Medical Forum / General / General / January 2005
Race, Intelligence, and Behavior are Genetic...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
makemyday@worldnet.att.net - 10 Jul 2004 19:17 GMT http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392296 ********************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt ******************** "The different breeds of dogs have very different physical appearances, very different sizes, and very different behavior patterns," says Elaine Ostrander, professor of genome sciences and zoology at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center...we were interested in finding some of the genes that were responsible for differences in appearance in size, in shape or morphology, as well as behavior between different dogs." Ostrander and her team sampled cheek cells from 414 different dogs from 85 different dog breeds, and found that each breed had a distinct genetic signature that could be used to match 99 percent of the dogs with their correct breed. The researchers used their data to construct an evolutionary tree showing which breeds were most closely related. The tree included one ancient group and three relatively recent ones. ...the dogs in these three groups correspond to the type of work they were bred for the border collie, from the herding group, is known for its agility, stamina, tenacity, and intelligenceand many share behavioral traits as well as physical ones. ********************************************************************
There you have it sportz fanz, all this parallelz clozely in humanz, with the DAFN_Breed at the bottom primitive extreme of behavior intelligence and civility. It'z *genetic*...
David Richardson - 11 Jul 2004 00:18 GMT To be honest with you, for all of your posting of the facts and figures, the only think that I can think is that you are pretty much a pathetic individual.
Why does all of this have so much importance for you. I mean, you spend what seems a significant amount of your creative energy looking to prove something to "somebody". There's just something about that that just does not seem right...
I suppose youhave nothing better to occupy your time...
ciao, dratster
btw.. posting from Bangkok, Thailand...:)
> http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392296 > ********************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt ******************** [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > with the DAFN_Breed at the bottom primitive extreme of behavior > intelligence and civility. It'z *genetic*... makemyday@worldnet.att.net - 11 Jul 2004 01:57 GMT > To be honest with you, for all of your posting of the facts and > figures, the only think that I can think is that you are pretty much a > pathetic individual. Why do you insist on attacking the messenger?
> Why does all of this have so much importance for you. I mean, you > spend what seems a significant amount of your creative energy looking > to prove something to "somebody". There's just something about that > that just does not seem right. You have no idea how much tax money is squandered, plus all the peripheral damage, from trying to fix something that is genetically predetermined: schoolz, HUD, EEOC, affirmative action lozt productivity, for openerz...
> I suppose youhave nothing better to occupy your time... > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > with the DAFN_Breed at the bottom primitive extreme of behavior > > intelligence and civility. It'z *genetic*... David Richardson - 13 Jul 2004 12:14 GMT > > To be honest with you, for all of your posting of the facts and > > figures, the only think that I can think is that you are pretty much a > > pathetic individual. > > Why do you insist on attacking the messenger? You insist that Black people on average are less intelligent than someone like you, but you insist on trying to preach this "message" to the very group that supposedly does NOT have the intelligence to even comprehend the "message".
Additionally, you spread you message on a daily basis, what do you do in the real world? I live in Seattle and I would be extremely interested in learning how you have "succeeded" as an individual. You talk a good game, but I really often wonder why you spend so much time on this forum, gather some many "pieces" of evidence, strive to tell all of us Black folk how much of a waste of time we are.... And you continue to waste your time...
Honestly, do you really feel like this is a mission that you must carry out? Is it some type of divine inspiration or a patriotic calling that you actually see that Black people are the number one danger facing this nation?
> > Why does all of this have so much importance for you. I mean, you > > spend what seems a significant amount of your creative energy looking [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > predetermined: schoolz, HUD, EEOC, affirmative action lozt productivity, > for openerz... I think you exaggerate on how bad it is and without any real number I think that there are worse things happening in our nation that require more of our attention... But who am I, just some ignorant uneducated Black dude...
