Shanemac requests you put your scientific arguments here

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac
As I said before, culture is learned from ancestors (and society), but the kind of culture that we adopt is basically determined by the hormones in our bodies and our brain formation.

No it doesn't, I've gone through this with you already. Find me one peer reviewed scientic paper that shows this.

Originally posted by shanemac
Hormone effect on culture
Different races of people have different levels of hormones. This is a biological fact, and has a major genetic factor. (look at sports.... Africans dominate high-testosterone sports...sprinting, boxing), whereas Europeans tend to be better suited to pursuits where high testosterone is not an advantage...long-distance running (not including Kenyans, who come from high altitudes), fishing, tiddlywinks (j/k). Asians have even lower testosterone than Europeans.

Women are attracted to high-testosterone males...so you see a lot of white women who like black men, and you see a lot of Asian women who like White men. You do not see a great deal of white male/black female or Asian male/White female attraction. (of course there are exceptions...so don't throw in any red herrings). (The logical conclusion to this would be black male/Asian female would be the most common, but you don't see this....why? I think it's because the two opposite ends of the spectrum are too far apart).

ROFLOL.....

an insight into how your mind works. Erm. Some of what you are saying there is actually true, believe it or not, but the actual overall message isn't. I'm afraid things are just a huge bit more complicated than that. But its a nice theory.

Originally posted by shanemac
I think a lot of racially stereotypically behaviour is in fact due to different levels of testosterone.

I think you've been smoking something.

Zombrex

Originally posted by shanemac
Oh really...have a look at this...color of crime report

lol ... I am on the floor again ...

And here is my report stating that "All White People Are Evil" ... you can pick it up at any good Left-wing Hippy Communist Tree Hugging Black Panter website

meatball

"The fact is that speciation can occur quite rapidly given a relatively strong selective pressure on a population. For evidence of this have a look at the dog...which has been bred into ...how many...500? different breeds, mostly within the space of a couple of hundred years."

Different breeds of dog are not different species of dog. Oh, and you are a moron. Go back to your biology homework Adolf.

pete

Originally posted by shanemac
Your general abusive tone speaks volumes DeV (any relation to the original Dev I wonder). The phrase "the lady doth protest too much" comes to mind.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1079020#post1079020

Clintons Cat

shane,i have a question for you...

Hey you know when you're doing your usual threesome thing you do of a weekend, and the moonlight's bouncing of your heads and your arses and everything, does that not get a bit confusing? Right, this is you, ok? Millwall! That's the one. Do you know this chant? "Millwall, Millwall, you're all really dreadful, and your girlfriends are unfulfilled and alienated"...

Typedef

Originally posted by shanemac
For evidence of this have a look at the dog...which has been bred into ...how many...500? different breeds, mostly within the space of a couple of hundred years.

You're confusing eugenics with evolution.

Seeing as the dog has been selectively bred, whilst the human has evolved due to evolutionary pressures your analogy is completely false.

Evolution if one notices, takes a long, long time to occur.
For evidence of this I offer the hominid fossil record, from our primitive origins in the Chimpanzee nearly five million years ago, as opposed to your proposition of modern day 'race' distinction.

In fact, to truely be called a homo sapien, one must not really transcend the demise of the Neanderthal.

Thus, your proposition is that 'somehow' in the last ten to fifty thousand years, 'as if by magic' without eugenics, the process of evolution has 'somehow', been very significant in the species homo sapiens, despite the fact that, the more prolific a species, the less species alterting genetic variation takes place, due to the relative anonymity of genetic mutation.

In short, your argument holds no water.

shanemac

There's not a single patriot amongst you. So you can all go back to holding hands and singing Kumbaya while your country slowly sinks.

I'm not wasting any more time trying to tell you anything. You all obviously know a lot more about multiculturalism than someone who actually lives in a fully multicultural country...so why am I wasting my time trying to tell you anything.

For Typedef....dog breeding works in exactly the same way as evolution...ie selective breeding happens (whether this is done intentionally by man; or unintentionally by nature...the effect is the same (call it evolution or eugenics - go nuts).

For meatball...different races of mankind are just like different breeds of dog when you're talking about biological classification. They are not different species either.

