition is significant-- just that it's less so than race. What I meant was "kind of amazing" was that I was trying to visualize the results in practice. Thinking about some half starved Asian child still being about as equal (or higher) in intelligence as a thriving black kid. That's just weird and counter-intuitive.
    I like to stick to philosophy but I think you may be reading the data wrong. Solely based on these posts I think you seeing the 'attributing factor' as a hard number rather than a multiplier. The -potential- of a 'mal-nourished'(another set that needs clarification) Asian is theoretically higher in -potential- than an 'average'(control) black.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    I like to stick to philosophy but I think you may be reading the data wrong. Solely based on these posts I think you seeing the 'attributing factor' as a hard number rather than a multiplier. The -potential- of a 'mal-nourished'(another set that needs clarification) Asian is theoretically higher in -potential- than an 'average'(control) black.
    No, I am talking statistical signifcance as it pertains an effect on a dependent variable. My visualization wasn't necessarily smart-- I just find it helpful to sometimes try to turn the data into a concept (even if skewed).


    [I don't see why you bother kvetching about *WHY* details VK. ~ Marou

    I think the why is super important. When we try to pour shit tons of money into welfare and schools for black urban areas and it doesn't work, everyone wants to know why. They say, "I know why!" It's because your ancestors enslaved mine, and we aren't equal yet. You need to pay us more and that will make it better. And then taxes get higher, spending gets higher, and there is no noticeable change. Then they start saying its because our universities are racist and that higher education needs to change. Then they say its because of white privilege, despite coming from a poor family and growing up in a shit hole in New Orleans with a 60% black population in my schools. If the stupid niggers that were always fighting and attacking each other in my high school could have been cured of their stupidity by a fucking breakfast burrito, I'd be HAPPY AS FUCK to know that was the case. I'd happily want my taxes to go to breakfast burritos for nogs.
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-23-2017 at 09:24 AM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  8. #33

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Despite what I said before I find myself reading the article now because Dauntless crashed. >.>

    I am not swayed by the article. He's associated nation-level statistics with single races. We already know both race and malnutrition correlate with IQ on the scale of nations. Malnutrition is not 100% though, it applies only to a portion (his modifier). If you assume race is 100% and malnutrition isn't, obviously race will correlate better. It's clever, but it doesn't actually argue anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    As for the site and core audience, it makes the claim to be devoted to the numbers. I have no evidence one way or the other if they are biased but, like I said they show all the work and where they did the work.
    Bull, fucking, shit. You know bias when you see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    My question for you is: Is there anything that is possible that could sway your opinion? If so what would it take?
    If you mean my opinion of race vs environment, then it'd be pretty hard. We are all descendant from Africans anyway. The idea of "race" is just collections of the same genes divided by time spent in different environmental conditions so the idea that environment can't create the difference between whites and blacks is pretty much empty. It already did.
    So it's still not even a race/genetics argument when people divide populations by skin color, the best you could do is argue that blacks won't catch up because time is a larger factor than environment, but then you'd be arguing time vs environment. So I guess you'd have to isolate something in black genetics that is not present anywhere else and specifically prevents cognitive improvement.

    Zavon Edit: Ooops I accidently hit edit here and typed my post instead of reply with quote
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-23-2017 at 09:29 AM.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  9. #34

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    I think the why is super important. When we try to pour shit tons of money into welfare and schools for black urban areas and it doesn't work, everyone wants to know why. They say, "I know why!" It's because your ancestors enslaved mine, and we aren't equal yet. You need to pay us more and that will make it better. And then taxes get higher, spending gets higher, and there is no noticeable change. Then they start saying its because our universities are racist and that higher education needs to change. Then they say its because of white privilege, despite coming from a poor family and growing up in a shit hole in New Orleans with a 60% black population in my schools. If the stupid niggers that were always fighting and attacking each other in my high school could have been cured of their stupidity by a fucking breakfast burrito, I'd be HAPPY AS FUCK to know that was the case. I'd happily want my taxes to go to breakfast burritos for nogs.
    Yes, but just accepting the facts and ignoring the why clears up the achievement gap without the need for a "dey racis" excuse. You cannot have equal outcomes when you have unequal people without authoritarian "anti smart people/diversity" mandates. It's not a good idea to import 70 IQ Africans because they will never be anything but dependents in our society, and universal suffrage is a terrible idea when huge portions of the population have an IQ below 95. All of these things can be said without addressing why.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Despite what I said before I find myself reading the article now because Dauntless crashed. >.>

    I am not swayed by the article. He's associated nation-level statistics with single races. We already know both race and malnutrition correlate with IQ on the scale of nations. Malnutrition is not 100% though, it applies only to a portion (his modifier). If you assume race is 100% and malnutrition isn't, obviously race will correlate better. It's clever, but it doesn't actually argue anything.



