Fighting racism

[Anonymouse]

Hahaha loser that was funny, great points.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse This is unsubstantiated and a twisting of the facts, and what I posted. I claimed races are different on a biological level. Scientific fact will not say who is superior or inferior it will only put out differences on a biological level. When put into a historical context, it is evident that the differences are responsible for the backwards of one group, compared to another.

Indeed. It would be nice if we could just discuss the facts and quite mischaracterizing each other's arguments.

The only way you can find genetics similarities in between populations is by measuring gene frequencies which are similar in all races, but failing to measure gene frequencies which do vary widely and are different between the races. This is how data gets twisted and skewed, by any scientist in his egalitarian wisdom deciding to skew the facts to favor one world view. Moreover, criminologists and forensics rely on DNA testing, which obviously relies on different races for it work, for capturing criminals, or establishing a body, or what have you. Any forensic anthropologist will tell you the cranio morphological differences are real between the races.

Quite true. Enough of this citing of HLA markers. What about SSU-rRNA? What about an actual genomic sequence? The fact that respective immune system glycoproteins are similar does not mean there is no genetic difference. If you only going to cite one aspect of gene expression, you could use the same argument to show that Chimpanzees and Humans are not separate species because they have virtually the same hemoglobin amino acid sequences.

[Fadix]

Oh my gosh, oh my gosh… Anon, are you doing it on purposes? If you are, STOP IT NOW. Margin of errors are NOT determinated arbitrary. STOP talking about things which you ignore. I am saying this for the LAST time. Margins of errors are calculated depending on the sample vs the total or other formulas when the total is unknown. They are not coming from an arbitrary formula, they comes from the laws of statistics. Everyone can calculate it when having the sample and the total, example let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times on 20(the average confidence used usually) of the time. Let take 100 as the sample, and for the estimation of a population of 100,000. If I apply the formula I find 9.8%. This is NOT! arbitrary, STOP, STOP! repeating the same thing over and over and over again when you have been shown to be in the wrong, you have done that countless numbers of times on many other occasions, and it is becoming REALLY annoying. The laws of statistics show us that more the total population is bigger, lower the quotient sample/population could be to maintain the same error margin. It is purely statistical; it has nothing to do with an arbitrary figure. For instance if I have 1,000,000 as the total population and 1,000 as the sample, if I apply the formula to calculate the margin of error I would obtain 3.1%. Even if in both cases the quotient sample/population are the same. It is from there that we can draw a graphic and make a projection for a bigger population, and when we increase the sample, let say above 5,000, the variation of the population higher than a million won’t change much, it will stabilise. This is how we can in some cases ignore the total population. This was what I meant when I was referring to formulas that ignores the total.

Now regarding IQ and brain size. First of all, the 3% difference was an average I did between studies, when the most serious study for man, in a sample of above a thousand give for the cranial capacity for black man(excluding women) 1449cm3 and whites men 1468cm3. Which means that statistically speaking the brain sizes are about the same. And more, the same study for Asians find out 1464cm3. From your logic, whites should have a higher IQ than yellows because they had 4cm3 bigger cranial capacity. The fact is that the measures of brain size were measured by using body parameters which are now proven to not have much correlation with brain masses or cerebral activities.

Here is what Dr. M. Peters writes regarding the pass dated list of cranial capacity between races.

“The former values for the three groups represent cranial capacity estimates which are based on values corrected for body parameters (Rushton, 1992). To perform this correction, Rushton used slopes for the log/log plot of brain against body weight which are not appropriate for within-species comparisons (Harvey, 1988). For comparison of individuals drawn from the same species, a slope which is almost horizontal is appropriate, and should be close to the .08 determined empirically by Reed and Jensen (1993). This is borne out by other available evidence. Wickett et al. (1994) state that for their sample of white women, it would appear that the size of the brain is largely independent of body size (p. 836). Similarly, Jerison (1979) found no significant association between body weight or height and brain weight for men within the age range of 29 to 41 years of age. A conservative conclusion is that there is no legitimate reason for using steep slopes in comparing brain/body size relations across races. As a result, statements about brain size differences between races should not rely on adjusted values, and it is not appropriate to conclude that higher IQ's in Asians are linked to larger brain size.”

(Source: “Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology” Vol. 49, No. 4)

He also writes:

“The issue of race/brain size/IQ invites a return to the sex/brain size/IQ issue. Rushton's (1992) data show that the estimated cranial capacity of Negroid-American men is some 13-14% higher than that of Caucasoid-American women, even though the average IQ for the former is presumably lower. How can this be integrated into a model of larger brain => higher IQ without qualifying the meaning of brain size comparisons across sexes, or revisiting the issue of what factors other than brain size have a bearing on IQ? This question once again emphasizes the unresolved issues of how brain weight/body parameters can be compared across sexes, races, and age cohorts.”

So first, it is even not clear whatever or not blacks brain size is smaller than those of whites, second even if it were, it does not obviously explain why blacks have a lower IQ, since black man have a bigger brain than white woman, but still they have a lower IQ.

