COMMENTS:
Voted : No
It doesnt have to be like that.
The terrible events of world war two and the Nazi ideology have made any discussion of race taboo in modern society, to ridiculous extremes. People equate "racial differences" to "Eugenics", which obviously isnt the case. Generally the more intelligent amongst us can see the distinction, of course, but unfortunately the majority of people are stupid.
Race relations will start improving when two things happen;
1) Liberals ADMIT the quite obvious truth, that all races are NOT created equal. Some races have genetic predispotions to be good at some things, and other races are good at other things. It probably all balances out, but theree ARE DIFFERENCES IN ABILITIES BETWEEN RACES.
Is it just coincidence that most basketball players are african_american, or that the worlds 200 fastest 100 meter times are held by runners of West African origin? Is it just coincidence that the majority of weightlifters and strong men are white/ European? No and No.
Races are differnet, the very colour of our skin, an adaptation to different environments, is the most obvious proof of that.
2) Constantly trying to "balance things out" based on race CREATES racism, not prevents it. Affirmative action is unfair, racist, and makes white people ANGRY, as they should be at obvious racial discrimination. PRETENDING that black kids arent consistently performing worse than kids of all other races at school wont help them IMPROVE, it just gives them an excuse. No problem ever got solved by sweeping it under the carpet.
We need to aknowledge our differences and get used to them, then race wont be such a big issue. Liberals constantly cause feelings of Xenophobia between races by making race a part of EVERYTHING, even when the races involved arent bothered initially. Busybody liberals constantly fight for racial causes on the behalf of people who DONT WANT THEIR HELP. Why WOULD any white manager want a black worker in his shop, if he knows that he cant ever sack him, even if hes a lazy bum, in case he gets arrested for racial discrimination or some bollocks.
Liberals cause most of the problems to do with race today.
Its ironic, the fat white men who accuse other fat white men of racism are actually the most racist themselves! The other races must laugh at white people for being so disloyal to each other and bickering all the time, its pathetic!
"Constantly trying to balance things out based on race CREATES racism, not prevents it." I agree.
I think this quote explains in a nutshell the reasoning behind countless wars and campaign's of hate in the last two millenia.
Voted : Yes
TO paraphrase the good Doctor, it *shouldn't* have to be like that.
But we live in a world where neo-Nazis goose-step about, proclaiming themselves above the "mud peoples", wanting the "gr*asers" to "go back home and stop taking our jobs" and other such fun folk. The seeds of Disraeli's thoughts are already planted. Amazing, considering that most who hold to them so fervently probably couldn't read them without phonetic spelling diagrams.
I wonder what a post-modernist stance on this quote would be?
"racism against other people is almost extinct, with people like doc and herz being relics who have to euphemise their ethnocentrism"
Could you justify that comment please?
or do I assume that you are, in fact, as you seem to be, a moron who cries racism against anything he doesnt understand? Which would be a lot of things I would Imagine.
"the majority" of people are like wide eyed ruminants to the slaughter when it comes to disinformation cpread concerning "Taboo" subjects such as this. You are a fine example, and presumably you consider yourself part of the majority; so in a way thank you for proving my point, sheep.
Voted : An understatement
Whether it's based on race, religion or nationality, egotism kills.
Neothe1
So you cant justify it. As I suspected, you are indeed a moron.
You are right about one thing though, you really are a "systemic anomaly".
Think yourself lucky that the human race hasnt purged you yet, afterbirth.
No, indeed it doesn't have to be like that, but it is, despite Political Correctness and all our alleged progress of humanity and technology!!
Deal with it.
^ Not "despite" Political Correctness, BECAUSE of political corretness.
Political correctness stops people talking about the very differences they observe everyday, its a from of brainwashing, to encourage you not to recognise whats in front of your very eyes.
Its not helpful, and it wont create a racial equilibrium. It will just cause more racism.
I mean, look at Neothe1 for example. Hes so brainwashed and irrational, he thinks im being racist, when in fact im being the exact opposite! He is like MANY people today who have become mindless guarddogs of political correctness, frothing at the mouth at any perceived "racism", or even anything they he doesnt understand.
When we can educate inferior, easily brainwashed minds like neo's, thus undoing the training they have received, and promote logic and progress throughout the media and society, ratehr than sensationalism and cries of racism, the races can REALLY start integrating.
Voted : No
Difference implies superiority?So if I say an apple is a different fruit from a orange that means I'm saying one fruit is better than the other?If I say men and women compose different genders that means I'm saying one is superior to another?Disraeli's argument makes no sense because he does not explain how difference implies superiority.
Voted : No
Land encroachment is a big factor.
^As corrupt said, the issue is not actual superiority but ego problems.
"Political correctness stops people talking about the very differences they observe everyday, its a from of brainwashing, to encourage you not to recognise whats in front of your very eyes"
So its racist to point out that racial differences exist?! By your extremely poor logic I am raicst if I say that some people are black, and others are white, oh and some people are a sort of light brown, right? Am I a specie-ist for syaing that an apple is different to a pear, as in Corrupts example?
Do you even know where you are right now?
"Ladies annnnnnd Gentlemen, I present you with your main entertainment for the evening...
Neo, the *almost* deaf dumb and blind ultra liberal!! "
("yeah, wheel him out now boys")
"Like most of his kind, neo was virtually deaf dumb and blind from birth, though he had some use of his faculties left.
Unfortunately, a high diet of intensely liberal newspapers, liberal party slogans, and anti-nazi league brochures later in life took away his sight completely! Unable to tell black from white, big from small, he is completely blind!
But dont get too close to the cage ladies and gentlemen, Neo doesnt like people who can see and hear the world around them, and is liable to lash out in anger and fear!!
Neo almost completely lost the ability to speak, with the ability to say only two words... "you" and "racist"
Isnt he incredible ladies and gentlemen?!
It looks like hes getting anxious ladies and gentlemen, so we should take him back to his snug little den, where he can shy away from the real world to his hearts content (Crowd: "ahhhhh")
So, give it up for Neo, the *almost* deaf dumb and blind ultra liberal!!"
*Raptuous applause from crowd*
(Neo is wheeled away, repeatedly shouting "you racist, you racist, you racist")
"And finally Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with a joke..
What do you call someone who cant tell an orange from a pear?
Neothe1, apparently!
Thank you, and goodnight!"
neothe1 my point was that stating the differences does not imply anything,it is a mere stating of the facts.Ofcourse there will always be some racist who will use the differences between races to say one is superior to the other however the act of acknowledging differences is not racist in itself.
Exactly what I was saying, yet neo interpreted that as me being a racist "relic", who believed I was superior to people of other castes, lol.
I have an exam to revise for, so I will respond back to this thread in a couple of days, please check back for my reply (unless you have branded me a lost racist already, and dont want to talk any further of course))
So they should be denied entirely, and anyone who points them out should be assumed to have the most subversive intentions, and denounced as a racist relic, right?
I just did, any euphemism exists entirely inside your head im afraid. Which says more about you than me I would imagine?
Now, are you going to keep letting your own prejudices and insecurities surface in ridiculous accusations against a person whose views and intents you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever, or are you going to discuss the subject logically, i.e basedon what Im actually saying, rather than what you imagine me to be saying?
Ergo, are you going to continue being a paranoid, foolish thrower of unfounded accusations, or can we try and gain some productive insight from this conversation?
winston: I think that race will continue to be a possible factor in ongoing conflicts. Does it have to be? No. Should it be? No.
However, too many people (even in this discussion) skip over the wording "implies superiority," while strenuously asserting fact over perception (and/or that 'superiority' is some easily quantifiable one- or two- dimension assessment) -- preferably using criteria in which they believe they have an advantage.
Sadly, it is exactly that attitude that fuels the condition Disraeli mentions, IMO.
Neothe1
I see you added anything contructive to this debate yet, which is a shame.
Your mindless repetition of your fairly paranoid, completely groundless, but most of all FRUITLESS accusations are becoming quite tiresome now, not to mention futile. Surely you have the intelligence to realise I am either not racist (which im not), or im not stupid enough to admit it If I am. Either way, even the lowest forms of life normally have the sense to learn from their mistakes and/or not continue pursuing a clearly futile course of action. You, supposedely as a human, certainly have no excuse.
You have tried to slander my name and publicly villainise me based on your own preconceived ideas concerning not only my views on these matters, but also on my skin colour (figure it out). These things together make you, well, ironically they make you the very thing you accuse me of being, a BIGOT.
Now, in the unlikely event you can manage to pull your head out of your arse, and formulate a few logical ideas to contribute (seems unlikely), here are my responses to the very few points you have made worth noting (which in reality also reveal the true extent of your lack of coherent thought).
1) You said "it's racist to give those differences meaning beyond mere appearances. race is only skin deep"
and "that you cannot be talking about external appearance"
Logical question" why is any more racist to point out differences in muscle structure for instance, than to point out skin colour? (your logic)
Answer: its not. Aggregate ifferences between races occur both above and below the skin, as even the least book read of people know. Differences in muscle fabric (fast twitch versus clow twitch muscles) for instance are an area where it has been proven that different races posses different aggregate physical characteristics. Only a moron would deny that, and only a complete turd would calim it racit to point such FACTS out.
Thats my primary problem with brainwashed individuals such as yourself, you are an imprediment both to logical debate and to the progression of science. You would advocate, (if by some accident you were mistakenly given power to play with) a complete ban on investigation in to racial differences, whereas science shoulsnt know boundaries. More knowledge of genetic racial differences has already borne medicinal fruit, and people like you deny science. That makes you about as progressive as the Catholic church 200 years ago.
You are an impediment to the progress of human kind.
Maybe this "conversation" is ultimately futile, as you appear top know every little about a small amount(particularly evolutionary biology it seems), and cant argue formally without resorting to character assaination.
Prove me wrong?
Wow, you really dont have any knowledge of genetics at all do you? West African runners are a world apart from East African runners genetically. West Africans tend to have mesomorphic body structures, with a high percentage of fast twitch fibres in their muscle makeup, making them good at sports requirung quick bursts of pace/athleticism , i.e. basketball, American football, running etc. Notice anything about those sports? They are all dominated by Americans of west African descent. Top 200 100m times all black, 30 black runners have beaten the 10 second mark, no white runners have. These facts are indisputable.
East African blacks tensd to have ectomorphic body structures, making them good at cardio-vascular, stamina intensive sports (long distance running for example). This is why the ethiopians and Kenyans are so good at long distance running for example. Indeed, studies have shown that in many ways east Africans are more closely related to whites genetically than other West Africans.
Only the most commited egalitarian ideologue would ignore these facts, or a moron.
There is direct biological, physiological and statistical/observational of these genetic differences, and they are NOT the result of cultural upbringing. The very fact that Afro-Americans are predominant in sprinting, having been brought up in a similar culutre to their white counterparts, is proof of that.
To deny these facts is to deny reality, they cannot be reasonably argued against. Only a moron or a hopelessly brainwashed liberal would do so.
And you are the only one who has even mentioned the word "superior" in this thread thus far, not me. Its seems your insecurities are getting the best of you.
To say that West African runners have an edge in running is not to call themm"physcially superior", whites have natural advantages in many other physcial areas where upper body strength is more important. Genetic differences are not the be all and end all of ability either, determination/dedication also play a part, though you can only play the cards nature dealt you.
And studies have shown that whites consistently score higher than blacks on IQ tests, yes. Should I deny that because you dont like it? Does that make them mentally superior? No.
I base my ideas on science, not my own prejudices. There are other aspects of intelligence besides IQ, and education is far more important than IQ, but these differences are a fact, and only your own prejudices would stop you from denying them entirely. Its like me denying that the moon circles the earth, because I would rather the earth circled the moon. I.e. its STUPID.
Nope, the only thing i've proven is that my very first assumption about you was correct,
i.e. you are a moron.
and you are an impediment to human progress; a log that just wont flush
^ How did that make sense in your head before you wrote it?
^I'll take that as a feeble, transparent attempt to gloss over the fact that you can't string an intelligent argument together.
M.O.R.O.N
for the saviour of the enslaved human race, you sure are stupid.
It must be nice to fantasise that the human race cares about your existence though, maybe making pretend on the internet with a fantasy name etc, eh Neo?
Indeed, and you have been throwing them about since the beginning. "Racist", "relic" and "coward" are all considered insults I believe?
Dont use arguments that can be thrown right back at you, silly child.
Doing so equates to idiocy.
We could actually discuss this matter rationally, something you havent attempted yet; or you can keep arguing with someone who is clearly a notch above you intellectually, and makes you look like a fool.
It's your choice.
yes, I deny that.
Im saying that people of West African descent tend to inherit genes that give them mesomorphic body shapes, a high percentage of fast twitch muscle, and thus a natural advantage at sprinting over short distances. East Africans tend to inherit ectomorphic body shapes, suitable for long distance running.
The physiological difference between atheltes of different genetic heritage have been looked into scientifically, and these are the results they have found. Not to mention the overwhelming evidence of the top 200 100m meter runners being of west African heritage, and that these people come from a variety of different cultures, ergo it is a genetic similarity not an evironmental one. Not all West Africans are good at sprinting, but the evidence suggests that more are than most other races.
To deny this is to deny science.
and common sense.
Somehow your perverse mind has reached the very OPPOSITE of the message my comments contain. Sadly, I still suspect you think yourself being marvellously witty and satirical in some way. Sorry to shatter your illusion.
I believe in the progression of pure science, uninhibited by the backward thinking and denail that prevails in individuals such as yourself, and I am not a racist, you are.
Anymore out of context, non-sensical questions?
