I was never directly taught about the fact that Arab Muslims had a bigger and worse colonial past than European...

True, something else I recently learned about. It makes me sick to be honest. I don't know why western media, including social media, tries to keep the average person from knowing about this. Why are they trying to normalize Islam even it contributes nothing positive to humanity?

that phrasing is retarded. there are muslim countries where slavery or slavery-like conditions can still be found but that doesn't mean that "islam enslaves". the most populous muslim countries don't have slavery any more other than "modern slavery" which also exists in all western countries.

early muslims contributed a lot to humanity, modern ones not so much

>socio-linguistic
>not an ethnicity
Fuck off.

he's right tho

>#noallmuslims
ok moohamed

>tries to keep the average person from knowing about this
unnecessary conspiratorial thinking. It not being mentioned (it is) doesn't mean that they are actively suppressing facts, it's far more likely that the people working for media are just as ignorant as the people consuming it.

>when slavery is practiced in Christian Africa or the Philippines it's #notallchristians, just shitskins
>When slavery is practiced in Mauritania it's #allmuslims

>Since I didn't go to university

I majored in history, I even had a course called Islamic history, and it was hardly mentioned at all. Except the Ottoman devşirme, probably because it pertained to European history.

It's very interesting to try and understand how people moralize history, and how easy it is to poke holes in the system. Professional historians tend to be more conscious of double standards though.

But like someone already said, it's not a pissing contest. The tendency to be critical of our own society is typically Western, one of the things that brought us so far. If you believe your society is the best ever and your ancestors never did anything wrong, you're probably going to stagnate.

That's a perspective I never had before to be honest.

thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/slavery.aspx

Slavery is codified in the Quran and supporting texts. Christianity just talks about it like it was no big deal. Not saying Christians were right, but arguably the Roman empire fell because Christianity did away with slavery of Romans.

It was brought back again in the 1600's during the colonization period when Christians were cherry picking the Bible to holy hell (usury? really?)

I'll say it one more time for you mohamed

>white/western world
>owning slaves

pick one. We don't do it anymore and we built the west on christian principle.

shitskin christians have not stopped because they are not westernized + relatively lower IQ.

well that's just plain wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery

its a fact that people working in the media are actively suppressing facts because they don't want to be accused of racism or "islamophobia".

>implying they teach that at universities

If you had gone to university youd learn about ebil christians and noble muslims even moreso than from the media

But there are muslims who contribute just like Jews and Christians. The thing is those people are contributors who happen to BE MUSLIM/JEWS/Christian.

>islamic golden age meme

Alot of the stuff they invented was just copypasted from lost european sources

from your own wiki page...

>The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa, and Southeast Africa. In the early 20th century (post World War I), slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.
say that one more time..
>outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.

what did I tell you? Western world ended slavery, you fuck don't.

this

If you think this knowledge isnt being restricted you are an idiot

Arguably none of those people are true believers of their religion and they continue to cherry pick so they can feel good about their cognitive dissonance.

As much as they are the enemy Isis isn't wrong when they say they follow the religion literally.

At this point, I'd wish people stop identifying with religions they only pretend to be to feel good.

For example. How many of you practice usury despite it being forbidden in the Bible. Luther would have had you stripped and beat in public. Even the goddamn catholic church has a bank.

For fucks sake!

>we built the west on christian principle
Europeans were objectively more religious during the times of slavery and colonial exploitation
unless you claim "christian principle" only sprung into existence during the 19th century...

>Arguably none of those people are true believers of their religion and they continue to cherry pick so they can feel good about their cognitive dissonance.

You pulling a "no true scotsman" fallacy you nigger.

>but arguably the Roman empire fell because Christianity did away with slavery of Romans.

Are you fucking retarded?

no, Christan principle is built upon. look at how many reformations we've had.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

to list a few:
>Catholicism
>Eastern Orthodoxy
>Oriental Orthodoxy
>Anglicanism
>Protestant
>Anabaptism
>Methodism
>Baptists
>Quaker
>Evangelical
>Pentecostalism
AND many more, those are just the ones with a few million followers.

I'm leaving LDS, apostilic, esoteric churches etc. out.

