But okay, if Baron wants to weaken and water down the word hate, what other word can define the unlimited irrational rage that people hold? It's obviously an emotion, so if it's not hate, what is it? Give it a name.
The Race thread. How many races are there REALLY? Does race even exist?
- Thread starter TimeTraveler
- Start date
Baron Max said:
I know thinking and acting are two different things, but if you have any concept of history, you'll know that whatever people think eventually becomes reality. If enough people imagine killing lots and lots of people, eventually someone will start doing it, and others will join in, and then lots of people will start doing it, because emotions are the basis for the drive behind destructive behavior.
Like I said, I'm not talking about the ethical white supremist, I'm not talking about the ethical seperatist, I'm talking about the racists who don't view minorities as human, but view them as aliens, or as monsters to be destroyed.
Yeah, most people just talk, but lets be honest about the fact that some people actually would murder every minority on earth. Some people might even murder every human on earth and not care as long as they survive it. Your hate, is not another persons hate, as some people hate in a much more serious way.
If you want a perfect example of how far hatred can go, look at columbine. These two kids, terrorized the entire school, they hated LIFE, they were racist, but underneath it all they hated LIFE, so they took as many lives as they could take, until there were no lives left to take but their own, and they took their own lives. That is perhaps the most pure hatred I've ever seen in my lifetime, and I'm guessing thats what they died for, they died to express true hatred for humanity.
Then you have opposites like ghandi and martin luther king, these people died to express true love for humanity. These are the extremes but recognize that these extremes do exist.
What evidence is there that ancient Egyptians were negro? I believed they were brown-skinned people, not caucasian, but of a related earlier stock, Don't the mummies show long thin noses similar to caucasians, not broad noses of negros.
Perhaps their race arose as a mixture of caucasian ancestors and negro ancestors? Lots of DNA is available in the mummies, so don't we have better information now?
Perhaps their race arose as a mixture of caucasian ancestors and negro ancestors? Lots of DNA is available in the mummies, so don't we have better information now?
TimeTraveler said:
Well, are you suggesting, perhaps, that we test all humans to see if they have "murderous tendencies", then do something like imprison them or convict them of "hate" and throw 'em into jail???
TimeTraveler said:
Huh? Do you have any evidence and/or facts to back that up? I'm sure that you're going to bring up Hitler, but before you do, be aware that in the first parts of the German war, many Germans did not know about the Jews!
TimeTraveler said:
So we should arrest and convict and imprison those people for what they think? Is that really, really what you want?
TimeTraveler said:
Well, the way our laws are written, we have to let them do it first before a crime has been committed. Surely you don't want to convict someone for what they're thinking or planning, do you?
TimeTraveler said:
Okay, what would you have done? And please try to keep you answers in the proper perspective ....BEFORE they commited the crime. What would you have done to them ...even if you found out what they were talking about and planning?
TimeTraveler said:
Interesting. You admire them for dying for what they believed, yet you're not willing to allow others to do the same ...UNLESS you agree with their causes or beliefs. Why?
You cna't prevent people from believing their own ideals ...even if those ideals are not ones that you like. In many ways, the extremist racists are not much different to Ghandi or MLK, are they?
Baron Max
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Jesus fucking Christ.
Walter L. Wagner said:
What evidence do you have that Asians were really Asian in Ancient China? Could they have been Europeans? Are the Japanese Asians Europeans?
I mean seriously, this is common sense. With every other civilization there is no debate, why should Africa be the exception where we just cannot admit that Egypt is even in Africa? To ignore the fact that Egyptians are black is like ignoring that the Chinese are/were Asian.
Todays blacks are a mixture of black and caucasian and you call them black, now suddenly when it's Egypt you want to accept the fact that we are all mixed? I said that all along. I never said Egyptians were pure, I never said blacks in America are pure, I never said any race is pure, so yes whites and blacks have Egyptian blood. The point I'm making is Egyptians look black so they are black by racial standards that most non-scientific people go by. King Tut was black, there is no way to doubt it, you can see a giant statue of with big lips and nose and see. You can see the paint on the walls also.
Also, when you say negros, you act like all negros have the same nose, you act like all Europeans have the same face, it's not that simple. The main appearance of a negro, the curly hair, and the dark skin, all the other features vary depending on which race of negro you are talking about (yes there are different races of negro). The same goes for whites, it's not like a German looks anything at all like an Italian or the Spanish, and if white people can have different looks, why should we treat the black race differently? If you look at a Japanese and Korean they don't look the same, different features. Japanese have the palest skin among the Asians, and have the most European features, then you have the Chinese, Koreans, and dark skinned Asians, but they all have the same eyes so they all are considered "Asian" even though they are different races of Asian. It's the same for Africans, the same for Europeans.
In theory, racially, blacks in America are Egyptian, because they are in the exact environment Egyptians were in, in terms of the race-mixing oppurtunities. Are you going to accept that reality or do you consider blacks in America to be different from you even though they have caucasian genes now? Let's also not forget hispanics which have genes from all over the place. So if you are trying to make the case that race mixing is bad, if Egypt was mixed race, and America is mixed race, well it must be pretty damn good since all the major civilizations had it.
TimeTraveler said:
Hmm, that's not quite correct. Those major civilisations became major civilisations BEFORE they became mixed-race ...even if some of them had slaves, etc (which I don't consider "mixed nations", do you?).
Name a great nation that became so AFTER it integrated ...I can't think of a single one!
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
In general, you are trying to make me into some sorta, FBI spokesperson. I think it's the FBI's job to answer the sorts of questions you asked me. The FBI, and other agencies handle these things, but when you want to deal with crime you must do so in a scientific way. Behavioral profiling, genetic profling, these things are accurate. The Isreali's have been using this sort of security for a long time now and it works very well. People follow patterns, and aggressive people usually have aggressive histories and usually make certain purchases and behave in a certain way. I'm not talking about words or thoughts, I'm talking about behavior. I'm not talking about neo-nazi's who just want to seperate themselves from all other races, and I'm not talking about people who want to spend all their lives writing books and talking about who they hate.
Baron Max said:
Make up your mind. Ok so the original Egyptians were black then?
What about America? Once again make up your mind because you are confusing me.
TT
You sure read a lot between the lines that wasn't there.
Just because Egypt is in Africa doesn't mean the Egyptian race of circa 5000 BC was negro. After all, it was just around the corner from many other races of that day, including semites, hittites, etc. Currently Egypt is primarily of Arab ancestry, though I'm sure there is lots of the original Egyptian blood line mixed in.
Most of the paintings and drawings from Egypt I've seen do not depict ancient Egyptians as negro, nor do they depict them as caucasian. I believe they were of a separate racial stock, and to which modern races they might be most closely related to I'm not certain. However, I believe that way south on the Nile was another kingdom that was of negro stock, and I'm certain there was likely lots of mixing going on. We've posted a lot along those lines with the "We're 5% Neandertal" thread.
And by the way, they've found caucasian peoples in China (mummified, blond hair, caucasian facial features) from circa 3,000 years ago. Whether they shared their genes with the asiatic races of that day, so that they are still around in the modern asiatic peoples, is not yet known.
And, of course, most people of caucasian stock nowadays are of very dark skin, and live in India. The lighter skinned caucasian stock moved on to Europe, with perhaps another group moving eastward to Asia (hence the caucasian mummies recently found in Asia).
Fraggle Rock likely knows more about this than I.
You sure read a lot between the lines that wasn't there.
Just because Egypt is in Africa doesn't mean the Egyptian race of circa 5000 BC was negro. After all, it was just around the corner from many other races of that day, including semites, hittites, etc. Currently Egypt is primarily of Arab ancestry, though I'm sure there is lots of the original Egyptian blood line mixed in.
Most of the paintings and drawings from Egypt I've seen do not depict ancient Egyptians as negro, nor do they depict them as caucasian. I believe they were of a separate racial stock, and to which modern races they might be most closely related to I'm not certain. However, I believe that way south on the Nile was another kingdom that was of negro stock, and I'm certain there was likely lots of mixing going on. We've posted a lot along those lines with the "We're 5% Neandertal" thread.
And by the way, they've found caucasian peoples in China (mummified, blond hair, caucasian facial features) from circa 3,000 years ago. Whether they shared their genes with the asiatic races of that day, so that they are still around in the modern asiatic peoples, is not yet known.
And, of course, most people of caucasian stock nowadays are of very dark skin, and live in India. The lighter skinned caucasian stock moved on to Europe, with perhaps another group moving eastward to Asia (hence the caucasian mummies recently found in Asia).
Fraggle Rock likely knows more about this than I.
To be black does not mean that you are necessarily a Negro or part of the Negro racial group.
Dark skin is a characteristic of many racial groups and is only a piece of a whole.
A racial group is determined by its historical background, as a group of characteristics passed down by a group that experienced a period of prolonged genetic isolation.
This genetic isolation produced environment specific, genetic mutations which may or may not have eventually mixed with other mutations when and if some cross-racial breeding occurred.
Racial distinctions are currently more difficult to measure since the political climate is not conducive to such divisive explorations and technological advancement has made race mixing inevitable- diluting whatever race distinct characteristics existed and covering them up with cultural behavioral constraints which creates behavioral uniformity.
Dark skin is a characteristic of many racial groups and is only a piece of a whole.
A racial group is determined by its historical background, as a group of characteristics passed down by a group that experienced a period of prolonged genetic isolation.
This genetic isolation produced environment specific, genetic mutations which may or may not have eventually mixed with other mutations when and if some cross-racial breeding occurred.
Racial distinctions are currently more difficult to measure since the political climate is not conducive to such divisive explorations and technological advancement has made race mixing inevitable- diluting whatever race distinct characteristics existed and covering them up with cultural behavioral constraints which creates behavioral uniformity.
Walter L. Wagner said:
Believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. We both have eyes. Arab did not exist back then, Arab is the result of mixing. Egyptians were black by America's standards. They werent semites either, haven't you read the bible? The Jews were enslaved by just about everyone, the Romans and the Egyptians.
If you don't want to believe Negro/Black people were in Egypt even after looking at huge statues of people who look just like Black people it's your choice. Yes there was a few white Egyptians, Cleopatra was a good example, but the original Egyptians werent white at all, and King Tut was definately 100% Black, and that happens to be the one mummy which we could see a face on because the mask on his face showed what he looked like along with the bones, which proved 100% what he looked like. If we are to assume he looked like that, and if he came from the royal bloodline that says a lot.
But enough debate, believe what you want.
Satyr said:
Yeah I know there was race mixing. Honestly, I think Arabs are the result of mixed races, I think Arabs have Egyptian blood. I also think Negros/Blacks have Egyptian blood, they just did not mix, so I think the purest Egyptians would likely be Negro not Arab because there was no such thing as Arab at the time. They sure as hell were not semites. They sure as hell were not Roman, although there were some who mixed in during the time of Cleopatra, the evidence including the name of Egypt itself (the black land), or something like this in translation, leads me to believe people had dark skin. You look at the paintings and not only do people have dark skin, they have thick lips and African features. Do all
Africans have the same nose? No, do all Africans have the same lips? No. I think the birth of the Arab race happened in Egypt. Your theory is that Negros had nothing to do with Egypt, but obviously there were black people there and some of them were surely Negro, because there werent any Arabs yet. Believe what you want, but if you want to be accurate, you'll have to get rid of your White/Black/Asian definition of race and find something more accurate. That is the entire point of my thread.
Sure there are races, but you cannot at a glance look at someone from Africa and know if they have Egyptian blood, you cannot at a glance look at an American Black and know they have European blood or not, or look at a European in America and know they have African blood or not. It's far far more complicated as Europeans aren't the same race and Africans aren't the same race.
So I am willing to admit not all Africans descend from Egyptian royalty, I'm willing to admit that not all Africans were Egyptian, but I'm also willing to admit that some definately were, and that you won't be able to tell the difference between the two groups just by looking at them.
Last edited:
Retard.
TimeTraveler
- Pigmentation is indicative of commonality, but it isn’t the only characteristic which points to a common genetic pool. When one groups populations so as to establish a common ancestry one must look at more than skin pigmentation.
Negros are not only dark-skinned but they all have other physical characteristics which points to a common background.
Read what I said carefully and try to understand.
If you cannot understand then simply shut-up!!!!
I got no time, temporal twit, to deal with your particular brand of retardation.
Races definitely do exist, just as species exist.Just as many species have distinct genetic groupings within them (Bonobo Chimpanzees) so does man have genetic branches sprouting from a common trunk.
If divergence and isolation persists over a long period of time then a new tree is planted and a genetic separation occurs.
This did not occur in our species.
What did occur is that our success forces competition over our original territories – which scientists say are in sub-Saharan Africa.
This competition pushed certain groups into less hospitable environments and into genetic isolation.
Less hospitable environments produce an adapt-or-die counter-reaction.
Those that survived did so by becoming innovative and cunning and imaginative while the ones that remained in their more hospitable original environments had less reason to think and create.
This resulted in a period of evolutionary divergence which resulted in different physical and mental characteristics but is now being diluted in a global-world.
Culture, imbecile, creates the illusion of equality and similarity by forcing conformity.
When actions and thoughts and potentials are controlled or censored or only allowed a certain mode of expression all begin behaving and thinking similarly.
This masks diversity and creates hypocritical harmony.
This distinctness exposes a period of genetic isolation in the past, with both physical and mental effects.
African is not Negro, nor does having a dark skin automatically make you one.
Egyptians occupied a piece of the African continent.
Negros occupied the lands south of the Sahara.
There was mingling along the Nile and you can see this in how Somalis and Ethiopians look distinctly different than the rest of the negro race.
Egyptians were not negros no more than a dark-skinned Indian is one.
TimeTraveler
- Baron Max’s down-home, redneck racism is none of my concern.
- Pigmentation is indicative of commonality, but it isn’t the only characteristic which points to a common genetic pool. When one groups populations so as to establish a common ancestry one must look at more than skin pigmentation.
Negros are not only dark-skinned but they all have other physical characteristics which points to a common background.
Retarded traveler: Huh?
Your temporal travels have scrambled your marbles.
Read what I said carefully and try to understand.
If you cannot understand then simply shut-up!!!!
I got no time, temporal twit, to deal with your particular brand of retardation.
Races definitely do exist, just as species exist.Just as many species have distinct genetic groupings within them (Bonobo Chimpanzees) so does man have genetic branches sprouting from a common trunk.
If divergence and isolation persists over a long period of time then a new tree is planted and a genetic separation occurs.
This did not occur in our species.
What did occur is that our success forces competition over our original territories – which scientists say are in sub-Saharan Africa.
This competition pushed certain groups into less hospitable environments and into genetic isolation.
Less hospitable environments produce an adapt-or-die counter-reaction.
Those that survived did so by becoming innovative and cunning and imaginative while the ones that remained in their more hospitable original environments had less reason to think and create.
This resulted in a period of evolutionary divergence which resulted in different physical and mental characteristics but is now being diluted in a global-world.
Culture, imbecile, creates the illusion of equality and similarity by forcing conformity.
When actions and thoughts and potentials are controlled or censored or only allowed a certain mode of expression all begin behaving and thinking similarly.
This masks diversity and creates hypocritical harmony.
This distinctness exposes a period of genetic isolation in the past, with both physical and mental effects.
African is not Negro, nor does having a dark skin automatically make you one.
Egyptians occupied a piece of the African continent.
Negros occupied the lands south of the Sahara.
There was mingling along the Nile and you can see this in how Somalis and Ethiopians look distinctly different than the rest of the negro race.
Egyptians were not negros no more than a dark-skinned Indian is one.
All races are invented by people who decide which specific physical characteristics become races. So it's all fake, it's as fake as inventing races of cars based on the paint and model. To judge a car by it's paint, is as simplistic as judging a book by it's cover, because judging a car by it's paint ignores the driver. It's all about the driver not the car.
TimeTraveler said:
Well, TT, if you wish to keep believing that, fine. But if you hold out that right for yourself, then you should happily permit others to think and believe as THEY want to believe?
All humans discriminate in one way or another about most everything in life. When we select a mate, we're discriminating against all of the other possible mates around us. That's discrimination!
I find your preaching boring and non-sensical. People will believe what they want, sometimes in the face of overwhelming evidence and facts .....and yet you continue to preach?!
Please ......do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
Baron Max
So then all human categories are similarly false.TimeTraveler said:
If you cannot judge anything by its physical appearance then you can only assume what its essence is by inventing a spirit.
Nice job, retard.
The “driver” is the soul, right?
The car is separate and only a detail with no significance.
It’s nature dressing up for fuck’s sake.
A black bear is no different than a polar bear - just a different color.
The color is accidental. It says nothing about the bear.
Bears are all equal and the same, man.
Pass the bottle.
When I see a tree I say to my self:
“Hmmmm, it looks different than that tree or than that cat but it cannot be different since I cannot use sensual information to make any judgment of reality. I prefer to focus on the tree’s invisible, pre-supposed spirit. The essence of a tree is like any other tree or any other object.”
This is how cowards try to escape nature’s cruelty or avoid the effort required to overcome self.
This is my last response to this particular retard.
He’s my next nomination.
Baron Max said:
I never said discrimination is bad, I just don't believe in races as somethnig that is real enough to be an accurate way to judge character. I guess some people are unable to seperate character from appearance, thats on them. (Do liars really have thinner lips?)
I discriminate on character. I judge people based on character, and on their tendencies, so I'm not saying my form of prejudice is better or worse, I'm just saying my form is scientifically accurate. I use the rational mind to make these decisions, I don't just make a quick guess on how ugly or pretty someone is based on how they look on the outside. I'm hoping more people are capable of seeing real people, but maybe it's a rare psychic ability.
Satyr said:
Spirit is not invented, it's scientific. To be exact, you are what you do, your spirit is based on how you treat yourself and the environment. You are energy, and everyone is energy, and this is scientific fact, you can call it spirit, you can call it atomic energy, you can call it electrons, you can call it the mind, I don't care what you call it, but the mind is more real than the body.
So I'm guessing you are one of those who cannot see inner beauty as you can only see bodies. This is equal to only knowing the surface of the universe, and thats fine, but it's not I who lacks knowledge, it is you. Do you know what atoms are? go do some research and you'll find we are all made of the same substance. Do you know what energy is? Do some research and you'll find we are all made of energy.
Learn some neuro-science, and take a few college courses if your brain can handle that. Learn quantum mechanics, learn about ecology, learn about the noosphere, and learn some philosophy.
If you want a more to the point definition, judge a person by their mind and heart and ignore their body, to judge a person by their body is as ignorant as judging a car by it's paint instead of how it rides.
Don't you see? The same personality types keep appearing in all races. You can call it spirit, you can call it personality types, you can psycho-analyze it, you can call it physics, you can call it neuro-science or genetics, but the same patterns of humans keep coming back. These same people come back in every race, in every generation, because they are in all of our genetic code. And by same people I don't mean exactly the same, I mean the same patterns of thought and emotion, the same "spirits" if you want to call it that, the same "energy" if you want to be scientific.
How many times do you have to see the christ energy come back over and over again in different people?
How many times do you have to see evil to recognize this energy is a cosmic energy?
Do you ignore all the patterns because you cannot see below the surface of reality to the core?
Anyway, I guess you have no way to debate so you must resort to name calling, you are the type of person who would resort to physical violence to win an arguement because you are just a physical body. (This is how you defined yourself).
Last edited: