What do you consider more important.....

[Anahita]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

anahita ,when you say tolerance you mean others tolerance to you but not yours i mean... you have a style of a bible( or kuran whatever) dweller.... calm yet irritating... looks open to discussion but obsessed by what he thinks.. i bet you have a saint smile on your face all the time.... maybe thats not what you are but thats what you make methink of you... lets say homers religious neighbour

I hate haters and I do not tolerate intolerance of any sort.

...was an ironic joke...just like if I said, "I always lie and that is the truth."

I meant to provoke critical thinking... that was my point with the last two messages. But, where on Earth would you form an opinion of me as someone like Homer's neighbor... (Wow. I must come off as very different than I thought.) I don't know what you mean by 'saint.'

[Otto3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

you know all those paintings with jesus in the churches.. that kinda smile... thats where i used "saint"... a knowing smile .... i hate that one... i was also referring your otherpostsnot this one only... i know you are joking... sometimes it is really hard to catch up with the print outs of my complicated mind...lol

[Anahita]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

you know all those paintings with jesus in the churches.. that kinda smile... thats where i used "saint"... a knowing smile .... i hate that one... i was also referring your otherpostsnot this one only... i know you are joking... sometimes it is really hard to catch up with the print outs of my complicated mind...lol

I always teeter between realms of being completely unintelligible by most anyone, understood by only a handful of people, or being completely obvious to all (but, also, not taken seriously). I tend towards being obvious on the points that matter most for all. I am elusive with other topics, but often misunderstood, etc. So, please, ya’ll if you don’t understand me, ask. (I’m thinking about a jump to conclusions mat right now.)

[Quarteria]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Ned Flanders

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Racism is claiming that we are not all homo-sapiens. What you are saying is that a dining table and a kitchen table cannot both serve as tables. That's racism.

No it is not.

Main Entry: rac•ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism

There is no evidence to the contrary yet, therefore we like to take a shot in the dark and try to allow equal opportunities, which have proven extremely successful so far. The number of minority members in America who are now graduating from universities would never have been made possible without the help of equal opportunities. And the African Americans fought for that. Very hard, influencing among others the Catholic Irish in Northern Ireland to also fight for their rights. I will not stand back and let all of that achievement be destroyed by likes of you, foreign Armenians who know nothing about their host-country, are not even grateful that if it was not for equal opportunities they would have no right to even live in that country, let alone open their filthy mouths against everything that allowed them a better life to begin with.

PS: I'm not pro-affirmative action, before you accuse me of that. We don't have it in Europe because we don't need it. Equal opportunity on its own has proven successful enough.

The evidence is in not only intelligence tests and crime activity, but also in achievements and successes of the different peoples throughout history, and the civilizations and cultures they have produced and the breakthroughs they have made. The fact that you don’t like it, means nothing, but the evidence speaks for itself, for why else would there be such disparities between people? In fact, the differences are so much so, that environmentalists and egalitarians such as yourself, must resort to explanations to cover the fact of racial differences, blaming environment, or other Boazian cultural relativistic nonsense.

You say you are not a supporter of affirmative action, yet you claim you support “equal opportunity”. Just what on earth are you trying to say? Do you realize you contradict yourself when you don’t know what you are talking about? “Equal opportunity” cannot exist without affirmative actions and quotas. Schools must accommodate to underachieving minority students in the name of ‘fairness’ and ‘diversity’, to give them, *ding ding ding* equal opportunity.

If left to themselves, blacks would never have been able to get in to many of the top universities because they would not have met the requirements when allowed to go on meritocracy alone. That does not mean that blacks could not compete, but the overall percentage would be so far low that it would be obvious. Never have you stopped to think of the entire contradiction of the notion of equal opportunity, anti-discrimination and affirmative action. While different only in name, they connote the same vague egalitarian concept. The law forbids an employer to discriminate by race. Yet, the law punishes an employer who does not discriminate by race. Thus, in the name of anti-discrimination America practices discrimination. The contradiction exists because what the law requires in the form of non discrimination, cannot produce what ideologues demand which is equal results. The asterisk that goes with this concept of non-discrimination is that for so long as there are more white lawyers, scientists, and doctors than blacks, then it is proof that it is racism which holds blacks down from achieving the same results. Since all races are equal as you believe, therefore the difference must be due to racism.

Only because he was not a racist and did not believe he was a genius to then claim that he knew the truth about mankind.

Your desperation and lack of substance becomes more evident each time your must resort to such childishness to redeem your argument.

When you make such generalities, you are saying exactly what I am interpreting. That some races, on average, cannot excell other races, when the exceptions are exactly what you should be looking at. How many of the Africans that graduated from Russian polytechnic universities were tested on their IQs? What were the results? Not only that, Mouse, you're not giving it TIME. It takes TIME to adapt to a new situation. We all learn and we have all adapted to our own situations. When our environment is completely stripped from us and we are forced to adapt to a completely different one, it will take TIME before we can finally come to the same level and maybe even higher. So far the little time that has been given has proven enough to show that a little more time will only raise the average. Even Siggie pinpointed that the average had risen, and was only different by 15 points. Given them two more generations, and then we can talk again whether this really very slight difference has remained static or not.

