Post: #126

Delete

Post: #127

American's only see race from a color standpoint and attach a culture to that color. Its bizarre and backwards IMO. Your Ethnicity sets whom you are, genetics, and regional cultures factor in. The "color" is far down the list because you could be in a region and drive 40km and be in a totally different tribal/ethnic region even though both groups would have the same shade of skin, Drive 40km the other way and you have a different group with a different shade.

I keep saying Americans are easily the worst folks to talk on race. its national doctrine in that land to teach crap views on race on purpose since it has been and will always be Americans push play to keep control of its population. The amount of detail and attention America pays towards race is amazing. the CDC for instance will tell you how many more shits a latino guy in Boston takes then a white guy, so many resources devoted for such trivial and useless stuff. All just ammo used to keep tension high and most importantly rivalry and competition which powers American productivity.

I can't even classify every person in my country of origin as the same type of person as me. My tribe is my blood and my tribe is me. Some dude from Senegal has nothing in common for me for the fact that we can't sunburn and maybe he likes white girls too. A dude from Kenya looks nothing like me, nor does a dude from South Africa, we are far from the same people. Nobody would say a Italian is the same as a Swede, fuck being in Europe, its two distinct sets of people. Calling them "white" just makes paper-work and record keeping easier to do. If you ask a Somalian for instance if he's "black" he might look at you funny.. He is his tribe and a Arab.

The ignorance of calling Africa "black" is too common. Nobody does that junk with Europe or Asia. Carving up the world into 4 colors is primitive and childish but thats what America does, all the time.

Post: #128

Slim, the above image is known to any old forum hand as the canvas on which artists such as Tuthmosis and Cincinnatus (in his MSW2007 incarnation) have painted their most gloried IRT memes. Thus this image deserves to be designated IRT if anything does.

I realize that all the IRT stuff must sometimes get old to a proud Indian buck like yourself but you should laugh it off and take it in stride. In a way you can be proud that your race has inspired such an outpouring of humor and creativity on the RVF.

In any case, speakeasy was definitely not "race trolling".

Post: #129

(04-13-2014 10:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 12:23 PM)Moma Wrote:  Samseau - people mix cos they are horny and that's what available.
Whoever has the nicest smelling vagina, big tits, round arse etc. and youthful looking skin will attract the man..

I don't think there is any race that signals health any more than the other race...if one is a young attractive lizard..fcuk if you are white, blue or purple..men are trying to fcuk and this has been proven throughout the ages!

We all have preferences but when it comes down to the meat and bones, REAL MEN will fcuk any reptile that has nice hip to waist ratio, big jugs and a tight, yet warm, juicy vagina.

Who cares about men's preferences? Everyone knows men will fuck any hot babe. You need to take into account the women, who are by far the picker of sexes. It's their subconscious mind that might be directing them to a man who they will produce more attractive offspring with.

Men dictate society. Lizards do not decide who is attractive or not. They are more prone to emotions than men and these triggers can be tweaked in order to penetrate these reptiles.

From a lizard's perspective, sexual interest is based on physical attributes not race. The man with the most masculine physical traits, exuding the most confidence will pique the lizard's sexual interest, not the man of the 'preferred' race. Race has only has bearings with social constructs where some feel that being involved with a certain race will improve their social and economic standings. Once the lizard has procured and secured her hold on these socio-economic stakes, she can be triggered by her initial primal needs and get wet by the most masculine male.

Post: #130

Agree Kosko. America is weird as hell with race. A lot of it is ignorance though, not necessarily racism. I found that out after working with guys from all over the country when I felt like chin checking some. I wouldn't be surprised if at least a quarter of Americans seriously think everyone is either white, Spanish, black, Chinese, Arab or Indian.

Post: #131

Forget all this. I can't wait til I have the tech to discriminate people more effectively. Skin color just isn't a very good proxy.

Maybe some Google glasses that will display everyone's IQ as a number hovering over their head. I won't associate or reproduce with anyone below 1.5 standard deviations above the mean.

Post: #132

(04-13-2014 10:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  First off, no one knows if people came from Africa or not. I've already shown before that we know far less than we think we do.

Second, far more important than mutation is the role of sexual selection.

For example, Alexander the Great is the reason why Persians have a lot of white features. Him and his army probably raped half of Asia, just like Genghis Khan did.

Both your claims about Out of Africa and the Greeks in Persia are impossible to square with DNA testing. The Greek's contribution to Persian ancestry is quite minor, there just weren't many of Alexander's troops in Persia relatively to Persia's population. If you trace back our paternal and matrilineal lines with DNA testing you'll find that all Y and MtDNA groups trace back to a single male and female respectively in sub-Saharan Africa (they lived at different times for clarification, they did not mate together like a literal Adam or Eve). There was only a single migration of homo-sapiens out of Africa, and you can see this in DNA testing because the vast majority of human genetic diversity exists within sub-Saharan Africa, because everyone else sprung from a smaller subset of that genepool. The footprints in the link you described don't come from Homo-Sapiens, but from Homo-Antecessor, who migrated out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years before humans did. I realized when you said in the Jews thread that we can't trace paternal lines with DNA testing that you know nothing about genetics, yet you claim to know more about our ancient ancestry than the overwhelming consensus of scientists

Just because you happen to believe in something, doesn't make it true.

Post: #133

(04-13-2014 10:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Just because I am a multi-racial man does not mean I live in a multi-racial zone. I live in the North East, dominated by whites. If it wasn't for the generosity and affluence of white people, my mother would have never been adopted from her poor life in Seoul. (I'm not Chinese!)

Thus it's directly in my self-interest for me to be wary of anything that abolishes white culture, otherwise I'd be biting that hand that feeds me.

You must walk around with quite a bit of cognitive dissonance if not self-hatred. If there were more people just like you in your society, you'd be ready to leave it. How can you possibly feel good about yourself(in the racial sense) if you fear for society becoming more like what you are?

Quote:First off, no one knows if people came from Africa or not. I've already shown before that we know far less than we think we do.

Samseau, nothing in that article challenged the out of Africa theory for homo sapiens. This is why I ignored it the first time you posted this. Modern humans i.e. homo sapiens originated in Africa. That isn't even disputed. Whatever that primitive hominid was that they found did not evolve into modern man and died out. They aren't our ancestors. That species of hominid is unrelated to us and went extinct. WE, the only successful of the hominid species originated in central Africa. There were other competing hominids besides us, but they all either went extinct or were killed off by us.

Quote:I have read a lot of history and consistently a big theme is non-white men invading white lands just for the women.

You'll have to provide some examples, because other than the Moors, I'm not aware of too many non-whites who invaded Europe in large numbers. And if this happened as much as you claim then the white race should show a large degree of admixture like Native Americans and blacks in the Americas. Do you have any DNA evidence supporting sizable non-white DNA in the European gene pool? It seems to me you have it twisted. It was white men seeding other men's women, black slaves and Native Americans.

(04-13-2014 11:44 PM)Deluge Wrote:  I realized when you said in the Jews thread that we can't trace paternal lines with DNA testing that you know nothing about genetics, yet you claim to know more about our ancient ancestry than the overwhelming consensus of scientists

Post: #134

If/when I have children is will be with a tall blue eyed blonde as I desire to advance my ethnic group.

Do I find some of the mixes posted in this thread hot as fuck? Yes.
Would I bang them in a heartbeat? Yes.

I do not have any desire to spawn offspring with them however.

Guess I'm an outlier around here.

Post: #135

(04-14-2014 12:15 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  If/when I have children is will be with a tall blue eyed blonde as I desire to advance my ethnic group.

Do I find some of the mixes posted in this thread hot as fuck? Yes.
Would I bang them in a heartbeat? Yes.

I do not have any desire to spawn offspring with them however.

Guess I'm an outlier around here.

That's your prerogative. Nothing wrong with that.

Muhammed Ali shared your view:

Post: #136

(04-13-2014 10:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Just because I am a multi-racial man does not mean I live in a multi-racial zone. I live in the North East, dominated by whites. If it wasn't for the generosity and affluence of white people, my mother would have never been adopted from her poor life in Seoul. (I'm not Chinese!)

Thus it's directly in my self-interest for me to be wary of anything that abolishes white culture, otherwise I'd be biting that hand that feeds me.

I've been surrounded by many ppl growing up that were generous to me & my family. Especially those from "white culture." Would agree on this.

(04-13-2014 10:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Remember: "The sum is greater than it's parts." A white society with a bit of color splashed in? No problem. A totally multi-racial society with no dominant race? Will it be like Brazil? Super violent? No mobility? Dirty? Lots of dancing?

