White Supremacist Takes DNA Test

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
There it is again, your focus went right to black/white again. My argument is that the bold is simply not true. My point was the that we all universally accept the fact that there are physical differences, why is it racist to suggest the possibility of intellectual difference. For all I know, Egyptian's have the highest cognitive potential, or Pacific Islanders. I'm mocking you for not being able to admit this possibility, not make some racial statement.
Click to expand...
This is as racist as it gets. It is called social darwinism.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This is as racist as it gets. It is called social darwinism.
Click to expand...
"social darwinism"

you keep using that word.

this phrase for most people means the belief that success in society is proff of natural superiority, while failure in society is evidence of inferiority.

this has NOTHING to do with actual evolution.

social Darwinismn. The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.

So′cial (or so′cial) Dar′winism,
n. a 19th-century doctrine that the social order is a product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions.

~http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+Darwinism

why do you keep bringing it up in the context of actual evolution and actual changes in a species over time?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
are you suggesting that if we took a child from the bush country of africa and raised him a well-to-do, new england home with baby einstein, advanced preschools, SES advantages and the like, that child might score just as high on a WAIS-V intelligence quotient test as any of his american peers?

conversely, if we took that child from the well-to-do new england family at birth and raised him the bush country, he might not score as well on a WAIS-V intelligence quotient test as one of his peers back in new england?

these are mind breaking things that destroy the premise that some are subtly, corrosively trying to advance, thus why you gotta be so racist?



woah dude.

people from geographic regions that happen to be black. not black people.

he's not some kind of racist.
Click to expand...
I agree that SSE plays the largest role in success and potential reached. But why you got keep making this a black/white issue? Let's take use brown so you can focus. A Brown kid whose ancestry began in the Pacific Islands and a brown kid whose ancestry was Atlantic Islands would show evolutionary traits manifested physically that we can see and measure. Why is it racist to think one of those islands may have had to rely on more cognitive abilities developing that trait? I mock you for being too PC to even allow this possibility to exist.

Fuck your race baiting is frustrating, you can't have an intelligent debate with all that obsession you have to make everything about white/black. I'm out.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
"social darwinism"

you keep using that word.

this phrase for most people means the belief that success in society is proff of natural superiority, while failure in society is evidence of inferiority.

this has NOTHING to do with actual evolution.

social Darwinismn. The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.

So′cial (or so′cial) Dar′winism,
n. a 19th-century doctrine that the social order is a product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions.

~http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+Darwinism

why do you keep bringing it up in the context of actual evolution and actual changes in a species over time?
Click to expand...
Because some of your and his arguments belie the belief that survival of the fittest is an apt description of natural selection.

This phrase was not coined by Charles Darwin, but by right wing british economist Herbert Spencer. The Social doctrine was named for Darwin despite this.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Because some of your and his arguments belie the belief that survival of the fittest is an apt description of natural selection.

This phrase was not coined by Charles Darwin, but by right wing british economist Herbert Spencer. The Social doctrine was named for Darwin despite this.
Click to expand...
the phrase deals with sociology, and the discredited notion that the "nobility" had a right to privilege based on their natural superiority.

outside discredited sociological theories from the 19th century the phrase has NO CURRENCY, and means nothing as you are using it.

if you wish to argue that Darwinism (sans - social) is incorrect then you will be pushing a massive boulder up a very high hill.

natural selection selects based on advantage, social selection is based on SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PRESSURES not genetics or environment.

if you wish to argue that social strata are organized based on darwinism, thats retarded, if you wish to assert that this is my claim, or anyone else's in this thread, you are failing to read.

societies DO exert pressure on genetics, but this does not assume that genetics exercise any influence social structure in any way other than the obvious (example: people with serious genetic flaws like downs syndrome rarely achieve high social status in any group)
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
the phrase deals with sociology, and the discredited notion that the "nobility" had a right to privilege based on their natural superiority.

outside discredited sociological theories from the 19th century the phrase has NO CURRENCY, and means nothing as you are using it.

if you wish to argue that Darwinism (sans - social) is incorrect then you will be pushing a massive boulder up a very high hill.

natural selection selects based on advantage, social selection is based on SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PRESSURES not genetics or environment.

if you wish to argue that social strata are organized based on darwinism, thats retarded, if you wish to assert that this is my claim, or anyone else's in this thread, you are failing to read.

societies DO exert pressure on genetics, but this does not assume that genetics exercise any influence social structure in any way other than the obvious (example: people with serious genetic flaws like downs syndrome rarely achieve high social status in any group)
Click to expand...
Look at kkkynes try to dictate what terms mean and how they apply to a debate. Look at kkkynes limit the language with word salads that mean absolutely nothing. That is all you have.

You are another Social Darwinist. Your poor grasp of science and misunderstanding of nature make all of your views ignorant.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
but if you don't accept my exact and questionable terms for debate which favor my argument, how else am i supposed to win?

defining.
confining.
sinking deeper.
controlling.
defining.
and sinking deeper.
 
rotterdam

rotterdam

Member
STOP TURNING THIS SITE INTO A BI-PARISAN BATTLEGROUND. I had about 2 pages of text typed to point out the hypocrisy and irony in your statements, but they were lost. What I do want to politely ask beenthere is to kindly change your prof pic. As a socialist, I find it insulting. Please stop making shots aimed at liberals, and I won't take shots at you.
 
