Almost every position the left has, is actually just an attack on Christian beliefs?

Danzy

sk8erboii wrote: »

Lmfao. Yeah my guy, the right sure are the paragon for jews!

No, they are not but at this moment in time the major threats to Jews are from parts of the modern Left and Islamists.

xckjoo

Strange claim given without Islamic maths we wouldn't have zero or algebra. Vital for any maths to create anything today. China also invested a lot of stuff before us

My thoughts exactly. The whole exercise sounds pointless. The results will depend on what arbitrary point in time you decide to start.

tomofson

xckjoo wrote: »

My thoughts exactly. The whole exercise sounds pointless. The results will depend on what arbitrary point in time you decide to start.

You don't mind giving the islamic world credit for their little contributions, but just cant bare to give any european a little credit can you?

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

You don't mind giving the islamic world credit for their little contributions, but just cant bare to give any european a little credit can you?

i think you can call mathematics and algebra more than a little contribution. We would be fecked without it.

tomofson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think you can call mathematics and algebra more than a little contribution. We would be fecked without it.

Compared to what europeans have given it is most definitely a little contribution.

And they most certainly did not invent mathematics, how did Europeans build all that ancient architecture before "arab" was even a thing?

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

Compared to what europeans have given it is most definitely a little contribution.

spoken as somebody who clearly understands neither.

srsly78

tomofson wrote: »

Compared to what europeans have given it is most definitely a little contribution.

And they most certainly did not invent mathematics, how did Europeans build all that ancient architecture before "arab" was even a thing?

You know that whole rennaissance thing? Go check where they got the inspiration from.

It's not about credit, it's about having a basic grasp of history.

tomofson

srsly78 wrote: »

You know that whole rennaissance thing? Go check where they got the inspiration from.

It's not about credit, it's about having a basic grasp of history.

Em, european civilizations were thriving before islam ever existed.

xckjoo

tomofson wrote: »

You don't mind giving the islamic world credit for their little contributions, but just cant bare to give any european a little credit can you?

Jesus you just keep going further down the rabbit hole don't you. I made no mention of race or religion in my post. I only pointed out the obvious glaring flaw in it as exercise.

And yet I'm the emotional one that can't handle "facts"

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

Em, european civilizations were thriving before islam ever existed.

you really need to go read some history.

Wibbs

marieholmfan wrote: »

So there is no group with 15% non recent out of Africa DNA?
Papuan is between 4 % and 6 %.

Europeans do NOT have 4% Neandertal DNA it is 2% at most.

Apologies, you're right, I was using the old measurement criteria. It's become more refined in percentages so as you say 1-2.1% is the most widely accepted percentage, Some researchers go higher mind you, up to 7%. It's still a field in its infancy.

It has become more refined in where these genes are in the populations. EG in around 70% of Europeans the genes for pale skin and other skin stuff, like keratin production is Neandertal, In Asians it's around 60%(and different genes involved). East Asians while showing a little more in the overall percentages as Europeans, they have more and longer sequences of archaic DNA. Other interesting areas of archaic DNA in moderns was in certain diseases like arthritis and type 2 diabetes, immune responses and in areas of the brain. Mostly in the visual cortex and cerebellum IIRC. Brain conditions like schizophrenia have some Neandertal influence going on.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Strange claim given without Islamic maths we wouldn't have zero or algebra. Vital for any maths to create anything today. China also invested a lot of stuff before us

Zero came from India. Algebra was a child of many fathers; the Babylonians, the Indians, the Greeks, the Persians. It's rare enough one group comes up with something on their own. Shoulders of giants and all that.

Wibbs

srsly78 wrote: »

You know that whole rennaissance thing? Go check where they got the inspiration from.

Eh, the Classical world of Greece and Rome? The clue is in the word, "rebirth". There was more than one renaissance thing too.

It's not about credit, it's about having a basic grasp of history.

Indeed.

Ray Palmer

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Anybody who thinks the bible is literal is ignorant and many are so willfully.
The quote the OP is not a statement of how people should live but a claim to explain how things came about. It didn't happen the same way language is not a result of an arrow being fired into heaven from the tower of Babel.
A story to explain the world around them but not fact. How people think God inspired the scriptures to explain the world incorrectly amazes me. The claim stories were simple so people would understand is so weird. Why would God do that? He could of given a story version of what happened but no he just made up something instead?

God didn't do any of it, he is the story to explain how things came about. People created god to explain a world they couldn't comprehend

While I agree with you that is not what people who believe in the bible believe. They have a strange concept to say God wrote the bible through human hands but didn't bother giving accurate details. I can understand such flawed logic. It is beyond faith as it requires ignorance. They even pick a version that they say is correct rather than other translation even when installation are pointed out. The number of the beast is not 666 for example

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

Apologies, you're right, I was using the old measurement criteria. It's become more refined in percentages so as you say 1-2.1% is the most widely accepted percentage, Some researchers go higher mind you, up to 7%. It's still a field in its infancy.

