- 7,378
- 591
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
So lets just do the age old Debate about Pyramids...
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by numba1kickrocka,
- Start date
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
^from what i understand, these evolutions occurred over many thousands of years which could be time enough for survival of the most equipped in harsher climates. I feel what your saying in race though but it is the construct we were given to deal with and define this issue until science and whatever authority announces the consensus on what is what. that's why i try to let people know when I talk about this stuff that I'm not just saying it to be saying it. These are actual topics of research people deal with and is out there to see. I'm not stating my opinion, just discussing whats out there along with everything else.
I ultimately think it boils down to different races are the way they are for what their lineage has been through. I also think that applies to individual families of people that endure certain circumstance and bodies tune to the changes.
Not just genetics or environment alone playing a factor, but the both of them together.
I believe in dna are codes to handle all kinds of possible situations and they can adapt to environmental changes. the body is really a flexible instrument
I ultimately think it boils down to different races are the way they are for what their lineage has been through. I also think that applies to individual families of people that endure certain circumstance and bodies tune to the changes.
Not just genetics or environment alone playing a factor, but the both of them together.
I believe in dna are codes to handle all kinds of possible situations and they can adapt to environmental changes. the body is really a flexible instrument
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
^from what i understand, these evolutions occurred over many thousands of years which could be time enough for survival of the most equipped in harsher climates. I feel what your saying in race though but it is the construct we were given to deal with and define this issue until science and whatever authority announces the consensus on what is what. that's why i try to let people know when I talk about this stuff that I'm not just saying it to be saying it. These are actual topics of research people deal with and is out there to see. I'm not stating my opinion, just discussing whats out there along with everything else.
I ultimately think it boils down to different races are the way they are for what their lineage has been through. I also think that applies to individual families of people that endure certain circumstance and bodies tune to the changes.
Not just genetics or environment alone playing a factor, but the both of them together.
I believe in dna are codes to handle all kinds of possible situations and they can adapt to environmental changes. the body is really a flexible instrument
I ultimately think it boils down to different races are the way they are for what their lineage has been through. I also think that applies to individual families of people that endure certain circumstance and bodies tune to the changes.
Not just genetics or environment alone playing a factor, but the both of them together.
I believe in dna are codes to handle all kinds of possible situations and they can adapt to environmental changes. the body is really a flexible instrument
- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
Make sure you take everything suggested by Michael Bradley with a huge grain of salt. He is not a professional anthropologist and he has presented a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by academics.
"I will attempt to show that Racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind - the White race. Nuclear war, environmental pollution, resource rape... all are Caucasoid behavior, Caucasoid values, Caucasoid psychology. There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is White [people].
- Michael Bradley The Iceman Inheritance "
- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
Make sure you take everything suggested by Michael Bradley with a huge grain of salt. He is not a professional anthropologist and he has presented a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by academics.
"I will attempt to show that Racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind - the White race. Nuclear war, environmental pollution, resource rape... all are Caucasoid behavior, Caucasoid values, Caucasoid psychology. There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is White [people].
- Michael Bradley The Iceman Inheritance "
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by torgriffith
"Neanderthal gene" is neanderthal genetics
These are reconstructions of neanderthal bodies.
Genetics that adapted to ice age climates. Can you just imagine the grab for resources and how that would shape the culture growing up in a scarce environment like that. What do you think that culture is gonna turn into over time with values grained from an ice culture?
That's the difference between ice cultures vs. cultures developing in the sun. One is on a constant forage for resources from somewhere or someone else, while the later would have time develop in dealing with a land that provides.
The ideals of the culture is the difference in what we in the presently deem as benchmarks for success. The ideal of European economic prosperity is not the same ideal of prosperity for the rest of the world of indigenous cultures.
Not saying that white skin is albino and all, just saying that from the the albino's being a isolated gene pool, the melanin gene was recessive and then after so many generations it comes to a dormant state and then the mxture with neanderthal from what the books say.
The reason I'm asking all this is cause I've seen more books making similar claims as the ones in your book but with black people on the receiving end of the pseudoscientific theories. And yes a few were comparing images of black people to other humanoid subspecies and species of ape.
