jc, why do you think i am a demon, name something specific please instead of your silly ramblings.
of course you would say im saying silly things, you think like a DEMON.
Just look at your behaviour lately.. All the hate.
You once worshiped GOD, now you worship HITLER.
need i say more.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
If Alex resurrects Adolf, there is good chance adolf will kill alex to lead World Corp.
---------------------------------------
TheATA1, you should seriously read
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. May give you some good insight into this topic which you are obviously interested in.
So I leave for a year and Franco and Rayanna become mortal enemies? I left for another 6 months and the Ata1 is now a eugenist?
I used to think the problems of the world was caused by people not believing in the bible, now I believe, and is more plausible too, the problems are caused by the sub-humans living amongst us, easily spotted & identified as people of color.
JRS, No that book is wrong from some of the excerpts I read.
Most of this work deals with non-Europeans, but Diamond's thesis sheds light on why Western civilization became hegemonic: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." Those who domesticated plants and animals early got a head start on developing writing, government, technology, weapons of war, and immunity to deadly germs. (LJ 2/15/97)
The other people of the never got a head start because they are all too stupid. See evidence in my signature.
ATA!! MAKE THAT SIG SMALL NOW!
here it is, I will improve it soon.
JRS, No that book is wrong from some of the excerpts I read.
Yes, that book suggests a completely different view than the one you currently hold. That's exactly why I'm suggesting you read it. The author uses logic and evidence to support his position. I'm not saying the author is necessarily 100% right or that it'll make you change your mind but at the very least it might be interesting to hear a strong argument suggesting an alternative view than your own.
You once believed the earth was 6,000 years old but once you acquired more knowledge you realised this wasn't the case. We should always be looking to gain more knowledge and challenge our existing ideas and beliefs, particularly in the areas that most affect our lives.
The other people of the never got a head start because they are all too stupid. See evidence in my signature.
Your signature contains some really poor evidence to support your position. To address some of them.
Schweitzer worked in one part of Africa and was probably quite an intelligent man. That hardly makes his views on blacks fact. Not only that, but even if the Africans he met with were in fact as he says then how could he be sure it was due to genetics (which is what I assume you mean by race*) not culture. Schweitzer also came from a society that originally held these beliefs based on ignorant prejudice. Were I (and I imagine you) to meet an uneducated peasant European (or even an educated noble) from a thousand years ago I would think likely think him a simpleton since his knowledge of the natural world would be so lacking compared even to a 13 year old. This would not be because the European is necessarily unintelligent but because of the culture he grew up in.
The quote about the negro never inventing anything refutes itself. "For shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut". Doesn't that mean he invented the mud hut? Were the author more aware of a variety of African culture I'm sure they could come up with at least a few other inventions (off the top of my head a few spring to mind). Regardless, even if the statement were factually correct, it does not suggest why this was the case. Was it that they lacked the intelligence to invent or was it that they lacked the necessity or motivation to do so.
The pictures of the skull comparisons taken from the book Indigenous races of the earth is misleading and not supported scientifically. Even if it were so, is it meant to suggest blacks are more similar to apes thasn whites? The theory of evolution (supported with genetic studies) indicates that all humans originated from a common ancestor and further back shared an ancestor with the other apes. Since that time we have all been evolving. We can assume that the first human like their ape cousins and ancestors had this long jaw and over time a group(s) of humans (such as the Europeans) evolved to have it shortened possibly because there was some advantage for them. Meanwhile this mutation of a shortened jaw may never have appeared in the human populations of Africa or served no benefit in that environment. So what then is the significance of a longer jaw? In terms of evolution (as can be determined from genetic studies) all humans (regardless of supposed race) have basically the same amount of genetic difference from our closest relative species, the chimpanzee.
The IQ graphs take a very complex issue and misleadingly simplify it. I suggest you look up some of the limitations and criticisms of IQ tests. Saying that I think it most probable that genetics plays a factor in intelligence (regardless of how you define it). And it's even possible that people of a certain skin colour or other physical characteristic are on average proportionately more or less intelligent. If this is so the questions are why and how do we use this information. The why is probably that either (all or some of) the gene(s) encoding for skin colour (or other physical characteristic) also encode for intelligence or more likely that genes encoding for skin colour and intelligence have been inherited together. Maybe once we understand this we can begin to use this information.
Ata seems to indicate that for the good of the human race we should annihilate or at least sterilise all those of a certain skin colour (please correct me if I'm wrong). But not all those of that skin colour are less intelligent and some of the other skin colours are also amongst the least intelligent. If we do this wouldn't it make more sense to simply test intelligence (as previously mentioned, not an easy task) and remove all those below a certain level. Also it may be that some genetic groups contain some undiscovered unique genes that are particularly useful to humans. Wiping out such a group could potentially eliminate this useful mutation form the human gene pool.
Also, the question is if intelligence is the sole thing of value to humans. Is someone with a great physique or great imagination or great compassion lesser than someone of great intelligence? These attributes may also be influenced by genetics and if so are we not doing a disservice to humanity by removing them from the genetic pool.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
*Modern science has been unable to define the term race since different supposed races (using various classification systems) cannot be distinguished genetically.
**Another word that is not universally defined. Kind of hard to measure something before you can agree on what you're measuring.
