Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!

[Madeline]

Looks like people of Finland Commit suicide at very high rates.

Actually its called regression to the mean. It happens to the children of high income black parents as well, only they regress toward the mean of 85 instead off the 100 white average.

I see we have a new contestant for Name That Bigot. Please pick up your Bingo card at the door before taking your seat, Flagwavrusa.

I was just answering your question. Labels are your weapon of choice. I can understand you being proud of black accomplishments, you mentioned the achievement of black legal equality during the civil rights era. But you don't want to talk about some things that maybe make you not so proud of being black. IE high crime rate, lower IQ, substantially lower academic achievement, greater welfare dependency. When someone tries to discuss this, and suggests its not simply white racism to blame, your reflex is to brand them. There is no middle ground, you either agree with Madeleine or you are a card carrying member of the KKK.

People fail in this country all the time, Flagwavrusa. It has nothing to do with their ethnicity a la "genetically predisposed to fail". It DOES have to do with circumstances and burdens more heavily laden on blacks...poverty, teenaged mothers, single parents, poor nutrition, lead paint poisoning, etc. Whites, asians, Native Americans....all yield the same results when stressed in the same way as blacks.

We know good and well how to produce successful, law abiding people and how to produce the worst sort of sociopaths, and yet we seem to forget that knowledge and "blame the Blacks" when it comes to certain issues, like urban crime.

Go figure.

 

[Sheldon]

No Black culture has ever come near to what Whites have built. How can you look at the way Blacks and Whites live in their respective societies and not appreciate the fact that Whites are far better at building and maintaining desirable societies?

Just tipped your hand. This is why people say that racists (in this case, the racists that use ongoing scientific study for the white supremacist agenda) are the ones who carry water for the continuity model. So really, what's the difference between you and a climate-change alarmist? Bot have a hyper-agenda that fucks with how others see the integrity of the science.

Which sucks because continuity is a hypothesis that in part could contribute some pieces to the larger puzzle--but people reject it out of hand because they don't want to be associated with your ilk. WTG.

Please explain this continuity model, Sheldon.

I'll explain it how it was taught to me. I don't really like analogies but this one works on a simple level.

Think of Sapiens as Europeans in the 1600's, and Neanderthals as Native Americans of the same century.

The replacement (or Out of Africa) theory, which is what's widely accepted in paleoanthropolgy, is similar to what happened in early America. Europeans migrated from their home continent and replaced the Natives as the dominant population at their new "home". This replacement happened in part through disease and superior technology that allowed them to better adapt to their environment.



The analogy to the continuity hypothesis goes like this: Europeans migrated to America, and the decline of the Native population is explained primarily by an interbreeding of the Natives and the Europeans, with the Native traits gradually recessing--but not going extinct--to the dominant European traits. So instead of one population group replacing another through adaptive dominance like the above theory, this hypothesis explains the decline of the Native populations through the two groups having a ton of sex with each other, and this influencing the genetics in a way that's unique from the old location.


These two models don't need to be a dichotomy though. We know that Europeans virtually wiped out the Native population through disease and technology, but we also know that some Europeans were having sex in wigwams. It's a matter of scale, and the difference between the two models is how far they tip in either direction.


Why I say the continuity hypothesis is not complete junk science, like Intelligent Design, is for a few reasons. One, is that there's a small but still existent presence of genetic contributions from now-extinct population groups. I think the high number is about 15%?

Also, our DNA extraction technology is constantly improving, same with our carbon dating methods, to give us a less muddy picture of data than we've had before... and this recent data has shown Neanderthal contributions to non-African modern human genes to be a non-zero number.

My position is in line with what the science strongly suggests: that a wave of homo sapiens sapiens migrated from the Horn of Africa area, and over the course of a reallyfuckinglongtime we spread across the entire globe, being the fittest and best brand of humans at adapting to the local environments--better than the local populations. And this doesn't preclude some interbreeding between the migrants and the natives--although the DNA evidence doesn't support this being the primary reason for our conquest of the planet.

Plus, the longer a population group exists, the more genetic diversity they'll develop. So the population group with the most genetic diversity would be the one that's been around the longest. Modern African populations have the most genetic diversity than any other population on the planet, so...

And finally (I'm almost done), I think that there's not enough data to make a definitive conclusion about how much any interbreeding from back then effects our different human cultures today.

The racial supremacists don't care about the ambiguity of our current knowledge in this area--they overplay any possible effects of any interbeeding that took place areallyfuckinglongtimeago, and downplay the effects of cultural and behavioral reinforcements that happened because of the tens and tens of thousands of years of geographic isolation between population groups.

There have been some finds in south I think, China, that appear to be a combination of Sapiens and Erectus traits... we don't know yet, but as of right now it's possible that East Asian populations today may have a larger amount of genetic influence from their ancient locals than other population groups on the globe.

