sadly yes.TrollmeaT wrote:
poor little nipple it never hurt anyone, why would someone complain about a nipple... must be because of religion...
Point taken, I apologise. Even so, your statemen (or, rather, quote) is wrong. It isn't that there aren't any differences, it's that there isn't a race that is inherently superior to others.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
quit asking for my attention.
THE FIRST SENTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are physiological differences between the main racial groupings - hence the physical anthropological groups of caucasian, negroid and mongoloid. Whether those differences have any bearing on a notion of superiority is a nonsense if you're looking for a concept of "ubermensch".
It is also unwise to necessarily draw a conclusion from, for instance, a preponderance of a particular race undertaking a particular activity. Negroids are dominate the running events in the Olympics and Caucasians dominate the swimming - is this purely down to physiological factors though? Take tennis - barring a few historical exceptions, the sport is dominated by caucasians. Does this mean white people are natural tennis players or does it say more about the social dynamics involved in who takes up tennis?
It is also unwise to necessarily draw a conclusion from, for instance, a preponderance of a particular race undertaking a particular activity. Negroids are dominate the running events in the Olympics and Caucasians dominate the swimming - is this purely down to physiological factors though? Take tennis - barring a few historical exceptions, the sport is dominated by caucasians. Does this mean white people are natural tennis players or does it say more about the social dynamics involved in who takes up tennis?
Across the world there are not only large amounts of genetic variation in humans but evolution of the human genome is still going on.
"Human genes involved in metabolism, skin pigmentation, brain function and reproduction have evolved in response to recent environmental changes, according to a new study of natural selection in the human genome."
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bei … n8812.html
It does look like genetic variations across the globe are much more widespread that just relating to physical appearance. It has been found that there are differences in the way that peoples brains work in Europe and Africa. Before any crazy racist idiots start ranting about genetic superiority, there's really no way to work out exactly what effect these things have as envoronmental factors make any attempts to compare these genetic differences impossible. It is possible that the easy living conditions allow Europeans to be stupider as we have the money, time and resources to spend many years in education to make up for it.
The point is, although we'd like to assume that everyone's the same, we aren't.
"Human genes involved in metabolism, skin pigmentation, brain function and reproduction have evolved in response to recent environmental changes, according to a new study of natural selection in the human genome."
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bei … n8812.html
It does look like genetic variations across the globe are much more widespread that just relating to physical appearance. It has been found that there are differences in the way that peoples brains work in Europe and Africa. Before any crazy racist idiots start ranting about genetic superiority, there's really no way to work out exactly what effect these things have as envoronmental factors make any attempts to compare these genetic differences impossible. It is possible that the easy living conditions allow Europeans to be stupider as we have the money, time and resources to spend many years in education to make up for it.
The point is, although we'd like to assume that everyone's the same, we aren't.
Offtopic, but good one. Talking about evolving language, latest Webster has words like "himbo" (male bimbo) and a verb "to google". one thing that pisses me in this progress over here, is that our language is getting anglicized. People just take english word for a new thing, verb or adjective and add finnish ending to it.Nomer wrote:
Actually genetical has become accepted as a less common alternative for the simpler adjective genetic. It may drive some old-school english teachers and british people crazy, but it's entered the langauage and the dictionary. Some would say it represents a "dumbing-down" of the language but I would say those people are ill-natured curmudgeons and that the language is evolving or at the very least branching out to the side. Actually I'm not a big fan of "genetical" myself, but it's not quite as bad as the growing trend of making -ion nouns verbs which has led to people making new -ize verbs like "verbalize" (wtf, does say not work hear or at least an intelligent verb for talking). You Brit are guilty too though, wtf is holiday as a verb supposed to be about? We sure as hell don't say that.Viper38 wrote:
Sorry, I was poking fun a little bit ... I only speak one language so kudos to you (and I mean it).-=raska=- wrote:
lol english isnt my first language and I thought that word existed.. at least you understood what I meant
Well, that's de stijl -- everybody's doing it! And if ever a language needed a serious conformity injection, it's Finnish. Frankly, I'd rather learn to speak Basque. Or Baskelainen, whatever you guys call it...PekkaA wrote:
...
one thing that pisses me in this progress over here, is that our language is getting anglicized. People just take english word for a new thing, verb or adjective and add finnish ending to it.
