This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Not Comms Officer
Pages: 1 ... 464748 4950 ... 158
1411
« on: April 27, 2015, 11:47:20 PM »
>looters are human shit
>well aren't we racist today
>missing the point
>chimp out
>the Internet
Only time I've seen chimp-out be used (debatably) without any racial connotations is in MyNameIsCharlie's reaction to the shitstorm caused by Camnator's post that got him to ragequit.
1412
« on: April 27, 2015, 11:22:14 PM »
^^^^^^
Awesomely timed post.
1413
« on: April 27, 2015, 11:21:21 PM »
>looters are human shit
>well aren't we racist today
>missing the point
1414
« on: April 27, 2015, 11:06:02 PM »
2k16*
Assad has nothing on Vermin.
Yeah, well whoever you are, I just dispatched a barrel bomb to your location. Have a nice day.
Vermin will save me.
Yeah, goodbye. Next news on you will be when I read the after-action report.
1415
« on: April 27, 2015, 11:03:03 PM »
2k16*
Assad has nothing on Vermin.
Yeah, well whoever you are, I just dispatched a barrel bomb to your location. Have a nice day.
1416
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:59:51 PM »
Which is true. Yes. All other non-socially constructed aspects of race only really determine physical appearance.
1417
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:58:59 PM »
2k16*
1418
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:55:38 PM »
ALLAH AKBAR
ALLAH
SNACKBAR
#ThisThreadWontBeLocked2k15
1419
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:55:03 PM »
like, whether it's in our DNA or not, it's a social construct
you bring up the ethnicity stuff, which only muddies the water, because it's such a poorly defined term--and then you state that race is institutionalized (which is just another way of saying that it's socially constructed), because it results in racial profiling and other nonsense.
so like
where ARE you on this issue lol
From previous posts, it sounds like he's closer to the side that apparently social aspects of race is a social construct.
1420
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:52:39 PM »
Lovely array of word choice in this thread >.>
Let's not.
id like to contend that "chimpout" does not necessarily carry any ethnic or racial undertones. humans are a species of great ape, so when we go crazy and start doing shit that civilized humans shouldnt do, its natural to say that thats pretty fuckin chimpy.
i am open to debate on this topic, but felt obliged to defend my use of the word
Theoretically, it's a neutral term. But in practice, it's used almost exclusively against black people so it does carry ethnic or racial undertones.
this is exactly how this conversation always goes lol. i wont use it anymore, just felt like i should represent the
"we're taking it back" crowd. #nohate
I honestly don't give a shit when people use racial slurs or say offensive things when it's obvious that they aren't trying to be racist since I do that all the time. Unfortunately, I can't really speak for everyone.
1421
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:43:11 PM »
#thisisnotashitpost2k15 
1422
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:39:09 PM »
Lovely array of word choice in this thread >.>
Let's not.
id like to contend that "chimpout" does not necessarily carry any ethnic or racial undertones. humans are a species of great ape, so when we go crazy and start doing shit that civilized humans shouldnt do, its natural to say that thats pretty fuckin chimpy.
i am open to debate on this topic, but felt obliged to defend my use of the word
Theoretically, it's a neutral term. But in practice, it's used almost exclusively against black people so it does carry ethnic or racial undertones.
1423
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:36:33 PM »
Nice avatar.
1424
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:31:37 PM »
Lovely array of word choice in this thread >.>
Let's not.
ayy for once we're on the same boat.
1425
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:30:50 PM »
In terms of identification, you go by majority lineage; if you're from Scandinavian descent, but three generations back on your father's side you have an Asian person, you aren't Asian. Same thing here: Obama is black because given that it only traces back one generation, his ancestry is practically 50-50. On his census card, he would put "white" or "African american (black)". There isn't a mixed category.
And he's saying what I am. Correlation of violence to blacks in America is skewed in a way that negatively reflects on the individual because of their skin instead of their culture. This leads to the assumption that someone from Compton will act the same as someone from Johanessburg.
Hell yes. Also, for some reason if you're mixed-race, then you'll automatically be considered to be the one of lower "class". Like... Obama is half-white and half-black, yet he's considered black. People who are half-white and half-Asian tend to be considered white. It's almost as if it were some stupid bullshit hierarchy. While in other countries, there isn't this sort of thing where if you're half-X, half-Y then you're whichever one is worse sort of thing.
1426
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:20:41 PM »
There was this one day in band camp....
1427
« on: April 27, 2015, 10:14:15 PM »
It's obvious that Global Warming is happening! When the last two years in my area have been cooler than usual all year long
-Dat sarcasm
It's obvious that climate change isn't happening! When the last two years in my area have been hotter than usual all year long and the state I live in is having the worst recorded drought ever! And also. >implying that your area is representative of the entire world
1428
« on: April 27, 2015, 09:36:46 PM »
Bump for importance.
1429
« on: April 27, 2015, 09:36:23 PM »
Hm, I'd get the fuck out of there as soon as possible. I'd flee to a country which never gets involved in the war, and then come back to Germany once the Nazis are gone to help with reconstruction.
1430
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:58:39 PM »
Race is important for medical officials because different races have varying propensities for disorders and diseases. Race is certainly not just a social construct.
I'm not implying that it is just a social construct. I'm implying that the social "traits" to races is a social construct.
Like, "black people are more violent on average than white people"?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think that definitely has more to do with economic classes than anything else.
Exactly. As well as social attitudes.
1431
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:55:41 PM »
Race is important for medical officials because different races have varying propensities for disorders and diseases. Race is certainly not just a social construct.
I'm not implying that it is just a social construct. I'm implying that the social "traits" to races is a social construct.
Like, "black people are more violent on average than white people"?
Yeah.
1432
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:50:21 PM »
Race is important for medical officials because different races have varying propensities for disorders and diseases. Race is certainly not just a social construct.
I'm not implying that it is just a social construct. I'm implying that the social "traits" to races is a social construct.
1433
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:20:18 PM »
Nah, I'm more inclined to believe that hoodlum shenanigans are in ones DNA.
Which can clearly explain how blacks in the US are significantly more rowdy than blacks in Europe, Africa, or Latin America.
#logic
Because in Europe the Muslims are keeping them in order.
In America, we don't have the Islamic population for that.
What you said right there was a social condition. So you pretty much explained in your own post that the behavior of black people here is due to social conditions rather than racial whateverism.
It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around.
Even if that were the case, which it isn't, you haven't said anything about Latin America and Africa. Which aside from northern Africa (which is already Arab-majority), there aren't any Arabs around to "hold" the blacks back.
And again, what you said made no sense. "It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around." is so arbitrary and stupid and is just an uneducated assumption at best.
Because they were bred with the Spaniards and natives. Domestic bovine are tempered nothing like their wild European ancestors.
Not really. The conditions faced by blacks in Latin America are nearly the same faced by blacks in the US. As in being transported in slave ships. And look at how different outcomes the two groups had. And no, blacks weren't really bred with Spaniards and natives on any significant scale. A full 33% percent of Brazil's population is completely black, and yet they don't really have problems there like how the blacks here have problems.
Because the brazilians were smart. They took out the troublesome ones. They controlled the gene pool. They wouldn't have let Malcom X live.
lolwut? There's so much stupid in that statement that it's nearly off the charts.
Please tell me how a country of 150 million could possibly effectively root out "the troublesome ones" from a population of 50 million. And not to mention the logistical problems with doing such a thing. Anyways, that statement is made out of pure, refined stupid.
The evidence is there. If you chose to believe otherwise, then I respect your decision.
Oh, please show me this "evidence".
I've already show you.
Here is a supplemental flyer though.
The wild claims that Arabs keep black in check and that Brazil led a campaign to root out all "problematic" black people without posting any sources proving that those claims are true?
That's not evidence, that's crap that conspiracy sites like to post. LOL
Observe social standings and social engineering and you'll note.
