Race, Evolution & Behavior: Why Neither 'family Values' Nor Government Spending Change Anything

[Meathead]

However the o.p. is pushing the claptrap that this all stems from "Nature", not politics, not stereotypes, not differing religions, etc.

It's all due to Black people being Black, now that easily disproved and only simpleton's would subscribe to it.

Citing Rushton as a source is admitting that you really don't have a bridge to stand on.

This is the same guy that suggested smaller penises made you a more intelligent man...

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

 

[reconmark]

However the o.p. is pushing the claptrap that this all stems from "Nature", not politics, not stereotypes, not differing religions, etc.

It's all due to Black people being Black, now that easily disproved and only simpleton's would subscribe to it.

Citing Rushton as a source is admitting that you really don't have a bridge to stand on.

This is the same guy that suggested smaller penises made you a more intelligent man...

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

In other words your intellectual tank ran dry even before you posted your baseless comment...
Glad to know.

 

[Swagger]

Whites behave in a "superiour" manner compared to minorities because in the West behaviour is determined by European standards, which, like it or not, are the determining factors in most aspects of life in the Western world. Left to their own devices in the lands they originate from with no Western/European interference, the kind of behaviour the prevailing culture frowns upon would most likely be regarded as perfectly normal.

In other words all you have is your opinion colored by a racial agenda...typical.

Your dodge has been noted, Reconmark.

I never dodged anything, you posted nothing based on fact to refute, did you?
In honesty, when one has a racialist agenda, when do facts actually matter, as you are proving.

The cold hard fact of the matter, Reconmark, is that the prevailing culture determines standards. There's nothing "racist" in saying that. In the West the prevailing culture is European culture. It's the reason the majority are revolted by eating cats and dogs because the prevailing culture regards them as pets, whereas the prevailing culture in the places where cats and dogs are consumed by humans regards it as perfectly normal. Is that "racist" aswell?

Actually it is very racist, how can you not see that???
What you choose to subscribe to is ethnocentrism and are therefore intellectually unable to accept that there are different mores among different people without subscribing a positive value to your beliefs while seeing others as equally valued.
Cultural relativism is what truly advanced cultures and people are able to subscribe to, we see the world without deciding that only one way should determine the wealth of any item in question.

What you attempt to portray as
western behavior" is practiced the world over and any of the behaviors you would attempt to solely assign to other cultures is easily disproved by a study of world history.

If you were familiar with the definition of racism, and weren't using the verb in an attempt at shutting down an argument where truths you appear to find uncomfortable were emerging, you'd know that what you've quoted me on isn't "racist". All you've got is obtuse babble., whereas we all know what I've written is true, and I've given you a perfect example.

 

[Meathead]

However the o.p. is pushing the claptrap that this all stems from "Nature", not politics, not stereotypes, not differing religions, etc.

It's all due to Black people being Black, now that easily disproved and only simpleton's would subscribe to it.

Citing Rushton as a source is admitting that you really don't have a bridge to stand on.

This is the same guy that suggested smaller penises made you a more intelligent man...

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

In other words your intellectual tank ran dry even before you posted your baseless comment...
Glad to know.

You are equating intellect with adherence to political correctness. That's just weird.

 

[reconmark]

In other words all you have is your opinion colored by a racial agenda...typical.

Your dodge has been noted, Reconmark.

I never dodged anything, you posted nothing based on fact to refute, did you?
In honesty, when one has a racialist agenda, when do facts actually matter, as you are proving.

The cold hard fact of the matter, Reconmark, is that the prevailing culture determines standards. There's nothing "racist" in saying that. In the West the prevailing culture is European culture. It's the reason the majority are revolted by eating cats and dogs because the prevailing culture regards them as pets, whereas the prevailing culture in the places where cats and dogs are consumed by humans regards it as perfectly normal. Is that "racist" aswell?

Actually it is very racist, how can you not see that???
What you choose to subscribe to is ethnocentrism and are therefore intellectually unable to accept that there are different mores among different people without subscribing a positive value to your beliefs while seeing others as equally valued.
Cultural relativism is what truly advanced cultures and people are able to subscribe to, we see the world without deciding that only one way should determine the wealth of any item in question.

