Why cant I categorize races with superiority and inferiority in certain traits?

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]I think races develop to cope with their enviroment, Africans lived quite an easy life compared to Europeans or Arabs. They lived in a very fertile region whereas Europeans lived in a harsh and cold wilderness in their early years after arriving in Europe. It's not that Africans are less intelligent it is more they developed in a less demanding environment which is necassary for advancement. I don't agree Africans have better athletic abilities either as most winners in the Olympics are White and most sports have a White majority.Deano

that doesn't make any sense. if their environment was less harsh as you claim there should have been less reasons for the lack of advancement.

therefore places like greece/italy shouldn't have developed either.

I don't believe africans are as smart as other races

they didn't even develop a written language or any type of invention or cities beyond mud huts before colonization.

I'm sure i'll be modded for this post but people don't like to hear facts but just start name calling you a racist.

I often hear blacks say they have superior athletic genes(which isn't true), but any time you say something to paint them in a not so flattering light the anti-racist loons are all over you.

Deano

Explain their domination in just about every western sport then. NBA, NFL, Track,...etc.

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]I think races develop to cope with their enviroment, Africans lived quite an easy life compared to Europeans or Arabs. They lived in a very fertile region whereas Europeans lived in a harsh and cold wilderness in their early years after arriving in Europe. It's not that Africans are less intelligent it is more they developed in a less demanding environment which is necassary for advancement. I don't agree Africans have better athletic abilities either as most winners in the Olympics are White and most sports have a White majority.Deano

that doesn't make any sense. if their environment was less harsh as you claim there should have been less reasons for the lack of advancement.

therefore places like greece/italy shouldn't have developed either.

Explain their domination in just about every western sport then. NBA, NFL, Track,...etc.

Loco_Live

explain white domination in the intellectual field of inventions, science, maths. etc.

see I can play that game too.

[QUOTE="Dr_Brocoli"]Last time I check the only race are humans (disregarding animals). There are different ethnic backgrounds but there is only ONE race.Phoenix6359

To imply any of the races are a form of a "Sub-Species" is racist. All Sub-Species of the Homo-Saipien have already died out. Actually, if you think about it, we are the result of the evolution of those sub-species. See the various Hominids.

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

Explain their domination in just about every western sport then. NBA, NFL, Track,...etc.

explain white domination in the intellectual field of inventions, science, maths. etc.

see I can play that game too.

Well according to you i'm probably fairly unattactive as a male because i'm only 5'5 :P..:|..:(...

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

Explain their domination in just about every western sport then. NBA, NFL, Track,...etc.

Deano

explain white domination in the intellectual field of inventions, science, maths. etc.

see I can play that game too.

The races developed diffrently. One race may have taken a more mindful route, while the other took a more physical route. Either way, if there was a drastic lack of intelligence in one race compared to the others, that race would most likely no longer be around. It's called Natural Selection.

Differences in native plant life and available domesticable animals had much more to do with how different humans advanced than anything else. People from one geographical areas are no less intelligent than any others. We just learn to cope with our environments differently. Go spend a month in the Savana and tell me how unintelligent the natives there think you are because you are unable to build your own shelter, gather enough water to survive, or tell the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous berries.Engrish_Major

that is nonsense since africa didn't start advancing till after colonization so the ecology of the area is totally irrelevant.

your other example is also a poor evidence on intelligence since even an animal knows how to adapt to a climate and knows what's poisonous and knows how to find water

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]I think races develop to cope with their enviroment, Africans lived quite an easy life compared to Europeans or Arabs. They lived in a very fertile region whereas Europeans lived in a harsh and cold wilderness in their early years after arriving in Europe. It's not that Africans are less intelligent it is more they developed in a less demanding environment which is necassary for advancement. I don't agree Africans have better athletic abilities either as most winners in the Olympics are White and most sports have a White majority.Deano

that doesn't make any sense. if their environment was less harsh as you claim there should have been less reasons for the lack of advancement.

therefore places like greece/italy shouldn't have developed either.

No, the harder the enviorment, the more a person has to change and adapt. Leaving Africa to the cold mountains of the north and to the deserts of the east made people have to think about new ways to live in these enviorments.

that is nonsense since africa didn't start advancing till after colonization so the ecology of the area is totally irrelevant.

your other example is also a poor evidence on intelligence since even an animal knows how to adapt to a climate and knows what's poisonous and knows how to find water

The races developed diffrently. One race may have taken a more mindful route, while the other took a more physical route. Either way, if there was a drastic lack of intelligence in one race compared to the others, that race would most likely no longer be around. It's called Natural Selection.

Loco_Live

natural selection isn't even related to this.

neither is mindful route, physical route which is complete nonsense you just made up.

[QUOTE="Deano"]

that is nonsense since africa didn't start advancing till after colonization so the ecology of the area is totally irrelevant.

your other example is also a poor evidence on intelligence since even an animal knows how to adapt to a climate and knows what's poisonous and knows how to find water

Engrish_Major

I like this kind of stuff. I think I might know what to study in college now. :)

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"][QUOTE="Dr_Brocoli"]Last time I check the only race are humans (disregarding animals). There are different ethnic backgrounds but there is only ONE race.Loco_Live

To imply any of the races are a form of a "Sub-Species" is racist. All Sub-Species of the Homo-Saipien have already died out. Actually, if you think about it, we are the result of the evolution of those sub-species. See the various Hominids.

How is it nonsense? The fact that they didn't start advancing until colonization would further my theory. The Africans had NO native plants or animals that are domesticable. When you don't have domestic crops, or domesticated animals to give you protein and help farm, then you have to spend all of your time hunting and gathering. Europeans had domesticable crops and animals, which freed up people's time. That allowed them to develop mathematics, architecture, medicine, steel weapons, etc. It is ALL geographical. Not congnitive ability.Engrish_Major

where do you think domestic crops and animals come from ... the wild.

europeans were hunter gathers as well, they moved past it, africans didn't.

where do you think domestic crops and animals come from ... the wild.

europeans were hunter gathers as well, they moved past it, africans didn't.

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

The races developed diffrently. One race may have taken a more mindful route, while the other took a more physical route. Either way, if there was a drastic lack of intelligence in one race compared to the others, that race would most likely no longer be around. It's called Natural Selection.

Deano

natural selection isn't even related to this.

neither is mindful route, physical route which is complete nonsense you just made up.

"Natural selection is the process by which certain heritabletraits—those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce —become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution." -Wikipedia.

Telling me this is not related to the development of the races proves you don't know what you're talking about. With out Natural Selection; which effects each species differently and can be influenced by the food and enviorment that species lives in, we would have never left Africa. Never have started eating new foods. We would have stayed idiot homonids.

And by "mindful route" and "physical route" I meant their enviorments effected their progression. What I mean was already explained by somebody else in this thread.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] How is it nonsense? The fact that they didn't start advancing until colonization would further my theory. The Africans had NO native plants or animals that are domesticable. When you don't have domestic crops, or domesticated animals to give you protein and help farm, then you have to spend all of your time hunting and gathering. Europeans had domesticable crops and animals, which freed up people's time. That allowed them to develop mathematics, architecture, medicine, steel weapons, etc. It is ALL geographical. Not congnitive ability.Deano

where do you think domestic crops and animals come from ... the wild.

europeans were hunter gathers as well, they moved past it, africans didn't.

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]There is no such thing as "The Human race" this is just a figure of speech. There are sub-species/races in the Homo Sapien species such as Caucasion, Negro etc and they all have different features such as skull shape, skin colour and even body shape much in the same way Lions and Tigers although similar are different. If you don't believe in different races then does that mean you think Tigers and Lions are identical? How about Horses and Zebras? To say there are no races is just plain stupid.Phoenix6359

To imply any of the races are a form of a "Sub-Species" is racist. All Sub-Species of the Homo-Saipien have already died out. Actually, if you think about it, we are the result of the evolution of those sub-species. See the various Hominids.

Mad? No. Show me a picture of a Homo-Sapien. That picture can be a black person, a white person, an asian, a latino...etc. There are no sub-spieces of the Homo-Sapien, currently. We evolved from the past Homo species, which include the neanderthal and the cro magnon.

Africans didn't domesticate because they lived in a natural bounty of food, this had the effect that they didn't advance.Phoenix6359

[QUOTE="Deano"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] How is it nonsense? The fact that they didn't start advancing until colonization would further my theory. The Africans had NO native plants or animals that are domesticable. When you don't have domestic crops, or domesticated animals to give you protein and help farm, then you have to spend all of your time hunting and gathering. Europeans had domesticable crops and animals, which freed up people's time. That allowed them to develop mathematics, architecture, medicine, steel weapons, etc. It is ALL geographical. Not congnitive ability.Phoenix6359

where do you think domestic crops and animals come from ... the wild.

europeans were hunter gathers as well, they moved past it, africans didn't.

This is not the only reason, not all animals are capable of being domesticated.

I like this kind of stuff. I think I might know what to study in college now. :)

Yep, because nothing bad has ever came out of a blanket statement of inferiority imposed on a certain race.

Isn't that right Dr. Hitler?

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]Yep, because nothing bad has ever came out of a blanket statement of inferiority imposed on a certain race. Isn't that right Dr. Hitler?Rhazakna

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

I like this kind of stuff. I think I might know what to study in college now. :)

Engrish_Major

Nope never heard of it. I mostly learn all this stuff from my dad since highschool didn't teach me any of this stuff. Well, not a lot of it.

@Loco Live, Do I really have to put a picture in of every sub-species of Humans? Because I will but I just think it is a waste of time, if you truly think there are no sub-species/races then...:roll:

Yep, because nothing bad has ever came out of a blanket statement of inferiority imposed on a certain race.

Isn't that right Dr. Hitler?

Vesica_Prime

Godwin's Law.

