Race

[Darorinag]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Everyone can see the difference in substance between your post and mine Danny.

On the contrary. I think only YOU can see the validity of your own arguments. But as always, you LOVE generalizing!!

While I support my claims with references you claim you are debunking me by using what? References? NO! Danny boys own words.

I am debunking your claims with simple logic. And you still haven't addressed a lot of the things I mentioned. You addressed those that you found convenient to, according to some of the "studies" you posted, like it's God-given truth even though there are results that contradict each other... But of course, it's easy to take something out of context. Just because there has been 1 result that shows "equality" between blacks and whites doesn't mean that they are equal. There are MANY studies out there that demonstrate differences, but YOU certainly don't think they're valid, because they are "white supremacist." But WHAT isn't white supremacist? You consider anything that works against blacks directly or indirectly to be white supremacist. Well, I guess God was white supremacist then! Or even Asian supremacist lol.. Of course, Mr. Fadix doesn't call me Asian supremacist, does he? No, he calls me white supremacist... because he is brainwashed to do so. After all, Asian supremacy isn't exactly a popular term in politically correct speech, is it?

Danny boy, not only was that article posted in a white supremacist site, but the author of the article is one of the author of the site in question. Which results are you talking about? This article will never get published in any scientific journals because it isn’t science.

Who cares what peoples' political inclinations are? Scientists vote. Scientists have political beliefs. They are normal people. They have their biases. That doesn't mean the results of experiments will be skewed. I am not only referring to the last article. I posted a few scientific studies that you conveniently ignored.

And more, what you did is to copy and past my reply and quotes them one by one and attaching your replies on mines. A little kid of 5 years old can do that.

Well, then, I guess you're worse than a 5 year old! I told you, don't post articles. This is a debate, it's not about who gets the best internet sources. If you know something other than the links to those articles, share them. Otherwise, this discussion has gone quite out of hand with pages upon pages of irrelevant material that doesn't prove anything. I am replying to your claims, one by one, without evading any of them. So far, you haven't done that. You haven't even answered Anon's question.

You did even not bother reading my entire post once before answering.

Excuse me? I read everything. How could I have addressed it without having read it? Please, unlike you, I can THINK outside just copying and pasting. And again, you are attacking me despite the fact that I haven't attacked you. You are using intimidation tactics more than I have. In fact, I haven't used them at all, other than in reply to your intimidation. You tried to intimidate me by claiming that I posted stuff from a white supremacist source. Yet, you didn't consider the afrocentric source as "black supremacist" or "african supremacist", did you?

Danny boy, you repeated the same argument and asked for evidences when later on the same articles I bring evidences for what I affirmed previously.

Half of it doesn't qualify as evidence because they were questions such as "And?" and "So?" that you asked. That doesn't prove anything. As for your sources, some of them were interesting - I am quite busy these days, but I will find more studies that show the contrary of what you're trying to "prove."

And no, I have not researched anthropology for 3 years, what you are doing is an intellectual intimidation the only thing your body does right.

You have, on more than one occasion, on the other forum, mentioned this. Every topic we've talked about, you've said the same thing. The very fact that you've said it so much that I remember it (and I have little interest in what you do and say, so I don't spend my entire time thinking about it) is enough to show that you've used that tactic to make your "opponents" feel inferior.

Which scientific results are you using Danny boy?

I have posted a few of them. Go read some journals that don't believe in scientific revisionism for the sake of social equality that doesn't exist biologically.

I have presented countless numbers of research

Quantity != quality.

and you are like a Turk with nothing at hand trying to support his unsupported claims.

As Nairi would say, cut the racism.

Your claims you have changed them from the start. First you have started with the brain size and all those bullcrap, when I have demonstrated that that was B.S. you changed the subject and started discussing about other things, and now you are here trying to “prove” what?

I have not changed my claims. I still claim that cranial & brain size effect intelligence. I still stand by my claims. Don't twist my words and don't make me look like a manipulator. That's the epitome of intimidation. I am not trying to prove anything. YOU are trying to prove ME wrong. Unsuccessful at it too.

That races exist? OK! Still I asked you, if they exist, what will we use as reference to classify races? You were not able to tell me.

I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Go do some readings on physical anthropology. Unlike you, I have better things to do than post dozens of articles in order to "prove" to the whole world that I know "something" about this. I'd rather argue with my own knowledge instead of posting studies. Anyone can go and open scholarly journals and read those. Feel free to do so.

So far, what we have observed points to racial differences.

And no, the difference among ethnicities within the same “race” is not smaller than the genetic variance between “races”… I have provided abound documentations that show that to be not true and you still repeat this claim, there is no one geneticist that will claim that.

That still doesn't prove that there are no races or that ethnicities should be considered races. Read my short reply after the long post. I said:

"I must add that even if there are differences between, for example, the Dutch and the French, that doesn't prove that race doesn't exist... it only proves that nations aren't formed on the bases of race. South Africa is an example of that."

BTW! Nice try with the Turkish comment Danny boy, but go try that elsewhere. I have never claimed Turks being inferior, but again I am not surprised of Dannys intellectual intimidations.

What am I to understand from your comments about and comparisons with Turks whenever I say something you disagree with? "You are acting just like a Turk" is a sentence I wouldn't expect from someone who claims to be an intellectual. How do you like me using my own version of your "You are acting just like a white supremacist" comment? - You are acting just like a racist!
In fact, look at the word "racist" referring to the derogatory use of the word - if I'm racist towards someone, that means I'm harassing them or am being discriminator towards them on the bases of race. Yet blacks who deny the existence of racial differences whine and b*tch and yell that they've been victims of "racism"... har har.. talk about hypocrisy.

you are writing and writing only for the pleasure of saying the contrary of what I affirm, in another platform you might say the contrary of what you affirm here because there would be someone whom you would want to disagree with.

Yet another personal intimidation from our own very intellectual "Fadi." I have my own views, thankyouverymuch. I don't have time to oppose what you're saying just for the sake of it. I've got tons of things to do, papers to write, exams to prepare for. Opposing you just for the hell of it is the least of my interests, believe me.

So for the last time Danny boy, education has a role in IQ, education is not necessarily what one learn in school, education is about learning, and here STOP contradicting and try to understand someone for once in your life Dan. I have presented you two studies, as well as the Lynn effect which is observed by every recent studies without exception…

lol... Fadi - you do realize that just because you said so, it doesn't mean it's right, right? Education has no role in IQ. Education is strictly about school. Learning and education are not the same thing. Learning and being taught are not the same thing. Learning occurs by itself. Education does not.
And for the record, you still haven't answered how you are relying on Lynn's findings when they support your claims, and disqualifying him as a valid source when his findings don't support your claims?

so stop telling me there is no “proof” when I am smashing your face with evidences after evidences, you look like a total bonehead when you do that…

You sound too delusional. You have not smashed anything with any evidence. But you're having one of those moments of "I'm SO powerful." Don't worry, we all have that from time to time.

and stop playing the mirror game and redirect my accusations against me.

I am not playing any game. I am trying to hold a normal discussion without personal attacks and copy and pasting. So far, you seem incapable of doing that. And please, next time you post a lengthy reply, quote each sentence you're replying to separately, because it's difficult to see what you're referring to. e.g. "and stop playing the mirror game and redirect my accusations against me." << ?

“Rewiring” of the brain has nothing to do with artificial intelligence, the rewiring here has been entirely done by environment, Schwartz experiment was behavioural therapy which does not require surgery or medication.

Comparing OCD and intelligence is irrelevant. That they succeded to "cure" them of OCD doesn't mean that they can increase their intelligence through rewiring.

I was the only here backing my claims with one study after the other, while you just copy past anything you can find from the web.

Your studies don't prove anything. They are irrelevant at best.
Your posting of studies is simply to avoid answering some of the important questions myself and Anonymouse have asked.
The only person who has copied and pasted most is you.

