Are Some Races Genetically Superior At Some Things?

DY, Understand that I really dont care what you have to say.  You come here as a rasist trying to pretend that you actually are not.  The holocaust happened. END OF STORY. There is no debate, it should not be debated. Dont ever address me again, Do you understand my simple instructions.

                                                WAIT A SECOND

Okay now bullhorn I agree with what you've said 100%. HOWEVER you have no right to say it. You cannot take the moral high ground on this one man. First off I dont condone Dionysios views I personally find the appallinbg examples of rascism in general and anti semitism in particular. I find his distortions/outright lies about history apalling and despicable. Dont believe that read my other posts.

But you bullhorn....how different is Dionysios views on the Holocausts different for your views on the shape of the earth??

Sure you have the moral high ground your idiot views are held due to ignorance wheras his are based in hatred (dionysios I know you will wish to refute this but dont bother no one in the forum will take your side and quite frankly you are in the wrong) but in terms of intellectual methods it's identical
Dont believe me? lets look at them both shall we
Holocaust Denial
1. hatred of Jews
2.dissmiss all evidence to the contrary (photos statistics historical records first-hand accounts) as products of a Jewish conspiracy
3.find "sources" from lunatic fringe of people who believe as you do (neo-Nazis Nazis fudementalist Islamic groups etc) and take those sources as gospel truth while not holding them to ludicrous and impossible proof that they arent products of a conspiracy as mainstream research is solely cause they support your believes
4.Spread your views
5.Dissmiss anyone who says your wrong as brainwashed
6.If any logical arguments are presented to the contrary
     a)ignore them by statement 5
     b) become angry and defensive
7.Restate arguments again and again

Pretty pathetic/evil stuff no???
Now
Flat Earthers
1. believe earth is flat
2.dissmiss all evidence to the contrary (photos statistics historical records first-hand accounts) as products of a government  conspiracy
3.find "sources" from lunatic fringe of people who believe as you do (Christian fundementalists the Flat earth socitey see http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=2 ) and take those sources as gospel truth while not holding them to ludicrous and impossible proof that they arent products of a conspiracy as mainstream research is solely cause they support your believes
4.Spread your views
5.Dissmiss anyone who says your wrong as brainwashed
6.If any logical arguments are presented to the contrary
     a)ignore them by statement 5
     b) become angry and defensive
7.Restate arguments again and again

HOLD ON THATS ALMOST IDENTICAL!!!!!
You see bullhorn while I admire your calling Dionysios out on his filthy rascism it's unfair to use a flawed intellectual method because its the only one that permits you to hold you ludicrous disproven view (viz the Earth is Flat) then attack someone whose methodolody if not his motives are identical to yours just because he uses your method to prove something you find distatesful (as well you should).
Basically bullhorn it's not fair for you to dissmiss the truth and the proper chain of reasoning more or less like this
1.Question
2.Hypothesis
3.First Principle Logic
4. Factual Tests
5. Belief
so you can hold your flat earth belief (which I feel is offensive) and then get angry when Dionysios uses the same bullshit rational to dissmiss the Holocaust (something I feel hundreds of thousands of times more offensive for the record).
In conclusion DIonysios is rascist scum but you bullhron are a hypocritical jackass (Enjoy your cloak of golden lead)
An enraged
Cinlef

A lot of people say no.  I say yes.  

Evolution means that organisms adapt to their enviornment.  Wouldn't that mean that, if Evolution exists (and I believe it does), that the races must have diverged a little bit.  Specialized here and there?

Discuss.

 UNBELEIVER!!!! It says in the Word that man DID NOT COME FROM SOME DARNED MONKEYS!!!!
    I came from Adam and Eve, my ancestors did not eat banannas and swing on vines! No sirre!!