    Bull, fucking, shit. You know bias when you see it.


    If you mean my opinion of race vs environment, then it'd be pretty hard. We are all descendant from Africans anyway. The idea of "race" is just collections of the same genes divided by time spent in different environmental conditions so the idea that environment can't create the difference between whites and blacks is pretty much empty. It already did.
    So it's still not even a race/genetics argument when people divide populations by skin color, the best you could do is argue that blacks won't catch up because time is a larger factor than environment, but then you'd be arguing time vs environment. So I guess you'd have to isolate something in black genetics that is not present anywhere else and specifically prevents cognitive improvement.

    Zavon Edit: Ooops I accidently hit edit here and typed my post instead of reply with quote
    I'm glad you admit that then. It makes it easier that you are upfront the convictions of your belief, so I don't waste any more of my time burrowing in wikipedia and scholarly articles. I really did try to look at things from your perspective.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  11. #36

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Yes, but just accepting the facts and ignoring the why clears up the achievement gap without the need for a "dey racis" excuse. You cannot have equal outcomes when you have unequal people without authoritarian "anti smart people/diversity" mandates. It's not a good idea to import 70 IQ Africans because they will never be anything but dependents in our society, and universal suffrage is a terrible idea when huge portions of the population have an IQ below 95. All of these things can be said without addressing why.
    Agreed. It's frustrating that the same libtards who will burn the bill of rights and allow the government to censor speech, deny people to bear arms and command religions will turn around and refuse to apply common sense to immigration "'cuz 'murica".
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  12. #37

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Agreed. It's frustrating that the same libtards who will burn the bill of rights and allow the government to censor speech, deny people to bear arms and command religions will turn around and refuse to apply common sense to immigration "'cuz 'murica".
    I think you'd be a fan of how Rhodesia was set up. Of course, it was called a white supremacist state, but it was a meritocracy. Both blacks and whites were voting citizens, but only those that passed a citizenship test (which was really a surrogate for an IQ test, as a result voters were overwhelmingly white) could have voting rights. It was killed because "dey racis", but they weren't any more racist than any other people of the time. They just didn't believe in universal suffrage and other doomed concepts - and were fighting bush wars with multiple Marxist factions being funded by the USSR.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Agreed. It's frustrating that the same libtards who will burn the bill of rights and allow the government to censor speech, deny people to bear arms and command religions will turn around and refuse to apply common sense to immigration "'cuz 'murica".
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?




    VERY SHORT VIDEO that proves the argument definitively.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  15. Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    So basically IQ doesn't contribute to violence, just being black does?

    Sadly the short answer is yes. But it is vastly more complicated than this simple statement would lead us to believe.




    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    It's not a good idea to import 70 IQ Africans because they will never be anything but dependents in our society, and universal suffrage is a terrible idea when huge portions of the population have an IQ below 95. All of these things can be said without addressing why.

    There were 2.1 million African immigrants living in the United States in 2015, up from 881,000 in 2000 and a substantial increase from 1970 when the U.S. was home to only 80,000 foreign-born Africans. At the same time the IQ of average America ROSE by over 11 points. I don't think we have much to worry about concerning those .0065 of the population affecting our numbers. I find that our core value of the melting pot far outweighs the dangers
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  16. #41

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    There were 2.1 million African immigrants living in the United States in 2015, up from 881,000 in 2000 and a substantial increase from 1970 when the U.S. was home to only 80,000 foreign-born Africans. At the same time the IQ of average America ROSE by over 11 points. I don't think we have much to worry about concerning those .0065 of the population affecting our numbers. I find that our core value of the melting pot far outweighs the dangers
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60289615001336

    https://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...g_smarter.html

    One Possibility: http://mmo.catacombs.com/showthread....re-of-Humanity

    /edit: I could link a shitload on the stopping/reversal of the Flynn effect because it has caused much speculation, studies, and discussion in the scientific community, but I trust you can spring off this initial pass and do more research on your own.

    /edit: Here is another decent article discussing dysgenic effects. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...-flynn-effect/
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  17. Default Re: In the genes?

    Those are interesting links, I was aware of contradictory studies, some seeing the effect ending around 2001, but other later studies (like the one I referenced in my original post) see no diminishment of the effect. With such a controversial subject as IQ this is expected. I find the studies and meta-analysis' supporting the continuation of the effect more compelling. However, even if the effect did end in 2001 or 2014, I don't think that would effect the arguments I presented in this thread.
    Last edited by Random Havoc; 08-23-2017 at 11:40 AM.
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,134

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    No one here is denying anything is a factor and AFAIK no one ever has on this board. We're purely arguing degrees. Marou claims, in the same breath, that genetics are the largest factor due to heritability and at the same time that there's this massive gap shown by IQ stats between African and american blacks. These two things can't both be true at the same time. His whole position trying to make genetics the #1 factor is a scrap book of cherry picked passages from shitty studies that don't fit together and don't even agree with the conclusions of the same studies. It's a wholly invented position that does not exist among people without a preoccupation with race.

    Lower nutrition 100% does = lower IQ. Studies on this are so trivially easy to find it's not even worth pretending this is in contention to humor an argument if you made one. Thousands upon thousands of children have been tested. It's easy testing to do since there are tons of starving kids in areas with the lowest IQ's where it's easy to make progress Marou claims is impossible.

    The burden is not on me here. The IQ map and the malnutrition map line up perfectly. Showing that people with better nutrition, better education and better environments have better IQ's has already been done to death. I can't show that nutrition by itself is responsible, but I don't need to. Showing that blacks IQ's rose when they came here and their environment changed is already done. There's at least a 15pt difference from here to Africa already, and there are still miles and miles of potential improvement in all environmental directions.



    I don't know why you would think I believe all races are arbitrarily equal in every aspect. I do not. I have never claimed this. I do not defend the assertion if it's being made by someone else.
    Because it's obvious you've gone to great links to prove that blacks have an intelligence equal to whites. (Including using semantics and conjecture to dismiss peer reviewed research that states otherwise).

    You clearly have a strong belief here that black intelligence when all variables are accounted for is equal to white/asian intelligence and are willing to go to great links to try and prove it as well as dismiss any evidence stating otherwise. Which tells me you aren't simply basing your stance on raw data as I don't think anyone making a stand on raw data can objectively do that.

    This argument has essentially summed up to you dismissing any evidence of genetic inequality yet you state yourself that you believe genetic inequality is a logical possibility.

    What I'm trying to say is it would appear obvious that had this been some topic that you didn't have a vested interest in that you would have willingly gave up long ago and said "Jeebus all the data points to X" but instead of gone to great lengths to dismiss the data, simply labeling it as biased when you can't poke a hole in it's methodology. I was assuming that you had an ideology akin to "all men are created equal" to some extent that was motivating your continued efforts to promote intellectual equality.
    Last edited by Sillywilly; 08-23-2017 at 11:43 AM.
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  19. #44

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    You clearly have a strong belief here that black intelligence when all variables are accounted for is equal to white/asian intelligence and are willing to go to great links to try and prove it as well as dismiss any evidence stating otherwise. Which tells me you aren't simply basing your stance on raw data as I don't think anyone making a stand on raw data can objectively do that.
    Asians are objectively more intelligent than whites on average. Whites have a wider range of IQ's (so a higher load of geniuses), but also far more morons. People always ignore this when making arguments like the one VK is trying to make. I don't see how Asian/Ashkenazi jews being superior (in IQ) to whites is acceptable but white/black IQ differences are not. Comparing say, white Americans to Japanese - and saying white Americans are stupider because they have less access to food is really retarded, and this is just as valid as the american black/white comparison. Sephardi jews eat the exact same kosher foods Ashkenazi jews do, but they are way less intelligent because they haven't practiced eugenics for hundreds of years.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    Because it's obvious you've gone to great links to prove that blacks have an intelligence equal to whites. (Including using semantics and conjecture to dismiss peer reviewed research that states otherwise).

    You clearly have a strong belief here that black intelligence when all variables are accounted for is equal to white/asian intelligence and are willing to go to great links to try and prove it as well as dismiss any evidence stating otherwise. Which tells me you aren't simply basing your stance on raw data as I don't think anyone making a stand on raw data can objectively do that.

    This argument has essentially summed up to you dismissing any evidence of genetic inequality yet you state yourself that you believe genetic inequality is a logical possibility.

    What I'm trying to say is it would appear obvious that had this been some topic that you didn't have a vested interest in that you would have willingly gave up long ago and said "Jeebus all the data points to X" but instead of gone to great lengths to dismiss the data, simply labeling it as biased when you can't poke a hole in it's methodology. I was assuming that you had an ideology akin to "all men are created equal" to some extent that was motivating your continued efforts to promote intellectual equality.
    I think fundamentally, VK just believes in the notion that we are all one human race. I mean he states this earlier in the thread, "We are all descendant from Africans anyway. The idea of "race" is just collections of the same genes divided by time spent in different environmental conditions so the idea that environment can't create the difference between whites and blacks is pretty much empty."

    Although I don't agree with him (and I don't think the evidence does either), there is something to be said for the fact that we have a tendency to focus on out-group differences over similarities. When it comes down to it, despite differences in things like IQ or criminality, whites and blacks are far more similar to each other than they are different. That being said, I sure as fuck wouldn't want to live in a black country or a black neighborhood.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  21. #46

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    I think fundamentally, VK just believes in the notion that we are all one human race. I mean he states this earlier in the thread, "We are all descendant from Africans anyway. The idea of "race" is just collections of the same genes divided by time spent in different environmental conditions so the idea that environment can't create the difference between whites and blacks is pretty much empty."

    Although I don't agree with him (and I don't think the evidence does either), there is something to be said for the fact that we have a tendency to focus on out-group differences over similarities. When it comes down to it, despite differences in things like IQ or criminality, whites and blacks are far more similar to each other than they are different. That being said, I sure as fuck wouldn't want to live in a black country or a black neighborhood.
    We would be classified into subspecies if it wasn't politically incorrect.



    Also, out of africa theory is dead/dying.

    First humans emerged in the eastern Mediterranean and not East Africa
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/first-human...africa-1622840
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Yeah, iirc it's been discovered that whites and asians have neanderthal DNA as well-- something that blacks do not have, further removing us as a species.

    Found an article:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...de-Africa.html



    Edit:

    Also, it turns out that VK was right about that website being biased. It turns out that Math is racist: http://www.dailywire.com/news/20113/...ign=benshapiro
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-23-2017 at 12:43 PM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  23. #48

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Yeah, iirc it's been discovered that whites and asians have neanderthal DNA as well-- something that blacks do not have, further removing us as a species.
    Yeah, we fucked some intelligence from neanderthals, Asians fucked some out of denisovans, and American blacks fucked some out of European descended Americans. The amount of European admixture in american black DNA is a good predictor of their success rate in life/society. (See the last section on that image I linked).
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    884

    Default Re: In the genes?

    ...And this is where I jump off the deep end and claim that we should be more interested in eugenics as a whole in creating subsets of humans with like-minded ideologies/abilities. In as much as it is possible the long term effects of such breeding would be beneficial to our 'plight' on earth, although would most likely end up creating (even more so) superior/inferior complexes between the subspecies.

    Especially with the gene-editing craze that is sweeping just about every biology lab in the world I see 'A Brave New World' levels of bio-engineering in the next century if we don't fuck ourselves up before then.

    Then again I obsess(idealize) over this theory that humans can evolve into more than we are because of the mass amount Sci-Fi I've read that hints towards the necessity to do so to survive in space/other-worlds.
    Last edited by Pyrrhus; 08-23-2017 at 12:48 PM.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    ...And this is where I jump off the deep end and claim that we should be more interested in eugenics as a whole in creating subsets of humans with like-minded ideologies/abilities. In as much as it is possible the long term effects of such breeding would be beneficial to our 'plight' on earth, although would most likely end up creating (even more so) superior/inferior complexes between the subspecies.

    Especially with the gene-editing craze that is sweeping just about every biology lab in the world I see 'A Brave New World' levels of bio-engineering in the next century if we don't fuck ourselves up before then.
    Wouldn't it be easier just to sterilize blacks?
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts