Does IQ Matter, do you believe in racial IQ?

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

Escrito por Al Fappino, 14.07.2017 at 08:35

Escrito por Earthbound, 13.07.2017 at 21:41

Race is mostly sociological - there are more biological differences within races than in between them. If you look purely at the mean, than you could always say "whites" are more this than "blacks," but the problem is that most people don't fall on the mean; that's why generalizing makes no sense. In the UK, Nigerians, Pakistanis, etc are constantly outperforming native British students, and sociologists have noted that London now has one of the top preforming urban school districts in the world because of immigration; in a lot of cases, IQ based on "race" indicates nothing about success in life, only serving to justify regressive social policy.

How can Race be sociological? What the hell? The sociological way of things is man-made, has nothing to do with Race. Race is at most a biological difference. There is a biological difference which can be clearly seen ofc, but it's not relevant for the IQ? Or at most, isn't the key factor for intelligence.

Also, the example you gave on the immigrants outperforming native british students can easily be debunked. It's not a matter of race as you're trying to outline, it's related to the Household itself and Immigrant families desire to have their children outperform the parents and grandparents and so on, giving them the best possible life by allowing them to fully focus on studying.

What drives them to outperform british students in most cases is their desire to attain high goals and excell in School, to secure a better future. Immigrant families always thrive to that, to be successul, that doesn't happen in Education only, it happens in financial and economic ways, when immigrants start up their own businesses and sometimes outperform native-founded businesses. I can give you even another example, in France, the Portuguese immigrants of 50 and 40 years ago are most of the cases owners of the most successful french companies, and employ native-french by the hundreds.


Edit: Didn't want to enter this race bs talk, but I kinda was forced into it, because people going mislead on this

You think "Asian" is a good biological marker? So someone from India and China have the same genes right? How do you tell the difference between white and black; what's the cut off point. Race is total bullshit created by whites to justify colonialism and other segregation policies. Most genetic diversity is in Africa, if "race" was real than most "races" would be in Africa.

I think your getting ethnicity confused with race. FYI I hate talking about this shit as well.

Have you noticed how people say in conversation 'white race, black race, jews', they separate them from the white race xD

I think science have beaten the race theory, i don't have proof though, have to google. But logically, we are more separated on cultures and skin color, race is only term to describe different color, and so i think science annulled the term race.

What if higher IQ people commit as much crime as the rest but they are smart enough to not get caught.

This is like asking "do you believe the sky is blue"

Whether you believe it or not won't change the facts

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

Race is total bullshit created by whites to justify colonialism and other segregation policies.

Congratulations for the most ignorant comment of the year. Quite an achievement for a forum inhabited by so many autists and special kids.

Source for your anti-white hatred and racism which is a classic marxist morality play? Ted ex talks by unqualified "writers" and theoretical books from 21st century socialists dont count.

Race has been a "construct" from even before the time of the ancient greeks, its mentioned in almost every part of the world, quite alot in our own the Romans, read Tacitus and Cicero, to Indians, in their hymns and ingrained in their caste system, in the Middle East where we have the most anti-black and racist societies ever created and many others. Pretty sure Africans were not the exception and their were racist too, if only just for the fact that at the time being so different physically and in terms of language was a huge deal based on their philosophical and scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, your "master race" hasnt left us much in writing so we dont know.

It also played a huge part in the Middle ages, an example is the 13th Century encyclopedia of Bartholomeus, a classic anti-black racist piece centuries before the first Europeans set foot in America.

And dont get me started on slave trade, cause everybody did it, hundred of years before the Europeans. From ancient Sumers to Chinese, to Egyprians and more importantly Muslims who kidnapped 2 million white Europeans to use as slaves and Africans who started the trade among themselves.

You think after Colombus discovered America and the demand for cheap labour rose, Europeans went in Africa and took slaves by force? No, they bought them paying for them with materials, food and guns.

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

White collar criminals barely get caught.

Proof? Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

George Bush preempted the Iraq invasion by lying about WMDs; thousands of Americans and innocent civilians died but he hasn't been charged with war crimes. Nor has Putin for his foray into Georgia and Ukraine. The heads of JP Morgan and Bank of America were never held responsible for the recession etc.

What the actual fuck, is this an actual gross generalization based on a couple of random, unrelated cases? We can do it too you know, with Hillary, Obama, Chinese government, Arab dictators. I can reach conclusions about women, blacks, brown and yellow following your line of reasoning too.

You really are racist. I bet you are in BLM and you upvote their peacefull protests, breaking private property and beating up innocent bystanders.

http://www.classics.ucsb.edu/classes/cla109/Isaac.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabiblos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(book)

Escrito por Witch-Doctor, 14.07.2017 at 15:59

What if higher IQ people commit as much crime as the rest but they are smart enough to not get caught.

What if you provide a source for your SJW shit for once.

Escrito por Khal.eesi, 14.07.2017 at 22:01

Escrito por Witch-Doctor, 14.07.2017 at 15:59

What if higher IQ people commit as much crime as the rest but they are smart enough to not get caught.

What if you provide a source for your SJW shit for once.

Triggered much? You're as much of a snowflake as the SJWs.
It's obvious logic. You have a bunch of business criminals who never go to prison because they can buy their way out of it or they are smart enough never to get caught.

If I need to provide a source that you will probably ignore anyways just to back up simple logic, you're dreaming.

Escrito por Khal.eesi, 14.07.2017 at 22:00

You think after Colombus discovered America and the demand for cheap labour rose, Europeans went in Africa and took slaves by force? No, they bought them paying for them with materials, food and guns.

You forgot quite a relevant fact there Khal. Those black people sold to Europeans were war prisoners made by the african tribe leaders during wars purposely started with the sole objective of obteining those prisoners. In short, our payments fueled conflicts in Africa and made them dependant on that slave traffic.

Just nitpicking for fun

Escrito por Witch-Doctor, 15.07.2017 at 02:54

Triggered much? You're as much of a snowflake as the SJWs.
It's obvious logic. You have a bunch of business criminals who never go to prison because they can buy their way out of it or they are smart enough never to get caught.

If I need to provide a source that you will probably ignore anyways just to back up simple logic, you're dreaming.

But those are corrupted people standing in head of corps and institutes. how many of them are there anyways? his arguement is about mass numbers.

(note: i don't agree with him (as far as i know at least). i just wanted to make that comment for some reason).

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

You think "Asian" is a good biological marker? So someone from India and China have the same genes right? How do you tell the difference between white and black;

What the flying duck, can't believe what I just read. When did I ever say Asian was a good biological marker? All I said was debunking your race being sociological garbage argument and debunking your argument that Nigerians and Pakistanis can outsmart British students for some reason that you didn't even specify (but I did, and accurately btw).

We on the baseline, share the same genes, I've seen somewhere that between races, we share mostly all genes, except a small number of them or something that triggers all the differences you can see between races, phisically speaking that is.

You can thus tell the difference between white and black using your eyes?

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

Race is total bullshit created by whites to justify colonialism and other segregation policies

Race isn't total bullshit created by the Europeans to justify colonialism, Infact, Race wasn't even the pretext for colonialism and the formation of the Colonial Empires that lasted from 1330's to 1999 (with Spain beginning colonialist era with conquest of the Canaries against the Guanche people and colonialism formally ending in 1999 with the deliver of Macau from Portugal to China (even though there's now neocolonialism, which is a totally different thing)).

I can lecture you and debunk you on the stupidity if your claims simply by using History.

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

Race is total bullshit created by whites to justify colonialism and other segregation policies

Race is based on physical differences between Races, as you can see here:



(As you can see, I just debunked your ridiculous claim that race is mostly sociological, I believe it was you who mixed Ethnicity with Race?, and not me.

Source: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race

Back to the point, Race was thus not created by Europeans to justify colonialism, and other segregationist policies.

The justification for colonialism and its establishment by the European Nations was the technological superiority the Europeans had against all other peoples (and not races itself).This "superiority" though was not only technological but also somewhat culturally, demographically, economically, financially and geopolitical, with european countries having already a State that was advanced enough, especially after the demise of Feudalism to pursue territorial expansion overseas and enrich itself and thus, its people the nation. European Colonialism just happened because we had the technological superiority to enforce it. It would have happened the same way if it was the Aztecs and the Mayans who had the technological superiority to travel across oceans and colonize new lands and dominate other less sophisticated peoples whether in Africa or let's say Europe, if we were living on arrows and bows still, on the 15th century.

Spain and Portugal set out to conquer continents like America on the basis of such superiority, considering the fact the natives had no organized state most of the times (Mayans, Aztecs and Incans are thr true exceptions) and had Bows and Arrows and Slingsmen as the core of their military forces, if we can even call them that way. And I'm only approaching the domination-based colonialism. I'd like to think you know a single bit about colonialism and the age of discovery and empires because if you know a bit about it, you'd know a sizeable amount of colonialism acts (sending colonists to another deserted land and erecting towns there, new COLONIES) were made on abandoned territories, especially islands and Africa for example, where the Portuguese and the Dutch initially just established Fortresses and Outposts across the African coast to give support to their national navigation and to trade with the natives, who never lived on the coast, but rather deep within th forests.

Getting straight to the point, Colonialism, which in Africa was truly existing beyond the 18th and 19th century, where Colonial Nations started establishing outposts and organized hierarchies and State-presence in the colonies' interior, annexing and "dominating" tribes, that was purely done under technological superiority rather than race itself.
Then that same superiority eventually led to the enslavement of seen-as-inferior-cultures-and-peoples in America and Africa afterwards, as soon as the 16th century of course, with the triagular trade. So basically my point is that you're stupid to think race is/was man-created to justify superiority between a european people and an african one, during the age of empires.

Using the example of South Africa, the Apartheid was basically justified on the basis that black people weren't sophisticated enough as an ethnicity to govern themselves, thus white population just took on the role of conserving the previous privilege of ruling.

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

Most genetic diversity is in Africa, if "race" was real than most "races" would be in Africa.

Where the hell should I start with such plain autistic stupidity you just uttered, just leaving this here again:



Based on that definition, I'm pretty sure you can outline several Races across the world.

(btw gipsies aren't white as a race, just saying)



I'm pretty tolerant to some sort of liberals, but you're that sort of liberal that just spits stupidity at some point to put forth his principles?

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 23:27

I know you obviously will discount anything I've posted because I'm an "evil liberal," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you why we focus on the European imperialism in particular. Just take one example, the Belgian-Congo, the amount of brutality derived from preconceptions of superiority is absurd. "The Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad does a particularly good job in illustrating the pure evil that fueled European colonialism. That's not to say that other cultures are not racist, but Europeans have done that most in terms of taking that information and subjugating others because of it. I'm expecting a "whites are the real victims" post next lol.

If you're gonna drop the Belgian-Congo example, might aswell contextualize it. May I remind you that the Belgian-Congo wasn't a state-fueled colonialism? It was a near genocide at most and slavery by a unique individual. The King of Belgium. The country itself never enslaved the Belgian Congo. Sure, it had it as a colony and had aspects of colonialism, but the brutality you speak of was based on Leopold's ultraracism and slavery. Colonialism was most of the cases based on cultural and technological superiority between races..

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 23:27

Supreme BS - based on some wish wash philosophy and not science.

Now that fappino has discussed the history, one should discuss what is important here and that is the science.




Let that sink in for a while.

---

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

Race is total bullshit created by whites to justify colonialism and other segregation policies

Well, races were actually constructed by biological means, not created artificially by "whites" as you have proposed. First, we must define a species and a population, a species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. A population is all the organisms of the same group or species, which live in a particular geographical area, at a particular time and have the capability of interbreeding.

The creation of races is natural, and if such a process did not exist, evolution wouldn't exist, and we'd all be the same basic unevolved single-celled clones of each other. The creation of race is simply the medium of evolution. What humanity has had experienced is incomplete allopatric speciation. Essentially there is a founding population which exists, then through moving to different places (migration is what occurred with humanity) or a change in the environment which results in the formation of a geographical barrier. The Sahara, for example, is an example of such, but even small things such as rivers could be counted as a geographical barrier. As humans are quite intelligent creatures, however, rivers often do not act as geographical barriers, but oceans, deserts, etc. for example, do. These geographical barriers result in a specific form of speciation called allopatric speciation, as it is the result of geography that populations have been divided into smaller, distinct and separate populations. These populations (sometimes called subpopulations) are then subject to different environmental conditions and thus the process of selection takes place. Alleles that are more favourable to that specific environment will be more successful in producing offspring, and therefore will be more prevalent in later generations. This leads to an overall increase in alleles which are favoured, and decrease in those which are unfavoured, and this is differential reproductive success. These selection pressures can be intraspecific due to the overproduction of offspring, or interspecific. But either way, most of these pressures are based upon localised geography. Eventually, ofcourse the two (or more) populations will have very different alleles (sometimes they will have additional sections of coding DNA, extra genes), and therefore are no longer able to interbreed. Two species have now formed. Of course, races are not different species but are simply the populations that have different alleles from one another. One easy, obvious example would be skin colour and the fact different races have different skin colours, as they have different alleles. In fact, Asian "yellow" skin, for example, did not evolve once, but many times. For example, south east Asia and east Asia began from different genetic pools but have similar skin pigmentation. Even in East Asia alone, carotene-type pigments evolved several times, an example of convergent evolution - showing biological significance. Now, of course, the evolutionary process has only had a few thousand years, geographic isolation is not complete, and this is why there isn't a significant difference in genetics and why we can still interbreed to produce fertile offspring. However, this doesn't mean that races do not exist.

---

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

You think "Asian" is a good biological marker? So someone from India and China have the same genes right? How do you tell the difference between white and black;

Actually, virtually every functioning human being has the same genes, as a gene is defined to be a distinct sequence of nucleotides forming part of a chromosome, the order of which determines the order of monomers in a polypeptide or nucleic acid molecule which a cell (or virus) may synthesise. Some may have addition genes but this often is due to additional chromosomes due to either incorrect splitting in meiosis etc. (no need to get in the details) - leading to disabilities. I do wonder if you have additional chromosomes. Anyway, what differs are alleles, not genes. Alleles are different forms of a gene. So I'm just going to skip over the fact you conflated that, and assume you implied "alleles", but even then members of the same race do not have the "same alleles" other wise they would be twins or clones, instead they have similar alleles. Once again, I am assuming you wanted to say that they have similar genetic content, the answer to this of-course is that you are right, "Asian" is not a good biological marker, because it isn't a biological marker. It's simply an artificial racial classification system, which was created, but that doesn't mean the concepts of "race" are created, and certainly there can be a biologically-created classification system, it's just that the first people to begin to understand the concepts of "race" did not create such as classification system. So yes the classification system is wrong, but that doesn't mean that "race" is artificial. "Race" is natural, biological and therefore is not artificial.

---

Escrito por Earthbound, 14.07.2017 at 09:43

Most genetic diversity is in Africa, if "race" was real than most "races" would be in Africa.

Some people just don't understand science >.>. Again. Firstly the question would be how you would define genetic diversity. If you simply define it to be the number of mutations, then that's not helpful, because there is coding and non-coding DNA. Coding DNA called exons, and noncoding DNA called introns, and after the process of transcription (not going to go into detail) is over, the pre-mRNA produced will undergo splicing (also not going to go into detail), where the introns are removed and mRNA of the exons is what remains to undergo translation (once again not in detail), to produce the amino acid chain that forms the protein. Therefore "genetic diversity" aka a varied genome does not imply a varied proteome. Also, there are large sections of noncoding DNA that are never transcribed, called variable number tandem repeats this is what is used to create genetic fingerprints with gel electrophoresis. Now in Africa, it has high UV exposure, and intense sunlight, of which is mutagenic, and so it is possible that there are a lot of mutations in Africa, but the majority that formed in the introns as most on the exons are weeded out by natural selection. This could explain high genetic diversity without actual significant differences in the overall proteome, and therefore few differences in phenotype. Of course, there is a flaw to my counter-hypothesis, in the fact that most UV mutations are not induced in the germ line cells and rather in the somatic cells, therefore this effect would likely not be significant.

