Black People are Less Intelligent than White People (2100 hits)
Category: Politics -> AfghanistanRating: -0.6 on 148 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Burt (View user info) at 2008-07-22 04:55:54 EDT
First of all, let me just say that I am not a racist in the most extreme sense of the word. I like Indian food and accept Tiger Woods and the only reason I call them pakki's is because that's what they call themselves around here. Even the pakki's call themselves pakki's.
What's so wrong with the word pakki anyway? Its just a derivative of Pakistani. Its no different from calling an Australian an Aussie, or a Scotsman a Scotch. It's just an abbreviation, has no stereotypical references that might cause offense (as opposed to calling a Frenchman a frog), and shouldn't be considered a racial slur.
But it is.
But I digress.
There is a theory about blacks that you might have heard. I have given it much thought, and quite honestly I think its sound. Irrefutable conjecture - not proof, mind - that blacks are not necessarily as smart as white people. Here's how the argument goes:
Blacks and whites evolved, developed and learned to survive on different continents. While the plates were still shifting into position, we faced separate challenges and environments from the get-go. The results of these hundreds of years of separation are manifested upon our very faces.
Firstly, consider the skin. It is a different colour for a reason, mainly that black people's ancestors faced far more severe sunlight than the whites. Secondly, the facial arrangement. Black men tend to have more bulbous, overhanging brows, that shaded their eyesight from the glare of the sun when they were out hunting. White man had to invent hats to overcome similar issues, because a white man hunting was for recreation, not survival. That's why his forehead did not evolve to be so prominent.
Next, we have the nostrils. This again comes down to hunting. Black men needed wide, sensitive nostrils for their battle against the elements. White men's nostrils were used for blowing smoke from, or sniffing wine - again, leisure pursuits, and the body does not evolve if it is not absolutely essential.
The guy who came up with this theory, one Dr Watson, is a Nobel Prize Winner who invented DNA, so I guess he knows what he is talking about. Talking about the subject, he has said he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really." He also notes that blacks are bad employees and although there are a few outstanding black people, the ratio of excellence is much lower than in whites.
The best quotation is undoubtedly: "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
So there you have it. I am convinced. I am not a racist, but I can't see how for so long people have assumed that blacks and whites have developed as intellectual equals, when all the physical evidence shows that we have subtle, inherent differences. Black people are prone to be less intelligent than white people, surely? While they were hunting boars and carving arrows, we were painting, building and destroying civilizations, coming up with language and technology and science.
It works the other way, too. Blacks tend to be more athletic and better at rapping and dancing and more heavily endowed, so good luck to them.
They're just less intelligent. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
User Reviews
Submitted by TheBrad (user info) at 2008-07-27 04:52:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-07-25 12:36:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DisneylandBurnedDown (user info) at 2008-07-24 22:38:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry, I'll rephrase it then: most people in the west, in general, are entirely too dependent on technology for survival. If for some reason no one in the world could use any of these inventions anymore, then who is going to be the least affected? Those who live in huts and junk in the middle of nowhere... like in Africa.
Yes, creativity and invention are survival skills, but not if you become entirely dependent on creative inventions FOR survival. Westerners 500 years ago were far more adept than people today, hence my statement of canceling out natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of some cataclysmic event that wiped out all power sources and communication, those who live off the land would be better equipped to handle the immediate situation. I'll give you that. But the question isn't who would have the initial advantage, but what would happens next, and what behaviors the natural process would favor in the long run.
Are we assuming that all "Westerners" (to be fair, a growing number of Asians and Mideasterners are becoming dependent on SUV's and Tomtoms) are going to die without McDonalds and text messaging? Because that's pretty naive. Sure, there's going to be some that die without an immediate supply of insulin and antibiotics. Yes, there's going to be a higher infant mortality rate without modern ob/gyn. But the Western world wouldn't have developed these things if it weren't initially strong or clever enough to survive the elements.
So is the modern world going to die waiting for someone to make it a quarter pounder, or is it going to take a step back, put down the iPods, and take a refresher in the basics of food&shelter? The answer's pretty obvious. So what happens after that? Well, if history is any pattern, once food&shelter are found, they will begin looking to innovate to make their lives better and easier. Tribal people who, due to societal pressures or lack of resources, are probably not going to see as much innovation.
Is innovation better than raw survival skills? Depends on what you value. If you're for being close to nature and handle natural disasters well, no. If you're for larger populations, a more methodical understanding of the world, etc, then yes.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I ask this... if america were to crash tomorrow, everything from trash removal to bridge repairs, do you really think the domesticated africain americans we have would survive? they couldnt evacuate a city when we gave them a week's warning.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-07-27 03:55:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i tried to read this but i gave up when you started talking about sniffing your mum's underwear.
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2008-07-25 20:23:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow I just lost 30 seconds out of my life for nothing...
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-07-25 12:36:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DisneylandBurnedDown (user info) at 2008-07-24 22:38:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry, I'll rephrase it then: most people in the west, in general, are entirely too dependent on technology for survival. If for some reason no one in the world could use any of these inventions anymore, then who is going to be the least affected? Those who live in huts and junk in the middle of nowhere... like in Africa.
Yes, creativity and invention are survival skills, but not if you become entirely dependent on creative inventions FOR survival. Westerners 500 years ago were far more adept than people today, hence my statement of canceling out natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of some cataclysmic event that wiped out all power sources and communication, those who live off the land would be better equipped to handle the immediate situation. I'll give you that. But the question isn't who would have the initial advantage, but what would happens next, and what behaviors the natural process would favor in the long run.
Are we assuming that all "Westerners" (to be fair, a growing number of Asians and Mideasterners are becoming dependent on SUV's and Tomtoms) are going to die without McDonalds and text messaging? Because that's pretty naive. Sure, there's going to be some that die without an immediate supply of insulin and antibiotics. Yes, there's going to be a higher infant mortality rate without modern ob/gyn. But the Western world wouldn't have developed these things if it weren't initially strong or clever enough to survive the elements.