Many of those are NEW. No one denomination changed slavery, but open interpretation of the bible DID. something that would get you killed if you interpret the quaran the wrong way.

I wish someone would build that second tower already.

keep dreaming, never gonna happen

Would that effectively make Christianity an agnostic religion?

If they can build a cathedral in Barcelona, why not.

Probably because Spain is actually a religious country but still.

No, these different denominations all still believe in the same diety. The difference is the arguing about HOW to get into heaven. HOW to prevent sin and suffering. Not agnostic at all.

It's open minded, maybe sometimes a little TOO open minded

>open interpretation of the bible ended slavery
no it fucking didn't. people interpret their holy texts to suit their interests and morality.
>killed if you interpret the quaran the wrong way
remember that time some asshole reinterpreted the bible and everyone was cool with it and sat down to have a civil discussion about it

>unironically posting martin-luther
That proves my point. what did he advocate? Separation from the pope and literacy of the individual christian to interpret the bible. This caused others to take different approaches to the bible and ultimately formed different denominations. The pope did not like this because it weakens his position significantly.

Most muslims still have imams and many muslims are still illiterate, and need an imam to interpret. This one sided perspective does not promote new ideas, it conserves them. Even if those ideas are flawed (slavery).

When you leave the text open for interpretation you get new solutions to issues.

Islam might have powerful imams, but it does not have the strict hierarchy typical of the apostolic churches.

If anything Islam needs a pope. Not yet another reformation. You know, Al Qaeda literally means "the foundation". Back to the source and all that.

You retarded autist. Its the exact opposite.

No true Scottmans is where people keep saying #notallmuslims when the killer was a devote Muslim as they can be.

They are saying "Oh but no! He wasn't a muslim"

imams are still important, I wasn't going to even mention Ayatollahs.

>If anything Islam needs a pope. Not yet another reformation.
Yes, and then after you unify you must branch into different denominations "peacefully". This will promote new ideas and enlightenment to the islamic world.

Unfortunately we will not see this in our lifetime. and my point still holds that the western transcended slavery with the evolution of religion.

To recap, I hold nothing against islam. I just do not think they are compatible with the western world since they are a newer religion and still need another enlightenment period to be compatible.

Honestly, what brought the west into modern times was the cherry picking of the usury rules.

Luther would have beat anyone who was a money lender in public, but his reformation allowed German princes to usurp the authority of the church and define what they though usury was.

In order for Muslim countries not to be shitholes anymore, they need capitalism and the cornerstone of capitalism is lending money at interest.

Until then, countries that adopt Sharia will just never progress.

/THREAD

lol typical stormfag argument

Why are you here dude, why don't you people keep your shitposting to your containment board?

>but arguably the Roman empire fell because Christianity did away with slavery of Romans.

wow you're on a history board, you're gonna emberass yourself with such retarded misinformation

>muh iq

i hope this is bait.

Ottomans BTFO the Byzantines.

Which one had legalized slavery?

>are you being sarcastic or 15 years old?

damn never thought i'd see the place i live on Veeky Forums

>muh iq doesn't matter
I really hope this is b8

But the most populous Islamic countries do.

No true scots man is shifting the goalposts to for your argument. In this case it's that user saying those Muslim Aren't REAL Muslims.

Indian you mean.

And so do a bunch of other non-muslim places.
South Asian migrant labour isn't even trucking slavery at all. They went their willingly.

Ok i know you're not gonna listen/understand this post because you're a retarded /pol/ack with an IQ of 20 but i can only try

first of all, iq is a really flawed way to measure intelligence, people who score low on iq test can be extremely skilled in certain skils we would see as intelligence,

seconnd, IQ is directly connected with education and language, countries with a less develloped educational system will ultimately score low on IQ tests

third, the meme images you have seen about "country and iq" are in no way falsifiable and based on extremely flawed studies, the reason there is no wikipedia page on avarage iq in countries is because there never was such a study and it's way to hard to get credible information

and as a last point, "intelligence" is not quantifiable and the whole idea is based on a western system of values, other cultures might value other skills, wich are not included in western intelligence tests

if you're just a shitposter that's just gonna spam retarded and racist responses your plas is on /pol/ and not here, please leave.

Its still wildly disproportionate

Its the best possible measure, seams to work fine in east Asia, and can easily be adjusted for education levels.

You should spend a few weeks in sub-saharan African mate. See how much you can appreciate their 'alternative intelligence'.

>They went their willingly.

Totally irrelevant to the fact that they are kept unwillingly, which is slavery.

>its flawed
everything is flawed.

Capitalism is flawed, should we stop it? NO! Its the best we have. Same with IQ. When you think IQ you're thinking its just that number, wrong. It correlates with intracranial capacity which can even cross ethnic lines.

Read about anthropology and cranial structure if you want to understand IQ. If you don't you can continue to be a SJW. And if you're thinking of an intelligent person who is from a primitive society look at their cranial size relative for their IQ. Obama for example, is objectively smarter than most whites, however he is a HUGE outlier for this. And what skull shape does he have? Caucosaid, not african.

This is science, if you don't like it leave this board and go virtue signal on reddit.

still the studies people quote are all utter bullshit

that's just pseudoscience

Not trying to derail this thread, but do not tell me IQ doesn't matter. That is absurd

Such as?

Substantiate your claim

You're not wrong, exactly, but you're wildly overstating things. Of course IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence, and of course it's extremely difficult to correct for cultural bias and education levels (although the people who design the tests certainly do their best). IQ is a particularly poor metric when it comes to evaluating individuals (rather than populations); someone with an IQ of 130 might still be pretty fucking dumb in some ways, somebody with an IQ of 90 might be capable of surprising acuity.

But IQ isn't meaningless. If IQ tests only measured people's ability to take IQ tests (as has been snarkily alleged) they wouldn't correlate so strongly with other tests of intelligence (which, yes, are of course also flawed themselves) or with things like income and academic performance EVEN AFTER correcting for things like the quality of early education, childhood poverty, etc.

>"intelligence" is not quantifiable and the whole idea is based on a western system of values
This makes me wonder if you're just another shitposter trying to troll the /pol/acks, or if you've perhaps never been to any of the places you're talking about.

Come the fuck on. The question "what makes a person smart?" certainly has a cultural component to it but people in Asia and Africa know what intelligence is and their conception of it isn't DRASTICALLY different from ours.

>pseudoscience
Okay, try disputing it rather than just dismissing it.

It isn't pseudo science.

IQ isn't perfect but it is literally the best predictor of income. It's not worthless. And any beyond the 70s adjust for culture and education.

What happens here?

>This makes me wonder if you're just another shitposter trying to troll the /pol/acks
It's this.

yeah maybe i overstated things, but still the studies where the whole iq meme comes from are not credible in any way

>linguistic
Aren't the dialects within the Arab world so distinct that they can't understand Arab speakers from other countries?

China's placement on that graph is a great example of the unreliability of the studies, though. He's still wildly overstating things but it demonstrates his point isn't completely without merit.

Most of China is still really fucking backwards. I guarantee you there's absolutely no data at all for most demographics in most of the country, not even a small random sampling. Maybe that data is accurate for Beijing and the other first-tier cities and a handful of the second-tiers. Maybe. I strongly suspect it's skewed upwards even for those. That's not because I think Chinese people are stupid, they are not, but that's just how things go in China, even today.

It's fair to question whether the scores might not tell the full story for all the countries listed, but that's not the same as saying "IQ is meaningless and any study of the avg IQ of a given country is pseudoscience."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anthropometry

I'm 90% sure that was a pygmy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples

Does anyone here realize there are genetic differences between the races but not give a fuck?

1: you're never going to change the world, your race doesn't matter, racial equality doesn't matter, you must focus on numero uno as per the philosophy of Stirner, Ayn Rand and Nietzsche

2: individual variation trumps most of the differences anyway, so for example when hiring someone their resume and interview is 99.99% of everything

3: even if it is important you can just genetically modify everyone in the not too distant future instead of being eugenics nazis, that would be the rational, practical and scientific way to do it

Mongoloid skulls generally have the largest cranial capacity. And just because they are backwards I think that has more to do with mao's revolution.

Yes, although Egyptian Arabic and MSA are pretty widely-understood (MSA because it's widely-taught, Egyptian Arabic because of tv & movies).

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anthropometry
nice link, Tell me this person is smarterthan pic related please. Or is that "racist"?

The shitload of assumptions in your post are far more unreliable than a published peer reviewed paper could possibly be.
Basically you are assuming the study is unreliable because you do not like its results. You have 0 proof.

I'm pretty sure lil wayne is smarter than this guy.

...

who's smarter?

what are you even trying to say? are you out of counterarguments?

...

The argument is its pseudo science because it was used historically for discrimination?

Well is discrimination acceptable if there is a difference? YES!

Look at prefrontal cortex size of all these pictures to see the progressive IQ differential within the other ethnic groups

Isn't it fortunate, then, that I'm having a casual conversation on a message board and not submitting these posts to a journal for peer review and publication?

If I wanted to do that, I'd track down the actual study/studies, look at what kind of methodology they used and how open to interference from the Chinese gov't it was and then proceed from there. Of course I'm not going to do any of that (not least because that graph doesn't have a single reference on it, although I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to track it down).

I'm not even alleging that the average Chinese IQ is in fact lower than that - I have no idea. I'm just expressing strong skepticism that whatever studies were done covered the whole country, and that they were carried out independently. Yeah, it's anecdotal, coming from having traveled widely in China, knowing that there are large swaths of the country where you'd be hard-pressed to find even one single person who'd ever sat an IQ test, knowing that the Chinese gov't is in no way above manipulating the results even when nominally independent third-party organizations collect data in their country (primarily by restricting their access to subjects/data). Again, if I were making this argument in an academic setting, I'd be chucking sources at you demonstrating all of that, but in the here and now I'm not even trying to make an "argument" - just throwing 2c into a conversation.

Just for fun I did a quick check on how the plotted countries' IQ correlate with cranial capacity changed versus the orbital volume correlation in your previous graph.

Also I don't understand what conclusion we're supposed to draw from Micronesians having 84 IQ at 1200 ml, Australians 64 IQ at 1280 ml, Amerindians 86 IQ at 1340 ml and Somalis 66 IQ at 1370 ml. I'm not sure why they bothered to trace a straight line.

In fact the only sensible conclusion is that Europeans and Chinese have both large heads and high IQ.

In fact the correlation on this graph mostly exists because it has a bunch of closely related European populations (Canary Islanders are a bit strange but they're largely Southern European/Berber in origin) while the only non-European populations that are even vaguely related are Kenyans and Somalis (they still greatly differ genetically, see this graph.) So the concentrated European points in the upper corner of the graph contribute most to the CoD. You could check the IQ/white skin correlation and you'd get essentially the same result whether white skin has anything to do with IQ or not, simply because you have a bunch of European (and one Chinese) points sitting in the upper right.

Keep England or France as the only European point and try drawing the line again, see how your R2 vanishes.

Another eyeballed correction of the graph because the enormous gap between Somali and English makes me doubt the validty of drawing a single line at all. Note that the new lines are much more horizontal.

>ethnic groups don't exist
>IQ is not a thing

Veeky Forums sure is a magnet for retards

>"Arab" is an ethnic group
"Bedouin" or "Lebanese Arab" is an ethnic group, 75% of the people calling themselves arabs are like those Greeks who were still calling themselves Romans centuries after the Turks took over. Pan-Arabism was like the EU's pan-European identity.

>muh IQ

According to you whales would be our overlords

>Japan, the British Isles and most of Southern and Eastern Europe have essentially the same cranial capacity as the MENA, except for Egypt which is higher

>Southern India, Indochina, Malaysia, etc, historical powerhouses, have lower cranial cap that the entirety of Subsaharan Africa except that one spot

>Siberia, Central Asia or the Tibetan Plateau are equal or higher than Northern Europe, let alone the European average

>the parts of Native America that ever achieved anything have African-tier cranial cap, the parts that never amounted to anything have Chinese-tier cranial cap

Were you drunk when you decided to post this because you thought it proved a point?

>Arab Muslims
>Colonialism
Those people South of the Sahara are black as fuck converts.

He's right you mongs. Ethnicity =/= race or genetics, its entirely cultural.

This