In areas of Brazil with predominantly white populations such as Porto Alegre and Curitiba...crime is growing increasingly. Those issues in Brazil are primarily attributed to the history, government apathy, and other various factors of the country outside of just merely race.

Many of these issues have also been felt in major Argentine cities that are predominantly white.

Post: #137

(04-14-2014 12:15 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  If/when I have children is will be with a tall blue eyed blonde as I desire to advance my ethnic group.

Do I find some of the mixes posted in this thread hot as fuck? Yes.
Would I bang them in a heartbeat? Yes.

I do not have any desire to spawn offspring with them however.

Guess I'm an outlier around here.

Less competition for me

Post: #138

(04-13-2014 11:44 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 10:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  First off, no one knows if people came from Africa or not. I've already shown before that we know far less than we think we do.

Second, far more important than mutation is the role of sexual selection.

For example, Alexander the Great is the reason why Persians have a lot of white features. Him and his army probably raped half of Asia, just like Genghis Khan did.

Both your claims about Out of Africa and the Greeks in Persia are impossible to square with DNA testing. The Greek's contribution to Persian ancestry is quite minor, there just weren't many of Alexander's troops in Persia relatively to Persia's population. If you trace back our paternal and matrilineal lines with DNA testing you'll find that all Y and MtDNA groups trace back to a single male and female respectively in sub-Saharan Africa (they lived at different times for clarification, they did not mate together like a literal Adam or Eve).

You've gotten way ahead of yourself, because tracing paternity is hugely limited. Please correct me if I'm wrong, since you seem to be an expert, but you underestimate the limitations of genealogical DNA testing.

Men have XY, Women have XX. Y chromosomes only get passed on with cerntainity if the father has sons. If no sons, then no passing of Y and no way to reliably trace Y.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplotypes..._DNA_tests

Quote:A human male should largely share the same Y chromosome as his father, give or take a few mutations; thus Y chromosomes tend to pass largely intact from father to son, with a small but accumulating number of mutations that can serve to differentiate male lineages. In particular, the Y-DNA represented as the numbered results of a Y-DNA genealogical DNA test should match, except for mutations.

So although slightly useful it only gives a very small picture. If you actually read any of the articles about tracing paternity they only give estimates and likelihoods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_...osomal_DNA

Quote:A study of haplotypes of the Y-chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al.[109] found that the Y-chromosome of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East.

I laugh every time I hear "scientific consensus."

I will always take the written historical word over whatever half-assed experiment comes out of a mathematical model, based on inaccurate assumptions.

People used to think the Iliad was bullshit... then they found the ruins of Troy.

So now that you understand the limits of tracing paternity, it's easy to see the limits of maternity testing. Sure, we can trace the last common ancestor of homo sapiens, but lost in this story are the men who fucked these women and made us who we are today.

These men could have very easily been different types of humans with features we are completely unaware of. For all we know there were different types of white apes in Africa that evolved alongside Homo Sapiens that cross-bred with the Sapiens. Then it was this cross-breed that mated with the Neanderthals and produced the Europeans.

Likewise how do we know that the African Homo Sapiens who moved to other lands did not also cross-breed? How many times and who were the fathers? These questions remain unanswerable for now.

This is what I'm trying to show you guys, there's a lot more to the story than most consider.

And as far as Alexander the Great goes, that dude was like Khan - raping his way through one major city after the next. He also was also a major contributor to the slave economy of that time. These armies would systematically depopulate and rape, radically transforming demographics. Genghis Khan did the same thing to the Russians and Chinese.

Post: #139

One in 200 people is a direct descendant of Genghis Kahn. He had a huge effect on the demographics of Russia and China. That means ~60 members of this forum have his genes, not even counting all of his soldiers (with very similar genes) who also raped lots of women. I would not be surprised if Alexander the Great and his crew had a similar effect on worldwide.

Post: #140

There are other forums and blogs I poke around on that discuss race, history, genetics and such. One thing I commonly find is that white nationalists and racists are terrified of the out of Africa theory. It's like they so don't want to be connected to Africa in any way that they will clutch at anything to not believe that they have any ancestral ties with Africa, even if it was hundreds of thousands of years ago. Some of these clowns even latch on to pseudo-scientific claims that all the races have separate origins. These people are as bad as the flat earth society. Some go as far as to think that they are superior because they have Neanderthal DNA and blacks don't. They clutch at this even though Neanderthals looked like that damn Geico caveman. But hey, blacks don't have their DNA so it must be a good thing! These are the same people are are against race-mixing(as well as tout it as unnatural) who don't see the apparent hypocrisy in bragging about European homo sapiens mixing with Neanderthals when they aren't even the same species.

