RE: The Human Race 2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Termyn8or -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/19/2008 8:16:54 PM)

Y'know what I see alot in the world ; people don't always get the concept when an analogy is used. Some think in this case that I mean dogs. I could have used rodents. Like dogs they greatly differ in size, but I think that would be counterproductive. It seems damn hard enough for people to grasp the concept how it is.

Realize that this was not meant to be a comparison of humans to dogs, not at all. It is meant to illustrate that humans have a hard time comparing humans to humans as we compare dogs to dogs.

Until people advance from the current thinking medical science spins it's wheels. Yes there are advances, but not any real advances in nutrition. And diseases.

As the most obvious example, who gets sickle cell ?  How many Japanese alcoholics are out there ? What about Cubans, when jailed here and are taken away from their native diet, who become deathly ill ? What about the guy who developed a drug strictly for Blacks tailored for their specific problems who got ostricised for it ?

These specifics are not actually the subject of the OP, the fact that people have an irrational aversion to talking about them is the point.

And speaking of a number of proto-races starting in different parts of the world, that is my theory, I was not there and neither were you. Using the dog analogy, did all dogs develop in the same region of the world ? Or did they develop before Pangea split ? And is that a possibility for humans as well ? Even during the ice age there were no doubt some regions of the world that were inhabitable. The theory of Pangea is just that, evidenced by the uncanny fitting of certain coastlines and continental drift support the theory but do not prove it.

Looking all aroud me, along with all I have read, and a few conclusions of my own, I think it unlikely the mankind spawned in one place and one place only. That is alot of travelling. Same with dogs, some are excellent swimmers, but do you think they could swim the Atlantic Ocean ?

All I have said about this today is that something is possible, nobody can prove otherwise.

And what makes me better than anyone else ? Absolutely nothing. It is not true when you take the word in that context. I just do not know the word for it. I think it's not too unreasonable to say that I am more intelligent than some. That I have better earning power than some. That I have more varied skills and abilities than some. But does that mean I am better ?

We are already out of the racist shit, let's talk INTRARACIALLY. My own race, let's get to a more specific definition of that than just Black or White. Paternally I am a Polack. Unfortunately through life I may have proven some Polish jokes, but in thoe cases luckily it was something that could be laughed about. I am ¼ German, ¼ Checkoslovakian and other than Polish, and what I have mentioned, there is very little.

Now I can do alot of things, I am a Termy of many trades, but only a master of one. Electronics. I can just about build a house, run lathes and stuff, design and build things, but so can most of my family. However I have this cousin who is literally the only one I know who knows more electronics than I, with the exception of Thomas Tornblum,  who I corresponded with and did some business with.

Does that make them better than me ?

That was a poor word to use, you can be better at something or another, but that doesn't make you better. You could be A better technician, A better mechanic, A better carpenter A better anything. But just not better, no matter where you are on the food chain or socioeconimic scale. A better something describes more skill at something.

So someone who may be a better linguist than I could perhaps come up with the proper word for that which I describe. A word that specifically describes it, taking into account that a thief may save your life, and that a philanthopist might fuck you over. I think my vocabulary is pretty good, but for this subject, I am at a loss.

You may all think I am crazy by now, but so be it.

T



DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/19/2008 8:46:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I quote:
 
"It is rare for Caucasians to develop lactose intolerance. However, it is quite common among people from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and some Mediterranean countries, as well as Australian Aborigines. The prevalence of lactose intolerance is five per cent in Caucasians and up to 75 per cent in non-Caucasians".
 
Then there is the difference in the ability of people with different amounts of melanin to produce vitamin D in the skin (melanin blocks the required UV radiation). I also know that there is a correlation of some kind between pigmentation and the rate of occurrence of a certain blood cancer (perhaps Burkitt's lymphoma), as I have written a couple of sentences about that in my book about the main cause of chronic diseases.
 
Also I recall having read about a difference in taste receptors between Japanese and Korean people or thereabouts and other populations.
 
These are differences that I recall off hand. I have never paid much attention to them, except when they interest me for theoretical reasons, such as the lactose intolerance and the vitamin D production and the variation in pigmentation.
 
