Yea, I think Castaway’s “telling of the truth” here has been met with something less than fanatical devotion to a superior cause and good idea.
Oh, but that’s because we’re all puppets of the media instead of puppets of him. Duh.
**
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
castaway, you claim that I am attempting to “cut off” communication: You are a conspiracy theorist. I have simply pointed out that some conspiracies that you have claimed have no factual basis.***
I’m sure you are a “conspiracy theorist” as well, if your going to use the word so broadly.
There are people who have the most control over the affairs of the developed world on this planet. I have identified the Genetics of those people to be a combination of ancient Jews and ancient Aryans. I don’t claim to know the precise combinations or the true nature of the religious beliefs these people might be following. This really isn’t conspiracy it’s empiracal observation. See the rest of my conspiracy comments at the bottom.
I am not misrepresenting your position, I am pointing out the factual and logical errors in it.
Well, what problem do you have with my so-called conspiracy above? It seems that the only factual error you pointed out, that I agreed to was the old definition of the word racism. Any other logical errors you may think you pointed out may be nothing more than us not fully communicating yet. Genetic Freedom takes time to communicate given the past of this world. You talked about how populations don’t “try to outpopulate each other.” They simply do… it doesn’t mean they gather together in meetings and plan it out. It simply happens. So where you perceive a logical error, is really just a communication error. More below…
I will admit that remarking that continued discussion would do you no favors might have a chilling effect on discussion, but I have not refused to continue the discussion: I simply figure that you and Jack Dean Taylor and Kat Hak Sung are not being helped when people treat your claims as having a basis in reality.
I don’t know who they are but I’m quite certain your not putting me in good company - a common theme with you but one I’m immune to. I’m pretty good 10,000 against 1 (as long as they don’t use physical violence against me). If I say something it has basis in reality. Really, you are making yourself look bad to any truly impartial observer here… Things I say have heavy basis in reality - they may need some tweaks sure.
**Y’know, you accuse me of misrepresenting your views, then you deliberately ignore my points to respond to things I have not said. **
I don’t deliberately ignore anything. I respond and perhaps I miss things sometimes.
I am not delusional in my description of history. You claim that we have been “branching” all along–a point with which I would agree, although I note that we have also been merging all along-
I agree with both of these points… and Genetic Freedom would continue both of these, freely.
-but you ignore the quite relevant point that I made: there are currently no coherent groups that have expressed a desire for this of segregation you want to impose.
I answered this… with several groups. Many white groups, Japanese and certainly some other asian groups. Some black communities in philadelphia and likely more but I only read one little article about it. Also, for people to want a particular freedom, they have to be taught about it. Kids are conditioned with the “one human genetic mass” religion from birth. We will teach people about Genetic Freedom, then, if nobody wants it fine and dandy.
Name a coherent group, with identifiable boundaries, for which some significant portion of that population has expressed a desire to remain separated from the rest of the gene pool.
Japan is a good one. However, identifiable boundaries are not required. These boundaries can be established once a large enough group makes the decision to want to gather into a community. Human Genetic Branching can only occur if they are separated from the rest of the gene pool. That’s how genetics branch.
**Further, your claim that “genetic” rights has some priority over other rights is simply absurd. You are claiming that the happenstance genes with which a person is born should have more legal standing than the decisions that an individual makes by the exercise of their own free will. That is not “genetic freedom,” it is “genetic” slavery. **
This is a prime example of your blatant mischaracterization of things I say. I’ll say it again because it’s really not that difficult. We ARE genetic life. Thusly both individual and group freedom, based on genetics is a fundamental human right. Genes are not simply happenstance, first a male and female must choose to create a kid and the genes are thus guided in that way. How those two genetics combine is, of course, random. The one, and only one right that “Genetic rights” trumps is the following: If person wants to enter into and live in a community that does not accept them into it because their genetics are not desired, then the right of 10,000 individuals in that community to have their genetic freedom outweights the right of that one person who wants to enter into that community and end their organized, localized group freedom. Obviously there will be some businesses and schools within the community which would also be protected under Genetic Freedom.
**Again: if you wish to find a few people with whom to in-breed, simply follow the model of the Amish and do it. **
I have no desire to find five people and inbreed to become 10,000, though it could be done. I have a desire to educate people about Genetic Freedom.
The rest of this stuff is simply your attempt to impose an odd way of looking at the world on a world that has clearly rejected that notion years ago.
The world rejected racism, slavery and things of that nature. The world does not yet comprehend Genetic Freedom - and nor do you. Remember, we live in a world where well over 3 billion people are totally delusional - Christianity/Islam/Judaism. I don’t determine what is knowledge by what “the world” rejects or accepts. The mob is hardly an intellectual giant.
If “genetic freedom” was so important, then there would be no interbreeding now (assuming you could even identify the groups that you wanted to separate).
You show, once again, how little you comprehend the concept of Genetic Freedom. The essay is pretty clear. You are caught in the past and it’s quite a challenge, I must say, trying to push through that particular layered ignorance. It’s like people see a threat and work to quickly crush it - yet there is no threat there.
The reality is that humans enjoy breeding with humans, regardless of minor differences.
You are pushing the “one human genetic mass” religion with this statement. It certainly oversimplifies human genetic life. But for some, simplification works.
They have been doing this for tens of thousands of years–long before “PC” and “multiculturalism” and similar bugaboos were even invented. This has provided ample diversity to this point and any attempt to compel more separation is coercive.
Again, lack of understanding of G.F. as I have laid out shows. You have your position, opposed to Genetic Freedom, yet you don’t even properly comprehend it. There is no coersion. You teach people about it, they choose. People are currently coerced into the “one human genetic mass” religion by every educational and mass media resource out there. You have nothing to stand on. What I speak is the clear and unbiased truth.
If you do not really mean to compel that separation, then you already have the Amish model to follow and you do not need to rant through the world demanding anything more.
Laws… do i really have to go over that again? I didn’t think so.
Basically, you have thrown out red herrings and straw men to explain why you do not simply follow the Amish practices. Today, you have every right to do exactly what they are doing: separate education, limited access to the media for your children–none of these require that you dispossess anyone to establish your breeding grounds.
Laws… if the laws oppose the freedom, there is no freedom. “hiding” on private property until that is some day swiped from you is hardly freedom, and you can say it 1000 more times, I won’t accept it as freedom and neither would any sane person.
The fact that you come here and argue that the Amish are a flawed community while pretending that you need to change the laws to protect your odd visions should tell you something regarding those odd visions.
Odd is a relative term, of course, so to your perception they are certainly odd, I’m sure.
*** For an example of a conspiracy:I have never compelled any person to mate with any other person. Nor have I compelled anyone (or forbidden anyone) to live in a particular place. Since the Amish are able to practice endogamous marriage within a larger society, your claims to need something more are false and your claim that I am “forcing” anyone to do anything smacks of conspiracy.**
You support the laws which say that nobody can discriminate in housing anywhere in the United States… how you twist this around to me seeing a conspiracy is very, very odd - it’s not rational. Surely you can see that.
And further:
And I call bullshit on your claim, repeated in the very denial you uttered, that any group is deliberately trying to “outpopulate” anyone else. Show some evidence for this claim, or realize that this is makes you appear to be a conspiracy theorist.
When the hispanic population continues to outpopulate the white population, they are then able to elect hispanic officials. Blacks took washingtom DC and many other cities in the U.S. For you to think that these people are not intelligent enough to realize that if they are in the majority, they can elect their own officials is condescending to their intelligence. I don’t require evidence… it’s self-evident and only a fool would suggest otherwise. I don’t know to what extent these people plan it out, but it happens. The people that are responsible and control their population numbers (whites) are out-populated. You are on the loosing side of this argument. Doesn’t matter who you are, or what agenda you are serving, you will, one day, have to concede - and I’m patient as that may be ten years from now and you won’t be conceding to me but someone else. Conspiracy requires illigal activity - outpopulating others in some place is NOT illegal. Do you understand that?
**
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
There is no law prohibiting “genetic” “freedom,” there simply is not. The Amish practice it all the time, despite your unreasoning contempt for them.**
I’ll try to spell it out really clearly.
Proximity coupled with a media influence which encourages the “one human genetic mass” religion will lead to any two ethnic groups homogenizing given enough time.
Proximity alone can lead to this.
If you don’t believe that, then you aren’t on the same planet as I am.
But, assuming you believe this, if there are laws which enable proximity to be the norm (nondiscrimination in housing), then the laws are encouaging genetic homogenization as a probability trend.
Laws do not prohibit genetic freedom if a group of 10,000 people wish to simply do it via “secret communications,” which is how it’s done today, of course. The laws prohibit one of the fundamental requirements of open, happy, peaceful genetic freedom and that is a local community having the right to discriminate in housing. Thusly, since laws point a gun at people, the laws are oppressing Genetic Freedom of the open, local kind. And the only reason that you would oppress this type of Genetic Freedom is because you believe that it’s “backward” and “stupid” and perhaps some other negative adjectives.
Surely you at least understand what I have been saying now regarding the law…
Not exactly… I mean what I said in the post right above this one…
I’m pretty sure “Aryans” is shorthand for the various white peoples who still populate Russia and Eastern Europe. Even just white people in general. That’s how I was using it.
After looking up the word Aryan it seems it deals with Hitler’s “white race” and the Indo-europeans which, I guess are in northern India.
I suppose in the strictess sense I’ve mis-used the word. Change “Aryan” to “Various White Ethnics.”
**
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
castaway: However, in the case of Genetic Freedom you don’t need to brainwash people but simply tell them the truth.
If by “telling them the truth” you mean saying the sort of things about it that you’ve been saying on this thread, I don’t think its efficacy is anywhere near as good as you’re hoping. You certainly haven’t succeeded in convincing anyone here.**
- We are all Genetic life
- Genetic life branches
- We are intelligent genetic life
- intelligent genetic life need not follow the same genetic pathway for all time.
- We are individuals and we are groups of individuals flowing and ebbing freely in our groups.
- groups are nothing more than the sum of thousands of individuals decisions
Therefore - Genetic Freedom for both individuals and groups of people is a fundamental human right.
Sure, it will take time for the wording to improve more and for it to sink in, but eventually I’m confident you guys will all accept it (years).
That would be “Slavs,” sport.
And you’re supposed to be an expert on ethnic divisions?
Do you really believe that the groups you named made a conscious and deliberate effort to out breed the white population? If so, you are a conspiracy nut. If not, you are being disingenuous. It is one thing to note that a group with more people will have more power. It is quite another to pretend that they have made some conscious effort (conspired) to breed for the purpose of increasing their population.
Your example of Washington, D.C. is a particularly good example of (or deliberate distortion of) history. Backs did not “take” cities from whites by having a higher brth rate. A large number of different factors (including whites choosing to move away from the cities–often to places where blacks were forbidden to follow) led to changes in the ratios of blacks and whites in those cities. At no time was the difference in relative population determined by birth rate. A simple review of the statistics will demonstrate that the population changes occurred in far less than a single generation–something that breeding just cannot accomplish. This is the sort of historical ignorance or distortion to which I referred earlier.
The essay makes clear that you do not grasp several salient facts regarding history and science, that you have an inflated view of just how much genetic diversity actually exists, and that your whole “genetic freedom” schtick is nothing more than a gratuitous assertion that has no factual or logical underpinings.
I see by your post #203, of 12:27 AM, that you are simply using doubletalk and evasion to insist on your new laws for segregation. The Amish are quite clearly doing what you want to do. They are not requiring any separate laws to accomplish their goals. They are doing nothing in secret. Your entire response was a non-sequitur. It appears that you are simply in love with your flawed philosophy and cannot actually explain why the Amish model would fail–given that it is clearly succeeding for them.
You know, I think this is actually proof that our good buddy castaway is a simple, old-fashioned racist. He obviously views the election of a black or Hispanic politician as a threat to the white control of government, and also views an ethnic conspiracy to ensure control of the region.
My response to this is: So what? If a place is 60% black, it is 60% black. Big deal. If they elect a black politician, again, so what? That is called democracy, son. Welcome to America.
The very fact that castaway is pale-faced terrified about “them blacks” being able to vote in politicians is pretty simple - he is a racist, and that explains why he views his white utopia where none of us dirty colored folk can come near him.
His further insistence is that ethnic groups somehow have collective rights, which is absurd. A group of people is not homogenous. If 100 people all exercise the same right, then yes, you can say that the group has the right - granted by the individuals. If even one person does not, the group can not be said to be exercising a right.
Lastly (for now) his basis is absolutely stupid. On his argument, one would make an (ironically, homogenous) ethnic state out of Iraq. In his hypothesis, this would result in peace and happiness. However, what he fails to take into account is the other factors of society- including, especially in this case- religion, tribal alliances, and politics. The LAST thing that this kind of containment would result in is peace and happiness. Thus, his argument that his racial segregation would lead to a better world is incorrect on the most basic levels. While taken to its extreme - that is, segregating each person from each other person - this idea would, indeed, result in world peace, one comes to question the validity of such a plan.
Aryans were a group of tribes that spoke an indo-european language that invaded India. To use the word in any other context reaks of psuedo-science. If you are indeed basing your theories on any works that use aryan to mean “white” then I would suggest reworking your whole mythos.
OK, please clarify: Would a law that enforces (not forces…ENforces) genetic segregation help or hurt Genetic Freedom? If hurt, then how?
Its becoming easier to refute you…
**Hokey-dokey. I just went back and re-read the manifesto posted in the OP along with most of the beginning of the thread. (I had some time to waste.) Basically, flight’s initial reaction seems to be correct: take some entry-level science and social science courses, blend disparate factoids together with a failure to grasp the underlying reality, and toss up some pop-science silliness.
Some highlights (taken variously from the link in the OP and the subsequent responses:
From the OP’s manifesto:
Quote:
All life on the planet is genetics, therefore both individual and group freedom based on genetics is a fundamental freedom for intelligent genetic life.
The “therefore” in this sentence has no basis in reality or logic. It could equally be argued that all life on this planet is based on seawater and that freedom based on seawater is a fundamental freedom. All intelligent life on this planet requires oxygen, therefore freedom based on oxygen is a fundamental freedom.**
It says this: First we are individuals, then we are groups of individuals, then groups of groups and so on. Groups are nothing more than the sum of thousands of individual decisions. All life on the planet is genetics, therefore both individual and group freedom based on genetics is a fundamental freedom for intelligent genetic life.
I added one line there in attempts for you to comprehend the “therefore”… It’s an accurate use of that word. We ARE Genetic life… We ARE individuals… Groups ARE the sum of thousands of individual decisions… THEREFORE… get it? If you don’t it’s OK. Time will cure that.
Let us set aside the obvious point that making a big deal that life is based on genetics is actually a tautology.
Life is Genetics - it’s a BIG DEAL, it’s the only deal in town.
Genetics simply happens to be the word used to identify the chemical reactions that underlie living things. OK, it is redundant, but let’s proceed, anyway, to see whether some later point is worth pursuing despite its shaky foundation.
When people think of “life” they don’t automatically think Genetics… Life IS genetics clears that up immediately. Now we could also add the “soul” into this discussion, sure. But the soul is more “unknown” than Genetics are.
Suddenly, we have the introduction of intelligence as an attribute. Given that all life is “based on genetics” while freedom is only associated with intelligence, it seems pretty clear to me that we can simply eliminate the genetics aspect (since that occurs in life forms lacking intelligence) and base our “freedom” solely on the intelligence aspect of any lifeform. A gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. Since the assertion that freedom is connected to genetics was asserted with no actual reason provided, I am denying the silly claim that there is some inherent connection between genetics and freedom.
You can play word games all day long… in the end I’m right and your wrong, done. Unintelligent genetic life fights and kills each other for survival… (from that same paragraph for which you are enjoying taking things out of context). So for the concept of Genetic Freedom, intelligence and genetics are required… it’s not that difficult.
From the OP’s manifesto:
**Quote:
Why are the people of today not able to discuss this freedom? Probably because yet another religion has been birthed, and this religion has it’s basis in opposing this freedom. When all humans, in a particular land zone, are genetically homogenized, the purpose of this religion ceases to exist. This phobia or fear of genetic freedom has resulted from 1) historical slavery, 2) oppression of one ethnic group by another, and especially 3) the whole Nazi/Hitler saga. It’s much easier to think of the human race as just ONE type of genetic life; it makes any discussion a lot simpler.
Alternatively, rather than some sort of suppression of the topic by the evil media, it is more probable that the topic appears meaningless, given that there is already less genetic diversity among 6 billion humans than there is among entire species of great apes (none of which have 6 billion members):
Great ape DNA sequences reveal a reduced diversity and an expansion in humans.**
Well… we better get going with Genetic Freedom then!!! We need to incrase human population diversity as fast as we can! Why do you even bother. From a logical point of view your legs were cut off long ago.