"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. - Hume - of National Character, 1748
"In the hot countries the human being matures in all aspects earlier, but does not, however, reach the perfection of those in the temperate zones. Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow Indians do have a meager talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the lowest point are a part of the American peoples." - Kant - Physical Geography, 1756
What has changed since those times other than the now Americanized spelling of valor?
>citing books about black-white comparisons from the 18th Century as if they were legitimate
Here's an example of another massive crock of BS that was taken seriously by racial theorists at the time, and this was from the 19th and 20th Centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Except the philosophies of Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, and the like have stood the test of time while the Pittdown man was quite scientifically debunked.
And there's not a single chance that all of those claims that anyone other than whites aren't human were made solely to justify colonial domination and enslavement? There's no empirical evidence whatsoever suggesting that blacks, Arabs, or whatever aren't human aside from crap made by fringe sources.
Who ever said that they're not human? They are. They're simply lesser humans.
"Lesser humans"
That doesn't even mean anything. You're either human or you aren't. There's no such thing as a "lesser" human. Proposing that such a thing exists are just toxic words that leads to violence.
All beings have a default value of worth
Not all beings are equal
How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Not all beings are equal, but that says nothing about their "worth". Implying that some groups people are somehow worth less than others are yet more wild claims which promote hatred and violence against others.
No. These ideas do not promote violence. That is the work of those who would corrupt the word of scientific truth for their own pleasure or social/political/monetary gains.
Cause nobody in history has ever used the fact that some races are "lesser" as a basis for genocide, no. That would be unreasonable.
That is their own failure, just as with those who would use Islam to spread war and destruction.
And it's not like that "scientific evidence" proving that other races are "lesser" came from those people who promoted genocide, slavery, and domination...
I know what you're referencing. Let's leave the wickedly corrupt "teachings" of the Nazi party out of this.
>implying that I was actually referencing the Nazi party
1434
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:20:00 PM »
And it's not like that "scientific evidence" proving that other races are "lesser" came from those people who promoted genocide, slavery, and domination... you are being trolled the fuck out of right now, jsyk
I'm very aware of that. 
1435
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:16:41 PM »
Nah, I'm more inclined to believe that hoodlum shenanigans are in ones DNA.
Which can clearly explain how blacks in the US are significantly more rowdy than blacks in Europe, Africa, or Latin America.
#logic
Because in Europe the Muslims are keeping them in order.
In America, we don't have the Islamic population for that.
What you said right there was a social condition. So you pretty much explained in your own post that the behavior of black people here is due to social conditions rather than racial whateverism.
It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around.
Even if that were the case, which it isn't, you haven't said anything about Latin America and Africa. Which aside from northern Africa (which is already Arab-majority), there aren't any Arabs around to "hold" the blacks back.
And again, what you said made no sense. "It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around." is so arbitrary and stupid and is just an uneducated assumption at best.
Because they were bred with the Spaniards and natives. Domestic bovine are tempered nothing like their wild European ancestors.
Not really. The conditions faced by blacks in Latin America are nearly the same faced by blacks in the US. As in being transported in slave ships. And look at how different outcomes the two groups had. And no, blacks weren't really bred with Spaniards and natives on any significant scale. A full 33% percent of Brazil's population is completely black, and yet they don't really have problems there like how the blacks here have problems.
Because the brazilians were smart. They took out the troublesome ones. They controlled the gene pool. They wouldn't have let Malcom X live.
lolwut? There's so much stupid in that statement that it's nearly off the charts.
Please tell me how a country of 150 million could possibly effectively root out "the troublesome ones" from a population of 50 million. And not to mention the logistical problems with doing such a thing. Anyways, that statement is made out of pure, refined stupid.
The evidence is there. If you chose to believe otherwise, then I respect your decision.
Oh, please show me this "evidence".
I've already show you.
Here is a supplemental flyer though.
The wild claims that Arabs keep black in check and that Brazil led a campaign to root out all "problematic" black people without posting any sources proving that those claims are true?
That's not evidence, that's crap that conspiracy sites like to post. LOL
Observe social standings and social engineering and you'll note.
"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. - Hume - of National Character, 1748
"In the hot countries the human being matures in all aspects earlier, but does not, however, reach the perfection of those in the temperate zones. Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow Indians do have a meager talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the lowest point are a part of the American peoples." - Kant - Physical Geography, 1756
What has changed since those times other than the now Americanized spelling of valor?
>citing books about black-white comparisons from the 18th Century as if they were legitimate
Here's an example of another massive crock of BS that was taken seriously by racial theorists at the time, and this was from the 19th and 20th Centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Except the philosophies of Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, and the like have stood the test of time while the Pittdown man was quite scientifically debunked.
And there's not a single chance that all of those claims that anyone other than whites aren't human were made solely to justify colonial domination and enslavement? There's no empirical evidence whatsoever suggesting that blacks, Arabs, or whatever aren't human aside from crap made by fringe sources.
Who ever said that they're not human? They are. They're simply lesser humans.
"Lesser humans"
That doesn't even mean anything. You're either human or you aren't. There's no such thing as a "lesser" human. Proposing that such a thing exists are just toxic words that leads to violence.
All beings have a default value of worth
Not all beings are equal
How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Not all beings are equal, but that says nothing about their "worth". Implying that some groups people are somehow worth less than others are yet more wild claims which promote hatred and violence against others.
No. These ideas do not promote violence. That is the work of those who would corrupt the word of scientific truth for their own pleasure or social/political/monetary gains.
Cause nobody in history has ever used the fact that some races are "lesser" as a basis for genocide, no. That would be unreasonable.
That is their own failure, just as with those who would use Islam to spread war and destruction.
And it's not like that "scientific evidence" proving that other races are "lesser" came from those people who promoted genocide, slavery, and domination...
1436
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:15:03 PM »
Nah, I'm more inclined to believe that hoodlum shenanigans are in ones DNA.
Which can clearly explain how blacks in the US are significantly more rowdy than blacks in Europe, Africa, or Latin America.
#logic
Because in Europe the Muslims are keeping them in order.
In America, we don't have the Islamic population for that.
What you said right there was a social condition. So you pretty much explained in your own post that the behavior of black people here is due to social conditions rather than racial whateverism.
It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around.
Even if that were the case, which it isn't, you haven't said anything about Latin America and Africa. Which aside from northern Africa (which is already Arab-majority), there aren't any Arabs around to "hold" the blacks back.
And again, what you said made no sense. "It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around." is so arbitrary and stupid and is just an uneducated assumption at best.
Because they were bred with the Spaniards and natives. Domestic bovine are tempered nothing like their wild European ancestors.
Not really. The conditions faced by blacks in Latin America are nearly the same faced by blacks in the US. As in being transported in slave ships. And look at how different outcomes the two groups had. And no, blacks weren't really bred with Spaniards and natives on any significant scale. A full 33% percent of Brazil's population is completely black, and yet they don't really have problems there like how the blacks here have problems.
Because the brazilians were smart. They took out the troublesome ones. They controlled the gene pool. They wouldn't have let Malcom X live.
lolwut? There's so much stupid in that statement that it's nearly off the charts.
Please tell me how a country of 150 million could possibly effectively root out "the troublesome ones" from a population of 50 million. And not to mention the logistical problems with doing such a thing. Anyways, that statement is made out of pure, refined stupid.
The evidence is there. If you chose to believe otherwise, then I respect your decision.
Oh, please show me this "evidence".
I've already show you.
Here is a supplemental flyer though.
The wild claims that Arabs keep black in check and that Brazil led a campaign to root out all "problematic" black people without posting any sources proving that those claims are true?
That's not evidence, that's crap that conspiracy sites like to post. LOL
Observe social standings and social engineering and you'll note.
