Race and America

[smallman]

To be fair Chimera is correct that interracial breeding actually goes against evolution and actually stops the human race from diversifying. That being said, with travel being as quick and easy as it is today, human evolution is pretty much over until we annihilate ourselves. In other words: fuck who you want.

 

[smallman]

Chimera, you really are rocking the sketchy redneck look.

 

[smallman]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 28 2005, 01:04 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 28 2005, 01:04 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by smallman@Jul 27 2005, 11:47 PM
To be fair Chimera is correct that interracial breeding actually goes against evolution and actually stops the human race from diversifying. That being said, with travel being as quick and easy as it is today, human evolution is pretty much over until we annihilate ourselves. In other words: fuck who you want.

[post=332370]Quoted post[/post]​

It goes against specialization, but not neccessarily evolution. The fact that neomorphism is, almost without exception, recessive to protomorphism means that interracial breeding will probably prevent further specialization.

You can always argue that we are just going to stagnate due to weak selective pressure though.
<!--QuoteBegin-smallman@Jul 27 2005, 11:48 PM
Chimera, you really are rocking the sketchy redneck look.

[post=332371]Quoted post[/post]​

LMAO&#33; :evilgrin:

[post=332377]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Eh, whatever. I haven&#39;t taken bio since sophomore year of high school.

 

[jonb]

More likely to have fraternal twins. There&#39;s a different gene for identical twins, Chimera. Oops&#33;

Now, in my own family, I&#39;m an identical twin, but there are also two pairs of fraternal twins. One pair&#39;s one male, one female. And one&#39;s female. We seem to have a twinning gene or something.

One of the problems with "race and . . ." is how much of it&#39;s cultural. I mean, in Lakota culture, we have all kinds of postpartum taboos. I&#39;m talking four or five years. With several cultural means of making sure men&#39;s hands stay out of their loin cloths. But those taboos are rarely practiced these days, and it shows when some couples have as many as a dozen children, spaced ten months apart.

 

[jonb]

I think you mean K and r. t means time. Here&#39;s the basic math beind r and K:

http://www.fhsu.edu/biology/ranpers/ert/popecol.htm

The cultural factors don&#39;t seem to reflect biological factors, though. Rushton lists institutionalized homosexuality as an r, when culturally, it&#39;s a K. Ditto for infanticide. The biological response, of course, is a lower sex drive, but it&#39;s far easier to simply adopt infanticide as a cultural practice.

 

[Njal]

OK, a couple of comments:
The CCR5-Delta 32 mutation does occur more frequently among Europeans particularly Scandinavians. But only 10% of whites have this mutation. Even among Scandinavians the rate is no higher than 14% or so. That&#39;s hardly a racial trait. Unless you are suggesting that this group only breed amongst themselves?
As for testoterone, I guess it is possible that blacks have a higher testosterone, but I doubt it simply because all the studies that purportely &#39;prove&#39; this is made by a notorious racist, R. Lynn, who also claims that "Negroids" have an average IQ of 70 (&#33 which would mean that they are in effect, mentally defective.
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/lynn-...ot;Authors;Lynn

As for the increased rate of twinning among blacks, it might be true, but again, I fail to see the significance.

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 28 2005, 01:10 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 28 2005, 01:10 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Njal@Jul 27 2005, 06:04 PM
Now, given that you want to preserve each race, exactly what unique traits is each race suppossed to possess that you think are so important that they need to be preserved? As I stated before, the value of cranial diversity isn&#39;t very obvious to me.

[post=332266]Quoted post[/post]​

The CCR5-Delta 32 mutation occurs frequently in Northern Europe, but one must have the double-recessive form to be fully-immune to HIV. In theory, the endogamy of Northern Europeans, particularly Scandinavians, will help to protect them from HIV.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...9.2001.580207.x
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/croi/2001/757.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...5&dopt=Abstract

Africans have more testosterone than any other group. This gives them an advantage in strenuous physical activities.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...6&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...0&dopt=Abstract

Africans have more egg-twinning than any other group, and are thus the most likely to parent fraternal and identical twins.

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/mille...ernal-provision
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte...stract/9/6/1077

I&#39;ll post more later.

[post=332319]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

 

[madame_zora]

GBO, usually I find your sematical arguments a little more interesting. I think you know in what context I am considering "equal", you really don&#39;t have to wear me out, do you?
Of course, we are not created "the same" in terms of characteristics and traits, but that should not determine how we are treated in society, under the law. Now, I&#39;m not going to bother to search and repost it because I&#39;m not wasting any more time on this bs, if it were not you I would not have even replied, but perhaps you will recall our last bout on this topic (Chimera and myself). I asked him how he proposed to achieve this purification of the white race and he immediately went off about separation of societies. I replied that "separate but equal" had already been proven a fiction and he ranted some crap about how it could be done better.