Finally, what would be your master plan if you could affect change. What should this nation be doing to fix the "Black problem", what is your "Final Solution"....
ciao, dratster
> > I suppose youhave nothing better to occupy your time... > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > with the DAFN_Breed at the bottom primitive extreme of behavior > > > intelligence and civility. It'z *genetic*... Radulooto - 13 Jul 2004 17:46 GMT >> > To be honest with you, for all of your posting of the facts and >> > figures, the only think that I can think is that you are pretty [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the very group that supposedly does NOT have the intelligence to even > comprehend the "message". He is also preaching to many other people. You need to be reminded of the inferiority of your race. Otherwise you get big heads and think you are equal when you are not.
Not every negro is unable to understand the truth. Especially when it is spoon fed to you.
> Additionally, you spread you message on a daily basis, what do you do > in the real world? I live in Seattle and I would be extremely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all of us Black folk how much of a waste of time we are.... And you > continue to waste your time... It's fun. It's spreading the truth. Thousands of people read these posts, depending on which groups they are posted to. You cannot argue with the facts and data we provide. Which is why no one ever does.
People learn from our posts. People including yourself. (Admit it, you've learned from our posts!)
I'm sure that not many people were aware that the out-of-wedlock birthrate for blacks hovers around 70%. Yet, people see that information we provide and they learn more and more about what vile sh.t black people are.
And it really doesn't take long at all. For example, I can type 80+ words per minute. And the news isn't hard to find. The data and stats can be hard to find, which is why I keep reusing the same info over and over again. It's just as relevant the 10th time I post it as it was the first.
> Honestly, do you really feel like this is a mission that you must > carry out? Yes. If I had the money I'd take out commercials on radio and TV telling the world what a vile, inferior race the negro is.
> Is it some type of divine inspiration or a patriotic > calling that you actually see that Black people are the number one > danger facing this nation? Both.
Not just facing this nation, but facing Canada, England, and the rest of Europe, too.
Are you aware that most violent crime in London is perpetrated by blacks? Did you know that Toronto has a huge problem with black crime?
Negro inferiority knows no geographic or socio-economic boundaries.
>> > Why does all of this have so much importance for you. I mean, you >> > spend what seems a significant amount of your creative energy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > think that there are worse things happening in our nation that require > more of our attention... Uh huh. You are, of course, aware that over 10,000 NEGROES are murdered by NEGROES every year in America, right?
10,000 x 10 years = 100,000 lives senselessly lost.
Consider that many of those dead negroes are little children caught in the crossfire.
Consider the economic effects of your nigger crime. Do you think people want to live where there are a dozen murders every year within a 3-block radius of their home? Do you think people want to live where they have to fear burglaries and rapes constantly?
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/3523551/detail.html
"KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- Police are looking for three men in connection with a double murder at North 11th Street and Quindaro Tuesday morning."
"Police have only a vague description of the gunmen. They are described as three black men."
Would you want to live in an area where sh.t like that is a daily reality?
The fact is that neighborhood at one time was a peaceful, white, middle- class neighborhood until you filthy, inferior niggers moved in and turned it to sh.t.
In Minneapolis, there are certain black neighborhoods where gunshot reports are a nightly occurrence. Each and every single night there is gunfire.
Would you want to live in a neighborhood where you have to worry about bullets coming through your walls and killing your children?
This is a way of life in MOST black communities.
> But who am I, just some ignorant uneducated > Black dude... OK, nice to meet you.
> Finally, what would be your master plan if you could affect change. > What should this nation be doing to fix the "Black problem", what is > your "Final Solution".... I'd say ship all you filthy beasts back to Africa. Or, some even may say an even better alternative is to exterminate you filthy beasts. I don't know who those people would be, though.
Here's a little mental exercise: do a cost benefit analysis of black people. Imagine what life would be like without black people around. Imagine what would happen to the crime-infested neighborhoods filled with trash and graffiti.
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
The Devil's Advocate? - 14 Jul 2004 02:49 GMT >I'd say ship all you filthy beasts back to Africa. Or, some even may say >an even better alternative is to exterminate you filthy beasts. I don't >know who those people would be, though. And I take it you're going to pick up some handcuffs and start arresting blacks to ship back to Africa, right? Don't make me laugh. Why don't you just move to Iceland or Russia instead.
