Blacks are not animals?

Forgot to mention: southern and northern africa are separated by the Sahara desert.

At 8/20/2011 5:40:41 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 8/20/2011 5:15:01 PM, Tiel wrote:

At 8/20/2011 4:19:24 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/20/2011 3:57:00 AM, Tiel wrote

I agree with you on almost everything you said. I appreciate your new approach towards me, it is very respectable . I shall return the favor delightfully.

I do have a few questions. We know that black Americans became slaves to white Americans and this is what caused the environmental differences after they were freed in the first place.

Why is it that even in Africa the majority of that racial culture represents poverty and similar behavior? Is this not so? Am I wrong for thinking that this is how it is? If I am mistaken, please correct me. If I am not and there is a good reason for the similarites, I would love to understand it better.

There aren't really similarities. Black people in Africa don't act the same as Black people in America. I've visited there once. The people INDIVIDUALLY are much more responsible and civil. As far as behavior goes, they act in a very good way. If you are referring to the poverty of African countries, then I can explain that. Africa is, in theory, filthy rich due to natural resources. However, corrupt and money guzzling individuals who run their governments, strangle those nations into poverty.

I will respect your experience and take it into consideration, given that I have never personally been there. Though I have to wonder why these tyrannical leaders have the position that they do. They just seem to behave like powerful gang leaders in my opinion. It is my wonder why the people have never risen up to defeat the oppression and why great civilizations have not been built there overall. Even tyrannical leaders can have a vision of grandeur and put his slaves to work in building such an empire. I do not understand why there is so much poverty, so much disease, so much killing and oppression...yet there seems to be no end to it. All the other racial groups have had plenty of rebellions against tyrants and have built plenty of empires and civilizations, both ancient and modern. I am just wondering why just don't see much of it from the black race throughout human history. Africa is a large continent with plenty of natural resources, you figure you would have seen many great empires and civilizations in Africa throughout history. An argument can be made for Egypt, but Egyptians seem to be of a different genetic stock.

Please, someone help me better understand this. If I am wrong then please point out my errors.

I told you to read Guns, Germs, and Steel. I even addressed this at one point.

Also, having natural resources doesn't necessarily equate to technological development. If you have all the food/supplies you need, there is no incentive to create agricultural or nomadic technologies.

Technology in general travels between societies. You'll find that societies that were geographically isolated from the original Sumerian/Middle-eastern societies had much slower rates of technological development largely because they had to discover everything themselves.

That doesn't address the question of why there were more advanced societies in the that area in the first place.

Also, there are other areas that were advanced. Asia was advanced at that point in history. Also, The Americas have had some developed societies as well.

Further, there has been plenty of time since then over the last 5000 years to develop advanced civilizations and cultures.

Agricultural tech travels easier east to west as opposed to north and south due to climate factors and how close you are to the equator. Southern Africa has the double-whammy of being north-south and being culturally and geographically separate from northern africa and sumeria.

Other areas were advance and developed, as I have stated. The question of why Sumeria/Middle east was more advanced in the first place needs to be addressed as well.

Egyptians are africans. There is no question there. The only reason you question "bloodlines" is that egypt was not isolated from trade routes tens of thousands of years ago.

No, I question it as Egyptians seem different from other Africans.

Europe, for instance, was not part of the sumerian trade route system for a long time. During this time, the middle-east was the technological and cultural center of the world while europe was backwards wasteland.

This is what Western education would have you think, though other parts of the world were definitely hot with trade and advancements. I will agree that it held some of the hotspots though.

It is never as simple as "group x beat up group y because group x was inherently better." There are always historical and sociological factors.

Yes, I understand that there is and I never said anything about anyone being inherently better. I feel my questions are valid and reasonable given the long history of human populations in Africa, while also being one of the mos resource rich continents on earth. In my opinion, the greatest of empires and civilizations should have naturally arose out of Africa. The whole continent should house the most powerful nations. As to why this is not so, and as to why such advanced societies never rose out of the land throughout human history...these are the things that give rise to my questions.

At 8/20/2011 5:41:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
Forgot to mention: southern and northern africa are separated by the Sahara desert.

That shouldn't matter as there are plenty of people and resources south of the Sahara. Many great thinkers, inventors, builders, etc. and civilizations should have rose in this area. I see no reason why it shouldn't have. Intelligence and resources are all that is needed to build great things and to think new philosophies.

