Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Joblom]

Yeah, no. Your cause is historically reviled and false.

Here, this is meant to help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

It is really not a very convincing tactic to accuse someone of being something they themselves have never professed to be, to refuse to explain why you perceive them to be that thing, much less demonstrate it, and then use that baseless judgement to make further judgments about them. It does not achieve anything or prove anything, for you. For any sober person reading this it shows that you are disingenuous, irrational, and emotionally driven.

[Sinekein]

You have proven fuck all because that is not the crap you said back then. I never disproved genetic diversity, only the pathetic attempts you made at making them socially and racially significant to try and create a ethnic hierarchy.

And I have a PhD in biology, fuckturd. I do not base my ideas on random internet searches. I got taught by actually knowledgeable people, the kind that your life has obviously sorely missed.

[Joblom]

You have proven fuck all because that is not the crap you said back then.

I said exactly the same thing then as I did now. Nothing has changed. I even have all the same links ready if you want them. No shit you never disproved genetic diversity, or human biodiversity as it is sometimes called, because you fucking cant'. The "racial implications" are born out in the data, repeatedly. That's why disturbed leftists have been spending decades coming up with wild and vague theories about "systemic racism" and "colonialism" to explain the poverty in Africa, South America, and elsewhere. It is why some 40 or so years of handouts have not worked. It is why progressive policies keep failing. It is why standards keep needing to be lowered and why objective, blind tests keep getting thrown out as discriminator. Even AI's and algorithms get accused of racism these days. Even keeping statistics be racist!!11

You are sad.

If you have PHD, then demonstrate some masterful knowledge of your field of study. To date, you have not.

[Mobius_118]

No, cocksucker. You're trying to convince a US Army Infantryman, a Frenchman, and a Jew that you're right. This isn't an emotional response for me. This is a cold and calculated, historically and currently driven response to fascism. I have been trained to eliminate evil, regardless of their religion or skin color. You are emulating an enemy we, as a world eliminated with years of pain and misery. I have trained every one of my soldiers to hold the same conviction in their duties. We're the best squad in the Company.

Be thankful that you're too much of a pussy to actually face someone with real conviction.

[Sinekein]

The "racial implications" are only born from a few sick pathetic minds in the beginning of the 20th century. Since then, no significant scholar has embraced them, the only people who find them to be relevant are frustrated, uneducated simpletons on the intellectual level of flat-earthers but with way more repulsive world views.

[Joblom]

The "racial implications" are only born from a few sick pathetic minds in the beginning of the 20th century. Since then, no significant scholar has embraced them,

Scholars often fail to embrace a lot of theories that later turn out to be correct. Considering you are college educated I find it very odd that you'd make such a stupid argument. I learned in high school not to make appeals to authority or popularity. Proving me wrong should be simple. Showing that genes which influence behavior are equally balanced among the human population would do it. Showing me that IQ tests fail to make any distinctions between races would do it. Explaining how the theory of evolution would permit humans to develop differences in skeletal structure, metabolism, muscle density, skin pigmentation, brain size, brain structure, but absolutely not develop any differences in cognition... would do it.

You can do none of these things. Your nasty tone and attempt to denigrate people who have talked about or researched this kind of thing just shows how insecure you are about it. As does the Left's general need to censor these "hate facts". You are a full crap and deep down you know it.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I'll just note that most of the links on the last page weren't exactly Stormfront. It seems a little unfair to respond with this level of vitriol.

I don't agree with a fair few of Joblom's ultimate conclusions but a fair number of the things he's pointed out are true. The United States does have a curiously ardent stance on Israel compared to some of our other allies.

Traditional masculinity IS considered bad or "Toxic" by segments of the further left.

There are multiple instances in the Anglosphere of someone being completely dismissed in a conversation for being white, male, or both. Hell we've even had a few universities in the US make it clear that they aren't looking for White male or Asian applicants.

The far left in the US is also openly advocating insane ideas like healthcare for illegal aliens and to effectively abolish our ability to control our own borders.

With the exception of the first which If ind more curious than anything else none of these are positive things. None of these are good things that people should be proud of. I disagree with his conclusions but c'mon everyone. Everybody here even Mobius probably has heard a story of one of these insane happenings in the last decade or so. There is a dangerously Anti-American segment at work in the FAR Left of American politics and it is something that can and should receive pushback.

Hell tensions have gotten so jumpy that both Milk and The OK hand gesture have been derided as somehow fascist. Think about that for a second.

I know I normally just engage in shit talking matches with Mobius but now that I've moved past that I thought I'd actually do a full post about this. There are serious problems in the US and Britain especially everyone should be willing to acknowledge them even if they disagree vehemently about how to fix them.

[Joblom]

There are serious problems in the US and Britain especially everyone should be willing to acknowledge them even if they disagree vehemently about how to fix them.

Yes, but as evidenced by the current political climate I don't think anything productive is going to get done. We're circling the drain and the time to do something about it was twenty years ago. We're fucked. I'm just glad that I'm reasonably well positioned to ride out the storm. Chaos, ugliness, tyranny, and possibly war, plague, and famine, are the future.

[Mobius_118]

That's because you're not worth debating. You're not even worth debasing.

You're taking all of this as a win, too. Refusal to debate is not an abdication. It's like debating a creationist or a flat-earther. Not worth the effort.

*GAC post*

Far left is not mainstream left. I've already posted the Constitutional Amendments that apply to immigrants, legal and illegal. And no, the fringe does not control the mainstream, unlike the right wing psychos.

And I still haven't gotten ignored or discriminated against by my Liberal friends. Even being a traditionally masculine military man doesn't trigger my Liberal friends. Maybe being a good person has something to do with it.

[Mobius_118]

Yes, but as evidenced by the current political climate I don't think anything productive is going to get done. We're circling the drain and the time to do something about it was twenty years ago. We're fucked. I'm just glad that I'm reasonably well positioned to ride out the storm. Chaos, ugliness, tyranny, and possibly war, plague, and famine, are the future.

Considering your ilk is enabling all of this downfall, perhaps you should shut your cockholster. No one cares what a Nazi has to say.

[Joblom]

You're taking all of this as a win, too. Refusal to debate is not an abdication.

Yes I suppose I am. However it's a pretty small win in the grand scheme of things. Letting you make a fool of yourself doesn't require much of me. Only earns me one gold star.

Considering your ilk is enabling all of this downfall, perhaps you should shut your cockholster. No one cares what a Nazi has to say.

If you don't care what this "Nazi" has to say then you should take your own advice.

[Mobius_118]

Zero. Points taken off for being a Nazi cock-sucker.

The only fool here is you for believing in what you do. Your lies and fake conviction make you a poor excuse for a human being.

[Mobius_118]

Nah, any Nazi stupid enough to show up gets my full attention until they leave, either on their own or carried out.

[Joblom]

Nah, any Nazi stupid enough to show up gets my full attention until they leave, either on their own or carried out.

Reading your posts makes me feel nostalgic for XboxLive hatemail.

[Mobius_118]

You clearly haven't evolved from that stage in your life.

Like I said early, clearly you weren't beaten enough as a child. Anyone with your view should be slapped with a brick. Thankfully you're too reprehensible to breed with anyone.

[TTTX]

What reason, inherent to itself, does the US have to be so deeply involved in the Middle East? Why are we so gung-ho about taking down Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya? What is the American interest here? I don't care if those countries are threats to Israel. Israel is not my concern nor have they ever been a very faithful ally. Let them buy support from someone else. Considering we now have plenty of oil to export, I don't see that we need to keep occupying the Middle East. Very strange coincidence how our last 25 years of Middle Eastern policy so closely follow the outline in the Clean Break Memo. Champion by the same voices who tremble at the mere notion that Trump, or even Obama before him, might reduce or eliminate our role there.

Finally, why do we need to send Israel money? They do not need it.

Well there is the obvious things like oil, terrorists being funded and trained in various places especially around the middel east and you know they made the whole 9/11 thing and Iran maybe starting to make nuklear bombs so leaving the middel east completely alone isn't a good idea and of course there is the various Christian holy sites which is something most if not just the extreme Christians wants to protect from Islam extremist like Isis who is when this is written is destroying historical sites.

