But what kind of a forum would it be if we would have to look out for one specific person, just not to make him blow up in someones face. And I agree with Scias, in a way he is "cute" , there is no point in paying attention to what he is saying, let him blow off the steam. Even though we all know he is wrong, there is no point paying any attention to his mad ramblings, this is clearly a ramble of a person who grew up in his own ignorant bubble without even experiencing anything except 2-3 things in his entire life.
Let him run his mouth if it makes him happy, everyone deserves some .
I believe anybody who is serious about their beliefs is worthy of discussion. Actually questioning these people is a form of respect. I am glad that the admins allow him to speak freely here, despite his beliefs might be offensive to some. Questioning and criticizing somebody about their beliefs is actually a form of respect. It gives them a chance to explain themselves.
@Psor just go ahead and give me genetic evidence already. We could argue about soceo-economic, political, cultural and immigration all day, but those are different topics just get to the point and show me the genetic evidence for white genetics making the human smarter, stronger, or better in any way. Also don't resort to statistics. Yeah most criminals in africa are black. Who cares, so are most of the law abiding citizens. Every statistic you can throw at me is either biased, or reflects a different topic than genetics. If anything, statistics hurts your case anyway as a lack of genetic diversity appears to result in more disease and less adaptation. In fact, I did hear one study was done and it suggested that indo-aryan genes were objectively better, but I would even be skeptical of that, and I don't have the sources for it, it came from an indo-aryan supremacist anyway so most likely just as biased.
Nah, you're right GM. Sorry sweetheart. She knows I'm a sucker for a good debate.
PS: You're right. Psor's downright cuddly!
PPS: I agree with Scias. I show my respect by having others challenge my beliefs while I challenge theirs. If we can reach a consensus, or lock horns for long enough, I usually end up getting a pretty interesting friend, a talented debate mate, and a brief mental warm-up.
PPPS: @Scias: What's an Indo-Aryan Supremacist? xD Kinda sounds like Sharknado! That term just reminds me of Dave Chappelle's sketch where he plays a blind supremacist.
Duno just one of those people you run into on the net when you have a fedora on. I've noticed my neckbeard just started to grow since last nights debate with psor.
@Scias Do you even realize how retarded you sound when telling me to not use statistics? First of all, point of statistics is to see how reality really looks, to describe it in unequivocal, mathematical, possible to proove/based on experiment way. If you aren't using statistics your only way is to either perform live experiment as a proof (which ofc we can't perform due to long distances, amount of time needed for certain things to happen and needed manpower/subjects), or throw anecdotal evidences (which you also don't accept). You're basically acting like a child who demands a proof and when you get it, you scream "not this proof!". You simply want me to either give you shitty evidence you will be able to find hole in, evidence that will prove your opinion, or not be able to prove my opinion which will mean you win. It's like saying "show me what exactly is on this far away island when we don't have resources to go there. Also no optics allowed". There's no point in debating people with such stance. It's a rigged game, and I won't be playing rigged game with you. Either get your shit together or prepare to be perma ignored in discussions.
By acting like whites I mean acting in a way system/civilization built by whites require to sustain itself. It's pretty simple: each society has some kind of culture which determines how we act. People build civilizations around their culture. If your society is capable of teamworking, thinking big and reject murder, you build civilization that will work well with teamwork, include high capability to create great, complicated projects and apply rules punishing murder. Now, if you take some african nigger whose culture involves beliefs that rape is justified in certain cases (I can even provide link on the end of the post) and put him into white civilization and he acts the way his culture told him, what do we have? Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? You should know well how great is living with for example muslims trying to force sharia and other shit considering places like London aren't that far from your place. You can also check how amount of rapes increased since Sweden started importing so many niggers from Somalia and other underdeveloped shitholes.
And sure there are 50cent and other destructive famous shitters, but take a look at fucking statistics again. How many imprisoned or living in slums poor niggers are there and how many famous, rich rappers? Picking exceptional cases is caled cherrypicking and is even worse than anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence at least has chance to be case of majority. Actually pretty high chance if it's anecdotal evidence from averange person. What you are doing is picking shit from the edge of the scale. And ofc the same with successful Somalis in Sweden.
Regarding irrigation thing: do you even know what knowledge, education and resources are? Knowledge is what we know. You think people knew about irrigation from the fucking start? Of course not. They had to invent it, they were staring at world around them until they figured out how this shit works, came up with idea how to use this knowledge for your gain and put it into practice. This cognition coupled with passing it down is what education is. Asians irrigated their crops, whites irrigated their crops, even fucking Egyptians from Africa irrigated their crops, yet lots of niggers in Africa still can't do it. And don't tell me about how Africa is waterless. When it was colonized, suddenly it turned out continent is full of resources and good land. Good enough to feeed whole continent. Then whites backed off and everything turned into shit. And you can dig even with fucking sticks. So actually it's not about knowledge and education but about cognitive abilities. Knowledge and education is product of cognition.
That's another thing: when Roman empire was still there, todays Europe was full of savages and barbarians not much different from niggers. But somehow when introduced to knowledge passed down by Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Asians, they were able to comprehend it rather quickly and improve to the point where Europe was peak of civilization for centuries. And still Europe and America colonized by Europeans are the most developed places to which everyone from shitholes try to flock to. Arabs after great start stopped developing thanks to their culture, Asians have lot of mess and lot of them are poor, cheap labour but still menage to keep their places developed and have decent power. Niggers are still there where they were centuries if not thousands of years ago, even after being colonized and inheriting lot of infrastructure from colonists and help from westerners. Either they're shit genetically when it comes to developing complex civilization or their culture is so shit it caps it at really low level. Secularism and reason saved us? Then why arabic and nigger cultures can't do it even when it's pushed on them by the rest of the world?
And now something about mixing. Variety of environment isn't natural. Most of people are tied to one place by their jobs, families, property or even borders. You don't see Arabic or Mongolian herders traveling to Europe or those few nomadic african tribes leaving Africa during their travels And those are societies that naturaly travel a lot. There are jobs requiring to travel around the world but people doing such jobs are contnantly on the move. When it comes to settling, you can see how those niggers in Sweden are at high risk and often have vitamin D deficit. They don't suit this environment. And because racemixing takes variety over quality, it's actually harmful because you most likely live in one place for extended period of time and aren't as much adapted to environment you live in. It really is fucking simple.
"But muh genetic failures and inbreeding!" Read https://en.wikipedia...of_relationship and https://en.wikipedia...able_population and educate yourself. Look at the fucking numbers. If you put that shit on graph you'd see another asymptotic graph which means only really close relationship drastically increases chance of disease, and the more distant genetic relation is, the smaller effect it has when it comes to reduction of chance of genetic failure. Then look at MVP and numbers listed there. Country with just few million population is enough to prevent inbreeding for realy long time. I wouldn't be surprised if population of Europe with a slight planning (like averange 2 kids per marriage to keep population amount consistent) alone was enough to prevent inbreeding for longer time than humans will be able to live on the Earth. Because I hope you know that in few billions of years Sun will start to expand and will burn and swallow few closest planets. In other words, no, world isn't changing fast enough to make racemixing needed. Both breeding with your family and racemixing are extreme examples. The way which isn't harmful is, like most of the time, middle ground involving breeding within your nation or race.
Regarding animal breeding problem: do you even know what is the source of it? You don't see breeding centers on every corner of the street. This shit just isn't common enough and trying to mix animals on on both sides of the globe costs. There simply often isn't much choice. Example of animal inbreeding is just another extreme example. Still they don't mix animals suited to completly different things when trying to get certain traits.
Anyway, looks are one of those thigns which are determined by genes. Ofc If you're white who is raised among asians you might not find asians strange, but are you sure you can say the same about those asians not finding that white guy different? Looks affect social life greatly, and social life involves group of people. When talking about such stuff you can't base on just one person. I've read many times stories from mixed people who were saying that often both racial groups found them different so they couldn't fit in any which could cause loneliness and other stuff.
You simply can't separate just one thing and base everything around on it when it's so strongly connected with other stuff. There's no need for racemixing to bring more diverse genes, and even if you would like to do it, you need to look at consequences. On one scale you've got not that much needed genetic diversity, on the other all those problems I listed above. It's like saying "hey, let's ride this car into the fire because car body will endure it" without thinking that tires and other stuff has much less resistance to high temperature. Gain from racemixing isn't worth all the trouble with clashing cultures it brings. And as I've said before, having different, separated cultures is actually a nice thing. This is also answer to yur question about logic behind "if they feel, there should not be culture mixing". It simply brings problems everyone have to deal with.
And no, it isn't about make-up. I still find whites without make-up more attractive on averange than Asians and niggers. I'm studying in town with shitloads of unis, some of them are high ranked so I stumble upon exchange students every now and then in shops or on the streets. That white girl with huge acne problem I saw at the doctor recently is still higher on my list than most of Asian girls with their flat faces and weird eyes I saw many times while shopping. But there might be another explaination of this which you'll see in links I'll post below.
Regarding your question about plastic surgery: it sure has less to do with genetic diversity, but I never implied it has. I used this argument to show you that image of Asians westerners have can actually be unrealistic thanks to commonness of plastic surgeries. Links I'll post will show you that practice speaks against your claim.
You mentioned "overwhelming amount of evidence". Can you at least post some or tell me where exactly I can find it? Especially about "genetic flow and differences attract(known as exotic)".
Funny how after citations you said the same shit I tried to explain to you. Environmental adaption and there's nothing bad about it. It's just a difference. But for some reason lot of people think that if you're against racemixing then you must be some kind of nazi white supremacist. If I was the guy people take me as when I post such stuff, I'd be for mass genocide of other races. But I'm not, even when it's legit solution (which I could even approve, but not for the reason you think of). Do you know why? Because as I've already said, extremes are rarely best solutions. I'm all for everyone preserving their race and culture in their own places, even if it involves patriotic rape.