"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. - Hume - of National Character, 1748
"In the hot countries the human being matures in all aspects earlier, but does not, however, reach the perfection of those in the temperate zones. Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow Indians do have a meager talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the lowest point are a part of the American peoples." - Kant - Physical Geography, 1756
What has changed since those times other than the now Americanized spelling of valor?
>citing books about black-white comparisons from the 18th Century as if they were legitimate
Here's an example of another massive crock of BS that was taken seriously by racial theorists at the time, and this was from the 19th and 20th Centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Except the philosophies of Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, and the like have stood the test of time while the Pittdown man was quite scientifically debunked.
And there's not a single chance that all of those claims that anyone other than whites aren't human were made solely to justify colonial domination and enslavement? There's no empirical evidence whatsoever suggesting that blacks, Arabs, or whatever aren't human aside from crap made by fringe sources.
Who ever said that they're not human? They are. They're simply lesser humans.
"Lesser humans"
That doesn't even mean anything. You're either human or you aren't. There's no such thing as a "lesser" human. Proposing that such a thing exists are just toxic words that leads to violence.
All beings have a default value of worth
Not all beings are equal
How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Not all beings are equal, but that says nothing about their "worth". Implying that some groups people are somehow worth less than others are yet more wild claims which promote hatred and violence against others.
No. These ideas do not promote violence. That is the work of those who would corrupt the word of scientific truth for their own pleasure or social/political/monetary gains.
Cause nobody in history has ever used the fact that some races are "lesser" as a basis for genocide, no. That would be unreasonable. And it's not like that "scientific evidence" proving that other races are "lesser" came from those people who promoted genocide...
1437
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:12:23 PM »
Nah, I'm more inclined to believe that hoodlum shenanigans are in ones DNA.
Which can clearly explain how blacks in the US are significantly more rowdy than blacks in Europe, Africa, or Latin America.
#logic
Because in Europe the Muslims are keeping them in order.
In America, we don't have the Islamic population for that.
What you said right there was a social condition. So you pretty much explained in your own post that the behavior of black people here is due to social conditions rather than racial whateverism.
It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around.
Even if that were the case, which it isn't, you haven't said anything about Latin America and Africa. Which aside from northern Africa (which is already Arab-majority), there aren't any Arabs around to "hold" the blacks back.
And again, what you said made no sense. "It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around." is so arbitrary and stupid and is just an uneducated assumption at best.
Because they were bred with the Spaniards and natives. Domestic bovine are tempered nothing like their wild European ancestors.
Not really. The conditions faced by blacks in Latin America are nearly the same faced by blacks in the US. As in being transported in slave ships. And look at how different outcomes the two groups had. And no, blacks weren't really bred with Spaniards and natives on any significant scale. A full 33% percent of Brazil's population is completely black, and yet they don't really have problems there like how the blacks here have problems.
Because the brazilians were smart. They took out the troublesome ones. They controlled the gene pool. They wouldn't have let Malcom X live.
lolwut? There's so much stupid in that statement that it's nearly off the charts.
Please tell me how a country of 150 million could possibly effectively root out "the troublesome ones" from a population of 50 million. And not to mention the logistical problems with doing such a thing. Anyways, that statement is made out of pure, refined stupid.
The evidence is there. If you chose to believe otherwise, then I respect your decision.
Oh, please show me this "evidence".
I've already show you.
Here is a supplemental flyer though.
The wild claims that Arabs keep black in check and that Brazil led a campaign to root out all "problematic" black people without posting any sources proving that those claims are true?
That's not evidence, that's crap that conspiracy sites like to post. LOL
Observe social standings and social engineering and you'll note.
"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. - Hume - of National Character, 1748
"In the hot countries the human being matures in all aspects earlier, but does not, however, reach the perfection of those in the temperate zones. Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow Indians do have a meager talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the lowest point are a part of the American peoples." - Kant - Physical Geography, 1756
What has changed since those times other than the now Americanized spelling of valor?
