lictor616

It's a fair bet that YOU think that ... Of course you doubtless see blacks as automatically superior in all manifestations of humanity, kinder, gentler, more honest and forthright, less deceiving... maybe its in their genes? OH LOL! Whackity Schmackity DOOOOO!!! Model egalitarian you are! Wait I bet you room is festooned with Obama regalia and flyers and "ChANGE" slogans... don't deny it Canadien...

"factcheck" also pulled out their live copy of the birth certificate because the uploadable version they put up showed a photoshop code... which means factcheck is not worthy of trust in this issue as they provided the american people with a falsified birth certificate... I'd as soon trust the CNN or the National Inquirer then I would "fact"check dot org.. many have found out the PS hoax ... this man gives the account given by most people who ahve done any meaningful research on the subject. How long till the accusations of "racism" start getting flung around... It almost makes one wonder... if Bush would have been black... he,d would doubtlessly had been the less criticized president ever...

on top of it all your mind is pickled in Jesus juice... how unfortunate... Its your problem if you permit yourself to be narcotized by the endless drivel about "one race the human race" "a proletarian revolution" "world peace," "one world," and the rest of the gabble to which weak minds are addicted as to opium or crack. If we are to have a future, we must deal with our own tares and dregs who believe in opiate fantasies about the great sky pie and the "equality and brotherhood of all men". You prefer pleasant hallucinations with Christian and Marxist opium... that like suicide is your privilege... but please retain sufficient decency to not impose your hallucinations on sober people. And if you are capable of pity, refrain from engendering progeny whom your drugs will not save from the coming consequences of your moral cowardice. Our situation today is desperate indeed, and we can afford no fanciful Marxist figments of the imagination or similar illusions, no retreat into a land of make beleive. Now, more than ever, optimism is cowardice.

like they did in the Ukraine, China and Russia I suppose... 100 million dead... whoops! i mean "saved" I never thought I'd actually speak with a devout communist... I shudder as I write this... Its ridiculous you despise so called "nazis" because they may kill people... yet you embrace an ideology responsible for the worst genocides and democides in recorded human history... Decent men's stomachs must turn at the hypocrite who thinks like you...

communists like you tend to prefer bees and ants then humans... its true that insects are better suited to communist rule..

you guess eh? so we ignore biology all together ? I'm not sure I follow... So should we also stop distinguishing dog races as well... since that could lead to an accusation that some dogs are less of a dog then others? sub-canine?

his lips are purplish... sorry if it offends...

certainly... such is the real diversity of human races. I used the broadly defined races here to make my meaning understood by people here (who are for the most part, not very knowledgeable about clines or subdivisions of human races). Sub sahran africa has doubtless 500 or more sub races... (closer genetically to each other then say northern Asiatics) but yes it would be quite correct to divide human races as precisely and distinctly as possible. But to claim that there IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE... because there are hundred or thousands of them is a little extreme would'nt you say... And if you are prepared to speak of a complete equality of species, then likewise: it logically follows that you should feel the same about some species of animals... Breeds of Dogs for instance... "there are LESS mtdna variations between the various races of dogs then there are in human races". to quote James Serpell’s "The Domestic Dog": ”Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (pp. 32-33) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521425379/ so if its correct and useful to classify dogs (as other parallel species in animalia) according to broad "races" or clines... why should it be criminal or a no-no or "unscientific" to do so with humans? When we know that there is MORE reason to do so...

you use an op-ed article form an english graduate to determine where "the concept of race ends"... ridiculous.. even if the New York Times similarly ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?ex=1268542800&en=bd4affa4aea0f85c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) where they concede that "race" is a group of people who "have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else." again this is firmly confirming my previous assertions. and as I pointed out to earlier: a study on the very subject of the prevalence of RACE as a valid scientific concept found that "we know that the grand majority of biologists agree that there are human races lieberman et al 1992: A survey, (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American anthropologists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were: * physical anthropologists 41% * cultural anthropologists 53% out of these 29% more cultural anthropologists agreed in a concept of "cline" "which is the same type of racial taxonomy as race and is just as much a subdivision of human ethnicities" ("Lieberman DE, McBratney BM, Krovitz G (2002) The evolution and development of cranial form in Homo sapiens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1134–1139). When 2400 anthropologists were asked how many believed in a "cline" type of racial taxonomy and subdivision in a similar study 2002 (liberman et al 2002): 71% of cultural anthropologists AGREED that a cline type of taxonomy existed vs 20% who believed in the old concept of races 45% of physical anthropologists of agreed in a cline type of taxonomy 30% in the concept of races I quoted this from: Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "Post World War II". 2005. August 28, 2006. So no, the vast majority of anthropologists believe in "races" or "clines" and subdivisions or taxonomy of humans. For biologists the number is far greater (as ernt mayr will attest) I don't blame you for your misconception M.Dancer, because there is a huge taboo in the very discussion of this subject as it runs firmly against religious and political party line: the notion that "we're really all the same inside" and "equal" ... but regardless of the witch hunt in the academic world... most biologists agree that races and cline sand other subdivisions of humans is a fact and is very appropriate.

what a ridiculous citation... the New York Times? is that where you get scientific facts? What about the article they ran on scientific creationism being supported by "science"... haha and the author of the article is no biologist at all!!! Natalie Angier studied physics and English at Barnard College... which has no relationship with the topic she professes to write authoritatively on... Ernst Mayr on the other hand is probably the single greatest and most respected biologist since Gregor Mandel and Darwin himself! quote: ""We may believe that most differences between races are superficial, but differences are there." Dr. Alan Rogers Population geneticist and professor of anthropology, University of Utah DIFFERENCES ARE THERE... even given the stigma and potential for accusations of racism... biologists are wont to admit that we're all precisely the same... and they quote Rushton too hahaha your own source essentially agrees with me.. well done old chap!

No stated INCORRECTLY. Race is a biological fact. Ernst Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, his Systematics and the Origin of Species set forth the biological species concept still in use today, with large utility for explaining speciation. allow me to fairly state the agreed consensus in the majority of biologists and even cultural anthropologists "Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species." http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html and btw: Jews can be Ethiopian... and as black as tar. Or they can be "Ashkenazim" and have such non-oriental charateristics as Blonde and red hair.. blue eyes... etc No one but a madman would call such a people a single broadly definable "race".

Are Jews a single race or aren't they? If you don't want to "quibble" ... then don't make pronouncements on it... why comment on something YOU DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON!?!?

I'm not sure I understand M.Dancer... that Jews are a "race" is a nazi ideology... I'm telling you that Jews AREN'T a race (as is clear that Judaism is a religion and not necessarily a indicator of ethnicity). So which is it?

If Obama was a citizen... he would have presented a REAL birth certificate within days of such a demand. Instead he took 3 months to produce an internet only version that was poorly manipulated with photoshop... this whole mess reeks of fraudulence. Two theories: Either Obama is actaully an adopted denizen of Indonesia and hence unfit to hold the presidency... or he was born in Kenya and consequently.... unfit to hold the presidency... in either case the revolting liver lipped hate filled would-be Commissar of the New World Order is a catastrophe for the world entire...

ahahah! "proof" Slavoj Žižek is no historian.. he is a diseased creature who is actually recognized as an academic fraud in at least 3 universities... He is a self confessed communist and Marxist ideologue... his credentials for discussing ANY subject of history are NILL. Considering the fact that Communism is a denial of the unconditional objectivity of any truth whatsoever, anything written by communists should taken with a very large grain of salt.... Communism uses scholarship to defeat the PURPOSE of scholarship... to communists a truth is only true if it supports COMMUNISM... which is why there is nearly NO consistency in the ravings of communists (throughout history)... Marcuse (probably the favorite communist ideologue of the western World and the USA) who from book to book strenuously denied concepts or notions he most vehemently supported a book before... read Eros and Civilization and his concept of "polymorphous perversity"... In it he speaks about how George Washington enjoyed bestial acts with horses and also the monstrous depravity of coprophagy... He also affirmed that the great fire of london 1666 never happened... communists are required to lie to sustain their unsustainable "ideology" (ie conspiracy) Žižek's account on Martin Luther is pure snake oil... and what the hell kind of liesheets are you reading... no wonder looking into your mind is like peering into an open sewer!

I've already told you what gene contributes to the mental faculties typically found in blacks... I've also showed you reports explaining the different growth and brain formation patterns in broadly defined races... The evidence has ALREADY been laid out... Ashkenazim are distinct from Sephardic Jews, and jews are a hybrid race with much "diversity" ... actually to call Jews a race is somewhat erroneous. About Japanese... http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1717 Microcephalin (MCPH1) is ascertained by testing to be a more prevalent a factor in negotiating brain size, capacity and other brain-related phenotypes in Northern Asiatic then any other population group.

Well its not IF i'm right... the evidence is easily ascertainable with the human eye: you can see these morphological difference with a naked human eye. There are many GENES that together produce traits that heavily influence all manner of mental faculties. I've actually named some of them here. So what? well.. as with all truths , we should incorporate the knowledge in our understanding of reality.... don't you want to know what is TRUE reguardless of what certain truths may have as applications? look at the facial inclination of this dinka tribeswoman ... notice the bulging oval spheroid type head.. resembling a sideways egg. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/image...mepg2/dinka.jpg for additional proof of just how glaring some of the differences DIFFERENT people create: sample this bit of Dinka culture:

there we go again... "gene influence certain traits".. (and we are different due to this as genes express themselves differently ALONG RACIAL LINES) . "but we're all precisely equal".. That's Orwellian Double Think... that's simply hysterical! The fact that DIFFERENT people PRODUCE DIFFERENT societies doesn't suggest that we're indeed DIFFERENT? How did you arrive at that conclusion!? Its astonishing to see that you have at least SOME understanding of what differences exist between various races.. and are aware of the terribly limited record of invention or any sort of sophisticated problem solving abilities on the part of Australoids for instance... on top of it YOU CONCEDE that genes DO indeed play roles in the formation of all human characteristics YET you insanely deny the necessary implications of this! How and why do you make the leap of faith while seemingly understanding the role genetics play and seeing what IT HAS produced in the past, and IS PRODUCING AT PRESENT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES and reject all the logical deductions ANY reasonable person would make... for additional suggestive illustration of these morphological differences consider this pic of an albino black.... http://www.ucm.es/info/genetica/grupod/Gen...ma/albinism.gif or perhaps this one: http://www.artthrob.co.za/04july/images/hugo03a.jpg look at the noses, the jaws, the shape of heads... don't you see a consistency in them? http://www.bbc.co.uk/wear/content/images/2...003_402x302.jpg http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/6714/754...ndan-kids-0.jpg

Generally the HOX gene accounts for the differences in morphological proportions in blacks... Black children while being much quicker at gaining motor sensory and much quicker to walking, have their cranial sutures "close up" earlier then "white" or asian children. Blacks also have what are called "simple" cranial sutures... less of them, less messy less dramatic. There is also a different forming of the cranium in blacks... black people's skulls are usually thicker particularly in the dome area and have a peculiar sloping facial inclination which pose various important morphological differences Black skulls have very pronounced AA & He Post-orbital constriction, Many Blacks also have Saggital keels.. which are completely absent in asian groups .. and very rarely occur in Europeans... (Etcoff, 1999, pp. 42-43); s-S Africans have “remarkable prognathism.” (Hanihara, 2000) iw a protruding jaw which is usually associated with a sloping forehead and indicates a smaller prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that handles planning, inhibition, and self-discipline... there's more too, but I,ll cut it short for now (I haven't even gotten into testosterone production which is actually of different chemical composition in blacks- which also would have effects on the mind). for more on the subject I refer you to: Edgar, H. (Mar., 2005) Prediction of race using characteristics of dental morphology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(2). Edmands, S. (2007). Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management. Molecular Ecology 16(3):463–475. Edwards, A.W.F. (2003) Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy, an academic paper. Eichler, E.E. (2006). Widening the spectrum of human genetic variation. Nature Genetics, 38:9-11. Curnoe, D. & Tobias, P.V. (2006). Description, new reconstruction, comparative anatomy, and classification of the Sterkfontein Stw 53 cranium, with discussions about the taxonomy of other southern African early Homo remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 50:36-77. Brace, C. L. (2000). Evolution in an Anthropological View. AltaMira Press.

to use a parallel term: we could say ... that dogs are all member of the "genus canis".. or that cats are cats... You really believe that when you say "we are all humans" that you've said something profound!? .. but you haven't ... cats are cats... but is a tiger equal to a Panther? are all races of dogs equal in intelligence? NONSENSE! I hear these arguments OVER AND OVER AGAIN... "we are all one race the human race" "we all bleed red" " we all have hearts" "we all eat, urinate, copulate and pooh" these arguments score ZERO... yes we're all humans... but hardly equal.. And god is an illusory concept that is unprovable because can't prove a negative... And god is no proof of anything... because (like the concept of complete racial equality) "god" has no single proof of existence... not a shred of palpable evidence... NOTHING...

