How come every single european nation prospered by but only 1 african nation prospered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Thinking black people are dumb and valuing your own race over others is the same fucking thing.

---

It's only the same thing if you value intelligence over other traits. You're making the same logical error as my dad.

If I value heart over intelligence (and I think, like my dad, that white people are smart and black people have heart) then who is better?

Personally, I'm embarressed that I never thought of Jared Diamond's argument that we would expect (if we could find a non-biased test) that people coming from tribal cultures for longer should be more intelligent.

And math is usefull because you learn to make less logical errors. Like the one you just made :P

Okay, I think I understand your point now, you're saying it's racist to make generalizations and supremacist to value the generalizations you apply to your own race? Is that what you're arguing here?

I'd like to make sure I understand what you're trying to say rather than attack an argument I make up for you. But I guess you wouldn't know about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's only the same thing if you value intelligence over other traits. You're making the same logical error as my dad.

If I value heart over intelligence (and I think, like my dad, that white people are smart and black people have heart) then who is better?

---

I think we're getting somewhere now, what I would call racism, you would call supremacism, and what you would call racism, I would call fact. So whilst under my own definition I am not a racist, under your definition of racist, I am a racist.

I suppose the point now is, what's wrong with being racist? (under your definition of racist).

Stop dodging the question, Thatperson. What is your claim in this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Izrail, at least other oponants of my views have at least tried to argue them rather than just declare them null and void,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

How come every single european nation has prospered yet only a single african nation every propered, that being south africa. What caused this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izrail

Nonetheless, like much of Europe, Africa has many locations of economic strength, as well as burning beacons of industrial civility, i.e. modern, congested cities, from Casablanca to Harare. Have you ever been stuck in Cairo traffic? Cor blimey.

Anyway, I'd suggest spending your next tea time with some tabs open on Angola and Morocco for starters. Check out the IMF's 2010 list of countries by real GDP growth rate, too.

---

Your OP expresses a juvenile claim with zero support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

you seem to think my argument has been dismantled,

---

Despite how tiny my examples of Africa's prosperity have been, nothing more is needed to eliminate your claim. This goes without mentioning the more elaborate posts in the thread from other users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

who on earth are you to be the supreme judge of when my argument is defeated, that is for each individual to judge based on their own opinions of the points argued :roll:

---

Judging? For what else am I here? But in all seriousness, I think there is mutual agreement among other posters in this thread that your claim is baseless. To why they continue to post surpasses me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I think you are in the minority, even on dreamviews in not believing race exists.

---

Then, to the mattresses, I presume?

Edit: dreamviews.com/f36/humans-vary-biologically-but-race-social-construct-127333/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

you claim white people are inferior to mixed-race people, flower analogy or not, you are a racist. Infact, you are a supremacist. You can't go around making Racist statements and then call me a racist.

---

A mixed-race person isn't a type of race, thus why they are a mixed race. So if its not a race, how is it racist? Recognizing the genetic strength interacial mingling is to honor each race as equally meaningful. Its not anti-white, its not anti-black, its pro-white, pro-black, pro-brown, pro-golden and pink.

And im really tired of this word race, theres only one human race guys - the term you want to use is ethnicity!

.. But Racist is so much easier to say than Ethinicisist! :cheeky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

And math is usefull because you learn to make less logical errors. Like the one you just made :P

---

Well it's not so much that math makes you commit less logical errors, just that the philosophy behind math; the playing out of logical inferences makes you less likely to commit logical errors.

Interesting discussion though.

I dislike Jarod Diamond. He is like the tween rage of history. All the neophytes read his work without a background in the philosophy of history and think "Oh wow! So that's how it is!" Determinism is dead people.

It is better to correct logical errors through practice and open observation rather than assuming you're right about everything because you read a math book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It is better to correct logical errors through practice and open observation rather than assuming you're right about everything because you read a math book.

---

Math and logic is a priori.

I think I'll offer my two cents and lay down a few things I learned about Africa. One thing that must always be considered is to look at the facts and consider all the possibilities!

An unrelated example is, during the SOPA and PIPA fiasco, just because major gaming corporations withdrew their support for the bill doesn’t mean they had a “moment of enlightenment” with their conscious, rather, their “moment of enlightenment” involved their wallets and the stark realization that siding with something the public hates is probably not going to result in happy, supportive customers. But corporate shenanigans aside, this is about Africa!

First off, the arid conditions in Northern Africa certainly won’t yield as many crops as the more seasonal conditions in Europe. As a result, staying in one place early on was difficult. Even today, the lack of water throughout Northern Africa is a problem. The reason for Egypt’s success early on, was the Nile River which flooded and brought rich soil down from it’s long travels. Starve a group of people for food, then offer them a few scraps, and you’ll see why the scarcity of water led to a some-what politically unstable environment.

That doesn’t mean all African nations were politically unstable. The three empires, Ghana then Mali then Songhai empires, had controlled and taxed the Trans-Saharan trade which earned them enough wealth to continue operating a standard government. The Songhai Empire even had educational facilities and lasted from about the 14th century, near to the end of the 15th century. At this time period in Europe, feudalism was barely starting to decline. Why does that matter? Because feudalism is bad in terms of wealth distribution, you have a bunch of “kings” using surfs who have to sacrifice their hard-earn food just to live on the land.

So when looking at Africa as a whole and dismissing it as always having a stagnant culture and industry is blatantly inaccurate. That’s 54 countries you are dismissing that exist now without even doing the most basic research on them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And though, those countries are encountering tough times, it’s not like Europe hasn’t had it’s fair share either.

It's interesting that I'm the only one who mentioned diamonds. Nobody thinks that had anything to do with it?

It goes into what other people have said. Africa's major resources like diamonds are valuable to other cultures which advanced quicker, while Africa did not have the vital resources to advance at the same rate as other societies, or at least in the same way. Because of this, the continent was ripe for exploitation.

Yeah but they got money for it, which was why South Africa (some parts) advanced.

The people that made money were the ones either already from advanced cultures that understood the market, or overseers appointed by the colonizing force.

No Africans got money?
That's a horribly naive view of the situation.
Many of the militants (can't even think of the right word right now, tired) made/are making a lot of money right now.

How did you get "no africans made money" from that? All I was trying to say was the original african power brokers over diamonds were appointed to their positions by whites. Since then, many military leaders have risen to understand the market, but the whites had a head start and most military leaders were rebelling against either whites or white-friendly african factions.

.... I'm tired. And now drunk too. lol
I'm assuming by advanced cultures you mean white people. Which would mean not Africans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I dislike Jarod Diamond. He is like the tween rage of history. All the neophytes read his work without a background in the philosophy of history and think "Oh wow! So that's how it is!" Determinism is dead people.

---

But none of that matters. Here we have an actual evolutionary biologist actually studying the actual animal which is supposedly the actual object of history, i.e. the stupid, hairy monkey homo sapiens.

All the theorizing about "Philosophy of History" and most attempts at a unified theory of history end up in that same old tired trap of the humanities: Studying the Magic Monkey That Lives at The Center Of The Universe. This monkey can domesticate any animal it sees. This monkey is master of its environemnt. This animal is shaped by nothing but its own iron will. This animal doesn't actually exist.

If you want to study mythical creatures, that's fine. Just don't confuse it with the real thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It is better to correct logical errors through practice and open observation rather than assuming you're right about everything because you read a math book.

---

This is the same problem all you math-phobic people make.

I do not believe much because I read it in books when it comes to math. I solved the problems. I read and wrote the proofs. I found careless mistakes in proofs in books because I read them critically, demanding to be convinced. I had them checked by real mathematicians and honed my sense of a correct and incorrect proof. I worked and it's mine.

You could drop me off on a desert island with the integers and a pen and paper and I could completely develop the integral and differential calculus of however many variables from scratch. No books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

You could drop me off on a desert island with the integers and a pen and paper and I could completely develop the integral and differential calculus of however many variables from scratch. No books.

---

And then promptly starve to death. Math won't save you then!

Math has never saved me from anything in my life other than getting laid...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

But none of that matters. Here we have an actual evolutionary biologist actually studying the actual animal which is supposedly the actual object of history, i.e. the stupid, hairy monkey homo sapiens.

All the theorizing about "Philosophy of History" and most attempts at a unified theory of history end up in that same old tired trap of the humanities: Studying the Magic Monkey That Lives at The Center Of The Universe. This monkey can domesticate any animal it sees. This monkey is master of its environemnt. This animal is shaped by nothing but its own iron will. This animal doesn't actually exist.

If you want to study mythical creatures, that's fine. Just don't confuse it with the real thing.



This is the same problem all you math-phobic people make.

I do not believe much because I read it in books when it comes to math. I solved the problems. I read and wrote the proofs. I found careless mistakes in proofs in books because I read them critically, demanding to be convinced. I had them checked by real mathematicians and honed my sense of a correct and incorrect proof. I worked and it's mine.

You could drop me off on a desert island with the integers and a pen and paper and I could completely develop the integral and differential calculus of however many variables from scratch. No books.

---

I'm not math-phobic just because I believe wisdom does not emerge solely from logic, nor that logic emerges solely from understanding math

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'm not math-phobic just because I believe wisdom does not emerge solely from logic

---

...

Statements like this one arouse in me a desire to apologize to anything.

(What else does the soundness of wisdom denote but logic? Plus, math is everywhen.)

Logic is not the sole source of wisdom nor is math "everwhere" other than in the rationalists mind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Logic is not the sole source of wisdom

---

Do experience and knowledge amount to any wisdom without a foreground of logic? Isn't this what separates man from beast?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

nor is math "everwhere" other than in the rationalists mind

---

Affirmative. As any science, math is also a symptom of humankind. Still, even without any of our modes of abstract representation, it would appear we live in a rather precise (thus, mathematical) clockwork universe undeniably governed by physical law.