At 8/20/2011 6:14:20 PM, Tiel wrote:

At 8/20/2011 5:40:41 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 8/20/2011 5:15:01 PM, Tiel wrote:

At 8/20/2011 4:19:24 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/20/2011 3:57:00 AM, Tiel wrote

I agree with you on almost everything you said. I appreciate your new approach towards me, it is very respectable . I shall return the favor delightfully.

I do have a few questions. We know that black Americans became slaves to white Americans and this is what caused the environmental differences after they were freed in the first place.

Why is it that even in Africa the majority of that racial culture represents poverty and similar behavior? Is this not so? Am I wrong for thinking that this is how it is? If I am mistaken, please correct me. If I am not and there is a good reason for the similarites, I would love to understand it better.

There aren't really similarities. Black people in Africa don't act the same as Black people in America. I've visited there once. The people INDIVIDUALLY are much more responsible and civil. As far as behavior goes, they act in a very good way. If you are referring to the poverty of African countries, then I can explain that. Africa is, in theory, filthy rich due to natural resources. However, corrupt and money guzzling individuals who run their governments, strangle those nations into poverty.

I will respect your experience and take it into consideration, given that I have never personally been there. Though I have to wonder why these tyrannical leaders have the position that they do. They just seem to behave like powerful gang leaders in my opinion. It is my wonder why the people have never risen up to defeat the oppression and why great civilizations have not been built there overall. Even tyrannical leaders can have a vision of grandeur and put his slaves to work in building such an empire. I do not understand why there is so much poverty, so much disease, so much killing and oppression...yet there seems to be no end to it. All the other racial groups have had plenty of rebellions against tyrants and have built plenty of empires and civilizations, both ancient and modern. I am just wondering why just don't see much of it from the black race throughout human history. Africa is a large continent with plenty of natural resources, you figure you would have seen many great empires and civilizations in Africa throughout history. An argument can be made for Egypt, but Egyptians seem to be of a different genetic stock.

Please, someone help me better understand this. If I am wrong then please point out my errors.

I told you to read Guns, Germs, and Steel. I even addressed this at one point.

Also, having natural resources doesn't necessarily equate to technological development. If you have all the food/supplies you need, there is no incentive to create agricultural or nomadic technologies.

Technology in general travels between societies. You'll find that societies that were geographically isolated from the original Sumerian/Middle-eastern societies had much slower rates of technological development largely because they had to discover everything themselves.

That doesn't address the question of why there were more advanced societies in the that area in the first place.

Also, there are other areas that were advanced. Asia was advanced at that point in history. Also, The Americas have had some developed societies as well.

Further, there has been plenty of time since then over the last 5000 years to develop advanced civilizations and cultures.

Agricultural tech travels easier east to west as opposed to north and south due to climate factors and how close you are to the equator. Southern Africa has the double-whammy of being north-south and being culturally and geographically separate from northern africa and sumeria.

Other areas were advance and developed, as I have stated. The question of why Sumeria/Middle east was more advanced in the first place needs to be addressed as well.

Egyptians are africans. There is no question there. The only reason you question "bloodlines" is that egypt was not isolated from trade routes tens of thousands of years ago.

No, I question it as Egyptians seem different from other Africans.

Europe, for instance, was not part of the sumerian trade route system for a long time. During this time, the middle-east was the technological and cultural center of the world while europe was backwards wasteland.

This is what Western education would have you think, though other parts of the world were definitely hot with trade and advancements. I will agree that it held some of the hotspots though.

It is never as simple as "group x beat up group y because group x was inherently better." There are always historical and sociological factors.

Yes, I understand that there is and I never said anything about anyone being inherently better. I feel my questions are valid and reasonable given the long history of human populations in Africa, while also being one of the mos resource rich continents on earth. In my opinion, the greatest of empires and civilizations should have naturally arose out of Africa. The whole continent should house the most powerful nations. As to why this is not so, and as to why such advanced societies never rose out of the land throughout human history...these are the things that give rise to my questions.

Everything you asked in answered in excrucitiating detail in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I could give you bite-sized answers, but you would just question those. It won a Pulitzer Prize. The very least you can do is skim the wiki.

If you have the intellectual integrity to read it, I promsie Diamond will obliterate your conceptions about inherent racial ability being responsible for the history of human populations.

" The book explains why Eurasian civilizations (in which he includes North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while refuting the assumption that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures, and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

How do Egyptians seem "different" from other "blacks?" Do the inhabits of Monaco get this exemption? For some reason, I am positive you think the inhabits of Somalia are black. Nigerians?

What is this new classification of yours separating the behaviors of "egyptian blacks" from "other blacks?"

At 8/20/2011 5:33:22 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 8/20/2011 3:36:21 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

At 8/20/2011 3:16:14 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 8/20/2011 3:12:13 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

At 8/20/2011 3:00:20 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 8/19/2011 10:24:03 PM, BennyW wrote:

At 8/18/2011 6:12:45 PM, seraine wrote:
Tiel has been claiming that blacks tend toward a variety of traits, including "animal-like behavior", and that it is because of their physiological tendencies. This is a great example of correlation and causation. Blacks don't act "black", blacks act poor. Blacks tend to be poor and poor people tend to be criminals, thus it is not much of a surprise that blacks tend to commit more crimes.

And it is not their physiological tendencies that make them poor.

This is pretty much the conclusion you would come to if you believe Darwin. Blacks being a less evolved form of humans. Consequently that is why Hitler also used Darwin's views.

Hitler straw manned the crap out of Darwin's views.

Hey, I'm just a little curious, is there an book on the straw mans Hitler used?

Hitler focused on contemporaries of Darwin like Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton, Darwin's half-cousin.

Henry Spencer is the "nature red in tooth and claw." They had a somewhat more aggressive interpretation of Darwin's work.

Galton was the one to formulate Hitler's ideals on eugenics. Either him or Spencer (can't remember at the moment) are credited with the concept of "nature versus nurture."

I believe it was Spencer, see here for details: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Actually, I looked it up. It was Galton.

I should have remembered since "Nature versus Nurture" is also known as "Galton's Error."

Oh well, I was wrong.

Guns, Germs, and Steel Vids here:
http://video.google.com...
http://video.google.com...
http://video.google.com...

The only thing we can prove are a bunch of correlations. We can agree on facts that blacks are more prone to crime than the other races, but there is no way to know why they are more prone to it. Is it because they are poor? That begs the question why are they poor? Are they poor because of white priviliege in the past or is white priviliege over and the causes of blacks poverty is now their own genetics? Also, why did white priviliege exists? Is it because of the environment or was it because blacks were inferior to white plain and simple?

These questions can't be answered. The only thing we can do is draw out correlations and make arbitrary assumptions. How exactly do you falseify white privliege? Where does it end and where does it begin? Again, these questions can't be answered.

Yes, I understand that there is and I never said anything about anyone being inherently better. I feel my questions are valid and reasonable given the long history of human populations in Africa, while also being one of the mos resource rich continents on earth. In my opinion, the greatest of empires and civilizations should have naturally arose out of Africa. The whole continent should house the most powerful nations. As to why this is not so, and as to why such advanced societies never rose out of the land throughout human history...these are the things that give rise to my questions.

Everything you asked in answered in excrucitiating detail in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I could give you bite-sized answers, but you would just question those. It won a Pulitzer Prize. The very least you can do is skim the wiki.

If you have the intellectual integrity to read it, I promsie Diamond will obliterate your conceptions about inherent racial ability being responsible for the history of human populations.

" The book explains why Eurasian civilizations (in which he includes North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while refuting the assumption that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures, and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes."

I will check it out, though I hope it explains and answers my question on why Eurasia had advanced in the first place. That's what I want to know. Even South America/Central America had advanced civilizations. Also, I hope it thoroughly explains why even though it is rich in resources for building and trade... No civilizations were built, not great trade centers boomed, and no advanced philosophical thinking came from the area. These things happened everywhere else on earth, not just in Sumeria/Middle East area.

These questions need to be answered. It would seem that I only have a few questions and they should have relatively short basic answers, I don't see why I should have to read the whole book to find the answers when you have already read it and should be able to answer them for me with little effort.

There is no reason why Africa shouldn't have had great philosophical thinkers, written language, advanced architecture, advanced technology and artistry development, etc.