You say that all my claims are based on assumption(funny since I am the one supporting my claims with studies not you), while you do that practically every time.

Studies are not always correct. The studies you've posted mostly come from sociological journals. And just because I have not posted evidence as much as you have posted "articles" and "studies" doesn't mean you've proven anything. I don't have the time to look for studies in journals. I will, at some point, just that it's exam period and I have 3 papers due next week. I am not avoiding the issue. I will post links to studies or attach them, when I have the time.

Just one example I present you the fact that the cranial capacity of Blacks from South Africa is the same as Whites, and you claim that it is because they have mixed with Whites.

Even IF my claim is wrong, your claim would still be irrelevant, because it's an exception, not a rule.

So you see how stupid you sound in your assumptions

Thank you. I wonder why you still haven't received any warning for your personal attacks. This is the intellectual lounge. If you don't have something to say, don't attack the person you're supposed to be having a knowledgeable debate with.

another example is that the Zulu Cranial measures were done in late 19 century.

You disqualify the studies I posted for being conducted in 1993, yet you bring "proof" from the 19th century? How very non-double-standardish of you!

While I bring clear examples of you assuming because of a preestablished belief, you on the other hand just claim without being able to back what you claim.

Fadix jan, relax, take a deep breath. I am not competing with you for the title of who's more intelligent. No need to change this thread into such a competition. I'm not here to "demonstrate" my "superior" intelligence (not that I am superior in intelligence, I know I am not). So please chill, and stop with this irrelevant blabbering about who did what in comparison to who.

Coming from you, this is rather amazing, so what you tell us is that there might be White civilisations prior to what is recorded that might change this?

I never claimed that. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask for clarification on what I meant, don't twist my words.

But Danny boy, here your claim is a paradox, you are saying that we must not base our experiments on what we don’t know, but the we “don’t know” in this affirmation contain a supposition of something. This is a contradiction, better yet! A paradox.

My claim is not a paradox. As long as you don't know something, you can't base SCIENTIFIC conclusions on something that you haven't scientifically proven. Science is about solid findings and proofs, not speculation. Speculation might be the bases of more scientific findings, but speculation should not be used to PROVE something per se. That's a petitio principii fallacy at best.

[quote]Since my numbers reject what we don’t know, while you reject my numbers here based on a “we don’t know” that supposes that something before happened, even if we do not have evidences, and that you yourself admit that we must not include things we don’t know…. [/qupte]
Your numbers do not reject or prove anything. Your numbers are irrelevant and taken out of context, and unscientific. They are based on sociology. A scientific paper does not make claims about income levels playing a part in cardiac arrest. That's for sociology and sociobiology. Not SCIENCE. Art. Economics. Sociology. And at best, social psychology.

No, in a scientific article you do not “prove” something, you bring “evidences” to “support” your claim. Both are different, only in math you do “prove” in science.

You are battling semantics again. Oh boy... it doesn't get any better than this, does it? Fine. Evidence. What difference do words make? He brings evidence from various sources is what I meant to say. Jesus Christ. Get over yourself already.

[Darorinag]

You see Dan, this is an example of answer without relevancy, you just quote me and answer just to show you have said something, I have called him an ignorant, but what I presented in my post shows that in fact he was an ignorant… while on the other hand your side will call ignorant without actually supporting with materials.

Again, I'm not going to play this back and forth comparison game. I am not comparing our sides. I am comparing our arguments and trying to prove that you are wrong. YOU are trying to prove that you are right, and I don't think you can. As it stands, there isn't much known about races. Nothing much proven. That is exactly why we can have this debate. Because there isn't anything clear that says there are no races.

I did not claim it was BS, medical trials become more efficient, bigger samples, meta-analysis etc… smaller margin of errors, … And beside that, again you are assuming

I am not assuming. I already said that there have been numerous "findings" recently that have been revised.

But since you have even not bothered reading and just assumed, you make as usual a ridiculous and false claim.

Yes, when I disagree, you claim that I haven't read it. You've got nothing better to say.

And another thing, there is no study of “scientific revisionism” or “political correctness” in medical trials, they are made to save lives, if you do think that, sorry to say you this Dan, but I would have to suppose that you suffer of psychosis.

What do you mean? Again, from what I understood, you're claiming that I'm suffering from psychosis. How you arrived to that conclusion I don't know, because that sentence punctuation is incoherent. Science these days is very politically correct. Studies have shown that there are racial differences in a lot of medical conditions, and if we blindly insist on racial equality in everything, a lot of medical treatment possibilities will be lost. Go read more on those. I'm not going to copy and paste them because this thread has been saturated with your "articles" and "studies." Unless you have a problem finding non-biased sources, then let me know, I might dedicate some time to dig out some sources, mind you. But as it stands right now, I'm not about to spend half an hour digging out studies from journals just so that you would dismiss them as "white supremacist."

Assumptions again? Stop making baseless claims Dan, Lancet is a medical journal, not a sociological sources… and the study is a medical trial.

There were a couple of sources that were sociological journals, and not only in that reply, but overall.

I have referred to two different studies to support what I claim, while your answer is an assumption based on no references.

Support the claim? Those studies haven't proven that there is bias in waiting lists for transplants.

The Lancet is (one of the most credible and known medical journal)

Prestigious perhaps, but that still doesn't mean that everything they publish is 100% correct, does it? There are contradictory results in many journals. Which one is right? You are trying to "prove" your claims through "prestige." That doesn't work.

new studies uses meta-analysis, and bigger samples, with more financing, with better materials and with a lot smaller margin of error… so no! you can not reject what I affirm by presenting me studies dating 10 years prior or so unless the two studies measured two different things, different doses(if it applies) etc… in this cases it does not apply.

Like I said, there have been many many experimental mistakes recently, and going back to the older research results. I will find relevant articles and post them when I have the time.

Oh boy, Danny boy… this does not come from me, I have referred to the study published in the Human Immunology, Volume 44, 1995, and it refers to the African-Americans not African blacks. Do you want that I post the study?

No. I know where it came from. See above comment on the Lancet.

Danny, what I posted was the result of a trial with a sample which was published in the Annals of Epidemiology, Volume 12, Issue 7, October 2002.

Again, see above, about the Lancet. Just because it has been published doesn't mean it's right. Science is constantly changing and revising itself. Something you publish today might be proven to be wrong tomorrow.

Danny quite this psychosis will you? Why have you to think that the entire medical community is in some sort of conspiration war for politically correctness?

Psychosis? Ummm no.. I'm definitely not suffering from psychosis. So quit making base attacks. Revisionists are not psychotics, are they? It IS true that history is politically correct. What would prevent science from being so, then? We have historians who deny history, use fake images, etc., what would prevent them from pressurising doctors and researchers? Please... You're too naive to see things as they are. You should know better about political correctness as someone who has "researched" the Armenian genocide for quite some time...

OK then, what are your evidences that it is physiologic?

Again, when I have the time, I will post some relevant study summaries/abstracts. (No, I'm not evading it, I WILL post them - just remind me 10 days from now, or PM me).
Again, that there is no evidence to prove my side doesn't automatically make your side the right one. That you can't prove that someone killed that person doesn't mean that he couldn't have killed him. It means that you don't have enough evidence to prove that he did OR that he didn't commit the crime in the first place. Either one.

This is irrelevant, East Africans and West Africans will vary as well, Indians(White) compared with Americans will vary as well, if you take the average Indian and compare it with the average American you will find a difference.

Are you referring to Native Americans by "Indians"? They aren't white. I am talking about averages, dear lad... *sigh* you don't see the difference, do you? it's simply statistical analysis.

If you compare West and Eastern Africans you will find a difference as well, the difference find here has nothing to do with blackness but rather attributed to the fact that you are measuring “average” parameters between two groups coming from different locations.