>Here's a little mental exercise: do a cost benefit analysis of black >people. Imagine what life would be like without black people around. >Imagine what would happen to the crime-infested neighborhoods filled with >trash and graffiti. The majority of blacks aren't committing crime. Where would you like to ship white criminals off to?
Frida Gerschneider - 14 Jul 2004 03:22 GMT >>I'd say ship all you filthy beasts back to Africa. Or, some even may >>say an even better alternative is to exterminate you filthy beasts. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > arresting blacks to ship back to Africa, right? Don't make me laugh. > Why don't you just move to Iceland or Russia instead. If the federal government legalize rounding you up and handcuffing you for shipment, then yes, I would start doing it.
Of course, if I tried it now, I'd be breaking the law, and I'd go to jail where I'd be surrounded by the people I hate the most.
>>Here's a little mental exercise: do a cost benefit analysis of black >>people. Imagine what life would be like without black people around. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The majority of blacks aren't committing crime. Where would you like > to ship white criminals off to? YES! Ship ALL the criminals off!
See, here's where you people are wrong. You think that just because you black folks coddle criminals and don't want them treated harshly because they are "your people" that whites feel the same way.
We don't.
All criminals should be excised from society. Especially the black ones.
Contrary to what you might think, or want to believe, most crimes aren't the victimless negro with crack crimes.
10,000+ blacks are murdered by blacks every year. Murder isn't possession of crack.
http://66.165.94.98/stories/hobblgen0492.html
"On an average day in 1991, 21,800 (42%) of Washington D.C.'s 53,375 African American males ages 18 through 35 were either in jail or prison, on probation or parole, out on bond awaiting disposition of criminal charges or being sought on an arrest warrant."
That is over 10 years old. Forty-two percent is pretty close to half. And just over half makes most.
You know that 32% of black males will go to prison. Only serious convictions net prison time. Most crimes like auto theft don't, especially for a first offense.
Now, if nearly one-third are going to prison, what percentage are committing crimes and being sentenced to probation?
I guarantee you it is over 50%. And that makes a majority.
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
The Devil's Advocate? - 14 Jul 2004 04:18 GMT >The Devil's Advocate© <NOJUNKshoegazers@excite.com> wrote in >news:c349f0tb2trre5tjhildfvnuvecclt19t7@4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >If the federal government legalize rounding you up and handcuffing you >for shipment, then yes, I would start doing it. And who is going to pass that law? You?
>Of course, if I tried it now, I'd be breaking the law, and I'd go to jail >where I'd be surrounded by the people I hate the most. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >I guarantee you it is over 50%. And that makes a majority. Sure, sure....over 50% of blacks are criminals. I'll have to tell all my family members, coworkers and friends that they are unknowingly criminals.
Ringnut - 14 Jul 2004 21:24 GMT >>>>I'd say ship all you filthy beasts back to Africa. Or, some even >>>>may say an even better alternative is to exterminate you filthy [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > my family members, coworkers and friends that they are unknowingly > criminals. Thanks for helping spread the truth!
32% of black males aren't going to prison for jaywalking.
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
Byron Canfield - 15 Jul 2004 04:53 GMT > Who's yer daddy, boy?! > > King of SCAA <plonk> Another King of Scum sockpuppet representing a lying ignorant cowardly anonymous racist idiot into the poop bucket.
Bob LeChevalier - 14 Jul 2004 15:00 GMT >The Devil's Advocate© <NOJUNKshoegazers@excite.com> wrote in >news:c349f0tb2trre5tjhildfvnuvecclt19t7@4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >If the federal government legalize rounding you up and handcuffing you >for shipment, then yes, I would start doing it. Since it's unconstitutional, it won't happen. If they could, far more likely would be legalizing shipping you subhuman racist slime off to Antarctica, where most everything is white.
>> The majority of blacks aren't committing crime. Where would you like >> to ship white criminals off to? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >black folks coddle criminals and don't want them treated harshly because >they are "your people" that whites feel the same way. Provide any evidence that most (or even a significant percentage of) whites favor shipping all people who commit crimes out of the country. That was fine in the 1700s. We've grown up since then.
lojbab
 Signature lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Ryght Sed Fred - 14 Jul 2004 22:05 GMT >>>>I'd say ship all you filthy beasts back to Africa. Or, some even >>>>may say an even better alternative is to exterminate you filthy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Since it's unconstitutional, it won't happen. The constitution can be amended. Our forefathers made that provision.
> If they could, far more > likely would be legalizing shipping you subhuman racist slime off to > Antarctica, where most everything is white. You'd be shipping off most of the white population. Now, who would work to provide those generous welfare benefits for niggers and losers like you, Bob?
>>> The majority of blacks aren't committing crime. Where would you like >>> to ship white criminals off to? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > whites favor shipping all people who commit crimes out of the country. > That was fine in the 1700s. We've grown up since then. Oh, sure sure. We've grown up so much we give prisoners cushy cells, plenty of fresh air and exercise, along with three square meals per day. Oh, and we give them short jail sentences too, so they can quickly be out on the street committing more crime.
Idiot Bob, did you know that over 50% of convicts are re-convicted of new crimes after they are released? Didn't know that? Ah, too bad. Just shows what an idiot you are.
Recidivism rates--released prisoners rearrested for crimes:
1994: 67.5% of all released prisoners were rearrested for crimes.
Imbecile!
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
> lojbab Bob LeChevalier - 15 Jul 2004 03:41 GMT >> Since it's unconstitutional, it won't happen. > >The constitution can be amended. Our forefathers made that provision. It won't be. The vast majority recognizes that all human beings have equal rights.
>> If they could, far more >> likely would be legalizing shipping you subhuman racist slime off to >> Antarctica, where most everything is white. > >You'd be shipping off most of the white population. Nop. Only subhuman racist slime; i.e. the sort that brags about their racism on Usenet.
>Idiot Bob, did you know that over 50% of convicts are re-convicted of >new crimes after they are released? Yes.
But this is not relevant. A citizen is still a citizen even after being convicted of a crime.
lojbab
 Signature lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Jonas Jacques - 15 Jul 2004 03:27 GMT >>> Since it's unconstitutional, it won't happen. >> >>The constitution can be amended. Our forefathers made that provision. > > It won't be. The vast majority recognizes that all human beings have > equal rights. Blacks are not human. They severly lag on every single measure of human achievement.
>>> If they could, far more >>> likely would be legalizing shipping you subhuman racist slime off to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nop. Only subhuman racist slime; i.e. the sort that brags about their > racism on Usenet. Oh! Only Usenet racists. Meanwhile, everyone who moves out when niggers move in and everyone who mutters "nigger" under their breath can stay. Is that right?
>>Idiot Bob, did you know that over 50% of convicts are re-convicted of >>new crimes after they are released? > > Yes. And you have no problem with that? (Ever had a car stolen, Bob??? Ever had your car vandalized and had to come up with the deductible to get it fixed?)
> But this is not relevant. A citizen is still a citizen even after > being convicted of a crime. Yes it is, you moron. Because YOU were the one who mentioned people approving of shipping criminals out of the country. So I mentioned that over 50% are rearrested. We were talking about shipping criminals out. I think my information is entirely relevant.
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
Byron Canfield - 15 Jul 2004 04:53 GMT > Who's yer daddy, boy?! > > King of SCAA <plonk> Another King of Scum sockpuppet representing a lying ignorant cowardly anonymous racist idiot into the poop bucket.
Bob LeChevalier - 15 Jul 2004 13:04 GMT >> It won't be. The vast majority recognizes that all human beings have >> equal rights. > >Blacks are not human. PLease cite the biological basis for this claim.
Racist slime are subhuman, but that is a moral claim, not a biological one.
>>>Idiot Bob, did you know that over 50% of convicts are re-convicted of >>>new crimes after they are released? >> >> Yes. > >And you have no problem with that? Problem? Perhaps. But, I have more of a problem with subhuman racist slime.