What you attempt to portray as
western behavior" is practiced the world over and any of the behaviors you would attempt to solely assign to other cultures is easily disproved by a study of world history.

If you were familiar with the definition of racism, and weren't using the verb in an attempt at shutting down an argument where truths you appear to find uncomfortable were emerging, you'd know that what you've quoted me on isn't "racist". All you've got is obtuse babble., whereas we all know what I've written is true, and I've given you a perfect example.

So you aren't able to post a factual rebuttal and you resort to this as a reply??
I attempted to shut something down...please point that out, otherwise I accept the fact that you have lowered yourself to the position of lying when at a loss of facts.

If the established sociological terms used to dismiss your premise were too difficult to understand then you should have taken a break and gathered your wits.

 

[reconmark]

However the o.p. is pushing the claptrap that this all stems from "Nature", not politics, not stereotypes, not differing religions, etc.

It's all due to Black people being Black, now that easily disproved and only simpleton's would subscribe to it.

Citing Rushton as a source is admitting that you really don't have a bridge to stand on.

This is the same guy that suggested smaller penises made you a more intelligent man...

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

In other words your intellectual tank ran dry even before you posted your baseless comment...
Glad to know.

You are equating intellect with adherence to political correctness. That's just weird.

I'm not surprised you would think so.

 

[Pennywise]

I've read the book and recommend others do before committing to say anything. As to the subject, it seems that left to their own devices (no Western influence) most brown cultures do not advance in any measure, and once the influence of European stewardship wains, they revert back to old ways. Look at predominately black or otherwise minority cities in America as the perfect example.

There are characteristics within the races that have been forged through thousands of years of evolution. To pretend that we are all the same is so stupid as to be delusional, and inasmuch as the differences between the races are real and genetic, to attempt to rectify perceived inequality through government intervention and affirmative action is the very height of stupidity.

I think you're better off observing the changes (or natural reversal) in former British and French possessions in Africa. When under European stewardship these territories were largely productive, peaceful, law-abiding and educated. After British and French withdrawl we see the damaging effect tribalism has had on the fabric of the nation state.

Yeah, seems Europeans have never suffered from your theory..
Bosnian War
Calculating the number of deaths that resulted from the conflict has been subject to considerable and highly politicised debate.[119] There are large discrepancies between estimates of the total number of casualties, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000. These are partly the result of the use of inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions.


The Troubles
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) is the common name for the ethno-nationalist[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, England and mainland Europe. The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is deemed by many to have ended with the Belfast 'Good Friday' Agreement of 1998,[14][15][16][17][18] but sporadic violence has continued since then.[15][19][20] Internationally, the Troubles is also commonly called the Northern Ireland conflict.[21][22][23][24][25] And has often, disputably, been described as a war.
The Republic of Ireland's security forces played a smaller role. More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict

Post one advanced African nation that has no genetic European influence.

Penny, help me. What year are we thinking white Europeans got better than blacks. Come on man.

Your question illustrates a total lack of understanding of human evolution. Find something less taxing on your brain to chat about.

 

[Swagger]

Your dodge has been noted, Reconmark.

I never dodged anything, you posted nothing based on fact to refute, did you?
In honesty, when one has a racialist agenda, when do facts actually matter, as you are proving.

The cold hard fact of the matter, Reconmark, is that the prevailing culture determines standards. There's nothing "racist" in saying that. In the West the prevailing culture is European culture. It's the reason the majority are revolted by eating cats and dogs because the prevailing culture regards them as pets, whereas the prevailing culture in the places where cats and dogs are consumed by humans regards it as perfectly normal. Is that "racist" aswell?

Actually it is very racist, how can you not see that???
What you choose to subscribe to is ethnocentrism and are therefore intellectually unable to accept that there are different mores among different people without subscribing a positive value to your beliefs while seeing others as equally valued.
Cultural relativism is what truly advanced cultures and people are able to subscribe to, we see the world without deciding that only one way should determine the wealth of any item in question.

What you attempt to portray as
western behavior" is practiced the world over and any of the behaviors you would attempt to solely assign to other cultures is easily disproved by a study of world history.