So is the modern world going to die waiting for someone to make it a quarter pounder, or is it going to take a step back, put down the iPods, and take a refresher in the basics of food&shelter? The answer's pretty obvious. So what happens after that? Well, if history is any pattern, once food&shelter are found, they will begin looking to innovate to make their lives better and easier. Tribal people who, due to societal pressures or lack of resources, are probably not going to see as much innovation.
Is innovation better than raw survival skills? Depends on what you value. If you're for being close to nature and handle natural disasters well, no. If you're for larger populations, a more methodical understanding of the world, etc, then yes.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-07-25 09:44:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Proof that blacks are smarter than whites or yellows...
Nigel: "I'll take Urban Employment for $600, Alex."
Alex: "The answer is: Though arduous, this job fulfills a socioeconomic requirement in modern urban life."
<buzzer>
Nigel: "What is a Tarmac Repairman."
Alex: "NO, that's..."
<buzzer>
Li Chen: "What is a Chinese Food Deliveryman."
Alex: "No, that's also incorrect. Would you care to make a try, Tyrone?"
Tyrone: "Dass easy. Wha' be uh Pimp."
Alex: "That's correct for $600, because we knows..."
Alex and Tyrone: "Pimpin' aint easy, but it's necessary."
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-25 09:41:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah nice orpheila, cant even come up with a counter argument. You agree with everything I say you are just scared to admit it. YOu are just a dumb racist who is scared to admit to the facts, like most people here in fact.
Submitted by orphelia (user info) at 2008-07-25 09:37:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
UGH.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-25 07:32:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck off Tim you fucking prick, I go to the trouble of writing this and making my points and then proving myself over and over?
Get to fuck you cuntface.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2008-07-25 07:07:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
a) you're an idiot.
b) far too many people automatically dismiss socially akward research topics by saying "that's racist, you can't study that!!!!" even if there may be a kernel or two of decent science at the root.
b.5)Research does appear to show that black americans score lower on IQ tests than white americans.
c) the problem with your theory is that when the studies are controlled for social status, the difference goes away.
d) which makes you an idiot.
e) evolutionary psychologists and biologists hypothesize that intelligence evoloved much much earlier than skin color; thus the differences in our skin are much much more apparent than the differences in our intellect.
f) in conclusion, you're still an idiot.
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2008-07-24 23:00:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You know, I have posted some pretty racist shit on here, but I have come to realise I don't hate black PEOPLE. I hate black CULTURE. This whole hip hop, thug thing is going to be the decline of their people for generations to come.
Submitted by DisneylandBurnedDown (user info) at 2008-07-24 22:38:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-07-24 15:01:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DisneylandBurnedDown (user info) at 2008-07-23 23:54:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And according to YOUR extremely fucked up version of social darwinism, black people would be considered the MOST EVOLVED OF ALL THE RACES. Take away all the technology created in the past millenia and see which races die out first. It would undoubtedly be the whites, who created medicines and machines THAT CANCELED OUT NATURAL SELECTION and created a race full of asthmatic, diabetic, heart-diseased, cancer-ed out idiots with allergies that can't fend for themselves at all.
I don't even like black people most of the time but fuck you're stupid. If you're going to be racist, be better at it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't make sense either. It's not like "white people" just popped into existence with antibiotics and iPhones at their disposal. They had to survive long enough to develop the technologies we use today. Generally they weren't even the first ones to develop the technologies; they were just the first ones to put particular inventions to creative uses. The Chinese invented gunpowder, but largely used it as a ceremonial thing. The Europeans were the ones who figured out that if you put the gunpowder in a tube-type-thing you could use it to launch a rock. Creativity and invention are survival skills.
-----------------------
Sorry, I'll rephrase it then: most people in the west, in general, are entirely too dependent on technology for survival. If for some reason no one in the world could use any of these inventions anymore, then who is going to be the least affected? Those who live in huts and junk in the middle of nowhere... like in Africa.
Yes, creativity and invention are survival skills, but not if you become entirely dependent on creative inventions FOR survival. Westerners 500 years ago were far more adept than people today, hence my statement of canceling out natural selection.
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2008-07-24 22:23:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Well, according to archeaeological, and biological evidence; man (homo sapiens) as a species started on the continent of Africa. Climate change, and other factors caused a migration of man out of Africa into the levant, and the middle eastern river vallys of the tigris and euphrades. Some of the peoples settled in the nile river valley as well. Neanderthal man was the species that originated in Europe. They later died out, most likley due to increased compition for limited natural resources from the homo sapiens. So in actuality the peoples of Africa proved to be more adaptable than those natives of Europe.
as far as civilization goes the 2 oldest known recorded civilisations were the land of Sumeria, and the land of Egypt. They started writing roughly 6 or 7 thousand years ago. They both started as bands of hunter-gatherer nomads from the continent of Africa who settled in the fertile river valleys.
Evidence shows that the farther a people traveled from the place of origin of the species (Africa)the longer it took them to develop a true civilization as we call it, (with the exception of china, and India) Look at the native americans.. they were basicly a neolithic tribe when we first encountered them.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-07-24 15:01:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DisneylandBurnedDown (user info) at 2008-07-23 23:54:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And according to YOUR extremely fucked up version of social darwinism, black people would be considered the MOST EVOLVED OF ALL THE RACES. Take away all the technology created in the past millenia and see which races die out first. It would undoubtedly be the whites, who created medicines and machines THAT CANCELED OUT NATURAL SELECTION and created a race full of asthmatic, diabetic, heart-diseased, cancer-ed out idiots with allergies that can't fend for themselves at all.
I don't even like black people most of the time but fuck you're stupid. If you're going to be racist, be better at it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't make sense either. It's not like "white people" just popped into existence with antibiotics and iPhones at their disposal. They had to survive long enough to develop the technologies we use today. Generally they weren't even the first ones to develop the technologies; they were just the first ones to put particular inventions to creative uses. The Chinese invented gunpowder, but largely used it as a ceremonial thing. The Europeans were the ones who figured out that if you put the gunpowder in a tube-type-thing you could use it to launch a rock. Creativity and invention are survival skills.
