PDA

View Full Version : Maria Sharapova to Lebron James : "I'll bet you look really cute in tennis shorts"


Morpheus
12-28-2006, 02:41 AM
http://chanesteiner.com/images/lebron.jpg http://images.askmen.com/top-99/2006/pictures/maria-sharapova-pics.jpg


Well it looks like the Jews are at it again. Russian tennis starlet Maria Sharapova recently made a Nike commercial challenging NBA superstar Lebron James to a New Year's resolution competition. The winner has to carry water at the other person's sport (or rather ball boy in Lebron's case).

See Video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/342979/maria_vs_lebron/)

The flirting was a nice touch, I wonder if Lebron will make a response video. :rofl:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=207342#post207342

Yeah but now it has Sharapova in it.....:mad:

Next thing you know, someone will post a picture.

It looks like Nike did you one better Keystone. :D

Petyr Baelish
12-28-2006, 02:43 AM
How does it feel to have to constantly grasp at straws simply to justify your miserable abominable existence?

leondegrance
12-28-2006, 02:46 AM
http://chanesteiner.com/images/lebron.jpg

So you've got a rich ape. Big deal.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 02:49 AM
How does it feel to have to constantly grasp at straws simply to justify your miserable abominable existence?

Grasping at what straws?

That sounds like a question I should be asking you people.

http://chanesteiner.com/images/lebron.jpg

So you've got a rich ape. Big deal.

Surely someone can come up with a more creative response than this. :snore:

Kriger
12-28-2006, 02:49 AM
You just love to stir up some good ole black/white animosity, don't you, Musa?

Are things too boring at MSF these days?

Petyr Baelish
12-28-2006, 02:51 AM
You just love to stir up some good ole black/white animosity, don't you, Musa?


His histrionics are typical of half-castes, who tend to be ostracized, highly neurotic and insecure.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 02:52 AM
You just love to stir up some good ole black/white animosity, don't you, Musa?

Are things too boring at MSF these days?

You know how it is. I was sitting around watching the Real World, when this commerical came up, remembered an old convo and inspiration came fourth.

Ahknaton
12-28-2006, 02:52 AM
LOL. It was a commercial. She was paid to say that. Hell, I'd tell Lebron James he looked cute in tennis shorts if someone paid me a million bucks.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 02:56 AM
His histrionics are typical of half-castes, who tend to be ostracized, highly neurotic and insecure.

Sounds like someone is projecting.


LOL. It was a commercial. She was paid to say that. Hell, I'd tell Lebron James he looked cute in tennis shorts if someone paid me a million bucks.

Well like I said I guess the Jews are at it again.

Keystone
12-28-2006, 03:02 AM
Well like I said I guess the Jews are at it again.
Lebron and Mansa just want to despoil the white women.

Why are you bringing this up anyway? Aren't you the "cure for the common racist"?

Where's the story about Althea Gibson, brother?

Petyr Baelish
12-28-2006, 03:03 AM
LOL. It was a commercial. She was paid to say that. Hell, I'd tell Lebron James he looked cute in tennis shorts if someone paid me a million bucks.

As I said earlier, he is clutching at straws to justify his own existence.

Kriger
12-28-2006, 03:07 AM
As I said earlier, he is clutching at straws to justify his own existence.

Yes, anyone who would consider this to be inspirational is certainly lacking in self-esteem, among other things.

Hachiko
12-28-2006, 03:09 AM
I won't go so far as to say LeBron would look cute in tennis shorts.
However, it would be kind of funny to see his tail sticking out (that's why the NBA has those baggy shorts to begin with).

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 03:11 AM
Lebron and Mansa just want to despoil the white women.

Maria made the commericial not Lebron. I guess she wanted to despoil the Black men.


Why are you bringing this up anyway?

I explained in a previous post.


Aren't you the "cure for the common racist"?

That's what my title says.

Where's the story about Althea Gibson, brother?

This isn't the history section. She isn't making headlines anymore.


As I said earlier, he is clutching at straws to justify his own existence.

.....

But what straws? :snore:

Yes, anyone who would consider this to be inspirational is certainly lacking in self-esteem, among other things.

Oh noes, not my self-esteem (among other things :( )! :eek:

You guys are just too easy. :rofl:

Keystone
12-28-2006, 03:14 AM
Maria made the commericial not Lebron. I guess she wanted to despoil the Black men.
"lebron" made nothing from the ads, I'm sure. I'm positive his "people" ignored it.

Seriously, why do you bring this up?

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 03:15 AM
I won't go so far as to say LeBron would look cute in tennis shorts.
However, it would be kind of funny to see his tail sticking out (that's why the NBA has those baggy shorts to begin with).

I thought it was to give their genitals breathing room.

Next time I'm at a Spurs game I'll be sure to tell Manu Ginobili not to tuck in his shirt because it aids in the concealing of his tail.

Hachiko
12-28-2006, 03:19 AM
They are both under contract with Nike.
I had heard in the news that they became friends through Nike and wanted to do a commercial together.
Both of them have transcended traditional color. It's all green where they live.

The Retard
12-28-2006, 03:19 AM
Mansa hates white people it is obvious in his posts.

Hachiko
12-28-2006, 03:20 AM
I thought it was to give their genitals breathing room.

Next time I'm at a Spurs game I'll be sure to tell Manu Ginobili not to tuck in his shirt because it aids in the concealing of his tail.

And I'll tell David Lee the same at the next Knicks game I go to.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 03:20 AM
"lebron" made nothing from the ads, I'm sure.

If that is his real name. :rolleyes:

I'm just saying that you accused him of wanting to despoil White women when there is no evidence that he has creative control over the commercial, and she is the one featured in it not him.


Seriously, why do you bring this up?

We have to talk about something more light-hearted since the passing of the God Father of Soul. :(

Oh and that former President guy too.

Petyr Baelish
12-28-2006, 03:20 AM
Sounds like someone is projecting.


Actually, it's common knowledge that mixed-race individuals exhibit significantly elevated rates of psychopathology compared to controls:

Health and behavior risks of adolescents with mixed-race identity.Udry JR, Li RM, Hendrickson-Smith J.
Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27516-2424, USA. udry@unc.edu

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the health and risk status of adolescents who identify with 1 race with those identifying with more than 1 race. METHODS: Data are derived from self-reports of race, using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which provides a large representative national sample of adolescents in grades 7 through 12. Respondents could report more than 1 race. RESULTS: Mixed-race adolescents showed higher risk when compared with single-race adolescents on general health questions, school experience, smoking and drinking, and other risk variables. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who self-identify as more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks. The findings are compatible with interpreting the elevated risk of mixed race as associated with stress.

PMID: 14600054 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Behavioral health in multiracial adolescents: the role of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.Whaley AL, Francis K.
Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, University of Texas at Austin, P.O. Box 7998, Austin, TX 78713-7998, USA. awhaley@mail.utexas.edu

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was twofold: (1) to determine whether adolescents who self-identify as multiracial have more adverse health behaviors than their monoracial counterparts, and (2) to examine whether the health behaviors of adolescents who are multiracial and Hispanic are more similar to those who identify as monoracial Hispanic or those who are multiracial and non-Hispanic. METHODS: Secondary analyses of data in a subsample from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey of 3,704 (27.2%) adolescents who identified as Hispanic/Latino only, multiracial Hispanic, or multiracial non-Hispanic were conducted. Regression analyses were conducted using SUDAAN for the complex sampling to test for differences in health behaviors (i.e., smoking, exercise, substance abuse, and suicide risk) among the three ethnicity/race groups. RESULTS: Each health behavior scale yielded significant between-group differences according to ethnic/racial identity: Hispanic/Latino adolescents scored significantly lower than both multiracial groups on the measure of cigarette smoking, lower than multiracial Hispanic adolescents on the substance abuse scale, and lower than multiracial non-Hispanic adolescents on the measure of exercise. The multiracial Hispanic group was also at marginally increased risk for suicide compared to the Hispanic/Latino group. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the hypothesis that multiracial Hispanic adolescents have more behavioral health problems than monoracial Hispanic adolescents. The second hypothesis--that multiracial Hispanic adolescents are more similar to multiracial non-Hispanic adolescents--was also supported. The implications of these findings for the classification of Hispanic adolescents in terms of ethnicity and race in relation to health behaviors are discussed.


Choi Y, Harachi TW, Gillmore MR, Catalano RF.
School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. yoonsun@uchicago.edu

Rates and patterns of substance use and violent behaviors among multiracial adolescents were examined and compared with 3 monoracial groups, European, African, and Asian Americans. The relationships between ethnic identity and the subjective experience of racial discrimination, substance use, and violent behavior were also examined. The authors found multiracial adolescents reporting higher rates of problem behaviors. Several significant relationships between ethnic identity and racial discrimination were found with these problem behaviors. 2006 APA, all rights reserved

Keystone
12-28-2006, 03:22 AM
I thought it was to give their genitals breathing room.

Next time I'm at a Spurs game I'll be sure to tell Manu Ginobili not to tuck in his shirt because it aids in the concealing of his tail.
Mansa, you are just a nerd acting out your anti-racist, angry-black fantasies on internet forums. Your interest in sports and babes are good indicators. You have no idea of real racial problems, other than hot black-on-white pairings.

You just aren't worth the keystrokes.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 03:22 AM
Mansa hates white people it is obvious in his posts.

:lies:

They are both under contract with Nike.
I had heard in the news that they became friends through Nike and wanted to do a commercial together.
Both of them have transcended traditional color. It's all green where they live.

Yes, this is the reality of the modern world.

Richard Parker
12-28-2006, 03:23 AM
Yes, anyone who would consider this to be inspirational is certainly lacking in self-esteem, among other things.

It probably has nothing to do with Musa himself.

I always noticed that racists on Stormfront are obsessed with Sharapova (and it ties in with their view of Russia as the salvation for the white race). I always thought of how much fun it would be to see the reactions there if she ever ended up with a black man.

I know this is only a commercial but maaaybe we're getting warmer... little by little. :negro:

So this is much more about racists than it is about Musa.

Hippias
12-28-2006, 03:27 AM
Surely someone can come up with a more creative response than this. :snore:

Probably, but your sorry excuse for flame-bait doesn't deserve one.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 03:27 AM
Mansa, you are just a nerd acting out your anti-racist, angry-black fantasies on internet forums.