They had the people. They had the resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


How do Egyptians seem "different" from other "blacks?" Do the inhabits of Monaco get this exemption? For some reason, I am positive you think the inhabits of Somalia are black. Nigerians?

I think the Egypt we see was greatly advanced because of ET influence, I also am thinking that this could be the entire influence behind human advancement all over the earth. As every advanced civilization worshiped Gods from the sky. Gods that were supposedly very much like humans.

What is this new classification of yours separating the behaviors of "egyptian blacks" from "other blacks?"

ET influence.

You seem to think that you have my perspective nailed down on the human species and the different racial gene classifications, but you don't seem to understand my position very well. I am an ancient alien believer. I do believe that the created genetic classifications we call "races" are different, though how and why I can only speculate. I have done much research on the subject on both physical evidence and metaphysical evidence that supports this theory.

This forum is not about that topic however, so I will kindly ask that my questions about Africa be answered if you have indeed read the book and you do indeed know that answers to my questions.

At 8/20/2011 6:49:18 PM, DaveElectric wrote:
The only thing we can prove are a bunch of correlations. We can agree on facts that blacks are more prone to crime than the other races, but there is no way to know why they are more prone to it. Is it because they are poor? That begs the question why are they poor? Are they poor because of white priviliege in the past or is white priviliege over and the causes of blacks poverty is now their own genetics? Also, why did white priviliege exists? Is it because of the environment or was it because blacks were inferior to white plain and simple?

These questions can't be answered. The only thing we can do is draw out correlations and make arbitrary assumptions. How exactly do you falseify white privliege? Where does it end and where does it begin? Again, these questions can't be answered.

Yes, my questions are similar to those that you ask.Though I would ask them a little bit differently. Either way, the answers to your questions would greatly help me understand any answers I might find to my own questions.

At 8/20/2011 7:13:18 PM, Tiel wrote:

Yes, I understand that there is and I never said anything about anyone being inherently better. I feel my questions are valid and reasonable given the long history of human populations in Africa, while also being one of the mos resource rich continents on earth. In my opinion, the greatest of empires and civilizations should have naturally arose out of Africa. The whole continent should house the most powerful nations. As to why this is not so, and as to why such advanced societies never rose out of the land throughout human history...these are the things that give rise to my questions.

Everything you asked in answered in excrucitiating detail in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I could give you bite-sized answers, but you would just question those. It won a Pulitzer Prize. The very least you can do is skim the wiki.

If you have the intellectual integrity to read it, I promsie Diamond will obliterate your conceptions about inherent racial ability being responsible for the history of human populations.

" The book explains why Eurasian civilizations (in which he includes North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while refuting the assumption that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures, and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes."

I will check it out, though I hope it explains and answers my question on why Eurasia had advanced in the first place. That's what I want to know. Even South America/Central America had advanced civilizations. Also, I hope it thoroughly explains why even though it is rich in resources for building and trade... No civilizations were built, not great trade centers boomed, and no advanced philosophical thinking came from the area. These things happened everywhere else on earth, not just in Sumeria/Middle East area.

These questions need to be answered. It would seem that I only have a few questions and they should have relatively short basic answers, I don't see why I should have to read the whole book to find the answers when you have already read it and should be able to answer them for me with little effort.

There is no reason why Africa shouldn't have had great philosophical thinkers, written language, advanced architecture, advanced technology and artistry development, etc.

They had the people. They had the resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


How do Egyptians seem "different" from other "blacks?" Do the inhabits of Monaco get this exemption? For some reason, I am positive you think the inhabits of Somalia are black. Nigerians?

I think the Egypt we see was greatly advanced because of ET influence, I also am thinking that this could be the entire influence behind human advancement all over the earth. As every advanced civilization worshiped Gods from the sky. Gods that were supposedly very much like humans.

What is this new classification of yours separating the behaviors of "egyptian blacks" from "other blacks?"

ET influence.

You seem to think that you have my perspective nailed down on the human species and the different racial gene classifications, but you don't seem to understand my position very well. I am an ancient alien believer. I do believe that the created genetic classifications we call "races" are different, though how and why I can only speculate. I have done much research on the subject on both physical evidence and metaphysical evidence that supports this theory.

This forum is not about that topic however, so I will kindly ask that my questions about Africa be answered if you have indeed read the book and you do indeed know that answers to my questions.

The book answers every question you just posed. I have read it as well as the works of the man Diamond bases his theory on.

What makes you think that Egyptians, as opposed to other Africans, were vistied by aliens?

Does this mean that some humans (such as southern africans) were not affected by ET? Only certain ones?

At 8/20/2011 7:21:09 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 8/20/2011 7:13:18 PM, Tiel wrote:

Yes, I understand that there is and I never said anything about anyone being inherently better. I feel my questions are valid and reasonable given the long history of human populations in Africa, while also being one of the mos resource rich continents on earth. In my opinion, the greatest of empires and civilizations should have naturally arose out of Africa. The whole continent should house the most powerful nations. As to why this is not so, and as to why such advanced societies never rose out of the land throughout human history...these are the things that give rise to my questions.

Everything you asked in answered in excrucitiating detail in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I could give you bite-sized answers, but you would just question those. It won a Pulitzer Prize. The very least you can do is skim the wiki.

If you have the intellectual integrity to read it, I promsie Diamond will obliterate your conceptions about inherent racial ability being responsible for the history of human populations.

" The book explains why Eurasian civilizations (in which he includes North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while refuting the assumption that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures, and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes."

I will check it out, though I hope it explains and answers my question on why Eurasia had advanced in the first place. That's what I want to know. Even South America/Central America had advanced civilizations. Also, I hope it thoroughly explains why even though it is rich in resources for building and trade... No civilizations were built, not great trade centers boomed, and no advanced philosophical thinking came from the area. These things happened everywhere else on earth, not just in Sumeria/Middle East area.

These questions need to be answered. It would seem that I only have a few questions and they should have relatively short basic answers, I don't see why I should have to read the whole book to find the answers when you have already read it and should be able to answer them for me with little effort.

There is no reason why Africa shouldn't have had great philosophical thinkers, written language, advanced architecture, advanced technology and artistry development, etc.

They had the people. They had the resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


How do Egyptians seem "different" from other "blacks?" Do the inhabits of Monaco get this exemption? For some reason, I am positive you think the inhabits of Somalia are black. Nigerians?

I think the Egypt we see was greatly advanced because of ET influence, I also am thinking that this could be the entire influence behind human advancement all over the earth. As every advanced civilization worshiped Gods from the sky. Gods that were supposedly very much like humans.

What is this new classification of yours separating the behaviors of "egyptian blacks" from "other blacks?"

ET influence.

You seem to think that you have my perspective nailed down on the human species and the different racial gene classifications, but you don't seem to understand my position very well. I am an ancient alien believer. I do believe that the created genetic classifications we call "races" are different, though how and why I can only speculate. I have done much research on the subject on both physical evidence and metaphysical evidence that supports this theory.

This forum is not about that topic however, so I will kindly ask that my questions about Africa be answered if you have indeed read the book and you do indeed know that answers to my questions.

The book answers every question you just posed. I have read it as well as the works of the man Diamond bases his theory on.

What makes you think that Egyptians, as opposed to other Africans, were vistied by aliens?

Does this mean that some humans (such as southern africans) were not affected by ET? Only certain ones?

Yes and no. Yes in the way that all humans are the product of ET biological manipulation. No in the way that those humans in South Africa were not directly influenced by ETs culturally, intellectually, and technologically, as the development of the Egyptian empire was and other great empires throughout ancient human history. Those great empires were the breeding ground of the modern intellectual human design that we are today. The roots of advanced human civilization were influenced heavily by ETs.

That is my opinion.

Believe me. I know how radical my views are, yet I cannot dismiss the overwhelming amount of evidence that points to this theory being true. Ancient civilizations and ancient human history has been my greatest passion ever since I was a kid. I didn't believe in ET's or ancient ET influence until about maybe 3-4 year ago though.

So I do know how crazy it sounds to people who don't believe in such things, I was one of those people years ago. I was on the other side telling people that held my current beliefs that they were crazy. Now I'm the supposed crazy one. Funny how life works out sometimes.

At 8/20/2011 6:49:18 PM, DaveElectric wrote:
The only thing we can prove are a bunch of correlations. We can agree on facts that blacks are more prone to crime than the other races, but there is no way to know why they are more prone to it. Is it because they are poor? That begs the question why are they poor? Are they poor because of white priviliege in the past or is white priviliege over and the causes of blacks poverty is now their own genetics? Also, why did white priviliege exists? Is it because of the environment or was it because blacks were inferior to white plain and simple?