Submitted by Shadecaster (user info) at 2008-07-24 14:53:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wanna say I agree with this, but I agree with this!
Submitted by precision (user info) at 2008-07-24 10:12:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Looks like somebodies girlfriend went black and never came back
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2008-07-24 08:19:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Shit, for a user with Disney in his(her) name you certainly have a very unfriendly attitude.
I wish I didn't agree with you on most counts.
Submitted by DisneylandBurnedDown (user info) at 2008-07-23 23:54:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Talking about the subject, he has said he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.""
The prospect of Africa is gloomy because they don't have hundreds (thousands, even) of years of trial and error economic/social/governmental/etc. history. They aren't ready for the system the west is imposing on them. Their culture didn't evolve the same way the west did because geography DID NOT PERMIT IT. This is no way makes them less intelligent, it makes them... young, for lack of a better word.
And according to YOUR extremely fucked up version of social darwinism, black people would be considered the MOST EVOLVED OF ALL THE RACES. Take away all the technology created in the past millenia and see which races die out first. It would undoubtedly be the whites, who created medicines and machines THAT CANCELED OUT NATURAL SELECTION and created a race full of asthmatic, diabetic, heart-diseased, cancer-ed out idiots with allergies that can't fend for themselves at all.
I don't even like black people most of the time but fuck you're stupid. If you're going to be racist, be better at it.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2008-07-23 17:48:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This post was worth just for Danger's responses.
Submitted by TheGoat (user info) at 2008-07-23 17:25:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
DNA wasn't invented, you cretin
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2008-07-23 16:06:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-07-23 15:01:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2008-07-23 12:57:57 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
I got about halfway through the reviews and couldn't be arsed any more so apologies if this has already been put forward.
I sort of agree, in a less bigoted and slightly less blantantly alter-ish sort of way, but I think the spanner in your works are the middle eastern countries who - lets face it - don't exactly have the most chiselled of features who had civilisations up and running an ASS load of time before anyone else.
----------------------------
I call BULLSHIT!
I come from a place where civilisation was up and running before the pyramids were built.
------
oh and PS, I thought myshit et al were a bit harsh on you but my. Shitting. Fuck! A two sentence fart of a response like this just proved the lot of them right. Good for you.
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2008-07-23 16:01:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-07-23 15:01:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2008-07-23 12:57:57 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
I got about halfway through the reviews and couldn't be arsed any more so apologies if this has already been put forward.
I sort of agree, in a less bigoted and slightly less blantantly alter-ish sort of way, but I think the spanner in your works are the middle eastern countries who - lets face it - don't exactly have the most chiselled of features who had civilisations up and running an ASS load of time before anyone else.
----------------------------
I call BULLSHIT!
I come from a place where civilisation was up and running before the pyramids were built
-----
Yeah but there's civilisation and there's civilisation. Skara Brae predates the lost libraries of Alexandria, whose loss prompted the dark ages, but somehow I doubt they were sat around their incredibly advanced caveman condo discussing the human condition. It depends on how you judge civilisation.
Nomadic tribesman out in the African bush may be spending the majority of their time hunting and looking after their families whilst we sit around indolently bumping our gums about art or some shit because we're super evolved, but most western europeans were running around invading each other in furry shorts whilst the Greeks were creating maths and philosophy. None of this means anything other than who comes from a climate more suited to an easy lifestyle, nor has there been even the slightest jot of evidence as to who is the most intelligent here. They've survived, we survived, seems to me we're on an even keel so far to me.
Oh, and ref above, you can't pull a statement like that without saying where you're from. Can you remember which one of you you are today and what your complex and colourful backstory is?
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-23 15:15:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-23 05:59:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You have obviously not read my proof regarding different breeds of dogs. Some breeds are recognised as being more intellignet than others, and they all look different.
So you could say that blacks, whites and yellows are different breeds, or strands of human and since they are different on the outside they are not necessarily identical on the inside.
------------------------------------------
Fucking hilarious. thank you.
L
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-07-23 15:01:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2008-07-23 12:57:57 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
I got about halfway through the reviews and couldn't be arsed any more so apologies if this has already been put forward.
I sort of agree, in a less bigoted and slightly less blantantly alter-ish sort of way, but I think the spanner in your works are the middle eastern countries who - lets face it - don't exactly have the most chiselled of features who had civilisations up and running an ASS load of time before anyone else.
----------------------------
I call BULLSHIT!
I come from a place where civilisation was up and running before the pyramids were built.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-07-23 12:26:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-23 05:59:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You have obviously not read my proof regarding different breeds of dogs. Some breeds are recognised as being more intellignet than others, and they all look different.
So you could say that blacks, whites and yellows are different breeds, or strands of human and since they are different on the outside they are not necessarily identical on the inside.
============================================================
could you BE any dumber?
you can't compare humans to dogs, you fucking retard. they are different species altogether. would you compare a human to a sea horse?
get a clue.
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2008-07-23 12:25:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You dumb fucking nigger.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-23 12:24:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The simple fact is, everybody agrees with this but very few have the balls to admit it.
You think that accepting facts will make you a racist, when simply ignoring them makes you even worse than that.
Pig-ignorance is worse than prejudice.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-07-23 11:29:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
People keep bringing up your inventing DNA comment to highlight your stupidity, not because they were unaware other people brought it up and you admitted it was wrong.
"But despite all the comments, I am still to see one that successfully counters the statement that "it is naive to assume that we are intellectual equals, when our physical bodies have evolved so differently."
CHECK. MATE"
It is naive to assume the opposite as well since such things have no direct relationship. Maybe you thought you could be on the debate club in high school? This is your idea of QED? In the absence of actual data, you got nothing, dumbass.
I assume you are white; your stupidity is undermining your own argument.
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2008-07-23 07:57:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I got about halfway through the reviews and couldn't be arsed any more so apologies if this has already been put forward.
