Why don't race realist ever come up with solutions?

You are deliberately avoiding the debate with me because you know I whooped your racist ass. Now you've resorted to boasting about using links in debates with other people. Ha!

You know full well that I never requested your lifetime reading list you melodramatic fool. Stop lying. Your knowledge was called in to question during the debate as was the credibility of your sources.

You are the one who claims to have quality sources (and attacked one of my sources). You bragged about your email conversations with scholars. You've boasted about being knowledgeable on evolution.

You made claims so I challenged them.

1) List one book you've read on this topic.

2) Provide one email conversation with you and a scholar on this topic.

3) Provide one video of any scholar you hold in high regard (ex. Linda Gottfredson) discussing the subject in an academic setting.

You won't do it not because the request is unreasonable or too personal (it wasn't too personal for you to bring up) but because you are a fraud and know you'll be exposed!

I also responded to your post where you claimed to have demolished Graves, which you linked to. You got your reply and you punked out on replying just like you've been doing for several posts now.

You're a fraud and you're not smart enough to debate me which is why you're ducking. You weren't even aware of a very basic evolutionary concept. You insulted my primary source saying he couldn't debate you. I'm debating you now and you are evading discussion because you know you lost.

As for interracial pictures Brewskier knows the drill. If he is going to boast about beautiful White women and post pictures arguing for their aesthetic superiority he's going to see more pictures of those beautiful White women in intimate photos (and video) with Black men.

You can sit here and make up lies along with other troll tactics but you can't debate me and you know it. You are ignoring responses deliberately because you know you've lost all credibility and any chance of defeating me.

 

https://answers.uslegal.com/criminal/assault/23815/

Verbal assault usually involves threatening physical violence on someone, although sometimes yelling or aggressively using words to offend or attack someone can constitute verbal assault. The threats must be something the assailant is capable of carrying out, and which cause fear of imminent danger to the victim.

At best you could argue that it is verbal harassment and yes it is illegal.

What is it that racist hicks say? Oh yeah "them's fighting words!"

Whites invented the N-Word to denigrate Blacks and Whites also invented the word hick. I'm just using the language of my peers.

He was probably too dumb to read given his obvious cognitive deficit.

I gave you different scenarios but you only want to focus on me beating one of the kids up for the N-word because you know being threatened with a baseball bat is entirely different.

This sort of slander isn't getting you anywhere.

Biased scholars exist. Academia being in favor of promoting genocide against Whites (your claim) is a lie.

I don't know of any Republican Presidential candidate who has been criticized for being friends with a domestic terrorist whose activities were done long before they knew each other. I do know that Trump refused to denounce support from David Duke and other White Supremacists. When the video on Obama's pastor Rev. Wright made news it was such a big deal he gave a full length speech on it. That nearly wrecked his campaign.

Liberals are not above scrutiny.

You would think that the average Trump voter who promotes conservative values would have some real concerns with voting for a man accused of molestation and rape. Apparently not.

I don't like violent, racist hicks so we're even.

The world is changing rapidly. People would have come together eventually. Whites just happen to be less numerous than people of color.

The average Black person lives closer to and interacts with White people much more than the average White person with Blacks.

I never met his Grandfather but looking at clips from the original show in 1989 the story was about the Grandfather and how interacting with his Grandson changed him. He's the one who was so moved by the experience he decided to go on national TV (Oprah) to talk about it. Clearly this had an impact on him the rest of his life. I met Seth in 2nd grade and he mentioned the story to me and some other kids but I didn't remember the detail about his Grandfather being a former racist bully until I saw the update episode while helping my mother record Oprah on the DVR.

I moved from the area when I was 9. They must have a good Grandfather-Grandson relationship if he went as far as to adopt two Black boys around 20 years later.

You're race-baiting. I don't have a racial preference for women.

You're confusing tribalism with stranger anxiety. Babies can recognize differences between people. If a person looks unfamiliar to them they won't be as comfortable even if it is their own parent's changing their looks. Watch the reaction to this baby after he father shaves his beard.



That's still her father but she doesn't recognize them. If an infant were to see a major cosmetic difference in their parents they would have a similar reaction just as they would if someone who walked in to the room with a skin color and facial features they'd never seen before started interacting with them. That doesn't make racism natural.

Tribalism is the product of people having trouble accepting differences but this is no more hard-wired than a dog chasing a cat. They do it because the cat is a smaller animals and it triggers their predatory instinct but when a dog is raised in the same household as a cat they see them as family. Likewise racial attitudes by Whites towards Blacks and other groups are changing as they get used to interacting with those people.

 

Caught DISHONEST Ejay LYING AGAIN.
Ho Hum.
Too bad you can't edit the Original Challenge in posts #106 AND #110.

Seems you've gone from the Plural on your original Fraudulent challenges to "ONE" now.
BECAUSE I Caught you LYING about asking for an ie, "reading list."

Ejay's original challenges were NOT "ONE".

Then Ejay repeated the Wider PLURAL demand in post #110

So Ejay moved the [bogus] goal posts. Lied about what he said.

You WEASELED from Plural in your original and repeated challenge, to "One" now.
My characterization of "reading list" left you embarrassed/Busted at your Fallacious BS. So you've now gone to One.
You FRAUD.
Did you think I wouldn't catch it?

You remain TOO ****** AND Dishonest to debate. Your Criminal posts sabotage your whole purpose here.

But, IAC,
1. Where I have I said I had an extensive Book/s reading list?
In fact, where did I claim I read a single book?
LINK?

2. Where did I claim I had Email conversation/S with scholars?
I have sent a few emails, as I comment to article authors on many topics. Don't think I ever got a reply.
LINK?

(But Bonus 2a. You brought Sussman here to promote/debate. I tried in 271 and 272 !)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...cientific-idea.391430/page-14#post-1066212230
He whiffed, as he did on Amazon where I tried similar under his review.

2b. I had also tried under his Newsweek article re the book promo.
http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123
They deleted/had to delete all the comments. He got Destroyed with no answers)

3. "Videos," aka, Debate-by-youtube, is something I rarely do, and it is Frowned upon on serious message boards: science and not. Hard to refute an unexcerpted 90 minute video. Close to an Amazon link for a book one claims agrees with him.

You're always begging out of your Losses here and Wanting to go to a (PC-liberal) Sci board, but you post boobtubes like the High-Schooler you are.
Your oft posted Suzuki-Rushton Youtube is your idea of science/debate?
You post it often but - It's Teenage Clownery - a Mainstay for you.
"Videos", seriously? That's a measure?

So ALL your challenge items are FRAUD.
NO claims of "Books, Email Conversations, and only very rare vids" were made by me!