>> But this is not relevant. A citizen is still a citizen even after >> being convicted of a crime. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >over 50% are rearrested. We were talking about shipping criminals out. >I think my information is entirely relevant. You are incapable of thought. lojbab
 Signature lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
P.Comm - 18 Jul 2004 20:46 GMT > >> It won't be. The vast majority recognizes that all human beings have > >> equal rights. > > > >Blacks are not human. > > PLease cite the biological basis for this claim. LMAO LMAO. Actually, I'm a Guo'ald :)
> >>>Idiot Bob, did you know that over 50% of convicts are re-convicted of > >>>new crimes after they are released? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Problem? Perhaps. But, I have more of a problem with subhuman racist > slime. Bob, in reality you'd not know that Tom, Joe, Dick or Harry were "racist slime" if they didn't open their mouths about any of it. They would probably NOT be the people causing you to move out due to crime.
So, how has YOUR summer been thus far? Mine's been good, tho the water temp has been in the 90s which I feel it a tad too hot. It's highly unusual for this time of year here. Ah, but the beach is the beach, and it rules (when it's not raining - as it is today)....
> lojbab Bob LeChevalier - 19 Jul 2004 04:12 GMT >So, how has YOUR summer been thus far? Pleasant vacation from kids, so far.
BTW, could you email me at my posted email address. I could use some answers to questions about Lehigh Acres.
lojbab
 Signature lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
makemyday@worldnet.att.net - 19 Jul 2004 09:06 GMT > > I have more of a problem with subhuman racist slime. > *^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^* > Bob, in reality you'd not know that Tom, Joe, Dick or Harry were "racist > slime" if they didn't open their mouths about any of it. P.Comm is right on - What *really* countz is people's *actions*, not what they "say..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1264179,00.html *********************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt ********************* 90% of whites have few or no black friends - 7-19-2004 The Guardian
More than nine out of 10 white Britons have no or hardly any ethnic minority friends, according to a poll that reveals the continuing gulf between races and religions more than 40 years after the UK became a multicultural society....[ -big snip- ] ***********************************************************************
Corroborated in USA by White_Flight and shift to private schools...
Hey Bob, are 90% of UK whites "subhuman racist slime" ??
P.Comm - 20 Jul 2004 03:02 GMT > > > I have more of a problem with subhuman racist slime. > > *^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^* [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Hey Bob, are 90% of UK whites "subhuman racist slime" ?? Well, like I said, if the white guy has those feelings and says nothing - Bob would not have anything to fear from that person, and crime would not increase.
HOWEVER if a black person has feelings that I will copy/paste below from Nim's post - and he says nothing - you might have a LOT to worry about! Remember, a Chinese guy posted this.
UNQUOTE
It is not uneducated blacks in the inner cities that believe all or some
form of this "long conspiracy of evil whites," (see below, please) but their
professors believe it. I don't believe you can find a black person anywhere
that isn't aware of this paradigm - and as you may know, paradigms are very
hard, if not impossible, to oust.
A very good analogy was made on another thread: as Hitler blamed and wanted
to exterminate the Jews; the blacks are blaming whites, and some of them are
blaming *Jews*, for everything that's either wrong with them, deficient in
them, or their own fault. This is *very* alarming and upsetting.
`What really convinced me of an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways
of thought, however, was their widespread belief in Afrocentrism and the
notion that whites were committing "genocide" against blacks. In September
1989, ABC News did a program on the condition of blacks in America,
followed by a special edition of Nightline with a panel consisting of
several of ABC's black correspondents and other *noted* blacks. With the
exception of Professor Shelby Steele, these *accomplished, successful*
blacks *all* endorsed the notion of a white conspiracy to commit "genocide"
against blacks. The fact that it was not just ignorant street people, but
*successful, articulate* black professionals who believed these insane and
wicked conspiracy theories made a devastating impression on me. It shook
my former belief that blacks and whites could more or less get along in the
same society.
