Race is a human/social construct.

Skeptic Ginger said:
That example should disprove your thesis, not support it. Or am I misreading this? You are claiming the Maori, which are of Polynesian descent are the same race as Zulu which never left Africa because Maori have similar racial features?
Click to expand...

I re-read what I wrote and it looks like the opposite of how you took it; "It is not a coincidence that a typical zulu tribesman wouldn't be phylogenically indistinguishable with a typical maori. The reason they are not [note: reason they are not indistinguishable] has little to do with socio-economic bias or such."

Maybe you misread "wouldn't be indistinguishable" as "wouldn't be distinghuishable"?
 
Last edited:
Limehouse Chappie said:
In this one. Read Delvo's posts, specifically his responses to the quoted bits by others, and then look at how often the quotee attempts a rejoinder. It's pretty telling.
Click to expand...

so they do attempt to answer them, contrary to your first claim? :confused:
 
Jono said:
I re-read what I wrote and it looks like the opposite of how you took it; "It is not a coincidence that a typical zulu tribesman wouldn't be phylogenically indistinguishable with a typical maori. The reason they are not [note: reason they are not indistinguishable] has little to do with socio-economic bias or such."

Maybe you misread "wouldn't be indistinguishable" as "wouldn't be distinghuishable"?
Click to expand...
[sidetrack] I'll accept your corrected intent, but this double negative is as bad as they come:

would not be indistinguishable = would not be not distinguishable :boggled: [/sidetrack]

So, back the the Zulu vs the Maori, Maoris don't look African, but Australian Aboriginals and Papua New Guineans do. So how do your phylogenic groupings work using those populations?
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
What I learned from this thread: Delvo's responses are so devastating to the opposition that they do not even attempt to respond to most of them. It's pretty funny actually.
Click to expand...

I noticed the same thing. Delvo leaves me with nothing to add, and the discussion has become rather pointless anyhow. Post #64 by Delvo in this thread sums up the problems I have with the arguments made by the person who started this thread. The OP wasn't that bad, I had a few minor disagreements with it, it's what he said later that I strongly disagree with and indicates some kind of confusion. Since Delvo and others have already covered all this, I have no interest in pursuing this further. I merely posted to voice my agreement with you that no one has made any meaningful refutations of any of Delvo's core points.
 
Last edited:
Zelenius said:
I noticed the same thing. Delvo leaves me with nothing to add, and the discussion has become rather pointless anyhow. Post #64 by Delvo in this thread sums up the problems I have with the arguments made by the person who started this thread. The OP wasn't that bad, I had a few minor disagreements with it, it's what he said later that I strongly disagree with and indicates some kind of confusion. Since Delvo and others have already covered all this, I have no interest in pursuing this further. I merely posted to voice my agreement with you that no one has made any meaningful refutations of any of Delvo's core points.
Click to expand...
That was all rather silly and fallacious. Isn't it a little bit funny that the correct position (according to you) is the one that happens to align with your world view? Which is of course to beg the question. But don't let that stop you. We're just a skeptics forum.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
What I learned from this thread: Delvo's responses are so devastating to the opposition that they do not even attempt to respond to most of them. It's pretty funny actually.
Click to expand...
What I learned from this thread: Skepticism and critical thinking do not apply to the righteous mind. Once you know you are right then, well, of course you are correct and can just declare it. It's pretty sad actually.
 
DC said:
So my argument was so devestating that you do not even attempt to answer it? pretty funny.
Click to expand...

No, you are clearly not a native speaker of English so it is pointless to discuss the nuances of English grammar with you. The fact that you still think you made a reasonable point is telling. Best wishes!
 
RandFan said:
What I learned from this thread: Skepticism and critical thinking do not apply to the righteous mind. Once you know you are right then, well, of course you are correct and can just declare it. It's pretty sad actually.
Click to expand...

Then go back through the thread and answer the posts that skewer your position. Start at page 1.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
Then go back through the thread and answer the posts that skewer your position. Start at page 1.
Click to expand...
A.) You beg the question. B.) I don't intentionally ignore posts. If there is something you feel I didn't address then bring it up.
 
RandFan said:
A.) You beg the question. B.) I don't intentionally ignore posts. If there is something you feel I didn't address then bring it up.
Click to expand...

the problems with your position have been dealt with clearly by others above. Why would I go back through this thread and point these posts out when they're there for you to read yourself? If you are unable to defend your position, or choose not to, that's your problem not mine.
 
Limehouse Chappie said:
the problems with your position have been dealt with clearly by others above.
Click to expand...
Argument by assertion.

Why would I go back through this thread and point these posts out when they're there for you to read yourself?
Click to expand...
Because you are making a claim.

If you are unable to defend your position, or choose not to, that's your problem not mine.
Click to expand...
Hey, you are the one making claims about the discussion. My words speak for themselves. You are not the arbiter of who won a debate. You are just as much of a nobody as anyone. So, if you want to claim something then step up to the plate.
 
RandFan said:
Argument by assertion.

Because you are making a claim.

Hey, you are the one making claims about the discussion. My words speak for themselves. You are not the arbiter of who won a debate. You are just as much of a nobody as anyone. So, if you want to claim something then step up to the plate.
Click to expand...

start with post 136. Then, go through the thread and find those posts where someone responds to you and then see if you respond back. Start at the beginning and work forward. You can do it, I believe in you man!
 
Last edited:
Limehouse Chappie said:
start with post 136. Then, go through the thread and find those posts where someone responds to you and then see if you respond back. Start at the beginning and work forward. You can do it, I believe in you man!
Click to expand...
You made the claim. I don't have to prove myself to you. If you want to defend your claims and have a discussion then that's up to you.
 
RandFan said:
You made the claim. I don't have to prove myself to you. If you want to defend your claims and have a discussion then that's up to you.
Click to expand...

you asked me to point out an instance where you didn't respond to a counterargument. Against my better judgment I provided one and now you have nothing to say but "I don't have to prove myself to you." LOL, you got served. Run along now.
 
Last edited:
Limehouse Chappie said:
start with post 136. Then, go through the thread and find those posts where someone responds to you and then see if you respond back. Start at the beginning and work forward. You can do it, I believe in you man!
Click to expand...

Limehouse Chappie said:
you asked me to point out an instance where you didn't respond to a counterargument. Against my better judgment I provided one and now you have nothing to say but "I don't have to prove myself to you." LOL, you got served. Run along now.
Click to expand...
I'm not go back and sift through posts. If you have something that I said you want addressed then quote me and tell me what it is specifically. I'm not going to continue with a pissing match. Either make your case or not. It's up to you but if you cannot post something substantive then this isn't going anywhere. I sincerely responded to posts made to me. Go back and look at those responses to get your answers.
 
RandFan said:
I'm not go back and sift through posts. If you have something that I said you want addressed then quote me and tell me what it is specifically. I'm not going to continue with a pissing match. Either make your case or not. It's up to you but if you cannot post something substantive then this isn't going anywhere. I sincerely responded to posts made to me. Go back and look at those responses to get your answers.
Click to expand...

respond to post #136 which you ignored above. SERVED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom