No black man or woman has gotten a Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, or medicine

Some, maybe? Though, the majority would have increased intelligence and probably the academic grades to match. That is, if they haven't been too corrupted by the culture that is pervasive with a large majority of the various 'black' ethnic groups.

Ah yes, because culture doesn't at all shape the way you act. Oh wait, that is why culture exists and continues to exist, because culture is transferred onto the other person or persons living within that culture.

they gave Obummer one before he had even done anything...it's a joke

They are more likely to be one but it boils down to choice again. I would encourage you to at least take a few introductory science and I guess "social science" courses to understand why. Reading books with actual rigor does fine as well.

You're still under the impression that justifying it will magically make them not dumb. They're dumb not because anyone hates them, but as you said their culture propagates them to be dumb.
They iconize criminals and drug dealers who come on to the tv with one gun on their hand one weed on the other, which influences young black kids to be like them. So they start calling girls bitchez and hoes, try to look manly and tough, get hyped about shootin some cracka, getting into gangs and fight with other gangs, and simply spread their dumb primitive culture with mob mentality. Just like how most cultures spread these days.

So its under agreement that its not genetic but cultural. Put them in a different environment and watch any race learn.

That doesn't imply genetic inferiority though, just an inferior culture. Though, due to this 'political climate' of cultural Marxism, we're suppose to accept this? - The same applies to old-world Islamic cultures, then they enter a more moderate Westernised Islamic culture, or a Westernised culture in general, they form 'microcultures' within the 'macroculture' and propagate old-world Islam in Western countries. - So truly, that 'homegrown terrorist' might be 'homegrown', but he certainly doesn't have a Westernised cultural understanding.

but didn't blacks and whites evolved in relative geographical isolation for forty thousand years?

Islam destroyed many of the advancing or advanced African cultures near the Arabic region. Islam has been doing so for more than 1400 years (and counting): (youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo).

>No, it is because their culture doesn't prize education

Ah, the eugenicist's plan B. Blame it on 'culture'.

You do realize 'culture' is the product of environment, right? Environments like slavery and colonialism.

just leaving this here: m.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CGwSqrGq8

I really don't mean to sound like a dick but have you ever taken at least a basic college course in biology?
40,000 years is peanuts compared to how long evolution happens for there to be a truly noticeable difference and furthermore we haven't been in true isolation as there is still gene flow between populations. Even high school biology covers this concept. I don't have time to explain to you everything about though unfortunately but this is very standard knowledge covered in the second sequence of college biology.

Ah yes, because Westernised culture didn't improve most of the countries, up until the point of withdrawal, then many of those countries collapsed? Or perhaps, how only 1.5% of Europeans ever owned slaves? Or perhaps, how Islam started taking slaves before starting jihad (1400+ years ago) and are still slaving? - It is fashionable now to pick on Europeans, whilst ignoring the genocide, slavery rape and various other abuses caused and being caused by Islamic culture.

Precisely, this is what I am saying, yet much of this is glossed over by cultural Marxists.

Not that guy but his post doesn't attack westernized culture. Just slavery and colonialism. Just as you indicated, Europeans aren't the only ones who have participated in such things and aren't even the biggest perpetrators of it.

Yet, in popular culture we are new 'Devil'.

Repost?

They are genetically different and migth be inferior to a degree due to selective breeding. Because their culture promotes selecting dumb black guys who are gangsta and tough rather than going with the black guy who goes to the library and wants to discover the next quark.

Even though this is a major influence in black culture, all races have their own thing. If you grow up in a redneck community in Louisiana, you have no chance to grow up anything but a redneck.

But the biggest selective breeding I see is in the muslim community. If you go against their culture you don'tt just get outcasted, you get beheaded or stoned to death. Which makes sure that statistically the more obediant and loonie ones get to see the next generations, and the ones that raise their voices get shut down.

Why do you keep reposting?

>They are genetically different and migth be inferior to a degree due to selective breeding. Because their culture promotes selecting dumb black guys who are gangsta and tough rather than going with the black guy who goes to the library and wants to discover the next quark.
>Even though this is a major influence in black culture, all races have their own thing. ıf you grow up in a redneck community in Louisiana, you have no chance to grow up anything but a redneck.
You contradicted yourself in your own argument.

I was gonna make an edit about asian gangs growing up in poor chinese ghettos but I said fuck it. Even though thats a huge deal in their culture.

>Ah yes, because Westernised culture didn't improve most of the countries, up until the point of withdrawal, then many of those countries collapsed?

Perhaps that's because a country based on subservience isn't going to survive when the entire upper class and government picks up and leaves all at once? You're acting like this would have happened had colonialism never happened, which it wouldn't have.

>Or perhaps, how only 1.5% of Europeans ever owned slaves?

This is a dumb argument. Wealth disparities were worse then. Few people owned slaves, but those were a few people who owned a hell of a lot of slaves.

>Or perhaps, how Islam started taking slaves before starting jihad
>It is fashionable now to pick on Europeans, whilst ignoring the genocide, slavery rape and various other abuses caused and being caused by Islamic culture.

Way to switch the goalposts buddy. Nothing we're talking about is relevant to Islam. Stay on topic.

China is huge, enough of them are smart, China is fine.

I don't think you understand. Dumb people are more prone to having children they can't take the responsibility of. When smart people know what they can afford and choose a lifestyle as so. Which is why when it comes to populations, dumb people usually outnumber smart people by a landslide. And this goes pretty much for all races.

Yeah china and Japan are pretty good, but they have other problems. Their selective breeding process eliminates dumb asians but brings up the suicide rates because people are scared to death about failure. So it's a wierd trade-off you got there in Asian cultures.

> Perhaps that's because a country based on subservience isn't going to survive when the entire upper class and government picks up and leaves all at once? You're acting like this would have happened had colonialism never happened, which it wouldn't have.

Because they'd have had all of those technological, cultural and political advances without becoming Westernised? Get real

> This is a dumb argument. Wealth disparities were worse then. Few people owned slaves, but those were a few people who owned a hell of a lot of slaves.

I expected you to be one of those social justice morons who always yammers on about how 'evil' white people are because of 'slavery'. Which is why, I offered a preemptive strike.

> Way to switch the goalposts buddy. Nothing we're talking about is relevant to Islam. Stay on topic.

Perhaps, read the thread? When we're talking about culture, which is what the narrative of the thread has become, due to the influence of cultural Marxism on somewhat protecting extremist Islam. - To note, they are great for displaying that Western culture isn't the most morally abhorrent, historically or contemporarily.

>I don't think you understand. Dumb people are more prone to having children they can't take the responsibility of. When smart people know what they can afford and choose a lifestyle as so. Which is why when it comes to populations, dumb people usually outnumber smart people by a landslide. And this goes pretty much for all races.

That awkward moment when you plagiarize your masters thesis from a comedy movie.

Caring about useless human life is morally acceptable in Westernised cultures, as a norm. The issue is, it isn't objective, because objectively useful humans are better. - I suppose you have to consider morals over objectivism, or vice versa.

>Because they'd have had all of those technological, cultural and political advances without becoming Westernised? Get real

Have you ever heard of something called trade? It's great.

>I expected you to be one of those social justice morons who always yammers on about how 'evil' white people are because of 'slavery'.

White people are not complicit in slavery just because other white people have held slaves in the past. That's textbook racism.

>Which is why, I offered a preemptive strike.

Perhaps you should be aware that liberals and SJWs are not a monolith. Not gonna take your bait that easily.

>Perhaps, read the thread? When we're talking about culture, which is what the narrative of the thread has become

Great, but nowhere in our short conversation thread have I mentioned Islam or whether Europeans are wholly responsible for all of the world's oppression.

Idiocracy ? The possibility of that movie becoming real frightens the hell out of me. But then again, dumb people have a tendency to wipe out other dumb people.

Caring about human life is a good thing. What's wrong is to remove all responsibilities and expectations from them. If you wanna help a guy, you don't feed him, you give him a job so he learns and works for the life he wants.

>Idiocracy ? The possibility of that movie becoming real frightens the hell out of me. But then again, dumb people have a tendency to wipe out other dumb people.

Except it won't happen because academic achievement, financial success, and (yes) IQ are more the result of environment and random chance than genetic background. The people who obsess over 'smart genes' are not the people who actually work in genomics.

This is barring mental retardation, hydrocephaly, autism, and other documented disorders.

> Have you ever heard of something called trade? It's great.

Implying many (or any) of those cultures had anything to trade, apart from people, land and resources; things we got for free, by 'colonialism'.

> White people are not complicit in slavery just because other white people have held slaves in the past. That's textbook racism.

I am glad we agree on something.

> Perhaps you should be aware that liberals and SJWs are not a monolith. Not gonna take your bait that easily.

Implying many of them do not share this belief, whereas I have, albeit, anecdotal evidence of the antithesis.

>
Great, but nowhere in our short conversation thread have I mentioned Islam or whether Europeans are wholly responsible for all of the world's oppression.

Then what on Earth are we arguing about?

>I don't think you understand. Dumb people are more prone to having children they can't take the responsibility of. When smart people know what they can afford and choose a lifestyle as so. Which is why when it comes to populations, dumb people usually outnumber smart people by a landslide. And this goes pretty much for all races.
Yet this doesn't tell us anything about a genetic disadvantage. I understand where you are coming from with cultures though. All this tells is that you can selectively breed any race to have any traits I want irrespective on their origin.

Let me put it this way, using your argument, I could hypothetically selectively breed black people for intelligence until I can fill up all of an entire population with only black people with such a trait. Notice how this doesn't spontaneously turn them into another race. Conversely I could breed enough white people (or insert any other race if using whites as an example triggers you) to have nothing but retards. It doesn't magically change their race either. Every race has the same genetic capacity to express traits, whether they do in practice is due to other factors (Notice how I didnt say HURR DURR WHITEY MADE BLACKS DUMB HURRRRRRR).

>whereas I have, albeit, anecdotal evidence of the antithesis.
SJWs BTFO. This man FEELS the truth.

> If you wanna help a guy, you don't feed him, you give him a job so he learns and works for the life he wants.

What if he wants neither, like many of the social handouts we see in our Western cultures today? Those who do not want to work, yet want to be fed and demand it. Then, the socialist groups of our society agree to their demands.

Of course, I am Nostradamus, I predict all.

>Implying many (or any) of those cultures had anything to trade, apart from people, land and resources; things we got for free, by 'colonialism'.

I'm sorry, but you know literally nothing about Africa. It is a continent ripe with oil, minerals, wildlife, and arable land. Africa's current struggles have nothing to do with a lack of natural resources.

>Implying many of them do not share this belief, whereas I have, albeit, anecdotal evidence of the antithesis.

That's true, but you just make yourself look crazy by pulling out all of your cards too early. Nobody wants to argue with someone that's going to treat them like a caricature.

>Then what on Earth are we arguing about?

Whether or not culture comes from a society's environment, as far as I can tell.

Exactly how much of Veeky Forums's posts are you? Starting to become a bit frightened.

> I'm sorry, but you know literally nothing about Africa. It is a continent ripe with oil, minerals, wildlife, and arable land. Africa's current struggles have nothing to do with a lack of natural resources.

You clearly did not read what I wrote, or perhaps, you misunderstood. I said they DO have people, land and resources, things we got free, because of colonialism. Why trade, when you can easy overpower and have an 'unlimited' (metaphorical) access to that resource or land?

> That's true, but you just make yourself look crazy by pulling out all of your cards too early. Nobody wants to argue with someone that's going to treat them like a caricature.

Fair enough, I agree, it was too early to "pull that card" without having the need to do so.

> Whether or not culture comes from a society's environment, as far as I can tell.

'Umwelt', our biology does dictate our reality.

Because social handouts are an option for them. They wouldn't move a finger if free money is flowing them out of nowhere. And it's their culture telling them to look for ways to get free money without any work, which keeps them hooked up on welfare checks.

> Exactly how much of Veeky Forums's posts are you? Starting to become a bit frightened.

Much, my likeness spreads across many posts and even many boards.

End the socialism, allow them to fend for themselves. Perhaps be somewhat kind and give them a free 'crash course' in bushcraft.

>You clearly did not read what I wrote, or perhaps, you misunderstood.

You're right. I misunderstood.

>Why trade, when you can easy overpower and have an 'unlimited' (metaphorical) access to that resource or land?

That's true, but had Europe never scrambled for Africa, they would have engaged in trade instead. With an autonomous market economy from the get-go, Africa wouldn't be nearly as impoverished as it is today.

>'Umwelt', our biology does dictate our reality.

Does it though? Your biology does not choose whether you are born into poverty or into crime. I won't pretend that it's impossible that biology plays a role in how cultures form, but surely the largest portion comes from historical and geographical environments?

You can't just end socialism and expect them to get up on their feet. These people are used to get free money in their pockets, if you cut it out they are conditioned to look out elsewhere for free money, which means riots, crime waves and possibly a civil war.

Unless you raise the next generation a little more aware, you won't be able to fix this. So you need to deal with the rich millenial youth with no problems mentality first.

> That's true, but had Europe never scrambled for Africa, they would have engaged in trade instead. With an autonomous market economy from the get-go, Africa wouldn't be nearly as impoverished as it is today.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonisation_of_Africa).

> Does it though? Your biology does not choose whether you are born into poverty or into crime. I won't pretend that it's impossible that biology plays a role in how cultures form, but surely the largest portion comes from historical and geographical environments?

Indeed, which in turn are created by the reactions of our ancestors to those "geographical environments" and historical events; as such, their biology dictated their reality and our own.

All of this is very 'counterproductive' for the progress of human society. - I guess there is no easy fix.

There is, but it takes time. And requires the power to influence kids. Also you need to stop the socialists who want to give a thousand dollars to everybody who plays the victim or a minority, and you need to stop the capitalists who relentlessly pump consumerism into peoples heads to turn them into spoiled lazy individuals.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonisation_of_Africa

What do you want me to gather from this article? Yes, the African continent has experienced colonization from non-Europeans as well. As has Asia and Europe from non-Europeans. The colonization that had the strongest effect on Africa's current state is the most recent wave.

>Indeed, which in turn are created by the reactions of our ancestors to those "geographical environments" and historical events; as such, their biology dictated their reality and our own.

In a deterministic universe, our biology determines everything that happens in our society because it's the reason why we walk, talk, and fight. However, we don't learn anything from that because it's just noise. If you wanna get really reductionist, supernovas create colonialism.

The First World 'has it too easy'.

> What do you want me to gather from this article? Yes, the African continent has experienced colonization from non-Europeans as well. As has Asia and Europe from non-Europeans. The colonization that had the strongest effect on Africa's current state is the most recent wave.

Not my point, I actually misread your post. I thought you were saying that Europeans 'didn't' scramble, rather than 'they did'. - So to say, I agree, though colonialism did benefit both, somewhat, however it did cause harm to Africa as a whole.

> In a deterministic universe, our biology determines everything that happens in our society because it's the reason why we walk, talk, and fight. However, we don't learn anything from that because it's just noise. If you wanna get really reductionist, supernovas create colonialism.

Well, that is going to be the title of my next astrophysics essay.

>So to say, I agree, though colonialism did benefit both, somewhat, however it did cause harm to Africa as a whole.

The free exchange of ideas was a plus, but the whole colonial subservience part was a pretty major negative.

> but the whole colonial subservience part was a pretty major negative.

I agree, at least there was some of a silver lining. The various colonial powers should have had post-colonial policies in place, to have a somewhat resorative effect.