Race Cards

Race doesn't actually exist. Physical differences between human populations and individuals do, but there is no natural or universally agreed-upon criterion for what constitutes a 'race.' Sure, it might exist as a function of thought and as a concept by which we categorize people, but it has no scientific or natural basis, and serves to do nothing but arbitrarily divide people.

I'm being accused of being a racist on here and this isn't true. I'm merely a race realist. I recognize the very real differences between races. This isn't to say one is inferior. To PopePwner I provided a verified anthropolist as a source. He had no connections to the nazi or white power movement at all. It's no surprise though that liberals can't have a discussion about race without emotionally based attacks and no evidence.

It's not universally agreed upon because most scientists are too cowardly to examine race without bias.

It's not universally agreed upon because it doesn't have a natural or scientific basis. Race is a cultural product, not a natural phenomenon.

Never once did I attack you much less an emotional based attack. You are overreacting. Also his theories were published before DNA was really understood. People didn't understand the human genome back then which makes this source severely outdated and pretty damn biased at that.

I prefer a genetist or a biologist as a source rather than an anthropoligst.

Exactly, unfortunately for him such a source probably doesn't exist. At least not one from the last 50 years.

Read the bell curve for information on genetic differences. For example an Ashkenazi Jew or the Japanese has on average a higher IQ than most whites meanwhile blacks and hispanics have a lower IQ.

Actually there is almost no difference between a pitbull and chihuahua genetically. They're basically identical in that sense. That's why they can have viable offspring. If you cross breed them enough they would become the almost same dog in terms of looks. Physical differences don't matter at all when it comes to genetics. By all scientific definitions they are pretty much the same thing.

Expression of unique phenotypes among different populations is something we should expect and can observe. The criteria upon which we group the phenotypes is entirely irrational and unnatural, however.

But isn't their behavior and muscle structure vastly different?

Probably because Japan is like a super industrial power with excelent education, meanwhile here a lot of people don't go to school because they don't know if they will be alive tomorrow. But hey, I'm a liberal-marxist-mason who use his emotions (also, I'm a little drunk lol).

About that book, that's psychology my friend. If you are interested in "intelligence", search about Gardner.

Behavior depends completely on training. You could have a calm pitbull and a aggressive chihuahua. As for muscles that's nothing exercise and a little selective breeding couldn't change.

So if I put a Chihuahua into an aggressive training regiment it could take on a lazy pitbull?

No because you wouldn't want to put a Chihuahua in an aggressive training regiment because that's not what it's trained for. But if I breed a group of Chihuahua's for an aggressive training regiment then they could kick the pitbull ass and that's my point. There is so little difference genetically between dog breeds and "races" of humans that they cannot be considered different at all.

I'm actually glad we have this guy on the forums. You guys are getting lazy and sometimes I actually see sloppy responses to his arguments. I don't think I've seen anything Kali hasn't refuted though.

We homo sapiens are a little bit different then dogs I'd say. Not that I'm a geneticist or anything but if you legitimately tried to breed a sub race of dwarfs patriot could you? Given all the resources and land you needed, absolute power given to accomplish the one task of breeding a race of dwarf people with a probable dwarf birth of say 90% at least. Do you believe that to be possible ?

Why should I bother countering his argument? He has refused to respond to any of my other arguments on his other equally ridiculous claims.

Outliers actually has a real explanation for this phenomenon, but shocker, East Asians aren't smarter than Blacks or Hispanics because they're genetically superior.

It has to do with societal and cultural upbringings. East Asians have historically been rice farmers and rice farming if you don't know is a very difficult thing task that requires constant effort and work for most of the day and most of the year. This is the root of East Asian work ethic and their intelligence stems from a combination of this work ethic and the languages they speak. East Asian languages like Chinese, or Japanese (or I suppose just about all of them) are symbolic, rather than alphabetic. It takes a lot more concerted effort to learn and master a symbolic language over an alphabetic language. Additionally, it has to do with counting. Counting is much more fluid and logical in Chinese than it is in English. It's things like that, that allow for more fluid, and "intelligent" thought. Thus, East Asians are "smarter" than some Blacks and Hispanics.

Objectively speaking, of course.

This and the overflowing nature of the population in the Far East over millenia has created a culture in which an over abundence of jobs is extremely rare, if it has ever occurred. The result is that hard work is part of the culture because you need to be better than the best to become invaluble so that you can keep your job in a country where there is usually someone who will gladly replace you.

So to call them 'more intelligent' is misleading. I have never met an Asian American who actually was intelligent who did not acknoledge that there was and is no such thing as an 'Asian intelligence gene' outside of jokes. They acknowledged the role of the culture that drove them to work hard to succeed.

You can see the difference very clearly in the First Gens and Sucessor Gens.

He actually takes the time to find racist anthropologists ! LMAO

And I am sure that he takes quite a bit of time to do it.
They are the unfortunate results of gaps in the nets.

On the other hand, it is not unusual for a person to look for others that affirm their beliefs, no matter how factually wrong they are. Its only natural.
Which of course, that all people do it, only furthers the point that he is wrong.