So let's assume, that "most genetic diversity is in Africa" is correct, even though I do not see a provided source, but that's fine, it's not a completely bad assumption, this is because Africa has a very diverse geography, which is what lead central Africans to be very technologically behind. The terrain and geographic isolation, in central Africa, from both each other and external contact, has thus caused them to be primitive. This would be indicative to say that many subpopulations should have formed in central Africa alone, let alone considering the Sahara desert barrier with the northern Africans, etc.Therefore a lot of "races" or possibly "proto-races" should have formed in Africa. Just because they all have dark/black skin, biologically favoured and selected for due to high sunlight exposure, doesn't mean they are the same race. Please liberal. Please. Learn science first.

---

Conclusion

Racial classification is certainly very poorly done and needs to be completely recreated into a biological classification. However, race still exists as a biological phenomenon, in fact "is race biological" is not even debatable. Whether race has a "completely biological purpose" of course is debatable, but we often assume it to be mostly biological.

We all know that intelligence is not completely measurable by IQ. We also know that genetic factors are likely not only the factors influencing intellectual development due to environmental chemicals, situations and upbringing also count.

This debate is about whether alleles that are important for genetic predisposition to being "intelligent" were selected for or not, during the biological evolution of Race. I cannot believe I had to go through all that science just to educate your scientifically illiterate ass, to make you even begin to understand the topic of debate. Also, before you go off to say "then why aren't all people of a certain race more intelligent than everyone in another race", remember that intelligence is likely polygenetic, and so are the genes that control the development of the brain, and so there is variation as everyone in the race does not have the same alleles for those genes, therefore the genetic predisposition to intelligence (if selected would also be varied).

Here's a graph so your brain doesn't melt.


The question here is DID NATURAL SELECTION FAVOUR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALLELES THAT GIVE PREDISPOSITION TO INTELLIGENCE. I couldn't have spelt it any more bloody obvious.

So please, debate the topic question and contribute. Or go, and get your scientifically illiterate, ignorant, and liberal ass out of here.

Yours sincerely,
Adog

PS: (like srsly this is basic science, I am barely an adult and I still understand it).

Wow no wonder jews are always so good with money and asians so good at math

Escrito por Earthbound, 15.07.2017 at 22:36

As for the original question, race means nothing in terms of IQ. Environmental factors contribute strongly and obviously those with less access to schooling will have lower IQ, I am not an alt-right determinist, You can still be successful and have a somewhat low IQ.

If that is the case why are black people universally lower no matter where they live or what they, are doing? Granted there are exceptions, but on average black people score 10 points lower no matter where they live. Unless your going to blame the entire world for the great black failure, like that has not been tried before.... how come africa is raped in colonialism and to this day is a failed system, meanwhile germany got raped in two world wars and in 60 years is one of the wealthiest countries in the world? It's genetics some regions have created people with better genetics plain and simple. I'm a first generation german immegrant to the United states. My father was a drunk and left my mom with me and my two brothers. We lived off the state for five years untill my mom became a nurse. I went to some of the shittiest schools in the state of Michigan in the slums of detroit as a white kid, I got harrased because of my skin colour. I have a genius level IQ, my circumstances where totally shite but they did not define me. Something else did, could it be I don't know superior genetics?

Escrito por BugrAydin, 16.07.2017 at 05:47

It doesnt mean All whites are smarter than all blacks. Understand correctly please. %40 of blacks are smarter than %55 of whites.

White people are one of the smallest minorities on the planet, if you only consider european white. It's probably closer to 20% of blacks are smarter then 50% of whites, unless you got a source for your claim.