The wide acceptance of Afrocentrism had a similar effect on my views of
blacks. I was appalled when I heard commentator Tony Brown, a *reasonable
and intelligent* black (who, moreover, had just joined the Republican
Party), say in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that, given the fact
that mankind began in Africa, "all civilizations are African." More than
anything else, Afrocentrism, with its claims that European civilization was
"stolen" from Africa and that people like Hannibal and Cleopatra were black
because they lived on the African continent, confirmed my growing
conviction that blacks were often incapable of distinguishing their wishes,
feelings, and resentments from objective reality. There is also the
growing "black Bible" movement, which teaches that the main figures in the
Bible, including Abraham, Moses, Mary, Jesus, and Paul, were black-a truth
which (naturally) those tricky whites have systematically hidden from
blacks so as to maintain their dominance over them. As far as I can see,
the blackness of the people in the Bible constitutes the sole teaching of
this sect. Their interest in the Bible is exclusively racialist. (Once
again, the fact that a large number of blacks do not believe in
Afrocentrism does not change the fact that a large number of them do, and
are *acting* on it and spreading it and institutionalizing it throughout
the whole society.)
The most extreme form of black conspiracy thinking is the Nation of Islam
claim that whites are demons who were created by a mad scientist 5,000 years
ago, and who ever since then have robbed blacks of their birthright.
Whether blacks believe in that myth, or are just fixated on a general
feeling of historic grievance, the notion of their historic victimhood tends
to *justify* in their minds every crime and injustice that they might now
commit against whites. Over and over, polls and statements reveal that
blacks feel they should not be held to moral standards for the crimes of
blacks against whites, because blacks have been the victims of this vast and
still unacknowledged evil by whites for several thousands of years. Blacks
thus tend to see every issue in purely racialist terms-as we can see when
black juries excuse black killers of whites, or when the great majority of
blacks say that O.J. Simpson is innocent, or when a high percentage of
blacks agree that Colin Ferguson's mass murder on the Long Island Rail Road
was a justified act of rage against white racism. The above attitudes all
increasingly suggest that blacks and whites cannot truly live as equal
co-citizens in the same society.
Of course, blacks have suffered real historic crimes at the hands of
whites. Is there any group of people that has *not* suffered real historic
crimes at the hands of others? It is blacks and liberals that are *not*
simply viewing this as "*man's* inhumaity to *man*"; they see it as
distnictly racial. If I were to give an antibiotic to three patients, one
black, one white, one Chinese, and if that antibiotic didn't work - would
that enable the white and black to accuse me of racism? What about the
Chinese patient? It is not so unusual for an antibiotic not to work. Just
as it is *not* unusual for one group of people to suffer at the hands of
another. Human history is full of this. But that (blacks having suffered
at the hands of whites) does not explain the contemporary, *intensifying*
sense of black grievance, which finds its most flagrant expression in
fantasies of white devils and 5,000-year-old conspiracies. Most
importantly, the fact that the black feeling of grievance is *augmenting,
rather than diminishing*, as slavery and legal discrimination recede into
the distant past, suggests that the grievance has little to do with any
actual crimes committed by whites.
Even more alarming, the more blacks advance, the *more*, not less, they
resent whites (and Asians, whom they don't distinguish between). The more
America does to overcome its "racism," the more "racist" America appears.
The reason for this is built into the dynamics of human nature. Very
simply, the more equal blacks become with whites, the more unbearable and
unjust seem the *remaining differences*. Thus what started as a demand for
basic civil rights mutated into a demand to *overturn the whole society*,
along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history
and heroes, since in all these things blacks are still not "equal."
An example of what happens when blacks gain power can be seen in the
current imbroglio at Rutgers University, where President Francis Lawrence,
through his own affirmative action policies, created the very student body
that is now trying to *destroy* him. When blacks gain numbers and power,
they inevitably subject whites to intimidation and tyranny, just as they do
to their own people. End Quotes
It is hard to forget Jefferson's chilling premonitions in this regard:
(Thomas Jefferson said) Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into
the State, and thus save the expense of supplying by importation of white
settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep-rooted prejudices entertained
by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries
they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature
has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and
produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination
of the one or the other race. [Italics added] [Notes on Virginia, Query
XIV, 1782].
