What do you consider more important.....

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I am not going to post your ugly remarks for anyone to read.

That's because I didn't make any.

Most of those who are suspended don't handle it well and I they're of course biased in their view.

Get off your high horse!

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

No. Inferior, due to their lower civilization, remember? How can that be equal or different? If they could not develop a higher civilization, then according to your view, it makes them inferior to the mighty white.
And blacks are not superior when it comes to athletics. The Olympic Games have proven this time and time again. Not all fields are dominated by blacks, and even the fields that are, have often enough been lost to white man or Asian man to leave out crap on athletic genetics. Look at homo-sapien instead, and you might come much closer to understanding your inferiorty/superiority/genetics theory.

Perhaps they are inferior. What else can explain the dismal performance historically, and in modernity, academically? Could it be that the reason you walk into an upper division physics classroom or lab and see 80% Asians, 20% whites and literally no blacks, be rooted in genetics? Perhaps they lack something in that arena, and compensate it for in athletics. And by the way, you are incorrect in stating that blacks are not superior in athletics. The whole world is divided into superior and inferior categories. It's a qualitative matter and humans by their natural cognitive abilities differentiate, classify and categorize, thereby expressing preferences, hierarchies and qualities. As such, somethings are made better, are built better, or just are better than other things in different areas. Does that mean we should hate people? Of course not. But is hate considered worse than love? Of course not. Hate, anger, fear are just as much part of being human, as peace, love and tolerance. Perhaps if you have not heard of the following book, you will have now:



Blacks have overwhelmingly dominated most sports except for swimming and hockey, especially the ones built around running. The African prowess in the long jump is, if anything, even more overwhelming than in the sprints. Blacks of West African ancestry have won every long jump medal in the last several Olympics, and have won the gold over and over in the last 20 or so Games. Your contention "And blacks are not superior when it comes to athletics. The Olympic Games have proven this time and time again" is obviously misinformed and misleading. There are many fast twitch muscles and fibres and whites on average have a higher percentage of slow twitch muscles than Africans, who generally have more of both. Extensive research and studies has repeatedly confirmed marked differences in the muscle and bone structure of the said races.

http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php

Don't twist my words, Mouse, and play with semantics. What I meant was that the two should not be equated, in the way that you are doing it.

I have not twisted anything. You contradicted yourself and when it was brought to light your only defense was to accuse me of playing with semantics. How quaint. Either you can compare or you cannot. But you cannot cherry pick what you want things to be, as is often the case with you. What it came down to is that the way I am comparing is wrong and should not be done, but the way you compare it is perfectly fine. It doesn't matter though, as this is trivial at best. The real substance is seen everyday in classrooms, in tests, in inventions, discoveries and creativity, and moreover, historically. Arnold Toynbee listed what he called 33 of the greatest civilizations and they are European and Asian. Those uncomfortable with this get around the fact by bringing up the whole issue of the elastic nature of culture and other post-modernist clichés to get away with the fact that Africa has always lagged when it came to the capabilities of civilization. And as usual, they start ranting about how 'Western methods' and how judging things by 'Western' standards is somehow wrong. Nevermind the fact that this is vague and begs the question, why shouldn't things be judged and by what? In all cases, there is judgement, that is the point.

You suck, Mouse. Most African tribes (if not all of them) have deep respect for nature. They are not careless like white man to go about destroying and sieving out the last few drops of nature we still have. Do you think an African from Africa looks up to white people and considers them to be superior? With everything that white man does to nature and his children (sending them to daycare as toddlers, weaning at six months, leaving their children to go to school unattended, to name just a few)? Give me a break. There's a lot more white man could learn from black man when it comes to respecting nature and natural resources, than the other way around. Africans use as much natural resources as is strictly needed. Unlike us, they are not wasters.

This is when I know that I have superior arguments: when the opposing side breaks down into an emotional snow ball and must resort to ad hominem fallacies, and rely on the appeal to the vague and childish last resort of “appeal to nature” tactics to redeem her argument, not that you ever had one. In the haze of things, egalitarians and environmentalists forget that man was placed on ths world and his job has always been the taming of nature - whether it is the animals, or the minerals - to help make those things serve its own survival and civilization. As far as I know, man is the only creature that can do that. In addition, Africans or Native Americans are no exceptions, as they have been entirely and thoroughly mythologized and imagined by the modern egalitarian pea brain. They are no less cultivators and manipulators of nature than the white man is. It’s just some are able to harness it better than others and thereby able to produce higher and better civilizations as a result. This whole myth of the 'noble savage' is entirely over amplified and ignores the fact that the lives of these societies were primitive at best, and nasty, brutish and short at worst.

First of all you're quoting an experiment from 1969, when equality in America was still a work in progress. Baaaaaaad boy!

That is not the point. If you bothered to pay attention, you will see that his study is as relevant then as it is now, and it has only been confirmed repeatedly over time. By the way, only severe ignorance would conclude that somehow America was a work of progress then, and that supposedly now it is not a work of progress. Did it just stop or do we not still see black “activists” whining about their supposed plight? Society and history are not static. Therefore, for making an attempt you get an A, but for the substance, well, baaaaaaaad girl!

Second of all, there is NO evidence that suggests that intelligence (which no one has yet been able to define, not even all your scientific researchers) is race-related. Be more critical of the studies that you have read, and you'll have to agree with me on this.

