Facts about Blacks

edited December 2010 in Spurious Generalities
The mystery of the cold-blooded murder of Hollywood big-shot has been found. Just look at the race of the murderer, it is really no surprise.

Blacks (12% of the US population) commit over 50% of all homicides in the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336961/Ronni-Chasen-murder-SOLVED-Robber-Harold-Smith-shot-Hollywood-publicist.html
8OTcC.jpg

Blacks = 12 percent of the US Population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States

1) Over 50 percent of homicides are committed by blacks
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

2) Over 40 percent of rapes/sexual assaults are committed by blacks (2005) (Table 42)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf

3) Over 40 percent of the prison population is black
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf
Asbcz.jpg

4) Almost 1 in 3 (33 percent) black males in the 20-29 age group is under some form of criminal justice supervision (in jail, parole, or on trial)
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=157929

5) Almost 70 percent of Black Children are born out of wedlock
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4865449

6) Almost 10% of All Black Adults (Men and Women above the age of 18) are in prison, probation, or parole at any given time. Almost 20% of All Black Men above the age of 18 are in prison, probation, or parole at any given time.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN0240756920090302
tZjN1.jpg

Comments

  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited December 2010
    No shit, white people and ethnic jews (still white) are just better at commiting crimes and don't do typical niggeirsh chimpout bullshit and can hold their emotions better. Niggers are shit at everything, they fail at life. I can respect mafias who have also done some good deeds for their communities and countries and are usually polite and respectable as well as supporting their own families, as opposed to nigger and mestizo gang bangers.

    Niggers are scum. Only 2nd to Australoids, Negroids are the most worthless race EVER!
  • edited December 2010
    I couldve called all of these :p It sucks that so many black people get to have this bad ass rep but white people are all just seen as business men with goals and a 401k :facepalm: We do illegal stuff too :cool:

    Because white criminals have the intelligence not to get caught :facepalm:
  • edited December 2010
    Black people are fucking idiots. There's one in my college, and he's actually known as "that black guy" because everyone knows who he is.

    He stinks of shit, he's loud and annoying, and even his dumb fucking face and massive monkey lips just flood me with rage as soon as I see him.

    Yet, I don't actually know why I hate him so much that I'd quite happily ram him with my car. I don't even know the guy.

    He's a cunt though.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited December 2010
    It's because racism is a natural instinct. Fuck what politically correct leftists and the electric toilet tells you.
  • MayberryMayberry Regular
    edited December 2010
    Today I saw a nig on a bike wearing gloves that were gloves for the thumb, index and middle fingers and mittens for the ring and index fingers :facepalm:
  • edited December 2010
    What makes it a natural instinct? And how come I have a couple of black friends who I'm cool with, yet I'm always calling them a stupid negro in my head?

    It doesn't make sense.
  • proudclod9proudclod9 Regular
    edited December 2010
    Mayberry wrote: »
    Today I saw a nig on a bike wearing gloves that were gloves for the thumb, index and middle fingers and mittens for the ring and index fingers :facepalm:

    pix? that sounds interestin
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited December 2010
    trx100 wrote: »
    What makes it a natural instinct? And how come I have a couple of black friends who I'm cool with, yet I'm always calling them a stupid negro in my head?

    It doesn't make sense.

    Because thay are. It's not socially acceptable to be openly racist and express this racism.

    It's actually a very valid taxanomic construct and very natural behaviour.

    Have you ever heard of The Price Equation?
    Evolution of altruism?


    The program admits that there is mathematical proof that "Human beings are genetically programmed to take care of others even when they 'aren't directly related'."

    "aren't directly related" is a very cryptic way of saying "racial group".
    The basic concept of the Price Equation is this: A single person can only have one set of genes; however, the group that he belongs to may have thousands of individuals who share copies of each and every gene that he has. Therefore, the well being of the group is important to him. This is why altruism has evolved.

    If there are two groups of people, then the individual should favour the group that shares the most common genes. Therefore "Acts of violence against 'unrelated outsiders' can also make evolutionary sense, even if you lose your own life in the attack."

    The evolutionary logic of altruism is mathematically twinned with the evolutionary logic of racism. Together they create a feedback loop that only makes evolutionary sense when they are both present.

    http://www.physorg.com/news191502142.html- more proof race is a valid taxanomic construct, I'll post more if you're interested.
  • boggleboggle Acolyte
    edited December 2010
    Since I live in Sweden almost all blacks I know are adopted, but they were raised by academics who made even one guy who was so black it looked blue be able to fit into society.
  • edited December 2010
    Negrophobe wrote: »
    Because thay are. It's not socially acceptable to be openly racist and express this racism.