And why the fuck do you still accuse me of saying about extreme similar genetics? I've never said anything about FULL purity and advocated for extreme inbreeding. Yet you still bring it in every post while yourself comparing inbreeding and racemixing - two extreme opposites, while not saying a word about huge middle ground which involves whole nations and WHOLE 1 race.
And you have to be really desperate to use such shitty point like me playing RO. I'm not playing RO because it was made by Asians and has lot of asian stuff in it. There're other things in RO that determined if I'll play this game or not. And even in RO I prefer places like Moscovia, Einbroch, Yuno etc. Problem is that people I play with never wanted to idle there and playing alone MMORPGs is boring. And then it comes to asian features like Louyang or Gonryun, I like them for either calm music and good memories of soil farms (Lou), or good memories of people I played with (Gon).
"For each racist there is multiculturalist". I wouldn't be so sure. But on the other hand, if you put humans in line and sort by wisdom, one half will be more wise than the other. Guess which would be "racist" :^) Especially that racial bias is natural: http://journal.front...2014.00093/full
Oh, and one more thing: word racism is overused. Racism actually involves hostility. And have you ever thought that maybe race isn't just skin deep and all this equality babble is just another idealistic bullshit which will crash and burn like communism did? Have you ever thought that maybe it's so pushed upon you by authorities because white people are fucked by their own exceptional compassion and empathy, can't stop all those waves of immigrants and sometimes even need them because system is slowly falling apart and responsible people in developed countries don't have time/money/housing to be able to afford creating families which results in lack of young people and problem with social security and many other things leading to system breakdown and social unrest? And ofc people in charge are in charge as long system is there, so they try to push this bullshit in hopes we'll all live peacefully? And ofc practice showed how bad idea mass immigration is. It's one of possibilities, and history knows examples of giant, nation or even continentwide failures.
@CurryGuy Your temperature exmaple is shit. Environment involves everything common in certain place. Ofc they can be adapted to super hot days and super cold nights, but they won't be adapted to permament low temperatures and less sunlight/day from different place. If what you say was so superior, there would be no such high differences and nature long time ago would try to make one super versatile race. Fuck, maybe even we wouldn't even have such variety when it comes to species. Life had to start at some point in history. There's limited amount of stable chemical elements out of which organisms are made. This gives us limited amount of combinations. Even less combinations form actual advanced life. For example we share about 90% of genes, which are ofc built from the same chemical elements, with fucking mices. Now look at the amount of species, including those who extinct. Logic tells you that nature actually tries to build more and more different, and more and more complex organisms. At some point difference is so huge it forms completly different branch. The farther branch it is, the bigger problem there is with breeding. For example beings within one race can still breed and make fertile offspring, but a bit less but still related species like tigers and lions can still breed, but their offspring will not be fertile most of the time and will suffer from shit like premature death. Check this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger . And ofc there're more mixes like those. Then there's a point in which 2 beings are not even able to breed. Both ways end in genetic shit, but breeding within one environment leads to better specialization in such environment, and as I've already said above, this is what really matters in survival. 1 race/part of continent is just optimal choice, middle ground. Keep in mid that evolution takes time. Lot of it. And people have limited amount of genes. It'd be retarded to use them to form something that doesn't fit well in any environment.
There's actually difference in being intrested in someones culture and using plastic surgery to make yourself look like other race.
Ofc warhorse would be great starting point. Warhorse needs to be strong, fast, durable. All you need to change would be making such horse less massive and maybe change its stance a bit (yes, you can do that too. Some german shepherds breeds have intentionally sloped backs which causes high risk of disease). Still you don't mix random shit dedicated to completly different things. To gain intelligent german shepherds you don't mix them with much less intelligent breeds. You choose dog with similar high intelligence trait. And once again, because survival is dependant on environment and races are adapted to different environments, you're better with looking healthy breed mate within your environment. To make racemixing actually beneficial, you'd have to pick individual with certain traits that would be useful while not shitting up already superior for certain environment traits, not pick some random shit. But that's where eugenics start. Otherwise you end up with shit like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1448064/ (study shows that mixed childreen have more health and social problems on averange than non-mixed).
Military example isn't bad example. Also if it really depicted how armies around the globe work, that would mean every army is similar, and we wouldn't be able to see the difference, thus there would be no article I posted. But ofc you wouldn't know it. Lot of asian countries are giant mess, including military. I've read stories of western soldiers who were training in asian countries like Philippines with native armies. Most of the time they were saying that armies in those countries are as shit as countries themselves.
And you don't need to lecture me about capitalism. I've been saying similar shit for long time already. And regarding american dream: it isn't as simple as you think. People still emigrate. They emigrate to USA, UK, nordic states, germanic states. And I'm not talking only about people from african or asian poor countries. I'm talking about people from eastern european countries which are far from bad.
