pouët.net

Dipswitch, this Ural-theory and the finnugor theory have been broken years ago. And there are a lot of funny things that have been proven decades ago, but somehow never written into schoolbooks - like that the Sarmatas, already living here in the Roman times, and defeating the Romans by the way, have already used Hungarian "rovas" writing and Hungarian words, or that the Hun Attila's letters are still readable in Hungarian, or that we have very interesting common words and cultural values with the Sumer civilisation. But that's a long story.

"I am a woman, my wife is a man!"

That still doesn't make racism better than being a nazi.

being racist is being racist period
being nazi is being racist PLUS anticommunist, anti-Semitic, nationalistic, imperialistic and militaristic

I define all bad things as zero, so you can add whatever you want, the statement still holds ;-)

I hate all BOXISTS!

<kidding>
Adok/Hugi is the Leader and Chancellor of the Demoscene.
</kidding>

Adok, finally you made it and started to go on my nerves which isn't easy. Really...

My article is well-balanced and that was quite important for me. That's also why I asked some specific people like Dodge and Dipswitch if I can keep it in the way I wrote it.

Your leading thought is: MY IQ IS HIGHER THAN YOURS. And it's obviously important for you that everybody should know about that "fact". You constantly try to convince everybody how GREAT your iq is with your superb discussions.

A great band of people you have gathered around you for Hugi. You as the elite-IQ man. And the person that constantly goes on everybods nerves wherever you meet him (Magic) and with EP a person that should DIRECTLY start to make a theraphy. Oahhh...

One thing about racism. Acknowledging that human races can not be valued equal - long story, blablabla, don't enter a debate please - does not mean that one is willing to eradicate or enslave the lower ranked races. As an analogy, I like german shepherd dogs, and don't like chihuahuas, but I still don't kick chihuahuas, despite I find them weaker and less intelligent than german shepherds. Also I may find gypsies worthless, but I don't demand concentration camps or such.

MY IQ IS 132 _ WHAT IS ADOKS ???ßß

Tomcat, the question is wether you find gypsies worthless as in "genentically inferior" or if you simply have something against their culture and way of life.

In the former case, you're basically saying that a gypsy baby adopted at birth and raised by hungarian/german/whatever parents has a lesser chance of becoming a rocket scientist or diskmag editor since they are intellectually inferior to their peers.

Do different races differ in value based on genetical heritage or cultural environment?

So racism is justified as long as it involves no action?

[quot]So racism is justified as long as it involves no action?[/quot]I don't think it's justified, but it's harmless.

worldshaking theory: could it be that not all INDIVIDUALS are the same?

seriously, biological-based racism is no worse or better than cultural-based racism. but i guess there will always be people to follow each given ideology no matter how dull and stupid it is.

exactly

Cultural heritage is the main reason for races and nations (but even communities) being different, and valued differently. Racism, however, also has a point, but just wait a moment.

The popular liberalist view about "individuals" being all different is wrong. It sounds very friendly and modern and enlightened and so on, but wrong. Any psychologist can tell you that an individual behaves very, very different from a crowd, can it be a community or just a heterogeneous mass. One can not judge an individual by the crowd he or she is a member of, or the other way around.

As I said, racists have a point. It's very simple, and you can talk to any geneticist about it. (I did.) The generic behavior of an individual is controlled by a set of hormones. An angry person has a different hormone balance than of a mild one, a slow thinking guy from a smarter one, a well balanced from a paranoid one. There are even some psychic diseases caused by hormone misbalances, like panic sickness or depression.

A certain set of your hormone parameters are born with you, and are part your genetic heritage. It inherits just like the form of your ear, the shape of your face, whatever. Generally we all behave very similarly as one of our ancestors, usually within 3-4 generations.

Nations usually form a relatively closed gene pool. For example, Polish people usually marry Polish girls, and rarely a Nigerian. Races only started to mingle in the late 70s, so it's a relatively new phenomenon to have people like Shifter. ;) Now, what it points out: nations have their own, let's say, general mindset, thanks to their common genetic heritage. Probably you already heard one of these: Germans are precise, Finnish are slow, Italians are noisy, Spanish are lazy, Hungarians love to complain, and so on. This is related to genes. And what we have here is the classic racist view of people inheriting their habits and mindset, not mentioning a good part of their abilities.

But who can possibly accept that while members of different nations indeed differ in many well visible things - skin color, head or ear shape, etc - it will not affect the much, much more delicate things like their hormone balance?

So, that's where racists have a point. But this still doesn't mean one is destined to follow his or her instincts, coded in the genes, and have nothing to do with culture. Cultural influence is the No.1. reason for differences, not genes. But that's also true that some nations never even had the idea to build culture, and only adopted foreign nations' values. A good European example is Romania.

where is the proof that "this is related to genes"? why is this not related to cultural values?

i'm not going to start to argue about gene pools and the huge diversity in what you call a single "nation's relatively closed gene pool".

using stereotypes to defend prejudices is just ummm... well... i am out of words :)

That's true. But your hormone level (as well as the level of other substances in your body) can be altered by drugs. So it is possible to alter the behaviour of a human being by means of pharmaceutic substances. In a not so long future, there might be even drugs that enhance your memory and thus boost your ability to learn.

In this context, an interesting observation I made while studying medical physiology:

What's commonly agreed is that the black skin of African people is due to their high levels of melanine. This is a pigment substance which is produced and stored in special cells of the skin (the melanocytes).

The production of melanine is encouraged by melanocyte stimulating hormone (MSH).

MSH is a hormone that is generated in a body by splitting a prohormone called POMC (pro-opio-melano-corticotropin) up into MSH and some other hormones, such as ACTH (adreno-corticotrophic hormone).

POMC is a product of a related gene which every human being has.

Now comes the interesting thing:

As blacks have more melanine, it's highly probable that they also have more MSH, and so it's also most likely that the POMC gene is more often transcribed with them.

However, this would imply that blacks would also have higher levels of ACTH. ACTH has several effects, the most important one being the stimulation of the production of adrenal hormones - glucocorticoids, mineralocorticoids and androgens.

Now it's well known that androgens such as testosterone (often called "the male sexual hormone") have an effect on brain development: they are responsible for male personality traits such as aggressiveness. I've read sometimes that blacks have been observed to be more aggressive than whites - well, this would be an explanation for this observation. If it were true, it would also explains why blacks are considered to have a stronger sex-drive than whites.

Here I agree with Dipswitch.

and what is the proof that some stereotypical properties that a race has makes the race RANK HIGHER or LOWER than others?

this is some serious bullshit when racists make hierarchial relations between races. and not even a goddamn racist i've ever met, listened, had to hear etc. said that his/her race RANKS LOWER THAN OTHERS.

yes, everybody knows races are different, they adopt different cultures, different ways of learning things, different ways of analysing and doing stuff. so please stop defending racism on this basis because everyone knows this. races are different like species, nothing is to argue here.

but not a single property of any race determines its rank automagically among others. offenders of this argument often see homo sapiens as the leading specie (and their own as the leading race) in evolution. this is not true. evolution does not RANK species.

the chances of survival of any group of genetically similar individuals in nature (that's what counts genetically anyway) is both dependent on the properties of this group and the environment. and there is no global set of BETTER properties and BETTER environment. what increases your chances of survival is the proper matching of this two criteria.

on a primitive sense, if the environment requires the community to collect food or have sex in a certain way (which is determined by the agricultural and geographic properties of the environment and/or the living style of prays and predators), then those who have adopted those ways have higher chances of survival. but that doesn't make them superior to others (never in nobility) because they could miserably fail in a different environment.

and on a complex sense, environments gained geo-political definitions which involved the dominant govermental and economical systems. what seems to make a race superior to another in these systems are the properties of the race that makes it easy to get along with current government or economical model. and chances are even that the governmental and economical model favors the race that designed the model at the first place.

though there has grown a strong cultural and sociological globalism in the world over one or two centuries that made all the environments for homo sapiens similar to each other. parallel to this, genetic pools are not closed to certain regions of the world. nature would eventually create (or let survive) races that have properties matched with the global aspects of the world. what i observe is racists often offend crossgamy of races and defend some PURISM which can't stand over any logical basis. when they use genetics as a tool to point out certain differences among races, they try to hide the facts that better genes are usually found by mixturing of different ones rather than waiting for a pure pool to mutate. they generally put forward myhtological and metaphysical arguments to defend purism anyway.

they also argue thet some MINORITIES (which has a cultural but not genetical meaning) insist on not adopting their way of living and disturb their NOBLE community which OWN the land they're living on. that doesn't make them RANK LOWER than your race genetically anyway. as long as they continue to survive, they are successful in that environment (or even the other way around since they continue pissing you). you can always try to play the predator and eradicate them if you have the guts to forget the global environment is the whole world and there will always be others to accuse you (and in fact they are waiting for your mistakes). you can find yourself in the position of a pray if you do so.

if you continue arguing that some races should RANK LOWER IN RACE HIERARCHY (whatever that means) because they don't adopt your culture, governmental or economical model, whatever, than know that you are not talking about genetics. you are talking about fucking POLITICS.

so i'd better have the fun of watching german shepherd dogs shepherd in north russia or kenia than hearing them barking next to my door.

Ouch, there goes the buzz, don't poke the beehive next time...

When nations started to build their civilisations, they usually followed their instincts. Some were more influenced by religion, others by technology, etc. Nevertheless their environment was also a major influence factor, for example, the Armenians lived a very different life from the Romans.

Still, before civilisation, every race had to follow their instincts to survive, and most probably they survived in the very environment that suited their mindset the most. Why did the Slavi tribes multiply and spread, while the Sumers did not?

It's hard to tell how far the influence of different factors go, and I am sure that cultural heritage is the most important one, but these hormones are a fact. Besides, some of their effects are proven.

End of conversation for myself, I have stuff to do.

Ah, by the way, the Budapest riots ended up in a huge scandal, people tortured by the police, etc... few days and you'll see it in the news.

Eventhough there are differences between different races, it still doesn't say one goddamn thing about individual people. Black people might in general be fast runners for example but I'm very sure that I can find millions of black people which I can outrun. That's why you always should judge people by their own skills and actions, which is something which racists don't do, and that's why racism is stupid.

Tomcat, the 1850's want you and your silly ideas back.