Wicknight...you're obviously a fool.... just keep laughing. BTW maybe Sir Henry Parkes was right & the Australians of the late 19th Centrury should have restricted Irish immigration. From the evidence here it seems the Irish are too weak and soft-headed to want to defend their own country (although I don't want to believe this).

Skyeirl...you're just part of that same school of anthropological obfuscation (examples: Cavalli-Sforza, SJ Gould) ...ie tell half the story, so you don't offend anyone...then your papers get published and you make a tenured position at a uni....then you can repeat the process & keep telling half the story in biology to the young students coming through.....there's no such thing as academic independence & most academics now are simply cowards. If you still have an ounce of intellecual curiosity, read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, Viking Press, 2002.

Meh...you are a traitor to your country... I've nothing more to say to you

Captn Midnight....it's not just white people who are racist....as you'll find out soon enough if you stay in multicultural Ireland.

For any readers who are not of this "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mindset have a look on
Stormfront discussion - even if you want to just tell them all how wrong they are...you may do so as long as you remain civil (obviously not a rule policed here).

Now I'm finished with the lot of you.....To any silent observers not in the multicultural camp (why don't you say something...why do you allow the debate to be controlled by these people?)....sorry if I seem less than polite...but these people simply make me angry.

Erin go Bragh!

Zombrex

Originally posted by shanemac
There's not a single patriot amongst you...

Wicknight...you're obviously a fool.... just keep laughing.

From the evidence here it seems the Irish are too weak and soft-headed to want to defend their own country

Meh...you are a traitor to your country... I've nothing more to say to you

Now I'm finished with the lot of you.....To any silent observers not in the multicultural camp (why don't you say something...why do you allow the debate to be controlled by these people?).

ROFL (again) ..... seriously Shanemac, going to have a hernia


Shanemac, you have to relax bro ... just cause you have been shown to have a completely hypocritical, non-logical, self-contradictary view point, you don't leave Boards!! Hell! we would have no posters anymore if everyone did that!

Just an idea but maybe you should reply to the people who challange your ideas instead of insulting them and continuously changing the subject. I am especially interested to hear your reply about the hypocritical nature of being an Irish immigrant preaching against immigration ... maybe you need a bit longer to work that one out in your head first ...

Still if arguing your point was getting too much trouble maybe you should piss off back to Stormfront and your other racist websites, where no one challanges your views and everyone thinks the same. I know all this independent thought and challanging ideas can make the brain a little sore after a while.

BTW Meh!! how come you got to be the traitor and all I got to be was the fool ... everyone knows the traitor gets the women ... so not fair ...:p

LOL ROFL LOL ... oh mercy .. this has been the funnest thread in years ...

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac
are you capable of refuting any of my arguments by reasoning and logic, without engaging in a peronal attack?

How the worm has turned!

Originally posted by shanemac
Skyeirl...you're just part of that same school of anthropological obfuscation (examples: Cavalli-Sforza, SJ Gould) ...ie tell half the story, so you don't offend anyone...then your papers get published and you make a tenured position at a uni....then you can repeat the process & keep telling half the story in biology to the young students coming through.....there's no such thing as academic independence & most academics now are simply cowards. If you still have an ounce of intellecual curiosity, read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, Viking Press, 2002.

So lets see, you ask me for a scientific discussion directly.
I give you one.

You dismiss it, use big words to call me names and slag me off and base your whole counter argument on someone elses opinion in a book, that interesting though it may be, you claim "gives the true picture" despite the fact that all peer reviewed published work in the field agrees with the post I made.

Aren't you the guy who laughed at Dadakpf for using someone elses arguments?


For the record, there is no "half-truth" in anything I just told you. Its the same genetic axiom that applies to every living creature, it just happens that when you apply it to the human race, you don't get the answer you want. Sorry to dissappoint you.

You have taken a step from, All you boardsters are wrong and I'm right to "all scientists are wrong and I'm right". Wow, this is when you failed to get into medicine, imagine how you would have reshaped the thinking of modern science if you were smart enough to get in (sorry, but if you can make petty snide remarks about my job, I can do the same for you).

Come on, where are the counter arguments. Pick apart the science in that last post by me and show me where I'm wrong.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by shanemac
There's not a single patriot amongst you. So you can all go back to holding hands and singing Kumbaya while your country slowly sinks.