"you said yourself that those characteristics are different even within the same race. that makes them regional, cultural, and lifetyle based adaptations, not racial"
You clearly lack even a rudimentary working knowledge of genetics. When I talk about racial differences I am talking about AVERAGE differences, i.e. if the percentage of fast twitch muscle for white and black men was placed on a bell curve (normal distribution) both would have examples pretty much all the way along the bell curve, but black emn would have a greater clustering of results towards the higher spectrum. Clearly, there would be overlapping between the two, but the average score for black men would be higher. They taught you about mean averages, median, mode etc at school I hope? You seem to be having a problem with this idea.
" you are denying that, insisting they're racial differences, because you like to feel intellectually superior to people visibly different from yourself"
I have already debunked this pathetic attempt at calling me a racist AGAIN *yawn* with my previous comment. However, If mental "superiority" (your racist words, not mine) was so important to me, would I admit that East Asians and Jews regularly score higher than white son IQ tests? No, because dems the facts, and I dont cower from the truth like yourself.
"{you are a racist by your own admission."
The misguided conclusion of a bigotted mind following flawed logic.
Now, it is rapidly dawning on me that you have neither the intellectual capacity nor the educational background, leta lone the objectivity of thinking, to present me with a point worth debating at any length, i.e. your blind stabs in the dark at a coherent argument are becoming exceedingly BORING. At some point this boredom will require me to withdraw from this "debate", as it seems unlikely I can learn anything from an individual such as yourself.
Go read a book on genetics, another on arguing logically (not emotionally) and a few more simply to increase your childlike breadth of knowledge, then come back and make a cogent point.
Go on, I dare you.
I can almost see your little brain filtering out the rest of my points to focus on what you perceive to be a mistake in my understanding of genetics. A light at the end of the tunnel for you and your hopeless debating skills.
Once again, you are a fool. Jews have been almost exlusively interbreeding for centuries, if not millenia, making them almost as much a "race" as white or black people. Indeed, Jews can be split into several genetic categories who have interbred even more exclusively, like the ashenazki jews, who regularly score particualrly highly on IQ tests.
Now that you have been proven an idiot AGAIN, would you like to address my other points?
Ill repeat my former comment anyway, which is still entirely valid..
Now, it is rapidly dawning on me that you have neither the intellectual capacity nor the educational background, leta lone the objectivity of thinking, to present me with a point worth debating at any length, i.e. your blind stabs in the dark at a coherent argument are becoming exceedingly BORING. At some point this boredom will require me to withdraw from this "debate", as it seems unlikely I can learn anything from an individual such as yourself.
Go read a book on genetics, another on arguing logically (not emotionally) and a few more simply to increase your childlike breadth of knowledge, then come back and make a cogent point.
Go on, I dare you.
Really? Fun? I wish I could say the same. Alas I am not sadistic enough to enjoy your semi-deluded ramblings.
Yopu have yet to make a point that I havent disproven immediately with my reply, and yet you continue with the persisitence of someone who has a truly deluded view of their own abilities/knowledge.
Its becoming clear that you will not admit, or even realise defeat until it has been explained to you an infinite amount of times. However, I shall persist for the sake of my own altruism if nothing else.
Lets address your bumbling points shall we?
"you have yet to prove that there are any characteristics of any race that are consistent throughout the race aside from external appearances (which are what define race)"
I hae already given you overwhelming statistical evidence concering the sprinting abilities of People with West African heritage, as well as physiological FACT concerning their higher percentage of fast twitch muscles.
You, on the other hand, have offerred not one theory, let alone convincing evidence, as to any possible cultural explanation for these findings, i.e a cultural reason that runners of West African advantage out perform the citizens of every country they inhabit.
Also, it seems counter logical to assume that surface racial differences, caused by evolution within different climates, would produce ONLY surface differences. Why the arbitrary full stop at the level of skin deep?
So I have offerred statistical, physiological and intuitive arguments for racial differences.
You have offerred? Absolutely nothing besides your own deluded exclamations of victory in this debate, which is why I suspect you wouldnt have the grace to admit defeat to your superior even if it slapped you across the face with a big fish.
"and each time you try you just keep proving that those genetic traits are not racial differences, but regional"
Again, your apparent void of knowledge concerning genetics and genetic heritage make you look a fool. Long term racial differences ARE genetic differences you utter moron. Do you think generations of West Africans have migrated to Japan annualy to mate with the locals?! Proximity selects mating patterns, genes cluster within regions. Thats why people from Europe are generally white, people from Africa black etc, not to mention that at one point the land masses would have been seperated, making racial inter breeding not just unlikely but impossible.
Even a child could have figured that out, surely no adult can be as ignorant as you appear to be?
The final stab in the ehart of your "argument", if only to put it out of its crippled misery;
"and i have news for you. juseism is a religion. if i wanted to, i could become jewish in a week. it would not alter my genetic background"
No news there my friend. I already aknowledged that Judaism is a religion, however it is unique in haing many of the chracteristics of a race. Long term interbreeding for religious reasons has seen to this.
Only in modern times could you have become Jewish as you described, and it would still take you a LONG time, if they accepted someone with your obvious mental deficiencies at all. There is still a clear preferences for Jewish interbreeding, as there has been for a couple of thousand years.
Heard of Tay Sachs? Heard of the ashkenazi Jews? More proof thatcertain collections of genes have been cultivated within the Jewish community due to in-breeding.
Now really, I have entirely refuted everyone one of your half points and ignorant mistakes with an embarassing ease. Again, this debate grows tiresome, as an adult I would spend this long arguing with a child, because it is ultimately futile.
You can guide the child, but until they develop the full use of their mental faculties and gain an education, you might as well be debating with a brick wall.
"read a book on genetics, another on arguing logically (not emotionally) and a few more simply to increase your childlike breadth of knowledge, then come back and make a cogent point.
Go on, I dare you."
You can tell from my lack of attention to typos in the previous comment that Im becoming really bored of "debating" this issue with someone like yourself.
Even shooting fish in a barrel loses its appeal eventually.
God, you really are of below average intelligence arent you? I was only joking before, but you are actually, to be un-politically correct, extremely stupid.
Sigh..
"which disproves your claim, making you a racist. what part are you not understanding?"
My claim is that racial differences exist beyond skin colour, my evidence supports this, This makes me a racIAList, not a racist. Im not understanding how you can be so dense as to come to the conclusion im disproving my own claim and calling myself a racist, just how dim witted stroke delusional are you?
"because those evolutions are not related to climate. skin tone for example varies only in the eastern hemisphere, snd only north to south, staying incredibly consistent east to west in spite of very different climates."
So Japanese people have the same colour skin as people from England, and Africans have the same colour skin as people from South America?
M.O.R.O.N
"Long term racial differences ARE genetic differences you utter moron."
allow me to correct your grammar:
'Long term regional differences ARE genetic differences you person i do not agree with.'
much better"
No no, it was correct the first time, you really are a moron. You havent showed one iota of understanding of genetics, logic, or even common sense thus far, and you wont admit defeat against a clearly superior adversary, making you a moron.