Here you go again: you simply assert something as fact without explaining your reasoning for it or showing me your Why is judging the intelligence of a people by measurable IQ scores taken from huge samples and considering their technological aptitudes (or rather lack thereof) somehow not "proof that there is no causal relation between race and intelligence"... I mean assuming something short of complete idiocy - you'll at least concede that there is reason to believe that a people's GENES do in fact influence certain aptitudes.. I mean logically, if a race or "groups of people" are consistently shown to have low IQ's and proven to have historically little or no capacity for complex problem solving (as the Australoids are)... I mean at what point will you concede that there is certainly validity in such a concept .. how can you not put 2 and 2 together? How can you say: "The very existence of those differences is sufficient proof that there is no causal relation between race and intelligence" existence of differences is PROOF that there is no difference in intelligence between races? Am I reading this correctly?! If I did that that is "Credo quia absurdum" and that is sheer lunacy and madness. If you really believe that "the differences prove that we're equal" ... then you're simply out of your mind.. and I need not further pain you by asking you to rationally account for your theory of complete racial equality.... Countless studies (from IQ by nation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ... http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530... http://www.apa.org/journals/law/) corroborate the fact that intelligence is intricately linked with race (because race is GENES) and there is every reason to believe that just as race colors a persons skin, and gives his face a particular appearance, and makes one vulnerable to specific diseases... that it also "colors his mind"... tell me that this is not plain logic & common sense? I mean why is such a concept utterly implausible to you?

I'll gladly crawl out of my hole if you provide me with compelling evidence... BUT: your insults, ad hominems, and threats tell me that I'm right...

ad hominems are needed only when you run out of intellectual "steam"... they are the cowards and idiots favorite arsenal. You don't make yourself win an argument by boycotting intellectual discourse and boycotting your brain... the BIG LIE is your impossible theory of complete intellectual and racial equality... Faced with my claim that no such equality exists... and my consequent refutation of a status of equality with the record of technological and scientific advancements made by various races and also data suggesting different IQ's along racial lines... it seems that it would behoove you to produce SOME shred of palpable counter-refutation to SUSTAIN your theory of complete racial equality (while you recognized that whites are perhaps different only in that they are more barbaric and violent and cruel then all other "equal races")... Its up to YOU to show me through A and B how the races are all perfectly to the hundredth decimal EQUAL in all intellectual capacities... and further sustain that with a comparable set of suggestive examples (inventions, or proof of problem solving abilities per say)... without such refutation... you show me that your belief in equality is not supported by any sort of reasonable data... you consequently reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of your beleif system... i.e. your religion of Egalitarianism... hmmm religion... actually... your Egalitarianism would at least make some sense if you could point to a ghost or deity that could have wrought all those marvelous cancellations of biological facts... but without a god who could have decreed such an "equality", your beliefs are exposed as having no other basis at all other then your own resentment of reality.

haahah! are we ALMOST equal then!!? yes yes... "ALMOST" the same genes.. ALMOST..... i like that... you decided that by yourself? using what method of elucidation? Did you look at a Haitian person and a Redheaded Irishman and say ... hmm yeah they've got ALMOST the same genes there... We also share 99.4% of our genes with chimpanzees... and many other with porcine subspecies (ie pigs) ... so how does that account for a theory of complete racial equality?

You neatly forgot to mention the FACT THAT THE MOST PROMINENT BIOLOGIST ERNST MAYR MADE A STATEMENT THAT RACES EXIST AND ARE NOT EQUAL. In fact you simply disgustingly glossed over every indisputable datum I used to support my thesis... and nitpicked at the "barbarism" of pushing back the Australoids and being mean and "unfair" to native populations... You made no pretense of counter-arguing because you knew you had no prospects for success in doing so. I get the same reaction when I debate evolution with crazed evangelicals... I mentioned this earlier..