Nah. He and his tag-team douche-bag partner are still at it. A couple of prime-cut assholes. They remind me of my brother-in-law, except he doesn’t try to hide behind pseudo science and gigantic leaps of logic in his brand of virulent racism. I almost prefer it to these two yobbos. At least with him, you tell him to shut the fuck up and he does so. These two ass-clowns will gas on for another hundred pages if we continue to entertain them.
No, it just implies that you are the colossal douche bag I tagged you to be in the other thread. Douche bag. See? I’m not angry. Douche bag, douche bag, douche bag. Say it with me; it’s fun!
And you wouldn’t know the truth if it ran up your ass with a cactus.
Bet it hurt the first time a woman laughed at your tiny penis.
He wouldn’t know. Pigs can’t laugh.
By the way, I’m reclaiming brazil84’s apology, crumpling it up into a ball, hanging it from an elastic string and letting my cat bat it around.
Nope.
Let me ask you this:
Did NDD state in this thread that he had actually been suppressed? (As opposed to stating that people wanted to suppress him)
If so, where?
If not, then why is it you pretended that he had made such a statement?
ETA: And what do you think I was referring to when I said, in effect “if I am missing something”?
Oh, I was suppose to deduce what you meant “in effect” ? I was under the impression you were a stickler for literal interpretation, given your repeated demands across this thread.
You did miss “something”, and since you missing “something” was the condition for the extension of your in-advance apology, I accepted your apology. Then I offered to let you take it back. Then I changed my mind and decided to accept it again.
If your apology was not sincerely offered, that’s fine. It’s cat-fodder now anyway.
Actually the linked article doesn’t quite say that. It says that if you control for various factors picked by the study authors, then test scores are almost the same in kindergarten, but diverge as the children age. The cited article extrapolates that the difference will be quite substantial by age 14.
Or it could mean that the intelligence gap between blacks and whites is less obvious at young ages.
Lol, it looks like you intentionally misinterpreted my statement for rhetorical purposes.
Anyway, given your refusal to answer reasonable questions so I can figure out where you stand, I do not care to engage with you any further.
Goodbye, liar.
Yay! I’m in the club!
As an incidental note, the “something” brazil84 missed is that I have no reason to care what he thinks of my (somewhat limited) exchange with NDD, hence his analysis thereof was moot and I accepted his apology for offering it, and a presumptuous offer it was, too.
My follow up question, if I’d managed to string him along a little more, was to ask him to cite where I didn’t meet the conditions, then ask for a cite of those conditions, then ask for a cite where I misapplied the word “something”, then ask for a dictionary cite of the definition of “something”. It could have gone on for days.
You might be able to silence us, but you cannot change the truths we post.
Because I post facts about blacks you assume that I hate them. Your implication is that in order to like them one needs to believe things about them that are not true.
I did answer his arguments. My answer was over your head. Countries with large black and/or American Indian populations tend to have higher crime rates than countries where nearly everyone is white or Oriental because blacks and American Indians are closer in number of generations to a paleolithic way of life. A paleolithic way of life was much more violent than live under civilization.
Your intemperate language reveals you to be an ignorant and unpleasant person.
How exactly if Chefguy supposed to silence you? Or was that a more generic “you” addressed to the members of this board (and in particular your opponents in this thread), in which case I modify my question to: how exactly are the members of this board (and in particular your opponents in this thread) supposed to silence you?
In fact, several board moderators have posted here, no? So the people who could silence you (in the very limited sense of banning you from this board, though it would leave all other avenues of expression still open) are clearly not doing so, and in fact there’s a thread elsewhere calling for your banning which is going nowhere.
You’re actually pretty safe from being silenced here, evidence suggests.
Now, the assumption that what you’re posting is truth… that’s quite another matter.
A number of posters have expressed the desire that I be banned.
Uh-huh… and were you banned?
A lot of posters have expressed the opinion that you’re a troll. I just think that you’re a hateful individual who tries to use whatever information he can find to push a hateful agenda. Luckily you aren’t very intellegent and much of what you use says exactly the opposite of what you think it does.
And you have a tiny penis.
Your answer over my head? HA! You can’t even see past my kneecaps, let alone lodge an argument above my head, you demented asswipe.
No, you didn’t answer his arguments. He noted that the demographic breakdown of Honduras showed that its population was about 90% white or mestizo, whereas only about 7% is indigenous Amerinidian and 2% black, and asked how (by implication, given your racist horseshit theories) this could be so.
You replied by citing The 10,000 Year Explosion yet again, adding, “the longer a population has practiced agriculture and urban civilization the lower its crime rate is likely to be. That is why white European and Oriental countries nearly always have lower crime rates than third world countries.”
That does NOT answer his question, you addled fuck.
I have previously pointed out that your assertion “the longer a population has practiced agriculture and urban civilization the lower its crime rate is likely to be” is complete garbage.
On one hand, you have the fact that Amerindians are not newcomers to agriculture, having domesticated maize nearly 9,000 years ago. (Mind you, the domestication of maize from teosinte was a considerably more involved process than the domestication of emmer and einkorn wheat from wild grasses.)
On the other hand, if your hypothesis were true, one would expect to find a higher “murder rate” in those countries of Latin America with a higher proportion of Amerinidan or black ancestry vis-a-vis European. However, a cursory glance at your “source” reveals that Bolivia, whose population is approximately 55% Amerindian, and only 45% mestizo or white, has a homicide rate approximately one tenth that of Honduras.
There is also the matter of the Germanic peoples, whose relative late adoption of settled urban civilization should mark them as cultural primitives and genetic inferiors by your schema. As noted by Wiki, “Modern Germanic peoples are the Scandinavians (Norwegians, Swedish, Danish, Icelanders, and Faroese), Germans, Austrians, Alemannic Swiss, Liechtensteiners, Luxembourgers, the Dutch, Flemings, Afrikaners, Frisians, the English and others who still speak languages derived from the ancestral Germanic dialects.” As even a simpleton such as yourself can recognize, these are hardly backward and primitive populations.
Your theory is crap. Give it up, loser.
You’re trying to use logic on an idiot. My predicition: it won’t work.
Blow me.