This threads pretty much over.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]Yep, because nothing bad has ever came out of a blanket statement of inferiority imposed on a certain race. Isn't that right Dr. Hitler?Engrish_Major

@Loco Live, Do I really have to put a picture in of every sub-species of Humans? Because I will but I just think it is a waste of time, if you truly think there are no sub-species/races then...:roll:

Phoenix6359

Just show me a picture of what you think a Homo-Sapien looks like and I'll show you mine.

Nope never heard of it. I mostly learn all this stuff from my dad since highschool didn't teach me any of this stuff. Well, not a lot of it.

Loco_Live

The book is decades in the making, and won a Pulitzer. While long (and dense), it's a must read for anyone interested in why the world, and the state of civilization, is the way it is today.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Yep, because nothing bad has ever came out of a blanket statement of inferiority imposed on a certain race.

Isn't that right Dr. Hitler?

Loco_Live

Godwin's Law.

This threads pretty much over.

I wasn't comparing anything with the Nazis. Was just giving an example of what could happen when a group of people proclaims self-superiority upon themselves and starts branding other groups of people as inferior races.

Yep, because nothing bad has ever came out of a blanket statement of inferiority imposed on a certain race.

Isn't that right Dr. Hitler?

Vesica_Prime

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Yep, because nothing bad has ever came out of a blanket statement of inferiority imposed on a certain race.

Isn't that right Dr. Hitler?

Phoenix6359

It was a sarcastic statement...

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

Nope never heard of it. I mostly learn all this stuff from my dad since highschool didn't teach me any of this stuff. Well, not a lot of it.

Engrish_Major

The book is decades in the making, and won a Pulitzer. While long (and dense), it's a must read for anyone interested in why the world, and the state of civilization, is the way it is today.

Thanks bro, I'll deffinitely check this out.

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]

@Loco Live, Do I really have to put a picture in of every sub-species of Humans? Because I will but I just think it is a waste of time, if you truly think there are no sub-species/races then...:roll:

Loco_Live

Just show me a picture of what you think a Homo-Sapien looks like and I'll show you mine.

As you can see all similar but different, all Homo Sapiens and yet not identical

I'm a white heterosexual male and I find white women attractive, but I wouldn't mind dating other women as long as they're attractive. The reason I find white women women attractive is because most of them are attractive. I also find some black women attractive, but the average black woman is not attractive to me.

Yep, because nothing bad has ever came out of a blanket statement of inferiority imposed on a certain race.

Isn't that right Dr. Hitler?

Vesica_Prime

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]

@Loco Live, Do I really have to put a picture in of every sub-species of Humans? Because I will but I just think it is a waste of time, if you truly think there are no sub-species/races then...:roll:

Phoenix6359

Just show me a picture of what you think a Homo-Sapien looks like and I'll show you mine.

As you can see all similar but different, all Homo Sapiens and yet not identical

Now show me a picture of one of these supposed sub-species that are walking around.

Because you cannot say that all people of a certain race possess all the same traits as each other. There is as much diverse variation amongst a race as there is between races. Anyone who knows anything about evolution knows this. /Thread.

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

Just show me a picture of what you think a Homo-Sapien looks like and I'll show you mine.

Loco_Live

As you can see all similar but different, all Homo Sapiens and yet not identical

Now show me a picture of one of these supposed sub-species that are walking around.

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]Here is a politically correct picture:roll:

As you can see all similar but different, all Homo Sapiens and yet not identical

Phoenix6359

Now show me a picture of one of these supposed sub-species that are walking around.

What?

The reason why you were unable to post a pic of a human sub-species is because their is none. All races are Homo-Sapien.

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

[QUOTE="Phoenix6359"]Here is a politically correct picture:roll:

As you can see all similar but different, all Homo Sapiens and yet not identical

Phoenix6359

Now show me a picture of one of these supposed sub-species that are walking around.

Homo sapien is one race.. what on earth are you talking about :lol:

Because there are almost no racial traits that could be classified as being universally superior or inferior. Simply having more of something isn't necessarily a good thing as it all depends on the environment you're placed in - the Neanderthals were just as intelligent as us and twice as strong, but they're not around anymore - and there's a reason for that.

To say that there aren't general genetic differences in intelligence and physical abilities (statistically significant or insignificant) between all the races and ethnic groups would be incorrect, because every human is genetically different and therefore every group of humans must be genetically different to some extent, even if you're looking at a 0.001% difference in average brainpower or something like that. But we don't have anywhere near enough information to make the claim that some races are functionally smarter or stronger than others, and in order to get that information we would have to account for geographical, cultural and financial factors.

phoenix,you have no idea about biological classification of animals or of races. felines is not a race,it is the cat family.and as far individual names are concerned , the tigers are given name known as panthera tigris and other members of the cat family are given seperate names.can you give me one another taxonomical subspecies for homo sapiens.the only remaining human subspecies is homo sapiens sapiens and all others are extinct. talking otherwise is nonsense, please get your biological facts correct before posting