I didn't have time to check whole research but while scrolling I saw they found out that people prefer attractive (no shit, Sherlock) and healthy mates. Idk how they tried to correlate both things. I'll have to check if they actually found connection and how exactly they did it. Still practice shows that actually whites are found the most attractive on averange, not asians: http://www.comparati... et al 2013.pdf (research on racial attractiveness, if you don't want to read, just look at graphs) https://en.wikipedia...atus_and_racism (Social status, colorism and racism section) https://en.wikipedia..._attractiveness (facial similarity and racial bias section) http://blog.okcupid....write-you-back/ (statistics from dating sites where ofc attractiveness is huge factor) http://www.medicalda...laymates-277196 (even infants have tendency to prefer people who look alike) So actually people prefer people within their own race, and if they don't, there's high chance they'll flock to whites, not the opposite. No wonder you try so hard. Your social status must have jumped drastically and people probably envy you since you started to date white girl. And just in case you asked: no, I'm not sure why people find whites are most attractive on averange. I see nothing special about it and find my own preferences natural since as I've said, people actually look for someone within their own race and it makes sense to do so. This means you can stop flinging nazi accusations at me to try to mock me.
@Scias Those few links above are also for you. +vid I mentioned while responding to your bullshit
A genetic claim requires genetic evidence. I agree with you that you have 0 genetic evidence, and i agree with you that you still believe statistics from one country can be used for strategies in another country. Like i said in PMs black people in my country and probably in your country too, tend to be successful whereas a higher percentage of whites are not.
Oh and I also agree with you that the video of congans reasons for raping were nothing to do with their skin colour.
If you don't like me poking holes in your arguments then maybe you should either learn to defend them, or choose arguments that work. Instead of pretending that all of these political and social points somehow are evidence of genetic superiority.
You might not wana talk about plastic surgery being an unrealistic image as I've known and dated asians, and basically see them every day that I'm in the city. I doubt my perception of them is warped by plastic surgery. If you dont have many asians in your country i could understand the skewed perception though.
im on my phone cant link stuff atm. i do believe your anti-consensus claims do need some real evidence though. Make claims that stand up to scrutiny, instead of ones that require factors other than genetics. And i am really supporting you to do that. If you successfully prove that race-mixing is objectively disadvantageous, you may win an award such as a nobel prize or smaller equivalent. So what have you got to lose? Start studying genetics.
Psor spewing the same old tired drivel and thinking people care about extremism on a public board? (racist, because that's what it is, you're openly talking about your insecurities of other races based on typified traits). The opinion is too unpopular and apathetic for anyone to actually read what you write and take it seriously. You should maybe try not having brain dead opinions? I dunno man, it just looks like a cry for help.
This discussion didn't even warrant that rant, but I'm glad you made yourself sound like more of a child!
A genetic claim requires genetic evidence. I agree with you that you have 0 genetic evidence, and i agree with you that you still believe statistics from one country can be used for strategies in another country. Like i said in PMs black people in my country and probably in your country too, tend to be successful whereas a higher percentage of whites are not.
I thought I didn't have to educate you about such common known facts that genes determine looks. If it wasn't true, we wouldn't be similar to our parents. Even more, this would mean that we don't actually inhereit shit, but come up with some new random stuff. If that was the case, there would be completly no reason to look for genes variety and even extreeme inbreeding wouldn't be harmful, which we both know isn't true. This alone covers giant part of the shit I posted. Genetics are tightly related to looks, looks are tightly related to other stuff I posted. USA is usually picked because it's the biggest melting pot which means it's best example. I'd like to remind you that the more cases you include in research, then more accurate results will be. Racemixing isn't as common in Europe as in USA which means you wouldn't be able to research on such big scale. Any examples of those areas where niggers are more successful than whites in your country? Any stats or is it just anecdotal evidence you hate so much?
Oh and I also agree with you that the video of congans reasons for raping were nothing to do with their skin colour.
I never said that. I said it's their culture. Lrn some reading comprehesion.
If you don't like me poking holes in your arguments then maybe you should either learn to defend them, or choose arguments that work. Instead of pretending that all of these political and social points somehow are evidence of genetic superiority.
I've already said why I'm against racial and cultural mixing. It's not only about your genes you cling to so much. Mixing this stuff includes problems on different grounds (such like sociology and politics, fuck, I even linked you study made by competent people showing health risks which includes data from common environment). Race and culture mixing is just selfish because it brings poblems to people around you (want me to link all those cases of problems with immigration in Sweden, UK, France, Germany etc?) and you're risking your child's (other human) health. See car and fire analogy in post above.
You might not wana talk about plastic surgery being an unrealistic image as I've known and dated asians, and basically see them every day that I'm in the city. I doubt my perception of them is warped by plastic surgery. If you dont have many asians in your country i could understand the skewed perception though.
At least stop being hypocrite by throwing my anecdotal evidence into trash while giving anecdotal evidence yourself. Still links I posted show that practice looks different.
im on my phone cant link stuff atm. i do believe your anti-consensus claims do need some real evidence though. Make claims that stand up to scrutiny, instead of ones that require factors other than genetics. And i am really supporting you to do that. If you successfully prove that race-mixing is objectively disadvantageous, you may win an award such as a nobel prize or smaller equivalent. So what have you got to lose? Start studying genetics.