You didn't answer my question about other "warlike" groups of people. Eg. the mongoloids (created the most vast empire in human history led by khan) do they too possess the neaderthal gene or is there another gene thrown in there that makes them warlike. Or did the ice/lack of resources make them violent and prone to conquest as well.
According to your theory, historically there should be no wars/inter-tribal aggression in Africa or South America? Is this the case?
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by torgriffith
"Neanderthal gene" is neanderthal genetics
These are reconstructions of neanderthal bodies.
Genetics that adapted to ice age climates. Can you just imagine the grab for resources and how that would shape the culture growing up in a scarce environment like that. What do you think that culture is gonna turn into over time with values grained from an ice culture?
That's the difference between ice cultures vs. cultures developing in the sun. One is on a constant forage for resources from somewhere or someone else, while the later would have time develop in dealing with a land that provides.
The ideals of the culture is the difference in what we in the presently deem as benchmarks for success. The ideal of European economic prosperity is not the same ideal of prosperity for the rest of the world of indigenous cultures.
Not saying that white skin is albino and all, just saying that from the the albino's being a isolated gene pool, the melanin gene was recessive and then after so many generations it comes to a dormant state and then the mxture with neanderthal from what the books say.
The reason I'm asking all this is cause I've seen more books making similar claims as the ones in your book but with black people on the receiving end of the pseudoscientific theories. And yes a few were comparing images of black people to other humanoid subspecies and species of ape.
You didn't answer my question about other "warlike" groups of people. Eg. the mongoloids (created the most vast empire in human history led by khan) do they too possess the neaderthal gene or is there another gene thrown in there that makes them warlike. Or did the ice/lack of resources make them violent and prone to conquest as well.
According to your theory, historically there should be no wars/inter-tribal aggression in Africa or South America? Is this the case?
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
[h1]Modern Human Hybrids: Modern Day Neanderthal [/h1]
Can someone imbedd for me?
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
[h1]Modern Human Hybrids: Modern Day Neanderthal [/h1]
Can someone imbedd for me?
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by torgriffith
"Neanderthal gene" is neanderthal genetics
These are reconstructions of neanderthal bodies.
Genetics that adapted to ice age climates. Can you just imagine the grab for resources and how that would shape the culture growing up in a scarce environment like that. What do you think that culture is gonna turn into over time with values grained from an ice culture?
That's the difference between ice cultures vs. cultures developing in the sun. One is on a constant forage for resources from somewhere or someone else, while the later would have time develop in dealing with a land that provides.
The ideals of the culture is the difference in what we in the presently deem as benchmarks for success. The ideal of European economic prosperity is not the same ideal of prosperity for the rest of the world of indigenous cultures.
Not saying that white skin is albino and all, just saying that from the the albino's being a isolated gene pool, the melanin gene was recessive and then after so many generations it comes to a dormant state and then the mxture with neanderthal from what the books say.
The reason I'm asking all this is cause I've seen more books making similar claims as the ones in your book but with black people on the receiving end of the pseudoscientific theories. And yes a few were comparing images of black people to other humanoid subspecies and species of ape.
You didn't answer my question about other "warlike" groups of people. Eg. the mongoloids (created the most vast empire in human history led by khan) do they too possess the neaderthal gene or is there another gene thrown in there that makes them warlike. Or did the ice/lack of resources make them violent and prone to conquest as well.
According to your theory, historically there should be no wars/inter-tribal aggression in Africa or South America? Is this the case?
No, I don't believe the world and things occur in either, or like that.
One could say the proximity could have caused the necessity and spread the need to step up in the war game to neighboring cultures.
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by torgriffith
"Neanderthal gene" is neanderthal genetics
These are reconstructions of neanderthal bodies.
Genetics that adapted to ice age climates. Can you just imagine the grab for resources and how that would shape the culture growing up in a scarce environment like that. What do you think that culture is gonna turn into over time with values grained from an ice culture?
That's the difference between ice cultures vs. cultures developing in the sun. One is on a constant forage for resources from somewhere or someone else, while the later would have time develop in dealing with a land that provides.
The ideals of the culture is the difference in what we in the presently deem as benchmarks for success. The ideal of European economic prosperity is not the same ideal of prosperity for the rest of the world of indigenous cultures.
Not saying that white skin is albino and all, just saying that from the the albino's being a isolated gene pool, the melanin gene was recessive and then after so many generations it comes to a dormant state and then the mxture with neanderthal from what the books say.
The reason I'm asking all this is cause I've seen more books making similar claims as the ones in your book but with black people on the receiving end of the pseudoscientific theories. And yes a few were comparing images of black people to other humanoid subspecies and species of ape.
You didn't answer my question about other "warlike" groups of people. Eg. the mongoloids (created the most vast empire in human history led by khan) do they too possess the neaderthal gene or is there another gene thrown in there that makes them warlike. Or did the ice/lack of resources make them violent and prone to conquest as well.
According to your theory, historically there should be no wars/inter-tribal aggression in Africa or South America? Is this the case?
No, I don't believe the world and things occur in either, or like that.
One could say the proximity could have caused the necessity and spread the need to step up in the war game to neighboring cultures.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by whiterails
Make sure you take everything suggested by Michael Bradley with a huge grain of salt. He is not a professional anthropologist and he has presented a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by academics.
"I will attempt to show that Racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind - the White race. Nuclear war, environmental pollution, resource rape... all are Caucasoid behavior, Caucasoid values, Caucasoid psychology. There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is White [people].
- Michael Bradley The Iceman Inheritance "
What people like Torgogriff don't understand is that there are way more books making similar scientific/genetic arguments as to why black people are (insert negative) stereotype. I wrote a pretty lengthy term paper about eugenics and the use of scientific theory in racism. Pretty touchy stuff, but most of the "discoveries" made as to why black people are inferior are laughable by today's standards. It's my natural inclination to approach such things with a high level or skepticism.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by whiterails
Make sure you take everything suggested by Michael Bradley with a huge grain of salt. He is not a professional anthropologist and he has presented a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by academics.
"I will attempt to show that Racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind - the White race. Nuclear war, environmental pollution, resource rape... all are Caucasoid behavior, Caucasoid values, Caucasoid psychology. There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is White [people].
- Michael Bradley The Iceman Inheritance "
What people like Torgogriff don't understand is that there are way more books making similar scientific/genetic arguments as to why black people are (insert negative) stereotype. I wrote a pretty lengthy term paper about eugenics and the use of scientific theory in racism. Pretty touchy stuff, but most of the "discoveries" made as to why black people are inferior are laughable by today's standards. It's my natural inclination to approach such things with a high level or skepticism.
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by whiterails
Make sure you take everything suggested by Michael Bradley with a huge grain of salt. He is not a professional anthropologist and he has presented a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by academics.
"I will attempt to show that Racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind - the White race. Nuclear war, environmental pollution, resource rape... all are Caucasoid behavior, Caucasoid values, Caucasoid psychology. There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is White [people].
- Michael Bradley The Iceman Inheritance "
What people like Torgogriff?????? don't understand is that there are way more books making similar scientific/genetic arguments as to why black people are (insert negative) stereotype. I wrote a pretty lengthy term paper about eugenics and the use of scientific theory in racism. Pretty touchy stuff, but most of the "discoveries" made as to why black people are inferior are laughable by today's standards.
Who Dat?
Well i do understand that. And those other books have had the forum for discussion for 100's of years. Why not discuss something else for a change. Even if you don't understand what the science is saying, why not balance it out to see what other research has to say. Isn't that what science is about. Testing theories against other theories? I'm just not intentionally going out here to put down a group of people though like all those racist scholars who have dominated the intellectual debate field for all these 100's of years that we have been forced to hold as truth for so long anyway. We was on the discussion and I just dropped the science on it. I ain't posting stuff trying to hurt nobody feelings like you bruh.
Plus you still probably watch Seinfeld and laugh at Kramer even though he had his little "slip of the tongue" on stage.
The beauty of science is objectivity. It's the mechanism of study that allows one to separate their personal self away from the model being studied. It's also there to help save your emotions the distress.
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by whiterails
Make sure you take everything suggested by Michael Bradley with a huge grain of salt. He is not a professional anthropologist and he has presented a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by academics.
