PUFAs And Their Influence On Political Leanings

[managing]

You're making assumptions based on your own prejudices I'm afraid.

Don't be afraid. Its just the internet. People like you can't actually hurt anybody until you go out into the world . . .

 

[Sobieski]

The plethora of existing pseudoscientific inquires are sufficient reason to stop asking dead questions.

Now go tell a skinhead you manufactured an opportunity to call somebody in favor of censorship. High Five!

I'll stop asking your motives. Your refusal to answer only proves my suspicions.

Which question? I'll happily answer any you have.
This is the problem; when someone wishes to have a frank intellectual conversation on politically sensitive issues, they are called names and subject to ad hominem attacks. You have eagerly alluded to me holding white supremacist views (false) made comparisons with the Nazis (Lol), suggested I associate with skinheads and alt-right (couldn't be farther from the truth), accused me of ulterior motives (false again).
Notice how I haven't once insulted or made assumptions about you?

 

[managing]

Curiosity is a hard concept to grasp for those who have never felt its pull.

Prejudice is a hard concept to grasp for those who have never examined their own.

 

[managing]

Which question? I'll happily answer any you have.
This is the problem; when someone wishes to have a frank intellectual conversation on politically sensitive issues, they are called names and subject to ad hominem attacks. You have eagerly alluded to me holding white supremacist views (false) made comparisons with the Nazis (Lol), suggested I associate with skinheads and alt-right (couldn't be farther from the truth), accused me of ulterior motives (false again).
Notice how I haven't once insulted or made assumptions about you?

I've asked you repeatedly, why do you want to know (and no, even my 8 yr old can understand that "curiosity" isn't an answer)? What would you expect to be done with the proof it actually could be found?

 

[Kartoffel]

You have dismissed everything I have attempted to post by an appeal to sources you are unwilling to provide. I at least gave you something to munch on. Why can't you do the same? Are you here to teach me, or to assert your superiority to me? I would very much like it to be the former.

What are you talking about? I have dismissed what you posted by reading it, and explaining why it doesn't support your theory, or why the source is junk. So, about what source I am unwilling to provide are you talking about? We are talking about your sources. And as I showed: what you posted is not just bad science, some of the quotes from you screenshot are just made up and don't even appear in the papers, which you would know, if you had actually read them. Now you are trying to twist my words around and reverse the burden of proof because I uncovered your lazy attempt to copy some references from an obviously shady source in order to appear scientific and demonstrate your superiority.

 

[Prosper]

Prejudice is a hard concept to grasp for those who have never examined their own.

You and I are motivated by different things. I loathe the way you represent yourself. You probably feel the same way about me. I don't see why you have to make that so big of a deal. It's nature. It's normal.

I've asked you repeatedly, why do you want to know (and no, even my 8 yr old can understand that "curiosity" isn't an answer)? What would you expect to be done with the proof it actually could be found?

Why does every conclusion have to lead to an action? Why can't we revel in information and knowledge about the world for its own sake?

 

[Prosper]

What are you talking about? I have dismissed what you posted by reading it, and explaining why it doesn't support your theory, or why the source is junk. So, about what source I am unwilling to provide are you talking about? We are talking about your sources. And as I showed: what you posted is not just bad science, some of the quotes from you screenshot are just made up and don't even appear in the papers, which you would know, if you had actually read them. Now you are trying to twist my words around and reverse the burden of proof because I uncovered your lazy attempt to copy some references from an obviously shady source in order to appear scientific.

You spoke of how the research was rejected, how their methods were faulty, and so on. I am asking you to link to wherever you get all this from. Do it for common good. I am not emotionally invested in my point of view. I'll gladly change it if someone proves me wrong. In this I am just like you: you were asking for information too. I gave you something, now could you return the favor?

 

[Sobieski]

I've asked you repeatedly, why do you want to know (and no, even my 8 yr old can understand that "curiosity" isn't an answer)? What would you expect to be done with the proof it actually could be found?

To expand on 'curiosity' it refers to wishing to know how much existing global inequality is due to environment or genes (nature vs nurture). The thing is, you don't even know what my opinion on the matter is because rather than stick to inquiry you've insulted me and made several very false assumptions, as opposed to asking me my beliefs on the subject. I have no doubt such data would be misconstrued by racists, just as nutritional and medicinal data is misconstrued (and accordingly harms millions of people). However, I'm anti-authoritarian and anti dogma, and I believe the truth should be pursued despite people's reservations, whatever the scientific domain.

 

[Kartoffel]

You spoke of how the research was rejected, how their methods were faulty, and so on. I am asking you to link to wherever you get all this from. Do it for common good. I am not emotionally invested in my point of view. I'll gladly change it if someone proves me wrong. In this I am just like you: you were asking for information too. I gave you something, now could you return the favor?

I already posted one abstract of a comment that was published on pubmed with regard to the Mekel-Bobrov paper. I explained that the quote that is cited as a paragraph from the Wang and Su paper doesn't appear in that paper and is just made up. It's a lie, and the paper doesn't claim anything like that... Now, do you seriously want me to point out every single flaw of a bunch of studies that you cited but never read yourself ? If you actually read the sources that you posted above, and have an open mind like you say, then you won't need my help to see that it's a bunch of nonsense.

 

[managing]

You and I are motivated by different things. I loathe the way you represent yourself. You probably feel the same way about me. I don't see why you have to make that so big of a deal. It's nature. It's normal.


Why does every conclusion have to lead to an action? Why can't we revel in information and knowledge about the world for its own sake?

LOL, Truuuuuuust me, I jus wanna know . . . I promise not to do anything xenophobic with the made up scienpitific evidences.

 

[managing]

To expand on 'curiosity' it refers to wishing to know how much existing global inequality is due to environment or genes (nature vs nurture). The thing is, you don't even know what my opinion on the matter is because rather than stick to inquiry you've insulted me and made several very false assumptions, as opposed to asking me my beliefs on the subject. I have no doubt such data would be misconstrued by racists, just as nutritional and medicinal data is misconstrued (and accordingly harms millions of people). However, I'm anti-authoritarian and anti dogma, and I believe the truth should be pursued despite people's reservations, whatever the scientific domain.

In a world of finite resources, where would you rank, in terms of priority, rehashing this already failed inquiry into whether there is a genetic basis for the belief some races are inferior? Maybe just an example of something slightly more important and slightly less important to you.

 

[Sobieski]

In a world of finite resources, where would you rank, in terms of priority, rehashing this already failed inquiry into whether there is a genetic basis for the belief some races are inferior? Maybe just an example of something slightly more important and slightly less important to you.

There's more important things. More importance- studying physiology, less importance - Cricket. Completely random but there you go. Do you agree that scientific inquiry should be open and uncensored?

 

[Sobieski]

In a world of finite resources, where would you rank, in terms of priority, rehashing this already failed inquiry into whether there is a genetic basis for the belief some races are inferior? Maybe just an example of something slightly more important and slightly less important to you.

Also, I don't think it's useful to use the terms 'superior' or inferior, it's just bio variation. If you look at it another way, then we'll have to disagree and leave it there.

 

[Prosper]

I already posted one abstract of a comment that was published on pubmed with regard to the Mekel-Bobrov paper. I explained that the quote that is cited as a paragraph from the Wang and Su paper doesn't appear in that paper and is just made up. It's a lie, and the paper doesn't claim anything like that... Now, do you seriously want me to point out every single flaw of a bunch of studies that you cited but never read yourself ? If you actually read the sources that you posted above, and have an open mind like you say, then you won't need my help to see that it's a bunch of nonsense.

You are right: I have not read any of them. I have saved many pictures, memes and infographs from the internet, and some day I will get around to studying these things more closely.

LOL, Truuuuuuust me, I jus wanna know . . . I promise not to do anything xenophobic with the made up scienpitific evidences.

To that i say that there exist people who are very unlike you. You are denying them a big part of their happiness. In a form that someone of your cognitive capability will understand: shut the fuk up.

 

[managing]

There's more important things. More importance- studying physiology, less importance - Cricket. Completely random but there you go. Do you agree that scientific inquiry should be open and uncensored?

I am not going to play that game. Genuine scientific inquiry should be open and uncensored.

Xenophobic pursuit of phony and falsified pseudoscience is not genuine scientific inquiry. What you and @Prosper propose is way, way across the line into the latter.

 

[managing]

Also, I don't think it's useful to use the terms 'superior' or inferior, it's just bio variation. If you look at it another way, then we'll have to disagree and leave it there.

Its not simple disagreement. Its easy to eschew simple words like "superior" and still fabricate judgmental and discriminatory conclusions. "Bio-variation". I'll give you credit, that is an original euphemism, lol.

 

[Prosper]

I am not going to play that game. Genuine scientific inquiry should be open and uncensored.

Xenophobic pursuit of phony and falsified pseudoscience is not genuine scientific inquiry. What you and @Prosper propose is way, way across the line into the latter.

Please do not tag me or my family on your posts ever again. I have low tolerance for lunacy - might get extremely sick.

 

[Sobieski]

I am not going to play that game. Genuine scientific inquiry should be open and uncensored.

Xenophobic pursuit of phony and falsified pseudoscience is not genuine scientific inquiry. What you and @Prosper propose is way, way across the line into the latter.

I'm glad you share my belief in that regard.
Please can you quote what I said that was way way across the line in being xenophobic?

 

[managing]

Its not simple disagreement. Its easy to eschew simple words like "superior" and still fabricate judgmental and discriminatory conclusions. "Bio-variation". I'll give you credit, that is an original euphemism, lol.

ooops, not that original

Race: The Reality of Human Differences
by Vincent Sarich & Frank Miele

Westview Press: 2004.

 

[managing]

Please do not tag me or my family on your posts ever again. I have low tolerance for lunacy - might get extremely sick.

No, @Prosper , you already are . . .