SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

[GIGObuster]

The replies to NDD show what is happening here.

@Steve_MB

Ah, so the fact that Bart Sibrel got Buzz Aldrin mad enough to punch his lights out proves that the moon hoaxers are right. Gotcha.

(Of course, the ultimate proof is that the so-called “astronauts” failed to bring back any cheese.)

@cmyk

…He says as he flames the entire human race; yet with civility and intelligence.

NDD all my previous posts with no flame and cites were just ignored by you, claiming that you are even making progress in a debate and telling yourself that you and brasil are being polite just shows how deluded you are even in the mechanics of what a good debater should do.

And as pointed before, doubling down on defending an even more lousier debater like brazil demonstrates also how useless you are not only at identifying good sources, but also incapable of identifying people who define who is a willful ignorant of science.

[iiandyiiii]

NDD- are the Bamileke and Kikuyu both “Negroes”?

[brazil84]

@Colibri

No, you’re just 1) too stupid to understand it, and 2) if you did understand it, too bigoted to accept it.

Kindly link to and quote the post (or set of posts) where somebody on your side of the debate (1) set forth clear, precise criteria for deciding whether a group doesn’t exist; and (2) applied those same criteria to other groups.

Failing that, please admit that no such thing happened, at least in this thread and apologize.

Your choice.

By the way, do you still insist that the Oxford Online Dictionary is wrong?

And why is it that you seized upon a triviality?

You probably bored him to death.

Lol, yes it’s very “boring” to have the weaknesses in your argument demonstrated.

[Ramira]

@New_Deal_Democrat

…

---

This is a minority viewpoint, expressed in only one book.

This book is only a summary of academic researches, it is not original scholarship. Some of it is even in English, like
Duncan E. Miller and N.J. Van Der Merwe, ‘Early Metal Working in Sub Saharan Africa’ Journal of African History 35 (1994) 1–36

Minze Stuiver and N.J. Van Der Merwe, ‘Radiocarbon Chronology of the Iron Age in Sub-Saharan Africa’ Current Anthropology 1968.

If iron technology developed in sub Saharan Africa over two thousand years before we know it developed in Anatolia we would expect it to have reached Egypt much earlier than it did, from Assyria.

Eh? Only if the sites of development were in correspondence with Egypt. The most earliest sites do not seem to have been. It is not magic that makes these things happen.

Although the article says that the book will be translated from French to English in 2002, I was not able to find mention of the English translation. Unless someone else can find it I will suspect that there was no English translation, because the assertions made in the book are dubious.

There is no dubiousness, the book was written in the French because the regions which the archaeology touches on are in the francophone countries and the majority of the scholars writing and researching are francophones.

It is expensive and time consuming to translate properly the academic texts of great complexity. If there is no translation into the English it is not grave, the French is accessible by the scholars who would find the most interest. It is easily evident they did not get the funding.

But I am again amused to see your narrow american anglophone provincialism, as was just seen in your absurd comments about Pouchkine.

You demonstrate again and again you are only a narrow minded american provincial who is seeking to make global explanations out of your provincial prejudices.

and I am amused still how you go silent on your cretinism on the Bantu.

[iiandyiiii]

@brazil84

Kindly link to and quote the post (or set of posts) where somebody on your side of the debate (1) set forth clear, precise criteria for deciding whether a group doesn’t exist; and (2) applied those same criteria to other groups.

I’ve done it several times, but I think post #1936 is the best. Here it is:

@iiandyiiii

When people speak of “genetic relationships” between groups, whether’s it’s population groups of humans or different animal species, what we’re really talking about is the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). How closely two groups or species are related is how recently their MRCA existed. This goes for individuals too- siblings have a MRCA one generation back, first cousins have a MRCA two generations back, etc.

This is why it’s absurd to group sub-Saharan Africans (and the sub-Saharan African diaspora) as a “race”; many populations of sub-Saharan Africans have a MRCA with Europeans and Asians that is more recent then their MRCA with other sub-Saharan African populations. This chart, using mitochondrial DNA, shows the relative MRCA between multiple groups. For example (from the chart), the Bamileke of Cameroon (#19) have a more recent MRCA with Siberians (#30) then with the Kikuyu of Kenya (#11). So any race that includes the Bamileke and the Kikuyu must include Siberians, unless the racial “classification” is not based on genetic relationships or MRCA.

