Not just drugs, thinking processes. The world depends on a self-induced state of ignorance in order to keep it in one's experience. Jesus
Differences breed hatred. The world is for hatred, so there must be differences. In heaven, there are no differences. There are no classes, levels, grades, breeds, races, distinct cultures or belief systems. Differences stem from the idea of special identity. Specialness translates to a Guiness World Record book of strange facts. Everyone wants to be special in this world. If he can't be the richest, he'll be the poorest. If he can't be the healthiest, he'll be the sickliest. The world is about the "best" and the "worst". This makes for an interesting hell. All of this is made up before time and space. Once the big bang sets it in motion, the die is cast, and your fate is sealed. In the course of time, the special will experience every facet of speciality. In the course of time, since the big bang, most humans have rolodexed through miriad races, conditions, and belief systems throughout reincarnational migrations. To pin race or gender on anyone as an identity is foolish, in light of this fact. Culture is rooted in being special. This is the main cause of differences, and the violence it breeds. Attack maintains differences and special identity. If the identity is temporarily built around 'most violent' then... In heaven, all are equals. In heaven, all are the same. In heaven, no one is special, not even our Father. We are truly One. So we are at peace. Jesus
As is evidenced by tribal conflict in Africa probably since time immemorial, but certainly at least since independance. No one does tribal conflict better than the Africans. I guess they're yet to realise what a 'strength' all their magnificent diversity represents. Africa will be recolonised at some point in the future. I'm quite sure of that. Africans are simply incapable of running a modern, industrial economy. Hell, they're not even capable of running an agricultural economy -- which is why they have famine's every decade or so on the same land that white farmers were producing surpluses from within living memory. Whites are too wracked with guilt and compassion to march back in and restore some semblance of civilization, but the chinks don't seem too perplexed. They can't force the issue too much for now, because American humanitarian zeal is still militarily powerful. But in the next fifty years, as America collapses under the weight of its own stupidity (by refusing to recognise baseline racial reality, thus paying welfare to feckless blacks to perpetuate their poverty, thus leaving the borders open for millions of the dumbest chulos to waltz through at will and perpetuate some poverty of their own), China will likely be able to throw her weight around in Africa as she pleases. Democracy works with intelligent, civilized and, I would argue, homogeneous groups. But even then it's vastly overrated. A five minute talk with the average voter should be sufficient to confirm that. And of course modern democracy is the greatest scam, since the media decide for us what the issues will be and thus what our interests are, even if those are not really our interests at all. Democracy = media-cracy = mediocracy. In America it's not a two-party system, it's a jew-party system. The whole thing's jew-rigged from top to bottom. That's the value in a Ron Paul type. That's why they're threatened by him. That's why they can only ignore or smear him, because he threatens the corrupt existing order. I mean, just take those 'revelations' made about the newsletters he allegedly wrote. No attempt was made to determine their truth value; he was simply smeared for saying what, in the supposed land of the free, must never be said, or even thought. Think about that. Here you've got a candidate whose own convictions remain truer to the constitution of the very land that the president is to govern by an order of magnitude over the other candidates, yet he's painted as some sort of dangerous extremist.
I trust we've established that race is analytically meaningful and is not described solely by reference to skin color. Black-white IQ differences are well known to exist and are not denied by any researcher. Arguments for a hereditary basis for such differences are summarized here (from a recent high-profile debate): http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11...eimer-on-race-and-intelligence-opening-moves/ A table summarizing what Professor Gottfreddson calls "Yes-But Rejoinders" to a hereditary basis is reproduced below. Defined as the ability/inability to delay gratification. A 1961 study by Walter Mischel (googl found black children more likely than white children to prefer a smaller candy bar today than to wait a week for a larger one. It was drop-of-the-hat speculation. Blacks do have higher levels of testosterone and this is known to correlate with aggresiveness and sex-drive (which, as a former steroid user I can anecdotally confirm). Touche. Despite the uproar, science does demonstrate that males and females do differ biologically, too, however. The touted IQ rise is an artifact and graduation rates are not meaningful measures of educational accomplishment ("dumbing down" etc). The quoted remark was spoken hastily and is not wholly accurate, yet its gist remains true: black educational attainment lags that of other groups and since the basis for this is genetic, it will continue to do so. Moreover, I don't concede your equalitarianism the status quo. There is no good reason to do so apart from the common desire that equalitarianism be true -- which, scientifically, is not a good reason at all. Further still, the matters under discussion have been well-established since the civil rights era, and it is only because obfuscators and obscurantists -- mostly communists, a disturbing number of them jews -- keep muddying the waters every time the point is raised that the appearance of uncertainty is maintained. This is a frustrating and damaging state of affairs and one must suspect malfeasance on the part of those involved.
If you cannot offer a precise definition, your views cannot be regarded as scientific and are therefore irrational.
Wrong. I repeat: A more accurate definition of race is not possible nor necessary. If it is impossible to speak of racial distinctions, it is also impossible to speak of any other biological distinction, or of any other groups of objects commonly referred to, and the attempt to do so would so hobble our language that communication would be severely compromised.
No, I am right. Irrational and intellectual immature, you are just grasping at straws. It is not "impossible" to speak of "biological distinctions," since biology is a recognized field of study. Credible biologists set forth testable propositions. You bring up "race" and then cannot even define the word. Defining terms is critical in debate. If you cannot define the term, you have no business talking about it. Empiricists deal with testable propositions. Clearly, you are not an empiricist. I speak the language of reason, while you speak of a language of irrationality, and, indeed, of prejudice.