I'm waiting for links then. And it'd be stupid to turn my life by 180 degrees because of some argument on the internet. Besides if I tried, I might end up like James Watson: http://www.washingto...because-racism/ Basically people bitching at him because they heard something they don't like, something that hurts their feelings and undermine equality and multiculturalism idea which fails miserably in practice.
Psor spewing the same old tired drivel and thinking people care about extremism on a public board? (racist, because that's what it is, you're openly talking about your insecurities of other races based on typified traits). The opinion is too unpopular and apathetic for anyone to actually read what you write and take it seriously. You should maybe try not having brain dead opinions? I dunno man, it just looks like a cry for help.
See last paragraph from reply to Scias. And popularity doesn't mean something is right or true. Check this map from wikipedia: https://upload.wikim...8/Communism.svg You can find it on "Communism" page. As you can see communism was implemented in something like 2/3 of the world. Pretty popular shit back then, isn't it? It crashed and burned. Lot of people smoke cigarettes, yet they're bad for your health. It's noting new that some ideas get popularity but then turn out to be total failures. Multiculturalism and racemixing shows signs it'll most likely end up as another failure. Ever heard about that saying with shit and flies? "Shit gotta taste good, all those flies can't be wrong!"
What a lovely history~<3
Congratz for you guys, hope you both love each other until the end!
I'm in a long-distance relationship now ... only it's not something that far and we see in every month hihihi.
"Even more, this would mean that we don't actually inhereit shit, but come up with some new random stuff. If that was the case, there would be completely no reason to look for genes variety and even extreeme inbreeding wouldn't be harmful, which we both know isn't true."
We don't come up with random stuff out of thin air, but we rely on the genes of the parents which combine, that's the point we can see changes etc. My point isn't that you should go and procreate with whoever is the most different person in the world, but a refutation of your point that people shouldn't go and mix races. Perhaps your arguments are only based on cultural etc, and if you admit that, that's fine. But if you think there is some genetic problem with race mixing, that's where I completely disagree. I am fine with people staying with their own race, or race mixing. That's the point, everybody's situation and tastes are different, and forming an opinion about what race is best to mix with, needs to be sensitive to the particular situation of the person involved. Basically, it's subjective.
We can talk about politics, culture etc a different time.
"USA is usually picked because it's the biggest melting pot which means it's best example."
Not for Poland it isn't.
"Any examples of those areas where niggers are more successful than whites in your country? Any stats or is it just anecdotal evidence you hate so much?"
Yes, this perceived "anecdote" may be used against a sweeping objective statement, such as your "black people tend to be less successful in white countries" implication. When you have started with that point, me giving examples such as 50 cent etc, or the fact in my country nearly everyone would agree that you rarely see homeless black guys vs 100s of successful black guys, whereas you see homeless white people all the time. The only reason I use this anecdote is in response to your incorrect point. Even if there is only one example of a successful black person, this disproves any claim that black people cannot have success, and therefore renders any policy against black people, unreasonable.
"I never said that. I said it's their culture. Lrn some reading comprehesion."
I agree with you that culture has an enormous direct effect on rates of crime and social problems, whereas race does not.
"I've already said why I'm against racial and cultural mixing. It's not only about your genes you cling to so much. Mixing this stuff includes problems on different grounds (such like sociology and politics, fuck, I even linked you study made by competent people showing health risks which includes data from common environment)"
I agree with you that investigating culture for these problems is the more rational thing to do, as genes probably have nothing to do with it. Yes genes change the way you look, and the way you look influences social discourse. But my point is it is the social discourse and lack of education/empathy, and cultural problems which lead to race problems such as discrimination against people with different genetics/race. These cultural and social problems are the source of the problem, not the genes themselves. Also, anecdotal again, but you may be interested that in certain place in the middle east and east, they actually treat foreign women better than they treat their own women. For example an asian or white woman going to certain countries like india, will often be treated with alot of respect and equal rights, compared to how they treat indian women who are already there. This is because they can be aware that white or asian women probably don't follow strict religious or sexist rules and traditions, and know that a sh*tstorm might build if they treat somebody badly who knows what their rights are or are from a richer country. China are similar, in that being pale skinned is viewed as a sign of success, as it looks like you have been in an office more and not cleaning the streets or doing hard labour. This is anecdotal I know, but serves as a counter for your claim, as far as genetics go.
I talk about genetics yes, but only because you began by implying genetics mixing is a problem. It simply isn't. Culture, politics, yes, they are problems, but when are they not tbh.
"mixing is just selfish because it brings poblems to people around you (want me to link all those cases of problems with immigration in Sweden, UK, France, Germany etc?) and you're risking your child's (other human) health. See car and fire analogy in post above."
Yes, having a mixed race child in the wrong place/culture will lead to problems. But my point is, this means the source of the problem is the culture itself, not the mixed genes.
Even if you believe that mixing races is the actual source of the problem, there is no practical way to "solve it" (lol final solution) I mean you gona send everybody with black genes back to africa? Every white person back to europe? What if somebody has leik white, black, asian and arabic genes? Where do you send them? Or you just ban them from procreating? Even that would be impractical. Pretty much all of us have non-white genes and some more than others. What would your criteria or equation be to ban from reproducing or matchmake genetics to a particular country? Serious question.
