The "Can We Keep it Civil?" Thread

[Denilson-The-Comeback]

Firstly Dennis, this response will seem odd as your own was so long that I cannot reply to it with your data included, so i will just number my points and you can follow as you wish.

I'll respond to your points but you can't respond to my points. Right...OK.

1. What do I mean by family planning? I mean that if you are looking for a man to father your child you need to choose that man incredibly carefully. That is the power of being a woman. You need to look at income, reliability, ability to work, provide, care, etc. You need to read up on parenting yourself and not just go on the muscle memory of one's own childhood. Think about nutrition, well being, nurture, really make sure you are being the best possible mother you can be. No white person is stopping a black person from choosing a partner carefully or reading a few books and practicing what one learns.

As I said before

What you are saying about black fatherlessness is false and a lie and see this is a common thing white supremacist try to do.

They say a lie like "Black people commit 70% of murders" and then they try to get black people to defend that lie.



First off can you explain to me why Iceland (One of the whitest countries you can find ? Has the highest rates for father-lesness ?



Why would a white person want to talk about black illegitimacy ? You don't care. Because if you were truly concerned about illegitimacy, you'd also be just as concerned about white illegitimacy too.

Your understanding of the Black community. Out of wedlock birth does not mean what conservative whites project it does in Black households. Most of those children still have two parents that just decided to cohabit instead of marry. That phenomenon isn't just taking place in Black America, some all white European nations also have exceedingly high out of wedlock births.

3. I do not assume that there are IQ differences,

I agree.

Statistics can only give us data, before we draw any inference from these data we need to be sure all the factors contributing to what we are collecting data on has been taken into account. Statistics based inferences have their flaws, being a member of the ‘superior race’ you should know this. Right ?

Intelligence itself is very hard to define, whether IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence is hotly debated, the definition of race is unclear, there is no genetic proof as of yet that indicates the existence of traits unique to what we call a particular race(based on their appearance and known ancestry), yet you are sure blacks are inferior.

A person of the master race should know better

So what you are saying is this : A black cat and a white cat are not both cats. They are different species. So are you saying that there is no single human race ? There are just different races which just happen to look little bit alike.

I think you are just scared. A more ballsy guy would’ve said already that science proves that blacks are dumb. But since you and your kind are too scared, you try to find some sort of pseudo-scientifical dress which you can wear in the racist ballroom gala

In many way it's a waste of time even debating with you as you can’t argue facts against beliefs. People believe what they want and they will always use confirmation bias to justify what they want to be true. If you want to believe that people are inherently inferior, just like people in the Eugenics movement did, then nothing will convince them otherwise except possibly time. Going through such efforts in trying to prove the superiority of one group over another obviously comes with an agenda. And it’s not a scientific one.

Even when you look at the main people running around trying to prove how stupid black ppl are

• Steve Sailer, journalist/computer salesman.
• J. Philippe Rushton, psychologist.
• Francis Fukuyama, political economist.
• Richard Herrnstein, psychologist (Bell Curve Author)
• Charles Murray, political scientist (Bell Curve Author)
• Arthur Jensen, psychology professor.

You notice anything strange? No biologists or anthropologists, much less geneticists.

Why trust these people over biologists and anthropologists, the very people who study these things for a living? To leave no stone unturned, some biologists and anthropologists have even written books about race for the general public:

You are trying to hijack science in the same way that people hijack religion.............. to promote their agenda.

The problem is: unlike in religion, science is far less open to interpretation. Which is why they so often.

Define “race” in humans in scientific terms first. That is, unambiguously and universal throughout the world, not only the USA

That is not anything new or surprising unless you live in a lefty bubble.

There always has to be at least one mention of “the liberals” or “lefties”

You'll never find such mention in serious scientific publications.

We never really drill down to the nuts and bolts that need to be asked of guys like you and you kind of like that. Because you never have to actually put your ideas out there on the line to be scrutinized.

You can always claim ideological martyr status for being shouted down as being iconoclasts in the public square and pretend that marginalized trash are actually hidden gems of knowledge only you and a select few others can see.

Let’s have the debate.

Let's see what it would actually mean in public policy terms. Let’s see how guys like you intend to address the problems of our time and indeed things they see as problems.

But I don't think you will because the reason you and others believe in this is because you need a new theory of racism that allows you to separate yourselves from the blue collar stormfronters. So they come up with this high sounding “Scientific” theory.

There are differences between races.

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair colour can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.

It has never been a case of there not being differences between the way human beings look. The trouble is in the imprecise taxonomy. How do you define a “race” and might there not be other equally valid ways of dividing humans into taxonomical groupings ?

And - NO - It's not because we are all the same.

There are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within so-called racial groups, and more so than many have heretofore believed.

Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.

Many scientists worked hard (REAL HARD) on finding working definition of race as a biological fact. They all failed. They all failed not because genetic differences can’t be observed between various humans (after all, if there weren’t mDNA differences, we wouldn’t know much about human maternal ancestry).

They all failed because genetic differences do not support social races, races that divide people into (pardon my words) “black”, “white”, “yellow” and “red”.

The only living subspecies of the species Homo sapiens is Homo sapiens sapiens. That is current scientific knowledge. And it is very likely to remain the only one, unless Sasquatch or the Yeti decide to walk into a science lab for a DNA test one day.

There is a reason why blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants work. This is why a “black ” persons blood can save an white Irishman’s life with a transfusion and vice versa.