Post: #141

(04-14-2014 12:11 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Modern humans i.e. homo sapiens originated in Africa. That isn't even disputed.

See my post with Pdog I mean Deluge. There is no certainty over where the fathers were coming from.

Quote:

Quote:I have read a lot of history and consistently a big theme is non-white men invading white lands just for the women.

You'll have to provide some examples, because other than the Moors, I'm not aware of too many non-whites who invaded Europe in large numbers.

Europe? You know that all of the Mediterianian countries, including North Africa and Turkey, used to be much whiter than they are now? The Muslims changed that part of the world forever.

Quote:And if this happened as much as you claim then the white race should show a large degree of admixture like Native Americans and blacks in the Americas. Do you have any DNA evidence supporting sizable non-white DNA in the European gene pool? It seems to me you have it twisted. It was white men seeding other men's women, black slaves and Native Americans.

The white race does have admixture, unless you go into Northern Europe. The Russians were conquered by the Mongols, Islam took down most of the old Roman territory (which was hugely white),

White females were always hugely valued and would fetch a high price on the slave market. (Of course beauty would rank higher than mere race.) Emperors themselves have clamored to have them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxelana

Post: #142

(04-14-2014 02:27 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  There are other forums and blogs I poke around on that discuss race, history, genetics and such. One thing I commonly find is that white nationalists and racists are terrified of the out of Africa theory. It's like they so don't want to be connected to Africa in any way that they will clutch at anything to not believe that they have any ancestral ties with Africa, even if it was hundreds of thousands of years ago. Some of these clowns even latch on to pseudo-scientific claims that all the races have separate origins. These people are as bad as the flat earth society. Some go as far as to think that they are superior because they have Neanderthal DNA and blacks don't. They clutch at this even though Neanderthals looked like that damn Geico caveman. But hey, blacks don't have their DNA so it must be a good thing! These are the same people are are against race-mixing(as well as tout it as unnatural) who don't see the apparent hypocrisy in bragging about European homo sapiens mixing with Neanderthals when they aren't even the same species.

None of the ideas surrounding human origins and evolution is scientific fact, hence the term theory.

It can not be unequivocally proven where humans originated and all theories surrounding this can still be contested as more evidence arises.

This means that the most supported theory of human origins can still change.

Also, you are letting your emotions obscure your worldview.

Post: #143

(04-14-2014 02:32 AM)Samseau Wrote:  See my post with Pdog I mean Deluge.

Getting passive aggressive over being called out on false information is just weak.

First you said

(04-10-2014 06:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  DNA studies can only trace the women and not the men.

Now you say that we can trace both paternal and maternal lines but they're are limitations to them... You literally didn't even know you could trace paternal lines until I told you we could, and you expect the unsubstantiated things you're literally making up in this thread and others to have any credibility?


We can trace Y and MtDNA conclusively back to Africa. For example, all Y-DNA Haplogroup's in the world have been proven to descend from Haplogroup's A and B, the most ancient haplogroups, whose carriers today are only found in sub-Saharan Africa. Not only can we trace our ancestry back to Africa paternally and maternally, we can also do it without sex-chromosomes at all. Autosomal DNA tests also prove Out of Africa because they prove that the vast majority of human genetic diversity exists within Africa rather than outside it, because all non-Blacks descend from a subset of the larger African population at the time who migrated out of Africa. Go back hundreds of thousands of years and all of your ancestors, even the lines that descend from Neanderthals and other Hominid's, lived in Africa.

If the Persians really had as substantial a Greek component to their ancestry as you say they do, they would cluster much closer to the Greeks in DNA tests then they actually do. Alexander the Great was no Genghis Khan. It seems like you're romanticizing Alexander just because you grew up Greek Orthodox.

(04-14-2014 02:55 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  None of the ideas surrounding human origins and evolution is scientific fact, hence the term theory.

It can not be unequivocally proven where humans originated and all theories surrounding this can still be contested as more evidence arises.

This means that the most supported theory of human origins can still change.

Also, you are letting your emotions obscure your worldview.

I'm going to quote the more civil part of a PM a forum member sent me about this and the bullshit Samseau's spouting...

