We have. They just keep tying nooses and laughing about it.
So what?
Sure, but the easiest way to show the flaw in your reasoning is to apply it to other situations.
Since you are unable to cite a study which eliminates all other possible causes such as cultural or economic influences and proves that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer in humans, can I take it that you do not accept that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer in humans?
Of course not, because you have a double-standard.
The fact of the matter is that there is no study which eliminates all other possible causes such as cultural or economic influences and proves that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer in humans. Not one that you are aware of, and not one that exists.
People know that smoking causes lung cancer in humans because it’s the only reasonable explanation for the evidence out there – among other things that smokers have significantly higher rates of lung cancer than non-smokers.
Similarly, the only reasonable explanation for the near-universal (in time and space) achievement gap between blacks and whites is that much of the difference is due to genetics.
Quit shifting the goal posts. Your position is that the census methodology is not a scientific way of determining race. If you are abandoning that position, please say so.
This has to be the funniest post in the thread. It just shows how idiotic brazil84 is.
**84 is magnificent in his great stupidity.
**Before I had thought it was only rhetoric in this area, but 84 is in fact so stupid.
Yes, and I’m sure your observation has nothing to do with your own partisanship on the issue being discussed. :rolleyes:
By the way, you never answered my question about Waenara.
Agree or disagree?
This is very revealing, **84 **can not understand how this points to how wrong the approach of the racists is.
More that 84 is not smart enough to in fact understand what he is being told and he prefers to create the strange and not pertinent examples he does.
Encore, he plays the same game even though he is told that this is not how the science works.
And encore of course in fact the science is much more than only a correlation, but he has no understanding of the actual science and its methodology so it becomes just stories to him.
And so he makes his leap, in his pretend science.
this is just also magnificent in its stupidity.
Cried Shifty Goals, head Goal Shifter for the Goal County Shifters, from high atop his Shift-a-Matic 3000, oblivious to the hilarious irony.
That had nothing to do with how I feel about the topic, your obstinate refusal to understand how science works is hilarious. And Waenara’s opinion is, I believe, incorrect… at least in respect to the Han. If I hadn’t read the links provided in this thread, I probably would have agreed with it however. I am no geneticist and base my opinion on the legitimate scientific cites I found here.
Actually it did. See, you criticized me for asking the same kinds of questions repeatedly. But given that different people answer my questions in different ways, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to ask the same (or a similar) question to a new person I am engaging with.
Perhaps the mote is in your own eye? After all, it was perfectly reasonable for me to ask the same question multiple times of different people. And yet you criticized me for it. Perhaps the real problem is that your feelings about the underlying issue have biased your thinking.
Or one of the more successful trolls in the history of the board. I love it how people continue to earnestly debate such spawn long after the obvious has become obvious.
At this point, it’s not really about them but the vastly larger internet audience. It’s clear that certain Google searches end up linking to these threads, and it’s not a good idea to give even the slightest doubt the debate is concluded.
That, and the more they’re engaged in this thread, the less they’re off doing some damned fool thing elsewhere.
You are lying, misrepresenting my statements and making things up. Unless you apologize and take back your unfounded accusations, I refuse to debate you any further.
Sure it is… hopefully someone will answer one of them in a way you’ll understand it.
Actually it’s the facts that have biased my opinion. Like the fact that you’re dumber than a rock and probably twice as dense.
Snerk!!
Well done.
Exactly how have I misrepresented your position? Either (1) you are aware of a study (or set of studies) which eliminates all other possible causes such as cultural or economic influences and proves that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer in humans; or (2) you are not aware of such a study.
If you are, then please cite it. If not, then by your own reasoning, you should not accept that smoking causes lung cancer in humans. Unless of course you have a double-standard. Which you obviously do.
If you show me how I have done so, then I will gladly apologize. If you quote me where I supposedly misrepresented your position, I will provide quotes for support or apologize.
One can only hope.
i.e. I disagree with your strongly held faith.
There’s not one such study, and there never will be. There are, though, a ton of studies that, together, show a preponderance of evidence for it. It’s probably a Ph. D thesis-level task to summarize them all.
SCENE
*
A dimly lit bomb shelter. brazil84 sits on a tattered quilt, quietly arranging the cups and saucers of a child’s tea set.*
BRAZIL84
At last, I have banned everyone who refused to follow my rules and tried to misrepresent my position. Now the *real *debate can begin! Would you like some tea, brazil84?
BRAZIL84
Why, thank you, brazil84! Mmm, what delicious tea!
BRAZIL84
You’re quite welcome, brazil84! Please, try a tea-cake! I made them myself!
BRAZIL84
Oh, how delicious!
BRAZIL84
Thank you! Did you know that tea produced by Orientals is of much higher quality than tea produced by Negroes?
BRAZIL84
Why, I did not! That certainly sounds interesting, and I would enjoy hearing how you came to that conclusion! I’m sure your argument will be well-supported and logically sound!
BRAZIL84
Why, thank you! First, I will ask: do you agree that some human characteristics are determined by genes?
BRAZIL84
Yes, I would!
BRAZIL84
Excellent! We’re off to the races, then! Please, have some more tea!
…
No, you cite where I believe smoking is 100% known to cause lung cancer. You made the accusation, you back it up.
I’m not sure what you mean by “100% known” (that’s your phrase not mine), but I have reasonably concluded that you believe that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer in humans:
You can apologize to me any time you like.
Oh, and since you raised the issue, let me ask you this: Do you accept that to a reasonable degree of certainty (not 100% but a very high percentage), smoking cigarettes is known to cause lung cancer in humans?