"At least stop being hypocrite by throwing my anecdotal evidence into trash while giving anecdotal evidence yourself. Still links I posted show that practice looks different."
Anecdotal evidence may be countered with anecdotal evidence. I'm looking for hard facts and causal links, not correlation and statistical surveys. Yes I'm being harsh on your evidence, but you need to show me something which survives hard scrutiny. I agree that cultures cause problems. I disagree that mixed genetics are the cause of these problems though if that's what you think.
"I'm waiting for links then.
And it'd be stupid to turn my life by 180 degrees because of some argument on the internet. Besides if I tried, I might end up like James Watson:"
You obviously don't care about it enough then. And winning a nobel prize would turn your life 180 degrees in the right direction imo.
Basically I believe evolution is a good thing to get insight on. Typing in "ring species" into google scholar is interesting. But maybe you even agree with me that problems occur due to cultures response to different races, but we disagree in that I think that the culture is the cause here and it can be changed, whereas maybe you believe that mixed genes inherently cause these problems regardless of culture.
"http://www.washingto...because-racism/ Basically people bitching at him because they heard something they don't like, something that hurts their feelings and undermine equality and multiculturalism idea which fails miserably in practice. "
I would take studies and facts based on their own merits, regardless of who published or studied it. I do this all the time, for example if even if you say something I agree with, I admit I agree with it, I don't give a fuck who said it. If it's verifiable, it's verifiable.
I am yet to hear how multiculturalism fails nations. Poland, UK, EU countries, USA, etc all have foreigners currently contributing to their culture, (Don't get me started on sharia though. You can take your skills here, your culture, food, etc, but leave bigoted ideas behind). The only thing failing the UK at least is strong capitalism, which many people believe will eventually fall. Places which have not embraced multiculturalism are some african countries, middle eastern countries, north korea, and to a certain extent, China. They vary in problems. While I woudn't say the lack of multiculturalism directly causes these problems, I would ask you why you think multiculturalism causes these problems. You could argue the sharia example, but to me that isn't a cultural problem, it's a religious problem. Once everybody agrees to stop lying to our children and start educating them instead I believe it would solve alot of problems, maybe even including the problems caused by cultures response to mixed races. It can happen similar to how the developed world started accepting LGBT people. All it is, is education. Simple as that. Just like LGBT, other races will always be here, so the solution is not to restrict them, but to restrict intolerance to them and education the nation on how to accept them and why they exist.
Last time I heard adaptation to environment wasn't based on culture etc, but on genetics.
Poland thankfully almost doesn't have immigrants, and the most of those that we have are from fellow slavic countries with similar culture. But if there was more immigration, Poland would also be melting pot and thus most of shit would apply here too. It's called learning from mistakes of others.
Exception proves the rule. Also I just googled unemplyment and poverty in scotland and even your own government seems to have different experience: http://www.scotland..../2013/06/1953/7 http://www.jrf.org.u...otland-full.pdf http://scotland.shel...nequalities.pdf Idk, maybe you live in neighbourhood that happens to not have that many blacks. Or maybe it's that whites are more common so you also see more white homeless. For example if we have 100 whites and 20% of them is unemployed, you get 20 unemployed whites. If we have 30 blacks and their unemployment rate is 50% it gives us 15 unemployed blacks. This means that blacks are less successful than whites but you still are more likely to see unemployed whites just because there's more of them.
In reality race is really tightly tied with culture. You can even hear those civilized niggers saying that one of the problems of slums is that niggers often accuse the ones who want to break from this pathological circle of acting too white. There are natural, psycholgical mechanisms which make us prefer certain types of groups, like preffering group of people within the same race. You're basically defending utopia by taking into consideration ONLY genes. Also genes affect way more things than you might think. Even things like IQ, though partially: http://news.sciencem...l-you-do-school https://en.wikipedia...itability_of_IQ And good job ignoring link I posted with research which found out mixed childreen are less healthy on averange. Still environment is the best argument against racemixing. With different environments you'd have to resort to eugenics to ensure racemixing will be non-harmful/beneficial on averange.
The example of guy who sells his nobel prize was meant to show more that political correctness is cancer and there're cases you simply can't say things no matter how valid they are just because they speak against certain idea. It'd be hard to do research when you have so many things against you. This also includes funding. It didn't have that much to do with you. I've already discussed with you many times so I know your stance. The only thing it has to do with you is that I don't know if you truly thought about the issue yourself or you're just going with the main flow. World of robot disguises could be nice analogy here because of how people often are afraid of admitting they don't know shit about the issue or speaking against the majority.
Regarding failures of multiculturalism: https://en.wikipedia...ulticulturalism Basically in every country with huge immigration like France, UK, Germany or Sweden recently there was drastic increase of nationalist movements and tendencies. Native people simply aren't happy with it. As I've been saying many times: tourism is fine, settlement isn't. Massive immigration brings problems on almost every ground: economical, cultural, criminal etc. And because almost always it's from shit places to decent places, the difference grows because shitholes aren't being fixed, decent places get overcrowded and slowly decline. The countries with multiculturalism are multicultural because they were good places to live in the first place. They didn't magically become successful because of multiculturalism. In fact I'm sure they're now having more problems than they had before.