Edit: But this isn't even about white or black, white people are not even the smartest xD

Escrito por Earthbound, 15.07.2017 at 22:28

Racial assumptions are NOT good biological guideposts; why you might ask? The Human Genome Project has found that human's DNA is 99.9% the same. The .1% variation found among humans is actually quite useful in medicine. Ancestry is important because it can predict genetic susceptibility to certain diseases; 3% of births in Sub-Saharan Africans carry Sickle Cell Anemia, much greater than in other geographic regions. Only a couple of alleles have highly skewed distributions, Sickle Cell being one example. Still not convinced? Take this 2009 study that compared the genes of European scientists James Watson and Craig Venter with Korean scientist Seong-Jin Kim. Unsurprisingly, Watson and Venter shared "FEWER variations than they each shared with Kim." As I said, there are more variations within "races" than between them. Your average 10-year old white nationalist on Atwar could be more genetically similar to someone in Sudan than they are someone in Norway.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19470904

First of all, you completely dodged my whole point and descended into a level of plain stupidit7

Escrito por Earthbound, 15.07.2017 at 22:28

Phenotypic variation exists because of natural and sexual selection, and obviously someone from India looks different than someone from Denmark. But again, the racial classification is total bullshit. Don't believe me? Why is Barack Obama universally considered "black" when he is half European, its because race is MOSTLY a social construct. Why were Italians not considered "white" in the United States until the 1950's. Why are Cubans in Miami not considered "white" even though they look "white" and are mostly European. Why do white Americans not consider Arabs and Mexicans "white," its because racial classification is used as a tool of oppression. Why are Indian's considered "Asian" and not "black." It's utter nonsense, that's why. There are very few genetic differences between humans, and phenotypic variation essentially is the "biological" basis of race - even though the it makes absolutely no sense.

Thank you for such an immersive paragraph, I can tell by it that you're one of those americantards who only look to their belly and don't have a single clue of the world South of El Paso, North of the Great Lakes, West of Hawaii and East of Cape Cod. In other words, you're ridiculously ignorant. Why are you basing your whole argument on the american ignorant racism and misconceptions about ethnicities? Because all you approached were the various ethnicities tbh. Also, if you're so schooled and so intelligent, your brain should be functionable enough to understand that your "society" of your "country" was built on Immigration who then derailed into racism and discrimination. Your society is built on grouping ethnicities by "race-calling" someone. So you call a Spaniard a Latino or Hispanic or whatever and you group them with Mexicans, when they're infact, very different. May I also remind you most Latin-American people have native-indian blood? Hence why sometimes they're not as pale as european spaniards or even portuguese. What I mean is that you're building your examples on ignorance about the world. I'm not denying that there isnt opression based on race, but let's be honest, America and its degenerate society, inferior to the european one by a lot (because your society as roaming ignorance like yours, who says Race is a sociological construct LMAO) classed its groups of citizens into races and segregated them to different positions and areas throughout its history. To be one of the last countries to fully outlaw slavery is already representative of such and a shame tbh. All your examples are plain garbage and you completely missed your point.
I gave you a wide view of the world and the history of colonialism and the race associated to it, and all you came back with to "counter" me as shitty American-policy examples..?

Escrito por Earthbound, 15.07.2017 at 22:28

I only know common knowledge about genetics because I have a roommates that are pharmacy and biology majors - and I have only taken introductory courses on biology. That being said, I will school all your white-supremacist asses on tax policy and economics any day of the week.

To be honest, you justified nothing. That being said, you couldn't even school yourself on the meaning of colonialism, let alone attempt to school me on Tax policy and Economics? Why would an american-ignorance-based opinion on those subjects be considered at all?
To conclude, with that being said, I'm no white-supremacist like the cucks you see here, I'm just plain honest and blunt when I see ignorance and stupidity roaming the forums, like the ones you uttered. Also in another note, if you knew anything about me you'd have known I favour miscigenation to an extent, since racial purity is a myth, but you wouldn't know that, because you get your facts from liberalized sources of information and don't go for second sources.