If you were familiar with the definition of racism, and weren't using the verb in an attempt at shutting down an argument where truths you appear to find uncomfortable were emerging, you'd know that what you've quoted me on isn't "racist". All you've got is obtuse babble., whereas we all know what I've written is true, and I've given you a perfect example.

So you aren't able to post a factual rebuttal and you resort to this as a reply??
I attempted to shut something down...please point that out, otherwise I accept the fact that you have lowered yourself to the position of lying when at a loss of facts.

If the established sociological terms used to dismiss your premise were too difficult to understand then you should have taken a break and gathered your wits.

Go back and read post #40 and you'll see that I've presented a supporting fact that you can't deny. Written in plain English, no less.

 

[Swagger]

I've read the book and recommend others do before committing to say anything. As to the subject, it seems that left to their own devices (no Western influence) most brown cultures do not advance in any measure, and once the influence of European stewardship wains, they revert back to old ways. Look at predominately black or otherwise minority cities in America as the perfect example.

There are characteristics within the races that have been forged through thousands of years of evolution. To pretend that we are all the same is so stupid as to be delusional, and inasmuch as the differences between the races are real and genetic, to attempt to rectify perceived inequality through government intervention and affirmative action is the very height of stupidity.

I think you're better off observing the changes (or natural reversal) in former British and French possessions in Africa. When under European stewardship these territories were largely productive, peaceful, law-abiding and educated. After British and French withdrawl we see the damaging effect tribalism has had on the fabric of the nation state.

Yeah, seems Europeans have never suffered from your theory..
Bosnian War
Calculating the number of deaths that resulted from the conflict has been subject to considerable and highly politicised debate.[119] There are large discrepancies between estimates of the total number of casualties, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000. These are partly the result of the use of inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions.


The Troubles
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) is the common name for the ethno-nationalist[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, England and mainland Europe. The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is deemed by many to have ended with the Belfast 'Good Friday' Agreement of 1998,[14][15][16][17][18] but sporadic violence has continued since then.[15][19][20] Internationally, the Troubles is also commonly called the Northern Ireland conflict.[21][22][23][24][25] And has often, disputably, been described as a war.
The Republic of Ireland's security forces played a smaller role. More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict

Post one advanced African nation that has no genetic European influence.

Penny, help me. What year are we thinking white Europeans got better than blacks. Come on man.

Your question illustrates a total lack of understanding of human evolution. Find something less taxing on your brain to chat about.

It's OK, Pennywise. He was just trying to be "down" with the safe narrative.

 

[Toronado3800]

However the o.p. is pushing the claptrap that this all stems from "Nature", not politics, not stereotypes, not differing religions, etc.

It's all due to Black people being Black, now that easily disproved and only simpleton's would subscribe to it.

Citing Rushton as a source is admitting that you really don't have a bridge to stand on.

This is the same guy that suggested smaller penises made you a more intelligent man...

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

Ok...

So now we are talking just subsaharans?

What year did whites start behaving better than them?

 

[reconmark]

I never dodged anything, you posted nothing based on fact to refute, did you?
In honesty, when one has a racialist agenda, when do facts actually matter, as you are proving.

The cold hard fact of the matter, Reconmark, is that the prevailing culture determines standards. There's nothing "racist" in saying that. In the West the prevailing culture is European culture. It's the reason the majority are revolted by eating cats and dogs because the prevailing culture regards them as pets, whereas the prevailing culture in the places where cats and dogs are consumed by humans regards it as perfectly normal. Is that "racist" aswell?

Actually it is very racist, how can you not see that???
What you choose to subscribe to is ethnocentrism and are therefore intellectually unable to accept that there are different mores among different people without subscribing a positive value to your beliefs while seeing others as equally valued.
Cultural relativism is what truly advanced cultures and people are able to subscribe to, we see the world without deciding that only one way should determine the wealth of any item in question.

What you attempt to portray as
western behavior" is practiced the world over and any of the behaviors you would attempt to solely assign to other cultures is easily disproved by a study of world history.

If you were familiar with the definition of racism, and weren't using the verb in an attempt at shutting down an argument where truths you appear to find uncomfortable were emerging, you'd know that what you've quoted me on isn't "racist". All you've got is obtuse babble., whereas we all know what I've written is true, and I've given you a perfect example.

