|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 14, 2005 1:27:32 GMT -5
<<But arguing with you with be a waste of time as well as brain drain>> That would be true because your always wrong,and only of course if you had a brain to begin with!
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jul 15, 2005 4:09:44 GMT -5
Crimsonbum, he obviously has a brain, he has the motor skills and coordination to type to the words on the screen from his computer, and the logical thinking neccessary to make consistent replies to your bigotry. --------> www.stormfront.org nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 15, 2005 11:34:12 GMT -5
mmmonkay your the bigot and fool!
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Jul 16, 2005 1:01:29 GMT -5
mmmonkay your the bigot and fool! The bigot and fool is you, you haven't the ability debate, all you do is cheerlead other people on and or copy and paste *THEIR* interpretations, you're incapable of doing any research on your own.
|
|
orion
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by orion on Oct 3, 2005 22:13:03 GMT -5
I know some Ethiopians and they don't want to be called "caucasoid", which is also a meaningless term anyway. They are proud of who they are and that is black and African.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 3, 2005 22:22:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 3, 2005 23:19:24 GMT -5
How the crap is caucasoid a meaningless term?
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Oct 4, 2005 4:32:33 GMT -5
Caucasoid and West Eurasian are the same thing. If West Eurasian is valid, so is Caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by penetratorx on Oct 5, 2005 4:54:47 GMT -5
I think afrocentrism is quite funny, I had a rastafarian drug dealer tell me that stonehenge was built by negroes in africa and that it was later shipped (by negroes) to England.
I nearly pissed my pants with laughter ;D
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Oct 5, 2005 9:00:03 GMT -5
I think afrocentrism is quite funny, I had a rastafarian drug dealer tell me that stonehenge was built by negroes in africa and that it was later shipped (by negroes) to England. I nearly pissed my pants with laughter ;D I believe. Some myths really are surprising and hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 5, 2005 12:56:30 GMT -5
How can haplogroup E be called “non-African” when their presence in Africa is not due to ‘extra-African’ sources? A shared common ancestry with a group that migrated out of Africa does not make haplogroup E genetically “non-African” or proto-Eurasian. M168 is called the “Eurasian Adam” because it’s the progenitor of all non-Africans. The M168 that stayed in Africa gave rise to Haplogroup E, what is so “non-African” genetically about E? Can you quote a geneticist that will agree that Hg E is genetically “non-African”? Think. We've been over this countless times: take the basic genetic division between "African" and "non-African"--on Nu Sapiens map the ancient genetic fission between Blue ("African") and Red + Green ("non-African"). It's unfortunate that the terms used lead to confusion. But I'm really getting tired of having to explain the difference between "names" and conceptual entities in themselves. It seems like many people just cant overcome this conceptual hurdle. It has to do with the methodological standard scientists call "incommensurability", or variance in meaning. Geographic terms like "African" and "sub-saharan" are are often "incommensurate" with genetic terms that use the same labels, especially when you're dealing with vast differences in time depths. If you dont understand the variances in meanings you cant really understand whats going on. I too am beginning to sound like a broken record, and its getting truly exasperating to have to explain this over and over. Look at it this way: M168 arose in geographical Africa without any geographical (or genetic, at that time) "extra-African sources". Fret not, I'm not talking about the origin of modern "races", just logic and methodology. I swear this is the last time I try to explain this. I'm having problems to follow you. Do you mean that some population with M168 stayed in africa and gave birth to haplogroup E? That those people were africans and sub-saharans geographically but didn't belong to the same race as today's sub-saharans?
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 5, 2005 12:57:06 GMT -5
I think afrocentrism is quite funny, I had a rastafarian drug dealer tell me that stonehenge was built by negroes in africa and that it was later shipped (by negroes) to England. I nearly pissed my pants with laughter ;D The stonehenge was done previous the anglo-sajon invasions though.
|
|
|
Post by penetratorx on Oct 5, 2005 13:13:30 GMT -5
I think afrocentrism is quite funny, I had a rastafarian drug dealer tell me that stonehenge was built by negroes in africa and that it was later shipped (by negroes) to England. I nearly pissed my pants with laughter ;D The stonehenge was done previous the anglo-sajon invasions though. It was also built before the Celtic settlement/invasion of Britain. The stones have been proved to come from Wales and England so if Stonehenge was built by negroes first in africa they would of had to come all the way to Britain to get the stones, taken them all the way back to africa and then later on taken them all the way back to Britain
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 5, 2005 14:04:03 GMT -5
Their are Megalithic stone formations all over Europe ,North Africa and Asia..not limited to Britain... They where built by Neolithic Peoples ,no Celts,no Picts,no Anglo's or especially NO Negroes'....Rubbish!
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 5, 2005 16:07:16 GMT -5
Their are Megalithic stone formations all over Europe ,North Africa and Asia..not limited to Britain... They where built by Neolithic Peoples ,no Celts,no Picts,no Anglo's or especially NO Negroes'....Rubbish! Again, it's Angles.
|
|