Hope this helps.

/sore fingers

 

[WillowTree]

Looks like people of Finland Commit suicide at very high rates.

Actually its called regression to the mean. It happens to the children of high income black parents as well, only they regress toward the mean of 85 instead off the 100 white average.

I see we have a new contestant for Name That Bigot. Please pick up your Bingo card at the door before taking your seat, Flagwavrusa.

I was just answering your question. Labels are your weapon of choice. I can understand you being proud of black accomplishments, you mentioned the achievement of black legal equality during the civil rights era. But you don't want to talk about some things that maybe make you not so proud of being black. IE high crime rate, lower IQ, substantially lower academic achievement, greater welfare dependency. When someone tries to discuss this, and suggests its not simply white racism to blame, your reflex is to brand them. There is no middle ground, you either agree with Madeleine or you are a card carrying member of the KKK.

You put that quite succintly.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

I'll explain it how it was taught to me. I don't really like analogies but this one works on a simple level.

Think of Sapiens as Europeans in the 1600's, and Neanderthals as Native Americans of the same century.

The replacement (or Out of Africa) theory, which is what's widely accepted in paleoanthropolgy, is similar to what happened in early America. Europeans migrated from their home continent and replaced the Natives as the dominant population at their new "home". This replacement happened in part through disease and superior technology that allowed them to better adapt to their environment.



The analogy to the continuity hypothesis goes like this: Europeans migrated to America, and the decline of the Native population is explained primarily by an interbreeding of the Natives and the Europeans, with the Native traits gradually recessing--but not going extinct--to the dominant European traits. So instead of one population group replacing another through adaptive dominance like the above theory, this hypothesis explains the decline of the Native populations through the two groups having a ton of sex with each other, and this influencing the genetics in a way that's unique from the old location.


These two models don't need to be a dichotomy though. We know that Europeans virtually wiped out the Native population through disease and technology, but we also know that some Europeans were having sex in wigwams. It's a matter of scale, and the difference between the two models is how far they tip in either direction.


Why I say the continuity hypothesis is not complete junk science, like Intelligent Design, is for a few reasons. One, is that there's a small but still existent presence of genetic contributions from now-extinct population groups. I think the high number is about 15%?

Also, our DNA extraction technology is constantly improving, same with our carbon dating methods, to give us a less muddy picture of data than we've had before... and this recent data has shown Neanderthal contributions to non-African modern human genes to be a non-zero number.

My position is in line with what the science strongly suggests: that a wave of homo sapiens sapiens migrated from the Horn of Africa area, and over the course of a reallyfuckinglongtime we spread across the entire globe, being the fittest and best brand of humans at adapting to the local environments--better than the local populations. And this doesn't preclude some interbreeding between the migrants and the natives--although the DNA evidence doesn't support this being the primary reason for our conquest of the planet.

Plus, the longer a population group exists, the more genetic diversity they'll develop. So the population group with the most genetic diversity would be the one that's been around the longest. Modern African populations have the most genetic diversity than any other population on the planet, so...

And finally (I'm almost done), I think that there's not enough data to make a definitive conclusion about how much any interbreeding from back then effects our different human cultures today.

The racial supremacists don't care about the ambiguity of our current knowledge in this area--they overplay any possible effects of any interbeeding that took place areallyfuckinglongtimeago, and downplay the effects of cultural and behavioral reinforcements that happened because of the tens and tens of thousands of years of geographic isolation between population groups.

There have been some finds in south I think, China, that appear to be a combination of Sapiens and Erectus traits... we don't know yet, but as of right now it's possible that East Asian populations today may have a larger amount of genetic influence from their ancient locals than other population groups on the globe.

Hope this helps.

/sore fingers

Well, I dont know if your theory of Homo Sapien mating with Neanderthal is correct, but if it is, it certainly proves sapiens were capable of producing large quantities of alchahol lol.

( Image of Neanderthal Woman)

 

[Madeline]

Looks like people of Finland Commit suicide at very high rates.

I see we have a new contestant for Name That Bigot. Please pick up your Bingo card at the door before taking your seat, Flagwavrusa.

I was just answering your question. Labels are your weapon of choice. I can understand you being proud of black accomplishments, you mentioned the achievement of black legal equality during the civil rights era. But you don't want to talk about some things that maybe make you not so proud of being black. IE high crime rate, lower IQ, substantially lower academic achievement, greater welfare dependency. When someone tries to discuss this, and suggests its not simply white racism to blame, your reflex is to brand them. There is no middle ground, you either agree with Madeleine or you are a card carrying member of the KKK.

You put that quite succintly.

