racism

Dee

@maxx

case in point. bogan and I are having a decent debate on the psychological issues of race,

Translation : The site racist Bogend is now the only one who can put up with Maxxs lunacy in print 

and both dee and nom are unable to intellectually join,

Well to start Maxx if you think the hate posts of a bigot like Bogend are 'intellectual ' that gives one a guide to what you deem 'intellectual' ....... Birds of a feather methinks 


so they return to nothing but insults. That is all you guys are able to do. 

Which is why we crush every one of your piss poor attempts at debate .......now run along you and Bogend no doubt have a Klan meet up to get to 

Bogan

  @maxx

 

maxx quote     I think we have crossed wires someplace. I never said everyone is equal, nor have I said all ethnic or culture groups are equal , nor of humanity as a whole.

 You are constantly claiming that races do not exist.   That means that you think that except for skin colour, all human beings are biologically identical.  That is an easily disprovable premise.     East African runners consistently win Olympic level running contests.   Black Africans are such poor swimmers that they do not even compete in Olympic level swimming competitions.   Some human diseases are race specific.   Black Africans have twice the prevalence of prostate cancer as whites.   Black Africans can not survive in very cold climates unless they take vitamin D supplements.   Asian men are very prone to SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) where perfectly healthy Asian men just drop dead at around aged 40.   Martial Arts actor Bruce Lee was the most high profile example of this race specific syndrome.   White and especially Celtic people are prone to skin cancer, black people are not.

 

Maxx quote    They are not equal in various ways, however in social regards, not genetically. Education, moral, values, ideals, and so on, are not equal at all in people, however that is just individually, not as a whole culture or group. I am sure there are some tribes that are backwards enough to fit the criteria of not being equal at all to our standards.     Now when you say class, we must make a distinction. In one regard, class is but a social concept, where some have more rights, higher standards, better education and so on. That just means that they believe that they are better than others based on that premises , yet that again is not a different species nor does it change others into a sub species based upon their belief.It is but a concept. The other class option we have is hierarchy.  . Hierarchy exists everywhere and I believed it is built into  humans as well. I think how children at a very young age, bully others is automatic just to show dominance over others, which is a form of hierarchy. A child will bully another to show that the other must be shown his place at a lower level. Regardless of which idea you have on class; or equality; Each individual has the ability to be equal to others, with proper education, income, and so on regardless of color, creed, or habitat.  Birthright is a social concept; and there are many people who are born with what some call low standards, that have risen above the issue and became just as equal as anyone. 

 What you have written appears to be a series of disjointed and unrelated statements?   I have no idea whatsoever as to what you are blathering about?    Or what point you are even trying to make.?    It is complete gobbledegook.   Once again I feel compelled to state, please select brain before engaging keyboard.

 

 Maxx quote    What you are saying, and without actual proof is blacks, have not the ability to become as intellectual as others.

 1.  African blacks in the USA have a very poor academic record.

 2.    The Book, "The Bell Curve" statistically examined 70 years of IQ testing in the USA and found that US African blacks had a 15 point lower "Bell curve" of IQ than US whites.

 3.   Behavioural Psychologists already knew about the 15 point difference between black and white IQ's, even before "The Bell curve" was even printed, and they had accepted it.    But Behavioural Psychologists think that all humans are equal, that all human behaviour is entirely learned, and that genetics plays no part in human behaviour.   So, they claimed that the low African IQ was a product of sub standard teaching and a sub standard diet.     They approached the various State and Federal governments claiming that they could eradicate the 15 point gap, if governments would fund special educational programs combined with nutritious food aimed at minority kindergarten children.    All of these programs failed miserably.    Conclusion?  The problem is obviously genetic.

 4.  The respected Educational Psychologist, Arthur Jenson,  who was hired by the Federal government to examine how successful these programs were, reported that these programs had done nothing to improve African IQ.    He suggested that the reason for this COULD BE genetics.    He was then persecuted and intimidated by the anti science zealots who agree with you that all humans are equal.

 5.   People who persecute scientists for disproving their ideology are the scum of the earth.    Why you support these crazy people by touting for their bankrupt and disproven ideology is beyond me?          

 

 Maxx quote      All human brains are basically the same and at birth they are almost a blank slate. Unless they are mentally deficient due to some abnormality, then they have just the same capacity to learn and be as intelligent as anyone else.

 That is also the claim of the Behavioural Psychologists, and it was disproven when the State and Federally funded US minority education programs, which were in effect scientific experiments, that would supposedly raise the IQ of African blacks, failed miserably.

 

Maxx quote    I am not sure who or how these so called I.Q tests were carried out, but i seriously doubt that they were fair.

 IQ tests are regarded by industry, the military, and governments as being accurate.    The US Armed forces conducts IQ tests on all recruits and it will not accept any recruit with an IQ lower than 87.    Lower than 87, and the US Armed forces do not think that they can instil proficiency with any recruit in any task that the military can give them.    Around 20% of the US population has an IQ level below 87.    IQ tests are the most reliable tests known that accurately predict future success in life, or failure in life.

 

Max quote    Given two babies at birth in the same setting, all thing being equal, both have the same chances at becoming intelligent.

 Obviously wrong.   Intelligence is usually hereditary.   Smart couples usually have smart kids.    Du-mb couples almost always have du-mb kids.

 

Max quote     I never was an actual behaviorist; and i am sure given parents that were very low on the smarts department, there may be the genetics passed on to the child, yet if would be so miniscule, that again, all things being equal at birth, it would not be enough to compromise the child's development mentally.

 Despite what the people who accept the discredited Behavioural ideology claim, class does exist and it is largely based on IQ.      People with the lowest IQ sit on the bottom strata of society.     Those in the lowest class who do possess average, to above average IQ, are upwardly mobile and they drift into the next class or two up.      People with above average IQ make up the middle class merchant, managerial, and engineering class.    People in the upper classes usually possess the highest IQ, although some in that class who have low IQ will not be downwardly mobile, because of family connections, family influence, and inherited wealth.    Such people are known as "upper class twits" and they are a favourite figure of fun in entertainment industry storylines.

 In terms of the engineering profession, an IQ of 120 is considered essential in understanding engineering concepts, and applying them abstractly to create new principles of engineering.    IQ testing reveals.....

 Proportion of Race with IQ of 120 in the USA

 White             9.18%

Asian              9.18%

Hispanic         2.28%

Black              0.98%

 

 Maxx quote     Now as to the first part of your reply, again after careful reading about carl, i see no place as to where he stated that humans developed into separate species based upon biological changes;

 Darwin was the first guy to figure out "the tree of life" and to realise that all Terran life forms evolved through genetic adaption from one species to another.    And the transitional species was a sub species.    But Carl Linnaeus was the guy who invented the Taxonomic system of life form categorisation, and he categorised the human race as homo sapiens.    He also categorised the numerous sub species of the human species with a third Latin name.  

 

Maxx quote     perhaps he meant social changes, i do not know; yet if he said we changed biologically, in which science says must happen to a species to actually become a different species, I am sure it is an easy matter for you to produce the quote for me.

 Carl Linnaeus simply provided the Taxonomic system for classifying all Terran life forms.    He did not claim that species changed from one species to another through genetic adaptation, Darwin was the genius who figured that out.    Human beings are a species.    That species through genetic adaptation to environmental conditions is now composed of numerous sub species.  Linnaeus himself named human sub species.

maxx

What I am about to write, I am certain you will not agree with; however it is based upon science. So bear with me for I will have to skip around some. I.Q. test are created and designed by western society and reflect upon what they believe it takes to be smart. Mainly it is based upon reading skills, math, science and other abstract concepts. Now aside from what is passed on genetically, all human brains are made of the same stuff. What is genetically passed on does not reflect raw intellect. Blacks evolved long ago along the equator regions and what is genetically passed on to them is till passed on to them today:  survival skills, foraging, food gathering, tool making,  and so on. Now these traits are still with in them today, Yet this does not reflect upon their brains ability to learn, assimilate, and excel western concepts and ideas. The majority of blacks in the states are born and live in poverty; thus for that reason, as well as social issues, creates problems for them to have a proper education. Also, many blacks who are poor, are a society among them selves who keeps a family , if not a gang type concept among each other. School is the white mans burden. Teachers themselves, do not go out of the way to instruct them, save for the few who actually want to learn. Now I have known many blacks who are born from parents of dubious intellect, that became teachers and professors. There are also those who became leaders in the business world, or in politics.  What is the difference? Opportunity, desire, education, environment., not lack of intelligence. Just because of the differences in what is genetically passed on to them, in no way does it reflect upon their ability to learn differently in the society that they are born into. Nor does it make them biologically a different species.  Now in regard to darwin, I took time to brush up on him and I enclose a link written by James Mallet. I believe that you; as well as others, simply did not understand him with regard to species. It is a bit lengthy, so instead of me trying to point out and explain specific points that he makes; I suggest you read it instead. Darwin said humans were all of one species. mallet in ruse.pdf (ucl.ac.uk)   @Bogan

ZeusAres42

Interesting how an anti-racist would grow up to be something that is considered infantile such as racism.

ZeusAres42

@ZeusAres42

Interesting how an anti-racist would grow up to be something that is considered infantile such as racism.

Wrong thread. Sorry guys. Time for  zzzzzz!

ZeusAres42

maxx said:

I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well. Now first, let us not get hung up on the word racist; the word itself, simply evolved since ancient time to have the meaning it has today. Its base meaning ions fear, resentment and anger over those who are strangers or different. Since the earliest days of humans, individual tribes considered  strangers as a threat, who would steal resources, take women, territory, and kill and destroy. Even those of the same tribe who were born differently; an infliction, or a completely different look of  the rest of the tribe, were considered an outcast. even in the lower animals we see this. agree or not and explain why.

Ok, re-reading this now, here your logical fallacy is:

@maxx

You're welcome.

Bogan

Maxx quote     What I am about to write, I am certain you will not agree with; however it is based upon science. So bear with me for I will have to skip around some. I.Q. test are created and designed by western society and reflect upon what they believe it takes to be smart. Mainly it is based upon reading skills, math, science and other abstract concepts.

 Okay so far.    Although it implies that it is wrong to think that people who are good at reading, writing, and 'rithmetic should not be considered smart. 

 

Maxx quote    Now aside from what is passed on genetically, all human brains are made of the same stuff.

 Ahhh!    Now you are getting into dangerous ground, Maxx.    You appear to be agreeing that two diametrically opposing psychological worldviews are both valid?     Behavioural Psychologists believe that all human minds are equal in every way, because everybody on earth is equal, races don't exist, all behaviour is entirely learned, and genetic inheritance has no role to play at all.     Your position on this debate topic seems to be that you agree with the Behaviourists that all human minds are equal, but you still advocate that behaviour can be passed on genetically?   Kinda looks contrdictory to me?    Perhaps we could start a new School of Psychology, Maxx, which combines the two opposing schools of thought at the same time, and we should call it "Maxxism?."     Or "Neo Maxxism?"

 Sorry, I get a bit carried away, sometimes.

 

 Maxx quote      What is genetically passed on does not reflect raw intellect.    

 Not entirely true.     Concepts such as the fact that human beings are tribal and territorial are not examples of raw intellect.       But intelligence is heritable, and smart people usually have smart offspring, and du-mb people almost always have du-mb offspring.      I would opine that Dee, Barnadot's, and Nomenclature's parents were not members of the local Audubon society.   

 

Maxx quote     Blacks evolved long ago along the equator regions and what is genetically passed on to them is till passed on to them today:  survival skills, foraging, food gathering, tool making,  and so on. Now these traits are still with in them today, Yet this does not reflect upon their brains ability to learn, assimilate, and excel western concepts and ideas.