I do, and DID, back my posts with credible links throughout this string/others. (no rebuttal to that in my many answers to your bogus 'challenge.')
Links (to studies/articles, etc), not Books, are the language of the internet.
"Read book abcd," or "Believe me I read book abcd", is NOT an answer in internet debate.
Thus, I post links to best Accessible sources.

So in conclusion:
You SNEAKILY/Dishonestly just changed your challenge to singular "One" from the original Plural. From Books to Book, "conversationS with scholars", etc, asking for needless/fallacious detail after I nailed you with "reading list".

Nonetheless and again, no matter.
You can't even point to me making the [Again] Fallacious claims you "challenged" me with!
You remain too ****** to debate me.
like 40 IQ points.
+

 

@Taxonomy26

You are seriously mentally ill. I reduced the requested information because you were complaining about the number of sources I asked for. You claimed to be knowledgeable on the subject of evolution and can't reference even one book you've read. OK so you haven't read any books. Like I said you are an internet debater who relies on Wikipedia and random links who doesn't understand the concept of a reliable source. You did claim you emailed scholars in the past. They didn't get back to you? OK so you have no conversations to post. My point about videos was to show that your scholars have the credibility within the scientific community to present their research in an academic setting. Youtube is an easy resource for this but there are videos all over the internet. Where is Linda Gottfredson or any of your other favored sources talking about this subject in an academic setting? You called her the foremost expert on IQ research. Copying text from Wikipedia doesn't prove that. So by your own admission you have no books, no email conversations and no videos. I won't request this info of you any more as you admit you don't have it.

You simply don't know how to debate this subject on a respectable level. Robert Sussman left the debate in my thread over a full year before you commented. I don't know what contacts you have had with him elsewhere on the internet but you haven't shown that you've ever had direct interaction with any scholars. Until I see an exchange between you and them you haven't proven you debated them. You claimed that Graves can't debate you. Challenge him to a debate then. Here is a list of posts by me that you did NOT respond to:

1) Post #97

2) Post #100

3) Post #106

4) Post #113

5) Post #116

You haven't responded to the research and arguments I made in any of these posts. The last two posts were my direct response to your claim in Post #103 that you demolished the arguments of Graves.

This is what you said:

I checked the thread. I had no memory of this post and couldn't respond to it at the time because I had left the thread and by the time I returned to the debate it was already closed. But I responded to it here.

Where is your rebuttal? You have no argument to any of my sources. Go ahead and list the arguments in this thread that you made to me which I have not responded to. I am the superior debater and I can prove it. You can't do the same because you make excuses not to debate and ignore arguments. Prove me wrong.

 

You Dishonest and Deluded SOB.
You just dropped your Thrice repeated/altered challenge ("1. books, 2. conversations, 3. vids") after I Caught you Lying... and irrelevant IAC.
WTF!
It's vanished after I spent a whole post Gutting it/You.

As always, YOU LOST. On to the next charge/Lie/Try.
Incredible Dishonesty.

No wonder Southern Africa is a corrupt and ungovernable rabble, many of whom still live as they did 50,000 years ago: Huts. Those who got a ride here, only better off because of AA, welfare, Euro infrastructure, and 25% of Euro blood.
+

 

Well done, your rebuttals have been excellent. I think you should ask again what the main point was of this entire thread. It seems to me that one side is trying to make an argument that races are vastly more different than superficial features such as skin color, eye shapes and body types. This implies a hidden meaning about intelligence does it not?

 

I don't know what you're talking about concerning posts vanishing but you're clearly going off of the deep end by writing in big bold font. You're writing style was already messed up to begin with. Oh and I like the racist snipe about South Africa. If I can get you to show your true colors then your racist agenda has been exposed!

I went back in your post history for some fact-checking. This is what you actually said:

So you've emailed scientists/authors to debate? Like who? Name them. And this time you can't lie and say I didn't ask you to verify a claim you made. Who did you email and who did you actually debate?

So are you going to continue ducking responses to the 5 posts I made with research and arguments refuting your claims?

Can you list any arguments that you made that I didn't reply to? Anyone can see plain as day that you're ducking.

I really want you to respond to this in particular:

Respond to all of the arguments in the post but this is one of the most egregious errors I have ever seen in the history of scientific debates. You claim to be knowledgeable on the subject of evolution and claim we don't know the mechanisms underlying evolution and speciation?! This is what happens when people read trash on the internet and pretend they know ANYTHING about a scientific topic.

This sort of dishonesty leads to delusional comments like this:

A professional evolutionary biologist who has refuted your own sources in print and academic settings can't debate YOU on the topic of evolution when YOU don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory.

Face it. You've been exposed as a fraud. I know full well that there won't be any responses to my arguments in those 5 posts or a list of scholars you have emailed or debated on this subject because all you do is lie and make excuses. But your ignorance has been exposed in this debate for all to see so at least that was accomplished.

 

Calling someone the N word is not illegal. Feel free to show me a law that says that it is, or show me a case where someone was charged simply for calling someone the N word.

From your link:

It appears you were incorrect.

Doesn't really matter what they say. You have no legal justification to assault someone for calling you the N word.

You're using words to denigrate whites.

Statistically he's more likely to be literate than the average black person.

How is it entirely different when you said you became violent out of "self defense" in both circumstances?

It's not slander. Any white person who expressed a desire for his race to continue into the future would be labeled a "racist" by you. That's the test you apply to white people to determine if they are good whites or "evil demons".

It's really not. Academia is overwhelmingly left-wing and shares your viewpoints on race, which are totally genocidal in nature.

No, it didn't nearly wreck his campaign. He won handedly. Liberals didn't care one bit about Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers. If anything, it endeared him to them even more.

Obama was asked one time about his friendship with a pair of unrepentant domestic terrorists. If Trump, Bush, or any Republican would have been friends with neo-confederates who bombed buildings, they would have never become candidates in the first place.

The same people who use this talking point about Trump were (and are) passionate supporters of Bill Clinton. Their faux outrage is seen for what it is.

Ok.

Which wouldn't be a problem if people had their own homelands. If "people of color" continued overpopulating their own countries, instead of being allowed to go to less-densely populated white countries, the problems they are escaping would have to be confronted. Nature would take its course and do what it has always done when a population gets too numerous in an area that does not have enough resources to sustain them.

Maybe because they art outnumbered 5 to 1 in this country.

But your argument requires a high concentration or high likelihood of black criminals in society. If whites are victimized more because they are more ubiquitous and numerous, then there has to be a high likelihood of that one black person that exists around them being a violent criminal looking to victimize someone. If 5 whites were surrounding 1 black person, if the crime rates were equal (and they're not), that one black person would be likely victimized by one of the whites around him. However, we find the opposite. That black person is victimizing the surrounding whites far more often than the opposite. Crime statistics support this conclusion.

I have no doubt that Oprah and the rest of the (((left-wing media))) jumped at the chance to push a story glorifying miscegenation in order to pressure whites into accepting the loss of their racial and cultural heritage. That's been the agenda for many decades.

