racism

maxx

You guys are the ones who refuse to debate the issue. a bunch of little kids bent on nothing more than insults. Is that how you consider the way to debate?@Nomenclature

maxx

de asked for it. I am tired of his slander, calling me a pedophile time after time. If you do not call that the lowest of lows, then I suggest you reevaluate your values and standards. Constant flagging has done nothing and neither has arrog him self.  Apparently he would rather lose his license as to do something about it. as well, humans are both classified as a species and a race. If you learn to read, i said yes that link was a forum. I also said so what. I said it does not matter who wrote it as long as it is scientifically sound. Your problem is you ignore the content of the paper and simply concentrate on who wrote it. Never mind if you think I understand the paper or not. You should know that sub races or species are but a social label, not a biological one. Adaptations to areas, or changes in physical appearances, does not change a race or species into another one. If you agree, then i flat do not understand why you are bothering to be on this post; if you do not agree, fine, show me why.  give me an example of another human species and explain why it is as such. you been on  this site too long for when you started, you took time to debate properly, yet now you seem to have fallen  to the point as many others and lapse into insults. Now as for humans, what would have to actually occur biologically for it to diverge into another species? @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

Dee is a lousy person as well, but there is a difference between saying crappy things to others and outright threatening others with physical violence: the former is being a jerk, and the latter is coercion.

maxx said:

If you learn to read, i said yes that link was a forum. I also said so what. I said it does not matter who wrote it as long as it is scientifically sound. Your problem is you ignore the content of the paper and simply concentrate on who wrote it.

This.
Is.
Not.
A.
Paper.

Print this out and hang it on your wall, and look at it every morning and every evening. Based on how slow you have been so far, I do not expect that you will learn it in less than a year - but maybe in 2024 some progress will finally have been made?

And stop lying: I have not said anything about "who wrote it". In all these discussions only once did I refer to the authors themselves at all, and that was when you linked a bachelors' course project as evidence in support of your claims.

Another lie is that I "ignore the content of the 'paper'". I did not and explicitly mentioned that the very next comment in that thread addressed the problems with that content.

You are quite a champion of lies around here. I have never run into anyone around here who would make this much stuff up about their opponents.

Dee

@MayCaesar


Dee is a lousy person as well,

Your constant bitching to other people about me speaks volumes about your mental state ; the only thing your bitching does is convince other people that you are not in control of yourself.

maxx

are you going to debate the issue or not.  Oh and by the way. what is wrong with it being a forum? The content was solid science. @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

de asked for it. I am tired of his slander, calling me a pedophile time after time


Still going on about me.When you stop acting like a child I will treat you as an adult but you never learn do you?

You must learn to take your beatings like a man. I'm convinced you are trolling now aided by MayCaeser who has issued comments about me behind my back in the last few days, proof you are trolling is you refused my challenge to engage in debate without resorting to your usual personal attacks , you refused proving my point ........So you and May continue bitching away behind my back I care not 

Bogan

@maxx

Maxx quote     first sir, bears are not humans.

Bears and humans are both mammalian life forms consisting of species and sub species.

 

Maxx quote     Second; Only certain people in general consider other cultures "sub" species.  

 Nobody considers other "cultures" to be sub species.    As a matter of fact, the word "sub species" is a word unknown to most people without scientific knowledge.      It is only anthropologists, taxonomists, biologists, and switched on debaters, who use it at all.    The noun "culture" usually refers to what different groups of people consider to be acceptable behaviour.   "Sub species" is a noun which scientists use to classify Terran life forms.    They are different concepts.  

 

Maxx quote     I fail to see where any anthropologists are science classify any as such.

 Your statement is so badly written I can only guess at what it means?    I think it means that you don't think that anthropologists use scientific classifications names to name human sub species?     Well, not only have I already proved that they do, it would not make any sense for taxonomists to name every sub species on earth and not name human sub species.

 

Maxx quote   Sub species are a label used to justify racism itself.

 What you just wrote was an opinion unsupported by a reasoned argument.    Without a supporting argument, it does not have any credibility.      But I can easily counter it anyway by saying that nobody invented the term "sub species" to justify racism.      The word "sub species" is simply a scientific name for a long established scientific fact.   That this scientific fact completely demolishes the wacky and fashionable concept that all "races" (as used in the second definition of that dual meaning word) are "equal", does not detract from it's validity, one whit.

 

Maxx quote    Now first i would like your definition of your usage of sub. Is it those you consider backwards and uneducated or people who simply diverged from the human race?

 It is neither.   I like the way that you are trying to steer me into saying something that you would like me to say, Maxx, but I am too smart to fall for that.     Nice try, though.  You are learning a thing or two about dirty tricks from Mr Swallow.

 The definition of "sub species" you can look up yourself on wiki.  And while you are at it, look up "Carl Linnaeus" and "Taxonomy", if you dare.     Before you jump up and down about me telling you to read a link, I am not asking you to read a pseudo science opinion by a woke liberal who is telling me something that I already know is false.    I am asking you to educate yourself by reading the raw data on wiki, which is regarded as a fairly reliable encyclopedia, and a good source of information.

 Since I suspect that you won't do it, because you want to avert your eyes from what you fear to see, then I will give you my own definition, based upon what I know about Taxonomy.   Biologists and anthropologists accept Carl Linnaeus's concept of using taxonomic names for every genus, species and sub species on earth.     They also accept the Darwinian concept of a family tree of life.    They know that species will evolve into completely separate species over time because of  genetic adaptation to wildly differing climatic conditions within species who are widely geographically isolated or separated.

 But one species evolving into another does not happen overnight.    It takes a very long time, depending upon the complexity of the organism (microbes can do it in hours).  Before a species can morph into a separate species, it goes through a transition phase, and that phase is called a "sub species".    Sub species may look similar to the original species, and may look similar to other sub species from the same species stock.   But they usually look different because adaptation to environmental factors changes appearance.    As already displayed to you in my brown bear examples, it can also cause changes in temperament and intelligence. 

 

Maxx quote     After you give me such definition then I would like a clear cut example of one group as you considered sub.

 Already given to you.     Brown bears, Grizzley bears, and Kodiak bears.    

Maxx quote    Then if you would, give me the reasons why; either through the first definition, or as to why as the second.     If it is but the second definition, on as to why and with some science to it; for again, adaptations to areas, or heat or cold, nor changes any physical appearances. 

 Once again, I am having difficulty understanding what it is you are writing?     Please rewrite your questions with a subject and a predicate so that I can understand what they mean?     I am not dodging the questions, I just don't understand what your badly written questions are asking me?    Rewrite your questions, and instead of writing whatever confused and muddled thinking is going on in your head at the time, stop and think.   Use brain before engaging keyboard.

 

Maxx quote     Scientific speaking we are but one race. biologically speaking we are but one race.

 Your statement is correct using the first definition of the dual meaning English word "race", which refers to species.      It is incorrect using the second definition of the word "race" which refers to sub species.     Because it is exactly like saying that brown bears, Grizzly bears, and Kodiak bears are all the same thing.     Why do I need to explain the same simple concept to you, over, and over, and over again?    Are you PamelaJohnson pretending to be Maxx?    If so, what did you do to poor Maxx, Pamela!?     Free Maxx.  I am ringing the police, now, Pamela.

 

Maxx quote    give me your definition ro sub, for unitl you do, we are spinning any circles.

 Once again, a very poorly written statement.   Which seems to indicate to me that you are really struggling to deny an easily provable premise, that you just do not want to recognise.     To understand this simple concept would completely destroy a lot of the liberal humanitarian ideology which is the foundation upon what you have based your worldview on.    Better to not look over your ideological blinkers and avert your eyes from what you fear to see.

 Smart people do not think that way, Maxx.  (or Pamela?)  Smart people never allow culturally conditioned mental barriers in their heads to stop them thinking about things which those in power do not want them to think about.  If you want to be smart, Maxx, start thinking smart.    Cross the Rubicon and use your critical analysis circuit to question what those in power want you to think,  and use your logical, unbiased mind to search for the truth which will lead you to wherever it goes to.     May the truth be told, though the heavens may fall.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

are you going to debate the issue or not.  Oh and by the way. what is wrong with it being a forum? The content was solid science. @MayCaesar

Buddy, how many times are you going to ignore my answers to your questions and ask them again as if nothing happened? A debate cannot take place when whatever I say is ignored by my opponent.

- A forum post is not a "paper", contrary to your claim. It is wrong to cite a forum post and call it a paper. I said it multiple times, yet you still kept calling it a "paper".

- That "solid science" was refuted in the only other comment on that page. I mentioned that comment multiple times; no acknowledgement from you.

It is like you have amnesia every 10 minutes. You must be doing this intentionally. If not... well...

maxx

i refuse to answer questions that do not pertain to the topic. either stick to the topic, or go find another post to turn into a circus event.  @MayCaesar

maxx

look, you are claiming that i have nothing but opinion not supported by fact nor logic. anyone can make a logical argument yet not have it supported by facts. How can you even possibly answer my question of give me a sub species, by using bears? I want a sub species of humans. after all that is what you claim exists today, yet so far you have not answered that, nor have you given me reasons as to why. @Bogan ; i know what taxonomy is and as well took time to read the article on wiki. taxonomies are embedded in local and culture systems and serve various social functions.  I read more yet nothing about human sub species, so i jumped to folk taxonomy. nope, nothing about sub human species in which you will not provide me with. However, just in case I missed something in the article .  Taxonomy - Wikipedia  basically  you are trying to "ahem" give me a lesson in classifications of species. Yet classification of humans into blacks, asians, eskimos and so on, as well as changes in their physical features and adaptations ot temperature and environment, does not change a human species into another one, EXCEPT  by general labeling; not  an actual biological change and divergent into another species.

MayCaesar

@maxx

I have made a lot of comments on the topic; you have failed to respond to any of them, insteas resorting to endless rants about how I dismiss your "links" and dislike the authors, both of which are completely false.

You are quite a piece of work, buddy. You get to do whatever you want, but others must play the game of your creation with extremely limiting rules - and even when they treat you like a little princess and comply with all the insane demands you make, you just ignore their points and keep on ranting.

"Circus"? Do not insult clowns: they are much better at their craft than you are at any topic you have attempted to discuss around here.

maxx

no, you began by  saying I did not answer a specific reply; which I did. I even went as far as to finally copy and post those answers. Still you refused to return to the topic.  Instead if you look back at your replies, you can find no justification on continuing your rant. Just  ask your questions again{in which i already replied to} then I will answer them again.  Now are all you going to do is continue throwing out words meaningless to the topic, or are you going to return to the debate? @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

maxx said:

no, you began by  saying I did not answer a specific reply; which I did. I even went as far as to finally copy and post those answers. Still you refused to return to the topic.  Instead if you look back at your replies, you can find no justification on continuing your rant. Just  ask your questions again{in which i already replied to} then I will answer them again.  Now are all you going to do is continue throwing out words meaningless to the topic, or are you going to return to the debate? @MayCaesar

You did NOT. Nothing in any of your comments here referred to my and Luigi's childhood experiences which my original comment was centered at, and the passage you quoted was no exception. I have mentioned it at least three times since then, but with you three repetitions is not enough. Here is the forth time.

Try reading what people actually write, instead of looking at a couple trigger words and going on a generic rant. Look at how others discuss things here: you are the only one in conversations with whom this kind of thing comes up all the time, and multiple other debaters have pointed it out. Get your act together.

Despite your insane claims and demands, I still read everything you write thoroughly before responding. Too bad it is not mutual.

Bogan

Maxx quote    look, you are claiming that i have nothing but opinion not supported by fact nor logic. anyone can make a logical argument yet not have it supported by facts.

 You made the silly statement that "Sub species are a label used to justify racism itself."    This is a very short statement open to interpretation, but what I took it to mean (correct me if I am wrong and give a full explanation as to what you really meant) is that racists like me invented the term sub species to justify racism.     That is just complete rubbish.    Genus, species, and sub species have long been scientific taxonomical terms.      If you claim different, then the onus is on you to provide a reasoned argument supporting your claim.    If you do not do that, then your statement is just an unsupported opinion with little to no credibility.

 

Maxx quote    How can you even possibly answer my question of give me a sub species, by using bears? I want a sub species of humans.

 Then why didn't you ask the question in such a way that I knew exactly what you meant?    I have certain talents but mind reading is not one of them.  Go back over your previous post to me and look at just how garbled your replies were.    One pair of questions were so garbled that I even said to you that I was not dodging the questions by not replying, I just could not figure out from your poor grammar what it is you were even asking me.      

 You want me to give you scientific taxonomical names for specific human races?     No wukkers, Ma-a-a--ate.       Carl Linnaeus himself named Tasmanian aboriginal people homo sapien tasmanianus.    Other taxonomical names for human sub species are homo sapien arabicus, homo sapien Iranicus, homos sapien americus, homo sapien australasicus, and homo sapian patagonius.

 

 Maxx quote   I know what taxonomy is and as well took time to read the article on wiki. taxonomies are embedded in local and culture systems and serve various social functions.

 Good grief!    Okay let's look at how you managed to screw everything up.    You looked at the wiki page with a preconception that you wanted confirmed, or at least a way to dilute the importance of taxonomy in completely demolishing your fashionable view that races do not exist.    So, since the word "taxology" refers to "order", and every local and culture system seeks order, then you think that by pretending that scientific taxology is culturally subjective, you can discredit it        I will grant you that everybody is usually subjective when researching data and looks for conformation of their opinion, even though an objective person is not supposed to do that.      But just looking for ways that raw data can be misinterpreted to give a desired outcome is not the thinking of a smart person, Maxx.   

 

Maxx quote  I read more yet nothing about human sub species, so i jumped to folk taxonomy. nope, nothing about sub human species in which you will not provide me with.

 In other words, you saw the link to folk taxonomy which has nothing to do with the scientific taxonomy links that were listed above them,  and you saw another opportunity to muddy the water.    I am disappointed in you, Maxx.   Naughty, naughty.     And you did not even bother to expand your mind by researching Carl Linnaeus or "sub species" because you might have discovered something that you don't want to know about

 

Maxx quote    However, just in case I missed something in the article .  Taxonomy - Wikipedia  basically  you are trying to "ahem" give me a lesson in classifications of species. Yet classification of humans into blacks, asians, eskimos and so on, as well as changes in their physical features and adaptations ot temperature and environment, does not change a human species into another one, EXCEPT  by general labeling; not  an actual biological change and divergent into another species.

 

What I am trying to do, Maxx, is to get you to think straight.    

 Maxx, old ma-a-a-a-ate.    Stop pretending to be a person who is on an unbiased search for the truth.    You have a particular worldview which you seem to think explains everything, and you desperately do not want to even think about the possibility that you are wrong.   So you will stoop to any tactic which will allow you to avoid seeing what you do not want to even think about.    You have a culturally conditioned mental barrier in your head that you refuse to mentally jump over.      One reason is, because the people who put that barrier in your head reinforced it by telling you that anybody who thinks beyond that barrier is a cretin, and everybody who does not think beyond it is an intelligent, far seeing social progressive.     And because you fear the contempt of your peer group, and seek the acclaim of your peer group by sprouting their nonsensical party line, you are unable to think straight.

 Here are the facts that you do not want to face.     All Terran life forms are comprised of species, and most of them also have sub species.    This includes human beings and that has long been recognised by science, since scientific taxonomy even names them.    Taxonomy when applied to humans does not use the word "race", it uses "species" instead of the first definition of that duel meaning English word.    And it uses "sub species" instead of the second definition of race.

 But you see, Maxx old mate, there are influential people in this world who for reasons of diplomacy, or an outright grab for power and popularity, want everybody to believe that all races are equal in every way.    Even though this is an easily disprovable premise to any person with an open mind.    One way they do this is to claim that there is only one race, the human race.   This is also an easily disprovable premise to any person with an open mind, which unfortunately, you have not developed yet.    

 Another is to claim that science does not recognise race, which is a half truth.    And a half truth, Maxx, is a complete lie.    Science uses different nouns for the same concepts that people in everyday speech use when describing races of people.    Next, they claim that racism is just about the worst heretical thing that a white person can even think about.    When you and I both know that all races are racist, because the entire human race is tribal and territorial.

 That human beings are tribal and territorial, is so obvious to anybody with a functioning brain, that it hardly needs explanation.   But as you have discovered when "debating" against that quarter wit Dee, no amount of reasoned argument is ever going to make them look at a problem objectively, because like you, they have a mental barrier in their heads.    That barrier instinctively tells them that admitting that all races are racist is the thin edge of the wedge, when it comes to justifying their most cherished belief that all races are equal in every way.    Even though logically, it must be true, if all races are equal.  So they will jump up and down screaming,  hyperventilate, and hold their breaths until they turn blue, before they will admit what is self evident.

 A bit like you.

maxx

well, it is apparent you are not going to return to the debate, but rather continue with the insults instead; so i here-by dis-engage with conversing with you on this topic. You can respond with your sophomoric  rhetoric and have the last word.  good day.@MayCaesar

maxx

look, science can classify humans as a "different" species only by local, physical features, adaptations to temperature, morals, attitudes, values and so on. Those are but classification labels. What they can not do, is classify humans into a divergent species based on genetics and biologically. Those Aboriginals are no different than you and I in regard of dna. You are simply going by their backwardness, features, and so on. Am I not correct? They are no different otherwise .  Human species does not diverge into other based upon how they live, where they live, or what they look like. We can label them as different, but it is not scientifically accurate. Now tell me why this carl classified them as different, and I bet it will be as to what i just pointed out. features, how they live, how they act, and so on. just labels. Have you ever took the time to look up as to what causes divergent of a species into another one and what it would take biologically?   @Bogan as well. The Difference Between Brown and Grizzly Bears | Wandering at Large (fitznaturalist.com) Your carl is classifying sub species because of habitat, physical features, what they eat, but no biological reasons. If carl is correct then eskimos and asians and almost everyone on earth has diverged into sub species.  can you offer me any scientific proof of the "biological" differences between your human sub species instead of mere label classifications of habitat, food, features and so on? Or do you actually assume that such labeling as carl proposes is enough to have humans diverge into separate species?