It is not exceptions we are looking for, nor do we care for. Exceptions to the rule are precisely that, exceptions. They are a small fraction of what the entire percentage is. While you may choose to think that exceptions are the most important thing, they are exceptions and they ignore the majority of what is out there. You cannot make rules, laws or observations on exceptions and form policy, as egalitarians do, based on exceptions. Time is nothing but a chimera, like an oasis in the middle of the desert. If time were to truly absolve the difference due to supposed environments, then the African would have produced a high culture a long time ago. The fact that they didn’t “need” to, as you proclaim, is evidence that they didn’t have the capability until they were colonized. The argument popularized by Guns, Germs and Steel and other egalitarian scientists, that somehow, because Africa and its environment didn’t require that they build a high civilization ignores the fact that in Central and South America, right along the equator as well, the natives built marvelous civilizations, with marvelous architecture and performed brain surgery far more accurately than us. That only goes to show you, it is not the environment, but the blood and genes of different races. Culture and civilization is only an outward manifestation of different races. You cannot argue this any other way, because to do so, would mean culture existed before there was man to create it, which defies logic.

I've been saying the same thing since the beginning about natural equality. I will not repeat it. Except that handicaps are not determined racially either. Which brings us back to our homo-sapienism.

Just what are you saying? What is ‘natural equality’? And no, you have not been saying the same thing. You have argued two different things when it suited you. Up above, you ranted on and on about how the only important thing are exceptions, while turning a blind eye to the actual chunk of what makes up the majority, and here you spin even more confusion and previously argued making absolute statements.

You make such generalities about inferiority and how we are in no way all homo-sapiens,

When did I say we are not all homo-sapiens? Stop making things up to have some sort of argument.

that you gave me no other choice but to believe that you could not even understand the simple fact that I was trying to convey, namely that we are all HOMO-SAPIENS, and therefore more alike than different, despite the fact that we are not carbon-copies of each other, not even "identical" twins.

So what we are homo-sapiens? What is your point? This reminds me of that argument that since we are all 99% alike, we shouldn’t care about that 1%. The percent difference is not a relevant comparison. Small differences can matter tremendously. Mice and humans have many DNA sequences in common. Humans and chimpanzees share 99% similarity, yet you wouldn’t suggest we are the same or that the differences shouldn’t matter, would you?

I'm furious because you are insulting entire generations of hard, hard work. By making such claims, that have no ground whatsoever, you are saying that we should maintan the status quo because there is nothing we can do about it, when after all these years everything that was struggled for is in the process of achievement. And before even given a chance, you already want to tear it all down and bring us all back to the way we were 500 years ago. Have we not progressed, us civilized nations, us most intelligent, us most superior, us most what-ever? Who are you, foreigner, to come and say that there is no point in trying?

You appeal to emotions when all substance has eluded your argument. Your emotion and anger at unpopular views makes it clear this is more of an emotional appeal than one of substance.

Not to mention that you are insulting Armenians for struggling to get to freedom and adapt to their new countries. But also all the Armenians who are now struggling in the homeland to get their acts and country together. If Armenians cannot self-govern, as many Europeans have claimed in their own time, then why even bother trying? We might as well give up our country right now. You may want to, and Mouse may want. I'm not willing to give up until I fall. And even then I will get up again and try one more time. Time and time again. The only advice that I can give to a teacher is: "If the students aren't getting it, it's because you're not." Another motto is: "It's easier for one person to adapt to a group than a group to adapt to one person. (i.e. find the way your students are capable of learning and work on teaching them with that.)"

Who cares what Europeans have said or think? You are making invalid comparisons and analogies that do not follow from the premises. What does the notion of racial inequalities and equality and legislative acts have anything to do with Armenia and independence? Life and history is a struggle for survival. Pity is nothing more than the mentality of a weak mind and a slave. Pity will not get you success or achievements, but only struggle and work will. Pity will not prevent the Turk from his scimitar meeting your neck. Pity will not change anything, except keeping the weak, the tame, the indolent, the uncultivated, the unintelligent and the uncivilized alive to thrive at the expense of the healthy and productive individuals. The more your ‘argument’ progressed, the more you have resorted to fallacious reasoning and invalid comparisons and appeals to emotion. I am left befuddled at what it is you are trying to say except that we should all be equal because its more fair that way.

