NationStates Jolt Archive

With regards to the first statement that I had replied to, there is nothing to explain, anymore than there is a sensible response to 'gobbly bobbly wobblemot', because it doesnt make sense. With regards to the second and third statements, my own concluding statement addresses both of these, perhaps it went over your head somewhat? Let me know what you dont comprehend and I'll happily clarify for you.

Perhaps I should clarify:

1) You cant be both genetically european and native american. Since the genetic combination of being european is unique (and hence they can understand ancestry with DNA tests), a large amount of native american blood in the admixture would distort this combination. This is mostly evident in that a half european and a half native American wont have the European phenotype. This is why mestizos arent genetically European.

2) White genes are the most recessive ones. Light skin, hair, eyes are all more recessive then darker ones. Western eyes are more recessive then slanted eyes.

3) Mexico wasnt clonized to the extent Canada and USA was colonized. This is also evident at Mexico's current population statistics:


Ethnic groups:
Definition Field Listing
mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%


4) Aztecs in Mexico was more advanced then tribes in Canada or USA.

tomorow

I'm just trying to discover whether you NS-users believe in the innate superiority of certain racial groups and if so to what degree. Or if you, like me, believe that it's so much hot air and that there's very little in it.

There's a complete absence of anything in it; less substantial than simple vacuum, it is a naked singularity of thoughtlessness, scapegoat-ery, and willful intellectual laziness.

Shit. I cant believe I was so wrong. I was going under the assuption that since 90% of genetic variation occurs within a continent, I was thinking that that population should share these variations and the different combinations and sequences of these variations were making the actual difference between individuals. Hence the wiki quote:

Populations within continents are more closely related to one another than to populations on other continents. Genetic variation between races is highly structured (Risch, 2002). Thus, when one considers many points (i.e., genetic loci) of variation one can distinguish groups and allocate people into groups (Bamshad, 2004).

Yes, your out of context quote makes any difference. See what you don't get is that I can make any number of arbitrary groupings that would be more effective than race in grouping similar genetics. Racial classifications still include 90% of all the variation found in humans. That's not distinct at all. Surely even you can follow the math of 90% variation found in a single race versus 10% found in all races. Also that analysis is using assumptions of isolated groups. We are no longer genetically isolated and as such the remaining 10% is disappearing.

More importantly, you don't seem to understand that those numbers kill your argument because it is genetically beneficial to have populations including all genetic variation. Your arguments for isolation denies access to 10% of the genetic variations that would benefit your population. Your own links betray you. But with your superior abilities in mathematics and genetics, you must be aware of the disadvantage of eliminating 10% of genetic variation from the available gene pool of a particular group, no?



I was also assuming the commentry of the scientist were due to PCness, not the actual data. But now, I googled some and I know I was wrong in my assumptions as well as some basic information about genetics. So much for high school biology. I was thinking genetic variation as "different genes", but thinking about it now I think it should have been clear. I guess I was either too stupid to understand or too biased that I saw what I wanted to see or lacking the base information or comination of these or all of above or some other reason I cant think of.
Anyway, since this is already huge, I'll make another post to address Nervun's original points.

Hmmm... is that an actual recognition of your misunderstanding of this information? Seriously? We've been telling you this since your arrival and it only took five months. Or are you perhaps being sarcastic?


Hmm...Those people that "begged" you. Remember they were only 3 persons and they were supporting you right from the start. Not a very objective folk, is it? Besides I posted the last post, you didnt/couldnt answer that.
And what about that I am using the exact same arguments and evidence? Exact same arguments as what? As in this thread or my 2 recent threads?

Jocabia, you have to admit you lost your perspective on some matters as you can not remember them correctly. The debate we had on that thread was about the decline of white population in numbers. That has nothing to do with these latest threads with regards to usage of sources. I proved whites were in a declining thrend (i.e: they will start absolute decline in numbers within 1 or 2 decades if not now) That assertion was based on population projections on Europe and Canada and USA. If you think those projections are from "flawed studies", I attribute it to your bad memory. You couldnt say anything on Europe and Canada, so you concentrated on USA, not understanding the fact that even if USA whites remained stable in numbers, that wouldnt cover the losses in Europe or Canada. But that wasnt even the case. USA Cencus Bureau was predicting absolute decline for whites in USA, starting in the 2040's.

It wasn't one thread my friend. You've been spouting your racist mumbo jumbo since you're arrival. Are you actually claiming this is the first thread I've encountered your misunderstanding of the difference between apes (not monkeys) and humans or your inability to address that [b]90%[b] of all genetic variation occurs with in a single 'race' leaving only a 10% variation between the various races.


So you came up with your own "equations", claiming you debunked the projections of US Cencus. I think that is a perfect example of visions of grandeur as you arent qualified enough ( ;) ) in population dynamics to assert that. This is more evident as I debunked your own "equations". At first I told you simply adding the number of babies wasnt the whole picture. The timing of birth was also important. You didnt understand and called it a result of population aging, not a cause. Well, it is both and I gave more examples and then you kinda understood but you were still incorrect. You thought you were taking that effect into consideration when you added up baby numbers with regard to different age groups. But all you did was that, just addition. You didnt analyse the effects of having babies at an older age to the next generation (your calculations were based on one generation of fertile women having babies). The child bearing age for 1st baby in USA is now in record highs and that's an important factor as to why the rate of fertile women is reducing with regards to overall population. Rising longevity is another cause but it isnt just that.

I didn't debunk the US census. I debunked your flawed understanding of the US Census and your flawed understanding of white birth rate. Everyone with an understanding of Algebra recognized that you were mathematically incorrect. I didn't make those equations up. They are standard equations for analyzing populations. And your only reply was a complaint that since you couldn't understand them then I must be unqualified to make such analysis.

You also seem to fail to see it wasn't about longevity. That was just another thing you were wrong about. It was about the fact that white birth rates have been relatively consistent and are on the rise and given that unless there was a major shift in the number of women or birthing age, which hasn't EVER been shown, then a continuous birthrate that produces a rise in population will continue to produce a rise in population. It's sad that after half a year you're still trying to argue that a population can occur even with a rising birthrate and decreasing death rate.


Shortly you havent debunked me. I find your claims about this amusing and the excuse "I didnt want to emberass you" even funnier. I also attribute your claims about my math, again to your bad memory. Oh and even if you could have debunked me, you should know, you are nowhere close to debunking US Cencus, especially considering how you shifted positions on the effects of rise in age of child bearing. Again, especially considering, you had claimed you know all about these population calculations as to the point of debunking US Cencus, BEFORE your shift.

Don't have to debunk the US Census. I proved there was no shift using their own numbers and that minus a shift that any projections are based on an educated guess.

I never shifted positions. It doesn't have an effect. I proved you wrong. Not the census, just your flawed understanding of it.


One other final proof about how you cant remember things correctly and how you lost perspective is simply timing. I joined on these forums at 09-04-2006. Whatever we talked, we talked within 5 months. We didnt talk these last year as you remembered incorrectly.

So I was wrong about the timing. Not the point, my confused friend.



Finally....You've made these rediculous claims about debunking me several times now. If you are this desperate for victory, in future, you can use the one above, after your first quote.

Yes, your out of context quote makes any difference. See what you don't get is that I can make any number of arbitrary groupings that would be more effective than race in grouping similar genetics. Racial classifications still include 90% of all the variation found in humans. That's not distinct at all. Surely even you can follow the math of 90% variation found in a single race versus 10% found in all races. Also that analysis is using assumptions of isolated groups. We are no longer genetically isolated and as such the remaining 10% is disappearing.

More importantly, you don't seem to understand that those numbers kill your argument because it is genetically beneficial to have populations including all genetic variation. Your arguments for isolation denies access to 10% of the genetic variations that would benefit your population. Your own links betray you. But with your superior abilities in mathematics and genetics, you must be aware of the disadvantage of eliminating 10% of genetic variation from the available gene pool of a particular group, no?


Hmmm... is that an actual recognition of your misunderstanding of this information? Seriously? We've been telling you this since your arrival and it only took five months. Or are you perhaps being sarcastic?


I wasnt being sarcastic. However I'm not sure if I should take the "it took you 5 months" comment as a cheap insult or another sign of your weak memory. We've never discussed this 90%-10& genetic variation thing before this thread. In past our race discussions primarily revolved around racial iq differences.




It wasn't one thread my friend. You've been spouting your racist mumbo jumbo since you're arrival. Are you actually claiming this is the first thread I've encountered your misunderstanding of the difference between apes (not monkeys) and humans or your inability to address that [b]90%[b] of all genetic variation occurs with in a single 'race' leaving only a 10% variation between the various races.


As I said we've never discussed 90%-10% genetic variation before this thread. I challenge you to give links if you will continue this ridiculous claim. I dont want to think you are reducing yourself to simple lying for the sake of your argument, so I'll assume it's your memory again.



I didn't debunk the US census. I debunked your flawed understanding of the US Census and your flawed understanding of white birth rate. Everyone with an understanding of Algebra recognized that you were mathematically incorrect. I didn't make those equations up. They are standard equations for analyzing populations. And your only reply was a complaint that since you couldn't understand them then I must be unqualified to make such analysis.


Another cheap insult. I answered your "equations". I called you unqualified because you are. Oh and:


From 2000 to 2050, the non-Hispanic, white population would increase from 195.7 million to 210.3 million, an increase of 14.6 million or 7 percent. This group is projected to actually lose population in the 2040s and would comprise just 50.1 percent of the total population in 2050, compared with 69.4 percent in 2000.


http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html

As you can see it's not my understanding or my flawed interpratation. It is the projection of USA Cencus Bureau itself. And if you think you debunked those projections with this "equation" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10920343&postcount=283), you arent only suffering from visions of grandeur but you also sound very amusing. Actually your arguments not only claim they debunk US Cencus B., but they claim they debunk whole scientific community on population dynamics. It is a very established fact that 2.1 is the replacement level birth rate. And any birth rate below this is sub-replacement. This is the consensus among scientists. I showed and prooved you that US birth rate is below replacement level and it is really sad and pathetic that you think you've debunked whole scientific community with your funny arguments. And you were under the delusion you were humiliating me??? Smileys dont do any justice here so...*ROLLS EYES*



You also seem to fail to see it wasn't about longevity. That was just another thing you were wrong about. It was about the fact that white birth rates have been relatively consistent and are on the rise and given that unless there was a major shift in the number of women or birthing age, which hasn't EVER been shown, then a continuous birthrate that produces a rise in population will continue to produce a rise in population. It's sad that after half a year you're still trying to argue that a population can occur even with a rising birthrate and decreasing death rate.


What the fuck are you on?


The U.S. birth rate fell to the lowest level since national data have been available, reports the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) birth statistics released today by HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. Secretary Thompson also noted that the rate of teen births fell to a new record low, continuing a decline that began in 1991.


http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030625.html

Do you know the meaning of "record low"? How can the birth rate be rising if it was a record low in 2003? *ROLLS EYES*



Don't have to debunk the US Census. I proved there was no shift using their own numbers and that minus a shift that any projections are based on an educated guess.

I never shifted positions. It doesn't have an effect. I proved you wrong. Not the census, just your flawed understanding of it.


You dont get it, do you? What you did was just addition. You didnt consider the effects of this:


The average age of mothers at first birth increased steadily during the preceding 30 years, to 25.1 years in 2002, an all-time high for the nation

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5419a5.htm


So I was wrong about the timing. Not the point, my confused friend.

Please...I'm not your friend...

You need to relax, guy.

*snip*

How sad? First you confuse general birth rates with white birth rates as if there are only white people in the US. The non-white birth rate has plummeted in the US for over twenty years. However, we are talking about WHITE people. Second, you resort to gravedigging in a desperate attempt to pretend like your position hasn't been thoroughly destroyed. Third, in getting caught completely misunderstanding the evidence you're claiming you continue to take a position of aggression as if it was our misunderstanding. Fourth, you fail for half a year to understand that if the birthrate remains the same among women statistically capable of birth then it matters not what age those women are when they give birth. At all.

Pull down your hem, your slip is starting to show. Why you getting so upset? Are we shaking your flawed world picture regarding race? I'm sorry. I'm just a stickler for things that are real and not things people just make up or misquote.

How sad? First you confuse general birth rates with white birth rates as if there are only white people in the US. The non-white birth rate has plummeted in the US for over twenty years. However, we are talking about WHITE people. Second, you resort to gravedigging in a desperate attempt to pretend like your position hasn't been thoroughly destroyed. Third, in getting caught completely misunderstanding the evidence you're claiming you continue to take a position of aggression as if it was our misunderstanding. Fourth, you fail for half a year to understand that if the birthrate remains the same among women statistically capable of birth then it matters not what age those women are when they give birth. At all.

Pull down your hem, your slip is starting to show. Why you getting so upset? Are we shaking your flawed world picture regarding race? I'm sorry. I'm just a stickler for things that are real and not things people just make up or misquote.


God! You've got no clue, have you? White birth rates ARE LOWER than the birth rates of the general population of USA! It was in the very first op in the original thread!
*ROLLS EYES*
And my position "thoroughly destroyed"?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think that every race has superior qualities over another.

Vampires: They're freaking immortal, man! That could be either good or bad. They can also transform into bats and other cool things.

Elves: They have pointy ears that can be used for stabbing. They're also more in tune with nature.

Twi'lek: They're more graceful than your average dancer.

Protoss: They're psychic and have stronger minds than any other life form in the universe.

I think that every race has superior qualities over another.

Vampires: They're freaking immortal, man! That could be either good or bad. They can also transform into bats and other cool things.

Elves: They have pointy ears that can be used for stabbing. They're also more in tune with nature.

Twi'lek: They're more graceful than your average dancer.

Protoss: They're psychic and have stronger minds than any other life form in the universe.

I think you're crossing series here.
If I can guess this right, Dracula with Tolkien with Star Wars with Starcraft?

God! You've got no clue, have you? White birth rates ARE LOWER than the birth rates of the general population of USA! It was in the very first op in the original thread!
*ROLLS EYES*
And my position "thoroughly destroyed"?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wow, and I don't get it.

White birth rates are lower than nonwhites. What's that got to do with anything?

White rates are steady and nonwhite rates are quickly reducing down to the birth rates of whites causing the overall birth rates of the US to lower to make the quote you posted true while you conslusion about it utterly false.

For the record, 2002 was the lowest birth rate ever recorded in the US, not 2003. "The crude birthrate (CBR) for2003,14.1livebirthsper1,000
total population,was1percenthigherthantheratefor2002(13.9),
the lowestbirthrateonrecordfortheUnitedStates(14)." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf


And if you look on page 4, you'll see that the GFR has remained relatively stead for 30 years with a peak in 1990 and the lowest rate in 1970.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x01.pdf
Now, if you look at the statistics collected since 1909, you'll see that after the wars of the 1900's were over and the birth rate leveled out just after 1970, the white crude birth rate has remained relatively steady with a mean rate of less than 14 births. The rate in 2000 which is comparable to the current rate was 13.9. It's been a little higher since and a little lower since, but the rate for white people has been almost continuous in the US for thirty years. And the Fertility Rate was lower every year from 1973 to 1983 than it was in 2000 (the last year on the table). The white rate is steady, has been steady and there has been no decline.

Now for other races, if you'll see an amazing decline. Black people went from a fertility rate of 93.6 to a rate of 70.0 in under 30 years. The decline of non-white births (other races reflect similar trends to black people in the US) is responsible for the decline in the GFR. It's just basic math.

But, hey, maybe if you keep writing things really, really big, people will buy your racist agenda and not realize that you're speaking out of a dark and smelly place.

I suggest you begin your analysis anew, little buddy.

Meanwhile, going back to the original point. Did you or did you not bring the same tired old intelligence evidence into the thread to argue for racial divisions? You did. Did you or did you not bring the same tired old 'monkey' argument to bear on your misunderstanding of genetic variance? You did. Was it wrong before? Yep. Is it still wrong? Yep. Racial divisions are not more meaningful than people mating based on size definitions or based on hair color. It's absurd. It's been proven to not make biological sense, repeatedly. It doesn't change simply because you wait for the last thread to fall off the first page.

Wow, and I don't get it.

White birth rates are lower than nonwhites. What's that got to do with anything?

White rates are steady and nonwhite rates are quickly reducing down to the birth rates of whites causing the overall birth rates of the US to lower to make the quote you posted true while you conslusion about it utterly false.

For the record, 2002 was the lowest birth rate ever recorded in the US, not 2003. "The crude birthrate (CBR) for2003,14.1livebirthsper1,000
total population,was1percenthigherthantheratefor2002(13.9),
the lowestbirthrateonrecordfortheUnitedStates(14)." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf


And if you look on page 4, you'll see that the GFR has remained relatively stead for 30 years with a peak in 1990 and the lowest rate in 1970.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x01.pdf
Now, if you look at the statistics collected since 1909, you'll see that after the wars of the 1900's were over and the birth rate leveled out just after 1970, the white crude birth rate has remained relatively steady with a mean rate of less than 14 births. The rate in 2000 which is comparable to the current rate was 13.9. It's been a little higher since and a little lower since, but the rate for white people has been almost continuous in the US for thirty years. And the Fertility Rate was lower every year from 1973 to 1983 than it was in 2000 (the last year on the table). The white rate is steady, has been steady and there has been no decline.

Now for other races, if you'll see an amazing decline. Black people went from a fertility rate of 93.6 to a rate of 70.0 in under 30 years. The decline of non-white births (other races reflect similar trends to black people in the US) is responsible for the decline in the GFR. It's just basic math.

But, hey, maybe if you keep writing things really, really big, people will buy your racist agenda and not realize that you're speaking out of a dark and smelly place.

I suggest you begin your analysis anew, little buddy.

Meanwhile, going back to the original point. Did you or did you not bring the same tired old intelligence evidence into the thread to argue for racial divisions? You did. Did you or did you not bring the same tired old 'monkey' argument to bear on your misunderstanding of genetic variance? You did. Was it wrong before? Yep. Is it still wrong? Yep. Racial divisions are not more meaningful than people mating based on size definitions or based on hair color. It's absurd. It's been proven to not make biological sense, repeatedly. It doesn't change simply because you wait for the last thread to fall off the first page.

The birth rate fell below replacement level in 1970's (http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/decadegraph.html#70). The fact that US's subreplacement level birth rate wasnt as tragic as some European countries is the reason why whites havent begun to decrease in numbers yet, in USA.

And you are still looking ONLY at births. You still havent understood it in 5 months, have you?


According to simulations made by Lutz, contribution of increasing age of mothers at child-birth (the tempo effect) to population
decline is significant and stopping the increase in the mean age of childbearing would cause a increase in the period fertility (under some assumptions) around 0,3 children per woman over next 20 years


The Source (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:JOPLy_z8RgsJ:ec.europa.eu/comm/employment_social/events/2005/demographic_change/jozwiak_txt_en.pdf+age+of+mothers,+effect,+population+decline&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5)

AND:


The average age of mothers at first birth increased steadily during the preceding 30 years, to 25.1 years in 2002, an all-time high for the nation.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5419a5.htm

You were wrong 5 months ago and you are wrong now. Because you still DONT UNDERSTAND that the age of mother matters!!!!

*ROLLS EYES*

*snip*
Write it bigger and maybe someone will believe you. What's the matter? You don't have a real argument so you figure you'll just write it real big and then no one will notice. If you have an argument, then writing it twenty times bigger wouldn't be necesary.

Meanwhile, yes, we should be crying about how the teenaged birth rate is decreasing. I'm so sad. Not enough teenage mothers. If only these women would stop finishing high school before getting pregnant. Because, the most significant decrease in fertility rate we've seen is among children and this is directly responsible for the average age increase in mothers. Meanwhile, there is no indication that trend will continue much further, nor any indication that the fertility rates will drop. Thus no indication white people will disappear. But let me stop you. Tell me I'm wrong in really big text. That's not making people laugh at how ridiculous you're being. :rolleyes:

Amusingly, it appears you've completely abandoned the topic of this thread. I guess you finally realize that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to genetics. Happy day. Now, if you'll just realize the same thing about all statistical analysis and you'll know as much about yourself as we know about you.

Damn you people, I can't believe this is still debatable.:headbang:
Ofcourse they are right, you want proof? LOOK AROUND YOU. THAT GUY IS WHITE, THAT OTHER GUY IS BLACK. THAT MEANS THEY ARE DIFFERENT, GET IT YET RETARD?!:headbang:

Now before you go shave your head, race makes little or no noticeable impact. If it did then one race or another would have taken over the world by now, And if the immigrants are taking your jobs maybe thats because they do it better than you (implying THEIR SUPERIORITY).Fff...fuck, you people...you...how stupid you are. Resorting to the same old, monkey tribalism, afraid to look up from your bloody dicks. Afraid of transcendence. Don't you realise that you could do much better for yourself if you didn't care about these "things". Whatever standpoint you take, you are wasting your time on it, you devote precious thought to it, when you could instead be plotting on your next fix, or having a round of drinks from the pocket of the people you hate, be they Black or NaZi (yes you fags are just as bigoted as the right wings).And how stupid was I? I, actually paid attention to you! Devoted precious thought to it. God...I used to love the noises I heard in my head. Hhh...I never should've left my room...my room, out there, I almost remember it. It's gone now...along with everything else...

Intelligence wise, i'm not sure if everyone has the same mental ability.
Physically Samoans are the master race.
A blending of the Irish and Indians would be fearsome.

Antipodians maybe.:)

Now before you go shave your head, race makes little or no noticeable impact. If it did then one race or another would have taken over the world by now,
Western Europe pretty much did in the colonial age. If you add the Russian empire, that covers the entire world almost... Internal rivalries within the West ended this state of affairs. This had more to do with cultural differences than anything else of course.

And if the immigrants are taking your jobs maybe thats because they do it better than you (implying THEIR SUPERIORITY).
Based on what line of reasoning? This is infantile. Most immigrants who "take" jobs are willing to work for lower wages due to the fact that they usually come from nations where earning power is lower. Hence, to them even a lower wage is still good. In the case of outsourcing, companies directly employ people in poorer nations. This has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority. It has to do with a cost advantage. Duh. Before you start speaking about stupidity, invest some more time in your reasoning ...and spelling and grammar too.


Physically Samoans are the master race.

I sense this is a joke, but aren't they mostly overweight? :confused:

Perhaps I should clarify:

1) You cant be both genetically european and native american.
Genetically European and/or genetically native American are nonsensical terms.

Since the genetic combination of being european is unique (and hence they can understand ancestry with DNA tests), a large amount of native american blood in the admixture would distort this combination.
This is mostly evident in that a half european and a half native American wont have the European phenotype. This is why mestizos arent genetically European.
Every single person who does not have an identical twin has a unique genetic combination, not just Europeans. What exactly is a European phenotype? Blonde, blue eyed nordics, dusky Mediterranians, Basques, Sammi, which stereotype of which regional cline are you positing as the 'European phenotype'?

2) White genes are the most recessive ones. Light skin, hair, eyes are all more recessive then darker ones. Western eyes are more recessive then slanted eyes.
Light skin, hair, eyes are not more recessive, actual traits are neither recessive nor dominant, but rather the alleles coding for them might be. Skin colour is determined not by genes alone (and in any case not by any one gene) but rather an interaction between genes and environment. Light eyes are no more European than dark eyes, evidently and plenty of Europeans are more dusky than some typical members of purportedly 'dark skinned' groups.

Your phenotype theory certainly doesnt match my experiance. My dark skinned, dark eyed, dark haired sister has a mother no more white and father much less dark than my blonde haired, blue eyed, fair & freckled skin colleague. Looking at my X-boyfriend, I doubt very much you'd guess how dark his father is either. I live in a country where mixing between populations has been commonplace since colonial times and so I've had plenty of opportunity to observe. My sister's cousins, the boy is as blonde and blue eyed as any 'Nordic' you care to name, his sister's Maori heritage is meanwhile visible at a glance, neither have the slanted eyes one would expect to see in accordance with your theory given their Chinese heritage and both have the exact same ancestry, since they share the same two parents.

3) Mexico wasnt clonized to the extent Canada and USA was colonized. This is also evident at Mexico's current population statistics:

They none the less are not reproductively discrete, and evidently your statistics indicate that over half the population have European ancestry (unless my atlas showing that Spain is in Europe is erroneous), hardly demonstrative of a lack of inter-group admixture.

4) Aztecs in Mexico was more advanced then tribes in Canada or USA.
Advanced? Whatever that means, I dont see the relevence.

Wow, when did this place change?

Yes. Although calling us racists is not accurate, supremacists maybe.

