How Savage are Blacks In America

The abject, deplorable ignorance of Obama voters is shown here in PoliticalForum just as it is in
thisYouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JJLLfTR8I

 

Then start your own thread, instead of disrupting this thread on the subject of BLACK SAVAGERY IN AMERICA.
How pathetic it is to pretend that contemporary events are excused by history "hundreds or thousands of years ago."
How despicable and cowardly are such word games, always played by the Left.

My Ignore List must grow so that I don't spend an absurd amount of time rebutting asinine word play by Leftists.

~ ciao

AboveAlpha Egalitarianjay02 FreshAir HonestJoe JDliberal Jonsa Moriah RandomObserver RiaRaeb Selivan trevorw2539 WillReadmore

 

I'd be happy to be on your Ignore List. Thank you. Next time, don't start a debate you can't finish.

 

No need to start another thread. This one is just fine to state my views.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you very much!

 

Savagery is identifiable because whites identified and condemned savagery.

Try finding a black 'thinker' before the Enlightenment universally opposed to slavery or other savage practices.

 

Whoever coined the term or was the first to observe savagery is irrelevant. If you want to condemn an entire group of people as savages based on their behavior then to be fair you need to compare their behavior to other groups. Blacks DO NOT have a monopoly on savagery.



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/14/orlando-mass-shooting-not-deadliest-in-american-history/

 

Actually, Black Crime is a Global phenom. From Africa to the Caribbean, to America, to UK.
ie,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#Race_and_crime_in_London

Race and crime in London

Figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that in 2007 an estimated 10.6% of London's population of 7,556,900 were Black.[23]
[.......]
In June 2010 The Sunday Telegraph, through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[2] The figures showed that the Majority of males who were accused of Violent crimes in 2009–10 were Black.
Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54% accused of street crimes were Black; for robbery, 59%; and for gun crimes, 67%.[25] Robbery, drug use, and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s.[26] In the 1980s and 1990s, the police associated robbery with black people. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police commissioner Paul Condon said that the Majority of Robberies in London were committed by Black people.[27]
[......]
In London in 2006, 75% of the victims of Gun crime and 79% of the Suspects were "from the African/Caribbean community."[31]
​

Right!, It's strictly an American Phenom!
They have the SAME 5x-8x Over-representation in Crime stats
Carribean terrible as well.
Demography is Destiny.

​

 

I didn't ask who coined the term. I said whites established laws, ethics and philosophy creating human rights to protect against savagery. We see the behavior you're posting as savagery because of whites who established ethics for the rest of the world.

I wouldn't have difficulty finding savage acts committed by black Africans today; I believe blacks are fond of raping pygmies and lesbians at the moment.

Which pre-enlightenment black African 'thinkers' wrote of universal human rights?

 

Your argument is irrelevant to the point that Whites are just as guilty of savagery as anyone else.

 

Taxonomy, the colorized map showing worldwide homicide rates is compelling evidence of black savagery. Let us not forget how at least 800,000 black Tutsis were slaughtered with machetes by black Hutus. Wouldn't Darwin have approved of this "selection" process, weeding out those blacks whom Darwin claimed are so mentally inferior to whites. Of course the first communists and their friend, Adolph Hitler, were also high on Darwinism, eugenics, and murdering lesser peoples.

 

Thanks.. as are crime rates of blacks even within 'white' countries.

Egalitarianjay02 responds with an absurd Deflection/Strawman: a picture of a 100 Year Old newspaper story from St Louis (1917),
while I post the exponentially more Relevant Daily/Yearly/Decadal Stats.
He also completely and Necessarily whiffed in the International map I put up. Pure denial.

His 'Egalitarianism' is really self-serving and Disingenuous 'Apologism.'
We are born equally under the law, but NOT with equal mental or physical abilities/proclivities.
+

 

Just so. But back to contemporary America, the source of the video by a black American, Mr. Sotomayor.
Next time you hear a black American speaking with a foreign accent, talk to them about their home country. I enjoy trying to figure the country of their birth, and have successfully done so many times. My favorite was the Ethopian. They are almost universally polite and enjoyable to talk to.
One memorable comment to me from an African immigrant was, "I can't talk to blacks born in America. They all have a chip on their shoulder."

Democrats put the chip there, and keep it there. "Racism, racism, racism." "Racism."

 

That's mostly from British Americans.

How much African DNA do British have anyways?

British have a lot more curly hair, dolichocephalic skulls,thicker skulls, more O blood type etc. much like Africans do.

 

Thats because the original celts were black. Only since barbarian tribes from scandanavia and north germany invaded has the population changed to white. By the time of the slave so called trade those brits were full blown whites. Thats whyhow they did what they did

 

Leftists cannot communicate without misrepresenting (lying). It is quite impossible.

Sin has many tools but the lie is the handle that fits them all. - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Leftists excuse black crime in myriad ways, which simply encourages more of it.

 

Before the Aryan invasion, British Islanders probably looked much like Southern Europeans.

But, the Celts were Aryan invaders.