Putting the Kikuyu and Bamileke in the same “racial classification”, while putting Siberians in another, is like putting tigers and lizards in the same taxonomic classification (perhaps “quadrupeds”) while putting humans in another (“bipeds”), and snakes in yet another (perhaps “serpents”). It may make sense in a certain way, but that way has nothing to do with genetics or Most Recent Common Ancestor.

[GIGObuster]

Of course as brazil has **iiandyiiii **on ignore I expect brazil to just act as if that was never ever posted, this at least should be another example of the incompetency of brazil that NDD will also ignore.

[iiandyiiii]

@GIGObuster

Of course as brazil has **iiandyiiii **on ignore I expect brazil to just act as if that was never ever posted, this at least should be another example of the incompetency of brazil that NDD will also ignore.

It’s ok. He doesn’t really have me on ignore- he’s already shown that he reads the posts of those he “ignores”.

[cmyk]

He claims to be an autodidact, as am I.

However, NDD doesn’t realize you can still be a poor student. He lacks open-mindedness, and the ability to look at everything with a healthy dose of skepticism. He’s too passionate and bound to the political basis of his arguments and his philosophical ideologies to learn anything new in an “honest-with-himself” way.

He doesn’t have the ability to shed himself of his biases and bigoted notions, so he’s limited himself to only accept the sources that confirm his biases. He can’t see this, because he also has no understanding of how the scientific method works in the general sense, let alone its much finer points.

In fact, he may be anti-scientific which has zero place in academia, or any legitimate school of thought.

Only in a very cursory manner has he familiarized himself with logical fallacies, but doesn’t completely understand them, nor know when to apply them: First examine your own thinking or arguments for these fallacies, as in the case of Special Pleading, you are never expect from any these.

He’s not careful or rigorous in his research, and can’t distinguish between reports or studies of high or low veracity. His interpretation of data has been shown to be egregiously faulty.

But most of all, he has a God Complex, and lacks humility. He starts from the assumption he’s right, and knows the truth, so this automatically filters his perspective and he shoe-horns data and “facts” into his world-view to force it to align with his preconceived notions.

He’s a bigot and an anti-intellectual, and the people he comes into direct interaction will be the worse for it, and he will die that way never to be aware.

So, from one autodidact to another, I grade NDD an F+.

[Ramira]

@GIGObuster

Of course as brazil has **iiandyiiii **on ignore I expect brazil to just act as if that was never ever posted, this at least should be another example of the incompetency of brazil that NDD will also ignore.

@iiandyiiii

It’s ok. He doesn’t really have me on ignore- he’s already shown that he reads the posts of those he “ignores”.

Yes this is the most damnging fact as we know now that in fact he is merely deliberately avoiding certain links. All the earlier exchanges in relation to his ignoring iiandyiii link explaining Chinese population structuring - Han and non Han - it was merely his little cinema.

But please, Brazil is a great and interesting country. He should be from now on know as 84. In honour of the character in the film Aliens 3.

[cmyk]

@Ramira

But please, Brazil is a great and interesting country. He should be from now on know as 84. In honour of the character in the film Aliens 3.

Brazil was also a great movie, and also an Orwellian “1984” satire, which I’m guessing is how he derived his name. He doesn’t do it justice in the least, even in an ironic sense.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

The African Iron Age is traditionally considered that period in Africa between the second century AD up to about 1000 AD, when iron smelting was practiced. In Africa, unlike the Europe and Asia, the Iron Age is not prefaced by a Bronze or Copper Age, but rather all the metals were brought together…

African Iron Age Time Line

2nd millennium BC: West Asians invent iron smelting
8th century BC: Phoenicians bring iron to North Africa (Lepcis Magna, Carthage)
8th-7th century BC: First iron smelting in Ethiopia
671 BC: Hyksos invasion of Egypt
7th-6th century BC: First iron smelting in the Sudan (Meroe, Jebel Moya)
5th century BC: First iron smelting in West Africa (Jenne-Jeno, Taruka)
5th century BC: Iron using in eastern and southern Africa (Chifumbaze)
4th century BC: Iron smelting in central Africa (Obobogo, Oveng, Tchissanga)

A Thousand Years of African Kingdoms and the Iron that Made Them

---

The author writes “Africa” when he should write, “sub Saharan Africa.” The Egyptians, who were and are Caucasian, worked with copper and bronze before they were introduced to iron technology from Asia. The Egyptians and the Sumerians began to smelt copper at least five thousand years ago.

