Been having some hassles lately that are nothing to do with this board. Sorry.
There’s no need to apologize Maia, Negroids are demonstrably more primitive.
Islam is more barbaric than Judaism and Christianity, in theory and in practice.
Differences between religions/races matter, they have real world consequences.
Never be ashamed to question the establishment, be it religious or secular.
Even if your criticisms end up being wrong, they’re necessary.
The establishment can only maintain its legitimacy in the face of criticism.
Organisms don’t have monopolies and neither should ideologies.
We need criticism, from closer to home, to way out in left field.
Attack… counterattack… measure… countermeasure.
Yes, but be cautious. We are all human, we are all susceptible to human irrationality, including a tendency to become more convinced of positions for which we argue. Whatever you believe, take pains to argue the other side as often as you can.
And just to add to that… recognize that the more counter-intuitive/bizarre/offensive the claim, the more you need stronger arguments/evidence for it. The more wild the generalization, the more that’s required to support it. Not a random news article, or some isolated statistic. And just so—for example, racists—don’t feel like they’re being unfairly advantaged, it’s like that in science, history, law, and everything else.
How would one demonstrate this, out of curiosity?
Really, offensive claims need more proofs than inoffensive ones? In that case, we’re going to need a lot more proofs to prove Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.
I have several proofs, but let’s begin with this one. Are dogs different than wolves?
N.B. Sorry for making your thread just another race thread, Maia.
Imo, do what you like. Be irrational or rational - it all makes for potentially good discussion.
This is already off to a terrible start, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Sounds like you’re trying to class whites like pets in order to class blacks like wild beasts - smooth.
Well, perhaps you’re just trying to point out that different behaviours are “natural” to two different types of the same species (as opposed to socially/artificially learned). Already this runs up against the problem of black people demonstrably seemlessly fitting into white communities, when wolves cannot be domesticated like dogs can, just by bringing them up in the same way or even by more forceful and tactical methods.
A more appropriate opening question might be “are poodles different to dalmations?” In which case, I would say yes, they look different and are bred for different behavioural characteristics too. But what does this have to do with negroids as opposed to non-negroids?
Just because a dog is different to a wolf, and a poodle is different to dalmation, this does not tell us anything about the differences between people of different races. You with me? It’s like saying that since chairs are different to tables, race makes a fundamental difference with regard to primitiveness. Non-sequitur.
You say (several) “proofs”. A proof would be nice, if you actually have one.
Yesssssss, because the idea that a person rose from the dead isn’t bizarre at alllllll… cough cough (sarcasm). But really, if you had to show it implausible that someone rose from the dead, would you find it very hard? Would gathering a biological case, and some statistics be very arduous on you?
Damn it, smart phone my ass, Sorry something glitched.
Wolves and dogs with the exception of certain specialty breeds are the same. Wolves are just as easily domesticated as any canine if done when it is a pup. Just as any dog. No real difference. I have family that raised and bred wolves for nature programs. Tell them to sit they sit.
There’s a reason why I highlighted offensive in red, that’s the only one of the three “requirements” I was addressing. The fact that a belief is offensive, shouldn’t make it any harder to (dis)prove than any other belief, if our goal is to be rational. If your goal is not to be rational, then don’t let me stop you, but mine is, more/less, maybe not absolutely. I’ll address Kris and Silhouette in a bit.
I don’t think you need to apologise to anyone. You are only human and have some ideas and things you say which you might not mean at any one time. I think the golden rule is if you are honest it’s all good. Sadly though as this thread shows some people are not honest, just like trolling, and are about as useful as a paper wall in a hurricane. Ignore the idiots and all will be well. 
Silhouette you’re trolling and it is as relentless, as it is banal and pedestrian, and no one cares. When you prove whatever it is you set out to prove, please keep it to yourself because no one actually cares. It’s boring.
This is suspicious.
I wonder, can a troll be unintentionally so, with logically founded and genuine argument?
As for whether nobody cares, this remains to be seen. You have already proven this assertation wrong through your own emotive response, indicative of caring about my post, but I will let this slide. “Not caring” comes across so much more clearly when you do not even care so much as to respond at all. I trust you will not care enough to respond to this post?
To Kris, I was unaware that some wolves can be domesticated. Do you think this destroys my argument?
Do you think the similarity between dogs and wolves proves blacks are demonstrably more primitive compared to whites?
Everything you do is suspicious. On this thread at least as you well know you are trolling. Let’s not bore people with bad trolling eh. It’s not worth anyone’s time. You’re intentionally just going about the business of annoying people in the sincere hope you might provoke them. I just pointed it out, everyone else already knows what you are about.
I like the emotive response thing, no one is bothered by a troll who is just so obvious, except the troll it self, I don’t use him or her because trolls are not people, just odd little mushrooms with NPD. 
Silhouette, an apt name, a shadow of a person. We should not mark shadows as real.
Ok, Wolf is a name we use for a canine. The same way we use the name black, brown, white, etc. skinned humans. Its jus a subcategory of a species. Wolves have been romanticized. Just as European whites have been or African blacks. Its a tit tat. I can show you the best of either and you can show me the worst. Each has their good and bad, it averages out overall. Does this destroy your argument? I don’t know I just know that there are smart wolves and dumber than dirt wolves. And the same can be said about any breed of any species. When you try to say one breed is the best, then it is about preference not facts. I can list the same amount of positive aspects of Chihuahuas as I can about wolves, same with negative. Humans are no different.
You have good reasons not to be offensive if you don’t have to----and therefore it’s perfectly rational to require better reasons from a belief that is offensive, to outweigh the reasons that you have for not being offensive. That’s rationality—taking the position with the balance of good reasons in its favor. Even if you disagree, the main point is that some claims bear the burden of proof, and up to a stricter standard than other claims.
Kris has hands on research, which I appreciate. She’s right when she says dogs are essentially part of the same species as wolves, just as whites are essentially part of the same species as blacks. According to my research on dogs and wolves, which admittedly isn’t as extensive as my research on human races, so correct me if I’m wrong - dogs began diverging from wolves at least 30000 years ago, as man began domesticating them. Caucasoids began diverging from Negroids approximately 100000 years ago, as they left Sub-Saharan Africa. Dog breeds have important differences between them. Of course no dog is absolutely “superior” or “inferior”, it’s contextual, that’s not what this is about. However, some dog breeds are easier to tame than others.
Of course it depends on individuals too, no two individual dogs are the same, just as no two individual persons are the same. Intelligent animals from humans to dogs tend to vary a lot more than dumb ones, intellectually/psychologically, for obvious reasons, as we’re constantly learning, adapting and readjusting our behavior accordingly, to a dynamic and changing environment, where as dumb animals are predictable, they always do the same thing. Even as babes/pups, humans and dogs tend to vary more than dumber animals, such as reptiles and amphibians. Even our instincts are more individualized, because there’s advantages for social animals to specialize/diverge, even in primitive conditions.
So, acknowledging what Kris said about individuals being an important factor, on average, some dog breeds are more trainable than others, a fact which is largely undisputed in the scientific community in addition to the professional breeding community. Even though wolves may be capable of being domesticated to some degree, when taken as a whole, it’s more difficult to train wolves than your average dog breed, due to eugenics, due to thousands of years of man’s interference and intervention, selectively breeding some traits in, like submissiveness, sociability and groupthink, and some traits out.
Man too, particularly Eurasian man, has undergone a process similar to domestication and eugenics. Just as man, Eurasian man, has shaped and molded his environment to accommodate his needs, his environment has undoubtedly shaped him in turn, you see it’s a two way street. His mind had to become more accustomed to dealing with abstractions, logic and arithmetic, complex calculations and figures. Because of farming and a relatively inhospitable environment, he had to store sufficient quantities of food for the winter, and perform many tedious tasks with no immediate reward, increasing the amount of discipline, foresight and insight he’d require.
Because of urbanity, he had to specialize, he needed more introspection, he had to become more aware of his unique qualities, qualities that would set himself apart from other men, selecting a career that was suitable for his particular and peculiar talents, temperament and traits. Individuals that stood apart, that had unique strengths, would’ve been rewarded, especially during times of economic prosperity, where there’s even more potential for specialization/divergence.
Government differs little from domestication and eugenics in principle. Hypercompetitive and dominant males would have been gradually and incrementally extricated from the human species, after thousands of years of authoritarianism. Men could still be violent, but for the most part they had to repress and suppress their anarchic, unruly and violent urges, living in accord with the laws and rules of land laid down before them by someone else, where as in nature, there is no monopoly, each man is his own ruler, and hierarchies aren’t nearly as stable, laws and rules as numerous, nor as fixed.
Certain types would have prospered in civilization, reproducing more than others, forever altering Eurasian characteristics in a myriad of ways, adaptations Sub-Saharan Africans didn’t have to make. This is a perfectly plausible theory. Just as dogs have been altered by humans, civilization, particularly government by tending to weed out undesirables (except for perhaps among its own ranks, particularly those at the very top echelons of power) has shaped us. We constructed courts, greeneries, libraries, temples and universities, and these institutions have in turn, influenced us.
Now, what do we find when we compare Europeans today with Negroids, but just what one would expect, they’re significantly more violent, they demonstrate a lack of discipline and respect for authority, they demonstrate a lack of intelligence, particularly more abstract intelligences. They have higher levels of testosertone. They have larger jaws and jaw musculature. They have smaller brains with less folds. They’re better coordinated, their offspring mature faster, they’re more promiscuous, as studies have demonstrated, which have been compiled in the works of Philippe Rushton and others, which I suggest anyone interested in the subject, read.
eyes,
Are you saying we should be having babies with negroid chicks, to breed the best of both worlds? Yea, we could get the worst of both, but they won’t be finding mates. Just curious…