OK, let's forget about shoulder size for a second and look at genital size then. Share your thoughts on this one. ON AVERAGE - I'm talking about AVERAGES, here, Fadix. I'm not talking about your black neighbour having a small d*ck => all blacks have small d*cks. Stop making generalisations.

Who told you I was referring to exceptions, if you compare Blacks from some regions of Africa with other Blacks you will find differences as well.

I am not denying those differences - there certainly are differences between sub-races. I am simply referring to basic differences between blacks and whites. yes, slavs and nords differ, but at the end of the day, they are white, they share a lot of genetic traits with other whites.

there is significant differences on Testosterone levels among Whites from different regions, as well as Blacks from different regions

Depends on what you consider as "significant." There are differences among whites and among blacks, yes, but that still doesn't mean that whites and blacks don't differ. Again, we're talking about averages here, a concept you seem unable to understand.

Exceptions? Danny boy, White babies that are born one week before term are VERY common, far from being exceptions.

Dear lad, yes, there are many white babies that are born before term, that still doesn't disqualify the comparison. There are more black babies born a week or two before the term. Not to mention, 2 week-old black babies demonstrate better control of the neck than white babies. This has been observed and recorded scientifically.

It is cultural, what has ones behaviour to do with ones colour here?

For someone claiming that there are no races, it has nothing to do with it. And again, I am not talking about colour here. Colour doesn't necessarily determine race. Like I said, there are many darker skinned Italians, that still doesn't mean that they're negroids.

You have no clue of what you are talking about here, we are not talking about exceptions, but different Blacks from different places being different one from the other, of course you will find differences when you compare Blacks from a region with Whites from a region

We are comparing blacks from all over the place to whites from all over the place. the differences are there. doesn't matter what differences there are when each is taken separately. we are talking about collective average differences. blacks on average differ from whites on average, and whites on average differ from asians on average.

so again they are Africans from other regions, the fact that you will find Blacks from one region outperforming other Blacks is adaptations, but you can not use this exception over the large majority of the Blacks to claim what you claim.

those are still exceptions. there are whites outperforming whites. in order for you to have an average, you will have the good and the bad and the medium ones. there will surely be differing individuals in a specific race or ethnicity, but that doesn't mean that on average, there are no differences in race.

What you say has no scientific ground here Danny. As for your sources? Which one?

The ones you claimed to be either wrong or white supremacist.

but of course coming from someone that sound to be in an acute phases of psychosis

Yet another cheap attack. What, is this all because you found a post in which I said I used to take "zyprexa"? Dear lad... how unbiased you are!! How non-intimidating tactics you're using!!

believing in some sort of international Scientifics conspiration, nothing surprising.

This is not about conspiracy. it's the truth. revisionism has debunked the holocaust myth. revisionists are not psychotics. your intimidation tactics are nothing surprising. You've been brainwashed to use them left and right. I am not surprised.

As for your “world was round” argument. I laugh every time someone uses this trash as argument…

And why so, particularly? Please do share, so that I can laugh too.... What, can't debunk it?

BWAHaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Which references you present Danny boy? You still keep repeating the same thing, while I present sources and references from the most credible scientific journals

I presented more than one scientific study. You keep comparing yourself with me, as if this is a comparison. This is getting rather tiresome. Just go and find something better to do than try and prove your "intelligence" through your google skills.

Prestigious doesn't mean credible. Those are prestigious journals, meaning that a lot of people read them, but there is no proof that they are credible. Being the popular journals that they are, I am more inclined to consider them politically correct, considering the amount of political and social pressure on scientists to present politically correct results. this is not something new. This has been around since the time of galileo and copernicus. you should know better, being the 'intellectual' that you are.

that would further confirm my belief that you are in an acute phases of psychosis.

Counting - third time used this psychosis comment. I am beginning to find your nasty attacks quite amusing. Whatever you can't argue with, just attribute it to my psychosis.

Amazing, that I am the one documenting, while you are the one just claiming things which you can NOT support.

Of course, I could always claim that yours come from black supremacist journals, and it'd be up to you to prove that they are not (right?). And of course, what do you expect. It's easier for you to use intimidation tactics and guilt by association fallacies because my position is politically incorrect and easily "disqualified" in the eyes of the majority. But so far, for me, you haven't proven anything. Maybe for the majority you have, but I am the least concerned about the majority.

I call racists by their names.

I can call idiots by their names. That still doesn't make calling names right. And I am not referring to you calling me a "racist", believe me I care VERY little (or none at all!) about that. But your cheap attacks about my "psychosis" have no place in any discussion, at least if you want to be taken seriously.

Again, this is fallacy.

How so?

Yes! You have many enemies, have you thought that maybe you have a share in this?

Have I complained about it? Who cares? It doesn't effect me in any way. I don't care what others think or say about me. I don't care if they are friendly or not with me. I am not going to sacrifice my beliefs, historical truth, and scientific facts for the sake of friends and a pat on the back.

You STILL have NOT answered Anonymouse's question.

[Fadix]

On the contrary. I think only YOU can see the validity of your own arguments. But as always, you LOVE generalizing!!

Actually my arguments are those of the large majority of geneticists, biologists etc… and what ever you might say won’t change this fact. As for generalization, you are the king of generalization, don’t accuse others of what you so obviously do.

I am debunking your claims with simple logic. And you still haven't addressed a lot of the things I mentioned. You addressed those that you found convenient to, according to some of the "studies" you posted, like it's God-given truth even though there are results that contradict each other... But of course, it's easy to take something out of context. Just because there has been 1 result that shows "equality" between blacks and whites doesn't mean that they are equal. There are MANY studies out there that demonstrate differences, but YOU certainly don't think they're valid, because they are "white supremacist." But WHAT isn't white supremacist? You consider anything that works against blacks directly or indirectly to be white supremacist. Well, I guess God was white supremacist then! Or even Asian supremacist lol.. Of course, Mr. Fadix doesn't call me Asian supremacist, does he? No, he calls me white supremacist... because he is brainwashed to do so. After all, Asian supremacy isn't exactly a popular term in politically correct speech, is it?

Simply logic? Have not addressed? Have no addressed what? One study? There is no argument in your above gibberish. Did I or did I not supported what I said with studies? End of the story, you say you can post as well many studies, but you did not do such… the only thing you did was posting studies coming from the same foundation, if what you claimed was so true, it would have been observed by other research institutes as well.

Who cares what peoples' political inclinations are? Scientists vote. Scientists have political beliefs. They are normal people. They have their biases. That doesn't mean the results of experiments will be skewed. I am not only referring to the last article. I posted a few scientific studies that you conveniently ignored.

Yeh! But the article you posted did not come from a scientist but by someone that had no qualification in any field of science.

Well, then, I guess you're worse than a 5 year old! I told you, don't post articles. This is a debate, it's not about who gets the best internet sources. If you know something other than the links to those articles, share them. Otherwise, this discussion has gone quite out of hand with pages upon pages of irrelevant material that doesn't prove anything. I am replying to your claims, one by one, without evading any of them. So far, you haven't done that. You haven't even answered Anon's question.

You make no sense here what so ever, you started this ball game by posting articles you copy pasted from the web, mines are not from the web unlike yours. As well, my materials are supports for what I claim, I have posted countless of materials to support what I claimed, and they came from my personal research, not from the web, while on the other hand all of your trash you copy pasted it from supremacist web-sites without conducting any independent researches. Between you and me, obviously I am the one to be trusted, because I do not dislike one group more than another, I will take a study or research in its face value and judge it from its content. On the other hand, you dislike the Blacks so what you will do is just search anything that will show them as “inferiors” and post them. When you do that you lose right away.

Excuse me? I read everything. How could I have addressed it without having read it? Please, unlike you, I can THINK outside just copying and pasting. And again, you are attacking me despite the fact that I haven't attacked you. You are using intimidation tactics more than I have. In fact, I haven't used them at all, other than in reply to your intimidation. You tried to intimidate me by claiming that I posted stuff from a white supremacist source. Yet, you didn't consider the afrocentric source as "black supremacist" or "african supremacist", did you?