I sort of agree, in a less bigoted and slightly less blantantly alter-ish sort of way, but I think the spanner in your works are the middle eastern countries who - lets face it - don't exactly have the most chiselled of features who had civilisations up and running an ASS load of time before anyone else.
We weren't exactly fopping around the place drinking wine and eating pterodactyl canapes back in the day; the civilisation of the west didn't actually happen all that long ago, evolutionarily speaking. We've evolved the way we have due to our surroundings, and I'm sorry but our dark skinned chums aren't evolutionary throwbacks. They more than likely saw Western settlers as horribly ill adapted and poorly suited to our environment back when we were invading their shit and stealing their land.
Horses for courses, mate.
STFU.
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2008-07-23 07:45:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good post and good point.
This whole "equality" thing has been overblown. We should all have equal respect for each other, but to say that we're all equal physically and mentally is ridiculous.
So black people are exactly the same as white guys except for the whole black endownment, and the whole physical superiority. Surely that would make them superior to white people.
Each race has it's own perks.
Chinese people are smart as! Niggers smell.
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2008-07-23 06:17:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by equazcion (user info) at 2008-07-23 05:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay then: A) Physical characteristics have never been proven to be linked to intelligence or personality traits. Your reasoning is akin to phrenology, a pseudo-science abandoned about 170 years ago. "If they look different, they must BE different!" No matter how much you shout it, don't make it so. Sorry. "Mate."
--------------
please tune into the Bledisloe on Saturday night AEST and watch the new zealand 'people' do their quaint little pre-match dance. I've run it though my potassium-argon Human Cave Bipedal Detection Defibrillator a *squillion* times and have only come up with apelord banana text, and with a concerning about of 'gay' warning overload. No "well they might be bipeds afterall", just pixelated bananas and WARNING GAY-GAY-GAY.
you need to do more research before you just go shooting your mouth off.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-23 05:59:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You have obviously not read my proof regarding different breeds of dogs. Some breeds are recognised as being more intellignet than others, and they all look different.
So you could say that blacks, whites and yellows are different breeds, or strands of human and since they are different on the outside they are not necessarily identical on the inside.
Submitted by equazcion (user info) at 2008-07-23 05:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"But despite all the comments, I am still to see one that successfully counters the statement that 'it is naive to assume that we are intellectual equals, when our physical bodies have evolved so differently.' CHECK. MATE."
Okay then: A) Physical characteristics have never been proven to be linked to intelligence or personality traits. Your reasoning is akin to phrenology, a pseudo-science abandoned about 170 years ago. "If they look different, they must BE different!" No matter how much you shout it, don't make it so. Sorry. "Mate."
As a side note, I of course love it when people declare themselves the victors in a dispute. It's just so darn credible, and a real sign of intelligence. Especially when they use chess metaphors.
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2008-07-23 05:20:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
mind you you'd need an i phone
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2008-07-23 05:19:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I like black people if you're stranded on a desert isle and you're WAY over coconut milk and berries and fish black people with a little bit of paprika are to die for. AND you can sell them on EBAY.
Submitted by bullslinebacker (user info) at 2008-07-23 05:10:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wholeheartedly agree with this topic - the facts are compelling and the physical differences obvious...
Stupid niggers
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2008-07-23 04:56:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:05:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It is all very well to '-2 no comment' because it is not a very palatable subject, but the argument is sound.
I thought he invented DNA, never mind, you are right.
__________________________________
And there's your problem right there.
Furthermore, you seem to have the idea in your head that most of the 'evolving' done by European whites was done while having a gay old time hunting for recreation and sniffing wine. These luxury pursuits were of course only available in the last 200 years and to the véry rich before that. Your sense of time only goes back 10,000 years to when you probably think God created the earth or something, but that still gives us 9,800 years of non-wine sniffing, non-leisure hunting growing up to do.
Also, I really couldn't be bothered to check all the previous comments to check whether someone already pointed this out to you.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-23 04:03:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have just read all the drivel some people have blethered below, and the key points that seem to be being brought up is that I says Dr Watson invented DNA.
IF YOU READ THE EARLIER REVIEWS, i ADMIT THAT i GOT THAT BIT WRONG. i MEANT TO SAY HE discoverd DNA.
So that was an error on my behalf.
But despite all the comments, I am still to see one that successfully counters the statement that "it is naive to assume that we are intellectual equals, when our physical bodies have evolved so differently."
CHECK. MATE.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-07-23 03:44:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by frankthebear (user info) at 2008-07-23 02:34:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
a black man invented peanut butter. you lose
===================================================
a compelling argument!
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2008-07-23 03:12:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If you keep presenting this stuff, I'll keep turning up.
We don't have enough people trolling anymore and I can't be bothered getting back into it again. Doesn't look like anyone else can either so it has now become your job.
You need to cover topics like;
Sport
Religion
Music
Movies
Reality T.V (Usually putting a positive spin and talking about how great and realistic it is works)
Sex
Drugs
The President (And how awesome he is/was)
Infanticide (How necessary it is/was)
War
Video Games
Don't get banned just yet.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2008-07-23 03:03:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is pretty funny.
I haven't read the reviews but I'm sure that a large percentage of the 108 reviews are the pseudo-intellectual heroes taking your Neon-hooked bait and trying to refute your ridiculous argument.
Kudos to them for being so 'smart' and accelerating one load of inciteful rubbish after another onto most heated.
"Don't hate the player, hate the game" etc. etc.
Submitted by frankthebear (user info) at 2008-07-23 02:34:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
a black man invented peanut butter. you lose
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2008-07-23 02:29:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
being racist is wrong
Submitted by DaBeast (user info) at 2008-07-23 02:23:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Black people created:
1. Pyramids on the Giza Plateau and the Sphinx.
2. Cleopatra I - VII and VII humped her way into Ceasar's pants, Antony's pants, and the history books. That's right. She was a darkie.
3. Alexandria and the Library and the Pharos Lighthouse.
4. A pharonic dynasty that over its vast existence brought into being a system of writing that doubled as great artwork (heiroglyphics).
