 |
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
ok paik i'll bite, why is your racism different to other kinds?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
It isn't based on race (DNA, skin color, genes, "white", pureity of bloodline and other factors of western modern racism). Actually I don't think you can call it racism. You can't define it with western terms. It is more culturally, way of life and thinking oriented.
That's my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
yeah but it's still the case that you (not just you personally) hate another group of people based on their ethnic backround. you might say that this is because of some 'past wrongs' or whatever, but my question is how is that different from someone who dislikes blacks because they 'commit more crime' for example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
1. Using many twins reduced the likelihood of that being the case.
|
Good evening, Odin. So do you actually know the studies that Caligastia was referring to? If so, please post a link or there's a danger people might think you're pulling this out of thin air.
In any event, they could have used a million sets of twins if they like, but that still doesn't get closer to determining whether behavioural traits are due to genetics or pre-natal nutiriotional/environmental factors, does it? Or dumb coincidence, as far as I can see. Feel free to elaborate.
"See 1" is not an answer to this. Please give me examples from the research.
quote:
3. Most behavior is a mix of both genentic and enviromental influences, they are not an either/or proposition like some of the nurture fanatics (who tend to be hyper-leftie, politically correct social scientists) and Nature fanatics (which are usually racists and bigots, like Cali) think.
|
Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion?
quote:
Also, I must correct Cali, it is INTELLIGENCE that is 50% genetics. And there is no evidence that the average of the genetic component differes from one ethnic group to another. |
Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Good evening, Odin. So do you actually know the studies that Caligastia was referring to? If so, please post a link or there's a danger people might think you're pulling this out of thin air.
In any event, they could have used a million sets of twins if they like, but that still doesn't get closer to determining whether behavioural traits are due to genetics or pre-natal nutiriotional/environmental factors, does it? Or dumb coincidence, as far as I can see. Feel free to elaborate.
"See 1" is not an answer to this. Please give me examples from the research.
Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion?
Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion? |
Why don't you read some books on the topic. Nature via Nurture, and The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature are a good place to start. You are making it sound like I am defending Cali, I'm not. Also, I get annoyed by the BS the Nurture partisans spew about Nature being deterministic; Nuture can be just as deterministic as nature is assumed to be. Behavior is much more complex than either side make it out to be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by C0ckney
but my question is how is that different from someone who dislikes blacks because they 'commit more crime' for example. |
because in western modern racist thought they (blakcs) are attributed "racially defined" flaws.
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 29-05-2005 at 02:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theben
Probably wrong... but racism/oppression/discrimination has been around so long |
I don't think that western modern racist theory is old. I think it is fairly recent. My opinion is that it started as a "connecting/unifying, separating of others, defining" pseudo-theory. A mythomotor like so many others and for similar reasons like those that exist since indeed very old times. Mythomotor is a "folkish tale" (meaning popularist and for the people) not necessairily based on historic or in this case scientific accuracy that folsters unity of "groups". Almost all countries/ communities have those when a need arose for some elements of the group to create one.
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 29-05-2005 at 02:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I cant say Im 100% sure that there are zero correlations between traditional racial classifications and psychological traits. I CAN say, that most nature vs nurture debates tend to leave out organic but non-genetic factors (like prenatal nutrition), that racial categories are arbitrary (US "blacks" as a group are reportedly 20% European by origin, according to some studies, and US "whites" as a group have not insignificant amounts of African ancestry. I can say there is sufficient evidence against racialist correlations, and the consequences of accepting such correlations if they are wrong are so negative, that my working hypothesis in life is that they are not there. |
Nice little strawman's argument there. We all know full well that "Head Start" programs have no long lasting affect on minority children, so now we'll go back to pre-natal care and use that as the excuse for poor academic skills and even poorer sociological behavior. Blame whitey for a lack of good nutrition when we allow these same people to spend their government handouts at KFC. It's their choice. There is no more slavery and hasn't been for 140 years.
However, since government programs have been in place for prenatal care for quite some time, your argument again fails based on it's own "merits", or lack thereof.
Since you make the claim that "African-Americans" are 20% white and that "Americans" are 20% african, prove it- give us some links that site data to prove your assertion. I already know you can't, but let's see you try.
You can say there are is sufficient evidence against racialist correlations, but can you prove it? I think not. Believing something is so, doesn't make it so, no matter how hard you believe. In fact, your view is rather childish and reminds one of "The Wizard of OZ", in that you think that if you simply believe in something enough, it will come true. And yet, all one has to do is look around to see that the world's biggest cesspools are those run by first, blacks, and secondly by "Hispanics". In America, the cities and locals with the highest crime rates are also those with the largest "minority" populations. Coincidence? I think not, in fact, the incidence is so high that only a fool would refuse to recognize the correlation.