Reread what I wrote, I did not say you have not read what I posted, what I said is that you did not read all my reply before answering; what you did is to cut my replies cut them and read them part by part and answering them… As for thinking outside of copy pasting, here again what you say does not make sense, I have quoted from a book I personally have, I can quote from many books I have in my possession, and you could do a google search and you would see that those quotes actually will not be find(the same goes for the studies I posted). On the other hand I will just have to type on google what you posted and will find them. You are the copy pasting machine not me. And thinking by oneself presupposes that you have factual information’s and unbiased materials…

Half of it doesn't qualify as evidence because they were questions such as "And?" and "So?" that you asked. That doesn't prove anything. As for your sources, some of them were interesting - I am quite busy these days, but I will find more studies that show the contrary of what you're trying to "prove."

Half? You are lying here Dan, I have posted that very rarely, and the reason I did it is because the reference used had inconclusive results or were irrelevant to the discussion. Beside that, everyone can say he can find more studies, finding it is another story.

You have, on more than one occasion, on the other forum, mentioned this. Every topic we've talked about, you've said the same thing. The very fact that you've said it so much that I remember it (and I have little interest in what you do and say, so I don't spend my entire time thinking about it) is enough to show that you've used that tactic to make your "opponents" feel inferior.

You are lying again Dan, the only subjects which I have claimed having studied for years was “war crimes” which contain the extermination of the Herrerors, Armenians, Rwandians, Vietnamese, Jews, Gypsies, Serbs etc… etc… If you claim that I have said that so many times and about every other than what concerns war crimes, go ahead, give me another example, if you can not support your claim, just stop making charged which you can not support.

I have posted a few of them. Go read some journals that don't believe in scientific revisionism for the sake of social equality that doesn't exist biologically.

You have posted few of them? Show me where? I am talking about geneticists, biologists etc… where have you posted studies? Go ahead show me where.

Quantity != quality.

Yes !both in quality and quantity, I have posted large numbers from the most credible sources that one can find. Not coming from someone that does not have any credential to write about the subject and whom run a supremacist web-site.

I have not changed my claims. I still claim that cranial & brain size effect intelligence. I still stand by my claims. Don't twist my words and don't make me look like a manipulator. That's the epitome of intimidation. I am not trying to prove anything. YOU are trying to prove ME wrong. Unsuccessful at it too.

You are already a manipulator; I don’t need to make you look like one, trying to pass an article coming from a racist as scientific evidence is manipulation. As for cranial size, the fact that you still maintain that show how bone head you are. Given that I have used the same data as your Rushton to show that even his numbers show you wrong. Proving you say? You are the one claiming that Blacks are inferior, it is for you to prove, I just maintain that they are humans like any other humans, and that the differences among them and us is no more or less different than differences that one might find between two different group of people called “white.” It is for you to “prove” that is not the cases. You were not able to do so.

I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Go do some readings on physical anthropology. Unlike you, I have better things to do than post dozens of articles in order to "prove" to the whole world that I know "something" about this. I'd rather argue with my own knowledge instead of posting studies. Anyone can go and open scholarly journals and read those. Feel free to do so.

So far, what we have observed points to racial differences.

OK! Which book have you read about physical anthropology? Here a book for you to read(from my personal library) by an anthropologist. “African Images: Racism and the End of Anthropology” by Peter Rigby.

The authors write: “This self-obsession precludes reflexive self-examination. One of the most widespread, systematic, and dangerous of these Western myths is the concept of "race", upon which the edifice of racism is constructed.” p.3

This is coming from MY book, MY research, not google, unlike everything you post. Here another work from MY personal library from an anthropologist AND Biologist: “Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History” by Jonathan Marks

The author writes: “Were the people of North Africa the same race as the people of sub-Saharan Africa? Within sub-Saharan Africa, were the Khoi-speaking peoples of south Africa (who appeared to have features resembling Asians), the small pygmies of central Africa, the tall and thin Nilotics of east Africa, and the very darkly complexioned peoples of west Africa all in the same race? Ultimately the answers to these questions would have to be arbitrary, for all of these peoples were recognizably different from one another.” p. 114

The author add: “The criterion of empiricism dictates that scientific work must be grounded in realities, not in abstractions; therefore the scientific analysis of human variation is obliged to study human populations, not abstract human types. Further, the recognitions (1) that race has a large socio-cultural component and (2) that humans have to some extent always migrated and interbred with one another dictates that the appropriate analysis of diversity in the human species lies at the level of the population. We can analyze diversity that exists within population, among populations, or among groups of populations -- but higher-order classifications of human populations are largely ephemeral. ” p. 115

Now eat that: “Anthropological genetics, which was developed in order to validate racial categories -- to find a hard hereditary basis by which to divide the human species -- was never able to do so.” p. 163

As for your own knowledge, what you say again has no sense, your knowledge must have come from somewhere, if it does not than it has no ground, in order to support your claims you must provide documents, studies, researches etc… this is the only way you could back up your claims, your personal knowledge has no any validity here. So again, I ask you the same question, go ahead spoon-feed me, provide me the materials in question.
That still doesn't prove that there are no races or that ethnicities should be considered races. Read my short reply after the long post. I said:

"I must add that even if there are differences between, for example, the Dutch and the French, that doesn't prove that race doesn't exist... it only proves that nations aren't formed on the bases of race. South Africa is an example of that."

This is irrelevant. There is no argument in your post. What I am telling you that that in different locations in the world you will find people with their own characteristics due to adaptation, some happen to have darker skin colour, nose form, etc… this does not qualify as race, since you can still find two Whites have less thing in common than a white and a black… you can not disprove this no matter how hard you try.

What am I to understand from your comments about and comparisons with Turks whenever I say something you disagree with? "You are acting just like a Turk" is a sentence I wouldn't expect from someone who claims to be an intellectual. How do you like me using my own version of your "You are acting just like a white supremacist" comment? - You are acting just like a racist!
In fact, look at the word "racist" referring to the derogatory use of the word - if I'm racist towards someone, that means I'm harassing them or am being discriminator towards them on the bases of race. Yet blacks who deny the existence of racial differences whine and b*tch and yell that they've been victims of "racism"... har har.. talk about hypocrisy.

No substance here, and irrelevant to the discussion.

Yet another personal intimidation from our own very intellectual "Fadi." I have my own views, thankyouverymuch. I don't have time to oppose what you're saying just for the sake of it. I've got tons of things to do, papers to write, exams to prepare for. Opposing you just for the hell of it is the least of my interests, believe me.

Stop using words that don’t fit the situation. I am not intimidating you here, if you feel intimidated it is your problem. As for you having many things to do, surprising given the very fast reply time every time one answer, one has to conclude that you are very obsessed with this question and it passes for you before everything else.(That is sick if you ask me)

lol... Fadi - you do realize that just because you said so, it doesn't mean it's right, right? Education has no role in IQ. Education is strictly about school. Learning and education are not the same thing. Learning and being taught are not the same thing. Learning occurs by itself. Education does not.
And for the record, you still haven't answered how you are relying on Lynn's findings when they support your claims, and disqualifying him as a valid source when his findings don't support your claims?

The dictionary contradict you here, if you don’t mind I will take what it say rather than what you do claim. As for Lynn, I already answered this. But you still keep bringing that thing again and again. The only reason I do accept Lynn effect is because it is recorded by any other researches without exception, you just have to run a search on scientific journals you will not find one that has a study not measuring that effect. So again, you can yap and deny as much as you want, it will only show that you are a bonehead.

You sound too delusional. You have not smashed anything with any evidence. But you're having one of those moments of "I'm SO powerful." Don't worry, we all have that from time to time.

[Fadix]

I am not playing any game. I am trying to hold a normal discussion without personal attacks and copy and pasting. So far, you seem incapable of doing that. And please, next time you post a lengthy reply, quote each sentence you're replying to separately, because it's difficult to see what you're referring to. e.g. "and stop playing the mirror game and redirect my accusations against me."

Normal discussion? In a normal discussion, when one bring arguments and support them with evidences, the other is open to accept those evidences in their face value, not claiming that all those scientific journals are not to be trusted and that those scientifics are all biased, like you have done so.

Comparing OCD and intelligence is irrelevant. That they succeded to "cure" them of OCD doesn't mean that they can increase their intelligence through rewiring.

Dude, run a search on short term memory, intelligence, and the processing of the brain. Yet! Again you have no clue of what you are talking about… and before telling me that this is not an argument, run a search and you will see that in fact you have no clue. The regions that were modified from environment in those studies are specific regions that have a direct role in information processing in the brain, short term memory etc… which are part of what we call intelligence.

Your studies don't prove anything. They are irrelevant at best.
Your posting of studies is simply to avoid answering some of the important questions myself and Anonymouse have asked.
The only person who has copied and pasted most is you.

Fool yourself kid, everything you posted, comes from supremacist sites, you could have just provided the link, what I posted were not google search, yours were. As answering questions. Your and the delusionic questions are of the form: “Explain me how come the sky is red.” The premises of the questions is irrelevant and inaccurate.

Studies are not always correct. The studies you've posted mostly come from sociological journals. And just because I have not posted evidence as much as you have posted "articles" and "studies" doesn't mean you've proven anything. I don't have the time to look for studies in journals. I will, at some point, just that it's exam period and I have 3 papers due next week. I am not avoiding the issue. I will post links to studies or attach them, when I have the time.

You are lying here… my studies were mostly from medical journals. Of course from someone that thought that the Lancet was a sociology Journal, I should not be surprised of this above BS claim. Studies are not always correct? Which are correct, the ones that “support” your claims? As for what you will be posting… how can you know that you can have them before even searching for them? Is that not preconceived ?

Even IF my claim is wrong, your claim would still be irrelevant, because it's an exception, not a rule.

It Isn’t an exception, those Black there have a cranial capacity as big as White Americans, they might have a bigger than other Whites from elsewhere, or smaller, they might have smaller ones than those of the Zulus etc… this has nothing to do with their skin color.

Thank you. I wonder why you still haven't received any warning for your personal attacks. This is the intellectual lounge. If you don't have something to say, don't attack the person you're supposed to be having a knowledgeable debate with.

Personal attack? Is that a psychosis again? I said that you sounded stupi, I have not said that you were stupid.

You disqualify the studies I posted for being conducted in 1993, yet you bring "proof" from the 19th century? How very non-double-standardish of you!

I have not disqualified the studies you posted dating 1993. Reread my posts one more time. Here you are mixing study with measurements, measurements are part of studies, studies interpret datas as well, measurements don’t. The cranial capacity of those Zulus were measured, some might use those numbers for studies, that the measure itself alone can not be disputed.

Fadix jan, relax, take a deep breath. I am not competing with you for the title of who's more intelligent. No need to change this thread into such a competition. I'm not here to "demonstrate" my "superior" intelligence (not that I am superior in intelligence, I know I am not). So please chill, and stop with this irrelevant blabbering about who did what in comparison to who.

What has your answer anything to do with my post which was about your preestablished belief?

I never claimed that. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask for clarification on what I meant, don't twist my words.

This is what you have insinuated.

My claim is not a paradox. As long as you don't know something, you can't base SCIENTIFIC conclusions on something that you haven't scientifically proven. Science is about solid findings and proofs, not speculation. Speculation might be the bases of more scientific findings, but speculation should not be used to PROVE something per se. That's a petitio principii fallacy at best.

It is a paradox. Beside that, what you claim has no sense, we work in science with things we know, not don’t know. The numbers I presented are things we know about and not we don’t, we can reject numbers because there might have been things which we ignore, if we were to do that we could reject everything in science. For instance, there might have been a Black civilization somewhere thousands of years ago that we have no traces of now… but still you do not accept this possibility in your equation because of your preestablished belief. The fact that you use the “don’t” know only for the Whites and the “Yellows” and the “no-no” for the Blacks is an indication here that you are biased to the core.

Your numbers do not reject or prove anything. Your numbers are irrelevant and taken out of context, and unscientific. They are based on sociology. A scientific paper does not make claims about income levels playing a part in cardiac arrest. That's for sociology and sociobiology. Not SCIENCE. Art. Economics. Sociology. And at best, social psychology.

Dan, your field is history, you have as much as I am concerned never has written any scientific papers, you have here no clue of what you are talking about. Science could study everything; sociology is a science as well. Here the numbers I presented were based on samples of people, where income were compared, this is statistical analysis, therefore it IS science. Ah and, Economy and psychology are science as well(human science).

You are battling semantics again. Oh boy... it doesn't get any better than this, does it? Fine. Evidence. What difference do words make? He brings evidence from various sources is what I meant to say. Jesus Christ. Get over yourself already.

It makes a lot of difference, proving is one thing, bringing evidences is another. Evidences from various sources you say Dan? I have as well, while you support his “sources” and reject mines, while he himself has manipulated and lied and even used sources which says the contrary of what he affirm. Yet! You claim he has brought evidences.

Again, I'm not going to play this back and forth comparison game. I am not comparing our sides. I am comparing our arguments and trying to prove that you are wrong. YOU are trying to prove that you are right, and I don't think you can. As it stands, there isn't much known about races. Nothing much proven. That is exactly why we can have this debate. Because there isn't anything clear that says there are no races.

I am not trying to prove that I am write, it is for you to bring evidences to support your claim, yet! You were not able to provide any valid evidences… and here you contradict yourself, you tell me that there is no much known about races, and yet you want to classify people based on races. It is like NASA specialists saying that there is not much known regarding the security of a human landing on Mars, when they lunch a crew there.

I am not assuming. I already said that there have been numerous "findings" recently that have been revised.

You are shouting on your feet here. Why would your so-called studies be not revised? Because they support your belief” ?

Yes, when I disagree, you claim that I haven't read it. You've got nothing better to say.

You did not read it. Impossible, because your answer is asking about something which the post in question answer.

What do you mean? Again, from what I understood, you're claiming that I'm suffering from psychosis. How you arrived to that conclusion I don't know, because that sentence punctuation is incoherent. Science these days is very politically correct. Studies have shown that there are racial differences in a lot of medical conditions, and if we blindly insist on racial equality in everything, a lot of medical treatment possibilities will be lost. Go read more on those.

Yes ! I have no better hypotheses than you suffering from psychosis… someone that believe that the scientific community is in a war for “scientific revisionism” or “political correctness” or that all those medical professionals and researches that are published in those Medical Journals are part of this “conspiration”… I have no other word than psychosis to describe the condition here. Beside that, I have never denied the difference between group of populations here, what I claim is that you can find more differences between some groups of Whites than you would find between a group of black and a group of white etc… there is no such thing as an isolate “race” in human.

Studies have shown that there are racial differences in a lot of medical conditions, and if we blindly insist on racial equality in everything, a lot of medical treatment possibilities will be lost. Go read more on those.

Not racial differences, but ethnic differences… the differences are attributed to ethnicity not race. You will have some group of people more prone to a certain disease than others, you have to study each individuals as individual, you can not pack it as white, black, yellow or what other thing you have, this is not science. As for reading about those, I read a lot about diseases, this is not new, as I said before Health is one of the subjects I know about, and read a lot about… and I am not making this up now only because we are talking about this, ask Seapahn he will confirm.

I'm not going to copy and paste them because this thread has been saturated with your "articles" and "studies."

You claimed previously that you did not have time, and now you claim that you do not do it because the thread is already satured.

Unless you have a problem finding non-biased sources, then let me know, I might dedicate some time to dig out some sources, mind you. But as it stands right now, I'm not about to spend half an hour digging out studies from journals just so that you would dismiss them as "white supremacist.

Dude, all of your sources came from white supremacist sites, the rest of the studies were from the same Foundation that was founded in 1937 and had as aim to finance research to “prove” White superiority. The head of the foundation Rushton in the past openly affirmed his pro-NAZI views by talking about NAZI Germany success and he attributed it to the German gene “purity.” If that is what you call un-biased, and call the medical journals as biased… than sorry to say, but I do understand why you take anti-psychotics, don’t take that as an offence, but you truly are out of touch with reality.

There were a couple of sources that were sociological journals, and not only in that reply, but overall.

There was no sociological Journals in that reply, they were all medical journals. As well overall, I posted one or two from sociological Journals. So you are making that up.

Support the claim? Those studies haven't proven that there is bias in waiting lists for transplants.

There is no biases on the waiting list, it is harder to find match for Blacks, that is why, there is other minorities that for them it is harder as well.

Prestigious perhaps, but that still doesn't mean that everything they publish is 100% correct, does it? There are contradictory results in many journals. Which one is right? You are trying to "prove" your claims through "prestige." That doesn't work.

Yet! Again you have no clue of what you are talking about. If you had any of your scientific papers published in those Journals you would know what it takes to get them published. Ask Seapahn he will tell you how many times you must revise your study, than it is read by specialists in the field etc… and later it get published, those Journals don’t publish the first study that come in their hand from a who knows, there are very strict procedures. And as for contradictory results, this is attributed to many factors, the fact that it get contradictory results, only shows that one must not conclude… something that you do.

Like I said, there have been many many experimental mistakes recently, and going back to the older research results. I will find relevant articles and post them when I have the time.

[Fadix]

Rushton experiments are among them, but yet! you use them still… so here we have a double standard. Right?

No. I know where it came from. See above comment on the Lancet.

Which one?

Again, see above, about the Lancet. Just because it has been published doesn't mean it's right. Science is constantly changing and revising itself. Something you publish today might be proven to be wrong tomorrow.

Why don’t you apply the same caution to your own views and “evidences” then?

Psychosis? Ummm no.. I'm definitely not suffering from psychosis. So quit making base attacks. Revisionists are not psychotics, are they? It IS true that history is politically correct. What would prevent science from being so, then?

Look Dan, you are obviously suffering from psychosis, this has nothing to do “revisionism” or history, but rather your belief of some sort of world conspiration… this is psychosis in my medical book and psychiatry book. As for scientists, they are the professionals in the field, you are not, you are in no position to criticise them in a domain which your knowledge is near zero.

We have historians who deny history, use fake images, etc., what would prevent them from pressurising doctors and researchers? Please... You're too naive to see things as they are. You should know better about political correctness as someone who has "researched" the Armenian genocide for quite some time...

Those are not true historians, and in no way you could compare doctors with historians, those researches published in medical Journals are critical they permit to save lives. You are comparing apples with oranges.

Again, when I have the time, I will post some relevant study summaries/abstracts. (No, I'm not evading it, I WILL post them - just remind me 10 days from now, or PM me).
Again, that there is no evidence to prove my side doesn't automatically make your side the right one. That you can't prove that someone killed that person doesn't mean that he couldn't have killed him. It means that you don't have enough evidence to prove that he did OR that he didn't commit the crime in the first place. Either one.

You are yet again! shooting on your own feet. If none of the parties have clear evidences, it is null and void. You are the one that must “prove” not me… you have not provided valid and strong evidences… so until than your claim is just that, a claim which can not be supported by strong evidences.

Are you referring to Native Americans by "Indians"? They aren't white. I am talking about averages, dear lad... *sigh* you don't see the difference, do you? it's simply statistical analysis.

No! I am talking about Indians, white Indians here.. It is more like you don’t see the differences; you can not pack a whole population and compare it with another one… if you do that you will obviously find differences, but that has nothing to do with the fact that one group was white and the other black.

OK, let's forget about shoulder size for a second and look at genital size then. Share your thoughts on this one. ON AVERAGE - I'm talking about AVERAGES, here, Fadix. I'm not talking about your black neighbour having a small d*ck => all blacks have small d*cks. Stop making generalisations.

Again, you will find blacks from a region have bigger genitals, others, smaller ones… but again this has nothing to do with a “race” it is adaptation, depending from the regions they come from. As for generalisations… you are the one doing that not me.

I am not denying those differences - there certainly are differences between sub-races. I am simply referring to basic differences between blacks and whites. yes, slavs and nords differ, but at the end of the day, they are white, they share a lot of genetic traits with other whites.

Ahaaaa!!! What you are telling me is that what matters is the skin color… what about other traits? Why some traits are more important than others? And no they do not share more genetic similarities, this has no genetic bases.

Depends on what you consider as "significant." There are differences among whites and among blacks, yes, but that still doesn't mean that whites and blacks don't differ. Again, we're talking about averages here, a concept you seem unable to understand.

On average, Russians differ from Americans, don’t forget here that we are talking about average. So, same logic right?


Dear lad, yes, there are many white babies that are born before term, that still doesn't disqualify the comparison. There are more black babies born a week or two before the term. Not to mention, 2 week-old black babies demonstrate better control of the neck than white babies. This has been observed and recorded scientifically.

Compare Slaves with non-slave Whites, you will still find statistical differences, it is related to adaptation again… when you compare two group of people it is obvious you will find differences, but this does not qualify as race.

For someone claiming that there are no races, it has nothing to do with it. And again, I am not talking about colour here. Colour doesn't necessarily determine race. Like I said, there are many darker skinned Italians, that still doesn't mean that they're negroids.

I am still waiting that you bring me a tool to classify people by race. Go ahead do so.

We are comparing blacks from all over the place to whites from all over the place. the differences are there. doesn't matter what differences there are when each is taken separately. we are talking about collective average differences. blacks on average differ from whites on average, and whites on average differ from asians on average.

What you say is stupid. If Earth was to consist of only whites, and that we were to compare whites from one location with whites from another location we will find differences, yet this will have nothing to do with their skin color or other such insignificant differences… so what you claim here does not support your theses.

those are still exceptions. there are whites outperforming whites. in order for you to have an average, you will have the good and the bad and the medium ones. there will surely be differing individuals in a specific race or ethnicity, but that doesn't mean that on average, there are no differences in race.

No, it isn’t exceptions… and yet! my previous argument stend, if Earth was to consist of only Whites, it is obvious that when you compare whites from one region with others from another region you will find differences.

The ones you claimed to be either wrong or white supremacist.

Show me.

Yet another cheap attack. What, is this all because you found a post in which I said I used to take "zyprexa"? Dear lad... how unbiased you are!! How non-intimidating tactics you're using!!

Dan, you are insinuating again. I have accused you of being in a psychosis long time ago, and if you remember correctly the first time I accused you have even not said that you were taking anti-psychotics; I told you at that time that you should take anti-psychotics because obviously you were in a psychosis, when I told you that I was unaware that you were already taking them… it was after I told you that, that you said that you already take anti-psychotics. So again, this has nothing to do with the fact that you take those medications… it has only to do with the fact that you obviously are in a psychosis, I am not attacking you, this is an observation.

This is not about conspiracy. it's the truth. revisionism has debunked the holocaust myth. revisionists are not psychotics. your intimidation tactics are nothing surprising. You've been brainwashed to use them left and right. I am not surprised.

There are hardly any revisionist that really believe that there was no Shoah Dan, their denial is ideological in nature, one has to read Hilberg work and later on read revisionists answer to his work to realise that they only discredit the peripheral evidences that are easily debunkable and questionable… but they will never dare touch to the rest of this work. Obviously you did not read the book, so you can not comment. And beside that, here we are talking about science, medical science… those papers are there to save lives, ... and it really takes someone in an acute psychosis(hmm… how many time I used that word? Make that one more time) to really believe in some sort of conspiration by scientists.

And why so, particularly? Please do share, so that I can laugh too.... What, can't debunk it?

It is obvious, the world was round was an argument made by a scientist, and yet you use this claim to reject scientists and support non-scientists, the same kind of persons that were blinded by their belief.

I presented more than one scientific study. You keep comparing yourself with me, as if this is a comparison. This is getting rather tiresome. Just go and find something better to do than try and prove your "intelligence" through your google skills.

Where? I have seen none… from your standards Rushton is not a scientist… as for google, your side was the one showing his google skills, my studies don’t come from google, yours do.

Prestigious doesn't mean credible. Those are prestigious journals, meaning that a lot of people read them, but there is no proof that they are credible.

Yet again you are in the wrong. Few readers read abstracts from medical journals. As for their credibility, you are not one claiming they are not credible, you should bring evidences or shut up.

Being the popular journals that they are, I am more inclined to consider them politically correct, considering the amount of political and social pressure on scientists to present politically correct results.

They are not popular journals, they publish studies in pharmacology etc… it is from those studies that drugs get commercialized… are you claiming that those studies are not credible, and that they will manipulate studies and false results in the name of politically correctness even if that might put peoples lives in danger? Do you see why I accuse you of being in a psychosis?

this is not something new. This has been around since the time of galileo and copernicus. you should know better, being the 'intellectual' that you are.

What you claim is not an evidence that would discredit the credibility of those Journals.

Counting - third time used this psychosis comment. I am beginning to find your nasty attacks quite amusing. Whatever you can't argue with, just attribute it to my psychosis.

It is not an attack but an observation Dan…

Of course, I could always claim that yours come from black supremacist journals, and it'd be up to you to prove that they are not (right?).

Wrong, if you claim so, you must provide evidences to support it… while your articles really came from a supremacist foundation, I have provided evidences that shows that… while you on the other hand rejected what I provided without evidences but only by insinuations.

And of course, what do you expect. It's easier for you to use intimidation tactics and guilt by association fallacies because my position is politically incorrect and easily "disqualified" in the eyes of the majority.

Guilt by association? You are the one doing that Dan, you are slandering blacks because of a preestablisged association you have that you call race. As for intimidation, I have no use of it, if you feel intimidated it is your problem not mine.

I can call idiots by their names. That still doesn't make calling names right. And I am not referring to you calling me a "racist", believe me I care VERY little (or none at all!) about that. But your cheap attacks about my "psychosis" have no place in any discussion, at least if you want to be taken seriously.

Look Dan, I am applying the word psychosis because your behaviours enter in the definition of the word…

How so?

Your claim is untrue, and I have provided evidences that show it, while you have done nothing to support it. This is how.

Have I complained about it? Who cares? It doesn't effect me in any way. I don't care what others think or say about me. I don't care if they are friendly or not with me. I am not going to sacrifice my beliefs, historical truth, and scientific facts for the sake of friends and a pat on the back.

Your beliefs are psychosis.

You STILL have NOT answered Anonymouse's question.

And I won’t answer it… I already told that I will not address him anymore and he knows it.

[Darorinag]

And I won’t answer it… I already told that I will not address him anymore and he knows it.

Excuses excuses. Fine, I won't address you anymore either then.. lol

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag Excuses excuses. Fine, I won't address you anymore either then.. lol

Like if I care.

[Darorinag]

You are the one that must “prove” not me… you have not provided valid and strong evidences… so until than your claim is just that, a claim which can not be supported by strong evidences.

And what does that do to YOUR position? Why should *I* be the one to prove something? You'd be in the same position as I am. What makes you any better? That what you say is a "given"?

Again, you will find blacks from a region have bigger genitals, others, smaller ones… but again this has nothing to do with a “race” it is adaptation, depending from the regions they come from. As for generalisations… you are the one doing that not me.

Again, you are using exceptions. Yes, there are variations, but I'm talking on average, between blacks and whites. there are differences.

Ahaaaa!!! What you are telling me is that what matters is the skin color…

Where did I say that??!?!?!

I said: "I am not denying those differences - there certainly are differences between sub-races. I am simply referring to basic differences between blacks and whites. yes, slavs and nords differ, but at the end of the day, they are white, they share a lot of genetic traits with other whites."

Race is not necessarily defined by skin colour. Indians (Asians) are mostly "black", but they aren't Negroids.

And when I use the word "black" in the context of this discussion, I am referring to Negroids.

On average, Russians differ from Americans, don’t forget here that we are talking about average. So, same logic right?

"Russians differ from Americans" - that doesn't prove that there are no races. It proves that there are subraces. Even though Russians and white Americans differ, they share many traits. The same traits they don't share with Negroids.

I am still waiting that you bring me a tool to classify people by race. Go ahead do so.

A "tool"? Scientific and medical studies are enough. Studies that prove that Negroids are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia than whites, and so on. Not to mention other identifiable traits, both genotypical and phenotypical.

If Earth was to consist of only whites, and that we were to compare whites from one location with whites from another location we will find differences, yet this will have nothing to do with their skin color or other such insignificant differences… so what you claim here does not support your theses.

Again, they would be sharing the same genetic traits, so they wouldn't be considered different races. But the world isn't only whites. So there are races, and there are races with different traits.

Dan, you are insinuating again. I have accused you of being in a psychosis long time ago, and if you remember correctly the first time I accused you have even not said that you were taking anti-psychotics; I told you at that time that you should take anti-psychotics because obviously you were in a psychosis, when I told you that I was unaware that you were already taking them… it was after I told you that, that you said that you already take anti-psychotics.

I am talking about your recent reminder of this to all the members on the other forum. Moreover, that is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with it. I don't take the pills anymore. My personal life has nothing to do with my arguments. That is a fallacy.

So again, this has nothing to do with the fact that you take those medications… it has only to do with the fact that you obviously are in a psychosis, I am not attacking you, this is an observation.

Yes, and a very irrelevant observation that you felt you should make to "disqualify" me as someone who "knows" enough and is not "blinded" by his psychosis.

There are hardly any revisionist that really believe that there was no Shoah Dan

Keep your jewish words to yourself. refer to it as genocide or holocaust. i have no respect towards anyone who uses the jewish word for it, and capitalises it. On the contrary, check out the holocaust thread. There are proofs that gas chambers didn't exist.

Obviously you did not read the book, so you can not comment.

I've read the book. Revisionists do not deny the deportations or the existence of the camps or the uprisings in the ghettos and whatever means were used to silence them. That is not the point. You are twisting their arguments.

it really takes someone in an acute psychosis(hmm… how many time I used that word? Make that one more time) to really believe in some sort of conspiration by scientists.

Yes, that is correct - after all, may SANE people were considered "psychotics" because they didn't believe them at the time, or tried to silence him. That doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy.

It is obvious, the world was round was an argument made by a scientist, and yet you use this claim to reject scientists and support non-scientists, the same kind of persons that were blinded by their belief.

I am not supporting non-scientists. On the contrary, I am against pretend-scientists, who claim that "it is so because everybody knows it!"

from your standards Rushton is not a scientist…

From my standards? What do you mean?

your side was the one showing his google skills, my studies don’t come from google, yours do.

No, but your references do....

you are not one claiming they are not credible, you should bring evidences or shut up.

That I don't bring evidences doesn't prove that they are credible. That the holocaust hadn't been so far revised by revisionists doesn't mean it has happened. Another hole on your logic.

are you claiming that those studies are not credible, and that they will manipulate studies and false results in the name of politically correctness even if that might put peoples lives in danger? Do you see why I accuse you of being in a psychosis?

Who knows? Do you have proof that they don't? If not, then shut up, as per what you said. Again, we don't know the cause of blacks' deaths. Who knows what the cause of their deaths might be? You're just using cheap tactics. Stop calling me a pscyhotic. I am still wondering why you haven't received a warning. I suppose the moderators haven't been reading this thread.

What you claim is not an evidence that would discredit the credibility of those Journals.

prove the credibility of the journals then. go on, i'm waiting.

It is not an attack but an observation Dan…

And a very irrelevant and offensive and unwelcome one. Please refrain from using that again, otherwise I will not reply to any of your posts in any of the threads. You are very good at intimidating people with your labels.

Wrong, if you claim so, you must provide evidences to support it…

And you support yours? Can you prove that Rushton is a white supremacist?

You are the one doing that Dan, you are slandering blacks because of a preestablisged association you have that you call race.

I never said whites are superior to blacks on the whole. i said whites and blacks differ. you are putting words into my mouth that i didn't actually say in this thread. moreover, whites might be superior in intelligence, but blacks are superior in athletics, we've already stated that.

You are the one doing that Fadix, you are slandering whites because of a preestablished association you have that you call anti-racism.

Look Dan, I am applying the word psychosis because your behaviours enter in the definition of the word…

And again. Cut the crap if you want me to reply to you from now on, and this applies to any of the threads you post in. Otherwise I will ignore you and your pages of copy and paste and irrelevant replies.

Your claim is untrue, and I have provided evidences that show it, while you have done nothing to support it. This is how.

You constantly compare you with me? Why? If you consider me and my proof so inferior and non-qualified for this debate, why try and prove that you are superior to me? I mean, if you're superior, why would you want to be compared to me? You have provided no proof.

Your beliefs are psychosis.

And again...

This will be my last reply to you in any thread. I think you ruined whatever credibility you had.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Fadix Like if I care.

My hypothesis: People who don't know English are suffering from psychosis.

[Fadix]

And what does that do to YOUR position? Why should *I* be the one to prove something? You'd be in the same position as I am. What makes you any better? That what you say is a "given"?

You are the one claiming the existance of something. So it is for you to “prove” and not me to prove the “non-existence.”

Again, you are using exceptions. Yes, there are variations, but I'm talking on average, between blacks and whites. there are differences.

I think hundreds of millions is far from being exceptions.

Where did I say that??!?!?!

I said: "I am not denying those differences - there certainly are differences between sub-races. I am simply referring to basic differences between blacks and whites. yes, slavs and nords differ, but at the end of the day, they are white, they share a lot of genetic traits with other whites."

Race is not necessarily defined by skin colour. Indians (Asians) are mostly "black", but they aren't Negroids.

And when I use the word "black" in the context of this discussion, I am referring to Negroids.

You are contradicting yourself here. White is a color.


"Russians differ from Americans" - that doesn't prove that there are no races. It proves that there are subraces. Even though Russians and white Americans differ, they share many traits. The same traits they don't share with Negroids.

Which traits ?


A "tool"? Scientific and medical studies are enough. Studies that prove that Negroids are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia than whites, and so on. Not to mention other identifiable traits, both genotypical and phenotypical.

Which studies? Disease susceptibility is not an evidence for race, Mediterranean’s are more susceptible to sickle cell anaemia as well. As for genetic bases, there is none.

Again, they would be sharing the same genetic traits, so they wouldn't be considered different races. But the world isn't only whites. So there are races, and there are races with different traits.

No they won’t.

I am talking about your recent reminder of this to all the members on the other forum. Moreover, that is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with it. I don't take the pills anymore. My personal life has nothing to do with my arguments. That is a fallacy.

You are the one here refering to the pills here, and you were the one writing it openly for everyone to read on the other forum as well. Saying that you are in a psychosis has nothing to do with your meds here but rather an observation.

Yes, and a very irrelevant observation that you felt you should make to "disqualify" me as someone who "knows" enough and is not "blinded" by his psychosis.

I have not used it to disqualify you… you were deluded and I just told you so.

Keep your jewish words to yourself. refer to it as genocide or holocaust. i have no respect towards anyone who uses the jewish word for it, and capitalises it. On the contrary, check out the holocaust thread. There are proofs that gas chambers didn't exist.

I use the word I want, none of your business.

I've read the book. Revisionists do not deny the deportations or the existence of the camps or the uprisings in the ghettos and whatever means were used to silence them. That is not the point. You are twisting their arguments.

We shall see if you have read the book. I do have that book so it will be easy to check.

Yes, that is correct - after all, may SANE people were considered "psychotics" because they didn't believe them at the time, or tried to silence him. That doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy.

So finally you do believe in a such conspiration.

I am not supporting non-scientists. On the contrary, I am against pretend-scientists, who claim that "it is so because everybody knows it!"

Dude you have accused the entire scientific community of biases and now you tell me that you are not supporting non-Scientifics.

From my standards? What do you mean?

You do not consider psychology as a science, he is a psychologist.

No, but your references do....

Dan, kid, I have found everything you posted on google… try to find mines on google.

That I don't bring evidences doesn't prove that they are credible. That the holocaust hadn't been so far revised by revisionists doesn't mean it has happened. Another hole on your logic.

What the hell are you talking about ?

Who knows? Do you have proof that they don't? If not, then shut up, as per what you said. Again, we don't know the cause of blacks' deaths. Who knows what the cause of their deaths might be? You're just using cheap tactics. Stop calling me a pscyhotic. I am still wondering why you haven't received a warning. I suppose the moderators haven't been reading this thread.

Eh ? Dan, you claim the studies are not credible, you can not reject a study on the claim that there is no evidences that they have not been manipulated… you make no sense at all. As for psychosis, yet again it is an observation nothing more.

prove the credibility of the journals then. go on, i'm waiting.

The medications you take, the study of the efficiency of those medications were published in those Journals, the FDA(In the US) or Health Canada here use those Journals before their studies for the approval of those medications Dan. Are you claiming that Health Canada and the FDA would use non-credible sources before approving medications?

And a very irrelevant and offensive and unwelcome one. Please refrain from using that again, otherwise I will not reply to any of your posts in any of the threads. You are very good at intimidating people with your labels.

Dan, I can not, how do you expect being called when you believe in a world scientific conspiration?

And you support yours? Can you prove that Rushton is a white supremacist?

He is at the head of Pioneer Fund, a White supremacist organisation. Can one find a better “proof” ?

I never said whites are superior to blacks on the whole. i said whites and blacks differ. you are putting words into my mouth that i didn't actually say in this thread. moreover, whites might be superior in intelligence, but blacks are superior in athletics, we've already stated that.

You are the one doing that Fadix, you are slandering whites because of a preestablished association you have that you call anti-racism.


Nice try Dan… try harder.


And again. Cut the crap if you want me to reply to you from now on, and this applies to any of the threads you post in. Otherwise I will ignore you and your pages of copy and paste and irrelevant replies.

If you want me to stop, stop attacking the whole scientific community by supposing that they are in some sort of world conspiration war.

You constantly compare you with me? Why? If you consider me and my proof so inferior and non-qualified for this debate, why try and prove that you are superior to me? I mean, if you're superior, why would you want to be compared to me? You have provided no proof.

Er ? Where have I talked about me and you Dan ? I am talking about the evidences you brought against the evidences I brought… don’t put words in my mouth simply because you need things which you can answer.

And again...

This will be my last reply to you in any thread. I think you ruined whatever credibility you had.

Credibility ? Danny boy, I am part of the scientific community, you try to discredit this entire community by finding some sort of world conspiration, yet! I did not cry about it, and when I call things by their names you start crying… grow up, if you want me to stop using that word stop with your delusions.

My hypothesis: People who don't know English are suffering from psychosis.

I thought you would not answer me anymore. But I knew you could not resist. As for your hypotheses, it does not make sense, psychosis has a clear definition.