1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    59,195
    Ok.
    What do you think a real conversation about "blacks" by "whites" will accomplish?
    What is it you want to do about our "black" problem?

    - shootersa

    I desire an end to forced school busing, affirmative action, and Temporary Assistance to Need Families. I want a much tougher criminal justice system, where the emphasis will be on punishment, rather than rehabilitation.

    A candid conversation on race, one that included the latest genetic findings, would make what I desire more likely.
     
    #81
  2. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    59,195
    Intelligence is determined by the brain, which is physical. Brain size does correlate with intelligence. So do other physical aspects of the brain that are more subtle. The brains of brilliant people consume less blood sugar when performing mathematics problems than the brains of those with average or below average intelligence.
     
    1. shootersa
      A whale's brain is bigger than a humans. A Gorilla's brain is about the size of a human's. An ant's brain is the size of a grain of sand. Are you saying whales are smarter than humans, or an ant is not?
       
      shootersa, Apr 14, 2017
    2. msman
      The brain is also used to keep everything in the body working and the person breathing. The bigger the body the bigger the brain.
      An ant is not smarter than a human. No wait a minute, I can't speak for some members on here.
       
      msman, Apr 15, 2017
    #82
  3. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    59,195
    That "consensus" is not presented as a testable hypothesis, or as a topic for debate, but as a theological dogma. Those who disagree are considered to be guilty of heresy, and punished.

    Actually that assertion is an example of the circular reasoning fallacy. In circular reasoning one assumes what one needs to prove.
     
    #83
  4. msman

    msman Porn Star Banned!

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,156
    For some reason some people have a hard time understanding genetics.
    Maybe there is another way to go at it. I know shooter didn't read my post I gave so much thought into but I am willing to try again.

    The length of time a race has been civilized has a lot to do with IQ and criminal tendencies.
    Running around naked with a sharp stick looking for another person to eat for dinner is not what I would call civilized.
    Living in mud and thatch huts is not what I call civilized.
    Almost all other races had become civilized long before the blacks stopped eating each other.
    It stands to reason that the longer a race is civilized the more civilized they are. The less time they are considered civilized the less they are going to act civilized.

    Lack of work ethic is a sign of a race that is new to civilization.
    A tendency to commit crimes is another indicator. They need more years living according to the laws of civilization.
    Mating with then leaving the mother to raise the young is lack of civilization. Even many animals will help with the child rearing.

    All a person has to do is look at the prisons. I have heard all of the excuses for the high black population in prisons but the simple truth is if they did not commit a higher percentage of crimes prisons would have a different look.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    #84
  5. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    59,195
    shootersa has a limited attention span, and a limited vocabulary. He does not seem capable of much but childish satire. Restrict your comments to one computer screen. Try to write for a sixth grade reading level. You may get his attention.
     
    #85
  6. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,263
    All of your reasoning is, as the Dog points out, circular.
    How is it then that the Tuskegee Air experiment did not prove that blacks are incapable of operating complicated machinery under stress? Roosevelt (actually Mrs. Roosevelt) forced the question in WWII. Until that time, the idea even of a black man serving as a pilot offended the Pentagon commanders. Roosevelt said "lets find out then shall we?" and as a result the 332nd. It had white upper command, but everyone else was black. Despite every attempt at sabotaging the fighter group, they outperformed no only their white counterparts, but their counterparts in the German and Japanese military as well. They had to meet the same (actually stiffer) requirements as other fighter groups, and 16,000 pilots, ground crew and support staff laid lie to the idea that they could not operate complicated machinery in stressful situations.
    Of course, after the war they were invited to get back on the back of the bus, stay on their side of town, and not look at white women.
     
    1. msman
      Shooter, you seem to be a one trick pony.
      If the airmen were that great why did they have white upper command?
      I agree blacks can take orders if they want to.
      That was proven back when they were slaves and one white man controlled many blacks.
      Now they lack a real leader. There is not a black leader and they will not let a white man lead them.
      All is left is a jumble fuck where no one know what to do.
      They cannot even get along with each other.
       
      msman, Apr 14, 2017
      Distant Lover likes this.
    2. shootersa
      The Tuskegee Airmen had white leaders because the Pentagon insisted that it had to be that way.
      Those white leaders, by the way, pulled a lot of shady shit sabotaging the group. They issued reports that said the airmen weren't aggressive in battles because they wouldn't leave the bomber groups they were assigned to protect like their white counterparts. never mind that while other fighter groups saw up to 25% of the bombers they defended shot down, the Tuskegee air group lost at most 4 bombers. Because they did the mission assigned to them.
      Research them. It's an awesome story not only of WWII heroes, but a telling tale of racism in America.
       
      shootersa, Apr 14, 2017
    3. msman
      Shooter, I have read about and researched the Tuskegee Airman. I was not impressed.
      I have seen and listened to Martin Luther King in person and damn sure not impressed.

      Years ago I did not believe like I do now. After a lot of research, personal experiences, learning about genes and DNA, I had to adjust my beliefs.
      My thoughts on races, illegals, and marijuana changed 180 degrees. I now believe just the opposite of what I used to believe.
       
      msman, Apr 15, 2017
    #86
  7. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,263
    Shooter will take a chance and post some links;
    http://www.livescience.com/47627-race-is-not-a-science-concept.html
    Despite notions to the contrary, there is only one human race. Our single race is independent of geographic origin, ethnicity, culture, color of skin or shape of eyes — we all share a single phenotype, the same or similar observable anatomical features and behavior. ​

    Genetically speaking, studies have shown that there is much greater genetic variation within a given human population (e.g., Africans, Caucasians, or Asians) than between populations (Africans vs. Caucasians), indicating that human variation cannot be subdivided into discrete races. ​
    http://www.livescience.com/53613-race-is-social-construct-not-scientific.html
    More than 100 years ago, American sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois was concerned that race was being used as a biological explanation for what he understood to be social and cultural differences between different populations of people. He spoke out against the idea of "white" and "black" as discrete groups, claiming that these distinctions ignored the scope of human diversity.​

    https://anthropology.net/2008/10/01/race-as-a-social-construct/
    To begin, a social construct is ontologically subjective, but epistemologically objective. It is ontologically subjective in that the construction and continued existence of social constructs are contingent on social groups and their collective agreement, imposition, and acceptance of such constructions There is nothing absolute or real about social constructions in the same way as there is something absolute and real about rocks, rivers, mountains, and in general the objects examined by physics. For example, the existence of a mountain is not contingent on collective acceptance, imposition, or agreement. A mountain will exist regardless of people thinking, agreeing or accepting that it does exist. Unlike a mountain, the existence of race requires that people collectively agree and accept that it does exist. There is nothing that we have identified as race that exists apart from our collective agreement, acceptance, and imposition of its existence.​

    Race, although it does not exist in the world in any ontologically objective way, it still is real in society (as opposed to nature). Race is a social construction that has real consequences and effects. These effects, consequences and the notion that race is ontologically subjective is epistemologically objective. We know that race is something that is real in society, and that it shapes the way we see ourselves and others. Many rightly claim that race is conceptually unstable. However, this should not lead us to skepticism about race, i.e. that we cannot have any objective knowledge about race. We can know what race is and how it works regardless of the various shifts in meaning that have occurred through history and occur geographically.
    So, Nicole, and dog, and MSNMAN, Once you accept that all humans, regardless of their origin, are so similar genetically that there is literally no difference between say, an Ethiopian tribesman and Albert Einstein you quickly see the fallacy of the argument that intelligence differs among the races. The scientific body of evidence is pretty conclusive; we are all genetically so close to identical that the concept of race is not a biological one. It is a social construct.

    Now, if you want to talk about racial differences as a social construct ...............
     
    1. msman
      Shooter, I give as much thought to your post as you did mine.
       
      msman, Apr 15, 2017
    #87
  8. NicoleDeLint

    NicoleDeLint Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,817
    Listen shooter

    I remember not too many years ago that people used to say that there were no differences between men and women other than their physical appearance. Then studies begin to show that there were differences in brain structure that showed that women have a larger proportional corpus callosum which means that they process information more equally between their hemispheres of their brains.