No only did you make a fallacious analogy but you also insulted me by equating me with the Turk, that somehow I do not support the progress of Armenia and my own people. The truth is, what we are discussing has nothing to do with that. You are too consumed with a fairy tale of the way the world ‘ought’ to be, as opposed to the way it is and the way it always has been for thousands of years as far back as man can remember. Before you equate me with the Turk, you should know that I do not support the destruction of Armenians with every genotype, while you do. If it were up to you, Armenians would be nothing more than a diluted soup and swim in the seas of diversity. Armenian nihilists such as you have lost your survival instinct, and while you sit here and chastise how evil Europeans are for colonizing colored people, or making IQ tests, or making derogatory remarks about how Armenia cannot self-govern, you embrace the same European suicidal ideas such as multiculturalism, diversity, and egalitarianism. No one in the world believes in this nonsense except for Europeans, and certainly not the next superpower in the form of China. Korea, Japan, China all recognize race and culture for what it is, while those egalitarian social butterflies like yourself have been lost and misled on a wild goose chase for the egalitarian fountain of youth. Europeans, specifically Western Europeans, are a lost civilization and will soon be replaced by immigrant generations and genes. Armenia and Armenians, will also befall the same fate unless they understand what is going on and what is at stake. And I know you will hate this, but as Nietzsche said:

I call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is injurious to it. A history of the “higher feelings”, the “ideals of humanity” – and it is possible that I’ll have to write it – would almost explain why man is so degenerate. Life itself appears to me as an instinct of growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces, for power: whenever the will to power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest values of humanity have been emptied of this will – that the values of decadence, of nihilism, now prevail under the holiest names.

~ Nietzsche in The Antichrist.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

It is not exceptions we are looking for, nor do we care for. Exceptions to the rule are precisely that, exceptions. They are a small fraction of what the entire percentage is. While you may choose to think that exceptions are the most important thing, they are exceptions and they ignore the majority of what is out there. You cannot make rules, laws or observations on exceptions and form policy, as egalitarians do, based on exceptions. Time is nothing but a chimera, like an oasis in the middle of the desert. If time were to truly absolve the difference due to supposed environments, then the African would have produced a high culture a long time ago. The fact that they didn’t “need” to, as you proclaim, is evidence that they didn’t have the capability until they were colonized. The argument popularized by Guns, Germs and Steel and other egalitarian scientists, that somehow, because Africa and its environment didn’t require that they build a high civilization ignores the fact that in Central and South America, right along the equator as well, the natives built marvelous civilizations, with marvelous architecture and performed brain surgery far more accurately than us. That only goes to show you, it is not the environment, but the blood and genes of different races. Culture and civilization is only an outward manifestation of different races. You cannot argue this any other way, because to do so, would mean culture existed before there was man to create it, which defies logic.

Your logic is sound, your premises are not, your malinformed my friend...

Ever notice the late date at which this architechture and high civilization sprung up in Central America? Ever hear about Chinese jade being discovered there among the ruins and all this talk about how the Mayans were Mongolian slaves? Yes, conjecture, but it's good to hear such things that can twist the whole picture around, so you get a reality check about what the hell you're assuming here.

Central Americans and the indigenious tribes in modern Southern USA had tried the urban system, yet they relied heavily on agriculture. Some practiced successfully, others did not. Those who couldn't last, had chaotic, murderous ends, because that's the way a city always dies.

Look at the geography of Africa. There's the Sahara desert, jungle, steppe and some plains capable of practicing agriculture here and there. They did not all develop in lands where agriculture could be practiced, in fact, the only times they did where when they developped city centers that produced their own set of wonders in architecture. Yet agriculture is a big project, especially if you haven't done it before. Europeans had been slowly slowly getting the hang of agriculture over the course of 2000 or so years, and in the meantime, focused on pastorial and hunter gatherer based cultures. Agriculture was not popular in Africa for obvious geographical reasons. It's not that hard to develop agriculture you know. I dare you, argue to me that Africans would've been too dumb to notice that you can plant a crop and harvest it later on.

There's a correlation between sites with high culture and their ability to practice agriculture. Why do you think Africa's going nowhere today? They still can't effectively practice agriculture in many of those countries, and so cannot compete with the rest of the world... How do you compete when you can't feed yourself! When you can't generate a surplus, you go nowhere, you're stuck. Is this circumstance due to the fact that they are black?

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Jgk3, Africa is actually moving forward in great leaps, esp. as more and more children have access to education.

Mouse, African Americans fought for their rights in America. If they were inferior, or believed that they could not do anything about their situation or enjoyed it, they would not have used every method they could find to fight for their rights. The same is true for South Africa, which was influenced by the American Civil Rights Movement.

You can try to argue your point that we are not all able to adapt to our situation as much as like. No one is taking you seriously because your way of thinking is five centuries ago, not five centuries ahead.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Also, it is not true that Africans did not and do not produce agriculture. Where do you think the yam and banana among many other "exotic" fruits come from? They only didn't need to destroy every piece of land to overfeed people. They made as much as they needed. Obviously if they survived for so many centuries, it means that they must have had some access to food.

The Incas were pretty nasty as well when it came to cannibalism and sacrifical murders. The same is true for Europeans who introduced warfare as we know it today. The only reason Turks were able to commit genocide against Armenians was because they had been equipped with European artillery. Where there is "high" civilization, there is also "high" dirt.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

when did they use artillery against us in the genocide?

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

when did they use artillery against us in the genocide?

What do you mean? Genocide is the product of technology. Germany provided Turkey with all the modern weapons that they could use to deport and mass-murder Armenians. They were equipped with the best machine guns at the time and canons to blow up the pockets of Armenians defending themselves with old hunter's guns. The days of horses and scimitars were long over.