It's not racism until it's physically or mentally damaging.

Re: The "Samoan Master Rate"

I sense this is a joke, but aren't they mostly overweight? :confused:
Either way, it's not something I'd feel inclined to to tell Jonah Lomu or David Tua....;)

The notion of a "master race" is a tad flawed. Both the Chinese and the Arabic world surpassed the Latin west until the Renaissance, however, one ought to note the term. "Renaissance" demonstrates readily that the advances of the period were simply recoveries from classicism. One ought thus to consider that, whilst Western Europe HAS lead the world in many respects, primarily military, intellectual and scientific advances, its colonial hegemony was by no means indicative of a continual process, since it was surpassed medically by the Arabic world for a great period, and, in terms of metallurgy, by the orient for a great period as well.

Could it simply be that the Western European climate induces superiority since only either the strong survive in primative times, and advances are necessitated by climate?

Could it simply be that the Western European climate induces superiority since only either the strong survive in primative times, and advances are necessitated by climate?

No. I've heard this argument many times before, and it's mince. I'm with Hanson, 1999 (ed. Keegan). Here, he's specifically talking about the thesis that the climate of the mediterranean explained the course of the ancient Greeks' military successes, but the principle is the same for all 'it's the climate' arguments pertaining to the differences between cultures:

"Yet the Greeks were beneficiaries of temperate weather only to the same degree as North Africa and other southern Europeans... we are still left again with the incongruity that Greek military prowess was singular even within the Mediterranean belt... and not duplicated in similar climates the world over."

Climate _affects_ the nature of, in Hanson's example, land warfare and any other cultural measure you care to mention, but it's not 'the' reason - it's one factor among _many_ that shapes a culture, and it's the competition, direct and indirect, between these shaped cultures that determines relative 'winners and losers' (bit crude, but you know what I mean) between these cultures.

Climate is one factor among many, many others, not a determining force of 'superiority' in of itself. It's a gross simplification to point to _any_ one factor and say "that's why that lot were/are 'superior'".

*holds up his right hand, and points to the bottom of his middle finger*

Right there.

If you were from the same state, you'd know what that means.

If it helps, not much above Sea-Level.
Wheeling?
I used to live in Fairmont.
I lived in Mannington for much longer.

Well, so far, according to the poll, a majority believes the racists are not right.

It seems NN is not being convincing no matter how large a font he types with.

Well, so far, according to the poll, a majority believes the racists are not right.

It seems NN is not being convincing no matter how large a font he types with.
No, a majority believes that there is no superior race, in response to the question posed.

NN, on the other hand, is arguing the existence of the concept of race.

Climate _affects_ the nature of, in Hanson's example, land warfare and any other cultural measure you care to mention, but it's not 'the' reason - it's one factor among _many_ that shapes a culture, and it's the competition, direct and indirect, between these shaped cultures that determines relative 'winners and losers' (bit crude, but you know what I mean) between these cultures.

Climate is one factor among many, many others, not a determining force of 'superiority' in of itself. It's a gross simplification to point to _any_ one factor and say "that's why that lot were/are 'superior'".
I am in complete agreement with this. :)

Physically Samoans are the master race.
-snipage-
I sense this is a joke, but aren't they mostly overweight? :confused:
No joke, when the aren't fat they are very athletic...
They develop muscle at a supperior rate to white folk.
They're just not so attractive...

Yes, there are certainly genetic differences between races, even ones associated with the brain. If you're talking about physical traits, then some races are definitely bigger and stronger than others. But there is no noticeable difference in cognitive capacity between races.

I sense this is a joke, but aren't they mostly overweight?
Re: The "Samoan Master Rate"

Either way, it's not something I'd feel inclined to to tell Jonah Lomu or David Tua....;)
I wouldn't call Jonah a Samoan, he is Tongan.:p

No joke, when the aren't fat they are very athletic...
They develop muscle at a supperior rate to white folk.
They're just not so attractive...
All right, then I suppose that makes sense. :)

Yes, there are certainly genetic differences between races, even ones associated with the brain. If you're talking about physical traits, then some races are definitely bigger and stronger than others. But there is no noticeable difference in cognitive capacity between races.
More or less true, yes. No difference great enough in cognitive capacity at any rate to debilitate any given race.