 You appear to be resurrecting the old todge that survival skills among blacks equate to intelligence in whites?   If so, I would reject that.   All races have smart people, it is just that the proportions are different.     So, a smart primitive tribesman would be a lot better at survival skills as a du-mb primitive tribesman.    What is important here is the IQ of the tribesman.   Skills are learned and a smart tribesman will acquire them faster than a du-mb tribesman, and remember them longer as well.     

 

Maxx quote     The majority of blacks in the states are born and live in poverty; thus for that reason, as well as social issues, creates problems for them to have a proper education.

 This argument was used in the 60's by civil rights activists who pointed out correctly that US whites had better school that the sub standard schools set up exclusively for blacks.    This was supposedly remedied by "bussing", where black kids from black schools were "bussed" to white schools, and white kids bussed to black schools to ensure that black/white school student proportions matched the outside population proportions.    Like every one of the social programs which were supposedly going to prove that blacks and whites had equal IQ, it failed miserably.   Other than displaying that some African children were smart enough to handle a white education syllabus, it also proved that most African students could not.

 In Australia, the Northern Territory government spends four times more educating "aboriginal" children, rather than non aboriginal children, for a 90% failure rate in NAPLAN testing.    Guess what the "solution" to this is?    Wait for it.    Wait for it.   Wa-a-a-a-ite for it.   You guessed it!   MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY, to "close the gap" which never closes.     A South Australian Premier who visited an aboriginal community was shocked at it's squalor.   He famously said "For the money we have spent on this place, the streets should be paved with gold."

 What you have not figured out yet, Maxx, is there a lot of sticky fingered bureaucrats and self appointed minority leaders who have a booming business handing out taxpayer money to supposedly "oppressed" minority groups, and a lot of that money sticks to palms.      Central to their business model, is that all races are equal.    So, whatever dysfunction, criminal behaviour, and poverty which some ethnicities wallow in, it is all somehow the fault of the taxpaying white people, who are "oppressing" the poor "oppressed".    So, they gotta pay up!

 And this fanciful ideology is sold by the Elmer Gantry wannabees as the thinking of "smart" people, while those who oppose this blatant con job are labelled as "racists", "cretins", "Nazis", the "Far Right", "Bogans"  or "deplorables."      And you fell for it?    Hook, line, and sinker.

 

Maxx quote   Also, many blacks who are poor, are a society among them selves who keeps a family , if not a gang type concept among each other.

 Only 120 years ago, most white people in London were desperately poor, much poorer than US blacks today.   Yet London was the safest city on the planet where, much to the astonishment of other police forces around the world, the police had no need to carry a sidearm.    White 19th century farmer/settlers in the USA were very poor, but because their race was smart, they gradually improved their lot, generation after generation.    If blacks are as smart as whites, then they should be able to do the same thing.  Especially with all the handouts and leg ups  they are given.   They can not.    The usual rule of thumb is that white people create a thriving community, which attracts minorities seeking a handout, which attracts socialist politicians who buy the vote of the ever increasing numbers of dysfunctional minorities, by promising them welfare forever.     Crime goes through the roof.    The taxpaying whites flee, and the place goes bankrupt,   Examples, California, Washington, Chicago, Detroit, and Cincinnati        

 Maxx quote    School is the white mans burden. Teachers themselves, do not go out of the way to instruct them, save for the few who actually want to learn.

 Oh no.   They are instructing kids today to regard the white race  as the scum of the earth because they are the reason for the fact that certain ethnicities are always dysfunctional.   They are being educated to think that sexual kooks are normal, and that there are 187 genders.    The kids just can't read, write, spell, do arithmetic, or think for themselves.    I would love to find out who educated you and give them a kick up the ar-se.  

 

Maxx quote      Now I have known many blacks who are born from parents of dubious intellect, that became teachers and professors.

 Professors of what?     Black studies?    Gender studies?     Music?    How many of them were professors in STEM subjects?

 

Maxx quote     There are also those who became leaders in the business world, or in politics.  What is the difference?

 The difference is, that even though intelligent people recognise that some black people are smart, the proportions of people within a race with very low IQ, low IQ, average IQ, above average IQ, and gifted IQ differ from race to race.     Black business billionaires exist but they are few and far between.   

 

Maxx quote   Opportunity, desire, education, environment., not lack of intelligence.

 Wrong, western societies and economies work much better than collectivist societies and economies, because they are grounded in competition and merit.      The du-mbest people are at the bottom and the smartest people on the top.     I will admit that a smart black from the lowest class would find it more difficult to rise above their circumstances because of racial discrimination.    That is, that idea that black people are mostly du-mb, violent, and untrustworthy.      But people use stereotypes to think, and mostly those stereotypes are accurate.    That some black people do not fit that negative stereotype and suffer because of it is sad, but the fact remains that black people have a bad reputation, and it is a reputation which the majority of them earned.     

 

Maxx quote     Just because of the differences in what is genetically passed on to them, in no way does it reflect upon their ability to learn differently in the society that they are born into.

 This was disproven by "bussing", and the special programs set up to increase minority IQ which failed miserably .      Einstein once said that the definition of "Insanity" was "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome."

 

Maxx quote.        Nor does it make them biologically a different species. 

 Differences in appearance between human sub species is linked to differences in physical ability, differences in IQ, differences in susceptibility to disease, differences in sexual behaviour, and susceptibility to criminal behaviour.  Just like every other species and sub species on planet earth. 

 

 Maxx quote      Now in regard to darwin, I took time to brush up on him and I enclose a link written by James Mallet. I believe that you; as well as others, simply did not understand him with regard to species. It is a bit lengthy, so instead of me trying to point out and explain specific points that he makes; I suggest you read it instead. Darwin said humans were all of one species. mallet in ruse.pdf (ucl.ac.uk)   @Bogan

 Then I don't need to read it.    I already know that the human race is all of one species.   I also know that this single species is composed of dozens of sub species.     The old definition of what a 'species" is, is being challenged, because it was once thought that a species could not mate with another species to produce fertile offspring.    This is now known to be not true.    But it is still used as a shorthand because it is essentially true.    One example is that European whites have Neanderthal DNA in our genome.    So, since no other sub species of homo sapiens has Neanderthal DNA, that sort of blows away your claim that all races are genetically "made of the same stuff", doesn't it?

maxx

First, crime does not equal intelligence. Crime is a social issue. The main one is poverty and the stats are higher for them simply because there are more blacks born in poverty than whites. There are also, many high collar crimes of those with high intellect who make a career out of crime. There are also many crimes of whites who live in poverty. You are claiming the stats are higher for blacks because of their lack of intelligence, which is a fallacy. If you go to an all black community; in which I assure you, there are plenty, in where the neighborhood is nice and well kept, the parents have a nice income, all the children in the area have proper care and a nice school environment, then you will find the crime rate almost non existent. Also I am not talking in dualistic terms as you said; for there is a distinction is what you consider as such. I am also not mistaken that human brains are the same at birth, that is backed by science. The difference is what "affects" the brain at birth. Things like what traits are passed on genetically, mental illnesses and mental abnormalities and so on. Other than what affects the brain at birth, the brain is born a blank slate, ready to assimilate, absorb, and learn what is programed into it by the environment and society. Also i am not talking of bussing or segregation. That does not equal intelligence. What I said is all things being equal, and aside from abnormalities, all babies have the same chance at equal intellect. For example, Take a well-to-do white couple, intelligent, nice income and so on, who adopt two 6 month old babies, one black and one white. Given the same care, send them to the same schools and so on, each and both have the same opportunities as the other to become as intelligent as anyone. Unless you can somehow prove that the skin color of one means he can not learn like the other.  You are going by nothing but social labels. You are like the individual who sees three bell peppers, one green, the other yellow, and the other red, and assume that they are different and contain a sub species based on nothing but skin color and any imaginary imperfections you associate the color to have.  I can take a new yorker and a southern hillbilly and easily differentiate between the two based on features, habitat, values, morals, ideas, what food they eat, and speech patterns. Do you consider one to be a sub species? Or does one have to be a different color? .Also I never claimed that humans could not mate with an actual sub species such as Neanderthals' I said Homo sapiens do not have any sub species except by labels. As well, Neanderthals had 99.7 percent of genetic material as homo sapiens. Also who is to say whom is the sub species, considering science says we evolved from them @Bogan

Bogan

Maxx quote    First, crime does not equal intelligence. Crime is a social issue.

 Low IQ is very much a factor in criminal behaviour.     Prisons are mainly full of du-mb people who do the most stu-pid things and end up in jail.

 

Maxx quote     The main one is poverty and the stats are higher for them simply because there are more blacks born in poverty than whites.

 That premise is disproven.    Throughout the world, very poor societies have existed that were very law abiding.    The average Londoner in 1900 was extremely poor by today's standards, yet London was considered the safest city in the world, where much to the astonishment of other police forces, British police alone had no need to carry sidearm's.      At 0.2 per 100,000, England and Wales had during the first half of the 20th Century, the lowest homicide rates ever recorded for a technologically and industrially advanced society.  A few years ago, London's homicide rate topped New York's.    And the main reason for that was (wait for it, wait for it, wait for it) the new phenomena of imported Jamaican African black "yardie" gangs who, deprived of guns by British law, just go around stabbing each other to death with gay abandon.  

 

Maxx quote    There are also, many high collar crimes of those with high intellect who make a career out of crime.

 There are.   But you would much prefer to walk at night in those suburbs where white collar criminals reside, than in certain areas of London or the USA that are black ghettoes, where even tourist guides inform tourists not to enter.

 

Maxx quote     There are also many crimes of whites who live in poverty.

 And these areas are the places which smart people avoid.   Because they are populated with people from the bottom strata of white society, who have low intelligence.   Once again, crime and IQ are linked.  One part of Sydney you should avoid if you chance to visit is, Claymore, a public housing estate suburb which the Australian SAS use to train soldiers in dangerous situations.

 

Maxx quote      You are claiming the stats are higher for blacks because of their lack of intelligence, which is a fallacy.

 No, it is a truism.   US blacks have a measured IQ of 85, unsurprisingly, they are very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour.

 

Maxx quote      If you go to an all black community; in which I assure you, there are plenty, in where the neighborhood is nice and well kept, the parents have a nice income, all the children in the area have proper care and a nice school environment, then you will find the crime rate almost non existent.

 I have heard that at least one suburb like that exists in Los Angeles, but I can never remember it's name.    The principle here is that all races have people with very low, low, average, above average, and gifted intelligence.     The problem is that the "Bell Curve" shape of IQ is displaced by race.   Smart Africans do exist and we can even identify with them as our social equals.    The suburb I was referring to was actually created by developers for the emerging black middle class of doctors, dentists, lawyers, and engineers, and it was so noted for it's safe streets.    So much so, that even Asians started moving into it.    But too many Africans and even Hispanics have very low IQ, and they seem to have a genetic predisposition to engage in violent behaviour.    Which is why so many of them end up in jail.

 

Maxx quote     Also I am not talking in dualistic terms as you said; for there is a distinction is what you consider as such. I am also not mistaken that human brains are the same at birth, that is backed by science.

 Just saying that it is backed by science, does not mean that it is backed by science.   Especially today, where eminent scientists like Watson get sacked from their jobs if they deviate from what the government wants the public to know.    Or, where various university scientific and historical departments are at war with each other, being divided by ideology.

 

Maxx quote    The difference is what "affects" the brain at birth. Things like what traits are passed on genetically, mental illnesses and mental abnormalities and so on. Other than what affects the brain at birth, the brain is born a blank slate, ready to assimilate, absorb, and learn what is programed into it by the environment and society.

 Your logic needs a bit of work.    You can not claim that a newly born brain is a "blank state" and then say that it is already programmed.     You are once again mixing up the basic philosophies of two, diametrically opposed schools of Psychological thought.    You are sometimes a Behaviourist who proclaims that the brain is at birth is a blank, and all behaviour is learned.    And at other times a Evolutionist, who thinks that behaviour is a product of both nature (genetic programming) and nurture (social learning)      That equates with claiming that you believe in the state control of the means of production and distribution, and free market capitalism, at the same time.