5. Lipstick and eyeliner (side note: lipstick was created solely for the purpose of making a set of lips look like a vagina).
White people created:
1. The mall.
2. Cancer.
3. The Plague.
4. Killing other people that didn't believe what you did (The Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, Hitler, etc).
5. Large, incongrous phallic symbols that stand out a mile (Eiffel Tower, Washington Monument, Statue of Puberty, the Arche de Triomphe, Notre Dame, etc).
The Arabs created:
1. Allah.
2. Jesus Christ (what, you thought he was white???).
3. The suicide bomber.
4. Jihad.
5. Mecca (nice architecture).
The Orientals created:
1. Kamikaze.
2. Samurai.
3. Kung Fu, Karate, Ninjitsu, etc, etc.
4. Bruce Lee.
5. The Great Wall of China, the Terracotta Army, and enough electronic equipment to choke your wallet quickly to death.
The Klingons created:
1. Worf.
2. Tribble phobia.
3. A pain in Kirk's ass.
4. Amazing reconstructive surgery practices when the first Klingon ever took a batlith (sp?) to the nutsack.
5. A second set of nuts. Well, they grew those, really...
I could go on and on and on and on when all it boils down to is this: your point is not only not well proven but your research is shoddy, your methods are questionable, and you are a poor scientist, Doctor Venkemen.
Try again.
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2008-07-23 02:00:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Most people in general are fucking morons. Go outside and talk to them, then tell me I'm wrong.
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 22:46:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Trolling love it 196 up, 133 down hate it
To use the internet to start problems, insult, or hurt others. An action that only usually affects the person trolling.
Usually a very bored, lonely person with no friends. Or a punk ass kid.
"My AOL account was shut down because I was trolling in a chatroom."
--------------
Did not know this.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-07-22 22:15:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is some quite successful trolling, but the problem is it encourages more people to alter up.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-07-22 22:08:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
BurtBurt, here's your "coherent argument":
You say there's no reason to assume black people are identical in intelligence to white people - I say there's no reason you SHOULDN'T assume black people are identical in intelligence. Since you have made the claim, you have the burden of proof, and I mean REAL proof, not inane ramblings and quotes from a single doctor whose only claim to fame is the co-discovery of the double helix, which in of itself didn't advance the study of genetics much.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-07-22 21:57:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"because a white man hunting was for recreation, not survival. That's why his forehead did not evolve to be so prominent."
Hunting wasn't recreation until only a few thousands ago - people became white TENS of thousands of years ago.
"The guy who came up with this theory, one Dr Watson, is a Nobel Prize Winner who invented DNA, so I guess he knows what he is talking about."
Dr Watson was one of FOUR people who contributed to the DISCOVERY (not invention) of the form that DNA took - the double helix. People have known about DNA for centuries, but its significance was only discovered in the 20th century. If you read any account written by one of the other scientists, Watson did very little work and fought with his coworkers.
"He also notes that blacks are bad employees and although there are a few outstanding black people, the ratio of excellence is much lower than in whites."
Have you ever thought that this might be more due to upbringing than anything? Our rate of excellence is higher because there are more rich and prosperous whites than blacks. Middle to upper class people are FAR more likely to have better grades in school than lower class, i.e. white trash, mostly because they don't need to take jobs and cut school to earn money to support themselves. The ratio of upper and middle to lower class is better for whites than it is blacks. It's simply a vicious circle - blacks don't get good jobs and get bad grades because they were brought up without monetary advantages, which means their children in turn are already pretty much predestined to fail because they have less advantages and opportunities. Capische?
"While they were hunting boars and carving arrows, we were painting, building and destroying civilizations, coming up with language and technology and science."
In the middle ages, Timbuktu was a black-dominated Saharan trading city more advanced than most European rivals, despite being in an inherently bad location (land-locked, low water, bad pasture).
"They're just less intelligent. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise."
This convinces me about as much as Peter Griffin's "Come aaaawn" argument for smoking.
Here is MY argument:
YOU. ARE. RACIST. The thing is, underneath you're a racist but since you KNOW the social climate is obviously anti-racist, you grope like a drunken frat guy for some sort of "proof" that makes your racism look any less blatant.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2008-07-22 21:04:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I haven't seen so much half-assed conjecture thinly disguised as fact since the first White House intelligence reports on Iraqi WMD's.
Submitted by equazcion (user info) at 2008-07-22 20:12:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You've got your evolutionary science a bit convoluted there, sir. All people started out as black. White people evolved from black people, at least according to the currently-accepted understanding. And your interpretation of what Watson said is a bit off too.
So:
"a white man hunting was for recreation, not survival." --Wrong, white men had to hunt for recreation once upon a time, because they were once black. Besides which, I'm not sure why you think white men never had to do hunt for survival, even once they turned white.
"Black men needed wide, sensitive nostrils for their battle against the elements. White men's nostrils were used for blowing smoke from, or sniffing wine" --Again, what are now white men also needed to hunt and battle the elements, both while they were black and after they turned white.
White people appeared long before the advent of modern civilization, and we were all still hunting animals, sleeping in shitty huts, and putting our heads on pillows stuffed with bear testicles long afterward. Yes, even your white ancestors.
And this is all assuming that these physical features were actually a result of the needs you claim, most of which seem to be total guesses that I've never heard anywhere else.
The actual quote about employees, which was actually hearsay (someone says he said it), reads, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." This is basically like saying "My friends told me Russians don't take baths." It's not based on any study, it's just an opinion based on personal biases. And it's one which he later denied saying, along with most of the other racial/genetic links you refer to here.
The more useful question to ask would be: Of two people, one black and one white, living in America with similar educations and backgrounds, will one statistically be smarter, better in his field, or a better employee than the other? Do you think the extra time most blacks spent behind civilization affects their ability to be educated now?
You say, "I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise." Well, the argument you're presenting (or would be presenting, if you knew remotely what you were talking about) is "Nature vs. Nurture", and it's a very old argument that no one's been able to settle yet. So if you can't understand how anyone could see it any other way, I suggest you get out a little more.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-07-22 19:14:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm really not all that impressed with the fact that Dr Watson invented DNA. i mean, i invented hair and i was drunk when i did it, so you know... whoopideedo.