"I will attempt to show that Racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind - the White race. Nuclear war, environmental pollution, resource rape... all are Caucasoid behavior, Caucasoid values, Caucasoid psychology. There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is White [people].
- Michael Bradley The Iceman Inheritance "
What people like Torgogriff?????? don't understand is that there are way more books making similar scientific/genetic arguments as to why black people are (insert negative) stereotype. I wrote a pretty lengthy term paper about eugenics and the use of scientific theory in racism. Pretty touchy stuff, but most of the "discoveries" made as to why black people are inferior are laughable by today's standards.
Who Dat?
Well i do understand that. And those other books have had the forum for discussion for 100's of years. Why not discuss something else for a change. Even if you don't understand what the science is saying, why not balance it out to see what other research has to say. Isn't that what science is about. Testing theories against other theories? I'm just not intentionally going out here to put down a group of people though like all those racist scholars who have dominated the intellectual debate field for all these 100's of years that we have been forced to hold as truth for so long anyway. We was on the discussion and I just dropped the science on it. I ain't posting stuff trying to hurt nobody feelings like you bruh.
Plus you still probably watch Seinfeld and laugh at Kramer even though he had his little "slip of the tongue" on stage.
The beauty of science is objectivity. It's the mechanism of study that allows one to separate their personal self away from the model being studied. It's also there to help save your emotions the distress.
b smooth 202
Banned
- 10,295
- 106
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
Make sure you take everything suggested by Michael Bradley with a huge grain of salt. He is not a professional anthropologist and he has presented a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by academics.
Yeah we'll take your word for it.
....like the 'professionals' who subscribe to imaginary academic standards....what you don't realize is that we don't need books filled with fancy jargon and science to proove our theories because the human experience will prove our theories to be true. Word to the dialectical course of history.
b smooth 202
Banned
- 10,295
- 106
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
Make sure you take everything suggested by Michael Bradley with a huge grain of salt. He is not a professional anthropologist and he has presented a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by academics.
Yeah we'll take your word for it.
....like the 'professionals' who subscribe to imaginary academic standards....what you don't realize is that we don't need books filled with fancy jargon and science to proove our theories because the human experience will prove our theories to be true. Word to the dialectical course of history.
- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
Yeah we'll take your word for it.
....like the 'professionals' who subscribe to imaginary academic standards....what you don't realize is that we don't need books filled with fancy jargon and science to proove our theories because the human experience will prove our theories to be true. Word to the dialectical course of history.
Are you for real?
- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
Yeah we'll take your word for it.
....like the 'professionals' who subscribe to imaginary academic standards....what you don't realize is that we don't need books filled with fancy jargon and science to proove our theories because the human experience will prove our theories to be true. Word to the dialectical course of history.
Are you for real?
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
Having difficulties embedding the video clip posted.
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
Having difficulties embedding the video clip posted.
- 408
- 12
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2007
You clearly have no concept of genetics or any other science for that matter. Talking about not turning this into a race thread when you just totally derail this thread is a bit ironic, no? What you posted is exactly why those forums are the black equivalent of stormfront. Albinism is a zero sum game, either you are an albino and lack pigmentation, or you do not. The child of an albino and non-albino will not be a blend of both parents like Hedi and Seal's kids would be. The children either will or will not be albino, both carrying the albino genes that can be passed on to their children, who will be albino if the gene is dominant. There are non-"caucasians" that are as fair skinned as a fair-skinned causcasion, and they never migrated to europe. People of all skin tones existed in africa so that would not even be a reason to be ostracized. Literally everything you've posted so far is lifted directly from the "black power" forums, with nothing new or original brought to the table.
There are hundreds and hundreds of butterflies with wings of all shapes, sizes, and colors. Why are some butterflies blue and green, while some are red and brown, etc.? The truth is we have not mapped evolution to know why most things are as they are, it's mostly theories, some more credible than others. Evolution does not occur from a single source, we did not all descend from a single humanoid. There were billions of single-celled organisms that evolved simultaneously, to varying extents. If the "adam and eve" story or something similar to it were true, that percentage of the population with mental or physical defects would be enormous. A st. bernard and a chihuahua do not come from the same ancestor.