It's political thing to give them money, Israel most likely gives something for it in return like Information since it's easier for them plant spies in the rest of the middel east since they will blend in better than most Americans.

What evidence is there of Russia wanting to invade Europe? Sounds like typical EU hysteria and BS to me. If anything the incentive is reversed. Russia doesn't have the people to invade Europe. It's acquisitions of certain Eastern European territories are in-line with its national interest of keeping NATO at bay. The EU surely wants to acquire more of Eastern Europe too, so as to increase its power on the world stage, and more importantly to reduce or someday eliminate its reliance on Russia for energy. Russia has no need to invade a customer so dependent on it.

as far as I know there isn't any at least none that I can think, but there was that political situation in Ukraine where Russia tried to take part of their land by claiming there was a lot Russians there so it belonged to them which is a tactic Hitler used in order to gain more land,
also you don't have Russia as a neighbor and don't have to worry about being invaded by strong military force if Russia wanted to and Nato wasn't there they could take a good chunk out of Europe, because Russia has numbers, the military to do it and dictator who could probably do whatever he wants.
And that's way more scary than saying "Jews are running my country so they are wasting time and money down in the middel east" when you have an actually neighbor like Russia who can invade you easily if you don't have help and you don't have two oceans to keep you safe from invasion.

The EU doesn't know what the hell it's doing and already have a lot of problems with the eastern countries they have already (even one of the politicians threaten one to be kicked out because they are refuses to do as they as they were told) so I wouldn't count on any eastern countries to join soon, although giving how dumb the politicians are in the EU and how many mistakes they have made these last 20 years or so I wouldn't put it past them.

Russia does what it wants, it has always been like that through out it's entire history and they don't care if they lose a costumer if they want something else badly enough.

[Mazder]

Scholars often fail to embrace a lot of theories that later turn out to be correct. Considering you are college educated I find it very odd that you'd make such a stupid argument. I learned in high school not to make appeals to authority or popularity. Proving me wrong should be simple. Showing that genes which influence behaviour are equally balanced among the human population would do it. Showing me that IQ tests fail to make any distinctions between races would do it. Explaining how the theory of evolution would permit humans to develop differences in skeletal structure, metabolism, muscle density, skin pigmentation, brain size, brain structure, but absolutely not develop any differences in cognition... would do it.

You can do none of these things. Your nasty tone and attempt to denigrate people who have talked about or researched this kind of thing just shows how insecure you are about it. As does the Left's general need to censor these "hate facts". You are a full crap and deep down you know it.

The main difference between what he is saying and your hand-waving excuse of "other scholars in the past not believing something" is that in the past other scholars proved each other wrong.
What is happening here is Sinekin says that no scholar is taking up the mantle of your ideas because they've either been already proven false in the method you wish to use them, or the issue you wish to make is such a non-issue that only crackpots who claim to have degrees, but not actually in the field of study talked about, would even begin to acknowledge it.

I like how you say you don't like to make appeals of authority but then do exactly that.
An appeal to authority is not "the collective body of science says something so that means it's true". An appeal to authority is "X scientist said something and it is true because they said it and they're a scientist". It's a pretty big confirmation bias when the body of scientific study as a whole, that operates through empirical data and testing of said data claims one thing, and then a relative handful say the literal opposite and have been proven either false or inconclusive and you believe them rather than the whole.


And even if there are differences in the human body and make-up between the distinct people groups then so fucking what?
What's your point?
There are differences. Big fucking whoop. It's only stupid political and societal distinctions that make any of the differences in the human species relevant. Or, more accurately, irrelevant.

The United States does have a curiously ardent stance on Israel compared to some of our other allies.

Okay, let's say that is true and not just rhetoric.
So what?
A minor nation, with a minority race that is being targeted by some wishing to erase that race and people.
Isn't that exactly what America says it likes to do?
Protect it's interests and the supporters of it's interests?
I mean, also, pot calling the kettle black if you think that supporting Israel is bad but acknowledging the bad shit your own country does to the world and itself isn't.
I mean, it's kinda ironic that people have a hard-on for supporting Israel, but when the USA doesn't even support it's own Native American population I find that kinda ironic.

Plus, there is a distinct difference between critiquing what a country is doing and advocating to stop them for very thinly veiled reasons. Yeah the USA chose Israel over Palestine. It's just another proxy in the long history of proxies the USA has used over the years.
At least now it's not the third Attempt at fighting Communism like with Korea and Vietnam.

Traditional masculinity IS considered bad or "Toxic" by segments of the further left.

Yeah, the further left.
Not the middle or the centre left, or even center, but far left.
It's still rather fringe and mostly supported online more than in real life.
The "toxic masculinity" things that are actually put in place are things that are also really just bad behaviour in general. Like instead of encouraging competition toxic masculinity is forcing competition where there might not be a need for it.

But, even then it's still a relatively new idea and in the day to day lives the academic ideas of toxic masculinity are far from being imposed as a norm and are really only explored in university campus classrooms.
Some mouthpiece saying "OMG THIS IS SO TOXIC" from Jezebel.com or some shit is still fringe.
Hell, even it appearing in the bloody Guardian is still fringe.

There are multiple instances in the Anglosphere of someone being completely dismissed in a conversation for being white, male, or both. Hell we've even had a few universities in the US make it clear that they aren't looking for White male or Asian applicants.

So you complain when there is not enough things for young black, asian and latin-american to do and not enough ways for them to get out of the hood, but when some Universities try to give them said access, acknowledging the fact that they're targeting areas which need the help, suddenly it's bad?

Yeah, you're a mostly white nation. A few Uni's trying to help some of the worse off areas/people in your nation, bad?
Yeah I am not a fan of affirmative action as it's not encouraging competition in some areas and it's placing some negative connotations on fair in a few case by case examples, but a few Uni's making their own choice is not affirmative action, or dismissing the entirety of the white population.

The far left in the US is also openly advocating insane ideas like healthcare for illegal aliens and to effectively abolish our ability to control our own borders.

Now this I kind of agree with.
If they're not a citizen then they shouldn't have access to the healthcare system. BUT this also implies that you'd have a state-run healthcare system anyway. Or in the very least a state-run and owned basic level of healthcare.
Emergency aid. Sure, they should get that. But only in so much as they can either take some form of citizenship test or analyse them for admission, or be sent back to a place where they will not be instantly harmed/killed.

With the exception of the first which I find more curious than anything else none of these are positive things. None of these are good things that people should be proud of. I disagree with his conclusions but c'mon everyone. Everybody here even Mobius probably has heard a story of one of these insane happenings in the last decade or so. There is a dangerously Anti-American segment at work in the FAR Left of American politics and it is something that can and should receive pushback.

That all depends on what you mean by "Anti-American".
And seeing as that is subjective I would also go as far to say that any sentiment is also subjective and can not be drawn into one definitive conclusion one way or another.

Hell tensions have gotten so jumpy that both Milk and The OK hand gesture have been derided as somehow fascist. Think about that for a second.

Only by the extreme far left.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone putting up an OK sign and someone immediately recoiling in horror the same way we'd see if someone has thrown up a Nazi's Salute.

I know I normally just engage in shit talking matches with Mobius but now that I've moved past that I thought I'd actually do a full post about this. There are serious problems in the US and Britain especially everyone should be willing to acknowledge them even if they disagree vehemently about how to fix them.

Problems, yes.

Advocating that ethnicities are wrong for simply existing like Joblom is thinly implying, no. Never.
I might have problems with some Muslims, or more accurately some Muslims from certain countries with values non-aligning to mine, but many younger Muslims in the UK are more and more aligning with my values than not.
Yes there are fringes, as with any people group. Hell, I have the fucking BNP and UKIP and Labour all having racist elements in them. Does this mean I am going to start advocating all Muslims have to do mandatory "England classes"? No, not really.
They obviously came here because of something that the UK does is beneficial. The rest of our culture will integrate into them.
It happened with Hindu's, Sikh's, Buddhists, Jews, Orthodox Christians, Taoists, Pagans and a few other religious backgrounds I am forgetting.
Hell, Curry came from Sikh's Hindu's and Freddie Mercury was Zoroastrian, and they're as British as I am in terms of cultural significance.

Yes, but as evidenced by the current political climate I don't think anything productive is going to get done. We're circling the drain and the time to do something about it was twenty years ago. We're fucked. I'm just glad that I'm reasonably well positioned to ride out the storm. Chaos, ugliness, tyranny, and possibly war, plague, and famine, are the future.

How did you feel between 1947 and 1955 when over 600,000 Indians made their way to the UK?
Was it a problem then?

Look, I get it, the UK is a small island nation and should control it's international borders better as we have a finite resource.
This will change our policy, hell it was one of the big talking points of Brexit. So, already the change is happening to where we are more aware.

The USA on the other hand?
You have a nation the size of a fucking continent, near-abouts. So, shut up. The problems don't translate at all.
You have way more space and resources before you even begin to feel the same problems we do.

The problems the USA have are more about managing what you already have and making things more fair in general across the entirety of the nation, not just the white parts.
Yeah, be aware of your border, maybe work with those countries on your border to root out their own problems.
You work with Canada and you have no problems from them, but you work less with Mexico and just leave Mexico to sort out it's own problems yet are also shocked when you find a problem on your border.

[Alienmorph]

Why are we even all giving this attention? I'm kinda of astonished by the amount of posts that popped out here while I was asleep and then at work. Feels like this went on long enough, at least for me.

I'm not the kind of guy who refuses a good debate, but feels like there's nothing to gain for anyone here, as it's often the case when talking with extremists.

But carry on if you want. I'm gonna go do something more productive, like drawing boobs or making fun of awful woke comics.

Tho even watching grass growing would be more beneficial than talking with neo-nazis.

[Sinekein]

Scholars often fail to embrace a lot of theories that later turn out to be correct. Considering you are college educated I find it very odd that you'd make such a stupid argument. I learned in high school not to make appeals to authority or popularity. Proving me wrong should be simple. Showing that genes which influence behaviour are equally balanced among the human population would do it. Showing me that IQ tests fail to make any distinctions between races would do it. Explaining how the theory of evolution would permit humans to develop differences in skeletal structure, metabolism, muscle density, skin pigmentation, brain size, brain structure, but absolutely not develop any differences in cognition... would do it.

You can do none of these things. Your nasty tone and attempt to denigrate people who have talked about or researched this kind of thing just shows how insecure you are about it. As does the Left's general need to censor these "hate facts". You are a full crap and deep down you know it.

The main difference between what he is saying and your hand-waving excuse of "other scholars in the past not believing something" is that in the past other scholars proved each other wrong.
What is happening here is Sinekin says that no scholar is taking up the mantle of your ideas because they've either been already proven false in the method you wish to use them, or the issue you wish to make is such a non-issue that only crackpots who claim to have degrees, but not actually in the field of study talked about, would even begin to acknowledge it.

I like how you say you don't like to make appeals of authority but then do exactly that.
An appeal to authority is not "the collective body of science says something so that means it's true". An appeal to authority is "X scientist said something and it is true because they said it and they're a scientist". It's a pretty big confirmation bias when the body of scientific study as a whole, that operates through empirical data and testing of said data claims one thing, and then a relative handful say the literal opposite and have been proven either false or inconclusive and you believe them rather than the whole.

Thanks for that, it saves me some time.

The bolded part is especially stupidous. Scholars do tend to resist new ideas that end up being true. However, once they accept a new theory as being better than the previous one, said previous one is quickly forgotten and relegated to science limbo, with only nutjobs and idiots still caring about them.

Your bullshit regarding racial superiority has been beaten down a thousand times already. It's not a new, revolutionary theory, it is the old one that has been put to the sword. It was the heir in the beginning of genetics of insane crap like physiognomy - the "science" DiCaprio's character tries to demonstrate in Django Unchained.

So the flat-earth comparison is actually apt: you are trying to defend archaic ideas that have been proven false so often that no one with a modicum of academic credibility bothers with them anyway. Just like astrophysicists don't feel the need to demonstrate gravity or heliocentrism whenever they work now, those just belong to common knowledge.

Also, don't bring IQ in a discussion if you wish to be convincing. It's just way too multifactorial to explain anything. You might - not even sure - find some study in which white people overall have a higher IQ. In this study, rich, well-educated white people will have a higher IQ than poor, uneducated white people. And serious scientists will deduce that the hypothetical IQ difference has way more to do with social and wealth discrepancies between ethnicities, than it has to do with some ethnicities being "dumber". At least, among serious scientists: those who argue otherwise tend to be nobodies who exist only by controversy and whose theories get comprehensively dismantled whenever a remotely qualified scholar looks at them seriously. Like that flaming piece of shit named The Bell Curve - you get a who's who of great evolutionary biologists when you look at those who called it complete bollocks.

Also...

Explaining how the theory of evolution would permit humans to develop differences in skeletal structure, metabolism, muscle density, skin pigmentation, brain size, brain structure, but absolutely not develop any differences in cognition... would do it.

Skeletal structure, metabolism, muscle density, skin pigmentation --> Those are environmental factors. Depends on the environment people lived in. There is no environment that "makes people smarter".
Brain size --> |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy]That's Physiognomy[/url]. The most ardent supporter of that garbage died in 1909, and back then his ideas were discredited already. I shouldn't spell it to people with functioning brains, but for you I'll have to make an exception: that means absolutely no scientist takes that factor seriously.
Brain structure --> Lol. We don't even properly understand right now what really matters in brain structure or what makes someone smart. And yet somehow you seem to know that some ethnicities have a "better brain structure" than others? To me that sounds like some racists cherry-picking and misquoting some articles to try and validate their ideas. Or maybe you are privy to some XXIInd century science? Please do share if that is the case.

Finally, again, all serious scientists call your ideas for what they are: old, hot garbage which only deserves to be in history's landfills. You don't bring anything but misquotes, bullshit fixed studies, and a bunch of cherry-picking to try to find a remedy to your inadequacies by deciding that you belong to the superior race. I mean, even if it were true, you clearly would be lower than the bottom tier of it. And that stands in the actual, true situation of ethnicities being equal, which means that, yes, a vast majority of black, asian, arab, native american, maori or siberian people are better human beings than you.

I mean, you could take a hard look at yourself and try to improve, but you are clearly way too far up your ass for it to actually happen. So keep living your delusions, just don't try to pretend like anyone here will ever react to them with anything better than utter contempt.

[Mobius_118]

Or sheer violence. Your ideas, Joblom, are met with derision and mockery now. 70 years ago it was met with bullets.

The US itself had a civil war over this. The fact that people like you still hold these beliefs shows that ignorance truly runs deep and Bush's "No child left behind" policy dicked the uneducated like yourself over. You're like an anti-vaxxer. Completely retarded and you put people at risk.

[Vol]

Though it is nice to see you guys engaging on substance, as I've not seen people of such opposing views actually _talk_, much less debate, in more years than I can count.

@Sine: While IQ isn't a perfectly universal measure of mental acuity, it's not entirely subjective either. I would suspect there are fairly few people who are around the average human intelligence who could not score within a standard deviation of 100. I've never taken one, but I would think they involve spatial reasoning, math, understanding of your own language, abstractions, word problems, the usual spread of metrics we would use to gauge a liberal arts education. Unless one is a savant, their all around ability to demonstrate proficiency in those skills is a rather good marker.

And the study of racial differences was never concluded. It was halted, for the obvious reasons. As you say yourself, we don't fully understand the brain, so we could not possibly have also "settled the science" on how environment affects cognition. You would find that if someone did want to explore that, they would not be able to, as they would be swiftly and totally exiled from western society. In the absence of those theoretical studies, instead, we ask ourselves, does it matter? And if so, how much?

The conflation of ethics with empirical study is a dangerous path to take. "I think X is moral, therefore anything contrary to X is false."

[Mobius_118]

When it comes to Nazi's, the debate ended in 1945. They're evil, that's it.

Kill them all, though it seems we are determined to reinstate that in the White House.

[Alienmorph]

I will add a quick note... yeah, I just said I was done, but you guys HAD to brought evolution in the mix, so...

Explaining how the theory of evolution would permit humans to develop differences in skeletal structure, metabolism, muscle density, skin pigmentation, brain size, brain structure, but absolutely not develop any differences in cognition... would do it.

Yeah, no. This is a complete b.s. statement about human evolution and diversity. Genetically speaking humans are one of the LEAST diverse species of big mammals in existence (with the exception of the ones we severely decimated ourselves). Paleo-antropologists believe early humans actually have survived some global catastrophe, and all people on the planet are descending of a population of a few thousand humans at best, plus maybe some genetic mixing with late surviving other sub-species, like the Neanderthals. Being descending from such a bottlenecked population means that every macroscopic difference you see between people of different ethinicities is extremely superficial. Like, sexual dimorphism between man and woman is more significant than any race difference, and even that in most primates, ourselves included, isn't that significant compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.

So no, sorry... if there was any difference in the way humans think and act it would be entirely circumstantial, and not the result of them being born inferior than someone else. This has been known, or at the very least suspected, for so long that once upon a time there people trying to convince the scientific world that people of color and other non-white humans were descendents from a different branch of primates, to justify the idiot notion they were somehow "less humans". And guess what? That kind of crap was laughed out of the natural history books almost a century ago already.

[Mazder]

Welp.
It's beginning.
Brexit has started.

Not "done", it's now just started.

[Joblom]

Yeah, no. This is a complete b.s. statement about human evolution and diversity. Genetically speaking humans are one of the LEAST diverse species of big mammals in existence

This is utterly irrelevant, Alienmoprh. What diversity there IS is what matters. What genes are being distributed in what populations. You don't know what you're talking about.

plus maybe some genetic mixing with late surviving other sub-species, like the Neanderthals.

Which didn't happen with every human population. In particular, it didn't happen in Africa.

Being descending from such a bottlenecked population means that every macroscopic difference you see between people of different ethinicities is extremely superficial.

No, it isn't superficial. Skin pigmentation is not supeficial; it is a physical adaptation. Skeletal structure is not superficial. Metabolism is not superficial. The ability to digest milk well into adult life is not superficial. Brain size and structure is not superficial. Susceptibility or resistance to certain diseases is not superficial. The "Warrior Gene" is not superficial.

Like, sexual dimorphism between man and woman is more significant than any race difference, and even that in most primates, ourselves included, isn't that significant compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.

This is a fallacy that I have explained before. You could use that logic to dismiss differences in anything, but you'd be making an error. There is more in common between the Great Lakes and the Ocean than there is between a pond and the ocean. Does that mean the difference doesn't matter or isn't demonstrably significant? You don't understand what you're talking about.

if there was any difference in the way humans think and act it would be entirely circumstantial

Except that it isn't. It has been tested for reliably for decades. Ideological opposition to these results has compelled many intellectuals, but not all, to try and invent social theories to explain this. Social theories they can't test and that keep failing to improve our society. They fail because they are wrong. Black people are poor and their communities are poor because they are on average not intelligent enough to be successful and also lack the impulse control for long term planning. That statement can and is supported by data and it matches what we see in the real world. If "Racism" was the cause of black failure then we'd see blacks get richer the further from whites they are, but instead we see the opposite. The most successful blacks live in white societies and often have some white ancestry. Fucking fact.

Well there is the obvious things like oil, terrorists being funded and trained in various places especially around the middel east and you know they made the whole 9/11 thing and Iran maybe starting to make nuklear bombs so leaving the middel east completely alone isn't a good idea and of course there is the various Christian holy sites which is something most if not just the extreme Christians wants to protect from Islam extremist like Isis who is when this is written is destroying historical sites.

When has the US ever done a thing to protect Christians in the Middle East? Why do Islamic terrorists attack the United States? What is their reasoning. It isn't a secret. We don't need the oil now. We gain nothing from Alliance with Israel. Geographically the country isn't even strategic.

BTW: "Most likely" is not an answer. Please give me some examples of good Israeli intelligence. Please tell me why we need to spend billions on them and not on ourselves.

as far as I know there isn't any (evidence of Russia planning to invade Europe) at least none that I can think,

Well then let's move on. My response to the rest is yes, Russia is a potential threat to countries that border it. There are strategic reasons for them to want to influence Ukraine and why they attacked Georgia, annexed Crimea, ect. That is consistent with what I described about their national interests as I understand them. Every country and corporation and so forth does exactly that. Not really significant.

The main difference between what he is saying and your hand-waving excuse of "other scholars in the past not believing something" is that in the past other scholars proved each other wrong.

No they didn't. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 960200137X
Here is another example: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

So you see, you don't know what you're fucking talking about and neither does Sinekein. Now, I'm being very harsh in that last statement. Ignorance is note a sin or a sign of anything but a lack of knowledge which can come from anywhere. However now that I've given you some data I'm sure you can accept what I'm saying here. I warn you though: do not put words in my mouth. I have never claimed that any of this makes any race or people inferior. I have not ever indicated that any people should be treated without dignity and respect or that they shouldn't have the right to self determination. Hysterical accusations of racial supremacism do not do anything to advance this discussion on these very important issues. I don't want African blacks or anyone else to be slaves or to be treated like animals, but nor do I want their ethnic character to be ignored in our culture and legislation. I'm sick and tired of hearing about systemic racism, racial profiling, and affirmative action. These failed theories and policies have been debunked and they DON'T WORK. If we want to help people, if we want a better society that is more tolerant, more peaceful, and more prosperous, then we need to talk about these observations and data. We need to factor them into our thinking and policy making.

I like how you say you don't like to make appeals of authority but then do exactly that.

Here let me help you with that: An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.

Citing data is not an appeal to authority. Sinekein citing his supposed PHD is an appeal to authority. His PHD doesn't matter in the context of this debate: all that matters is the evidence.

An appeal to authority is not "the collective body of science says something so that means it's true". An appeal to authority is "X scientist said something and it is true because they said it and they're a scientist".

That's literally what it is. You described it accurately and that is exactly what Sinekein was doing. You get an "F".

Consensus does not matter. Popularity of a theory does not matter. What matters is evidence and how well the theory holds up to scrutiny. Scientists are people and they make mistakes and have biases like anyone else. You don't understand the scientific method.

It's only stupid political and societal distinctions that make any of the differences in the human species relevant. Or, more accurately, irrelevant.

Quite the opposite, sir. Differences explain why some groups thrive in an environment and why others do not. Differences explain why some groups gravitate towards one field and others do not. Differences explain why one group commits more crime and others do not. Differences explain why one group tends to favor one set of particular ideologies over another. Differences explain why some people build stable and advanced societies and others do not.

Differences explain low test scores for blacks and Hispanics in the US. Differences explain vastly different crime rates. Differences explain differing rates of welfare use. Differences explain political preferences. Differences explain the erosion of trust and civic engagement in communities. Differences explain disproportionate representation in particular fields of study or occupation or performance in sports. They explain differences in rates of disciplinary action in schools. I can go on and on.

Okay, let's say that is true and not just rhetoric.
So what?

(Regarding Israel)
When that nation shapes trillion dollar foreign policy it becomes a big "What". It's not the only issue and might not even be the most important, but it is a big one. It is one that it can be dangerous even to talk about in the US.

Not the middle or the centre left, or even center, but far left.

The far Left has been gaining a more and more influential voice on the Left as a whole. I can cite the data if your eyes and ears aren't enough. Republican voters have scarcely moved from where they were decades ago. Still much closer to the center than to the far right. However the
democrats have moved very, very far to the Left. The democrats and Leftists are the cause of the greater portion of the division in this country.

It's still rather fringe and mostly supported online more than in real life.

If that is the case, why are Democratic presidential candidates tripping over one another to decriminalize illegal border crossing, to give tax-payer funded healthcare to illegals, to pump children full of hormone-blockers and turn them into transvestites, to pass hate speech and red flag laws? I do not see any prominent Republicans calling for a return to segregation, anti miscegenation laws, or even mass deportations. Reality is demonstrably different from how you are describing it.

Yeah, you're a mostly white nation.

Barely, and not for long. As we transition from a white majority nation to a non-white majority we nation we will see some big structural changes and a loss of civil liberties. No more 1st amendment, no more 2nd amendment, a greater portion of welfare use, even worse schools and education, greater political and racial strife, and we'll be poorer all around.

The opposition to Affirmative Action is that it is discriminatory. It is not very fair when I have to put in more effort to get the same aid, if I can get any at all. It is not fair when I am held to a higher standard. It is not consistent with a society that values treating everyone equally under the law. Only a Leftist could be so stupid as to think otherwise.

Emergency aid. Sure, they should get that. But only in so much as they can either take some form of citizenship test or analyse them for admission, or be sent back to a place where they will not be instantly harmed/killed.

In the US illegal aliens have a habit of using Emergency Rooms as a doctor's officers. After all, they can't get insurance very easily if at all. This drives up costs. My solution is this: they need to GTFO.

That all depends on what you mean by "Anti-American".

I don't know how Cheese defines it but I define at as anyone who wants to transform the country into something it was not designed to be (a big government welfare state) or anyone trying to abolish it completely (the #NoBorders crowd). As well, anyone who puts any other nation's interests ahead of America's (the Israel Lobby).

Advocating that ethnicities are wrong for simply existing like Joblom is thinly implying, no. Never.

I have never implied or suggested it. Usually I don't feel the need to imply anything and I'm rather casual about boldly stating my views. Stop putting words in my mouth. It isn't very nice and it screams of somebody who is arguing in bad faith, intentionally or no. You have no excuse to continue doing it because I have explained myself in very plain and thorough language.

I might have problems with some Muslims, or more accurately some Muslims from certain countries with values non-aligning to mine, but many younger Muslims in the UK are more and more aligning with my values than not.

That depends on what your values are, doesn't it?

They obviously came here because of something that the UK does is beneficial.

Yeah, that much is obvious. I suppose then the question is: will this influx of foreigners permit the UK to KEEP doing that beneficial thing? For example a lot of Mexicans and other South Americans come to the US because it is richer, safer, and more stable than their home countries. However once they get here they are coddled and aided by Leftists and hired by greedy businesses and thus have no incentive to align themselves to American culture. Slowly, decade by decade, they are turning parts of America into Mexico. Poverty on the rise, literacy rates falling, corruption rising, infrastructure decaying, crime on the rise, and to boot we get racial tension and we have a growing population of reliable Democrat Party voters who have given the far Left the raw numbers to push their insane, destructive, totalitarian bullshit.

How did you feel between 1947 and 1955 when over 600,000 Indians made their way to the UK?
Was it a problem then?

I am not an expert on UK politics or demographics. The rape gangs sound problematic to me, though. I also gather you are not an expert on US politics, so don't lecture me about them. Feel free to ask questions though.

[Joblom]

The bolded part is especially stupidous. Scholars do tend to resist new ideas that end up being true. However, once they accept a new theory as being better than the previous one, said previous one is quickly forgotten and relegated to science limbo, with only nutjobs and idiots still caring about them....

That is not remotely true, Sinekein. It is demonstrably not true. Now you are lecturing me on human nature. You are naive if you really believe that. You yourself are a prime example of human fallibility. Most especially as someone who holds a PHD. The rest of your post looks to be rambling bullshit of no substance. Nothing new there. You are politically and ideologically motivated.

Give me some data, please.

It's just way too multifactorial to explain anything. You might - not even sure - find some study in which white people overall have a higher IQ.

I do not have the patience for your disingenuous behavior.

Skeletal structure, metabolism, muscle density, skin pigmentation --> Those are environmental factors. Depends on the environment people lived in. There is no environment that "makes people smarter".

Yeah, there is when greater intelligence equals greater survivability. Now I shouldn't need to tell you this, but the environment shapes biology. Our intelligence is a result of our biology. The data we have so far is pretty consistent with the current theory that survival in climates which see great seasonal changes in the weather, encouraged greater long-term planning capability. There might be more to it than that; the why is not settled. However the fact that differences in cognition exist is well documented.

Brain size --> |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy]That's Physiognomy[/url]. The most ardent supporter of that garbage died in 1909, and back then his ideas were discredited already. I shouldn't spell it to people with functioning brains, but for you I'll have to make an exception: that means absolutely no scientist takes that factor seriously.

Here is a link from my last post: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

Finally, again, all serious scientists call your ideas for what they are: old, hot garbage which only deserves to be in history's landfills.

This is an appeal to authority, popularity, and even an attempt to shame. It is a childish and frankly, dumb argument.

You are a liar or a fool, or possibly both.

Let me explain evolution for you and for everyone else reading.

DNA suffers random mutations. These mutations can help or hinder an organism in its environment, which ultimately culminates in whether it successfully reproduces or not. Mutations which hinder eventually die out because organisms with those mutations do not survive and reproduce. Mutations with help will become more and more widespread since those organisms have an advantage. Whether a mutation helps or hinders is to a great degree determined by the wider environment. This includes the physical environment, such as how hot or cold it is and it also includes the social environment, which means the other organisms around and especially members of that same species. Sometimes these two aspects of the environment contradict one another.

For example:

In a cold environment a thick coat of fur helps survival. However a male might have a thick coat of fur all around but females may be more attracted to males who only have the thick fur in certain locations on their body. If enough of the latter can survive the cold temperatures long enough to breed then eventually their peculiar fur distribution will win out, even though it is not ideal. We see this in many, many organisms.

[Alienmorph]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Said by the likes of you, I'll take that as a compliment.

I didn't say there is no genetic or physiological difference between people of different races or gender, but it's negliceable compared to what you'd need for speciation or even sub-speciation, meaning to assume people of different races are genetically rigged to think and act in a way considerably different from one another is risible at best.

And stuff like the so called "hunter gene" only mean that people of a certain gender are more naturally inclined and/or proficient to cover certain roles in their social group, it's not a kill-switch that makes those who don't have it unable to perform certain tasks. In primates' social hierarchies everyone's necessary, but nobody's irrepleceable.

[TTTX]

When has the US ever done a thing to protect Christians in the Middle East? Why do Islamic terrorists attack the United States? What is their reasoning. It isn't a secret. We don't need the oil now. We gain nothing from Alliance with Israel. Geographically the country isn't even strategic.

BTW: "Most likely" is not an answer. Please give me some examples of good Israeli intelligence. Please tell me why we need to spend billions on them and not on ourselves.

They don't? They are protecting themselves since the terrorists are attacking the USA or at least they think they do. You are wrong Islamic terrorists have been attacking the west (which include the USA) for decades long before the USA didn't need oil, for the terrorists it's about religion. Israel is located near the holiest city in the world for the top 3 religions in the world that is a very good strategi place for some obvious reasons.

Considering most of that stuff is classified so I doubt I would be able to find any until decades after the fact.I have already given reasons why your country are spending billions on Israel whether or not you agree with your countries decision to do it well isn't my problem, I have enough idiotic politicians in my own country and an incompetent EU to deal with.

Politics sucks sometimes that's the way of life, if you don't like it well become a hermit and cut yourself off from society.

[Mazder]

No they didn't. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 960200137X
Here is another example: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

So you see, you don't know what you're fucking talking about and neither does Sinekein. Now, I'm being very harsh in that last statement. Ignorance is note a sin or a sign of anything but a lack of knowledge which can come from anywhere. However now that I've given you some data I'm sure you can accept what I'm saying here. I warn you though: do not put words in my mouth. I have never claimed that any of this makes any race or people inferior. I have not ever indicated that any people should be treated without dignity and respect or that they shouldn't have the right to self determination. Hysterical accusations of racial supremacism do not do anything to advance this discussion on these very important issues. I don't want African blacks or anyone else to be slaves or to be treated like animals, but nor do I want their ethnic character to be ignored in our culture and legislation. I'm sick and tired of hearing about systemic racism, racial profiling, and affirmative action. These failed theories and policies have been debunked and they DON'T WORK. If we want to help people, if we want a better society that is more tolerant, more peaceful, and more prosperous, then we need to talk about these observations and data. We need to factor them into our thinking and policy making.

So you have 2 examples vs...the entire rest of the academic field.
Despite not having any actual education in the field and are using only those examples that agree with you, not ones which might debunk you as those are the ones which would put your ideas through the tests you wish.
Despite someone who is actually educated in that field show you the mistakes and your comeback "nuh-uh".
Yeah, fine, whatever. I don't care.
I have no horse in this race.
I'm not even talking to you on the research, mainly you behaviour, which is just shitty.
It doesn't matter how many examples you can pull out of your arse, until you actually start behaving like you claim, as in with dignity and respect for others, I am not listening.
You will not win me over if with one moment you ask for me to be respectful to you when the very next moment you're racist, bigoted and downright offensive towards Jewish people and then when called out by one of the very people you go crying "woe is me".

I am not listening when you behave to the polar opposite of which you claim to be.

Here let me help you with that: An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.

Citing data is not an appeal to authority. Sinekein citing his supposed PHD is an appeal to authority. His PHD doesn't matter in the context of this debate: all that matters is the evidence.

Your arguments are 100% "these things were said by a scientist so they must be true".
Sinekin says "I have done more research in this than you have, here is my PHD to show I have experience in the field, and these things you have said/support are not correct".

Your evidence only matters when it is in support of your claim, not in the contrary, and when Sinekin brings it up, because he does this for a living, has studied the subject for a lot more than you have and is a recognised member of the scientific field and finds the errors in your evidence or the premise your answer is that he is appealing to authority when he's only appealing to...himself, his experience and all he is doing is showing you the errors. Not telling you what to believe, only where there are errors that you need to look over again.


Even then, you still do it.
Claiming that you don't is bogus.

That's literally what it is. You described it accurately and that is exactly what Sinekein was doing. You get an "F".

Consensus does not matter. Popularity of a theory does not matter. What matters is evidence and how well the theory holds up to scrutiny. Scientists are people and they make mistakes and have biases like anyone else. You don't understand the scientific method.

Have you ever heard of Hyperbole?

Yeah, except it's the consensus of the scientific community that matters as they are the ones that actively look over the evidence and peer review it in order to ascertain it's validity.
Claiming the consensus doesn't matter is akin to saying peer review, doesn't matter. In which case all evidence based analysis falls apart as you have no-one testing if the evidence is true or not.
Something is adopted into the consensus once it's been through that testing.
The very thing that stops bias and mistakes is the scientific method and the consensus built around that.
Plus, if popularity of a theory doesn't matter then even if this theory you're upholding now gets popular it still will not matter. It'll still need to go through the act of being adopted or not, which will only happen if the scientific community finds no faults in it. Which it is currently doing.

Quite the opposite, sir. Differences explain why some groups thrive in an environment and why others do not. Differences explain why some groups gravitate towards one field and others do not. Differences explain why one group commits more crime and others do not. Differences explain why one group tends to favor one set of particular ideologies over another. Differences explain why some people build stable and advanced societies and others do not.

Differences explain low test scores for blacks and Hispanics in the US. Differences explain vastly different crime rates. Differences explain differing rates of welfare use. Differences explain political preferences. Differences explain the erosion of trust and civic engagement in communities. Differences explain disproportionate representation in particular fields of study or occupation or performance in sports. They explain differences in rates of disciplinary action in schools. I can go on and on.

And yet it's all averages on a species scale so...what's your point?

As soon as you can show me why my genetics can show why I might or might not favour aspects of a certain cultural preference that doesn't have anything to do with the society around me I will give you the point. Until then it's all speculative at best and absolute absurdity at worse.
I have a family member, his name is Jacob. He is black. He is my cousin. I am white.
Can you tell me from that what he's more preferable to like or dislike or do? Can you tell me if we share or do not share traits or skills?
Because if you can from that info alone you're not finding things in his genetics, you're fucking psychic.

Also, to counter that.
Lower test scores in blacks and hispanics. So you've found it's their genetics, rather than the fact they live in the poorest areas, which means their schools receive the least funding and by extent have less education standards. But no, must be their genetics...
Again, crime rates in the lowest economic areas...hmm, starting to see a pattern here. ( Also bollocks, in the UK it's not your genetics but your economic level.)
Again, poorest areas....yet they're supposed to not use the welfare which is their main lifeline out as it means they're genetically inclined to do so? Despite the american stereotype of a poor person being a dumb white hick in the south?

Do you yet understand where people may seem to see where the racist implications lay?
Until you can do the same without pointing to things which are mainly environmental factors built from society rather than genetics then people are going to see that your claims are more about the society than the actual genetics.

(Regarding Israel)
When that nation shapes trillion dollar foreign policy it becomes a big "What". It's not the only issue and might not even be the most important, but it is a big one. It is one that it can be dangerous even to talk about in the US.

Again, I say, so what?
You're not in charge and nor are you in a position to enact that change?
Your trillion dollar policies that you can actually affect should be of a more pressing concern.
Focus on the more important issue rather than "Oh no, there is support for the nation that happens to have a state religion of Judaism instead of being Christian, or Islam".

Especially when it's with claims of "jews are in power guys!"
Yeah, bollocks on any butthurt opinion you might have on that, even if it's a "joke".

The far Left has been gaining a more and more influential voice on the Left as a whole. I can cite the data if your eyes and ears aren't enough. Republican voters have scarcely moved from where they were decades ago. Still much closer to the center than to the far right. However the
democrats have moved very, very far to the Left. The democrats and Leftists are the cause of the greater portion of the division in this country.

Only because your nation is afraid of abandoning the 2 party system.
If the ones in the center were able to make their own party then it might go smoother.

Republicans have absolutely moved.
If your base hasn't then bully for you, but they have absolutely changed.

If that is the case, why are Democratic presidential candidates tripping over one another to decriminalize illegal border crossing, to give tax-payer funded healthcare to illegals, to pump children full of hormone-blockers and turn them into transvestites, to pass hate speech and red flag laws? I do not see any prominent Republicans calling for a return to segregation, anti miscegenation laws, or even mass deportations. Reality is demonstrably different from how you are describing it.

Because they're big announcements to get people to pay attention to them.

That still doesn't make them not fringe ideas. How many of those actually have the ability to become nationwide laws?
Especially with a Republican majority in right now that is likely going to hold on to many seats even if they lose?

Nah, republicans just want to give guns back to mentally ill people, want to put more money into their own pockets and make things harder for the poor to get the care they actually need.
Oh and Republicans don't want Mass Deportations, but deportation has been higher under Trump's leadership and has ethic minorities in abusive and downright disgusting camps?
Yeah, nothing abhorrent going on there...

Barely, and not for long. As we transition from a white majority nation to a non-white majority we nation we will see some big structural changes and a loss of civil liberties. No more 1st amendment, no more 2nd amendment, a greater portion of welfare use, even worse schools and education, greater political and racial strife, and we'll be poorer all around.

The opposition to Affirmative Action is that it is discriminatory. It is not very fair when I have to put in more effort to get the same aid, if I can get any at all. It is not fair when I am held to a higher standard. It is not consistent with a society that values treating everyone equally under the law. Only a Leftist could be so stupid as to think otherwise.

Until that drops to 49% you'll still be a mostly white nation.

And until you have proof that it's going to actually bring in those things you fear then it's all speculative again.
As you say, popularity of a claim doesn't make it true.

In the US illegal aliens have a habit of using Emergency Rooms as a doctor's officers. After all, they can't get insurance very easily if at all. This drives up costs. My solution is this: they need to GTFO.

or how about you have basic healthcare for all citizens to give them incentive to become a citizen?
Then they'd get taxed and provide for the thing they'd use.
Just like everyone else.
No need to worry about the need for insurance if you have no need for it, then no need to use the ER as a doctor's office.

Also if you had the ability to check if someone was in a national health service system then you'd have all the records in one system. A system that could be used if anyone illegal tried to just get care without citizenship.
But no, that's too against the 4th Amendment.

Can't change that, despite it being called an Amendment.

I don't know how Cheese defines it but I define at as anyone who wants to transform the country into something it was not designed to be (a big government welfare state) or anyone trying to abolish it completely (the #NoBorders crowd). As well, anyone who puts any other nation's interests ahead of America's (the Israel Lobby).

It's design was envisioned 244 years ago.
You are allowed to change your ideas, especially when your big list of things you can't change is a big list of "things that can be altered".

And, welfare state.
So basically "I got mine, fuck anyone else who wants theirs because i'm already in the system".
If I came to the USA legally, would I be allowed the same welfare you get or less?

I agree you should have a border. I don't agree you shouldn't also try to help your neighbour so you no longer have problems on said border.

And what if it's America's interest to create a better world?
Would that put everyone else ahead of America or is it just another way of saying America wants to be in charge?
And this is coming from the Brit here.
The nation that used to be in charge.

I have never implied or suggested it. Usually I don't feel the need to imply anything and I'm rather casual about boldly stating my views. Stop putting words in my mouth. It isn't very nice and it screams of somebody who is arguing in bad faith, intentionally or no. You have no excuse to continue doing it because I have explained myself in very plain and thorough language.

Yeah, you just think African Americans and Hispanics are naturally gonna crime and be poor and stuff.
Yeah, you just want them out.
I don't know where I got the impression you're aligning with racist ideas...

That depends on what your values are, doesn't it?

It does. But I am not claiming that Muslims from certain races are more or less inclined to actually be able to do the things I do not align with or not.
The reason more young Muslims are aligning is because they live in this society with me. We share common ground and even if there are things they disagree with they're not genetically more inclined to have more or less of an intent to perform criminal acts than me, or be poorer than me, or more antagonistic to the police than me.

Yeah, that much is obvious. I suppose then the question is: will this influx of foreigners permit the UK to KEEP doing that beneficial thing? For example a lot of Mexicans and other South Americans come to the US because it is richer, safer, and more stable than their home countries. However once they get here they are coddled and aided by Leftists and hired by greedy businesses and thus have no incentive to align themselves to American culture. Slowly, decade by decade, they are turning parts of America into Mexico. Poverty on the rise, literacy rates falling, corruption rising, infrastructure decaying, crime on the rise, and to boot we get racial tension and we have a growing population of reliable Democrat Party voters who have given the far Left the raw numbers to push their insane, destructive, totalitarian bullshit.

Ask the Saxons, the Angles, the Picts.
This nation has had rapid influxes before and likely will again.
Our cultural identity changes.
Right now it's turning slightly more right wing, as it did in 1940 when Churchill came into power.

So how about instead of putting America first, how about spending time to make Mexico a better place to live?
How about spending time to make the cartels not in power and spend time not doing "the war on drugs" and address why drugs are so popular and easy to attain.
And yet the gaps between the social classes are widening and widening. And the Republicans when to enact policies that will only make it wider and wider.

I am not an expert on UK politics or demographics. The rape gangs sound problematic to me, though. I also gather you are not an expert on US politics, so don't lecture me about them. Feel free to ask questions though.

I only state my opinions, if they sound lecturing it's because I am British, we're used to talking down to people.
Lol!

The Rape gangs is annoying, but I was more implying that some influxes of new ideas aren't necessarily outright bad.
Yeah there are teething problems, but, hey, we go curry and kebabs on a night out from ours, so, yeah.

[Sinekein]

That is not remotely true, Sinekein. It is demonstrably not true. Now you are lecturing me on human nature. You are naive if you really believe that. You yourself are a prime example of human fallibility. Most especially as someone who holds a PHD. The rest of your post looks to be rambling bullshit of no substance. Nothing new there. You are politically and ideologically motivated.

Give me some data, please.

The only motivation I have here is defend science from the ideologues like you who try to push their rotten agendas in it, and claim that their lack of exposure comes from a conspiracy - because it sounds way better than realizing that your ideas are hot garbage and smart people don't bother wasting time with them anymore.

It is demonstrably true that some older theories are now ignored. Lamarckian evolution. Proteins as support for genetic information. Evolution hierarchy ranking organisms by their complexity, that classifies species as "more" or "less" evolved. Those were dominant at a time, and now are only mentioned when talking about history of science. You don't have to prove Darwinian evolution anytime you write an article. And you don't have to disprove racial hierarchy when you research human intelligence.

Once a theory is binned, people stop bothering with it.

I do not have the patience for your disingenuous behavior.

It's better than trying to actually find a nonexistent, peer-reviewed article in a good journal that manages to create a hierarchy of intelligence among ethnicities. I'm still waiting for it.

Yeah, there is when greater intelligence equals greater survivability. Now I shouldn't need to tell you this, but the environment shapes biology. Our intelligence is a result of our biology. The data we have so far is pretty consistent with the current theory that survival in climates which see great seasonal changes in the weather, encouraged greater long-term planning capability. There might be more to it than that; the why is not settled. However the fact that differences in cognition exist is well documented.

And it started so well...you almost made a correct point here, but it all went to shit right in the middle.
- Normal-font part is true.
- Italic part is highly debated at best, but in all honestly, I won't bother reading a ton of studies on controversies re:IQ and how it works, because I find it to be a harmful tool. So I think it's false, but I won't elaborate.
- The bolded part is laughable. First, because it implies that intelligence is linked to long-term capability, which is at best ONE of its factors. Second, implying that survival is harder in climates that are called, erm, TEMPERATE, is almost unseen in its stupidity, even coming from you. Plants have been adapted to seasonal changes for million of years and they don't even have what we usually call "an intelligence", so obviously it doesn't require to be a superior being to avoid dying when temperatures drop. Especially when, for more than half a year, you live in fertile areas with a low-risk of climatic catastrophe (storms, floods, dry episodes...).

I also like that when you write "well documented", you fail to link anything. Curious that. I typed a large number of combination of words coming from the shit you wrote, but never managed to end on just one article making the claims you did (hint: I think they don't exist, or that at best you misinterpreted them to suit your racist views, Hitler-with-Nietzche like).

Here is a link from my last post: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

And here's another link: https://philpapers.org/archive/KAPGOM.pdf

Excerpt: "most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases"

Another? Here you go: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/a ... io.2007008

From the abstract: "However, historical contextualization of Morton with his scientific peers, especially German anatomist Friedrich Tiedemann, suggests that, while Morton’s data may have been unbiased, his cranial race science was not. Tiedemann and Morton independently produced similar data about human brain size in different racial groups but analyzed and interpreted their nearly equivalent results in dramatically different ways: Tiedemann using them to argue for equality and the abolition of slavery, and Morton using them to entrench racial divisions and hierarchy. These differences draw attention to the epistemic limitations of data and the pervasive role of bias within the broader historical, social, and cultural context of science."

I'm pretty sure I'm gonna win a source of peer-reviewed data, because your rotten ideas tend not to get past honest scientists, sadly for you.

This is an appeal to authority, popularity, and even an attempt to shame. It is a childish and frankly, dumb argument.

You are a liar or a fool, or possibly both.

Well, when all the most educated people on the planet call your ideas completely stupid, either you hide your head in the sand and pretend you can't hear them - which you are doing - or you take a cold, hard look at yourself and realize something might be wrong. In your case, I assume looking in the mirror must not be the greatest experience in the world, so I guess the sand it is.

Let me explain evolution for you and for everyone else reading.

DNA suffers random mutations. These mutations can help or hinder an organism in its environment, which ultimately culminates in whether it successfully reproduces or not. Mutations which hinder eventually die out because organisms with those mutations do not survive and reproduce. Mutations with help will become more and more widespread since those organisms have an advantage. Whether a mutation helps or hinders is to a great degree determined by the wider environment. This includes the physical environment, such as how hot or cold it is and it also includes the social environment, which means the other organisms around and especially members of that same species. Sometimes these two aspects of the environment contradict one another.

For example:

In a cold environment a thick coat of fur helps survival. However a male might have a thick coat of fur all around but females may be more attracted to males who only have the thick fur in certain locations on their body. If enough of the latter can survive the cold temperatures long enough to breed then eventually their peculiar fur distribution will win out, even though it is not ideal. We see this in many, many organisms.

I mean, yeah, that's a correct description of evolutive processes.

Which supports absolutely zero of your racist theories, but sure, I'm OK with that.

[Mobius_118]

The best argument Joblom has made for its theory of evolution is itself. It's a substandard example of his lineage, a bloodline that should've died out decades ago.

It's still a shit argument that has been binned for quite a while. Nothing it has posted has convinced anyone of anything except that it's a nazi.

[Vol]

Iowa primaries today booooooooys. The Des Moisne Register canceled their last poll, last minute, which implies Bernie had a surge, because the DNC do not want him winning, hence why they're changing the rules ad hoc to get Bloomberg in. Just like the RNC tried to dump Trump, as we'll see going forward.

[Sinekein]

I don't think he had a surge, apparently they forgot Buttigieg when calling some voters. Which would probably have increased Biden's score overall.

Honestly I think Sanders is the Democrat's best shot if only because his fans look like the kind that would only pick him and not whoever beats him. They did that in 2016 already.

[Vol]

Yeah but then you got the center-left who'll feel left out. The union rank and file are worth more than just their votes, and the promise of unchecked immigration is going to fuck them badly.

[TheodoricFriede]

I can tell you now that Sanders would actually get me off my ass to vote.

...Of course that vote would probably be for Trump.

I liked the old man in 2016, but he has only gotten more and more crazy since then.

[Sinekein]

Yeah but then you got the center-left who'll feel left out. The union rank and file are worth more than just their votes, and the promise of unchecked immigration is going to fuck them badly.

My point is merely that they went center-left the other time around, and this time it looks like a repeat - they even already have a scandal to pin on Biden (although I'm not sure how wise it would be for Trump to talk about Ukraine much during the campaign considering he too got accused, even with the verdict in his favor I'm not sure he wants to remind everyone of the impeachment time and time again).

I think that some of the center-left might be motivated to vote for Sanders due to Trump's rhetoric, but the hardcore Sanderistas are basically Bernie or bust right now. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even vote for Warren, even though she is ideologically very close to him.

From the outside, of course Biden looks like the Dem's safe choice, and that's exactly why he is accused of being the "pick of the medias". I'll admit that I have not paid much attention to the primaries so far (I know I'm going to be fed up with the US elections in a couple of months), but I have not seen overwhelming support for Biden. Clinton had way more coverage, and on the other hand, Sanders was not talked about as much in 2016. It's like the media, international at least, are trying real hard not to be seen as biased in Biden's favor. In Le Monde, all three other major candidates got a portrayal saying who they were and where they came from, while Biden is just called "the favorite", "Obama's VP" and "the target of the GOP due to his son's dealings in Ukraine", so not exactly enthusiastic support.

Sanders has one thing in common with Trump is that he has won internet already.

[TTTX]

I can tell you now that Sanders would actually get me off my ass to vote.

...Of course that vote would probably be for Trump.

I liked the old man in 2016, but he has only gotten more and more crazy since then.

I'm not an american, but Sanders is giant idiot that doesn't deserve to become president, even Trump deserves it more then he does.

[Mobius_118]

I'm voting for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is.

Trump is a traitor, through and through. Every one of his supporters is complicit and not worth anything but debasement and ridicule. He's been following the 1984 rulebook and his supporters are sucking it down. It's fucking embarrassing.

[Vol]

Wake up, Iowa results still aren't in. Find out the DNC hired a "progressive app making" company to create the software for the vote. Their CEO, COO, and some other executive are former Clinton staffers, and they're call Shadow Inc. Hear rumors Buttygiggy might have a financial stake in them and/or they used drag and drop software design to make the app.

I sure hope these people control the entire healthcare system, much less complex than counting caucus votes.

[Mobius_118]

Still far more trustworthy than the GOP that lied about blocking witnesses and documents after blocking witnesses and documents. And allows foreign interests in our elections. And strips rights from everyone not obscenely rich or a corporation. And strips healthcare from the poor. And encourages white supremacists to be more vocal about their "superiority" while looking like they lost a fight with a Big Mac.

[TheodoricFriede]

I sure hope these people control the entire healthcare system, much less complex than counting caucus votes.

I cant fucking believe that anyone anywhere thought it was a good idea to do voting through a fucking phone app.

Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ. Its like these people are running for the head of the student council.

[Vol]

State of the Union was tonight. Trump needed a damn glass of water towards the end. Pretty good speech. Highlighted some good people, some people who've experienced tragedy, even had ole Rush Limbaugh get the Medal of Freedom on the spot, given he was just revealed to have stage 4 lung cancer. Mentioned going to the Moon by 2024, then future missions to Mars, RED ROCKS. Seems it'll be a legacy thing, if it happens at all. Spent a good while on slamdunking with the economy and low unemployment, took some standard GOP pot shots at the Dems, with the universal applause breaks between. Got a laugh out of Adam Schiff standing and applauding at one point. He's gotten better at these.

As for Iowa, 62% of the vote in, Bernie and Bootygigs are tied with 10 delegates, the latter with a slight vote lead. What a shitshow.

[Mobius_118]

Just like getting Mexico to pay for the wall?

Everything in his speech was a lie. Plain to see for all who care.

And Vol, get the name right. Buttigieg.

[Sinekein]

even had ole Rush Limbaugh get the Medal of Freedom on the spot, given he was just revealed to have stage 4 lung cancer.

Aside from the irony of decorating a media guy while you spend all your time insulting those who disagree with you - that kind of exposes the dishonesty of it all - I love how karma is a bitch in RL's case, given the guy spent his life denying how dangerous smoking and/or second-hand smoke are.

I send him thoughts and prayers, apparently that helps.

[TTTX]

Everything in his speech was a lie. Plain to see for all who care.

so he spoke like a politician than.

[Mobius_118]

Everything in his speech was a lie. Plain to see for all who care.

so he spoke like a politician than.

He spoke like a Republican, yes.

Moon by 2024? That's a straight up lie. The guy promised a beautiful, impenetrable wall, paid for by Mexico. What we got was a fence that falls over in high winds and needs flood gates opened for most of the year. And he promises a rebuilt space program. He's a grifter. And every one of his supporters fell for it.

And giving Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom when there was a Tuskugee Airman in the same room is a slap in the face. That fat fuck dying from lung cancer has spewed lies and hate for years. No wonder trump loves him. He's the best loudspeaker he has.

[Vol]

The impeachment's finally over, acquittal of course. No Dems in red states flipped, and Mitt Romney did (voted guilty) for the first article, which was "Abuse of power," but then voted not guilty on the second for whatever reason. Would've figured Manchin, or Jones, or even more would've gone with not guilty for the sake of their own seats, so probably figured it wouldn't matter, or they wanted to show solidarity as a lifeline, or something. In hindsight, a censure would've garnered bipartisan support, and would've stuck, as opposed to our nation's first party-line impeachment and acquittal. So that's a nice precedent.

I can't tell if this election season is going to be hilarious or miserable.

[Mobius_118]

That wasn't even a trial, without witnesses and evidence (blocked by the GOP, subpoena's ignored(which is illegal)) it cannot even be called a trial.

GOP needs to remember that they do not serve the corporations, the rich, or the President, they serve the people. And they will remember this come election day.

[TTTX]

He spoke like a Republican, yes.

Moon by 2024? That's a straight up lie. The guy promised a beautiful, impenetrable wall, paid for by Mexico. What we got was a fence that falls over in high winds and needs flood gates opened for most of the year. And he promises a rebuilt space program. He's a grifter. And every one of his supporters fell for it.

And giving Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom when there was a Tuskugee Airman in the same room is a slap in the face. That fat fuck dying from lung cancer has spewed lies and hate for years. No wonder trump loves him. He's the best loudspeaker he has.

Both sides lie because election is about convincing people that you are the best person for the job and what your goals are once your are in power abd that involves lying how much depends on the person.

[Vol]

Well, now this primary is getting interesting. Buttergeiger took it over Bernie by .1% of the popular vote, but equal delegates. NH, that's prime Bernie country, because Vermont is right next door, but now it's getting closer according to one of the reputable (for Democrats) polls. The debate was less interesting, same talking points, mostly about orange man bad, but some policy positions. Yang's $1k a month, everyone agreeing on some flavor of government healthcare expansion, but the shanks came out for Bernie on how to pay for his.

Seems like if Biden is waning, then Batterguy will be the moderate option, and then Bloomberg will skulk around to see if he can buy in as a last minute consolidation choice. Meanwhile, the DNC is surely trying to tamp down on Bernie or Warren, but they're the only ones with passionate supporters, but not nearly enough to carry the South, because it seems like blacks don't care for them.