So you aren't able to post a factual rebuttal and you resort to this as a reply??
I attempted to shut something down...please point that out, otherwise I accept the fact that you have lowered yourself to the position of lying when at a loss of facts.

If the established sociological terms used to dismiss your premise were too difficult to understand then you should have taken a break and gathered your wits.

Go back and read post #40 and you'll see that I've presented a supporting fact that you can't deny. Written in plain English, no less.

No. You make no sense and your positions reveal as much. There is a reason that the majority of the world, educated, intellectual and sane laugh at the likes of Rushton, Duke, Don Black and you.

By definition a pipe dream is based on a lack of presented facts, data and abilities, yet people like you have lived with such a pipe dream for most if not all of your lives.

Africa will always thrive, Black people will always achieve and you will never segregate or enslave them again.

You can lean on pseudo-science, ignorance and racism, it changes nothing.

Bottom line, when have people like you, with your beliefs ever really had the power to permanently change the conditions of people you deem inferior to you??

In 20, 30, 40 years from now, people like you will still be a laughed at fringe by the majority of sane people, and if one chooses to incorrectly ascribe to your incorrect definition of social mores, you by your own writings have labeled yourself as a cast off of intelligent civilization.

Please feel free to respond, however once more, the majority of sane people will simply shake their head in consternation at your idiocy.

 

[reconmark]

However the o.p. is pushing the claptrap that this all stems from "Nature", not politics, not stereotypes, not differing religions, etc.

It's all due to Black people being Black, now that easily disproved and only simpleton's would subscribe to it.

Citing Rushton as a source is admitting that you really don't have a bridge to stand on.

This is the same guy that suggested smaller penises made you a more intelligent man...

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

Ok...

So now we are talking just subsaharans?

What year did whites start behaving better than them?

When one of their points is shown to be baseless, their automatic response is to move the goal posts, dismiss facts or say "because they are Black".

It's a circular argument, leave them to chase their own tails, I am.

 

[Toronado3800]

I've read the book and recommend others do before committing to say anything. As to the subject, it seems that left to their own devices (no Western influence) most brown cultures do not advance in any measure, and once the influence of European stewardship wains, they revert back to old ways. Look at predominately black or otherwise minority cities in America as the perfect example.

There are characteristics within the races that have been forged through thousands of years of evolution. To pretend that we are all the same is so stupid as to be delusional, and inasmuch as the differences between the races are real and genetic, to attempt to rectify perceived inequality through government intervention and affirmative action is the very height of stupidity.

I think you're better off observing the changes (or natural reversal) in former British and French possessions in Africa. When under European stewardship these territories were largely productive, peaceful, law-abiding and educated. After British and French withdrawl we see the damaging effect tribalism has had on the fabric of the nation state.

Yeah, seems Europeans have never suffered from your theory..
Bosnian War
Calculating the number of deaths that resulted from the conflict has been subject to considerable and highly politicised debate.[119] There are large discrepancies between estimates of the total number of casualties, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000. These are partly the result of the use of inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions.


The Troubles
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) is the common name for the ethno-nationalist[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, England and mainland Europe. The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is deemed by many to have ended with the Belfast 'Good Friday' Agreement of 1998,[14][15][16][17][18] but sporadic violence has continued since then.[15][19][20] Internationally, the Troubles is also commonly called the Northern Ireland conflict.[21][22][23][24][25] And has often, disputably, been described as a war.
The Republic of Ireland's security forces played a smaller role. More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict

Post one advanced African nation that has no genetic European influence.

Penny, help me. What year are we thinking white Europeans got better than blacks. Come on man.

Your question illustrates a total lack of understanding of human evolution. Find something less taxing on your brain to chat about.

I've read the book and recommend others do before committing to say anything. As to the subject, it seems that left to their own devices (no Western influence) most brown cultures do not advance in any measure, and once the influence of European stewardship wains, they revert back to old ways. Look at predominately black or otherwise minority cities in America as the perfect example.

