Why /pol and hates Aboriginals?

Why /pol and hates Aboriginals?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bBIubgsfK8E
youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0NcaxmGHo
youtube.com/watch?v=DM9cV1fF518
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

because they are non human

...

I don't hate them, just like I don't hate baboons.
I'm just not stupid enough to think they're human

>this cherrypick
And why isn't the Swedish woman wearing a hijab?

>not the same
they can reproduce together, can't they?

>tfw abo

when I was in an Australian park I threw my frisbee to one as a sign of friendship.

Little cunt ran away with it. These little shits are living on the taxes paid by hardworking whites and do nothing but cause trouble.

Nah mate, they're both women.

Something something cannibalism.

I don understand why people say they're not human when it's common knowledge that they can reproduce with Caucasians. Obviously race exists and you'd be blind not to see it, it doesn't mean they're completely different species.

...

They are annoying as fuck and most of them are no-good trouble makers but honestly there just isnt enough of them around for them to be a major inconvenience as most of them got wiped out. Also they mostly live outback in the rural towns, which is of course a good thing.

it bashed my friend back in yr11 cause he had a camera (photo class) and thought he was taking a photo of him.

I love abbos. They're so un-evolved that they don't kill us like Achmeds and niggers. They just sniff petrol.

Because they are literally the worst race on earth. Not even gypsies are as bad as they are.

Some random French tourist just got stabbed in the neck by an Abo.

>Live peacefully on a cozy continent
>Fucking prisioners come and fuck you to the fucking desert

Worst race is Brazilians and don't you ever forget that

We don't hate them. Mostly we just feel bad for them.

>it doesn't mean they're completely different species.

I'm on the fence on that one.

They really testing the limits.

Also, think of it like dogs - Technically the same species, but many breeds can't interbreed with each other. Doesn't not make them the same species.

Well, this is the reverse.

>Live peacefully

I feel bad for our Abo's bro's, but that's a wild misrepresentation.

Plus, while I feel bad for them, I don't trust them anymore than I trust a pit bull. They'll do some horrific shit to you if they get you alone and are drunk/methed out enough.

this

I don't hate them. I just question their humanity.

...

>implying this makes them the same species
There are plenty of animals out there that can interbreed and create viable offspring even though they're different species.

Saw a thread on le reddit ( I know, fag ) where someone asked if Abos were homo sapiens, and he got fucking pummeled by racist labels and people were flabbergasted that he would even dare to ask such a question.

Why are people in such cognitive dissonance over racial differences?
It's not because species are (less evolved) as some would put it, but they just evolved differently.

It's clear as fucking day that Abos didn't follow the rest of the worlds evolutionary curve, considering they've been cut off from the rest of the world for thousands of years.

They've been hunting with sticks and setting fire to everything for 40.000 years, so it's clear that they didn't require to evolve more intelligent infrastructure and hunting methods, leaving them in a state we also were in 40.000 years ago.

Should still be classed as fauna because they aren't the same species as us.
Also they are degenerate culturally and well, in general.

obligatory

Abos are smarter than white people

they believe that everything they do is work of holy spirit

youtube.com/watch?v=bBIubgsfK8E (do not skip, watch entire video)

youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0NcaxmGHo

they are the niggest of all the niggers

this is a cherrypick but the implication that the possibility of breeding makes two species the same is incredibly retarded
youtube.com/watch?v=DM9cV1fF518
I guess tigers and lions are now the same species...

Sounds progressive

Because they're barely human and are about as intelligent as turnips

i smell abo blood

That's alarming.

Can't other homo sapiens reproduce with them though?

Also it's just isolation. Practically every civilization and technology has been learned from other people or through diffusion. Look at writing, where the Chinese maybe are the only ones who invented it independently. But even here some think they heard or saw writing and invented their own after getting the idea. Same thing with sub Saharan Africa and large swaths of the Americas. I mean even the central Asian plains would be Zimbabwe if it wasn't for Mr. Khan.

i smell bullshit

I dont. I want abbos to fix their shit for the benefit of everyone. Problem is, liberals telling them "its the white mans fault" and excusing anything they do, doesnt fix shit.

>where the Chinese maybe are the only ones who invented it independently.
So how did Sumeria invent it?
Where do Egyptians get it from?

They aren't the only ones to do it independently. Many did.

literally not human

...

But most of the world actually have been connected.
Trade, exploring, etc.
Australia was pretty much left untouched by foreigners.

They are homo sapiens, since that evolvement began about 200.000 years ago! They are just a different evolvement of them. It's not like there is a genetic block that says you can only have children with your own classification, humans were able to have children with Neanderthals most recently, and they are by far more genetically different than Aboriginals are.

It's like if you travelled back 50.000 years and had sex with a female homo sapiens, you would still be able to have children with that species, because 50.000 years in evolutionary terms aren't actually that long.

The difference between aboriginals and the rest of the world, is that the aboriginals have been in a perpetual state of not having to adapt in those 50.000 years.

That's just it contact diffusion. One group invented it Sumeria who also had the most time to and Egyptians saw and heard of writing and made their own. Cherokees did the same thing in relatively recent times. It's a debate if China developed it independently or they learned of it from the fertile crescent and made their own version. So only Sumeria did it completely from scratch (by the way we're not sure where Sumerians are from) and maybe China. Egyptians got the idea from the ME

So that's at most two inventions at least one independent invention of writing.

A similar debate exists when it comes to iron production.

>I mean even the central Asian plains would be Zimbabwe if it wasn't for Mr. Khan
>comparing nomads with african civilizations
kek
nomads have an excuse for no technological development

You misunderstand what I was saying. You said the chinese are the only people to invent in independently. Sumeria and Egypt had writing at about the same time so we don't know who was first. So my question was if the chinese are the only people to invent it independently where did they get it from in the west?
Did the Chinese give it to them? The chinese were in Iraq?
So AT LEAST two different people invented it independently.

>they are by far more genetically different than Aboriginals are.
Can you give a good source or argument for that?

I've heard people claim that health problems with different blood types and stuff like that proves there is some specie differentiation but never that aboriginals are more different than neanderthals. And they did adapt. They made a bunch of huge mammals extinct and had to change their lifestyle completely. Hunting and gathering was very challenging although of course it doesn't encourage our minds and help culture like city life.

Actually that aboriginals could get to Australia is one of the first big achievements of homo sapiens

...

Homo sapiens could reproduce with Homo neanderthalensis, yet they were different species.

Well Africans did make a few civilizations but they were all inferior to Mediterranean civilizations because it was all independent. Just look at how strange the Native American civilizations were.

No I meant to say at most writing was invented twice if not once. Once in Sumeria or Egypt and once maybe in China. The Chinese may have learned about writing and made their own. Some think it's unlikely but even if they did writing was made twice. It's interesting the Chinese made their writing system way faster than the Sumerians though

Ahh yes. The Great Australian Ape.

>No I meant to say at most writing was invented twice if not once. Once in Sumeria or Egypt and once maybe in China. The Chinese may have learned about writing and made their own. Some think it's unlikely but even if they did writing was made twice. It's interesting the Chinese made their writing system way faster than the Sumerians though
Right. I'm not arguing with you on this.
Just that you said Chinese were the only ones to develop it independent. It was a non-sense statement.

Anyway, what's your opinion on Indus-Valley writing? Is it not actually a writing system? Was it independently developed?

Sure but I was under the impression that reproduction between us and them wasn't always successful and came with health problems. Am I wrong?

Well I'm sorry for not being entirely clear. I would say that that system like early Sumerian writing and Aztec inscriptions shouldn't be considered writing properly. You have to have context to understand it whereas in proper writing like Chinese and Sumerian you can read it with knowledge of the script and spoken language.

It's like drawing three clouds and a tree and saying it means three rains on a forest. It could also mean three clouds over one tree or one cloud moved next to a tree. At some point it can become writing but at that point it isn't. Sumerians had this stage for a while and progressed into writing which was still very complicated. Chinese was faster and more streamlined but still complicated compared to syllabaries and alphabets.

The Africans are capable of complex language, culture and civilization. Blacks are not homogeneous groups of people. Certain ethnic groups of negros are superior to others. Abbos are just foaming at the mouth retarded. I would like to accept that these beings are homk sapiens but so much evidently inferior and oblong in comparison to all other human groups.

Well Africans are pretty diverse genetically because of how long they were there but even here we see Ethiopians and North Africans way more developed than the interior. Ie. being close to civilization helps. You get anamolies like the Kongo civilization which seems to be mostly independent and West Africa had some cities too.

If you say aboriginals are genetically inferior, you'd have to say that Dravidians or the really dark southern Indians are inferior too. But they had the Indus valley civilization and more of a history of civilization (albeiy after Aryan invaders). Some argue Sumerians were Dravidians although that is too hard to tell

>Sure but I was under the impression that reproduction between us and them wasn't always successful and came with health problems. Am I wrong?
Sorta. It's believed that either Human males with neanderthal females produced viable offspring or the reverse. I don't remember which.
All I remember is that one combination is believed to have resulted in infertile children. Or, rather, had a higher incidence of it.
But the other option was that depending on who fathered the child that determined who it went with - the human clan or the neanderthal, and this would impact its survival and its availability to modern anthropologists.

> I would say that that system like early Sumerian writing and Aztec inscriptions shouldn't be considered writing properly
Well now we have to get into philosophy. At what point is a language a language.
I do agree that (very) early sumerian writing is not writing though.
>Chinese was faster and more streamlined but still complicated compared to syllabaries and alphabets.
You're failing to account for some things. MENA was constantly at war and the desert came in consumed good land. There could be a lot of lost historical records out in what wasn't always the desert.

>MENA was constantly at war and the desert came in consumed good land. There could be a lot of lost historical records out in what wasn't always the desert.
How does the first statement relate to the second? I get you're saying paper is more likely to be preserved in dry climates but what do you mean about war?

In terms of writing systems, if you can read it and understand without context it's a written system. It's a process so you can be somewhere along it as we see with the fertile crescent. Language being language is another conversation since spoken language was another process in itself.

And aboriginals as far as I know don't have these issues when breeding with other homo sapiens so they are much more like us than Neanderthals. Besides it's not clear how different we'd be if we tried mating with neanderthals now if they existed or we could somehow time travel. We might be too different where as this time didn't mess with aboriginal non aboriginal mating. Are there health problems with this kind of intermixing?

> I get you're saying paper is more likely to be preserved in dry
No, I was saying that there are lost cities and with them lost documents.
Where is Akkad? The capital of the Akkadian Empire? Who the fuck knows.
Paper also doesn't preserve too well. Luckily tablets do. Dry conditions is its best bet but nevertheless not to good.
> but what do you mean about war?
It's destructive. Things get lost.
>And aboriginals as far as I know don't have these issues when breeding with other homo sapiens so they are much more like us than Neanderthals.
There are some issues with interracial breeding but they haven't been studied well. This isn't limited to aboriginals either. There is a higher incidence of mental issues with White-Asian mixes. But then again, that was only one study. And the results weren't replicated well.

No one will fund a study of interracial couples because it's unpopular. It's like IQ with race studies.

>Why /pol and hates Aboriginals?
I don't particularly. Ausfags do seem to though.

Our version are called knackers/tinkers (pic related).

I'm skeptical of all these ideas that miscegenation results in problems just because there isn't a clear demarcation in races. Sure there's a difference between American whites and Han Chinese but Ethiopians are really different than pygmies, Germans are more related to French. It's not cut and dry. Of course it's worth investigating. Though it's hard because people are sensitive about it.

Same thing with IQ and race studies. IQ measures a certain type of intelligence and many Africans for example know many different languages. People with better education would do better.

>I'm skeptical of all these ideas that miscegenation results in problems just because there isn't a clear demarcation in races. Sure there's a difference between American whites and Han Chinese but Ethiopians are really different than pygmies, Germans are more related to French. It's not cut and dry. Of course it's worth investigating. Though it's hard because people are sensitive about it.
Well, yeah, there's a lot of variables at play.
>. IQ measures a certain type of intelligence and many Africans for example know many different languages.
Not quite sure of your point here.

...

The name Ogham is pronounced [ˈoːm] or [ˈoːəm] in Modern Irish, and it was spelt ogam and pronounced [ˈɔɣam] in Old Irish. Its origins are uncertain: it might be named after the Irish god Ogma, or after the Irish phrase og-úaim (point-seam), which refers to the seam made by the point of a sharp weapon.

Nice tally marks, paddy.

We don't hate the abbos. We hate the liberal whites who force us to waste millions of dollars on the abbos just to make themselves feel moral.

Well my point is there are issues with using IQ as a measure of intelligence so, for example, saying blacks are genetically less intelligent based on IQ scores is a problem. I mean say we measured intelligence by number of languages known. People in Europe, Africa and parts of Asia would be considered the most intelligent and Americans would be considered inferior genetically (whereas Americans are just inferior culturally)

It would be interesting if they would do controversial tests about race and intelligence though

IQ does not measure intelligence. And you can accomplish great things with a low IQ.
Look at Feynman. One of the greatest physicists ever - couldn't join mensa.
But his IQ was above average.
> (whereas Americans are just inferior culturally)
Speak for yourself. NY IQ is 101.