 

Maxx quote    Also i am not talking of bussing or segregation. That does not equal intelligence.

 I used those examples to show that you are wrong.    The Behaviourist social theory was that all people were equal in every way.    They claimed that equal education opportunities would produce equal outcomes in social advancement.    They had their chance to prove that they were right with bussing, and with the various US federal and state government programs that the Behaviourist assured, would increase black and Hispanic IQ to white levels.    But those publicly funded social experiments failed.    Thereby disproving the Behaviourist idea that everybody is equal in every way.    Which is why Psychologists started drifting away from Behaviourism, and went first to Cognitive Psychology, and later drifted towards Evolutionary Psychology.

 

Maxx quote    What I said is all things being equal, and aside from abnormalities, all babies have the same chance at equal intellect.

 Sadly, that was proven to be wrong.     Behaviourists today, if any still exist, I think would be regarded as cranks.     Amusingly, one of my Psychology text books recounted the tale of an academic conference where the distinguished guest speakers included some of the most celebrated and respected academics in the USA, who represented both the Behaviourist and the Cognitive point of view.    The aim of the conference/debate was to try and ascertain which side was right?     Unfortunately, this resulted in an all out brawl on the stage where the distinguished guests started punching the sheet out of each other.    Even science has it's passionate supporters.

 

Maxx quote    For example, Take a well-to-do white couple, intelligent, nice income and so on, who adopt two 6 month old babies, one black and one white. Given the same care, send them to the same schools and so on, each and both have the same opportunities as the other to become as intelligent as anyone. Unless you can somehow prove that the skin color of one means he can not learn like the other.  You are going by nothing but social labels.

 If you study Psychology, even as an amateur like me, then I would urge you to examine the results of the TRE (Twins Reared Apart) studies.     Gaaaah, I have work to do, and it looks like I'm going to be obliged to sit here and type, to educate you as to why you are wrong?   But I will do it for you because I think that I have an obligation to advance science, and decrease ignorance

 The TRA studies came about because of a circumstance involving the adoption of twins.    When twins (or triplets) were adopted out, the welfare authorities would always split them up, believing that it would be easier to find homes for the babies if the twin siblings were not kept together.     Years later, heart rending stories of adopted twins, who grew up never knowing that they had a twin, began meeting by chance.    Either through circumstance, or because people who knew both twins claimed that they knew some somebody who looked just like them.

 This gave geneticists and psychologists an unexpected opportunity to study the effects of twins raised in different households.     The first conclusion that they made was that genetics and crime were linked.    To begin with, it was already know that adopted children had a statistically significant chance of becoming criminal, than for non adopted children.    This was assumed to be because adopted children usually came from the lowest class, where criminal behaviour was endemic, which suggested a genetic link.      But with these adopted twins, reared in different households, it was found that if one twin turned criminal, then the probability that other twin would turn criminal, was done at a rate which was statistically significant.

 It did not follow that if a twin turned criminal that the other would automatically turn criminal, just that the rate of criminality of the two of them turning criminal, was statistically significant.    This phenomenon was explained in this way      Adopting parents were usually from financially stable and even middle class parents, who were the sort of parents who could be relied upon to give good instruction to their adopted child as to their behaviour.    This confirmed that even with a child who was genetically prone to criminal behaviour, good parenting could be crucial in keeping that kid on the straight and narrow .     It confirmed that the Cognitive and Evolutionary psychologists were right, and the Behaviourists were wrong.

 

Maxx quote    You are like the individual who sees three bell peppers, one green, the other yellow, and the other red, and assume that they are different and contain a sub species based on nothing but skin color and any imaginary imperfections you associate the color to have.  I can take a new yorker and a southern hillbilly and easily differentiate between the two based on features, habitat, values, morals, ideas, what food they eat, and speech patterns.

 Regardless of whether they reside in Appalachia or New York, if they are from the same race, then that should easily be apparent.

 

Maxx quote     Do you consider one to be a sub species? Or does one have to be a different color? .Also I never claimed that humans could not mate with an actual sub species such as Neanderthals'

 Okay, I am debating with two people at one time, and I might have got your premises mixed up.

 

Max quote    I said Homo sapiens do not have any sub species except by labels.

 Which is like saying that brown bears do not have any sub species except by labels.

 

Maxx quote    As well, Neanderthals had 99.7 percent of genetic material as homo sapiens.

 If you say so.    Which is about the same as humans and chimpanzees.

 

Maxx quote    Also who is to say whom is the sub species, considering science says we evolved from them .

 Could you please rewrite this question so that I can understand what it means?  

Nomenclature

@Bogan

That premise is disproven.

Lol. No it isn't. It's backed by sixty years worth of research. Your premise (i.e. that minorities are somehow genetically predisposed to crime) is the one which has been disproven.

maxx

first i never said brains are preprogrammed at birth. I said They are eventually programmed by society and their environment. What is passed onto them genetically is not what is programmed into them nor what they learn. also, poverty does not equal low intelligence. You also keep referring to other mammals as so called proof as to why their are sub species in humans. You can not combine the two. Humans are humans and bears are bears. I have asked you many times to show me back up scientifically as how the differences you say exist; such as habitats, food, slight feature differences, speech and so on; changes a species into a sub one. You will not do so. It is all but social labels. My example of the new yorker and the hillbilly stands for it fits exactly of what the criteria you state as a sub species. Exactly, save for one distinction. skin color. A bit hypocritical my friend. They have taken baby chimps at birth and put them into a human environment in where the chimp became much smarter than the rest of the tribe; yet here you are saying they can not take a black baby and do the same. Humans are all homo sapiens. sub species are but social labels and does not create a separate species except by social tags. Certain people claim those with different skin color and lack oof proper education as sub based purely upon what they see what standards should be.You also refuse to show the quote that carll and darwin wrote as to their classifying humans{not bears and such} as a sub species of homo sapiens. You simply told me to look it up myself; which is a cop-out. We can run in circles forever or you can produce some actual evidence. The Bell Curve - Wikipedia  @Bogan

Bogan

Maxx quote     first i never said brains are preprogrammed at birth. I said They are eventually programmed by society and their environment.

 Not directly.  But You endorse the principle that human beings are tribal and territorial.     That sure looks to me that you agree with me that some human behaviour is instinctive.     If it is instinctive, maxx, then it is genetically programmed..

 

Maxx quote    What is passed onto them genetically is not what is programmed into them nor what they learn.

 You believe that human behaviour is entirely learned, which is a contradiction of your implied claim that some human behavior is genetically programmed.       Your thinking is very confused, Maxx.     You seem to believe in two diametrically opposed concepts.     From your above statement and from previous statements that you have made, which supported the idea that human beings are tribal and territorial, you obviously endorse the Cognitive and Evolutionary Psychology idea that human behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.     And then by some process of doublethink, you also endorse the  Behaviourist idea that human behaviour us entirely learned.    You have said that at birth, a baby's brain is a blank sheet of paper.

 These are diametrically opposed concepts maxx.   

 

Maxx quote    also, poverty does not equal low intelligence.

 Simply making a declaration without a supporting argument is hardly going to convince anybody of anything.   People in the lowest strata of society are not noted for either their academic achievements or for their responsible behaviour.    The reason why so few people who are intelligent are members of the lowest strata, is because smart people who may find themselves through circumstance in a desperate situation in the lowest class, will, if not physically handicapped, eventually overcome their circumstances and be upwardly mobile.      

 

Maxx quote     You also keep referring to other mammals as so called proof as to why their are sub species in humans. You can not combine the two. Humans are humans and bears are bears.

 Your premise suggests that the evolutionary forces that change all Terran life forms from one species to another, does not work on human beings?      I doubt if anybody other than PamelaJohnson would agree with you on that.    Are you a religious person, maxx? 

 

Maxx quote    I have asked you many times to show me back up scientifically as how the differences you say exist; such as habitats, food, slight feature differences, speech and so on; changes a species into a sub one.

 And I have asked you "many times" to engage your brain before selecting your keyboard.    Look at your statement.   It was obviously written in haste without even the slightest pretence of editing to see if it made any sense.    I can just about divine what it means, but I am sick and tired of trying to figure out what many of your badly written and garbled statements actually mean, so I will not comment upon this statement.  Lift your game, maxx.    Read what you type and make sure it makes sense before you hit the "post" button.   Breaking up your typically one paragraph only writing style into smaller paragraphs would also help you to keep your mind on track as to what you are writing.

 

Maxx quote    My example of the new yorker and the hillbilly stands for it fits exactly of what the criteria you state as a sub species. Exactly, save for one distinction. skin color.

 Your "example" was just silly.    Even though people within a race may look very different from one another, common ethnic features stand out which means that most people can instantly be recognised by their race.

 

 Maxx quote     They have taken baby chimps at birth and put them into a human environment in where the chimp became much smarter than the rest of the tribe;

 News to me.     If your example applies to an African tribe, then it could even be considered one of the worst examples of extreme racism that I have ever read.  The Ku Klux Klan would love that statement.    Could you provide a link?

 

Maxx quote    yet here you are saying they can not take a black baby and do the same. Humans are all homo sapiens. sub species are but social labels and does not create a separate species except by social tags.

 Your logic is rambling all over the paragraph, again maxx. I can just about discern what you mean, but if I respond and I get you wrong, then you will say that I am misquoting you.    So go back and edit your statement so that the meaning is clear.    I get the feeling that you are smoking a joint while you are typing this?

 

Maxx quote    Certain people claim those with different skin color and lack oof proper education as sub based purely upon what they see what standards should be.

 I am saying that human sub species have different physical appearance, as well as generally different physical abilities, and generally different behaviour, and generally temperaments.   Exactly the same as every other Terran sub species.  

 

Maxx quote    You also refuse to show the quote that carll and darwin wrote as to their classifying humans{not bears and such} as a sub species of homo sapiens. You simply told me to look it up myself; which is a cop-out. We can run in circles forever or you can produce some actual evidence.

 I am not familiar with any quotes from either Darwin or Linnaeus about anything they said throughout their lives.    But I do know about their work.    I was taught about Darwin's "Tree of life" in my science class at high school.    I only recently discovered Linnaeus's work on Taxonomy, and what I know about him is from wiki and Youtube.    But the information is there for you too, maxx, to discover how wrong you are.     The main difference between you and me, maxx, is that I do try and figure out how the world works through inquiry and research.        I then make my beliefs fit the facts.     You seem to have an opinion on how the world works that you got from somewhere, but you won't even bother to do any research to see if it is valid, or not.    

 So your mind ends up so muddled that you can apparently believe in two opposing concepts simultaneously, and your mind can not even recognise the clear contradiction?

maxx

ok  let us get down to actual facts, logic and common sense. Slight changes in physical features does not change a race; that is simply looks. We all look different and homo sapiens all adapt their looks to the environment. Habitat does not change a race to a sub species. for that is just where humans live. Language does not change a species, it is but dialect.  What humans eat and the changes in diet does not change a species. It is but food. Skin color is just pigmentation and black was the original color of  humans. Crime and or lack of education does not change a species. That is nothing but social issues. The only thing you have left, is racism itself and the reasons that you dislike certain ethnic groups, and that is only an opinion and opinions do not change a species. Homo sapiens are all one single species, biologically and genetically and the only sub species are simply in the minds of people based on their dis-likes and social standards. You can call certain others sub species all you want, however it is based upon nothing more than what you deem as social imperfections and your dislike for them; not in anyway however an actuality. Ever since blacks were enslaved, and on up to today, They were denied the opportunities that most whites take for granted; including to but not limited to, education and income. Take any child, white or any color, and you can not expect him to get ahead, have a decent life as long as society treats them as inferior, especially since this idea of superiority is based on little more than the attitude society has toward them. This will continue as long as society stands in their way. Calling them a sub species, is just a way to justify your beliefs. Yes I do contend that racism is hardwired into us and will crop up when we see others who are different; yet different and strangers  are still all one species.  There are simply  not enough difference, be it physical, features,, nor anything else to create a sub species from homo sapiens; except by what other people create with in their own minds. @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx

Maxx quote    ok  let us get down to actual facts, logic and common sense. Slight changes in physical features does not change a race; that is simply looks.