This guy is either incredibly brainwashed or the best troll to ever come to Boards.ie, I can't decide.

Originally posted by shanemac
Erin go Bragh!

Shame about his complete lack of spelling ability though

shanemac

Okay, this is my last post on this board....

I re-read Skyeirl's post, and thought it was a bit rude not responding, as he seems to have put some thought into it.

Alright, I think people have answered most of your stuff in much the same way or better than I would have so Lets start from here. Now, lets this time, try and take the facts at hand and not change the subject every time you can't answer.


Ok I'll just debunk your entire post from here on in and educate you on the fundamentals of human evolutionary genetics. Its an interesting and easy enough little course, so pay attention, ok?

How arrogant can you get? Just the type of academic that can't be told anything.....they think they know it all already.

Right. There is more genetic variation among any single troop of gorilla or chimanzee than in the entire human race (that includes people who are black, white, asian etc., in case you didn't know). In fact, of all the large animals on the planet, humans are the only ones with a planet-wide distribution with so little genetic variation.

This is a red herring that is always thrown in by the "we are the world school of modern anthropology". The fact is you cannot quantify racial differences by looking simply at the "genetic differences". Genetic differences can be counted by looking at differences in the 9 billion base-pairs, or among the 30,000 genes in the human genome. However, we share over 98% of our genetics with the Chimpanzee...this does not make us the same as chimpanzees.

Have a read of this.....brought to you by your friends at Stormfront....


"Diamond offered a more colorful version of an argument advanced in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin had become convinced that virtually all meaningful differences between races are either random or culturally determined. Based on his review of the available data, he concluded that only a tiny fraction of the differences between individuals could be considered "racial." In other words, Lewontin maintained that the differences that separate "races" are little more than what distinguishes two random fans at a World Cup match--statistically nothing, genetically speaking. The article, published in the prestigious journal Evolutionary Biology, amounted to a frontal attack on the concept of race.



For sure genetic differences between any two individuals are extremely small in percentage terms. Coming from a geneticist, rather than a sociologist or anthropologist, Lewontin's article had enormous influence, although not everyone was convinced. Lewontin's finding that on average humans share 99.8 percent of genetic material and that any two individuals are apt to share considerably more than 90 percent of this shared genetic library is on target. Interpreting that data is another issue, however. Lewontin's analysis suffers both scientifically and politically.



Although the politics of a scientist is not necessarily an issue in evaluating their work, in Lewontin's case it is crucial. According to his own account, his sensibilities were catalyzed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He made it very clear that his science was in part a mission to reaffirm our common humanity. To geneticists and biologists with less of an avowed agenda, Lewontin appeared to leaven his conclusion with his personal ideology.



From a scientific perspective, Lewontin and those that have relied on his work have reached beyond the data to some tenuous conclusions. In fact the percentage of differences is a far less important issue than which genes are different. Even minute differences in DNA can have profound effects on how an animal or human looks and acts while huge apparent variations between species may be almost insignificant in genetic terms. Consider the cichlid fish, which can be found in Africa's Lake Nyas. The cichlid, which has differentiated from one species to hundreds over a mere 11,500 years, "differ among themselves as much as do tigers and cows," Jared Diamond has noted. "Some graze on algae, others catch other fish, and still others variously crush snails, feed on plankton, catch insects, nibble the scales off other fish, or specialize in grabbing fish embryos from brooding mother fish." The kicker, these variations are the result of infinitesimal genetic differences--about 0.4 percent of their DNA studied.



In humans too, it is not the percentage of genes that is most critical, but whether and how the genes impact our physiology or behavior. Diamond mused that if an alien were to arrive on our planet and analyze our DNA, humans would appear, from a genetic perspective, as a third race of chimpanzees. Although it is believed they took a different evolutionary path from humans only five million years ago, chimps share fully 98.4 percent of our DNA. Just 50 out of 100,000 genes that humans and chimps are thought to possess--or a minuscule 0.3 percent--may account for all of the cognitive differences between man and ape. For that matter, dogs share about 95 percent of our genome; even the tiny roundworm, barely visible to the naked eye, share about 74 percent of its genes with humans.