**From, Post #11:
Quote:
Also, it’s just about a fundamental freedom. Genetics naturally branch. That’s just how it works. In order for them not to branch, there must be some powerful force causing this lack of freedom. In this case the force is law and media which, as we all know, is controlled by the elite people of the world. So the real question is then, why do these elite people want us all to homogenize?
Actually, we can see by the lack of “genetic diversity” that already exists among 6 billion people, that the “powerful force causing” homogeneity is, in a word, lust. Given that we aready have a species that is more homogeneous than our relatives among the great apes and that actual government or media efforts to get us to “homogenize” are less than one generation old, it is abundantly clear that humans have been rejecting “genetic diversity” without any prompting from the government or media.**
This is what you call no prompting from the government - they pass something called the civil rights act which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of genetics in housing… more specifically on the basis of race, but we all know how that’s applied and what it means. The Media trends are what they are, and they are so easy to prove it’s silly. The problem is simply that we are caught in a world that, just as it pursues delusional religions like Christianity and Islam and Judaism, many are pursing the “one human genetic mass” religion and it makes them happy… just like Jesus Christ makes the Christians happy. If anybody said thay wanted to do a doctoral dissertaion on how the media and law works to homogenize the human ethnic groups they would be labeled racist and they would not get their doctorate… so don’t ask me to cite any references because we are currently in world of religious suppression on these topics. It’s not sane.
**From Post #12:
Quote:
Well, first I believe in evolution and human nature and all that. If there are any Christians here I will likely not be able to communicate with them from this point on.
So, Chimpanzees will produce a different culture than humans right?
I’m quite certain that nobody, at all, will disagree with that.
Dolphins have a differnt culture than humans right?
Again, no disagreement.
So, the reason for those different cultures are genetics.
This logical non sequitur is nearly painful to look at. Noting that chimps or dolphins might have a different “culture” than humans hardly leads to a direct conclusion that the “reason for those different cultures are genetics.”**
God you are funny… Yeah, we should do a three million dollar study to determine if genetics are, in fact, why these intelligent genetic life forms (not as intelligent as humans), dolphins and monkeys, have different cultures from each other and humans. You are quite beyond rational speak at this point… For one, they are designed physically differently. If dolphins had arms, they may very well become as intelligent as humans… but they wouldn’t be genetically combining with them - maybe some, sure, I really dont’ know… In this case I’m sure you could agree that they may not be reproductively compatable.
Even recognizing that intelligence has a genetic component does not help us leap over the immense chasm in the logic that claims that the “cultures” are different and the genetics are different and so the genetics clearly cause the culture differences. There are a great many things that go into the creation of culture and a claim that culture is based solely on genetics must be established before we attempt to swallow this claim.
Negative… you are so wrong in how you characterize things. We do not need to establish that culture is based SOLELY on genetics… only that it influences it… which it obviously does, period. For one, skin color can influence cultural development… done. If you can’t see that, I don’t really care. You will in time (years). Again, you support the “one human genetic mass” religion because it makes you feel good.
(For example, if genetics is a prime determinant of culture, then why are the cultures of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews so different?
Well, genetics CAN BE a prime determinate of culture if the Genetics are different enough - like between dolphins and humans. But as the Genetics become more similar the factor they play is reduced accordingly on a gradient scale. Most things are in the gray area. Little is black and white.
We can see why they are the same, based on a single religious tradition and the exchange of ideas between the groups on religions mores, but how can they be different if genetics pays such a determinant role in culture? If we wish to emphasize the genetic separation between the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic groups, then we can examine the Dutch and the Flemish Belgians who have remarkably distinct cultures despite being “genetically” separated only a few hundred years ago. Attempting to base culture on genetics has no basis in reality.)
You are an extremist thinker. Genetics influence culture just like environment influences culture. You go off on tangents that I did not propose… I say that Genetics influence culture then you say “attempting to base culture on genetics.” However, as I pointed out, when the genetics are different enough, then you can actually base a whole lot of the cultural differences on genetics - like between dolphins and humans.
We do not even need to get into the fine points of how to change laws to segregate the (basically nonexistent) genetic groups. We need only declare nego majore and ignore the premise, based as it is on a lack of facts and a paucity of logic.
I just skewered you… your only hope is to deny it and continue ranting/lying.
No I’m an “expert” on Genetic Freedom since it’s a new concept. I am relatively familier with how to name the various ethnicities of the world but not perfect.
**
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Do you really believe that the groups you named made a conscious and deliberate effort to out breed the white population? If so, you are a conspiracy nut. If not, you are being disingenuous. **
Some of them certainly do… you don’t even know the proper use of the word conspiracy - it requires illegal activity in common usage which means how you are applying it is uncommon usage. It’s not illegal to intentionally outpopulate another ethnic group. I think this needs to be studied more. Unfortunately this is a so-called “racist” study so it won’t be allowed in the universities. This puts you on the side of suppression - I’m sure it makes you happy!
It is one thing to note that a group with more people will have more power. It is quite another to pretend that they have made some conscious effort (conspired) to breed for the purpose of increasing their population.
Populations have attempted to outbreed each other throughout history - it’s called survival. You are getting hung up on the “extent to which they plan this out.” People just do it, it’s a natural phenomenon and they certainly, on occassion, think to themselves that having more kids certainly couldn’t hurt their political power. That’s all that is required for my assertion to be correct. Again, it’s in the gray area so I’m not being absolutelist in any of my “proclamations.”
Your example of Washington, D.C. is a particularly good example of (or deliberate distortion of) history. Backs did not “take” cities from whites by having a higher brth rate.
The word “take” was improperly used by me… when I’m wrong I admit it and move on. Done.
A large number of different factors (including whites choosing to move away from the cities–often to places where blacks were forbidden to follow) led to changes in the ratios of blacks and whites in those cities. At no time was the difference in relative population determined by birth rate. A simple review of the statistics will demonstrate that the population changes occurred in far less than a single generation–something that breeding just cannot accomplish. This is the sort of historical ignorance or distortion to which I referred earlier.
What you just said is 100% inline with my thinking on one way population “X” can out-populate population “P” - with the additions I mention above. However, your particular version of it is not even entirely accurate. The whole truth is a combination of interracial marriages, whites moving out and to places where they can have local community genetic freedom (even though the government opposes that freedom), Blacks talking on occassion how if they become greater than 50% they can elect their own officials into power (this does happen - believe it, or not), blacks having a higher birthrate than whites (for whatever reason, no need to go there because it’s just a fact).
The essay makes clear that you do not grasp several salient facts regarding history and science, that you have an inflated view of just how much genetic diversity actually exists, and that your whole “genetic freedom” schtick is nothing more than a gratuitous assertion that has no factual or logical underpinings.
Making these gradiose statements in an attempt at closure is irrelevant. You deny, you lie, you exaggerate, that is how you attempt to win a debate. there is nothing I dont comprehend or grasp. I am every bit as competant as you in understanding the world in which we live. Our difference is simple - you follow the “one human genetic mass” religion. Just as the Jesus lovers can never, ever be told that they are following a fantasy, neither can you. It’s really that simple.
**
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I see by your post #203, of 12:27 AM, that you are simply using doubletalk and evasion to insist on your new laws for segregation. The Amish are quite clearly doing what you want to do. They are not requiring any separate laws to accomplish their goals. They are doing nothing in secret. Your entire response was a non-sequitur. It appears that you are simply in love with your flawed philosophy and cannot actually explain why the Amish model would fail–given that it is clearly succeeding for them.**
It is cute how you avoid talking about how laws prevent genetic discrimination in housing… then it’s cute how you avoid talking about how proximity between ethnic groups will increase probability of ethnic homogenization… then it’s cute how you just call it doubletalk and evasion - when you are the one evading.
It’s cutest when you continue to bring up the Amish - who historically owned a whole lot of land in PA, and thusly they are able to, for the time being, engage in their particular genetic/religious freedom.
Very funny… You must be a comedian.
I’m pursing a civil right here friend… a civil right for all human beings not just ones who hide on private property to avoid governmental laws that oppress a particular freedom, Genetic Freedom!
**
[QUOTE=Zagadka]
You know, I think this is actually proof that our good buddy castaway is a simple, old-fashioned racist. He obviously views the election of a black or Hispanic politician as a threat to the white control of government, and also views an ethnic conspiracy to ensure control of the region.**
You have a really sick mind… You are stuck in the past.
The very fact that castaway is pale-faced terrified about “them blacks” being able to vote in politicians is pretty simple - he is a racist, and that explains why he views his white utopia where none of us dirty colored folk can come near him.
Yes a very sick mind indeed… you are stuck completely in the past and can’t get out. No matter.
His further insistence is that ethnic groups somehow have collective rights, which is absurd. A group of people is not homogenous. If 100 people all exercise the same right, then yes, you can say that the group has the right - granted by the individuals. If even one person does not, the group can not be said to be exercising a right.
You said: “If 100 people all excercise and desire the same right, then yes, you can say that the “group” has that right…”
So those 100 people desire genetic freedom in a local community - you just skewered yourself. My god man… where am I.
**Lastly (for now) his basis is absolutely stupid. On his argument, one would make an (ironically, homogenous) ethnic state out of Iraq. **
and this is based on “my” argument how? Your mind goes off on strange tangents not of this conversation. It’s not up to you or me what Iraq or any other place upon this planet becomes… it’s up to the local peoples and the aggregate of millions of individual decisions. You are completely lost in all this logic and reason. This does not mean that the world community ignores it when an oppressive government starts killing it’s people etc… the world community must do precisely what it does today and oppose such things collectively.
In his hypothesis, this would result in peace and happiness.
Education results in peace and happiness. You are completely delusional in how you characterize what “I” hypothesize. If We all, upon this world, were educated about the concept of Genetic Freedom, and we all had mutual respect for one another’s right to genetic freedom, under those conditions and under all the other conditions I wrote about in the essay, then peace and happiness would certainly be attainable.
However, what he fails to take into account is the other factors of society- including, especially in this case- religion, tribal alliances, and politics.
Education, education, education… I never said it would be easy.
The LAST thing that this kind of containment would result in is peace and happiness.
containment? more delusion from you…
Thus, his argument that his racial segregation would lead to a better world is incorrect on the most basic levels.
You’re phrase racial segregation is not a phrase I would ever use… so it’s not “my” argument, but yours. The words we use are EVERYTHING. The meanings people perceive on those words are EVERYTHING. Using words sloppily is just that, sloppy - and I do it sometimes sure, but if somebody points it out I stop.
While taken to its extreme - that is, segregating each person from each other person - this idea would, indeed, result in world peace, one comes to question the validity of such a plan.
From the essay: "“Do you believe that human peace, happiness, and a suppression/oppression free world can be achieved, along with ethnic diversity, using a more advanced educational philosophy, or do you believe that human peace can only be maintained by enforcing a one-human-genetic-mass policy, at gunpoint?”
I’m way ahead of you friend… already thought through this stuff…
castaway, you keep saying that this is about “genetics” but then switching your classification to “ethnic groups”. That implies that there’s a reliable correlation between genetic similarity and membership in the same ethnic group. That’s simply false.
As we keep pointing out, there is more actual genetic difference within commonly-recognized ethnic groups than between them. In order to begin fashioning a coherent argument (which you haven’t done so far), you have got to make up your mind whether you’re talking about ethnic groups or genetics.
If what you’re advocating is really group separatism based on genetics, you’re going to wind up with groups of people who have been shown by genomic analysis to have closely related DNA, but who have a wide variety of superficial “ethnic” differences within each group. E.g., some members of a “white” group will look “white”, some will look “black” or “Asian”, and so on. But testing their DNA will prove that they’re all quite closely related genetically.
If, on the other hand, you’re advocating separatism based on what society broadly recognizes as ethnic groups, your groups will look more uniform on the surface, but will actually be more genetically mixed. E.g., all members of a certain “white” group may look “white”, but DNA testing will reveal that many of them are more genetically akin to some “black”-looking people in a “black” group than to one another.
If what you’re after is the latter scenario, you’ve got to stop referring to it as based on genetic differentiation, because it isn’t. Similar-looking members of the same “ethnic group” can be, and often are, genetically quite different from one another—more different from one another than they are from people who superficially don’t resemble them at all. You have really got to understand this basic fact before you set yourself up as an instructor for other people.
in the end I’m right and your wrong, done.
You have also got to learn that this sort of assertion simply doesn’t count as a viable argument in a debate. You personally may feel comforted by the notion that you’re still right no matter how badly you lost the argument, but such notions carry absolutely no weight in convincing anybody else, which is the ostensible purpose of starting a debate.
so don’t ask me to cite any references
This too is a guaranteed loser when it comes to rational debate. If you can’t support your assertions with reliable factual evidence, we have no reason to believe what you say.
*If you can’t see that, I don’t really care. You will in time (years). *
Another argument-loser. Predicting that somebody else’s views will change in the future is a completely inadequate substitute for actually convincing them that you’re right, which is what you’re supposed to be doing in a debate.
It’s time to pack it in, castaway. You started this thread in a forum which is devoted to rational debate based on factual data, and we patiently gave you a hearing and discussed your claims seriously. However, you totally failed to convince anyone of any of your points by means of logical argument. Instead, you’ve just been reiterating inconsistent, ill-supported, and contradictory assertions, generously seasoned with tinfoil-hat accusations about religious delusions and media brainwashing and the like. You began this debate in the attempt to promote your cause of so-called “Genetic Freedom”, but you have instead completely discredited it.
You chose to start this argument, and you lost. You’ve completely failed in what you were attempting to do. If there is indeed any germ of truth in what you’ve been trying to say, it’s going to take a smarter person to demonstrate it, because it’s obvious that you’re not up to the task. Cut your losses, and drop the subject. (Or don’t, and instead go on discrediting your position even further with your incompetent arguments. I don’t care which.)
I base all my work on my own creativity based science and observations of the world around me. It’s likely that Aryan peoples were not “Celtic” or “Nordic.” They were likely genetically similar to current day Slavs/Russians etc…
So my particular usage might actually be correct if I were to only mean Slavs/Russian type peoples. Genetically speaking Aryan may be used to identify those who currently occupy Northern India, but it also refers to the people that invaded India thousands of years ago and then genetically combined with them. Historically it always talks about how the Aryans invaded northern India… so the Aryans, genetically speaking would likely be as I mentioned - though they would likely not be Celtics or Nordics - that I could see.
Obviously my use of the word Aryan was incorrect, as I already expressed. The leaders of the Celts, Nordics, and Aryans have combined with the leaders of the Ancient Jewish semite lines and collectively, the leaders from all those groups, pure or mixed, are the people I believe have the most control over the world’s affairs today. They work together in this control - and I’m sure they still have disagreements to this day on some things. Especially considering the media blackout that’s been put on Russia given it’s prosecuting of high ranking “Jewish” moguls. I put “Jewish” in quotes because, again, these people are hardly pure Jewish/Semitic and rather they are mixed usually with a higher percentage of the original Russian (by pictures I’ve seen).
**
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
castaway, you keep saying that this is about “genetics” but then switching your classification to “ethnic groups”. That implies that there’s a reliable correlation between genetic similarity and membership in the same ethnic group. That’s simply false.**
First, any gentic scientist will tell you they can show a reliable genetic correlation between members of the same ethnic group who have similar pigmentation, if they are only looking for that particular phenotype. We’re not talking about every single piece of genetic code within the person. We are talking about phenotypes or mutations that are specific to that ethnic group. That is the gentic similarity that I’m addressing. So, by my own definition, there will be a huge amount of genetic data that is NOT similar or consistent or whatever.
Ethnic groups, of course can be defined by things other than genetics (heritage), so ethnic groups can easily be a mix of every genetic group upon the planet. I define ethnic group, as I use it, to mean Genetically similar by whatever criteria that distinguishes them from other peoples. Then the human race branches… it’s really not that difficult to understand.
So you lied when you said “That’s simply false.” You lied. It can be either false or true… You are engaged in black and white, extremist thinking. You are just playing with words. Can we reliably predict the genetic difference between dolphins and humans? Of course. It’s about probability and statistics and population specific mutations and aggregate phenotypes - exactly like the essay says. I may address the rest of what you said later but since your premise here was all messed up why should I bother…
I’ll say it again because you keep missing it. We could all be clones of each other, in the next generation genetic variation would result - people would have a right to gather together as they wished and pursue genetic freedom. Regardless of what any genetic science shows, Genetic freedom remains a fundamental human right. And that’s that. Sorry if I’ve disarmed your attempt at disarming me.