Hmm... I agree our language doesn't sound so beautiful. It's Baski, but nice try anyways. +1 for that.spastic bullet wrote:
Well, that's de stijl -- everybody's doing it! And if ever a language needed a serious conformity injection, it's Finnish. Frankly, I'd rather learn to speak Basque. Or Baskelainen, whatever you guys call it...PekkaA wrote:
...
one thing that pisses me in this progress over here, is that our language is getting anglicized. People just take english word for a new thing, verb or adjective and add finnish ending to it.
The average full-blooded Jewish person has an I.Q of 130.
The average African person has an I.Q of 90.
The average African person has an I.Q of 90.
Do you have a source or something where you're quoting this from?TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
The average full-blooded Jewish person has an I.Q of 130.
The average African person has an I.Q of 90.
I need around tree fiddy.
My friend was quoting this study and here in Quebec a guy at tv talked about it. He said there was an IQ test given to 8000 american children, all born is USA. They divided the group in 4 sub-groups : black people, white people, asian and amerindian. According to him, the report said that if we give an IQ of 100 to white people, asian gets around 110-115, blacks 90 and amerindian 85. That doesn't come from his opinion, but from the study reportDonFck wrote:
Do you have a source or something where you're quoting this from?TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
The average full-blooded Jewish person has an I.Q of 130.
The average African person has an I.Q of 90.
So its one of the reason why I created this topic.. because im wondering where do those numbers come from. I always thought all races were equal and I can't understand why do those numbers have such a big difference
I think the guy named the study but I don't remember it.
In Quebec the guy was treated like a dumbass and everyone said he was racist. People agree about the fact that the study existed and the numbers may be good. But we are not sure about the integrity of the study and.. mainly we treated bad the guy only because he gave us the results...
To the one who said this thread was stupid, I want to make sure that I'm not one that actually thinks a race is superior, I just wanted you to discuss, because I know some people do.
Also, I wanted to get some arguments from people who knows the subject better than me
Last edited by -=raska=- (2006-07-14 04:37:46)
Nope, more has to do with the fact that children hit this site dude...TrollmeaT wrote:
poor little nipple it never hurt anyone, why would someone complain about a nipple... must be because of religion...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I'm no expert but there are a few things some people don't seem to realize...
1. IQ tests are culturally biased, even within a single country; AND
2. They only measure specific subsets of human intelligence i.e. those that make you good at IQ tests.
Secondly, as I and others have mentioned already in this thread, the boundaries between "racial groups" are arbitrary and socially constructed, and have no scientific basis. There are no rules governing where one "race" ends and another begins. It's a folk concept.
Thirdly, there are wide variations in individuals' abilities within any given population, however that population is defined or delineated. Non-genetic factors play a huge part in how "average" measurements will come out, based on these arbitrary considerations.
Finally, the distribution of certain genes across different "races" is rarely a clean cut thing. It's far more typical for a gene to be "more common" in one "race" than another, than it is for a gene to be 100% present in one "race" and 100% absent in another.
For these reasons, just off the top of my head, I would take this kind of shit with a dumptruck of salt, since it's almost always motivated -- somewhere down the line -- by some kind of hateful bullshit.
Just my 2c.
1. IQ tests are culturally biased, even within a single country; AND
2. They only measure specific subsets of human intelligence i.e. those that make you good at IQ tests.
Secondly, as I and others have mentioned already in this thread, the boundaries between "racial groups" are arbitrary and socially constructed, and have no scientific basis. There are no rules governing where one "race" ends and another begins. It's a folk concept.