Dr. M. Peter adds:

“It is legitimate to ask whether the contemporary Negroid- and Caucasoid-American samples described in the common 1988 age cohort could not differ as much from each other in undefined demographic and nutritional variables as the cohort samples from 1950 and 1967 differed from each other.”

This is very important, and still I have not developed the nutritional issue, we know that most of the brain mass is formed of fat, fatty acids and other important nutriments plays a part on the mass of the brain, as well as many nutriments such as vitamins, minerals etc… not only do they play a role in the developpement of the brain, but as well have a major role on the foetus, and this foetus in its turn when it grows, and become a man or a woman it will breed as well and transmit this “problem”… a deficient nutrition can have an impact for the hundreds of years to come.

Now coming to the race issue again. Do you not realise that you still contradict yourself? You tell me that the only way to find genetic similarities is to measure the gene frequencies which are similar in all races. But why searching for the differences would be more valid than searching for the similarities? Both you and louse have not addressed this issue. This the whole point, if we were to classify races based on some genetic differences we would have hundreds of different races. This is not how races are classified, they are classified by group, and when you find two goes in the same group, and that there is two groups, you will have to conclude that each of those groups are races, which would mean the two in one of the groups are of the same races. What constitute a difference which would make two groups different races? This is the whole point. But here again, you won’t change a yota, you will even not consider what I proposes because you reject evolution, you believe in some sort of alien creation of humanity, where they have made many trials, and whites are superior, one of the good results of those trials, and blacks as being the less “good” ones. You see Anon, this was one of the reasons why I called you a racist. You do not believe in evolution, but still use science in your advantages, when science supports your belief, it is a truth, when it does not, this science becomes a belief. And no, it is not believed that humanity started from Africa because of the “African Eve,” it is believed so because the oldest human remains are found from there… but of course for you this is not evidence, since you believe to an alien intervention rather than evolution.

“The idea that "they have not moved much" is an assumption based on evolutionary theory. The fact that there is no black or Negroid civilization only shows that that particular group has a far less limited potential, than the other racial groups, for civilization, rather culture, is only an outward manifestation of that given people. It reflects the people that create it. Culture does not create people, but any given people create the culture that reflects those people. This is simply logical, you can argue against it all you want, and you can justify it as "they didn't move much", doesn't change the fact that they produced no civilization, that would rival the "Mongoloids" or the "Caucasoids".”

Are you trying to fool both of us into believing you said something here? Simply logical? So, if we were to have two groups of white people in two different environments, and that in ones environment there is everything needed for their most basic needs and in the other cases not, if one group evolve more, are we to assume that they are superior? Simply logical? Your above paragraph is only pseudo-science; it does not make any sense at all.

“It becomes really tiresome arguing with adults who act like children and who themselves have their beliefs based on beliefs. Your assumption that because my answer didn't sit well with your conception of how things should be and that means I didn't read the book is unfounded. The only shouting that has ever occured has been by you here and on the other board when someone dares to critique the great Fadix.”

Belief based on belief. Do you mean like your claim of alien intervention which could not be supported by any valid evidences? You are just playing the mirror game, just redirect the attack and wish that it would stick. Shouting you say? Again a redirection of attacks. Anon, are you trying to fool yourself? Anyone is free to go at the other board, the only person having a problem with me there is you (beside Dan), and I was not the only person having a problem with you. How do you explain that? If I am the one starting shouting on people that disagree with me, how do you explain that my only problem beside Dan(whom had problem with practically everyone) was you? And no, you did not read the book, it was evident you had no clue of what you were talking about, you even rejected something that is observed, calculated, measured and expected as a belief and refused to accept it as something that is “known.” So you wanted to know something “scientifical” you rejected? I gave you one example just here.

Now, as for the rest of your mumbling, I will add just a few things here. I have debated with many persons whom disagreed with me, the other board is an example, the only persons I had problems with were Turks(it is understandable why), ethnic haters and you and Dan. While on the other hand, you will hardly find anyone whom you did not have any problems with. The other forum is an example. You pop on the middle of a conversation and start making comment inflaming the board. You did that from the beginning, for example, one of the members was suspended for 2 weeks, and you knew it, you still started talking on his back knowing you won’t have any answers… When people disagree with you, you start shouting how they have a big ego, or start accusing them of doing what you are doing.

"Hmmm Anonymouse really made me feel inferior and gave me a crack in my thinking in the other forum, should I take my chances and respond? Maybe I can somehow get him this time!"

Can a moderator give me the permission to post the link of the discussion we had to see of what he is talking about and how he made a fool of himself? When did you gave me a crack in my thinking? Do you mean when you started talking about how the shifting of the axes that is observed (I even proposed you to show you how to observe it yourself), measured, calculated and expected was just a BELIEF??? While you consider alien “invention” of humans just more their a belief? Is that what you mean by saying that you made me feel inferior? Dude! Stop projecting on others everything you feel yourself, you are becoming quite predictable… try writing something new the next time.

And to end up, I shall quote your last statement here.

“Isn't the internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many conceit freaks without having to pay to see them in movies? I am not going to insult you anymore. I assume that you have suffered enough in life and in the other forum and here by me. Besides, I never insult people, I only reveal to them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.”

