Says the one that clams up and ignores the ones pointing at inconvenient evidence.
No, we define “idiot” as “fucking moron,” and you’re both in the 99.99th percentile.
Nah, we’ve scrutinized it carefully, and have verified that you’re both fucking morons.
As pointed out many times before, if it was true that they are in the high percentile then they should have no trouble at all in approaching the experts and showing the error of their ways, we should wait for the results…
…Oh, my mistake, there were already experts that told them how stupid they are over here, never mind.
So Brazzy, we know you’re really stupid, but you specifically accused me of refusing to answer “simple questions” about “[my]position”.
For the third time, what were those, because I honestly don’t remember what you’re talking about.
If I really did dodge some questions you have, it shouldn’t be difficult to produce them.
Why Fry, wasn’t that in your time?
You noticed that too.
Just about everything NDD wants has already come to pass:
AFDC was eliminated.
We have a justice system with considerably more draconian punishments than we had in the 60’s or what they have in Europe today.
Affirmative action has been attacked in the courts and on the state ballot since the 1970’s. Overall it has greatly declined, and it has been banned outright in many states for state and local government jobs.
Busing for racial balance has been eliminated in many jurisdictions and reduced in others in preference to other measures for integration.
Is that so? Or is it just nonsense; you are too blinded by political correctness to do so, and to you “fucking moron” is just someone who states the truth about race and intelligence?
Let me ask you this:
Do you pretty much agree with everything cmyk said leading up to Post #748?
If so, what’s your answer to the question I asked in Post #748?
If not, how do you disagree with cmyk?
If you’ve really scrutinized his position carefully, it should be easy enough to answer these questions.
To quote myself,
It does save time over actually having to have a defensible position; just saying “I’m right and you know it but you’re too blinded by dogma to admit it” over and over is so much easier.
Needs more “Wake up, sheeple!” though.
On the contrary, I am perfectly willing to discuss the merits – you are the one who is dodging such a discussion.
Please answer my questions from Post #1038.
TIA.
I guess, we better kill them straight away and while we’re at it anyone that is not 100% Aryan race… roll out mandatory DNA test and find out how many of those pure humans we can get rid of… read this scientific study here ….. the interesting thing about the Aryan Races origin is, that it apparently originated in Iran/India – so this superior white race had its origin in none whites?
Which leads me to believe, that there is no pure white in the whole wide world (maybe space on the dark side of the moon) - So, with this in mind, we might as well just commit genocide on the human race, just to be absolutely sure, there are no criminals, blacks, pink, green, yellow and mutated whites left in this world.
You are a fucking moron. Your questions in that post are moronic and most, if not all of them, have already been answered. Just because you don’t like the answers you got doesn’t mean that they were never answered.
i.e. you have no interest in actually subjecting your position to scrutiny. Better to just hurl insults.
P.S. Please show me where the questions I asked in Post #1038 were answered. Please quote and link the answers.
Failing that, please admit that you are wrong and apologize.
ETA: By the way, are you now conceding that iiandyiiii actually did answer the question he quoted in Post #918? And that his answer appears right after the quoted question?
What are you on about and since when am I designated as the guy to explain things to you that you are too stupid to understand?
ETA: Oh, and I subjected my position to scrutiny way back there and you didn’t understand it then, and I doubt you’d understand it now.
:shrug: You are asserting that most or all of the questions I have asked have been answered. I am seriously skeptical of this claim and asking that you prove it by quoting and linking the answers to the questions I asked in Post #1038.
In other words, put up or shut up. (Although somehow I expect you will do neither.)
Also, are you now conceding that iiandyiiii actually did answer the question he quoted in Post #918? And that his answer appears right after the quoted question?
Sigh… haven’t we gone through this before? Even if I take the time to do your work for you, you’ll just ask the same thing all over again and want me to do it again. I’ll say he answered the question you asked with his post 918 and you’ll say that you never mentioned black or white, then I’ll quote your entire post where you do mention white people and you’ll say that he didn’t quote that part. Do we really have to go through the same things time after time?
I thought this thread had moved on too far, but if it really bothers you:
The consequences being that NDD’s theory about the group cannot be true.
I don’t see anyone else having problems with it.
The criteria are what define membership of the group. I’m not intending to get ontological here; if you want to do basic scientific comparisons of two populations you have to clearly define what those populations are in terms relevant to the comparison. If you’re comparing genetic populations, you have to define what genes or genetic factors define those populations.
And no, “any” group defined by criteria does not automatically exist - I could talk about all blue unicorns named Henry and that wouldn’t make them exist.
Seriously, I can’t help you with your reading comprehension problems. Yes, they exist as a self-defined group.
Yes. Do I need to explain this using sock puppets?
See, this is why I ignored this post. You’re repeating questions I just answered. If you’re too stupid to understand them, I can’t help you. But don’t worry - it’s probably genetic.
This is what I said:
This is what NDD said:
To break it down: “Population X share a phenotype and a geographic and cultural background. They do Y.”
See? Population X doing Y. Then -
My phrasing: “They must therefore also share a genotype to which we can attribute Y.”
His phrasing:
Right there - the attribution of Y to common genes.
Now I’m not surprised that you aren’t seeing this, since you seem to follow the same path of illogic.
Technically correct but utterly missing the point. If you’re comparing cats and dogs it does you no good to discuss traits common to all quadripeds. Do you not understand this?
Sorry - aren’t you guys the ones making claims about genetics? If you want to admit you don’t understand the science you’re pretending to espouse, just tell us now.
We are talking about genetics. Remember the point of this discussion? NDD asserted that “blacks” are a race which have distinctive common genetic traits. I, and quite a lot of other people including actual scientists, are saying that those common genetic traits do not exist, and thus any conclusions about the genetic makeup of this “race” as he defines it are meaningless.
There are other ways of talking about “blacks”, of course – as a geographic population, as a socio-economic grouping, as a self-defined subculture – but none of those tell you a damn thing about their genes.
I continue to go back and forth between thinking you really don’t understand the points here and thinking that you do and you’re just being a disingenuous dickhead. So are you really that stupid? It’s a simple yes or no question.
Holy shit Gyrate… You still have the patience to answer the questions that he didn’t like the answers to the first time? You’ve got more patience than I.
Your so called “facts” amount to nothing more than the a priori assertion that race is a social construct. Any scientific assertion cannot be a priori. It must be testable.
…says the man whose assertions are untested and at odds with actual genetic evidence.
When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.
But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.
Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.
Science is discovering important racial differences.
History records no indigenous Negro civilizations comparable to those of the American Indians, much less of those founded by Caucasians in the Near East, or Orientals in the Far East. It does record that after two centuries of black majority rule Haiti has a lower per capita gross domestic product than any Latin American country.
No Negro author compares with Homer, the Greek tragic dramatists, Dante, or Shakespeare, not to mention the giants of Russian literature.