No? Certainly you must have SOME preference. Out of the X amount of women you've been with, how many were white? Black?

Not the same thing. There are studies that show that young children have an aversion towards people who are a different race from their parents.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/13/your-baby-is-a-little-bit-racist-science-says/

That's not the reason they are changing. They are changing because of a propaganda and brainwashing campaign launched against them that begins in childhood. Children are indoctrinated into this mindset starting in elementary school, and almost all of the entertainment they are exposed to is doing the same thing. It's not until later that some of these kids wake up, and that's often due to their interactions with blacks and others. Seeing this kind of thing happening over and over again is red-pilling a lot of people, and not just whites:



And this:



That's why the media does its best to hide stories like these from the public. They might see enough of this to finally reach the same conclusions I have, and they don't want to risk that.

 

Thanks. The direction of the thread is typical of racial discussion. The topic starter pointed out that proponents of race-realism rarely offer solutions to the data they promote. They are mostly fixated on the data itself and its implications for the significance of racial differences in society. Most of them don't care about solutions. They are only interested in promoting racism by claiming that there is a genetic basis to racist stereotypes.

If you look carefully at the direction the debate has taken it is mostly about research supporting Scientific Racism and very little about policy recommendations that can supposedly solve these racial problems. Taxonomy26 is arguing for the validity of racial theories about the cause of IQ differences. I have refuted every argument he has made point by point and he has deliberately ignored many arguments made by me in this discussion. Brewskier is trying to hijack the discussion to rationalize why having a racist attitude is necessary for the survival of the White race. Neither of them is debating in good faith.

Scientific Racism follows a predictable syllogism:

1) Human races are real and meaningful biological categories.
2) Intelligence has a strong genetic component.
3) Races differ in their average IQ scores.
4) There is data supporting the genetic hypothesis for the cause of racial differences in IQ.
5) Evolution can explain racial hierarchies in intelligence.

Racists take advantage of the scientific debate over whether the concept of race is applicable to human biological variation. There are plenty of scientists who still think there are biological races and they cite them alongside academic racists to create the illusion that their argument has credibility. They ignore or dismiss the fact that there are scientific rebuttals to the core arguments of Scientific Racism and that the scholars they cite have been exposed as ideologues with an agenda.

For example, Charles Murray, one of the co-authors of The Bell Curve was once arrested as a teenager for burning a cross on a hill near a police station. When asked about it in an interview he stated that he wasn't aware that cross-burning was a popular ritual used by the Ku Klux Klan. Watch this video where that fact is mentioned and listen to the reply of the host.



I will point out that I don't watch Fox News and didn't even know who Tucker Carlson was until I saw this video which was brought up in another debate. Carlson asks Professor Ciccariello-Maher about his claim and seems baffled by it as he feels he knows Murray and his work too well to believe he would do something like that. He asks him to substantiate his claim. The professor simply tells him to look it up on Google as it is a matter of public record. After I watched the video I typed in "Charles Murray burned cross" and the top result is a New York Times article confirming exactly what Professor Ciccariello-Maher claimed bout Carlson's cross-burning activities.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/opinion/in-america-throwing-a-curve.html

Mr. Murray fancies himself a social scientist, an odd choice of profession for someone who would have us believe he was so sociologically ignorant as a teen-ager that he didn't recognize any racial implications when he and his friends burned a cross on a hill in his hometown of Newton, Iowa.


In a New York Times Magazine article by Jason DeParle, Mr. Murray described the cross-burning as "dumb." But he insisted, "It never crossed our minds that this had any larger significance."

Carlson could have just asked someone live on the air to fact-check the claim but he went on to chastise his guest about advocating "White genocide" on twitter, which he explained was satirical. This is the sort of intellectual dishonesty that is being displayed in this thread. Murray is one of their primary sources who lies about his racist upbringing.

Another example is J. Philippe Rushton, a Canadian Psychologist who spent some of his early childhood in Apartheid South Africa which he admitted in an interview influenced his views on race. Rushton spent around 30 years of his academic career writing papers to legitimize Scientific Racism proposing some of the most bizarre theories imaginable (ex. claiming and inverse correlation between penis size and brain size) which completely destroyed his reputation as a serious scholar. He was actually reprimanded by his college for asking students and strangers to answer survey questions that he intended to use for his "research" on sexual differences between races.

http://fair.org/extra/racism-resurgent/1269/

Rushton was reprimanded by his school, the University of Western Ontario, for accosting people in a local shopping mall and asking them how big their penises were and how far they could ejaculate. “A zoologist doesn’t need permission to study squirrels in his backyard,” he groused (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94).

After Rushton received massive backlash and protests in reaction to him trying to promote his theories in academia he wrote a full length article labeling his critics as "enemies of evolutionary science" and how he was being publicly harassed to the point where there were calls to have him fired. While I don't condone harassment an intimidation against scholars no matter how controversial their theories are I also recognize that people like Rushton and other academic racists are trying to take the scientific high ground by pretending that their opponents are trying to shame them in to silence or stamping out heresy rather than debating them legitimately.

I've actually heard of Rushton being labeled the Modern Galileo. Galileo's work was vindicated by the scientific community after his death. Rushton has been rightfully denounced as a racist quack by the scientific community because his work doesn't meet acceptable parameters for legitimate science. He had an opportunity to present his research before a real evolutionary biologist and a geneticist in a formal debate and a panel discussion where his arguments were picked a apart. In the Suzuki debate Rushton was actually the laughing stock of the debate. In the Graves debate he couldn't respond to a single argument. Graves even went as far as to publish articles a few years after the debate which Rushton never responded to. One of my debate opponents got Rushton to reply via email about a year before he died, where he ignored all of the arguments of Graves and simply restated the thesis of his book which Graves in response easily picked apart. That's all we got from him. I used those email exchanges a long with other sources (ex. video, full articles, references to other critics and the email of a difference scholar for good measure) to show that Rushton had been refuted.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pseudoscience-of-j-philippe-rushton.373375/


Continued.....

 

Taxonomy26 is simply incapable of raising his debate skills to my level. Only a delusional narcissist would claim that he is more knowledgeable on the subject of evolution than an actual evolutionary biologist and display such profound ignorance of the subject as to state that we don't know the mechanism underlying evolution and speciation when that was central to Charles Darwin's position in his book On the Origin of Species. I am not an expert on this subject. I have never claimed to be. But you know what? I got an A in Biology in high school. I took elective courses in college. I used the school library to get access to studies that aren't available for free on the internet. For the studies I couldn't access I emailed scholars who had them. That's why I am able to talk to scholars via email and get responses. I uploaded the Graves vs. Rushton video to Youtube which I ripped from a DVD sent to me via mail by a librarian at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who was generous enough to get the VHS tape out of the school library and ask the audio/video department if they could convert the footage to DVD. Before I coordinated that there was no debate with Rushton on the internet, including the full Suzuki video.

I read books on the subject including Graves' books, Sussman's book, Stringer's books, Gould's book and even Rushton, Murray and Harpending's books (which are admittedly digital copies I got for free as I'm not paying those racists one cent to read their work. The other books are on my bookshelf). I'm not claiming to be the best debater on the internet on this subject but I'm hardcore. I don't copy Wikipedia and rely only on internet links to support my position then pretend that I have substantial knowledge on this subject. My knowledge comes from books, full articles and studies I've actually read, formal education,
email conversations with scholars and video debates and lectures.

And yes Taxonomy26, email conversations with scholars that we all know causes you conniptions when you see them because it's brain overload and you don't know how to respond to them. Which is why I'm going to post another one. This is a conversation I had with Graves specifically about biological differences and why genetic variation in the human species does not mean that socially-constructed racial categories are biologically meaningful.

The purpose of sharing this emails it to provide a scientific rebuttal to the following claim:

Email conversation with Joseph Graves:

I also have email conversations and articles addressing DNA ancestry tests.

Human biological variation does exist but it is not structured in to biological races nor does the existence of some biological differences mean that everything is different. The idea that human groups are fundamentally different in socially important ways such as mental characteristics that influence intelligence and behavior is simply a claim made by racists to rationalize long held beliefs about racial hierarchies in human value.

 

Ejay, the Too ****** to debate Clown, THREE times Bogusly/Dishonestly "Challenged" me to back claims I Never made!

Ejay #151

Caught DISHONEST Ejay LYING AGAIN.
Ho Hum.
Too bad you can't edit the Original Challenge in posts #106 AND #110 - Now make in post #151.

Seems you've gone from the Plural on your original Fraudulent challenges to "ONE" now.
BECAUSE I Caught you LYING about asking for an ie, "reading list."

Ejay's original challenges were NOT "ONE".

Ejay #106

Then Ejay repeated the Wider PLURAL demand in post #110.

Ejay #110

So Ejay moved the [bogus] goal posts. Lied about what he said.

Ejay Had to WEASEL from Plural in your original and repeated challenge, to "One" now.
My characterization of "reading list" left you embarrassed/Busted at your Fallacious BS. So you've now gone to One.
You FRAUD.
Did you think I wouldn't catch it?

You remain TOO ****** AND Dishonest to debate. Your Criminal posts sabotage your whole purpose here.

But, IAC,
1. Where I have I said I had an extensive Book/s reading list?
In fact, where did I claim I read a single book?
LINK?

2. Where did I claim I had Email conversation/S with scholars?
I have sent a few emails, as I comment to article authors on many topics. Don't think I ever got a reply.
LINK?

(But Bonus 2a. YOU/Ejay brought Sussman here to promote/debate. I tried in 271 and 272!)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...cientific-idea.391430/page-14#post-1066212230
He whiffed, as he did on Amazon where I tried similar under his review.

2b. I had also tried under his Newsweek article re the book promo.
http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123
They deleted/had to delete all the comments. He got Destroyed with no answers)

3. "Videos," aka, Debate-by-youtube, is something I rarely do, and it is Frowned upon on serious message boards: science and not. Hard to refute an unexcerpted 90 minute video. Close to an Amazon link for a book one claims agrees with him.

You're always begging out of your Losses here and Wanting to go to a (PC-liberal) Sci board, but you post boobtubes like the High-Schooler you are.
Your oft posted Suzuki-Rushton Youtube is your idea of science/debate?
You post it often but - It's Teenage Clownery - a Mainstay for you.
"Videos", seriously? That's a measure?

So ALL your challenge items are FRAUD.
NO claims of "Books, Email Conversations, and only very rare vids" were made by me!

I do, and DID, back my posts with credible links throughout this string/others. (no rebuttal to that in my many answers to your bogus 'challenge.')
Links (to studies/articles, etc), not Books, are the language of the internet.
"Read book abcd," or "Believe me I read book abcd", is NOT an answer in internet debate.
Thus, I post links to best Accessible sources.

So in conclusion:
Ejay SNEAKILY/Dishonestly just changed his challenge to singular "One" from the original Plural. From Books to Book, "conversationS with scholars", etc, asking for needless/fallacious detail after I nailed you with "reading list".

Nonetheless and again, no matter.
You can't even point to me making the [Again] Fallacious claims you "challenged" me with!
You remain too ****** to debate me.
like 40 IQ points.
+

PS: and on the bottom of the last page, OCD Case EDrone02, just SPAMS up more Black College 'House Scientist' Joseph Graves, his God, and without whom, he can't even post a Los!ng argument on the topic.
+
Have a nice page!
Ejay02, could NOT answer my posts at the Top of the last page either.
+

EDIT to below Ejay LIE #8976.
ALMOST all MY POSTS/Claims HAVE LINKS/SOURCES.

And unlike Ejay's OCD Graves posts, I use different ones!
He's probably cited the Black College 'House Scientist' 10 times in 8 pages, many are even multiple citings, and even Identical repeats. INSANE!
See the last 8 pages.

In fact, see the whole section/internet. It's Ejay's Graves-yard.
+

 

Did you seriously just copy & paste the same post you made in Post #153?

You've run out of arguments and now you can't even make new posts?

You ignored 5 posts with detailed arguments backed by credible research.

1) Post #97

2) Post #100

3) Post #106

4) Post #113

5) Post #114

You have literally zero sources supporting your position on the claim of genetically determined racial differences in intelligence by scholars who haven't been exposed as academic racists and I refuted the arguments of all of them.

Your mental illness is on full display. Spamming links to information you haven't read, don't comprehend or contradicts the position you're making doesn't make you a serious debater. When you don't even understand basic evolutionary concepts like natural selection then boast that you can beat evolutionary biologists in debate you're showing anyone with common sense that you are a fraud who resorts to mindless rants when he's been defeated.

 

In post #141 all you did was paste a link to arguments made by George Gill on the concept of race which are irrelevant to our debate because:

1) The post wasn't directed at me.

2) Gill does not support your main argument that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence.

This is the same problem you have with Jerry Coyne. They are credible sources but they haven't supported your main argument. Supporting the position that there are biological races and supporting the position that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence are not the same thing. Besides my email conversation with Graves refutes the claim that socially-constructed races are biologically meaningful. That is a direct rebuttal to your claim about the existence of biological races in the human species. I do have sources that directly address the argument of Gill for the defense of race as a scientific tool in Forensic Anthropology however to request that of me when you haven't addressed the research in the 5 posts I listed is unfair. So I'm going to request that you respond to the posts you've been ignoring. After you make your excuses which further expose you as a fraud then I will respond to the Gill post just to prove a point about who has the better sources and who is capable of actually extrapolating an argument from those sources.

So the ball is in your court. Respond to the posts you ignored first or show everyone your inferiority as a debater by making excuses not to.

 

More Dishonest Deflection and WIMPING out by E-graves-itrarianJay02. More Dishonest Mischaracterization of my position/sources.

1. I Never used Coyne nor Gill to Prove IQ difference, just that there ARE Races.

2. As usuaI, I used Gill above/today, merely Forensically.

3. You DO disagree with Gill on Races, and just because a post "wasn't directed at you", doesn't mean you can't object. This is public message board, not Private conversations. You WHIFFED.

Why?
3. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k....
The Difficult thing for YOU/other Race-Denial Clowns about Gill is - no matter how much you want to disagree that there's Race..
HE'S USING IT successfully every day, and even in Legal cases!
So you can whine that there's No sun up there, but Gill has a Tan.
Splat/Sqooooosh/Bye #947
+

 

I am very impressed with your work here. Keep copies of these posts so you can use them in future discussions, don't let this work go unnoticed or forgotten. The sad truth about racism here in America is that it is part of the very fabric of who we are as a nation. None of us can escape it. Those of us on one side have to try very hard to overcome it, we almost always fail miserably despite our best intentions. Those on the receiving end can never, ever escape the racism. It is sad. Underneath all the bullshit here is a hope that science can prove once and for all that whites are genetically superior to blacks. It is a preposterous supposition but that is really at the heart of your opponents here. I am proud of you, keep it up.

 

How many posts of mine have you ignored again? At least 5. Even in this very post you completely ignored the fact that I listed 5 posts that you did not respond to. You know, just because you pretend an argument or point isn't there doesn't mean that it goes unnoticed by others. Everyone can see that you ignored the research in those posts. Everyone can see that you insulted the intelligence of Graves, boasted about being a great debater on the topic of evolution and then displayed profound ignorance of basic evolutionary concepts such as the fact that natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution.

But what did YOU say about our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms?

This:

This is why you can't be taken seriously as a debater. Because you are extremely dishonest. When you can't respond to something you just ignore it. Your delusions of grandeur are exposed when you make ignorant comments of this nature and then claim that professional scholars, who are experts in their field, can't debate you. You missed the opportunity to debate Robert Sussman by over a year. You got my thread closed on Scienceforum.net by flaming your opponents (just as you are doing here). You boasted about refuting Graves in the thread and when I responded to the post you were bragging about you ignored it.

So why would any rational person observing these dishonest debate patterns and display of ignorance believe that you possess the ability to reply to me after I respond to your copy/paste of Gill?

But here comes a reply only to prove a point.

Everyone can refer back to the original post for the full quotes from the article.

Gill made the following points in the excerpt that Taxonomy26 quoted:

1) He claims that slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real.

2) His students are baffled by the idea that any scientists can deny the existence of race given that his work on legal cases indicates that race can be determined from a skeleton with a high degree of accuracy. So in Gill's view "bones don't lie."

3) He claims that the belief that race is only skin deep is not true and based on his work feels confident that he is more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at people standing before him.

4) He further goes on to say that scientists who deny the existence of races do so because they have a politically correct agenda. They believe that acknowledging racial differences promotes racism so they ignore facts and remain in denial of reality to suit their political agenda.

So let me address these claims with some fact checking:

1) Do slightly over half of biologists/physical anthropologists believe that their are biological races? What is Gill's source? According to the website this article was published on February 15, 2000. So in the absence of a source from Gill we need to look in to whether or not there was an official survey of a representative sample of physical anthropologists who maintain that slightly over half of experts in their field believes that there are biological human races.

I happen to know of such as source:

So according to Leonard Lieberman, who I previously quoted in post #98 to refute Taxonomy26's claim of racial hierarchies in brain size which he ignored, a survey found that in actuality 69% of Physical Anthropologists rejected the concept of race being applied to humans. Lieberman, unlike Gill, actually has a source for his statement and the survey was conducted in 1999 before Gill's article was published. So he was either unaware of this survey, was referencing another source or he lied. Either way he's wrong. Surveys amount to a tally of opinions and don't definitely refute a claim however the opinion of experts on the subject according to the quote above had been trending toward the rejection of the concept of race for years which is consistent with an official statement put out by the American Anthropological Association on the subject of race which also rejected its applicability to humans.

http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

And that statement was also published before Gill's paper. Gill's statement was at best inaccurate and at worse misleading.

2) Gill sounds like he is proud of his work and the science behind his defense of the concept of race. But does his statement hold up to scrutiny? Bones don't lie, but is the assessment of population affinity or racial classification as reliable as he claims? One of the legal cases that Gill worked on that is actually well-known was the Kennewick Man controversy which involved the ancient skeletal remains found on a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington in 1996. Initial skeletal analysis of the remains indicated that it was a Caucasian male who lived about 9,000 years ago.

Native American tribes demanded the reburial of Kennewick Man's remains who they called "The Ancient One" citing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Gill publicly justified the scientific study of Kennewick Man on the basis that he was unrelated to any Native American tribes claiming him as their ancestor.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1996-10/UoW-PATS-311096.php

George Gill, UW professor and specialist in forensic anthropology, says the skeleton, known as "Kennewick Man," is believed to have a caucasoid bone structure and is not an ancestor of the tribe claiming it. He and four other physical anthropologists, who specialize in the biology of early peoples, and three archaeologists, who specialize in prehistory, want to study the skeleton before its reburial.

This caused a lot of controversy because the age of the skeleton and the classification of it as Caucasian gave the impression to some (especially White Supremacists on the internet) that White people were in America before the ancestors of Native Americans.

Later it was revealed that Kennewick man had dental traits similar to the Ainu, a group of people living today in Japan whose craniofacial features have also been described as Caucasoid but genetically are more similar to other populations in East Asia. Recent DNA analysis determined conclusively that Kennewick man was genetically related to Native American tribes and an ancestor of the living groups claiming his remains.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26087396

"Subsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans. In order to resolve Kennewick Man's ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ∼1× coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including for the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide."

So in a famous legal case that had major implications for the population history of America Gill's defense of the concept of race failed to hold up to the test of modern scientific research. Bones don't lie but because of discordant variation among human populations anthropologists can draw incorrect conclusions about genetic affinity of skeletal remains.


Continued.....

 

3) Now that I have shown the fallacies of Gill's arguments which failed him in a major legal case his statement about being able to tell race from bones better than he can people can be taken with a grain of salt. But if anyone wants to dismiss the Kennewick Man case as an anomaly look no further than the discipline of forensic reconstruction where Forensic Anthropologists use scientific techniques to recreate a face from a skeleton. Forensic reconstruction is becoming common in identifying bones in murder cases where a reconstruction is compared to the photos of a victim which can be quite an emotional experience for families. But can forensic reconstruction be reliably used to classify a person by race based on their skull.

