Are blacks people?

submitted by NegroSex from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NegroSex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Then why are they capable of producing offspring with whites?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

There are many species in the wild that have the ability to cross breed but don't produce offspring as strong, intelligent or robust as pairings within the breed.

You've also created a thread without much explanation. That's a violation of our rules (rule 4). Please provide some more context for DAR members to engage you on (such as giving your position on the question or why you're asking). Simple open ended questions like 'are blacks people' might be misconstrued as 'troll' or 'bad faith' posting. Read our rules carefully and if you have time read the 'guide' on what troll activity looks like so you don't accidentally imitate such activity on our sub.

You have two hours to update this post with a submission statement in the comments or it will be deleted.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Unrelated, why did you remove the antrim county recount election fraud post?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In was a link post. Rule 4.

I was also unaware that new data/analysis was coming out so it looked like something old to me. A few hours after I deleted that post I noticed that there was some /pol/ discussion on the topic. If it was your post please re-up with some type of explanation of the content and I will approve.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There are many species in the wild that have the ability to cross breed but don't produce offspring as strong, intelligent or robust as pairings within the breed.

The OP is a troll but I want to bring up a flaw in this reasoning. Cross breeding races has never lead to long term deterioration of those things. The proof of this is in White Americans who may have had ancestors that bred with slaves but then later bred with White people again. Yet you would never know if someone who is 1/1024th black is somehow less robust than a pure white man who just came from Europe.

Personally speaking, there is nothing taboo in admitting that all races had a common ancestor. We could even extend this argument to all animals, hence why Scientists consider them important in certain research that requires treating disease or doing organ transplants. But everyone having a common ancestor doesn't change that White people should be allowed a homeland for themselves, or if they want to breed exclusively with other white people.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But everyone having a common ancestor doesn't change that White people should be allowed a homeland for themselves

Agreed, however blacks have 20% DNA from an unknown hominid not found in Caucasoid DNA. Out of Africa is also wrong. Whites are most likely descended from a very small group that survived global flooding (mostly likely on a larder boat like the ark) 6-10k years ago. Blacks are either from a particular voyager on that ark with different genetics (Ham) or hominids that survived the flood coincidentally (in caves, floating islands, pockets spared the flooding, etc).

That vast differences between whites and blacks are not very likely created by evolution over such short times. (Although environment does play some role).

If it were unequivocally proven that blacks had the exact same genetic orgins as whites whites would still have the right to freedom of association and ethnostates as they have formed different cultures and genetic expressions than blacks since the common ancestor event. (even though I deny the claim)

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Out of Africa is also wrong.

I'm not sure where you're getting your sources from, but even people here in the DR aren't denying Out of Africa (See Dragonerne and Cisheteroscum's comments):

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/5tuq/debunking_the_out_of_africa_theory/

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Out of Africa theory has been challenged by many recent archeological discoveries in Europe and Asia. I honestly don't believe it's 100 percent true, the timelines at least have to be moved back much further. However the ark theory is just as ridiculous and doesn't have any sound evidence that I'm aware of.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody in that thread agreed fully with Out of Africa.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because they contain the blood of the pharaos in their veins. The descendants of Ra from planet Hanum-Ra

[–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Closely related but different species can produce fertile offspring. In fact it's fairly common for animals to have a small amount of cross species heritage. In whites case we have some neanderthal ancestry, East Asians have more in addition to denisovan ancestry, sub Saharan Africans have multiple unknown sources human like species ancestry (higher towards West Africa). The word "race" as used in biology (as applied to humans it would produce a large amount of "races" and is closer to the way we commonly use ethnicity than race) most accurately describes human differences and races generally can produce fertile offspring.