Now, we have a real problem right now with these kinds of morons being in positions of power, I have no intention of giving it an audience here. If you read my post, I clearly stated that I didn&#39;t want to talk to him anymore, and that if he posted his crap for the next 100 years, I would offer no more than sarcastic comment. Where in that did you see that I had suggested he not be allowed to post? I clearly stated that I vehemently support free speech, and that means everyone is free. He&#39;s free to post, I&#39;m free to respond. I&#39;m free to dismiss what I easily recognise as the budding fumes of a white supremacist, and if you do not recognise it as such, you are free to hold that opinion. Is that clear enough? I&#39;m also free to post the opinion that we not feed a troll, who I identified as such because of his obsession with only one topic, despite the premise of the board and the variety of topics discussed here. You are free to ignore my opinion in preference of your own.

Now, I&#39;m quite certain that if I began a topic about why white males under thirty have the highest insanity rate across the board amoung races and posted articles that backed up that point, there would be less than a mintue passing before I got jumped from here to eternity. If I brought it up over and over on every thread on the board that I could possibly work it in, I would be unpopular and viewed and rude, stupid and
intellectually stunted. No doubt, people would begin making fun of me and calling arrogant. What is happening to Jonathan is a natural result of his own behavior. To protect him from such would be doing him a disservice- this is how the world operates. If you agree that separate means equal, then by all means keep patting his back, but please don&#39;t go into an intellectual discourse about defining the words, please consider that REALISTIC social ramifications of those theories, or the discussion becomes completely pointless. I don&#39;t like hypothetical language analyses all that well. Reality or nothing, okay?

 

[13788]

orionsword57:

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jul 27 2005, 08:35 PM
....Chimera has not said that he thinks white&#39;s are superior so far as I have read. He has only said that he believes it is better for society to keep the races separate and to not interbreed....

[post=332363]Quoted post[/post]​

Stumbled on this one.... Inbreeding of any kind has ALWAYS created some form of retardation of the specific species over the ages. We are all the result of interbreeding going back to the dawn on mankind. Segregation and/or racial cleansing are usually due to efforts to extort property or control, or to thin out the excess population, or the misguided solution of scared little boys.

My take, anyway....

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 28 2005, 01:14 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 28 2005, 01:14 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>What are you talking about? This thread was directed at Dr. Dilznick and I, and it&#39;s not the first.

[post=332323]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

don&#39;t try acting cute with me - you&#39;re way too unappealing to pull that off. you know exactly what I&#39;m talking about, and so does everyone else.

<!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne@Jul 28 2005, 04:35 AM
Just because Chimera may have some views that aren&#39;t very popular does not mean he should not have the riight to put forth arguments for his views.[/quote]
we&#39;ve all heard, laughed at, and dismissed his arguments approximately 800 times already. it&#39;s getting old(er) and (more) annoying. there&#39;s plenty of sites populated by equally rednecked morons where he go spread political/racist manure on the intellectual vegetable garden, without throwing it at sane people who actually live in the REAL world. bottom line is, numerous people here are getting fed up with him inflicting his personal insecurities on every other discussion.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, I was not saying that you don&#39;t have the right to express your opinion that Chimera&#39;s opinions were retarded. I only said that simply making sarcastic comments wasn&#39;t really achieving anything. I did not understand just how fed up you were with him and thats your prerogative.
I did not even mention the whole thing about "seperate but equal" and I did state that I don&#39;t agree with his views that the races should not interbreed. I did say that humans are EQUAL with respect to being human and should be treated as such. Why does it have to mean, if i say that we aren&#39;t equal in all respects, that I somehow am advocating the mistreatment of people??

And also, the social ramifications of ceetain ideas does not have any bearings on the truth of such ideas, the truth can hurt, it can be harsh, but it doesnt change it from being true. If it were true and were somehow able to be proved that white people are more disposed to being insane then it would be true no matter what the consequences might be.

 

[Shelby]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 28 2005, 02:00 AM
why white males under thirty have the highest insanity rate across the board

[post=332432]Quoted post[/post]​

because women drive us crazy :crazy:

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 28 2005, 05:39 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 28 2005, 05:39 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Jul 28 2005, 11:21 AM
we&#39;ve all heard, laughed at, and dismissed his arguments approximately 800 times already.

[post=332514]Quoted post[/post]​

And you have debunked them how many?