Most mammalian genes, as much as 70 percent, are "junk" that have accumulated over the course of evolution with absolutely no remaining function; whether they are similar or different is meaningless. But the key 1.4 percent of regulatory genes can and do have a huge impact on all aspects of our humanity. In other words, small genetic differences do not automatically translate into trivial bodily or behavioral variations. The critical factor is not which genes are passed along but how they are patterned and what traits they influence.



Lewontin did collate genetic variability from known genetic markers and find that most of it lay within and not between human populations. Numerous scientists since have generalized those findings to the entire human genome, yet no such study has been done. Now it is believed that such an inference is dicey at best. The trouble with genetic markers is that they display "junk" variability that sends a signal that variability within populations exceeds variability between populations. However, the "junk" DNA that has not been weeded out by natural selection accounts for a larger proportion of within-population variability. Genetic makers may therefore be sending an exaggerated and maybe false signal. In contrast, the harder-to-study regulatory genes (that circumscribe our physical and athletic abilities) signal that between-group variability is far larger than has been believed. In other words, human populations are genetically more different than Lewontin and others who have relied on his work realize."

This is because we went through a "genetic bottleneck" where the actual number of humans *that is homo sapiens was around 10,000 individuals. No there are billions of us, but the genetic diversity has not grown much beyond that passed on by those 10,000 ancestors.

Well if you go back far enough, we all have the same mother (mitochondrial Eve...and one father). The fact that there was an evolutionary bottleneck is another red herring. After the various human populations passed into our various regions, and became reproductively isolated, then selection pressure was very high. Europe and Northern Asia were experiencing an Ice Age, the more southerly regions of the world were experiencing more favourable conditions. The challenges faced by early man forced him to rapidly adapt. That is why we have races...different adaptations for different conditions.

Biologically speaking, we've had plenty of time for racial differences to develop....4,000 generations as I said before.




Continued.....

shanemac

when the guys with the white pointy hats showed up on the gentic scene, they hoped genetics would show us we had "sub-species" and they had big ideas about what made the races different and noone could really agree. However, genetics has shown that the situation is even more complex and that drawing a clear distinction between "races" is impossible.

Human races" are clines. If you want to look up the dictionary definition, it will say "a graded series of characters (as morphological or physiological differences) exhibited by a species ... along a line of environmental or geographic transition."

As such, the notion of "pure race" is a phalacy. The reality is a negligable grading of countless combinations of characteristics vaguely averaged together into another set of countless combinations of characteristics vaguely averaged together (in other words, the difference between you and me is greater, genetically speaking, than the difference between two races as a whole).

Every creature on this earth, including every single human being is a very complex mosaic of genetic traits inherited from both parents and redistributed into a new combination at conception. The new resulting genetic mix (ie. any individual) is even more complex as most characteristics and traits are not governed by one gene, but by several genes in combination. If you want to go down this genetic road you could make so many sub-classifications within the human race that in the end one has one race per individual.

If you want to look at it another way there is no human group that cannot have babies with a member of the opposite sex from any other human group.

You can go into your little semantics game and call the human races "clines" if you like...the fact is that there are no real biological classifications that have not been invented by humans (even the most basic classifation...[species] is not really set in stone, and fertile offspring from cross-species individuals have been bred (especially in plants)...not to mention the implications of genetic engineering.

The fact is that human races most certainly do exist, whether you classify them as clines or sub-species.

More importantly, the man in the street naturally identifies with those who look like they do (as does every other species of animal)...which means racism is inevitable in a multicultural society (otherwise we would not be having this discussion).

Now I bid you adieu....:ninja:

Turnip

Well I don't identify with scanagers or skinheads or nazis or other forms of trash so there's that theory debunked straight away. I suppose it's too late to throw in the fact that many of our famous artists, like Joyce, Beckett, Wilde and even U2 were able to live abroad, adapt to foreign culture and change it in the process through the sheer power of their creativity. They're the actual producers of our culture while useless nazis produce nothing. Absolutely nothing. They leech.

Goodbye eejit.

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac

This is a red herring that is always thrown in by the "we are the world school of modern anthropology". The fact is you cannot quantify racial differences by looking simply at the "genetic differences". Genetic differences can be counted by looking at differences in the 9 billion base-pairs, or among the 30,000 genes in the human genome. However, we share over 98% of our genetics with the Chimpanzee...this does not make us the same as chimpanzees.

I'm not here to debate stormfront propaganda with you, I'm here to argue your scientific views.

You were the person who brought genetics into it. You were the one originally quoting genetics in your argument. Now its all gone pear shaped and you sod off. Well good riddance.

The point you are missing is, we share 98% of our genes with chimps fine. But when you say we, you are referring to all humans of all races. Thats to say, we all have the same genes (humans) while chimps have only 98% base pair homology.

I thought when I posted my last post that you understoof the following, but it seems I may have been a bit too advanced for you. I'll go back to the beginners class and you can read this and then re-read the last post. All humans have the same genes (black, white, asians, everyone) but different alleles of the same genes give us different traits. That is, a combination of genes give us skin colour, they are the exact same genes in everyone, but differ in configuration and protein expression to give different skin colours. There is no "white skin gene" or "black skin gene" its the same gene, that expresses in a different way at the protein level. Its not political, no political ideaology can effect the function of a protein or the expression of DNA.

So no, we are not the same as chimps, but yes, we are the same as each other.

Originally posted by shanemac
Well if you go back far enough, we all have the same mother (mitochondrial Eve...and one father). The fact that there was an evolutionary bottleneck is another red herring. After the various human populations passed into our various regions, and became reproductively isolated, then selection pressure was very high. Europe and Northern Asia were experiencing an Ice Age, the more southerly regions of the world were experiencing more favourable conditions. The challenges faced by early man forced him to rapidly adapt. That is why we have races...different adaptations for different conditions.

Biologically speaking, we've had plenty of time for racial differences to develop....4,000 generations as I said before.

The point is, all racial differences are, in evolutionary terms is the same genes expressing themsleves in different ways. You don't seem to grasp this.

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac
You can go into your little semantics game and call the human races "clines" if you like...the fact is that there are no real biological classifications that have not been invented by humans (even the most basic classifation...[species] is not really set in stone, and fertile offspring from cross-species individuals have been bred (especially in plants)...not to mention the implications of genetic engineering.

The fact is that human races most certainly do exist, whether you classify them as clines or sub-species.

More importantly, the man in the street naturally identifies with those who look like they do (as does every other species of animal)...which means racism is inevitable in a multicultural society (otherwise we would not be having this discussion).

What a stupid statement. Of course all classifications were made by humans. The whole concept of classification is a human one.
Isn't what you are arguing just semantics aswell? You argue species and sub-species as catagorisation. The only difference between yours and mine is that the entire science community excepts my view (based on the combined findings of many scientists from all over the world), while they just view yours as racist tripe.

What the man on the street does or doesn't do is a result of the society and environment he was raised in. You aren't born a biggot, its people like you who make them.

Hobart

It's a pity shanemac has decided to take leave and not try to defend his position. I actually found the discussion quite interesting, when I cut out all the dblespeak racist stuff. The fact is I know feck all about genetics/differences between the races (not that those differences shape my thoughts on the way we should live) and it is interesting.

I also saw that the tollerance level's for people who hold totally different views from most of the people on boards is quite low. Ok shanemac, IMHO, posted some wild and silly "facts" which he would not/could not substantiate.

But is this any reason to start calling him a Nazi/moron or question his sexuality? Seems that a lot of people just degenerate onto the same level as they put him on.

GuanYin

Maybe hobart, some people take offence to being called a sub-species.

For the record, I'm a "half-breed" decended from and immigrant and an Irish person. This doesn't invalidate any of my arguments as they were (in the science end) based on published scientif fact, usually borne of very white scientists in large institutions in white countries.

Now, how much tolerance would you have of shanemacs views if you were me?

Hobart

Well that's just a silly question as my views are just that. My views. I cannot put myself in your position totally.

However you seem quite an educated person, judging from your well put together replies, but I still say, that slagging him, or anybody, off is wrong.

Nobody has the right to call you a half-breed and nobody has the right to call him a Nazi or a moron. His views might be moronic in most peoples opinion. But personal insults just lead to the debate degenerating into flamage and name calling, which is of benifit to nobody.

If he has insulted you then use the report button and I'm sure the mods/admins will take care of it. Two wrongs and all that..........

