Alright, so I have been visiting and posting on totse for some time now, and something i've never really been able to understand is why people are so racist on this site? I mean, I understand racial and cultural jokes because all humour is basically based on cruelity. But for the people who actually hate a whole race of people for simply how they look... i cannot understand this sort of mentality. Do you actually just stereotype people because of their physical appereance without actually knowing them? Why do you hate people that aren't of caucasian heritage? I'm actually curious and hoping for a serious reply, rather then just assuming all racists are uninformed, idiots.

I hope some of you can cure my curiosity. Thanks.

The internet racism largely stems from anonimity (sp?).

I don't hate black people. I just hate niggers, the loud, obnoxious, scummy types. Unfortunately, niggers greatly outnumber decent black people.

No one on totse is really racist, it's just fun to pretend to be as everyone on this website is so retarded. People are always so quick to call troll here but no one ever actually shuts the fuck up and puts anyone on their ignore list when they see obvious racists posts submitted for humor/trolling. Sometimes I wonder, and I am very serious when I say that I think about the possibility that people who actually try and argue with the racialists here are actually sock puppets or this website is some sort of drama rehearsal portal that I was never informed about. That or they really are foolish enough to believe that anything on this website matters.

Being racist is cool on teh interwebs. I think that a vast majority of people do it to be funny, and really aren't racist.

The internet racism largely stems from anonimity (sp?).

I don't hate black people. I just hate niggers, the loud, obnoxious, scummy types. Unfortunately, niggers greatly outnumber decent black people.

Okay, but from these so called 'niggers'(which i'm guessing are the black people acting like gangstars), how do you know that everyone of them is 'scum'. Because i know you determine someone a 'nigger' once you see how they dress and how they speak... but you never got to know 9/10 of them... therefor never really knowing if they are good or bad people.

I mean, i'm not black, but am coloured... and have went through racism on both sides(with my so called 'people') and with the people in the west... and everyone always seems to have justification behind their racist logic... but being racist is simply judging someones personality based on how they look. The racist mentality is the same one that is applied to people with long hair as being 'dirty hippies'.

And this is not just between black people and white... i mean, arab, asian, hispanic... you name it. Everyone is so quick to call people 'dirty sandniggers' or spics... and i can't understand why.

I would not be so quick to assume that people are racist because they do not like the superficial appearance of others. That may be true for your average shitman, such as the recent terror in the hearts of white people in the USA simply because they are not willing to look at a black man as their superior, but for actual racialists nothing could be further from the truth. Generally all of the racialists I have met dislike and want to live segregated from other races because of behavioral and cultural differences between them. I really doubt the world has hated Jews since their existence because of their comic noses and their curly hair. White supremacists want to segregate themselves from blacks because of crime rates and things of that matter.

it mostly stems from looking different. sure the change cultural norms and other what-nots' - but it still shapes itself from "being different" than the other race.

and the being different - it comes from the basic fact that not all people are equal. knowing this and the fact that there are "others" who may or may not be equal (maybe even fearfully superior), most racists wish to rise above and become the mighty advantaged rather than the puny disadvantaged. i.e. white person looking for superiority calls the black person a "nigger" to degrade any sense of equality between the two. the opposite could also happen, and works for any race against another race - "that race is inferior to "me" and my "race" because they have..."list of differences" and are therefore worthless."

it mostly stems from looking different.

No it does not you idiot, it stems from negative interaction with other races be it losing a job via affirmative action, getting your cracker ass beat down by a black man with strenf, crime rates, cultural differences be it rap music VS. whatever Asians listen to, being raised by racist parents etc.

I guess I am racist because of the impression that a large number of races give me my opinion of that race.

No it does not you idiot, it stems from negative interaction with other races be it losing a job via affirmative action, getting your cracker ass beat down by a black man with strenf, crime rates, cultural differences be it rap music VS. whatever Asians listen to, being raised by racist parents etc.

and where do you think all of these "cultural differences" came from? perhaps from, oh i dunno...maybe the races being, different? or viewed as different by others? :rolleyes:

Yeah that's exactly what I just fucking said, you are insinuating that it is because of their superficial makeup, that is clearly wrong.

Yeah that's exactly what I just fucking said, you are insinuating that it is because of their superficial makeup, that is clearly wrong.
and their "cultural differences" wouldn't include something such as, skin color? what is the first thing a person notices about someone? their racial makeup based upon, for the most part, the color of their skin. following that is everything you have pointed out, the stereotypical.

let me give you an example so you can wrap your mind around this because clearly me just stating it does not help you at all:

we are going to assume that you know nothing about cultural stereotypes and that you have never met a person whom was not of the same race as you. one day, you encounter a person whom you have never met and is not apart of your usual group. i'm not going to try to tell which skin color "you" are, but let's just say that this persons skin color is different. immediately, that person is placed outside of your race, besides the normal "outsider" role that this person takes on. this person, he is different from you, because he looks different than you.

from here, it's all up to how people interact. they know they are from different groups, and whether it be hatred or love, it's all fair game from there. however, it is the distinction between looks - and most historically-the color of a persons skin-which leads to racism.

im not actually racist, but love racist jokes.


though it is understandable when you hate certain individuals for their actions (say, their tendency to commit crimes, or their ineptitude at the english language). after a while, if you find that most of these people belong to a certain ethnic group. a stereotype would understandably be formed in their heads

and their "cultural differences" wouldn't include something such as, skin color?

No, that is a racial difference, there are plenty of dark skinned Europeans and light skinned Europeans living amongst one another in the same nation, Spain is a good example.

what is the first thing a person notices about someone? their racial makeup based upon, for the most part, the color of their skin. following that is everything you have pointed out, the stereotypical.

Do you have any evidence to back that up other than your own disturbed, vain psyche?






we are going to assume that you know nothing about cultural stereotypes and that you have never met a person whom was not of the same race as you. one day, you encounter a person whom you have never met and is not apart of your usual group. i'm not going to try to tell which skin color "you" are, but let's just say that this persons skin color is different. immediately, that person is placed outside of your race, besides the normal "outsider" role that this person takes on. this person, he is different from you, because he looks different than you.

Wonderful! More narcissistic projection from your superficial ass. Believe it or not, not everyone thinks like you.

from here, it's all up to how people interact. they know they are from different groups, and whether it be hatred or love, it's all fair game from there. however, it is the distinction between looks - and most historically-the color of a persons skin-which leads to racism.

That's kind of funny, I could have sworn that historically one of the most virulently racists regimes befriended and fought with people of another race simply because of they shared cultural endeavors. Were the Japanese not considered honorary Aryans at one point? It is cultural differences, not superficial appearances that fuel racism. No one is affected by someone's looks, if someone sees a hook nosed Jew and thinks "kike" that is because they have experienced some sort of wrongdoing at the hands of Jews. No healthy human is offended by someone's facial features.

No, that is a racial difference, there are plenty of dark skinned Europeans and light skinned Europeans living amongst one another in the same nation, Spain is a good example.



Do you have any evidence to back that up other than your own disturbed, vain psyche?



Wonderful! More narcissistic projection from your superficial ass. Believe it or not, not everyone thinks like you.



That's kind of funny, I could have sworn that historically one of the most virulently racists regimes befriended and fought with people of another race simply because of they shared cultural endeavors. Were the Japanese not considered honorary Aryans at one point? It is cultural differences, not superficial appearances that fuel racism. No one is affected by someone's looks, if someone sees a hook nosed Jew and thinks "kike" that is because they have experienced some sort of wrongdoing at the hands of Jews. No healthy human is offended by someone's facial features.
so your rebuttal is that "not everyone thinks like i do", and races sometimes get along?

you just don't get it. and no amount of text and information is going to help you. so i'm going to try to put this as simply as possible...

racial differences > cultural differences > cultural egoism/racism or humanitarianism

On this place I would say Anonymity and also that totse's a place where you can relax and usually not worry about all of that political correctness faggotry that can make day to day activities about as delicate as walking on eggshells.

I myself am not really racist, or do Not consider myself one. I use words like Spic, nigger, beaner, kike, dirty*insert race*, chink and many many other racial slurs. But I don't know use them for every black, mex or whatever race im calling them. I use racial slurs when someone does something to piss me off, if its a black dude, normally I say "Fucking stupid nigger", if its a mexican"stupid spic bitch", if its a chick I say "Stupid fucking cunt". Why do I use these very offensive terms? Because they are just that VERY offensive, if you piss me off I am going to say the thing to piss oyu off the most.

As far as the actual hate part of racism, I don't hate anyone just for their skin color. I will admit if I see and hear someone that sounds like a nigger(niggers=the loud, obnoxious, scummy, self destructing, stupid people any color of skin), then I assume they are a nigger. They say don't judge a book by its cover but they do say if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck and tastes like a duck its probaly a duck, so same thing goes with scummy people. If someone dresses "gangster" talks the retard gangster language and acts like the retard nigger gangster type then its safe to assume they probably one. Just as if you see a clean cut, buisness suit wearing proper english speaking person(whether white black or asian), then you would assume they are probably Professional and "civil".

I don't hate people for the color of their skin I hate them for the way they act and such. I've met many blacks, whites, mexicans, asians, and such that are great people, and i've also met many of each of those races that are fucking retard ignorant peices of shit.

Alright, so I have been visiting and posting on totse for some time now, and something i've never really been able to understand is why people are so racist on this site? I mean, I understand racial and cultural jokes because all humour is basically based on cruelity. But for the people who actually hate a whole race of people for simply how they look... i cannot understand this sort of mentality. Do you actually just stereotype people because of their physical appereance without actually knowing them? Why do you hate people that aren't of caucasian heritage? I'm actually curious and hoping for a serious reply, rather then just assuming all racists are uninformed, idiots.

I hope some of you can cure my curiosity. Thanks.

There is no one reason why people are racist. My main reason for racism is that I don't believe Multiculturalism is beneficial and has no significant redeeming qualities.

Races should live among their own and it would reduce a lot of the worlds problems.

^^^What if you started to see everyone as human... rather then breaking them down into races.... I mean we all have eyes, ears, noses.. we all want the same things out of life(relatively). I mean honestly, I've been to a number of different countries in my day and have seen all sorts of different cultures in different surroundings... and I can assure you, we all want basically the same thing. Peace, happiness, safety.


I'm probably just being idealistic though..

^^^What if you started to see everyone as human... rather then breaking them down into races.... I mean we all have eyes, ears, noses.. we all want the same things out of life(relatively). I mean honestly, I've been to a number of different countries in my day and have seen all sorts of different cultures in different surroundings... and I can assure you, we all want basically the same thing. Peace, happiness, safety.


I'm probably just being idealistic though..

Why don't we just pretend faeries exist as well.

At its core, it is based on the human tendency to have an in-group bias. If you separate people into arbitrary groups (A, B, A, B, etc.), they'll favor their group more than the other. So, when you have something highly obvious like skin color, you're naturally going to get people that not only favor their group, but become convinced that they are better than other groups. If everyone had European traits, you'd have morons claiming that skinny people were superior to fat people (or vice versa), or that tall people were superior to short people.

As with all delusions, it stems from poor critical thinking skills.

People already argue that tall people are superior to short people, and that skinny people are superior to fat people. This is not because of in-group bias, this is because of reality. You won't find many fatasses arguing that it's superior to be fat, nor will you meet many short people who do not desire to be tall.

People already argue that tall people are superior to short people, and that skinny people are superior to fat people. This is not because of in-group bias, this is because of reality. You won't find many fatasses arguing that it's superior to be fat, nor will you meet many short people who do not desire to be tall.

Tall people would be at a disadvantage in a society of short people, just as a short person would be at a disadvantage in a society of tall people. Giving that being too skinny and too fat are both unhealthy, and that both body types can be at an advantage in different circumstances, neither side could win an argument for superiority.

Try again, stupid.

Tall people would be at a disadvantage in a society of short people, just as a short person would be at a disadvantage in a society of tall people. Giving that being too skinny and too fat are both unhealthy, and that both body types can be at an advantage in different circumstances, neither side could win an argument for superiority.

Try again, stupid.

Tall people are not at a disadvantage in any society, being taller has more advantages than being short. That's like saying blonds would be at a disadvantage in brunette societies, they are not; blonds were regarded as extremely exotic and attractive in ancient Greece which was brunette by majority. No one said anything about being too skinny. What disadvantages would tall people have in a society of short people? Ever wondered why girls are more often attracted to tall people than not?

At its core, it is based on the human tendency to have an in-group bias. If you separate people into arbitrary groups (A, B, A, B, etc.), they'll favor their group more than the other. So, when you have something highly obvious like skin color, you're naturally going to get people that not only favor their group, but become convinced that they are better than other groups. If everyone had European traits, you'd have morons claiming that skinny people were superior to fat people (or vice versa), or that tall people were superior to short people.

As with all delusions, it stems from poor critical thinking skills.

As with all delusions your argument ignores history and science to support itself.
Which genocides, exactly, are you referring to when people killed off others because of their height or weight?
Thousands of years have shown Multiculturalism to be harmful, not beneficial.

Even if (and I am not even remotely agreeing with you) what you said was true the fact remains that people are still fighting over these groups and nothing in history or present is changing that fact or capable of changing that fact as long as multiculturalism exists.

You are correct that by dividing people along certain lines that some problems will still exist and others will be created but you ignore the fact that other problems, serious problems, are avoided and removed completely.

Poor critical thinking skills defines you well.

Tall people are not at a disadvantage in any society, being taller has more advantages than being short. That's like saying blonds would be at a disadvantage in brunette societies, they are not; blonds were regarded as extremely exotic and attractive in ancient Greece which was brunette by majority. No one said anything about being too skinny. What disadvantages would tall people have in a society of short people? Ever wondered why girls are more often attracted to tall people than not?

It's all about relativity. In a 6-foot tall room, a 4-foot person is at an advantage compared to a 7-foot person. In a jungle with tall trees, a long-neck giraffe has an advantage. In a jungle with low trees, a giraffe with a shorter neck has an advantage.

Attractiveness is also relative. There's nothing inherently attractive about blonde hair, and as you yourself said, it was regarded as "extremely exotic and attractive". Has it occurred to you that it was considered attractive because it was exotic? Yet again, you're demonstrating poor critical thinking skills in assuming that the attractiveness was tied to the color of the hair.

No, skinniness is not better than obesity. If you take out the health factor (ie. assuming that the person is neither too fat, nor too skinny), then both body types have advantages in different settings, and both are considered desirable traits depending on who you ask.

Keep laying on the idiocy.

As with all delusions your argument ignores history and science to support itself.
Which genocides, exactly, are you referring to when people killed off others because of their height or weight?

Learn to read? My point was that if our so-called "races" didn't exist, people would find another way to divide themselves and discriminate.

Even if (and I am not even remotely agreeing with you) what you said was true

It's not a matter of agreement. It's a fact that his been repeatedly tested and shown to be true.


the fact remains that people are still fighting over these groups and nothing in history or present is changing that fact or capable of changing that fact as long as multiculturalism exists.


So, even though people are capable of being raised to not be bigoted morons, you would rather just remain stupid?

Attractiveness is also relative. There's nothing inherently attractive about blonde hair, and as you yourself said, it was regarded as "extremely exotic and attractive". Has it occurred to you that it was considered attractive because it was exotic? Yet again, you're demonstrating poor critical thinking skills in assuming that the attractiveness was tied to the color of the hair.

No, skinniness is not better than obesity. If you take out the health factor (ie. assuming that the person is neither too fat, nor too skinny), then both body types have advantages in different settings, and both are considered desirable traits depending on who you ask.

Keep laying on the idiocy.

Attractiveness isn't relative, idiot. Perhaps you should actually read studies before you talk about something. There are specific features we instinctively find attractive.
Interestingly enough one of those features happens to be weight.

Keep laying on the idiocy.

Learn to read? My point was that if our so-called "races" didn't exist, people would find another way to divide themselves and discriminate.

Do you realize how stupid you sound. If people were going to discriminate on any feature they would do it with or without the presence of differing races.
You're entire illogical and idiotic argument assumes that if you remove races people will intentionally find ways to discriminate against others.
You're a fucking moron, get used to me teaching you logic.



It's not a matter of agreement. It's a fact that his been repeatedly tested and shown to be true.

What is a fact that has been repeatedly tested and shown to be true? Show me the tests. If they have been "repeatedly" done you should have no problem finding a few of them.


So, even though people are capable of being raised to not be bigoted morons, you would rather just remain stupid?

Raising people to have opinions is not the same as raising them to have the facts.
By the way, I was raised to not be a bigot. So you're attempt at trying to point out that people can be raised to never be bigots is wrong and I, and many many others, am proof of that.
Nice try though.

It's all about relativity. In a 6-foot tall room, a 4-foot person is at an advantage compared to a 7-foot person. In a jungle with tall trees, a long-neck giraffe has an advantage. In a jungle with low trees, a giraffe with a shorter neck has an advantage.

Okay giraffes aren't even comparable as they cannot alter nature as man can. You are comparing people with dwarfism to people who are seven feet tall, both extreme rarities. In a society where the average height is five foot three, such as say, Japan, a six foot one male has no problem getting around. And I'd like to add that simply being uncomfortable is not a disadvantage, it's an inconvenience; you said that tall people would be disadvantaged in a society and vice versa, which means they would be discriminated against which is not the case and is honestly one of the most retarded motherfucking things I have ever read on this thread. Tall men will never be at a disadvantage to short men, although the opposite can be said for women that is because innate attractiveness DOES exist. No one wants a woman taller than them because being tall is more intimidating than being short, a more masculine quality; longer limbs weigh more which means more force behind a blow, taller people are naturally stronger as they weigh more and gravity takes a larger toll on their muscles. Being short will never be advantageous to being tall, unless you are a gibbon or a chimpanzee.

Attractiveness is also relative. There's nothing inherently attractive about blonde hair, and as you yourself said, it was regarded as "extremely exotic and attractive". Has it occurred to you that it was considered attractive because it was exotic? Yet again, you're demonstrating poor critical thinking skills in assuming that the attractiveness was tied to the color of the hair.


I agree beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I simply used Greeks as an example and yes I was getting at the fact that because they were exotic; a minority, they were lusted after. You said that minorities will always be at a disadvantage, that is clearly not the case.

No, skinniness is not better than obesity. If you take out the health factor (ie. assuming that the person is neither too fat, nor too skinny), then both body types have advantages in different settings, and both are considered desirable traits depending on who you ask.

Low bodyfat is better than obesity as obese people are far more prone to health problems than people with lower bodyfat. Obesity is also tied in with numerous mental health complications, at least in a society as overfeminized as the west.

Okay giraffes aren't even comparable as they cannot alter nature as man can. You are comparing people with dwarfism to people who are seven feet tall, both extreme rarities. In a society where the average height is five foot three, such as say, Japan, a six foot one male has no problem getting around. And I'd like to add that simply being uncomfortable is not a disadvantage, it's an inconvenience; you said that tall people would be disadvantaged in a society and vice versa, which means they would be discriminated against which is not the case and is honestly one of the most retarded motherfucking things I have ever read on this thread. Tall men will never be at a disadvantage to short men, although the opposite can be said for women that is because innate attractiveness DOES exist. No one wants a woman taller than them because being tall is more intimidating than being short, a more masculine quality; longer limbs weigh more which means more force behind a blow, taller people are naturally stronger as they weigh more and gravity takes a larger toll on their muscles. Being short will never be advantageous to being tall, unless you are a gibbon or a chimpanzee.



The extremes I presented in no way hurt my point. If you put a 6-foot man in a 5-foot room, the same problem would exist. Discomfort is undoubtedly a disadvantage, as it leads to poor functioning and in the long term, it can lead to physical problems.

As for attractiveness: Height does not magically, universally make a man seem more attractive, nor is it the end-all factor in deciding whether a man finds a mate. At best, you could say that one of two otherwise identical men MIGHT be more attractive if he was tall, but a potential reproductive advantage does not mean that someone who is tall has an invariable advantage over those who are shorter than him.

By the way, being unhealthily underweight is just as dangerous as being unhealthily overweight. The overweight guy might have hypertension and high cholesterol and die when he's 50, and the underweight person might kill themselves due to low cholesterol, or get seriously ill from their weakened immune system. If you're at the "unhealthy" level, then it's really just pointless to compare, given all of the extra factors that can come into play.

Even if you compare fat/skinny people with normal body types (ie. healthily low bodyfat), you can't win an argument for superiority. The fat person might have a higher risk of dying from high cholesterol, and yet the normal sized person might have a higher risk of dying from being more active. The skinny person might have a higher risk of malnutrition or suicide, but if trapped somewhere, they would likely be the one capable of escaping with their lives. The fat guy might have a heart attack next week, but he also would have a better shot of overpowering and killing the small guy.

Bottom line: There is no such thing as "general superiority", for superiority is only meaningful in a specific context. You're an idiot.

The extremes I presented in no way hurt my point. If you put a 6-foot man in a 5-foot room, the same problem would exist. Discomfort is undoubtedly a disadvantage, as it leads to poor functioning and in the long term, it can lead to physical problems.

Five foot rooms do not exist in living quarters. The world is not constructed for dwarfs. You are making up extreme nonexistent scenarios.


As for attractiveness: Height does not magically, universally make a man seem more attractive, nor is it the end-all factor in deciding whether a man finds a mate.

When did I say it was the end-all? Height makes a man more attractive as it is more dominant than being short.


At best, you could say that one of two otherwise identical men MIGHT be more attractive if he was tall, but a potential reproductive advantage does not mean that someone who is tall has an invariable advantage over those who are shorter than him.

Why would someone choose the lesser mate?

By the way, being unhealthily underweight is just as dangerous as being unhealthily overweight. The overweight guy might have hypertension and high cholesterol and die when he's 50, and the underweight person might kill themselves due to low cholesterol, or get seriously ill from their weakened immune system. If you're at the "unhealthy" level, then it's really just pointless to compare, given all of the extra factors that can come into play.

Yeah, notice you and I both agreed we are comparing non-extreme cases.


Even if you compare fat/skinny people with normal body types (ie. healthily low bodyfat), you can't win an argument for superiority. The fat person might have a higher risk of dying from high cholesterol, and yet the normal sized person might have a higher risk of dying from being more active. The skinny person might have a higher risk of malnutrition or suicide, but if trapped somewhere, they would likely be the one capable of escaping with their lives. The fat guy might have a heart attack next week, but he also would have a better shot of overpowering and killing the small guy.

LOL, overactive? Humans are meant to be overactive you motherly faggot. More people die every year from complications due to obesity than people die for actually getting off of their fat ass and exerting themselves. You're a piece of shit.

Attractiveness isn't relative, idiot. Perhaps you should actually read studies before you talk about something. There are specific features we instinctively find attractive.
Interestingly enough one of those features happens to be weight.

Keep laying on the idiocy.
so where is your bibliography to prove everything you are trying to say? where are your sources? where are your case studies and data?

:rolleyes:

so where is your bibliography to prove everything you are trying to say? where are your sources? where are your case studies and data?

:rolleyes:

They come from books and science quarterlies/journals. You should try reading them sometime.

Advertising, modeling, makeup companies they all follow the simple rule that attractiveness is instinctive. It's not that they try to create false perceptions of beauty just false cases of beautiful people.
The makeup and photoshopping they do is to enhance or simulate the features of their models based on what people believe is beautiful. Skin ton, age, hair quality, teeth, jaw shape and size, eyes, height, weight, etc.

The first study I read about this was in an annual editions journal but I have seen them pop up in science based magazines as well.

Five foot rooms do not exist in living quarters. The world is not constructed for dwarfs. You are making up extreme nonexistent scenarios.

The size of our homes is completely arbitrary, dumbass. If shorter (yet still "normal") people had designed smaller living quarters, then taller people would be at a disadvantage in that setting. You also cannot discount dwarves, as they are as human as anyone else. You do realize that the norm could have been dwarfism, had history been a little different, right?



LOL, overactive? Humans are meant to be overactive you motherly faggot. More people die every year from complications due to obesity than people die for actually getting off of their fat ass and exerting themselves. You're a piece of shit.

The more active you are, the higher your risk of dying from accidental causes. Car accidents, falls, being shot, and drowning are all on the top 10 list of accidental deaths in America. Being less active reduces the risks of such things, thus in some ways, it can be considered a benefit. I realize that you have a hard time with rational thinking, but I'll repeat: "superiority" is only relevant in a specific context.

I'm not racist as there's not enough evidence to suggest that any particular phenotype or 'race' has an inherent advantage over another, beyond the fairly minor environment-specific physical adaptations.

On the other hand, if you want to ask me why I'm a culturist...

They come from books and science quarterlies/journals. You should try reading them sometime.

Advertising, modeling, makeup companies they all follow the simple rule that attractiveness is instinctive. It's not that they try to create false perceptions of beauty just false cases of beautiful people.
The makeup and photoshopping they do is to enhance or simulate the features of their models based on what people believe is beautiful. Skin ton, age, hair quality, teeth, jaw shape and size, eyes, height, weight, etc.

The first study I read about this was in an annual editions journal but I have seen them pop up in science based magazines as well.
i was asking for your sources, not a summary of one article you read. and it best be about what you have posted.

i was asking for your sources, not a summary of one article you read. and it best be about what you have posted.

I gave you my sources, punk bitch.

They come from books and science quarterlies/journals. You should try reading them sometime.
which books, which science quarterlies/journals? you haven't provided shit.

which books, which science quarterlies/journals? you haven't provided shit.

I already specifically stated where I first that particular study concerning the genetic nature of beauty.

I already specifically stated where I first that particular study concerning the genetic nature of beauty.

I'd advise everyone just ignore this monster.

I'd advise everyone just ignore this monster.

I agree with this statement because it makes perfect sense.

This thread only asks why people are racists and we should not tolerate any answers that actually have to do with why people are racist.

Nice try though, Jew.

I already specifically stated where I first that particular study concerning the genetic nature of beauty.
you are just plain stupid...let me write this in capital letters so perhaps you'll understand.

I WANT A SOURCE WHICH WILL GIVE ME THE TITLE OF THE JOURNAL, THE AUTHORS NAME, THE EDITORS NAME, THE DATE IT WAS PUBLISHED, WHAT PAGES IN THE JOURNAL THE PARTICULAR ARTICLE IS IN, AND IT SHOULD PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS.

is that blatant enough for you? i mean i thought this would be implied when i asked for a source since hopefully you've had to state sources when writing essays for school, but holy fuck you just don't understand.

you are just plain stupid...let me write this in capital letters so perhaps you'll understand.

I WANT A SOURCE WHICH WILL GIVE ME THE TITLE OF THE JOURNAL, THE AUTHORS NAME, THE EDITORS NAME, THE DATE IT WAS PUBLISHED, WHAT PAGES IN THE JOURNAL THE PARTICULAR ARTICLE IS IN, AND IT SHOULD PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS.

is that blatant enough for you? i mean i thought this would be implied when i asked for a source since hopefully you've had to state sources when writing essays for school, but holy fuck you just don't understand.

I actually did give you the title of the Journal but I don't remember the rest. It's been several years since I read it. If I remembered I wouldn't have explained it the way I did.
However just from one search of google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Science+of+Beauty&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

I actually did give you the title of the Journal but I don't remember the rest. It's been several years since I read it. If I remembered I wouldn't have explained it the way I did.
However just from one search of google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Science+of+Beauty&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
google search =/= source of journal. i hereby declare you a failure of your own devices. don't ask others for "sources" and tell them to read journals and other shit when you yourself cannot come up with any, except some obscure title that may or may not have been in some journal or blog somewhere. :rolleyes:

google search =/= source of journal. i hereby declare you a failure of your own devices. don't ask others for "sources" and tell them to read journals and other shit when you yourself cannot come up with any, except some obscure title that may or may not have been in some journal or blog somewhere. :rolleyes:

I did tell you my sources and where I got the information. Annual Editions is pretty popular though, not even close to obscure. I believe the magazine was popular science but I am unsure. It's been a while, as I said.
I am sure if I really felt that you were important enough to spend time on I could dig up the exact study on the internet. I don't feel that way, however. At all.

You have also made the claim that I asked for studies in this thread which I did not. I sarcastically asked once because the guys comment was an outright fabrication.
Your entire argument against me is ridiculous. You claim in your first comment that I should show my sources and not demand others of theirs but I always do show my sources. I can at the very least name them when others cannot. That's not the point, though, the point is that you started making this stupid demand and I had not even asked anyone for any source of anything at the time.
You're fucking stupid kid.