" if racial IQ does vary"
It does (psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/race_evolution_behavior.pdf).

It would be an extraordinary coincidence if it did not. We would require a theory to explain to us why this trait in particular was unaffected, while so many others were affected, by natural selection.

Let's look at the evidence: Black countries are crap and uncivilized apart from where the whites, Jews, Arabs or Chinese went there to exploit the resources and incidentally created some form of civilisation. Blacks were roaming around Africa for hundreds of thousands of years yet they developed nothing. The same can be said for the so-called Aborigines in Australia, they did precisely nothing. When whites came across blacks in Africa they were not confronted by a group of people who had developed technology and civilisation and education systems and healthcare systems and military systems and appropriate clothing, they were met by groups of savages, many of them naked but all at least half-naked, living day to day, no agriculture, nothing. Zilch. Zip. The same goes for the whites who arrived in Australia.

Now it is true, it is my point after all, that their environment was "harder" than ours and less conducive to developing high IQ. That is my point.

According to the theory of evolution and natural selection we were all the same people at one time (I don't believe that, but this is the current accepted dogma and I assume you subscribe to it, apologies if you do not but the debate can be held with others who do) all living in the same area. All drawn from the same colour and IQ population.

At some point a group relocated to some other area where the environment was different. Some people argue that the ones who left had changed and then relocated due to new differences, or were not sampled equally from the population, some say they were the same people when they left. Who knows! Either way, the theory goes that some of them got relocated.

In their now different environments, natural selection favoured some traits over others. The most obvious is the skin colour. Less obvious is testosterone levels, which appear to be higher in blacks than in whites (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741) - indicating that the differing environments did affect testosterone levels. There are many other physical and biological differences between the races related to susceptibility to certain diseases and illnesses.

A recent study suggests that high testosterone stands in the way of creating a civilised society (http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/08/03/1543210/ancient-skulls-show-civilization-rose-as-testosterone-fell)

Well, put the two studies together and join the dots.

The fact is that black neighbourhoods in white countries are crap and less civilised even decades after their emancipation and access to education and affirmative action programs, and the same "starting conditions" as whites. Can it all be due to white oppression given that blacks in Africa and Australia were in a similar state before they ever saw a white man?

What about those studies?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741
http://science.slashdot.org/st...

Every time I mention them my posts are instantly marked "troll" or "flamebait". People are keen to mark it down, but clearly from my writing you can see that I am not a troll or a flamer. Nobody wants to discuss the implications of a study that suggests that blacks have higher testosterone and another study that suggests that higher testosterone stifles the development of civilisation and link it to the fact that blacks failed to create a civilisation in their own lands despite there being no white people stopping them for hundreds of thousands of years.

Perhaps it is not so implausible to suggest that blacks, on average and all other statistical disclaimers given, might have higher testosterone and lower IQ than whites, which leads to lower likelihood of developing a civilization and might even hinder ability to behave in a civilised manner? It seems consistent with the evidence.

" I noticed upon visiting the beta site the first time that there is no way to disable ads" I use adblock. It seems to work.

To be fair, Kent Hovind is famous for the 6000 year old Earth arguments. If anybody is engaged in debates about evolution vs creation from either side but have not watched any of Kent Hovind's billion hours of videos and the 6000 year old Earth claim then they should either: 1) Read around the subject more or 2) stop debating on a subject they know too little about.

Of course, the correct refutation for Kent Hovind's 6000 year old Earth hypothesis is the seeming existence of more than 6000 years of youtube videos of him stating that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

"Others may look at it as getting shot or not getting shot."

Perhaps, but I don't think there are many cases of a clear cut shooting by a white police officer of somebody on the basis of them being black. The police are more likely to stop a black person in the first place, but whether or not that black person gets shot might depend on how they handle to situation. For example, trying to grab the police officers gun is going to get you shot. Running at him and not stopping when told to stop is likely to get you shot. Being calm, friendly and nice is not likely to get you shot.

Look I generally have a rule in life concerning being around a police officer who has a gun. I tend to be civil, obedient and nice with purposefully non aggressive body language, argue my side without giving up any of my rights and without things getting angry. The main aim is to get away as quickly as possible without getting shot or arrested. Not doing something to provoke me getting shot is kind of my NUMBER ONE priority in that situation. I suspect that whilst there are some racist white cops out there, not many of them would actually commit murder of a calm, reasonable, nice, non aggressive suspect even if it is solely on the basis that they would not get away with it.

"The color of your skin doesn't make you give people dirty looks and act aggressive. (Socio-economic status is more at play than race alone.)"

But race is not just about the colour of skin. The environmental differences that produced the light and dark skin tones also produced other differences as well, such as testosterone levels which is an indicator for aggressiveness. Or are you going to claim that whilst every other trait difference is due to natural selection due to exposure to different environments and that the two populations were exposed to environments different enough to cause different skin colour and lip size and other physical characteristics that it is inconceivable that other traits might also be affected such as aggressiveness, testosterone levels or IQ?

Clearly it is conceivable and wholly consistent with the theory of natural selection. In fact it would be an extraordinary coincidence and would require a separate theory, to explain why aggressiveness, testosterone levels and IQ did not become different between the two populations in response to their differing environments given that other differences did develop.

see:
Civilisation could only rise once testosterone levels fell, according to "Science",
http://science-beta.slashdot.o... [slashdot.org]

and:
"Serum testosterone levels in healthy young black and white men.

This report gives the results of assays of circulating steroid hormone levels in white and black college students in Los Angeles, CA. Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]

"No, you do not 'know' anything about 'blacks'" .. er, yes I do. Grew up around them. Live amongst them. Know them very well.

"This remark betrays a deeply held racism"
What do you mean by the word "racism"? I do believe that there are differences between the races that are more than skin deep. As I have posted before:

"It appears that there is some evidence, apart from the overwhelming evidence of the crapness of black countries and black areas within white countries, and the really clever game of wit and brain that blacks invented called "knock out game", or the one where they set themselves on fire for fun, that blacks have higher testosterone and that high testosterone is not conducive to "civilisation" or to "being civilised".

Civilisation could only rise once testosterone levels fell, according to "Science",
http://science-beta.slashdot.o... [slashdot.org]

"Serum testosterone levels in healthy young black and white men.

This report gives the results of assays of circulating steroid hormone levels in white and black college students in Los Angeles, CA. Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]"

So if admitting that there are differences between the races that are more than just skin colour makes me a racist, then I am a racist. But I think that by racist you mean to say that I wish to mistreat black people, that I think they should be mistreated. That is untrue.

Now why would we expect that natural selection would have impacted only the skin colour and not any other facet such as testosterone, aggressiveness or IQ? Why is it that the libtards on the one hand want us to believe that everything comes about due to natural selection (i.e. evolution) but that on the other hand there cannot possibly be any differences between Blacks and Whites despite them having been exposed to different environments and despite the evidence of how the two groups exist and establish themselves and build their societies and despite the fact that it caused a physical divergence?

"whatever that term might actually mean? Africans? Ghanians? Nigerians? African-Americans?"

Well these are all commonly known as black people and they are all Africans.

The same as the people from Germany, from Sweden, and from UK and from US and from Australia are commonly known as white people and are all European.

"You hold prejudices about people who are not white."
Please define prejudice. Here is one definition:
"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." On that basis I would say that I do not hold prejudices about people who are not white.

"I take it you've never been Black, right?" Deeply offensive question. I will not submit to your racial profiling.

"And you've also never heard of 'Stop and Frisk'."
Yes I have and I think it is unconstitutional ... so do many judges "On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the stop and frisk practice was unconstitutional".

If your constitutional rights are being infringed then you need to fight for your rights. The way you do that is no through violence but to insist on your rights every time. Even if the police say it is constitutional, you state that it is not and that you do not submit and you record it. AND THEN YOU LET THE LAWYERS BATTLE IT OUT.

1. They should have refused to comply with the search on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

If the police insisted then they would be forced to make an arrest. Then the three should insist on using the legal representation, the representative will ask why they are under suspicion and force the police to obtain a proper warrant etc...

In reality though, as soon as they refuse to submit to the unconstitutional search, the police will either walk away or be forced to commit a serious infringement, which can be dealt with later.

2. They did not start recording the police themselves as soon as the police approached them. That way they have on record their refusal to agree to a warrantless search which renders any search before arrest unconstitutional, and if they make an arrest then they need to have a good reason - which the story implies they did not.

When you start recording you should say to your friend, or the officers if you are alone, "this is being uploaded automatically to my blog, so don't worry if they try to delete the video". If you are smart then your friend will reply "did you press the live upload button" and you will check and say "yeah, it is uploading now" - or something like that. That will put the pressure on the officers to behave themselves.

If you can afford it, then actually do set yourself up to upload the feed automatically, but the threat alone is likely to be enough.

Always remain calm and speak politely. Be nice. Be friendly. Do not use hostile body language. Do not scowl. You cannot scare the police, they are not old women walking down a dark alley. I know that blacks think that they can scare anybody with a dirty look, but honestly, the police LOVE IT when somebody becomes aggressive - because it will give them grounds for arrest. They are trained to deal with your aggression and you play into their hands when you become aggressive. THEY WANT YOU TO BECOME AGGRESSIVE SO THAT THEY CAN ARREST YOU, SO DONT DO IT!

If the police turn a blind eye to google cars scanned at 10MPH over the limit, then they must also turn a blind eye to normal drivers too. So the speed at which people drive on average will rise by 10MPH.

But then the google cars will, for safety reasons, sometimes have to go 10MPH faster than those cars i.e. 20MPH above the official limit... Okay, so the police accept this and also must allow normal driver to go 20 MPH faster...

Where does it end? ....

In the crash barrier I think!

Your comment is too poorly written to grasp what your point is. Please take the time to restate your point more clearly.

Yes, we do.

Would it be acceptable for one website to decide never to show a picture of or mention in a good light, a black person?

Probably if one website did ithen that would be okay.

What if all of the major websites decided to do it?

Still okay?

What if we discovered that the KKK had decided to purchase control of all major media outlets with the purpose of making sure that there are no "good stories" about blacks and their images are never shown?

Still Okay?

A group of blacks decide to try to start their own media company to counter this. Because after all, it is a free market. So they look into it. Oh, the KKK have already all become billionaires from their media investments and have made the barriers to entry very high for starting your own company. They have also lobbied the government using their billions, supporting candidates who agree with KKK and tarnishing those who do not, and have had many "regulations" introduced which raise the barrier to entry even more. In order to start a media company you will now require at least $1M of legal advice, to somehow convince the advertising agencies (who are by now fully stocked with pro KKK people) to fund your new media station, etc....

STILL OKAY!?

http://thezog.info/list-summar...

But what if all of the private media companies are controlled by a group of people who share a common politic and decide to block, say, criticism of the Jewish State and to promote, say those who paint the Jewish State in a good light?

e.g.
http://thezog.info/list-summar...

Do this not become censorship at some stage?
 

The problem with libtards is that they refuse to ever be sensible about anything. It is their sneaky corner-casing which jams up the law books and stifles progress.

We are talking about the censoring of making comments about a certain topic. If you go down the line of saying that it is okay for private companies to decide which topics are acceptable and then make it so that the only or major method to discuss topics is through private companies and allow one group of people to dominate in those companies then when the private companies decide to block topic xyz you certainly do have censorship.

Here is censorship in action. The reason why the "reporting" on the recent murder of thousands of civilians including babies and children by the Jews was presented in a way that makes it sound as though it was the babies who were attacking the Jews:
http://thezog.info/list-summar...

This is long overdue.Thank god for the censorship which will shape our future.

FYI it is interesting to see how much the libtards want to bury my message, and how many others want it displayed:

Comment Moderation
sent by Slashdot Message System on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @12:05AM
Re:Oh yes..., posted to Ebola Quarantine Center In Liberia Looted, has been moderated Insightful (+1).

It is currently scored Normal (1).

Re:Oh yes..., posted to Ebola Quarantine Center In Liberia Looted, has been moderated Troll (-1).

It is currently scored Insightful (0).

Re:Motive?, posted to Ebola Quarantine Center In Liberia Looted, has been moderated Interesting (+1).

It is currently scored Normal (1).

Re:Oh yes..., posted to Ebola Quarantine Center In Liberia Looted, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).

It is currently scored Troll (-1).

So unoriginal, posted to Microsoft's Windows 8 App Store Is Full of Scamware, has been moderated Interesting (+1).

It is currently scored Normal (1).

Re:Oh yes..., posted to Ebola Quarantine Center In Liberia Looted, has been moderated Informative (+1).

It is currently scored Troll (0).