Race War

[Dak]

Yes, specifically that technological advancement* is not objectivily better or more "intelligent".

Edit: More specifically, technological advancement generally comes at a cost to other areas like family/social cohesiveness, so a lack of technological advancement merely displays a difference in priorities.

 

[Evil Dead]

I see darks all the time buying shit with link cards and driving around in cars that are expensive as shit.
fat dark bitches with two kids buying snacks and shit from a small supermarket with a fucking link card.
all of this during the middle of the day, which means for the most part they are not working. smart

this shit about people getting free crap is annoying as hell. most of the time I try not to think about it, it's just easier that way.

Chrysler 300's aren't expensive.

 

[Evil Dead]

Stereotyping is inherently racist, and I don't see how you think it isn't.

It's not racist if its true. Move along.

 

[Einherjar86]

You still can't correlate the jokes and an actual feeling of superiority based on skin color.

I already said that superiority/inferiority has nothing to do with it.

I was leaning more towards the very "spartan" style of some cultures versus the "highly decorative" leanings of others.

How are things like those biologically determined?

I cetainly said nothing regarding a difference in intelligence.

Intelligence aside; how is technological advancement determined by biology? I don't agree with that assertion at all.

 

[Dak]

So you are saying that, for example, Japanese culture came purely from environmental influences? That there was no psychological/biological difference, even a small one) between the early ancestors of the Japanese race/culture and say, the Saxons (Viking, etc), that built to dramatic differences in decor, conduct, etc? Cultures do not spring up arbitrarily, and cultural priorities do not either.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course there are biological/genetic differences between the Japanese and the Saxons; but those difference don't make one group more inclined to technological advancement, or specific social conduct, or colorful domestic decor than the other.

 

[Dak]

How do you know? Science has not even begun to understand how biology and psychology go together, IE, how personality traits pass through ancestory, etc.

 

[Vimana]

It's hard to explain, but I'll give it a shot:

As humans have migrated, our cultures have changed over time, and so have our languages. I guess this is because no generation is really too inclined to imitate the last. Even in very traditional cultures, there are changes amongst the generations. A lot of what makes the Japanese culture different from the Nordic is a long separation and separate development for many generations.

Let me put it this way: If you put a few legos in two different boxes, close them, and shake up the boxes, the legos are in all likelihood going to end up in different places in both boxes. This has nothing to do with the inherent characteristics of the legos, but rather the way the box was shaken.

 

[Dak]

Lego's are inanimate objects. People are not.

 

[Einherjar86]

How do you know? Science has not even begun to understand how biology and psychology go together, IE, how personality traits pass through ancestory, etc.

I don't know, Dak; but I think instead of blindly attributing specific traits to a people's inherent biology or genetic makeup, we should look to historical and cultural conditions, things that can be potentially measured.

I don't believe that the cultural institution of body modification in certain African tribes has anything to do with their biology. The more likely explanation is that some obscure historical incident occurred that was passed down over generations and became tradition.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

But both legos and humans are primarily influenced by environmental factors. The reason that sub-Saharan Africans and the peoples of the amazon rain forest didn't really advance past the stone age was because of a stable climate and an abundance of food, not because they are less intelligent than Chinese and Europeans.

 

[Dak]

But both are primarily influenced by environmental factors. The reason that sub-Saharan Africans and the peoples of the amazon rain forest didn't really advance past the stone age was because of a stable climate and an abundance of food, not because they are less intelligent than Chinese and Europeans.

Necessity is the mother of invention. No one (I would hope) in this thread is suggesting in difference in levels of technological advancement is indicative of a higher intelligence. It is a difference in priorities. But where people migrated to and settled would indicate some biological/psychological inclination. IE: If I had my "druthers" I would rather live in a green, mountainous region than anywhere else. I have never lived in such a region, nor have any of my ancestors in some time (that I am aware of) but I am drawn to it. It is only modern "roadblocks" that prevent my doing so. I also eschew gaudy apparel and decoration. etc. etc.

 

[Vimana]

Lego's are inanimate objects. People are not.

It's an analogy. They symbolize their people, while their positions symbolize the culture, the language, and every circumstantial thing that defines them.

But both legos and humans are primarily influenced by environmental factors. The reason that sub-Saharan Africans and the peoples of the amazon rain forest didn't really advance past the stone age was because of a stable climate and an abundance of food, not because they are less intelligent than Chinese and Europeans.

The boxes shaking symbolizes the environments.

 

[Dak]

I understand your point, but the mere "box shaking" effect is somewhat mitigated by innate inclinations. I would say it has more of a "wearing down" or "assimilation" effect than a tossing about.

 

[Einherjar86]

Necessity is the mother of invention. No one (I would hope) in this thread is suggesting in difference in levels of technological advancement is indicative of a higher intelligence. It is a difference in priorities. But where people migrated to and settled would indicate some biological/psychological inclination. IE: If I had my "druthers" I would rather live in a green, mountainous region than anywhere else. I have never lived in such a region, nor have any of my ancestors in some time (that I am aware of) but I am drawn to it. It is only modern "roadblocks" that prevent my doing so. I also eschew gaudy apparel and decoration. etc. etc.

Why do you think this? Where peoples migrate to more often that not is decided by environmental conditions.

Furthermore, if you personally desire to live in a "green, mountainous region," I don't believe you're biologically predetermined to enjoy green mountainous regions. It's far more likely that some combination of historical factors throughout your life have contributed to this desire.

 

[Dak]

Why do you think this? Where peoples migrate to more often that not is decided by environmental conditions.

Furthermore, if you personally desire to live in a "green, mountainous region," I don't believe you're biologically predetermined to enjoy green mountainous regions. It's far more likely that some combination of historical factors throughout your life have contributed to this desire.

I think you are getting hung up on the "biology" part and thinking merely of the nuts and bolts of the human body instead of recognizing that we simply don't understand what makes up the mental part of humans and how it passes down through bloodlines, is mitigated by environmental pressures, skips generations, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

The more likely explanation, again, is that individual psychology is determined by social pressures and environmental pressures; not "passed down" from earlier generations.

 

[arg]

i actually believe there are races that are undeniably physically/aesthetically superior to others. i mean when a race has a vast number of its women looking like goddesses, with a flawless purity of form, and then another race looks like shitstains compared to them, i have no doubt of this.

 

[Vimana]

Or you know, it's a cultural preference ingrained in you.

The more likely explanation, again, is that individual psychology is determined by social pressures and environmental pressures; not "passed down" from earlier generations.

Not genetically, but probably socially.

 

[Dak]

The more likely explanation, again, is that individual psychology is determined by social pressures and environmental pressures; not "passed down" from earlier generations.

So people are not born with specific personalities, ones that are often very similar to relatives. You are grasping at straws. No one said environment did not have an affect, but genetics is the foundation.