There are characteristics within the races that have been forged through thousands of years of evolution. To pretend that we are all the same is so stupid as to be delusional, and inasmuch as the differences between the races are real and genetic, to attempt to rectify perceived inequality through government intervention and affirmative action is the very height of stupidity.

I think you're better off observing the changes (or natural reversal) in former British and French possessions in Africa. When under European stewardship these territories were largely productive, peaceful, law-abiding and educated. After British and French withdrawl we see the damaging effect tribalism has had on the fabric of the nation state.

Yeah, seems Europeans have never suffered from your theory..
Bosnian War
Calculating the number of deaths that resulted from the conflict has been subject to considerable and highly politicised debate.[119] There are large discrepancies between estimates of the total number of casualties, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000. These are partly the result of the use of inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions.


The Troubles
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) is the common name for the ethno-nationalist[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, England and mainland Europe. The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is deemed by many to have ended with the Belfast 'Good Friday' Agreement of 1998,[14][15][16][17][18] but sporadic violence has continued since then.[15][19][20] Internationally, the Troubles is also commonly called the Northern Ireland conflict.[21][22][23][24][25] And has often, disputably, been described as a war.
The Republic of Ireland's security forces played a smaller role. More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict

Post one advanced African nation that has no genetic European influence.

Penny, help me. What year are we thinking white Europeans got better than blacks. Come on man.

Your question illustrates a total lack of understanding of human evolution. Find something less taxing on your brain to chat about.

Ok. I will try to keep up even if you failed to answer. Is this the Flame zone btw?

Ok. So starting in 1950 can we consider whites to be better behaving? Is that the year the gene became prevelant?

Not a tough question.

 

[Swagger]

The cold hard fact of the matter, Reconmark, is that the prevailing culture determines standards. There's nothing "racist" in saying that. In the West the prevailing culture is European culture. It's the reason the majority are revolted by eating cats and dogs because the prevailing culture regards them as pets, whereas the prevailing culture in the places where cats and dogs are consumed by humans regards it as perfectly normal. Is that "racist" aswell?

Actually it is very racist, how can you not see that???
What you choose to subscribe to is ethnocentrism and are therefore intellectually unable to accept that there are different mores among different people without subscribing a positive value to your beliefs while seeing others as equally valued.
Cultural relativism is what truly advanced cultures and people are able to subscribe to, we see the world without deciding that only one way should determine the wealth of any item in question.

What you attempt to portray as
western behavior" is practiced the world over and any of the behaviors you would attempt to solely assign to other cultures is easily disproved by a study of world history.

If you were familiar with the definition of racism, and weren't using the verb in an attempt at shutting down an argument where truths you appear to find uncomfortable were emerging, you'd know that what you've quoted me on isn't "racist". All you've got is obtuse babble., whereas we all know what I've written is true, and I've given you a perfect example.

So you aren't able to post a factual rebuttal and you resort to this as a reply??
I attempted to shut something down...please point that out, otherwise I accept the fact that you have lowered yourself to the position of lying when at a loss of facts.

If the established sociological terms used to dismiss your premise were too difficult to understand then you should have taken a break and gathered your wits.

Go back and read post #40 and you'll see that I've presented a supporting fact that you can't deny. Written in plain English, no less.

No. You make no sense and your positions reveal as much. There is a reason that the majority of the world, educated, intellectual and sane laugh at the likes of Rushton, Duke, Don Black and you.

By definition a pipe dream is based on a lack of presented facts, data and abilities, yet people like you have lived with such a pipe dream for most if not all of your lives.

Africa will always thrive, Black people will always achieve and you will never segregate or enslave them again.

You can lean on pseudo-science, ignorance and racism, it changes nothing.

Bottom line, when have people like you, with your beliefs ever really had the power to permanently change the conditions of people you deem inferior to you??

In 20, 30, 40 years from now, people like you will still be a laughed at fringe by the majority of sane people, and if one chooses to incorrectly ascribe to your incorrect definition of social mores, you by your own writings have labeled yourself as a cast off of intelligent civilization.

Please feel free to respond, however once more, the majority of sane people will simply shake their head in consternation at your idiocy.

