Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We are not lions and tigers. We are all the same damn dirty ape. The only "instinct" involved is the one that drives all us HUMANS to mate and reproduce (even in the wild). All the other shit is, as I said, a matter of circumstance, culture, and soical mores. Always has been, always will be.
Wrong. What races are is sub-species.
scuttlebutt around here says Chris is having a hard time getting any off his Helen doll......she keeps saying no.......
Even vinyl and pressurized air have standards.
Races prefer in-grouping: they mate amongst themselves. That's an observable fact.
Sure, if you wanna try to justify your irrational hatred.Black people are human beings. That's all the data that matters.
Unless you're trying to, you know, figure something out.
Then you're gonna want some more info.
scuttlebutt around here says Chris is having a hard time getting any off his Helen doll......she keeps saying no.......
Even vinyl and pressurized air have standards.
Franco offered to trade his Liberace one for it....
So where you going with this?
I think the author is a progressive/liberal moron...
Racist Pseudoscientist with a Small Penis
Satoshi Kanazawa
September 9, 2012,
My very first post on the Scientific Fundamentalist blog at Psychology Today on 14 February 2008 is titled If the truth offends, its our job to offend.
Heres an excerpt from the first post:
From my purist position, everything scientists say, qua scientists, can only be true or false or somewhere in between. No other criteria besides the truth should matter or be applied in evaluating scientific theories or conclusions. They cannot be racist or sexist or reactionary or offensive or any other adjective. Even if they are labeled as such, it doesnt matter. Calling scientific theories offensive is like calling them obese; it just doesnt make sense. Many of my own scientific theories and conclusions are deeply offensive to me, but I suspect they are at least partially true.
---
The Return of the Ugly, Racist Pseudoscientist with a Small Penis | E pur si muove | Big Think
We are not lions and tigers. We are all the same damn dirty ape. The only "instinct" involved is the one that drives all us HUMANS to mate and reproduce (even in the wild). All the other shit is, as I said, a matter of circumstance, culture, and soical mores. Always has been, always will be.
Wrong. What races are is sub-species. Sub-species developed in geographic isolation and under certain environmental pressures for an extended period of time, leading to identifiable common traits and a level of genetic similarity. Whites and blacks are VERY DIFFERENT "dirty apes" on many levels: appearance, temperament, intelligence, etc.
Races prefer in-grouping: they mate amongst themselves. That's an observable fact.
Cavalli-Sforza made the best "map" of the genetic globe, showing that what we call races have high levels of genetic similarity -- and dissimilarity from others. Blacks are the most genetically distant -- actually, from all other races -- while whites and Asians were closer.
Black people are human beings. That's all the data that matters.
Unless you're trying to, you know, figure something out.
Then you're gonna want some more info.
we are not lions and tigers. We are all the same damn dirty ape. The only "instinct" involved is the one that drives all us humans to mate and reproduce (even in the wild). All the other shit is, as i said, a matter of circumstance, culture, and soical mores. Always has been, always will be.
wrong. What races are is sub-species.
wrong. The very concept of 'race' as used by pathetic fucking cowards like you is a fabrication. There is more genetic diversity within so-called 'races' than between them. We are all just people, no matter how much that frightens you and reminds you of your own inferiority as an individual. You are a fucking failure of a human being - you the worthles, piece of shit individual you are.
So where you going with this?
I think the author is a progressive/liberal moron...
Racist Pseudoscientist with a Small Penis
Satoshi Kanazawa
September 9, 2012,
My very first post on the Scientific Fundamentalist blog at Psychology Today on 14 February 2008 is titled If the truth offends, its our job to offend.
Heres an excerpt from the first post:
From my purist position, everything scientists say, qua scientists, can only be true or false or somewhere in between. No other criteria besides the truth should matter or be applied in evaluating scientific theories or conclusions. They cannot be racist or sexist or reactionary or offensive or any other adjective. Even if they are labeled as such, it doesnt matter. Calling scientific theories offensive is like calling them obese; it just doesnt make sense. Many of my own scientific theories and conclusions are deeply offensive to me, but I suspect they are at least partially true.
---
The Return of the Ugly, Racist Pseudoscientist with a Small Penis | E pur si muove | Big Think
Actually, its Rush the Lush who is complaining about his tiny little gherkin.
OTOH, how would he know?
He probably hasn't even seen it since grade school.
We are not lions and tigers. We are all the same damn dirty ape. The only "instinct" involved is the one that drives all us HUMANS to mate and reproduce (even in the wild). All the other shit is, as I said, a matter of circumstance, culture, and soical mores. Always has been, always will be.
Wrong. What races are is sub-species.
WRONG. The very concept of 'race' as used by pathetic fucking cowards like YOU is a fabrication. There is more genetic diversity within so-called 'races' than between them. We are all just people, no matter how much that frightens you and reminds you of your own inferiority as an individual. YOU are a fucking failure of a human being - YOU the worthles, piece of shit individual you are.