This is the scholarly consensus. It clearly points out that the ancestors of American Negroes were stone age peoples until the 5th century BC. By then Caucasians and Chinese were building great civilizations. The Iliad and the Odyssey as well as much of the Old Testament had already been written. In China The Book of Songs had been written and edited.

[cmyk]

As if anyone cares anymore.

[Mijin]

nm

[iiandyiiii]

@New_Deal_Democrat

This is the scholarly consensus. It clearly points out that the ancestors of American Negroes were stone age peoples until the 5th century BC. By then Caucasians and Chinese were building great civilizations.

It’s the “scholarly consensus” only if you ignore the scholars whose research turns up conflicting information (like the iron-working in Niger before 1000 BC).

But anyway, sub-Saharan Africans were way ahead of the Japanese.

And none of this has anything to do with genetics.

[brazil84]

@Ramira

deliberately avoiding certain links.

I deliberately avoid reading and/or responding to posts by people I have put on my ignore list. Of course it’s remotely possible that there is some very important argument or evidence I have missed in those posts. But unlikely given that the people I put on ignore are typically dishonest, evasive, or both.

Speaking of which, do you now concede someone else brought up the “genetic marker idea” you referred to in Post #1335?

Or do you still insist it was me?

Oh, and please quote the “false claim” you referred to in Post #1146.

This is the last time I will ask.

[cmyk]

@brazil84

I deliberately avoid reading and/or responding to posts by people I have put on my ignore list. Of course it’s remotely possible that there is some very important argument or evidence I have missed in those posts. But unlikely given that the people I put on ignore are typically dishonest, evasive, or both.

Speaking of which, do you now concede someone else brought up the “genetic marker idea” you referred to in Post #1335?

Or do you still insist it was me?

Oh, and please quote the “false claim” you referred to in Post #1146.

This is the last time I will ask.

How convenient for you. :rolleyes:

[Truman_Burbank]

@cmyk

How convenient for you. :rolleyes:

Well, really, it’s a favor to all of us…

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@iiandyiiii

It’s the “scholarly consensus” only if you ignore the scholars whose research turns up conflicting information (like the iron-working in Niger before 1000 BC).

But anyway, sub-Saharan Africans were way ahead of the Japanese.

And none of this has anything to do with genetics.

Around 400–300 BC, the Yayoi people began to enter the Japanese islands, intermingling with the Jōmon. The Yayoi brought wet-rice farming and advanced bronze and iron technology to Japan…

However in another large genome-wide association study of East Asian populations,[46] it was both found that the Japanese are closer to Han Chinese,

Japanese people

The ancestors of the Japanese immigrated from the mainland of Asia, where they had practiced civilization for at least a thousand years before iron age technology reached western Africa.

[iiandyiiii]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Around 400–300 BC, the Yayoi people began to enter the Japanese islands, intermingling with the Jōmon. The Yayoi brought wet-rice farming and advanced bronze and iron technology to Japan…

However in another large genome-wide association study of East Asian populations,[46] it was both found that the Japanese are closer to Han Chinese,
Japanese people - Wikipedia

The ancestors of the Japanese immigrated from the mainland of Asia, where they had practiced civilization for at least a thousand years before iron age technology reached western Africa.

Later on in your link it says “A clear consensus has not been reached” about the origins of the Yayoi and the Jomon people.

It seems obvious you’re ignoring any data that doesn’t fit your narrative. And you’re ignoring questions that challenge it. Like what race are the Bamileke of Cameroon and the Kikuyu of Kenya?

[iiandyiiii]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The ancestors of the Japanese immigrated from the mainland of Asia, where they had practiced civilization for at least a thousand years before iron age technology reached western Africa.

Your definition of “civilization” is awfully self-serving. It ignores societies like that of ancient Somalia, with trade ties to ancient Greece (Mycenae), and which may have been the first to domesticate the dromedary camel. And ancient Nubia and ancient Kerma (in Sudan), little known and dating back to 7500 BC. Kerma may have domesticated cattle before the Egyptians.