How I would find solution? Since you say it's serious question then here: strict settlement and citizenship laws, bring back normal border policies insetad of this open borders bullshit. That's all on the official side. On the unofficial promoting nationalism and caring about your country because this fixes lot of problems that are source of shitty countries and emigration in the first place. This way I'm reducing it to minimum while not going full extreme. There's margin for exceptional cases like for example rape, and for people mentioned below. And because lex retro non agit, I think it'd be fair to leave those who already have families with native population, and give some time to leave the country for those who aren't (ofc no option to get marriage). Maybe some action that would offer foreigners to sell property they can't take with them for a fair price to government (ofc no restriction to just gov). Asylum seekers ofc get deported to the country they came from. USA and other the biggest melting pots would remain melting pots and due to promotion of nationalism I think there would be naturally made ethnic enclaves which would either coexist in separation or would lead to fight which solves the problem. In the other cases of small immigration the minorities would simply be breed out in the long run or slowly blend in.
And as I've said before, I have no will to discuss with you until you realize that statistics were meant to be that hard data and evidence people would be able to back their claims with. I'm not sure if you know how basic comparison mechanism is for human beings. It's basis for almost everything since you have to have awarness of differences in everything to be able to distinguish it in order to even name it, which is basis for communication. Then you have math which is universal language based on logic which by definition is correct thinking. From math you get the statistics branch which is made solely for purpose of accurate description and comparison of world. Without it you can only do experiments yourself (and those experiments are also sources of statistics) or use anecdotal evidence. There's simply no point in discussing if one side doesn't acknowledge the most legit way of backing up claims. You don't just shit on certain evidence, you shit on whole WAY of providing evidence. It's just ridiculous.
"Poland thankfully almost doesn't have immigrants"
Yes it does. You are an immigrant.
And if you are so tough on immigration why not stop your countrymen from coming to my country to bring back UK money to Poland helping it's economy. (Not a xenophobic question, just wondering what your view on that is)
"Also I just googled unemplyment and poverty in scotland and even your own government seems to have different experience:"
I enjoy more cultural and political points, but what I'm looking for is genetic evidence. I'm not asking for it out of nowhere, I'm asking for it because your original points here referred to "gene pollution". Until you find this evidence, the problem lies with culture and politics, just as you have agreed by showing me this cultural and political evidence. Until you post the genetic evidence, it is the culture that has to change, not the genes.
"Idk, maybe you live in neighbourhood that happens to not have that many blacks. Or maybe it's that whites are more common so you also see more white homeless. For example if we have 100 whites and 20% of them is unemployed, you get 20 unemployed whites. If we have 30 blacks and their unemployment rate is 50% it gives us 15 unemployed blacks. This means that blacks are less successful than whites but you still are more likely to see unemployed whites just because there's more of them."
Understood, and I have yet to see evidence that it is the genes causing this unemployment, rather than the culture's reaction to the genes.
"Also genes affect way more things than you might think. Even things like IQ, though partially:"
Aside from the fact that IQ tests are largely bogus, all I can say is lol. This is something we all kinda knew already, but I don't see anything there about the IQ of genes of a particular race.
"And good job ignoring link I posted with research which found out mixed childreen are less healthy on averange."
What this one? http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1448064/ which exposes how culture's reaction to mixed race can cause problems such as children becoming stressed, acquiring bad habits and therefore getting social and health problems due to the failure of the culture and society to accept them? No I didn't respond to it. Because I agree with it that culture and society causes problems when it doesn't accept mixed races.
"Still environment is the best argument against racemixing. With different environments you'd have to resort to eugenics to ensure racemixing will be non-harmful/beneficial on averange."
Either that or actually educate people and governments so they're not retarded enough to cast out people from different races.
"The example of guy who sells his nobel prize was meant to show more that political correctness is cancer and there're cases you simply can't say things no matter how valid they are just because they speak against certain idea. It'd be hard to do research when you have so many things against you. This also includes funding. It didn't have that much to do with you. I've already discussed with you many times so I know your stance. The only thing it has to do with you is that I don't know if you truly thought about the issue yourself or you're just going with the main flow."
I'm not sure what relevance this has. You shouldn't resort to the majority argument fallacy. I reach my conclusions on this the same way I reach conclusions about anything. Using deductive reasoning from the ground up. Instead of using this fallacy, come up with an argument which backs up your previous claims about genetics. So far you've been going in circles and repeating yourself even with the things I agree with. I'll show you how formulating a point usually works.
1: Make a claim
2: Provide evidence which can only back up that claim, without being biased, anecdotal, or purely statistical, although statistics can help, only if it converges with evidence relevant to your claim (i.e. genetic)
3: Form a conclusion and where relevant, suggest a solution.