Do tell. I want to hear more about these "angry black fantasies". :rofl:


Your interest in sports and babes are good indicators.

Because we all know how nerdy those subjects are. :whip:

You have no idea of real racial problems, other than hot black-on-white pairings.

I guess all of my posts related to serious discussions of race don't exist then.


You just aren't worth the keystrokes.

Settle down there Keystone. Next you really will be talking like Michael Richards.

Hachiko
12-28-2006, 03:34 AM
I always noticed that racists on Stormfront are obsessed with Sharapova (and it ties in with their view of Russia as the salvation for the white race). I always thought of how much fun it would be to see the reactions there if she ever ended up with a black man.
Well, Kournikova ended up with a spic, so Sharapova is the great White Hope. :rofl:

I know this is only a commercial but maaaybe we're getting warmer... little by little.
Right.... like they didn't do a few lines of coke after the shoot and go back to the trailer for some Jungle Boogie, like most celebrities do.

Now what'll really ruffle the WN's feathers is when the Prussian Blue girls trade in their :hitler: T-Shirts for :negro: ones. :sick: What a vile thought.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 03:35 AM
It probably has nothing to do with Musa himself.

I always noticed that racists on Stormfront are obsessed with Sharapova (and it ties in with their view of Russia as the salvation for the white race). I always thought of how much fun it would be to see the reactions there if she ever ended up with a black man.

I know this is only a commercial but maaaybe we're getting warmer... little by little. :negro:

So this is much more about racists than it is about Musa.

Harjit my brother, you hit the nail on the head.

I have been reading posts from these people literally drooling over her ever since she beat Serena Williams at Wimbledon (a very good match).

I swear they were living out their Aryan warrior Goddess fantasies on the net so logically I always thought it would be amusing if she ended up doing something to piss them off and watch their worship turn into rants of "That White Slut etc." that they do to all the other White female celebrities.

So naturally I tested The Phora and some people actually had the sense to shrug it off and say that it was just a commercial while others did the typical White Supremacist thing and got hot under the collar over it.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 03:48 AM
Actually, it's common knowledge that mixed-race individuals exhibit significantly elevated rates of psychopathology compared to controls

Yes, due to racist discrimination. Ofcourse as it relates to this thread I detected a bit of a defensive attitude in your psychoanalysis which led me to suspect that you are projecting in your disparagement of mixed-race people and your indentification of me with them.

that guy
12-28-2006, 03:51 AM
It probably has nothing to do with Musa himself.

I always noticed that racists on Stormfront are obsessed with Sharapova (and it ties in with their view of Russia as the salvation for the white race). I always thought of how much fun it would be to see the reactions there if she ever ended up with a black man.

I know this is only a commercial but maaaybe we're getting warmer... little by little. :negro:

So this is much more about racists than it is about Musa.
I agree that it has more to do with racists than with Mansa, but what does it say about racists? Personally, I think she looks a bit like a dude.

Janus
12-28-2006, 03:52 AM
Yes, due to racist discrimination. Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Petyr Baelish
12-28-2006, 04:00 AM
Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

It's the standard deus ex machina used to 'explain' any and every disparity between whites and non-whites. What more evidence do you need?

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 04:13 AM
Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

It says so right there in the study:


Rates and patterns of substance use and violent behaviors among multiracial adolescents were examined and compared with 3 monoracial groups, European, African, and Asian Americans. The relationships between ethnic identity and the subjective experience of racial discrimination, substance use, and violent behavior were also examined. The authors found multiracial adolescents reporting higher rates of problem behaviors. Several significant relationships between ethnic identity and racial discrimination were found with these problem behaviors. 2006 APA, all rights reserved


Source: Are multiracial adolescents at greater risk? Comparisons of rates, patterns, and correlates of substance use and violence between monoracial and multiracial adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 2006 Jan;76(1):86-97

Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16569131&dopt=Citation)



It's the standard deus ex machina used to 'explain' any and every disparity between whites and non-whites. What more evidence do you need?


I take it then that you are at odds with your own source?

Petyr Baelish
12-28-2006, 04:16 AM
Yes, due to racist discrimination.

The putative cause of the phenomenon, is, for the intents and purposes of my claim, irrelevant. I stated that mixed-race people display significantly elevated rates of psychopathology. This is clearly the case.

Ofcourse as it relates to this thread I detected a bit of a defensive attitude in your psychoanalysis which led me to suspect that you are projecting in your disparagement of mixed-race people and your indentification of me with them.

The only way the elevated rates of psychopathology found in mixed-race cohorts relate to this thread is that you appear an excellent case in point. Your trolling is clearly histrionic in nature; you are attempting to compensate for your insecurity and warped sense of identity by projecting an exaggerated false confidence. While you may be fooling yourself, you aren't fooling anyone who's had first-hand experience with mixed-race people and their identity neuroses.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 04:24 AM
The only way the elevated rates of psychopathology found in mixed-race cohorts relate to this thread is that you appear an excellent case in point. Your trolling is clearly histrionic in nature; you are attempting to compensate for your insecurity and warped sense of identity by projecting an exaggerated false confidence. While you may be fooling yourself, you aren't fooling anyone who's had first-hand experience with mixed-race people and their identity neuroses.

Therein lies the fallacy of your psychoanalysis. I do not indentify as mixed-race, both of my parents are African-Americans and my ancestry has never been a problem for me nor have I ever been chastised for it (the ancestry).

But as it relates to this thread the psychopathological symptoms you made note of are not unique to people of mixed-race and quite common among individuals who derail non-serious topics to perpetuate emotive rhetoric under the guise that they are being pragmatic. This often occurs when they are projecting their insecurities onto others.

that guy
12-28-2006, 04:31 AM
Therein lies the fallacy of your psychoanalysis. I do not indentify as mixed-race, both of my parents are African-Americans and my ancestry has never been a problem for me nor have I ever been chastised for it (the ancestry).

But as it relates to this thread the psychopathological symptoms you made note of are not unique to people of mixed-race and quite common among individuals who derail non-serious topics to perpetuate emotive rhetoric under the guise that they are being pragmatic. This often occurs when they are projecting their insecurities onto others.
The real issue is not Uptight Seattlite, though, nor is it Mansa Musa. Heck, it ain't even the lovely (albeit somewhat dude-like) Maria Sharapova. Why even bring this up?

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 04:35 AM
The real issue is not Uptight Seattlite, though, nor is it Mansa Musa. Heck, it ain't even the lovely (albeit somewhat dude-like) Maria Sharapova. Why even bring this up?

Stop parroting Keystone, I was pretty sure Harjit and I covered that already.

This is the lounge isn't it?

Richard Parker
12-28-2006, 04:37 AM
The only way the elevated rates of psychopathology found in mixed-race cohorts relate to this thread is that you appear an excellent case in point. Your trolling is clearly histrionic in nature; you are attempting to compensate for your insecurity and warped sense of identity by projecting an exaggerated false confidence. While you may be fooling yourself, you aren't fooling anyone who's had first-hand experience with mixed-race people and their identity neuroses.

You don't even know Musa.

This thread hardly qualifies as neither histrionic nor trolling, perhaps flame-baiting.

And is hubris such an uncommon feature of posters on internet boards?

that guy
12-28-2006, 04:42 AM
Stop parroting Keystone, I was pretty sure Harjit and I covered that already.
Sorry, I didn't see that. So you brought it up because of James Brown And Gerald Ford. Fair enough. :indifferent:

:lies:

This is the lounge isn't it?
The lounge of the phora, though.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 05:09 AM
The lounge of the phora, though.

I could not think of a better place for this "story". :p

Johnson
12-28-2006, 05:33 AM
I do not indentify as mixed-race, both of my parents are African-Americans

No matter. By being "African-American," you are mixed-race.

Kriger
12-28-2006, 05:48 AM
It probably has nothing to do with Musa himself.

I always noticed that racists on Stormfront are obsessed with Sharapova (and it ties in with their view of Russia as the salvation for the white race). I always thought of how much fun it would be to see the reactions there if she ever ended up with a black man.

I know this is only a commercial but maaaybe we're getting warmer... little by little. :negro:

So this is much more about racists than it is about Musa.

Come on, harjit. Of course it is about Musa. He is not happy unless he is flame-baiting White "racists" with his rhetoric.

And now, all of a sudden, both his parents are Afro-Americans.

If this were about racism, then he can speak about racism. It is not about racism, it is about Musa stirring shit.

Arrow Cross
12-28-2006, 06:26 AM
Maria Sharapova to Lebron James : "I'll bet you look really cute in tennis shorts"
So what? Practically, she's a trade item and was used properly by her owners. Comissar Rex, or Charlie the Chimpanzee could also look "cute" in tennis gear.
See? http://www.thebeautyshopband.com/images/chimptee200.jpg

What is the point of this thread other than starting another flame war?

Burrhus
12-28-2006, 07:39 AM
Since you failed to respond to this post on the thread where it originally appeared, here's another chance.

Mansa Musa: You and other racists claim that Blacks are the same whever they live but this is simply not true. Blacks with higher socio-economic status live in areas with far less crime.


Yes, but only a very small percentage of blacks are able to achieve that status and live in the predominantly white low crime areas. The high IQ ones like you have abandoned your fellow blacks to poverty and destitution as a permanent underclass of failure. They need you to lead them to some semblance of cultural stability and wealth but you prefer to be successful in the larger white community.

You are the cause of the black people's condition. Not the racists.


Quote:
Mansa: There are countries in Africa such as Ghana where Blacks make up nearly 100% of the population and the crime rates are low compared to other countries:


Thank you for pointing out that racially homogenous territories have less crime than mixed-race ones. You have helped make the case for segregation. But then, while segregation would be better for black people as a group, it wouldn't be better for you personally...would it?

I am not being facetious or satirical when I say that I care more about he fate of black people than you do, Mansa. If the successful blacks like you had stayed in the black community and applied yourselves to leading your own people and employing your talents to creating wealth and a viable culture for them, they would not be in the miserable condition that they are in.