Lewontin's Fallacy
From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy is a 2003 paper by A.W.F. Edwards that criticizes Richard Lewontin's 1972 conclusion[1] that because the probability of racial misclassification of an individual based on variation in a single genetic locus is approximately 30%, race is an invalid taxonomic construct.
Edwards argues that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of specific loci between individuals, when one takes into account more loci, the probability of racial misclassification rapidly approaches 0%, due to the correlation of loci frequencies within a population. Edwards argues that the information which distinguishes races is "hidden in the correlation structure of the data."
Edwards argues that both ordination and cluster analyses can reveal the correlation structure of multilocus data.
A caricature of Lewontin's argument is that because humans share 50% of their DNA with carrots, we must be 50% the same. Lewontin certainly made no such argument, discussing the variability between groups based on only the variable DNA between them, not the absolute measure of all DNA (humans being 99.9% identical by DNA, but certainly not 99.9% identical by traits such as height or weight).
A caricature of Edwards' argument is that because we can measure enough loci (the entire DNA sequence) to make us all have our own individual "cluster", we must all be of different races (barring identical twins).
Whether or not the Fallacy is a fallacy depends on the question being asked.[2] If differences between populations are regarded as "real" whenever the two populations can successfully be distinguished by use of a large number of arbitrary traits, then the Fallacy is a fallacy and Edwards is right and Lewontin is wrong. If the differences between populations are instead considered "real" according to the extent to which they differ in a randomly chosen trait, then Lewontin's argument is persuasive and there is no Fallacy.
That's not attractive? Is that what you're telling me? You wouldn't tap that if you had the chance?Satoshi Kanazawa Causes Firestorm After Claiming Black Women Are Less Attractive
The Huffington Post Hilary Moss
First Posted: 05/17/11 07:32 PM ET
Updated: 07/17/11
Psychology Today blogger Satoshi Kanazawa sparked a firestorm with his latest posting entitled, "A Look at the Hard Truths About Human Nature."
In it, the evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics argues that black women are less physically attractive than other women. The article was quickly removed from the site, but not before screenshots made their way onto BuzzFeed. Some excerpts:
What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.
[...]
The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race difference in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.
---
Satoshi Kanazawa Causes Firestorm After Claiming Black Women Are Less Attractive
Are you claiming that whites, if raised under the same circumstances, would not have the same alleged depressed IQ scores?Black people are human beings. That's all the data that matters.
Unless you're trying to, you know, figure something out.
Then you're gonna want some more info.
These people seriously believe humanity developed uniformly. It's like isolation or climate forcing had no effect.
So where you going with this?
I think the author is a progressive/liberal moron...
Racist Pseudoscientist with a Small Penis
Satoshi Kanazawa
September 9, 2012,
My very first post on the Scientific Fundamentalist blog at Psychology Today on 14 February 2008 is titled If the truth offends, its our job to offend.
Heres an excerpt from the first post:
From my purist position, everything scientists say, qua scientists, can only be true or false or somewhere in between. No other criteria besides the truth should matter or be applied in evaluating scientific theories or conclusions. They cannot be racist or sexist or reactionary or offensive or any other adjective. Even if they are labeled as such, it doesnt matter. Calling scientific theories offensive is like calling them obese; it just doesnt make sense. Many of my own scientific theories and conclusions are deeply offensive to me, but I suspect they are at least partially true.
---
The Return of the Ugly, Racist Pseudoscientist with a Small Penis | E pur si muove | Big Think
Actually, its Rush the Lush who is complaining about his tiny little gherkin.
OTOH, how would he know?
He probably hasn't even seen it since grade school.
That's not attractive? Is that what you're telling me? You wouldn't tap that if you had the chance?Satoshi Kanazawa Causes Firestorm After Claiming Black Women Are Less Attractive
The Huffington Post Hilary Moss
First Posted: 05/17/11 07:32 PM ET
Updated: 07/17/11
Psychology Today blogger Satoshi Kanazawa sparked a firestorm with his latest posting entitled, "A Look at the Hard Truths About Human Nature."
In it, the evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics argues that black women are less physically attractive than other women. The article was quickly removed from the site, but not before screenshots made their way onto BuzzFeed. Some excerpts:
What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.
[...]
The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race difference in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.
---
Satoshi Kanazawa Causes Firestorm After Claiming Black Women Are Less Attractive
Who you bullshitin'? You know god-damn well that bitch is so fine, you'd suck her daddy's dick!
I could go on (and on, and on) about how racial groups are easily identified by genetic markers.
Wrong. What races are is sub-species.
Sub-species developed in geographic isolation and under certain environmental pressures for an extended period of time, leading to identifiable common traits and a level of genetic similarity. Whites and blacks are VERY DIFFERENT "dirty apes" on many levels: appearance, temperament, intelligence, etc.
Races prefer in-grouping: they mate amongst themselves. That's an observable fact.
Cavalli-Sforza made the best "map" of the genetic globe, showing that what we call races have high levels of genetic similarity -- and dissimilarity from others. Blacks are the most genetically distant -- actually, from all other races -- while whites and Asians were closer.