And with all that irrelevant drivel, you didn't (or can't) explain why I make no sense or, more precisely, why the example I gave you in post #40 makes no sense. It''s watertight, which is why you can't refute it, and thus your attempt at distraction with irellevant guff like "Africa will always be free" etc, etc.

 

[Meathead]

However the o.p. is pushing the claptrap that this all stems from "Nature", not politics, not stereotypes, not differing religions, etc.

It's all due to Black people being Black, now that easily disproved and only simpleton's would subscribe to it.

Citing Rushton as a source is admitting that you really don't have a bridge to stand on.

This is the same guy that suggested smaller penises made you a more intelligent man...

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

Ok...

So now we are talking just subsaharans?

What year did whites start behaving better than them?

Behaving better than whites? I've no idea.

 

[Pennywise]

I think you're better off observing the changes (or natural reversal) in former British and French possessions in Africa. When under European stewardship these territories were largely productive, peaceful, law-abiding and educated. After British and French withdrawl we see the damaging effect tribalism has had on the fabric of the nation state.

Yeah, seems Europeans have never suffered from your theory..
Bosnian War
Calculating the number of deaths that resulted from the conflict has been subject to considerable and highly politicised debate.[119] There are large discrepancies between estimates of the total number of casualties, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000. These are partly the result of the use of inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions.


The Troubles
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) is the common name for the ethno-nationalist[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, England and mainland Europe. The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is deemed by many to have ended with the Belfast 'Good Friday' Agreement of 1998,[14][15][16][17][18] but sporadic violence has continued since then.[15][19][20] Internationally, the Troubles is also commonly called the Northern Ireland conflict.[21][22][23][24][25] And has often, disputably, been described as a war.
The Republic of Ireland's security forces played a smaller role. More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict

Post one advanced African nation that has no genetic European influence.

Penny, help me. What year are we thinking white Europeans got better than blacks. Come on man.

Your question illustrates a total lack of understanding of human evolution. Find something less taxing on your brain to chat about.

I think you're better off observing the changes (or natural reversal) in former British and French possessions in Africa. When under European stewardship these territories were largely productive, peaceful, law-abiding and educated. After British and French withdrawl we see the damaging effect tribalism has had on the fabric of the nation state.

Yeah, seems Europeans have never suffered from your theory..
Bosnian War
Calculating the number of deaths that resulted from the conflict has been subject to considerable and highly politicised debate.[119] There are large discrepancies between estimates of the total number of casualties, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000. These are partly the result of the use of inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions.


The Troubles
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) is the common name for the ethno-nationalist[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, England and mainland Europe. The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is deemed by many to have ended with the Belfast 'Good Friday' Agreement of 1998,[14][15][16][17][18] but sporadic violence has continued since then.[15][19][20] Internationally, the Troubles is also commonly called the Northern Ireland conflict.[21][22][23][24][25] And has often, disputably, been described as a war.
The Republic of Ireland's security forces played a smaller role. More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict

Post one advanced African nation that has no genetic European influence.

Penny, help me. What year are we thinking white Europeans got better than blacks. Come on man.

Your question illustrates a total lack of understanding of human evolution. Find something less taxing on your brain to chat about.

Ok. I will try to keep up even if you failed to answer. Is this the Flame zone btw?

Ok. So starting in 1950 can we consider whites to be better behaving? Is that the year the gene became prevelant?

Not a tough question.

Here's a start to your lesson in evolution of the races. Once the first African got enough nerve and sense to migrate away from the dark continent, the seeds of civilized behavior began.

If you want to know more, read the book linked to in the OP. It's free. You can educate yourself at no cost, other than the burning smell of your synapses as you pretend to read.

 

[Toronado3800]

However the o.p. is pushing the claptrap that this all stems from "Nature", not politics, not stereotypes, not differing religions, etc.

It's all due to Black people being Black, now that easily disproved and only simpleton's would subscribe to it.

Citing Rushton as a source is admitting that you really don't have a bridge to stand on.

This is the same guy that suggested smaller penises made you a more intelligent man...

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

Ok...

So now we are talking just subsaharans?

What year did whites start behaving better than them?

Behaving better than whites? I've no idea.