I, and many others, have quiely observed this for many years.
UNQUOTE
Byron Canfield - 15 Jul 2004 04:53 GMT > Who's yer daddy, boy?! > > King of SCAA <plonk> Another King of Scum sockpuppet representing a lying ignorant cowardly anonymous racist idiot into the poop bucket.
DesertCactus - 20 Jul 2004 12:08 GMT > Since it's unconstitutional, it won't happen. If they could, far more > likely would be legalizing shipping you subhuman racist slime off to > Antarctica, where most everything is white. Actually not that I agree with makemyday etc. The constitution was written at a time where blacks were still slaves, and pseudo-science about the inferiority of blacks was spread widely. Were the writers including blacks when they said "All men are created equal."? So you have to wonder that if you can take the historical context out of the constituiton and apply it to the modern day, you are not in fact changing the constituions actual meaning. However might I add that I have seen little to make me believe that blacks are in anyway genetically different or 'inferior', and I do not at all agree with makemyday etc, but I just wanted to post this about the constitution.
Bob LeChevalier - 20 Jul 2004 18:18 GMT >> Since it's unconstitutional, it won't happen. If they could, far more >> likely would be legalizing shipping you subhuman racist slime off to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >written at a time where blacks were still slaves, and pseudo-science >about the inferiority of blacks was spread widely. No. That came later. In 1776 blacks were "different", much as men are different, and thus had a "different" role. It wasn't necessarily an "inferior" one.
>Were the writers including blacks when they said "All men are created >equal."? Yes. Jefferson in his later writings made it very clear that he believed that slavery was invalid for that reason. He did not believe that blacks could LIVE as equals in US society, and hence favored some kind of expatriation, as did Lincoln for most of his career.
lojbab
 Signature lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
makemyday@worldnet.att.net - 20 Jul 2004 18:31 GMT > >> Since it's unconstitutional, it won't happen. If they could, far more > >> likely would be legalizing shipping you subhuman racist slime off to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are different, and thus had a "different" role. It wasn't necessarily > an "inferior" one. What a crock! Explain how the *ownee* isn't inferior to the *owner*. In 1776, all DAFNz were *owned*...
Byron Canfield - 14 Jul 2004 04:33 GMT > Who's yer daddy, boy?! > > King of SCAA <plonk> Another King of Scum sockpuppet representing a lying ignorant cowardly anonymous racist idiot into the poop bucket.
Bob LeChevalier - 14 Jul 2004 04:41 GMT >>> > To be honest with you, for all of your posting of the facts and >>> > figures, the only think that I can think is that you are pretty [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the inferiority of your race. Otherwise you get big heads and think you >are equal when you are not. The only one inferior in the conversation is YOU.
>People learn from our posts. People including yourself. (Admit it, >you've learned from our posts!) I've learned that there are still severely depraved racist a.sholes in this country, when I had hoped that we were starting to grow beyond it.
>I'm sure that not many people were aware that the out-of-wedlock >birthrate for blacks hovers around 70%. I'm not sure that most people care.
>Yet, people see that information >we provide and they learn more and more about what vile sh.t black people >are. The only vile ones are the subhuman racist slime.
lojbab
 Signature lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
theresearcher - 20 Jan 2005 22:12 GMT "Uh huh. You are, of course, aware that over 10,000 NEGROES are murdered by NEGROES every year in America, right?"
"Police have only a vague description of the gunmen. They are described
as three black men." ******************************************************************************************** You could look at these facts from the perspective that African Americans are inherently violent and inferior, but you would have to have concrete evidence to prove that the are more violent. Historically, other "races" have been capable of horrible atrocities as well. The case for the biological inferiority of African Americans would be a complex one and cannot be proven with the intermittent accounts and statistics that you are providing. Your argument would have to be much stronger to prove connections in the complexities of human society.
>From another perspective, you could see that African Americans have been crippled economically, geographically, physically, and psychologically through systematic racism and oppression. Thus blaming the violence and "inferiority" on them would be like the domestic abuser who blames his/her victim for being inferior after a lifetime of abusing them. You break their knees and them blame them for not being able to walk.
In order for you to prove that this latter perspective is untrue, you would have to prove that African Americans have been given equal treatment and opportunities. You would have to prove that racism does not exist.
******************************************************************************************* I'm sure that not many people were aware that the out-of-wedlock birthrate for blacks hovers around 70% ******************************************************************************************* This is under the assumption that having children out of wedlock is a bad thing. If we changed our underlying conception of what a "family" is, then it wedlock and out-of-wedlock wouldn't matter.
Consider, for example, the Native American culture who have a different societal structure than our own:
"Without property inheritance and without firm notions about the father's qualities being carried through sexual intercourse or the blood, sexual relations between men and women were conducted without concern about 'illegitimate' offspring. There could be several trial encounters without concern about 'illegitimate' offspring. There could be several trial encounters and temporary unions before a marriage was decided on, and openly acknowledged intercourse withother partners was possible for both husband and wife. When a Huron father was questioned one day by a Jesuit about how, with such practices, a man could know who his son was, the man answered, 'You French love only your own children; we love all the children of our people." - Natalie Zemon Davis 'Iroquois Women, European Women'
I'm not suggesting that marriage within wedlock is bad so much as pointing out that your belief that wedlock births are superior to out-of-wedlock births is based upon social agreement that this is so. Thus, other cultures with different social agreements as to what is acceptable may find your need to distinguish wedlock births from out-of-wedlock births rather superfluous.
makemyday@worldnet.att.net - 15 Jul 2004 11:20 GMT > To be honest with you, for all of your posting of the facts and > figures, the only think that I can think is that you are pretty much a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to prove something to "somebody". There's just something about that > that just does not seem right... Government policy in this area is so FUBAR, something obviously needz proving. I am humbled to serve...
> I suppose you have nothing better to occupy your time... You don't have a rhetorical leg to stand, so that was a truly pathetic response...the only way you know to respond. Why not just stick to the issues: For openerz, is DAFN 70% OOW_Breeding a legacy of slavery? Or an example of IQ-75 genetic stupid failure to capitalize on boundless opportunity?
Royal treat - 15 Jul 2004 17:37 GMT >> To be honest with you, for all of your posting of the facts and >> figures, the only think that I can think is that you are pretty much a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > legacy of slavery? Or an example of IQ-75 genetic stupid failure to > capitalize on boundless opportunity? Also, I'd like to know why similar black failure is evident in Canada and Europe as well--especially England.
Is it the legacy of slavery in London, too?
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
Byron Canfield - 17 Jul 2004 03:15 GMT > Who's yer daddy, boy?! > > King of SCAA <plonk> Another King of Scum sockpuppet representing a lying ignorant cowardly anonymous racist idiot into the poop bucket.
P.Comm - 11 Jul 2004 00:57 GMT http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392296
> ********************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt ******************** > "The different breeds of dogs have very different physical appearances, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > with the DAFN_Breed at the bottom primitive extreme of behavior > intelligence and civility. It'z *genetic*... Well, I told you about the foxes that were selected solely on the basis of friendly behavior. In a few generations breeding them only, you ended up with foxes that would be called "different races" IF they looked that different and were human. Behavior/appearance - goes together.
MIB529 - 11 Jul 2004 21:32 GMT > Well, I told you about the foxes that were selected solely on the basis of > friendly behavior. In a few generations breeding them only, you ended up > with foxes that would be called "different races" IF they looked that > different and were human. Behavior/appearance - goes together. Well, only a few generations just proves what an arbitrary category "race" is. For the most part, we're talking about clinal variation; you've seen it yourself. Races are only apparent because of where immigrants are from; I know for a fact that Pine Ridge cops had a scandal about racially profiling Crows, but I doubt most non-Indians would know the difference between the two.
MMD's argument itself was foolish: Purebred dogs show all kinds of diseases that mutts don't have. German shepherds have hip dysplasia, dalmatians are deaf, chihuahuas have asthma, and so on. Wolves don't show these diseases in nearly the frequency of domestic dogs.
|
|
|