You are a modern American black who has been infected with the white disease of individualism. You see yourself, as do most whites sadly, as an individual whose only concern is for himself. You believe that because you have done well that all black people can do well and that their condition is the result of white, racist oppression. But that is not the case, Mansa. Their condition is the result of blacks like you having abandoned them for the benefits to be gained for yourself by assimilating into white society.


Quote:
Mansa: I went to high school in both enviroments. In both places teen girls still got pregnant. There were fights. People did drugs. They skipped school etc. etc.

And the degenerate behavior on behalf of the Whites kids was not confined to those who listened to hip hop. The punks, goths and rock fans acted just a badly.


I worked in a big city mixed-race high-school for nine years (1994-2003) and I can say with a lot of authority that the black students were overwhelmingly responsible for fights, drugs, pregnancies, low academic achievement and discipline problems in general. Not slightly...overwhelmingly. Day in and day out. And the assistant principals for discipline were ALWAYS black, always for the whole nine years. No white was or even could have been considered for the position.

Every semester when the principal's list for academic achievement came out I read it carefully and looked for the black student's names out of the usual 200 or so on the list. The highest tally was 5! Out of 200 in a school that was 40% black. Five was the highest...2.5% Usually it was less than five. This was in the fourth best school in the city. Good teachers, good facilities, science labs, up-to-date books and no lack of money spent.

White racists are not the problem.

Sulla the Dictator
12-28-2006, 08:43 AM
His histrionics are typical of half-castes, who tend to be ostracized, highly neurotic and insecure.

LOL How is any Western citizen member of a 'half caste'?

Hachiko
12-28-2006, 12:26 PM
And now, all of a sudden, both his parents are Afro-Americans.


Yea, just like Halle Berry...:D

Captain Aceman Superstar
12-28-2006, 12:53 PM
Destroy Pop Culture :whip:

Females should be banned from appearing on TV, movies rock groups etc. for a start.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 12:53 PM
No matter. By being "African-American," you are mixed-race.

You could say the same thing about being "Hispanic" and yet one of the studies that Uptight cited for his argument separated groups into "Hispanic" and "mixed-race Hispanic".

They are not talking about someone with only Amerindian ancestry and another with only Spanish ancestry they are talking about how their parents self-identify socially.

If you are of the impression that the studies are saying that the mixing of genes themselves causes health and behavioral problems you are completing misinterpreting the studies, the focus is on a social phenomenon, how these people are raised and treated in society.

Anyone missing such an obvious point has no place citing or commenting on the studies in question.


And now, all of a sudden, both his parents are Afro-Americans.

It's not my fault if you were clueless on this subject. Surely in America you are aware that a person can have recent non-Black ancestry and both parents are still considered to be Black (African-American).




Since you failed to respond to this post on the thread where it originally appeared, here's another chance.

WTH? I can't keep track of every thread where someone may have responded to a post.




Yes, but only a very small percentage of blacks are able to achieve that status and live in the predominantly white low crime areas.

About 70% of African-Americans are above the poverty. We'd have to know what you consider to be low crime but millions of them live in similar middle class neighborhoods to Whites, even predominately among themselves.


The high IQ ones like you have abandoned your fellow blacks to poverty and destitution as a permanent underclass of failure.

Are the majority of impoverished Whites being abandoned by the high IQ Whites to "poverty and destitution as a permanent underclass of failure"?

They need you to lead them to some semblance of cultural stability and wealth but you prefer to be successful in the larger white community.

I live in a predominately Black middle class neighborhood and sorry most of us are too busy living our lives to dedicate it to the upheaval of the "permanent underclass of failure". We are not obsessed with race like you are.



You are the cause of the black people's condition. Not the racists.

No, institutionalized racism caused the disparity between Blacks and Whites. In fact many of the things that White racists complain about are the fault of their ideological predecessors.

We would not have Affirmative Action in America if it were not for Jim Crow. If people were treated equally from their beginning there would not be policies set in place for us to catch up to the kind of society which White racists complain is "discrimination against them".

So it is infact you who are acting towards the detriment of your own values. If you disgree do tell me more about how valuing education and a decent living makes successful Blacks the problem of impoverished Blacks. Maybe it will make sense next time.



Thank you for pointing out that racially homogenous territories have less crime than mixed-race ones. You have helped make the case for segregation.

Surely you can do better than that. The majority of crime in the American inner cities are Black on Black so it is racially homogenous crime. If this were a biological phenomenon I would not be able to list an example where this were not true.

It is also true that there are cities and regions, especially in Eastern Europe where predominately White areas are comparably as crime ridden as the American inner cities.

Moscow for instance is ranked among the most crime ridden cities in the world, right up there with Detroit. It completely undercuts your argument that the correlation between race and crime is biological and not socio-economic.


But then, while segregation would be better for black people as a group, it wouldn't be better for you personally...would it?

Yes, let's all go back to segregation. "Separate but equal" right? I think maybe this time you can be segregated from the group in control of the institutions and see how wonderful it is.


I am not being facetious or satirical when I say that I care more about he fate of black people than you do, Mansa.

I think the correct word is liar.



If the successful blacks like you had stayed in the black community and applied yourselves to leading your own people and employing your talents to creating wealth and a viable culture for them, they would not be in the miserable condition that they are in.

Are you still blaming successful Blacks for the conditions of impoverished Blacks? I'll be sure to tell my parents that when they went to college and left the impoverished rural area that they came from making their parents proud that they are actually race traitors and that White racists such as yourself care more about African-Americans than them and express this by spreading racism on the internet.


You are a modern American black who has been infected with the white disease of individualism.

Individualism is a "White disease"? How racist and very anti-White of you to say that.


You see yourself, as do most whites sadly, as an individual whose only concern is for himself. You believe that because you have done well that all black people can do well and that their condition is the result of white, racist oppression. But that is not the case, Mansa. Their condition is the result of blacks like you having abandoned them for the benefits to be gained for yourself by assimilating into white society.

I am ideologically very much like Barack Obama in that I do not recognize an African-American, European-American, Asian-American, Arab-American etc. problems I recognize American problems.

You are stuck in an old school racial mentality in which people that do not toe the racial collective party line are seen as greedy individualists with no sense of community.

I'll have you know that we send our clothes to Goodwill when we are done wearing them and donate to charities. :rofl:

What you are really saying is that because successful African-Americans did not "stay in their place", that they are therefore not loyal to their people which is a ludicrous assertion. I'll leave the ethnic upheavel up to activists such as Bill Cosby and people such as yourself, fighting for prosperity by spreading racism on the internet.



I worked in a big city mixed-race high-school for nine years (1994-2003) and I can say with a lot of authority that the black students were overwhelmingly responsible for fights, drugs, pregnancies, low academic achievement and discipline problems in general. Not slightly...overwhelmingly. Day in and day out. And the assistant principals for discipline were ALWAYS black, always for the whole nine years. No white was or even could have been considered for the position.

Every semester when the principal's list for academic achievement came out I read it carefully and looked for the black student's names out of the usual 200 or so on the list. The highest tally was 5! Out of 200 in a school that was 40% black. Five was the highest...2.5% Usually it was less than five. This was in the fourth best school in the city. Good teachers, good facilities, science labs, up-to-date books and no lack of money spent.

White racists are not the problem.

It sounds like your "big city mixed-race high-school" sucks then. At the high school I graduated from the Valedictorian was Black. When the honors list was read and people went up to recieve their certificates, most of them were Black.

The school was about 80% Black. That 20% was very diverse however with people from all over the world.

Geist
12-28-2006, 12:59 PM
'Wherez all da white bitchaz at?'

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 01:02 PM
LOL How is any Western citizen member of a 'half caste'?

I think this is some stupid British term that is synonmous with mongrel/biracial/mixed-race etc.

Maybe it isn't British? A White Nationalist from there claimed that it was the common term.


Yea, just like Halle Berry...:D

Shirt probably heard someone say that I had mixed ancestry and assumed that I identify as mixed-race. My father's parents were both biracial. Both half-Black and the other parents Jewish and Cherokee Indian respectively.

He and his siblings however were raised and identify as Black. They are about the same complexion as Beyonce's mother.

But ofcourse on The Phora when people hear "mixed-race" alarms go off:

"PERSONALLY ATTACK! PERSONALLY ATTACK! :eek: "

And then you get all kinds of craziness like posters citing studies on psychopathology as if they know what they are talking about. :rolleyes:

il ragno
12-28-2006, 01:12 PM
Not much of a story. I mean, it's a commercial, not a bukkake out-take.

Mansa just posted it for the same reason Shecky Swindelfarb or whomever greenlighted it - it's "edgy" and "provocative" (ie, whitey-baiting).

Besides, young moneyed Euros are even further gone into sybaritic mindlessness than we are. Think about it - they get indoctrinated with the exact same Negroes are your new overlords agitprop we do, except they don't really have any real-life analogues for Bed-Stuy and Liberty City and East St Louis and Normandie Avenue over there - they have to watch Hollywood movies to see a real 'hood, and dangerous squalor looks exciting when it's on a screen and not around the corner from you.

And Negroes are still rare enough in these countries that it's not too hard to picture spoiled rich girls coveting a boolie of their own the way younger spoiled rich girls demand a pony of their own. She can still enjoy the same pungent stable-animal smell burning her nostrils, but where she rode the pony, the Negro rides her.

Zrinski
12-28-2006, 01:15 PM
This is stupid...

Dr. Gutberlet
12-28-2006, 01:17 PM
I hope she gets fvkked by LeBron. Who needs her genes anyway? Her body is nice, but her face isn't all that. As I've said previously, I never get angry at the black man in such relationships. Go LeBron!

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 01:21 PM
I hope she gets fvkked by LeBron. Who needs her genes anyway? Her body is nice, but her face isn't all that. As I've said previously, I never get angry at the black man in such relationships. Go LeBron!


That's funny. For me it was always the other way around. Pretty face. But she is a bit too skinny, there's no shape to her.

Dr. Gutberlet
12-28-2006, 01:27 PM
I am attracted to her never-ending legs.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 01:30 PM
She is tall and long-legged I'll give her that. I don't mind skinny girls either I just prefer a woman with a more curvacious figure which is unfortunately rare among female athletes.