Blacks are more prone to crime than the other races for a number of reasons. I shall list a few here.

The so called "gang" life that a lot of blacks expose themselves too and the "Rap" music (Retards Attempt Poetry) that they often listen to fuels this crime. Rap music encourages crime through a lot of the lyrics that the rappers often use. A lot of the rappers also commit crimes such as using drugs and commiting crimes (of course) so this only encourages the black youth to listen to their "role models" and actively commit those crimes.

Now of course one could make the assertion that whites listen to rap music too and commit crimes as well. Here are a couple facts:

A: There are nowhere near the amount of whites as there are blacks listening to rap music.

B: Out of the population of whites that do listen to rap music, they aren't as hostile as the black population that listens to rap music.

These questions can't be answered. The only thing we can do is draw out correlations and make arbitrary assumptions. How exactly do you falseify white privliege? Where does it end and where does it begin? Again, these questions can't be answered.

Well over half of your analysis that you just pointed out there was under the conclusion that blacks only commit more crimes than the other races because they are poor. This is simply not true.

"...the conclusion that blacks only commit more crimes than the other races because they are poor. This is simply not true."

It seems that could be easily checked by simply looking at crime rates among poor whites, hispanics, asians. If that pattern holds true across the races, it would be hard to argue against that being the cause, without being guilty of special pleading.

You say this is simply not true. What do you believe to be the causative agent?? Surely you can't believe that skin color is the determining factor.

At 8/20/2011 8:34:27 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:

At 8/20/2011 6:49:18 PM, DaveElectric wrote:
The only thing we can prove are a bunch of correlations. We can agree on facts that blacks are more prone to crime than the other races, but there is no way to know why they are more prone to it. Is it because they are poor? That begs the question why are they poor? Are they poor because of white priviliege in the past or is white priviliege over and the causes of blacks poverty is now their own genetics? Also, why did white priviliege exists? Is it because of the environment or was it because blacks were inferior to white plain and simple?

Blacks are more prone to crime than the other races for a number of reasons. I shall list a few here.

The so called "gang" life that a lot of blacks expose themselves too and the "Rap" music (Retards Attempt Poetry) that they often listen to fuels this crime. Rap music encourages crime through a lot of the lyrics that the rappers often use. A lot of the rappers also commit crimes such as using drugs and commiting crimes (of course) so this only encourages the black youth to listen to their "role models" and actively commit those crimes.

Now of course one could make the assertion that whites listen to rap music too and commit crimes as well. Here are a couple facts:

A: There are nowhere near the amount of whites as there are blacks listening to rap music.

B: Out of the population of whites that do listen to rap music, they aren't as hostile as the black population that listens to rap music.

These questions can't be answered. The only thing we can do is draw out correlations and make arbitrary assumptions. How exactly do you falseify white privliege? Where does it end and where does it begin? Again, these questions can't be answered.

Well over half of your analysis that you just pointed out there was under the conclusion that blacks only commit more crimes than the other races because they are poor. This is simply not true.

Now I will cede that gang/rap activity causes crime but this begs two questions 1)how much black crime is caused solely becuase of gang/rap activity and 2)why are blacks attracted to gang and rap? 1) cannot be answered because humans are affected by an infinitude of variables and there is no valid way to have a controlled experiment. You cannot possibly control every variable in a person's life. 2) cannot be answered either for the same reason. So were left with an incomplete explanation for why gang acitivity and rap music causes crime.

People tend to live with their own kind so that could be the reason rap music is mostly black and listened to by blacks but I'm not saying that is the reason. The thing I don't thnk you understand is that there is more than one possible explanations for why such things occur. It makes no sense to say it must be a genetic factor or an environmental factor. Statistics can only prove correlation. They cannot prove causation. Causation requires a logical theory and when it comes to white priviliege or the genetic factor there is no logical way to measure the degree in which crime effects can be ascribed to them. Now let me be clear, we can infer that these causes exist, but we cannot infer how much they exist.

I did not assume blacks commit crime because of poverty. If you read my post more clearly I was pointing out the incompleteness of the poverty explanation for black crime. I even said "there is no way to answer these questions".

At 8/20/2011 9:51:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"...the conclusion that blacks only commit more crimes than the other races because they are poor. This is simply not true."

It seems that could be easily checked by simply looking at crime rates among poor whites, hispanics, asians. If that pattern holds true across the races, it would be hard to argue against that being the cause, without being guilty of special pleading.

You say this is simply not true. What do you believe to be the causative agent?? Surely you can't believe that skin color is the determining factor.

The problem is that some people keep thinking skin color is the only difference.

Genetic classification (race) and culture play a big part. Culture being developed because of certain beliefs and behavior choices. Beliefs and behavior choices being influenced by the physiological function efficiency of the brain/body mechanics. The brain/body mechanics being influenced by genetics/DNA.

At 8/20/2011 8:25:31 PM, Tiel wrote:

At 8/20/2011 7:21:09 PM, Wnope wrote:: : : : How do Egyptians seem "different" from other "blacks?" Do the inhabits of Monaco get this exemption? For some reason, I am positive you think the inhabits of Somalia are black. Nigerians?

I think the Egypt we see was greatly advanced because of ET influence, I also am thinking that this could be the entire influence behind human advancement all over the earth. As every advanced civilization worshiped Gods from the sky. Gods that were supposedly very much like humans.

What is this new classification of yours separating the behaviors of "egyptian blacks" from "other blacks?"

ET influence.

You seem to think that you have my perspective nailed down on the human species and the different racial gene classifications, but you don't seem to understand my position very well. I am an ancient alien believer. I do believe that the created genetic classifications we call "races" are different, though how and why I can only speculate. I have done much research on the subject on both physical evidence and metaphysical evidence that supports this theory.

This forum is not about that topic however, so I will kindly ask that my questions about Africa be answered if you have indeed read the book and you do indeed know that answers to my questions.

The book answers every question you just posed. I have read it as well as the works of the man Diamond bases his theory on.

What makes you think that Egyptians, as opposed to other Africans, were vistied by aliens?

Does this mean that some humans (such as southern africans) were not affected by ET? Only certain ones?

Yes and no. Yes in the way that all humans are the product of ET biological manipulation. No in the way that those humans in South Africa were not directly influenced by ETs culturally, intellectually, and technologically, as the development of the Egyptian empire was and other great empires throughout ancient human history. Those great empires were the breeding ground of the modern intellectual human design that we are today. The roots of advanced human civilization were influenced heavily by ETs.

That is my opinion.

Believe me. I know how radical my views are, yet I cannot dismiss the overwhelming amount of evidence that points to this theory being true. Ancient civilizations and ancient human history has been my greatest passion ever since I was a kid. I didn't believe in ET's or ancient ET influence until about maybe 3-4 year ago though.

So I do know how crazy it sounds to people who don't believe in such things, I was one of those people years ago. I was on the other side telling people that held my current beliefs that they were crazy. Now I'm the supposed crazy one. Funny how life works out sometimes.

Alright, so, tell me where I'm wrong, but from what I'm getting, your argument is that the difference between Egyptian and non-Egyptian blacks was the presence of cultural rememnants pointing towards aliens (the pyramids, hierogliphics, religious beliefs, whatever).

Let's assume for the moment this is true.

Wouldn't this mean that the difference between races depends not on some inherent correlation to skin color but on whether or not the ET impacted populations in cultural/sociological context as opposed to solely genetics?

At 8/20/2011 10:08:52 PM, Tiel wrote:

At 8/20/2011 9:51:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"...the conclusion that blacks only commit more crimes than the other races because they are poor. This is simply not true."

It seems that could be easily checked by simply looking at crime rates among poor whites, hispanics, asians. If that pattern holds true across the races, it would be hard to argue against that being the cause, without being guilty of special pleading.

You say this is simply not true. What do you believe to be the causative agent?? Surely you can't believe that skin color is the determining factor.

The problem is that some people keep thinking skin color is the only difference.

Genetic classification (race) and culture play a big part. Culture being developed because of certain beliefs and behavior choices. Beliefs and behavior choices being influenced by the physiological function efficiency of the brain/body mechanics. The brain/body mechanics being influenced by genetics/DNA.

There's no arguing with the cultural aspect being a contributing factor, but here's the problem I have with the above process. You're starting at the result and working backwards towards genetics. If you want to show a functional difference, other than skin color, then you need to start at the beginning, genetics.

Is there a significant difference between the dna of a black person and that of a white person?? No. Of course there are minor variances in all our dna, but the basic structure that classifies us human is the same.

Is there a significant difference in the mechanism that genetics uses to ultimately effect brain/body mechanics?? No.

Is there a significant difference in the way that genetics brings about the ability of the brain to understand right from wrong, or make a choice whether or not to commit a crime?? No.

That takes us up to the choices part of the process, and that's where the first significant difference appears. Though there are many factors that affect the choices someone will make, ultimately it is an individual choice to commit a crime. Black individuals make that choice and so do individuals of all races.

To claim genetic causes, creates problems. You need to show that they are unable, or have a decreased ability to reason, or understand right from wrong, due to their genetic make-up. I don't think you can do that. If you can prove that, then you remove any justification for holding them responsible for their actions. It's not their fault, it's in their genes.

At 8/20/2011 8:34:27 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
Blacks are more prone to crime than the other races for a number of reasons. I shall list a few here.

Its 2011. Yet ignorance still exist in morons like you.

The so called "gang" life that a lot of blacks expose themselves too and the "Rap" music (Retards Attempt Poetry) that they often listen to fuels this crime. Rap music encourages crime through a lot of the lyrics that the rappers often use. A lot of the rappers also commit crimes such as using drugs and commiting crimes (of course) so this only encourages the black youth to listen to their "role models" and actively commit those crimes.

Wow. Not only is almost every point you made here completely false, you completely ignore the fact that art imitates life and not the other way around. I bet you think the London riots happened because of video games. Idiot.

Now of course one could make the assertion that whites listen to rap music too and commit crimes as well. Here are a couple facts:

A: There are nowhere near the amount of whites as there are blacks listening to rap music.

B: Out of the population of whites that do listen to rap music, they aren't as hostile as the black population that listens to rap music.

Nope. Not facts.

Well over half of your analysis that you just pointed out there was under the conclusion that blacks only commit more crimes than the other races because they are poor. This is simply not true.

The so called "gang" life that a lot of blacks expose themselves too and the "Rap" music (Retards Attempt Poetry) that they often listen to fuels this crime. Rap music encourages crime through a lot of the lyrics that the rappers often use.:

That's stupid, otherwise white kids who listen to Cannibal Corpse would all be serial killers.

A: There are nowhere near the amount of whites as there are blacks listening to rap music.:

Blacks comprise only 22% of the entire US population. Sure, more blacks probably listen to rap more than whites per capita, but I would venture to say that more white people listen to rap than any other racial group simply out of sheer numbers.

If that is the case, how do you account for the disparity if you could just use rap music as the convenient scapegoat?

No doubt you're being incredibly selective too. Please note all the violent video games, violent movies, and violent music (oh, I don't know, maybe like Skinhead Oi). Do you condemn yourself in the process?

B: Out of the population of whites that do listen to rap music, they aren't as hostile as the black population that listens to rap music.:

Even supposing that were true, you're not accounting for cultural disparities. If you think for one second that it's due to race, please note the stark differences from blacks in say, Kenya, versus blacks in Somalia. Or look at blacks living in affluent neighborhoods versus blacks living ghettos, and then tell me there's no contrast.

Well over half of your analysis that you just pointed out there was under the conclusion that blacks only commit more crimes than the other races because they are poor. This is simply not true.:

Poverty doesn't equal crime necessarily. There's an age old sociological question whether poor people are more prone to crime (a product of their environment) or whether they are poor because of the way they are -- inherently slothful and not enterprising (they made their bed and have to lie in it.

(They) meaning all poor people of the world.

There is no way to prove or disporve any claims that are being made on these racial bias topics. All opinions on both sides are merely opinions on what someone desires to believe.

I would say that most of this racial talk is a waste of time on either side, we all know that there are indeed differences among our different human races. Exactly why these differences are there and what they can be attributed to in any kind of detail, this is an almost impossible task and would have little or no hard evidence to back up any such opinions. We can speculate any such root causes, but these would be probable guesses that correlate from personal experiences, not anything solid or scientific.

Of course, I could always be wrong and hard evidence does exist to support one side or the other. Even if so though, what are you going to do about it? The fact is that we all need to try and become better people mentally, physically, and spiritually. This is true no matter what race you are.