So far you have not completed step 2 yet, and have gone off topic to culture and political points way too often. Until you complete step 2 and provide real evidence, the anecdotal evidence you supply may be dismissed with anecdotal evidence. Once the person making the claim ceases to use anecdotal evidence, the counter claimant must also cease to use it. But until then, we're just throwing political statistical numbers at each other, every one of which has a counter.
Start at the beginning at step 1 again. I'm not even sure you still want to repeat your point about genetics because you seem to be avoiding that topic so we should clarify. You throw cultural stuff at me, and I agree with most of it so what's the point. I thought you enjoyed being hated so why not tackle genetics which is what we disagree on, then we will enjoy the hate.
"Regarding failures of multiculturalism"
You are the product of multiculturalism. Christianity didn't original in Poland and neither did white people. And yeah answer me about PL's coming to my country and sending money back to help Polish people. I welcome it btw, but if you're against multiculturalism and migration maybe you could propose an alternative to international trading and working abroad which would help your economy more. Scottish people like your wodka probably even more than you do. I hope you are enjoying the profits.
"Basically in every country with huge immigration like France, UK, Germany or Sweden recently there was drastic increase of nationalist movements and tendencies blah blah blah non-genetic off topic stuff"
Get to the genetic evidence breh, or withdraw your first point about genetics. Politics and culture are way too complicated to blame movements simply on genetics with no real reason. Like you say, people from opposing cultures often don't mix well if they are too subscribed to their home culture and not educated enough to respect other cultures.
"How I would find solution? Since you say it's serious question then here: strict settlement and citizenship laws, bring back normal border policies insetad of this open borders bullshit. That's all on the official side. On the unofficial promoting nationalism and caring about your country because this fixes lot of problems that are source of shitty countries and emigration in the first place."
Sounds like you are proposing a solution for countries economy. This is completely off topic btw, clearly you don't think having more criteria to meet for immigrants would stop race mixing, you must be talking about economy. Although this is off topic, I will say that in my country at least, getting rich people to pay their taxes would solve more than 50x as much as sending immigrant back home. In fact sending immigrants back home would result in losing more jobs, as in my country at least, alot of people come here and create our jobs. No need to respond to this though btw this is more about economy. I feel like it's weeks since you mentioned your original points about genetics. If I go on holiday again and come back will you actually make a point instead of saying alot of stuff we agree on?
"And as I've said before, I have no will to discuss with you until you realize that statistics were meant to be that hard data and evidence people would be able to back their claims with. I'm not sure if you know how basic comparison mechanism is for human beings."
I think I may have told you about this already, but that is actually the least reliable form of evidence and understanding. There is, believe it or not, another better way, called science. Science means "knowledge" (literally) and believe it or not does not rely on our instinct and base senses, but our deductive reasoning and logic. Statistics is NOT hard data. It can only be used to form a stable conclusion when a secondary piece of evidence converges with it.
"From math you get the statistics branch which is made solely for purpose of accurate description and comparison of world."
Incorrect. Math is a method of describing processes. Statistics do not lead to accurate conclusions. It is a subset of mathematics, but statistics itself cannot be used as a conclusion. Statistics, simply put, is COUNTING. Nothing more. Yes you can count things. But after counting, you then need to apply other methods, often several, including other mathematical ones, in order to actually form a conclusion. Otherwise we end up with allsorts of crazy shi-ite. Most people in the world are asian. Does this fact alone tell us immediately that asians are more fertile than other races? You may argue it is cause for more investigation (using different methods like I said), but the statistics alone will not tell you this. That's what investigation means. The statistics may give you a suspicion or hypothesis, but until you carry out the investigation and find some real evidence, you only have a hypothesis.
"Without it you can only do experiments yourself (and those experiments are also sources of statistics) or use anecdotal evidence."
Incorrect. An experiment which yields demonstrable and repeatable results has nothing to do with statistics. Every person involved in science works with 3 base assumptions: 1: The universe exists. 2: We can learn about it. 3: Experiments which yield repeatable results work better than ones that don't. With this in mind, experiments only work on those assumptions, which are pretty safe assumptions. When an experiment works, it is beyond statistics, in that, the process of scientific experimentation does not simply describe numbers like statistics do, it actually explains why those numbers are happening.
"There's simply no point in discussing if one side doesn't acknowledge the most legit way of backing up claims."
Agreed. There is no point in discussing when we do not agree that the most legitimate way of backing up points is through reason and science, not anecdotal, statistical and eye witness (the three least effective forms of evidence), and the original claim is never referred to, and different points are made instead. None of your sources correspond to your original point "you're on the way of polluting white genes with blasian ones"
"You don't just shit on certain evidence, you shit on whole WAY of providing evidence. It's just ridiculous. "
Agreed. I shit on statistical, anecdotal and eye witness evidence. This entire way of providing evidence, when not combined with practical or scientific evidence which corresponds to your claim, is ridiculous. We are in complete agreement. Now get back to making your point about genetics, and following those 3 steps. You have my full support when you are attempting to make your point. You are free and welcome to try again.
.
She knows I'm a sucker for a good debate. 
That term just reminds me of Dave Chappelle's sketch where he plays a blind supremacist. 
