Technology and the Levelling of Man

If I were biased, I wouldn't acknowledge the ability and achievements of mongoloids (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese), now would I?

Satyr wrote:

Genetics is not about absolutes.

It indicates a propensity, a potential in regards to an other.
It is history manifest.

The Jews have a history; the blacks have a history; the Europeans have a history.
Forgetting it or dismissing it as irrelevant is current....modern.
A type of self-imposed forgetfulness.

What does being a gorilla imply?
That a past, a history known or unknown, has established certain potentials and even the possibilities of surpassing them.

My goodness.
Does that mean we are going to start to think in less absolute terms and actually consider history?
Or do we only do that when it suits you?

Given your level of comprehension this is to be expected.

Before you get all happy and shit, try answering some questions for me:

If environment only effects an organism superficially then how does intelligence evolve?

If evolution is not based on the slow accumulation of mutations which are retained within a population group due to a prolonged period of genetic isolation (inbreeding) where, if the isolation persists for a long enough period, a splintering off occurs, then how do species come about?

If there is no such thing as superior or inferior within a given environment then what exactly is selected with natural selection?

If all are equal and the same then why are you so picky with your lovers or why do you want the "best" father for your children?

If height is determined as a potential inherited from the parents which immediate conditions allow to flourish, coming to its fullest point, or to wane, due to malnutrition disease etc. then why is intelligence not the same?

If appearances do not matter, particularly the appearance distinguished by racial characteristics or sexual types, then why do we even evolve the ability to perceive them?

If color doesn't matter then why does form or taste or smell?


Show me how you are a open-minded girl who can think for herself.
Show us your objectivity.

Darling, my comprehension capacity is the least of your concerns.
In these several threads to where this subject spread, all I have been begging for is some moderation.
Yes, lets talk about gene. But let's acknowledge that gene does not paint the whole picture. Same with history.
As I have repeated over and over again, where you are born doesn't make who you are. Of course it plays a role, but it is the indivudual's will that drives it to rise above its own "nature".
What causes will to take a particular direction and have a particular strength is defined by more than race.

Sweetie, I know you like to think of yourself as the cool and rational type, but your "moderation" has the slight stink of liberalism.

So, gene does not "paint the whole picture"....then I am sure you can paint in the rest.
History, dearest is the documented past. The past does not begin with history.
Let us ignore, for the moment, that the past can be interpreted in any which way and simply go straight to how this past manifests in a present, shall we sweetie?

I gather, little girl, that you have no capacity to answer my queries, making you both simple and a coward, so let us proceed to how the present is not a product of the past.

Sweetie where you were born is the immediate past...it is part of the nurture factor. When I say past, you simpleton, is in regards to the entirety....nature.
I may have been born here but my ancestors might have come from another place. I may have been born in Africa and lived my whole life there but I am still carrying the accumulated genetic markers of my European heritage and a few generations in Africa will not alter me.
Does my being born here trump the entirety of my past?
I might train a chimp to act like a human; to even think of itself as being human....will this make it so?

Let me simplify further, does my immediate ancestry, my parents and grandparents, overpower the generations of ancestors which preceded them?
According to you niggers are not to blame because in the last 4-5 hundred years they were victimized by white slavers.
Let is forget that niggers enslaved niggers before any white man was on the scene and most importantly that there is no race of people which has not suffered from enslavement.

For you, the last few hundred years of history is all that matters...this is how "deep" you go.
Of course in the last few hundred years race mixing has made the issue more difficult...at least for simpletons.


So let us start slow and easy, shall we sweetie?

We agree that genes do matter, right, when we are talking about species or types or the potentials and characteristics we distinguish them by?
Now you tell me what else matters?

Satyr wrote:

Sweetie, I know you like to think of yourself as the cool and rational type, but your "moderation" has the slight stink of liberalism.

So, gene does not "paint the whole picture"....then I am sure you can paint in the rest.
History, dearest is the documented past. The past does not begin with history.

The present doesn't exist. As soon as an event occurs, it becomes past, and thus, it becomes history.

Quote :

Let us ignore, for the moment, that the past can be interpreted in any which way and simply go straight to how this past manifests in a present, shall we sweetie?

A fair interpretation of history is the staple of a rational mind
And as such, it is never absolute.

Quote :

I gather, little girl, that you have no capacity to answer my queries, making you both simple and a coward, so let us proceed to how the present is not a product of the past.

I didn't answer them because I found them obvious. Satyr my dear, I do not disagree with you on evolution or the scientific method. And I have already declared myself to be full of innate prejudice. If you value the answers so, I will answer:

If environment only effects an organism superficially then how does intelligence evolve?
It doesn't effect only superficially.

If evolution is not based on the slow accumulation of mutations which are retained within a population group due to a prolonged period of genetic isolation (inbreeding) where, if the isolation persists for a long enough period, a splintering off occurs, then how do species come about?

It is... sort of. (I won't split hairs on technicalities here since you were obviously trying to be brief).

If there is no such thing as superior or inferior within a given environment then what exactly is selected with natural selection?

The superior is not the one who comes out on top. It is the most fit.

If all are equal and the same then why are you so picky with your lovers or why do you want the "best" father for your children?

For fucks sake. All are not equal. You think that I think this way, because it suits your flawed conception of me. Drop it.

If height is determined as a potential inherited from the parents which immediate conditions allow to flourish, coming to its fullest point, or to wane, due to malnutrition disease etc. then why is intelligence not the same?

It is the same.

If appearances do not matter, particularly the appearance distinguished by racial characteristics or sexual types, then why do we even evolve the ability to perceive them?

zzz... they matter.

If color doesn't matter then why does form or taste or smell?

It matters.

I'm sorry I can't give you better answers. The reason is, as I have already said, I am not who you think I am.

Back to the post...

Quote :

Sweetie where you were born is the immediate past, when I say past you simpleton, is in regards to the entirety.
I may have been born here but my ancestors might have come from another place.
Does my being born here trump the entirety of my past?

Let me simplify further, does my immediate ancestry, my parents and grandparents, overpower the generations of ancestors which preceded them?

Once again you are attempting to make something I said mean something other than what I meant. You want me to be a simpleton. It is less work for you to assume that because my words are brief, they are empty. We have been through this.
When I talk about "where you are born" I am referring to your heritage. It involves both your family's racial and cultural background, and your society's (the one where you will grow up) racial and cultural background. In other words, everything that puts you on the same ground as your siblings.

Quote :

According to you niggers are not to blame because in the last 4-5 hundred years they were victimized by white slavers.
Let is forget that niggers enslaved niggers before any white man was on the scene and most importantly that there is no race of people which has not suffered from enslavement.