Re-read my posts, Willow. I blamed poverty, single parents, teenaged moms, poor nutrition...I blamed a raft of things for urban black crime, etc.

"White racism" was not one of them.

 

[Sheldon]

( Image of Neanderthal Woman)

Meh. She puts on a little eye-liner and some Chanel No.5 , I'd hit it.

 

[WillowTree]

I was just answering your question. Labels are your weapon of choice. I can understand you being proud of black accomplishments, you mentioned the achievement of black legal equality during the civil rights era. But you don't want to talk about some things that maybe make you not so proud of being black. IE high crime rate, lower IQ, substantially lower academic achievement, greater welfare dependency. When someone tries to discuss this, and suggests its not simply white racism to blame, your reflex is to brand them. There is no middle ground, you either agree with Madeleine or you are a card carrying member of the KKK.

You put that quite succintly.

Re-read my posts, Willow. I blamed poverty, single parents, teenaged moms, poor nutrition...I blamed a raft of things for urban black crime, etc.

"White racism" was not one of them.

You showed your ass and called Tank a bigot for posting an article. That's what you did you asswipe.

 

[Madeline]

You put that quite succintly.

Re-read my posts, Willow. I blamed poverty, single parents, teenaged moms, poor nutrition...I blamed a raft of things for urban black crime, etc.

"White racism" was not one of them.

You showed your ass and called Tank a bigot for posting an article. That's what you did you asswipe.

Are you seriously gonna tell me you dun think Tank is a bigot, Willow?

What about 30 x 90? William Joyce? 52nd St? GHook?

Are there just no bigots in Willow-land?

 

[William Joyce]

Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens. According to genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago.

Reparations for all!

If only we could pay people to evolve. I would pass the collection plate for 30 x 90.

Funny you mention evolution. Evolutionary theory explains why there are intelligence and behavior differences in the races -- whites evolved in cold territories where they needed to think long-term for survival, and thus grew big brains. Blacks evolved -- or didn't evolve -- in areas where the constant supply of food meant they didn't have to think too hard, just reach for a banana.

 

[William Joyce]

Read this book before you say the word "racist" again, Madeline.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Race-Evolution-Behavior-History-Perspective/dp/0965683613]Amazon.com: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (3rd Edition) (9780965683616): J. Philippe Rushton: Books[/ame]

 

[Ernie S.]

I see we have a new contestant for Name That Bigot. Please pick up your Bingo card at the door before taking your seat, Flagwavrusa.

Madeline. I'll ask again. Do you think you have bigoted beliefs?

I'm human, Provocateur. I have preconceived notions about people based on their appearance....age, ethnicity, dress, mannerisms, etc. We all do.

I do try not to allow them to overload RL data about any individual. Scarey looking teenaged boys may turn out to be a gaggle of sidewalk shovelers.

Not here in Miami.

 

[Ropey]

Did I have anything to do with these accomplishments? No, but I'm damned proud of my bloodline.

I wonder if you are proud of them or of yourself? I read you are proud of their accomplishments.

So,if you are proud of them, then it really is not false pride since you are not proud of yourself for having them in your background.

So, it's really an interpretive thing. I have pride in the accomplishments of my background as well.

Many of my people never made it out because they could not believe the things that were happening, were happening. So I am very proud that the parents of my grandparents left Lithuania before they were not allowed to anymore.

But that pride only comes out when I speak about them and what they did.

 

[Ravi]

Just tipped your hand. This is why people say that racists (in this case, the racists that use ongoing scientific study for the white supremacist agenda) are the ones who carry water for the continuity model. So really, what's the difference between you and a climate-change alarmist? Bot have a hyper-agenda that fucks with how others see the integrity of the science.

Which sucks because continuity is a hypothesis that in part could contribute some pieces to the larger puzzle--but people reject it out of hand because they don't want to be associated with your ilk. WTG.

Please explain this continuity model, Sheldon.

I'll explain it how it was taught to me. I don't really like analogies but this one works on a simple level.

Think of Sapiens as Europeans in the 1600's, and Neanderthals as Native Americans of the same century.

The replacement (or Out of Africa) theory, which is what's widely accepted in paleoanthropolgy, is similar to what happened in early America. Europeans migrated from their home continent and replaced the Natives as the dominant population at their new "home". This replacement happened in part through disease and superior technology that allowed them to better adapt to their environment.



The analogy to the continuity hypothesis goes like this: Europeans migrated to America, and the decline of the Native population is explained primarily by an interbreeding of the Natives and the Europeans, with the Native traits gradually recessing--but not going extinct--to the dominant European traits. So instead of one population group replacing another through adaptive dominance like the above theory, this hypothesis explains the decline of the Native populations through the two groups having a ton of sex with each other, and this influencing the genetics in a way that's unique from the old location.