Any readers, read the similarities between this above comment made by him, and the one made by a Turk from a Turkish forum slandering me.

“Isn't the Internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many freaks without having to pay to see them? Pr.k, I haven’t insulted you. I surmise that you have suffered enough in life. Besides, I never insult people. I merely tell them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.”

This guy is really a psycho, if telling this is worth a warning, then I shall have one. Someone that is after my internet activities like this psycho should consult some psychiatrists ASAP!!! This same psycho think that I have registered here because of him.


Louseyourname, I will try to answer you soon…

[Darorinag]

So Fadi, let me ask you this, why isn't there a marginal error BETWEEN WHITES then, but only between blacks and whites? Surely there must be a marginal error WITHIN a certain category? We are talking about averages here. We're not talking about exceptions, as exceptions are just THAT - EXCEPTIONS!!!!

Try explaining advanced Calculus or Discrete Math to a black person in the same year level as you, and see what I mean. Try it on more than one person, and see what I mean.

The absence of blacks in science is not a result of racism. If there were racism, there wouldn't have been any chinese in computer science; and there are TONS of them...

There was ONE black guy in my physics class in first year, there were 500 students in that course... he was also in my math logic class. he dropped out of both. now I'm not using this to generalise and say that all blacks drop out of science courses. I'm just trying to point to their ABSENCE from those fields..

if it were racism, no blacks would've been in arts either. in fact, look at the number of black / white / asian students. and we are not talking about first-generation post-racism families here. we're talking about the children of those who could attend college/university...

Racism is an irrelevant concept here. Firstly because it hasn't been proven that it is racism that prevents blacks from majoring in science fields... Sour grapes...

Perhaps instead of being bitter about not being able to be involved in science on a large-scale, and yell out foul play, they should think about and admit their limitations, or try to overcome them by other means. because they sound like whiney little kids.

There isn't even any anti-black racism in university admissions. on the contrary, affirmative action goes on under the name of "equal opportunity"... well, equal opportunity for who? For supposedly "equal" races? Or for people with equal abilities? University is not about race, it's about abilities. Ironically, they are engaged in reverse racism while at the same time they whine about being victims of racism....... they want to use the concept of race when it comes to equality and abandon it when it comes to differences.

[Darorinag]

As per the title of the thread ("fighting racism"), I am posting this news story because I think it's relevant to racism and "fighting" racism... (please note that it's NOT from a white supremacist website, it's from The Sun Newspaper).

---

Banned for being white
By PHILIP CARDY

A CHARITY worker’s invitation to a ritzy celebration bash was withdrawn because she is WHITE.


Linda Sims, who spent months knitting clothing to raise cash for the needy, was chosen to go as one of the Experience Corps charity’s most hard-working volunteers.

Overjoyed Linda, 54, was looking forward to mingling with VIPs at the event in Portcullis House, opposite Parliament in London.

But unknown to her — and the regional organiser who nominated her to attend — the do was specifically for African and Caribbean volunteers.

When charity chiefs found out she was neither, a representative called on her and told her she could not go due to a “misunderstanding”.

Mum-of-two Linda, of Chorlton, Manchester, said: “I was so angry. I felt used. I was really looking forward to it.”

Linda told how she had knitted “mountains of stuff”, including more than 70 baby jackets, that Experience Corps sold to raise money.

The charity encourages people aged 50 or over to use their skills to benefit the deprived.

It has staged events to thank various women helpers, including Sikhs, Jews, Hindus and Muslims.

Spokeswoman Sarah Joy said some local organisers did not realise next week’s do, hosted by Treasury Chief Secretary Paul Boateng, was for African and Caribbean volunteers.

She added: “Normally we would have welcomed Mrs Sims with open arms but this event wouldn’t be relevant to her.”

Linda WILL be invited to a “heroes” do in June.

But she said: “The explanation has come a bit late. I’ve a feeling my knitting will go to the Salvation Army now.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004120393,,00.html

---

I know what your reactions will be like, and I'm not going to talk about that right now... but I always thought blacks wanted equality on the bases that race didn't really matter (because all races are supposedly equal...). So now, I ask you, what is this, then? Anything other than hypocrisy? They want equality yet segregation. They want privileges yet deny others just that. They want equality yet they want to be different (when it suits them)... But if a white group had banned a black person for attending an all-white event, they'd be labelled as racist, discriminatory, and other derogatory terms, including the ever-so-famous one, "white supremacist." Enough said already. They need to see the "thorn in their eye" before they see the "log in the other person's eye." Irents achkin pousheh nakh togh desnen, vercheh ourishin achkin keraneh...

[Fadix]

Dan, read my upcomming answer to loseyourname, it will answer every points you make. As for your second post, please delete it and post it on the other thread, it has nothing to do with the discussion. This was one of the reasons I have started another thread. I never denied there was racism against whites, but this again is another subject which has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Oh my gosh, oh my gosh… Anon, are you doing it on purposes?If you are, STOP IT NOW. Margin of errors are NOT determinated arbitrary. STOP talking about things which you ignore. I am saying this for the LAST time. Margins of errors are calculated depending on the sample vs the total or other formulas when the total is unknown.