Quote:I am amused at all/nothing response:
/thread-35023-...#pid702140

I am a scientist. that post alone shows that all/nothing has zero understanding of scientific theory. scientific theory are based on scientific facts. he clearly doesnt understand the scientific method/process.

when scientist says something is a scientific theory... they do not mean the word "theory" in the same way general people mean "theory". What general people mean by "theory" is what scientists call "hypothesis". When general people make claims without any facts, that is called "conjecture". Scientific theory is not a conjecture... scientific theory is not a hypothesis.

Scientific theory is something that has been proven a million times over and over, under all sorts of rigorously crazy conditions for years after years with facts after facts after facts... then and only then, do we call it a scientific theory.

For example:

Gravity is a scientific theory. heck, it is called the theory of gravitation. so, because of that, you will jump off a building and fly like superman? of course you will die.

the newtonian classical mechanics of F = MA (that describes the force of an accelerating object) is a theory. So, because of that, you will stand in front of a moving train or a flying bullet, because it is a scientific theory?

Even numbers are theory... there is a field of mathematics called Number theory. . So i guess 2 oranges + 2 oranges = 4 oranges is wrong!!

For the sake of mary, mother of jesus, where do they get these people from?

these people are hopeless

Post: #144

(04-14-2014 12:15 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  If/when I have children is will be with a tall blue eyed blonde as I desire to advance my ethnic group.

Do I find some of the mixes posted in this thread hot as fuck? Yes.
Would I bang them in a heartbeat? Yes.

I do not have any desire to spawn offspring with them however.

Guess I'm an outlier around here.

No, I don't think you're an outlier, I think your standpoint is the norm for 90% of people in their natural state all over the world.

I am attracted to all races maybe with the exception of aboriginees from the pictures I've seen.

I am definitely going for a white woman with blue eyes though if I have children. I have seen a lot of mixes over here in Thailand of white men and thai women and every single one of those kids have brown hair, brown eyes and look more asian than white.

I think it is strange if you on the other hand was obsessed with fathering children outside your race. That would seem like some kind of self loathing. It's like when the Thai elite push these mixed children as beauty ideals, yet not one single ethnic Thai looks like that. Instead you see perfectly caramel colored girls trying bleach their skin, that is just sick.

Post: #145

This forum is gonna start looking like Stormfront by the end of the month

(04-14-2014 12:18 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 12:15 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  If/when I have children is will be with a tall blue eyed blonde as I desire to advance my ethnic group.

Do I find some of the mixes posted in this thread hot as fuck? Yes.
Would I bang them in a heartbeat? Yes.

I do not have any desire to spawn offspring with them however.

Guess I'm an outlier around here.

That's your prerogative. Nothing wrong with that.

Muhammed Ali shared your view:

Post: #146

(04-14-2014 05:21 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 02:32 AM)Samseau Wrote:  See my post with Pdog I mean Deluge.

Getting passive aggressive over being called out on false information is just weak.

First you said

(04-10-2014 06:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  DNA studies can only trace the women and not the men.

Now you say that we can trace both paternal and maternal lines but they're are limitations to them... You literally didn't even know you could trace paternal lines until I told you we could, and you expect the unsubstantiated things you're literally making up in this thread and others to have any credibility?


We can trace Y and MtDNA conclusively back to Africa. For example, all Y-DNA Haplogroup's in the world have been proven to descend from Haplogroup's A and B, the most ancient haplogroups, whose carriers today are only found in sub-Saharan Africa. Not only can we trace our ancestry back to Africa paternally and maternally, we can also do it without sex-chromosomes at all. Autosomal DNA tests also prove Out of Africa because they prove that the vast majority of human genetic diversity exists within Africa rather than outside it, because all non-Blacks descend from a subset of the larger African population at the time who migrated out of Africa. Go back hundreds of thousands of years and all of your ancestors, even the lines that descend from Neanderthals and other Hominid's, lived in Africa.

If the Persians really had as substantial a Greek component to their ancestry as you say they do, they would cluster much closer to the Greeks in DNA tests then they actually do. Alexander the Great was no Genghis Khan. It seems like you're romanticizing Alexander just because you grew up Greek Orthodox.

(04-14-2014 02:55 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  None of the ideas surrounding human origins and evolution is scientific fact, hence the term theory.

It can not be unequivocally proven where humans originated and all theories surrounding this can still be contested as more evidence arises.

This means that the most supported theory of human origins can still change.