"No news there my friend. I already aknowledged that Judaism is a religion, however it is unique in haing many of the chracteristics of a race."
only to a nazi. your religion cannot change your genes, it's impossible."
I just explained how, clearly you didnt/couldnt read my comment, or are just in denial. Like I said, go read some books on genetics, then we can talk.
"this is so much fun. i love watching you try to figure out how to rephrase your blind hatred so it sounds like something else"
You should get out more. This isn't fun, this is the equivalent of me trying to beat knowledge into the increasingly bloody head of a particularly stupid child, using an book of common sense as my weapon of choice.
Your comments are non-sensical and ignorant in the extreme, yet you actually believe yourself to be giving a good account in thsi "debate" which is why I call you a MORON.
Difficult as I imagine it is for you, perhaps you should try reading through my comments before making your own embarassingly weak points? Chances are I will have already refuted your point previously, saving me the bother of trying to communicate with you anymore.
You must understand, its difficult to restrain ones self from insulting someone like yourself. If you were aware of your own limitatations i could forgive you, but you have this delusional idea of your own correctness, which become sirritating. However often you get knocked down, your arguments rubuked and your limitations revealed, you still hold on to this stubborn notion that you arent losing this debate in the most humiliating way possible.
To be fair, I should have either accepted that you arent capable of rational debate the moment you first started throwing words like"racist" and "bigot" around, as these are normally indicative of a shallow mind, but the temptation to keep throwing you back to the floor remains to great.
Also, as I've mentioned previously(as with most things, you stumble on repeating points to which I have already responded), YOU started the insults, remember? And as such I consider you fair game, remember me saying that? Did you read that comment?
However, to avoid accusations os sadistic enjoyment in watching you flounder at my attention, I will try to refrain from insulting you TOO much from now on, and respond to your points in the most perfunctory manner possible, mainly to avoid me wasting to much of my attention on your generally inane points.
I, unlike you it would seem, have a life in the real world that needs attention to.
Lest deal with each others points one by one shall we? If only to reveal your poor attention to detail and lack of knowledge with more clarity;
"your "evidence" disproves this."
How, pray tell? I have set out my case, now the ownus is on you to disprove my evidence.
"japanese are from china, africans have a wide variety of skin colour from north to south, and south americans are not from the eastern hemisphere. try again."
Non sensical, as per usual.
I didnt say South Americans were from the Eastern hemisphere, did I? And variations in African skin colour from North to South would corroborate my thesis, as they adapt fo differing climates the closer they are to the equator. You have just proven my point.
Not much for me to respond to here in reality.
"you proved that those genetic differences were REGIONAL, not racial. they vary between REGIONS, even WITHIN races."
We already went over this, again, do you read my comments? I wont repeat myself, so use the scroll feature on your mouse (the little dial in the middle) and find my previous comment concerning regional/racial causality concerning gene clusters.
"you have to prove that those traits of west africans are also traits of east africans, north africans, south africans, all africans"
I have already stated the racial differences between east and West Africans, why would I prove they have the same characteristics? They are in different regions, with different evolutionary conditions. Climate is just one of a host of factors, like availability of food (long term) and altitude. Again, did you read my previous comments?
"you say you proved how, when a person converts to judeism, their entire genetic background is rewritten to become a different race"
No no, thats merely your own poor understanding of my point. AGAIN, read my last point concerning this matter, namely that religious exclusivity concerning mating leads to genetic isolation and genetic uniqueness, as "foreign" genes, like yours if yoiu decided to become jewish, are rarely allowed to enter the system. You wouldnt share the same genes as the majority of Jews of you became Jewish, thats your own absurd notion, but if you mated with a Jewish woman your child would share at least half the Jewsih genes.
Its a very simple concept, genes are hereditary. High school science.
Again, can I ask you to please read my previous refutations of your uneducated comments before posting them again? Its not very productive for you to keep making the same points over and over when I have already rebuked them.
Cmon, either admit defeat or come up with some original points please, this grows tiresome.
Thank you for being mature and admitting defeat, I respect your maturity in this instance.
Boccalupo.
Again, your lack of knowledge concerning genetics lets you down, and again I've already explained this to you. Please READ this comment this time.
"When I talk about racial differences I am talking about AVERAGE differences, i.e. if the percentage of fast twitch muscle for white and black men was placed on a bell curve (normal distribution) both would have examples pretty much all the way along the bell curve, but black emn would have a greater clustering of results towards the higher spectrum. Clearly, there would be overlapping between the two, but the average score for black men would be higher. They taught you about mean averages, median, mode etc at school I hope? You seem to be having a problem with this idea."
Looks like this "debate" will consist of cutting and pasting my previous comments from now on, which is fine by me. Maybe after the 30th cut and paste you will absorb the contents of my comments.
Also, Im not lumping West Africans and East Africans into one "African/black" race, im comparing the differences between the two to illustrate the long term effects of regional differences in climate, terrain conditions, altitudew and a number of other factors on genetic makeup.
^ In your head apparently (?)
You arent making sense my friend.
My god, does your stupidity know no bounds? What you just wrote was not only nonsensical in the context of this conversation, and a strawman parody of the actual argument I presented, it is also RACIST.
You are lumping black people together and white people together, YOU are the one who cant see past the colour of their skin. You call all chocolates dark chocolates, but within the confines of your ridiculous metaphor there are large chocolates and small chcolates and not so dark chcolates and chocolates with markedely different innards to the other dark chocolates.
You cant seem to understand im talking about racial heritage, not all African people are the same, not All European people are the same, not all the chocolates are the same you demented fool!
Jesus Christ, its like explaining the meaning of love to an autistic child, absolutely zero comprehension.
So far this entire debate has consisted of me making valid points and you completely failing to understand them, encouraging a series of ridiculous conclusions as to my intent and message.
I would call YOU a troll, but I genuinly think you may just be too limited intellectually to understand a subject as (apparently) complex as this. Im actually starting to worry about your mental health, you seem completely out of touch with reality.
For the last time, I implore you, read a book on genetics, and learn what phrases like genetic heritage and natural selection mean, you absolutely pitiful excuse for a rational human being.
EDUCATION IS YOUR FRIEND.
I cant stress enough how stupid you are giving yourself the impression of being. Truly, sadly, frighteningly dim.
Let me also make it quite clear, I think that dim witted sheeple like yourself are DANGEROUS. You are a threat to clear thinking and human progress with your outdated, hopelessly unscientific views based on your own prejudices.
I just spoke to my medic friend about your particularly stubborn variety of stupidity. As a medic he has been taught about racial differences, because to not talk about them would cost LIVES. They know that certain individuals of particualr racial heritage are more likely to get certain genetic diseases than other, and subsequently measures can be taken to look for signs of these diseases.