BuffyBot

There's not a single patriot amongst you. So you can all go back to holding hands and singing Kumbaya while your country slowly sinks.

Ah, nice to see you'll resort to nice sweeping statements when your tired old rhetoric wears out.

The fact is, I like Ireland. I'm no anthem singing patriot, but I'm proud of my country. I'm also proud that my country can show compassion to those in need, and the maturity to accept those that are different.

patch

I was hoping he'd freak out at having all his theories debunked, and blurt out his masterplan.

It's a shame really, clearly the guy was fairly bright. Somewhere along the line his thinking was twisted to believe the crap he was almost spouting.

Which is quite frightening really.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
Well that's just a silly question as my views are just that. My views. I cannot put myself in your position totally.

However you seem quite an educated person, judging from your well put together replies, but I still say, that slagging him, or anybody, off is wrong.

Nobody has the right to call you a half-breed and nobody has the right to call him a Nazi or a moron. His views might be moronic in most peoples opinion. But personal insults just lead to the debate degenerating into flamage and name calling, which is of benifit to nobody.

Yeah, you are right, there were some sly digs in there on my part. In any case, I never intended to try an convert anyone, I did, and will continue to correct any inaccurate statements that I see (and recognise)

DadaKopf

Originally posted by sykeirl
Yes and if you read another ten journals you'll see esitimates that go further or shorter back. Genetically, we become us about 25K - 50k years ago.

[...]

If you want to look at it another way there is no human group that cannot have babies with a member of the opposite sex from any other human group.

Great post skyirl.

The other side of shanemac's argument is the nature/nurture debate, of which he's shown very little knowledge either. He's not even sure what exactly he means when he says that racial behaviour characteristics are a result of *both* genetics and culture but he shows no actual grasp of the theories at hand.

He goes on about 'memes' as something concrete when even Dawkins admits that the meme is just a name for a load of complex cognitive processes in the brain which give rise to understanding. That load of somethings, complex processes etc are still very much under debate. Cognitive Science is hard stuff.

In keeping with skyirl's post, Evolutionary Psychology reveals psycho-physiological traits/behaviour patterns etc to be highly complex and very unfixed. It equates to an all-encompassing theory of, I suppose, 'evolution in the brain' whereby it's revealed that the physical systems which give rise to mental processes and, subsequently, behaviour, evolve. External contingencies can alter biological systems, with adequate conditional reinforcement, at the genetic level, while at the same time, human activity as regulated by these systems, alter the world and so everything is highly complex and reciprocal. But nothing's that simple because clearly some processes are more "developmentally robust" than others and are thus less likely to undergo alteration.

The bottom line is that, in the same way there is no such thing as a "pure race", following on from that logic (in the truly logical sense, not shanemac "logic") it's unlikely that there is any such thing as race-specific behaviour traits. This is further compounded by all the scientific evidence which shows that there's very little genetic variation between 'races'.

In fact, it's much more likely that the weather has a stronger effect on human behaviour than genetics.

I just find it funny that shanemac sppealed to scientific reason in this thread when he, himself, has systematically failed to conduct his argument in accordance with scientific methodology. Most of his points have been consistently discredited with reams of counter-examples.

bonkey

Originally posted by shanemac
You all obviously know a lot more about multiculturalism than someone who actually lives in a fully multicultural country...

I coulda sworn I lived in Switzerland......but I forgot....you claimed to not know much about it as a multicultural nation.

As I said before....convenient for you.....

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by shanemac
Well if you go back far enough, we all have the same mother (mitochondrial Eve...and one father).

Thats a common misconception.

Mitochondrial Eve shows/proves that we all share at least one single common ancestor.....which is a subtly different point.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by Hobart

But is this any reason to start calling him a Nazi/moron or question his sexuality? Seems that a lot of people just degenerate onto the same level as they put him on.

It has been argued that people as virulently homophobic as the SF scum are, are actually attacking the potential homosexual in themselves. They're struggling to repress homosexual feelings, fear that their masculinity is under threat and feel the need to bolster it with masculine expressions like violence and scapegoating and other attempts at dominant behaviour. That's according to a gay friend of mine anyway. Maybe some gay people here would know more about it.