[post=332576]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
approximately 801, presumably. although most of the time they debunk themselves.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jul 28 2005, 04:43 PM
Madam, I was not saying that you don&#39;t have the right to express your opinion that Chimera&#39;s opinions were retarded. I only said that simply making sarcastic comments wasn&#39;t really achieving anything. I did not understand just how fed up you were with him and thats your prerogative.
I did not even mention the whole thing about "seperate but equal" and I did state that I don&#39;t agree with his views that the races should not interbreed. I did say that humans are EQUAL with respect to being human and should be treated as such. Why does it have to mean, if i say that we aren&#39;t equal in all respects, that I somehow am advocating the mistreatment of people??

And also, the social ramifications of ceetain ideas does not have any bearings on the truth of such ideas, the truth can hurt, it can be harsh, but it doesnt change it from being true. If it were true and were somehow able to be proved that white people are more disposed to being insane then it would be true no matter what the consequences might be.

[post=332542]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, I thought it was obvious enough to anyone that "equal" need not mean "same". Most of our arguments are about misapplication of definitions, which sometimes just don&#39;t go anywhere to serve a purpose. Of course people are not "them same", there is more than one prototype for a human being, why are you pressing me to overstate the obvious? There again, there are probably more physical similarities between "black" man and a "white" man of similar size and build that a white man and a white woman, so where do we then draw the line of who is "equal" if we are assuming "same"? That concept doesn&#39;t work or make sense. What if two white men are different sizes, have different hair/eye color? Are they different or the same? My problem is with using something as random as skin colour (fuck anyone who believes Chimera is really discriminating against people based on cranial configuration&#33 to separate people into categories would be as stupid as separating them by foot size. It&#39;s just a trait. Yes, we all have different sets of traits, one from another, but to classify whole groups of people by isolating them based on only one is stupid beyond measure and absurd. I feel no further need to attempt to debunk his theories based on the obvious- he has no way of carrying out his ignorant ideals, so it&#39;s been a moot point from day one. I don&#39;t find pointless arguments with no practical application to be that interesting an exercise.

 

[warmsunshine]

woohoo&#33; Go MZ&#33; Hit &#39;em where it hurts (their pea-sized brains).

 

[Lex]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 28 2005, 06:21 PM

When I say White I am referring to Caucasoids, and when I say Black I am referring to Negroids.

Forensic analysts can determine race from the skull alone, which disproves that race is only skin deep. I haven&#39;t ever used pigmentation as a sole determiner of racial affiliation, to the contrary, it&#39;s mostly irrelevant.

[post=332676]Quoted post[/post]​

No, those forensics prove that the concept of race (that man invented) is one that we have assigned to people based on slight evolotuionary differences (that sometimes correspond with skin pigmentation) caused by location, climate, etc. Its like breeds of bird or dog--they are all birds or dogs-just born with slight differences baced on natural selection and genetic mutations that were environmentally advantageous. Are you saying that a Robin is better than a cardinal? (Don&#39;t asnwer that).

The danger in all this thinking is that these correlations are then used to promote racial division and subjugation.

Chimera, I REALLY hope that you aren&#39;t one of those people who tans religiously because he thinks being pale is ugly, all the while claiming that Black folk are somehow inferior, stupid, less attractive, lazy--because that would mean that you, like a LOT of people, need some serious help.


So, if we looked at Mariah Carey&#39;s skull (she of the Black father and Irish Mother) who most people identify as White--what would her skull tells us?


Here&#39;s a hint:


IT DOESN&#39;T MATTER.

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by Lex@Jul 28 2005, 05:46 PM
Chimera, I REALLY hope that you aren&#39;t one of those people who tans religiously because he thinks being pale is ugly,

[post=332708]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, he may have some "ugly" on the inside, but he very, very busy preserving the pale, white, perceived superiority of the outside as well. The neck may be deep, deep red, but the bods pure, virginal white just as his klan requires.

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 28 2005, 11:55 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 28 2005, 11:55 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Lex@Jul 28 2005, 06:46 PM
No, those forensics prove that the concept of race (that man invented) is one that we have assigned to people based on slight evolotuionary differences (that sometimes correspond with skin pigmentation) caused by location, climate, etc. Its like breeds of bird or dog--they are all birds or dogs-just born with slight differences baced on natural selection and genetic mutations that were environmentally advantageous.

[post=332708]Quoted post[/post]​

That is the definition of a race.

[post=332711]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
So why are there hundreds of breeds of dogs worldwide and so few human races? The human population is greater than the population of domesticated canines.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 28 2005, 11:55 PM

No, I find pale skin very attractive. I don&#39;t feel that pigmented people are inferior to me. They are superior to me in a lot of cases.