It has become more refined in where these genes are in the populations. EG in around 70% of Europeans the genes for pale skin and other skin stuff, like keratin production is Neandertal, In Asians it's around 60%(and different genes involved). East Asians while showing a little more in the overall percentages as Europeans, they have more and longer sequences of archaic DNA. Other interesting areas of archaic DNA in moderns was in certain diseases like arthritis and type 2 diabetes, immune responses and in areas of the brain. Mostly in the visual cortex and cerebellum IIRC. Brain conditions like schizophrenia have some Neandertal influence going on.


Strange claim given without Islamic maths we wouldn't have zero or algebra. Vital for any maths to create anything today. China also invested a lot of stuff before us

Zero came from India. Algebra was a child of many fathers; the Babylonians, the Indians, the Greeks, the Persians. It's rare enough one group comes up with something on their own. Shoulders of giants and all that.[/QUOTE]


al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra as a subject in itself. Sure he built on what was already there but he approached it in a much more rigorous way and constructed proofs of his work. Another persian gave us the algebraic geometry that we use in the west.

DS86DS

Stefan Molyneaux interview with former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade.

https://youtu.be/UW_AZafEJ4A

Odhinn

DS86DS wrote: »

Could not have put it better myself. Leftism is degenerate and anti-Christian and anti-white and anti-European. It is the gospel of selfish and degenerate people who have nothing but contempt for tradition and seek to cause division and strife in society.

Our modern Western Civilisation is the textbook definition of the Tower of Babel.

Ja, ja.

ohnonotgmail

DS86DS wrote: »

Stefan Molyneaux interview with former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade.

https://youtu.be/UW_AZafEJ4A

yeah, no intention of watching a nearly hour long video. why don't you tell us why it is relevant to anything discussed here?

Effects

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah, no intention of watching a nearly hour long video. why don't you tell us why it is relevant to anything discussed here?

You stick with tribalism because that's what works for you and is hard wired by evolution.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah, no intention of watching a nearly hour long video. why don't you tell us why it is relevant to anything discussed here?

Odds are its something like mentioned here

"A glance at Stefan Molyneux’s subscriber count (650,000+) on YouTube suggests that he is a charismatic, persuasive and influential individual. A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics to a large and growing audience is a serious concern. "

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux

Wibbs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra as a subject in itself. Sure he built on what was already there but he approached it in a much more rigorous way and constructed proofs of his work. Another persian gave us the algebraic geometry that we use in the west.

Certainly they were giants of the subject, but they were heavily influenced by the Greeks as in turn Europeans were influenced by them. They most certainly didn't invent it and without them humanity would have lost traction in the science but we wouldn't be without algebra. Just like if the Indians hadn't defined zero they way they did, we'd have no zero today.

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly they were giants of the subject, but they were heavily influenced by the Greeks as in turn Europeans were influenced by them. They most certainly didn't invent it and without them humanity would have lost traction in the science but we wouldn't be without algebra. Just like if the Indians hadn't defined zero they way they did, we'd have no zero today.

I'm sure we can argue over the finer details all day. But i still think the claim that 97% of all scientific discoveries were by europeans or north americans is bull****.

ohnonotgmail

Effects wrote: »

You stick with tribalism because that's what works for you and is hard wired by evolution.

Why can you not tell us what the video says? Even the salient points. You have watched it i assume?

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure we can argue over the finer details all day. But i still think the claim that 97% of all scientific discoveries were by europeans or north americans is bull****.

It may well be, probably is.

To say the overwhelming majority of scientific knowledge comes from Europe or North America us self evident though.

That is purely cultural.

Wibbs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

But i still think the claim that 97% of all scientific discoveries were by europeans or north americans is bull****.

Oh I'd agree with that alright. Attributing out of the blue discoveries to any single group is silly, whether that group be Europeans or Chinese or the Muslim world. Though all of the above are often quick to claim such. Like the list that was doing the Facebook rounds a few years back along the lines of "What Islam did for us" with forty odd "firsts". There were about five that had any legs.

Innovation happens all over the place, often at the same time with no connections and the epicentre of innovation changes over time. Broadly speaking the majority of innovation has generally occurred within relatively temperate and politically stable areas, almost always within empires(cultural and actual) and rapid innovation usually comes on the back of external competition. Historically the main areas of innovation have been the Middle East(and long before the Abrahamic religions came along), the Far East mostly centred within the Chinese empire and Europe, both imperial under say Rome and post imperial internal competition which was fierce. Sure we certainly had innovation in places like Mesoamerica and almost none in places like Australia, but If we removed Greece, Persia and China from the timeline we'd likely be still running about in horses and carts.

One reason Europe(and its later colonies) raced ahead was that internal competition I spoke of earlier. They had to innovate to compete. The Muslim world stayed a little too stable as did China. Cultural aspects were also very much in play. EG in China there wasn't near the level of social mobility as there existed in Europe, so a peasant coming up with a better mousetrap wouldn't get very far if he wasn't a mousetrap maker. Even simple things like alphabets make a difference. Take printing. First invented in China, with later help from Korea and it was used quite a bit, but didn't make that massive a shift in thinking. The Chinese alphabet was/is extremely cumbersome. It passes through the Islamic world where a mixture of the alphabet being extremely cumbersome and an old empire idea of not invented here meant it had near zero impact.

But then it hits Europe. Only twenty odd letters were required to print a page in any European language and it was walking into the oncoming storm of the Reformation where intense internal competition was going on. Near perfect soil for it to grow and what had been a quirky Chinese thing to print religious scrolls and banknotes became one of the biggest information revolutions in history. Even the difference between scrolls and books makes a difference. The latter being easier to rattle off in larger numbers. Within 50 years the cultural, intellectual, religious and philosophical landscape of Europe was changed. Even little things we take for granted like indexes came with European printing. Those old hand done manuscripts religious or no? They had no indexes, they rarely had titles. You had no real idea what was in a book until you read through it. Specialisation was another result. Again those old books could have all sorts of subjects between the covers all mashed up.

Look at something as "simple" as glass. Both China and Europe had the stuff, but the Chinese could make fine porcelain, whereas Europe was all earthenware, so they refined glass making. Doesn't seem like much and could look like the Chinese were ahead, but glassmaking give you optics, extra bits of chemistry, refinement of furnaces etc. Optics was huge. Add in all the European states trying to blow seven shades of shite out each other and innovations kick off like mad. Look at Descartes. We think of him today more about "I think therefore I am stuff, but his main gig was ballistics and the like(using the old algebra again). Guns give you better steel, better engineering and production methods and also leads to more of the physics of things and so on.

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

Lmfao. Yeah my guy, the right sure are the paragon for jews!

Most Jewish people in the UK vote conservative. Corbyn worries them.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly they were giants of the subject, but they were heavily influenced by the Greeks as in turn Europeans were influenced by them. They most certainly didn't invent it and without them humanity would have lost traction in the science but we wouldn't be without algebra. Just like if the Indians hadn't defined zero they way they did, we'd have no zero today.

I’m not sure we wouldn’t have a zero. You could argue about the founders of algebra all day but my school algebra and mathematics started with the Greeks and moved to the Europeans as it got more advanced ie calculus etc.

We were using Arab numerals and the Indian zero though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure we can argue over the finer details all day. But i still think the claim that 97% of all scientific discoveries were by europeans or north americans is bull****.

The rest of the world didn’t have science so it not that surprising.

James Brown

I love the way the world is in a jocker and getting worse, and somehow it's the fault of immigrants and non-racist people.

realitykeeper

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Jesus was a communist before it was a thing.

Jesus was both a capitalist and a socialist. Both ideologies intersect at a sweet spot. Where these ideologies diverge like they are now, you get left and right extremism competing for supremacy.

The ideal capitalism has all the benefits of capitalism but the wealthy are more generous and only the needy ask for help, because spongers work in an ideal capitalist scenario. In ideal socialism, everyone who can work does so according to their ability and they ideally receive according to their needs. The cult of leader does not exist in an ideal socialist system. I think one flaw with the idea that the state will look after you is that everyone tends to relax and then expect everyone else to look after them. In that scenario, the only people who really work hard are those who are forced to do so in the gulags. The ideal form of both systems are not that different. Those who have, give. Those who don`t have, don`t take the urine. Those who can work, do so in a conscientious way and not a couldn`t give an excrement way.

I think another difference between socialists and capitalists is that socialists think they can rely on themselves without the need for God, as if God were some sort of commodity. Capitalists tend to believe in God. When you believe in God, the need or otherwise of God is not relevant, the need to worship and obey God is relevant.

It is strange that socialists tend to lack faith in God and right wingers tend to be people of faith.

Anyway, I think capitalism works better than socialism.

Danzy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I love the way the world is in a jocker and getting worse, and somehow it's the fault of immigrants and non-racist people.

Dramatic.

Ye blew it in 2008 with the great crash but it was building for decades.

That year marked the end of Reaganism/Thatcherism, it'll take years to play out though.

Dressing it up as compassionate or empathy is old at this stage. You like some bits of neoliberalism but they are still Neoliberal and that is increasingly being pushed back upon.