There also appear to be differences between populations in effectiveness of medication, but I know next to nothing about that subject as I do not am a pharmacist nor a physician.

Lactose tolerance appears in people of all so called races. melanin is definitely present in all non albinos. If you have some way to measure melanin concentration and definitively identify someones ancestry I'd like to see it. Better make sure it takes Australian natives into account. Can't find anything about japanese and korean taste buds but as japanese and koreans would be in the same 'race' that isn't a biochemical difference between races either. Medication effectiveness is another one of those spectrum problems like lactose tolerance, a higher percentage of certain ancestry groups have a certain reaction to a specific drug that does some other population of different ancestry.

So all told not one biochemical difference between races.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/19/2008 9:27:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

As the most obvious example, who gets sickle cell ?
People whose ancestors lived in malaria-ridden areas of Europe, Africa, and Asia. 
quote:

How many Japanese alcoholics are out there ?
A lot. http://www.taima.org/en/alcohol.htm
quote:

 What about Cubans, when jailed here and are taken away from their native diet, who become deathly ill ?
Got a link?
quote:

What about the guy who developed a drug strictly for Blacks tailored for their specific problems who got ostricised for it ?
Got a link?

quote:

And speaking of a number of proto-races starting in different parts of the world, that is my theory, I was not there and neither were you.
That's not a theory, that's faith-based delusion. You and Rule and a few others have no idea what a theory in Scinece is, do you?
"
According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]"

quote:

Using the dog analogy, did all dogs develop in the same region of the world ? Or did they develop before Pangea split ?
Your dog analogy is idiotic beyond words.
quote:

 And is that a possibility for humans as well ? Even during the ice age there were no doubt some regions of the world that were inhabitable. The theory of Pangea is just that, evidenced by the uncanny fitting of certain coastlines and continental drift support the theory but do not prove it.

"Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in Argentina, South Africa, India and Australia, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents would have been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has only been found in localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West-Africa.[5]
In addition, the geology of adjacent continents, such as the western cost of South America is similar to the eastern cost of Africa." Wikipedia

quote:

Looking all aroud me, along with all I have read, and a few conclusions of my own, I think it unlikely the mankind spawned in one place and one place only. That is alot of travelling. Same with dogs, some are excellent swimmers, but do you think they could swim the Atlantic Ocean ?
It doesn't matter what you think. There is not a single shred of evidence supporting your position. The Nazis tried for over 20 years to prove that "Aryans" were a different "race" than everyone else, and that "Aryans" developed elsewhere than Africa, but they couldn't prove fuck-all. And neither you nor Rule can prove any such thing today. You both have proved conclusively another thing, though.

quote:

All I have said about this today is that something is possible, nobody can prove otherwise.
Nobody needs to. Nobody else is asserting such racist drivel. it's up to you to prove your shit, and you CAN'T.

quote:

And what makes me better than anyone else ? Absolutely nothing. It is not true when you take the word in that context. I just do not know the word for it. I think it's not too unreasonable to say that I am more intelligent than some. That I have better earning power than some. That I have more varied skills and abilities than some. But does that mean I am better ?
You are the one who used the word. You were very clear in your meaning. Now you are trying to back-pedal.  If you didn't think you were better than everybody else, why even bother saying such a stupid thing? The whole planet knows they have differing abilities, earning power (fuck-a-doodle-doo for that), intelligence, et cetera. That's one of those empirical truths. That's like pointing out that humans breathe air. No, we got you the first time.

quote:

We are already out of the racist shit, let's talk INTRARACIALLY. My own race, let's get to a more specific definition of that than just Black or White. Paternally I am a Polack.
This is as stupid as anything else you have said. (at least you are consistent). I have a little oval sticker on the rear window of my Benz, says "Preußen". (Hmmm, wonder why he picked that? He's obviously Aryan) That means Prussia. Why don't you take a look at a pre-WWI map? Here, I'll help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia  Holy Hanseatic League, Batman! Look where Prussia is! (for an extra point, find Danzig)
quote:

Unfortunately through life I may have proven some Polish jokes, but in thoe cases luckily it was something that could be laughed about. I am ¼ German, ¼ Checkoslovakian and other than Polish, and what I have mentioned, there is very little.
As you have been told many times recently, Mr. Eugenics, ain't no such thing as "race". Fact of the matter is, your ancestors come from all over the fucking place. Even Mongolia! But they originally came from Africa. That's right, Mr. White. You're Black!!!! Hahahaha

quote:

You may all think I am crazy by now, but so be it.