    It's actually a very valid taxanomic construct and very natural behaviour.

    Have you ever heard of The Price Equation?
    Evolution of altruism?


    The program admits that there is mathematical proof that "Human beings are genetically programmed to take care of others even when they 'aren't directly related'."

    "aren't directly related" is a very cryptic way of saying "racial group".



    http://www.physorg.com/news191502142.html- more proof race is a valid taxanomic construct, I'll post more if you're interested.

    Cool story, bro.
    boggle wrote: »
    Since I live in Sweden almost all blacks I know are adopted, but they were raised by academics who made even one guy who was so black it looked blue be able to fit into society.

    Also, this. 9 times out of 10, People are products of their environment.
  • MayberryMayberry Regular
    edited December 2010
    proudclod9 wrote: »
    pix? that sounds interestin

    I have no idea what they're called :o
  • HelladamnleetHelladamnleet Banned
    edited December 2010
    This is why we shoulds end that 12.9% of the us population back to Africa. Look at how much better off we would be!

    50% less murder.
    40% less rape/sexual abuse.
    40% less cost to run a prison.
    4% more jobs for WHITE people.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited December 2010
    Cool story, bro.



    Also, this. 9 times out of 10, People are products of their environment.

    Spare the politically correct bullshit. If niggers are equal do you care to explain why Haiti is a shithole even though it was once known as the Jewell of the Caribbean for it's vast resources yet majority run Iceland is fine and always has been despite very little resources?

    Seriously read race and reason. Anyway it was touched on earlier in the thread but the idea that the nigger is somehow tougher than the white is laughable. it's a myth the media loves to promote yet whites dominate every combat sport. Not to mention the fact that historically a small number of whites was always superior to even vast mud army's. The Anglo-zulu war is a great example.

    Ok let's assume niggers are just victims of their environment. why is their environment always shit? They have never ran one fucking successful nation. I kind of went off topic here but the truth is niggers are truly an inferior form of human. I use the term human lightly btw when talking about the nigger savage. Most of them seem to be more ape than man.

    EDIT: Just caught this tidbi from the article
    He was at a desperate point in his life and he was reaching out and taking desperate measures.’
    Already they make excuses for the savage. Not long before we hear how he was "tryin to turn his life around":facepalm:

    Another Edit: Speaking of niggers I just had another thought. I'm listening to Johnny Cash right now when he performed at San Quentin. I started thinking damn a concert at San Quentin then realized why this was possible. If you look at the audience they're all white. No niggers, no spics. Even maximum security prisons while harsh were more civilized without the nigger.
  • edited December 2010
    Also, this. 9 times out of 10, People are products of their environment.
    This is true. People are products of their environment, and anyone who thinks a white child in the custody of a working mother never at home to read or help her child do well in school is going to end up doing better in life than the black born to upper class parents who foster learning at every turn in their child's development are deluding themselves most of the time. What you fail to understand is that blacks naturally skew towards violence and primitive behavior. Just look at backwards nigger culture in the United States, Haiti, and Africa. Furthermore, you neglect to address the genetic differences. Tell me, if genetics can cause blacks to have black skin, something which not even you can deny, why couldn't they cause blacks to have lower intelligence and more violent tendencies? Both of these are linked to a surplus of testosterone, proven to be higher in blacks than whites.
  • edited December 2010
    This is true. People are products of their environment, and anyone who thinks a white child in the custody of a working mother never at home to read or help her child do well in school is going to end up doing better in life than the black born to upper class parents who foster learning at every turn in their child's development are deluding themselves most of the time. What you fail to understand is that blacks naturally skew towards violence and primitive behavior. Just look at backwards nigger culture in the United States, Haiti, and Africa. Furthermore, you neglect to address the genetic differences. Tell me, if genetics can cause blacks to have black skin, something which not even you can deny, why couldn't they cause blacks to have lower intelligence and more violent tendencies? Both of these are linked to a surplus of testosterone, proven to be higher in blacks than whites.

    Genetic differences are negligible, the situation of blacks in Haiti and the U.S. is not the doing of blacks alone, etc.

    There's always another factor, fatty,
  • boggleboggle Acolyte
    edited December 2010
    Spare the politically correct bullshit. If niggers are equal do you care to explain why Haiti is a shithole even though it was once known as the Jewell of the Caribbean for it's vast resources yet majority run Iceland is fine and always has been despite very little resources?