I think you are dangerous because if people like you ever had any influence on the medical profession you would cause many, many unnecessary deaths through your stubborn ignorance.
Most of all I dislike you because of your sheer hardheaded stubborness on these issues, reminiscent of a 15th century Catholic priest INSISTING that the world is flat, and that any scientific research to the contrary is heretical (substitute racist for heretical for yourself).
Progress (I pray) will continue to wash impediments to science and logical thinking aside like the turds that you are, as it has always done.
You agree that
"You are lumping black people together and white people together, YOU are the one who cant see past the colour of their skin"
Well, I must say I have an extremely low opinion of your intelligence, but I didnt expect such an outright admission of Racism, considering your ignorant hard headed attitude thus far.
Its a positive step forward for you, a step past denial into a hopefully brighter future.
Im proud of you for admitting your problem 
Came around? Lol. You just admitted you were a racist, whereas Im not, so I certainly didnt "come round" to your way of thinking.
You are focusing on the semantics of the word "race" because you dont have a substantial argument to make. You try to disguise your own ignorance (and as we have ascertained, racism) by nit picking the words used.
I have given you statistica and physiological/scientific PROOF that average gentic differences exist between different "races", or if you prefer, between groups of differing genetic heritage.
You have given nothing.
You lost this debate a long time ago my friend; all you've been doing since is trolling this ballot trying to get a response out of me, the very definition of troll behaviour.
and the sign of a very sad person indeed to be brutally honest with you; you clearly have nothing better to do than troll debates that you clearly lost a long time ago.
Again, I offer proof; you offer word games to satisfy your troll-like need for a rise.
Indeed, from looking at your comments trolling my comments appears to have become your primary hobby, and where you aren't trolling me you are trolling someone else.
Any further attention I give you will merely give you the rise you seek.
You arent interested in debate.
"you make the argument that some races are superior to others in certain ways"
Nope, only you have said that.
"as evidence, you say africans are genetically built for running"
Nope, never said that.
"by showing that only certain groups within that race are"
Did that from the beginning, was my point in fact.
"i don't even need to be here."
And yet.. you are. Even when you are repeatdely made to look a fool, you just cant stop coming back, because you are a sad little troll.
All that entire last comment served to prove was that you havent read a thing I've said, or you are incapable of understanding it. Thats why I call you a moron.
What inventive way of making yourself look foolish will you come up with next?
"of vcourse i'm not interested in debate"
Making you a troll I believe.
Game over, moron.
Having looked over the "conversation" thus far, it has dawned on me that your sole "beef" with my argument is my use of the word race. I would consider west Africans and East Africans different races in a genetic sense. However, it is common to lump people of differing genetic heritage together under the much to broad terms of "black" and "white", which is technically wrong, but pretty much accepted.
Note that I aserted that
"the worlds 200 fastest 100 meter times are held by runners of WEST AFRICAN ORIGIN".
Your sole quibble has been over an issue of semantics.
Pathetic.
This has been a great arguement. I just looked back at this ballot for the first time to see what the votes were, and I find this. Brilliant!
lol!
yes, and I stand by thsoe statements.
They certainly do NOT equate to;
"some races are SUPERIOR to others in certain ways"
I merely said that members of particular races will have tendencies to have a higher from birth potential in certain areas, which is clearly true.
I gave certain physiological facts concerning this, as well as quite undeniable data on the worlds fastest running times etc, which cant be explained by differences in nurture or culture as the individuals do not share common nationality. There is a genetic link between them.
"studies have shown that whites consistently score higher than blacks on IQ tests"
Though controversial, im not racist if its true am I? Im just stating data collected by other, often reputable sources. Do you expect me to deny these figures when they are true?
Its the difference between being a racist and a racialist, of which I am the latter (as any reasonable, observant human being should be)
Which is NOT the same thing. You are adding a subjective valuation on these differences that I am not.
And I already proved it to be true, as I've shown numerous times already. You really are finding this hard arent you?
I repeat;
"You are focusing on the semantics of the word "race" because you dont have a substantial argument to make. You try to disguise your own ignorance (and as we have ascertained, racism) by nit picking the words used.
I have given you statistica and physiological/scientific PROOF that average gentic differences exist between different "races", or if you prefer, between groups of differing genetic heritage."
and particularly
" Having looked over the "conversation" thus far, it has dawned on me that your sole "beef" with my argument is my use of the word race. I would consider west Africans and East Africans different races in a genetic sense. However, it is common to lump people of differing genetic heritage together under the much to broad terms of "black" and "white", which is technically wrong, but pretty much accepted."
Im happy to keep cutting and pasting until you start reading/understanding my comments.
What are you two actually arguing about?
No, not within races. Again, you are lumpig all the black people into a "black" race and so on, which is incorrect. And probably racist.
I repeat;
"You are focusing on the semantics of the word "race" because you dont have a substantial argument to make. You try to disguise your own ignorance (and as we have ascertained, racism) by nit picking the words used.
I have given you statistica and physiological/scientific PROOF that average gentic differences exist between different "races", or if you prefer, between groups of differing genetic heritage."
and particularly
" Having looked over the "conversation" thus far, it has dawned on me that your sole "beef" with my argument is my use of the word race. I would consider west Africans and East Africans different races in a genetic sense. However, it is common to lump people of differing genetic heritage together under the much to broad terms of "black" and "white", which is technically wrong, but pretty much accepted."
wow.
Read.
" Having looked over the "conversation" thus far, it has dawned on me that your sole "beef" with my argument is my use of the word race. I would consider west Africans and East Africans different races in a genetic sense. However, it is common to lump people of differing genetic heritage together under the much to broad terms of "black" and "white", which is technically wrong, but pretty much accepted."
So I admitted I used the word in the colloquial manner it is used in modern society, then explained why that is technically wrong but quite natural. Yet you are still talking about it.
Cut and paste is my friend.
And at this juncture I feel I should note that we have essentially come to the conclusion (in the most round-a-bout way possible of course) that we agree on genetic differences between "races", we just dont agree on the use of the word "race".
Which means by calling me "racist" "bigot" "relic" "coward" etc you were also calling yourself these things.
As I said, we have pretty much agreed on genetic differences, after finally breaking down your weak semantic argument.
So do you consider yourself to be those things is the question? Even if you do, thats merely your opinion, which isnt especially important to me.
You really are a one trick pony, arent you?
so when the flaw in your argument is pointed out, you adjust it to say there are 2 different kinds of africans, yet still only one kind of european. that's hypocrisy. and still disproves your argument.
When the innacuracy of ONE commonly used term is pointed out by a pedantic individual such as yourself, I explain my meaning, and ascertain that in fact you agree with everything I have said, but avoid admitting you agree with someone you branded a "Racist" by continually coming back to this matter of semantics.
Instead of clutching desperately onto this one objection to my use of racial definitions, why dont you just grow up and admit everything I have said is right?