TuathaDeDanaan

For the record, I'm a "half-breed" decended from and immigrant and an Irish person. This doesn't invalidate any of my arguments as they were (in the science end) based on published scientif fact, usually borne of very white scientists in large institutions in white countries.

Now, how much tolerance would you have of shanemacs views if you were me?

So this means because you see yourself as a " half breed "you must naturally become opposed to anyone who talks about race or mass immigration?
You believe that others value your opinion less because your not 'as white' thus you need to say "This doesn't invalidate any of my arguments as they were (in the science end) based on published scientif fact, usually borne of very white scientists in large institutions in white countries."

Sykierl vitriol stems from his own mixed feelings about his own ancestry, so he must attack others who are more interested in thier own. In fact in his mind there is no alternative after all everyone is out to get him.

Just to put all your cards on the table, where was this immigrant parent from? cardiff? calaxy? guangdong?

Turnip

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan

Sykierl vitriol stems from his own mixed feelings about his own ancestry, so he must attack others who are more interested in thier own. In fact in his mind there is no alternative after all everyone is out to get him.

On the contrary, it is the SF mob who seem to have the identity crisis and feel the need to build up their self esteem by buying into racist theories and denigrating other people.

That's a Goebbels propaganda tactic you're using too I notice. Paranoid fascists accusing others of paranoid fascism.

TuathaDeDanaan

Rubbish!, I repeat again, I am neither a fascist, a stormfront member, a white supremacist, a nazi, a denigrater or whatever other various insults you wish to direct at me. My political orientation can be best described as libertarian conservative.

Also I would add I could make the case that you were a racial supremacist in another thread turnip you state...

By all means try to lure skilled and unskilled EU citizens here to work. But we should avoid bringing in yet more non-EU people.

I dont actually think this, im just giving an example of how its not fair to simple throw around such devil words as racist.

GuanYin

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
So this means because you see yourself as a " half breed "you must naturally become opposed to anyone who talks about race or mass immigration?
You believe that others value your opinion less because your not 'as white' thus you need to say "This doesn't invalidate any of my arguments as they were (in the science end) based on published scientif fact, usually borne of very white scientists in large institutions in white countries."

Sykierl vitriol stems from his own mixed feelings about his own ancestry, so he must attack others who are more interested in thier own. In fact in his mind there is no alternative after all everyone is out to get him.

Just to put all your cards on the table, where was this immigrant parent from? cardiff? calaxy? guangdong?

LoL thats just funny.

I'm quite happy with who I am. Like I said about ten times already, I have no problem with SF people airing their views. I do have a problem with people who blatently twist and mis-interpret scientfic facts to suit their agendas.

I'm not unsure about my ancestry at all and I don't think anyone is out to get me (well I'm sure a few are, but there are people out to get everybody). I know and appreciate the two very different cultures I come from and am able to see that people are pretty much the same everywhere, no matter where they come from. Of course, when you look at a culture from the outside, its hard to appreciate this.

Zombrex

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
So this means because you see yourself as a " half breed "you must naturally become opposed to anyone who talks about race or mass immigration?

I think if you read the posts, it was skyeirl who was being opposed. When someone attacks "immigration" in the way Shanemac was, they are attacking that actuall immigrants themselves. Shanemac was the one who was opposed to Skyeirl. According to Shanemac, skyeirls parents are going to destroy Ireland. Kinda hard not to take that s**t personally, in my view.

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan

You believe that others value your opinion less because your not 'as white' thus you need to say "This doesn't invalidate any of my arguments as they were (in the science end) based on published scientif fact, usually borne of very white scientists in large institutions in white countries."

I don't want to speak for skyeirl, but I think the objection wasn't to scientific reports produced by white peoplem, but to "scientific" reports produced and distributed on extremely right-wing racist websites

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
Sykierl vitriol stems from his own mixed feelings about his own ancestry, so he must attack others who are more interested in thier own.

Seems to me that people such as Shanemac are attacking Skyeirl's ancestry and trying to promote their own culture as being "better" ... Shanemac believed that people of his own background (white, european, english speaking) should be able to immigrate but non-white non-english speaking people shouldn't be able to immigrate to Ireland ... that is hardly has innocent as having an "interest" in ones own culture.