    Seriously read race and reason. Anyway it was touched on earlier in the thread but the idea that the nigger is somehow tougher than the white is laughable. it's a myth the media loves to promote yet whites dominate every combat sport. Not to mention the fact that historically a small number of whites was always superior to even vast mud army's. The Anglo-zulu war is a great example.

    Ok let's assume niggers are just victims of their environment. why is their environment always shit? They have never ran one fucking successful nation. I kind of went off topic here but the truth is niggers are truly an inferior form of human. I use the term human lightly btw when talking about the nigger savage. Most of them seem to be more ape than man.

    EDIT: Just caught this tidbi from the article

    Already they make excuses for the savage. Not long before we hear how he was "tryin to turn his life around":facepalm:

    Another Edit: Speaking of niggers I just had another thought. I'm listening to Johnny Cash right now when he performed at San Quentin. I started thinking damn a concert at San Quentin then realized why this was possible. If you look at the audience they're all white. No niggers, no spics. Even maximum security prisons while harsh were more civilized without the nigger.

    Was not trying to be politicly correct, just saying even the blackest guy you ever met might have the potential to be a decent human being if raised by whites :rolleyes:
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited December 2010
    This is true. People are products of their environment, and anyone who thinks a white child in the custody of a working mother never at home to read or help her child do well in school is going to end up doing better in life than the black born to upper class parents who foster learning at every turn in their child's development are deluding themselves most of the time. What you fail to understand is that blacks naturally skew towards violence and primitive behavior. Just look at backwards nigger culture in the United States, Haiti, and Africa. Furthermore, you neglect to address the genetic differences. Tell me, if genetics can cause blacks to have black skin, something which not even you can deny, why couldn't they cause blacks to have lower intelligence and more violent tendencies? Both of these are linked to a surplus of testosterone, proven to be higher in blacks than whites.

    This is true, other than the higher testosterone statement, in African-americans anyway, who have a considerable amount of white ancestry, I haven't looked at negroids such as western Africans. They do infact have higher levels of estrogen however.
    Serum estrogen, but not testosterone, levels differ between black and white men in a nationally representative sample of Americans.

    Rohrmann S, Nelson WG, Rifai N, Brown TR, Dobs A, Kanarek N, Yager JD, Platz EA.

    Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.

    Comment in:

    * J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jul;92(7):2433-5.

    Abstract

    CONTEXT: Higher testosterone in black compared with white men has been postulated to explain their higher prostate cancer incidence. Previous studies comparing hormone levels by race might have been limited by size, restricted age variation, or lack of representation of the general population.

    OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare serum testosterone, estradiol, and SHBG concentrations among non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and Mexican-American men. PARTICIPANTS, DESIGN, AND

    SETTING: A total of 1413 men aged 20+ yr and who attended the morning examination session of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) in 1988-1991 were included in this cross-sectional study.

    MEASUREMENT: Serum hormone concentrations were measured by electrochemiluminescence immunoassays.

    RESULTS: After applying sampling weights and adjusting for age, percent body fat, alcohol, smoking, and activity, testosterone concentrations were not different between non-Hispanic blacks (n = 363; geometric mean, 5.29 ng/ml) and non-Hispanic whites (n = 674; 5.11 ng/ml; P > 0.05) but were higher in Mexican-Americans (n = 376; 5.48 ng/ml; P < 0.05). Non-Hispanic blacks (40.80 pg/ml) had a higher estradiol concentration than non-Hispanic whites (35.46 pg/ml; P < 0.01) and Mexican-Americans (34.11 pg/ml; P < 0.01). Non-Hispanic blacks (36.49 nmol/liter) had a higher SHBG concentration than non-Hispanic whites (34.91 nmol/liter; P < 0.05) and Mexican-Americans (35.04 nmol/liter; P < 0.05).

    CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the postulated racial difference, testosterone concentrations did not differ notably between black and white men. However, blacks had higher estradiol levels. Mexican-Americans had higher testosterone than whites but similar estradiol and SHBG concentrations. Given these findings, it may be equally if not more important to investigate estradiol as testosterone in relation to diseases with racial disparity.

    I've actually been thinking about IQ.

    Einstein had a high IQ, but a low tendency for organization. He couldn't keep his own papers strait without the aid of his wife. The key to Edison's success was not his IQ but his ability to understand what the market needed, and focus all his energy on it. The ability to process information is not as important as the ability to have an organized goal and tenaciously persue it, which is the main difference between Edison and Einstein.