 

You are looking at the wrong sub group. How savage are MEN in this country. They probably commit 90% of all murders. What should we do about it?

 

Black females commit far more murders than white or other ethno-racial groups.

Males commit more crime, but society is built on a male-female bedrock.

Nothing can be done other than reverse engineer the entire evolutionary history of humanity.

Diversity, on the other hand, is rare by comparison.

 

The idea that human evolution conforms to racist stereotypes is ridiculous as is the notion that one group of people (Blacks) are somehow more savage than any other because of their biology. Nature does not support your position. History does not support your position. This is nothing but blatant racism which is highly offensive and this pseudoscience isn't taken seriously by academia.

 

I'm not a big fan of hyperpartisanship on either side.
What you say is true about Leftsists in good measure (tho 'Rightists too).
Many of the people in the string are indeed Leftists/Hyper-PC, and object to any race diffrence, or even acknowledgement.

I know we disagree on evolution, but what we have in the case of Liberals/Leftists, is Self-contradiction on the issue.
The SAY they believe in evo, BUT they insist it stopped 200,000 years ago - poof - and only in humans.
In that time many other species have evolved into other subspcies/Races or even other species.
But god help you if you say that about tichy issue of human races.
They are what has been called 'liberal creationists'. PC-Selecta-evolutionists.

Of course, I believe in EJ's case, we are dealing with more than Leftism, we are dealing with self-interest, even self-defence of his own people, though I could be wrong on that.
`

 

The problem here is that you don't understand evolution. Your knowledge of evolution extends as far as it can be used to promote pseudoscientific ideas about human nature. I am currently reading two books on human evolution with two more books on evolution on the way recommended to me by an evolutionary biologist to strengthen my arguments on the matter. But I already understand the basics.
No one is arguing that evolution "stopped" for humans but rather that our common evolutionary history mandates that there be more commonalities than differences and that the nature of intelligence as a polygenic trait indicates that there are no major differences in intelligence between populations. Our knowledge of human evolution and population genetics indicates that there wouldn't have been enough time for major genetic differences to arise nor was there a selection pressure that would have caused mental characteristics like intelligence and personality to be different between human populations.

What we call race in science is akin to subspecies and the evidence shows that there are no human populations that can be classified as subspecies (biological races). There are a few differences between populations, most of which we can see with our own eyes and some that might be important in certain context but this biological variation does not validate the existence of races nor are racist stereotypes about human nature valid. Cultural differences caused by environment can easily explain the trends in society that you observe. Culture of course can be changed and has changed over time at a far faster rate than biological evolution could account for.

This has been discussed on many threads most significantly this one and I will have more to say on the matter when I finish reading my books.

As far as me being involved in these debates out of self-interest and self-defense of "my people" is concerned I am interested in combating racism on the internet by exposing these claims as pseudoscience. The suggestion that this somehow makes me biased is a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack. Your racist views are not taken seriously by academia and your failure to find acceptance or win debates on science message boards should be a good indication to you of how far your propaganda is actually going to reach.

 

I am way beyond "the basics". You should see my posts in the Science section.
YOU are a psuedo-scientific [anti]Race Warrior, NOT a neutral science/evo buff as I am.

At least one of those "two books" you're reading, if not both, is no doubt from your Tiny Reading/citation list of Graves/Brace/Nisbett etc.
The Pre-determined opinion of a few Liberal Clowns.
I cite and deal with real Geneticists, Forensic anthropolgists, and Evolution experts, in the Non-Race context, UNLIKE YOUR tiny interest.
YOU deal ONLY in the tiny Myopic Pseudo-science of 'anti-race', PERIOD.
For me it's just a continuation of my interest and expertise in Evolution IN All species.
Thus I have Perspective for deciding what race/subspecies is, you have NO idea except to parrot Graves et al.

ie, Do you agree with 4 subspecies/races in Chimpanzees?
..and two species, and 6 or 7 subspecies/Races in Gorillas?
Don't THEY have "more commonalities than differences" too? (LOL Rookie.)
Of course, having NO real knowledge or interest in Evo/Taxonomy in general, you have NO idea, and thus don't really have any Frame of reference to decide whether Humans do!
I know the morphological AND Genetic distances among Species/subspecies in other animals and Can make a fair judgement.
This not only puts me way over your head, but that of virtually every reference you will cite.

1. All subspecies/races have more commonalities than differences, and they STILL have delimitation. non sequitur.
2. The Unanimous Evidence of 100 Years IS that races have different IQs.
3. On your side there is only apologetics attempts for those numbers. PERIOD.

You are not qualified to use the term "we in science". You are a myopic anti-race gnome who writes fan mail to your little anti-race social scientist list looking for something you can cite on msg bds.

Unlike you I have already made clear and distinguished between the scientific and Colloquial use of race.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=460518&page=2&p=1066316715#post1066316715
and showed there ARE human races in just a brief UNtouched explanation with evidence.
No response from you. It's conspicuously still there in a string you were in.
You must be kidding kid.