Nutes and Nugs

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
rotterdam said:
STOP TURNING THIS SITE INTO A BI-PARISAN BATTLEGROUND. I had about 2 pages of text typed to point out the hypocrisy and irony in your statements, but they were lost. What I do want to politely ask you is to kindly change your prof pic. As a socialist, I find it insulting. Please stop making shots aimed at liberals, and I won't take shots at you.
Click to expand...
LOLOL
So we have another comedian in the house.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
rotterdam said:
STOP TURNING THIS SITE INTO A BI-PARISAN BATTLEGROUND. I had about 2 pages of text typed to point out the hypocrisy and irony in your statement, but they were lost. What I do want to politely ask you is to kindly change your prof pic. As a socialist, I find it insulting. Please stop making shots aimed at liberals, and I won't take shots at you.
Click to expand...
THEN TROT OUT A DECENT THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE, whether he/she be socialist, tea party, independent, prohibitionist, libertarian, constitution, or otherwise.

as much as i like jill stein, she's not gonna cut it. perot was a fun joke, he had even bigger ears than obama. gary johnson isn't lighting it up, save the cannabis.*

give us a condoleeza rice (pro choice moderate) or a colin powell (people really seem to like him) or anyone but these assclowns who keep getting third party tickets.
 
rotterdam

rotterdam

Member
Sorry about that, In the time I was typing the thread went from two pages to 12 pages... that had no relation to anything you guys were talking about. Shit's a lot nastier now. And no, asshole, I'm not being a comedian. The best (when I say best I mean statistically considering many different factors) countries in the world are socialist. Don't make ridicule my political opinion without solid evidence on why it's ridiculous. Sorry uncle buck i'm not sure if you were asking me something, could you rephrase that?
 
rotterdam

rotterdam

Member
Dr Kynes said:
the "Race is a social construct" meme has been percolating since the 70's, but only a fool believes it.

"Race" is simply the word used to describe differing varieties of human based on phenotype (obvious physical differences) which perviously had been fairly accurate at describing the society and culture from which they came.

the term "Race" ONLY describes physical differences imposed by environment on humans in widely separated communities.

unless you are trying to argue that there are NO physical differences between people who's ancestors evolved to suit africa's climate, and those who changed to survive east asia, the americas or northern europe, you are simply WRONG.

sociologically and physically, these groups are VERY different, and one size does not fit all.
Click to expand...
The only difference between different "races" is adaptations to local environments. And genetically, yes, one size pretty much fits all. Also, race wasn't hardly ever recognized or mentioned in literature of any sort before the social darwinist movement came along and classified certain groups of ethnicities as inferior because of PHYSICAL characteristics. And I wasn't asking for you to take shots at legitimate scientific and societal theories, I was providing a bit of interesting knowledge for the general public that was relevant to the thread. And no, it's not an outdated philosophy, I just spend six months studying it race and ethnicity, and it is the truthScreen-shot-2012-10-09-at-7.12.27-AM.png.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
rotterdam said:
And genetically, yes, one size pretty much fits all.
Click to expand...
i can't find or google the link or the study behind it, but i once read something to the effect of "genetic variation between two random people is greater than the genetic variation between the average representative of one race versus another".

seems like wherever you go, humans are pretty much the same. right down to liking a certain proportion on their females (another study i seem hopeless to find).
 
rotterdam

rotterdam

Member
UncleBuck said:
i can't find or google the link or the study behind it, but i once read something to the effect of "genetic variation between two random people is greater than the genetic variation between the average representative of one race versus another".

seems like wherever you go, humans are pretty much the same. right down to liking a certain proportion on their females (another study i seem hopeless to find).
Click to expand...
thank you.

edit: oh and lol america is hopeless, you won't find a legit 3rd party candidate. i'd suggest up and moving to sweden.
 
sso

sso

Well-Known Member
There are only 2 types of people on the planet.

Stupid people and people that are stupid in some other way.
 
MrMcFreely

MrMcFreely

Member
They are all a bunch of cousin fucking farmers in ND. Their pot laws suck, got busted rolling through there on my way back to Cali and did 2 nights in jail for a bag of roaches.

My point is they are all fucked in the head. The cold does something to people and the fact that they are dumb enough to stay there when it gets -50 out says even more.

My dumb stoned ramblings are over now.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MrMcFreely said:
They are all a bunch of cousin fucking farmers in ND. Their pot laws suck, got busted rolling through there on my way back to Cali and did 2 nights in jail for a bag of roaches.

My point is they are all fucked in the head. The cold does something to people and the fact that they are dumb enough to stay there when it gets -50 out says even more.

My dumb stoned ramblings are over now.
Click to expand...
north dakota. it never fails.

my stoned ramblings are yet to begin.
 
BustinScales510

BustinScales510

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
There it is again, your focus went right to black/white again. My argument is that the bold is simply not true. My point was the that we all universally accept the fact that there are physical differences, why is it racist to suggest the possibility of intellectual difference. For all I know, Egyptian's have the highest cognitive potential, or Pacific Islanders. I'm mocking you for not being able to admit this possibility, not make some racial statement.
Click to expand...
I think the problem with this argument is why would one geographical region value cognitive potential more than another region..leading to this intellectual gap over time? Changes in physical appearances to suit the physical environment are understandable,but as humans our bodies need the same things to operate..food/water etc, and we use our brains (cognitive potential) to plan and work with others to obtain those things and survive. Those that excel flourish in whatever physical environment they happen to be in and pass on their genes, so how would this geographic disparity in "cognitive potential" come about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top