>citing books about black-white comparisons from the 18th Century as if they were legitimate
Here's an example of another massive crock of BS that was taken seriously by racial theorists at the time, and this was from the 19th and 20th Centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Except the philosophies of Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, and the like have stood the test of time while the Pittdown man was quite scientifically debunked.
And there's not a single chance that all of those claims that anyone other than whites aren't human were made solely to justify colonial domination and enslavement? There's no empirical evidence whatsoever suggesting that blacks, Arabs, or whatever aren't human aside from crap made by fringe sources.
Who ever said that they're not human? They are. They're simply lesser humans.
"Lesser humans"
That doesn't even mean anything. You're either human or you aren't. There's no such thing as a "lesser" human. Proposing that such a thing exists are just toxic words that leads to violence.
All beings have a default value of worth
Not all beings are equal
How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Not all beings are equal, but that says nothing about their "worth". Implying that some groups people are somehow worth less than others are yet more wild claims which promote hatred and violence against others.
1438
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:07:54 PM »
Nah, I'm more inclined to believe that hoodlum shenanigans are in ones DNA.
Which can clearly explain how blacks in the US are significantly more rowdy than blacks in Europe, Africa, or Latin America.
#logic
Because in Europe the Muslims are keeping them in order.
In America, we don't have the Islamic population for that.
What you said right there was a social condition. So you pretty much explained in your own post that the behavior of black people here is due to social conditions rather than racial whateverism.
It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around.
Even if that were the case, which it isn't, you haven't said anything about Latin America and Africa. Which aside from northern Africa (which is already Arab-majority), there aren't any Arabs around to "hold" the blacks back.
And again, what you said made no sense. "It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around." is so arbitrary and stupid and is just an uneducated assumption at best.
Because they were bred with the Spaniards and natives. Domestic bovine are tempered nothing like their wild European ancestors.
Not really. The conditions faced by blacks in Latin America are nearly the same faced by blacks in the US. As in being transported in slave ships. And look at how different outcomes the two groups had. And no, blacks weren't really bred with Spaniards and natives on any significant scale. A full 33% percent of Brazil's population is completely black, and yet they don't really have problems there like how the blacks here have problems.
Because the brazilians were smart. They took out the troublesome ones. They controlled the gene pool. They wouldn't have let Malcom X live.
lolwut? There's so much stupid in that statement that it's nearly off the charts.
Please tell me how a country of 150 million could possibly effectively root out "the troublesome ones" from a population of 50 million. And not to mention the logistical problems with doing such a thing. Anyways, that statement is made out of pure, refined stupid.
The evidence is there. If you chose to believe otherwise, then I respect your decision.
Oh, please show me this "evidence".
I've already show you.
Here is a supplemental flyer though.
The wild claims that Arabs keep black in check and that Brazil led a campaign to root out all "problematic" black people without posting any sources proving that those claims are true?
That's not evidence, that's crap that conspiracy sites like to post. LOL
Observe social standings and social engineering and you'll note.
"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. - Hume - of National Character, 1748
"In the hot countries the human being matures in all aspects earlier, but does not, however, reach the perfection of those in the temperate zones. Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow Indians do have a meager talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the lowest point are a part of the American peoples." - Kant - Physical Geography, 1756
What has changed since those times other than the now Americanized spelling of valor?
>citing books about black-white comparisons from the 18th Century as if they were legitimate
Here's an example of another massive crock of BS that was taken seriously by racial theorists at the time, and this was from the 19th and 20th Centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Except the philosophies of Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, and the like have stood the test of time while the Pittdown man was quite scientifically debunked.
And there's not a single chance that all of those claims that anyone other than whites aren't human were made solely to justify colonial domination and enslavement? There's no empirical evidence whatsoever suggesting that blacks, Arabs, or whatever aren't human aside from crap made by fringe sources.
Who ever said that they're not human? They are. They're simply lesser humans.
"Lesser humans" That doesn't even mean anything. You're either human or you aren't. There's no such thing as a "lesser" human. Proposing that such a thing exists are just toxic words that leads to violence.