Just to be clear, when did whites start behaving better than subsaharans(blacks or true blacks or whatever 'they' are called in this thread)

 

[Toronado3800]

Yeah, seems Europeans have never suffered from your theory..
Bosnian War
Calculating the number of deaths that resulted from the conflict has been subject to considerable and highly politicised debate.[119] There are large discrepancies between estimates of the total number of casualties, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000. These are partly the result of the use of inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions.


The Troubles
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) is the common name for the ethno-nationalist[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, England and mainland Europe. The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is deemed by many to have ended with the Belfast 'Good Friday' Agreement of 1998,[14][15][16][17][18] but sporadic violence has continued since then.[15][19][20] Internationally, the Troubles is also commonly called the Northern Ireland conflict.[21][22][23][24][25] And has often, disputably, been described as a war.
The Republic of Ireland's security forces played a smaller role. More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict

Post one advanced African nation that has no genetic European influence.

Penny, help me. What year are we thinking white Europeans got better than blacks. Come on man.

Your question illustrates a total lack of understanding of human evolution. Find something less taxing on your brain to chat about.

Yeah, seems Europeans have never suffered from your theory..
Bosnian War
Calculating the number of deaths that resulted from the conflict has been subject to considerable and highly politicised debate.[119] There are large discrepancies between estimates of the total number of casualties, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000. These are partly the result of the use of inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions.


The Troubles
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) is the common name for the ethno-nationalist[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, England and mainland Europe. The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is deemed by many to have ended with the Belfast 'Good Friday' Agreement of 1998,[14][15][16][17][18] but sporadic violence has continued since then.[15][19][20] Internationally, the Troubles is also commonly called the Northern Ireland conflict.[21][22][23][24][25] And has often, disputably, been described as a war.
The Republic of Ireland's security forces played a smaller role. More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict

Post one advanced African nation that has no genetic European influence.

Penny, help me. What year are we thinking white Europeans got better than blacks. Come on man.

Your question illustrates a total lack of understanding of human evolution. Find something less taxing on your brain to chat about.

Ok. I will try to keep up even if you failed to answer. Is this the Flame zone btw?

Ok. So starting in 1950 can we consider whites to be better behaving? Is that the year the gene became prevelant?

Not a tough question.

Here's a start to your lesson in evolution of the races. Once the first African got enough nerve and sense to migrate away from the dark continent, the seeds of civilized behavior began.

If you want to know more, read the book linked to in the OP. It's free. You can educate yourself at no cost, other than the burning smell of your synapses as you pretend to read.

Penny, do you have an answer? 1800? 1500? You keep replying with no answer. When did this gene appear or superior behavior get prevalent? It is the basis of this whole thread, right?

 

[Meathead]

Who needs Rushton when things like sociology, economics and history suffice? Whether tt is simply a matter of facts conforming to the theory or the theory conforming to the facts, the results are invariable and equally obvious.

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

Ok...

So now we are talking just subsaharans?

What year did whites start behaving better than them?

Behaving better than whites? I've no idea.

Just to be clear, when did whites start behaving better than subsaharans(blacks or true blacks or whatever 'they' are called in this thread)

When you feel resistance, stop pushing the Q-tip in. If and when your head clears, let me know what you're talking about.

 

[Toronado3800]

If Rushton is not needed then why base the argument on his supposition???...try to follow along.

If things like sociology, economics and history were part of this argument, it would not progress pass one page.

Sorry, not slippery enough. Awkward attempts at obfuscation cannot change the global and uniform underachievement of indigenous sub-Saharans evident through sociology, economics and history. When you have a valid example to show that this is not the case, then please do so. Indignation at a lack of political correctness isn't quite good enough.

Ok...

So now we are talking just subsaharans?

What year did whites start behaving better than them?

Behaving better than whites? I've no idea.

Just to be clear, when did whites start behaving better than subsaharans(blacks or true blacks or whatever 'they' are called in this thread)

When you feel resistance, stop pushing the Q-tip in. If and when your head clears, let me know what you're talking about.

Meathead, are we in the Flame zone? Perhaps a mod will come by if we are just in it for the name calling.
Did you have an answer for Penny? What year ir century did whites get more civilized than whoever?