China warns of 'worst consequences' for any country that supports Taiwan militarily

What you don't have is a scientific theory.

Such crude attempts have been around for a few centuries, but they're simply wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Ev...ooks&sprefix=stephen+jay,stripbooks,99&sr=1-3


https://www.amazon.com/Mismeasure-M...ooks&sprefix=stephen+jay,stripbooks,99&sr=1-2

 

Aryan didn't merely mean "Caucasian". While the term Aryan is essentially synonymous in old Persian with Iranian, the usage of the term in 19th/20th century racial theories corresponded to what may be referred to as Nordics (which Iranians aren't, despite Hitler's Nuremberg racial laws classifying Iranians as Aryans, which in one of ironies of history also allowed an Iranian diplomat aka as the Iranian Schindler to hand several hundred Jews with Iranian passports to save them from Nazi persecution). In any case my post was responding to the re-branded label that was being suggested, namely "Nordicism".

 

Ahhh the preposterous Mr Gould.

Tell me, or maybe you’d like to ask Mr Gould to do it for you since you seem incapable of actually defending your position on your own.... Since his assertion is that IQ tests are flawed, can you provide me ONE even pseudo-legitimate measure of intelligence in which negroids perform better than caucasoids or mongoloids on average?

Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

 

Iranians are not caucasoids because of Hitler lol

They’re caucasoid because they fit the criteria for it.

 

Nobel winner, and one of the leading scientists of his era... One might almost conclude you are projecting..

Sure, take the bottom and top extreme points, and slap a curve on it.

You seem to think you stand on equal footing with science (because we're not just talking about Gould, now are we.)
Which is why I like this place. Comedy gold..

 

Answer the question. Can you provide ONE even pseudo measure of intelligence in which blacks perform better than whites or Asians?

Use ANY measure of intelligence humans have created and show me that blacks perform better on average than whites and Asians.

 

You didn't follow what I wrote.

 

My apologies I’m still caught up on the idea that Persians aren’t caucasoids. Which they obviously are.

 

I never said Iranians or Persians aren't classified as Caucasians. I said they wouldn't be classified as Nordics.

 

Well my apologies then. I would agree with that. I thought you were attempting to use the argument to postulate Persians arent caucasoids because they aren’t Nordic.

 

Words mean nothing.Stretegic positioning of naval ships does mean something, China does not listen to words. They watch maps and look to see where naval vessels are and where they travel. The West has already send China a message about Taiwan in their response to Ukraine and in earlier responses with positioning of their naval vessels.

As for Covid 19 its spread as well as all the other viruses from filthy wet markets. China has no central food distribution system via supermarkets. This arise during the Mao Tse Tung era when their was mass starvation from government food stores having no food. People turned to street market of people catching and selling anything that could be eaten starting with sewer rates, coaches, snakes, birds, bats, boiled leather wood mixed with flour, any living creature or bug including maggots. That market system is deeply engrained in the Chinese collective belief system and the government does not feel it can get rid of it and it certainly does not and will not crack down on their filthy conditions. There was no conspiracy. These viruses are not new and have been coming out of these wet markets all the time and will continue to do so. Conspiracy theories make for fast and easy explanations that make sense and can be stopped. Its not the case in China with wet markets and engrained cultural traditions.

Next China depends on flooding Western markets with their shitty products. They know an invasion could trigger backlash economically. If they think they are strong enough to go at it without Western markets they will invade Taiwan. Words mean nothing to them. Whether Japan, South Korea, Phillippines, Indonesia, Vietnam all directly impacted by hostile Chinese claims to all the South Chinese seas do anything about it with the US, Australia and other nations remains to be seen. Also unlike Ukraine, Taiwain has an airforce and land forces that make the resistance a little bit less one sided in the sense China would pay a physical cost to take back Taiwan whose actual negative impact is unknown. One thing China would do seizing Taiwan is cause Japan to reconstitute its military and that would make China far worse off than it is now. China has to worry more about Japan than the US in that respect.

 

There is no question, just ignorance and prejudice.

 

Yes thanks for your clarification Also being Persian he is probably without me speaking for him fed up (or lol, may I say humbly without being a know it all should be fed up) with the missapropriation of the terms Caucasian and Aryan and knows the terms being misused better than many because of how it falsely stereotypes and destroys actual Persian history.

Aryan never had anything to do with blond haired, blue eyed homo sapiens who came to be called Caucasian.Aryans would have spoken their own language and lived in now what is Northern Iran and India.Caucasian was a term created by an anthropologist from Europe who saw people with blond hair and blue eyes in the Caucasus Mountain range (no doubt as a result of Alexander the Great's army raping the locals) and so called them Caucasian and then that word spread to describe all white people. It was based on a non scientific, subjective observation of secondary physical characteristics of nose and lip shape, skin tone and hair texture. That is also how the words Negroid (Negro was Spanish for black and from the latin word for black "niger: and Mongoloid for Chinese/Japanese.Korean (descendants of the Mongols) came about.

We now know such labels are meaningless scientifically as two people with dark skin could have less in common genetically than between one of those dark skinned people and another white person. Skin colour, nose shape, hair texture, lip shape means little. Your blood type and inherited genetic characteristics that do not necessarily have to do with the secondary characteristics of your outside physical appearance define who you really are.

Persians, people from India, Iraq, come from an area that had a set of beliefs that were misappropriated by Europeans and so for example the word Aryan was misappropriated just as the Hindu swastika was misappropriated and actually rearranged by Nazis to face the wrong direction.

His comments reflect that and a strong criticism of the racism you think he supports. Its the exact opposite.The area of Iraq, Iran and India that created certain values consisted of the ancestors whose beliefs would go on to emerge into Hinduism,Bhuddist philosophy, Zoroastrianism, my religion, Judaism and then later Christianity and Islam and other philosophies and disciplines. Persian culture which is a mix of Indian and Persian values would not have been based on skin colour. That would have made no sense to people with sun tans.

Persian culture is one of the oldest in the world and to understand it one would have to understand Farsi its language of expression and its poetry and how Zoroastrianism came about and what it reflects in its religion.

The only thing generalization I would say about Persians is their women are all beautiful. Oh its true. I wish to hell its damn religious dictatorship would end so we can go back to interacting with Iranian people. I am too old now but if I was younger and that happened I could go fall in love with an Iranian. Then again I could say the same thing about Iraqi, Jordanian, Israeli, Indian women so what the hell do I know except they all have that mix that makes them so damn beautiful.

 

That’s what I thought. You can’t provide one. Because it doesn’t exist.

 

Actually.... Have you seen the new technology that can provide a shockingly accurate digital image of a person from a DNA sample. Check it out.

 

1. The term you use "black" refers to one's skin tone, lip and nose shape and hair texture. Common sense alone would tell you that all homo sapiens whethe you call them black, yellow, white can all have the same nose and lip shape, hair texture, skin colour and so such similar characteristics are meaningless in science:
https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01.htm., https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/race-genetics-science-africa. To be even more specific nothing in the category you use to claim people are the same, i.e., their skin colour, nose shape, makes them identifical or in the same category of genetic type.Their similar gene type or genetic make up is not defined by whether they are black or white. Your classification of difference is not based on genetic difference but subjective difference of physical appearance which is not genetic but secondary genetic, i.e., not specific to any one genetic category.

2.Next and I quote: " There is no direct genetic evidence for or against the theory that the black-white gap is innate, because we have not yet identified the genes that affect skills like reading, math, and abstract reasoning. Studies of mixed-race children and black children adopted by white parents suggest, however, that racial differences in test performance are largely if not entirely environmental in origin." (source:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...ore-gap-why-it-persists-and-what-can-be-done/) So in a nutshell secondary physical characteristics like black skin mean nothing to measuring i.q.

I again quote from the above source: "Successful theories will therefore have to pay more attention to psychological and cultural influences, which are much harder to measure than income, education, and living arrangements. Collecting accurate data on black and white parents’ habits, values, behavior, and ideas is not easy, and it would take time. It might well require an investment of time and effort comparable to the effort that went into developing cognitive tests during the first half of the 20th century. But without such work, we are in constant danger of seeing black-white differences as an inevitable byproduct of people’s genes or of “cultural” factors that nobody can change"

What you think is a race based difference may have to do with other phenomena and not what you define as "race".

For example the development of the brain and that development being impaired and stunted in growth and damaged causing permanent lowering of intelligence could be due to children in their infant years failing to absorb proper nutrients needed to develop the brain. They could also be exposed to toxic pollution, high wire transmission i.e., lead that also stunts their brain's growth and can cause damage and all of that lowering iq a would be dependent on skin colour but where these childrenwere born into and where they lived as a child.

Again in the above article and I quote: "Historical evidence also seems to support the hypothesis that the black-white test score gap falls when class size falls." Again this can be yet another factors you do not understand and are blind to that might explain differences not because of skin colour but other factors.

Finally and you clearly do not understand, there is no direct test for general mental ability. I quote, "Let's start with the fact that there is no such thing as a direct test of general mental ability. What IQ tests measure directly is the test-taker's display of particular cognitive skills: size of vocabulary, degree of reading comprehension, facility with analogies, and so on. Any conclusions about general mental ability are inferences drawn from the test-taker's relative mastery of those various skills." source: https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ng-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/

I could go into even more specific explanation of why your assumption blacks are different genetically than whites is absurd in that what makes someone black or white would not be based on consistent physical genetic differences buy by environmental condition differences of where someone lives but I doubt you will read this: https://bostonreview.net/articles/ned-block-race-genes-and-iq/

In summary, the term you use "black" is not a distinct genetic group of people. Even if we can eventually get to the point of being ableto define distinct genetic groups (and it certainly will not be based on their lip size, nose shape, skin colour or hair texture) no evidence yet exists that people of similar genetic make will necessarily have the same i.q. I quote: " The mere fact that populations differ in IQ tells us little or nothing about the source of the difference. The difference could be due to genes, but it could also be due to some environmental factor(s) – education, nutrition, cultural bias in IQ tests, and so on. How can we disentangle the effects of genes and environment? "
source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

We are not there yet. In today's science, while behavioral geneticists have two principal methods for probing the role of genes in phenotypic differences: (a) behavioral genetic studies on adoptees and twins, and (b) genome-wide association studies they haven't revealed anything yet. (source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803)

If anything one needs to ask you the question why are you still defining people as black and white?

 

There is no question that Japan and Germany need to start doing their fair share militarily to deter China and Russia from future aggression.

 

What do you think of the rumour that a version of Covid / Ebola is in China already?

 

I beg to differ. First of all I have been attempting to intertwine the words negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid in with my discussion. Why? Because you’re right. It’s not about skin color at least not ONLY about skin color.

Let me start (and end) by saying this... we can argue semantics about the word race all day long but that’s the not the point. The point is are there identifiable differences which can be used to identify and categorize humans. And the answer is unequivocally yes.

Let’s start out with some references of what I’m referring to. (Please excuse the formatting as I’m on a phone.) These are the cranial differences observable in the three groups. The first in each set is mongoloid then caucasoid and then negroid.


Cranial form
broad
medium
Long

Sagittal outline
high, globular
high, rounded
highly variable, post-bregmatic depression

Nose form
medium
narrow
Broad

Nasal bone size
small
large
medium/small

Nasal profile
concave
straight
straight! concave

Nasal spine
medium
prominent, straight
Reduced

Nasal sill
medium
sharp
dull/absent

Incisorform
shoveled
blade
Blade

Facial projtnathism
moderate
reduced
Extreme

Alveolar proj!nathism
moderate
reduced
Extreme

Malar form
projecting
reduced
Reduced

Palatal form
parabolic/ elliptic
parabolic
Hyperbolic

Orbital form
round
rhomboid
Round

Mandible
robust
medium
gracile, oblique gonial angle

Chin projection
moderate
prominent
Reduced

Chin form
median
bilateral
Median

This is just an example. This can be done for essentially every structure of the body in regards to differences in caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid.

The point is not to declare we are different species or subspecies and have us categorized as such. The point is that there are unique, identifiable characteristics that allow anthropologists to pick up your bones and identify you with EXACT PRECISION which of the three races you are. This is not debatable. This is objective, demonstrable fact.

Whether or not those differences are enough to classify us as different subspecies is really irrelevant. The point is they are there. And if those types of changes in the human body exist due to evolution, on what grounds do you assert that our brains didn’t evolve differently as well?

 

Oh and btw we have done those types of studies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

Y’all just don’t like the results.

 

Let me end my response by pointing out how ABSURD it is to assert that the human species is incapable of determining ANY method through which we can determine if one person is smarter than another. This argument is ONLY made for the SOLE purpose of defending the fact that negroids CONSISTENTLY score on the low end of EVERY test which we have EVER devised to determine whether or not someone is more intellectually capable than someone else.

Since you want to play this little game of oh “What IQ tests measure directly is the test-taker's display of particular cognitive skills: size of vocabulary, degree of reading comprehension, facility with analogies, and so on” then PLEASE explain to me why it is that blacks on average seem INCAPABLE of producing the same level of scores on those particular cognitive skills even though they are taught from KINDERGARTEN that they’re needed to pass tests such as those?

Just like every other group that doesn’t seem to have that same difficulty.

 

Good comments in general, especially showing familiarity with some cultural issues, but some areas where we differ along the way.
1- there was never enough of a physical distinction between ancient Greeks and Persians for the issue to even one line in any Greek literature or Persian texts. And "blondism" in the Caucasus had little to do with the taxonomical division of so-called races into Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongoloids (even though this taxonimcal division may not have in many instances sound scientific basis).
2- the pseudo-science of Aryanism arose from, first, advances in linguistics which found common linguistic roots between most European languages, Persian and Sanskrit (now referred to as "Indo-European languages). And, secondly, the need of the newly ascendant to build up some pedigree. Your conception of what the ancient Greeks must have looked like is itself influenced by theories of Nordic (Aryan) supremacists. The ancient Greeks didn't look substantially different than they do now (not very blonde for the most part). And their closest genetic kin are, ironically, though understandably the people of Anatolia, as well as the Armenians and next the Iranians.

3- while not fully established yet, the descendants of the Iranian people (a branch of whom migrated or invaded northern India), who referred to themselves as Aryans, were probably descendants of the so-called "Yamnaya people". And the Yamnaya culture, understood to be the "proto-Indo Europeans", were not mainly blondes or Nordics. They were Caucasians with similar complexion as many Iranians even today.

4- not surprisingly, the real or proto-Aryans were from the get go a mixed "race"! And that mixing certainly never stopped depending where they migrated to. The northern Iranian plateau, and much of the rest, had mostly hunting societies with a small population density. Southwestern Iran, otoh, had the pre-Aryan Elamite civilization while southeastern Iran had Dravidian settlements. The footprints of both are still visible in Iran, both genetically and in appearance. The rest of the population is very heterogeneous even within each ethnic group, although it also clusters around certain markers.
https://www.technologynetworks.com/...ans-population-is-highly-heterogeneous-324374
Large Genetics Study Finds Iran’s Population Is Highly Heterogeneous

 

If Taiwan was easy to take, they would have taken it 75 years ago.

If a stormy strait separated Russia from Ukraine, imagine where the Russian offensive would be today and that's the difficulty China faces. China would stage in the harbors across the strait and Taiwan has missles to blanket those harbors as soon as they mass before they even start their ill fated journey across the strait to the cliffs and very small harbors in Taiwan that will be an endless and deadly hell for the seasick conscripts that they will attempt to unload who will be drowned in the harbors by the thousands.

Taiwan's military ranked 21 out of 142 nations.
Ukraine is ranked 22

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

 

Your theory is probably unscientific and largely ideologically driven.

My own view (preconceptions) on any correlation between a) intelligence b) proclivity to commit crime c) athletic ability and any construct associated with race would be as follows:

a) intelligence: leaving aside numerous sub issues on this point: it is conceivable to me that there may be biological differences affecting intelligence on average, but any correlation is largely irrelevant given how i) all so-called races are so mixed, ii) the huge diversity of intelligence within any group or race, iii) the importance of environmental and socio-economic factors on the issue, and iv) the fact that generalizations should never trump any person's own individual merits or demerits. An African- American with high IQ has high IQ; the averages should no more adversely affect such person than they should beneficially affect an East Asian who happens to have lower IQ.

b) proclivity to commit crime: zilch, none that is biological. Purely, environmental, socio-economic etc. Not even worth discussing to me, except denying or refusing to address the disparity in crime rates between "races" in America isn't very enlightened either.

c) athletic ability: obviously in certain sports, as biology plays its visible role in certain physical traits. But the same or similar caveat with intelligence applies here too: regardless of averages, a poor African American athlete shouldn't benefit or an excellent Asian American athlete shouldn't be adversely affected by these "averages." Each person should stand or fail on their own merits and demerits.

All these speculations aside:

One reason I brought the Aryan issue into the equation was to make the point that human beings are all a product of mixing with on another! The idea of Gobineau and Aryan supremacists that there was really ever a pure race, or "racial admixture" is what caused or causes "decline of civilization", is absurd, unscientific (runs against the nature of evolution), and historically baseless.

1- The "Aryans" or proto-Indo-Europeans were a mixed group to begin with. They were not Nordics (albeit being "Caucasian"), but they did engage in a wave migrations that brought their language, culture, and traits across Europe, Asia minor, the Caucasus, Iran and northern India where they mixed with whoever was there already. (And those were mixed more with whoever came afterwards too). This isn't what made Gobineau and Aryanism pseudo-scientific and the clear and persistent attempts by one side to read things in it that aren't there, or the other side to try to almost deny the migrations or its linguistic consequences, is letting ideology and politics pollute learning.

2- Homo Sapiens originated in Africa. The slight "Neanderthal" element in European and certain West Asian and East Asian ancestry is lacking in Africans generally, but its significance is speculative at this point. It is one thing to want the issue studied dispassionately, while it is another to give ready-made prior answers to what is supposed to be the object of the study to begin with. This applies to both sides.

3- Let mother nature, evolution, and science do their thing. Don't force them into limited ideological prisms.

 

there ain't such thing as 'evolution' for it was merely an ideology.

it was not man comes from ape, but ape coming from man.

evolution does not not exist, degeneration does.

this is why mind should be over heart.