Look for yourself at these two reconstructions of King Tutankhamen done 3 years apart by different scientists and draw your own conclusions:

2002





2005





Compare to: King Tut's Lotus bust made during his lifetime



http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/suppressedarcheology.htm



The official responses to accusations of deliberate 'whitening', demonstrate the existence of racial conflict within the Egyptian scientific arena today.

When pressed on the issue by American activists in September 2007, the current Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass (above, right) stated that "Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilization as black has no element of truth to it." While Dr. Ahmed Saleh (above, left), the former archaeological inspector for the Supreme Council of antiquities stated that the procedures used in the facial re-creation made Tut look Caucasian, "disrespecting the nation's African roots." (1) During his time in office, Hawasss resisted any DNA testing of Mummies. (6) Hawass was sacked from his position in 2011 (7), following charges of misconduct, and a near jail sentence for misappropriation.

Forensic reconstruction is more of an art than a science. Forensic artists can not reconstruct soft tissue and traits such as skin color are dependent on the suggestion of the artist. If Gill can not correctly tell us whether or not Kennewick Man shared genetic relationships with modern Native Americans can we really take him seriously when he says that racial classification is more reliable when assessing skeletal remains than looking at living people? His racial thinking and those like him have led to massive controversies including the uproar over Kennewick Man and King Tut which disrespected the heritage of Native Americans fueled racist propaganda about the Ancient Egyptians being White.

George Gill's reliance on outdated racial classification schemes is clearly problematic.

4) Now this is probably the worst of Gill's statements in the article as he is actually attacking the integrity of professional scholars who, like him, are trying to advance our understanding of human biological variation in the name of science. Understanding the true nature of human genetics is important not only for forensic science in legal cases but for fields that are essential for daily life such as medical science. Gill is misrepresenting the views of respected scientists by basically labeling them race-deniers which is a term now popular among proponents of Scientific Racism. As Graves pointed out in the email I quoted in post #106 his position on biological races does not come from having any kind of political agenda and is not a manifestation of egalitarian bias. Advances in scientific research have simply discredited the claim that socially-constructed racial categories are biologically meaningful.

One could suggest alternatively that forensic anthropologists like George Gill have a financial motivation for maintaining their position. These legal cases create a demand for his expertise and the rejection of the existence of biological races in humans may be hurting his business.

Continued....

 

This article reveals the truth about forensic anthropology and the motivation to defend the legitimacy of the concept of race:

Race in forensic anthropology

Many of us have at one point or another watched TV shows like the CSI series or read
novels about forensic anthropologists, where experts are able to tell a great deal about a dead person from the characteristics of their skeleton: his or her sex, age at death, stature, physical condition, sometimes even the person’s occupation or the diseases and chronic conditions that they had endured during life. It always seems very impressive, an illustration of the power and sophistication of research techniques. Very often, such analysis will include determination of the race of that individual, as well. Prominent forensic specialists, physical anthropologists who study human skeletal remains in order to provide information for legal proceedings, have affirmed that human biological races exist, and stated that the race concept is fundamental to their research (see for example Gill [1990, 1998]). Surely such experts must be taken at their word?

In fact, the circumstances in which race is identified in forensic research are very complex.
Forensic anthropologists, more than most other practitioners of anthropology, function in cooperation with non-specialists: law enforcement officers, legal specialists and members of juries. These latter people for the most part do not have a background in anthropology, and so their views of biological variation tend to be those of the North American public – they accept traditional racial divisions, and they hold typological views of race.

Forensic anthropologists must report their results in terms that are meaningful to their non-anthropological audience, and they have adopted traditional race categories as the most effective way of doing that. As Gill (1990:viii) says, “Providing answers for the attribution of race solves cases just as much as providing a useful age bracket or living stature for the individual. Law enforcement agencies know this, and request simple, straight answers. Any anthropologist who contends that races do not exist and provides a vague answer as to ancestry of an unidentified skeleton, or launches into a discourse on ‘ethnic groups’, will likely never be called upon again to assist in solving a case.” A major reason for the use of racial categories by American forensic anthropologists is thus pragmatic: their target audience wants to hear about race.

Forensic anthropologists in other countries do not seem to feel the same need to talk about
‘race’, and to avoid mentioning ‘ethnic groups’ in forensics (see for example Evison 1999). The author of an important British textbook on the analysis of the human skeleton (Mays 199 managed to go through the whole book without referring to race once; he wrote about human populations instead. Even some American forensic anthropologists seem less than committed to the concept (Kennedy 1995; Sauer 1992). More to the point, the ‘races’ that forensic anthropologists identify vary according to local demographic and social conditions. Thus, in the southwestern United States a great deal of attention has been given to distinguishing the skeletons of Native American people from those of people of European descent, while in the southeast differentiation of Americans of African descent is at least as important. Among southwestern American samples that include people of European descent, Rhine (1990) distinguishes between ‘Anglo’ skeletons and those of ‘Hispanics’.

That distinction might well be of importance to law enforcement and other government agencies in that area, concerned with the accurate identification of local people in terms that local people recognize – but no physical anthropologist would argue that ‘Anglos’ and ‘Hispanics’ are separate biological races. Similarly, forensic anthropologists try to distinguish skeletons from Southeast Asian, East Indian and Nubian populations, not because these groups are ancient ‘races’ but because modern North American urban populations include people from these groups (Brooks et al. 1990: 45). In other cases, the variability in skeletons of particular races (Native American peoples, for example) has confounded attempts by forensic anthropologists to develop techniques for archaeological identification (Fisher and Gill 1990).

In Britain, forensic anthropologists work at differentiating people of Western European descent from South Asians, while in France the forensic identification of peoples of Western European, North African and Southeast Asian descent might attract comparable amounts of attention. In all of these areas, investigators are concerned that the increasing mobility and multiethnic backgrounds of peoples from all over the world will make their job more complex. Forensic anthropologists examine the skeletal variability of different human populations. They investigate a variety of traits, recognizing that not all of these characteristics are distributed in the same way through the different populations under study, and that the reliability of their results may vary drastically depending upon the relations between those populations and available comparative samples. These different identifications are not made because these groups are fundamental biological types of humans (Relethford 2009).

They are made because human populations are physically variable in all kinds of detectable ways, because the remains that are found often reflect the makeup of local populations, and because both law enforcement agencies and communities at large need to know the identities of the dead. We might argue that forensic anthropologists should be trying to educate their clients about the complexities of human physical variation and the difficulties of grouping humans into well-defined populations, but they in turn could (and do) as well argue that the necessity of providing well-understood information to everyone from local sheriffs to war-crimes tribunals takes precedence. Far from substantiating a view of human races as important biological groupings, as the claims of some researchers would imply (Gill 1998, 2000), the work of forensic anthropologists actually testifies to the complexity and range of variation in human populations – and to the important ways in which social classifications and social pressures can mold the outcomes of scientific enquiries.

Source: The concept of race in contemporary anthropology. In Race and ethnicity: the United States and the world, 2nd edition, edited by Raymond Scupin, pp. 34-57. Prentice Hall, New York.

 

It's my experience, the more E-Graves-itarianJay02, has to put up/attempt to Bury you with.. the less he has.
King Tut?
Rushton? !*&@#$^&()&
etc, etc

Gill is one of about only 60 members of the ABFA/American Board of Forensic Anthropologists, (just retired): Small-time-Scupin is not. Gill was invited to be one of the investigators in the important 'Kennewick man' case.

Again, Gill used Race in his profession daily, and it's use accepted in legal cases.
Unlike alot of other mere opinion debates, Gill has demonstrated Race and it's accepted in Court.
So Solly.
I'm sure you could find volumes on why DNA/PCH isn't valid as well :^)
(too bad you had to spend 4 hours finding that extranea, but that's what you live for/your occupation/obsession in any case)

And of course, you LIED about my use of Coyne and Gill as IQ references.

You know anyone who likes E-Graves-itarianJay02's posts doesn't know anything. (thus his 1% like rate)
You are no exception: a simpleton who thinks this is "David Duke vs Nice people."

Accepting that Races (in All species) have noticeably different features/biology as well as proclivities (such as East Asians have higher IQ and lower Crime than 'Whites'; or Blacks being better at Sprints/Sports) is hardly "White Supremacism".
It's merely accepting Evolution.
Your understanding of this debate is Nil.
Thus you are the uneducated cheering section for race-baiting by numbnuts02.
+

EDIT to below.
The usual E-Graves-itarianJay02 nonsense.
I never claimed nor used Coyne/Gill for IQ.
Only versus YOUR and other Race denial.
And of course, having Different Races/Genes/Biology IS Having different Features, and a Necessary Precursor for having different abilities.
ie,
having significantly Different Skeletal structure/size/etc, almost certainly imparts Different Abilities/Strength, etc.
Kwushhh #948.
+

 

Actually you lied. What I said was that Gill and Coyne don't support your views on race and intelligence and that claiming that races exist and claiming that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ are not the same thing. I addressed your source and refuted him point by point. You can't challenge any of my arguments. You don't know how. You have now abandoned the Race & IQ argument in favor of "Well Races Still Exist" because you thought that was the only debate point you could score. Once again, you lose.

 

Apparently you're more than just mentally ill. You have a significant intellectual deficit and poor reading comprehension. I never said you used Gill and Coyne for claims about IQ differences. You used them to claim that there are biological races. After I crushed you on the subject of race and intelligence you've reverted to trying to prove that at the very least biological races exist.

Do yo get it now?

However once again you failed. And you will fail again and again until you give up or get banned for trolling.

 

Even though I completely destroyed Taxonomy26 in this debate (and he knows it) I'm going to make a few more points just to illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of this charlatan.

I made the following points in my critique of the comments made by George Gill:

1) A survey done shortly before Gill's article was published contradicts his claim that slightly over half of physical anthropologists believe that there are biological races.

2) Gill's defense of the reliability of skeletal analysis in identifying race failed in his most well known legal case concerning whether Kennewick Man was an ancestor of Native Americans. Genetic analysis contradicted his position and the case was lost for his side.

3) Gill claimed that he can identify race from analyzing bones better than he can looking at real people. But Forensic Anthropologists who specialize in facial reconstruction can't even agree on the race of individuals from certain populations. King Tutankhamen is a prime example.

4) Gill attacked the integrity of respected scientists who reject the concept of race by claiming they have a politically correct agenda to deny the existence of race because they fear that believing that race is a valid biological construct legitimizes racism. Scientists who reject the existence of biological races in humans (such as Joseph Graves) defend their position based on legitimate scientific research on human genetic variation which does not structure in to biologically defined racial categories. Alternatively there is reason to believe that forensic anthropologists such as Gill defend the concept of race because it is central to their work on legal cases where there is a demand that they present scientific research that conforms to socially-defined races. The excerpt from the article I posted summarizes the problems with this approach.

Now how does Taxonomy26 respond to these arguments? He ignores them. He tries to claim that there is no substance to my arguments. He fixates on things irrelevant to my arguments and then tried to defend the credibility of Gill against one of my sources by citing his involvement in an important court case which I showed that he lost!

I quoted an excerpt from an article written by Leonard Lieberman and highlighted text to specifically point out the survey that contradicted Gill's claim. Rushton had nothing to do with the point. Yes, Lieberman is critiquing Rushton's use of the concept of race but the point is about the survey on physical anthropologists!

Likewise, King Tut is only used as an example of a major incident where forensic reconstruction was used to show what a deceased individual looked like which lead to a racial controversy. Two different artists who analyzed CT scans of Tut's skull made forensic reconstructions of Tut that looked very different. This shows the limitations of this technique to reconstruct faces that look exactly like the person did when they were alive. A contemporary bust of Tut, made by artists who saw him when he was a live show the clear difference between what either forensic artist thinks he looked like and how ancient artists who knew what he looked like depicted him.

This study confirms everything I said about the problems with forensic artwork:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815945/

Facial reconstruction is employed in the context of forensic investigation and for creating three-dimensional portraits of people from the past, from ancient Egyptian mummies and bog bodies to digital animations of J. S. Bach. This paper considers a facial reconstruction method (commonly known as the Manchester method) associated with the depiction and identification of the deceased from skeletal remains. Issues of artistic licence and scientific rigour, in relation to soft tissue reconstruction, anatomical variation and skeletal assessment, are discussed. The need for artistic interpretation is greatest where only skeletal material is available, particularly for the morphology of the ears and mouth, and with the skin for an ageing adult. The greatest accuracy is possible when information is available from preserved soft tissue, from a portrait, or from a pathological condition or healed injury.

If the same techniques Gill uses to racially classify skeletons can not be used to reconstruct faces that can reliably be fit in to a racial category then logically Gill can not identify race from skulls better than he can group a living individual in to a race. His methodology failed him in the Kennewick Man case where genetic analysis contradicted his conclusions about the relationship between modern Native Americans and their ancient ancestor.

Finally I will just point out that, contrary to Taxonomy26's assumption, Raymond Scupin is not the author of the article on anthropology that I cited. The actual author is Scott MacEachern, another scholar who I have had email conversations with.


Scott MacEachern



https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/smaceach/

Education

• 
  
  
  • B.A. (Prince Edward Island)
  • M.A., Ph.D. (Calgary)

Scott MacEachern specializes in African archaeology and ethnoarchaeology; research involves the study of state formation and ethnicity in Iron Age Central Africa.

https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/smaceach/pdf/Scott-MacEachern-CV-2017.pdf

Taxonomy26 didn't know that because he didn't even bother to check the source. All he had to do was put the title in Google and he would have known that MacEachern is the author and Scupin is the editor of the volume the article was published in.

Here is a link to the full article:

http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp489-fs16/files/2012/08/Race-in-anthropology.pdf

So with all of that settled I have conclusively shown why I am the superior debater. Taxanomy26, you can claim that racial debate is my life but I'm not the one suffering from delusions of grandeur claiming that my debate skills are so good that I can shut down professional scholars who are expert in fields you only pretend to be knowledgeable about.

Now that your credibility has been destroyed what do you have? This is why I don't spend much time here any more because there is no challenge, certainly not by you. You are not a scholar. You haven't read any books on the subject. You can't point to any evidence that you have debated any scholars on the topic. You have no formal education related to this research. I very much doubt that you even passed Biology in high school. How can a poster who claims to be knowledgeable about evolution state that we don't know the mechanism underlying much of evolution/speciation?

The reason you are so ignorant of the topic is because you are a wannabe, a fraud, a liar and a troll who ignores arguments he doesn't know how to respond to, uses logical fallacies, uses dishonest debate tactics to distract from legitimate debate, personally attacks his opponents when he is frustrated and goes on mindless rants after losing debates.

This is why you ducked my challenge to debate on Sciforum, not because you didn't feel a need to but because you know that you can't debate on that platform. I responded to your post on Scienceforum.net that I wasn't able to respond to because you got the thread closed for flaming and you ignored it here. You said I can't debate you, well I did and you ignored arguments in multiple posts after you knew your were outclassed.

You are the product of what a happens when a racist gets on the internet and thinks he can outsmart posters on message boards if he reads enough Wikipedia articles and random links on the internet then develops delusions of grandeur after being exposed to the enormity of the availability of knowledge one can gain from reading enough about a topic. You felt that you'd done enough internet homework to fool people in to thinking you knew more than your opponents' sources and then you got exposed after displaying profound ignorance of basic concepts related to the subject. You're nothing special. Pretenders like you pollute every corner of the internet but they get banned on forums where they are expected to adhere to higher standards of debate such as defending their argument with credible sources.

That's why Mikemikev and Rayznack were banned on Sciforum. Mikemikev is even banned here because of his habit of trolling. Like you he has OCD which resulted in him being banned from Wikipedia for using hundreds of sockpuppets to edit Wiki articles. You on the other hand compare yourself to professional scholars because you want to be on that level. You're not. If you want to be a big shot then go to college and earn a degree yourself. Get your research published in a journal. Write a book of your own or become a professor. Do that and you might be able to earn some respect. But that's not you and there's no reason to think it would ever be.

As for me, I'm clearly wasting my time even dignifying people like you in debate. That's why I don't post about this much any more. You're boring. You're too dishonest and unstable to be taken seriously. We both know you're not going to respond to any of my actual arguments and you're not going to debate me on a science message board. So we're done.
You lost again. If you do attempt to debate me seriously I'll be back but if you post another stupid screed devoid any real content that could advance discussion like you always do when you've been defeated you will have just proven my point.

 

Note above. The poor 100% race poster/inferiority complex loser, (calling me OCD!) howling/link-dumping into the night well after the string ends.
He can't help himself. He posts Race and only Race, while it's a small minority of my posts wherever I go. He has nowhere else to go and nothing else to say. Race.
For me 'Race' is just a continuation of my pro-evolution posts - which are ongoing vs ie, Other (Religious) evo deniers in the Science section. For ejay, it's personal.

And probably near half his 100% Race content on hundreds of message boards for "13 years," cite a Black College 'House Scientist' (Graves), while I quote pre-eminent and new sources when I come by the section.
In fact, like All sections here, that's why I oft open a string: I've come across new info. Not like him to reflexively answer everything with the same illogical garbage.

I've probably made 40 posts elsewhere (and gotten 40 likes) while this poor race-case has been Ruminating over his loss, and had to make yet another post above. Ejay, get a life and some other interests. Maybe take a walk.
No one cares about your previous Race-posting life: "rayznack/Mikemv/sciform", etc.

But again, re the string topic, there's nothing I or anyone else can do to "solve" the base problem of Race differences. They exist. I can't win the the 100M dash, and you can't debate. Note London yesterday, and here every day.
But hey, keep gratuitously link dumping/last-wording whatever.
`

 

Oh is the thread over? Who announced that? You? That's because you quit! You have no new arguments and have resorted to childish personal attacks in reaction to your humiliating defeat. I cited over 40 scholars in this thread. All you did was cite academic racists and a few sources that say there are biological races, who I refuted! Your debates with creationists don't mean anything considering you don't even have a grasp of basic evolutionary concepts. You are not a scholar. You have no right to compare your knowledge or intelligence to professional scholars whom you've never had a serious discussion or debate with on the topic, unlike me. Didn't you say in my thread that you had 15 years of experience on forums while you were complaining about the posting options?

So you're a liar and a hypocrite. You don't know what else I talk about on the internet. I have debated this topic off and on for years yes but I have plenty of other interested completely unrelated to racism, science or politics. You on the other hand get involved in these debates to the point of obsession over the posters you are debating which is why you try to get personal with them. This is obviously a case of psychological projection. I don't care whether I have the last word or not. The debate ended a long time ago. You just keep replying because of your utter foolishness. You don't know when to quit and fight another day when it is in your best interests. As for my alleged inability to debate, well only in the delusional mind of Taxonomy26 could anyone possible believe that. Go ahead and make a list of preeminent scholars that you cited in this thread who agree with your main point e.g. there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence. When the number is below 40 or there's no reply at all everyone will know why. There won't be a list, but even if there was I would be interested in seeing how many of those scholars having been denounced as academic racists by the Southern Poverty Law Center and have ties to the Pioneer Fund or spoke at conferences organized by White Nationalists. If you were to accept that challenge (we know you won't because you're a dishonest coward) everyone would see the limits of your quality sources. Gill and Coyne don't count. Even though Gill is in the minority opinion among physical anthropologists on whether humans have biological races that is not the topic of debate. The topic is race & intelligence.

You can talk as much smack as you want but at the end of the day you are a racist loser whose credibility as a serious and knowledgeable debater was completely destroyed by a man you claimed was intellectually inferior to you. In reality you aren't in my league. I can win the 100 meter dash and beat your racist ass in debate while speaking to preeminent scholars on the subject that wouldn't give you the time of day.

 

Sure they have solutions: Wake up, defend your civilization, cherish your heritage, control your borders, and stop mixing.

And I think you mean brass tacks.