1439
« on: April 27, 2015, 08:04:57 PM »
Nah, I'm more inclined to believe that hoodlum shenanigans are in ones DNA.
Which can clearly explain how blacks in the US are significantly more rowdy than blacks in Europe, Africa, or Latin America.
#logic
Because in Europe the Muslims are keeping them in order.
In America, we don't have the Islamic population for that.
What you said right there was a social condition. So you pretty much explained in your own post that the behavior of black people here is due to social conditions rather than racial whateverism.
It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around.
Even if that were the case, which it isn't, you haven't said anything about Latin America and Africa. Which aside from northern Africa (which is already Arab-majority), there aren't any Arabs around to "hold" the blacks back.
And again, what you said made no sense. "It's in their genes to go wild when machete wielding nutjobs screaming Allahu Ackbar aren't around." is so arbitrary and stupid and is just an uneducated assumption at best.
Because they were bred with the Spaniards and natives. Domestic bovine are tempered nothing like their wild European ancestors.
Not really. The conditions faced by blacks in Latin America are nearly the same faced by blacks in the US. As in being transported in slave ships. And look at how different outcomes the two groups had. And no, blacks weren't really bred with Spaniards and natives on any significant scale. A full 33% percent of Brazil's population is completely black, and yet they don't really have problems there like how the blacks here have problems.
Because the brazilians were smart. They took out the troublesome ones. They controlled the gene pool. They wouldn't have let Malcom X live.
lolwut? There's so much stupid in that statement that it's nearly off the charts.
Please tell me how a country of 150 million could possibly effectively root out "the troublesome ones" from a population of 50 million. And not to mention the logistical problems with doing such a thing. Anyways, that statement is made out of pure, refined stupid.
The evidence is there. If you chose to believe otherwise, then I respect your decision.
Oh, please show me this "evidence".
I've already show you.
Here is a supplemental flyer though.
The wild claims that Arabs keep black in check and that Brazil led a campaign to root out all "problematic" black people without posting any sources proving that those claims are true?
That's not evidence, that's crap that conspiracy sites like to post. LOL
Observe social standings and social engineering and you'll note.
"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. - Hume - of National Character, 1748
"In the hot countries the human being matures in all aspects earlier, but does not, however, reach the perfection of those in the temperate zones. Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow Indians do have a meager talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the lowest point are a part of the American peoples." - Kant - Physical Geography, 1756
What has changed since those times other than the now Americanized spelling of valor?
>citing books about black-white comparisons from the 18th Century as if they were legitimate
Here's an example of another massive crock of BS that was taken seriously by racial theorists at the time, and this was from the 19th and 20th Centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Except the philosophies of Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, and the like have stood the test of time while the Pittdown man was quite scientifically debunked.
And there's not a single chance that all of those claims that anyone other than whites aren't human were made solely to justify colonial domination and enslavement? There's no empirical evidence whatsoever suggesting that blacks, Arabs, or whatever aren't human aside from crap made by fringe sources.
1440
« on: April 27, 2015, 07:58:31 PM »
New evidence is emerging to suggest there is in fact a biological basis for race though. We've only just started mapping the human genome which takes an astronomical amount of computational power to process, so to affirm the notion that race is purely a social construct when we've barely even begun to understand genetics is simply fallacious and unscientific.
It goes without saying that racism and discrimination are wrong as a matter of principle of course, but that doesn't mean we should disregard empirical evidence for the sake of political correctness.
I'm not saying that race is entirely a social construct, but my argument is that a significant portion of "race" is indeed a social construct.
Well again, arbitrarily declaring race as significantly social is irrational seeing as how we possess little to no knowledge on the human genome. The logical thing to say is that we don't know if race is either biologically or socially constructed.
There's nothing saying that it can't be some of both. In terms of physical appearance, of course it's biological.
Pages: 1 ... 464748 4950 ... 158
|
Show Posts