MayCaesar

maxx said:

well, it is apparent you are not going to return to the debate, but rather continue with the insults instead; so i here-by dis-engage with conversing with you on this topic. You can respond with your sophomoric  rhetoric and have the last word.  good day.@MayCaesar

Or you could just finally address the goddamn point and be done with it. Instead of going on with endless teary speeches about how mean and unfair people are to you.

You can write one paragraph explaining how your theory aligns with the evidence presented ny me and backed up by Luigi. Would take you a few minutes, instead of days of back and forth while saying nothing of substance.

That is the problem though: you do not have anything of substance to say. Your position is not based on anything, it is just a bunch of proclamations. So, whenever someone makes a logical argument criticizing your proclamations, you have no foundation to go back to and defend said proclamations. That is why you choose to engage in this nonsense instead.

Your whole persona here is a charade. You do not know anything you are talking about and do not know how to think about it. You just picked up bits and pieces of unverified information here and there and now endlessly rehearse them, oblivious to everytjing happening around you.

Bogan

Maxx quote      look, science can classify humans as a "different" species only by local, physical features, adaptations to temperature, morals, attitudes, values and so on. Those are but classification labels. What they can not do, is classify humans into a divergent species based on genetics and biologically.

 I have read some pretty potty premises' in my time, Maxx, but that one just about takes the cake.    You are basically declaring that science has no right to classify human races which do not conform to your humanitarian social theory that human races do not exist?     And if they do exist, they must be equal in every way?     Maxx, maxx, maxx, if you stood up in an auditorium in front of a switched on audience of intelligent people, and proposed that little doozy, they would laugh you right off the stage.

 

Maxx quote   Those Aboriginals are no different than you and I in regard of dna.

 If aboriginals had identical DNA to Scandinavians, they would look exactly the same.     They don't.    Your premise is illogical.

 

Maxx quote    You are simply going by their backwardness, features, and so on. Am I not correct?

 Largely incorrect.   Science categorises the genus, species, and sub species, of any organism' and it is always predicated upon their appearance, which is linked to their environmental adaptations. And then comes the examination of an organism's behaviour and sometimes intelligence, which can also be linked to their environment.     Grizzley bears are much more aggressive than brown bears because they need to be.    They live in environments which are scarcer in food resources than in brown bear environments.  Therefore, they are much more territorial.   In time, aggressiveness and extreme territoriality  becomes a part of their genetic makeup.  

 

 Maxx quote    They are no different otherwise .  

 So, using that logic, there is no difference between a bird and a fish? They are identical, they only look different?  C'mon, Maxx.      When you have to invent premises that are so bad to explain away what you refuse to acknowledge, you are getting down the PamelaJohnson mindset of explaining away fossils as "creatures who did not make it to the ark."   You are embarrassing yourself.    If your hope in coming onto this debate site is to display your high intellect, you are doing a bad job of it.  

 

Maxx quote     Human species does not diverge into other based upon how they live, where they live, or what they look like.

 Gee willackers, that's funny.    Every other organism on planet Earth evolves down the "tree of life" into separate species, and if they spread into completely different environments, they evolve into sub species to adapt to that new environment.     But you are claiming that humans do not do what every other living organism on planet earth does?    Please explain?   

 

Maxx quote     We can label them as different, but it is not scientifically accurate.

 Science categorising living organisms is not scientifically accurate?     Stop and listen real hard, Maxx.   People are laughing at you.    You are embarrassing yourself.     

 

Maxx quote     Now tell me why this carl classified them as different, and I bet it will be as to what i just pointed out. features, how they live, how they act, and so on. just labels.

 Yeah, Maxx.  That is what science does.    It classifies everything and then it examines what makes everything different.  By doing so, it learns what makes things tick.     When we understand the things around us we can use it to our advantage, avoid dangers, make intelligent predictions, create technology, and progress.

 

Maxx quote      Have you ever took the time to look up as to what causes divergent of a species into another one and what it would take biologically?   @Bogan as well. The Difference Between Brown and Grizzly Bears | Wandering at Large (fitznaturalist.com) Your carl is classifying sub species because of habitat, physical features, what they eat, but no biological reasons.

 I have obviously "taken the time" to do a lot more study on this topic than you have, Maxx, which is why I am running rings around you.  Of course, if you had done your homework you would not be running around embarrassing yourself by claiming that there is only one race, the human race, and giving "explanations" for your wishful thinking which even PamelaJohnson would wince at. 

 The biological reason, is because one sub species of brown bears look different to another sub species of brown bears.    The reason for that, is because their DNA is slightly different.     And because their environment affects their intelligence and behaviour.    And intelligence and behaviour can be heritable, which is also linked to DNA.

 

Maxx quote     If Carl is correct then Eskimos and Asians and almost everyone on earth has diverged into sub species.  can you offer me any scientific proof of the "biological" differences between your human sub species instead of mere label classifications of habitat, food, features and so on? Or do you actually assume that such labelling as Carl proposes is enough to have humans diverge into separate species?

 Yeah, I can.   They are obviously biologically different because they look different.   Just like Grizzley bears and Brown bear are biologically different because they look different, and act different, and eat different.    And that is just what we can see.    What we can not see is how their environment has affected their IQ, although we can make reasonable assumptions about that which make sense.   But with human sub species we can test them accurately, and those results you just don't want to know, Maxx.

Bogan

@MayCaesar ;    Your position is not based on anything, it is just a bunch of proclamations.

And my with you on the "are races equal" topic was your insistence that I had to prove that races were not equal, but you would not present any argument supporting your premise that they are equal in every other way, other than in physical appearance and physical abilities.  

MayCaesar

Bogan said:

@MayCaesar ;    Your position is not based on anything, it is just a bunch of proclamations.

And my with you on the "are races equal" topic was your insistence that I had to prove that races were not equal, but you would not present any argument supporting your premise that they are equal in every other way, other than in physical appearance and physical abilities.  

Naturally, since I have never stood behind such a premise or even found it plausible. I do not need to defend claims that I disagree with. Nor do I have to explain to someone who stubbornly puts words in my mouth repeatedly that I have never said or written those words.

As for why you had to prove particular claims about specific differences between races and their consequences... That is called the "burden of proof", homie. The burden of proof would be on me if I said that "races are equal in evety other way, other than..." - but since I have never said that, this is not the case.

Maybe you will get it eventually. maxx probably will not, but you appear to be a very bright fellow, and it is your sheer stubbornness that seems to block you from understanding my arguments.

Bogan

@MayCaesar ;    That is called the "burden of proof", homie. 

In a debate, the burden of proof works both ways.    A debate topic is raised, and opposing teams politely submit reasoned arguments as to why their position is right, and their opponents position is wrong, homie.     Both sides can then investigate each ones arguments and look for flaws in their reasoning.     Both sides ask reasonable and pertinent questions and both sides answer them.     A bit of banter, heckling, and  a few insults are okay as it can be amusing and it keeps the audience giggling.   But just heckling and tossing insults and never submitting a reasoned argument to support your own view is not acceptable at all.    Anything less is not a debate, it is an inquisition.    Out of politeness and courtesy, I put up with your dirty tactic for a while, hoping that eventually you would do the decent thing and debate fairly.      But repeated polite requests by me for you to submit your own reasons for why you believe in an obvious falsehood, got nothing from you but a stonewall.     This is a dirty debating tactic that I am well aware of and I will not put up with.     I find it amusing that you stick it to maxx while engaging in equally reprehensible behaviour yourself.

MayCaesar

@Bogan

More putting words in my mouth. I submitted a lot of thought out and well written comments explaining my position. All you could muster in response was whine about my "dishonest tactics" or whatever. As for your "requests" - like I said, I do not believe in what you claim I believe, hence I did not submit any arguments in favor of that position.

It appears that in your world a "dirty debating tactics" is any argument that you have no response to. In that case, happy to deliver more of those: just say the word!

Bogan

@MayCaesar

All you ever did was attack my position with reasoned arguments and you never submitted a reasoned argument explaining why you believe in an obvious falsehood.   If you had, I should have been able to pick apart your logic and make you realise that your wishful thinking delusion is wrong.    Like I am doing with maxx, right now.   I am experienced debater, Maycaesar, I recognise your dirty tactic because I have experienced it before.   Either debate fairly or far cough.    I hate to say that because I realise that you do have a functioning brain and you are light years ahead of the trolls that infest this site.     But if you won't debate fairly, either because you know you are using a dirty tactic and you want to continue using it, or you are so ignorant that you refuse to recognise that it is the dirty tactic that it is, then I won't debate with you.