These two models don't need to be a dichotomy though. We know that Europeans virtually wiped out the Native population through disease and technology, but we also know that some Europeans were having sex in wigwams. It's a matter of scale, and the difference between the two models is how far they tip in either direction.


Why I say the continuity hypothesis is not complete junk science, like Intelligent Design, is for a few reasons. One, is that there's a small but still existent presence of genetic contributions from now-extinct population groups. I think the high number is about 15%?

Also, our DNA extraction technology is constantly improving, same with our carbon dating methods, to give us a less muddy picture of data than we've had before... and this recent data has shown Neanderthal contributions to non-African modern human genes to be a non-zero number.

My position is in line with what the science strongly suggests: that a wave of homo sapiens sapiens migrated from the Horn of Africa area, and over the course of a reallyfuckinglongtime we spread across the entire globe, being the fittest and best brand of humans at adapting to the local environments--better than the local populations. And this doesn't preclude some interbreeding between the migrants and the natives--although the DNA evidence doesn't support this being the primary reason for our conquest of the planet.

Plus, the longer a population group exists, the more genetic diversity they'll develop. So the population group with the most genetic diversity would be the one that's been around the longest. Modern African populations have the most genetic diversity than any other population on the planet, so...

And finally (I'm almost done), I think that there's not enough data to make a definitive conclusion about how much any interbreeding from back then effects our different human cultures today.

The racial supremacists don't care about the ambiguity of our current knowledge in this area--they overplay any possible effects of any interbeeding that took place areallyfuckinglongtimeago, and downplay the effects of cultural and behavioral reinforcements that happened because of the tens and tens of thousands of years of geographic isolation between population groups.

There have been some finds in south I think, China, that appear to be a combination of Sapiens and Erectus traits... we don't know yet, but as of right now it's possible that East Asian populations today may have a larger amount of genetic influence from their ancient locals than other population groups on the globe.

Hope this helps.

/sore fingers

Thanks for that and I will think about it a bit before I reply. But I did want to point out that Native Americans and Europeans are the same species...

 

[Madeline]

Reparations for all!

If only we could pay people to evolve. I would pass the collection plate for 30 x 90.

Funny you mention evolution. Evolutionary theory explains why there are intelligence and behavior differences in the races -- whites evolved in cold territories where they needed to think long-term for survival, and thus grew big brains. Blacks evolved -- or didn't evolve -- in areas where the constant supply of food meant they didn't have to think too hard, just reach for a banana.

This is why I have you on ignore, William Joyce.

 

[AllieBaba]

If only we could pay people to evolve. I would pass the collection plate for 30 x 90.

Funny you mention evolution. Evolutionary theory explains why there are intelligence and behavior differences in the races -- whites evolved in cold territories where they needed to think long-term for survival, and thus grew big brains. Blacks evolved -- or didn't evolve -- in areas where the constant supply of food meant they didn't have to think too hard, just reach for a banana.

This is why I have you on ignore, William Joyce.

Madeline, if you're bopping in and out of ignore land to read the posts of the person you're trying to ignore, take a tip from me and just take them off of ignore.

 

[Madeline]

Funny you mention evolution. Evolutionary theory explains why there are intelligence and behavior differences in the races -- whites evolved in cold territories where they needed to think long-term for survival, and thus grew big brains. Blacks evolved -- or didn't evolve -- in areas where the constant supply of food meant they didn't have to think too hard, just reach for a banana.

This is why I have you on ignore, William Joyce.

Madeline, if you're bopping in and out of ignore land to read the posts of the person you're trying to ignore, take a tip from me and just take them off of ignore.

Meh, I have not read William Joyce in like months. I'm good.

 

[Tank]

So much for open minded.

 

[WillowTree]

Re-read my posts, Willow. I blamed poverty, single parents, teenaged moms, poor nutrition...I blamed a raft of things for urban black crime, etc.

"White racism" was not one of them.

You showed your ass and called Tank a bigot for posting an article. That's what you did you asswipe.

Are you seriously gonna tell me you dun think Tank is a bigot, Willow?

What about 30 x 90? William Joyce? 52nd St? GHook?

Are there just no bigots in Willow-land?

You admitted to being a bigot did you knot?

 

[DiveCon]

( Image of Neanderthal Woman)

Meh. She puts on a little eye-liner and some Chanel No.5 , I'd hit it.

i hope your take her to the shower first too

 

[Tank]

Re-read my posts, Willow. I blamed poverty, single parents, teenaged moms, poor nutrition...I blamed a raft of things for urban black crime, etc.

"White racism" was not one of them.

Blame whatever reason you want for blacks negitive behaviour, just don't blame and call people names for trying to avoid and warn others about it.