 When any organism looks identifiably different from another organism along particular lines,  it is recognised as being different, and it is classified as different.

 

Maxx quote     We all look different and homo sapiens all adapt their looks to the environment. Habitat does not change a race to a sub species. for that is just where humans live.

 Differences in very different environmental conditions in widely separated geographical locations will cause adaptive changes to all species.     Humans are no different.    These changes may not be only physical, they can be behavioural as well.       Behaviour which best suits an organism to adapt to it's environment will ensure that those organisms within that species who have that behavioural trait, will pass on it's genes to it's offspring.     That is why Grizzly bears are much more aggressive than Brown bears.

 

Maxx quote     Language does not change a species, it is but dialect. 

 Agreed.

 

Maxx quote    humans eat and the changes in diet does not change a species. It is but food.

 Genetic adaptations to diet among sub species is one indicator that sub species are biologically different from one another.    Bovine milk and cheese consumption has long been a normal food source among many races of humans.     But for thousands of years, Asians have never had access to this source of  food and so they have never developed the ability to digest lactose.    Lactose intolerance is a physical trait in Asians which makes their race, or sub species, biologically different from other races.

 

Maxx quote    What Skin color is just pigmentation and black was the original color of  humans.

 Black was the original colour of humans until genetic adaptation to cold environments caused white people to look identifiably different to black people.    Other adaptations include a smaller size where food sources were scarce, and to preserve body heat.   The need to think ahead in order to survive a harsh winter with either scarce or non existent food sources caused adaptations to the brain to allow for abstract thinking.     As civilisations became more complex and interdependent, skill specialisations in particular skills became an important survival skill.   Humans began to develop particular intelligences (called "talents") in certain skills, which created class division within sub species.  

 

Maxx quote    Crime and or lack of education does not change a species.

 Certain ethnicities who come from tropical areas never had to think far ahead to survive, as long periods of time without food caused by harsh winter conditions, and the vital need to think up ways to preserve food were never part of their environmental conditions.    So their brains did not develop higher learning capabilities.   If for 200,000 years  particular sub group of humanities only concept of mathematics is "one, two, many", then such people are not going to instantly change their ability to think in terms of arithmetic.   Black people are conspicuous by their absence in higher learning institutions teaching advanced mathematics.    This absence has caused black activists to (amusingly) label mathematics "racist".

 Crime and low IQ are linked.    In the USA, African descended people have a measured IQ of 85 compared to 103 for US whites and 106 for US Asians.     Unsurprisingly, Africans are very disproportionately represented in crime, especially violent crime.     In western societies where brains are needed to attain skill specialization and status, Africans, because of their generally low IQ, are relegated to the lowest strata of every western society that they inhabit, and these areas are known crime hotspots.      

 

 Maxx quote     That is nothing but social issues.

 When these "social issues" become unsolvable, and every expensive government funded program invented to solve these "social issues" fails, because it assumes that all people must be equal, then intelligent people begin to realise that the endemic problems of some dysfunctional races in western society is caused by the fact that races of people are not equal. 

 Could I give a perfect example of how stu-pid it is to consider all races are equal which simply creates more problems than it supposedly solves?

 We have already looked at how obviously du-mb and violent aboriginal and Sudanese people are, even though you will not recognise this reality.    So in the case of aboriginals, let's look at a specific example and see how your insistence that races are equal is panning out? 

 Aboriginal people were once completely banned from drinking alcohol because it was recognised by "racists" that aboriginal people were particularly susceptible to alcoholism.     This changed when the status of aboriginal people changed from "native people" to full citizens.     This gave aboriginal people the right to drink alcohol, and the stage was set for social catastrophe. In areas where aboriginal population proportions were high, publicans still refused to sell aboriginal people alcohol.   This resulted in government lawyers flying from Canberra into locations like the tourist mecca of Alice Springs, and threatening legal actions against publicans who refused to sell aboriginals alcohol.

 When alcohol was sold to aboriginals, almost overnight, remote aboriginal settlements became anarchic places where law and order became impossible.     Faced with the reality that alcohol was destroying entire aboriginal communities, aboriginal leaders (who were often supplying the alcohol themselves at great profit), reluctantly agreed to make aboriginal communities "dry."    This simply created more problems.    Since aboriginal people were unable to maintain their own services like electricity, sanitation, and medical and dental treatment, it was necessary to fly in white people to do the job.    But since the ban on alcohol within aboriginal communities could not be race specific, white doctors, nurses, dentists, engineers and tradesmen were all subject to the same conditions.    This made the recruitment for qualified people to fill these positions impossible to fulfil, without offering immensely high salaries to people who would go into aboriginal areas and not drink alcohol, and do the jobs that aboriginal people could not do for themselves.

 Then it created another problem.    Unable to access alcohol in remote aboriginal communities, aboriginal simply abandoned their own communities and flocked to places like Alice Springs and ringed the town with encampments.     Aboriginal drinking got so bad that aboriginal crime became so unacceptable that the population of Alice Springs went from 37.000 in 1980 to 25,000 today.    It is impossible to sell a house today in Alice Springs.     Every night in Alice Springs hordes of completely out of control drunken aboriginal people roam the streets smashing cars and shop windows, assaulting and mugging white inhabitants, and the dwindling numbers of tourists, home invading residents and assaulting them in their own homes, and driving around at top speed in stolen cars, killing other road users.

 The situation got so bad that only last week, the socialist Prime Minister of Australia flew into Alice Springs to supposedly address the issue.     He lined up with some solemn looking aboriginal activists and aboriginal leaders and made a speech then got the hell out of Dodge.     One very simple solution to the problem would be to ban the sale of alcohol by race.    But the socialists will never, ever, admit to that.     That is racism, and they just can not admit it can be a solution.    Although, the situation with Sudanese got so bad that even the socialists had to admit that the only solution to the ever growing threat of Sudanese crime was to ban Sudanese from immigrating into Australia, and to deport as many non citizen Sudanese offenders as they can.   

 

maxx quote    The only thing you have left, is racism itself and the reasons that you dislike certain ethnic groups, and that is only an opinion and opinions do not change a species.

 Human beings are tribal and territorial.    They don't like it when members of  different tribe come onto their territory.    This is especially so if that invading tribe routinely engages in hostile behaviour towards member of the host tribe, and then tries to blame the host tribe for it's poor behaviour caused by it's own genetic problems.    This is why racism in the western world is increasing, despite every well funded, or oppressive liberal program, to keep the pressure cooker lid on.

 

maxx quote     Homo sapiens are all one single species, biologically and genetically

 That is just too ridiculous for words.    If human being were identical biologically and genetically, they would all look the same, act the same, have exactly the same rates of disease, eat exactly the same foods,  have equal chances of developing skin cancer, be equally academic, they would all compete equally at every Olympic level sport, and they would not need vitamin D supplements to survive in cold climates.    What you wrote displays a complete inability to recognise self evident reality.    You arn't black yourself, are you?  That would explain a lot.

 

maxx quote  and the only sub species are simply in the minds of people based on their dis-likes and social standards.

 Sub species is a traditional scientific categorisation of Terran life forms.  Human beings are a Terran life form.

 

maxx quote    You can call certain others sub species all you want, however it is based upon nothing more than what you deem as social imperfections and your dislike for them;

 Traditional science categorises all Terran life forms into genus, species, and sub species.    Social imperfections have nothing to do with those classifications.

 

maxx quote   Ever since blacks were enslaved, and on up to today, They were denied the opportunities that most whites take for granted; including to but not limited to, education and income.

 Slavery was practiced by every race and culture, including blacks themselves.    Muslim slavery of Europeans was based upon the idea that infidels were inferiors because Allah had deemed them to be inferior.     European slavery of black Africans was based upon the fact that most Africans had very low IQ, and the fact that they were extremely violent.  Almost all of them still are.    But European people invented a new social construct that all humans are equal in every way possible.    That led us to organise our modern societies is such a way as to allow for this false reality.     Unsurprisingly, societies who base their organisation upon a false reality end up having insoluble social problems.    When people are confronted by a problem that they are unable to solve through traditional thinking, then it is time to re examine the basic assumptions that got your society into a mess in the first place.   Civilisations that can not manage that feat will collapse.    Like Alice Springs is collapsing.

 

maxx quote    Take any child, white or any color, and you can not expect him to get ahead, have a decent life as long as society treats them as inferior, especially since this idea of superiority is based on little more than the attitude society has toward them.

 Nature is no egalitarian.    People are born with different levels of physical beauty, different talents, different IQ levels, different physical features, and resistances or susceptibilities to disease, different abilities to digest food, and different temperaments.     In order to create a harmonious society, authority will try to make the laws that govern that society as equal as possible.    But it is impossible.  Because people are not equal.    And every society which attempted to create a totally egalitarian system failed, because such a society is only possible through the most savage repression, in which the guys at the top become more equal than everybody else anyway.

 

maxx quote  This will continue as long as society stands in their way. Calling them a sub species, is just a way to justify your beliefs. Yes I do contend that racism is hardwired into us and will crop up when we see others who are different; yet different and strangers  are still all one species.

 Refusing to acknowledge that races are different is destroying western civilisation like it destroyed Alice Springs and Detroit.     If you claim that all races are identical, then the only possible explanation for minority dysfunction must be because all white European nations are inherently racist.    Which just happens to be racism itself.

 Faced with choosing which racist explanation is the correct one to explain why some ethnicities are always dysfunctional in every western nation, I choose to believe the one which fits the facts.    Some ethnicities have low IQ and a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour.   That is why they fail in every western nation infested with them.     If they just accepted their genetic inheritance and tried to behave, I would feel sorry for them.  But when they exhibit extreme hostility to my people while mainly living off our charity, then I start getting very hostile towards them, and towards any white race traitor who links his self esteem to denigrating his own race, and blaming his own race for the genetic problems of other races.

maxx

mr. bogan. we agree racism is hardwired. we agree homo sapiens are a single species. I can even agree there are sub species; however only by labels and human concept. You stated a change in diet changes one biologically. I do not agree. Can you give proof? What part of the human system changes biologically? I also agree people are not equal, yet that does not change a species. Income, mental ability, values, life style, and so on does not change a species. Except by concept. I would seriously like some actual scientific proof on what you claim. No brown bears, no chimps, just humans. show me a top quality link that food and habitat, and physical features changes homo sapiens into a sub species "biologically". If you can not, then you can only agree that sub species are just a concept. @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx

 

dis·in·genu·ous   

 

ADJECTIVE

1.       not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does:

 

 

Maxx quote     mr. bogan. we agree racism is hardwired.

 We do, but this contradicts your claim that at birth, a baby's brain is "a blank sheet of paper."     This means that you believe in a contradiction.     And that is important, because believing in that contradiction underpins your confused thinking on why you insist that all races are equal.