    Now some leaders in the women's movement have gone so far as to say that they need to be taught differently. For example in law schools it is argued that it is unnatural for women to be taught the adversarial style because they are natural nurturers (e g Lani Guinier in her book becoming gentlemen. She is a solid liberal just like yourself )

    As far as IQ goes Women tend to be leptokurtic as compared to the normal distribution in a bell curve . This means that if you look at the curve the curve for women tends to be raised in the middle . Men tend to be platykurtic which means that for them the curve flattens with more outliers at the low and High end.

    These are not bad things they are just different things .

    And the reason I bring this up is because it's another example of scientific research that shows differences . Not superior not inferior just different.

    I am not certain why this is such an emotional issue for you .

    You appear to be starting from the premise that there are simply no differences between races in the aggregate and then you set on a path to protect that premise much as a mother hen would protect its chicks.

    What I am saying to you and what I am urging you to consider is Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.

    There are breeds of animals within the same species that show varying rates of intelligence as measured by relatively simple tests such as problem-solving .

    You rejected this has anything to do with DNA and this is a rather befuddling position in my opinion . DNA made the animal but somehow has nothing to do with its intelligence .

    I Q is of course highly correlable to financial success and you seem to think that just because people of higher IQ tend to be Asians and they tend to have the highest levels of financial success ( Indian Americans at present are the most highly successful ethnic group in the United States for example ) that this is just some sort of coincidence .

    You blast the book the bell curve And move into a non sequitur about how it was written for white supremacists without providing any proof that that was the case.

    The truth is that you disagree with it therefore it's wrong .

    Instead of cherry picking which scientific study you like why not just follow common sense and say that there are differences between races in the aggregate .

    Pretending otherwise does not serve anyone and forcing organizations to put people into positions through affirmative-action is a way of sticking our head in the sand rather than learning how the differences can be used to our better advantage.

    Or we could just try to ban discussions of this type and say they are racist period and therefore evil and we cannot have people doing evil .

    I still think that people like you (and I could be wrong about you as an individual) think that there is a slippery slope and that by saying there are differences in races The next step is to say that certain races are superior and the next step after that is genocide .

    I honestly don't know how to deal with people like you whose mind is so closed to the possibility that there are differences between races .

    I feel like you're sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet like a spoiled child who doesn't want to hear that there is no Santa Claus .

    I wish you well I really do but there is no sense in arguing with a true believer such as yourself .

    Any posting that I do in the future on this topic will be done for the benefit of others who are perhaps more open to an alternate point of view.
     
    #88
  9. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    59,195
    NicoleDeLint,

    This is an impressive take down of shootersa. It is calm, rational, and it reveals impressive learning on your part.

    I only have one correction: shootersa is not a liberal. On most issues he is a by the numbers Republican.

    Unfortunately, when the topic of congenital racial differences in intelligence comes up he repeats silly liberal dogmas that have been disproved by black performance and behavior during the two generations that have passed since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the failure of the War on Poverty that was begun that year. .
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2017
    #89
  10. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    59,195
    You keep spewing the same flawed bullshit. It would be much easier for you, and as meaningful for us, if you'd just post

    "NIGGERS IS VIOLENT AND STUPID"

    - shootersa

    How is my reasoning flawed? Where is there evidence that the Negro race is innately equal to the white race? I have presented contrary evidence.

    You are only impressive when you are a member of a lynch mob that is yelling, "DL is a racist!"

    Well, it seems that other posters agree with me that races exist, that racial differences are significant and congenital, and that these differences have valid policy implication.

    Distorting my appraisal of the Negro race with this, ""NIGGERS IS VIOLENT AND STUPID," is an example of the straw man fantasy.
     
    1. Sanity_is_Relative
      And it is not a fantasy, you base your reasoning on one sided ideals that support your beliefs and you hold to that as if it was you personal messiah.
       
      Sanity_is_Relative, Apr 15, 2017
    #90
  11. Sanity_is_Relative

    Sanity_is_Relative Porn Star

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    18,964
    Why do people get worked up over it? Why do the religious, conservative, republican right get so offended when anyone even dares to hold president Cheeto as an equal to all others?
     
    #91
  12. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    59,195
    A whale's brain is bigger than a humans. A Gorilla's brain is about the size of a human's. An ant's brain is the size of a grain of sand. Are you saying whales are smarter than humans, or an ant is not?

    - shootersa

    ---------
    U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
    2011 Feb; 77(1): 33–44.

    Gorillas and orangutans are primates at least as large as humans, but their brains amount to about one third of the size of the human brain.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064932/

    ---------

    Distinctly human evolution began about six million years ago when the African Rift Valley developed, separating the common ancestor of Chimpanzees and humans. Because Chimpanzees live in a climate that does not encourage fossilization, we cannot trace how they evolved since. We can trace human evolution from an animal very similar to a Chimpanzee to what we are today.

    What is most noticeable about human evolution is the development of an ever larger brain. This expresses the development of ever more intelligence. It is true that Neanderthals had a larger brain than the Cro Magnons who displaced them. Nevertheless, the parts of the Neanderthal brain that are larger are parts involved in coordination and reflexes. The frontal lobes, which cause conscious thought, are smaller.

    Although Orientals tend to be smaller than Negroes, they tend to have larger brains, and consequently, more intelligence.
     
    #92
  13. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,263
    Huh.
    Now Shooter is a liberal. Dog must be yakking in his food bowl.
    Jesus.

    Look, Shooter believes that there are differences with people. Obviously. Duh.
    And some people are smarter than others, and some people are violent, and some people are loosers.
    Again. Duh.

    Shooter takes exception to the premise that skin color dictates intelligence, or predilection to violence, or success.
    He used to think that yeah, race is defined by genes. Ironically, it was debates with the Dog that made him look closer at genetics and understand that from a biological standpoint, based on genetic research........ you know, science, ................. race is a meaningless concept.

    When researchers demonstrated that genetically speaking, there is much greater genetic variation within a given human population (e.g., Africans, Caucasians, or Asians) than between populations (Africans vs. Caucasians), Shooter realized, it becomes impossible to say something like; Blacks are dumber than Jews, or Blacks are more violent than Orientals. It is impossible because the definition of "black" would be ........................... what? When there is greater genetic variation among people with dark skin than between black people and people with oval eyes, how the hell do you define "black"?

    Dog argues that Orientals are less violent than blacks. He cites crime statistics from all over the world showing that this is so. One problem; he does not take into account Japanese actions from the late 1800's through 1945. You know, when they butchered in the most horrific ways women and children and non combatants all over the south Pacific and Asia. This wasn't because of war action or to achieve a military goal, it was simple mass slaughter rivaling what the Germans did with the Jews. In less than a century, the Japanese military slaughtered more innocents than all the violence that can be attributed to blacks in all of recorded history.

    When pressed, dog called this an "anomaly".

    That doesn't mean race can't be discussed, but if biology does not dictate "race" then it can only be a social concept. If you can't define "race" scientifically, how can you make the argument that a particular race is smarter, or more violent, or dumber than another race? You can't.

    So we have to talk about race as a social concept. And that means we have to talk about why some people are more successful, or more violent, or do worse in school from a social aspect.

    I can do that. Just don't tell me "Niggers is stupid and violent".
     
    #93
  14. msman

    msman Porn Star Banned!

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,156
    Shooter, how do you feel about the DNA tests that have shown all people did not come from the same ancestors? Some have DNA of the, hell I forgot the name. The man ape thing that died out after man came along. Anyway. DNA testing has shown there are some people who have their DNA and the rest do not.
    You do agree with DNA testing, don't you?
     
    1. shootersa
      Testing for what?
      Because someone wants to know where their ancestors came from?
      Because we want to know how DNA effects health?

      Sure. Test away. Just be careful what you use the results for. Remember always; figures never lie, but liars figure.
       
      shootersa, Apr 15, 2017
    2. msman
      It can be used for both. Anyway I asked about the different origins of different races of people. DNA shows that to be true. We all didn't come from the same ancestors.
       
      msman, Apr 15, 2017
    3. shootersa
      Correct, as it stands now. But what's your point?
       
      shootersa, Apr 15, 2017
    4. msman
      Different people from different ancestors would not be the same as the people from a common ancestor.
       
      msman, Apr 15, 2017
    #94
  15. clarise

    clarise Precious princess Banned!

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    17,788
    Not long ago someone around here challenged us to name a single mixed-race society in which people of the black/African (negroid) race had achieved economic superiority over other races in the society.

    I replied that I couldn't think of a single instance in all of human history.

    And while the thread had some smart aleck answers about Blacks in America achieving success through welfare, I don't think anyone could cite a single serious instance. In all of human history.

    Even though humans as a specieies started in Africa.

    But what I recall about the thread is that it made people extraordinarily angry. Not just the question itself angered people. They were also angered by those of us who had the courage to admit that we couldn't think of a single example. People were furious. Because we couldn't answer.

    Yet they made no attempt to answer, themselves. They were angry at those of us who admitted that we couldn't answer. But they, themselves, had nothing of substance to contribute.

    Very strange.

    So, to the OP's point: Race does work people up.
     
    #95
  16. msman

    msman Porn Star Banned!

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,156
    The start of the human species is now thought to have started in several areas at about the same time.
    Again, DNA has proven not all humans today came from the same ancestors.
     
    #96
  17. clarise

    clarise Precious princess Banned!

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    17,788

    Please.

    And there are thirty genders.

    Look. I'm not defending the racists around here. But I'm not going to start rationalizing either, with a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

    Of course we left Africa in waves, and of course due to geographic isolation the first proto-humans of various waves mixed initially in different waves, with different groups, and subsequently merged again with migration and war. This is not new. While the fine details are under constant revision, the broad strokes have been known since the time of Linnaeus.

    But that does NOT mean we do not all have one common ancestor (among possible many).

    We can't have it both ways. Either we all have a common ancestry, or we don't. If we do, than we humans are now the same species, or else we are not. And if we are not, then there is no defense-- NO defense, WHATSOEVER-- against the charge of the old (19th century) Ku Klux Klan that interbreeding between whites and blacks is BESTIALITY.

    The oldest proto-humans ever found died in Africa. Therefore, WE, as a species, came from AFRICA.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    1. msman
      The species of people can and do have different ancestors. Maybe you should do some research.
      There have been advances in DNA.
       
      msman, Apr 15, 2017
    #97
  18. msman

    msman Porn Star Banned!

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,156
    Genetic research has asserted that some admixture took place.[120] The genomes of all non-Africans include portions that are of Neanderthal origin,[121][122] due to interbreeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of Eurasians in Northern Africa or the Middle East prior to their spread. Rather than absorption of the Neanderthal population, this gene flow appears to have been of limited duration and limited extent. An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (French, Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern, and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (Yoruba and San probands).[21] Nonetheless, more recent genetic studies seem to suggest that modern humans may have mated with "at least two groups" of ancient humans: Neanderthals and Denisovans.[123] Some researchers suggest admixture of 3.4%-7.9% in modern humans of non-African ancestry, rejecting the hypothesis of ancestral population structure.[124] Detractors have argued and continue to argue that the signal of Neanderthal interbreed may be due to ancient African substructure, meaning that the similarity is only a remnant of a common ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans and not the result of interbreeding.[125][126] John D. Hawks has argued that the genetic similarity to Neanderthals may indeed be the result of both structure and interbreeding, as opposed to just one or the other.[127]

    While modern humans share some nuclear DNA with the extinct Neanderthals, the two species do not share any mitochondrial DNA,[128] which in primates is always maternally transmitted. This observation has prompted the hypothesis that whereas female humans interbreeding with male Neanderthals were able to generate fertile offspring, the progeny of female Neanderthals who mated with male humans were either rare, absent or sterile.[129] However, some researchers have argued that there is evidence of possible interbreeding between female Neanderthals and male modern humans.[130][131]
     
    #98
  19. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,263
    So early humans and Neanderthals had a fling. Not a surprise, given that even today some of our more adventuresome human members find a toss with a horse, or dog, or sheep or whatever to be worth the effort.

    Of course, where that fits into this thread isn't yet revealed. But Shooter suspects he knows.
    Lets find out shall we?
     
    #99
  20. ace's n 8's

    ace's n 8's Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    60,616
    Damn shootersa...cut 'em some slack, you gotta do something with a hard dick.
     
    1. shootersa
      well, but wouldn't a knot in a tree, or a tiger skin, or something work just as well?
      I mean, damn Dude!
      [​IMG]
       
      shootersa, Apr 15, 2017