White Supremacist Takes DNA Test

[Dr Kynes]

Look at kkkynes try to dictate what terms mean and how they apply to a debate. Look at kkkynes limit the language with word salads that mean absolutely nothing. That is all you have.

You are another Social Darwinist. Your poor grasp of science and misunderstanding of nature make all of your views ignorant.

again your problem is with the dictionary and the language.

SOCIAL darwinism is a discredited theory in sociology to justify the hereditary upper classes' "divine right" with a veneer of pseudoscience.

it has NOTHING to do with actual evolution and changes to an organism's biology based on environment and in the case of humans, social pressure.

your poor grasp of language limits your ability to make a cogent argument.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The only difference between different "races" is adaptations to local environments. And genetically, yes, one size pretty much fits all. Also, race wasn't hardly ever recognized or mentioned in literature of any sort before the social darwinist movement came along and classified certain groups of ethnicities as inferior because of PHYSICAL characteristics. And I wasn't asking for you to take shots at legitimate scientific and societal theories, I was providing a bit of interesting knowledge for the general public that was relevant to the thread. And no, it's not an outdated philosophy, I just spend six months studying it race and ethnicity, and it is the truthView attachment 2894847.

so when the romans described the physical characteristics of various peoples they met who were not romans, they were inventing social darwinism?

just 1500 years early?

you have been fed a line of claptrap developed by the "new science" of sociology which is as scientific as astrology, but these guys have diplomas and tenure so they must be right...

thats what we call an Appeal To Authority, and it is a fallacy.

it's not even a scientific fallacy, it is a rhetorical fallacy.

humans have always noted the differences in groups and classified them as "Other" since the third caveman wandered onto the savannah and the first two hatched a conspiracy against him.

sociology is full of comfortable lies which are based on how they WISH things were, not how they are.

in the 1600's it was "Chrisitian's Duty" to subjugate the savages and impose bondage "for their own good"
in the 1800's it was "Nobles Are Naturally Superior" to justify their "divine right".
in the 1970's it was the concept of the "Noble Savage" living in peaceful harmony with nature
in the 1990's it was "Race is a Social Construct", which flies in the face of human nature, evolution and what we recognize in every animal species.

none of it is true, but it makes the believers feel superior, since they are always the ones on the inside, while everyone else is labeled as "Other", either by their (not so fictional) race, or their acceptance of the comforting fable.

 

[desert dude]

STOP TURNING THIS SITE INTO A BI-PARISAN BATTLEGROUND. I had about 2 pages of text typed to point out the hypocrisy and irony in your statements, but they were lost. What I do want to politely ask beenthere is to kindly change your prof pic. As a socialist, I find it insulting. Please stop making shots aimed at liberals, and I won't take shots at you.

Fresh meat for the stew.

 

[desert dude]

The word "phenotype" has been horribly abused in this thread. So, this is a public service announcement.


phe·no·type (f

n

-t

p

)n.1. a. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.
b. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.

2. An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype.



gen·o·type (j

n

-t

p

, j

n

-)n.1. The genetic makeup, as distinguished from the physical appearance, of an organism or a group of organisms.
2. The combination of alleles located on homologous chromosomes that determines a specific characteristic or trait.

 

[abandonconflict]

again your problem is with the dictionary and the language.

SOCIAL darwinism is a discredited theory in sociology...

it has NOTHING to do with actual evolution

The core premise is a flawed understanding of evolution. That is why it is discredited. Just like your bull shit. You clearly have never taken a sociology class, or you would know that.

 

[abandonconflict]

you have been fed a line of claptrap developed by the "new science" of sociology which is as scientific as astrology.

Actually, sociology is a science, despite that you object. Please continue about your disdain for science.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The core premise is a flawed understanding of evolution. That is why it is discredited. Just like your bull shit. You clearly have never taken a sociology class, or you would know that.

you have seized upon the failed and discredited notion of "Social Darwinism" and have taken the phrase out of it's normal (and discredited) context so you can swing it like a bludgeon in a discussion of BIOLOGY and human variation based on natural selection.

you have never taken a sociology or biology course or you would not be using (discredited) sociological terms to attempt to discredit BIOLOGY.

further your typically chompskyite repetition of "survival of the fittest is an inapt description of natural selection" meme is a strawman, since nobody has used the phrase "survival of the fittest" in this thread but you.

you trot that old chestnut out so often, it's becoming your catchphrase.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Actually, sociology is a science, despite that you object. Please continue about your disdain for science.

sociology is a "science" based on subjective assessment of complex human interactions.

sociologist invariabvly look for and find social interactions which support their pet theories, thats why they are so laughably wrong so often.

google "dogon astronomical knowlege" "the Tasaday Scandal" just for starters.

these two examples are THOUGHLY discredited examples of sociologists and anthropologists finding exactly what they were looking for, despite the obvious failure of their methods, yet both continue to be repeated even today.

 

[abandonconflict]

you have seized upon the failed and discredited notion of "Social Darwinism" and have taken the phrase out of it's normal (and discredited) context so you can swing it like a bludgeon in a discussion of BIOLOGY and human variation based on natural selection.

you have never taken a sociology or biology course or you would not be using (discredited) sociological terms to attempt to discredit BIOLOGY.

further your typically chompskyite repetition of "survival of the fittest is an inapt description of natural selection" meme is a strawman, since nobody has used the phrase "survival of the fittest" in this thread but you.

you trot that old chestnut out so often, it's becoming your catchphrase.

You are a social darwinist. You admit the social doctrine has been disproved and yet you have conveyed the same misunderstanding of science that the doctrine is based upon. That is why you are desperately trying to isolate the doctrine from the pseudoscience it is based on. Your disdain for science is obvious. Your lack of understanding of evolution is even more obvious.

You and ginwilly are both arguing that some people are genetically inferior.

You are the one who thinks sociology isn't a science. Yet I recall your comment about some skulls "holding less buckshot". Clearly a reference to the discredited pseudoscience of phrenology. This is different from my reference of a pseudoscience (social darwinism) because I'm calling you a social darwinist.

 

[londonfog]

We are all human, my friend.

which are decedents from Africa

 

[bigfattone420]

They are all a bunch of cousin fucking farmers in ND. Their pot laws suck, got busted rolling through there on my way back to Cali and did 2 nights in jail for a bag of roaches.

My point is they are all fucked in the head. The cold does something to people and the fact that they are dumb enough to stay there when it gets -50 out says even more.

My dumb stoned ramblings are over now.

Their pot laws suck...Where I live is the same thing.. Now you had to do 2 nights in jail for a bag of roaches (not bud,nah man,hehehe)...Not because of the folks in ND are pricks,no no...You didn't handle your end..The blame is looking at you in the mirror..Just make sure you're on point,when you're moving (traveling,growing,etc',etc.This isn't a put down at all Not one bit..Just reminding you,until it's legal across the land (USA).We have to be mindful...Peace Always...

 

[Dr Kynes]

You are a social darwinist. You admit the social doctrine has been disproved and yet you have conveyed the same misunderstanding of science that the doctrine is based upon. That is why you are desperately trying to isolate the doctrine from the pseudoscience it is based on. Your disdain for science is obvious. Your lack of understanding of evolution is even more obvious.

You and ginwilly are both arguing that some people are genetically inferior.

You are the one who thinks sociology isn't a science. Yet I recall your comment about some skulls "holding less buckshot". Clearly a reference to the discredited pseudoscience of phrenology. This is different from my reference of a pseudoscience (social darwinism) because I'm calling you a social darwinist.

you WISH that i was arguing that some groups of people are simply genetically inferior. you have crafted that narrative in your own head.

i am arguing that some SOCIETIES have developed in a manner which i judge to be inferior, the people in that society can adopt a new society, change their own from within, or STFU and stop complaining because they dont have as much Cargo as those who have adopted social and technological advancements which allow them to CREATE that Cargo.

some societies have simply FAILED, others are limping along based on a single resource valued by other more successful societies, and still others are adapting and progressing in their own direction.

i personally prefer western european social structures over the social dynamics of east asia, but they too are handling their shit and building their society.

traditional african social structures have FAILED, Marxism has crashed and burned so many times i cannot understand how anyone can believe that shit anymore, islamic society is sliding into irrelevance, and some polynesian societies have devolved into cargo cults.

this has NO impact on the genetic ability of the individuals in those failing societies, not even on the society as a whole.

it is a SOCIAL FAILURE, not a biological one.

but by all means tell us again how "survival of the fittest is an inapt description of natural selection" we havent heard that for a few minutes and i think we may have forgotten.

never mind that nobody but you is saying "survival of the fittest", and completely ignore the obvious fact that you are building a strawman, we really want to hear more about yopur stunning revelation which is so new and secret you have only used it in 4 other threads on this forum, despite (again) NOBODY saying a word about "survival of the fittest"

 

[Dr Kynes]

which are decedents from Africa

are you SURE that all humans descended from africans?

cuz i think only half this thread has alluded to that well understood fact.

better say it one more time, i dont think the slow kids in the back have caught on yet.

 

[abandonconflict]

you WISH that i was arguing that some groups of people are simply genetically inferior

Oh, so you admit that all of the people descended from all of the continents (races) have equal potential. Nice 180 bro.

 

[abandonconflict]

are you SURE that all humans descended from africans?

cuz i think only half this thread has alluded to that well understood fact.

better say it one more time, i dont think the slow kids in the back have caught on yet.

Yet you still fail to grasp the ramifications of this undisputed fact, because you're a social darwinist who thinks that survival of the fittest is an apt description of natural selection and that black people are dumb because their skulls hold less buckshot and that sociology is not a science. So yeah maybe it ought to be repeated a few more times.

 

[londonfog]

are you SURE that all humans descended from africans?

cuz i think only half this thread has alluded to that well understood fact.

better say it one more time, i dont think the slow kids in the back have caught on yet.

We all are decedent from Africa...you're welcome

 

[abandonconflict]

seriously?

Africans are notoriously hard to sunburn, but as a result they do not process UV light into vitamin D as efficiently as Europeans

Europeans make vitamin D much more readily than africans but burn to a crisp and get skin cancer from UV light

Africans disperse excess heat better than europeans, which is great in hot environments, but sucks in a cold one.

which is superior?

in their natural environment each has an advantage, but in modern society it's a moot point.

asian and european societies advanced technologically based on the needs of the environment, and without those very specific advancements, such as farming, domesticating animals, metalworking and food storage, modern society would never have developed.

which society is superior?

i think European society, with it's technology is a better choice than hunter-gathering, but if you really want to stalk critters in a loincloth and dodge lions and hyenas, then you can feel free to indulge in your passions.

lets see which society reaches the stars first.

The only thing that Asians and Europeans have evolved more quickly than everyone else is immunity to epidemics. Despite what you want to believe, they are not genetically superior nor do they have inherent cognitive superiority. The reason why you have this fallacious sociological view, is that you think survival of the fittest is an apt description of natural selection. This makes you a social darwinist.

Instead of trying to redefine every word I used in my argument and limit what words I am allowed to use, you should fall back to your other favorite tactics, like lying, and distorting my arguments and maybe insulting Noam Chomsky. I think that might work better for you.

 

[desert dude]

which are decedents from Africa

Yes, we are all brothers under the skin, metaphorically. So, here is to you my brother!

 

[Dr Kynes]

Oh, so you admit that all of the people descended from all of the continents (races) have equal potential. Nice 180 bro.

so please point me to a post where i stated that some races were genetically inferior.

i have maintained quite consistently that some SOCIETIES are failures (including "african american culture") but this does not mean that all people from said societies are doomed to failure.

if your boat is sinking you can go down with the ship, swim for shore, or try and patch the hull breach.

a sinking ship does not imply an incompetent or genetically inferior crew. it often means a shitty captain though...

 

[abandonconflict]

so please point me to a post where i stated that some races were genetically inferior

You insinuate this sentiment in almost every post.