 The idea that a baby's brain is a blank sheet of paper, and that every human on earth can be taught to be a Mozart or a Newton, is the social philosophy of the Behaviourist School of Psychology.     This was dreamed up by a socialist, BV Skinner and introduced as a Psychological "school of thought" by a bloke named John B. Watson.     In the 1920s and 1930s, Watson established the school of purist behaviorism that would become dominant over the following decades. Watson was convinced of the complete dominance of cultural influence over anything heritability might contribute, to the point of claiming

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors." (Behaviorism, 1930, p. 82)

During the 1940s to 1960s, Ashley Montagu was a notable proponent of this purist form of behaviorism which allowed no contribution from heredity whatsoever:

"Man is man because he has no instincts, because everything he is and has become he has learned, acquired, from his culture [...] with the exception of the instinctoid reactions in infants to sudden withdrawals of support and to sudden loud noises, the human being is entirely instinctless."[21]

 Okay, has the penny dropped yet?     Either you agree with Watson that all humans are equal, in which case your anti racist beliefs make sense (at least to you), or you believe in the diametrically opposite Psychological "schools of thought" like Cognitive Psychology, or the more recent Evolutionary psychology, both of which maintain that human behaviour is a product of nurture AND nature.     You can not believe in two diametrically opposed concepts at the same time.

 

Maxx quote    we agree homo sapiens are a single species.

 Naughty, naughty, maxx, you know you are being disingenuous.   We agree that there is one species of human beings, but what you just refuse to accept is that this species has no "pure" species, it consists of dozens of sub species.    And those sub species are identifiably different to each other.   And like every other Terran life form composed of sub species, human sub species are biologically different to each other.  Some run faster, some swim faster, some can live in cold climates and some can not without vitamin D supplements.   Some can digest lactose and some can not.   Some are prone to diseases specific to their sub species.    Some have skin which is UV resistant and some are very prone to skin cancer.     Some are smart and some are dumb.

 

Maxx quote     I can even agree there are sub species; however only by labels and human concept.

 Hahaha.  You believe in subspecies, and then you tack on a caveat which implies that you don't believe it at all.   Human beings categorise everything, maxx.     Science especially catagorises everything.    Saying that human catogories invented by the human mind to describe reality are invalid because of some woolly idea that the are just social constructs, means that using the same logic, you can not accept that some rocks are igneous and some sedimentary.    Or some stars are red giants and some are red dwarfs.    Or some trees are deciduous and some evergreens.

 

Maxx quote    You stated a change in diet changes one biologically. I do not agree. Can you give proof?

 You are being disingenuous, again, maxx.    I said that Asian people can not digest lactose and I even gave you the reason why they can't digest lactose.     Their bodies never evolved to digest a food which was not a part of the foods available to their sub species, because bovines did not exist in Asia.    I can not believe that you can not understand that.     I think that you, yourself, realise that there is something wrong with your own logic, but you still believe so much in human equality, even though you know I am making sense, you just do not want to believe it.  You think I must be wrong, even though you can't explain why I must be wrong.

 

maxx quote      What part of the human system changes biologically?

 You are smart enough to answer that yourself, maxx.    Asians can not digest lactose and every other race can.    So the only reason that that could be, is that an Asian person's digestive system is biologically different to that of other races.    It is just amazing to what lengths people will go to, to deny a self evident reality which they just can not face.   

 

maxx quote      I also agree people are not equal, yet that does not change a species.

 All species change into other species by genetic adaptation to different environmental conditions, maxx.    I hardly need to even tell you that.  It is year 9 basic biology.     Darwin proved it 160 years ago and here you are, like PamelaJohnson, denying that Darwin's "tree of life" exists?    It does exist, maxx.    Species go from one species to sub species to another species.    Humans are no different.

 

maxx quote    Income, mental ability, values, life style, and so on does not change a species.

 Are you serious?     I think you have brains maxx, and then you come out with a statement like that?

The human race today increasingly lives in advanced socialised societies where intelligence and the ability to sublimate the desire to be selfish and violent are important qualities to ensure success in this new modern world.     The sub species of human beings which are intelligent and who have a low proportion of people prone to extreme violence are the sub species of humanity who will have the genetic advantage over those sub species with low IQ, and a genetic predisposition to extreme violence.

 

maxx quote    Except by concept. I would seriously like some actual scientific proof on what you claim.

 

 

Of course you do.  Even though you already know that i have previously provided it.    You know that what I am saying makes sense.   But you just do not want to believe it.   So, since no amount of reasoned argument can stop you believing what you just so desperately do not want to believe.   But you know that you are losing because your only option is to become disingenuous, and pretend that what I am saying does not make sense to you.    Your only other option is to demand that  I scientifically prove every single thing I say.    But I recognise that this is just a fig leaf that you are trying to hide behind.

 400 years ago, maxx, every civilisation on planet earth was at roughly the same level of advancement.    Some were more advanced in some areas than others, while those "others" were more advanced in other ways.       But then something happened.   The north European Protestant people rocketed ahead of every other civilisation in terms of technology and social advancement.    The reason was because of the schism within the Catholic Church which created Protestantism.   The catholic church had become so dogmatic and so anti science that intelligent people just could not accept the dictates of the church which went against all reason and common sense.

 The eventual winning on the battlefields of Europe by Protestant forces freed the minds of intelligent people to seek the answers to life which had befuddled the human race for 200,000 years.    Freed of the dictates of dogma, the only measure of truth in the Protestant world became the acceptance of self evident reality.   For a scientific reality to be accepted as fact, a premise had to be provable and by experiment, repeatable.

 But today, western civilisation is in trouble.    We are in trouble because our desire to build a world free of war has led us into believing in a new type of dogma.      That is, that everything will be humpty dory if we just accept the premise that all races are absolutely equal.     And if real life proves that this premise is just potty, then what those in authority must do is to shut down scientific debate, and even shut down free speech.    This is where we are now, maxx, right back where we were 400 years ago.   And you are aiding in the destruction of your own civilisation if you take the side of the dogmatists, against those who still believe that the only real truth is objective and observable reality.    

maxx

oh for... I am not sure if you are reading my replies and understanding them. I said that aside from what is ""genetically passed on"  a babies brain is like a empty computer waiting to learn what they are taught. Or do you think we are born with certain educational knowledge. I am also not contradicting myself when i said there are sub species, for I said they are sub but by concept and labels, not biologically.  Why you keep rearranging my words is beyond me. MOST asians can not tolerate lactose because thye can not assimilate the enzymes; and this does not, i repeat, does not change the digestive system in any way what so ever. Or do you have evidence that it does? Many people are allergic to peanuts. some even die from the consumption of it. That does not make them a sub species, nor does any part of their organs change because of the allergy. There are also many people in the whole world who can not tolerate lactose, yet do you call them sub species; or just the ones whom you are racist against? This is a debate site, and again, since you made the claims, then I ask for evidence and proof that there are actual sub species based more upon than just human concepts and racist ideas. Why do you refuse to give a top quality scientific link that support your arguments? @Bogan

Bogan

Maxx quote    oh for... I am not sure if you are reading my replies and understanding them. I said that aside from what is ""genetically passed on"  a babies brain is like a empty computer waiting to learn what they are taught.

 I don't remember you saying that at all, but I can't be bothered reading back over everything you have said to confirm that, so I will have to take your word for it.     Okay, if you did say that, then your position is not a contradiction.     You agree that human behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.    But by agreeing to that, you must also concede that the unacceptable behaviour of some crime prone racial groups may have a genetic basis?

 

  Maxx quote    I am also not contradicting myself when i said there are sub species, for I said they are sub but by concept and labels, not biologically.     Why you keep rearranging my words is beyond me.

 I am not "rearranging" your words at all.   But I will not let you use word games to avoid addressing the inconvenient facts that you wish to avoid.     You claim that sub species of humans do not exist.    But all Terran organisms become species by transitioning from another species by way of being sub species.    Human beings do the same thing, unless you think that they were created from dust and Adam's rib?      You tried to deny that sub species of human beings existed by saying that you agreed that the term "sub species" existed, but you then implied that it was just a label so it did not mean anything.   

 

 

Maxx quote    MOST asians can not tolerate lactose because they can not assimilate the enzymes; and this does not, i repeat, does not change the digestive system in any way what so ever.

 It is just incredible the mental gymnastics that ideologues will go to deny a simple and easily understood concept.    If Asians can not digest lactose, then their digestive systems must be  biologically different from those races who can digest lactose, because an Asian digestive system has not been programmed by evolution to create the enzymes it would need to digest lactose.       If you stated that in front of an audience, you would get laughed of the stage.

 

Maxx quote    Many people are allergic to peanuts. some even die from the consumption of it. That does not make them a sub species, nor does any part of their organs change because of the allergy.

 It does not make them a sub species because their race can be determined by their appearance, and such a condition is uncommon within races, and is therefore not race specific.    But lactose intolerance is one of the characterises which defines the Asian races.    The reason for it is easy to understand by way of evolution, and proves that they are biologically different from the races who can digest lactose.

 

Maxx quote     There are also many people in the whole world who can not tolerate lactose, yet do you call them sub species; or just the ones whom you are racist against? This is a debate site, and again, since you made the claims, then I ask for evidence and proof that there are actual sub species based more upon than just human concepts and racist ideas.

 I find it incredible that a person such as you refuses to recognise the very simple concept that races exist, even though they are even named by science,  and that they are different from each other.    It is just amazing to what lengths of spinning you will go to deny the undeniable.

 

Maxx quote    Why do you refuse to give a top quality scientific link that support your arguments?

 Because if a scientist did that he would get "cancelled" and lose his job and career.    Just like when Nobel laureate James Watson said that genetically, Africans had a low IQ.     This whole idea of racial equality has corrupted and intimidated science.      On one side are the real scientists like Watson who support my view, and on the other there are the pseudo science revisionists and the cancel culture types who want to destroy western civilisation, and take us into a Brave New World of a supposedly race blind socialist utopia.     So all I can do is to argue with known facts before the Thought Police come after me, like they did with Watson.  Fortunately, that is easy to do.    But no amount of reason can prevent a person who thinks that wishful thinking belief trumps reason.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

you must also concede that the unacceptable behaviour of some crime prone racial groups may have a genetic basis?

It is nothing short of insanity to believe this. It flies in the face of over half a century's worth of research in criminology and the social sciences in general. Belief in a racial basis for crime requires ignoring two vitally important areas of research:-

A. The links between poverty and crime.

B. The links between racial minorities and poverty.

Yours is the typically circular, self-fulfilling reasoning of the old guard of pompous white racists. You view minorities as lesser citizens, so keep them trapped in substandard housing and financial poverty, then cry bloody murder when the crime statistics reflect that.

maxx

lactose intolerance is caused by the lower intestine inability to create the proper enzymes to assimilate the lactose. That is science. It does not change the shape or design of any organ in the body. It does not change anything biologically. From your point of view, you may as well say that those born with asthma have a biologically different set of lungs. You are thinking in racist terms instead of actual biological facts. What is passed on genetically does not change the shape of any organs, it just limits the actual function. There is no biological nor any scientific basis for humans to be divided into sub species.  None. It is all based on human concepts and labels. If you could set aside your racist ideas for a moment, then perhaps you could look at the actual facts. Can humans be split into races? | Ask A Biologist (asu.edu)  As well, humans are aggressive by nature. This aggressiveness, compiled with those born in poverty, living in low income neighborhoods, will increase the chances of crime; but crime itself is not genetic. We are all aggressive by nature but affluent blacks, whites , asians and others have no need to resort to crime; crime is a product of environment and a learned behavior. The only thing you can actually say is that our aggressiveness and competitiveness are hereditary by nature  and these traits will influence the circumstances that we find ourselves in, and that includes criminal activity of those born in lower income areas. However these same traits also influences those who excel in sports; or anything else we may do. The traits that are passed on to us, are not the reasons of what ever activity we engage in, nor do they promote it. We simply use these traits to whatever activity we learn . Take a very young black child in the ghetto. When and why does he begin crime? By observation and being taught by others; not by any pre-programmed set of ideas. @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx

Maxx quote     lactose intolerance is caused by the lower intestine inability to create the proper enzymes to assimilate the lactose. That is science. It does not change the shape or design of any organ in the body. It does not change anything biologically.