I'm late on this thread so appologies for picking up on this as your other points in the same post Cinlef were admirable.  However your process of reasoning goes as so-

1.Question
2.Hypothesis
3.First Principle Logic
4. Factual Tests
5. Belief

1.  Question and hypothesis could in science be regarded as the same thing.  The mainstream of science merely states "hypothesis" as a more formalised form of question.  i.e to negate ambiguity.  If we're talking science then hypothesis is a starting point.  That is unless observation came before this.  By this i mean you're misnomer of "factual tests".  Many hypotheses started post primary observation and the science was carried out to refine and isolate the observations.  

2.  Factual tests.  Wha?  Surely refined observation in a bid to reduce confounding and extraneous variables (sorry if you consider these to be the same).  Facts do not play a part of this and the result cannot also be considered "fact" unless we alienate this term from an absolute and simply define a fact as the most probable truth.

3.  Belief.  Since when did belief mean a damn thing except to the believer?  Everyone has socially constructed beliefs.  It's how us humans make sense of the world and surmise that the chair we sit on at present will not suddenly turn inyo a steaming turd (this happened to me once whilst under the influence of dubeous substances many years ago.  I always look before sitting these days!).  Beliefs are similar to personal values.  I refer you to Gawds(!) above post.  It alludes to believe this, but that does not make it fact as it also alludes to.  

Answers on a postcard

Heheh re reading that I realize I was unclear, by factual tests I mena tests taht actually take place (the tests are factual) and by belief I meant acceptiung the result until some better explanation presents itself rather than disregarding it as it doesn't conform to your views.
A clearer
Cinlef

the

Cinlef, one more thing.  Answer me seriously.  If you had been a knowledgeable and sincere flat earther, would you give positions like moderator, et cetera to non-flat earthers?  No hard feelings against you, but the fact that Daniel does this seems the equivalent of baptizing outspoken atheists into the Church or initiating Pat Robertson followers into a traditional muslim organization.  The flat earth societies of the nineteenth century did not do this nor did Charles Johnson or Samuel Shenton knowingly admit non-flat earthers.  I want to know if you were a determined flat earther (which you are obviously not), would you not find this aspect of Daniel's setup a bit queer and somewhat repelling?

If I may butt in, I find the implications of your question queer and repelling.  If your goal is to establish dogmatic truth and crush contrary or independent thinking, then assigning power only to flat-Earthers is certainly the way to go.  But if you're interested in rational debate, then it makes perfect sense to populate the ranks of the leadership with people of differing opinions.

Cinlef: as moderator, you have the power to delete anybody's posts, correct?  Well, since you're not a flat-Earther, by the logic of Dionysios' question, do you delete posts supporting the flat-Earth theory, simply because they disagree with your views?

-Erasmus

To answer your question Dionysios I dont know if I was in Daniel shoes if I'd have the courage and confidence in my berliefs to give someone who totally opposes them the ability to help administer the forum. He seems to feel that since his views are the best ones free debate will only to serve to proove this. While his vies aren't being borne out by the arguments I admire the grandeur of someone who can disagree with someone else on so important an issue as their view of the world and yet still respect and trust that person with responsability. Also for the record while I find Dawgs views uncorrect and distasteful to tsay the least I have in no way tampered with his posts. The only posts I've deleted in my time as mod were
a)some of yours Dionysios that you had changed to the word the and given me permission too
b)random ads and pornography
c) 2 posts that were misfilled (alternate science in information repository etc)
d)angry ranting threads with 10 posts or under that had not been viewed or added too for months and mostly consisted of random cursing
My position isn't to censor your views thats The admins job, my responsability is merely to keep the forum running smoothly by removing the occasional add or spam. Something I feel i've done rather well. At the first sign of me abusing my power feel free to raise a hue and cry. Also I'm investigating your sources but I have several other projects going on and therefore don't have much time to devote to them, I shall mention any biases I find in a month or so
An annoyed
Cinlef

the

the

The assumption of "<Insert Historical Figure> is an 'evolutionist'"  is a long stretch except in a few instances (Darwin obviously is one).

Of course, I'm assuming by 'evolutionist' you mean "a person who accepts the Darwinian theory to be true", and not "a person actively undergoing an evolutionary change".  Individuals can only undergo mutations.  Species can evolve.

By the first meaning, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler are far from being believers of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.  They are actually opponents.

I also wish to discuss with you on the topic of Mao vs. Chang, in a thread under "For Everything Else" topic, since it would be off-topic here.  But let it be said that I cannot believe you would consider Chang, who tried to preserve the Republic, more evil than Mao, who ruled more like a despot/high-priest and caused more unnecessary deaths.

I will offer comments despite having only incompletely versed myself in the in-thread context.

As to evolution causing wars and genocides, evolution has been the philosophy of those persons who have inflicted genocide on large numbers of people.

You know about correlation not being the same thing as causation?

On that note, your statement is not correct.  Not every group that has inflicted genocide has "had evolution as their philosophy", whatever that means.

Also, as it turns out, I am an evolutionist, but I hope you all believe that I am not a murderous dictator.

Evolution was the philosophy that accompanied the savage neo-colonialim of the western european empires of the nineteenth century,

What was the philosophy that accompanied the savage colonialism of, say the Spanish conquistadores of the sixteenth century?  Or the not so vast and organized but equally savage taking-of-territory by aboriginals from one another?

The service evolution provides coloniasts or genocidal dictators is as a diplomat to the conscious of the murderers.  Theyu are led to believe the people they are subdoing, invading, or killing are genetically and therefore culturally and in almost every way inferior and must be "civilized."  The doctrine of evolution is the brother of racism and the enemy of God.

This is quite a jump.  The idea that my tribe of hairy, club-wielding bipeds is superior to yonder tribe of hairy, club-wielding bipeds has been around quite a bit longer than Darwin's theory.

And I hardly think it's Darwin's theory's fault that it was used to justify genocide (I don't know that it was, but I'll take your word for it).  Do you blame the Beatitudes for the Inquisition?  Certainly the idea that my tribe of black-robed, pale-faced bipeds is superior to yonder tribe of turkey-feather-toting, tomahawk-wielding bipeds was at least in part justified by the fact that we have the One True Religion, and they worship owls and rocks.

Seems to me like a much more rational conclusion is that people who want to twist other people's noble ideas in order to justify cruelty and their insatiable thirst for power are the enemy of God, not evolution.

The philosophy does indeed foster racism and sets the kind of environment in the mind which is favorable to racism.

That environment of the mind is already present, and has been around since the dawn of hairy bipeds, if not earlier.

It certainly does not combat racism.

Must it?  Suppose
1)  Evolution were proven, and
2)  Evolution demonstrated, provably, that, say, people from Uzbekistan were genetically superior to people from Turkmenistan.

Would this make evolution a bad thing?

People -- bad.
Evolution -- just an idea.

-Erasmus

Also while Erasmus has touched on this I feel I must also point it out. Just befcause people who believed in evolution commited genocide doesn't mena evolution should be equated with genocide. Thats like saying Tomas de Torquemada was a Catholic and a muderous people torturing bastard. Thus Catholoscism leads to the torture and persecution of others. It does not and should not in fact it should lead to an abhorence of violence and respect for life and the dignity of man. It can justify evil if its twisted enoguht but thats true of any idea. I see why you think evoltion and genocide are linked (they were somewhat in the 20th century) but I dont see why you view that evolution leads to rascism and genocide as opposed to just assuming that already rascist fools use it to justify there atrocities much as the've done to any idea or belief in human history
A curios
Cinlef

the

D: I readily agree that throughout history, mankind has done violences upon his neighbor in the name of his own superiority.  As his ability to avail himself of logic and reason has advanced, so has the complexity of his justifications for the oppression he inflicts.

However, this in no way suggests that these justifications are false.  Surely many of them were.  I for one believe that the notion that God has selected us (for any value of "us") as his chosen nation/race is patently false.

Suppose some obviously superior alien race were to arrive on Earth and begin massacring humans, or capturing them for labor or food or whatever.  "Obviously superior means" things like impervity to material harm and aging, complexity of language, advancement of technology and culture, internal social peace and harmony, etc.  I.e., superior in any way you like.  Would the fact that they are assholes to us make them *biologically* any less superior?

You mustn't forget that superiority in the sense in which it is used in evolutionary discourse refers to nothing more than "more likely to produce viable offspring in a given environment."  In that sense evolution really isn't saying anything surpising -- merely that what's likely to produce offspring will produce more offspring than what's unlikely to.  And those offspring will be competing for resources, so the former variety will have strength in numbers.

My overarching point is that it's wrong to conflate superiority as evolution describes it with superiority as bandied about by oppressive tribes over other tribes.  And tribalism will always find excuses, with or without Darwin's help.

-Erasmus

The burden of proof is on you my man if you say Hitler and Lenin were not Darwinists.

I have no information on the subject and am willing to take your word on it that they indeed were.  But this tells me nothing, as the world today is filled with millions of Darwinists who are not committing genocide.  Furthermore, plenty of brutal tyrants have been devoutly religious.  It's just excuses for power.

These ideas have been refuted by Church fathers like Saint Basil's or Saint Ambrose's works on the creation

Refuted in what way?  I hesitantly claim that they refuted it by:
1)  Convincing people it was in contradiction to current Church dogma and biblical teachings, and
2)  Condemned as sinners those who dared teach these ideas.

Am I wrong?

-Erasmus

First off Dionysios I feel those posts on history do fit in alternate science if anywhere but you could post them in the Miscellaneous section as well. But aren't you by saying that Hitler was a Darwinist which led to his genocide therefore admitting he commited genocide?

Cinlef

in my straight out opinion to the original question.

Yes, but not in the way most people think, by a insignificant and mostly balenced amount (each has their strengths) and overall its good thing that races are different.

Disclaimer: I realise that this is mildly racist, even if the message behind it is well intentioned. Also i fully admit that I could be wrong as culture and societal expectations blurs the effects of genetics.

the

So you realize Hitler was an evolutionist. (Got something in common with him do ya?)

I probalby have a few things in common with him upon reflection, we're both men both born in April, both have dark hair. However none of those things mena I agree with Hitler condone his actions or think he was anything less that an evil fuck. That stamtent is ad hominem and irrelevant. If we wanted to get into it your hatred of Jews belief in a global Jewish conspiracy and use of them for scapegoats of everything from the Sapnish civil war to the American revolution to the Holocaust are way more inline with the worldview of Hitler and his Nazi cohorts than any other political group I can think of, bvarring of course fudementalist Islam which also advocates such pleasant tactics as blowing oneself up on a crowded city bus to make a political point.
My point was simply that just because Hitler beleived something doesn't mean that everyone else or even anyone else who beleives that one thing beleive everythign he beleives. Thats like saying I beleive the sky is blue and you beleive the sky is ble and thus hold identical opinions on everything. Unless you can illustrate that ev olution is the cause of those genocides your point is irrelevant. Inidscriminate slaughtering of people has been done by people with no knowledge of evolution look at Richard the Lion Hearts masscring of Arabs during the Third Crusade. He thought they were inferior cause they were infidels not because of evolution? OR are you saying perhaps he was a secret Darwinist? No No let me geuess a Jewish conspiracy right?
YOu personal prejudice against Jews severly clouds your views of basically everythign else, its sad really
An enraged
Cinlef

the

Okay now for the record I opposed the invasion of Iraq for a number of reasons, and was glad my country (Canada) didn't take part. This doesn't nessecarily mean I think invasion is never justified merely that in this case it wasn't since the arguments that led to it were proved to have been lies (distorted intelligence rather than merely incorrect intleigence). However I feel you seem to have missed my point. You were saying that evolution is an incorrect idea (which it isn't but thats being disscussed on several different threads at the moment) and also that it is evil and has led to much rascism and atrocities. I was taking issue with the second part by pointing out that simply beccause people who beleived in evolution used it to justify rascism and atrocities motivated by rascism is irrelevant. My example of the Third Crusade was meant to show that there people are using the idea of Chrisitanity to justiy rascims and atrocities. You know this but dont leap to the conclusion CHristianity is rascist nor should you as it isn't/ However in the hands of rascist is can be intepreted in that manner. YOu were saying evolution caused rascism I think rascist found in evolution scientific arguments they could misinterpret and misconstrue rather than religious ideas they were previously misinterpreting and misconstruing at a time when science was gaining influence in shaping popular thought.
An irate
Cinlef

the

the

Okay lets go throught this point by point shall we?

Cinlef,
    You say you are against the occupation of Iraq.  That is easy to say now as popular opinion is as well.  Did you think that in 2002?  You definitely seem to me to follow the opinions of the mass media.

Uh first off Dionysios I don't state all my opinions on this forum, I never mentioned my opinion on the invasion of Iraq because it never came up. As for opposing it in 2002 I did as I felt that an invasion seemed unessesary since the weapons inspectors reports seemed to indicate little or no danger from Iraq, I also questioned the logic of Iraq is a tremendous danger to us but an invasion will be easy since we can defeated them in weeks. That seemed to me to be somewhat illogical. (This doesn't exactly disprove your mass media argument in fairness, sice I live in Canada and popular opinion was and is overwhelmingly against an invasion of Iraq, which is why we sent no troops)

 

You said the fact that you and Hitler both believed in evolution is irrelevant.  Really?  You seem to dislike muslims very strongly, and at the same time hold a high reguard for jews (your outrage at mere critical analysis of the alleged jewish holocaust, for example).

I was merely pointing out that Hitler belioeved in evolution and so do millions of people including myself who have no other belief in common with him. I felt this was the main flaw in your evolution=rascism argument. I don't fele you've illustrated that the % of people who use evolution to justify rascism is any higher than peope who use religion to justify rascism. SInce you have never said religion is inherently rascist  that would mean it's being distorted by bigots, why isn't the same true about evolution? Also dislike Muslims very strongly? Wat exactly is your basis for that staement? The fact I find your "analysis" (attempt to disprove) the Holocausts offensive? Thsoe two things don't follow.

 

You have several times railed against Iran.  I would never have guessed you were against the Iraqi invasion as I have never read anything you wrote against it.  Your not too vocal about it.  And I have seen a post of yours in which you accuse Iran of plotting to maasacre the jews in a holocaust the way you believe Hitler did (for which you also have no evidence in spite of your letting anger get the best of you).

Okay about me ralling against Iran what are you talking about? The only time I mentioned Iran was in the course of a disscussion about the validity of your sources, I pinted out that one of the authors received money from the government of Iran, due to the Iranian governments anti Israel position (the president of Iran recently called for Israel to be wiped off the map) Ira has an anti Jewish bias, which would seem to invalidate that one source. That is the only time I've mentioned Iran. PEriod. I checked and could find no rallying against it. If you find that post please submit a hyperlink of it since I sincerely have no idea what your talking about. As to not expressing y opposition to the Iraq invasion uh Dionysios it never came up. I don't state every opinion I have on these forums only ones rlevant to the discussion at hand. As for evidence (I assume you mena of Hitlers Holocaust?) THere are huindreds of photots eyewitness acounnts documents etc I can send you links to somesources if you like

 

Hitler did indeed persecute jews.  He wrongly uprooted the mass of traditional european jews from their homes, and forcibly transported them to camps.  These were assimilationist jews who were very much a part of european culture, melding with it to the point of losing their jewish identity to a great extent.  This was wrong and immoral.  I have no respect for the leaders of the jews on the whole, but the Third Reich's method of dealing with them was an abandonment of wisdom and brutal at the same time.  I believe they went to camps mostly but not exclusively in eastern europe and after the war went to the four winds which meant to a large extent america, palestine, and the soviet bloc (rather than being eliminated in a holocaust which the population figures of the american jewish almanacs (published by american jewish committee) of the late 1940's testify to up until 1951 (the year they began to cook the figures for those volumes).  We can discuss the jewish deaths in WWII elsewhere, as my point is to say that Hitler never the less did persecute the mass of traditional european cultured jews (as well as other peoples including gypsies, greeks, eastern europeana, et cetera) and his belief in the racist theory of contributed to this.  This is no different from the mass media's persecution of the vast majority of traditional muslim peoples.

Give me some credit Dionnysios I have read your previous pots as distasteful as I find most of them, this re-stating of your (absurd ) view of history was unnessecary I undrstand what your saying I just think its ludicrous.

You hatred of Iran and muslim people (I'm sure you will deny this as George Wallace and Ronald Reagan denied they look down on African-Americans, but actions speak louder than words) is very interesting in the light of your belief of evolution.

Actions do speak louder then words for example denying rascism then using racial slurs and denying the Holocaust. A hatred of IRan's GOVERNMENT as a repressive autocracy does not equate hatred of people IN IRAN. YOPu seem to hate the goerment of America, does that mena you hate all AMericans? I could get into a long list of why I'm not rascist , standing up for people being bullied because they're different my best friend beign Palestinian etc, but since you've already admitted ou will considder me rascistr irregardless I not going to waste my breath, (your a Holocasut denying Zionist conspiracy spouting Flat earther loon I really dont need to justify myself to you). However due to my love of logic I must point out even if I was rascist that would prove nothing about evolution.Correlation does not = causation

Not everyone is a follower of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.  For the american regime to bolster suport for whatever its current agenda might be, the support of other persons (particularly non-religious masses) is required.  Those persons with evolutionist belief are much more easily taken by the regimes racist propaganda

Prove that or stop stating it statistics would be nice something other than just lets blindly accept it cause Dionysios says its true

as you have been with respect to Iran despite the fact you say you are opposed to the Iraqi invasion.  What accounts for the fact that you seemingly do not see through the american government's anti-Iranian propaganda.  We just got though this with Iraq.  Are you really dumb enough to parrot what the US government says and not see it is targeting yet another country?  How about if the US military pulled out of the near east and started a media campaign against Hugo Chavez along with a military buildup in the Carribean, et cetera.  Would you then suddenly have a spiritual realization and point to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela as the source of so much potential trouble.  I hope that sounds stupid to you, because it should make you realize that is exactly how stupid your anti-Iranian rhetoric is.  It is the same thing.  CINLEF - the UNWITTING voice for big oil and the state of israel courtesy of cnn, abc, talk radio, dan rather and all the usual suspects.

First off Dionysios I'm not American I'm a Canadian.
My opposition to the GOVERNMENT of Iran dates pre war on Iraq right when Iran made it into the papers in Canada when a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist was killed in police custody and Iran denied this then chose a cop to take the fall and refused to let Canadian observers to attentd the trial.Lots of awareness was raised up here in the frozen north by her son about Irans oppression of free speech and political opposition. Hugo Chavez is in the position to threaten the USA as he controls a vital source of oil. Fortunatly Canada is brimming with oil so if Chavez turns off the taps my countrymen and I only gain. Also for the record I odnt watch abc or cnn or listen to talk radio and until Dan Rather got enbroiled in that contreversy I couldn't have picked him out of a polic line up (I ignroe the state of Israel thing cause your an anti semite as evidenced by you baliming Jews as often as you use commas) I get my news from the CBC the BBC and Montreals English language and occasionally French language news papers, also Macleans news magazine. Please spare me the tirade about how those are also Jewish controlled I get it you think Jews are bad and run everything.

I submit that for younger people in especially, the theory of evolution (which can be twisted to make whichever race look inferior, and it creates the background in the mind of inferior and superior races) makes them supple and easy to prejudice against whomsoever the agent of suggstion (often enough the media) wishes to malign.  The theory of evolution should not be taught in schools for this reason alone, particularly not as dogmatic truth.  It creates dummies who become prejudiced against whomsover the media so pathetically programs them to hate.

Ignoring all the scientific justifications for evolution which are being discussed in another thread. This is flawed as oyu haven't proven that evoltuion is any more rascist than any other idea used to justify rascism like say religions. Until you porve that this statment is without base

For that matter, why in the hell can Iran not have its own damned powerful nuclear weapons when israel or the US can.  The US should deservedly reap disaster if it wants to take any countries nuclear weapons away (and yet keep its own!!!?).  And if any would-be nuclear policeman wanted to find nuclear weapons in the near east the first country it needs to investigate is the one who has the most nuclear weapons in the area and has had them the longest - israel.  If the US wants to invade a country and change their government because they have nuclear weapons, the first country it should invade should be israel which is the only terrorist state in the near east.

If nuclear weapons are ever going to be gotten rid of they must not profilate. This means no nation that as of now has no nuclear weapons should be discouraged from developing them. The less nations with nukes the less chance of an nuclear war. It's important to note that it's far easier to prevent new states form getting nukes then it is disarming states with the bomb (as thsoe state have the ultimate deterrent to invasion, atom bombs) As for the case of Iran specifically thats really the topic for antoher thread.

 

A very recent study by the US Army War College stated that Iran would stop its nuclear weapons program of its own accord if israel did not have a nuclear program.  One of the writers of this important study is an israeli.  He is an israeli leftist, a kind of individual Cinlef seems to prefer to ignore the existence of.  If evolution did exist (which it does not), it would seem that Cinlef and Pat Robertson had evolved from the same lineage).

hmm I dont dispute that (a link to this study would be nice) But the point here is that that still admits Iran with nukes is bad. It just implies we should pressure Israel to disarm, which is true. he should be pressuring all nation with nuclear weapons to disarm. Also uh your portraying me as a right wing zionist based on what my opposition to one authoritarian regime and my acknowloging the truth of the Holocaust? Thats an impressive leap of reasoning based on little date. For example my belief on Israel-Palestine relations its that the only solutionais two coexisting states with Jerusalem put (as I believe the King of Jordan proposed) under the sovereignty of God (neutral ground in effect). Good job on that lst ad hominem thought, it's totally without merit but was fairly clever.

As for your second post I have examined your point of view (or more accuratly the theories of people with a simmilar point of view) and have found them to be by and large mostly rubbish. I shall happily try and find a copy of that video if you think it would illustrate your beleifs well. I'm not adverse to debate but I do feel my convictions strongly and respond with feeling, my style far more than it is my age.Also I do tend to get irratated when someone assumes they know my vbiews on everything and put words in my mouth (although in fairness I assume you don't like my constant insulting of you so I shouldn't really complain) Also I think we've kind of hijacked this thread and should begin a new oone to continue to debate the parts of these posts ithat dont directly relate to this threads topic. Like the Third Crusade for example.(doent relate)
An enraged
Cinlef

Cinlef,
    You say you are against the occupation of Iraq.  That is easy to say now as popular opinion is as well.  Did you think that in 2002?  You definitely seem to me to follow the opinions of the mass media.

What??  One of Cinlef's opinions is in agreement with one mass media opinion?    I guess this means *all* his opinions agree now and always have agreed with *all* of their opinions.  Cinlef, I think I'll never be able to trust you again.  How could you do this to me?  Can't you learn to think for yourself?

And I have seen a post of yours in which you accuse Iran of plotting to maasacre the jews in a holocaust the way you believe Hitler did (for which you also have no evidence in spite of your letting anger get the best of you).

Wha?  None?  No evidence at all?  Not even, "We, the government of Iran  (oh and now of Palestine too!), have as our official national agenda the total annihilation of the state of Israel."?  Yep, I certainly don't remember hearing that from any Jihadists' lips recently!

This is no different from the mass media's persecution of the vast majority of traditional muslim peoples.

Thanks for bringing up this oft-ignored fact!  I think we should all get together to protest the concentration camps set up by CNN, the New York Times, the BBC, et al..  Also, the kiddnapping, torture, and execution of terrorists by reporters has to stop!  Terrorists have rights you know!

Those persons with evolutionist belief are much more easily taken by the regimes racist propaganda

You only get to say that because the Church isn't openly racist anymore.  Also, what studies have you done to compare how easily taken evolutionists are by racist propaganda as compared to, say, how easily creationists are taken?  Wait, what's that?  There are creationists figureheads in the U.S. who supported the Iraq invasion?  Control your experiment, man!

I submit that for younger people in especially, the theory of evolution (which can be twisted to make whichever race look inferior, and it creates the background in the mind of inferior and superior races)

Personally, I'm insulted by evolution.  I hate being associated with feces-hurling chimps, even if indirectly.  I'm much more impressed with, say, the cockroach -- the jewel of evolution!

[Evolution (or is it dogmatism?)] creates dummies who become prejudiced against whomsover the media so pathetically programs them to hate.

It's mind-boggling how completely you've failed to establish this connection.

For that matter, why in the hell can Iran not have its own damned powerful nuclear weapons when israel or the US can.

Let me think, hm... why shouldn't a nation whose sworn policy is the destruction first of its neighbors and secondly everybody else... *not* be allowed to have nuclear weapons... hmm... er... damn, can't think of any reasons.

Let's be frank, Dio.  The U.S.'s top priority is the same as every other country's top priority -- itself.  If party X thinks party Y is a threat to party X, then party X is gonna do what's its power to disarm party Y.

Is it wrong to try to make a pun here about Islamic prohibitions against partying?

And if any would-be nuclear policeman wanted to find nuclear weapons in the near east the first country it needs to investigate is the one who has the most nuclear weapons in the area and has had them the longest - israel.

And if would-be municipal policemen wanted to find automatic weapons, tear gas, body armor, and maybe a small tank, the first building it needs to investigate is -- the police station!

If the US wants to invade a country and change their government because they have nuclear weapons, the first country it should invade should be israel which is the only terrorist state in the near east.

You're out of your mind.

Not about the terrorist thing, just about the "only" thing.

But you're definitely out of your mind.

-Erasmus

Good idea!

It is a flawed belief that has caused human bbeings nothing but misery. Surely there are neo-nazi forums on the net where you scum can disscuss how much better you are than people who look different from you? We just got rid of Dionysios and his Holocaust denial BS(what a twat- grimsquaeker) surely we're allowed a month of peace from rascist scum. If you have scientific evidence you want to present to prove your points do it then I can reduce it to shreds and shut you up otherwise stop posting things like "I feel that evolution must justify my inflated sence of self worth and belief that people who are different and I secretly fear must be inferior to me" crap.
An enraged
Cinlef

block this basterd

WHo do you want blocked?
ME? Dionysios? someone else?
An confused
Cinlef

the guy who thinks some people are superior
edit: sorry for an confusion caused

A lot of people say no.  I say yes.  

Evolution means that organisms adapt to their enviornment.  Wouldn't that mean that, if Evolution exists (and I believe it does), that the races must have diverged a little bit.  Specialized here and there?

Discuss.

There are adaptations between the races.  People who have recently lived around the equator tend to have dark skin and shorter frames.  Why?  Advantages in a sun-drenched, jungle-thickend environment.  People who have recently lived in mountanous regeions tend to have lighter skin and smaller noses and long, straight hair.  Why?  Advantages in sun-deprived regieons (hard to get vitimins from sunlight) and less losses of body heat.  Statistically, Non-Hispanic blacks are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure than are non-Hispanic whites.  And there are inherited diseases in people who live in northern Europe who at one time were very isolated.  Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great.  Why?  Because evolution has modified people who lived in isolation from each other.  But these differences are generally in parts that directly interact with the harsheness of the environment.  All the "insides" are the same.  (And on another topic: it should be noted that generally genetically there is more diffrences within racial groups than between them.) 8-)