Kame
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 14, 2005 0:37:00 GMT -5
First I'd like to start off by saying that Faelcind, you should be a moderator. Your integrity, response, and wit is impeccable. I commend your postings.
What you mean is physical similar, geographicaly proximated population groups. The Earth is not the world of Starcraft or a galactic civilization game. Human diversity does not function like that. Like I said, you are betraying your intelligence by thinking in such simple terms. A true genius or intelligent man would look at things from an entirely different angle. You keep going with the old traditional race paradigms that have been consistently disproven and shown to be much more complex in nature.
Even if black do dominate in these positions, they are physical, not mental. Just like chukchi and eskimos dominate cold, tundra climates. While in contrasts, they would'nt do very well in the deserts of africa or the middle east.
Did you know that africans are more genetically diverse than non-african populations? Applying blanket generalizations on the worlds most genetically diverse population would'nt do well by science. It means they are just as likely to produce a nobel laureate as anyone else.
Again, these are premises that you have not proven. Yet you are extracting conclusions. Try giving reputable, unbiased sources rather than that pseudo-scientitic bull-shit you were trying to push earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Feb 14, 2005 4:44:38 GMT -5
Faelcind, I agree blond and tattoed may not be the best description of ancient brits.
However this is exactly Tacitus description of the ancient Germans. Read Germania. some of them had long hair. very barbarian look.
Ive read your text. And I dont think it fully explains why civilizations emerge in one place and not in others. The emergence of cilizations I guess had a lot to do also with the geographical location of the anciente people. Those at crossroads and close to other cultures had more chances to exchange knowledge and cultural experiences. Middle East is exactly between Asia, Africa and Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 14, 2005 4:55:06 GMT -5
I read most of Germania at one point I don't remember much mention of Tatooing will have to check it again. The northern brits aka picts were also famous for tatooing.
Ecological materialism is far and away the best explantion I have seen and is also far and away the most accepted within archeology give me an example that doesn't fit theory. As for being at cross roads it interesting but doesn't apply to other cross roads, central asia was major trade route that never devoloped much of civlization of its own because the ecological conditions were wrong. South east asia is the gateway to the Oceania and meeting ground for two very distinct races but devolped agriculture and civilization primarily through dissimination from china in the north and india in the west. Alaska is the cross roads between asia and america civilization did not devolop there either the conditions just aren't right.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Feb 14, 2005 5:01:48 GMT -5
sure...
many reasons come together to explain why some civilizations did emerger, and others not. i only said maybe one of the reasons. and youve said others too. and there are others as well, which coupled together lead to their emergence...
well, following Tacitus description you can get the idea the ancient Germans were very primitive looking. This correlates with their general state of civilization at that time: lack of writing; human sacrifices; etc. They used to wear long hair and some of them were painted (this word is more appropriate than tatoed, a word which would be much better to apply to the picts, ancient scottish).
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 14, 2005 5:09:47 GMT -5
Okay then human give me reasons with strong arguments behind them and predictive power as to where civilizations would have devolped. I haven't seen any other convincing reason except ecological materialism. I am not saying that they don't exist. If your going to dispute the merits of the most cogent and respected theory you need to offer reasons against it or arguments for another factor.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Feb 14, 2005 5:15:07 GMT -5
my main point not to accept your theory is that i dont think there can be a full set of reasons which 'explain' why some civilizations have emerged. i mean, i dont get that rational, that logical. human history is rather tortuous and random. plus, each civilization that has emerged had its own peculiar reasons.
|
|
|
Post by BioMan on Feb 15, 2005 16:45:30 GMT -5
Faelcind I would trust the supposed test if it was valid. There have been dozens of IQ tests several of them being non-biased or discriminatory. Africans were always on the lower end. Furthermore if that test was legit, I have yet to hear or see it published in books. I can name several books to provide evidence that blacks score less, yet I have yet to see that supposed link of yours. Also most egalitarian geneticist do not believe racial differences but you’ll be surprised to know that most geneticist do believe there are racial differences. Some however do not admit it just to avoid being labeled a racist. Why is it that twins separated at birth living in different families(one poor with low IQ parents and one high with high IQ parents) still end up scoring similar at IQ tests? Not only that but why do they also follow up on similar interests and have similar behaviors? Try explaining that? Enviornment and culture-whatever. Genes plays a big part in not only intelligence but also behavior. And genes wise Africans are the least favored in intelligence. Furthermore your evidence is pathetic, it only comes from one source which I don’t really trust nor provides convincing evidence. I can give you information on several books which have yet to be countered to make my points. Human: stable climates help build civilizations. In fact the earliest civilizations were located in warm climates. The Pyramids never would have been built in Siberia and civilizations would have started later(its also farther away from Africa which was humanities starting point). Also originally the Caucasoid population who ruled and advanced Egypt had no African blood. Today Egyptians are African blood in them. They also score in the 90s in IQ test. And they will probably never attain the glory they did millenias ago. Kame: And Kame you should never be a moderator or a scientist. You rarely if ever provide any evidence to support your claims or counter my points. You also fail to read the sources I provide that make valid points. And if you admit black superiority in sports is genetic(which it is) then whats so hard about admitting intelligence difference between races is also genetic? Most geneticist agree that genes effect intelligence. Estimates go from 40-80%(most siding with 80%). So whats so hard about admitting that when it comes to overall population blacks arnt favored in the intelligence category and favored in the sports category. Think of how natural selection played out in different parts of the world. During the ice age Africa was warm so there were no needs to develop large brains, or layers of fat to survive cold, nor did you need slit asian eyes to see better in the sun reflected ice. In fact Africa was full of animals to hunt and a warm climate. Rather than developing a need to get smarter, the people who thrived were the strong people or the people who were fast and good at stealing. On the other hand White and Asians needed to develop larger brains and lighter skins(no more African sun) because in order to survive in such harsh climates bigger brains were needed. Why is it so hard to simply admit that genes do play a role? Most scientists agree that genes play a role in intelligence(even behavior as well). Africa just never had the need to develop smarter averages. Also this might sound racist and pseudoscience like but in fact its true. Did you know that Africans are the most closely related to primates than the other races? Furthermore Whites and Asians came from Africans. The three races did not come at the same time. And do I really need to give proof that blacks are under-represented in business and science related fields? Im pretty sure we don’t have to. And about the bone thing www.nursingbytes.com/n203/notes/musculoskeletal/musculoskeletalsystem.htmwww.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1392Proof on test stone www.anthropogeny.com/Why%20HIV%20is%20so%20Prevalent%20in%20Africa.htmcebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/10/1041And mind you that the amount of testosterone and how your bones develop is genetically linked. I mean seriously look at this from the book “taboo: why blacks excel at sports and why we’re afraid to talk about it”<br> Do you know how ridiculous it is to claim that all races are equal when something like this happens so often? Not only that but the number of whats wanting to run in track and field far exceeds the number of blacks who wish to do so. Yet why is it that blacks make the cut? And if you blame it on culture then I thought it was black culture that was more pro-lazy then white or asian culture. I mean seriously, if there are physical differences amongst the races(which you probably agree with) then whats so hard about accepting mental differences amongst races as well? I mean the brain is still a physical part of the body. Actually there is, theres a book called The G-factor another book is Race, Evolution and Behavior. So far the information in both books have yet to be scientifically countered. Furthermore look at the army helmet sizes in the US army. Even though blacks average the tallest they still average the smallest helmet sizes. Asians are the shortest yet the average the largest helmet sizes. Not only that but blacks have denser bones and less room in their skulls as well so their brain size is even smaller. And I believe there were other official army statistics showing the brain mass amongst the races differed as well.
|
|
|
Post by BioMan on Feb 15, 2005 16:45:45 GMT -5
The averages that Profess Rushton(Professor at prestigious University of Ontario) found various results in brain size
and
More
And the kicker
More
And finally from Lynn
All of these studies and people exist, you can also read about their results in different sources, and they are published as well. Whats even more funny is that the opposing side has found no way or possible excuse to counter the brain size, mass and wiring differences amongst the races. Im not surprised if you still arnt convinced since your black so you’ll probably continue denying racial differences. I do however know that deep down inside of you, you yourself see that races arnt different. Its bitter but its true.
Also things like altruism and behavior is in fact linked to genetics. A large part of your behavior is effected by genes. Twins separated from birth and sent to different families of different environment and personalities still scored similarly in IQ scores. They also had similar manners, behavior etc. Genetics plays atleast 70% role in behavior. And its funny that you consider east Asians the greediest people in the world. Look at that manager and employee pay rate. In white societies the manager is payed over 20-160 more than the employee. In Asian nations its about 8. Wealth is much more well distributed amongst asian nations then Europeon nations. Although I don’t know about greed and Africans since there arnt that many rich Africans. Ironically enough though the richest African Americans are very greedy. Look at rappers with 10s of millions of dollars. They claim that they wish to help children and Africa all the time. Guess whos doing most of the paying for Africa though? Whites. Guess what these rappers and b-ball players spend their money on? Hint: mostly on personal pleasure. Tell me, how many charitable blacks have you met or seen on TV? Most rich blacks are rappers and b-ball players and they don’t donate much. You see those Christian starving children fund programs or feed the children programs and the people who donate happen to be white. I originally made this thread to talk about helping blacks which you seem to have twisted into a race denial topic.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 15, 2005 19:12:11 GMT -5
I never said "I" should be a moderator, I said faelcind should be a moderator. Try to keep up. Because your concept of "race" and human diversity is too broadly defined and typological. You probably still go by the "three race" paradigm. Since then, humans could be separated in to dozens of related groups. There are huge differences between west and east africans for example. Between khoisan bushmen and pygmy's and so on and so forth. You make two fallacious assumptions in your arguments 1. Because asians and whites look relatively different, are two relatively recent groups, and seem to perform better, you think they, on the whole, are smarter because of their genes. 2. That africans are intellectually inferior on the basis of being african and not performing too well statistically. Nevermind statistics may change over time. You largely ignore the enormous difference within groups, prefering to paint all races with a broad brush. That is NOT scientitfic. I have two great links that might help shed some light on the complexity of human variation, both of reputable and reliable scholarship: anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htmwww.goodrumj.com/RaceFaq.htmlThat is an oxymoron, they are of african descent. Caucasoid? I dont know for sure, but middle easterners and berbers are actually the closest related caucasoid groups to SS africans. Hmmm, the cradle of civilization is in the middle east, in a decidedly hotter enviroment, populated by relatively dark-skinned caucasoids. Meanwhile, north asians were tundra nomads/reindeer herders and northern europeans were barbarians and the last of european groups to be civilized. You are full of it. Bullshit. By that extension, aborigenes and melanesians are the least related to primates, asians and whites being closer than them. Hell, by your logic, they're probably smarter than asians too. Yeah, what you do is go and dig up all of the those early 1900's and early 20th century studies in the face of all the recent discoveries in light of the human genetic code (human genome project) and others. Why? because the only why you could verify your bigoted viewpoint is by digging up old racist, pseudo-scientific "discoveries" and theories that modern, reputable scientists regard with a grain of salt. Bullshit once again. If you knew an 8th grade level of geography in africa you'd know that africa is home to great extremes of climate. Africa is home to deserts, rain forests, savannah and temperate forestry. There, hundreds of peoples evolved in separte settings, under differing conditions. All africans were not nomads, pastoralists or herders. Some were hunter-gatherers, some were farmers. How many continents can say you have the tallest average people in the world (dinkas) and the smallest average people in the world (pygmys)? None. Africans are not a monolithic people/culture/look, like so many, you fall prey to pervading stereotypes of the african continent. Then you are no worse than islamic jihadists. Probably even more dangerous, because you think science is on your side. Cavalli-Sforza is amongst the preeminent population geneticists along with jared taylor, and most of the scientific community aswell, who have repeatedly debunked your racial hierarchy/intelligence theories. Though every now and then you may have a bigoted scientist come along and write a book, so as to keep a dead argument going. Not really, but then again you've probably never been to maryland, or an HBC. Hell 8% of harvard/stanford graduates are black. and your answer news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/women_and_society.stmHere's another link on blacks and acheivement which probably moots your "blacks are the least altruistic" BS. Black law professionals (who are comfortably wealthy) on average, donate more of their time (pro bono) and services than any other group. www.law.harvard.edu/news/2002/08/01_blackalumni.phpEven if we assume, for your sake, that black people actually are intellectually inferior to whites and asians (which ofcourse they are not), it really would'nt matter anyway because race-mixing and genetic engineering would all but eliminate any of the perceived advantages asians have over other groups. 20-50 years from now I could give my kid blond hair, blue eyes and an IQ of 150, you would have a moot point.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 15, 2005 20:43:40 GMT -5
www.guidestar.org/news/features/african_american.jspMore than half of all african-americans are involed in philanthrophy. STFU. and meanwhile in Japan. ![](http://www.outofthedoorways.org/photos/japan200312/streetsleepers-t.jpg) ![](http://www.outdoorjapan.com/galleries/bennett/images/x-17-notexactlyhomelessintokyo.jpg) There is a growing homeless problem in Japan, nevermind the poorer, developing asian countries, especially china where there is a a huge gap between rich and poor. Asian countries are not naturally egalitarian. If they are more equitable, it is because they have different social values. They are normal people like everyone else, subject to the same tempatations and fallacies of human nature.
|
|
|
Post by BioMan on Feb 15, 2005 21:48:34 GMT -5
No duh because I was talking about you, not faelcind. And my concept of race is only for separating the three major races into Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. And my point is as a whole blacks are in fact inferior in the intelligence department. If your so convinced they are not then why do you still not attempt to counter my points? You’re the worst kind of debater and your evidence(im not sure if you even have evidence) is laughable.
Do you have a problem of ignoring all points ive made? Not only did I provide statistical evidence on things like crime and college or job rates. I provided biological and genetical evidence as well which cannot be ignored nor can you counter them. Example
-The brain size difference and how even in army records helmet size differs in race. + the several studies that show that brain matter is heavier among the other races than blacks. And the fact that the wiring of the black is also much less complicated than the other races. -In the reflex tests(reflex can tell a lot about IQ and also measures how fast the brain can process information) it shows that blacks are the slowest in reflexes. When the reflex test was complicated the gap grew. -Culture does not effect intelligence. When twins were separated at birth and given to different parents+ environments they still averaged similar IQ scores, personalities, traits and even grew to be the same height etc. -The African continent does not have American black gangster or hiphop culture. SO what explains Africas horrible state? -DOZENS and I mean literally DOZENS of non-biased IQ scores were given. In all of these tests blacks always scored lower. -Africans have more testosterone which leads to increased sex drive(explains aids problem) as well as crime and rape rate. They also have denser bones. -Evidence that Africans with more white blood in them had larger brains and better wiring of frontal lobes. -This evidence is also shown in the IQ tests. -Claiming that physical differences are genetic yet mental aspects are not is bullshit. The brain is part of the physical body and like height, skin color and hair it also differs genetically. Fact is that blacks are not favored in brain size, power or quality. Im not trying to be racist, im just trying to prove my point. Ironically enough I already have+ive even given out evidence as well as numerous published studies. And zillion other facts Listen ok my posts are usually big ones, and whenever you reply to them you ignore 90% of the stuff I type. If your so confident that your right then why cant you counter them? Why must you ignore my information?
Also the early population in Egypt was Caucasian more so than todays Egyptian residents. Todays Egyptian population has more black genes in them. Which explains why their IQ average is in the 90s.
I already explained this. Originally Caucasoid lived in cold climates and that’s where they evolved. When the ice age ended some moved to warmer climates again. Because they were smarter + had an easy to live in environment they were able to start civilizations early.
Look at the facts, the races near the equator possess low Iqs, so do Africans. Whites in African schools still score above their black peers.
|
|
|
Post by BioMan on Feb 15, 2005 21:51:59 GMT -5
Oh yeah and its funny how you show pictures of unemployed people in Japan. Mind telling me what Ghanas unemployment rate is?
Heres a hint: It starts with 2 and ends with 0.
In japan competing for jobs is much harder than going to some mine and hacking for rocks.
20%. Basically 1/5th of Ghana is unemployed. Good luck collecting your diamonds youll need it.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 15, 2005 23:49:32 GMT -5
Furthermore your evidence is pathetic, it only comes from one source which I don�t really trust nor provides convincing evidence.... Either you can't read or can't count. I provided nine peer reveiwed journal abstracts to back up my point by a vareity of authors all more respected the the pseudoscientist you use to back up yours. Also originally the Caucasoid population who ruled and advanced Egypt had no African blood. Today Egyptians are African blood in them. They also score in the 90s in IQ test. And they will probably never attain the glory they did millenias ago.... Wrong again, modern egyptians are more closely related to middle easterners(Caucasians) then their ancestors who had more gene flow from though south. Also this might sound racist and pseudoscience like but in fact its true. Did you know that Africans are the most closely related to primates than the other races? And about the bone thing. Now your just making a fool of yourself. You clearly know nothing of evolutiony theory, ever heard of cladistics? Once a species level seperation is attained between two lineages their respective descendants will equidistant from members of the other lineage. You don't even understand the basics of the field your are trying to argue in, and yet you expect us to take you seriously come on.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 15, 2005 23:56:50 GMT -5
One more bit of pseudoscientific nonsense, racists like to crow about the supposed need for more intelligence in colder climates. Its ridiculous tropical climates are the most hazardous for humans, they have the most dangerous predators and dangerous herbivores for that matter, the most pathogens, and the most poisonous animals and plants. While extreme selection might be operating in the far north, the gentle climes of the medditerean are the area that allow humans the greatest ease of survival, so if that argument was valid meds would be the least intelligent. There is of course no evidence that such is true and no evidence that the rise of civilization has anthing to do with race.
|
|
Hallam
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 94
|
Post by Hallam on Feb 16, 2005 6:09:34 GMT -5
Most geneticist agree that genes effect intelligence. Estimates go from 40-80%(most siding with 80%). Do yourself a favor bioman, and study some genetics. .. read some real scientific literature.
|
|