In which the sample vs the total is dependent upon each given study. There is no holy law that says the margin of error IS 3%, rather it is based on that particular study based ont he particular sampling methods. "Doing it on purposes" you say?

Originally posted by Fadix They are not coming from an arbitrary formula, they comes from the laws of statistics. Everyone can calculate it when having the sample and the total,

Precisely, anyone can calculate the margin of error in that particular study, depending on the sample in relation to the total. You yourself proved my point by then going on below to give your own example, which only shows it is arbitrary based on a study, as can be seen from the following phrase "let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times...."

Originally posted by Fadix let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times on 20(the average confidence used usually) of the time. Let take 100 as the sample, and for the estimation of a population of 100,000. If I apply the formula I find 9.8%. This is NOT! arbitrary, STOP, STOP! repeating the same thing over and over and over again when you have been shown to be in the wrong, you have done that countless numbers of times on many other occasions, and it is becoming REALLY annoying.

No one said it is "arbitrary" in the sense of making it up out of thin air, what I have maintained throughout, which you continuously ignored, is that it is arbitrary based on studies, as each study, given the different confidence intervals, will differ in its margin of errors. You keep jamming the same point either intentionally or unintentionally, perhaps out of your own misunderstanding of statistics, by spouting "laws of statistics" as if margin of errors are a holy number, which they are dependent on each given study.

Originally posted by Fadix The laws of statistics show us that more the total population is bigger, lower the quotient sample/population could be to maintain the same error margin. It is purely statistical; it has nothing to do with an arbitrary figure. For instance if I have 1,000,000 as the total population and 1,000 as the sample, if I apply the formula to calculate the margin of error I would obtain 3.1%. Even if in both cases the quotient sample/population are the same. It is from there that we can draw a graphic and make a projection for a bigger population, and when we increase the sample, let say above 5,000, the variation of the population higher than a million won’t change much, it will stabilise. This is how we can in some cases ignore the total population. This was what I meant when I was referring to formulas that ignores the total.

If you knew anything about statistics you would know that the sample size affects the margin of error, and in fact is crucial to affecting the margin of error. Even in your petty example you are using a random sample size, a random example, which will produce a margin of error based on that.

Originally posted by Fadix Now regarding IQ and brain size. First of all, the 3% difference was an average I did between studies, when the most serious study for man, in a sample of above a thousand give for the cranial capacity for black man(excluding women) 1449cm3 and whites men 1468cm3. Which means that statistically speaking the brain sizes are about the same. And more, the same study for Asians find out 1464cm3. From your logic, whites should have a higher IQ than yellows because they had 4cm3 bigger cranial capacity. The fact is that the measures of brain size were measured by using body parameters which are now proven to not have much correlation with brain masses or cerebral activities.

This is a common example of deception via semantics. Here you go into the details of brain size measurements, nevermind where you got your numbers from. Here even though you acknolwedge differences you cloud them in the zone of "statistically speaking they are about the same", which is another way of marginalizing differences found. Which study are you quoting from? From Peters'? Rushton has replied to Peters. In fact, according to Rushton in The General Psychologist Summer 2002, Volume 37:2 there is:

1) a .04 correlation between brain size and cognitive ability 2) mean group differences in brain size with East Asians = 1,364cm^3; Whites = 1,347cm^3; Blacks = 1,267cm^3; and 3) mean group differences of IQ scores of East Asians = 106; Whites = 100; Blacks = 85; sub-Saharan Africans = 70.

Originally posted by Fadix Here is what Dr. M. Peters writes regarding the pass dated list of cranial capacity between races.

“The former values for the three groups represent cranial capacity estimates which are based on values corrected for body parameters (Rushton, 1992). To perform this correction, Rushton used slopes for the log/log plot of brain against body weight which are not appropriate for within-species comparisons (Harvey, 1988). For comparison of individuals drawn from the same species, a slope which is almost horizontal is appropriate, and should be close to the .08 determined empirically by Reed and Jensen (1993). This is borne out by other available evidence. Wickett et al. (1994) state that for their sample of white women, it would appear that the size of the brain is largely independent of body size (p. 836). Similarly, Jerison (1979) found no significant association between body weight or height and brain weight for men within the age range of 29 to 41 years of age. A conservative conclusion is that there is no legitimate reason for using steep slopes in comparing brain/body size relations across races. As a result, statements about brain size differences between races should not rely on adjusted values, and it is not appropriate to conclude that higher IQ's in Asians are linked to larger brain size.”

(Source: “Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology” Vol. 49, No. 4).

He also writes:

“The issue of race/brain size/IQ invites a return to the sex/brain size/IQ issue. Rushton's (1992) data show that the estimated cranial capacity of Negroid-American men is some 13-14% higher than that of Caucasoid-American women, even though the average IQ for the former is presumably lower. How can this be integrated into a model of larger brain => higher IQ without qualifying the meaning of brain size comparisons across sexes, or revisiting the issue of what factors other than brain size have a bearing on IQ? This question once again emphasizes the unresolved issues of how brain weight/body parameters can be compared across sexes, races, and age cohorts.”