Dr. Gutberlet
12-28-2006, 02:06 PM
That's all the creativity it deserves. James' only talent is throwing a ball through a hole, if it weren't for white people living in the superior societies they've created with lots of disposable income and the desire to pay to watch apes throw balls through holes, James would be a worthless Cleveland gang banga.

Yes, but he would be an extremely high-jumping Cleveland gang banga.

WAM
12-28-2006, 02:27 PM
Yes, but he would be an extremely high-jumping Cleveland gang banga.


He'd be living under a bridge, smoking a glass dick, bragging about his high school days when he'd 'thow it down fo' thirty' every game, and how he would been a rich nigga by now if da White man hadn't stopped supporting the National Bongo Association.

WAM
12-28-2006, 02:40 PM
Not much of a story. I mean, it's a commercial, not a bukkake out-take.

Mansa just posted it for the same reason Shecky Swindelfarb or whomever greenlighted it - it's "edgy" and "provocative" (ie, whitey-baiting).

Besides, young moneyed Euros are even further gone into sybaritic mindlessness than we are. Think about it - they get indoctrinated with the exact same Negroes are your new overlords agitprop we do, except they don't really have any real-life analogues for Bed-Stuy and Liberty City and East St Louis and Normandie Avenue over there - they have to watch Hollywood movies to see a real 'hood, and dangerous squalor looks exciting when it's on a screen and not around the corner from you.

And Negroes are still rare enough in these countries that it's not too hard to picture spoiled rich girls coveting a boolie of their own the way younger spoiled rich girls demand a pony of their own. She can still enjoy the same pungent stable-animal smell burning her nostrils, but where she rode the pony, the Negro rides her.





The 21st Century is going to be one long rude awakening for the White world in the ways of the non-White races.

The good news is that a hundred years from now there won't be many White liberals idiots left. The bad news is that there may not be many White people left, period.
Nature will get around to correcting the foolishness of Liberalism but unfortunately it won't just be the Liberals who get 'corrected' out of existence.

BiffBradley
12-28-2006, 02:52 PM
The 21st Century is going to be one long rude awakening for the White world in the ways of the non-White races.

The good news is that a hundred years from now there won't be many White liberals idiots left. The bad news is that there may not be many White people left, period.
Nature will get around to correcting the foolishness of Liberalism but unfortunately it won't just be the Liberals who get 'corrected' out of existence.
Oh the white nationalists/supremacists will disappear long before people with white skin are homogenised completely. Guaranteed, the trend is evident.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn_pr.html
Twenty-three years ago, an American philosophy professor named James Flynn discovered a remarkable trend: Average IQ scores in every industrialized country on the planet had been increasing steadily for decades. Despite concerns about the dumbing-down of society - the failing schools, the garbage on TV, the decline of reading - the overall population was getting smarter. And the climb has continued, with more recent studies showing that the rate of IQ increase is accelerating.

Ahknaton
12-28-2006, 03:08 PM
Twenty-three years ago, an American philosophy professor named James Flynn discovered a remarkable trend
James Flynn is a New Zealander. Racialism is inversely correlated with IQ because individuals with higher IQ are more likely to be exposed to the flawed "race is a social construct" meme in higher educational institutions. And inverse correlation with IQ doesn't necessarily demonstrate that a belief is incorrect.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 03:29 PM
James Flynn is a New Zealander. Racialism is correlated with IQ because individuals with higher IQ are more likely to be exposed to the flawed "race is a social construct" meme in higher educational institutions. And inverse correlation with IQ doesn't necessarily demonstrate that a belief is incorrect.

Racialism is actually correlated with IQ because some racist pseudoscientists in academia got funding from a like-minded organization to publish their misinformation and it is the racialist's bread and butter.

That's all the creativity it deserves. James' only talent is throwing a ball through a hole, if it weren't for white people living in the superior societies they've created with lots of disposable income and the desire to pay to watch apes throw balls through holes, James would be a worthless Cleveland gang banga.

That one was a little better than the average responses so far, Ugly. I'll give you a 4.5 out of 10.

Ahknaton
12-28-2006, 03:45 PM
Racialism is actually correlated with IQ because some racist pseudoscientists in academia got funding from a like-minded organization to publish their misinformation and it is the racialist's bread and butter.
That was a mistype on my part. I meant to say that it was inversely correlated. There was some study a while back that showed that racist/racialist opinions were correlated with a low IQ. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

FWIW, my opinion on IQ tests and racial differences is that they are real, although I wouldn't go so far as to label races superior or inferior on the basis of them. It's a specific set of analytical intelligences that are being tested for, which are unevenly distributed between different racial groups, but I think the concept of "multiple intelligences" is a valid one, and there are abilities that aren't captured by it. It's not the tests themselves that are culturally biased, but the weighting and importance given to the specific forms of intelligence tested by IQ tests that has a built-in bias. Groups place higher cultural/social value on things that they are good at, therefore it's a circular argument to claim that one is superior because one's own group performs better at a test which is given importance based on criteria that are selected to accentuate that group's particular strengths.

All the same, it's still true that Asian and Jews perform better than Whites, despite many of the psychologists that designed the tests being White Gentiles (as well as some Jews), which counts against your argument that White racist pseudoscientists contrived IQ tests to prove their own superiority. Personally I think that if you have a high IQ yourself you should be indifferent to the racial averages. It's more a reflection of how many dumb people happen to have the same skin colour as you rather than your own intelligence. That's why I wasn't particularly upset to learn that Jews and Asians have a higher average IQ to Whites. It's still an empirically valid statistic.

Hachiko
12-28-2006, 03:58 PM
Shirt probably heard someone say that I had mixed ancestry and assumed that I identify as mixed-race. My father's parents were both biracial. Both half-Black and the other parents Jewish and Cherokee Indian respectively.
Sounds like the paternal side of a mulatto friend of mine. His mother is Swedish-Jewish though.

But ofcourse on The Phora when people hear "mixed-race" alarms go off:

"PERSONALLY ATTACK! PERSONALLY ATTACK! :eek: "
Who IYHO gets assailed more here, straight-up Blacks or Mixed-races?

And then you get all kinds of craziness like posters citing studies on psychopathology as if they know what they are talking about. :rolleyes:
Well there's two kinds here, the Copy Pasta Phd's and the "This is what I see everyday" reference citers like me.

BiffBradley
12-28-2006, 04:04 PM
James Flynn is a New Zealander. Racialism is inversely correlated with IQ because individuals with higher IQ are more likely to be exposed to the flawed "race is a social construct" meme in higher educational institutions. And inverse correlation with IQ doesn't necessarily demonstrate that a belief is incorrect.
My point had nothing to do with correlation between race and IQ but the fact that people in general actually are getting smarter. Hence my claim that white nationalism will disappear.

Hachiko
12-28-2006, 04:20 PM
Quote:
Mansa: I went to high school in both enviroments. In both places teen girls still got pregnant. There were fights. People did drugs. They skipped school etc. etc.

Well I can firmly attest that in the 90% White school I went to, exactly 0% of the White students were responsible for the student pregnancies.

That's right, 0%. Zip. Goose Egg.

Mind you, it is an all-boys private school, but still. :D

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 04:21 PM
All the same, it's still true that Asian and Jews perform better than Whites, despite many of the psychologists that designed the tests being White Gentiles (as well as some Jews), which counts against your argument that White racist pseudoscientists contrived IQ tests to prove their own superiority. Personally I think that if you have a high IQ yourself you should be indifferent to the racial averages. It's more a reflection of how many dumb people happen to have the same skin colour as you rather than your own intelligence. That's why I wasn't particularly upset to learn that Jews and Asians have a higher average IQ to Whites. It's still an empirically valid statistic.

I never said that the people who contructed IQ tests had a racist agenda to promote White superiority.

I was referring specifically to the Bell Curve and the agenda of scholars such as Herrnstein and Murray to use IQ, which was historically not even based on race, to promote the theory of a fundamentally innate, intellectual disparity between racial groups.

I do not think that IQ testing is completely useless. At best it can help us to ascertain degrees to which learning styles and disparities in education effect intellectual aptitude.

The higher IQs of Ashkenazi Jews and Asians over Whites is most likely due to
the strong emphasis on literacy and higher educational standards of those groups respectively and not some type of biological factor.

The disparity between Blacks and Hispanics as opposed to Whites is also not suprising if we are to consider educational standards to be a factor. If the education is not equal the IQ scores will naturally be unequal and especially in the case of "Hispanics" (a term synonmous with Mestizo) the correlation between IQ and race to explain the disparity between this group and Whites is not even consistent with racial typologies.

If Mestizo/Hispanics are of "Mongoloid" extraction and IQ difference is a biological phenomenon why do they have lower IQs than East Asians, their racial cousins?

Did the Southern European ancestry in them make them dumber? Why do Ashkenazi Jews have so much higher IQs than groups in Middle Eastern countries which they are related to genetically?

There may be various types of intelligence and learning styles that can even be inherited but I do not believe that certain people are "born stupid" and that certain groups have a higher propensity towards these people being among them than other groups do as racists would have everyone believe.

Ahknaton
12-28-2006, 04:22 PM
My point had nothing to do with correlation between race and IQ but the fact that people in general actually are getting smarter. Hence my claim that white nationalism will disappear.
Non sequitur. I wasn't talking about correlation between race and IQ either, but between racialism and IQ. White Nationalism (or some other flavour of racialism) won't disappear because the assumptions underlying it are fundamentally correct. Even those with "high IQs" will come to see it eventually.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 04:37 PM
Well I can firmly attest that in the 90% White school I went to, exactly 0% of the White students were responsible for the student pregnancies.

That's right, 0%. Zip. Goose Egg.

Mind you, it is an all-boys private school, but still. :D

I went to a high school for my first 3 years of high school that was 95% White.

I did not keep up with who got pregnant by whom but one of my teachers had a 16 year old daughter who I was friends with who got pregnant by another friend of mine (both White).

I talked to my teacher about this, he gave a very emotional speech about the ills of teen pregancy and told me she was going to have the baby and give it up for adoption, also (when I asked) he said he did not give a damn about what the father thought. So sure enough her belly got big throughout the school year and she had to give up the baby. It was vert sad. :(

Sounds like the paternal side of a mulatto friend of mine. His mother is Swedish-Jewish though.