Thirdly, there are wide variations in individuals' abilities within any given population, however that population is defined or delineated. Non-genetic factors play a huge part in how "average" measurements will come out, based on these arbitrary considerations.
Finally, the distribution of certain genes across different "races" is rarely a clean cut thing. It's far more typical for a gene to be "more common" in one "race" than another, than it is for a gene to be 100% present in one "race" and 100% absent in another.
For these reasons, just off the top of my head, I would take this kind of shit with a dumptruck of salt, since it's almost always motivated -- somewhere down the line -- by some kind of hateful bullshit.
Just my 2c.
So the term negroid is just a figment of our imagination?spastic bullet wrote:
Secondly, as I and others have mentioned already in this thread, the boundaries between "racial groups" are arbitrary and socially constructed, and have no scientific basis. There are no rules governing where one "race" ends and another begins. It's a folk concept.
I would also like to add taller for grabbing things off of trees; and the penis thing, well its a limb, if the arms and legs are long the penis will be too...Superior Mind wrote:
Black people in Africa are tall and slender because the terrain is mostly flat, hence the need for running. But I have no idea why black guys have huge dicks lol.
TrollmeaT wrote:
poor little nipple it never hurt anyone, why would someone complain about a nipple... must be because of religion...
Yes, it disgusts me...Flecco wrote:
Nope, more has to do with the fact that children hit this site dude...
You shouldnt go on the internet and expect not to be offended, people believe they have a rite not to be offended...
I hate that...
Children dont belong on the internet with out parental supervision if thier parents want them sheltered from life...
A child has a natural need to put that nipple in its mouth, then you want to pretend it doesnt exist?
The forum will have its rules, I just dont agree...
This is more of a scholastic gauger...-=raska=- wrote:
According to him, the report said that if we give an IQ of 100 to white people, asian gets around 110-115, blacks 90 and amerindian 85.
First, ALL statistical values have been corrupted in some way to fit the drafters needs...
Think about the kind of people that draft polls?
"Asians" usually come from a strict family, they must study when they get home from school and cant go out much during school days...
They are put under family pressure to preform scholastically or get whipped!
"Whites" usually come from two separate familys, the trailer trash and the strict, nowadays more lowermiddleclass...
"Blacks" usually come from a less scholastically stressful family, they only really hear "graduate high school"...
Plus, no father...
"Americans" usually come from a really messed up family, I dont know why but apparently they have been oppressed or something...
Living on a reservation has messed them up, they drink, have AIDS and are too busy being depressed they dont have time to soak up the information being gauged on the IQ test...
So.. Im a..
Fennoscandicgermaniclatingaelirussougric person..
What am I then?
Fennoscandicgermaniclatingaelirussougric person..
What am I then?
I need around tree fiddy.
Shit, negroid. I dunno. Is that a black robot?Bubbalo wrote:
So the term negroid is just a figment of our imagination?spastic bullet wrote:
Secondly, as I and others have mentioned already in this thread, the boundaries between "racial groups" are arbitrary and socially constructed, and have no scientific basis. There are no rules governing where one "race" ends and another begins. It's a folk concept.
Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-07-14 05:22:30)
No, negroid is the branch from Africa. Mongoloid originates in Asia, although IIRC many of their features were brought to Europe with the Mongolian empire.
most children have seen a nipple, if they haven't, they will and should. It is a natural part of the human body. To shame it causes further confusion and ignorance.Flecco wrote:
Nope, more has to do with the fact that children hit this site dude...TrollmeaT wrote:
poor little nipple it never hurt anyone, why would someone complain about a nipple... must be because of religion...
Of course each race will have a different disposition toward a basic skillset. Their culture and geography each spawn their own needs which will drive them to develop certain tendencies as those genetically dispositioned to thrive in such an enrironment will do so
Alright, so are the painfully obvious physical definitions just tricks of the light? Have we all been staring at this too long?spastic bullet wrote:
Shit, negroid. I dunno. Is that a black robot?Bubbalo wrote:
So the term negroid is just a figment of our imagination?spastic bullet wrote:
Secondly, as I and others have mentioned already in this thread, the boundaries between "racial groups" are arbitrary and socially constructed, and have no scientific basis. There are no rules governing where one "race" ends and another begins. It's a folk concept.
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-07-14 05:27:41)
Just as "Mongoloid" is Gengis Khan with bionic limbs?spastic bullet wrote:
Shit, negroid. I dunno. Is that a black robot?
I need around tree fiddy.
Exactly. And eyes that shoot lasers...DonFck wrote:
Just as "Mongoloid" is Gengis Khan with bionic limbs?spastic bullet wrote:
Shit, negroid. I dunno. Is that a black robot?
Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-07-14 05:58:04)
Well, I don't know that "originates" is the right word. I think the Out-of-Africa hypothesis still enjoys the most support among actual experts (of which I am not one, remember).Bubbalo wrote:
No, negroid is the branch from Africa. Mongoloid originates in Asia, although IIRC many of their features were brought to Europe with the Mongolian empire.
Yes.
There are differences between the various races.
Sports are a good example of the differences between the races.
The vast majority of the top sprinters are negro, the vast majority of the top swimmers are caucasians, the vast majority of the top badminton & table tennis players are asian.
Given that there are these physical differences that have been developed over a hundered thousand years, why could there not be mental differences as well?
There are differences between the various races.
Sports are a good example of the differences between the races.
The vast majority of the top sprinters are negro, the vast majority of the top swimmers are caucasians, the vast majority of the top badminton & table tennis players are asian.
Given that there are these physical differences that have been developed over a hundered thousand years, why could there not be mental differences as well?
Nooooo! The flashback generator... The 303 is a nice touch.puckmercury wrote:
Alright, so are the painfully obvious physical definitions just tricks of the light? Have we all been staring at this too long?spastic bullet wrote:
Shit, negroid. I dunno. Is that a black robot?Bubbalo wrote:
So the term negroid is just a figment of our imagination?
WRT "race"... I think maybe most of the time, most people could agree on who is this, that or the other "race". But...
1. The boundary and/or hybrid cases are less likely to yield wide agreement
2. There are likely to be much more of these boundary/hybrid cases in the future than in the past
3. What good are these distinctions doing anybody anyway?
It's a folk taxonomy, rather than a scientific one. Again, I'm not an expert so I can't really discuss it in great depth and detail, but it makes sense to me on an intuitive level, and it seems that scientists have struggled to agree on a consistent classification scheme since, like, the '40s, so what does that say about it?
I think its useful only insofar as we want to see or do things in terms of, or according to, "race" in some way, which I don't see much of a need for.
Oh, it's not of that much use, and uh......interbreeding (sorry if you're offended, but it seems the correct term) is more and more common, but still, there are differences.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! According to western centric schooling.HolmWrecker wrote:
Not trying to be racist, but whites are credited with inventing the vast majority of...stuff, like most everything, the list is staggering. That's not to say that other races don't do good or even spectacular things, sure they do. But there's more whites so whites invent more and do more.
Hmm, I guess the Asians and Arabs didn't invent anything substantial...
Chinese: gun powder, rockets, invented paper and printing, first to invent books, first printer, paper money, discovery of medicine, umbrellas, brandy, whiskey, magnetic compass, wheelbarrow, tea, Indian Ink, kites, first to discover iron casting, first counting device called the abacus, first to discover the rudder, first to harvest silk...
http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/o … tions.html
Zero was invented by an Indian.
Algebra in Alexandria.
Chien-Shung Wu devised an experiment by which one of the basic laws of physics called parity conservation was overturned, an achievement that revolutionized the study of particle physics.
Last edited by Ilocano (2006-07-14 08:25:20)