This I think is the point of the whole argument. It seems that many of you are assuming that when Chimera speaks of differences he automatically is making astatement of racial superiority. It seems to me that he is, just as I was doing, stating the obvious truth.

Madam, yes there are differences amongst people but why does that somehow have to raise a question of who is better or not? Chocolate ice cream is different than Vanilla ice cream; which one is better?? I say Chocolate, you may say Vanilla, another might say Strawberry, but no one has the last word. Stating that their are differences among people of different races is not harmful in and of itself. Yes it has been used in the past to harm lots of people but that does not make it false or unworthy of stating. You ask then what is the point of stating the obvious? Because there is harm done when the truth is ignored only because it has been misused, and it seems to me that when people talk about "equality" they are misusing the term and hence misunderstanding the idea. It leads to people feeling like they are entitled to other things that people have when they don&#39;t deserve it or haven&#39;t earned it. This brings us to Affirmative Action, Welfare, and (stay with me on this) Theft.
The reason I group Theft with AA and Welfare is because the mentality of all three are basically the same. The mentality of theft is basically this: You have money (or something) I don&#39;t have money (or something) I am just as entitled to having money as you are since we are both human and therefore "equal". There is no reason for you to have money and for me not to have money, I will take your money. It does not matter if you have earned your money and I haven&#39;t earned it because we are "equal" and I should have money by right. No one deserves to live in poverty even if they haven&#39;t earned money themselves. Which brings us to welfare. Welfare is the idea that people that haven&#39;t done anything to "make" money are worthy of having money simply because they "need" it. Where does the money come from? From people who ahve actually earned it. The money is "taken" from them because they have enough and given to others because they don&#39;t have enough, they dont have enough because they do not earn enough.
Now before we move on there should be a few questions. Should people who do work 40-60 hours a week be entitled to live above the poverty line? Of course they do, but the way to do it is not to just give them more money for nothing, but to pay them more for their work because ultimately everyone&#39;s job is vital to our society. How is this done? I really don&#39;t know, maybe an increase in minimum wage with an added tax cut for employers ( the money from the welfare program could go towards that tax cut) The creation of more high quality jobs with an added boost to education would also give people the opportunity to make more money. This is, after all, the land of opportunity, not the land of hand-outs. I am not an expert in economics so i do not have all the asnwers, nor do I pretend that I do, I only know that welfare doesn&#39;t work and that it does nothing to advance our society or the people in it. Why would someone get themsleves a job working 40 a week only to make slightly more than they would if they were on welfare and could stay home all day? It does nothing to motivate people, it only keeps them stagnant.
Affirmative Action is a little more tricky. I have heard your argument Madam about how the playing field has to be leveled and I agree. Jobs should not be kept from minorities simply because of their race. Jobs should be available to all. But affirmative action does not succeed in doing this, instead it works the opposite way and may at times keep whites from getting jobs in order to fill a quota. I would say that simply making discrimination based on race illegal would be sufficient and those who feel like they were denied based on race could sue would be a solution albeit an imperfect one. Instilling quotas however is an even less perfect system. Why should there be a certain percentage of minorites in certain positions regardless of their abilities? Best man for the job, regardless of race, if that happens to be more whites than any other than so be it, but the problem wouldn&#39;t be dicrimination, the problem would be not enough qualified minorities. And the cause of that would be poor education. SO fix the problem (poor education in the inner city) and you will solve the problem of "inequality" in the workplace. Fix the problem by better preparing minorites to compete fairly, not by simply giving them immunity from competition.

Ok, im done, for now. I&#39;ve shown you all my conservative side, and I feel like I need to even it out, I feel too close to sean hannity right about now so I&#39;ll leave with this:
Legalize marijuana&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

 

[Lex]

GBO--can&#39;t you see that the acknowledgement of people of (more) color being superior to people of less skin color leads to (or rather has lead to) the world wide colonization of almost every continent?

Can you understand that the scariest part of Chimera&#39;s arguments is that there are a lot of people who beleie that the survivial of the "white" race is dependent upon racial separation because when you usually mixed traditional "white" genes with ANY orther gene of "color", the "White" gene usually does not manifest as they seem to be recessive compared to all the others? Eye color is one of the easiest examples.


The scariest thing about these beliefs is that they lead to a world where "white" men MUST keep people of "color" under physical and economic control to ensure their racial exisitence.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Lex
can&#39;t you see that the acknowledgement of people of less skin color being superior to people of (more) color has lead to the world wide colonization of almost every continent?

Race may have been a justification, but it wasn&#39;t a cause. The resources Africa had were the main reason Europeans raped it. In other words, there&#39;s nothing about being "racially aware" that causes someone to oppress minorities, or conquer, or colonize or anything else.