While at that, let's forget that romans enslaved franks, saxons, bretons, etc. That european "barbarian" tribes , in turn, enslaved one another. That slavery is territorial more so than racial.
And then, let's talk about this side subject for a few pages, and ignore the core of the issue, a nation's deprivation of its own wealth.

Besides, who's talking about blame... What blame?

Quote :

For you, the last few hundred years of history is all that matters...this is how "deep" you go.
Of course in the last few hundred years race mixing has made the issue more difficult...at least for simpletons.

Really?
Haven't I been discussing paleolitic and neolitic history with you for at least a month now?
You mention the last 500 years of history in Africa above. So do you think we should ignore the first arab invasions, the greek influence, the carthagian empire, the roman invasion, the various subsequent arab invasions, the ottoman invasion, the portuguese and spanish invasions, napoleon's invasion, etc etc that have been going on for at least 2000 years? Do these not matter as much as the 19th century scramble for land?

Quote :

So let us start slow and easy, shall we sweetie?

pfff, please! That's all I ask. Let's agree on pre-history first

Quote :

We agree that genes do matter, right, when we are talking about species or types or the potentials and characteristics we distinguish them by?
Now you tell me what else matters?

Are you implying that nothing else matters, after all we have discussed?

You answer me this, then. What makes a hypothetical man a no-good, scumbag, welfare-leeching, drug-pusher, and his hypothetical brother a hard-working, self-improving, valuable member of society?

Quote :

Phoneutria wrote: As I have repeated over and over again, where you are born doesn't make who you are. Of course it plays a role, but it is the indivudual's will that drives it to rise above its own "nature".

There is nothing that can't be reduced to nature or nurture. Genes, plus what we believe the odds are of being successful in our endeavors, gives us our will. If you played around with a man's genetic and physiological makeup, you could make him less motivated, more tired and have less discipline, less foresight. Although I have no scientific study to support this (however, there are plenty of scientific studies that prove Negroids are dumber than Caucasians, on average), I think Negroids are probably less able to overcome their nature, their nature is more powerful than Caucasian nature. You speak of will as if it is something supernatural, something beyond the physical, something metaphysical, and this is your religion, it is not science, and it is not good philosophy, either. Smoke a marijuana cigarette and witness your will power fade. Fail miserably multiple times at a given task, and witness your willpower fade. Will isn't this, thing that magically floats above genetic history and experience, it is predetermined by them, cause and effect, like everything else. This is the realist position, what you're offering is a partial idealism, which makes you a dualist, and more spiritual than you probably realized.

Quote :

You answer me this, then. What makes a hypothetical man a no-good, scumbag, welfare-leeching, drug-pusher, and his hypothetical brother a hard-working, self-improving, valuable member of society?

What causes one brother to have cancer and another not? Bad mutations, poor lifestyle choices due to different experiences, ignorance, less access to healthy foods. The wayward brother may have inherited recessive genes, or perhaps he was the youngest brother, younger brothers tend to be spoiled more. Of course there are little random factors that are difficult to pinpoint, but we should assume they are physical (as they almost certainly are), as everything turns out to be, and that they follow the laws of cause and effect.

Our short term history does matter, but I have to agree with Satyr that on average, our long term history matters more. Nothing exists outside of history, everything is conditioned, everything has limits. This is the world of experience. There may be things outside of our experience that operate on different laws, or no laws at all, however, we certainly don't need them to explain will, or virtually everything else we regularly experience.

Will, will is the mind exerting itself against physical and emotional power. The mind has it's own plans, sometimes these plans are contrary to emotional and physical desires. Often the mind is trying to satisfy long term emotional and physical desire, whilst emotions and appetites demand to be satiated immediately. The power of will, like everything else, has limits and a history, cause and effect. Scientists have done twin studies and they found twins tend to turn out quite similarly, in terms of discipline, foresight, intelligence, personality and lifestyle, even in spite of being born in different countries or being raised by different parents. Instead of focusing on the few exceptions and believing will, discipline and foresight are transcendent, why don't you focus on the overwhelming evidence that suggest otherwise- all aspects of personality can be determined by genes and when and where they can't, experiences. This notion of will, something transcendent, something mysterious and not inherited, is a cop out, wishful thinking, and looks to the exceptions rather than the rules to establish itself, instead of assuming what you should assume. Although we don't know all the reasons for why people turn out the way they do, you assume the opposite, that there isn't a cause and effect, that there aren't material, measurable and explicable reasons, they possess will and that is all there is to it. Well, where does will come from, if it doesn't come from genes, physiology, chemistry and experiences? Does it come from God, or stranger still, does will will itself into existence?

phoneutria wrote:

The present doesn't exist. As soon as an event occurs, it becomes past, and thus, it becomes history.

Excellent little girl.

phoneutria wrote:

I didn't answer them because I found them obvious. Satyr my dear, I do not disagree with you on evolution or the scientific method. And I have already declared myself to be full of innate prejudice. If you value the answers so, I will answer:

You are a hypocrite?

phoneutria wrote:

If environment only effects an organism superficially then how does intelligence evolve?
It doesn't effect only superficially.

Little woman, you who is deep and wise, this is not a response...it is a statement.
If environment effects the organism only "superficially" then how does intelligence evolve and how do multiple species come about, dear?
Did God make them?

phoneutria wrote:

If evolution is not based on the slow accumulation of mutations which are retained within a population group due to a prolonged period of genetic isolation (inbreeding) where, if the isolation persists for a long enough period, a splintering off occurs, then how do species come about?

It is... sort of. (I won't split hairs on technicalities here since you were obviously trying to be brief).

Sweetie, another brilliant post.
Are you here to think or to display your thinking or are you here to masturbate?
Sweetie, answer the questions...you who is deep in your thinking and more historically aware.

phoneutria wrote:

If there is no such thing as superior or inferior within a given environment then what exactly is selected with natural selection?

The superior is not the one who comes out on top. It is the most fit.

Excellent reiteration of the obvious.
I like how you say the same thing using a different word.

Bravo! The fit, within a given environment, pass on their genes, right sweetie?
We can call them superior.
Now, my dear, how does this hypothetical organism become fit?
Is it a divine grace that makes it so? Do aliens make it so? Does it pray?

phoneutria wrote:

If all are equal and the same then why are you so picky with your lovers or why do you want the "best" father for your children?

For fucks sake. All are not equal. You think that I think this way, because it suits your flawed conception of me. Drop it.

Sweetie, you state this in theory, but pragmatically you are desperate to find equalizing evidence in all areas.
Look at your performance with the Niggers in ancient Egypt.
You had to find something to raise them into equal status with the Europeans or the Asians. You went so far as to go to Ethiopia.

phoneutria wrote:

If height is determined as a potential inherited from the parents which immediate conditions allow to flourish, coming to its fullest point, or to wane, due to malnutrition disease etc. then why is intelligence not the same?

It is the same.

Excellent judgment, sweetie.
Now, since it is the same how does it evolve if environment has no effect and it is brought about by - presumably - some sort of osmosis or tender loving nurturing.
Begin by defining what intelligence is, dear.
Is it a product of a challenge; a development meant to facilitate survival?

phoneutria wrote:

If appearances do not matter, particularly the appearance distinguished by racial characteristics or sexual types, then why do we even evolve the ability to perceive them?

zzz... they matter.

Excellent, dearest...now since it matters in what way is a Nigger's appearance not relevant, or in what way is the Asian look irrelevant?
If looks matter, then this differentiation in appearance is a byproduct of environment, no? Explain how the brain remains unaffected by environment.

phoneutria wrote:

If color doesn't matter then why does form or taste or smell?

It matters.

We are maknig progress, dearest. If only we can deal with your need to excuse more quickly.

phoneutria wrote:

I'm sorry I can't give you better answers. The reason is, as I have already said, I am not who you think I am.

And you have no idea what I think you are....or what I think you think you are.
I only reply to you here in the manner your posts deserve.

phoneutria wrote:

Back to the post...

Once again you are attempting to make something I said mean something other than what I meant. You want me to be a simpleton. It is less work for you to assume that because my words are brief, they are empty. We have been through this.
When I talk about "where you are born" I am referring to your heritage. It involves both your family's racial and cultural background, and your society's (the one where you will grow up) racial and cultural background. In other words, everything that puts you on the same ground as your siblings.

Very good, sweetie...now can you imagine a situation where the environment might inhibit the development or the usage of certain inherited traits?

For example, sweetie, if you place a lion in a cage, train it to do tricks for its daily meat, have you altered the lion's nature; have you erased its inherited past?
If you train a chimp to sue the toilet, to use basic symbols as language, to behave in certain ways, and you train a dog likewise, are these two species now one and the same or are they forced to behave as if they were one and the same by an external will - stronger than both of them - which imposes a strict behavioral code?

phoneutria wrote:

Besides, who's talking about blame... What blame?

Were you not implying that the Niggers are where they are because the evil white-man did what they did to him?

phoneutria wrote:

For you, the last few hundred years of history is all that matters...this is how "deep" you go.
Of course in the last few hundred years race mixing has made the issue more difficult...at least for simpletons.

Ah, there's that liberalism.
Socialist? More severe...communist?

Let us transplant our "agreements" on genetics into the sphere of geopolitics.
Shall we begin?
Tell me, from where does civilization come? Do aliens bring it here? Does God give it to man?
How does a civilization and the culture, the arts, the morals, the faiths, the principles that characterize it come about?

phoneutria wrote:

Really?
Haven't I been discussing paleolitic and neolitic history with you for at least a month now?
You mention the last 500 years of history in Africa above. So do you think we should ignore the first arab invasions, the greek influence, the carthagian empire, the roman invasion, the various subsequent arab invasions, the ottoman invasion, the portuguese and spanish invasions, napoleon's invasion, etc etc that have been going on for at least 2000 years? Do these not matter as much as the 19th century scramble for land?

I don't want to ignore anything.
I primarily do not wish to ignore the fact that sub-Saharan Negroes developed nothing noteworthy in the thousands of years they were living in the very areas man was birthed in, and that when they did it was only because they came into contact with a more developed people who had experienced a long period of independent genetic evolution.
I just can't ignore how not one Nigger has ever provided anything comparable to an Einstein or a Plato or a Kant and when they do offer something it is always after they've come into contact with European civilizations and when they themselves have European blood in them.

But this wasn't about European civilizations, but about how ancient Egypt was a Negro one.

phoneutria wrote:

pfff, please! That's all I ask. Let's agree on pre-history first

Brilliant tactic, dear.
Let's begin by you offering your opinion on how species splinter off a common ancestor and how intelligence evolves if environmental effects are only superficial.

phoneutria wrote:

Are you implying that nothing else matters, after all we have discussed?

Are you dense or is your English bad?

phoneutria wrote:

You answer me this, then. What makes a hypothetical man a no-good, scumbag, welfare-leeching, drug-pusher, and his hypothetical brother a hard-working, self-improving, valuable member of society?

I love how despite the fact that you offer declarative responses to my questions you now wish for me to offer you responses to yours.
But, alas, this is something I've gotten sued to over the years.

Let me answer you with a question:
Where did I ever say anyone was a "scumbag" because he was a nigger?
If I say dogs are dumber than dolphins am I proposing to drown dogs in the ocean?
What ever gave you the impression I was interested in civil obedience and being a "good citizen"?

But given your simplicity, as you can only think in social terms which is normal for females, if all have different potentials then is it not logical to assume that what a Nigger can be in regards to "self-improvement" and a disciplined "hard working" member of society is not the same as when we talk about these things in regards to Asians.
The tendency towards violence, the stupidity, the loss of control, but also the tendency to accept authority without questioning it lucidly, or to think outside the box is not equally distributed amongst peoples coming from different backgrounds.

Niggers are of lower intelligence and so have a tendency to fall for supernatural forces and simplistic methods of controlling them, but at the same time this simplicity of mind makes them more instinctive and so they also tend to be disloyal to these Godly authorities not because of rational consideration but because of an inability to contain their more animal natures.

That's not what I asked.
I asked what makes two siblings different, given that they have the same heritage, receive the same education, and live in the same culture.

(I'll give attention to the rest of your post when I can take a breath. Busy day.)

phoneutria wrote:

That's not what I asked.
I asked what makes two siblings different, given that they have the same heritage, receive the same education, and live in the same culture.

I'm not going to force-feed you this, little girl.

You already discounted environment, no?

Here is a hypothesis going waaaaay back to the primordial soup. Let's really delve into pre-history, dear woman.

Now imagine a single cell organism coming about.
How does it replicate?
It divides, no? There is no sex, no need for love, no necessity for the bullshit people like you use to excuse themselves from the world.

So this single-cell organism reproduces itself, but is the copy identical to the source?
Now you must think, simpleton....are the environmental conditions exactly and absolute the same as those present when the source, the mother, experienced when it was splintering off of its source?
Are the weather conditions the same?
Is the barometric pressure the same?
Is the background radiation absolutely similar?
Has the mother, the source cell, not experienced things along the way, from its own birth to this moment of conception?

Why are identical twins not ever exactly the same?
Would clones be?

Do try to think, simple woman.

So I ask again: does environment only affect the organism superficially?

Quote :

That's not what I asked.
I asked what makes two siblings different, given that they have the same heritage, receive the same education, and live in the same culture.

(I'll give attention to the rest of your post when I can take a breath. Busy day.)


Last edited by phoneutria on Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total

No two things are absolutely identical in nature. One brother may take a fall on the head, one may get molested by a cop, one may have had the umbilical cord tied around his neck, one may have received a poorer share of genes from the parents. No need to introduce the supernatural, something transcending genes and experiences, something that individual Negroids and gorillas may have that overrides genetic and environmental factors.

Fuck it's not hard to imagine, one brother may have grown up during easier economic times, may have mingled with Negroids and other unsavory characters, may have been treated unfairly by peers and teachers. There is will, but there is no free will, there is no free anything.

Satyr wrote:

I just can't ignore how not one Nigger has ever provided anything comparable to an Einstein or a Plato or a Kant and when

How about the guy who invented peanut butter?

Ghidorah wrote:

Satyr wrote:

I just can't ignore how not one Nigger has ever provided anything comparable to an Einstein or a Plato or a Kant and when

How about the guy who invented peanut butter?

Oh yeah, I forgot about him.
Well then, I stand corrected.

Peanut Butter = Internal Combustion Engine

cranapple wrote:

Quote :

It is intelligence that separates man from animal, and hence our humanity is a property determined primarily by the size, shape and structure of the brain. In sub-Saharan Africans the brain is undeveloped and more primitive. There are big differences, for example, in the size and shape of the prefrontal cortex, which of all the races is the most highly developed in Europeans.

It is also widely believed that the size and number of connections in the prefrontal cortex relates directly to sentience, as the prefrontal cortex in humans occupies a far larger percentage of the brain than any other animal. And it is theorized that as the brain has tripled in size over 5 million years of human evolution,[30] the prefrontal cortex has increased in size sixfold.[31]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

though you focus on something that seems so pertinent, it's really not as you are missing what's really going on. there are things beyond race. the problem with the world isn't so much race but the issue between good and persay bad people. for instance, what i've noticed some pigeonhole jews for some unsavory characteristics can be found among any population. this type of thinking is to have a sense of control over something that can't really be compartmentalized in reality but it gives a sense of focus, even if unrealistic. i've noticed that no matter what race, people tend to support those who are similar to them in character which has nothing to do with cognitive intelligence. people are motivated by their primal instincts. for instance, i've noticed that caucasians are similar to africans and hispanics in emotions so they feel more comfortable with them. people's emotional character and inclinations will define who they really are more than anything and that's just the way animals are.

also, i've noticed that caucasians are quite animalistic in their emotional nature which is why many are volatile and are inclined to decadence and hypersexuality and aggression. it was very evident in the school system as most had the atmosphere of a toxic prison yard and not a place of learning. it certainly was not just blacks who were behaving that way as whites were inclined to the same as hispanics as having a similar affinity; aggressive, overly sexual or promiscuous, extreme bad language, general disrespect etc. there was no sense of civility but always quite lurid. some schools were a bit better but most were like this. in contrast asian students and schools generally are the complete opposite.

what you don't get is you think it's just other races when in fact, it's your own race with the problem as well. you are not the most emotionally mature people even if there are more geniuses among caucasians.

i mean, you really misread people and don't have a clue as to what is actually going on with people. i don't know if this is intentional cognitive dissonance or not. i've witnessed countless times caucasians exhibiting very bad character and a malevolent degenerate type of disdain or malice toward anything of value, right or good while advocating or supporting shit or shitty people as well. you have liars, cheats and shitty people just like any other race. like i said, these characteristics is not so much due to race as to the type of person they are as well there are people of other races who have good character regardless of intelligence. still, there are lots of idiots among caucasians as well. you've got your people all wrong. in fact, i've witnessed that most caucasians do tend to be very animalistic, even a bit psycho or too hyperreactive and impatient with a very short attention span and only a few elite who are extremely intelligent or cerebral who are more conscientious.

Your response is what one would expect from an Asian. You see other races as more aggressive and physical because biologically that is what they are. Your people are less physical, more gentle and oriented towards social cooperation, the group rather than the individual. You see nature as something acting harmoniously within itself, your religions and philosophies reflecting this, this being a projection of your own nature, whereas whites see it as something filled with suffering and violence to be subdued and overcome.

Hence, for you, whites are a 'problem', or at least what you see them as representing.

Behavior you see as chaotic and threatening is nothing more than another phenotype expressing its will to exist, its nature, which you naturally wish to see restrained and neutured. Its the ancient story of species conflict and evolution.

Yet it is whites whose aggressively inquisitive sciences tell us most about the universe, that most accurately model and predict its behavior. It is our technology which alters and transforms nature to our benefit. Would this be the case if reality was so alien to us? Or is it a fact that our laws reflect it more accurately because that is what it's really like? It is the white world that has peered into the abyss that underlies nature and come back from it with knowledge.

Quote :

"The universe is built on a plan the profound symmetry of which is somehow present in the inner structure of our intellect."
- Paul Valery

Physical reality is something your people have turned away from in fear, as the Chinese emperors turned back from colonizing the world. Now you imitate us, as the niggers on a more pathetic level do, with the money you've made from manufacturing all the basic necessities Westerner's need, but I see no indication of you taking the lead in any sphere, no great philosophers or scientists are emerging, only those preaching the mimetic dogma of your own biological inheritance - world peace and brotherhood - the tau of physics.

Edit: You preach a kind of nihilism, a fear of life, as it is a fact that you are not as alive as us, as sentience is dependent upon brain structure.

An old site debunking the myths of black inventiveness:

Quote :

Perhaps you've heard the claims: Were it not for the genius and energy of African-American inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, peanut butter, blood banks, light bulb filaments, and a vast number of other things we now take for granted but could hardly imagine life without.

Such beliefs usually originate in books or articles about black history. Since many of the authors have little interest in the history of technology outside of advertising black contributions to it, their stories tend to be fraught with misunderstandings, wishful thinking, or fanciful embellishments with no historical basis. The lack of historical perspective leads to extravagant overestimations of originality and importance: sometimes a slightly modified version of a pre-existing piece of technology is mistaken for the first invention of its type; sometimes a patent or innovation with little or no lasting value is portrayed as a major advance, even if there's no real evidence it was ever used.

Unfortunately, some of the errors and exaggerations have acquired an illusion of credibility by repetition in mainstream outlets, especially during Black History Month (see examples for the traffic light and ironing board). When myths go unchallenged for too long, they begin to eclipse the truth. Thus I decided to put some records straight. Although this page does not cover every dubious invention claim floating around out there, it should at least serve as a warning never to take any such claim for granted.

Each item below is listed with its supposed black originator beneath it along with the year it was supposedly invented, followed by something about the real origin of the invention or at least an earlier instance of it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think we have to distinguish between being an assertive, individualistic person from being a savage psychopath. There are many white children who behave like the latter, I myself was one of them, but it was not always this way, it became so. Anyway, I don't really believe in the civilization idealists, from left/right socialists to capitalists, are trying to create. Everything has it's pluses and minuses, and white people fucked a lot things up, in addition to making a lot of things better for mankind.

White people are more individualistic and competitive than mongoloids. Mongoloid society tends to function top down, more oligarchic, where as our society tends to function bottom up, more democratic. I don't think democracy and individualism could work for Chinese, I don't think they'd know what to do with themselves. As for intelligence, I think we're more/less equal, in terms of logic, mathematics, although they seem to be slightly ahead. However, there are aspects of intelligence IQ tests don't measure. I think Chinese are particularly good at memorization and regurgitating information, they're more interested in information than knowledge, where as we're more imaginative, creative and more interested in truth, scrutinizing tradition, putting conventions and dogmas, theories and hypothesis to the test. Asians are fairly conventional, they don't make breakthroughs or discoveries, very often.

Asians are very servile by nature, they like to be ruled, they need a boss telling them what to do. They're also more interested in ethics than governing the natural world. They're very concerned about establishing a harmonious, conflict free society. In contrast, whites are more interested in accumulating wealth, increasing efficiency and productivity.

Well, we'll see which race comes out on top in the end, if any.

What about middle easterners? They're a subrace of Caucasians. Any thoughts on them? And Hindus, a hybrid of Caucasians, Mongoloids and Australoids, what are they like?

Arabs are obviously more passionate, critical and judgmental than other races. Not much room for individualism there, very concerned with ethics and social governance, in this they're very much like the Chinese, but they're more emotional than the Chinese, and a little dumber. If I recall correctly, the average Chinese IQ is 105, the average European IQ is 100 and Arabs and Hindus, 90. The Chinese are also more pragmatic than Arabs, the Arabs are very spiritual, idealistic and passionate. The Hindus share the religious sentiment with the Arabs, but they're colder, a little more rational, not as warlike, the whites are very similar to Arabs in this aspect, they're warlike. Hindus are more passive like the Chinese, religious like the Arabs, cold, insular, and a little more individualistic than Chinese. Well, this is just a thought experiment, there's nothing that scientific about this, I'm just basing this on broad political, economic and social trends, I don't know. I wonder if Siberians are similar to Chinese and Japanese in intelligence, they're closely related genetically, as are Tibetans. Australoids are even more primitive than Negroids, especially the ones inhabiting Australia, have you seen their skull formations? Huge brow ridges and sloping foreheads, I'm really not even sure if some of them should be classified as human. Native Americans are interesting creatures. There's something enigmatic and mysterious about them, spiritual, but not in the same way as Middle Easterners or Hindus. I like some of them, they have this calm, sombre, introverted, individualistic nature, not wild, sensual and goofy like the blacks. There's something philosophical and, contemplative, reflective, highly conscious about them, even though though their IQs are 10 points lower than whites.

Quote :

Your response is what one would expect from an Asian.

mule, you are talking to a genius and that would me mwa. i just act stupid on the internet and write with in incorrect grammar to make an important point that is often overlooked and that is content is the purpose of truth, not how grammatically correct one can spew erroneous bullshit, ignorance or stupidity such as your replies, for example.

let me explain. most asians don't agree with my opinion. this means you are an idiot. let's move on to the next point.

Quote :

Edit: You preach a kind of nihilism, a fear of life, as it is a fact that you are not as alive as us, as sentience is dependent upon brain structure.

first, most asians don't have the same philosophy as i do so you are projecting your delusions about asians. they disagree with my opinions as much as the next person. get it? k.

second, you started this topic about technology and the leveling of man and totally miss what is really going on because you are short-sighted and are of a conventional programmed mind (which you seem to think only applies to others or to 'lesser' races as you perceive them).

technology and further artificiality will lead to more unconsciousness rather than increased consciousness. this is inevitable and will affect everyone.

this is because consciousness is derived from the experience of incongruency to one's environment and thus awareness. the more adapted to environment, the less conscious.

some people lament the lack of touchy feely human interaction because of virtual worlds and technological gadgets etc but organic life is bastardly at odds with the universe anyways and is just a temporary fluke or chance occurence. it's just always fighting against the grain to stay alive and that is a sad phenomenon in itself as constant death, struggle, chaos, suffering and even history attest to. eventually with further technology and biotechnology, we will become more robotic and artificial, just like another element in the universe and this was inevitable. this, again, further proves life is more incongruent to the universe and it's unconsciousness rather than consciousness.

you are not that sentient and certainly not more sentient than me but i can tell it's the result of your ignorance so it's slightly amusing. you just assume you are more sentient because you are that ego-driven/blind.

i just revealed a profound truth/point to you of what is actually occuring that was obviously over your head as you were focusing inanely on computers/orangutans which is trivial and provincial. now, is this due to your brain structure or would you like to blame it on something else? also, can you comprehend the point that i just revealed as you assume that you are more sentient and above me?

let me reiterate the clue once more: it was inevitable. that or just natural death when the sun goes supernova. still, death of organic life/consciousness to one degree or another through further technology or else. in the end, it really doesn't matter. that observation is not from fear, that's just a fact.

Quote :

I don't think democracy and individualism could work for Chinese

yes and no. there is this social stereotype that westerners are individualistic when in reality that's not the case. most everyone copies or tries to fit into the group/status quo (as trends and herd mentality attest to) as it affords protection or they genuinely agree with it's current status either politically, socially or culturally or all, either way. just like any society, those who are different or the minority in some way will be persecuted or be outcast, whether it's for good/bad reasons. that's just how animal nature is and has nothing to do with race. the only difference being that western culture allows for more differing groups which allows for creativity but the price or side-effect is more chaos or conflict in society. but as for being literally individualistic, that is only allowed if one still can garner a group support as it's always about numbers and society tends to force or define it as political.

i do agree though that asian society is much more focused on cohesiveness and order but the price for them is less creativity or not questioning authority. they will hammer down or undermine anyone that sticks out or differs but that occurs to one degree or another in any society.

each has it's pros/cons. having experienced both cultures, overall, most people are conformists and disdain those who are different. majority opinion will always rule, whether some of that is good/bad/inferior/superior. those who are different or pioneers will have a rougher time and that has always been the case. some people are fortunate to live in a time when their nature fits into the current status quo and some are unfortunate when they don't.

i don't like how asians copy everthing, like do they need to copy everything, even when it's not necessary? jesus and i find it infuriating too. there are asians that have the same opinion as me or point of view but they are the minority and is drowned out or obscure. i don't like many asians either or humans in general. i also lament the lack of appreciation for their own culture and i think they are quite stupid in that aspect but i find that stupidity everywhere in one way or another. also, why do they dye their hair orange? do they think it looks good because it doesn't which goes to prove most people are stupid. i don't understand most asians myself.

i really hate older asian males too, especially koreans. they are putrid pieces of shit and are repulsive/revolting/hideous. asian society should go all nazi on them, gather them up and mow them down with a machine gun. they are so hypermasculine, they are lascivious toward any female that has any personal sense of empowerment and smell it like a goddamn jeepers creepers. hypermasculine males actually are the least masculine secretly and feed off of females like the degenerate they are for a personal sense of empowerment. chinese males tend to be more astute and secure (one of the reasons why their females tend to be sassier than korean/japanese traditionally) as well as the younger generation of asian males across the board. koreans also copy japanese pop culture. did i say i don't like koreans? lol. i just realized recently that i've always gravitated toward chinese than koreans and always had more chinese friends, though most younger koreans are alright. they are definitely more intelligent than koreans and understand something called 'logic' that seems to defy korean understanding. i find most koreans exasperatingly illogical. there is a time to be emotional and logical and they always get them confused or backward, something chinese understand very well.

i don't have a hard and fast preference for any culture or people either as the world isn't how i would like it anywhere. people are assholes everywhere. lol

for instance, there are a ton of coffee shops in korea but none of them have any asian decor. do koreans think that if one likes coffee, it means they have to use western decor too, down to the pictures on the wall? i don't get it. it's flattering to the west how much they admire it but it's ridiculous.

this is why most asians are stupid but of course they would crucify someone like me for pointing it out. also, why don't they just further develop their own music and in their own language instead of aping western music or stupidly and randomly inserting english? i don't get it.

i don't consider most asians asian, i think they are traitors and if they want to be completely western (eating asian food or speaking korean doesn't qualfy which is all they fucking have left or keep), they should go live there instead of lying to themselves about their 'culture' as if it's korean. how the fuk is it korean?

that said, asians are not the only one doing this as just about every culture is. this goes to show just how conformist humans are anyways to anything they think or currently has power. they will even disregard what is good or unique about their own culture. absolutely stupid, even vile as it will eventually make everything in the world uniform. it's okay to enjoy or partake of other cultures or even incorporate some of it but that doesn't mean one has to be completely like someone else. i'm always amazed at how stupid people are. they will fall for anything.

this is the paradox. asians like me are the ones who have a real appreciation for asian culture as well as other cultures but the majority of lying koreans would demonize me as attacking their 'culture' and that i'm not korean or anti-asian when deep down it's really them as they hypocritically and viley appoint themselves as legitimate representers of their culture. it's just their ego or empty nationalism as they subversely shit on their own culture in spirit as well as action and only give it lip service while they crucify asians with any sense of originality or truly think independently. they would tell me to get out of their country but the truth is i don't care because it's no different or unique to anywhere else unless they stupidly think a concrete jungle and materialism (which is all western trends) is korean while you speak korean/english. what the fuk is korean culture now? nothing. the world is a strange place and only fit for liars, corrupt and the shallow.

oh, they do have something korean. shit pop groups (that would appeal to pedophiliacs) that are mirrored off of jpop as well as a sexist country that perpetuates agism and sexism. they should be so proud. oh, they produce technological gadgets. yeah, that's so korean. at least they are productive but they need to stop pretending that is anything that can be defined or associated with korean culture.

you should even see the shit on asian forums, any asians who stand up for asian culture or not a western regurgitating clone, is blackballed as they hail themselves as asians and make the legitimate ones rendered obscure or outcast.

humans are shit. i hope they all go extinct.

well, not to completely focus on the negative. there are still some positive aspects of their culture or at least amusing.

their random english printed everywhere which often does not make sense has become some type of amusing cultural phenomenon and charming or even unique in that sense but that's everywhere in asia, not just korea.

another slightly amusing phenomenon if not annoying is their city blocks resemble a sim city game played with repeating landmarks and businesses. there is absolutely no difference between different parts of a city so there is really nothing new to see usually but everything is convenient. it's the same repeating hirises, familymarts/7-11s, pharmacies, restaurants (though it's utterly stupid how they have so many restaurants serving the same cuisine on one street), karoake rooms, lotte/homeplus/emart department stores and opne air markets.

also, their hairstyles rock and could even say that they are among the best hairstylists. their school systems still are based on discipline and they do respect education. they are generally socially civil and have a good work ethic with attention to detail and responsibility though i have to give more credit to the chinese on this one as they have a great sense of priorities though i don't know how long this will last.

another thing that's unnerving or puzzling is how secretive or private they are in their own culture among their own countreymen. asian kids are cute though. also, they have no street mimes or performers. they are really boring. it's a work oriented culture. western asians tend to be different though or open up more.

overall, their culture seems subversive, repressed and sneaky so i don't respect it but that's more probably because i didn't grow up in the culture so don't know completely why they are that way or what i perceive to be repressed may be focus or discipline. who knows. oh, they are responsible about recycling too but i absolutely do not respect native koreans for their lack of appreciation for green spaces or nature like japanese. who the fuck does their city planning? retards? sadists? heh.

korea definitely is not anyplace worth visiting, that's for sure. there is nothing interesting here honestly. japan, china or southeat asia is though.

this is what's so ironic. i was born in korea and lived there until first/second grade. i remember witnessing other korean kids gawking at any american kid as if they were so special though i never was like this. i felt at the time a deep connection/affinity/respect for my asian roots and was very proud of it but that might have more to do with just my inner nature in general as i'm not the type to feel i'm less than others or put others above me. i was abruptly whisked away to america but everyone else was immensely jealous and i didn't care. i actually didn't want to go. worse is that i ended up in alabama? that is very fuked up and i've had an unusual life but i had no control over it.

i wasn't even the type that should have gone to america as there were other koreans who would have killed to go but life is arbitary and random sometimes as well as not making any sense. there are forces greater than us, random shit and there are no guarantees in life and is often unfair.

i do feel that i was cheated somewhat. i see asians who don't even appreciate their culture as much as i do and think they would have fit in better in america ironicly. i would have just liked to stay in one culture and live a normal life not having to grow up with the racism/prejudice and constant friction or not exactly fitting in anywhere as well as their were very few if any asians wherever i was. i wasn't lucky to grow up in california among more asian, for example. it was often very lonely. i've even experienced some black girl bragging to me how she went to school in japan (my father is japanese) and how nice everyone was to her or civil and it infuriated me how i had to deal with treated like shit, third class citizen and constantly mocked or ridiculed very cruelly for being asian in america by blacks, hispanics and whites which most were inferior to me, less intelligent, white trash or a piece of shit when i was nice and tried to be fair to them when i didn't ask to be brought to the country or am a kissass whitey or western type as many asians in asia are who should have been the ones to take my goddamn place!! the asians i really detest are the hypocritical ones in asia who worship everything western but inwardly know they don't want to have grown up there because of the racism and minimize the experiences of other asians. those are the ones i want to kick in their nuts or cunt and wish could have been beamed instantly to the deep south and we'll see just how hoighty toighty they are. fucking bitches.

i don't fit into korean culture and i didn't really fit into american culture either. unless you grew up in korea (japanese is similar in this respect), you will always be an outsider because people forge their lifelong friendships through school and work but tend to take seriously their most intimate connections from primary/high school. even a korean girl who just went to high school in indonesia told me she is not really accepted as totally korean because of this and they are harder on koreans than a white person who would make korea home.

omg, after all the shit, struggle and love/hate i'm a bonofide american or maybe alien. i've accepted it as i can't change it.

i'll just admit it. i hate and despise korea and koreans(not all but they are a minority). i give the west my permission to bomb the hell out of it, even with me in it. i hate it that much. please blow it off the face of the earth. i can't stand passive aggressive people who are corrupt or constantly hide shit instead of owning up to what's wrong or save face. i can't stand their sexist society or how they never challenge authority or how they never look to change social injustice unless it's to mirror the west for their ego or shamed through pressure which indicates they are not moved by it genuinely enough. that said, there are a bunch of these fukers or luckily embedded/hidden of all races everywhere but korea is seething with enough of them to be repulsive. this is not shyness or introversion. i can't stand how you have to hide who you are to a ridiculous degree because their ego is that fragile or ego is all that's most important to them. i can't stand their superficiality. i can't stand their kpop. i can't stand their women who never stand up for anything so let those who do be scapegoated or scorn them as they pride themselves on whatever is currently respected conventionally rather than for what it is. i can't stand how they shame or scorn anyone that is not of convention in all respects because they are so afraid to be themselves. they have become so superficial that if your degree is not from ivy league etc, they assume it's all shit. i hate how they put on airs without considering content. i can't stand how most koreans (southeast asians like filipinos too) take to christianity more than other asians. this proves a lack of real intellectual integrity.

i fuking hate their kimchi too and it tears up your stomach. disgusting but i do like some of their food.

i think if asia keeps going down this road of copying everything western to the point of taking on their identity in full, they are total shit and are not even respecting themselves so don't deserve respect.

okay, not to give the wrong impression. i know there are many faults or negative things to criticize about other races or cultures expressed differently or in different areas but since i know more about asians or korean culture, i'm expressing them or what i dislike.

as for korea, do you know why the chinese left them alone? they went there and saw there was nothing of use in these people so left them alone with their independence. korean culture is just a copy of chinese such as their architecture except for their wooden huts basically (though they had to invent a simpler language though it is efficient because they were too hillbilly stupid to learn mandarin). the pop culture is a direct copy of japanese in style (japanese girlbands actually have songs that empower girls but kpop doesn't). the only thing unique that they do is eat with metal chopsticks and use a lot of stainless steel for some reason (lol). their traditional dress is also the ugliest between chinese and japanese.

okay, korea was in the middle and was invaded a lot but there really was no reason for korea to be independent as it's such a small population/land. now i could understand if there culture was something significantly unique that they needed to preserve or was so different from the surrounding cultures or country but it wasn't.

one of the reasons why america has landed their troops there was because of korea because they would not ally with those around them. granted, japan would not exist if not for korea's fight for national independence but it's almost laughable and contemptible how korea should have remained close ties to japan early on so they would become one nation (then they wouldn't have been invaded by japanese so eventually resorted to betraying asians and letting westerners police and lodge themselves there, do they have any self respect or dignity and they are a divided nation? they shouldn't as they should be ashamed and deserve contempt). i mean, japan was formed from proto-koreans and it's so damn close. you can see japan from korea it's right next door and koreans have so little land, they should have solidified with japan as one nation early on to increase their land and their were no competition for it either as it's just a group of isolated islands right the fuk next to them. how fuking stupid can koreans be? now this observation is something that you will never hear or read from a typical korean because they never criticize themselves or think objectively about their history or culture because that would take intellectual integrity and original thought. no one will ever dare to point out how utterly stupid koreans were for not taking the basically freebie islands right next to them.

i have no respect for korean culture or way of thinking. the best of it is just a copy of chinese and they don't think well either. there is absolutely nothing and i mean nothing for them to be proud of. how the hell are they more unique than all the 56 different ethnicities or subcultures in china? how the hell is inviting over westerners to police asia something to be proud of? koreans are the worst traitors of asia.

cranapple wrote:

mule, you are talking to a genius and that would me mwa. i just act stupid on the internet and write with in incorrect grammar to make an important point that is often overlooked and that is content is the purpose of truth, not how grammatically correct one can spew erroneous bullshit, ignorance or stupidity such as your replies, for example.

let me explain. most asians don't agree with my opinion. this means you are an idiot. let's move on to the next point.

This isn't about your opinions you moron, but your physical nature. Your desperation to be an exception to most Asians only proves the rule.

And I love the shit about only acting stupid...

Quote :

second, you started this topic about technology and the leveling of man and totally miss what is really going on because you are short-sighted and are of a conventional programmed mind (which you seem to think only applies to others or to 'lesser' races as you perceive them).

My dear, you miss the point of the topic. This topic is about methods of social control and how they are being used against the white working class. Divide and rule is not a tool used exclusively against non-white races.

Quote :

technology and further artificiality will lead to more unconsciousness rather than increased consciousness. this is inevitable and will affect everyone.... this is because consciousness is derived from the experience of incongruency to one's environment and thus awareness. the more adapted to environment, the less conscious.

Consciousness is an adaptation to the environment, an environment which contains other hominid groups and individuals in violent conflict and fierce competition for resources.

A smaller, physically weaker people are forced to band together to survive and so their culture is a natural reflection of this. You learnt this hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago in Africa, it remaining instinctive until social evolution codified it into a more sophisticated system of manners and social mores to control a larger population.

Quote :

This isn't about your opinions you moron, but your physical nature. Your desperation to be an exception to most Asians only proves the rule.

And I love the shit about only acting stupid...

dummy, my physical nature has nothing to do with any desperation to be an exception. you said my response is what you would expect from an asian, i told you that most asians would not respond with the same philosophy or point of view in response to your post. was that hard to compute? this is your problem, you think too stereotypically. most asians or nonasians don't even make the same observations or express them the way i do. my observations that people collude or even unconsciously gravitate toward as well as identify with those of similar emotional temperaments or values, regardless of race, is not due to my being asian, you moron. it's because i'm intelligent and what i've observed so i noted it as another insight into the human condition. my personal opinion (in general) is that whites may be closer to asians in cognitive intelligence but emotionally similar or closer to blacks, hispanics etc where intimate connections are based more on emotional affinity between people. just as most asians identify with whites in emotional temperament in comparison to blacks because they view them as less aggressive in comparison or at least mentally more compatible is also what i've observed. that was all and has nothing to do with what race i am though personally i am more emotionally inclined to identify with blacks for friendship after asian ( not all of them and only a certain type and that doen't mean i don't ever identify with whites) and not because i view them as aggressive or for aggression. but i never vibed with hispanics, middle easterners or even indians etc for some reason/s.

i could also apply your stupid logic to you as evidently most whites are 'jewified' in your world view and that your critique or rejection of the status quo is a desperate attempt to be an exception.

Quote :

My dear, you miss the point of the topic. This topic is about methods of social control and how they are being used against the white working class. Divide and rule is not a tool used exclusively against non-white races.

no shit. how insightful and please expound on it because your computer/orangutans example is so stupid, i think you must be kidding. you are so paranoid about jewry that you ignored the role of technology and artifice on life itself, which also have it's negative repercussions or side effects such as the seeming experience of the shallow, immediate as well as perhaps overly convenient, again, rendering the experience of 'culture' more artificial and less personal. i made this point because of your critique of 'modern shit' or lifestyle. you place all perceived ill effects in your opinion on jews somehow manipulating everything that is possibly negative or the cause of it when that is not the only force in effect.

Quote :

Consciousness is an adaptation to the environment, an environment which contains other hominid groups and individuals in violent conflict and fierce competition for resources.

A smaller, physically weaker people are forced to band together to survive and so their culture is a natural reflection of this. You learnt this hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago in Africa, it remaining instinctive until social evolution codified it into a more sophisticated system of manners and social mores to control a larger population.

you just spout more banal stereotypical crap. the root of consciousness is derived from differences from environment, not adaptation. the adaptation is just a process.

for instance, we can barely sense the air around us if not for motion but we don't need to as we are perfectly adapted to it but we can feel the water as a separate density when swimming in the ocean as it's not our natural habitat just as fish don't sense or see water as we do air as they are perfectly adapted to it. consciousness is not just due to competition or adaptation. we don't really understand what caused consciousness except to speculate.

the real problem is human mismanagement, not all the other trivial points in between.

for instance, there is a significant lack of common sense when immigration policies don't take into account overall implications but only immediate partisan concerns or interest.

it does no good for even third world countries for already developed countries to randomly let some in. who will fix or develop the countries these people have left?

it would be wiser if the whole world together with the u.n. work together to allow controlled immigration for the purpose of education only so that those skills desperately or vitally needed in these other countries can be utliized to better their people or fix their country. this way they are not a burden on the host society and their education has a productive purpose rather than wasted pouring water on already a wet rock, so to speak.

that being said, americas were already an immigrant country and that's quite different from europe as a 'white' homeland. i don't agree with the massive muslim immigration into europe or let's say i do agree that belongs to whites but i'm not in control of that. lol

as for america, with the recession and downturn, i suppose there could be mini-revolutions or factions eventually if this continues to spiral out of control and perhaps america can be divided up into smaller nations based on political and even racial interest.

i don't agree with forced integration and i think that is a cause of a lot of unnecessary hostility or friction. those who want to interact with others of diffferent race (live, work etc) will do so on their own accord just as those who would rather not. people already associate with others based on class, interest, religion etc and it's not abnormal to do so based on race either, more or less.

cranapple wrote:

you just spout more banal stereotypical crap. the root of consciousness is derived from differences from environment, not adaptation. the adaptation is just a process.

You're talking about self-consciousness... an awareness of ourselves as separate entities. But consciousness comes first.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Quote :

for instance, we can barely sense the air around us if not for motion but we don't need to as we are perfectly adapted to it but we can feel the water as a separate density when swimming in the ocean as it's not our natural habitat just as fish don't sense or see water as we do air as they are perfectly adapted to it. consciousness is not just due to competition or adaptation. we don't really understand what caused consciousness except to speculate.

My dear, the question is what aspects of the two environments are so similar that causes consciousness to exist in them both?

When we see how valuable a tool consciousness is in the sea, in escaping and hunting food, protecting offspring and killing enemies, then there we have our answer for the same on land.

PS: Of course you 'vibe' with blacks, they are simpler creatures, easier to understand and less judgemental. Their childish nature is attractive to one wanting to escape the burden of reality.

Quote :

You're talking about self-consciousness... an awareness of ourselves as separate entities. But consciousness comes first.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

oh really? consciousness comes first? as if that wasn't already understood.

Quote :

PS: Of course you 'vibe' with blacks, they are simpler creatures, easier to understand and less judgemental. Their childish nature is attractive to one wanting to escape the burden of reality.

ironically, this just further indicates how simple you are with your stereotypical assumptions.

i vibe with some blacks because they are more emotionally honest whereas many whites are emotional hypocrites and artificial. this does not mean i never identify with whites. it's just an emotional affinity. you are reading too much into it. notice not everyone vibes with everyone of any race, even their own.

dumbass.

cranapple wrote:

Quote :

PS: Of course you 'vibe' with blacks, they are simpler creatures, easier to understand and less judgemental. Their childish nature is attractive to one wanting to escape the burden of reality.

ironically, this just further indicates how simple you are with your stereotypical assumptions.

i vibe with some blacks because they are more emotionally honest whereas many whites are emotional hypocrites and artificial.

dumbass.

You are a simple creature.

I expect you, like most modern women, prefer the common principle of what-you-see-is-what-you-get when it comes to judging personal relationships and the intentions of others, never mind that evolution is unlikely to have ever selected for such behavior, less it is used in a ruse.

Honesty is a liability in nature.

Vanitas wrote:

cranapple wrote:

Quote :

PS: Of course you 'vibe' with blacks, they are simpler creatures, easier to understand and less judgemental. Their childish nature is attractive to one wanting to escape the burden of reality.

ironically, this just further indicates how simple you are with your stereotypical assumptions.

i vibe with some blacks because they are more emotionally honest whereas many whites are emotional hypocrites and artificial.

dumbass.

You are a simple creature.

I expect you, like most modern women, prefer the common principle of what-you-see-is-what-you-get when it comes to judging personal relationships and the intentions of others, never mind that evolution is unlikely to have ever selected for such behavior, less it is used in a ruse.

Honesty is a liability in nature.

you are such an idiot. in relationships, dishonesty is a liability.

what happened to your brain?