These both just got censored on 4chan's Holla Forums. Lets see if you guys can do better

Lol k big guy, sorry to disrupt your safe space

It’s shit. Don’t even need to go there. Leftist websites can’t tell the truth.

Niggers are inferior, whites are superior.

Lurk moar.

That's a horseshit argument and you know it. Put on your big boy pants, use your brain, look at the data and judge for yourself.

C'mon guys I expected more, this is sad.

Fuck you, your attitude and your thread.

Rational Wiki is anything, but rational. If it were, they would remove their leftist bias when writing articles.

Im not entitled to shit, I just thought you might jump at the opportunity to present a valid argument for the sad excuse of a culture you've got here.

I could be wrong. Since I'm not 15 that's something I'm willing to admit

I dont like them either. But just look at the data, jesus fucking christ it's numbers. If you can count it should be easy enough for you to make up your own mind. Your capable of that, right–thinking for yourself?

Why? Just look at these rational posters!

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Something_strange_is_happening_to_me…

ru1138 is fucking insane. Why would I read anything written by these crazy people? I'm not interested in poisoning my mind with their garbage.

Here's all you need to know about "Rational Wiki"

(and it gets worse; link by RationalWiki))

archive.is/nG8h1

FUCK OFF

By what criteria? Europeans are superior at living in Europe while Africans are superior at living in Africa. Evolution doesn't make an organism this universalist concept of superior, it makes them specialised to fill the niche that their environment provides.

Nah, kill yourself. We already know it’s a lie.

Sage

Go back to cuckchan.

Thats a bunch of horsecock. If anyone other than those in your secret little club said the same thing about all your "news" sources, you'd call bullshit and a refusal to engage with data that doesnt jive with their opinion.

Im not saying rationalwiki isnt biased, but LOOK AT THE GODDAMN DATA. If they're so fucking biased in this case, prove it to me.

And honestly are we 10 years old? We can critique a site like rationalwiki but acknowledge that not every single article is bullshit. They've got plenty of decent info about bullshit nuagers, hippies, alt-medicine, and all sorts of shit you guys probably shit yourself over

Grow the fuck up, get a pair of balls, and just look at it goddamn.

Over a decade of OPs and he remains a faggot to this day.

pastebin.com/zapWyu7A

we can do what you do, too:

thealternativehypothesis.org

Oh I forgot you guys are into all that conspiracy shit here, so you're probably psychic too right? Does that come with the lack of melanin or just the small dick?

What sane people! They clearly think rationally! Fuck I feel like your OP is some sort of shitty >>>Holla Forums repost or something. Fuck I don't know, either way sage for cancer.

Ill happily look at your link with an open mind. I'm not opposed to talking about racial differences and being honest about these things, but I expect equal effort on your part

Of course a amount of subjectivity comes into play when dealing with words such as "superior".
But as a general view of most: having a higher average IQ, being less likely to commit crime on a ratio basis, contributing the most to mathematics and science, etc. makes a group superior when compared to another which only has the single real advantage of being slightly physically stronger on average.
Now go back to your echo chamber.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

shit thread, with a halfchan link even

I'm going to give you the treatment the Natives gave to scum - gring your teeth to the gums with a rock. Kikes earn a slow death.

grind*

Take all the time you want. The fact of the matter is not a single person in this thread has had the balls to engage with the content and respond.

I havent even made up my mind about it yet, I'm genuinely curious what you all think. But the refusal to even try reflects extremely poorly on your part. You expect anyone to take you seriously and your afraid of looking at some data that might not line up with your opinion?

isn't that run by SRS goons?

Sounds like it's maintained by a bunch of edgy atheist teens, which is what ru1138 is (I know him IRL sort of).

Read:

and

There are a lot of Trannies and ryulong-tier faggots (op; for instance). So probably.

You guys would have a field day with anyone who refused to look at your "news" sources because they're run by alt-right denialist teenagers who dont jive with libtard opinions. You honestly can't see the double standard here? I hope there's at least one lurker somewhere who's seeing this shit and taking a good hard look at themselves

That's a Kike lie. Negroids have smaller frames with longer limbs to aid in cooling their bodies. And there is no such thing as general superiority as there is no such thing as a general environment, those traits you listed benefit Europeans to exist better in Europe, but they would prove detrimental to a tribe of negroids whose main concern is not dying above replacement level as math and science would interfere in their spearchucking.

You outed yourself with the first post faggot. You didn't come her for discussion. Why would anyone take such an obvious concern troll seriously?

All these responses and not a single person had the courage or decency to even attempt to make a critique. Im not expecting you to agree with it at all, but I'm learning here and I'm curious about both perspectives. I've done plenty of research on genetics, and you guys haven't given me any reason to sympathize with your cause, and this thread just furthers my conviction that you're mostly a bunch of angry teens going through puberty who want to have an edgy and divergent opinion.

Bullshit. You're not looking for a discussion, otherwise you wouldn't have made this comment:

So there's racial variation with dick size? How could that possibly be if race was purely a social construct?

I came here for discussion. I'll admit I didn't expect much (and I got exactly what I expected)–but if you want real discussion I'm totally game. But this is a pretty poor way to go about it

Upon cursory browsing of your link I see multiple idiotic arguments.

for one the brain size section makes a comparison to other animals with larger cranial capacity (whales) and asserts that they are not more intelligent therefor cranial capacity has no bearing on intelligence.

however, it conveniently leaves out brain folds from the argument, the characteristic that allows human brains to increase surface area to a much high degree in a smaller cranial space. This folding is also a genetic variable, niggers have been found to have less general brain matter folding corresponding with their lesser average IQ.

This is just one example where they take an argument, create a straw-man of it through omission of important details and then attempt to persuade their readers by attacking the strawman. I could write you a book on the fallacies the link you provided employs but I have neither the time or the will to put in that amount of effort that anyone with a basic understanding of biodiversity and genetics would be able to pick up right away looking at that link.

In providing the link and asking for us to analyze it, you are proving that you are either a dumbass, incapable of researching and interpreting information for yourself, or a shill attempting to persuade casual and curious readers of this site.

You couldn't type that with the other one? You didn't even bother reading the replies after your latest post before that.

You're being too obvious. You have to go back.

>>>/leddit/

=YOU HAVE TO GO BACK

That was a joke. Cuz y'know, if I had to guess based on what I see here I'd guess you're all a bunch of teens who just got into internet culture.

And yeah, I got pissed off and made a funny. It's the internet fucking deal bro

see

you started a shit thread, didn't even bother to paste relevant text to start the discussion You link to halfchan, and don't even include a link (which is to a known biased website) in the OP. And then you don't respond to arguments.

NIGGER

So which one are you? I would say David Gerard but I don't think he could find a site that isn't listed on google.

Good job you fucking retard.

I just looked this up and it seems to be true. Thanks OP for indirectly showing me how blacks are even more inferior than I had originally anticipated.

There is no way that you read all of: pastebin.com/zapWyu7A which has plenty of CDC and NCBI sources.
You must be either a goon or a 16 year old libtard at this point. Leave.

Fuck everyone who bumped this shit thread

its bumplocked now sage is irrelevant

seems like OP ran away like a bitch

thank you. this is all i was looking for

i mean, its kind of funny thats the ONE thing out of the entire page you found and you're going to complain about cherry picking and straw man arguments, but ok.

what's your take on epigenetics, which would attribute these genetic differences to environment? honest question, not trying to bait you.

And how am I proving to be a dumbass by presenting data and asking for second opinions in understanding it? that's what intelligent conversation looks like

Tranny logic.

epigenetics is what you call a "defeater". there is no evidence that epigenetics plays a role in racial differences and no evidence they do.

another "defeater" is that we are all brains in a vat being fed beliefs about race realism and the data is different whenever it's convenient for the ones managing the vat.

Basically pointless rationalizations and excuses for continuing to be a race denier.

Guten tag OP

From the "rational wiki"

It does.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

>However, modern genetic data has demonstrated the vast majority of variation (>85%) is found within populations, rather than between them (The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.

[emphasis mine]

Note that previously the article stated it was possible to determine the "geographic origin" (meaning race) of an individual using more than 1000 genetic loci, yet here the article cites a much smaller number, "hundreds of loci" in an attempt to debunk the previous claim. How absurd.

From the study citesd:

>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

[emphasis mine]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

"Never" is fairly definition IMO.

Basically this is the same shit we've seen thousands of times. You obviously weren't looking for a debate. It's clear that you came across a wiki which you thought gave an authoritative take on the subject matter and thought we'd be BTFO because of it. Sad.

Did you even read the page yourself. You're a dumbass because you are unable to see the bullshit doublethink for yourself. Here is an example from that joke of a website.

>However, modern genetic data has demonstrated the vast majority of variation (>85%) is found within populations, rather than between them (

This is now a loli thread.

On the subject of IQ between populations see:

youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q&feature=youtu.be&t=14m27s

web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

And read:

humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/

realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/end_the_hype_over_epigenetics__lamarckian_evolution.html

theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/sep/11/why-im-sceptical-about-the-idea-of-genetically-inherited-trauma-epigenetics

Gregory Cochran discusses epigenetics:

youtu.be/w3310KWlDXg?t=19m21s

Watch this entire documentary series:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

*"Never" is fairly definitive IMO.

Here's a recent blogpost you may be interested in, read the comments as well:

westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/skin-deep/

From the "rational wiki" article:

See:

youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q&feature=youtu.be&t=25m50s

Not to the people who are actually involved in the field of psychometrics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

So because some people might misuse the results of IQ tests for their own agenda these IQ tests don't actually matter. wew lad. see pic

A recent study found that it's possible to determine race via brain scans:

cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5

Differences in oral bacteria can determine race:

medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html

Note that their definition of "ethnicity" fits the common usage of "race".

I think op left, user.

probably a shill

Mixed race individuals have an extremely difficult time finding bone marrow donors. This couldn't possibly be the case if race was something made up with no biological basis.

archive.is/LgI6Z

archive.is/gTHr

archive.is/lCSux

archive.is/7n3dZ

archive.is/5f4Jf

Human Races Exist: Refuting 11 Common Arguments Against the Existence of Race

archive.is/pxlcm

Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns#Group_differences

sciencealert.com/neanderthal-sex-could-explain-why-europeans-and-africans-have-different-immune-systems

sage for linking leftist propaganda

I like that graphic though. That's very useful. Human-Biodiversity is a more useful way of looking at things than '3 races.'

jstor.org/stable/2999198?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I would post more, but fuck you for whining because you didn't get a reply in four minutes. Just noticed that.

Back to 4cuck.

Thread is bumplocked, but in case 4chan faggot OP lurk here:
- not only races exists, SPECIES exists
- Caucasian, Negro, Aborigin, Khoi-san, Pigmey… are of different SPECIES
- your haplo pic is about right, except that shitty "Adam" in fucking Nigerija; there is no A and b haplos outside Africa; but, if "Adam" means first Negro, that is OK too
- dont read fucking wikipedia and shit like that, you will become dumb and brainwhashed

Now fuck off back to cuckchan and never come back.

Besides the obvious fact that OP is a shill, you cannot support evolution and believe we are all one human race. Simply because different haplogroups exist (i.e. subcategories exist) does not mean the concept of racial separation is rendered moot. Nobody is going off of "Caucasoid vs Negroid" alone, that is a strawman that the link dedicates a whole chunk to "debunk". Why don't you look at those haplogroups, certain ethnicities will have haplogroups.
The IQ point is interesting. Here are the points
wtf I hate IQ now. If IQ is such a meaningless metric, then why is it without language? It is a method of analyzing problem-solving skills, it does not require translation, it is a skill that all humans possess, in varying degrees. That is the point of the test, to chart the skill. Patterns arise when comparing different groups of people. Not just Caucasoids, but African haplogroups, too.
Also, Western society is the most successful society. If some bushmen cannot succeed in a metropolis setting, is it the fault of the white man for creating a chess game when the bushman could only play checkers? isteve.blogspot.ca/2014/03/2008-sat-scores-by-race-by-income.html
If we are all same on the inside, why is this disparity so overt? Also: youtube.com/watch?v=F0_NsS1Zdlk

Absolute dogshit arguments. You cannot claim to want discussion when you cite this nonsense:
In regards to: There are many non-biological reasons why people of a certain race, ethnicity, or nationality may choose to play specific sports, or excel at them.
So sport clubs discriminating against blacks or coaches having high expectations can cause such massive and overt trends in a population? Seems to me like they are trying to cover for other factors that would be "wayciss" with nonsense arguments.
Also
Objectively wrong. Even when accounting for wealth differences, blacks still underperform in SAT scoring.
Here's my favourite doublethink:
How does cultural bias account for huge IQ disparities? It has everything to do with the potential to create communities that value IQ. Perhaps the bushman never advanced past grazing like a bull for an hour to create an intelligence-driven society. The bushman never had the need for a high intelligence. The link itself asks why Norwegians have more Winter Olympic medals than Indians, hinting to the environment as the factor that shapes the skills those humans needed to adapt. Look along their history, the Negroid has not developed past the standard lifestyle of the human (I use standard very loosely, as they have not even invented the wheel). You cannot use the environment as a method of shaping human traits (that are expressed in order to be more fit in the environment), but then backtrack and claim IQ is a special case.