907cannabis
Well-Known Member
Please just read this stuff and have a laugh. I'm just bored and I like to science shit up a bit. Everyone go smoke a joint and have a good weekend please. Thanks. Lol
Is there something special to you about black people forced into poverty? You could just have easily said white people forced into poverty, couldn't you?It was because it was referencing the numbers that I was referring too.
But you are correct, being born in a crime filled community raises the chances doesn't it?
Then when you force a bunch of black people into those communities you get fucked up stats correct?
Einstein said that models should be simple but not too simple.Google is your friend.
Occam's razor is about assumptions and I stand by what I said.
It made no points at all. It extracted portions from a series of other articles. There was no validation of its conclusions, just a wall of text and attributions.Wow the article hits a lot of good points, the way we are programmed to breed being one of them. Here's a quote from a part of it.
"Blacks have the most testosterone (Ellis & Nyborg, 1992), which helps to explain their higher levels of athletic ability (Entine, 2000). Testosterone acts as a “master switch.” It goes everywhere in the body and affects many bio-behavioral systems. It affects self-concept, aggression, altruism, crime, and sexuality, not just in men, but in women too."
Not only this but breeding in general is our reason for being, the way every species evolves is to benefit the chances of breeding.
The article insists blacks are more aggressive and sexually active than whites, also that they have a lower iq and are physically larger and superior to whites, they have larger penises too and this is a key point, in Africa not many years ago tribes used to steal eachothers women and children and sell them off and breed with them. Some scientists believe having a larger penis ensured that if a women had been bred recently the man with a larger penis would essentially scrape out her insides and plant his semen deeper down inside her and thus raise the chances of conceiving. This was a form of ensuring their dna be passed on through both consensual sex and rape. They say it's these sacrifices that are the opposite on a white male.
They argue on the other side white males have smaller penises and breed for longevity and not just numbers, iq and intelligence become sexual factors, lack of pigmentation causes leas testosterone and therefore less violent and aggressive behavior, more power to use the brain.
I'm not saying this is exactly right, society has proven to change the way people breed and live, today things are different for sure.
The more you think about it the more it makes sense, we are no different than animals really.
If it's true, good for the people that can fight that extra wave of testosterone and not turn it into violence or aggression.
google phillipe rushton idiotI'm sorry are you humans exempt from the laws of nature? We make choices yes but we are all animals too.
Like I said I don't believe all this shit it's just a read, @UncleBuck how is it neonazi? Can they even write shit like this? I was under the impression that the neonazi and kkk groups weren't very science driven and have low iqs lol.
We are all just animals here, who's to say that this isn't true, there were hundreds of citations and my conclusion is clear, why would neonazis write something that clearly portrays it's nobody's fault and that white men invented guns to compensate our smaller penises in the breeding game lol.
Just fucking laugh already!
I don't think you read much of it, while it uses some harsh statements, it clearly points out flawed statistics in favor of whites and other ethnicities.It made no points at all. It extracted portions from a series of other articles. There was no validation of its conclusions, just a wall of text and attributions.
Maybe if a person were well read on the subject, it might be useful. Have you read all the articles it referenced? Did he portray the results of those studies accurately?
I found that article very unconvincing and not scientific at all.
What do you mean here? I'm confused. I can say that but it doesn't fit the criteria why? If i said that it wouldn't support your argument would it? I was pointing out why the stats are flawed, if poor whites are there in the same numbers why aren't the numbers showing it? I was supporting your argument.Is there something special to you about black people forced into poverty? You could just have easily said white people forced into poverty, couldn't you?
Lolanother fucking new member pretending to be liberal but citing the neo-nazi eugenicist phillipe rushton as gospel.
transparent
rushton is not a scientist. he is a neo-nazi eugenicist.A criticized scientist who would've thought?
There's a lot more than just him weighing in on the subject as well.
Are we are all really born equally, or do we all have different chemical amounts that influence our decisions.
Even if this were true, it's not a bad thing, it would be a reason not an excuse.
go away racist sock(Yawns) So, is the consensus that we need to offer blacks free college education while simultaneously banning them from possessing guns? This could cut America's homicide rate by 50% if the DOJ is correct.
Wow(Yawns) So, is the consensus that we need to offer blacks free college education while simultaneously banning them from possessing guns? This could cut America's homicide rate by 50% if the DOJ is correct.
My sentiment exactly when I looked at the statistics. Does it "wow" you too?
even the guy citing rushton thinks you're a fucking racistMy sentiment exactly when I looked at the statistics. Does it "wow" you too?
Am I suppose to lose sleep over anyone's opinion? If so, I didn't get the memo. Is the DOJ racist for the data they've collected since 1982?even the guy citing rushton thinks you're a fucking racist
go away racist sockAm I suppose to lose sleep over anyone's opinion? If so, I didn't get the memo. Is the DOJ racist for the data they've collected since 1982?