Ahh so you form a bell curve for people with genes for height and immediately conclude that women are inferior to men except when the men are Chinese and the women African. (wait is tall better? Don't shorter people live longer? Or is it a basketball team we're selecting for?) Thanks And let me see. you establish the difference between Chinese and Indians by comparing their melanin levels. And the Mizoram Indians and the Arunachal Chinese will just have to figure out where they stand at noon. Much obliged. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There is. Many men can never seem to find it. What do you think concerns them more? Avoiding death by starvation and/or war or "thinking" about saving up to buy a house, car and what kind of topping to have on the pizza in the near and distant future?
Huh? Most poor people tend to have a shriveled future sense, not just Africans. Jesus, go play with your doorbell or something.
Do you think poor people in the West are the same as poor people verging on starvation while living in a war torn country?
One of the problems here in South Africa is child rape. This stems from a belief by some of the rural people that you can cure HIV/AIDS by sleeping with a virgin. Thats why a lot of young girls (sometimes only a couple of months old) get raped here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/258446.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1703595.stm Another day in Africa.
Why? How? You have scientific proof of this of course? And at what level of skin colour does one begin to become more inferior? Taupe? So when you lay like a dried squid in the sun for a tan, you get more inferior as you colour? Or are you just 'spesh'?
Tasmanian aboriginal. The blackest of black. They didn't even have fire when first discovered by whites in the 19th century. Now that's what I call degenerate. No, that's incorrect. Primitive, like all the other fauna from that continent. Seriously though, what's so hard to understand that if poor people in the West have trouble doing well in school, holding jobs, and pick up habits they can't afford (smoking, drinking, gambling, etc.) due to a difficulty in comparing current payoff to future cost, then poorer Africans would have even more difficulty with such things?
But really Bells, your inability to grasp what I'm saying astounds me. No, wait, it doesn't. You just assume that I'm saying something racist, when in fact, I'm pointing out how genetics could actually have nothing to do with Africans sucking. Not that I'd expect critical thinking from you. Your head's awash in motherhood hormones.
And most of the white fauna is descendant from the UK. Why should they have "fired" when confronted with people they had never encountered before? Do you kill every stranger you see in the street? They had no means of defending themselves against those who decided to eradicate them. Victims of genocide rarely do. And what is so difficult for you to understand that comparing someone poor in the West to an African living in a war torn country battling starvation is, well, kinda stupid? It is like comparing an apple to an orange. Poor people in the West dream about wealth and prosperity. Poor people in Africa dream about surviving and hoping like hell they might, just might be able to scrounge up some food so their kids don't just die the next day. And your head's too far up your backside to see the sunshine.
People like you Roman, are the poster boy for why educated does not equal rational. So, are you poor or black?
No, I mean rapid oxidation releasing large amounts of heat, often used for cooking and keeping warm. You know, fire. It's just more of an extreme, Bells. On the same scale. You know, they're both fruit. Hell, I'd argue they're both a variety of apple. Or citrus. Poor people in the West (and I mean real poor people, not only having one car poor, or whatever you lawyers think is poor) live a hand-to-mouth existence. Believe me. I know many, many poor people. They live form one paycheck to another. Many of them are quite bright, talented individuals. Yet they consistently make bad decisions when it comes to what's going to pay off in the future. How is this any different from a more poor person, with more problems, living an even more hand-to-mouth existence, in, say Africa or Indonesia? I've been to southeast asia, too. They have a lot of poor people there. Can't say I really got to know a lot of them, though, since my Malay is pretty bad, so my comparative anecdotal analysis isn't really, well, comparative.
Both. But which bit wasn't rational? Do you want me to go through all the syllogisms of my reason? The logic, if you will? You can disagree with my premises; in fact, the only reason I brought it up was because I know you guys will. But the logic is ironclad.
My bad. They didn't make fire, but did use smouldering fire sticks and adapted to their environment quite well. But they get a paycheck and assistance in regards to health and welfare. In Africa, most have to depend on the land to survive and in times of drought and/or war, they do not have a monthly paycheck or a Government to offer them aid. In some instances, it is the Government who is trying to kill them. Poor people in the US do have it tough, but they can still somehow manage to scrounge up at least one meal a day. Poor people in Africa do not have that luxury if their crops fail or is destroyed by war. Get it now? They do not have choices to make since the majority are merely trying to survive war and/or famine, while the poor in the US might.
Lets see. According to you a really really poor person in a Western culture, where welfare checks and soup kitchens are available, education is possible and society is relatively secure, solvent and free from war is equal to a very very poor person from say Malawi, with a GDP per capita of $600. Correct?
Oh yeah, I definitely understand that poor in the US is hardly 'poor' compared to what real poor is. I've seen that shit first hand. But you would understand how such an environment wouldn't be conducive for the sort of planning that comes to fruition in 5 or 10 or 30 years? Like any other ephemeral organism, the greater the chance of mortality, the greater the focus on now. Why waste resources that will pay off in decades when tomorrow your village will be burned and your children orphaned? It's precisely that sort of environment that gives way to an entire culture, a way of thinking, that isn't conducive to the long time investment strategies, such as financial markets, or education. Why lend capital when using it now is so much more valuable? Why have so many of our attempts in other countries, both by the gov't and private sectors, to better the life there, not worked? Because the skill sets we tell them to value don't have value. An education doesn't matter if you're an African pastoralist. So what if your child has the opportunity learn to read down at the UNESCO shelter or whatever; you need all 8 of those little fuckers working on the farm. Half of them are going to die, anyway.
Well, presumably they're still people. Unless you're saying that poor, poor, poor Malawians (Malawese?) are subhuman and operate by a different set of rules, since they're more like a different species or something. Which I don't think you're saying. Education IS possible, true, yet many poor people do very poorly in school. They don't value education, because for them, the opportunity cost of learning is too high. They have a different sense of time. Rather than sacrificing now for later pay off, they instead go for immediate pay off. The lower you through social strata, the more pronounced this becomes. How frequently do millionaires buy lottery tickets? What about Bubba&Sue Ann from the trailer park? Look at the enormous percent of income a middle class family invests in their child's education, compared to that of a lower class family. As a % of income, the middle class sacrifices more for education than the lower class. If you assume that wealth correlate with longevity, and that in turn correlates with fitness, then you'll see that as you get poorer, you are less likely to survive, and so will begin consuming resources now, borrowing from the future. Sure, poor Brazilians may not have schools or other such fancy-pants institutions to not invest in, but they are remarkably talented at wiping out their environment. All over, you'll find poor people tearing apart their environment at enormous cost to the future- some of that shit is never coming back, for an immediate pay off.