If my Grandfather was half-white instead of Cherokee Indian I guess my Dad would be a "full-blooded mullatto" if that term makes any sense. If Jews were White ofcourse. Do you consider Jews to be White?

Who IYHO gets assailed more here, straight-up Blacks or Mixed-races?

I have to say that across racist message boards the trend is that people will hate you just a little more if you are of mixed-race.

As much as they hate Black people on SF, VNN or The Phora if you are mixed you will be hounded and belittled for that ancestry and called "confused", an abonimation etc. etc.

The only biracial people of African descent that I know of on The Phora are King Bedlam and Alanna. I've seen them both disparaged for their ancestry.


Well there's two kinds here, the Copy Pasta Phd's and the "This is what I see everyday" reference citers like me.

I can't argue with street smarts only to say that everyone has their own experiences but my gripe with the PhD wannabes is that they sometimes cite research and don't really know what they are talking about.

Anyone can got to PubMed and find an article that seemingly agrees with their point of view. Knowing what you are talking about when referencing it is another story.

that guy
12-28-2006, 04:44 PM
If Mestizo/Hispanics are of "Mongoloid" extraction and IQ difference is a biological phenomenon why do they have lower IQs than East Asians, their racial cousins?
They are not THAT close to them. The IQ of east Asians and American Indians could have changed significantly in the time that passed since they separated.

Did the Southern European ancestry in them make them dumber?
No, I'm pretty sure that made them smarter.

Why do Ashkenazi Jews have so much higher IQs than groups in Middle Eastern countries which they are related to genetically?
1) Because they mixed with Europeans.

2) Because of Eugenics.

3) Potentially they were already smarter than other Middle easterners (this is just a guess, though).

4) Some Middle Eastern populations may have deteriorated in the last few centuries.

There may be various types of intelligence and learning styles that can even be inherited but I do not believe that certain people are "born stupid" and that certain groups have a higher propensity towards these people being among them than other groups do as racists would have everyone believe.
I wouldn't have "everyone believe" in anything, but why do you think that "various types of intelligence and learning styles" could be inherited, but stupidity couldn't? Is that conclusion based on logic, or on something else?

BiffBradley
12-28-2006, 05:29 PM
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 05:53 PM
They are not THAT close to them.

How close is "THAT" close? You do believe in biological races don't you?

According to the autosomal map (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/autosomalclusters.gif) in Cavalli-Sforza's book The History and Geography of Human Genes, Native Americans are genetically closer to the Japanese and Koreans than North African Berber are to Italians even though the latter two are geographically very close (plus this data may be obscured by the fact that the Native populations have European ancestry as before colonization they may have been even closer genetically).


The IQ of east Asians and American Indians could have changed significantly in the time that passed since they separated.

According to genetic mapping (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/OutofAfrica-genetics-evolution.gif) they have not been separated for that long.

It would all depend on how long you expect it to take for these massive IQ changes to occur.

According to Flynn they don't even appear to stay stagnant from generation to generation so gauging a group's IQ potential biologically is altogether useless.



No, I'm pretty sure that made them smarter.

How so? The Aztec ancestors of the Mexicans were far more advanced than the Spanish or Portuguese in their indegenious development. The Iberian Peninsula recieved its cultural influx from elsewhere in Europe.

So how can you be so sure that those genes made them smarter?

1) Because they mixed with Europeans.

Yet they have higher IQs than Europeans. Clearly Europeans, a supposedly intellectually inferior group did not make them smarter than their Southwest Asian counterparts.

2) Because of Eugenics.

What eugenic process has been conducted on Ashkenazi Jews that could be attributed to their intelligence?


3) Potentially they were already smarter than other Middle easterners (this is just a guess, though).

What would make them (a Middle Eastern people) significantly smarter than other Middle Eastern people biologically?

I think your acknowledgement that this is speculation is accurate.

4) Some Middle Eastern populations may have deteriorated in the last few centuries.

And the cause of this intellectual deterioration would be?

I wouldn't have "everyone believe" in anything, but why do you think that "various types of intelligence and learning styles" could be inherited, but stupidity couldn't? Is that conclusion based on logic, or on something else?

Because "stupidity" is not the measure of something innate, it is a value judgement based on how adept someone is at performing a mental task that could range from academic scores to your ability to articulate (e.g. George Bush has the reputation for being an idiot because he is not a good speaker in a position that requires him to be so) to your willingness to pay attention or behave in certain situations.

Short of developmental disorders and mental retardation I have seen no evidence that there are tasks certain humans are incapable or less capable of doing mentally, only that there are varying ways in which we absorb and process information which IQ testing could help us to better understand.

The Bell Curve theories are a racist misuse of science perpetuated to promote an ideological agenda.

that guy
12-28-2006, 07:35 PM
How close is "THAT" close? You do believe in biological races don't you?
I believe in the existence of biological differences between races, if that's what you meant. ;)

According to the autosomal map (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/autosomalclusters.gif) in Cavalli-Sforza's book The History and Geography of Human Genes, Native Americans are genetically closer to the Japanese and Koreans than North African Berber are to Italians even though the latter two are geographically very close (plus this data may be obscured by the fact that the Native populations have European ancestry as before colonization they may have been even closer genetically).
That does not disprove what I said. The question is when did they separate from the Japanese and Koreans?


According to genetic mapping (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/OutofAfrica-genetics-evolution.gif) they have not been separated for that long.
According to your source, they moved to America 7,000 – 35,000 years ago. The same source says that Africans moved into Asia 56,000 – 73,000 years ago, and to Europe 39,000 to 51,000 years ago.

Even if those estimations are accurate, this still does not disprove what I said.

It would all depend on how long you expect it to take for these massive IQ changes to occur.
Indeed. I can only speculate that 7,000 - 35,000 years is enough.

According to Flynn they don't even appear to stay stagnant from generation to generation so gauging a group's IQ potential biologically is altogether useless.
I didn't read Flynn's paper (or whatever it was), but there is always a chance that he could be wrong. Of course there will be fluctuations, but I think it is still scientifically useful to gauge a group's IQ.


How so? The Aztec ancestors of the Mexicans were far more advanced than the Spanish or Portuguese in their indegenious development. The Iberian Peninsula recieved its cultural influx from elsewhere in Europe.
I don't propose to know everything about IQ and civilizations. The Aztec (or other) American Indian civilizations are an interesting issue. The way I look at this (and this is sheer speculation), in various areas throughout history certain groups have distinguished themselves. Egypt, Ancient Greece, and Mesopotamia come to mind. I can only guess that fluctuations in IQ can sometimes give rise to elite societies. In Europe, where the base IQ was already pretty high, these elite societies manifested themselves in the great civilizations of Greece and Rome. In the Americas, where the base IQ level was probably lower, similar elite-like groups created the Aztec and the Inca civilizations.


So how can you be so sure that those genes made them smarter?
I have seen enough of both groups to be somewhat confident in my estimation.

Yet they have higher IQs than Europeans. Clearly Europeans, a supposedly intellectually inferior group did not make them smarter than their Southwest Asian counterparts.
You can't separate my 4 points, Mansa. If you look at point #2, you will see how Europeans could have been a contributing factor in Ashkenazi Jews' high IQ.

What eugenic process has been conducted on Ashkenazi Jews that could be attributed to their intelligence?
The smarter ones were better in Torah studies (or whatever it is that they studied), and obtained the ability to produce more offspring than their dimwitted buddies.

What would make them (a Middle Eastern people) significantly smarter than other Middle Eastern people biologically?
I never said "significantly". This is speculation, but the jews could hypothetically have been another "elite-like" group compared to other groups in that area (at least when it came to IQ levels). This could have been the result of random fluctuations, or it could have had a more specific cause. I don't know. This is one potential explanation, but it was probably not as significant as mixing with Europeans + eugenics was..


I think your acknowledgement that this is speculation is accurate.
I don't have bell curves for ancient Israel, sorry.

And the cause of this intellectual deterioration would be?
It could be different things, including (in some cases) mixing with other races. Again, this is not necessarily a major factor, but it could be a contributing factor. If you combine it to the other 3 factors (and perhaps a few other factors that I didn't mention) you might see that my suggestions are not illogical.

Because "stupidity" is not the measure of something innate, it is a value judgement based on how adept someone is at performing a mental task that could range from academic scores to your ability to articulate (e.g. George Bush has the reputation for being an idiot because he is not a good speaker in a position that requires him to be so) to your willingness to pay attention or behave in certain situations.
I think monkeys are innately stupid compared to humans, but I guess that's just a value judgment. ;)

Short of developmental disorders and mental retardation I have seen no evidence that there are tasks certain humans are incapable or less capable of doing mentally, only that there are varying ways in which we absorb and process information which IQ testing could help us to better understand.
What about this task:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/83/300px-Shuttle.jpg

The Bell Curve theories are a racist misuse of science perpetuated to promote an ideological agenda.
So is your post.

Hachiko
12-28-2006, 07:54 PM
I went to a high school for my first 3 years of high school that was 95% White.

I grew up thinking that High School was gonna be like The Breakfast Club. (25 year olds :D) Boy was I in for a shock. :rofl:

I did not keep up with who got pregnant by whom but one of my teachers had a 16 year old daughter who I was friends with who got pregnant by another friend of mine (both White).

I talked to my teacher about this, he gave a very emotional speech about the ills of teen pregancy and told me she was going to have the baby and give it up for adoption, also (when I asked) he said he did not give a damn about what the father thought. So sure enough her belly got big throughout the school year and she had to give up the baby. It was vert sad. :(

Teen pregnancy is tough no matter how you slice it. My mom had my sister when she was 17. Her mom put her in a group home in Flushing and told her she had to put the baby up. My mom credits a 15 year old Black girl for telling her something she really didn't know, no one can take aways your baby like that. So she kept her and suffered throught multiple jobs to make ends meet.

If my Grandfather was half-white instead of Cherokee Indian I guess my Dad would be a "full-blooded mullatto" if that term makes any sense.

No it doesn't, but 3 Euro lines in me make me a White Mongrel.

If Jews were White ofcourse. Do you consider Jews to be White?

Can't really paint that one with one brush. Israelis? Hasidics? The ones that look like Seinfeld? I can easily say not white. But I used to work with a Polish Jew, a blonde guy who looks just like my Catholic Austrian landlord. So really, what can I say there?

I have to say that across racist message boards the trend is that people will hate you just a little more if you are of mixed-race.

As much as they hate Black people on SF, VNN or The Phora if you are mixed you will be hounded and belittled for that ancestry and called "confused", an abonimation etc. etc.

The only biracial people of African descent that I know of on The Phora are King Bedlam and Alanna. I've seen them both disparaged for their ancestry.

Bedlam comes out with a "the world will one day be all mixed people and that's good" mentality. Personally, I think he is out and out baiting. But I think people rag on him more for that than anything.
As for Alanna, I think her intro thread was pretty rude (the way she was treated). For all the shit I say about Blacks, I do have black friends, and being a friend of Boleslaw I figured she was probably a nice person. Hell, I've worked with many Guyanese Blacks (which she said she was half). Many of them are hard-working and have no love for our "Project-Niggers".

I can't argue with street smarts only to say that everyone has their own experiences but my gripe with the PhD wannabes is that they sometimes cite research and don't really know what they are talking about.

The problem with "street smart references" is of course, no way to prove authenticity. I know I am being honest, but the next idiot comes along and says "I once took down 20 guys in a fight while bagging their sisters." and it smells of just a tiny bit of horseshit.

Helios Panoptes
12-28-2006, 09:00 PM
My point had nothing to do with correlation between race and IQ but the fact that people in general actually are getting smarter. Hence my claim that white nationalism will disappear.

A few things... One is that there is evidence that the Flynn effect has stalled in some first world nations, already. Additionally, there are multiple studies demonstrating a dysgenic trend. That is, genotypic intelligence is declining with every generation. This is being masked by increased living standards, especially for the lower classes(Flynn effect is virtually nonexistent for upper half of population). We can infer from this that the Flynn effect is not an inevitability. It improves the intelligence of the underclass, but not the overclass. Once a certain standard is reached, it ceases. Therefore, people will not continue to get smarter because eventually, the steady genotypic decline will no longer be masked. It is reasonable to think that if something does not change, people will begin getting stupider in first-world nations.

Der Sozialist
12-28-2006, 09:30 PM
The IQ differential between Ashkenazi Jews and other Semites is most probably due to Eugenics. In fact, suggesting this is very mainstream—even the New York Times published an article endorsing a study that found Ashkenazi Jews to be innately more intellectually gifted than any other group of people.

It is now believed that certain genes that cause higher intelligence also cause higher rates neurological diseases like Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's and Niemann-Pick. These are due to the storage of sphingolipids. Also, myelination is believed to be a factor—this explains heritability of intelligence is as high as 80% during adulthood versus ~40% during childhood (Myelination is 90% heritable and is continuously constructed up to adulthood).

This would cause a sort of equilibrium---with both positive and negative [dis]advantages from the selection of higher intelligence.

Since Ashkenazi Jews were restricted to higher than usual mental agility—like usury—this is believed to have increased selectionary pressures selecting for higher intelligence in comparison to their surrounding host populations.

The difference between Native Americans and East Asians is not at all that surprising. It seems that most Native Americans are descendants from Asiatic tribes that entered the New World from Siberia—if one examines Asiatic tribes in Siberia and Amerindians—they will only find a small differential.

As to the difference between tribes in East Asia and Siberia—this is believed to be primarily caused by the differential in population sizes. If one examines the major population groups—intelligence is highly correlated with ancient population sizes.

Therefore, the EurAsian groups have higher intelligence simply because of a larger population sizes increased the odds of a highly beneficial mutant allele arising—while the ancient populations in Australia, Polynesia, and sub-Saharan Africa were some of the smallest.

In fact, one could easily ask why there is a substantial differential between Negroes and Pygmies/South African Bushman. They, after all, evolved on the same continent and in some cases, somewhat analogous environments. Again, the population sizes of the Pygmies were quite small compared to those of the Negroes in West Africa—this in turn allowed the Negroes to easily conqueror and exterminate many Pygmies in the jungles of Zaire/Congo.

I, unfortunately forgot the actual ancient population sizes.

Obviously, the above explanation only explains differences between large populations over long periods of time and cannot be used to explain the differential in Ashkenazi intelligence that occurred over several thousand years.

Burrhus
12-28-2006, 09:33 PM
This is stupid...

Then don't read it.

Zrinski
12-28-2006, 10:05 PM
Then don't read it.

What about idiots starting idiotic threads?

Burrhus
12-28-2006, 11:50 PM
Burrhus: I am not being facetious or satirical when I say that I care more about he fate of black people than you do, Mansa.


I think the correct word is liar.

I have not directed any abusive epithets at you.

It seems that I have over-estimated you.

Understand that when the black underclass that you have abandoned starts to circle the drain, you will be sucked out of your comfortable 'white' life into the vortex with them.

You are one of the lowest kinds of people there are...a race traitor.

But I still don't hate you. You're not worthy of that much emotion. Perhaps...disdain.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 11:52 PM
I believe in the existence of biological differences between races, if that's what you meant. ;)

I like to make sure people are held to consistency. Significant genetic distances are inconsistent with the theory of typological race when it applies to populations presumably of the same race.



That does not disprove what I said. The question is when did they separate from the Japanese and Koreans?

I'm just making note of the reality of their genetic similarity in light of your comment.


Indeed. I can only speculate that 7,000 - 35,000 years is enough.

Very well then but speculation is not an argument.

I didn't read Flynn's paper (or whatever it was), but there is always a chance that he could be wrong. Of course there will be fluctuations, but I think it is still scientifically useful to gauge a group's IQ.

Any scientific theory can possibly be wrong including your beliefs about the significance of IQ. I recommend that you research the flynn effect. (http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml)

I don't propose to know everything about IQ and civilizations. The Aztec (or other) American Indian civilizations are an interesting issue. The way I look at this (and this is sheer speculation), in various areas throughout history certain groups have distinguished themselves. Egypt, Ancient Greece, and Mesopotamia come to mind. I can only guess that fluctuations in IQ can sometimes give rise to elite societies. In Europe, where the base IQ was already pretty high, these elite societies manifested themselves in the great civilizations of Greece and Rome. In the Americas, where the base IQ level was probably lower, similar elite-like groups created the Aztec and the Inca civilizations.


Guy, you are making the mistake of responding to counter arguments with mere speculation in response to a belief you feel has been proven. This is a pseudoscientific excercize.

I'm going to highlight all of the text in purple from this point forward to make note of where you are doing this.

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted. - Rory Coker, Ph.D. (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)

If history gives credence to my theory that IQ is not rooted in biology then it undercuts your argument and it is up to you to provide evidence for alternative theories to explain my evidence not merely speculate.

As far as this quote is concerned, you state later in this post that you do not have the IQ scores of the Ancient Middle East correct?

Well you don't have them for Europe either. Europeans also did not advance evenly, infact Middle Easterners a supposedly intelletually inferior group advanced before Greece or Rome, which were themselves the only advanced Europeans while civilization existed in places like the Nile Valley and India for thousands of years.

Those Europeans were on average no more advanced than most Native Americans and other groups that you assume to have lower average IQs so why do you assume a biological based disparity in intelligence when history proves that cultural advancements are inconsistent with Bell Curves theories on typological race.

I don't think we need to get into your speculation about magical IQ flucuations that advance a group that was otherwise of lower intelligence.

I have seen enough of both groups to be somewhat confident in my estimation.

These generalizations are however made on modern times when the theory is that racial groups have an innate intellectual capacity that would theoretically not change change throughout history as well as not need events in history to explain why people live the way they do today.


You can't separate my 4 points, Mansa. If you look at point #2, you will see how Europeans could have been a contributing factor in Ashkenazi Jews' high IQ.

I would not have a problem with your points if they were not conceptually flawed. How can European genes in Ashkenazi Jews make them smarter than Europeans themselves?

If it were simply about making them smarter than Middle Easterners that is a logical theory but a small amount of gene flow from a high IQ group making a lower IQ group smarter than them is illogical.

2 + 2 = 4 not 5.

The smarter ones were better in Torah studies (or whatever it is that they studied), and obtained the ability to produce more offspring than their dimwitted buddies.

Do you have historical evidence for this?

I never said "significantly".

But there IQs are significantly higher and you believe that IQ average are innate.

This is speculation, but the jews could hypothetically have been another "elite-like" group compared to other groups in that area (at least when it came to IQ levels). This could have been the result of random fluctuations, or it could have had a more specific cause. I don't know. This is one potential explanation, but it was probably not as significant as mixing with Europeans + eugenics was..

Again where is your evidence of a eugenic practice among Ashkenazi Jews?

And how could "random fluctuations" make a specific ethnic group smarter than others.

Isn't it more logical to presume that the cultural emphasis on literacy within Jewish populations gave rise to a society that on average had a higher IQ?

The study of the torah and the strong emphasis on studying in general is a natural enviroment for rearing individuals with higher IQs as is the government imposed high education standards in Northeast Asian countries over their Western counterparts.

These cultural factors are more logical and have far more evidence backing them than magical IQ flucatuations.

I don't have bell curves for ancient Israel, sorry.

But you do have evidence from history to reference when testing your hypothesis about the correlation between IQ and innate intellectual capabilities.


It could be different things, including (in some cases) mixing with other races. Again, this is not necessarily a major factor, but it could be a contributing factor. If you combine it to the other 3 factors (and perhaps a few other factors that I didn't mention) you might see that my suggestions are not illogical.

Suggestions are one step, next they need to be supported by evidence.

I think monkeys are innately stupid compared to humans, but I guess that's just a value judgment. ;)

Monkeys are not humans. My comment referred specifically to humans.

Everyone knows very well that other animals do not have the intellectual capacities of humans and therefore are mentally incapable of performing certain human tasks.

My point was that I see no evidence that this is true within the human species.

What about this task:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/83/300px-Shuttle.jpg

I've been to the Houston space center (my Uncle works there) and seen a diverse group of people from computer technicians to astronauts contribute to space shuttle launches so I see no evidence that there are tasks within those occupations that certain groups are incapable of performing.


So is your post.

Where is your evidence that I have misused science to perpetuate an ideological agenda?

Quite the contrary it would appear as though you have done this as evidence by some of your pseudoscientific responses.

How does one "Phoraite" [sic] hang another from a "poll" [sic] ?

It's too bad that regular members cannot edit their own polls. Otherwise I could be spared the idiotic attacks on my typos (In as much as Phorite/Phoraite etc. is not a real word you could call my "poll" comment a play on words as I was making a poll with an option to hang me from a pole :rofl: ).

Regardless of Mansa analphabetism, I would like to put down three options, not just one.

I don't like making polls where people put down multiple options. I could have picked a few more myself but I structured it to be narrowed down to what you would most likely choose.

Morpheus
12-28-2006, 11:56 PM
I have not directed any abusive epithets at you.

It seems that I have over-estimated you.

Understand that when the black underclass that you have abandoned starts to circle the drain, you will be sucked out of your comfortable 'white' life into the vortex with them.

You are one of the lowest kinds of people there are...a race traitor.

But I still don't hate you. You're not worthy of that much emotion. Perhaps...disdain.

It is racist to assume that a high standard of living means that you are "living White".

That type of mentality is what will keep African-Americans from advancing. As it relates to your abusive epithet, it is of no relevance to me as I do not believe in race loyality.

So you can call me a race traitor if you want to.

Starr
12-29-2006, 12:13 AM
It is racist to assume that a high standard of living means that you are "living White".

That type of mentality is what will keep African-Americans from advancing. As it relates to your abusive epithet, it is of no relevance to me as I do not believe in race loyality.




That high standard of living that is said to be "living white" is the result of certain behaviors that are said and believed by many blacks to be "acting white." Is this just a false stereotype held by blacks(I would assume you would say are the result of racist beliefs they have been subjected to)or could it be the result of behaviors that they can clearly see as being different than their own that they can not relate to?

Helios Panoptes
12-29-2006, 12:14 AM
If history gives credence to my theory that IQ is not rooted in biology then it undercuts your argument and it is up to you to provide evidence for alternative theories to explain my evidence not merely speculate.

Do you believe that IQ is 0% heritable?

Morpheus
12-29-2006, 12:42 AM
That high standard of living that is said to be "living white" is the result of certain behaviors that are said and believed by many blacks to be "acting white." Is this just a false stereotype held by blacks(I would assume you would say are the result of racist beliefs they have been subjected to)or could it be the result of behaviors that they can clearly see as being different than their own that they can not relate to?

The attitude you describe is one akin to rebellion in which some underclass Blacks believe that by shunning the qualities of the White American upperclass and associating Blacks who are among the upperclass and behave similarly with "acting White" they are "acting cool", "acting down" or "acting Black".

In reality I believe that they are foresaking the essentials for success in society in favor of decadence so I snub the comments made by Burrhus, calling me a "race traitor" because I know better.

Do you believe that IQ is 0% heritable?

I don't believe that IQ is the measure of something innate, therefore it cannot be inherited.

If I can score above a standard deviation on the same IQ test how can it possibly be innate?

Kriger
12-29-2006, 01:44 AM
Musa, while I am not sure of guy's formal title, I do know he is a research scientist. I really do not believe that you are qualified for lecturing him about the scientific method especially when your own theories are based upon less than scientific methods.

You are subjective to the extent that if you are not a girl, you should be.

I do not say this to flame you. Just objective observations.

You have a right to your opinions, but that is exactly what they are, opinions. And your theories run in contradiction to actual research and studies.

Starr
12-29-2006, 01:59 AM
The attitude you describe is one akin to rebellion in which some underclass Blacks believe that by shunning the qualities of the White American upperclass and associating Blacks who are among the upperclass and behave similarly with "acting White" they are "acting cool", "acting down" or "acting Black".

Is this attitude a rebellion or are they just behaving in a way that is closer to their nature? Obviously if they see certain lifestyles and behaviors as "acting black" or "keeping it real" or whatever else they say, these are behaviors that they see as more common of blacks, behaviors they can relate to, while the blacks that they might say are acting white or being an uncle tom are abnormal and somewhat strange to them. Racial differences are defintely coming into play here.

And these issues and attitudes are not just a part of "the black community" in the united states.

| I, CWAS
12-29-2006, 02:30 AM
I do not care about either one of them and their race is irrelevant.

Morpheus
12-29-2006, 02:41 AM
Musa, while I am not sure of guy's formal title, I do know he is a research scientist. I really do not believe that you are qualified for lecturing him about the scientific method especially when your own theories are based upon less than scientific methods.

I am not aware of Guy's educational background but that is irrelavent to the logical fallacies that he is making.

And what unscientific methods are you speaking of that I base my theories around?

You are subjective to the extent that if you are not a girl, you should be.

I do not say this to flame you. Just objective observations.

:rolleyes:

You have a right to your opinions, but that is exactly what they are, opinions. And your theories run in contradiction to actual research and studies.

My theories are consistent with the experts. If you disagree then prove me wrong. Stating so does not make it true.



Is this attitude a rebellion or are they just behaving in a way that is closer to their nature? Obviously if they see certain lifestyles and behaviors as "acting black" or "keeping it real" or whatever else they say, these are behaviors that they see as more common of blacks, behaviors they can relate to, while the blacks that they might say are acting white or being an uncle tom are abnormal and somewhat strange to them. Racial differences are defintely coming into play here.

Assuming you are correct but I do not think this is the case.

I think that Thomas Sowell has an interesting theory on this aspect of African-American culture which he writes about in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594030863/sr=8-1/qid=1167362606/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5049408-2464960?ie=UTF8&s=books).

He believes that "ghetto culture" is strongly correlated with the "redneck culture" of the South which is derived from the British and Scottish underclass which many Southern Whites are descended from.

And these issues and attitudes are not just a part of "the black community" in the united states.

Indeed they are attitudes reflected in almost every ethnic group in which there is an upperclass and impoverished underclass.

It is certainly not a racial thing. There are regions in Africa where education is strongly emphasized as much as it is in Ashkenazi Jewish or Asian cultures.

Infact in my area many African immigrants who arrive here well educated are even seen as snobbish by African-Americans that are less well off.

They come here well dressed in their traditional clothing, speak a more proper English with an African accent and can be seen working high income jobs disproportionate to the numbers of them immigrating here.

My family bought a house in a more well to do area that was previously owned by an African family from Nigeria. I have had college professors that were African and even doctors. I have spoken to Africans at my former jobs about the ills of "American lifestyle" and how people behave which was seen as unsightly in their homecountry (even something as small as swearing in your everyday speech).

So based on my experience this phenomenon that you describe is cultural more so than anything and not consistent with innate racial differences.

Helios Panoptes
12-29-2006, 02:54 AM
I don't believe that IQ is the measure of something innate, therefore it cannot be inherited.

It is amazing to me that you think that IQ is 0% heritable. That genetics contribute to IQ to some extent is, at this point, virtually uncontroversial amongst experts on intelligence testing.

If I can score above a standard deviation on the same IQ test how can it possibly be innate?

That is very unlikely. It is probable that, within one year, test-retest correlations would be .90 or above.

that guy
12-29-2006, 03:02 AM
Mansa, I will respond to your post later. Note, though, that this is not a formal scientific debate. The truth is that I am personally not really interested in a formal scientific debate on this topic, because it will require a lot of work, and I just don't have the motivation (or the time) to go through all that work just to prove to you something that became obvious to me through observation, common sense, and a basic knowledge of human history.

So you can go ahead and color the word 'speculation' in bright pink fonts with purple polka dots if you want to. I will continue to use it. A true-blooded pseudo-scientist wouldn't use that term, anyway. He would claim that his speculation is "science".

Starr
12-29-2006, 03:12 AM
I think that Thomas Sowell has an interesting theory on this aspect of African-American culture which he writes about in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals.

He believes that "ghetto culture" is strongly correlated with the "redneck culture" of the South which is derived from the British and Scottish underclass which many Southern Whites are descended from.

This and other ideas could possibly have a little more merit, if this was was something that affected only african-american or blacks in any one particular area, but that is far from the truth. A couple of many examples:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,651769,00.html

Around 45 per cent of London's unemployed are black. Failure rates among black schoolchildren are the silent catastrophe of London. The black prison population in Britain has doubled since 1994. Infant mortality rates are double those of white Londoners. Young black men occupy more than 40 per cent of the psychiatric beds in London. Teenage pregnancy rates are the highest in Europe and the number of single parents is going through the roof. Sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV, also have a disproportionate impact on the black community.

http://www.fradical.com/Rap_contributes_to_Toronto_violence.htm

Toronto has experienced a stunning wave of gang violence that some say is inexplicably bold and callous. But at least one man who works with the city's black youth understands better than most why some of them are living a life of crime and violence, why they, and innocent bystanders, are dying in such great numbers.

Same thing everywhere, and when they are not focusing on the usual excuse of racism, they begin to talk about the other factors that are also always present and affects blacks in such high numbers, poverty, broken families,etc. It makes no sense to only look at environment, when different environments produce the same results and same set of problems on a consistant basis.

Kriger
12-29-2006, 06:26 AM
You are the one presenting alternate theories as fact, Musa. Therefore it is for you to provide links to sources to back your theories.

If they are just theories, so be it. Everyone has their theories. However, these remain theories unless evidence is provided to indicate otherwise.

Your claim is that your theories are based on experts. What experts and their studies do you base your theories on?

Ahknaton
12-29-2006, 08:44 AM
Sharapova calendar pics, courtesy of VNN (for anthropological analysis only :D):

http://usemycomputer.com/indeximages/women/Maria.Sharapova/calendar_2007_SI/

Dr. Gutberlet
12-29-2006, 01:50 PM
She has very nice hips.

Keystone
12-29-2006, 04:13 PM
That's all the creativity it deserves. James' only talent is throwing a ball through a hole, if it weren't for white people living in the superior societies they've created with lots of disposable income and the desire to pay to watch apes throw balls through holes, James would be a worthless Cleveland gang banga.
They'll be putting screens around NBA courts to protect the patrons from the hoodie rage someday soon, mark my words.

