Affirmative action should be abolished.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TimeTraveler, Sep 26, 2006.

  1. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    So you admit you were wrong.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    How is land taken annexed in the process of war with the natives, if there are no natives?

    something you obviously missed - "The Trek Boers preferred the free and unrestricted life on their ox wagons and in tents to the more protected existence within the realms of town administration. The price they had to pay for their lifestyle was constant armed conflict with native peoples. First the Khoikhoi successfully resisted the conquest of their residential and grazing land."

    Do you think these people traversed the whole of south africa without contact with natives? That is retarded.
    Maybe the bushmen (native africans BTW), were the only ones near capetown, but other natives were in the lands now known as south africa, as proven by the wars fought for the lands.

    You are basically using the incredibly flawed logic that the whites moved in to a certain spot (where there were natives anyway, but let's ignore that), that was called south africa, and when they moved in there wasn't anyone in the land they annexed later, but this area should be considered white south africa, although there were no whites there, because eventually the whites would take it from the blacks who you claim only arrived there later, even though they were there before the whites.
    So from the moment the whites landed all the future land of south africa was theirs, even though they would not see it until after the blackks lived on it.
    Are you serious????????????????

    edit - you said south africa was a white country, not that any particular province was, AND do you realize that everything in south africa is within 500 miles or so except Limpopo - so the claim is that there were no blacks in ANY of what is now 8 of the 9 provinces of south africa. GHAHAHAHA
    The journals read - "All the way to what we would call johannesburg, we encountered no natives" - yeah right.
    BTW, large parts of namibia and botswana fall within that 500 mile range also, and those areas were empty too??!??

    edit - AYFKM?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2006
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Actually, Botswana is still pretty empty ... bigger than France but with a population of around 1.5 million. I think a lot of the land is very arid, desert or semi-desert. Amazing game parks though.

    For South Africa, I read that various black tribes had been working there way down from the north, entering South Africa a few centuries before the Boers. But they moved more slowly so they met the whites about halfway. The Bushmen of course have always been in the area, have the most diverse gene pool in the world and it's possible that all other humans (including other Africans) are descended from a few of their great-great-great... grandparents.

    And they haven't all been wiped out, although I think their traditional way of life is rapidly disappearing.

    Nope.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    If I'm wrong, it's not me, it is the source that I have used in which case I would be pissed for having been duped into using false information.

    The claim is that whites were in "South Africa" first in 1652, and that even in 1800 there were no blacks within 500 miles of the first settlement. Obviously there were blacks in Africa before 1652, but how close were they to the first white settlement in 1652?
     
  8. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
     
  9. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    The question is, where were the blacks from the north located in 1652? As for the bushmen, I thought they were wiped out or at least as "wiped out" as the AI that posters here (and I don't disagree) that whites commited genocide on.
     
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Well, in that case you have no comprehensive reading skills. Read your own source again. And then pay attention to Cole's post.
     
  11. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    The question is where were blacks in what is known as South Africa today in 1652. Not where they were a hundred years later when they met up with whites.
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    It does not even help his comprehension to repeat in five different posts repeatedly using caps and bold for emphasis on the key words. I know - I did this in thread "Desegregation Harmful or Helpful" and he still did not comprehend that I was discussing the lack of significant difference in IQ potential at birth between different racial groups on average, so I have gave up on having an intelligent discussion of this with him.

    Take my advise and do the same - his reading comprehension is below second grade level.
     
  13. J.B Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,281
    Why we have "Affirmitive Action":

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Yeah, and I asked WTF is IQ potential at birth (which is a phrase I have never heard of anywhere but from you) and you didn't answer. Go back to that thread and answer.
     
  15. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    sudoku -
    southern namibia is closer to the earliest south african settlements than much of south africa, well within 500 miles.

    "The first rock paintings were found in the so-called Apollo-11 Cave in the Hunsberg in southern Namibia. They are dated back to 26.000 B.C." http://www.namibia-travel.net/namibia/history_info.htm

    Europeans were not the first occupants for 500 miles in the 17th century, on a number of counts.
    Your racist lied to you, and you quite obviously don't bother to check yourself before you spread the disease.

    Just think about how many other mistakes your sources have made, since they obviously don't have any problem with leaving false "facts" unchecked.
     
  16. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Namibia is a country north of modern South Africa. How could it be within 500 miles of SW South Africa? Furthermore, assuming it was true there were people there 26000 years ago, they weren't there in 1652. Some say that the Kennewick man was in North America first but I don't argue that the AI stole the land from Europeans.

    I'm looking at Cape Town on the link one of you guys offered

    http://www.southafrica-travel.net/history/eh_trebu.htm

    There is no way Cape Town is within 500 miles of Namibia.
     
  17. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    look at this map, the border of southern namibia is in most part less than 400 miles from capetown.
    http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/za.htm

    Also, I'm sure there were fights with the natives within the southernmost half of south africa.

    Your source stated this - "White people have lived in South Africa much longer than Negroes"
    This cannot be true if any part of what is now south africa had blacks there first.

    This is all irrelevant, since the bushmen are not european whites.
     
  18. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Jeez, South Africa must be smaller than I thought, I looked at an atlas before my last post and said no way is Cape Town 500 miles or less away from any part of Namibia.

    Anyway, the claim was about South Africa, not Namibia. As for the bushmen, the blacks killed most of them and the claim wasn't about the bushmen which I am still unsure if they were around Cape Town in 1652 or not.
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    As I already told you in original thread how IQs of day old babies are measured and who pioneered this work at Cornell more 50 years ago. (I forgot to mention she was head of the psychology department for many years.) I will briefly repeat here. The two most important approaches (after their eyes function) are to display things for them and:
    (1) See how long and what type of thing holds their attention - If intelligent, a complex drawing will hold attention longer. If they have a good memory and have seen it hours earlier or even yesterday, it will not hold their attention as long as a new drawing of same complexity. If drawing has some thing wrong*, they may even fixate and stare at that detail, etc. - all this is generally referred to as their "staring responses."
    (2) The other general indictor of the perceptual / thinking abilities is the "startle responses." In prior thread I mentioned specifically the rhythm of sucking on a pacifier will be interrupted when some thing happens in the display. - more intelligent babies will notice smaller changes, etc. I did not mention the physiological responses like skin conductivity, heart rates etc.

    While these are not your standard written multiple-choice IQ tests, they correlate well with them done years later. All IQ tests are somewhat arbitrary. What is important, especially for our discussion, is: Are there difference that correlate with skin color in babies only weeks old? - Answer: no significant ones.

    Based on you poor prior reading comprehension, I doubt if you are any wiser or better informed. - I wrote this mainly for others, who did not read it already in the old thread, so I did not use CAPS and bold to help you again this time.
    --------------------------------------
    *For example a three eyed woman's face. It is amazing but babies only days old innately know the correct relative positon of the eyes, nose and mouth. I.e. if the simple black a white, line-only, drawing is composed of "stick-on" eyes, mouth and nose to be place in a oval - they know as soon as they can see that the eyes should be symetrically placed. That the mouth should not be between the eyes. etc. That is, the human face is some innately known special object. Also the processing of faces is done in a separate part of the brain from most other shapes.

    Also intelligent babies at a very young age can "count" up to 5 or 6. This is shown by letting them look at five balls on table until they are bored but forced to keep looking there and sucking steadily on their pacifier. Then cover table and balls with a screen for a few seconds. When screen is removed if there are 6 or 4 balls on the table - their sucking rate will change, and they will stare longer at balls again {You get the impression they are thinking: "What the Hell happened!"} but not if there are still five ball there. I.e. if five balls are still there, they quickly become bored again. The ball must be added or removed by some silent, hidden, mechanism with no human near the table. (It comes from or goes into the table.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2006
  20. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Shit, I don't remember reading this example, I do remember you mentioning you had a friend who said they measure the IQ of week olds. In any case, I did concede that babies of all races may have the same average IQ and furthermore said I really didn't give a shit about the IQ of week old babies I care about the IQ of adults.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Then you should care about the enviromental factors which in US do cause the average black adult to have lower IQ. The US can no longer afford to throw are some of the brains with the greatest potentiial just becuse they are in black bodies.
     
  22. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Nothing is going to raise average black IQ significantly because heredity is such a huge factor in IQ. That is why I posted the adoption studies. What exactly would you propose to do to increase average black IQ?
     
  23. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Yeah but I never specifically said diversity only applies to black and white, or gender. I see no reason why taxation cannot be used to promote unity and effiency, it would save money for the corporation. Seriously, if a corporation wants to hire only white males, they can already, but does this mean all employees regardless of race or gender should be paid the same wages? I'm guessing you'd say no, that white males deserve higher wages because they are the most qualified, okay fine, you can have this assumption, but if this is true this would mean white males are also the most expensive. The more qualified an employee, the more expensive they are, UNLESS you promote efficiency. This could mean only hiring American workers, in specific, the women and minorities, as a way to save money, as corporations are going to outsource either way, I'd say why not make outsourcing good for America by giving tax breaks to corporations that promote American unity by hiring American minorities instead of foreign minorities?

    Do you see my logic now? Your job won't be under attack, the corporation won't be losing a great deal of money, and it will keep corporations from firing everyone on the bottom and replacing everyone, all of us, with cheap overseas labor.

    So choose, outsourcing women and minorities or hiring minorities and women in America, which do you prefer?
     

Share This Page