Race has little to do with how people act. Single mother households are the best predictor of whether a child will end up being a criminal or not. Whites are now where blacks were in the 50s and 60s, and we already see wiggers emulating thug culture.
>>75035955
and niggers and spics mainly are single mothers
so its a race thing
>>75036043
They're the two races specifically targeted by the Democrat's welfare state that's replacing fathers. Of course they would have more single mothers.
>>75035955
even if crime is only due to single mother households (ignoring the higher rate of the warrior gene among blacks and other factors) single mother households exist because niggers are genetically predisposed to polygamous lifestylestherefore acceppting your premise still means that niggers are niggers because of genetics
lurk more before you post here reddit
>>75035955
Now if only niggers could actually manage to lower their rate of single motherhood, then maybe we would be able to test your theory.
>>75036372
>one gene
>defining a person and how they behave
It's not that simple. Some black people can very well be more likely to be a certain way physiologically. But that gets diluted by cultural factors. Before the welfare state was established, blacks were nothing like they are today because their families were in tact. They didn't get caught in gangs because they had the family unit that provided the security they seek now. Now that the culture has changed, there's no telling how much worse the situation will get.
>>75036564
Look at how they behaved before and after the war on poverty.
>>75035955
I agree completely, anon. Only stormcucks recourse to race as a prima facie justification for social policy problems. Race is, though, correlated to many things and one of them is illegitimate births.
In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein & Murray suggest that having more than 25% of its children children out of wedlock is an almost certain sign of social dysfunction for any group of people, black or otherwise. It is strongly correlated with many things such as criminality and poor employment and is almost a certain sign that most fertile people in a community were those with the lowest IQ, low IQ being one of the best predictors of having a baby out of wedlock.
Amongst American whites, that number is nearly 30% of all children born. In blacks, it is pushing 75%. The bottom line is that smarter people need to get their shit together and start having healthy numbers of babies and raising them in stable, nuclear families. Those that can't or won't should be offered fair compensation for their voluntary sterilization.
>>75037389
To clarify, that 30% figure does not include pacos. Only non-hispanic whites.
>>75037151
>Some black people
were not talking about some black people were talking about an entire race
>Before the welfare state was established, blacks were nothing like they are today because their families were in tact
they were instituted by whites look at countries where niggers are autonomous theyre worse off than in the US with jim crow laws because its not in there nature to follow these laws
youre mistaking the effect for the cause
>>75036372
>genetically predisposed to polygamous lifestyles
Prove it. I'll admit, genetics gets sidelined as fuck in arguments because it's not PC, but at least have some basis in fact when you claim this shit.
I'll say the following: (a) It is known that blacks perform very much below other groups on intelligence tests, (b) it is unlikely that all of this is because of cultural biases, (c) some portion is due to real biological differences, (d) the greater proportion of blacks predisposed to have lower intelligence combined with shitty environment heaps more shit on the shitpile, (e) dumb people are more likely to have kids out of wedlock and do stuff that makes them disabled/be generally worse off, and (f) these are the exact kids, later Tyrones/Shaniquas who are then likely to have the most children/ be parents to an increasing share of the nation's children, who are dumb as rocks and grew up in the hood like the single mamma that popped them out.
>>75037996
>Prove it. I'll admit, genetics gets sidelined as fuck in arguments because it's not PC, but at least have some basis in fact when you claim this shit.
youre signalling the opposite of what you claimed later lad
i agree fully with >(a) It is known that blacks perform very much below other groups on intelligence tests, (b) it is unlikely that all of this is because of cultural biases, (c) some portion is due to real biological differences, (d) the greater proportion of blacks predisposed to have lower intelligence combined with shitty environment heaps more shit on the shitpile, (e) dumb people are more likely to have kids out of wedlock and do stuff that makes them disabled/be generally worse off, and (f) these are the exact kids, later Tyrones/Shaniquas who are then likely to have the most children/ be parents to an increasing share of the nation's children, who are dumb as rocks and grew up in the hood like the single mamma that popped them out.
>>75035955
It really is amazing though that in 1960, only 21% or so of black children were born out of wedlock. It's like after the Civil Rights Act was passed, they all decided Uncle Sam was the sugar daddy they always deserved, but could never pin down. State subsidization of parenthood is a fucking cancer.
>>75038357
Dunno if I understand what you're saying fully. As it stands now, the genetic basis of intelligence is unclear at the molecular level, although me know cognitive ability is ~60% heritable.
Common genetic variation also does a pretty poor job discriminating racial groups (as in, all whites would have gene form A and all blacks would have gene form B). Less than 12% of common genetic variation breaks down along these preconceived racial categories.
The argument is that this percentage is so small it is practically meaningless and a poor source to look for regarding behavioral and racial differences. I think we are going to see that this line of reasoning is mostly garbage and that that 12% or so of the genome contains some of the most controversial and interesting biology we have ever encountered, highly enriched for things related to behavior, intelligence, and climate-specific adaptation in general.
>Race has little to do with how people act
The scientific literature says otherwise ;) In fact, a person's race is the best indicator of most things.
Hmm. Hispanics didn't exist before 1990. Learn something new everyday.
>>75038457
The change among Whites is even more depressing. The moral decline of white women in particular is deeply concerning, hundreds of years of tradition chucked away.
>>75039147
>As it stands now, the genetic basis of intelligence is unclear at the molecular level
youre missing the wood for the trees lad
if cognitive ability is about 60% heritable as you say than from that follows that niggers will be influenced by their genes
>The argument is that this percentage is so small it is practically meaningless and a poor source to look for regarding behavioral and racial differences
are you arguing in favour or against that? you seem to contradict yourself
>>75039406
This is the logical consequence of giving a gold star to all the brightest white girls and telling them that if they slave away at a degree or career during their most fertile years, they might be able to have a high-risk pregnancy via IVF and a sperm donor at 35.
Intelligent women are the lifeblood of a culture's future. When you sell them a bag of self-affirming misdirections packaged as feminism, the only people having children are the garbage of society and that becomes our future.
>>75040150
Let me clarify. We don't know the specific spots in the genome that contribute to intelligence. There are likely many and we are only beginning to understand what they might be through DNA sequencing.
Our most reliable estimates of heritability are statistical and based on twins. If we want to understand the biology of intelligence, we will need to understand how that 60% number breaks down to the effects of specific genes. We are at the early stages of doing this.
I don't agree with the PC argument that the percentage of DNA that corresponds to racial categories (the fixation index score) is meaningless. On the contrary, I think that that small amount of DNA will produce some of the most politically charged science since classical eugenics.
We need more data and better science, but this is not something that is going away. SJWs can't scream and make what millions of years of Nature built go away or be anything other than what it is. Within 20 years, technology will exist that will allow doctors to sequence an embryo's DNA and make an accurate prediction of it's intelligence were it to be born and grow to a certain age, say 18 yrs.
>>75040633
i still dont get why you opposed me
>>75041007
I'm not man. I was just challenging you a bit. If you try to take the genetic argument, be prepared for educated libcucks to call you out on the fact that we don't even know what the specific genes are yet that meaningfully account for intelligence or aggression or economic choices and the like.
It will be easier to not look like an alarmist nazi when some of that information comes out, but unfortunately we don't have it yet. Be skeptical of most "gene causes behavior" research. A lot of it is statistically shoddy and not worth sticking your neck out for.
It will be better in a few years when high quality studies start to come out. Cheers.
>>75041736
ah ok dont worry im not gonna sperg out in public about statistics and the likes lad
a bit autistic though tbqhwyl
