What do you women think about BLACK COCK?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1

13788

Guest
NineInchCock_160IQ:
Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Feb 13 2005, 04:33 PM


I think you are misunderstanding the whole concept called "race." I think the whole idea is that a person has enough ancestors of one particular group (people can be grouped however you like) that they show traits associated with that group. I don't think you can apply cultural or ethnic paradigms to "race", but it seems that will always be the case. A person doesn't need to have 100% ancestry from a certain "race" to be associated (generalized) into that "race." "Race" is a set of cranial measurements, gene frequencies, blood frequencies, and differentiations in bone and muscular tissue. Although simplysaying "race" doesn't exist because we are all "racially mixed" may be easier than explaining the concept of "race" to the common man, it is the same as telling an ignorant person the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the universe.
[post=282639]Quoted post[/post]​

I'm not misunderstanding a thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race

Race can mean so many different things the word has no real meaning. The filters people try to apply to the way they view people in order to group them into "races" so that they can more easily stereotype and/or exclude them are usually based in ignorance. As naughty pointed out, humans do have a need to categorize things. This doesn't make the categories they come up with valid. I find this irritating, but arguing against such a compelling force in human nature doesn't make you popular.

Race is, like one of my favorite rarely-used definitions of your handle, " A fanciful mental illusion or fabrication." At least in the way that most people try to use it.
 

Blood rose

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
34
There has and always will be one "race", and that being the human race. When some of the humans ventured out of africa, they faced different enviroments. To survive in these environments they added hair and fat(As in some Europeans), Epicanthic folds(as with Eastern Asians), different pigmentations (Darker to block UV light in more sun prone areas, and certain diets change the color of the skin as with the Inuit).
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
Originally posted by Blood rose@Feb 13 2005, 02:24 PM
* I'm ignoring Kinsey studies because I don't trust that bastard, he has screwy sample size studies. I've read some things about how Kinsey purposely changed a lot of his samples and surveys to meet his "findings".
[post=282688]Quoted post[/post]​
Err . . . No. Statisticians can't find anything wrong with his sample size.
 

Blood rose

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
34
Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Feb 13 2005, 05:29 PM


There haven't been any reliable studies saying sub-Saharan Africans (sudanids - in ancient anthropological systems :D ) have a lower IQ. There have been studies proving they have, on average, larger penises in both erect and non-erect states. That means the stereotypes are true, for the most part. I don't think you should abandon the truth for fear of being called "racist." :)
[post=282691]Quoted post[/post]​


I'm not abandoning the truth. I'm simply saying these usually aren't reliable sources. There has been studies saying "whites" are larger too, and I ignored these studies too. If blacks do indeed have larger erect penis's, then the "pure" African is biggest. That means Blacks in the United States(do to having some mixing from either White or Native) and Brazil(do to mixing with both White or Native)would tend to be smaller than say a man from the congo. Yet I don't believe this to be true.
 
1

13788

Guest
NineInchCock_160IQ:
Originally posted by jonb+Feb 13 2005, 06:35 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; Feb 13 2005, 06:35 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Blood rose@Feb 13 2005, 02:24 PM
* I&#39;m ignoring Kinsey studies because I don&#39;t trust that bastard, he has screwy sample size studies. I&#39;ve read some things about how Kinsey purposely changed a lot of his samples and surveys to meet his "findings".
[post=282688]Quoted post[/post]​
Err . . . No. Statisticians can&#39;t find anything wrong with his sample size.
[post=282699]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]

He had a very small number of African-American respondents. Much, much smaller than the number of caucasian respondents.
 

Blood rose

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
34
Originally posted by jonb+Feb 13 2005, 05:35 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; Feb 13 2005, 05:35 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Blood rose@Feb 13 2005, 02:24 PM
* I&#39;m ignoring Kinsey studies because I don&#39;t trust that bastard, he has screwy sample size studies. I&#39;ve read some things about how Kinsey purposely changed a lot of his samples and surveys to meet his "findings".
[post=282688]Quoted post[/post]​
Err . . . No. Statisticians can&#39;t find anything wrong with his sample size.
[post=282699]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]

"his sample sizes". I&#39;m not just talking about this study, i&#39;m talking about other studies he did too.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
Originally posted by Blood rose@Feb 13 2005, 02:31 PM
To survive in these environments they added hair and fat(As in some Europeans), Epicanthic folds(as with Eastern Asians), different pigmentations (Darker to block UV light in more sun prone areas, and certain diets change the color of the skin as with the Inuit).
[post=282693]Quoted post[/post]​
It might be more accurate to say that everyone starts with epicanthic folds. They typically disappear in utero or soon after. It&#39;s a case of what biologists call neoteny, meaning the retention of a juvenile trait into adulthood. Also, some southern Africans have epicanthic folds too. Nelson Mandela, for example.

As for diet, it might be more accurate to say that Eskimos get a lot more vitamin D. Light skin as a genetic change probably was more favored around the Black Sea as the Neolithic Revolution reached there: This small region is warm enough and has enough solar radiation for agriculture, but doesn&#39;t have so much solar radiation that light skin can&#39;t survive. My hypothesis is that the superstition of the day eventually evolved into dark colors as a sign of evil; after all, darker people would more often get rickets, so they had to be cursed, and nowhere outside of Europe is darkness associated with evil. (In China, for example white&#39;s the color of mourning. Among the Maasai, darkness is associated with fertility, since the dark clouds bring rain.)
 
1

13788

Guest
NineInchCock_160IQ:
Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Feb 13 2005, 06:35 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Feb 13 2005, 06:35 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by NineInchCock_160IQ@Feb 13 2005, 05:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ChimeraTX
@Feb 13 2005, 04:33 PM


I think you are misunderstanding the whole concept called "race." I think the whole idea is that a person has enough ancestors of one particular group (people can be grouped however you like) that they show traits associated with that group. I don&#39;t think you can apply cultural or ethnic paradigms to "race", but it seems that will always be the case. A person doesn&#39;t need to have 100% ancestry from a certain "race" to be associated (generalized) into that "race." "Race" is a set of cranial measurements, gene frequencies, blood frequencies, and differentiations in bone and muscular tissue. Although simplysaying "race" doesn&#39;t exist because we are all "racially mixed" may be easier than explaining the concept of "race" to the common man, it is the same as telling an ignorant person the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the universe.
[post=282639]Quoted post[/post]​


I&#39;m not misunderstanding a thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race

Race can mean so many different things the word has no real meaning. The filters people try to apply to the way they view people in order to group them into "races" so that they can more easily stereotype and/or exclude them are usually based in ignorance. As naughty pointed out, humans do have a need to categorize things. This doesn&#39;t make the categories they come up with valid. I find this irritating, but arguing against such a compelling force in human nature doesn&#39;t make you popular.

Race is, like one of my favorite rarely-used definitions of your handle, " A fanciful mental illusion or fabrication." At least in the way that most people try to use it.
[post=282689]Quoted post[/post]​
I know your technique, strawman fallacy. I only meant the biological entity known as "race". Do not tell me that because people have a need to group things(people) into seperate groups there is no biological meaning behind those groupings. There is nothing wrong with stereotypes(generalizations) if they are true. Using semantics that you know will incite peoples fears about racism is a trick to discredit those that say "race" exists. The truth is that if people can be grouped into categories using any physical(physiological) basis then "race" has a biological entity that supports it. This has proven to be so, so "race" isn&#39;t a social construct.
[post=282700]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]

You&#39;re either not reading all of my posts or conveniently ignoring parts of them. I&#39;m not scaring anybody into anything. What would be my agenda for doing that? Calling my arguments scare tactics meant to "incite fears about racism" is itself a pitiably shallow insubstantive semantics-based argument that does nothing to address the validity of what I said. I have said that people can be roughly grouped by region, that obviously there are similarities among those who live closer together in the world or who are connected some way as opposed to those who are more disconnected. The way that most people use "race" is wrong. Grouping every person in the world in to 3 or 4 or 5 races is wrong. Making overbroad generalizations about "race" without saying what you actually mean is wrong. I have also pointed out before, if not in this thread than in others, that stereotypes can have basis in fact. That though people have a kneejerk reaction to that word and though it carries such a strong negative connotation stereotypes aren&#39;t always entirely negative or even entirely false. I&#39;ve never pulled out the "bad word" stereotyping and used it as a basis for any argument. Don&#39;t insinuate that I&#39;ve done so. "Race" at it&#39;s root certainly does have some biological basis, but "race" as it is commonly used by people IS a social construct.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
No, Chimera, what I meant was, Eskimos ingest a lot more vitamin D and thus don&#39;t have to synthesize it.

As for the HGDP, it produced a lot of interesting things; basically, all of what we consider "white" divided into a northern and southern part; the northern part is closer to Siberian populations than to the southern part, while the southern part is closer to bushmen than to the northern part. The southern part also includes all the classical civilizations.

Blood groups are useful, too; anyone with a couple thousand syringes can do a blood group sample, while junk DNA requires getting permission from some wankers in Melbourne. For example, type B doesn&#39;t occur at all in the Americas, Australia, or the South Pacific. OTOH, it&#39;s very common among Turkic peoples.
 

naughty

Sexy Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
11,232
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
258
Location
Workin' up a good pot of mad!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Wow,

This has been absolutely fascinating. Genetics aside, what ever one may call the variations in the human species, these variations have been used for political and socio economic reasons to divide and conquer. I think that no one here can deny that, for a variety of reasons, genetic mixing has occured quite a bit for much of our global population. So unless one has been in an isolated environment, or ones ancestors then whether one knows or even choses to acknowledge there is some mixing. As with Mendel and the pea , when one mixes within one set of offpring alone there is a degree of variation. I hope I am not misunderstanding what Nine inche is saying but we all know that due to unfortunate circumstances such as the slave trade perpertrated within africa and then spread abroad there has been a negative association with any features that resembled those of enslaved Africans. We now know that many people of the world have abundant melanin, curly hair and more rounded features without ever having set foot on the African continent. However , because of the negative associations with bondage and its perceived lesser state, it has since been a mark for derision. IF one looks at 18th and 19th century accounts, slave&#39;s hair that could have been as straight as that of any white would have been described as "Nigger wool" creating the differentiation between those in power and the powerless. The predecessor to the one drop rule of upper southern slavery and the intricate systems of categorization of features practiced in the lower southen united states, the carribean and the southern americas still cast a very large shadow on who are seen as desireable and not .Who shall be the haves and who the have nots. Regardless of any mixing with those of European descent or indigenous peoples, the African blood first and foremost determined one&#39;s destiny.


Naughty
 

Pene_Negro_Grande

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Posts
1,036
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
181
Age
34
Location
Right Next To You
This thread has gone way off topic - I mean the original question is what do women think about black cock...Being a man of color - I want to know...LOL...You guys are putting too much thought into the race thing...You guys sound so clinical...Take it from a person of color - I don&#39;t think we think about it as much as someone of Anglo decent...At least that is from my experience w/other minorities...I am fascinated by the different mixes of people in the world but don&#39;t think about their race or mix affects their dick size...
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Feb 13 2005, 07:07 PM
I think that Europeans had a powerful affect on South America, and that is why those of European descent are prefered over those without. It isn&#39;t necessarily aesthetic though. I know race has been used to justify wrongful acts by one race to another, but everyone isn&#39;t mixed atleast not in the way people usually associate the word to race. The populations of sub-Saharan Africa and central China are still extremely homogenous compared to other parts of the world.

I think that the reason Africans are associated, by others, with crime or whatever derogatory thing they see them as is because they were taken as slaves. There culture wasn&#39;t advanced enough yet to resist European colonialism, and in all cases through history those who can not defend themselves are subjugated, killed, or enslaved. One could correlate cultural advances with intelligence, but there aren&#39;t any reliable "culture proof" tests that have been accepted by the scientific community.
[post=282773]Quoted post[/post]​
It has little to do with cultural advances. Remember, the primary reason the Americas and Australia are primarily white is because of poor hygiene in medieval Europe.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
Disease. Due to the general taboo against bathing in the Middle Ages, Europe was a hot zone. The bubonic plague actually took one-third of the population.

By contrast, there were very few similar diseases in the Americas. Some have claimed syphilis was, but syphilitic remains can be found in Pompeii. Most of what there was, though, are intestinal parasites and the like, neither highly transmissible nor highly virulent.
 

Ineligible

1st Like
Joined
May 11, 2004
Posts
398
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
236
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
jonb may be thinking of the diseases that Europeans brought to the new areas they came to - diseases that they had some immunity to but the local inhabitants didn&#39;t.

I think, though, that European domination was more the result of the combination of an expansionist philosophy with technological superiority in weaponry, itself resulting from a change of thinking around the Renaissance that allowed scientific thinking and technological research to be a gentleman&#39;s interest.

In a contest between a cultured nation and a warlike oafish one, usually the latter prevails.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
True, Pete. I mean, will anyone here seriously argue that the Mongols were more cultured than the Chinese? Or that the Visigoths were more cultured than the Romans? What about the Spartans and the Athenians?
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
I was trying for blindingly obvious ones. But basically the motto is "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons."
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
You miss the difference between civilised and cultured, public health problems in developed urbanised trading areas and largely insular or nomadic areas and that the question was about black cocks.

From where I sit on the other side of the pond, you are Americans whether you are black/white - smart/dumb - big cocked/little cocked - man or woman - I am always amazed at the depth of your racial problems.
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
Originally posted by naughty+Feb 13 2005, 01:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naughty &#064; Feb 13 2005, 01:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Dear Nine inch,

I will elaborate. I meant that I have dated men of European descent, Asian descent and African American ( which in most cases is multi- racial). Perhaps I will use these continental distinctions in the future. By the way, those combinations sound positively delightful. and quite attractive. Since so many of us are a simmering stew of ethnicity if can be hard to know exactly what is in there at all times. I was only going by what I was told.
[/b]

I think you of all people are carrying around a whole stew of ethnicity in your genes&#33; :)
Okay, so "genes" don&#39;t exist, but that&#39;s another argument.

<!--QuoteBegin-Lordpendragon

From where I sit on the other side of the pond, you are Americans whether you are black/white - smart/dumb - big cocked/little cocked - man or woman - I am always amazed at the depth of your racial problems.[/quote]
I think that sums it up pretty well.

Perhaps we should stop worrying so much and celebrate the fact that we have humans in so many shapes, forms and morphs and with infinite diversity. Heck, heterozygosity is the future&#33; (Of course, this has nothing to do with my preference in &#39;exotic&#39; women, of course, you define &#39;exotic&#39;).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.