 Of course it does.      I have been on debating site for at least 20 years and I am constantly amazed at how far some people will go to deny reality.

 

 Maxx        From your point of view, you may as well say that those born with asthma have a biologically different set of lungs.

No.   From what I know about asthma, their immune system did not develop sufficiently as children. That has nothing to do with genetics.    

 

  Maxx quote   You are thinking in racist terms instead of actual biological facts.

 I am thinking in terms of objective and observable reality.     Unlike you, I don't have to spin the facts at 30,000 rpm to present a reasoned argument.

 

Maxx quote       What is passed on genetically does not change the shape of any organs, it just limits the actual function. There is no biological nor any scientific basis for humans to be divided into sub species.

 Do you apply that same logic to animals?    Because if you do, you just destroyed Darwin's concept of Evolution and the Tree of Life?    If you don't, then please explain how evolution works for animals but not for humans?

 

Maxx quote     It is all based on human concepts and labels.

 Last I heard, zebras, ants, and sparrows, were not trying to make sense of the world?    Of course humans conceptualize and label everything.    I find it mind boggling that you seem to think that humans catogorising concepts is somehow insidious?

 

Maxx quote     If you could set aside your racist ideas for a moment, then perhaps you could look at the actual facts.

 Hahaha.   I am not the one saying that those people who can digest lactose and those who can not, are biologically identical.     You are. 

 

Maxx quote     Can humans be split into races? | Ask A Biologist (asu.edu) 

 I will not read this because I do not debate links.    I am debating you.    If you think that this fool has something valid to say, then read the fool's submission, summarise it, and present as your own argument.

 

Maxx quote    As well, humans are aggressive by nature.

 So, genetics plays a part in human behaviour.    So, if one race is much more violent than another race within any community, how is it not fair to conclude that just like lactose intolerance is different among races, that a genetic predisposition to engage in violence is unequal too?

 

Maxx quote     This aggressiveness, compiled with those born in poverty, living in low income neighbourhoods, will increase the chances of crime; but crime itself is not genetic.

 The poorest areas of Australia are in regional towns where firearm ownership is high and crime is low.   If it was not for aboriginal anarchy, crime would be practically non existent.  Some poor rural towns in Australia have never had an armed robbery in their entire history.    Your premise does not hold up.     But here is one that does.      Du-mb people inhabit the lowest level of society, and they live on welfare forever because they are lazy, but smart enough to know that on welfare they can get a free ride.  Du-mb people are usually very violent people because they use violence as a first resort in solving their personnel problems.    Du-mb people engage in all sorts of criminal activity and they usually get caught and go to jail.    Prisons are full of du-mb and violent people.     Those du-mb and violent people are very disproportionately black.

 

Maxx quote    We are all aggressive by nature but affluent blacks, whites , asians and others have no need to resort to crime;

 Another way of seeing that is that smart people do not use violence as a first resort when solving their personnel problems.   Smart people think that those who use violence as a first resort are du-mb.   Smart people go to racially mixed schools where there is equal opportunity to get ahead if you want to, and they study and do well at school.    They get a job and they get paid, which allows them to purchase the consumer goods they love to buy.   Du-mb people do the opposite.

 

Maxx quote     crime is a product of environment and a learned behavior.

 Crime can be a product of the environment, like in pre welfare times.    But people do not need to steal to eat and survive any more.     Crime has become a lifestyle choice among du-mb people and today, it is subsidised by welfare.   

 

Maxx quote     The only thing you can actually say is that our aggressiveness and competitiveness are hereditary by nature  and these traits will influence the circumstances that we find ourselves in, and that includes criminal activity of those born in lower income areas.

 You forgot "intelligence".   While poverty can be a factor of location and history, it can be most commonly attributed to low intelligence. Dumb people are usually poor people. Dumb people do things. Dumb people do not care about their health or diet.   Dumb people do not care about education. Dumb people routinely get into trouble with the law. While education can make people smarter, no amount of education can make a basically dumb person into a genius. Du-mb people breed like flies and expect smart people to pay for their du-mb kids upkeep.  Smart parents usually (but not always) have smart kids. But dumb people almost always have dumb kids. Intelligence is therefore heritable. And if it is heritable, it is genetic.   IQ is measurable.  70 years of IQ testing has revealed a 15 IQ point gap between US blacks and US whites. 

The reason why western civilisation advanced further than any other is because our system is competitive.      Smart people are upwardly mobile and du-mb people stay at the bottom of society forever.    Smart people who pay the taxes to support low IQ people are declining in number because they realise that not having children increases their likelihood of having a good life.    Smart females especially, are hardly breeding at all.   Dumb people breed like flies so the number of du-mb people who need to be supported by smart people keeps increasing.    And so does crime along with the birth rate differentials.

 Here are two examples

 Man fathers 21 children by 11 different women... and he's only 29

A man aged 29 has fathered 21 children with 11 different women, it emerged yesterday.      Desmond Hatchett's brood came to light after authorities in Tennessee in the U.S. took him to court for non-payment of child support.     He has apparently set a U.S. record but said: 'It just happened.'     He's the daddy: Desmond Hatchett speaks to reporters about his prolific brood    He added that he would not have any more children. 'I'm done. I'll say I'm done,' he said.     Hatchett, who earns a minimal wage, told TV reporters he knows the names and ages of all his offspring.      Their ages range from newborn to 11 years old.    Authorities in Knoxville said they plan to take half of his monthly salary to pay for the youngsters but officials said that would work out to just over $2 a week for each.     His lawyer Keith Pope said: 'The children can't all be supported by Desmond, so the state of Tennessee has had to step in.'

Many Knoxville residents called for him to be castrated.     He even boasted of fathering four children by different women in the same year.    Hatchett's name appeared on court documents 11 times representing 15 of his 21  children.   U.S. authorities are now braced for more women coming forward to claim Hatchett is the father of their children after he appeared on local TV.    He said the women he was involved with all knew he had other children.    One mother, who has two children with Hatchett, said she should get $88 a month but rarely receives any child support.    'It's frustrating, but usually, when I ask he gives it to me,' she said.    Authorities in Knoxville ordered Hatchett to court  to explain how he intends to pay child support.    He arrived for the hearing with just over $600.

(26) Court Cam: Judge Reprimands Father of 40 CHILDREN (S3) | A&E - YouTube

 This is not going to end well.

Maxx quote     However these same traits also influences those who excel in sports; or anything else we may do. 

 The US football system is very disproportionately populated by black players.    Are you seriously suggesting that the only possible reason for black over representation in US football is that the system is intrinsically racist and rigged against white players?    Or, can we just make the sensible conclusion that black people are biologically just better at sports involving running than white people and Asians.?

 

Maxx quote    The traits that are passed on to us, are not the reasons of what ever activity we engage in, nor do they promote it. We simply use these traits to whatever activity we learn . Take a very young black child in the ghetto. When and why does he begin crime? By observation and being taught by others; not by any pre-programmed set of ideas.

 Using that logic, the fact that between 93-97% of incarcerated inmates are males, the only reasons for that could be that males are poorer than females?    And females are intrinsically sexist towards males?    And males are taught to be criminals?     Rubbish.   Males are much more prone to violence than females because males are genetically programmed to be that way.    Most incarcerated criminals are in jail for crimes of violence.     Blacks comprise 13% of the US population and 55% of jail inmates.   US black "bell curve" of IQ is 15 points lower than the white "bell curve" IQ.

  Put two and two together?  

maxx

You tube? seriously? Anyway, first i agree that blacks in "general" may have a lower I.Q. than whites, yet I explained why. Also, had you read the link on the bell curve, even the creators and proponents of it agreed it is flawed. The tests simply do not take into account, nor reflect the black population of a whole. It simply ignores the blacks who are intelligent and did not account for them. You seem to think that blacks can not learn. The links I post support my arguments and reflect what I write. Humans simply have not been around enough to evolve and genetically diversify to a point where they biologically change into a sub species.  Now also, lactose intolerance in Asians, or anyone else for that matter, is caused by the lack of  the lactase enzyme. A lack of any enzyme does not change the shape of any organ, nor does it produce any biological reason to change a species into a sub. Perhaps you should brush up on what enzymes are and do. Now, onto my point on crime being a learned behavior. Let us do a thought experiment. Take any black baby, or any baby for that matter and place him on an island totally devoid of human contact with him. Let us assume that somehow he can be fed as he grows with out any human contact. Guess what. He will not learn crime nor have any knowledge of it. There is no one nor any society to teach him as such. The traits that are genetically passed on to him will simply reflect upon the environment that he finds him self in. Society and or other people are the ones who show him what crime is, not his genetics. crime is a learned behavior.   @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx

Maxx quote     You tube? seriously?

 Yeah, seriously.   So. you did not click on my link which evidenced my point?    There are non so blind.....

 Here it is gain.  educate yourself.      (26) Court Cam: Judge Reprimands Father of 40 CHILDREN (S3) | A&E - YouTube

 

Maxx quote   Anyway, first i agree that blacks in "general" may have a lower I.Q. than whites, yet I explained why.

 Your "explanation" had holes in it big enough to drive a bus through.    Your position is still a contradiction.     You advocate for the Behaviourist line that all human behaviour is learned, and that the 15 point IQ gap between US whites and US blacks could be solved through education.     But the Behaviourists had the chance to use taxpayer funds to prove their theory and their little social experiment failed miserably.     That was probably the reason why Behaviourism was increasingly considered potty, and Cognitive psychology and Evolutionary psychology became the mainstream "schools of thought" in modern psychology.     Why you still believe in a discredited social theory which has demonstrably failed I would like to know?   Especially since you also seem to believe in the Cognitive and Evolutionary schools of thought, simultaneously.

 

Maxx quote     Also, had you read the link on the bell curve, even the creators and proponents of it agreed it is flawed. The tests simply do not take into account, nor reflect the black population of a whole. It simply ignores the blacks who are intelligent and did not account for them.

 Completely wrong, and what is worse, is that I have explained all of this to you twice before and it didn't sink in.      Concentrate harder.        "The Bell Curve" found that people with very low, low, average, above average, and gifted IQ exist in all races.    Plotting IQ as the vertical axis and population as a baseline, the resultant shape looks like a bell.    This bell is displaced for race.     IQ can be measured and it is accurate.    It is the only reliable predictor of success.  IQ can also predict which IQ level will be most in jail, have an illegitimate baby, be on long term welfare, be a high school dropout, or have a poor job retention record.    

 

Maxx quote     You seem to think that blacks can not learn.

 I have never said that at all.    I object to you putting words in my mouth.      The problem with African blacks is that they have a much higher proportion of people with very low to low IQ than for other races.    This is the reason for black dysfunction.     It is not "discrimination" or "unconscious racism" by whites.     Most black African people can not be successful in a white European society because unfortunately, most of them are just not intelligent enough.   To prosper in a white European society, you have to have at least an IQ score around 100.   Of course, people with lower scores can still earn their living because there are still plenty of entry level jobs.    But even du-mb people know that they can get the same amount of money from welfare as they can get from an entry level job, so they just won't work.    In Australia, rural industries scream out for workers to operate farming equipment and pick crops.     So Australia imports Pacific Islander people as "guest workers" to do the work out 1.2 million welfare recipients refuse to do.      

 

Maxx quote    The links I post support my arguments and reflect what I write.

 Then read what they said, summarise the salient points that you think are correct, and submit them on this topic in the form of a reasoned argument.    Then I will tear them to shreds. 

 

Maxx quote    Humans simply have not been around enough to evolve and genetically diversify to a point where they biologically change into a sub species. 

 They have not changed in "a" sub species, they have changed into numerous sub species.    We call these sub species "races."

 

Maxx quote     Now also, lactose intolerance in Asians, or anyone else for that matter, is caused by the lack of  the lactase enzyme. A lack of any enzyme does not change the shape of any organ, nor does it produce any biological reason to change a species into a sub.