There isnt one type of European, and there isnt one type of African. "Races" include sub groups such as West-African and East-Africans, and Europeans of medditeranean and nordic blood. Different genetic groups. The terms white and black are generally used because genetic differences are generally more marked the more marked the difference in skin colour. The same conditions that change skin colour often change(or are accompanied by factors that change) other genetic factors.
Just swallow your pride.
"There isnt one type of European, and there isnt one type of African. "Races" include sub groups such as West-African and East-Africans, and Europeans of medditeranean and nordic blood. Different genetic groups. The terms white and black are generally used because genetic differences are generally more marked the more marked the difference in skin colour. The same conditions that change skin colour often change(or are accompanied by factors that change) other genetic factors."
" Having looked over the "conversation" thus far, it has dawned on me that your sole "beef" with my argument is my use of the word race. I would consider west Africans and East Africans different races in a genetic sense. However, it is common to lump people of differing genetic heritage together under the much to broad terms of "black" and "white", which is technically wrong, but pretty much accepted."
So I admitted I used the word in the colloquial manner it is used in modern society, then explained why that is technically wrong but quite natural. Yet you are still talking about it.
Cut and paste is my friend. "
You just arent understanding this, are you? I cant make it any simpler than I already have, so my ONLY choice is to cut and paste until you get it. I do have other things to do than continue this futile arguemnt with you.
You really dont have an argument anymore, read;
"There isnt one type of European, and there isnt one type of African. "Races" include sub groups such as West-African and East-Africans, and Europeans of medditeranean and nordic blood. Different genetic groups. The terms white and black are generally used because genetic differences are generally more marked the more marked the difference in skin colour. The same conditions that change skin colour often change(or are accompanied by factors that change) other genetic factors."
" Having looked over the "conversation" thus far, it has dawned on me that your sole "beef" with my argument is my use of the word race. I would consider west Africans and East Africans different races in a genetic sense. However, it is common to lump people of differing genetic heritage together under the much to broad terms of "black" and "white", which is technically wrong, but pretty much accepted."
So I admitted I used the word in the colloquial manner it is used in modern society, then explained why that is technically wrong but quite natural. Yet you are still talking about it."
Race:
"1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans."
Now, get this through your think head please, I am using the word in relation to parts 1, 2 and part c of 3.
"You are focusing on the semantics of the word "race" because you dont have a substantial argument to make. You try to disguise your own ignorance (and as we have ascertained, racism) by nit picking the words used"
Cut and paste is my friend.
What little argument you had evaporated a long way back on this conversation my friend, be a man and admit that.
^haha, now THATS a concession if ever I saw one!
Im just dissapointed that you had to exit in such a cowardly manner, scuttling away like a crab, rather than admit defeat like a man. Says a lot about your maturity/integrity (or lack thereof).
Good luck to you.
just admit you were wrong, its not that hard. Stop making erroneous comments to cover up your defeat.
Just say " ok, I had a weak point, that I had to keep repeating because Im an insecure individual and I need to win internet arguments whether im right or wrong" and get on with your life.Dont keep chasing a lost cause.
I've already revealed you for the pedantci, doggmatically pointless individual you appear to be. It turned out we both agreed with each other on everything besides some issues of semantics, yet you are still to immature to concede the point. When will you grow up?
G.R.O.W.U.P
Seriously, I couldnt humiliate you anymore than I already have, so PLEASE just be a man and admit defeat?
You sad, sad person... :(
It seems cut and paste may not feel the same way about you, lol. What a moron!
"Race:
"1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans."
Now, get this through your think head please, I am using the word in relation to parts 1, 2 and part c of 3."
If you had read the last paragraph, we wouldnt be having this discussion, would we?
Cut and paste is my friend, M.O.R.O.N
I think we may have reached the point where there isnt a single thing you can say that I havent already rebuked, and thus can simply cut and paste my previous answers to.
Its not even an effort to humiliate you anymore, lol.
As you know full well, I never "admitted defeat", because it is you who was defeated a long time ago.
Not only was your original point pedantic and, quite frankly, the product of a mind with too much time on its hands, but I easily refuted it with this;
"You just arent understanding this, are you? I cant make it any simpler than I already have, so my ONLY choice is to cut and paste until you get it. I do have other things to do than continue this futile arguemnt with you.
You really dont have an argument anymore, read;
"There isnt one type of European, and there isnt one type of African. "Races" include sub groups such as West-African and East-Africans, and Europeans of medditeranean and nordic blood. Different genetic groups. The terms white and black are generally used because genetic differences are generally more marked the more marked the difference in skin colour. The same conditions that change skin colour often change(or are accompanied by factors that change) other genetic factors."
" Having looked over the "conversation" thus far, it has dawned on me that your sole "beef" with my argument is my use of the word race. I would consider west Africans and East Africans different races in a genetic sense. However, it is common to lump people of differing genetic heritage together under the much to broad terms of "black" and "white", which is technically wrong, but pretty much accepted."
So I admitted I used the word in the colloquial manner it is used in modern society, then explained why that is technically wrong but quite natural. Yet you are still talking about it."
Race:
"1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans."
Now, get this through your think head please, I am using the word in relation to parts 1, 2 and part c of 3.
"You are focusing on the semantics of the word "race" because you dont have a substantial argument to make. You try to disguise your own ignorance (and as we have ascertained, racism) by nit picking the words used"
So, you made your crappy little point concerning the semantics of my original statement, and I clarified the situation for you.
And yet, you are still here...
Maybe you should take up a hobby besides trolling the internet?
The only thing I conceded was that the word "race" is open to interpretation, depending on which part of the dictionary definition one is using. I then explained which part of the definition I was using, and somehow you think that proves your point (not that you had one).
You called me a coward, racist, relic etc for saying that racial differences exist, but you then your belief was in genetic differences between racial subgroups was inherent in your subsequent comments, making you all of the things you called me and more, because it also makes you a moron.
I've already shown you that my original argument was correct according to several defintions of race, yet you persist with this self deluding idea that you have made a point of any worth in this entire thread. You have called yourself a racist, a relic, a bigot and a coward by default, making you a moron I would suggest.
I cant make it any clearer than that, even for a moron like yourself.
Stop spending so much time arguing over pathetic issues of semantics on the internet, and start getting the life you clearly need so sorely. Thats my advice to you. You certainly ARENT going to achieve anything by flogging this dead horse any further.
"there is nobody who denies racial differences or advocates such denial"
Apparently you do, lol.
M.O.R.O.N.
That quote alone should make you aware of how utterly wrong you have been throguhout this entire thread, if you have a single shred of decency or integrity that is.
Lets see you argue against your own words; or better yet be a man and concede to your superior.
Far from it my friend, far from it. This conversation ceased to be enjoyable for me the moment you joined it with your panicky, groundless accusations of racism. Racism directed at a point you yourself agree with!
You have just been arguing with your own point for over a month, simply because you refuse to admit that your original comments were foolish and incorrect.
Which, ironically,
"once again leads me back to my conclusion that your point is so absuird simply because you don't care if you're right, you don't care what we argue about, only that we argue, because that's where the joy is for you."
As for me posting in twos, your desperate attempt to uncover some hidden facet of my personality is clearly meant to distract from the fact that you have just been proved foolish, emphatically foolish.
Ok,lets clear this up once and for all. It seems clear now that you are simply a troll, who will never do the honourable thing and admit defeat, even when you have been proven comprehensively wrong.
Still, I will sum up your failings in this one comment, if only for posterity. I cant keep wasting time on you.
"there is nobody who denies racial differences or advocates such denial"
Yet, you have been for the majority of this conversation. Even calling me a racist, relic, coward etc for stating a point that you yourself agreed with.
I think its safe to say that this makes you either a moron, or a disingenuous hypocrite.
"Race:
"1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans."
Now, get this through your thick head please, I am using the word in relation to parts 1, 2 and part c of 3."
Even the original pedantic point of semantics you have been clinging on to so desperately can be proven wrong, just depending on WHICH defintion of race one uses. I've already pointed this out to you but it seems impossible to get it through your thick skull.
This makes you desperate, and uneducated. Buy a dictionary, and get a girlfriend is my advice.
"of course i'm not interested in debate"
The final proof, as if any more was needed, that you are by definition a troll. You dont want debate, you want attention from people on the internet, because your real life has been bad and has warped your personality.
So, we have PROVEN, by your very own words, that you are a moronic, disingenous, uneducated, desperate, uneducated internet troll, and a very sad person indeed.
Making further "debate" with a sad internet troll such as yourself futile. Paying further attention to an individual such as yourself as you try to obfusticate and prolong matters, when the argument was clearly and comprehensively won from the outset, would only serve to encourage your personality disorder.
G.E.T .A. L.I.F.E, Y.O.U I.N.T.E.R.N.E.T T.R.O.L.L
Ok,lets clear this up once and for all. It seems clear now that you are simply a troll, who will never do the honourable thing and admit defeat, even when you have been proven comprehensively wrong.
Still, I will sum up your failings in this one comment, if only for posterity. I cant keep wasting time on you.
"there is nobody who denies racial differences or advocates such denial"
Yet, you have been for the majority of this conversation. Even calling me a racist, relic, coward etc for stating a point that you yourself agreed with.
I think its safe to say that this makes you either a moron, or a disingenuous hypocrite.
"Race:
"1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans."
Now, get this through your thick head please, I am using the word in relation to parts 1, 2 and part c of 3."
Even the original pedantic point of semantics you have been clinging on to so desperately can be proven wrong, just depending on WHICH defintion of race one uses. I've already pointed this out to you but it seems impossible to get it through your thick skull.
This makes you desperate, and uneducated. Buy a dictionary, and get a girlfriend is my advice.
"of course i'm not interested in debate"
The final proof, as if any more was needed, that you are by definition a troll. You dont want debate, you want attention from people on the internet, because your real life has been bad and has warped your personality.
So, we have PROVEN, by your very own words, that you are a moronic, disingenous, uneducated, desperate, uneducated internet troll, and a very sad person indeed.
Making further "debate" with a sad internet troll such as yourself futile. Paying further attention to an individual such as yourself as you try to obfusticate and prolong matters, when the argument was clearly and comprehensively won from the outset, would only serve to encourage your personality disorder.
G.E.T .A. L.I.F.E, Y.O.U I.N.T.E.R.N.E.T T.R.O.L.L
My argument, that racial differences exist.
Your argument, that Im a racist for beleiving in racial differences, when you yourself admitted to believing in them earlier in the thread. Making you strange to say the least.
Your second argument concerns the semantics of the word race. I used the word race, but wasnt clear enough about how specific my definition of race was, which is a commonly accepted "error", accepted by pretty much everyone in the world but yourself it seems (being the sad individual with too much time on your hands that you are). I then showed you the dictionary definition that I intended to portray with my comments, but apparently wasnt clear enough for a pedantic individual such as yourself.
So, my original point concerning racial differences still applies, with a clarification and specification of the word race especially for your benefit.
Thus, the fact remains that you called me bigot, racist, coward etc for believing in something that you yourself already admitted to, making you either an idiot or a masochist.
Or just an internet troll.
Those are the facts.
Facts that you are unable to process it seems.
Or maybe you just want attention?
Subsequently, Im happy to cut and paste my previous comments indefinently for your benefit, until you manage to come up with some original to debate.
Even the most ardent internet troll, with the most vacant social calendar will surely get bored of being wrong indefinently, particularly when the victim of their attentions no longer exhibits an interest in their post debate stalking.
Note that your original argument was so weak, that I didnt even recognise it for the first half of the discussion, it didnt occur to me that someone could make such unwarranted accusations of racism based on the semantics of a single word, i.e race. I actually assumed you were arguing about something else, something at least vaguely worthwhile.
As it is, I have disproven yoor weak argument, namely that
"race is a loose classification of appearance. races are not species. appearance is what defines it"
and
"the only differences between races are in appearance. that is what race means"
With;
"Race:
"1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans."
Now, get this through your thick head please, I am using the word in relation to parts 1, 2 and part c of 3."
You see? Its simple. I just didnt make it clear enough for your pedantic little personality first time.
My bad; your lack of a life.
No strawman arguments, no lies. (from me)
Just the fact that you are wrong remains.
Seriously, are you stupid? Or just deliberately obtuse? I cant make out whether you are a moron or a troll.
No, Im not denying that. Im saying (like I've said all along) that Im not a racist for believing it. Or if I am a racist, so are you dickface.
Remember?
"there is nobody who denies racial differences or advocates such denial"
Seriously, get more omega 3 in your diet, eat some fish, whatever. Just try to keep up with the conversation eh?
Oh, and thats twice now that you have quite categorically (and with a degree of unwitting irony) showed copy and paste to be anything BUT your friend, lol.
There is no strawman argument,and certainly no lying. Not from me anyway.
You seek to maintain my attention with random, non-sensical comments. Comments so non-sensical that they parade as insightful observations, and cause me to keep responding.
Those comments ARE just what they seem though, making you a troll.
Copy and paste should do the trick from now on, thats the way to deal with a troll like you with an infinite desire for online attention and chaos
You can leave your non-sensical troll comments on my answering machine if you like, but you will get the same message back everytime.
There is no strawman argument,and certainly no lying. Not from me anyway.
You seek to maintain my attention with random, non-sensical comments. Comments so non-sensical that they parade as insightful observations, and cause me to keep responding.
Those comments ARE just what they seem though, making you a troll.
Copy and paste should do the trick from now on, thats the way to deal with a troll like you with an infinite desire for online attention and chaos
You can leave your non-sensical troll comments on my answering machine if you like, but you will get the same message back everytime.
My argument, that racial differences exist.
Your argument, that Im a racist for beleiving in racial differences, when you yourself admitted to believing in them earlier in the thread. Making you strange to say the least.
Your second argument concerns the semantics of the word race. I used the word race, but wasnt clear enough about how specific my definition of race was, which is a commonly accepted "error", accepted by pretty much everyone in the world but yourself it seems (being the sad individual with too much time on your hands that you are). I then showed you the dictionary definition that I intended to portray with my comments, but apparently wasnt clear enough for a pedantic individual such as yourself.
So, my original point concerning racial differences still applies, with a clarification and specification of the word race especially for your benefit.
Thus, the fact remains that you called me bigot, racist, coward etc for believing in something that you yourself already admitted to, making you either an idiot or a masochist.
Or just an internet troll.
^Reassuringly non-sensical; no suprises here.
The two arent mutually exclusive.
There is no strawman argument (by me), and your argument WAS that I'm racist for believing in racial differences.
Any further comment by you would merely serve to reinforce my opinion of you as an internet troll.
Not that that will stop you Im sure.
You dont have an argument, you just want to keep my attention with bogus accusations of lying, because you are a troll.
There is no strawman argument (by me), and your argument WAS that I'm racist for believing in racial differences.
Where internet trolls are concerned, cut and paste is my friend.
You dont have an argument, you just want to keep my attention with bogus accusations of lying, because you are a troll.
There is no strawman argument (by me), and your argument WAS that I'm racist for believing in racial differences.
You dont have an argument, you just want to keep my attention with bogus accusations of lying, because you are a troll.
Where internet trolls are concerned, cut and paste is my friend.
You dont have an argument, you just want to keep my attention with bogus accusations of lying, because you are a troll.
I won this argument a long time ago, as you know full well.
Where internet trolls are concerned, cut and paste is my friend.
Really, you have already made a fool of yourself TWICE by trying unsu=cessfully to utilise cut and paste in your favour.
Do you really believe in third time lucky? Or are you just going to look like a fool again? Do the right thing.
Learn to lose gracefully.
You dont have an argument, you just want to keep my attention with bogus accusations of lying, because you are a troll.
I won this argument a long time ago, as you know full well.
Finally! The long overdue concession arrives.
Better late than never eh?
I paste to save my self time; to devote more time than necessary in response to your attention seeking, non-sensical ramblings would be playing into your hands.
You are a troll, you like to think you are causing disruption to my online activities, its your sole desire.
You dont have an argument, yoi havent since about 20 comments back, you have just been seeking to prolong the argument; to satisfy the disfunction, the vacuum in your personality that drives you to keep posting after your quite comprehensive defeat to a superior adversary.
Where internet trolls are concerned, cut and paste is my friend. Your only option is to get a life, SCARY eh?
Ahhh, the troll tries a new tactic, utilising the suggestion that ones opponent is an alias/ former disgruntled antagonist. Mildly more entertaining than your previous repetition of a limited few unsuccessful diversionary tactics, at least.
Insidious ad hominem provocations and smoke screens, no less than I've come to expect from a mental rodent like yourself.
No room in the inn today Im afraid, troll.
You have no point, you never did.
Just for the amusement of seeing you having to hastily construct a strawman of some sort to parade as a legitimate argument..
what exactly IS your point troll?
As I thought.
Are you aware that you have admitted to having no interest in debate, no interest in stating your argument (because you dont have one), having the same beliefs regarding racial differences as someone whom you branded a racist for those self same beliefs (making you a hypocrite and a moron), and have effectively accused me of being an alias of ken, then accusing me of avoiding the "point" you believe you have when I address the psychological problems indicated by your first "point"?
Are you aware that these facts PROVE you are a moron, an obsessive internet troll, and a very, very bad loser indeed?
Here, let me spell it out so even a moron like yourself can understand;
S.A.D L.O.N.E.L.Y. L.O.S.E.R T.R.O.L.L
Your unrelenting trolling is beginning to border on the psychotic/obsessive compulsive.
You seem to have real issues my friend; perhaps the internet is not helping you deal with them?
Just a suggestion that I'm sure someone in your state will not heed; still, we must try eh?
"THEREFORE your argument that some RACES are superior to others is based on even less fact than race itself."
Substitute the word superior (which only you have used thus far) for different, and you have my argument; the same argument that apparently makes me a racist and a bigot.
Yet earlier you said;
"there is nobody who denies racial differences or advocates such denial"
Meaning you are wrong, or are calling yourself a racist. or you are just a moron.
Only a truly pathetic, lonely individual would refuse to admit defeat for this long. It really reflects badly on your mental state.
When you earlier said;
"you are a racist for inventing racial differences that don't exist"
Such as?
Oh, and I believe I asked you another question beforehand;
"Are you aware that you have admitted to having no interest in debate, no interest in stating your argument (because you dont have one), having the same beliefs regarding racial differences as someone whom you branded a racist for those self same beliefs (making you a hypocrite and a moron), and have effectively accused me of being an alias of ken, then accusing me of avoiding the "point" you believe you have when I address the psychological problems indicated by your first "point"?"
My answer to YOUR previous question is, no, Im not aware of that, how cna I be aware of something that occurred entirely within the confines of your own, very thick, skull?
Now answer mine please.
That "you are a racist for inventing racial differences that don't exist" is clearly a fabricated, retrospective amendment to your original argument by the way, but I figure the worst thing I can do to a troll like you is force you to engage in some sort of productive debate, something you have evaded thus far.
Judging by your past actions you will lie, you will attempt to obfuscate, you will evade the point and you will do your utmost to avoid admitting the defeat any gentleman would have conceded a month back, but hopefully forcing you i=nto debate will disatisfy your troll like tendencies and you will, to put it frankly, fuck off back to the dank, dark, angst ridden sperm splattered room/monitor you exist in/in front of, and troll someone else on some other site.
"just can't stop laughing"
You should get out more. Its an internet site for starters, not to mention that the "joke" is in your head.
"Judging by your past actions you will lie, you will attempt to obfuscate, YOU WILL EVADE THE POINT and you will do your utmost to avoid admitting the defeat any gentleman would have conceded a month back, but hopefully forcing you i=nto debate will disatisfy your troll like tendencies and you will, to put it frankly, fuck off back to the dank, dark, angst ridden sperm splattered room/monitor you exist in/in front of, and troll someone else on some other site."
Its like winding up a clockwork toy and watching it go :)
Back to the subject, you have three comments to reply to, troll.
The same logic would obviously work vice versa, moron.
Except....
Out of your last 20 comments, 17 have been on this ballot, 2 have been about Ken, and a solitary ONE has been about anything else (and even that is a typically pathetic liberal stab at Bush)
I think we know whose life now revolves around trolling this ballot... that and scouring conspiracy sites in a lone crusade against your arch nemesis, the amn who makes your existence worthwhile, the mighty Ken! lol
What a LOSER! lmao!!
Hahaha
i just can't stop laughing!
Thank you.
|
