BigDeeot is a fukking c00n..

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,714
Reputation
555
Daps
22,618
Reppin
Arrakis
You're an intellectual ant who occasionally drifts into delusions of
grandeur like being the "God emperor" of a now defunct website.
:dead:

The point is you're talking like I was some obscure poster making obscure posts

You don't have anything to "bring to bear" because I'm still the God Emperor and I'm still saying the same thing I said before
 

bigDeeOT

Banned
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
739
Reputation
-640
Daps
406
@bigDeeOT

Do you believe that this genetic predisposal for laziness and being prone to violence began as a result of the european savage and trickery clad domination and whitewashing of the world ?

Our did we always suffer from this while we ruled the world(pre recorded history)?
I'm curious how do we know who ruled what before recorded history.

Since I believe blacks are genetically predisposed to being uncivilized and such, I think we have always been this way for a very long time.

This is how I see it. Within the human species, we have groups of different people that look differently. Asian people are predisposed to being skinny, shorter, and having smaller penises. There are exceptions to this rule, but exceptions do not make the rule. We know that blacks are predisposed to having bigger lips, bigger dikks, and the females will have bigger t*ts and ass.

And unless I'm wrong, I believe the genes that account for these differences are pretty small. I can't imagine it taking a lot of genetic variation to account for a bigger dikk or bigger lips. So clearly, small genetic variation can account for significant physical differences.

I think it is a whimsical fantasy to assume that nature only gave us physical differences and no mental differences. It doesn't make any sense. It's like there's an imaginary boundary in which racial groups are physically different from each other but not mentally different. People always assume that the default position is to assume that we're all mentally the same, just because we can all mate with each other. But why can't the default position be that racial groups all have their strengths and weaknesses?

The reason why we assume all racial groups are the same is because to say otherwise is to hurt someone's feelings. Simple as that.

Again, scientists will tell you that there are no significant genetic differences between races. That literally does not mean any thing. If all it takes is two or three genes to make one racial group more prone to violence than another, then you can still conclude that genetically we are practically the same since its only two genes out of several billion. But at the end of the day, the real life differences are as clear as night and day.

One thing you gotta ask yourself is this. Suppose for a moment that black people were in fact genetically predisposed to be uncivilized. How would the world look any different than it does today?
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,979
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,069
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
I'm curious how do we know who ruled what before recorded history.

Since I believe blacks are genetically predisposed to being uncivilized and such, I think we have always been this way for a very long time.
timetostopposting.jpg
 

Insensitive

Superstar
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
12,322
Reputation
4,731
Daps
41,724
Reppin
NULL
I'm curious how do we know who ruled what before recorded history.

Since I believe blacks are genetically predisposed to being uncivilized and such, I think we have always been this way for a very long time.

This is how I see it. Within the human species, we have groups of different people that look differently. Asian people are predisposed to being skinny, shorter, and having smaller penises. There are exceptions to this rule, but exceptions do not make the rule. We know that blacks are predisposed to having bigger lips, bigger dikks, and the females will have bigger t*ts and ass.

And unless I'm wrong, I believe the genes that account for these differences are pretty small. I can't imagine it taking a lot of genetic variation to account for a bigger dikk or bigger lips. So clearly, small genetic variation can account for significant physical differences.

I think it is a whimsical fantasy to assume that nature only gave us physical differences and no mental differences. It doesn't make any sense. It's like there's an imaginary boundary in which racial groups are physically different from each other but not mentally different. People always assume that the default position is to assume that we're all mentally the same, just because we can all mate with each other. But why can't the default position be that racial groups all have their strengths and weaknesses?

The reason why we assume all racial groups are the same is because to say otherwise is to hurt someone's feelings. Simple as that.

Again, scientists will tell you that there are no significant genetic differences between races. That literally does not mean any thing. If all it takes is two or three genes to make one racial group more prone to violence than another, then you can still conclude that genetically we are practically the same since its only two genes out of several billion. But at the end of the day, the real life differences are as clear as night and day.

One thing you gotta ask yourself is this. Suppose for a moment that black people were in fact genetically predisposed to be uncivilized. How would the world look any different than it does today?
tumblr_lsgi2ribsQ1r3pcbso1_400.gif

tumblr_m1hwg8k1EP1r4sak0o1_500.gif

bs1.gif


:mindblown:
How are you going into a scientific field but type up
these big F.U.'s to science.
:mindblown:
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,714
Reputation
555
Daps
22,618
Reppin
Arrakis
I'm curious how do we know who ruled what before recorded history.

Since I believe blacks are genetically predisposed to being uncivilized and such, I think we have always been this way for a very long time.

This is how I see it. Within the human species, we have groups of different people that look differently. Asian people are predisposed to being skinny, shorter, and having smaller penises. There are exceptions to this rule, but exceptions do not make the rule. We know that blacks are predisposed to having bigger lips, bigger dikks, and the females will have bigger t*ts and ass.

And unless I'm wrong, I believe the genes that account for these differences are pretty small. I can't imagine it taking a lot of genetic variation to account for a bigger dikk or bigger lips. So clearly, small genetic variation can account for significant physical differences.

I think it is a whimsical fantasy to assume that nature only gave us physical differences and no mental differences. It doesn't make any sense. It's like there's an imaginary boundary in which racial groups are physically different from each other but not mentally different. People always assume that the default position is to assume that we're all mentally the same, just because we can all mate with each other. But why can't the default position be that racial groups all have their strengths and weaknesses?

The reason why we assume all racial groups are the same is because to say otherwise is to hurt someone's feelings. Simple as that.

Again, scientists will tell you that there are no significant genetic differences between races. That literally does not mean any thing. If all it takes is two or three genes to make one racial group more prone to violence than another, then you can still conclude that genetically we are practically the same since its only two genes out of several billion. But at the end of the day, the real life differences are as clear as night and day.

One thing you gotta ask yourself is this. Suppose for a moment that black people were in fact genetically predisposed to be uncivilized. How would the world look any different than it does today?

thats just a hypothesis, making a hypothesis is simply the first step in the scientific method, a hypothesis is not a conclusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[20] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.



Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The less likely that the prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, the stronger evidence it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.)


Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[21] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.
 
Last edited:

bigDeeOT

Banned
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
739
Reputation
-640
Daps
406
I'm not saying the scientists are wrong, I'm just saying that they can plant their words carefully so as to remain politically correct.

Consider this. If a scientist discovered evidence supporting the notion that blacks are genetically predisposed to be violent, do you think people would look at it objectively and welcome the new information, as if it were just any other scientific theory? Nope. Political correctness says you can't form a hypothesis on that kind of evidence unless you have absolute proof. So unless there is absolute proof, you will never hear of what might be pretty convincing evidence.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,979
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,069
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
I'm not saying the scientists are wrong, I'm just saying that they can plant their words carefully so as to remain politically correct.

Consider this. If a scientist discovered evidence supporting the notion that blacks are genetically predisposed to be violent, do you think people would look at it objectively and welcome the new information, as if it were just any other scientific theory? Nope. Political correctness says you can't form a hypothesis on that kind of evidence unless you have absolute proof. So unless there is absolute proof, you will never hear of what might be pretty convincing evidence.
please-stop-posting.jpg




You're making impossible to ride with you on any issue with this stuff.
 

RAX 010

NYG LWO METS
Supporter
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
21,594
Reputation
5,021
Daps
44,311
Reppin
EAST✈WEST
I'm curious how do we know who ruled what before recorded history.

Since I believe blacks are genetically predisposed to being uncivilized and such, I think we have always been this way for a very long time.

This is how I see it. Within the human species, we have groups of different people that look differently. Asian people are predisposed to being skinny, shorter, and having smaller penises. There are exceptions to this rule, but exceptions do not make the rule. We know that blacks are predisposed to having bigger lips, bigger dikks, and the females will have bigger t*ts and ass.

And unless I'm wrong, I believe the genes that account for these differences are pretty small. I can't imagine it taking a lot of genetic variation to account for a bigger dikk or bigger lips. So clearly, small genetic variation can account for significant physical differences.

I think it is a whimsical fantasy to assume that nature only gave us physical differences and no mental differences. It doesn't make any sense. It's like there's an imaginary boundary in which racial groups are physically different from each other but not mentally different. People always assume that the default position is to assume that we're all mentally the same, just because we can all mate with each other. But why can't the default position be that racial groups all have their strengths and weaknesses?

The reason why we assume all racial groups are the same is because to say otherwise is to hurt someone's feelings. Simple as that.

Again, scientists will tell you that there are no significant genetic differences between races. That literally does not mean any thing. If all it takes is two or three genes to make one racial group more prone to violence than another, then you can still conclude that genetically we are practically the same since its only two genes out of several billion. But at the end of the day, the real life differences are as clear as night and day.

One thing you gotta ask yourself is this. Suppose for a moment that black people were in fact genetically predisposed to be uncivilized. How would the world look any different than it does today?

I could only agree with your argument if i subscribed to the theory that our history starts on the slave ship....because that is the current running
timeline followed by most of the world today....i could argue and ask does inventing almost all technology we have today fit into your theory

Imhotep ‘The Father of Medicine’
Imhotep the Father of Medicine
He was an Ancient African (Kemetic) scribe and multi-genius who invented and pioneered philosophy, dentistry, open brain surgery, heart surgery, architecture, poetry and mathematics among other things!!! He famously said ‘eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die.’
imhotep.jpg
 

bigDeeOT

Banned
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
739
Reputation
-640
Daps
406
I do agree I'll have to nip in the bud my beliefs on genetics because it gets people too riled up.
 

RAX 010

NYG LWO METS
Supporter
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
21,594
Reputation
5,021
Daps
44,311
Reppin
EAST✈WEST
I do agree I'll have to nip in the bud my beliefs on genetics because it gets people too riled up.

I know you have self hate issues breh...i have a friend just like you ...well spoken intelligent dates all white women and bashes sistas heavy...
then i ask him about what happened to him and his moms and he is hurt by her for some reason...
so i know your deal breh....

and i feel sorry for yall

peace
 
Top