 Once more for the dummies.    Human races have differing characteristics.    Black Africans, especially from West Africa dominate Olympic level running events.    That does not mean that people from other races can not run equally as fast.  It just means that the proportion of people from who make superior runners is concentrated in Africans.  Which is why US blacks dominate US football.    But black Africans are such poor swimmers that they do not even bother to compete at Olympic level swimming.  Which is why you will never see a black African competing in swimming at the Olympic games.    But even if one freak African did compete successfully at swimming at Olympic level, it would not negate the fact that white Europeans dominate Olympic swimming.    Biologically, they are different to blacks.

 Asian people are lactose intolerant.    The reason is that their bodies do not produce the enzymes which other races bodies do to digest dairy products.     That means that an Asians body is biologically different from the bodies of those races that can digest milk.

 

Maxx quote    Perhaps you should brush up on what enzymes are and do.

 I could say the same thing to you.     If an Asians body can not produce dairy digesting enzymes, then it is because it's enzyme producing organs are biologically different to those of other races.

 

Maxx quote     Now, onto my point on crime being a learned behaviour. Let us do a thought experiment. Take any black baby, or any baby for that matter and place him on an island totally devoid of human contact with him. Let us assume that somehow he can be fed as he grows with out any human contact. Guess what. He will not learn crime nor have any knowledge of it. There is no one nor any society to teach him as such. The traits that are genetically passed on to him will simply reflect upon the environment that he finds him self in. Society and or other people are the ones who show him what crime is, not his genetics. crime is a learned behavior.  

 That is a nice little social theory, too bad you can't set up an experiment to prove it.    Unfortunately for you, criminologist, psychologist and cognitive metricians have been studying criminal behaviour for over a hundred years.      They know that genetics and crime are linked.    They know that low IQ and violent crime are linked.     And when you put it all together, that explains why some ethnicities, the very same ones who have a very disproportionate number of people with low I.Q., drop out of high school,  get pregnant and have illegitimate babies that the state has to care form, are on inter generational welfare, and are prone to serious criminal behaviour.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Wrong

@Bogan said:  Human races have different characteristics.
There is no scientific basis for the concept of different human races having distinct and inherent characteristics. While there is genetic diversity among populations, there is more genetic variation within populations than between populations. Additionally, the notion of races as distinct biological categories has been discredited by modern genetics and anthropology. The idea of race as a biological concept has been used historically to justify social inequalities, and it continues to play a role in perpetuating systemic racism and discrimination.

maxx

i agree. bogan seems to be stuck within the ideas of the 1800s.      l@JulesKorngold

maxx

I do believe you should step out of the 1800s and read the new facts and evidence of today. Humans are the only ones who actively drink milk after being weaned from it. It is our natural state to being intolerant of it after that. The ability to produce lactase after weaning declines. There are over 50 million americans who are lactose intolerant; not to mention so many other countries. Lactase is an enzyme and its only function is to breakdown the lactose into simple sugars. 75 percent of all humans stop producing it after being weaned for the enzyme is no longer biologically needed.The 25 percent who can still use this enzyme are the odd balls, for the majority biologically and evolutionary, discarded the enzyme, so in that respect, your asians are the normal ones.  A simple cessation of an enzyme that is evolutionarily driven does not change any organs and does not produce a sub species.   NOW, the bell curve is way outdated and no longer reflects todays facts. Had you read the link, you would notice this; nor did you read the link on what changes a species biologically. Then you yell because i did not read a you tube link?? Also, there are two schools of thoughts about the so called criminal gene. We can not accept both. Do you want to know where your so called criminal gene comes from? It is based upon a survival gene; which stems back to the earliest life forms; in regard to taking food from others to ensure their own survival. However my little social experiment stands, for once again, if there is no one to teach or no society to show what crime is; then the child will have no knowledge of it. It is taught.  I have explained why as to the higher stats of crime in blacks. It is not just being born in poverty, but the lack of education, the way society tends to reject them, the attitudes the blacks have because of this , police profiling, and so many other factors that are not prevalent in other poverty cultures.  The desire to commit crime is not a trait we are born with. It is learned. Did you know in america, the stats show clearly that whites outnumber the blacks in regard to crime? As well, if one would take white and black dna, there is no actual difference. The only thing these so called dna test can say, is you have a certain percentage of an ancestral area of belonging. A far cry from looking at dna and saying that one is black and one is white. If humans were divided into sub species, dna would reflect it. @Bogan

MayCaesar

JulesKorngold said:

@Bogan said:  Human races have different characteristics.
There is no scientific basis for the concept of different human races having distinct and inherent characteristics. While there is genetic diversity among populations, there is more genetic variation within populations than between populations. Additionally, the notion of races as distinct biological categories has been discredited by modern genetics and anthropology. The idea of race as a biological concept has been used historically to justify social inequalities, and it continues to play a role in perpetuating systemic racism and discrimination.

First, the fact that inter-population variability is higher than the intra-population variability does not at all negate the differentiation between the populations. For example, it is known pretty well in psychology that women are less confrontational than men, and depending how exactly you quantify it, the inter-population variability can be estimated at roughly 20% of the variability within each population - yet the difference between the populations is substantial enough that the 1% of the least confrontational people are virtually all women, and the 1% of the most confrontational people are virtually all men. The difference is significant.

Second, biological categories can be defined in any imaginable way and be valid. It is impossible to "discredit" distinct biological categories, because those categories are defined as they are. If I call you Jules and me not Jules, there is nothing in the Universe you can possibly do to discredit this differentiation, because it is based on how humans define names in the first place.

There are clear differences between people of different races. If I put an Asian and a Latin person next to each other, in 99.99% cases you will immediately be able to tell which one is which - it would not be possible if the differences did not exist.
What is not clear is what exactly the particular differences are, to what extent they are statistical and to what extent they are biological, what causes them and what are the consequences of them. This is where our friend Bogan is way over his head, making big claims about the particular differences that, indeed, are not supported by scientific evidence.

It is important to not mix up different topics. What people really want to say in 99% cases when they question validity of races is that unspoken implication that people of different races are to be treated differently. I fully agree with that: I believe that every individual should be judged on their own merit, irregardless of the general traits an arbitrarily defined group they are a part of exhibits. If a woman has red hair and I know that red-haired women are disproportionally likely to be lesbian, it would be ridiculous of me to assume that she is a lesbian, or, upon learning that she is not, to think that there is something wrong with her.
That does not negate the possibility that the differences are there. And there is nothing wrong with the differences being there: humans are all different by nature, and that is part of what makes human societies so diverse and interesting.

Bogan

Maxx quote     I do believe you should step out of the 1800s and read the new facts and evidence of today.

 Yawn, sticks and stones.

 

Maxx quote    Humans are the only ones who actively drink milk after being weaned from it. It is our natural state to being intolerant of it after that. The ability to produce lactase after weaning declines. There are over 50 million Americans who are lactose intolerant; not to mention so many other countries. Lactase is an enzyme and its only function is to breakdown the lactose into simple sugars. 75 percent of all humans stop producing it after being weaned for the enzyme is no longer biologically needed.The 25 percent who can still use this enzyme are the odd balls, for the majority biologically and evolutionary, discarded the enzyme, so in that respect, your asians are the normal ones.  A simple cessation of an enzyme that is evolutionarily driven does not change any organs and does not produce a sub species. 

 Already addressed at least four times.       Sub species of human beings, like sub species of animals, are not only identifiably different, they have differences in physical characteristics, physical abilities, and mental abilities.    That just happens to be screamingly obvious and easy to prove.    The well known lactose intolerance of Asians was a single example of that among the several more that I used as an example.   But instead of simply accepting what is objectively true, you have to go into all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to prove that black is somehow white.     It has always amazed me the lengths that ideologues will go to, to deny a simple and inconvenient truth that they just can't accept.

 

Maxx quote    NOW, the bell curve is way outdated and no longer reflects todays facts.

 That is exactly like saying that "Origin of Species" is outdated and no longer reflects today's facts.

 

Maxx quote    Had you read the link, you would notice this; nor did you read the link on what changes a species biologically.

Third time.    I do not debate links.    I am debating you, not the person who wrote whatever woke propaganda you think supports your neo Marxist viewpoint.    I am not doing your job for you.   If you think your link is  saying something valid, then read it, summarise it, and post it up as your own argument.     Then I will dissect it and throw it back in your face.  

 

Maxx quote    Then you yell because i did not read a you tube link??

 I will not accept the opinion of some other person who I can not question or respond to in any way, to whatever lies they are writing.    But I will accept links that are used as direct evidence to support a point.    My premise had been, that it is obvious that too many black Africans have very low IQ and that they are breeding like flies.     This you denied.  So, I sent you a link showing how wrong you are.  It was not an opinion of somebody else, it was direct evidence that your opinion was wrong.  All you needed to see how wrong you were was your eyes and ears.

 

Maxx quote     Also, there are two schools of thoughts about the so called criminal gene. We can not accept both. Do you want to know where your so called criminal gene comes from? It is based upon a survival gene; which stems back to the earliest life forms; in regard to taking food from others to ensure their own survival. However my little social experiment stands, for once again, if there is no one to teach or no society to show what crime is; then the child will have no knowledge of it. It is taught.

 First you claim that there is a criminal gene, and then you claim there is not a criminal gene and criminal behaviour is taught?      And you can't see the clear contradiction in your own thinking?

 According to the Australian Institute of Criminology's own scientific "white paper" "Is There a Genetic Susceptibility To Engage in Criminal Acts"?    Is there a genetic susceptibility to engage in criminal acts? / Katherine I. Morley and Wayne D. Hal... | National Library of Australia (nla.gov.au)

 There plainly is a genetic link.    Around 95% of incarcerated inmates are males, so there is compelling evidence, right there, without even needing science.       What gene or combination of genes makes humans violent has yet to be discovered.    Although, that may no longer be true.  But if it has been discovered, then it is political dynamite.     So, given what happened to Nobel laureate James Watson, geneticists can hardly be blamed if they keep  it to themselves and don't inform the public.    International genetic conferences today are held by invitation only, with the press and the public pointedly excluded. 

 

Maxx quote     I have explained why as to the higher stats of crime in blacks. It is not just being born in poverty, but the lack of education, the way society tends to reject them, the attitudes the blacks have because of this , police profiling, and so many other factors that are not prevalent in other poverty cultures. 

 And I countered that nonsense by asking you a serious of questions which you pointedly ignored.    You ignored them because you knew that they disproved your silly premise.  I will submit them again and this time, I insist that you answer them.      Since around 95% of incarcerated inmates are males.    So, since you reject a genetic reason, and instead keep regurgitating a social reason for crime, then whatever social reason causes black crime must also apply to male crime.

 So.    Are you saying that the reason for the fact that males are very disproportionately involved in criminal behaviour is because......

 1.  All males are born in poverty?

2.  Society rejects all males?

3.  Police profile males and not females?

 If not, why not?   Explain your curious logic that rejects a genetic link to criminal behaviour.

 

Maxx quote The desire to commit crime is not a trait we are born with. It is learned. 

 Human behaviour is a product of both nature and nurture.    Violent behaviour is usually legally proscribed behaviour, so any person who is genetically inclined to be violent will be much more prone to criminal behaviour.    Especially if they have low IQ, and African blacks have a measured IQ 15 IQ points lower than whites.     IQ can be heritable.   

 

Maxx quote     Did you know in America, the stats show clearly that whites outnumber the blacks in regard to crime?

 That sounds like somebody fiddling the statistics and mixing littering, with murder and armed robbery.   Blacks make up 55% of incarcerated inmates even though they are only 13% of the population.

 

Maxx quote    As well, if one would take white and black dna, there is no actual difference.

