Fighting racism

[Darorinag]

I have researched war crimes for 5 years and been banned from a Shoah revisionist site few years ago, because the idiots there were unable to confront me.

I am not surprised. After all, the revisionist board that you were on, I'm sure, was interested in knowledgeable debates rather than fallacies and personal attacks. So far, what you have posted only shows how incompetent you are in "debating."
And of course, the "shoah" has to be with a capital S... How politically incorrect you are... ahhh...

yes, it is a waste of time to answer you, but I still do it, it is stupid, but I still do it still… and still.

Yes, I suppose that is one of the fallacies you used at the revisionist forum. If you don't want people to answer you because you don't want to answer back, why post on a forum? Create an online journal for yourself and save us all the trouble. You want everyone to keep mum on what you post, and when we don't, you claim it's a waste of time to argue with us. Please, Fadix, and this is not an attack on you, it's a very very honest plea (no matter how evil and racist you might think I am, take this piece of advice from me) - you're diverting your own topic in order to evade questions and arguments. It might help if you didn't do that. You posted 10+ paragraphs of useless arguments about irrelevant issues, yet you claim it's a waste of time to answer Anonymouse. I suggest that you answer Anonymouse's questions or disprove his claims, instead of wasting your time on non-issues, as Anon said. But of course, what a white supremacist piece of advice that was!!! I always used to think highly of you, but what you have stated so far and the manner in which you have "argued" is not characteristic of anyone who claims he knows a lot about a lot of issues. And this is not because I disagree with you. I am not all that stubborn a person. I used to believe in communism. Now I don't. I have been convinced. And only a good argument can do that.

Please, please, do save me from all this bashing I take at the hands of "anti-racists", and convince me that there are no races, that there are no racial differences, and that therefore racialism is WRONG. This is not meant to be sarcastic. I mean it. I am very willing to admit I was wrong if you prove that I am. There's nothing wrong in being wrong.

Let's all cut the personal attacks and act like we should in an "intellectual lounge."

peace.

[Fadix]

What a farce you are Dan, « racist » as how I described it is the original definition of the word, your definition is the recent one. Its etymology is about “race” based classification, or a belief based on a race classification.

As for your second post, try harder Dan, I am sure you can do better. Were you there on that forum? Can you provide any evidences that support your claim regarding my banning? Why should I be even surprised of your claim which you could not back up? I was banned for the same reason I was banned from Turkey.com, and anyone is free to visit that site and see if I am the one that attack, or I am the one that is attacked. As for me being incompetent in debating, again… suuuree… because Mr. Dan said it so.

Mr. Dan is making a plea… Mr. Dan, my over 10 paragraphs are right in the track, there was only one that had nothing to do with the discussion, and the only reason I brought it was because you were show offing in your forum regarding my non-answer of your posts(which concerns the Shoah).

Answering Anon? Answering what? Convincing you about what? What kind of logic is that? You guys have a belief, you guys are proposing something, it is to you guys to bring valid evidences to support your claims, and not to me to prove you wrong… but until now, you guys were not able to do much… and now you have again Anon trying to discuss about things which he ignores about.

The rest of your post is only intimidations, good going Dan, but you deceived me this time, I was sure you would do better.

[loseyourname]

I know I'm kind of just jumping in here, but as a relatively impartial third party, Fadix is not attacking you guys, at least not in this thread. He is posting genuine evidence to back up his assertion, and neither of you has either begun to address it, nor have you posted any evidence to support your own view that he hasn't effectively debunked. Now keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who is pretty firmly wedded to the idea that intelligence is genetically determined.

It would be nice if a discussion could be conducted here where people genuinely address each other's points instead of going haywire when they have nothing of substance to say. I hate to say it, Mousy, but you are showing an extreme lack of knowledge regarding statistical analysis and the conduction of controlled studies.

And to Fadix: I know this is off-topic, but nothing you've posted does anything to debunk a genetic basis for intelligence. Keep in mind that there is just as much genetic variation between members of the same racial population as there is between members of different populations. Furthermore, a black living in North America, whose descendents have been in North America for some time, will have more in common genetically with other Americans than he will with Africans who are still living in Africa. This is because he shares the environmental factors favoring certain alleles over others with his fellow Americans, not with Africans. Skin color and facial structure will fall into line at a far slower rate than other traits because these particular traits are controlled by a very large number of genes. Other traits that are controlled by fewer genes will drift in the same direction as geographic analogs at a much faster rate.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I know I'm kind of just jumping in here, but as a relatively impartial third party, Fadix is not attacking you guys, at least not in this thread. He is posting genuine evidence to back up his assertion, and neither of you has either begun to address it, nor have you posted any evidence to support your own view that he hasn't effectively debunked. Now keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who is pretty firmly wedded to the idea that intelligence is genetically determined.

It would be nice if a discussion could be conducted here where people genuinely address each other's points instead of going haywire when they have nothing of substance to say. I hate to say it, Mousy, but you are showing an extreme lack of knowledge regarding statistical analysis and the conduction of controlled studies.

And to Fadix: I know this is off-topic, but nothing you've posted does anything to debunk a genetic basis for intelligence. Keep in mind that there is just as much genetic variation between members of the same racial population as there is between members of different populations. Furthermore, a black living in North America, whose descendents have been in North America for some time, will have more in common genetically with other Americans than he will with Africans who are still living in Africa. This is because he shares the environmental factors favoring certain alleles over others with his fellow Americans, not with Africans. Skin color and facial structure will fall into line at a far slower rate than other traits because these particular traits are controlled by a very large number of genes. Other traits that are controlled by fewer genes will drift in the same direction as geographic analogs at a much faster rate.

Fadix was attacking personally, continuing his demeanor from the previous board. he whined and cried about me "diverting the topic", which he didn't prove how, simply asserted, and he did the same here. In fact, the first response of anileve and Fadix, who claim to be "not biased" are the accusations of "racist" and other emotionally driven antics. All the evidence that backs up my position is in the previous thread which I will not copy and paste in this one. This is simply a creation of Fadix' appeal to his own sense of self, the high horse champion of egalitarianism.

As for my knowledge of statistics, it is enough to understand that margin of errors are not holy, and are entirely arbitrary based on a given study, which differs from others studies as they take into account different things. That is all that has to be said about this thread.

[Darorinag]

What a farce you are Dan, « racist » as how I described it is the original definition of the word, your definition is the recent one. Its etymology is about “race” based classification, or a belief based on a race classification.

I was simply mentioning the other part of the definition of racism which you didn't mention. You're jumping the gun again.

Fadix is not attacking you guys, at least not in this thread.

Really...

"What a farce you are Dan"

I hate to say it, Mousy, but you are showing an extreme lack of knowledge regarding statistical analysis and the conduction of controlled studies.

Well it wasn't Mousey who claimed that since there was a higher number of crimes by Whites than there was by blacks, that it meant that Whites in America committed more crimes by percentage than blacks.....

[loseyourname]

Look, perhaps I can offer up a hypothesis that might satisfy all of you. Let's say that indeed there is a correlation between race and IQ, and that blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites. A simple explanation for this might be that given the respective histories of the peoples, intelligence was more likely to be selected for in whites than in blacks, the reason being that African culture remained primitive far longer than European culture. Africans, for nearly all of their history, were selected for brute strength and breeding capacity more than anything else. Europeans, on the other hand, with the more advanced technology and social constructs they had, were more likely to live long enough to reproduce if they were cunning, and so over the ages became more intelligent than their cousins living in the jungles and on the savannahs. If intelligence is indeed genetically determined, then this hypothesis would seem pretty reasonable.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Look, perhaps I can offer up a hypothesis that might satisfy all of you. Let's say that indeed there is a correlation between race and IQ, and that blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites. A simple explanation for this might be that given the respective histories of the peoples, intelligence was more likely to be selected for in whites than in blacks, the reason being that African culture remained primitive far longer than European culture. Africans, for nearly all of their history, were selected for brute strength and breeding capacity more than anything else. Europeans, on the other hand, with the more advanced technology and social constructs they had, were more likely to live long enough to reproduce if they were cunning, and so over the ages became more intelligent than their cousins living in the jungles and on the savannahs. If intelligence is indeed genetically determined, then this hypothesis would seem pretty reasonable.

This is all I've been saying, but didn't get around to it. Essentially all the "race data" that we draw are in some way, shape, or form, based on the histories. Thank you for that point, you summarized it better than I got a chance to. Does this mean we should hate someone for being a different race? Obviously not, nor did I ever suggest otherwise.

[Darorinag]

the reason being that African culture remained primitive far longer than European culture

Well, wouldn't intelligence be considered a determining factor in how primitive or civilised people are? Just a question, not an argument. What do you think, loseyourname?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag Well, wouldn't intelligence be considered a determining factor in how primitive or civilised people are? Just a question, not an argument. What do you think, loseyourname?

Not really, Dan. Every race came from the same place if you go back far enough. One didn't have a head-start on another. If I had to speculate as to why African culture remained primitive, I would say it was just geography. It's a lot harder to survive in the jungle than it is in any part of Europe or in the ancient "fertile crescent." When every day is a struggle against nature to survive, you don't have a whole lot of time to develop advanced civilization. In Europe, people didn't have to worry about battling nature so much; they just battled each other.

[Darorinag]

Now now now, aren't you jumping to conclusions here, loseyeourname? What about Russia? What about the Scandinavian countries? What about Egypt, Lebanon, the crade of civilisations? Are you telling me it was hardEST to survive in Africa? That's a huge assumption right there.... what about the natives in America? They had civilisation. The Aztecs and the Incas. Are we to generalise now and assume that geography treated the blacks unfairly?

When every day is a struggle against nature to survive, you don't have a whole lot of time to develop advanced civilization.

Oh really... so are you saying that.... those peoples who were subjected to daily enemy attacks from neighbouring countries, etc. did nothing but fight them, in order to survive? If that were the case, there would be NO civilisation today.

The Natives had their own medicine, healing processes. That is civilisation. The Europeans did too. So did the Chinese (herbs, etc.). Africans (mostly non-Northern-Africans, as North Africa is close to Europe and hugely benefited from Europe and the Middle East) did not.

But of course, that could always be attributed to SOMETHING. ANYTHING. As long as we can find a justification for it, we're fine, aren't we? Even if the justification is unbased... Africa was more of an exception rather than a universal thing amongst those who lived in tough circumstances. After all, didn't our primitive ancestors too? Are you saying then that they had absolutely no chances of building a civilisation? Where did it all come from then? Appeared just like magic?

In Europe, people didn't have to worry about battling nature so much; they just battled each other.

Really... hmmm.. what about Russia? What about the COLD Scandinavian countries? Surely they were not cold, were they...? Only heat counts, doesn't it? Surely the Vikings don't count...