MayCaesar

@Bogan

Okay, you appear to be about as dense in this respect as maxx (and yes, I am done being polite with people doing this stuff), so I will have to again resort to multiple repetitions for you to understand it.

I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.
I do not believe in what you claim I believe.

That enough? I could print it on 500 pages of the US Letter paper and send them to you for a nominal price, so you have enough to hang around your home and finally memorize it after a few years of walking around.

I do not believe that "races are equal in all respects except..." or whatever. I do not believe that. I do not. I really do not. Believe I not. Me no believes. Do you want me to translate it into multiple languages, perhaps, if English is a bit too hard to follow?

Bogan

I do not know what you believe, because even though I asked you politely many times to state in plain English what exactly it was that you believed in, you refused to answer that plain, simple question, every time.    I know why you did it.  You can not be expected to defend your own opinion if nobody knows what it is.    I had to wheedle some of it out of you over time using quoted words from you,  and even then you would deny it.  It was at that point that I realised that you were dishonest and using a reprehensible debating tactic I had met with, many times before.    It is a tactic meant to put your opponent entirely on the defensive by making your opponent explain everything, while you explain nothing.        Sorry, tavorich, I won't play ball if you won't play fair. 

 I am silly, but not st-upid.  

Bogan

@MayCaesar ;     I do not believe that "races are equal in all respects except..." or whatever.

Yeah, that was the funny thing.    You implied that races were not equal in terms of physical attributes and physical abilities, that that was all I could ever get out of you.    And when I made remarks about you agreeing with me that races were not equal in terms of physical and attributes ad abilities, you would say I was putting words in your mouth.  I can not debate against an opponent who only implies their position so that they can change it whenever the wind blows the other way.    Your dishonest debating skills would work a treat on a novice debater, and they worked well on me when I was a sprog.    But I figured out what people like you were doing to drive me nuts, and I am not going to fall for it again.

maxx

We all have a tendency to justify our actions and beliefs. I am beginning to think you agree with these human labels of sub species not because they are true, but to justify your own racism. looking different in no way implies a biological difference. Where do you get that from? Now I can agree that anthropologists can, will and do classify species upon habitat, what they eat, physical features, values, morals, and how they live. However that criteria does not make them any different of a human than you or I or anyone else in this world .Races or species can be "considered different based upon their education, their ideas, and perhaps how they live and eat; yet that is but the idea of vain superiority based on what people consider a race should be.  Physical features does not change a species. Biology does. As for your dna, humans share over 99.9 percent with each and all other humans; THAT is a scientific fact. If you do not believe that, then show me a link that supports your argument of how humans have different dna. Gentetics and dna are not the same thing. It is genetics that changes physical features of a species. @Bogan

Nomenclature

@maxx

 I am beginning to think you agree with these human labels of sub species not because they are true, but to justify your own racism. 

You've only just worked that out?

MayCaesar

@Bogan

I have explained my position multiple times. Too bad that, instead of trying to understand it, you chose to pick on a strawman. I think that many of those "dishonest people" you met actually were not dishonest at all, it is just that you made false assumptions about their beliefs, and when the reality did not meet your expectations (making it hard to demolish their position with a few simple arguments), you flipped out.

No, I never denied that there are statistical differences of various kinds between races. "Putting words in my mouth" referred to the equality claims that you said I made, which in actuality I have never made.

Life is pretty difficult when you cannot get away with making stuff up about other people in order to put them on the defensive, is it not? I am here for logical discussions; I do not care about your opinion of me, and that is what allows me to stay cool under fire and methodically destroy your pitiful attempts at slandering me. If you want to make me feel uncertain of my beliefs, you have to come up with a sound argument based on logic and available evidence; attributing beliefs to me that I do not hold will simply make me disrespect you and become even more certain of my position. If this kind of cheap trickery is the best my opponents have to present, then my position must be pretty darn solid.

Lastly, I am not the one constantly bringing this stuff up: I forgot who the heck you were until you started interfering in my conversations with others and venting your frustrations over a debate that took place over a year ago. You do not need to explain to me why you do not want to debate me: do not want it - do not do it. My quality of life will not drop very significantly if a random slanderer from the Internet starts paying less attention to me.

Bogan

@maxx

Maxx quote    We all have a tendency to justify our actions and beliefs.

 Of course we do, maxx.     As human beings, we don't rationalise every one of our day to day our actions or beliefs.    We just cruise along on cruise control, letting our preconceived or culturally transmitted values and attitudes guide our behaviour without even thinking about it.      It is only when things go wrong, and when people dispute why it is all going wrong, that we are obliged to stop and think, turn on our critical analysis circuit, and rationalise if our pre conceived values and beliefs still make any sense.  

 

Maxx quote    I am beginning to think you agree with these human labels of sub species not because they are true, but to justify your own racism.

 Wrong.   I "was once like you are now" (to paraphrase Cat Stevens).   I had been culturally conditioned by my teachers and my education system to believe that all races were equal and I just accepted it without question. Why not?  It seemed reasonable.    We are all human.   We can all bred with one another. The teachers who taught me this falsehood I respected.  And there was another factor.    Living in the almost entirely white European country like Australia, I had never experienced living alongside people of other races, so I had no yardstick to judge them.

 But things started going haywire, Maxx.     All around the world, people from dysfunctional societies were immigrating into western societies where they were becoming a real social problem.    At first, it could be explained away by saying that these people came from very different, war torn societies, but they would soon fit in and be just like everybody else.   But that did not happen.    The societal problems caused by the importation of these people into white western society only increased as their numbers increased, either through immigration of birth rate differentials.       

 And then the left wing people who championed these dysfunctional races started blaming the white race, my race, for ethnic minority dysfunction.     Which, I am smart enough to recognise, is racism directed at my race.    Why can't you see it?      So Maxx, like any person who has the capacity to think, I stopped and thought.   I turned on my critical analysis circuit and started crunching raw data.   I began to realise that everything I had been told was a lie.  It was a lie created both by well meaning people of zeal who seek to build a Kumbaya utopian world by mixing the races, and proving that we are all the same.    That is failing right before our eyes.    In the USA and France, cities started burning.

  It was also created by crafty politicians and bureaucrats who knew that the importation of dysfunctional minorities into western democracies would cause the fall of free market capitalism, divide and conquer the democracies with identity politics, as well as to provide endless job opportunities for the bureaucratic elitist class.     These jobs were to manage the dysfunctional minorities who would always need taxpayer support and special privileges to survive, and who would then vote for leftist politicians, who would rob the whites to pay for the black or minority vote. 

 Things are getting out of control, maxx.    It is like old Bob Dylan lyrics "when I saw those cities burnin', I knew I was learnin'"    If you wish for the civilisation you live in to continue, you had better stop and think, switch on your critical analysis circuit, and start thinking straight. 

  I don"t even need to justify racism.   As you, yourself, have pointed out, everybody does it.      Human beings are tribal and territorial.    That is screamingly obvious.    But as you, yourself, have discovered, trying to impart that little truism to people who just don't want to know is almost impossible.

 

 Maxx quote     looking different in no way implies a biological difference.

 What you just wrote is insane.   Of course looking different implies a biological difference.     Your brain does not seem to be functioning correctly.    You are not smoking that wacky tobaccy, are you?

 

Maxx quote    Where do you get that from?

 Logic.   Biology.

 

Maxx quote      Now I can agree that anthropologists can, will and do classify species upon habitat, what they eat, physical features, values, morals, and how they live. However that criteria does not make them any different of a human than you or I or anyone else in this world

 Okay let's examine the logic of your statement.    You "agree" that anthropologists "can, will, and do" classify species.      But you are implying that while it works with animals, it can't work with humans?    Of course it can, and it does.    Humans are mammals and primates.   What works for other Terran organisms works for humans too.    But trying to impart that little truism to a person like you who just doesn't want to know is almost impossible.

 

Maxx quote    Races or species can be "considered different based upon their education, their ideas, and perhaps how they live and eat; yet that is but the idea of vain superiority based on what people consider a race should be. 

 No.    Human races are considered different because just like animal species and sub species, they look different.     And they act different.   They can and do have different physical abilities, and different mental abilities, and different temperaments, because they evolved separately to give each species and sub species an advantage within whatever wildly different environment they originally evolved in.    When they do that, science classifies them.    Science classifies all Terran organisms into seven different categories.   Three of them is genus, species, and sub species. 

 

Maxx quote     Physical features does not change a species.

 Wrong again.  Changes in physical features caused by genetic adaptation to particular environments changes species into sub species.     Sub species will, if left isolated to themselves for a very long period of time, change into an entirely different species, unable to create fertile offspring with it's original species.   Examples, horses, zebras, and donkeys.   Species becoming sub species and then becoming a different species is called "the tree of life", maxx.    This is all basic biology.    Did you get an "F" in your high school biology studies?

 

Maxx quote    As for your dna, humans share over 99.9 percent with each and all other humans; THAT is a scientific fact. If you do not believe that, then show me a link that supports your argument of how humans have different dna. Gentetics and dna are not the same thing. It is genetics that changes physical features of a species.

 First, if your premise is right, there are 3 billion bits of DNA on the human genome, maxx.     If the difference between races is 0.1%, then that makes 30,000 000 differences.     Second, I have read opinion pieces in newspapers on race and genetics which claims that the % difference is much higher.     Third, other opinion pieces claimed that the DNA differences between a chimpanzee and a human is not much higher than your claimed 0.1%

 To summarise, you are performing all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to deny an easily observable fact.    Races of humans exist, and that has been known for thousands of years.      There are two definitions of the English word "race".     One is singular and pertains to the entire human race (homo sapiens).   The second relates to human sub species.     Human sub species exist, exactly like animal sub species exist.    This is recognised by science which has even given human sub species taxonomical names.

 Now, I once used to think that people with even average IQ's could be swayed away from whatever false pre conceived, or false culturally imprinted attitudes they have, by the force of reasoned argument.   But sadly, I began to realise that it is just not true.    People have beliefs that they cherish so much, because it explains the world around them so well, that they simply will not recognise what is staring them right in the face.    People only see what they want to see.

 Claiming that races do not exist is exactly like saying that there are more than two genders.     Biological reality based upon observable reality says differently.    But there are some people who insist that there are more than two genders because they have a world saving ideology, and they need people to deny self evident reality to make it work.       But facts based upon observable reality tend to be stubborn things.

maxx

first, social problems and crime and others who migrated to other countries does not change a species. Almost your entire concept of sub species is based upon those whom you say are inferior to other races. That does not change a species. That is but an opinion; and it has no proof. There are almost as many white people who are just like blacks, poor, undernourished, raised in poverty, lack of education, and those who delve into drugs and crime. by your definition that makes them as much as a sub species as blacks or native Americans or anyone else ypu consider as such. Yet only "by label" not scientifically. You are simply going by ethnicity!! You have yet given me any scientific proof of the biological differences; you just are making wild claims. as well, adaptation to environment is Gentetic. It takes several generations to adapt physically to extreme cold or heat. Skin color was genetically adapted sometime after humans shed their hair. Now take blacks. OK. They are different in color because of natural pigmentation and have a bit different facial features. That does not make them sub human. Internally they are the same as you or I. The only real reason you make such claims is because of you consider them social outcasts based upon what you think of them. What you read in an opinion paper is valueless. You can not state a sub species exist based on how they act or skin color. I want a good quality scientific link that supports your argument that whites and blacks are a separate species based upon color, features, and social issues.  @Bogan

maxx

Oh a troll. @Nomenclature

Bogan

Maxx quote    First, social problems and crime and others who migrated to other countries does not change a species.

 I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with this statement?     It is not even good grammar.

 

maxx quote    Almost your entire concept of sub species is based upon those whom you say are inferior to other races.

 ALL of  my concept of sub species is based upon my knowledge of biology and taxonomy, and I have not said that some races are "inferior" to other races.    Any more than a pickup truck is inferior to a sports car.    Horses for courses.    Some human races are superior to others in certain environments because they evolved to adapt to that particular environment.      And that is biology, not ideology.

 

maxx quote  There are almost as many white people who are just like blacks, poor, undernourished, raised in poverty, lack of education, and those who delve into drugs and crime. by your definition that makes them as much as a sub species as blacks or native Americans or anyone else you consider as such.

 There are, and I was one of them.    But the point is that some ethnicities have bell curves of intelligence much higher than others.    That does not mean that du-mb, average, above average, or even gifted people do not exist in every race, but it is screamingly obvious that the proportions are different.   Western societies are supposed to be meritocracies and they usually work well because the smartest people, even from the lowest class, are upwardly mobile.   The du-mbest people stay on the bottom of society.     According to the cognitive metricians (who are scientists who recognise race) 70 years of IQ testing has revealed that African Americans have an mean (most common) IQ of 85, Hispanic Americans 93, white Americans 103, Asian Americans 106, and Jews 120.     Gee, whadyaknow?     That matches exactly the social layering of US society.   So too, Nobel Prize awards.   You are a smart guy, think that there is a connection? 

  It also once matched the student intake of US universities.    US ivy league universities would not accept the exam results of  provincial schools because marking was so subjective that it could be almost meaningless.    So universities instead used intelligence tests (SAT scores) to judge student suitability for higher learning courses.    This meant that black students were very much under represented in university intake numbers.    Asians and Jews were gaining most of the coveted student numbers in universities, although the whites did not complain.     But the blacks did.       They demanded "affirmative action" based upon the false narrative that all races were equal, therefore somehow the IQ tests were swayed towards whites, Asians, and Jews.   In this they were successful.   But then (unsurprisingly) most black students failed at the hard STEM courses.    They were so conspicuous by their absence in Advanced Mathematics that black activists actually called mathematics "racist."

 

Maxx quote    Yet only "by label" not scientifically.

 Oh, for fu-cks sake.    Science catogorises everything.   I am sorry if scientific categorisation does not conform to your wishful thinking.

 

Maxx quote    You are simply going by ethnicity!!

 I thought you claimed that "ethnicity" does not exist?   That's the funny thing about you far seeing "progressive" liberals, you claim that race and ethnicity doe not exist whenever it is convenient, and then you can see it a plain as day when it is convenient. 

 

 Maxx quote    You have yet given me any scientific proof of the biological differences; you just are making wild claims.

 How old are you?    I am starting to think I am talking to a 15 year old?   Scandinavians and Zulus look different because they are different races.  And I don't even need science to explain that.

 

Maxx quote    As well, adaptation to environment is Gentetic. It takes several generations to adapt physically to extreme cold or heat.

 Probably a lot more.    White skin which is better adapted to cold climates is believed to have evolved only 15000 years ago.

 

Maxx quote    Skin color was genetically adapted sometime after humans shed their hair. Now take blacks. OK. They are different in color because of natural pigmentation and have a bit different facial features. That does not make them sub human.

 You are playing word games, the mark of the desperate.     It does not make black people sub human, but it apparently means that they are not as a collective group as smart as the collective groups of whites, Asians, and Jews.     There are two theories as to why this may be so.    First, High intelligence appear to be related to the length of time an advanced civilisation has existed.    The longer the civilisation, the higher the group IQ of the people who comprise the population of that civilisation.    Second, people living in the tropics never have to plan around long cold winters and food supply problems. There is no need to engage in practice of cultivating crops and storing food for winter or building shelters for winter, or any of a plethora of other innovations that facilitate survival in harsh Northern climates.      In tropical areas, short term thinking instead becomes an adequate, successful model. These are manifested as a predisposition to think in short (time period) terms which in turn can be problematic when faced with carrying this type of ancestry into modernity. Not considering consequences of criminal acts and instead simply committing them, for example, may be a manifestation of this.

 

Maxx quote     Internally they are the same as you or I.

 Internally, a Cape Buffalo is nearly the same as the other three sub species of African Buffalos.     All of them are dangerous, but Cape Buffalos are really dangerous.    They are so dangerous that they are one of the "Big Five" of dangerous game pursued by big game hunters.

 

Maxx quote    The only real reason you make such claims is because of you consider them social outcasts based upon what you think of them.

 The reason why I am making these "claims" (actually observable reality)  is because I am sick and tired of my race being blamed for the dysfunctions of other races.     So I looked for another reason and I found it.     If you are a white person, than try and develop a functioning brain and do the same thing that I did, and defend your race from scurrilous racism. 

 

Maxxx quote    What you read in an opinion paper is valueless. You can not state a sub species exist based on how they act or skin color.

 I don't have to.  The Scientists have already done that for me.   

 

Maxx quote    I want a good quality scientific link that supports your argument that whites and blacks are a separate species based upon color, features, and social issues. 

 Look it up yourself.    I have been very patient with you and I have tried to explain everything to you in  a logical way which is understandable and verifiable.      But you are as fixated upon a falsehood which you believe in as much as PamelaJohnson believes in the idea that the earth is flat. No amount of reasoned argument can ever shift a person with that sort of mindset from thinking straight.       

maxx

Race - The scientific debate over “race” | Britannica  I never said that there were no ethnic groups.  I said it and their cultures and features did not change homo sapiens into another species. Your entire argument is backwards and not valid at all. You offer no scientific proof while I on the other hand can produce dozens of scientific/ biology links that show you are incorrect. Now let us  look at this logically. Originally humans were black or very dark in color. That is a fact. Everyone else diverged from them. Everyone else were the ones who changed their skin color, changed features, adjusted to new habitats, ate differently and so on. By those facts alone, blacks are not the sub species. What do you have left?  different values, lack  of education, ideas, morals and other social issues in which none changes a species into another one. These labels are all in your mind.  if you stand aside your dogmatism , I suggest you read the link from beginning to end. anyone with an open mind would do so. @Bogan ;  

Bogan

Hi maxx, well at least I have got you doing some research.   That's good.     Now look at wiki "Carl Linnaeus" and "sub species", and expand your scientific knowledge.     The best sanitiser of lies is the sunlight of knowledge. 

 

Maxx quote   I never said that there were no ethnic groups.  

You didn't?     Then my apologies.    I presumed that you did, because the principle is the same with every person who I have debated intelligently with on this topic.     They claim that race and ethnicity does not exist, but they can see race and ethnicity as plain as day when they are screaming "racism!   And they can see it as plain as day when saying how some ethnic group is disadvantaged, so they must get special privileges over and above what an other race gets.  If race does not exist, then racism can not exist.

 

Maxx quote    I said it and their cultures and features did not change homo sapiens into another species.

 Cultures can not turn a species into a sub species, adaptations to environmental conditions do.    This would be the third time I have told you that.    Do you have an English comprehension problem?

 

Maxx quote    Your entire argument is backwards and not valid at all.

Yet I am running rings around you, and you know it.     The reason why you are struggling and can only post one word to my ten, is that you are advocating for a false premise, and that can be a real struggle.   All you can rely on is your half remembered slogans and some politically partisan links who tell you complete bursheedo.    

 

Maxx quote    You offer no scientific proof while I on the other hand can produce dozens of scientific/ biology links that show you are incorrect.

 Maxx, the fact that your own link to Brittanica revealed that there are scientists who say that races exist and they differ from one another, shows that within the scientific world itself, there is a dispute about this topic.     The science is not settled.     But this is not a scientific dispute where scientists act like the gentlemen they are supposed to be, and who politely advocate for their particular points of view.    This is a "scientific" dispute where one side who has political support will do anything to shut the other side up.  That is not science.  Any scientist who disagrees either gets hounded, "cancelled", has their research funding cancelled, or sacked from their jobs. So claiming that science supports you when it is not only not settled, and scientists who oppose the official government ideology are being intimidated into silence, is not valid. 

 Just in case you have not noticed, universities today are no longer the sanctuaries of scientific thought that they are supposed to be.     They have been over taken by a screeching mob of neo-Marxists who demand intellectual conformity towards their humanitarian ideology.     Professors who go against the Party line are not engaged with in polite debate, they are actively threatened with death, have their classes invaded and disrupted, they are shouted down in meetings, have their cars vandalised, and are even sacked from their jobs, and hounded right out of their universities.    Nobel Laureate James Watson, who was the co discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, and who was also the head of the Human Genome Project, was sacked from his job and dismissed from his university when he simply stated to a reporter that the reason why African countries had not progressed was because genetically, Africans are not intelligent enough.    What would Watson know about genetics?      

 You are supporting the ideology of people who want to shut scientists up, Maxx.     This is exactly what happened in China during Mao's regime.     Any professor or scientist who spoke against the dogmas of the Party, was murdered, or paraded around campus wearing a dunce's hat.      Here in Australia, Emeritus Historian Geofrey Blainey was hounded out of Melbourne university when he would not agree with the "black armband" view of Australian history.    In Queensland, Professor Paul Ridd was sacked from his job when he criticised the scientific methodology of those who claimed that their research had uncovered that climate change was destroying the Great Barrier Reef.      The "Climategate" emails also revealed the fate of anyone who thoughtcrimed  against the Party line.     Here is one of those emails which clearly displayed that any climate scientist who did not accept the neo Marxist wisdom that human beings were destroying the planet through CO2 emissions got sacked.

 Climategate email     "If you think that Saiars is in the climate sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

 This is how science gets corrupted, Maxx.     A bunch of ideologues attain control, and they promote those who agree with their ideological point of view, and they sack anybody who disagrees with them.  This is how media organisations turn Marxist.   CNN, forty years ago the most respected and watched news service on the planet, who was rated at the world's most trusted news source, became so rabidly left wing that today, it is ranked at number 23, and it's audience is switching to other news sources.

 But let's get back to the intimidation of scientists who don't toe the Party line, or who say things that the screeching woke crowd do not want to hear.      We get to the Arthur Jenson scandal.       By the 1960's education researchers in the US were well aware of the 15 point gap between the IQ scores of African American students and Caucasian students.    At that time, US psychologists were almost unanimous in believing that the cause of the IQ gap was environmental factors such as  poor nutrition, poor education opportunities, racism, and discrimination.     Various taxpayer funded programs to improve minority IQ were instigated to remedy this, such as the Federal Headstart Program and the Early Childhood Program.  In these programs, kindergarten aged minority children were given free lunches at special schools where they were given cognitively stimulating teaching by quality teachers.     All of the supporters of these noble programs reported modest to huge gains in minority IQ.   Most claimed a modest 5 point gain, while one (dubbed by the media as "The Miracle in Milwaukee")  claimed a gain of 30 points.    The man responsible for this claim was jailed, when investigators discovered that he had fabricated his data, which when using taxpayer funds for scientific research, is a criminal offence in the USA. 

 A respected Educational Psychologist  by the name of Arthur Jensen was hired by the US Federal government to assess the veracity of the claims about IQ rises made by the various programs.      After examining and criticising the scientific methodology used to support the claims of IQ rises, Jenson ended up saying in his report that these "Compensatory Programs" were a complete failure.     He further enraged the liberal left by saying that it should at least be considered that the gap between white and black IQ's COULD HAVE a genetic basis.    In 1969, microbiological research into the genetic influence on human behaviour was very primitive, so at that time, no informed and impartial scientist could say if Jenson was right or wrong. 

 However, openly stating that genetics MIGHT be responsible for the IQ gap between whites and blacks, was not tolerated by the liberal left.   Jenson was vilified to the extent that he could not address the American Psychological Association meetings without bomb threats clearing the lecture hall.    His university police (Berkley) were constantly on the alert to any possible attack on his person while on campus.   He also received threats in the mail and had to change his address.      This is what happens to scientists who tell the anti racist activists what they don't want to hear, Maxx.  

 I could go on and on, about the intimidation of scientists, but that will have to do.  I am sure that you are a decent young person who has great respect for science, Maxx.    And you would agree with me that civilised societies and civilised people do not treat scientists this way, who make reasonable assertions that may be hotly disputed.   People who try to intimidate scientists and shut them up are wild eyed ideological zealots with no tolerance or respect at all for scientific discovery or opinion.    If you wish to ally yourself to such people and their causes, then I think you should think again, Maxx.

 

Maxx quote   Now let us  look at this logically.

 Yes, please.

 

Maxx quote    Originally humans were black or very dark in colour. That is a fact.

 So far, so good.

 

Maxx quote    Everyone else diverged from them. Everyone else were the ones who changed their skin color, changed features, adjusted to new habitats, ate differently and so on. By those facts alone, blacks are not the sub species.

 A race of black people who existed in west Africa 200,000 years ago are the ancestors of all human beings.    As a matter of fact, geneticists have discovered that the entire human race is descended from 32 individuals from that tiny band of people, who were the last survivors of the human species, who nearly became extinct for an environmental reason.     That is how close the human race got to extinction.  The sort of extinction event which claimed a dozen other distinct human species.     From that tiny band of humans, Maxx, all other sub species of humans have evolved.     To say that "black people" are the primary race is to deny that within black people themselves, races of identifiably different people exist.    Somalis especially are an easily identifiable race because of their physical appearance, and they are so dumb and violent that even Mohammad was leery of them.   They are so dumb and violent that they once even happily murdered the UN aid workers who were trying to stop them all from starving to death.   UN aid workers in Somalia dubbed Mogadishu "The city of the insane."

 

Maxx quote    What do you have left?  different values, lack  of education, ideas, morals and other social issues in which none changes a species into another one.

 What you have left, Maxx, is science.   The "tree of life" tells us that one species changes into another species gradually.   And the transition species are called "sub species".    It works with all Terran life forms, Maxx, and humans are no exception.      And the neo Marxist's who's propaganda you are unquestionably accepting know this.     That is why they have to take control of science itself in order to give their crazy ideology the stamp of scientific authority.   And you are helping them to destroy science by advocating for their nutty social theories?    Do not pretend that you are a fearless seeker of the truth, Maxx.     You are just another brain washed "intellectual" wannabee who thinks that the way to display how "smart" you are is to simply sprout the Party line and never question it. 

 

Maxx quote    These labels are all in your mind. 

 They are scientific labels, Maxx, not mine.     The great Naturalist Carl Linnaeus defined them and they are universally accepted by naturalists and biologists today.     But they had better keep their mouth shut and keep it too themselves.   Don't mention it to the public or the press, or like Watson, they will (metaphorically) end up flipping burgers in McDonald's for a living

 

Maxx quote    If you stand aside your dogmatism , I suggest you read the link from beginning to end. anyone with an open mind would do so. 

 I did just that.    The author of your link at least informed you that the science is not settled.  That at the very least should switch on your ability to be skeptical and scientifically impartial.      Your link was written in such a sway as to suggest that those scientists who do not toe the Party line are cranks.    But what it pointedly omitted telling you, Maxx, is that those scientists who agree that human races exist and they differ from each other, are intimidated into silence.     That should give you a clue as to what the political beliefs of the author of that article really are.  Or, who know?   Perhaps the author of that article appreciates that if he or she gives the scientific heretics to the prevailing orthodoxy any credence, then like Watson, Ridd, Saiars, Jenson, and Blainey, he or she will be looking for another job too.

maxx

I have looked up various pages on your carl and at best he was a botanist who classified plants and animals. What you are trying to do is push his ideals into the human realm in which he never said the things that you claim he did so. He was the one who termed us as homo sapiens. I see no where as to him classifing "humans" into sub species, just plants and lower animals. You are trying to take his ideals further and suggest his ideals correspond with yours.  I enclose two links on him Carl Linnaeus: The man who classified us Homo sapiens (sdnhm.org)    Carl Linnaeus - Wikipedia   Now at this point, unless you can find me something where carl classified humans as sub species, then I suggest you disregard him. Also you keep saying that science shows homo sapiens to have sub species with out any backing from science. You are simply going by social labels, not actual biological changes other than physical features and again, physical features do not change a species; unless you can show me actual proof. Yes I know how close humans came to extinction, and how the rest of humanity sprang from that small bunch; however at that point of your statement, you instantly went into claiming from that small group, sub species emerged. However from that point on, when the humans left the warmer zones, they began to lose their pigmentation and they changed color. According to you everyone who emerged from those small group of people were sub species simply because of some physical changes and habitats. That means we whites are sub species, so tell me, from that little tribe of people who were black, and their decedents, when did they become and why do you believe that the original people who were black became a sub species?  @Bogan ; Biological races in humans - PubMed (nih.gov)

Bogan

@maxx

Maxx quote    I have looked up various pages on your carl and at best he was a botanist who classified plants and animals.

 He was a lot more than that, and you know it.     He was the guy who invented the scientific taxonomical classification system which is still used today.      Your silly statement equates with saying that Charles Darwin was just a geologist and a biologist.

 

Maxx quote    What you are trying to do is push his ideals into the human realm in which he never said the things that you claim he did so.

 Carl Linnaeus created the scientific classification system for all Terran life forms.    That included human beings.    I am so sorry for you that science disagrees with your passionately held, world saving neo Marxist ideology, that is advocated by violent nut cases who will attack any scientist who disagrees with their false narrative.    But them's the breaks.

 

Maxx quote    He was the one who termed us as homo sapiens. I see no where as to him classifing "humans" into sub species, just plants and lower animals.

 Then you obviously did not read the wiki link to him which I asked you to read.    You did not do that because you feared it would tell you something that you did not want to know.    Some fearless seeker of the truth, you are, Maxx.

 

Maxx quote    You are trying to take his ideals further and suggest his ideals correspond with yours. 

 I do not know what his "ideals" were.    All I know is that he invented the scientific classification system to categorise all Terran life forms, which is still used today.     And he classified human beings into a species, and into various sub species, which equates to the two definitions of the everyday English word "race."    You asked for examples of that, and I gave them to you.  Now you are claiming that he did not classify human races.    How do mange to write such barefaced lies?   

 

Maxx quote     I enclose two links on him Carl Linnaeus: The man who classified us Homo sapiens (sdnhm.org)    Carl Linnaeus - Wikipedia   Now at this point, unless you can find me something where carl classified humans as sub species, then I suggest you disregard him.

 I did just that and you did not even bother to read it.     Why you wish to wallow in ignorance is beyond me?     I suppose you think like any other rabid radical.     You dream up an ideology which will supposedly SAVE THE WORLD and you will not countenance any fact, opinion, or self evident observable reality, which proves that your ideology is a wishful thinking fairy tale.    

 

Maxx quote    Also you keep saying that science shows homo sapiens to have sub species with out any backing from science.

 Not only did I say it, when you asked for examples, I even gave them to you.     And here you are claiming that science does not recognise human sub species?   I feel like I am talking to a brick wall.

 

Maxx quote    You are simply going by social labels, not actual biological changes other than physical features and again, physical features do not change a species; unless you can show me actual proof.

 For God's sake re read your garbled statement and rewrite so it makes sense.    Stop typing the first half baked silly thought that springs into your befuddled head.   I am sick and tired of trying to figure out what your garbled grammar actually means.

 

Maxxx quote    Yes I know how close humans came to extinction, and how the rest of humanity sprang from that small bunch; however at that point of your statement, you instantly went into claiming from that small group, sub species emerged.

 Which is a reasonable assumption. What is yours?

 

 Maxx quote   However from that point on, when the humans left the warmer zones, they began to lose their pigmentation and they changed colour. According to you everyone who emerged from those small group of people were sub species simply because of some physical changes and habitats.

 Which is how every sub species of life on earth becomes a sub species.   It adapts and changes it's appearance to give it an advantage within that  particular environment.    And that works for humans as well as for animals.     And that is a very easy concept to understand.    How long have you had this inability to understand simple concepts and follow a logical progression?     I have explained all of this to you at least four times.      If I were you, I would not bother trying to join the local Audubon Society.

 

Maxx quote     That means we whites are sub species, so tell me, from that little tribe of people who were black, and their decedents, when did they become and why do you believe that the original people who were black became a sub species?  

 

Because nobody knows exactly what that original band of people even looked like.    The story of what must have been was traced through familial genetics.    But one thing is for sure, every person on planet earth descended from that little band of survivors.     They were black Africans, and their descendents spread throughout the world, changing their appearance, and their IQ, diet, and behaviour, to give each an advantage within the wildly different environments they kept evolving in.     If you can't understand that, then go and ask the ten year old girl next door to explain it to you, and I am sure that she can oblige. I thought my last post to you knocked you for six, but instead you come back just repeating everything you have written previously like a parrot, and demanding that I answer questions which I have already answered and fully explained to you.      

 The point that I made, which you so studiously ignored, is that the whole idea of racial equality is advocated by left wing loonies who have no regard for scientific thought or discovery.    They openly persecute any scientist who dares to provide scientific material which does not give scientific authority to their woke worldview, and I gave five examples of that.     The question I fu-ckingwell demand that you answer, is why do you support the causes of people who are doing their utmost to force scientists to either support their narrative, or ?

 Don't bother replying again to my submissions again until you answer that crucial question.  If you don't, I will simply keep asking the question over and over and I will not respond to you until you answer it.     Don't try doing a MayCaesar on me. 

maxx

I have asked you for proof that carl said the things that you claimed he did. No where in the links i enclosed nor the ones that you posted, were there any mention that he said "humans" became sub species. If so, then i suggest you pull the quote out of the rabbits hat and post it. Also science does agree with me that  humans are all the biologically the same species and the only sub species are but deemed by social labels. return to the link by pub med and read it again. The only link that you posted to support your argument was on carl, and again, there is no mention of humans becoming a sub species. Other than that, you have shown no scientific support. We are all racist, for as in my OP I believe it is hardwired into us for the reasons i earlier outlined. However, many can adjust to it and live a normal life with out it affecting them too much.Yet some, on the other hand, in which you seem to be one, carry it to the extreme and become white supremacists, which is not smart  for various reasons.  The main reason is you are the type of people who start  trouble when there is none, just to justify your actions; as well as wars, support slavery and so on. AS FOR YOUR QUESTION,  I do not support causes. No where in my writings have even the slightest evidence of me saying so.That is all in your mind because you think everyone is involved in left and right wing politics. Claiming i support a cause simply because I simply go by what science states is inane and ridiculous.  Now according to science in which i looked up various papers, the people who almost became extinct, still lived in africa or south asia, which kept them as a very dark color. So my question still stands on why do you consider them sub species? First your response would be that they are different than others, which is incorrect, considering that they are actually, the color and features of the original humans, so it is us who are different than them. You are so hung up on concepts and labels, that you fail to see the actual science of what makes a species change. I know the reason as to why you consider them a sub species and that is because you associate all of them as below social standards, and not for any actual biological change. Everyone, all other humans diverged from blacks so you can not consider blacks as sub because of habitat, features, or anything else you can think of for we diverged from them; so again the only option you have left is social labeling and that is not a scientific qualification of one species to change into another. @Bogan

Bogan

I have given you proof that Carl Linnaeus not only invented the science of Taxonomy, he even gave names to sub species of human beings who equate to the second definition of "race" in the English language.    It is obvious that you are not going to let the facts get in the way of your humanitarian wishful thinking?

So, let's try another tack, and see if I can still get you thinking straight?

You not only agree with the premise that human beings are tribal and territorial, you even advocate for that sensible position.   And you have not been slow at sneering at the brain deads like Dee and Nomenclature, who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge what any thinking person would regard as self evident.      You also like to display your knowledge of psychology, and I think that you created this topic as a way of displaying your knowledge of this branch of science.

So, if you know Psychology, then you must be aware of it's history?     At the beginning of the 20th Century, the most fashionable "school" of Psychology was the Behaviorist School of Psychology, invented by a rabid socialist named BV Skinner.     Like all damned socialists, Skinner was obsessed with equality.      The Behaviourist school insisted that every human on earth was absolutely equal, and that genetics played no part at all in understanding human behaviour    The Behaviorists claimed that all human behaviour is entirely learned.    The Behaviourists in those days were not so obsessed with race as they are today, but they were very obsessed with class.    "Class" they said, did not exist.  Everybody was equal.  "Class  was a "human construct".   Heard that one before, have you?

 The Behaviourists claimed that you could take a kindergarten aged child from a poor neighbourhood, and if you looked after him, and fed him nutritious food, and educated him, you could turn him into a top scientist.      By the 1960's most psychologists were Behaviourists.    But even these scientists were aware that there existed a 15 point IQ difference between US whites and US Africans.      The solution, they said, was for the various US state and Federal governments to step in and raise African (and other minority) IQ through special programs, which would provide both food and quality teachers to provide cognitively stimulating education programs that would raise minority IQ's.   This, they claimed with a flourish, would prove that all human beings were absolutely equal.    Class and race were just fantasies.

 Now, if you have any brains at all, then you have to agree that if a branch of science proposes a thesis, and is then given the funding it needs to create the experiments which will validate it's theories, and they all fail miserably, then something is wrong with their basic premises?     'Behaviourism" as a "school of thought" began to decline within Psychology.     In it's place the new school of thought is Evolutionary Psychology.     Evolutionary psychologists maintain that human behaviour is a factor of both nature (genetics) and nurture.    

 So what we get is you, who by claiming that you understand that human beings are tribal and territorial, you agree with the Evolutionists that genetics plays a part in human behaviour?    But then, rather perversely, you are also advocating for the Behaviourists by claiming that everybody is equal in every way, and that genetics therefore plays no part in human behaviour? 

 You can't have it both ways, Maxx.    Either the Behaviourists were right, and races and class does not exist because they are "human constructs" and everybody is equal?   Or, the Evolutionist are right, and genetics does play a part in understanding human behaviour?   The Behaviourists tried to prove that if an idenfiable group of people have a low IQ, then all you have to do is feed them and educate them and "voila", you can turn a ghetto black child into a new adult Einstein.    They were given the chance to prove that their scientific theory worked, and it failed.    So, any ninny, even Dee, Piloteer, and Barnadot should have the mental acuity to figure out that it is all bursheedo.     We-e-e-e-ell, perhaps not those three?

 Science recognises the concept of race.  You can deny it, and deny it, and deny it.  But all you are doing, is advocating for the Behaviourists at the same time you are agreeing with the Evolutionists.   Which is a contraction.    If you know Psychology, then you would know that you are engaging in "cognitive dissonance."      The only way that the Behaviourist fiction that everybody is equal in every way,  and genetics has no part to play in human behaviour, can still be advocated, is by intimidating the ever growing number of Evolutionary scientists from the various branches of Psychology and genetics, who are saying the exact opposite.

 Because no matter how much you deny reality, psychologists, criminologists, cognitive metricians, and geneticists today know that the Evolutionists are right and the Behaviourists are wrong.    Human behaviour is a product of both genes and upbringing.    You are in the rather odd position of claiming that you understand psychology, and then claiming that both schools of thought are true.

 I recounted to you the fate of top geneticist and Nobel Laureate James Watson when he simply remarked to a journalist that genetically, Africans are not intelligent enough to create a modern society.    And I recounted to you the fate of Arthur Jenson, the Educational Psychologist who reviewed the various government programs which were supposed to rise IQ among minority children, and how he reported that they failed.    All Jenson did then, was to simply suggest that genetics MIGHT be a factor in intelligence, and every wild eyed screeching science denier came after him looking for blood.   

 Science today is being intimidated into silence.    The powers-that-be and the anti science zealots no longer burn scientists at the stake, or show them the instruments of torture.    If scientists today openly state their heretical opinions about some holy official government ideology, or they do not recant that heresy, governments and the anti science zealots who support them electorally, just destroy their careers, or send them death threats and shout them down.    Genetic conferences today are held in camera through invitation only.   The press and the public are pointedly excluded. Just as in the days of Kepler and Galileo, scientists openly discuss among themselves the scientific facts which the anti science ideologies would burn them at the stake for, if they could still do it.        Every person with a thinking brain knows that science must never be intimidated into silence.     The reason why the western world rocketed ahead of every other civilisation on this planet, is because, 400 years ago, European people began to figure out that science, if done correctly, is right, and scientists must never be intimidated.

 So your position is a contradiction.    You support two opposing schools of psychological thought, which is blo-ody odd.     And even though you know that intimidating scientists into silence is utterly reprehensible, you are siding with the ideologues who are doing just that.  

maxx

I think we have crossed wires someplace. I never said everyone is equal, nor have I said all ethnic or culture groups are equal , nor of humanity as a whole. Theuy are not equal in various ways, however in social regards, not genetically. Education, moral, values, ideals, and so on, are not equal at all in people, however that is just individually, not as a whole culture or group. I am sure there are some tribes that are backwards enough to fit the criteria of not being equal at all to our standards. Now when you say class, we must make a distinction. In one regard, class is but a social concept, where some have more rights, higher standards, better education and so on. That just means that they believe that they are better than others based on that premises , yet that again is not a different species nor does it change others into a sub species based upon their belief.It is but a concept. The other class option we have is hierarchy.  . Hierarchy exists everywhere and I believed it is built into  humans as well. I think how children at a very young age, bully others is automatic just to show dominance over others, which is a form of hierarchy. A child will bully another to show that the other must be shown his place at a lower level. Regardless of which idea you have on class; or equality; Each individual has the ability to be equal to others, with proper education, income, and so on regardless of color, creed, or habitat.  Birthright is a social concept; and there are many people who are born with what some call low standards, that have risen above the issue and became just as equal as anyone.  What you are saying, and without actual proof is blacks, have not the ability to become as intellectual as others. All human brains are basically the same and at birth they are almost a blank slate. Unless they are mentally deficient due to some abnormality, then they have just the same capacity to learn and be as intelligent as anyone else. I am not sure who or how these so called I.Q tests were carried out, but i seriously doubt that they were fair. Given two babies at birth in the same setting, all thing being equal, both have the same chances at becoming intelligent. I never was an actual behaviorist; and i am sure given parents that were very low on the smarts department, there may be the genetics passed on to the child, yet if would be so miniscule, that again, all things being equal at birth, it would not be enough to compromise the childs development mentally. Now as to the first part of your reply, again after careful reading about carl, i see no place as to where he stated that humans developed into separate species based upon biological changes; perhaps he meant social changes, i do not know; yet if he said we changed biologically, in which science says must happen to a species to actually become a different species, I am sure it is an easy matter for you to produce the quote for me. @Bogan

Nomenclature

@maxx

you refuse to debate. I have already talked with arrong about the rules of the fcc governing sites like these.

Did you mention to him that you've been making vicious, unhinged threats against other users? Threats like:-

dee one of these days i or my associates will find you and you will no longer be able to use that mouth of yours. I have friends right now tracking down your IP address. Wont be hard from that point.  If it cost too much to fly over there, well a nice virus will suit me fine. @Dee

What kind of deranged psychopath makes threats like the above and then tattles to admin about the conduct of someone else?

You're one seriously unbalanced individual, Maxx. 

maxx

oh troll, if someone called you a pedophile constantly, what would you do.@Nomenclature

maxx

if someone called you a pedophile constantly, what would you do.@Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

oh troll, if someone called you a pedophile constantly, what would you do.@Nomenclature

Well, I wouldn't threaten to fly halfway across the world and murder them, or breach their right to privacy by having someone track their IP address.  I'd probably just ignore them.

maxx

yeah sure you would. As well, it seems obvious that you are not able to debate the topic with any regard to intellect, so I assume you just entered the debate to troll and insult me? Is that it?@Nomenclature

Bogan

Catch you later, maxx.  I just got my boat out and I am going fishing.      I will get back to you in around 8 hours.

Dee

@Nomenclature

Thanks Nom  for pointing his hypocrisy out , he's a  big child

Maxx never stops whining to mods , he's received several warnings about his harassment and trolling of others , he loves dishing it out but cries like a whiny little girl when he's gets some back 

Nomenclature

@maxx

it seems obvious that you are not able to debate the topic with any regard to intellect

And your basis for that claim is that I'm not making death threats to other users?

You certainly are a strange one, Maxx.

maxx

very well, have fun .   As for the debate, I doubt that we will agree. We may agree upon  some points, but are stuck on what actually changes a species into another. Tour argument has been strong, coherent, concise, and well written; I just believe it could use more support.. However it seems the trolls have re-emerged and since they can not intellectually join, will resort back to their sophomoric insults. @Bogan

maxx

case in point. bogan and I are having a decent debate on the psychological issues of race, and both dee and nom are unable to intellectually join, so they return to nothing but insults. That is all you guys are able to do.  @Dee