T
Now why would anyone think that?



luckydog1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/19/2008 10:59:26 PM)

Why would dogs have had to swim the Atlantic Ocean?   All dogs come from one domesticated line long ago, in Africa, and spread around the world with thier humans.  Dogs are one type of Cannine.  Wolves, Hyenas, and a few other critters are from the same Familly.  Humans are in the same family as other primates, Monkeys, Gorrillas, ect. 

It was not neccessary to have Pangea or Gwondoland to get from continet to continent.  Durring periods of heavy Glaciation ( as opposed to the inter glacial period we are now in)  the Oceans were much lower.  You could walk or boat among continents with out ever losing sight of land.  The Bering Straight between the East and Western Hemispheres, and a mostly land bridge accross Indonesia to Australia.

The fossil record of having the same type of animals at the same time, untill the continents did split, in the coresponding layers of the regions theorised to have been connected at one time, after which the fossil records did begin to change, is damn good evidence for the existance of Pangea.  Have anything that contradicts it?

If humans had developed seperatly in different places, we would not be able to mate.  We would be different creatures.  We can mate, there is no difference in our DNA, we are one species.  Race is an artificial catagorisation system based on skin color.  Unless you want to talk about our race as opposed to the other races of Primates. 



Termyn8or -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 12:52:11 AM)

Hippie you done lost me. You have that disease. You still don't see the original point.

We seem to agree on some things, but not on this, and it looks like that is not going to change.

A little bit of modern science is a dangerous thing. I submit this now. I even went to intraracial and yet found nothing. Let's boil it down even further. Do you believe that the food pyramid is correct ? Forget race and my dragging knuckles for a moment, and consider this ; A bricklayer in the union is required to lay several hundred brick a day. I can show you the books from the fucking union from a buddy of mine who went through the apprenticeship.

Then we have an accountant, who works at home. Very sedentary, surfs and plays on the PC most of his off time. If you are such the scientist, and really I do capitulate about the word theory, almost. But if we are all the same under the skin as the theo-scientists would have us believe, you would have to go along with accepted theory that we are all the same under the skin.

Let's add one more factor to this, they are identical twin brothers. Now if you can say that their dietary requirements are the same, you are obviously missing something. If you admit that twin brothers are not the same under the skin by admitting that they have different dietary requirements, you contradict yourself.

Checkmate. They don't call me the Terminator for nothing.

T

T



Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 1:14:26 AM)

That's as dopey as your dog-human idiocy. You can't say one way or another what nutrients each man may or may not require. All you can predict is that they will use different amonunts of energy for different activities. That is due to "Energy Balance".

That's as brilliant as saying the bricklaying twin sweats more, so he needs more water. IOW, that's a big-league DUH.



Rule -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 2:41:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So all told not one biochemical difference between races.
Spectrum differences do not exist or are no differences between populations? (Note that biologists use the accurately defined word population instead of lay people that use the ill-defined word race; arguably such lay people are racists. In all my posts on CM forums I do not speak about races, but about populations.)
 
If spectrum differences between populations did not exist, such as those between the populations of one side of the river and the other side of the river, for biologists the word would have no meaning.
 
DK, spectrum differences between populations do exist. You insisting that spectrum differences between populations are not actual differences is not logical.



Rule -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 3:20:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
You and Rule and a few others have no idea what a theory in Scinece is, do you?

My name is idly used. How do you know that I have no idea what a theory is? Have you asked me? Not that I recall. So does my memory fail me? Can you quote me on this, refer me to a thread or post where I spoke about the concept of a theory, or have we perchance corresponded about the subject by cmail on the other side? Or is this conceivably simply one more of the many wild and unwarranted accusations that you suck out of your thumb and smear those that disagree with your mighty omniscience mind? Talk about hubris. [8|]
Have you ever discovered something new in science, Hk? I have: thousands.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
The Nazis tried for over 20 years to prove that "Aryans" were a different "race" than everyone else, and that "Aryans" developed elsewhere than Africa, but they couldn't prove fuck-all. And neither you nor Rule can prove any such thing today.
Again my name is idly used. Where have I ever said that I try to prove such a thing? Again one more of the many wild and unwarranted accusations that you suck out of your thumb and smear those that disagree with your mighty omniscience mind. Hubris again. [8|]
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
You both have proved conclusively another thing, though.

I did? T did? Like what? Unless it is that you suck many wild and unwarranted accusations out of your thumb and smear those that disagree with your mighty omniscience mind.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
Now you are trying to back-pedal.

He is not back-pedalling. As I read it, T admitted that he was wrong to say it as he did. Admitting that one was wrong is adult forum behaviour. It is what people that take responsibility for what they say and that hold themselves accountable for what they say, do. This is yet one more example of your warped interpretations of what other people say and of the many wild and unwarranted accusations that you suck out of your thumb and smear those that disagree with your mighty omniscience mind.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
As you have been told many times recently, Mr. Eugenics, ain't no such thing as "race".

Indeed, there is no such thing. Then why talk about it as you incessantly do?
 
T sometimes does have wrong and weird ideas, but I respect him for these reasons: he is rational, accountable for his actions, upright, discusses issues in a proper and adult way, does not smear other people, does not warp their statements, and is not sanctimonious.



Termyn8or -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 3:41:59 AM)

lucky, as many things you have said in the past that make sense, now you blow it all with this ?

"Race is an artificial catagorisation system based on skin color."

Are you fucking kidding me ? They can tell your race by you fucking fossil, or skeletal remains. Didn't you ever hear about that ? What does skin color have to do with some Orientals having a hard time using the 'R' sound in speech ?

If we are all the same under the skin what does skin color have to do with blood. Now it is either that certain associated traits occur together in individuals of certain races or regions of ethinic or geographical origin.

But then, is it a genetically ralated factor to skin color that some are predisposed to diseases like sickle cell ? Or is that what I was saying all along, simply that certain traits go together. I am only talking about physiology here, nothing else.

But some can't get that through their fucking head.

The stance that some have taken seems to indicate that racial differences of any kind, are expressing a form of inequality. That is so plain wrong.

I am not going to quote your quotes, I am not going to come in here with fifty fucking links. I ain'tn doing it. I already gave you links, how many read the last one ? Unfortunately it is a zip file and in my personl FTP, but is that not a link ?

Then the source, cam't trust them because we can't see all the letters after their name right ? but stangely when I put their cites into Google it was coming up with .gov and .edu sites.

Sorry. It is about twenty five webpages, and they are linked. I can't host it without doing some serious editing due to filename isssues and if you are too lazy to get it and read it, why am I wasting my time ? You throw me pages miles long about who the fuck knows what.

I am not playing the old game, there is a new game. You tell me what you want to say and I will tell you what I want to say. You can never prove me wrong on certain issues because I am well aware of the evidence against my position, I simply, however, do not accept it.

I do not even accept E=MC^2. I do not care how widely accepted any notion may be, it is still either true or not.

What did they think a hundred years ago ? Two hundred yars ago, in fact two thousand years ago. The truth is you know as much as I do, nothing.

Tubes, transistors, internal combustion engines, they are all proven, because they work. We know very little about how the mind works with the body, but appparently they are working on that, but not to give us a healthier life, hell no.

That is a whole different subject though.

T




seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 3:45:00 AM)

To anybody....
Once again the racial difference debate has brought to the fore the mechanical sentimentalists who assert, out of their basic goodness and compassion that the concept of race is flawed because for example  there exists  as much genetic diversity within the races as between the races.

If it were known what it is that makes a fully completed race or population or even a single human being then I suppose this argument would carry some weight. The fact is that it is not known. Thus brain functions such as consciousness,  reasoning capacity, memory etc are total mysteries. It may well be known where such functionally resides but not how it operates.

That being true then it is quite reasonable to try to categorise what we can identify about humans and a perfectly sensible method  is, when differences are observed, to file those differences and eventually arrive at a racial identity. Then when  races have been identified to take a look at performance differences across the racial divides.

When that is done obvious differences in capability are recognised and the conclusion cannot be denied that when viewed as groups those racial populations are not equal. A difference as basic as this supports the validity of the existence of race. 
Whether at some distant past time we were all the same is a moot point, the plain fact is that we not all the same now.
No amount of sentiment can alter that IMO.

Since Termys posts are so difficult to understand I am not sure whether this is relevant, but it is my view.



RealityLicks -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 5:12:17 AM)

Who said the Neanderthals had died out?



seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 5:17:14 AM)

Speaking as a failed Maths graduate I notice you are stuck for an argument.....again.
he he he he he he
Use a Dikshunerry and look up the word debate, its not far from the word denile



christine1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 5:18:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

Who said the Neanderthals had died out?


not me....i happen to work with several of them.



RealityLicks -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 5:21:47 AM)

Neanderthal - its in the dictionary just above "Neurotic insecurities"!



LadyEllen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 5:55:11 AM)

Well I've read it all the way through, and I'm still not totally sure what the point of this thread is?

If its to say that there are distinct physiological or behavioural or capacity traits between identifiably differing populations, then to an extent I can agree - but to hold that these distinct traits have some connection to genetics I find shaky at best, since I believe that on closer examination we're likely to find that any distinctions are most likely to lie in environmental influences more than anything else.

For instance, a population with a high lactose intolerance is more likely to be one which became identifiably different from other populations from not relying on cows' milk as part of its diet - and vice versa applies equally. The necessity to be lactose tolerant for we Europeans is obvious, because our population relies on cows' milk and products thereof for nutrition. Other populations may have never seen a cow, or regard cows differently to our culture, and so lactose tolerance may have been lost or never developed.

Similarly with other physiological differences; north Europeans for instance are apparently the tallest population on the planet - not because of genetic differences but because of a high protein diet. And skin colouration and facial differences in Africans compared to us are equally products of their environment, where adaptations to skin, hair etc help to cope with the conditions. The same for us in our natural environment.

Differing behavioural traits I would very strongly put down to environment rather than genetic differences. The human mind adapts more to its environment, and more quickly than the body in a population over time. Whereas the body might change over millennia the mind (and the behaviours which spring from it) can change within a lifetime. Right now I'm a reasonable, compassionate person who behaves lawfully - but really only because that suits the environment I'm in and gets me what I need and want. Were I placed in other circumstances where I had to fight and kill to get what I need and want, I would adapt my behaviours accordingly.

Capacity is another matter though, and I wonder whether it is more to this area that the OP refers? This is dangerous territory, where accusations of racism can spring very quickly at any commentator. But, what is notable is that the above environmental influences over physiology and behaviour do seem to affect capacity - so again its traceable to environment, but its not a direct link to environment and it certainly has no connection to genetics.

Its obvious that physiology has a profound influence on many capacities. If our population has found it important due to environment to be strong and fast, then its likely that we will inherit traits to also be strong and fast, and we will aspire to those capacities and so practice them. If our population has found it important due to environment to seek out, develop and use knowledge then its likely that we will grow up in an environment which encourages these traits and we will practice them - but it is as yet too short in time to determine whether any physiological inheritance will pass such traits down genetically, through a larger brain for instance and even were such a process to become apparent, it remains the case that regardless of brain size, the mind within it must be developed by the individual.

But again these capacity traits are ultimately linked to environment. I have an acquaintance who spent a lot of time on the Stormfront website (white supremacist stuff) and would regale me with tales of how African descended people were less intelligent and more like apes than men. Eventually I talked him out of believing such rubbish (like most white supremacists, he was more sad than bad), though he could show me apparent scientific proof for these assertions, by way of IQ tests and physical tests on white and African populations, which showed African descended people scoring on average lower than the whites on IQ and scoring on average higher than the whites in physical tests.

Linking this back to my points above, and assuming that the IQ tests were controlled for cultural bias, these phenomena are explicable not by reference to any genetic difference, but by reference to environmental influences.

The African descended people in the tests (conducted in the USA) can be expected to show stronger results in the physical tests because their population was effectively selectively bred for two centuries through the horrors of slavery, to be strong and fast. Accompanying that, and because of the same history perhaps and certainly on account of the socio-economic discriminations since emancipation which that population has suffered, the Afro-American population in general is not brought up in general to aspire to the knowledge based culture of their white counterparts, which would contribute to the lower IQ scores on average - not because of genetic inferiority in that area, but because of cultural disadvantage - it was and remains difficult for African descended people to realise opportunities in the knowledge based economy. That African descended people in the west in general, do produce doctors and lawyers is proof enough that given the right environment, there is no real capacity difference between white and black in this area.

And it works similarly for the white participants. In general, the white population is a normal population - not selectively bred for anything in particular, but the product of ordinary generational descent. As such, it will show average results in terms of physical tests. But the white population is far more likely to be raised in an environment where knowledge and the ability to use it - and most importantly the opportunity to use it, is the cultural denominator. As such the white population may be expected to show greater performance in the IQ element of the tests, because it is in this area that they aspire, practice and have the opportunity to make a living - not because of any genetic superiority in this area. That there are significant numbers of whites at the bottom of the socio-economic scale in a culture where knowledge is the most valuable commodity, proves that genetics have little to do with the average white IQ score.

So all in all, I would conclude that whilst there are differences between populations, these differences are far more accountable, probably totally accountable, to environmental circumstances rather than genetic inheritance.

E 



Rule -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 5:59:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
Who said the Neanderthals had died out?
I do not follow the discourse among biologists about the Neanderthals, but there are two competing views on the disappearance of the Neanderthals.
 
The dominant one at the moment is that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis were a distinct species that could not interbreed with Homo sapiens sapiens. There seems to be some genetic evidence for that position.
 
The competing view is that they were not a separate species and that they could and did interbreed with Homo sapiens sapiens and that the neanderthalensis alleles were in a very short time outbred by the sapiens alleles. The same may have occurred with other non-Homo sapiens sapiens populations elsewhere in the world. I recall that some years ago a child skeleton was found in Spain that according to the interpretation of some showed characteristics of both Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, indicating interbreeding. This hypothesis is what Termyn8or appears to be referring to when he speculates that human populations evolved simultaneously in different locations on the Earth, not excluding genetic exchanges between populations.
 
As for Seeks: he discourses at an academic or even higher than academic level and he has my respect - even when I disagree with him. Your insults addressed at him are unwarranted and do yourself a disservice.



seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 6:11:01 AM)

LadyE: tho' I haven't "googled" to check  I believe you are arguing the discredited Lamarckian view, that the root cause of the evolution in living things is the environment.

For example if black people with no recessive genes to dictate otherwise lived at the North Pole no matter how long they stayed there they would never turn white or begin to look like Eskimos.



Zensee -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 6:11:09 AM)

Seeks - cute trick how you took the hard science and made it look like liberal, bleeding heart sentimentality then took your prejudicial rantings and made them look like hard science. Watch this - Hey Presto! - now the science is restored.

Rule - you can't seriously mean his racist justifications represent high academics. Don't toy with him like that.


Z.



seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 6:27:21 AM)

There you go Zensee reiterating  article one  of the PC Liberal constitution
No argument in favour of racial difference needs rebuttal because what is said must be wrong because he who says it is a racist.

Article two is that all criminals are basically nice people who need only to be understood and the error of their ways explained then crime will vanish.

The preamble to the constitution says that any evidence that contradicts any tenet of this constitution must by definition be in error.
A bit like what is probably in the Koran.



Rule -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/20/2008 6:27:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee
Rule - you can't seriously mean his racist justifications represent high academics.

I did not say that seeks was either correct or wrong. So how am I encouraging or discouraging him? I said that the insults addressed to him were unwarranted.
 
Seeks has sometimes convoluted reasoning, but there is method to his madness and percipient observator that I am, I do appreciate that.
 
Do you know that when seeks started to post on CM I considered to hide his posts from me? Seeks knows. But I never did, not once. Why? Because there is a MIND there, hidden behind the veils.
 
I have read many of seeks posts and I have never detected any evil in them nor lies. Unlike the posts of some of the sanctimonious bleeding hearts here, some of whom I have thankfully hidden. Seeks simply wants to spank a young female sub; not evil in my view, but merely fun between consenting adults.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375