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 18:59:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2008-07-22 18:43:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Dr Watson, is a Nobel Prize Winner who invented DNA"
---------------------
Did he really write that in this post?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA. Jesus fucking christ
Kind of like how some Mexicans are lazy/sleepy but some are great workers?
Oh, fuck that applies TO EVERYONE.
k
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2008-07-22 18:43:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Dr Watson, is a Nobel Prize Winner who invented DNA"
I stopped reading this drivel right there. He discovered DNA; He didn't invent it.
If you can't even get THAT right, I wonder what else is wrong in this post.
Get a clue.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-07-22 17:43:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
invented dna eh?
forgot to mention he also said asians and jews were smarter overall than caucasians in general.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2008-07-22 17:03:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
funny how a nobel laureate got shit canned for those comments. Also he co-discovered the structure of DNA, and even that is semi-debatable as there were many scientists on the verge of the same discovery.
thanks,
drive thru
good trolling though, I suggest you tell an extremely racist story to drive your point home
Submitted by Amontillado (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:55:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2008-07-22 14:54:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"But I digress."
Most overused phrase in all of Uberland.
-----
Agreed. It's how I know the writer's a beginner, and trying to show off.
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:46:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
j
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:45:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:45:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
h
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:45:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
g
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:45:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
f
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:40:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
all human beings have the same potential. to deny that is to think of other races of human beings as lesser. that makes one a racist. that's just a fact. while it is true that more blacks live in squalor than some other races, that doesn't make them any less intelligent. however, i do wonder why the black community in the US has so many problems when it has every opportunity in the world. i believe it is people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Obama's old pastor that are keeping the black community down in America. i've been meaning to write a post about people like them and how disgusted i am with them. Obama may very well be our next president. look also at Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, who also have lead very successful lives. there is NOTHING holding black people back in this country anymore as long as the potential is realized. this country has evolved and come so far. while racism still exists and will never fully be eradicated, it can't stop anyone anymore.
so you read an article about a racist scientist and decided to make a post without really thinking it through for yourself. good job, retard. the irony is hysterical.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:31:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you're part eggplant
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-07-22 16:09:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Many here need to do some research. Intelligence and knowledge/education are NOT the same thing!!
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-07-22 15:53:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
who 'invented' dna?
hahahahhah
loved the crazy pseudo-science, reminds me of religion.
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2008-07-22 14:54:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"But I digress."
Most overused phrase in all of Uberland.
Auto -2
Just the way it is.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-07-22 14:08:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So I take it you're a nigger then?
Alter.
Submitted by Saeki (user info) at 2008-07-22 13:42:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
My own views on the subject are irrelevant to the rating I'm giving. This was a beautiful trolling attempt, sir, 10/10.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-07-22 13:30:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I won't pretend to know anything about science, but does our actual intelligence really evolve? Perhaps a better (and less stupid sounding) question would be how long would that take to be noticeable. If I was born 500 years ago, would I be any less intelligent to start with? Or would it just appear to be so because of a lack of intellectual resources (schooling, other people, the internet).
It has always seemed to me that we simply build upon our discoveries, and the more complex technology becomes, the easier it is to understand the world around us.
I suppose if you could relate intelligence in the same way you can relate physical attributes to evolution, you could lay the *foundations* of an argument.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if whitey had been the isolated race, and the darkies grew up with the yellows like us. We sure seem to have benefited from their technology quite a bit. Different approaches to war and a desire or lack thereof to take our neighbor's stuff is probably a factor.
I don't think filledwithhate jumped on you as a racist, he simply stated his belief that you heard the outlines of an argument, and seemed to have immediately accepted it without much critical thought. This post wasn't all that detailed or convincing, really, so perhaps he is right.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-07-22 13:14:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Where does I claim to 'know' science?"
No, I guess you were an English major. What does this have to do with Politics -> Afghanistan, btw?
Submitted by traxadron (user info) at 2008-07-22 13:11:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
iTS NOT ILLEGAL TO BE RACIST!
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-07-22 13:07:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
let's see...
hot topic? check.
offensive material? check.
hypocritical? check.
expected reaction from an online community? check.
what we have here, my friends, is clearly an alter.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-07-22 12:31:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is classic alter material. Could be a match for Fat Tony in time.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-07-22 12:29:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
BAHAHAHAHA white people EVOLVED to be better wine sniffers and fox hunters. I can TOTALLY see prehistoric Europeans wearing thatched fox hunting caps, blowing conch shells and eating cucumber and mammoth sandwiches.
Submitted by Cyrus (user info) at 2008-07-22 12:29:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First of all, let me just say that I am not a racist...
Right...
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 12:09:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Racist below :o)
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-07-22 12:06:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There's no evidence!"
"There is evidence!"
Well done some jackass below for going as far as looking at Wikipedia. I can't be arsed to go back and lift the comment.
There is plenty of scientific proof.
Ubersite is a place where valid opinons are based on the evidence presented by Penn & Teller Bullshit!
I hold you all on in disdain. There is no debate here. Besides a misplaced sentence everything above is bang on fact as in true, not conjecture, proven theory. blah blah blah.
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2008-07-22 12:02:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
BTW Burt, you SOOOOOOOOOO owe me for all the hit whoring I brought you.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 12:00:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There are very intelligent blacks, but the suggestion is that the ratio of smart:dumb is not as high as in whites (I have absolutely no evidence to back this up btw).
And about the dogs look at this http://petrix.com/dogint/intelligence.html and tell me what you think.
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:58:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You may not be a racist, but you're certainly jumping to a conclusion based on pure speculation when you claim that blacks are genetically less intelligent. Intelligence is a function of both genetics and environment. No one really knows the relative importance of each. When it comes to intelligence, the "nature versus nurture" argument is, for all intents and purposes, pretty much just a Rorschach test since there's no hard evidence either way. Your opinion on the subject says more about you than it does about the intelligence of blacks.