- 18,373
- 33,982
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
torgriffith, here's the problem: the problem is that these tiny correlations that most of science is based on pales in comparison to the human capacity for hate and destruction.
Science was used in the past to justify lots of terrible
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
And don't believe the argument that scientists now are better or less biased than they were in the past. People are always full of biases, even when they try to fight them, even scientists.
Don't get me wrong -- I think this is a great topic to discuss. And I would like to think society as a whole has progressed so that flagrant biases and racism in scientists and people as a whole are less prevalent. But, given its potential ramifications in society, we have to be very careful. I think you appreciate what I'm saying but maybe not to the same degree. It's not like we're discussing string theory or something obscure that won't change our daily lives. We're talking about a topic that has been used to justify some of the worst acts in human history. And, if we're really after the pure truth, then it's not about sides.
Science was used in the past to justify lots of terrible
And don't believe the argument that scientists now are better or less biased than they were in the past. People are always full of biases, even when they try to fight them, even scientists.
Don't get me wrong -- I think this is a great topic to discuss. And I would like to think society as a whole has progressed so that flagrant biases and racism in scientists and people as a whole are less prevalent. But, given its potential ramifications in society, we have to be very careful. I think you appreciate what I'm saying but maybe not to the same degree. It's not like we're discussing string theory or something obscure that won't change our daily lives. We're talking about a topic that has been used to justify some of the worst acts in human history. And, if we're really after the pure truth, then it's not about sides.
- 18,373
- 33,982
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
torgriffith, here's the problem: the problem is that these tiny correlations that most of science is based on pales in comparison to the human capacity for hate and destruction.
Science was used in the past to justify lots of terrible
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
And don't believe the argument that scientists now are better or less biased than they were in the past. People are always full of biases, even when they try to fight them, even scientists.
Don't get me wrong -- I think this is a great topic to discuss. And I would like to think society as a whole has progressed so that flagrant biases and racism in scientists and people as a whole are less prevalent. But, given its potential ramifications in society, we have to be very careful. I think you appreciate what I'm saying but maybe not to the same degree. It's not like we're discussing string theory or something obscure that won't change our daily lives. We're talking about a topic that has been used to justify some of the worst acts in human history. And, if we're really after the pure truth, then it's not about sides.
Science was used in the past to justify lots of terrible
And don't believe the argument that scientists now are better or less biased than they were in the past. People are always full of biases, even when they try to fight them, even scientists.
Don't get me wrong -- I think this is a great topic to discuss. And I would like to think society as a whole has progressed so that flagrant biases and racism in scientists and people as a whole are less prevalent. But, given its potential ramifications in society, we have to be very careful. I think you appreciate what I'm saying but maybe not to the same degree. It's not like we're discussing string theory or something obscure that won't change our daily lives. We're talking about a topic that has been used to justify some of the worst acts in human history. And, if we're really after the pure truth, then it's not about sides.
- 408
- 12
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2007
You clearly have no concept of genetics or any other science for that matter. Talking about not turning this into a race thread when you just totally derail this thread is a bit ironic, no? What you posted is exactly why those forums are the black equivalent of stormfront. Albinism is a zero sum game, either you are an albino and lack pigmentation, or you do not. The child of an albino and non-albino will not be a blend of both parents like Hedi and Seal's kids would be. The children either will or will not be albino, both carrying the albino genes that can be passed on to their children, who will be albino if the gene is dominant. There are non-"caucasians" that are as fair skinned as a fair-skinned causcasion, and they never migrated to europe. People of all skin tones existed in africa so that would not even be a reason to be ostracized. Literally everything you've posted so far is lifted directly from the "black power" forums, with nothing new or original brought to the table.
There are hundreds and hundreds of butterflies with wings of all shapes, sizes, and colors. Why are some butterflies blue and green, while some are red and brown, etc.? The truth is we have not mapped evolution to know why most things are as they are, it's mostly theories, some more credible than others. Evolution does not occur from a single source, we did not all descend from a single humanoid. There were billions of single-celled organisms that evolved simultaneously, to varying extents. If the "adam and eve" story or something similar to it were true, that percentage of the population with mental or physical defects would be enormous. A st. bernard and a chihuahua do not come from the same ancestor.
Similar threads