Also, you are letting your emotions obscure your worldview.

I'm going to quote the more civil part of a PM a forum member sent me about this and the bullshit Samseau's spouting...

Quote:I am amused at all/nothing response:
/thread-35023-...#pid702140

I am a scientist. that post alone shows that all/nothing has zero understanding of scientific theory. scientific theory are based on scientific facts. he clearly doesnt understand the scientific method/process.

when scientist says something is a scientific theory... they do not mean the word "theory" in the same way general people mean "theory". What general people mean by "theory" is what scientists call "hypothesis". When general people make claims without any facts, that is called "conjecture". Scientific theory is not a conjecture... scientific theory is not a hypothesis.

Scientific theory is something that has been proven a million times over and over, under all sorts of rigorously crazy conditions for years after years with facts after facts after facts... then and only then, do we call it a scientific theory.

For example:

Gravity is a scientific theory. heck, it is called the theory of gravitation. so, because of that, you will jump off a building and fly like superman? of course you will die.

the newtonian classical mechanics of F = MA (that describes the force of an accelerating object) is a theory. So, because of that, you will stand in front of a moving train or a flying bullet, because it is a scientific theory?

Even numbers are theory... there is a field of mathematics called Number theory. . So i guess 2 oranges + 2 oranges = 4 oranges is wrong!!

For the sake of mary, mother of jesus, where do they get these people from?

these people are hopeless

I'm sorry, but you keep posting incorrect things. No offense, but your logical reasoning skills are poor. Stop appealing to authority and actually read the crap you are posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosomal_Adam

Quote:Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time.[1] His other male contemporaries could also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, solely through patrilineal descent.

Again, tracing the Y chromosome is unreliable because if a man only has daughters then the patrilineal descent is lost. If you cannot understand this then you are hopeless.

Quote:he age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000 years[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8]

Not only is there zero agreement about when the Y-Adam existed, but there is no strong evidence of where it existed either.

Quote:In addition to the ability of the title of Y-chromosomal Adam to shift forward in time, the estimate of Y-chromosomal Adam's DNA sequence, his position in the family tree, the time when he lived, and his place of origin, are all subject to future revisions.

It's funny how even the most basic of wikipedia articles just shuts you down.

Unless you make an effort to read, I'm done talking to you about these PC subjects. You are obviously emotionally brainwashed and incapable of critical thinking.

Post: #147

Also, if someone PM's you, you probably should not be posting their name. The whole idea of PM is to maintain confidentially, so All or Nothing probably does not trust you as much in the future.

As for All or Nothing:

Quote:I am a scientist. that post alone shows that all/nothing has zero understanding of scientific theory. scientific theory are based on scientific facts. he clearly doesnt understand the scientific method/process.

No such thing as a fact. Everything is subject to revision, human knowledge is weak if not worthless. This is basic epistemology and has nothing to do with "science," which itself is a bullshit term.

The word "science" is Latin for knowledge. That's it. There's nothing special about the word. And all knowledge is based on prior knowledge, which could be subject to error.

Hence there are no real facts, everything is subject to interpretation and other limits of language predicates.

The term falsification is used to describe the scientific method (google it), since things can only be disproven but not proven, and in fact our Supreme Court uses falsification to judge whether or not a scientific theory should be counted valid in court.

Because science is a logical term, not a factual one. However, All or Nothing sounds like most professional scientists. Just a dude who spends too much time in the lab without bothering to understand his own profession. No critical reflection whatsoever. Sadly, it is too common.

Post: #148

Post: #149

(04-13-2014 06:23 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  Who is getting "exterminated" here? What is getting "destroyed"?

There have been a lot of nations being exterminated in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa... their language, scripts, political organization, religious and spiritual believes... erased from this planet, and their territories occupied by another(s) ethnic group(s) which have displaced them and made them foreigners in their own land. Just to name a couple in the European theatre: Livonians, Dalmatians. That happened at a minor escale, imagine what globalism can do to all us.

Quote:In any case, there are historical differences here. When you refer to "something is studied and classified since the XVIth century", you are referring to the Latin understanding of race. This understanding never existed in the USA, and that is not simply because "it's easier" not to have it. There is a historical rhyme and reason for this distinction. Also, it is not correct to say that this understanding of race "cannot be used today". It is being used today in Latin America, where it was born, but it will never gain a foothold in the USA. The one drop rule is king here.

When was your war of secession? around the 1860ies right? Check the census and you'll find this clasification did exist in the states even before the war:

1830:
http://racebox.org/images/1830.jpg

1840:


1850:


1860:


1870:


1880:


1890:


http://racebox.org/

It was native americans and asians who didn't exist before the late XIXth century.

(04-13-2014 06:40 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^^^ From what I understand the mixing in Latin America was only allowed between European men and black and indigenous women. Black and indigenous men weren't mixing with European women. Black and indigenous always mixed freely and their offspring were called zambos.

There was of course a lot of mixing going on in the USA as well and it was tolerated under one condition. That it only be a slavemaster and his slaves. So he had his proper white wife and children, and a bunch of black concubines he routinely knocked up in the barn. In effect making himself more slaves without having to buy them.

Either your sources are wrong or you're telling lies on purpose. White women did marry natives and (free) blacks in the Hispanic colonies of the Americas. The policy of the authorities was that of, for example, muslim caliphates towards blacks who were considered human beings as long as they converted to islam. This date back to the very beginning of the colonies, where indians were prosecuted and fought until they submited to the Europeans.

Indians and free blacks were treated as any other citizen as long as they 1) respected the authority and the laws of the king, 2) converted to catholicism (misionaries tolerated and encouraged sincretism between their gods and spirits and catholic saints and virgins and adoption of native practises integrating them in the catholic liturgy there). Do a little research and you'll find that peasants and poor whites in the Iberian Peninsula were not treated much better than natives and free blacks in the colonies (families not accepting their siblings to marry people of lower social status, not being able to find a place in the court or high ranks of the administration or Church...).

The problem faced by white women who married a freed african slave or a native (apart from racism, or social discrimination for marrying someone of lower social status) was that if they had brothers it would be the male who would inherit everything and the women would be left under the protection of her husband and his family. As you can imagine the resources of that people would be scarce and couldn't provide much for her.

About mixed race people... it all came down to class. If you were upper class Spaniard and upper class native things would be much easier than if you were low class white/black/native. For example, El Inca Garcilaso from the 16th century:



He was the son of an Inca woman from the aristocracy (grand daughter of Tupac Yupanqui) and a nobelman from Extremadura. His father dumped his mother for a much younger white woman but as the the older son he travelled to Spain to claim his dinastic rights. He felt this double identiy native american-european, bilingual in Spanish and Quechua he was a writer, historian and reached the rank of Captain in the army.

Post: #150

(04-14-2014 05:21 AM)Deluge Wrote:  I am a scientist. that post alone shows that all/nothing has zero understanding of scientific theory. scientific theory are based on scientific facts. he clearly doesnt understand the scientific method/process.

when scientist says something is a scientific theory... they do not mean the word "theory" in the same way general people mean "theory". What general people mean by "theory" is what scientists call "hypothesis". When general people make claims without any facts, that is called "conjecture". Scientific theory is not a conjecture... scientific theory is not a hypothesis.

Scientific theory is something that has been proven a million times over and over, under all sorts of rigorously crazy conditions for years after years with facts after facts after facts... then and only then, do we call it a scientific theory.

For example:

Gravity is a scientific theory. heck, it is called the theory of gravitation. so, because of that, you will jump off a building and fly like superman? of course you will die.

the newtonian classical mechanics of F = MA (that describes the force of an accelerating object) is a theory. So, because of that, you will stand in front of a moving train or a flying bullet, because it is a scientific theory?

Comparing the Theory of Evolution to Laws of Motion is like comparing apples to oranges.

The Theory of Evolution is a collection of ideas surrounding how all living things came into existence. The theory is supported by archaeological data that has been collected over decades. Still, that does not mean that significant parts of the theory or even the entire theory itself cannot be contested. Human knowledge is a constantly changing thing. That is what I am saying about human origins. You cannot say with absolute certainty where the first Homo sapiens walked the earth unless you have access to a time machine.

The Laws of Motion are entirely different. For one, get it right. You are talking about Newton's law of motion and his law of gravity. Both of which are clearly observable. The part that is theory are the ways in which those laws work.

Good job explaining science to me.

(04-14-2014 10:47 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Because science is a logical term, not a factual one. However, All or Nothing sounds like most professional scientists. Just a dude who spends too much time in the lab without bothering to understand his own profession. No critical reflection whatsoever. Sadly, it is too common.

The guy that Deluge quoted is not me.