There is more evidence than you can handle, that is the problem. That does not correlate to you agreeing with it, however. There is more evidence, data and research to suggest intelligence is genetic, and that races are different with levels of intelligence, than there is to suggest humans evolved. If you admit that there are differences, then what is to say these differences are somehow limited only to bone structure or skin pigmentation? We can list here and offer tons of evidence, but for what? It will be wasted on you, like water poured on desert sands.

Your zealotry and nihilism can be extended to all aspects of society. What is the definition of a chair? I refuse to agree with the conventional definition of what a chair is! What does that prove? Everything and nothing.

The essential point is that you have been entirely lost to the West and that you have absolutely no contact or understanding of Armenian culture whatsoever. If you did, you might be much more skeptical of what the West has got to say, especially the sources that you choose to pick up and follow blindly. I'm advocating that which our ancestors have advocated for centuries now. You'd know what that was if you had bothered to study your own culture first, before getting caught up in big-headed German philosophers (who hated us and considered us inferior) and arrogant American scientists (who made sure their tests were designed in such a way to make us inferior).

Great! I am the one that is lost (and perhaps everybody else that asserts racial differences or racial differences in intelligence and civilization), but you and you alone, the famed conqueror of truth and knowledge, you and you alone have wrecked and conquered books and pages and studied Armenian history down to the "t". Those of us that studied Armenian history, we only thought we were studying Armenian history, but in reality, thanks to your perceptive insights, we weren't really studying Armenian history. Only you see the truth and everyone else is mired in misanthropy, what you call “blindness”. And it must be convenient to assign beliefs and meanings to those who you argue against, namely in this case, that I am a blind follower of Western dogma and a German philosopher, but you see the light!

And by the way, your seeping hatred of the West is evident and goes a long way to explaining your nihilistic outlook on life. You forget that, before anything, I am Armenian, and the reasons I argue what I argue is, first and foremost, for Armenians. It is convenient for weekend Armenians who go on being nihilistic about Armenians and their civilization to change sides, and when it serves their purposes you are all of a sudden the champions and crusaders of Armenian causes. You conveniently ignored my point on how Armenians like you, the so-called champions, are all too eager to support the miscegenation of our common folk with every genotype. You believe that anyone can be Armenian with the flick of a switch. However, reality is not that simple. When you mix chicken soup, with chili soup, or borsh, or any other soup, it is diluted, and that goes the same for peoples. Fortunately, we can always remake the soup, but unfortunately, we cannot remake a people.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

After reading your first sentence, I decided that I had better stay out of this discussion and allow you to wade in your fantasies.

Good night.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

that's because the word "inferior" has such a negative connotation behind it, that seems offensive. I don't think Anonymouse is trying to convey such a connotation, he just feels comfortable using that word to express his idea.

Maybe that's not good enough for you still, but I think there's a misunderstanding going on here. It's natural that we hear words and intepret them based on our mentality or whatever, and that's what's driving a wedge here, not the ideas themselves.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

After reading your first sentence, I decided that I had better stay out of this discussion and allow you to wade in your fantasies.

Good night.

That goes to show you, not everyone is capable of a discussion because they are too much emotionally and ideologically invested in their egalitarian fiction to be able to tolerate dissenters. So much for the people who cry for 'tolerance'. They are the least tolerant for those that disagree.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

that's because the word "inferior" has such a negative connotation behind it, that seems offensive. I don't think Anonymouse is trying to convey such a connotation, he just feels comfortable using that word to express his idea.

Maybe that's not good enough for you still, but I think there's a misunderstanding going on here. It's natural that we hear words and intepret them based on our mentality or whatever, and that's what's driving a wedge here, not the ideas themselves.

Bingo my musically gifted forumer.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

:P hopefully it'll clear things up.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

:P hopefully it'll clear things up.

Hopefully, but hope doesn't always deliver.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Though just one more comment. Interestingly, in all your arguments focused on IQ-tests, you have not once touched on language.

Not that I want to give language the highest priority, but don't you find it fascinating that every nation, every ethnicity, every race, every tribe, every culture, every subculture, etc. (this is for people who like categorization) has a language of its own, adapted to its own situation?

How do you fit linguistics into your argument of inferiority and primitiveness?

Some basic background below:

Every child born with a healthy brain acquires all the patterns, phonological (sound) and syntax (grammar), of the language(s) that they were born into by the time they are five years old on average. Having achieved that, they can always acquire new languages at a later age, such as with immigrant children.

There are numerous tribes in Africa that speak a variety of languages, beginning with their own and then one or two of the official languages of the country, which is often a European language (French/English) and/or an official African language (e.g. Swahili/Zulu/Yoruba). Moreover, there are some that also speak the language of one or more neighboring tribes. All of this acquired at a very young age.

In other words, language acquisition knows no boundaries, being found everywhere where there is mankind.

It is also true, however, that some individuals are "better" with language than others. This may well have something to do with the biological side of the brain, and might to some degree explain why every group of human beings has produced story-tellers, wise guides, and ultimately authors, regardless of the language that they used for it (i.e. not necessarily their mother tongue).

A quick btw: Inuits don't have fifty words, or however many it was, for "snow" for no reason. There's a "taming the nature" or "being aware and knowing what to do with it" factor there. The same could be said of every other group. Tribes in the Amazon, for instance, have names for every insect, every tree, and every animal that they are in regular contact with in those forests. The same is true for Africans, Armenians, Americans.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

that's interesting to point out. What are you exactly trying to debate here though?