It's hilarious that some think scientists are crazy when they assert the truth of natural selection and evolution, but the scientists are right when they present natural selection and evolution data that appears to assert some races are better than others, but that they're silly when they assert that their data does not necessarily mean that.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
King Tutâs DNA is a 99.6 percent match with Western European Y Chromosomes?
- Thread starter phenomena
- Start date
What's "silly" is that we allow the PC orthodoxy to shape scientific progress or research in any way whatsoever.
Quote from Ricter:
It's hilarious that some think scientists are crazy when they assert the truth of natural selection and evolution, but the scientists are right when they present natural selection and evolution data that appears to assert some races are better than others, but that they're silly when they assert that their data does not necessarily mean that.
Quote from phenomena:
What's "silly" is that we allow the PC orthodoxy to shape scientific progress or research in any way whatsoever.
Where do you think hypotheses, the foundation of science, come from? They do not come from some objective realm. Man and science are inseparable.
But this doesn't make a difference anyway. When "truth" is on the side of the weak, the strong ignore it, but when it's on the side of the strong, the strong enforce it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote from Ricter:
When "truth" is on the side of the weak, the strong ignore it, but when it's on the side of the strong, the strong enforce it. [/B]
Yes, this can happen sometime. And then sometime people think they understand science to be something it is not.
Look how cruel when some people think this man is (transitional)species to modern man. But he is human. If you read this link you see he can learn language when they teach him. And you can see he is self aware to become so sad he kill himself.
"Ota Benga (c. 1883[1] â March 20, 1916) was a Congolese pygmy who was featured in a 1906 human zoo exhibit at New York City's Bronx Zoo. Benga came to the United States through the action of businessman and missionary Samuel Phillips Verner. Under contract from the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, Verner negotiated Benga's release from slave traders in 1904 following his capture by the Force Publiqueâwhich had also attacked his village, killing Benga's wife and two children.
"Benga performed in an anthropology display at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition later in 1904. After nearly two years of travel, including a return trip to Africa, Verner arranged for Benga to live at the Bronx Zoo. Benga roamed freely on the grounds and was encouraged to interact with patrons; he later came to be "exhibited" in the zoo's Monkey House as part of a display intended to promote the concepts of human evolution and scientific racism.
Public outcry eventually led to Benga's removal from the zoo, and he was released into the custody of African American clergy. He lived in a local orphanage until he was relocated in 1910 to Lynchburg, Virginia. There he was groomed for the American way of life, dressing in Western-style clothing and attending primary school. When the outbreak of World War I made a return to the Congo impossible, Benga became depressed. In 1916, he committed suicide with a pistol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
Right, so according to your logic we should hide or shroud facts which favor the "strong" (according to current marxist/egalitarian doctrine), and reinforce facts which favor the "weak" (according to current marxist/egalitarian doctrine). Hence skewing scientific output in the favor the prevailing PC mythos, to the detriment of overall scientific progress. More neo-marxist "critical theory" in action. LOL!!!
Quote from Ricter:
Where do you think hypotheses, the foundation of science, come from? They do not come from some objective realm. Man and science are inseparable.
But this doesn't make a difference anyway. When "truth" is on the side of the weak, the strong ignore it, but when it's on the side of the strong, the strong enforce it.
Quote from phenomena:
Right, so according to your logic we should hide or shroud facts which favor the "strong" (according to current marxist/egalitarian doctrine), and reinforce facts which favor the "weak" (according to current marxist/egalitarian doctrine). Hence skewing scientific output in the favor the prevailing PC mythos, to the detriment of overall scientific progress. More neo-marxist "critical theory" in action. LOL!!!
Scientific output is always skewed--man is never out of the equation. So a good question is, what men get to be a part of the equation?
The irony of the productive capitalist practice of accumulation is that insofar as it succeeds and strength accumulates, it creates the poorer masses, ie. the seeds, of its own destruction. This is particularly true [it accelerates] when processes like "trickle down" are no longer functioning, as in our time. Hence, the Tea Party.
Starving people do not let the rich enjoy their wealth. That's the far side of of worst case, and it's not an idle fantasy, food riots are today's news. We're just starting down that road, but it's "again", it's not the first time Man has gone that route.
We should propagate our strength today, of course, yet not neglect to cultivate a habit of care for the weak. Do that now and it will be there for us when we are weak. And we will be weak one day, despite our genetic "superiority" and pumped up muscles.
The problem of "weeds" will remain, but then, there is no perfect system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote from phenomena:
Right, so according to your logic we should hide or shroud facts which favor the "strong" (according to current marxist/egalitarian doctrine), and reinforce facts which favor the "weak" (according to current marxist/egalitarian doctrine). Hence skewing scientific output in the favor the prevailing PC mythos, to the detriment of overall scientific progress. More neo-marxist "critical theory" in action. LOL!!!
Phenomena, is obvious the difference strength and weakness of people. If no matter the communist or capitalist system, you can not be the scientist, doctor, physicist... if you can not understand. No system favor the weak. So the one who have passion, curious and intelligent will take the job to match. The difference in the systems is the money. No one can fake science, math, creativity, imagination. That is natural selection.
You know what I think is so stupid? If a girl can make alot of money for to pay for school with 2 days to escort someone on their trip of the weekend, people call her whore. Hmm, but she can have good grades, and use (natural selection) for advantage, so she is stupid?
So what is intelligence? What is strong, what is weak?
Quote from Ricter:
We should propagate our strength today, of course, yet not neglect to cultivate a habit of care for the weak. Do that now and it will be there for us when we are weak. And we will be weak one day, despite our genetic "superiority" and pumped up muscles.
The problem of "weeds" will remain, but then, there is no perfect system. [/B][/QUOT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Take care of your family. For example because when your grandfather is strong he take care of you, so now if he is weak you think he have no worth?
Translation: "Since the implications of the data do not or might not be homogeneous my personal world view or social narrative, then the course of study should be abandoned regardless of any cost to scientific, medical, or technological progress".
Your argument is tantamount to the "if a branch falls in the forest". Your assertion is that there is no reality independent of human observation. If that were the case nothing would occur which humans didn't observe. It's a desperately stupid argument based in vacuous nonsense. You are so brainwashed you can't see anything outside of your marxist world view. It's this marxist concept of the "oppressed" proletariats having "revolutions" over and over again. You will perform the most absurd conceptual acrobatics to fit any and every sequence of events into this intellectually bankrupt world view. The average tea party supporter isn't impoverished or even lower income. It's mostly middle to upper, most of the poor supporters are the younger, college age supporters.
You are somehow tying in objective, non politically or socially influenced scientific research with lack of "care for the weak". This is an unfathomable logical leap. It's so stupid that I find it hard to believe you aren't being disingenuous...
Your argument is tantamount to the "if a branch falls in the forest". Your assertion is that there is no reality independent of human observation. If that were the case nothing would occur which humans didn't observe. It's a desperately stupid argument based in vacuous nonsense. You are so brainwashed you can't see anything outside of your marxist world view. It's this marxist concept of the "oppressed" proletariats having "revolutions" over and over again. You will perform the most absurd conceptual acrobatics to fit any and every sequence of events into this intellectually bankrupt world view. The average tea party supporter isn't impoverished or even lower income. It's mostly middle to upper, most of the poor supporters are the younger, college age supporters.
You are somehow tying in objective, non politically or socially influenced scientific research with lack of "care for the weak". This is an unfathomable logical leap. It's so stupid that I find it hard to believe you aren't being disingenuous...
Quote from Ricter:
Scientific output is always skewed--man is never out of the equation. So a good question is, what men get to be a part of the equation?
The irony of the productive capitalist practice of accumulation is that insofar as it succeeds and strength accumulates, it creates the poorer masses, ie. the seeds, of its own destruction. This is particularly true [it accelerates] when processes like "trickle down" are no longer functioning, as in our time. Hence, the Tea Party.
Starving people do not let the rich enjoy their wealth. That's the far side of of worst case, and it's not an idle fantasy, food riots are today's news. We're just starting down that road, but it's "again", it's not the first time Man has gone that route.
We should propagate our strength today, of course, yet not neglect to cultivate a habit of care for the weak. Do that now and it will be there for us when we are weak. And we will be weak one day, despite our genetic "superiority" and pumped up muscles.
The problem of "weeds" will remain, but then, there is no perfect system.
Of course different groups of people have different strength and weaknesses on average (not individuals). Of course these differences are significantly influenced by congenital factors. You are trying to create the false association to the acknowledgement of that fact to a lack of empathy. Your assertion is that if these facts are acknowledged, and/or scientifically studied that this somehow implies a lack of empathy. That assertion is false. In fact empathy could well be a driving force for many people studying genetic differences in groups. How could these hypothetical differences possibly be desirably affected without studying them, much less pretending like they don't even exist?!
What this has to do with your opinion that prostitution is ethically permissible? I have no idea. What you have said really boils down to 1) you think that scientific research into differences of genetic groups is unethical and that 2) you think prostitution is ethical.
What this has to do with your opinion that prostitution is ethically permissible? I have no idea. What you have said really boils down to 1) you think that scientific research into differences of genetic groups is unethical and that 2) you think prostitution is ethical.
Quote from trendlover:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phenomena, is obvious the difference strength and weakness of people. If no matter the communist or capitalist system, you can not be the scientist, doctor, physicist... if you can not understand. No system favor the weak. So the one who have passion, curious and intelligent will take the job to match. The difference in the systems is the money. No one can fake science, math, creativity, imagination. That is natural selection.
You know what I think is so stupid? If a girl can make alot of money for to pay for school with 2 days to escort someone on their trip of the weekend, people call her whore. Hmm, but she can have good grades, and use (natural selection) for advantage, so she is stupid?
So what is intelligence? What is strong, what is weak?