RE: Circumcision in various populations

RE: Circumcision in various populations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/5/2011 12:54:13 PM)
you would think a super genius could provide some sort of proof for the allele comments and other sundry remarks. But so far Im just hearing Super Genius Bullcrap and Lies with rampant backpeddalling surely there is someone here you can produce the proof too seeing as we all seem to be unworthy. Maybe your problem is you need to post your bullshit on a super genius site or maybe you have tried or were they not smart enough for you? Sad Rule very very sad

DomKen -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/5/2011 1:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually there are many biological differences that could account for the rates of genetic disease being different. Size and diversity of founding population That evidently is not correct, since the Jewish and Muslim populations differ hugely in size and in diversity, yet they have the same frequency of inherited diseases. Unproven assertion. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually there are many biological differences that could account for the rates of genetic disease being different. rate of outbreeding That evidently is not correct either, since there are all kinds of out-breeding rates within the various populations of European Christians, yet I am not aware of one of those many populations having a frequency of inherited diseases that differs significantly from that of the other European Christian populations. Actually you excluded groups of european christians with high rates of genetic disease so the Amish and simliar groups do prove my point. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually there are many biological differences that could account for the rates of genetic disease being different. rate of close inbreeding In case the out-breeding argument was shown to be false, you hedged your bets by gambling on the opposite concept? That evidently is not correct either, since populations of Muslims and Jews have been inbreeding nearly since they started the practice of circumcision, yet in just about all of those populations the frequency of inherited diseases is the same. I wrote 'close inbreeding' not just in group breeding. This is actually a valid issue as cousin marriage in muslim societies is considered to be an actual important factor in the rate of genetic disease in those ethnic groups. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually there are many biological differences that could account for the rates of genetic disease being different. exposure to mutagens to name the most obvious. That evidently is not correct either, as most mutations do not arise because of mutagens, but because of copying errors made by the DNA polymerases that copy the DNA. Most mutations but not all muattions. As a matter of fact if you are trying to make comparisons between ethnbic groups that do not live identical lifestyles you must take into account whether one group or the other has been exposed to more mutagens. In this case the most obvious mutagen is direct sunlight which, historically, Arabs were exposed to more than the european ethnic groups. quote: DomKen, you are outclassed. Now be a dear and go play with your toys, as I already recommended in my post 41. I recommend you get used to me making you look foolish if you intend to keep posting this sort of nonsense.

jlf1961 -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/5/2011 1:33:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Rule However, a mod might spank you for trolling and ask you to prove your point by quoting pertinent texts posted by me. Would there be any point him bothering given your habit of ignoring any posts made in reply to you which you can't evade answering a comment or query in? If that's your definition of "trolling", I suggest that you find a ncie gaff under a bridge and wait for some goats to come along. Rule, you have provided no scientific proof to back up your posts, you have provided nothing whatsoever to support your argument except you own asinine posts. I would have to repost everything you have put into this topic and that would be time consuming, IN OTHER WORDS, NOT A FUCKING THING YOU HAVE POSTED HAS A BASIS IN FACT, THE ONLY BASIS IS IN YOUR OWN WARPED MIND. May I point out that the aboriginal tribes of Australia have been practicing circumcision since 10,000BCE and do not have a high incidence of genetic disorders, which invalidate your claims, NOR is there a high incidence of genetic disorders in NON-Arab Muslims of Other parts of the world which since between the 7th and 11th centuries, further invalidating your claims. Furthermore, doing a search on the term "circumcision and the incidence of genetic disorders" comes up with ONE term matching "Circumcision" and that is a Wikipedia article and a few thousand dealing with strictly genetic disorders, and none of the sampling I did mentioned a link, there were numerous mentions of certain groups having higher incidences of certain disorders, Arabs and Jews for tay sachs, those of african descent for sickle cell. Other groups such as some of the members of certain noble families of Europe having hemophilia, from the families being inbred. May I make a suggestion for you? Seek professional psychiatric help, YOU FUCKING NEED IT.

Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/5/2011 6:39:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Would there be any point him bothering given your habit of ignoring any posts made in reply to you which you can't evade answering a comment or query in? I usually read and may - if pertinent - respond to all posts by persons that I do not have on Hide. As for this thread, a number of persons that I have on Hide are posting in it. I obviously am not ignoring what I do not read; it is just that I - fortunately - am not aware of the content of their posts. Too, I refer you to my post 7.

Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/5/2011 7:01:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Unproven assertion. I do not care about that. As long as nobody provides any facts that show that the assertion is wrong, I will assume that it is true. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually you excluded groups of european christians with high rates of genetic disease so the Amish and simliar groups do prove my point. Mm, yes. I am smart like that. So no, it does not prove your point. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I wrote 'close inbreeding' not just in group breeding. This is actually a valid issue as cousin marriage in muslim societies is considered to be an actual important factor in the rate of genetic disease in those ethnic groups. We have been over that before, with you repeating everything I said while being apparently unaware of doing so. This showed that you lack the ability to innately comprehend these matters. Being knowledgeable is not sufficient. Yet you did teach me something then - about the effect of breeding in small populations - for which I thank you. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Most mutations but not all mutations. As a matter of fact if you are trying to make comparisons between ethnbic groups that do not live identical lifestyles you must take into account whether one group or the other has been exposed to more mutagens. In this case the most obvious mutagen is direct sunlight which, historically, Arabs were exposed to more than the european ethnic groups. In an earlier discussion you asserted that deleterious mutations do not occur. It is good that you have changed your mind. However, this is not about introducing mutations into the gene pool. It is simply assumed that deleterious mutations do occur and whether it is at a low rate or at a high rate does not matter. quote: I recommend you get used to me making you look foolish if you intend to keep posting this sort of nonsense. It is nonsense only to people who lack the ability to comprehend it.

Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/5/2011 7:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Rule, you have provided no scientific proof to back up your posts, you have provided nothing whatsoever to support your argument except you own asinine posts. I would have to repost everything you have put into this topic and that would be time consuming, IN OTHER WORDS, NOT A FUCKING THING YOU HAVE POSTED HAS A BASIS IN FACT, THE ONLY BASIS IS IN YOUR OWN WARPED MIND. May I point out that the aboriginal tribes of Australia have been practicing circumcision since 10,000BCE and do not have a high incidence of genetic disorders, which invalidate your claims, NOR is there a high incidence of genetic disorders in NON-Arab Muslims of Other parts of the world which since between the 7th and 11th centuries, further invalidating your claims. Furthermore, doing a search on the term "circumcision and the incidence of genetic disorders" comes up with ONE term matching "Circumcision" and that is a Wikipedia article and a few thousand dealing with strictly genetic disorders, and none of the sampling I did mentioned a link, there were numerous mentions of certain groups having higher incidences of certain disorders, Arabs and Jews for tay sachs, those of african descent for sickle cell. Other groups such as some of the members of certain noble families of Europe having hemophilia, from the families being inbred. May I make a suggestion for you? Seek professional psychiatric help, YOU FUCKING NEED IT. You know what? This is actually a good - non trolling - post by you! [sm=goodpost.gif] Well done. I thank you for the pertinent information provided. Please mind that my applauding your post does not imply that I agree with all of its content. I applauded your manner of posting.

tazzygirl -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/5/2011 11:01:32 PM)
quote: I usually read and may - if pertinent - respond to all posts by persons that I do not have on Hide. As for this thread, a number of persons that I have on Hide are posting in it. I obviously am not ignoring what I do not read; it is just that I - fortunately - am not aware of the content of their posts. This is how he avoids having to answer questions he doesnt want to answer. Why you all still play up to his hypocrisy, i have no idea.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/5/2011 11:14:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I usually read and may - if pertinent - respond to all posts by persons that I do not have on Hide. As for this thread, a number of persons that I have on Hide are posting in it. I obviously am not ignoring what I do not read; it is just that I - fortunately - am not aware of the content of their posts. This is how he avoids having to answer questions he doesnt want to answer. Why you all still play up to his hypocrisy, i have no idea. Seems to me I asked a similar question about Captain Fluoride and the Magna Carta Kid just a couple days ago, and the answer I got went along the lines of "well, we need to counter the BS with facts" which seems to me to be rather reactive. Just ignoring the shit, and starting threads with actual facts would be more productive. That way one is on the offensive, so to speak. IMO, anyway.

Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 3:05:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Rule As for this thread, a number of persons that I have on Hide are posting in it. I obviously am not ignoring what I do not read; it is just that I - fortunately - am not aware of the content of their posts. I refer everyone - including the persons whom I have on Hide - once again to my post seven and to Elisabella's text in the opening post. This thread is not about me. I have no interest in this thread, I am neither on the offense nor on the defense, I am not here to prove anything to anyone (including those whom I have on Hide).

tazzygirl -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 4:31:46 AM)
And the hypocrisy continues. [8\|]

jlf1961 -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 5:48:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And the hypocrisy continues. [8\|] You forgot to mention the blatant ignorance of the facts.

tazzygirl -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 5:55:24 AM)
A supergenious is allowed to make up his own facts. Didnt you know that?

Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 5:57:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You forgot to mention the blatant ignorance of the facts. Nobody can hold that against me: I am a super-ignoramus. [;)]

DomKen -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 5:59:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Unproven assertion. I do not care about that. As long as nobody provides any facts that show that the assertion is wrong, I will assume that it is true./quote] Which is utter bullshit. You have to provide evidence to support your foundational claims. Until you do making claims that any two distinct populations have exactly the same rate of genetic disease is simply you making noise. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually you excluded groups of european christians with high rates of genetic disease so the Amish and simliar groups do prove my point. Mm, yes. I am smart like that. So no, it does not prove your point. Actually it the word isn't smart ity is hypocritical. In the real world you cannot simply exclude things that disprove your theory without some valid reason. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I wrote 'close inbreeding' not just in group breeding. This is actually a valid issue as cousin marriage in muslim societies is considered to be an actual important factor in the rate of genetic disease in those ethnic groups. We have been over that before, with you repeating everything I said while being apparently unaware of doing so. This showed that you lack the ability to innately comprehend these matters. Being knowledgeable is not sufficient. Yet you did teach me something then - about the effect of breeding in small populations - for which I thank you. If you still don't understand the points I raised before then you are still not knowledgeable enough to discuss population genetics. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Most mutations but not all mutations. As a matter of fact if you are trying to make comparisons between ethnbic groups that do not live identical lifestyles you must take into account whether one group or the other has been exposed to more mutagens. In this case the most obvious mutagen is direct sunlight which, historically, Arabs were exposed to more than the european ethnic groups. In an earlier discussion you asserted that deleterious mutations do not occur. It is good that you have changed your mind. I never made such a claim. quote] quote: However, this is not about introducing mutations into the gene pool. It is simply assumed that deleterious mutations do occur and whether it is at a low rate or at a high rate does not matter. In comparing the rate of genetic disease in populations, rate of mutation certainly is a relevant point. If you do not know why then you are simply too dumb to discuss the issue.

Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 6:21:56 AM)
You'd best edit that post some more.

jlf1961 -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 7:36:29 AM)
Domken, I provided enough proof about circumcision and populations that dont have a high rate of genetic disorders, and I do believe he ignored it. I cant be sure, since I have him on ignore. I have, in the past, done some research on psychological disorders based on his topics, opinions (with no facts) and have come to the conclusion that he could be described as a delusional personality. Anything that does not support his delusions is immediately discarded and ignored, usually leaving the delusion unsupported by actual fact. quote: Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology Granted, I am not a professional, however his bizarre arguments and assertions seem to fit the profile. Either that or he is a troll that just likes to post bullshit for some bizarre reason, probably in compensation for short comings in other aspects of his life. It gives him some sense of importance, of being in control, even though it makes him look foolish. With the advent of the internet, people can assume personalities and portray themselves as something they are not.

DomKen -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 10:06:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Domken, I provided enough proof about circumcision and populations that dont have a high rate of genetic disorders, and I do believe he ignored it. I cant be sure, since I have him on ignore. I have, in the past, done some research on psychological disorders based on his topics, opinions (with no facts) and have come to the conclusion that he could be described as a delusional personality. Anything that does not support his delusions is immediately discarded and ignored, usually leaving the delusion unsupported by actual fact. quote: Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology Granted, I am not a professional, however his bizarre arguments and assertions seem to fit the profile. Either that or he is a troll that just likes to post bullshit for some bizarre reason, probably in compensation for short comings in other aspects of his life. It gives him some sense of importance, of being in control, even though it makes him look foolish. With the advent of the internet, people can assume personalities and portray themselves as something they are not. Yes. He's either clinically insane or he is a troll. I should probably just ignore him but I have a hard time with people like him and termy who incessantly claim superior knowledge or intelligence but clearly possess neither.

jlf1961 -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 10:37:13 AM)
Domken, the worst possible thing is that he believes the crap he posts

Moonhead -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 11:28:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Would there be any point him bothering given your habit of ignoring any posts made in reply to you which you can't evade answering a comment or query in? I usually read and may - if pertinent - respond to all posts by persons that I do not have on Hide. As for this thread, a number of persons that I have on Hide are posting in it. I obviously am not ignoring what I do not read; it is just that I - fortunately - am not aware of the content of their posts. Too, I refer you to my post 7. Your post 7, in its entirety: quote: Actually I had and have no intention of discussing circumcision. I was merely clarifying to Demspotis what I meant by saying "Muslims are Jews": that I did not refer to a religious nor an ethnic identity by that, but to a Social Darwinist concept as defined by me. That doesn't answer any of the queries that have been asked about your definitions since, to wit: What did you mean by saying "Muslims are Jews", and can you find anything to support this bizarre statement? Why is the generally accepted definition of social Darwinism not good enough for you, and as you seem to be using some strange definition that nobody else has ever heard of, why don't you specify your definition? You've been asked these things repeatedly since post 7, and have ignored all such queries in favour of going off on bizarre tangents. Referring people back to a post that has fuck all in the way of explanation or exposition in it really isn't good enough. Post 7 clarifies nothing, so referring back to that as though it was the infodump at the start of a science fiction novel which will answer all questions is a bit pathetic. It could even lead some to suspect that you've got nothing to back up a word you've said anywhere in this thread. (My suspicion would be that you can't, which is why you haven't even tried.)

jlf1961 -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/6/2011 1:21:41 PM)
Moonhead, the point you should be making is one of basic truth, the term "Social Darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents. His statement that "Muslims are Jews" is based solely on the practice of circumcision, by his own statements in other threads. In point of fact he has said that any group that practices circumcision is Abrahamic (his term) Jewish. The problem with that argument is that history has documented cultures that practiced circumcision that predated the Jewish cultural commandments first found in Genesis 17:10 "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." Now, he could be basing his statement on the fact that both the Jewish and Muslims from the Middle east consider the patriarch Abraham as the father of their races, but the statement cannot be held true for those NON-Arab Muslims as found in Asia and Indonesia. Thus his statement is flawed. If he wants to base his statement on the Muslim idea of "People of the Book" which are are Judaism, Sabians and Christianity, then he must include European, American, and Asian Christians. The earliest group that practiced circumcision was the Aborigines of Australia, about 10,000 BCE, yet he seems to ignore that fact. I have reached the point that I have him on ignore, and just comment on statements made by others, or when someone actually quotes him and I read the posts then. His arguments, blanket statements, have as little basis in historic or scientific fact as his revisionist history.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875