Now, if you'd said blacks are less intelligent period, without getting into genetics, you might have a stronger argument. But then you'd have to define intelligence, which is a whole new Rorschach test. I define intelligence in a way that proves I am intelligent. You might define it as, "The ability to understand that blacks are genetically less intelligent than everyone else."
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:58:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Or maybe the evidence is in the physical differences upon the faces of various ethnic groups. Like I said before, how can we live with the assumption that we are intellectually identical, when we are so different physically?
Its like with dogs. If you ever think about buying a dog, you wonder about one that's intelligent. Is a spaniel more intelligent than a labrador, or a poodle, or a collie? They are all dogs, like we are all human, but they have separate physical qualities and therefore differing mental capacities.
No?
Submitted by Littlebint (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:56:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Then how can you really defend your position when there are people of very high intelligence from the black community?
and to be honest if the South Africans didnt carry out some form of testing during the apartheid years then I would be surprised, maybe they just didnt like the answer they got.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:54:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, there is no evidence, obviously. Can you imagine how hard it would be to carry out experimentation on this subject matter?
I am talking merely in the realms of theory and conjecture.
Submitted by Littlebint (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:52:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But where is the hard fast evidence Burt. Where are the thorough and conclusive scientific studies that say that what you say is true? Show me studies that have been carried out.
Are the studies current or are they based on a large population where, at the time, they were not given access to enducation facilities?
I agree that we have evolved due to the surroundings of our ancestors, but I dont believe that you can make this sweeping judgement. Brains can be trained and as long as education is available then I see no real proof here to say that whites are smarter than blacks.
This is your post Burt show us the evidence and we are able to decide whether what you say is in fact true or just a post that comes across as racist due to your own choice of title and the fact that you really dont have a lot of back up material.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:51:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Its easy to read the title of this post and -2 no comment.
I read the article (not the post, but the link to the newspaper's report) and, while I didn't wholeheartedly agree, there were a few points that seemed to make sense.
Damn. Am I a racist? :o(
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:47:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think that science, at times shines it's light into corners we would rather not look and shows us things that we do not want to belive.
My purpose of draging his post back up is to see how many people will dig their heels into the ground and refuse to even consider his statement to be true.
The social stigma of being a racist will make most people hide their head in the sand, rather than take the risk of looking at the topic from a statistic only point of view.
I find mankinds selective blindness to be more scary than a bigots hate based on skin color alone.
I grew up in an inner city environment and have seen first hand the lifestyle of black people, I have also seen monumentaly stupid things done by whites and hispanics.
I have seen a disproportonate amount of idiocy from black people. That observation could be skewed simply by population density of one race in one area.
Take 50 people of one color and add in 5 of another. Statisticaly the larger group will appear to show a dominate behavior. In this case ignorance.
Are their actions environment based or brain function based?
hard to say.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Where does I claim to 'know' science? I read an article and thought the points in it were as well-founded as they were controversial.
Yes, the guy didn't invent DNA, I picked the wrong word. But that has been covered. You are just another wise-ass who wants to scream about racism when, in fact, you have no argument to counter the theory.
I don't care if the doctor resigned or withdrew his statement, he would've just done that to stop himself being lynched. He meant it at the time, and his logic and thinking are much more sound and coherent than some daisy with the name 'filledwithhate'. Sprayedwithspunk, more like.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:40:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ubersite is the place for morons who claim to know science, then preach no science at all.
"The guy who came up with this theory, one Dr Watson, is a Nobel Prize Winner who invented DNA, so I guess he knows what he is talking about."
James Watson co-discovered the structure of DNA, it is not something you invent. You don't invent natural compounds.
He resigned from his position at Cold Spring Harbor after making the quote you stated. In response he said the following, "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Citing one very old man does not prove any point, and you did not provide any scientific evidence beyound what this old fool believes. Only an idiot would be immediately convinced.
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:36:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think he's spot on. In fact its been proven and it is nowt to do with racism and everything to do with evolution and genetics.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:29:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So FALLEN do you agree with this buffoon's hypothesis?
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:28:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you will notice that there is no solid argument, just a bashing of his invented/discovered mistake.
and more OMG UR a racist.
**stirs pot**
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:28:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:24:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Black people also tend to have more curlier hair, but I don't know why that would be an evolutionary difference or what benefit it gives them?
==================
So they will just bounce when dropped on their heads. Too bad it didn't work for you.
Submitted by GangsterSquid (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:27:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
curlier hair mats easier, creating better protection from cold (trapping of warm air radiating from skin).
...and nights in Africa can get :quite: chilly from what I understand.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:27:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/15957
RELEVANT ARGUEMENT!!!
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:24:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Black people also tend to have more curlier hair, but I don't know why that would be an evolutionary difference or what benefit it gives them?
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:24:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oops. +2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:23:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dude, black people have low, thick foreheads and wide nostrils because they're apes and monkeys.
Get your facts straight.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:21:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
classic.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:19:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't hold your breath for your Nobel prize.
Or better yet, do.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:16:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Its perfectly simple, and not at all racist in any kind of KKK way. White people and black people (and yellow people for that matter) have evolved differently in a physical sense. It is therefore pig-ignorant to assume that we are mentally identical.
The guy that made this up won a Nobel price, FFS, its not just some prejudiced rant.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:16:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Watson is 80 years old. Everyone on Uber knows your brain turns to mush after 30. . .
Submitted by DanJaines (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:06:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Back in my igneous racing days I would have thought this post was a work of genus. Now I know it is wrong because I have a black nappy-headed baby and a Negress wife that I both love. Do not hate the blacks. They sex you better than anyone.
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:05:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 15:57:45 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
Where do mixed race offspring fit into this scheme of yours, Burt?
------------------------
Yeah Burt!
Although I would say they're super people. Athletic, beautiful, clever... Although it could all go horribly wrong if they only get the bad parts.
Imagine - small cocked, yellow skinned, thick bastard who can't run for shit... In advertently describing Oathy there, how did that happen....