So, let's see the facts that will prove your assertions. In other words, put up or shut up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
I don't think that western modern racist theory is old. I think it is fairly recent. My opinion is that it started as a "connecting/unifying, separating of others, defining" pseudo-theory. A mythomotor like so many others and for similar reasons like those that exist since indeed very old times. Mythomotor is a "folkish tale" (meaning popularist and for the people) not necessairily based on historic or in this case scientific accuracy that folsters unity of "groups". Almost all countries/ communities have those when a need arose for some elements of the group to create one. |
Depends on what you mean by old. Are the quotes of Roman governors old enough? They didn't think much of the nubian slaves in Egypt- they far preferred the Syrian slave stock. Or how about the Arabs? when they over ran the area some 1400 years ago, they didn't think much of the sub-Saharan stock either, in fact, they thought the Africans to be so primitive, that it was a law that none could imported into Islam until they had been sterilized. This rule of law held up until the 20th century, when the British and French put a stop to it.
Shall we go back further to the Greeks?
The only thing recent is the multiculti nonsense you people spew forth. I think you should take it down to the nearest ghetto and see how they like your white bread nonsense there.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Good evening, Odin. So do you actually know the studies that Caligastia was referring to? If so, please post a link or there's a danger people might think you're pulling this out of thin air.
In any event, they could have used a million sets of twins if they like, but that still doesn't get closer to determining whether behavioural traits are due to genetics or pre-natal nutiriotional/environmental factors, does it? Or dumb coincidence, as far as I can see. Feel free to elaborate.
"See 1" is not an answer to this. Please give me examples from the research.
Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion?
Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion? |
Ahh Lazarus, you're not very smart, are you? Either that or someone should immediately file a law suit against whatever "institution" it is that you are either attending or "graduated" from.
He is referring to the Minnesota Twins Study. Something every college (normally) learns about in Biology 101 and if not there, then in Psych 101. It's famous, has been for 30 years or more. And it puts an end, unequivocally, to the debate of nurture versus nature. The only people who deny are the ones on the left side of the IQ bell curve.
http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/mtfs/default.htm
Now, of course, you will have to actually understand the study of genetics as well as psychology to even begin to understand this study- are you up to it, or are you going to sit there in your little bubble and deny the reality? These studies were conducted on all races and on all continents. They are as valid as they come- no one in academia denies the validity and import of "The Minnesota Twins Study"- but I'm sure you afro-centrists can.
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html
"On multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes, monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are monozygotic twins reared together. These findings extend and support those from numerous other twin, family, and adoption studies. It is a plausible hypothesis that genetic differences affect psychological differences largely indirectly, by influencing the effective environment of the developing child. This evidence for the strong heritability of most psychological traits, sensibly construed, does not detract from the value or importance of parenting, education, and other propaedeutic interventions."
http://www.lcmedia.com/mind0005.htm
"Nature? Or nurture? Twins may hold the answer. Identical twins raised apart report eerie similarities in lifestyle and preferences. Host Dr. Fred Goodwin, himself a twin, leads this exploration of the world of twin-ness. Guests include Dr. Nancy Segal, author of "Entwined Lives;" Dr. Thomas Bouchard, who directs the Minnesota Twin Study; Dr. Goodwin's twin brother Cliff; and two sets of identical twins, including brothers separated as infants and reunited after 40 years apart, along with "twin ambassadors" Debbie and Lisa Ganz. With commentary by John Hockenberry, father of twins Zoe and Olivia."
Dream on, nurture types, dream on.
Now, in response to the moron above, given the propensity of blacks to commit violent crime, both in the West and in Africa, can anyone not say there are just too many Africans in the world?
And given that the entire modern world was invented by white men, can anyone honestly not agree that there are just too few white men in the world, and that world, given it's problems, needs hundreds of millions more to save it?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Even if i accept that behavior has a genetic component, youre eliding the difference between behavior and thought, a huge jump. Its also not clear if by "think differently" you mean simply differences in IQ, or differences in ways of thinking. All in all, may I say that your own thinking on this seems rather sloppy and imprecise? Not a credit to our race, are we? |
Actually, your thinking is sloppy. It usually goes without saying that thinking precludes behavior- unless of course your IQ is so low that you are unable to think- which is the case with large numbers of people. I believe it was sometime in the early 80's that the threshold for retardation was lowered from 80 to 70. That was done to appease a certain ethnic minority in the United States that had also begun showing up in Europe in larger numbers- demanding equal rights and social justice and some other such nonsense.
Obviously, again (yawn) IQ and ability to think and how one thinks go hand in hand.
I would say your thinking is a direct result of attempting to educate people with a sub average IQ, by Western standards, anyway. I think all of humanity would be better off if we only bothered to give post HS education to those who score above 1200 on a SAT. Now I know that that would preclude most (if nor all) blacks and "Hispanics", but think how nice and easy it would be to get into classes- not to mention parking spaces and such.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
less people in them, better conditions, end to the death penalty, shorter sentences
yes, put white middle class kids in jail and watch the walls come down |
yes, les jes put dem white chillun in dat big house, dat teach dem.
Meanwhile, we'll let the gang bangin killers go free, because, hey, it's just their culture, that's all. They aren't doing anything that Africans in general in Africa aren't doing. Right?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-05-2005 22:24
Hurrah for racist DLs! 
|