    Verbal and Spatial intelligence, which is what the IQ test measures, matter, but they aren't everything. IQ only measures the ability to take in information.

    EQ tests (emotional-intelligence quotient) are said to be a better predictor of success than the IQ test(intelligence quotient). But, despite its drawbacks as a measure of cognitive ability, the IQ test is still a fairly good predictor of future academic achievement.

    As for what causes them to commit crimes, it could be partly genetic, but who gives a fuck why they do it, it's the fact that they do do it the most, despite being "minorities". The fact that they make shitty criminals is testament enough. I do base it on what I see, what history tells me and what common sense tells me. The trend is a worldwide phenomenon which can be witnessed.

    It's funny how shit non-whites do with affirmitive action and whites in the same or worse economic situations still perform better, without affirmitive action.

    If anything blacks have been taught that they are the same in terms of intelligence with whites yet they have had no mathematical gains for 50 YEARS!

    http://vdare.com/rushton/100723_nisbett.htm

    Affirmitive action plays a huge role for those who do succeed in education.

    http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/emeag.html

    Check out #6 in particular

    "According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Africa suffers more than any other region from the brain drain in science and technology. The higher the level of education, the more likely the scientist is to leave the continent."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7322365.stm

    Affirmitive action info for you
    http://www.bamn.com/doc/factsheet.asp

    Whites with the same socio-economic status as niggers still score much higher than those shit-skins on IQ tests and on the SAT. Even Whites in the lowest SES do better than niggers in the highest SES.

    • Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

    • Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

    • Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

    http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html


    It also doesn't account for the fact that barely educated or completely uneducated Chinese peasants still do much better academically than niggers, and some times do better than whites.


    Niggers are an inferior race.
  • edited December 2010
    Genetic differences are negligible, the situation of blacks in Haiti and the U.S. is not the doing of blacks alone, etc.

    There's always another factor, fatty,

    And how are you so sure of this? Why is it that you will instantly accept that genetic differences will cause a completely different bone and body structure, as well as skin and hair and other appearance differences, but cannot possibly be the cause of an average IQ one standard deviation below whites?

    The magic of liberalism: making genetics end where cerebral functions begin.
  • edited December 2010
    And how are you so sure of this? Why is it that you will instantly accept that genetic differences will cause a completely different bone and body structure, as well as skin and hair and other appearance differences, but cannot possibly be the cause of an average IQ one standard deviation below whites?

    The magic of liberalism: making genetics end where cerebral functions begin.

    Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

    Not every black person I know is the same, leading me to believe that in most cases it's something other than their genes that determines how they'll behave and what sort of person they'll become.
  • edited December 2010
    Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

    Not every black person I know is the same, leading me to believe that in most cases it's something other than their genes that determines how they'll behave and what sort of person they'll become.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:GEE EACH PERSON IS DIFFERENT FROM THE NEXT? WHAT A BREAKTHROUGH:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about groups. In this case, members of one group are ON AVERAGE 1 SD less intelligent than THE AVERAGE members of another group. Obviously there are some pants on head retarded white people and some brilliant Black ones. Neither I, nor Sanchez, nor even the aptly named Negrophobe will deny this. All we are saying is that their is enough of a difference to warrant separation.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited December 2010
    What FATTY has said is correct.

    I'm wondering if JAA is one of those guys who believes all humans share 99% of their DNA with each other, which was shown to be incorrect in 2006. On the contrary most anthropologists support the idea of race and are calling for an end to race denial and racial differences.

    http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-new-human-gene-map-shows-surprising-differences
    LONDON (Nov. 22) - One person's DNA code can be as
    much as 10 percent different from another's, researchers said on Wednesday in a
    finding that questions the idea that everyone on Earth is 99.9 percent
    identical genetically.
    Let's celebrate human genetic diversity

    By Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein

    Nature

    8 October 2009

    Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

    A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity's chief assets.

    The current moral position is a sort of 'biological egalitarianism'. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

    We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind's common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

    Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.

    [...]

    Box 2. Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

    Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

    Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

    This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

    Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

    For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

    Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/full/461726a.html
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html

    See also, this.

    Just because individual variation can exceed that of the mean of a race, or breed, or subspecies, or species doesn't negate the group difference.

    By the leftist reasoning, since some individuals gorillas are smarter than some individual humans, differences between humans and gorillas don't matter.

    There are individual differences AND there are group differences. Evolution itself is not just individual survival but the survival of distinct gene pools.

    Even though we share a big portion of our DNA with chimps, doesn't make us chimps either. But I don't see anyone debating that fact. In fact humans share 90% of their genes with mice, which is why we can use them to test drug therapies. Similarly, although men and women are almost genetically identical, it is foolish to believe that sex is just a “social construction” and there aren't differences in behaviour, attitudes, size and intelligence.
  • edited December 2010
    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:GEE EACH PERSON IS DIFFERENT FROM THE NEXT? WHAT A BREAKTHROUGH:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about groups. In this case, members of one group are ON AVERAGE 1 SD less intelligent than THE AVERAGE members of another group. Obviously there are some pants on head retarded white people and some brilliant Black ones. Neither I, nor Sanchez, nor even the aptly named Negrophobe will deny this. All we are saying is that their is enough of a difference to warrant separation.

    They're also poorer on average and have less education. On average they also have poorer situations in terms of family. There are a lot of things that you could say are responsible for the behavior of some blacks, but I don't think just being black is it.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited December 2010
    They're also poorer on average and have less education. On average they also have poorer situations in terms of family. There are a lot of things that you could say are responsible for the behavior of some blacks, but I don't think just being black is it.

    u gettin trolled:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o
  • edited December 2010
    They're also poorer on average and have less education. On average they also have poorer situations in terms of family. There are a lot of things that you could say are responsible for the behavior of some blacks, but I don't think just being black is it.

    Uh huh, and whose fault is the shitty situation of the blacks
    HERE IT COMES
    IT'S WHITEY'S FAULT
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited December 2010
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00137-X
    Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits

    J. Philippe RushtonCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Elizabeth W. Rushton

    Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2
    Received 26 December 2001;
    revised 23 April 2002;
    accepted 29 April 2002. ;
    Available online 12 June 2002.

    Abstract

    A review of the world literature on brain size and IQ by Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] found that African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3, and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm3. These brain size differences, containing millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses, were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106. The validity of the race differences in brain size, however, continues to be disputed. In the present study, the race differences in brain size are correlated with 37 musculoskeletal variables shown in standard evolutionary textbooks to change systematically with increments in brain size. The 37 variables include cranial traits (such as jaw size and shape, tooth size and shape, muscle attachment sites, and orbital bone indentations), and postcranial traits (such as pelvic width, thighbone curvature, and knee joint surface area). Across the three populations, the “ecological correlations” [Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger] between brain size and the 37 morphological traits averaged a remarkable r = .94; ρ = .94. If the races did not differ in brain size, these correlations could not have been found. It must be concluded that the race differences in average brain size are securely established. As such, brain size-related variables provide the most likely biological mediators of the race differences in intelligence.

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf

    Their smaller brain size along with their higher estradiol levels can explain their chimpout like behaviour, irrationality and the fact most of them are "on the down-low" (gay/bi-sexual) and their lower intelligence.


    I have already posted statistics to refute that socio-economic argument of yours.
  • edited December 2010
    Uh huh, and whose fault is the shitty situation of the blacks
    HERE IT COMES

    IT'S WHITEY'S FAULT

    I wouldn't put it quite that way.
  • edited December 2010
    I wouldn't put it quite that way.

    If it's not the niggers' fault, then whose is it?
  • edited December 2010
    If it's not the niggers' fault, then whose is it?

    Fuck, I don't know. What's with all the questions?
  • edited December 2010
    Fuck, I don't know. What's with all the questions?

    So we've passed excuses and hypocrisy, now comes the second to last defense in the liberal arsenal, deflection. This, of course, is followed by ad hominem in 100% of cases.
  • edited December 2010
    So we've passed excuses and hypocrisy, now comes the second to last defense in the liberal arsenal, deflection. This, of course, is followed by ad hominem in 100% of cases.

    lol
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited December 2010
    They're also poorer on average and have less education. On average they also have poorer situations in terms of family. There are a lot of things that you could say are responsible for the behavior of some blacks, but I don't think just being black is it.

    This is their own fault. Take African country's for example. Instead of saying hey let's come together and make this country great you have warlords fighting and killing over small bits of land.

    One big problem with the liberal mindset is the idea that personal responsibility means nothing. Generally this comes from being born pretty well off so at some point you decide that since you had it good theirs no way the nigger can succeed on his own and their failure must be the fault of others.
Sign In or Register to comment.