 If you state something silly like that, Maxx, people reading our exchanges know that there is something wrong with your reasoning abilities, and you lose all credibility.

 

Maxx quote    The only thing these so called dna test can say, is you have a certain percentage of an ancestral area of belonging. A far cry from looking at dna and saying that one is black and one is white. If humans were divided into sub species, dna would reflect it. 

 Geneticists can tell your race from a single spot of blood.   Not only that, they are now gaining the ability to even build a picture of the face of an unknown offender from their DNA.

Bogan

Maxx quote     I do believe you should step out of the 1800s and read the new facts and evidence of today.

 Yawn, sticks and stones.

 

Maxx quote    Humans are the only ones who actively drink milk after being weaned from it. It is our natural state to being intolerant of it after that. The ability to produce lactase after weaning declines. There are over 50 million Americans who are lactose intolerant; not to mention so many other countries. Lactase is an enzyme and its only function is to breakdown the lactose into simple sugars. 75 percent of all humans stop producing it after being weaned for the enzyme is no longer biologically needed.The 25 percent who can still use this enzyme are the odd balls, for the majority biologically and evolutionary, discarded the enzyme, so in that respect, your asians are the normal ones.  A simple cessation of an enzyme that is evolutionarily driven does not change any organs and does not produce a sub species. 

 Already addressed at least four times.       Sub species of human beings, like sub species of animals, are not only identifiably different, they have differences in physical characteristics, physical abilities, and mental abilities.    That just happens to be screamingly obvious and easy to prove.    The well known lactose intolerance of Asians was a single example of that among the several more that I used as an example.   But instead of simply accepting what is objectively true, you have to go into all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to prove that black is somehow white.     It has always amazed me the lengths that ideologues will go to, to deny a simple and inconvenient truth that they just can't accept.

 

Maxx quote    NOW, the bell curve is way outdated and no longer reflects todays facts.

 That is exactly like saying that "Origin of Species" is outdated and no longer reflects today's facts.

 

Maxx quote    Had you read the link, you would notice this; nor did you read the link on what changes a species biologically.

Third time.    I do not debate links.    I am debating you, not the person who wrote whatever woke propaganda you think supports your neo Marxist viewpoint.    I am not doing your job for you.   If you think your link is  saying something valid, then read it, summarise it, and post it up as your own argument.     Then I will dissect it and throw it back in your face.  

 

Maxx quote    Then you yell because i did not read a you tube link??

 I will not accept the opinion of some other person who I can not question or respond to in any way, to whatever lies they are writing.    But I will accept links that are used as direct evidence to support a point.    My premise had been, that it is obvious that too many black Africans have very low IQ and that they are breeding like flies.     This you denied.  So, I sent you a link showing how wrong you are.  It was not an opinion of somebody else, it was direct evidence that your opinion was wrong.  All you needed to see how wrong you were was your eyes and ears.

 

Maxx quote     Also, there are two schools of thoughts about the so called criminal gene. We can not accept both. Do you want to know where your so called criminal gene comes from? It is based upon a survival gene; which stems back to the earliest life forms; in regard to taking food from others to ensure their own survival. However my little social experiment stands, for once again, if there is no one to teach or no society to show what crime is; then the child will have no knowledge of it. It is taught.

 First you claim that there is a criminal gene, and then you claim there is not a criminal gene and criminal behaviour is taught?      And you can't see the clear contradiction in your own thinking?

 According to the Australian Institute of Criminology's own scientific "white paper" "Is There a Genetic Susceptibility To Engage in Criminal Acts"?    Is there a genetic susceptibility to engage in criminal acts? / Katherine I. Morley and Wayne D. Hal... | National Library of Australia (nla.gov.au)

 There plainly is a genetic link.    Around 95% of incarcerated inmates are males, so there is compelling evidence, right there, without even needing science.       What gene or combination of genes makes humans violent has yet to be discovered.    Although, that may no longer be true.  But if it has been discovered, then it is political dynamite.     So, given what happened to Nobel laureate James Watson, geneticists can hardly be blamed if they keep  it to themselves and don't inform the public.    International genetic conferences today are held by invitation only, with the press and the public pointedly excluded. 

 

Maxx quote     I have explained why as to the higher stats of crime in blacks. It is not just being born in poverty, but the lack of education, the way society tends to reject them, the attitudes the blacks have because of this , police profiling, and so many other factors that are not prevalent in other poverty cultures. 

 And I countered that nonsense by asking you a serious of questions which you pointedly ignored.    You ignored them because you knew that they disproved your silly premise.  I will submit them again and this time, I insist that you answer them.      Since around 95% of incarcerated inmates are males.    So, since you reject a genetic reason, and instead keep regurgitating a social reason for crime, then whatever social reason causes black crime must also apply to male crime.

 So.    Are you saying that the reason for the fact that males are very disproportionately involved in criminal behaviour is because......

 1.  All males are born in poverty?

2.  Society rejects all males?

3.  Police profile males and not females?

 If not, why not?   Explain your curious logic that rejects a genetic link to criminal behaviour.

 

Maxx quote The desire to commit crime is not a trait we are born with. It is learned. 

 Human behaviour is a product of both nature and nurture.    Violent behaviour is usually legally proscribed behaviour, so any person who is genetically inclined to be violent will be much more prone to criminal behaviour.    Especially if they have low IQ, and African blacks have a measured IQ 15 IQ points lower than whites.     IQ can be heritable.   

 

Maxx quote     Did you know in America, the stats show clearly that whites outnumber the blacks in regard to crime?

 That sounds like somebody fiddling the statistics and mixing littering, with murder and armed robbery.   Blacks make up 55% of incarcerated inmates even though they are only 13% of the population.

 

Maxx quote    As well, if one would take white and black dna, there is no actual difference.

 If you state something silly like that, Maxx, people reading our exchanges know that there is something wrong with your reasoning abilities, and you lose all credibility.

 

Maxx quote    The only thing these so called dna test can say, is you have a certain percentage of an ancestral area of belonging. A far cry from looking at dna and saying that one is black and one is white. If humans were divided into sub species, dna would reflect it. 

 Geneticists can tell your race from a single spot of blood.   Not only that, they are now gaining the ability to even build a picture of the face of an unknown offender from their DNA.

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label. Genetic Study Shows Skin Color Is Only Skin Deep | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine  @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label. @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label. @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label. @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label. @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label.  @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label.  @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label.  @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No Mr. bogan. sub species are but a label.    @Bogan

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label.  @Bogan

Bogan

.@maxx

Maxx quote    let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label.   

    The "Tree of Life" and the way in which species change from one to the next through genetic adaptation to different environmental conditions, by way of sub species, is basic, year 9 biology.    If you are a citizen of the USA and they did not teach this to you at school, then I don't think much of the US education system.   However, it is very easy to understand and I have twice explained it to you in full on previous posts.    So, either you have a very low IQ, or you are just pretending to be obtuse just to frustrate me?     Either way, there is not much point in continuing this discussion

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label.  @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx

The 'Tree of Life" and how one species transitions into another species via sub species, which occurs through genetic adaptations to differing environmental conditions, is year 9 basic biology.    If you are a US citizen and you have not been taught this, then I can only wonder at how bad the US educational system is?     I have now twice explained all of this to you in detail, and it is simple and easy to understand.   If you claim that you still can not understand it, then you must have either a very low IQ, or, you are just playing at being obtuse in order to frustrate me.   Either way, there is no reason to continue this debate..

maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label.  @Bogan@Bogan

maxx

I asked you many times to give actual proof to justify your beliefs, and you fail to do so. the reply i gave you; accidently several times above; you did not go through that list and explain anything. shall we list one at a time? Skin color. again it is but a protective chemical that changes the color of the skin to the environment one is it. Noiw tell me, how does skin color change homo sapiens into a sub species? I start with that one, simply because the color of the skin is your problem. As well you offer no science to support your arguments nor will you read and or accept the science that shows homosapiens are  only classified as a sub species by label. Not biologically. You refused also the science on habitats, for that is simply an area where people live. The same with food. a different diet does not change us and you offer no proof. So it simply boils down to your view of skin color. Sorry but unless you offer actual evidence, then the idea of sub species are all in your mind. my apologies however for the lack of reply, for the sever on my end has been down.  @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx

let us look logically, one by one on what you are claiming makes a sub race. First, skin color. It is nothing more that the bodys ability to produce a chemical to protect the skin. That is all. If I were to move to a hot desert and have children; and they do as well, and so on an so on, the future generations will eventually develop this color.  It is a way to protect the skin. You also stated different diets. That is nothing more than food that different areas of the world develop naturally and is available to the inhabitants. It does not make a sub species. Physical features. Here youi are simply going by skin color. Erase the black, brown, yellow, and copper tones and everyone is different in features. Diversity and uniqueness in features does not create a sub species. Again you are simply going by skin color. Features are based on heredity, nothing more. specific diseases:  These are based on nothing more than what an isolated ancient people developed from the area that they evolved in; it does not make a sub species. You are simply using the above improbables to justify one thing; skin color.  What else? The ability for one people to learn or not as well as others. This does not change a species. crime, poverty, violence are but social issues and doe not change a species. logically, biologically, and scientifically, you are incorrect. You disregard my science links and even refute me when i summarize what the links state.  No mr. bogan. sub species are but a label. 

 

The "Tree of Life" which displays how species evolve into sub species through genetic adaptation to environmental conditions is a year 9 high school level subject.    If you are a US citizen and the US education system did not tech you this subject, then I don't feel too impressed by the US system.     In any case, it is easy to understand and simple to explain how it works.     I have explained it to you in full at least twice now, and you still pretend that you do not understand it.  

 Either you have particularly low IQ, or, more probably, you are pretending to be obtuse in order to frustrate me.     Either way, there is not much point in continuing this "debate" where one side is trying to educate the other, while his opponent just looks for ever more creative ways to act du-mb and muddy the water.

maxx

again and you refuse to give any kind of proof. Your high school ideas are incorrect and so are you. Just because you deem, believe, think, and assume someone is inferior, is no justification to either biologically nor scientifically say that they are a sub species. It is but a tag, a label, a concept and not a fact.I have explained as to diet, it is but food. habitat, is but a p[lace we live in. Your criteria of what makes a sub species is totally lacking in science and yet you claim i am not very smart because i accept the science of what biologically creates a sub species. You can not even set aside your white supremist ideas long enough to objectively look at what you are trying to claim.  Here you are trying to say that skin color, and the other criteria you mentioned  are enough proof to justify your beliefs. Here is your basic point: those with different skin color are inferior and must be classified into a sub species. You also failed to answer my points at all in the above reply of mine that you replied to. Just because someonelives in Asia, eats rice, has a different hue to their skin, how does that, mr. bogan, make them any different than someone who is white, lives in the U.K. and eats kidney pie? If you reverse this thought, perhaps it is yopu who are considered different, and inferior, and so are the sub species. It is a concept, an idea; unless you can give me evidence on how they are biologically different.  @Bogan let me put it this way. All the criteria, the ideas, the beliefs that you have that make a people a sub species, applies to you as well. You have different skin color than blacks, You have different features, you live in a different habitat, and you have a different diet. You claim that blacks are biological different, {which you show no proof, but let that slide for a second,} however, if so, that makes you biologically different than them. Tell me mr. bogan, based on your ideas, what makes you think that you are not the sub species? @Bogan

maxx

?

maxx

so?@Bogan

debate_handge

Argument Topic: Racisuim

Racism is taken to far these days you are not even allowed to mention the colour of some ones skin you are called racist. When being racist is making a rude or insulting comment or statement abouts some ones skin colour or ethnicity.

Barnardot

@debate_handge ;you are not even allowed to mention the colour of some ones skin you are called racist

Thats right because you probably are racist because why would you mention the coulor of some ones skin any way. Why not just call them a person and what does it matter what color there skin is to mention it any way.