Rhodesia:


ps go become a proffesor wi na Nobel Prize and then try and critidize dr James watson, that wasa meely stating the obvious that negroids are less delevpoed than other races.

I don't need to i already know the body of work and your professor is infering on the same data I am using.

In other words. Data is data until it is infered upon and it would seem "suspect" that a "white' scientist would produce conclusions that are not consistent with propping up his "race"

Dr Watson's social evolutionary science is skewed data and  does not support the evidence of biological evolution which is consistent with the inherited abilities of all human populations. That dribble is pseudo science at its best, nobel prize my AZZ!

Rhodesia:


East Asians are also more intelligent than us Europeans, do you see anybody screaming about it saying OMG that's racist you can't say that. Negroes are less evolved homonids.

Seeing that you are from the group of genius populations, could you map out the evolutionary process of the hominid in terms of genetics, anthropology and brain strucuture. In order words the hominid,  Homo sapien sapien divergence to Homo sapien sapien sapien( White people)

Caucasian is not synonymous with white, in the UK Arabs are not regarded as white according to the census, neither are Pakistanis or Indians.

on the other hand in America Arabs are officially White. in Latin America someone who's white in America becomes Latino.

White is subjective. Black is also a subjective term, until the 70s black meant Indians,  and other dark skinned people of the world aswell a Negroes, up until the late the 19th century black in England meant someone who had dark hair and was slightly swarthy ie an Italian.

Black as a terminology for Negroes is a relatively recent thing. Many South Indians and Sri Lankans are as dark a west Africans, but they are not regarded as 'Black' people. Australian aborigines call themselves 'Black'but they are not Negroes, so what constitutes black and what constitutes white is subjective.

Rhodesia:

Caucasian is not synonymous with white, in the UK Arabs are not regarded as white according to the census, neither are Pakistanis or Indians.

on the other hand in America Arabs are officially White. in Latin America someone who's white in America becomes Latino.

White is subjective. Black is also a subjective term, until the 70s black meant Indians,  and other dark skinned people of the world aswell a Negroes, up until the late the 19th century black in England meant someone who had dark hair and was slightly swarthy ie an Italian.

Black as a terminology for Negroes is a relatively recent thing. Many South Indians and Sri Lankans are as dark a west Africans, but they are not regarded as 'Black' people. Australian aborigines call themselves 'Black'but they are not Negroes, so what constitutes black and what constitutes white is subjective.

If the above bolded conclusion is subjective then the answers must lie in the definitions of Negro then. Therefore:

What is the origin of the word Negro?
What constitutes Negro?, origins in Africa, facial features, Genetics

Do enlighten me my oh so brilliant homo sapien.

Rhodesia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid

Oh come now genius species. You can do better than post a couple of wikipedia links. I am not debating wikipedia. Can you not elaborate for us what constitutes a negro so we are fully aware of your intelletual prowess. Let us discuss this or is it that you are too much of a duance that you lack the cognitive ability to intepret complex information and can only repeat what you read.

Again based on your intelligence levels which you proudly boast can you define what constitutes a 'negro" and can you point out the negros in the pics with evidence to back up your findings.

@op 80% of sex offenders in uk are white english and eastern european.

please Nlers, why are we exchanging words with this jobless, useless, attention seeking, shapeless bitch calling herself rhodesia, i cant believe we even let this thread reach a 2nd page, she is worthless and if we give her a listenin ear we might just be givin her somethin gud to feel about

useless caucasian riffraff,u r lucky this is a faceless forum, go and tell that to the next negro u see walkin on the street and see what will be done to you, animal

E-Engineer:

please Nlers, why are we exchanging words with this jobless, useless, attention seeking, shapeless NaughtyWoman calling herself rhodesia, i cant believe we even let this thread reach a 2nd page, she is worthless and if we give her a listenin ear we might just be givin her somethin gud to feel about

useless caucasian riffraff,u r lucky this is a faceless forum, go and tell that to the next negro u see walkin on the street and see what will be done to you, animal

I don't condone violence but I love to debate racists. It is easy to put them in their place. If you have a knowledge of your true history then you can put them in their place. Don't listen to his-story read your own history.

babsjnr:

@op 80% of sex offenders in uk are white english and eastern european.

If whites and eastern European make up 80% of the UK population then it makes sense but if they make up a higher percentage then your argument will get holes punctured into it

Non white british and immigrant are 9.1 million out 61 million uk populations. Most serious crime in uk are done by white serial killer, rapists. Pervert,child molester, murder white are always on top we all know dat

^^^^^

From your numbers it means that "non-whites" make up 15% of the UK population and whites make up the balance of 85%. With that it means that whites should theoretically be responsible for 85% of crimes since they make up 85% of the population and "non-whites" should account for 15% of the crimes. So if it's true as you stated that "80% of sex offenders in uk are white english and eastern european" then it means that the remaining 20% is committed by "non-whites"

Conclusion: 15% of the "non-white" UK population commits 20% of sex offences which makes them disproportionately higher than their white counterparts

igbo2011:

I don't condone violence but I love to debate racists.  It is easy to put them in their place. If you have a knowledge of your true history then you can put them in their place. Don't listen to his-story read your own history.

Well, that's rich coming from you. You mentioned in an earlier
post that Whites were evil and whites were the cause of all
evil or is that not racist in your imaginary world?

I am in no way defending the clown who started this thread
but I think you're just as bad as him/her.

@sara j

shut up and face ur irish goons over there, shapeless multicolored[pink,white,pale,red], ugly brits

sara j:

Well, that's rich coming from you. You mentioned in an earlier
post that Whites were evil and whites were the cause of all
evil or is that not racist in your imaginary world?

I am in no way defending the clown who started this thread
but I think you're just as bad as him/her.

Not neccessarily, I talk bad about people but won't beat them up. I would rather debate. It is totally different. But if you look at who caused many of the wars in Africa, it was America and they gave weapons to other armies to kill people. In Congo, America gave weapons to Rwanda nd Uganan troops in order to kill Congo people so the companies can steal resources using Congolese people as pretty uch slaves.

For the man who said Berbers were Caucasian, did you know that the Sanhaja or Zenaga were once one of the largest and most powerful Berber confederations? The Tauregs are also descended from them.

Say hello to your Caucasian brethren



Taureg Woman



Libyan Berber woman

paniki:

^^^^^

From your numbers it means that "non-whites" make up 15% of the UK population and whites make up the balance of 85%. With that it means that whites should theoretically be responsible for 85% of crimes since they make up 85% of the population and "non-whites" should account for 15% of the crimes. So if it's true as you stated that "80% of sex offenders in uk are white english and eastern european" then it means that the remaining 20% is committed by "non-whites"

Conclusion: 15% of the "non-white" UK population commits 20% of sex offences which makes them disproportionately higher than their white counterparts

utterly stupid for you to abuse statistics the way you have done right here! utter nonsense of your analysis, and if this is the way you truly go about your analysis in real life, it's a pity, very poor I would say!