Oh, and please do attempt to school me at any subject of your choice, I'm pretty sure, given your inability to understand a simple concept like Colonialism, it shouldn't be too hard to actually give you a lecture.

KEEP 4CHAN AT 4CHAN.ORG

Escrito por Earthbound, 16.07.2017 at 08:43

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT RACE NOT ETHNICITY NOR IS IT ABOUT NATIONALITY - ALL OF WHICH YOU'RE CONFLATING AS THE SAME THING

Ethnicity is real, nationalities are real, race is mostly not real. If I'm so stupid and ignorant than I'd like you to create an objective "racial" classification system for the United States. I've only been to Europe twice which is probably less than most Europeans visit America, but I'm sure you can accurately classify all of America's "races" with your innate European intelligence loooool.

Saying that colonialism was justified because of "white superiority" is a good way to deflect from the moral deficit of colonialism.

You're just pointlessly derailing the topic, you were the one who claimed colonialism was based on discrimination, which is not true, I clearly debunked you from the Historic point of view, which you lacked, Adog even debunked you from the Scientific point of view, which you clearly lacked cuz you didn't dare answer him, and now you're just name-calling and providing shitty arguments to sustain your claims. Race is indeed real, probably not to you, since you fail to see beyond America, but yeah

Escrito por Earthbound, 16.07.2017 at 16:14

Nah, I'm just an "ignorant and stupid American." Water under the bridge.

This response just proves my entire point, 'liberals' like you can't endure being counter-argumented without resorting to cheap way-outs to remain "safe" or intact. You're being pretty ridiculous at this point, enjoy what I wrote to you, should save it to a word file too, might come handy in the future

Escrito por Black Swans, 16.07.2017 at 07:46

KEEP 4CHAN AT 4CHAN.ORG

KEEP BOSNIAKS AT THE GARBAGE BIN (ABORTED)

Escrito por Earthbound, 16.07.2017 at 16:38

Escrito por Al Fappino, 16.07.2017 at 16:29

Escrito por Earthbound, 16.07.2017 at 16:14

Nah, I'm just an "ignorant and stupid American." Water under the bridge.

This response just proves my entire point, 'liberals' like you can't endure being counter-argumented without resorting to cheap way-outs to remain "safe" or intact. You're being pretty ridiculous at this point, enjoy what I wrote to you, should save it to a word file too, might come handy in the future

What did you disagree with? You think the fact that there is more variability within races is incorrect? Did you even read the link I posted. You've said like 2 things in 5 posts.

1. Colonialism was justified and beneficial.

2. I'm stupid because you think I'm American.

Both of which I disagree with so let's leave it at that. Care to respond to the OP?

Nice edited message

Can someone other than a liberal confront me, thx

Escrito por Al Fappino, 16.07.2017 at 18:52

Can someone other than a liberal confront me, thx

I'm not a liberal!

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 16.07.2017 at 18:56

Escrito por Al Fappino, 16.07.2017 at 18:52

Can someone other than a liberal confront me, thx

I'm not a liberal!

!!!

Escrito por Black Swans, 16.07.2017 at 07:46

KEEP 4CHAN AT 4CHAN.ORG

aw is basically 4chan with a bonus game attached

Escrito por Tirpitz406, 17.07.2017 at 18:08

Escrito por Black Swans, 16.07.2017 at 07:46

KEEP 4CHAN AT 4CHAN.ORG

aw is basically 4chan with a bonus game attached

and less anime

Escrito por Al Fappino, 16.07.2017 at 18:52

Can someone other than a liberal confront me, thx

Shut up you liberal fucktard crooked damaged brain communist Portuguese!

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 18.07.2017 at 04:51

and less anime

used to be more, there once was a loli clan

Escrito por Tirpitz406, 19.07.2017 at 19:32

used to be more, there once was a loli clan

I wish I had been around

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.07.2017 at 19:35

I wish I had been around

go ask desu once he comes on, the guy doesnt do anything but watching anime

Im eastern european with 130 IQ... 29 above my race oof