Labeling something 'psuedoscience' is subjective and meaningLESS.
If by "Racist" you mean acknowledging there are physical and mental diffrences among groups... I AM there.
I can defend ALL my views with great sources, and sources that are more in the hard sciences than yours.
In fact, and as we Both know, it's YOU who are obsessed with Race and attempting to bury the truth with Same tiny/stale reading/citation list of psuedo-social-sci BS on scores of msg boards.
+

 

Racists are not neutral science buffs. Sign up to a Science board like Sciforum and see how long you last peddling your pseudoscience. You already got thrashed and gave up on another science board.

Both of them are books from Chris Stringer one of the leading authorities on human evolution who I have also been in communication with.

None of the scholars you listed are clowns. Childish name-calling does not discredit scholars. You judge scholars by their education and reputation. You don't have any scholars on your side that matches mine in terms of those criteria.

Deal with them in what context? Do you have a scientific background yourself or do you converse with any of these scholars? How many of them share your opinions? Name some scholars that you have worked with or talked to. What books have you read on this subject?

Oh please. When you share your scientific background, reading material or tell us which experts you have talked to then you can act all high and mighty but until then all you have shown is that you are racist who has an interest in taxonomy. Nothing more.

How is this for a reference?

Biological Races in Humans Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013 Sep; 44(3): 262–271.

Templeton found using Fst thresholds and evolutionary lineages as criteria for classification that there are 3 distinct subspecies of Chimpanzees. Using those same criteria there are no subspecies of humans. Explain what is wrong with Templeton's assessment.

Of course all populations within a species have more commonalities than differences. The point of mentioning that is that the existence of differences alone does not indicate that there are differences in mental characteristics. To draw that conclusion based on evolutionary principles you would have to identify a selection mechanism that can account for such differences and show that human races has differentiated according to this scheme. Racists have failed to do this. The most significant attempt to do this was by Rushton who was thoroughly refuted by Graves.

[video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]

IQ score variation alone does not tell you whether or not there are innate differences in mental characteristics caused by genetic differences between races because environment also causes differences between populations. Since there is no scientific basis for assuming that genetics is a factor the evidence indicates that racial differences in IQ are caused entirely by environment. Furthermore racial differences in IQ are being reduced gradually as environmental quality for minorities such as Black Americans improves.

Your side has no rebuttal to these findings you just nitpick and personally attack authors to discredit them without challenging the scientific arguments.

You weren't replying to me and by that logic since you didn't respond to my arguments in that thread you have no rebuttal to what I said. I will address your argument when I have time.

No, it isn't. Pseudoscience is any work that doesn't follow the scientific method and pretends to be science. If we didn't subject pseudoscience to scientific critique then people would be free to spread propaganda about aliens visiting Earth, God creating the Earth 6,000 years ago, fictional creatures existing, horoscopes being valid and all kinds of nonsense that doesn't help humanity. To say that labeling something pseudoscience is meaningless shows a very unscientific mindset on your part. It is important to label Scientific Racism as pseudoscience and throw it in the trash bin with the other junk.

Then do so in your next post. I have yet to see these fantastic sources. Also do so on Sciforum showing that your argument is scientifically respectable.

I'm not the one trying to argue that entire groups of human beings are mentally inferior. You are the one with the ideological agenda. You are a racist and until you prove with sources that your position is scientifically respectable I will dismiss you for the racist that you are.

 

You've got to be kidding me.

I've read over two dozen books since we had our debate a few months ago, and I thought you'd be ready to engage me again on the issues and responses I had to all of your points. After the conversation we had, I was under the impression that you were going to stop making the same arguments with other people, which I rebutted, until you read up on Nisbett and were ready to respond to my arguments--clearly, your self-appointed task is to promote your agenda, not debate issues.

I'd also like to say that no one on here should feel like they have to join another forum so you can can drown them out with other like-minded people. It is up to you to defend the assertions that you make here, and it is not up to us to chase you around the internet. I've seen what these other forums are like for other people who have actually done as you've requested, and I don't blame anyone for not going to them. It's like asking me to defend nationalism over on Salon, which would be a fruitless waste of time.

I'm starting to believe that you intentionally create tons of threads so that the rebuttals to your arguments get buried over time. Every time I've come back here, I've had a harder and harder time finding my old arguments because they are buried and spread out over tons of different threads. I'm fairly new to forums, and I'm finally noticing the strategies that are employed to obfuscate the issues. This has now happened to me on the issues of immigration, gun control, and race. People have done an admirable job deflecting and running from debates against me, which is quite admirable for a Machiavellian like myself, though no less annoying. If I didn't know better, I'd say this was a directed, concerted effort to lie, but it's probably just human nature and the need to preserve one's worldview at all costs.

 

If you can't debate science on a science message board then your argument has no credibility, plain and simple. I would like a list of the two dozen books you have read over the past few months. I think you are lying. I haven't made that many threads myself and I'm certainly not avoiding debate with any one. That is just the nature of message boards. Old threads get replaced by new ones.