How does black and brown diversity benefit white run societies?

History has already provided that "perspective" and given it's verdict.

For the first time in the History of humankind, indeed all of Nature, the most advanced of a specie is not wiping out the less advanced.
Indeed, they are enabling their growth in relative number, at home and overseas.

That could, and is, only happening because of "compassion" (aka 'white guilt'), instead of "survival of the fittest" emerging among the more advanced White countries, and just in the last century or so.

+

 

How do different races provide different perspectives?

 

If your claim is that Social Darwinism represents the natural order of human societies then you are extremely ignorant of human history and human cultures. While it is true that humans societies on all regions of the Earth have practiced tribalism and extreme brutality against other groups humans have also gotten a long and developed trade networks and alliances without a need for senseless wars and atrocities. Humans have also made decisions on how they conceptualize kinship, who they want their allies to be and who their enemies are.

Differences in skin color for example existed long before there were any human civilizations or written languages for people to express their opinions on these differences yet skin color wasn't considered an important difference in most ancient cultures. European tribes and nations certainly didn't care if they had "White" skin for much of human history and fought many wars against each other with the victors often developing a sense of superiority for their ethnic group without concern for the well-being of the groups they dominated. Some of the conquerors eventually became the conquered. The idea that there is a natural order to humanity and that we are naturally inclined to have a "survival of the fittest" mentality is sheer nonsense and a claim that can be easily refuted with historical examples.

 

None of that BS refutes anything I said.
You're just, as usual, hung up about "white skin", "differences in skin color."

Everything I said about Nature in general, Our Hominid ancestors, or current humans, is/Remains true.

Your posts are ALL deflective and goofy Crap.
+

 

No, it isn't. What evidence do you have that any of the garbage you are saying is true? What real world examples can you give that support your argument? What scholars can you cite that support your position? What books have you read on the subject? None. So until you can provide evidence for your claims there is no reason why anyone should take you seriously. Everything I have stated can be verified with historical facts and credible sources.

 

My evidence is the History of all life, including Homo, on this planet. Obviously.
You have No real rebuttal to EVOLUTION. Damn that Darwin!

Since you have NO debate, it's the usual disingenuous/sleazy False challenges, load-of-questions, Burden shift.
ie, my 'reading list' again!
WTF!
You lose #831
bye.
+

 

You can't provide any examples supporting your claims. Saying "I'm right because I said so" isn't an argument. You are ducking the debate and fleeing again. Are you really that terrified of debating me?

 

Not sure they do. Different experiences provide different perspectives. Folks coming from different backgrounds are more likely to bring a variety of experiences.​

 

Wow, pot meet kettle.

 

Couldn't higher IQ /impulse control whites bring those same experiences without the baggage of lowering social cohesion and increasing crime?

 

I'm not ducking a debate with anyone.

 

That was only part of your statement: You can't provide any examples supporting your claims. Saying "I'm right because I said so" isn't an argument.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

I have always provided evidence supporting my position.

 

Not really, and when they fail there's a lot of "I'm right because I say so."

But feel free to assert otherwise, people can see the truth.

 

Actually it has nothing to do with 'compassion'. It has everything to do with securing (via technology and large scale agriculture etc) food. When people aren't wondering where their next meal is coming from, they don't need to live defensively.

 

People can see the truth and any reasonable observer can see that I have provided numerous quality sources supporting my positions which have not been refuted. Taxonomy26 was given an opportunity to support his position with evidence and he ran from the debate as soon as I showed up. I have never made a "I'm right because I said so" argument. I'm right because my position is supported with evidence. Disputing claims and showing they are wrong are two different things.

 

Huh?/Clueless.
The First World had enough food even when they were colonialists.
The last 100 years, 500 years, and 2000 years, etc.
bye now.

 

You mean when you claimed blacks and whites have equal brain volume?

 

I provided plenty of evidence showing that there is no scientific basis to make a comparison between the brain sizes of different groups of people to claim a racial hierarchy. Do we really need to debate that topic again? Because we can but I think you, Taxonomy26, Empress and other proponents of Scientific Racism have run out of arguments.

 

DJT, is that you?

 

You've called people "white supremacists" and proponents of "scientific racism" for speaking of group IQ gaps. How does it figure when northeast Asians and Askhenazi Jews have higher average IQs than whites? I find that a rather odd assertion.

 

Show us where DJT said that.

 

He's called people "Racists" (and the even more nefarious but oxymoronic 'Scientific Racists') for even acknowledging that there Are Races/differences enough for such.

+

 

There's nothing odd about asserting that proponents of Scientific Racism are misusing science to justify a racist ideological agenda. Scientific Racism developed from White Supremacist ideology and most of its proponents are still White Supremacists or racists of European descent. They simply prefer to call themselves other things to avoid being labeled racist.

On another message board I made a poll where I asked if the Asian-White IQ gap determined cultural differences between Asians and Whites with very mixed responses. Many of the racists on the board said no. Some denied an Asian-White IQ gap even existed. I don't recall if any argued that Asians were actually mentally superior. At a White Nationalist conference David Duke even asked Rushton if it were possible for Whites to build better societies than Asians because their higher testosterone makes them more ambitious leading to greater genius. Basically he was making the Goldilocks argument. Blacks have too much testosterone so they are overly aggressive and prone to violent crime and their low IQs make them stupid. Asians are slightly smarter than Whites but lack ambition and creativity due to less testosterone. Whites have the right balance of testosterone and intelligence to create the best societies. Rushton acknowledged this as plausible.

So even when you put Northeast Asians and Ashkenazi Jews at the top of the IQ hierarchy you can still find a way to say that Whites are better. In my experience arguing with proponents of Scientific Racism most of them are White, most of them are racist and anti-Semitic and this is so common as to recognize that their "race-realism" arguments are just a front to promote their racist views of the world. There is very little difference between modern White Nationalists and traditional White Supremacists. Their core beliefs are racist.

I have never claimed that anyone was a racist simply for believing that there are biological races.

 

The majority of humans in 'the first world', for the majority of human history, have been poor peasants. People at that end of the spectrum almost never had food and housing security. It was only in the past couple of hundred years that such things became more reliable. Until then, we had to live as 'savages', because survival demanded it.

Again, nothing to do with 'compassion', and everything to do with economics and easier survival.