I am glad you found Dr. Peters to copy and paste, for what else would you have relied on? I'm beginning to wonder if you know what you are copying and pasting, or if you are merely doing it to have something to reply with. Rushton replies:

"

Peters (1993) misstates when and why it is appropriate to correct for variation in body size (e.g., height or weight) when analyzing human attributes. It is only appropriate to correct for body size if one wishes to determine whether two (or more) individuals or groups are relatively different in some attribute, when it is already known that they are absolutely different in that attribute and/or in body size. For example, men and women differ in both absolute brain size and absolute body size. Thus, it is appropriate to correct for body size to determine if men have relatively larger brains. But, it would be inappropriate to correct for body size to determine if men have absolutely higher IQs.

Consider this simple analogy: John Doe is 178 cm tall and can jump 1 m off the ground, whereas basketball star Michael Jordan is 208 cm tall and can jump 1.17 m off the ground. There are two questions that we can ask from this: (1) For his size, can Michael Jordan jump higher? (Answer is no he's 17% taller and can jump 17% higher), and (2) Can Michael Jordan jump higher? (Answer is, obviously, yes).

Now, consider Peters' argument that to determine if larger brains produce (absolutely) higher IQs, one must correct for body size. This, as can be seen from the above, makes no sense. A higher IQ is a higher IQ (just as a higher jump is a higher jump) regardless of body size. On average, taller people have higher IQ's, not because they are taller, per se, but because, on average, they have larger brains. Correcting for body size reduces the question to a nullity, i.e., do tall people with their larger brains have relatively higher IQ's?

Originally posted by Fadix So first, it is even not clear whatever or not blacks brain size is smaller than those of whites, second even if it were, it does not obviously explain why blacks have a lower IQ, since black man have a bigger brain than white woman, but still they have a lower IQ.

Notice the words "even if it were"? It explains perfectly well why blacks have lower IQs in correlation to their brain size, irregardless of comparing it to women, as Rushton has already claimed, that they are of different sexes. You would get the same results if you compared the brains of Black women to those of White women, as Rushton notes:

Peters (1993) correctly noted the absolute male/female difference in brain size. He was, however, incorrect that comparisons of brain size across sex cannot be made because there are (supposedly) no appropriate scalars of body size. Ankney (1992) reexamined Ho et al.'s (1980) autopsy data on 1,261 Americans aged 25 to 80 after excluding obviously damaged brains. Using allometric technIQues that are standard in comparative biology, Ankney (1992) found that at any given surface area or height, brains of European-American men are heavier than those of European-American women and brains of African-American men are heavier than those of African-American women. For example, among 168 cm (5'7 ) tall European-Americans (the approximate overall mean height for men and women combined), brain mass of men averages about 100 grams heavier than that of women.

As Rushton further points out:

Haug noted that most female data points lay above the regression line (i.e., women average more neurons for a given brain size than do men). This suggests that women's brains are differently organized than are men's, and so causes and results of race differences in brain size may be different from those of sex differences.

Thus it is not a valid comparison to compare the sex with race.

Originally posted by Fadix Now coming to the race issue again. Do you not realise that you still contradict yourself? You tell me that the only way to find genetic similarities is to measure the gene frequencies which are similar in all races. But why searching for the differences would be more valid than searching for the similarities?

This shows your lack of understanding regarding genetics, and the issue of gene frequences. There are gene frequencies that exist in everyone, and there are gene frequences that do not, and are limited to certain groups. If geneticists measure gene frequences that are similar in all the racial groups, they will conclude that "we are all 99.9% similar". This means that they measured more frequences that are common to all the racial groups, and ignored many gene frequencies which are not. This is not a question of which is "more valid", but a question of scientific objectivity. Obviously there are genetic frequences similar, but why only measure the similar ones simply due to ideological bias? There are many many gene frequences and allele patterns that are different in between the racial groups, that will show differences.

Originally posted by Fadix Both you and louse have not addressed this issue. This the whole point, if we were to classify races based on some genetic differences we would have hundreds of different races. This is not how races are classified, they are classified by group, and when you find two goes in the same group, and that there is two groups, you will have to conclude that each of those groups are races, which would mean the two in one of the groups are of the same races.

Because classification is such a complicated issue, to further corroborate racial differences on a genetic level, we see races differ on a morphological and cultural level. Classification is complicated and has always changed, but you don't see scientists stopping classification of other species, why should humans be exempt simply for the sake of ideological bias? Just because classification is difficult doesn't mean scientists should cease, even for bacteria, but you don't see scientists stopping that. Moreover, simply classifying races due to genetic frequences is misleading as races do not just different because of allele patterns. As Rushton concluded, in his classirfication of the populations along more traditional lines, on 60 differing variables, i.e. brain size, intelligence, reproductive behavior, etc., and found that Mongoloids and Negroids are on the opposite ends this measurement, and whites in the middle ground. Rushton states:

"In sum, race is a biological concept. Races are recognized by a combination of geographic, ecological, and morphological factors and gene frequencies of biochemical components. However, races merge with each other through intermediate forms, while members of one race can and do interbreed with members of other races."

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix you believe in some sort of alien creation of humanity, where they have made many trials, and whites are superior, one of the good results of those trials, and blacks as being the less “good” ones. You see Anon, this was one of the reasons why I called you a racist. You do not believe in evolution, but still use science in your advantages, when science supports your belief, it is a truth, when it does not, this science becomes a belief. And no, it is not believed that humanity started from Africa because of the “African Eve,” it is believed so because the oldest human remains are found from there… but of course for you this is not evidence, since you believe to an alien intervention rather than evolution.

My belief in intelligence guiding human "evolution" is no different than your belief in evolution guided by random mutations and natural selection. As for my disagreement for "African Eve", it is justified and there is evidence to the contrary, as I already stated, there is always room to disagree with any given theory, as theories are theories, treat them all the same. You on the other hand have no resorted to dismissing it simply because it conflicts with your view of how things should be. If the oldest remains are found in Africa, does that mean anything? So what? The second oldest remains are found somewhere else. It could be that Aliens planted these groups in different parts in different times for all we know. Evolution is a big guess, don't put your whole faith in it. Last time I checked Darwinian evolution was a theory, meaning it is open to interpretation and disagreement.

J. Hey and E. Harris, have presented data suggesting that the famous African Eve was the mother of only modern sub-Saharan Africans and everyone else descended from an entirely different Eves.

Source: Pennisi, Elizabeth; "Genetic Study Shakes Up Out of Africa Theory," Science, 283:1828, 1999. Bower, B.; "DNA Data Yield New Human-Origins View," Science News, 155:181, 1999.)

Originally posted by Fadix Are you trying to fool both of us into believing you said something here? Simply logical? So, if we were to have two groups of white people in two different environments, and that in ones environment there is everything needed for their most basic needs and in the other cases not, if one group evolve more, are we to assume that they are superior? Simply logical? Your above paragraph is only pseudo-science; it does not make any sense at all.

You don't need to resort to name calling Fadix, I already know you fear me and are threatened by me, but please keep it on the mellow side. I am suggesting exactly what I said earlier. Did you not read? I said that no white person living in sub-Saharan Africa would "evolve" into a Negroid, with black skin, a change in gene frequences, and cranio-morphology, and skeletal morphology of the body.

Originally posted by Fadix Belief based on belief. Do you mean like your claim of alien intervention which could not be supported by any valid evidences?

The evidences presented by Sitchin, Hancok, Danekan, Sagan, etc., are enough to be a valid theory, no different than evolutionary theory. That you hate this alternative to evolution, which gives a crack in your edifice of thought is no ones problem but your own, only showing you have your matrix which you will defend at all costs. What is "valid evidences"? I can argue that evolutionary theory lacks "valid evidences". Your point? You shouldn't get off topic with this Fadix, since you whined and cried about me doing this in the other thread. If you want to discuss evolution go to my evolution thread.

Originally posted by Fadix You are just playing the mirror game, just redirect the attack and wish that it would stick. Shouting you say? Again a redirection of attacks. Anon, are you trying to fool yourself?

It's simply observable that the only one who started the personal attacks, the intolerance towards dissenting views, was you.

Originally posted by Fadix Anyone is free to go at the other board, the only person having a problem with me there is you (beside Dan), and I was not the only person having a problem with you. How do you explain that? If I am the one starting shouting on people that disagree with me, how do you explain that my only problem beside Dan(whom had problem with practically everyone) was you?

It's quite simple you see, my life is not about seeking validation from other forumers unlike you. You are a pseudo-intellectual "adult" perhaps way over my own age, yet you have behaved immaturely. If anyone on the other forum has a problem with me, they certainly have not made it known. And whatever "problems" others in the other forum have with me, is because they are all threatened when their ego is met with a challenge, and therefore, must compensate for it by shouting. In none of my threads have I started to shout and name call anyone, unless I was attacked first, and the so called "adults" are the most intolerant and childish when it comes to those who disagree, and pose a potential crack in their worldview, you being no exception. I only came to the other forum because I thought it was more calm and more mature, but the higher the age group, the more childish they are. Whatever thread I started and argued in that forum, I argued because I could back myself up, it was only when people like you, who cannot defend their arguments resort to the tactics which you have resorted to, ad homenim fallacies.

Originally posted by Fadix And no, you did not read the book, it was evident you had no clue of what you were talking about, you even rejected something that is observed, calculated, measured and expected as a belief and refused to accept it as something that is “known.” So you wanted to know something “scientifical” you rejected? I gave you one example just here.

And here the great self styled expert Fadix, tries to tell me what I have or have not read, he appears to be psychic.Because my reply questioned Fadix theory, it "logically" follows ( in Fadix' mind ) that I didn't read.

Originally posted by Fadix Now, as for the rest of your mumbling, I will add just a few things here. I have debated with many persons whom disagreed with me, the other board is an example, the only persons I had problems with were Turks(it is understandable why), ethnic haters and you and Dan. While on the other hand, you will hardly find anyone whom you did not have any problems with. The other forum is an example. You pop on the middle of a conversation and start making comment inflaming the board. You did that from the beginning, for example, one of the members was suspended for 2 weeks, and you knew it, you still started talking on his back knowing you won’t have any answers… When people disagree with you, you start shouting how they have a big ego, or start accusing them of doing what you are doing.

This is all a non-issue and a clear example of you posting off topic things which you whined and cried about. As for me "popping" in the middle of a conversation" and "start making comment inflaming the board", that is unsubstantiated. As for your assertion of "one of the members banned for 2 weeks" and I "started talking behind his back", what does that prove? I talk about who I want to talk about. It is a forum, I was unaware he was suspended until the second week. What is your hangup? You simply came here with preconceived notions of me and your hatred of me, and you are spilling junk from the other forum into this forum. This forum "sucks" for you, so why are you here? Ahhh, it's becuse I created a vortex in your mind in the other forum, and now you are here whining in the same manner. The only time I "shout" is when I am shouted upon. It was who who shouted to Hye Acher simply because she gave a reply you didn't like with your "Waaah this is my thread, waaaaaaaah". You need to be more mature for a pseudo intellectual.

Originally posted by Fadix Can a moderator give me the permission to post the link of the discussion we had to see of what he is talking about and how he made a fool of himself? When did you gave me a crack in my thinking? Do you mean when you started talking about how the shifting of the axes that is observed (I even proposed you to show you how to observe it yourself), measured, calculated and expected was just a BELIEF??? While you consider alien “invention” of humans just more their a belief? Is that what you mean by saying that you made me feel inferior? Dude! Stop projecting on others everything you feel yourself, you are becoming quite predictable… try writing something new the next time.

This is what I mean by you bringing junk from the other forum and spilling it here. You are the most childish pseudo intellectual I have encountered on the internet, a true forum troll. You are not even a pseudo intellectual, you are a pseudo intellectual and a half. The shifting of the axis, is based on a theory, which is based on another theory that we revolve around the sun, theories are theories treat them all the same, and the numbers used to measure are based on our arbitrary measurement of time, i.e. a "year". Uhh duuude, stop whining you are becoming quite predictable...

Originally posted by Fadix And to end up, I shall quote your last statement here.

“Isn't the internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many conceit freaks without having to pay to see them in movies? I am not going to insult you anymore. I assume that you have suffered enough in life and in the other forum and here by me. Besides, I never insult people, I only reveal to them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.”

Any readers, read the similarities between this above comment made by him, and the one made by a Turk from a Turkish forum slandering me.

“Isn't the Internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many freaks without having to pay to see them? Pr.k, I haven’t insulted you. I surmise that you have suffered enough in life. Besides, I never insult people. I merely tell them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.”

Which "forum" is this from? And can anyone be blamed for using the same insult? It is a pretty well known phrase much like the insult you use "You know nothing of what you are talking about, you should go learn about statistics and then come back to me" I am beginning to see that you are truly obsessed with me and everything about me, even the statements I hurl at you, for you have attained a mystical quality, in which you cannot even sleep before checking your forum to see if I replied.

Originally posted by Fadix This guy is really a psycho, if telling this is worth a warning, then I shall have one. Someone that is after my internet activities like this psycho should consult some psychiatrists ASAP!!! This same psycho think that I have registered here because of him.

Hey nerfbrain, you're the one that came in this forum with name calling and hatred and trying to spill childish invectives and issues from the other forum into this one. It's funny that you say I am after your internet activities when it is you that followed me here into these boards, and since I already made you feel like insignificant little bacteria in the other forum, you tried to have one last shot at trying to redeem whatever value you had left, which is obviously zero. Ever since I challenged the matrix of the great Fadix, he has held a grudge against me simply because the only way he can compensate for his myopic worldview, is by childish name calling. Although both arrogant and ignorant, his attempts to get the better of his betters leave him constantly trying harder and harder. When will Fadix give up? Only time will tell.

[Darorinag]

Look, the thread title says "fighting racism." You changed the topic in the other thread, and then started a thread of your own and now are saying that I shouldn't post an article that demonstrates how racism is not being "fought" against, or if it has, it's being fought against selectively.

None of the articles you've posted so far have provided proofs that race doesn't exist. They have only tried to disprove the other side, and unsuccessfully so - without numbers, only with words.

Clearly, what you initially posted was not a scientific paper. It selectively chose the "favourable" studies and ignored the rest of it. That hardly qualifies as a "proof." Fallacy of exclusion.

It wasn't possible to develop agriculture in Africa; they remained hunters and so didn't have the energy resources to devote to writing poetry and building temples.

"It wasn't possible to develop agriculture in Africa." Yes, because they were primitive. Not the other way around. Clearly, there are many examples out there of humans being able to surpass the limitations of their geographical location. Most of Egypt was not a particularly agricultural place, yet they had a great civilisation. What explains THAT? And what explains the fact that Natives could have a civilisation and culture?

Today, there IS agriculture in Africa. Thanks to who? The Europeans. If it hadn't been for Europeans, Africa would still be plagued by every disease you can think of.

[Fadix]

For the sake of this board, this is my last reply to Anon(actually this reply will take two posts), loseyourname, I am sorry to not respect chronology by replying him before you, but since I will not be wasting my time with him anymore I think your patience will be fully rewarded, as I always leave those that are after having the last word, having the last word, as it is the only satisfaction they have in their life.

Anon, I hope that you do realise that you are again trying to change what you have said previously. Here let repost what you have written here, and loseyourname, or anyone here that have a knowledge of statistics or have studied in a scientifical field, I leave you guys explain him why what he says has no sense, as I am done with it, I do not have the interest nor the energy to try to resonate someone that is not interested to. So here Anon, this is what you wrote: “You can call it .15 or .03, a difference is a difference.” Anyone making such a claim has to be totally ignorant of what error margins are. Since any studies finding a variation that is smaller than the error margins would never be considered as evidences to support anything, and the difference found will NOT be considered. Which means that it won’t be an evidences for a “difference,” the conclusion for such a study would be “inconclusive.” I do not have the energy to explain that to you, and even if I had, it is obvious that you are even not interested to learn. Now, let repost what you added later when I told you that you can not consider a study where the difference found is lower than the error margin: “Why not may I ask?” Here, I still considered you and tried to explain you, even if such a question would discredit you entirely on every opinion you may give regarding statistics, and those that know of what I am talking about will know why. Now, I shall post the most important part, you continued and wrote:

“And what about the margin of error, which itself is just arbitrary, based on different number of trials, and errors. Is there one holy set of margin of error? I've seen margins of error that are +/- 2, or +/-.04, or +/- 5, or +/- 4 percent in anther case. In this case the margin of error is obviously a certain number, and when you expose all results that do not agree with that, then they are "inconsequential", and you will then result with "only an ignorant like you". The margin of error, in other words, is totally arbitrary based on a given study. Maybe you should go back to statistics 101 and review how to make a survey.”

This was just purely wrong, it has nothing to do with trials and errors, they are not based on different numbers of trials. Now let post all definitions of the word arbitrary:

“Arbitrary \Ar"bi*tra*ry\, a. [L. arbitrarius, fr. arbiter: cf.
F. arbitraire. See Arbiter.]
1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed
rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.

It was wholly arbitrary in them to do so. --Jer.
Taylor.

Rank pretends to fix the value of every one, and is
the most arbitrary of all things. --Landor.

2. Exercised according to one's own will or caprice, and
therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the
possession of power.

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the
ruins of liberty abused licentiousness.
--Washington.

3. Despotic; absolute in power; bound by no law; harsh and
unforbearing; tyrannical; as, an arbitrary prince or
government. --Dryden.

Arbitrary constant, Arbitrary function (Math.), a
quantity of function that is introduced into the solution
of a problem, and to which any value or form may at will
be given, so that the solution may be made to meet special
requirements.

Arbitrary quantity (Math.), one to which any value can be
assigned at pleasure.”

Neither of those definitions applies, arbitrary means that you could just attach margin of errors to any given trials, you CAN NOT do that. I won’t even continue to debate about that, it is really pointless, obviously you won’t admit your ignorance neither your mistake.

Let see what you ended up answering here now:

“Precisely, anyone can calculate the margin of error in that particular study, depending on the sample in relation to the total. You yourself proved my point by then going on below to give your own example, which only shows it is arbitrary based on a study, as can be seen from the following phrase "let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times...."”

Proved your point. This is what you are saying. While I show you why margins of errors are not arbitrary figures, you now twist and tell me that I am proving your point. You again are contradicting yourself. Calculating something using a known law, can not give any arbitrary results, neither the fact that each studies have their error margins makes error margins any more arbitrary, because they do not come out of the wind. It is expected now that you will twist that, and tell me how arbitrary to the sense of this or that… as you do just here:

“No one said it is "arbitrary" in the sense of making it up out of thin air, what I have maintained throughout, which you continuously ignored, is that it is arbitrary based on studies, as each study, given the different confidence intervals, will differ in its margin of errors. You keep jamming the same point either intentionally or unintentionally, perhaps out of your own misunderstanding of statistics, by spouting "laws of statistics" as if margin of errors are a holy number, which they are dependent on each given study.”

I really am not interested, as I will just let you have the last word and leave you sleep knowing you had it… I will just ask to the rest of the readers to read his above explanation and later on reread once more the definition of the word arbitrary and his past posts which I quoted, and see how this man is not humble enough to admit he just did a mistake, and in fact he had no clue of what he was talking about…. Try you’ll see it is not hard to admit your mistake…. But again, I do not expect much from you.

“If you knew anything about statistics you would know that the sample size affects the margin of error, and in fact is crucial to affecting the margin of error. Even in your petty example you are using a random sample size, a random example, which will produce a margin of error based on that.”

No! I don’t know anything about statistics, I just studied inferential statistics regression models, chronological series (autoregressive processes predictions), survival analysis, non parametric regression etc… yes! I do not know anything about it, nothing… this man studying history will teach me my field… obviously again, you have no clue of what you are talking about, randomness here is non-existent, as more the sample is big, and the total huge, the total will play a small role, and we will obtain an asymptote, for this reason we ignore the total population.

The rest of everything that concerns races, I answer in my coming answer to loseyourname, as it is useless to even discuss with you by now.

The second post will come tomorrow.