At least you don't have to worry about Sharapova landing in your lap while fighting with her opponent. (Wait, I'd enjoy that.)

that guy
12-29-2006, 06:19 PM
I like to make sure people are held to consistency. Significant genetic distances are inconsistent with the theory of typological race when it applies to populations presumably of the same race.
Mansa, if you accuse someone of inconsistency you should be a bit more specific than that. Also, using terms like 'typological race' warrants a brief explanation, if you insist on using them.

I do believe, though, that a position that does not ignore racial differences is the more consistent one. It is consistent with the continent of Africa; it is consistent with the continent of Europe; it is consistent with the Americas, with various Island states, with different sub-populations of these continents, with dozens of countries, with hundreds of cities within these countries, with different areas of these cities, with 20th century history, with 19 century history, etc, etc..


I'm just making note of the reality of their genetic similarity in light of your comment.
But you have no idea if these similarities necessitate a similar IQ. You are only speculating that this is indeed the case. (Yes, it is possible for someone to be speculating even when he doesn't acknowledge it).

Very well then but speculation is not an argument.
Allow me to use your :rolleyes: argument for this one, eh? Do you have any proof that Native Americans are so similar genetically to Japanese/Koreans, that they simply MUST be similar in intelligence? What do you base your non-speculative argumentation on, Mansa?

Any scientific theory can possibly be wrong including your beliefs about the significance of IQ. I recommend that you research the flynn effect. (http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml)
I'll look into it if and when I have time.

Guy, you are making the mistake of responding to counter arguments with mere speculation in response to a belief you feel has been proven. This is a pseudoscientific excercize.
You are making the mistake of trying to draw me into a formal scientific debate that would require me to look for non-PC scientific papers to disprove every claim you make here. That, I will not do.

I'm going to highlight all of the text in purple from this point forward to make note of where you are doing this.
See my last post (above).

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments.
Where did you post meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments? I don't remember seeing them. You posted a map that shows when the ancestors of American Indians moved to America. That does not answer the question of whether or not American Indians could be less intelligent than Japanese and Koreans, so it is not meaningful.

Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted. - Rory Coker, Ph.D. (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)
I did not ignore the genuine scientific literature. I took a look at the map you posted, and gave you a reply: 7,000 – 35,000 years could conceivably be enough time. Plus, as Der Sozialist implied, if you are comparing Japanese and Koreans to American Indians, you will probably have to add more time because the tribes that moved to America probably separated from the Japanese and Korean ancestors long before they moved to America.

If history gives credence to my theory that IQ is not rooted in biology then it undercuts your argument and it is up to you to provide evidence for alternative theories to explain my evidence not merely speculate.
History does no such thing. The history of Sub-Saharan Africa vs Europe gives credence to "my" theory. The history of Haiti gives credence to "my" theory. So does the history of the USA, Israel, and many other countries. The fact that there may have been some unexplained fluctuations in IQ (e.g. the Inca empire) does not prove that ALL fluctuations in IQ are unexplained.

As far as this quote is concerned, you state later in this post that you do not have the IQ scores of the Ancient Middle East correct?
Correct.

Well you don't have them for Europe either. Europeans also did not advance evenly, infact Middle Easterners a supposedly intelletually inferior group advanced before Greece or Rome, which were themselves the only advanced Europeans while civilization existed in places like the Nile Valley and India for thousands of years.
It is obvious (to me) that today Middle Easterners are less intelligent than Europeans. But, yes, 4,500 years ago, the Egyptians had a very nice civilization. What was the exact race of these Egyptians, though? They were not arabs. I remember you mentioned that you studied this, so what was your conclusion? The Mesopotamians looked a bit more "Semitic" than the Egyptians IMO (hooked noses, etc.), and I find that interesting. However, that doesn't mean that I will change my view of the world. It is just that -- an interesting anecdote showing us that the Europeans were not the only smart Caucasoids in History. This is not inconsistent with my world view, though, because I never claimed that they were.

Those Europeans were on average no more advanced than most Native Americans and other groups that you assume to have lower average IQs so why do you assume a biological based disparity in intelligence when history proves that cultural advancements are inconsistent with Bell Curves theories on typological race.
I think history is consistent with Bell Curves. Sub-Saharan history seems to be consistent with it. Haiti's history too. Detroit's history as well. And today, most of the world seems to be pretty consistent with it, too. Look at the different parts of the world -- Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, etc. -- each part has a civilization that seems to correlate with the Bell Curve. Of course, you will claim that the correlation is due to another correlation -- between poverty and the Bell Curve, but then what is the cause and what is the effect? I think you know what "my" theory is.


I don't think we need to get into your speculation about magical IQ flucuations that advance a group that was otherwise of lower intelligence.
Sub-Saharan Africans building the coliseum 2,000 years ago would be a major problem for "my" theory. The Inca civilization, however, is not. Were they advanced compared to other Native Americans? Yes. But it's not like the Incas built the coliseum. The Inca were advanced compared to other Native Americans just like the Romans were advanced compared to other Europeans. Does this prove that race does not exist?

These generalizations are however made on modern times when the theory is that racial groups have an innate intellectual capacity that would theoretically not change change throughout history as well as not need events in history to explain why people live the way they do today.
I don't know what "theory" you are referring to, but I never claimed that there would be no fluctuations in large and diverse populations like the populations of the ancient Middle East or the Americas (though I don't know how large and diverse the later were). What I will say is that the elite of American Indians was still not as advanced as the elite of Europe, and the elite of Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't either. Coincidence?

I would not have a problem with your points if they were not conceptually flawed.
I told you – you have to combine all of my arguments rather than separate them. Separated, they look flawed; Combined, they make sense.

How can European genes in Ashkenazi Jews make them smarter than Europeans themselves?
It really isn't that complicated, Mansa. But I will try to explain it to you using random numbers.

Original Jews: 90

Europeans: 100

Biracial Jew/European: 95

Original Jew + Eugenics: 100

Biracial Jew/European + Eugenics: 105

I sincerely hope that is clear enough.

If it were simply about making them smarter than Middle Easterners that is a logical theory but a small amount of gene flow from a high IQ group making a lower IQ group smarter than them is illogical.

2 + 2 = 4 not 5.
2 + 2.5 + selection for a high number could give you 4.7 (random number).

Then you will have:

2 + 2.35 + selection for a high number, which could give you 4.5 (random number).

Add another 2.5 from time to time, and continue the selection, and you will eventually get to 5, and beyond. You might be able to get to 5 and beyond without adding 2.5's (Europeans), but it will be harder, and it will take more time.

Do you have historical evidence for this?
No. Google might, though.

But there IQs are significantly higher and you believe that IQ average are innate.
Define 'significantly'.

Again where is your evidence of a eugenic practice among Ashkenazi Jews?
Google.

And how could "random fluctuations" make a specific ethnic group smarter than others.
That's why they call it fluctuation. It might not be random, though. It could be because of the way the various tribes lived or more importantly -- bred.

Isn't it more logical to presume that the cultural emphasis on literacy within Jewish populations gave rise to a society that on average had a higher IQ?
More logical? No. It is more PC, though.

The study of the torah and the strong emphasis on studying in general is a natural enviroment for rearing individuals with higher IQs as is the government imposed high education standards in Northeast Asian countries over their Western counterparts.
That has an effect, of course. But I grew up in Israel with Ashkenazic and oriental Jews and we all went to the same school, and lived in the same neighborhood and the differences were still very obvious nonetheless. I do believe that scientific studies support this, but I will let someone else dig them up if they so choose. I spent enough time on this thread, sorry.

These cultural factors are more logical and have far more evidence backing them than magical IQ flucatuations.
There is nothing magical about fluctuations. There is something magical about Sub-Saharan Africans building the coliseum, though, which is why that never happened. ;)

But you do have evidence from history to reference when testing your hypothesis about the correlation between IQ and innate intellectual capabilities.
Indeed I do. The history of Sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, Detroit, etc..

Suggestions are one step,
False. Sometimes suggestions rely on each other. If you separate them artificially, that enables you to make bogus claims like the ones that were made earlier (2 + 2 = 5, etc).

next they need to be supported by evidence.
I still haven't seen evidence that this thread has anything to do with James Brown, though. If you want to have a formal scientific debate on something, you should open a thread on the subject. You won't see me on that thread, though.

Monkeys are not humans. My comment referred specifically to humans.
And my comment included monkeys.

Everyone knows very well that other animals do not have the intellectual capacities of humans and therefore are mentally incapable of performing certain human tasks.
Please support your claims with appropriate scientific studies, Mansa. The monkeys will be deemed as smart as you are until you do. :D


My point was that I see no evidence that this is true within the human species.

I've been to the Houston space center (my Uncle works there) and seen a diverse group of people from computer technicians to astronauts contribute to space shuttle launches so I see no evidence that there are tasks within those occupations that certain groups are incapable of performing.
1. Tisk, tisk, Mansa – An anecdotal example. How pseudoscientific of you.

2. Exceptions don't prove the rule.

3. An individual Black person could be smart. That does not prove that there are no racial differences, though.

Where is your evidence that I have misused science to perpetuate an ideological agenda?
One example: you used a scientific map that shows that American Indians moved to America 7,000 – 35,000 years ago to show that American Indians should have similar IQs to Japanese and Koreans, but you didn't show that 7,000 – 35,000 years is not enough time for generating the differences that we see. You also implied that American Indians are very close to Japanese and Koreans, but you did not show HOW close, and how close they are to other Asian populations (see Der Sozialist's post).


Quite the contrary it would appear as though you have done this as evidence by some of your pseudoscientific responses.
False. I never claimed that my points were based on a specific scientific study. I do think that scientific research will back up my claims, but I don't have the time and the will to search for the appropriate studies.

And BTW, denying that you speculate does not make your claims more "scientific", and admitting that you speculate does not make your claims less scientific.

Burrhus
12-29-2006, 08:49 PM
Keystone: They'll be putting screens around NBA courts to protect the patrons from the hoodie rage someday soon, mark my words.

"Hoodie rage", I like that. Did you make that up or is it going around?

Key: At least you don't have to worry about Sharapova landing in your lap while fighting with her opponent. (Wait, I'd enjoy that.)

Yea, Maria duking it out with Serena Williams at Wimbledon. RAHOWA! :)