Submitted by Linus (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:01:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do scientists have a "sane before" date or something?
I'm pretty sure they all go a little nutty in the end.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-07-22 11:00:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:05:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It is all very well to '-2 no comment' because it is not a very palatable subject, but the argument is sound.
I thought he invented DNA, never mind, you are right.
-----------------------
LOL
Great troll
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:59:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So I take it that you're black, eh Burt?
STFU
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:57:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Where do mixed race offspring fit into this scheme of yours, Burt?
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:56:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
nice try
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:55:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The guy who came up with this theory, one Dr Watson, is a Nobel Prize Winner who invented DNA,
------------------------------------
The guy who invented DNA! Reeeeally?
I think you'll find he's one half of a scientific dynamic duo, Watson and Crick who developed a method for decoding the nucleotides in DNA. Sanger-Coulsen were they other dynamic duo in hot competition with them. Personally, I prefer Sanger-Coulsen.
Submitted by BobSandwich (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:54:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I understand the science behind what you are saying, kind of Darwinish. For this to be true though there would have to be scientific data for all other skin colors, even the same skin tone but different areas. How do black aussis compare to black africans, how about japanese to chinese, english to irish and so on?
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:46:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So you see, way back then, uh, Sicilians were like, uh, wops from Northern Italy. Ah, they all had blonde hair and blue eyes, but, uh, well, then the Moors moved in there, and uh, well, they changed the whole country. They did so much fuckin' with Sicilian women, huh? That they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why blonde hair and blue eyes became black hair and dark skin. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that, uh, that Sicilians still carry that nigger gene
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:39:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This was hilarious but clearly an alter.
Shame.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:31:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
(to help FALLEN bring it onto the front page)
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2008-07-22 10:25:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I am playing Devils advocate here and throwing gas on this fire. I gave this a +2 to get it back on the front page for more discussion. My zeal at distancing myself from the posters statement shows how we as a people dont want to have the scarlet "R" hung around their neck.
Why is it that when a statement like this is made with scientific proof to back it up the only defense is "you are a racist".
The proof is discredted as biased and the testers are picked apart for every unpopular statement they have ever made.
simply put, an unpopular or uncomfortable truth is not automaticaly wrong just because we dont want to believe it.
The earth being flat, the sun at the center of the universe, gravity, medicine and countless other topics have pissed people off to the point of violence in the past. but that didnt change the fact of their acuracy.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 07:18:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Black men's nostrils are wider because when they hunted they used their sense of smell as much as their eyesight.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-07-22 07:16:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How, exactly, does a black person battle the elements with their wide, sensitive nostrils? Are you saying that black people's nostrils can be used as umbrellas to ward off rain and snow, and to shade them from the summer heat? Perhaps you mean that food might be stored in them for use in famine times? Can a tribe of black people hide, protected, inside their nostrils when the lions come? What are you even talking about?
Submitted by SunnyG (user info) at 2008-07-22 06:58:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
How come every time you said "I'm not racist, but..." you would say something racist right after?
People are products of their environment.
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 06:39:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
e
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 06:38:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
d
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 06:38:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
c
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 06:38:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
b
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 06:38:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
a
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 06:36:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Okay I have actually read this now, and I can only deduce, judging by your 'theory', that you are black.
Ooga-booga!
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 06:32:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:51:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
.
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
/
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:45:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I want to fit in so I am going to give you a -2
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:38:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I like blacks.
Couldn't eat a whole one, blah blah blah.
Idiot.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:32:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Christ. Try to introduce people to a new idea and its all moaning and denials. Still no-one can refute the evidence.
Fucking cretins.
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:31:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
god, shut up and go have your 18 trailer park kids already.
Submitted by Mr_Trollope (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:30:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:26:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously though, come on - is it not ridiculous to assume that we are intellectually identical, even though our physical development would suggest otherwise?
Here is the link, maybe they explain it better than I do http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
Submitted by Sincere (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:24:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We don't take KINDLY to rasism round here.
Submitted by Sincere (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:24:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We take KINDLY to racism round here.
Submitted by tatersninja (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:17:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:17:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It would be interesting to see this idea tested. I bet the government has the data. Why else would they ask for your race on all standardized tests?
I wonder what the bell curve looks like for all of the races side by side in America.
I don't think the test would be above question though, because of the fact that the majority of certain ethnicities live in underfunded urban school districts.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:15:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The only relevance the color has is in the difference betweeen them. It is easier to say blacks and whites than 'descendants of Africa' and 'descendants of Europe.'
I have still to see one person try to counter the theory with a coherent argument.
Submitted by myshit (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:12:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
didn't read this blatant attempt at heat.
Submitted by Littlebint (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:11:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:10:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The skin color has nothing to do with it. The hue is irrelevant, it is the environment and the circumstances through which we evolved that make us different.
--
Sorry still failing Mr 'I'm not a racist', your title alone says that this has everything to do with the colour, Hue, of the skin.
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:10:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The skin color has nothing to do with it. The hue is irrelevant, it is the environment and the circumstances through which we evolved that make us different.
I meant to say discovered but I fucked up.
Submitted by Littlebint (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:08:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You're the one here saying that a certain Skin colour defines intelligence, and you actually think that something that is inside all of us and part of our Genetic Make-up can be 'Invented'?
Chap you just disproved this theory well done.
Submitted by Desz (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:07:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:05:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It is all very well to '-2 no comment' because it is not a very palatable subject, but the argument is sound.
I thought he invented DNA, never mind, you are right.
Submitted by Littlebint (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:03:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Also you may discover that Dr Watson didn't 'Invent' DNA he discovered it along with Crick
Submitted by BurtBurt (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:02:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not trying to be racist, this is a scientific theory, not just some mindless tirade.
Submitted by Littlebint (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:02:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-07-22 04:59:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This Requires No Comment
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2008-07-22 05:02:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
wow, racism on the internet. theres a new thing.
by the way dickhead, if youre going to be racist, dont cop out and claim about how un-racist you are. its hollow and just plain fucking stupid.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-07-22 04:59:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment