Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:32 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 365 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 57631
It probably ought.

I didn't refer to any race btw when I mentioned sickle cell, that was a little add on from you. Come on man we all know you probably meant to imply I was a racist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14571
bimboman wrote:
It probably ought.

I didn't refer to any race btw when I mentioned sickle cell, that was a little add on from you. Come on man we all know you probably meant to imply I was a racist.

:lol: :lol:

The only thing you can do with Bimbo sometimes is just laugh at him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40622
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
It probably ought.

I didn't refer to any race btw when I mentioned sickle cell, that was a little add on from you. Come on man we all know you probably meant to imply I was a racist.


Even if you were right I don't really know what there is to be gained by treating it like a foul calumny instead of the constant shitslinging which is the default form of interaction of the bored


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 57631
Sefton wrote:
bimboman wrote:
It probably ought.

I didn't refer to any race btw when I mentioned sickle cell, that was a little add on from you. Come on man we all know you probably meant to imply I was a racist.

:lol: :lol:

The only thing you can do with Bimbo sometimes is just laugh at him.



You're getting quite obsessed aren't you .... Anyway you have a dunning for your confirmation bias stuff now so you should be happy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14571
bimboman wrote:
Sefton wrote:
bimboman wrote:
It probably ought.

I didn't refer to any race btw when I mentioned sickle cell, that was a little add on from you. Come on man we all know you probably meant to imply I was a racist.

:lol: :lol:

The only thing you can do with Bimbo sometimes is just laugh at him.



You're getting quite obsessed aren't you .... Anyway you have a dunning for your confirmation bias stuff now so you should be happy.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34835
Conservative Eddie wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Conservative Eddie is probably not a racist either. There are probably quite a few of us on here who are probably not racist.


Thank you Mick.

This is a thread full of posters who are probably not racist, and one victim, Bimbo.*


*That sentence in no way implies that Bimbo is only a victim and not also a "probably not racist".



Victim? :lol: , get over yourself. What do you need btw, proof that frequency of sickle cell carrying is still higher in Equatorial Africa than else where and that the NHS profile the patient before a sickle cell screen (note not other similar conditions).

Will that make my simple point about racial profiling on some health issues due to prevelance make more "sense" to you.

Christ I do wish I'd chosen a whites only disease for the point though.


It's quite straightforward, Bimbo.

You used the term "particular heritage" in reference to sickle-cell anemia - that it afflicts those of such heritage, and given your previous posts in this same thread, such heritage is presumably "African". That is: particularly African. Hence your remark about claiming to be "racially African" in order to get tested/screened for sickle cell anemia at a clinic.

Now, I don't think it's outlandish or unfair to surmise from this, the conclusion, that you think there exists a particular connection between being "racially African" and having an increased likelihood of being positive for sickle-cell anemia.

This assertion of yours isn't true. It's more complicated than simply being an "African disease". You'd know this if you read a bit more widely and deeply on the subject. You'd also know that it is frequently used as a racial trope - the idea of arbitrarily tying a trait or disease to a "race". Of course, instead of taking this as a cue to, perhaps, taking the time to read a little bit more on the subject you went straight into dismissing what I wrote and eventually (it didn't take long) into personal abuse - essentially stating that I would dishonestly ignore or explain way conflicting data.

I gave you an example early on of a "whites disease" - cystic fibrosis is quite common in Ireland; more than pretty much anywhere else. And by mentioning this I was highlighting the absurdity of trying to correlate such a trait with the idea of "race"; the idea that one would identify the "Irish race" by the preponderance or incidence of this one disease.

Ignored, of course.


That's a vile shit of a post to be fair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Conservative Eddie wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Conservative Eddie is probably not a racist either. There are probably quite a few of us on here who are probably not racist.


Thank you Mick.

This is a thread full of posters who are probably not racist, and one victim, Bimbo.*


*That sentence in no way implies that Bimbo is only a victim and not also a "probably not racist".



Victim? :lol: , get over yourself. What do you need btw, proof that frequency of sickle cell carrying is still higher in Equatorial Africa than else where and that the NHS profile the patient before a sickle cell screen (note not other similar conditions).

Will that make my simple point about racial profiling on some health issues due to prevelance make more "sense" to you.

Christ I do wish I'd chosen a whites only disease for the point though.


It's quite straightforward, Bimbo.

You used the term "particular heritage" in reference to sickle-cell anemia - that it afflicts those of such heritage, and given your previous posts in this same thread, such heritage is presumably "African". That is: particularly African. Hence your remark about claiming to be "racially African" in order to get tested/screened for sickle cell anemia at a clinic.

Now, I don't think it's outlandish or unfair to surmise from this, the conclusion, that you think there exists a particular connection between being "racially African" and having an increased likelihood of being positive for sickle-cell anemia.

This assertion of yours isn't true. It's more complicated than simply being an "African disease". You'd know this if you read a bit more widely and deeply on the subject. You'd also know that it is frequently used as a racial trope - the idea of arbitrarily tying a trait or disease to a "race". Of course, instead of taking this as a cue to, perhaps, taking the time to read a little bit more on the subject you went straight into dismissing what I wrote and eventually (it didn't take long) into personal abuse - essentially stating that I would dishonestly ignore or explain way conflicting data.

I gave you an example early on of a "whites disease" - cystic fibrosis is quite common in Ireland; more than pretty much anywhere else. And by mentioning this I was highlighting the absurdity of trying to correlate such a trait with the idea of "race"; the idea that one would identify the "Irish race" by the preponderance or incidence of this one disease.

Ignored, of course.


Yeah. You've gone from "surmising" based on inference across a number of posts to an "assertion". That's pretty sloppy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2441
bimboman wrote:
It probably ought.

I didn't refer to any race btw when I mentioned sickle cell, that was a little add on from you. Come on man we all know you probably meant to imply I was a racist.


Eh...

bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
And the definition of "race" is so broad, nebulous, and disconnected from any real-world characteristics that a belief system can absolutely be included under it. Biology wouldn't need to change one single fucking thing in order to scrap the concept of "race" entirely, it is not and has never been an even vaguely scientific concept


Next time I turn up at the sickle cell society demanding to be tested I'll tell them I've chosen to be racially African that day and demand equality.

You stupid c unt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2441
Santa wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Conservative Eddie is probably not a racist either. There are probably quite a few of us on here who are probably not racist.


Thank you Mick.

This is a thread full of posters who are probably not racist, and one victim, Bimbo.*


*That sentence in no way implies that Bimbo is only a victim and not also a "probably not racist".



Victim? :lol: , get over yourself. What do you need btw, proof that frequency of sickle cell carrying is still higher in Equatorial Africa than else where and that the NHS profile the patient before a sickle cell screen (note not other similar conditions).

Will that make my simple point about racial profiling on some health issues due to prevelance make more "sense" to you.

Christ I do wish I'd chosen a whites only disease for the point though.


It's quite straightforward, Bimbo.

You used the term "particular heritage" in reference to sickle-cell anemia - that it afflicts those of such heritage, and given your previous posts in this same thread, such heritage is presumably "African". That is: particularly African. Hence your remark about claiming to be "racially African" in order to get tested/screened for sickle cell anemia at a clinic.

Now, I don't think it's outlandish or unfair to surmise from this, the conclusion, that you think there exists a particular connection between being "racially African" and having an increased likelihood of being positive for sickle-cell anemia.

This assertion of yours isn't true. It's more complicated than simply being an "African disease". You'd know this if you read a bit more widely and deeply on the subject. You'd also know that it is frequently used as a racial trope - the idea of arbitrarily tying a trait or disease to a "race". Of course, instead of taking this as a cue to, perhaps, taking the time to read a little bit more on the subject you went straight into dismissing what I wrote and eventually (it didn't take long) into personal abuse - essentially stating that I would dishonestly ignore or explain way conflicting data.

I gave you an example early on of a "whites disease" - cystic fibrosis is quite common in Ireland; more than pretty much anywhere else. And by mentioning this I was highlighting the absurdity of trying to correlate such a trait with the idea of "race"; the idea that one would identify the "Irish race" by the preponderance or incidence of this one disease.

Ignored, of course.


Yeah. You've gone from "surmising" based on inference across a number of posts to an "assertion". That's pretty sloppy.


I could have been more categorical if you like.

And it's based on his own words, yes, across a few posts. Bimbo, after all, insisted that I consider the context of the discussion with regard to his initial post on sickle-cell anemia, which I did.


Last edited by Conservative Eddie on Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Conservative Eddie wrote:
I could have more categorical if you like.

And it's based on his own words, yes, across a few posts. Bimbo, after all, insisted that I consider the context of the discussion with regard his initial post on sickle-cell anemia, which I did.


You can't inveigle your way to an assertion. Show it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40622
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Is asserting the existence of an assertion not allowed?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2441
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Conservative Eddie is probably not a racist either. There are probably quite a few of us on here who are probably not racist.


Thank you Mick.

This is a thread full of posters who are probably not racist, and one victim, Bimbo.*


*That sentence in no way implies that Bimbo is only a victim and not also a "probably not racist".



Victim? :lol: , get over yourself. What do you need btw, proof that frequency of sickle cell carrying is still higher in Equatorial Africa than else where and that the NHS profile the patient before a sickle cell screen (note not other similar conditions).

Will that make my simple point about racial profiling on some health issues due to prevelance make more "sense" to you.

Christ I do wish I'd chosen a whites only disease for the point though.


It's quite straightforward, Bimbo.

You used the term "particular heritage" in reference to sickle-cell anemia - that it afflicts those of such heritage, and given your previous posts in this same thread, such heritage is presumably "African". That is: particularly African. Hence your remark about claiming to be "racially African" in order to get tested/screened for sickle cell anemia at a clinic.

Now, I don't think it's outlandish or unfair to surmise from this, the conclusion, that you think there exists a particular connection between being "racially African" and having an increased likelihood of being positive for sickle-cell anemia.

This assertion of yours isn't true. It's more complicated than simply being an "African disease". You'd know this if you read a bit more widely and deeply on the subject. You'd also know that it is frequently used as a racial trope - the idea of arbitrarily tying a trait or disease to a "race". Of course, instead of taking this as a cue to, perhaps, taking the time to read a little bit more on the subject you went straight into dismissing what I wrote and eventually (it didn't take long) into personal abuse - essentially stating that I would dishonestly ignore or explain way conflicting data.

I gave you an example early on of a "whites disease" - cystic fibrosis is quite common in Ireland; more than pretty much anywhere else. And by mentioning this I was highlighting the absurdity of trying to correlate such a trait with the idea of "race"; the idea that one would identify the "Irish race" by the preponderance or incidence of this one disease.

Ignored, of course.


That's a vile shit of a post to be fair.


Aww. Do I have to call on the spectre of Alan Templeton again?

I make no apologies for my opinions on the subject of race and biology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 57631
The context of saying I want the test and I'm racially African was clearly to demonstrate the ludicrousness of

A: choosing your own racial heritage rather than just having one. THE F UCKING context.

B: choosing a disease that is not only prevelance in people from Africa (god if only I'd said Bahranian ) but that the testers would make a judgement on, they don't test ginger Geordies for sickle cell CE do they.

Now you take 2 plus 2 and then have to add in your assertion that I'm a racist to come up,with the post above.


You then don't have the bottle to even admit it.

Rancid as always from you CE , rancid and wrong btw.

The prevelance in the UK of anyone being tested for sickle cell is African, not Arabian nor Bangladeshi. So f uck off with your own assertions cause they ain't even correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2441
Santa wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
I could have more categorical if you like.

And it's based on his own words, yes, across a few posts. Bimbo, after all, insisted that I consider the context of the discussion with regard his initial post on sickle-cell anemia, which I did.


You can't inveigle your way to an assertion. Show it.


Inveigle? Is that what I've done?

Consider just the one post of his that I quoted above:

1) Chuckles discusses the definition of race as "...broad, nebulous, and disconnected..." and so broad that you might just be able to fit a relgious belief system under its rubric. It describes it as not being scientific and the fact that biology would be uninhibited by its passing.

2) Bimbo responds, not in the affirmative, and raises sickle-cell anemia and the idea of being "racially African" as at least, linked or dependent. I'm not sure what other way one is supposed to interpret that post. He clearly posits a connection. And he clearly disagrees with Chuckles' more nuanced argument.

What assertion do you draw from that?

a) he sees "race" as a scietific category (subsequent posts indicates he does)

b) his conception of race is more narrow than Chuckles'

c) he sees a necessary connection between race and traits - it's the only point he makes in response to a post about race being nebulous and unscientific

I could go on...



Now, I'm considering the context in which this is being said, and I take a further look at his other posts. His phraseology in subsequent posts simply lends credence to the above, e.g. his use of "particular heritage".


Now, I don't think he's a racist but I do think he's repeating a racial trope. My initial response to him wasn't an attack, nor was it abusive. I pointed out that evidence exists that complicates the idea of simple race/trait relationships. That the variation in allele frequency, penetrance and geographical distribution mean that sickle cell anemia is not simply an African disease or "racially African".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 57631
Quote:
Now, I don't think he's a racist but I do think he's repeating a racial trope. My initial response to him wasn't an attack, nor was it abusive. I pointed out that evidence exists that complicates the idea of simple race/trait relationships. That the variation in allele frequency, penetrance and geographical distribution mean that sickle cell anemia is not simply an African disease or "racially African".


If compared to my white Northern European heritage it f ucking is, that was the point of the example, quite clearly to anyone not looking to make accusations of racism.




What assertion do you draw from that?

a) he sees "race" as a scietific category (subsequent posts indicates he does) now you've added category here, I've asserted that some science uses race and terminology of race not hat race is categorised


b) his conception of race is more narrow than Chuckles'indeed chuckles maintains Muslim can be race and that race doesn't exist, and that in racial term Muslim is like "Irish", most people's conception of race is differant from chuckles particularly when chuckles was cornered in a nonsense statement that Muslim is a race

c) he sees a necessary connection between race and traits - it's the only point he makes in response to a post about race being nebulous and unscientific my point about suckle trait was that indeed it only appears as a mutation in people from certain places of certain DNA groups, are you disputing that ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 4303
Stepped back into Aussie political thread.................steps out again rapidly.... :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15684
Location: Haunting your dreams
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 4303
Zakar wrote:
Image


It's Nutbar central at present


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:53 am
Posts: 1470
Location: LHI
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Zakar wrote:
Image


It's Nutbar central at present


Yep. I would have thought that the discussion would have been about the actual issue, and what it says about a section of Australian society. Oh well..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34835
Quote:

Aww. Do I have to call on the spectre of Alan Templeton again?

I make no apologies for my opinions on the subject of race and biology.


I have no idea who Alan Templeton is. All I can see is that you've obfuscated your way into accussing someone of being a racist, who patently isn't.

It's grub behaviour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40622
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

Aww. Do I have to call on the spectre of Alan Templeton again?

I make no apologies for my opinions on the subject of race and biology.


I have no idea who Alan Templeton is. All I can see is that you've obfuscated your way into accussing someone of being a racist, who patently isn't.

It's grub behaviour.


He's taken a degree of care to not do that which I would frankly describe as "heroic"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34835
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Santa wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
I could have more categorical if you like.

And it's based on his own words, yes, across a few posts. Bimbo, after all, insisted that I consider the context of the discussion with regard his initial post on sickle-cell anemia, which I did.


You can't inveigle your way to an assertion. Show it.


Inveigle? Is that what I've done?

Consider just the one post of his that I quoted above:

1) Chuckles discusses the definition of race as "...broad, nebulous, and disconnected..." and so broad that you might just be able to fit a relgious belief system under its rubric. It describes it as not being scientific and the fact that biology would be uninhibited by its passing.

2) Bimbo responds, not in the affirmative, and raises sickle-cell anemia and the idea of being "racially African" as at least, linked or dependent. I'm not sure what other way one is supposed to interpret that post. He clearly posits a connection. And he clearly disagrees with Chuckles' more nuanced argument.

What assertion do you draw from that?

a) he sees "race" as a scietific category (subsequent posts indicates he does)

b) his conception of race is more narrow than Chuckles'

c) he sees a necessary connection between race and traits - it's the only point he makes in response to a post about race being nebulous and unscientific

I could go on...



Now, I'm considering the context in which this is being said, and I take a further look at his other posts. His phraseology in subsequent posts simply lends credence to the above, e.g. his use of "particular heritage".


Now, I don't think he's a racist but I do think he's repeating a racial trope. My initial response to him wasn't an attack, nor was it abusive. I pointed out that evidence exists that complicates the idea of simple race/trait relationships. That the variation in allele frequency, penetrance and geographical distribution mean that sickle cell anemia is not simply an African disease or "racially African".


Jesus wept. I dub thee 'insane'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40622
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Santa wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
I could have more categorical if you like.

And it's based on his own words, yes, across a few posts. Bimbo, after all, insisted that I consider the context of the discussion with regard his initial post on sickle-cell anemia, which I did.


You can't inveigle your way to an assertion. Show it.


Inveigle? Is that what I've done?

Consider just the one post of his that I quoted above:

1) Chuckles discusses the definition of race as "...broad, nebulous, and disconnected..." and so broad that you might just be able to fit a relgious belief system under its rubric. It describes it as not being scientific and the fact that biology would be uninhibited by its passing.

2) Bimbo responds, not in the affirmative, and raises sickle-cell anemia and the idea of being "racially African" as at least, linked or dependent. I'm not sure what other way one is supposed to interpret that post. He clearly posits a connection. And he clearly disagrees with Chuckles' more nuanced argument.

What assertion do you draw from that?

a) he sees "race" as a scietific category (subsequent posts indicates he does)

b) his conception of race is more narrow than Chuckles'

c) he sees a necessary connection between race and traits - it's the only point he makes in response to a post about race being nebulous and unscientific

I could go on...



Now, I'm considering the context in which this is being said, and I take a further look at his other posts. His phraseology in subsequent posts simply lends credence to the above, e.g. his use of "particular heritage".


Now, I don't think he's a racist but I do think he's repeating a racial trope. My initial response to him wasn't an attack, nor was it abusive. I pointed out that evidence exists that complicates the idea of simple race/trait relationships. That the variation in allele frequency, penetrance and geographical distribution mean that sickle cell anemia is not simply an African disease or "racially African".


Jesus wept. I dub thee 'insane'.


An exclusive club of a mere 500 or so million people


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34835
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

Aww. Do I have to call on the spectre of Alan Templeton again?

I make no apologies for my opinions on the subject of race and biology.


I have no idea who Alan Templeton is. All I can see is that you've obfuscated your way into accussing someone of being a racist, who patently isn't.

It's grub behaviour.


He's taken a degree of care to not do that which I would frankly describe as "heroic"


Yes, well, that's the new art. In the past, genuine racsits would dance around the fire making sure they could not be accused of racism. Now the perverted anti-racists (a cult if ever I saw one) are at pains to ensure they haven't accused anyone of being a racist.

They know they are on the back foot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34835
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Santa wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
I could have more categorical if you like.

And it's based on his own words, yes, across a few posts. Bimbo, after all, insisted that I consider the context of the discussion with regard his initial post on sickle-cell anemia, which I did.


You can't inveigle your way to an assertion. Show it.


Inveigle? Is that what I've done?

Consider just the one post of his that I quoted above:

1) Chuckles discusses the definition of race as "...broad, nebulous, and disconnected..." and so broad that you might just be able to fit a relgious belief system under its rubric. It describes it as not being scientific and the fact that biology would be uninhibited by its passing.

2) Bimbo responds, not in the affirmative, and raises sickle-cell anemia and the idea of being "racially African" as at least, linked or dependent. I'm not sure what other way one is supposed to interpret that post. He clearly posits a connection. And he clearly disagrees with Chuckles' more nuanced argument.

What assertion do you draw from that?

a) he sees "race" as a scietific category (subsequent posts indicates he does)

b) his conception of race is more narrow than Chuckles'

c) he sees a necessary connection between race and traits - it's the only point he makes in response to a post about race being nebulous and unscientific

I could go on...



Now, I'm considering the context in which this is being said, and I take a further look at his other posts. His phraseology in subsequent posts simply lends credence to the above, e.g. his use of "particular heritage".


Now, I don't think he's a racist but I do think he's repeating a racial trope. My initial response to him wasn't an attack, nor was it abusive. I pointed out that evidence exists that complicates the idea of simple race/trait relationships. That the variation in allele frequency, penetrance and geographical distribution mean that sickle cell anemia is not simply an African disease or "racially African".


Jesus wept. I dub thee 'insane'.


An exclusive club of a mere 500 or so million people


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34835
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Santa wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
I could have more categorical if you like.

And it's based on his own words, yes, across a few posts. Bimbo, after all, insisted that I consider the context of the discussion with regard his initial post on sickle-cell anemia, which I did.


You can't inveigle your way to an assertion. Show it.


Inveigle? Is that what I've done?

Consider just the one post of his that I quoted above:

1) Chuckles discusses the definition of race as "...broad, nebulous, and disconnected..." and so broad that you might just be able to fit a relgious belief system under its rubric. It describes it as not being scientific and the fact that biology would be uninhibited by its passing.

2) Bimbo responds, not in the affirmative, and raises sickle-cell anemia and the idea of being "racially African" as at least, linked or dependent. I'm not sure what other way one is supposed to interpret that post. He clearly posits a connection. And he clearly disagrees with Chuckles' more nuanced argument.

What assertion do you draw from that?

a) he sees "race" as a scietific category (subsequent posts indicates he does)

b) his conception of race is more narrow than Chuckles'

c) he sees a necessary connection between race and traits - it's the only point he makes in response to a post about race being nebulous and unscientific

I could go on...



Now, I'm considering the context in which this is being said, and I take a further look at his other posts. His phraseology in subsequent posts simply lends credence to the above, e.g. his use of "particular heritage".


Now, I don't think he's a racist but I do think he's repeating a racial trope. My initial response to him wasn't an attack, nor was it abusive. I pointed out that evidence exists that complicates the idea of simple race/trait relationships. That the variation in allele frequency, penetrance and geographical distribution mean that sickle cell anemia is not simply an African disease or "racially African".


Jesus wept. I dub thee 'insane'.


An exclusive club of a mere 500 or so million people


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2441
rett wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Zakar wrote:
Image


It's Nutbar central at present


Yep. I would have thought that the discussion would have been about the actual issue, and what it says about a section of Australian society. Oh well..


Sorry.

It is somewhat inevitable though that these digressions take place - the nature of the place.

For what it's worth the chaps in the video, "just asking questions", are indeed dickheads, and should be named and shamed quite frankly. I can't say what the broader implications for Australian society might be, but you're by no means unique on this issue.

Seneca,

Ring a bell:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684745

It's worth a read for anyone else who might be interested.

I think I've said more than enough.

Ciao


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34835
Conservative Eddie wrote:
rett wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Zakar wrote:
Image


It's Nutbar central at present


Yep. I would have thought that the discussion would have been about the actual issue, and what it says about a section of Australian society. Oh well..


Sorry.

It is somewhat inevitable though that these digressions take place - the nature of the place.

For what it's worth the chaps in the video, "just asking questions", are indeed dickheads, and should be named and shamed quite frankly. I can't say what the broader implications for Australian society might be, but you're by no means unique on this issue.

Seneca,

Ring a bell:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684745

It's worth a read for anyone else who might be interested.


I think I've said more than enough.

Ciao


Oh for sure. I have been pretty consistent. Load of old rubbish. Clearly mad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16733
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
jesus fistf@cking christ, call the CDC! (this many people shitting the bed simultaneously suggests some sort of epidemiological event...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34835
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
jesus fistf@cking christ, call the CDC! (this many people shitting the bed simultaneously suggests some sort of epidemiological event...)


I'll say. You've actually posted a post. The world is at an end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5850
Location: Worst Mod ever, so sayeth the mob
When someone digs themselves that deep a hole, a report about a gif that does not reference any poster, nor is it posted directly after a post by that poster to give any sort of association other than being on the same thread is not going to cover over said hole.
So that particular report has been closed.
Now, also having had to read through 6+ pages of the wittering shite posted herein I've got one f**king hell of a twitch on.

Please, sort your shit out gentlemen, so I don't have to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14571
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

Aww. Do I have to call on the spectre of Alan Templeton again?

I make no apologies for my opinions on the subject of race and biology.


I have no idea who Alan Templeton is. All I can see is that you've obfuscated your way into accussing someone of being a racist, who patently isn't.

It's grub behaviour.


He's taken a degree of care to not do that which I would frankly describe as "heroic"


Yes, well, that's the new art. In the past, genuine racsits would dance around the fire making sure they could not be accused of racism. Now the perverted anti-racists (a cult if ever I saw one) are at pains to ensure they haven't accused anyone of being a racist.

They know they are on the back foot.

So saying you don't think somebody is a racist is the new calling somebody a racist.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32183
Location: in transit
blackblackblack wrote:
When someone digs themselves that deep a hole, a report about a gif that does not reference any poster, nor is it posted directly after a post by that poster to give any sort of association other than being on the same thread is not going to cover over said hole.
So that particular report has been closed.
Now, also having had to read through 6+ pages of the wittering shite posted herein I've got one f**king hell of a twitch on.

Please, sort your shit out gentlemen, so I don't have to.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Someone tried to call a shovel a spade?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15571
Location: STRAYA!
guy smiley wrote:
blackblackblack wrote:
When someone digs themselves that deep a hole, a report about a gif that does not reference any poster, nor is it posted directly after a post by that poster to give any sort of association other than being on the same thread is not going to cover over said hole.
So that particular report has been closed.
Now, also having had to read through 6+ pages of the wittering shite posted herein I've got one f**king hell of a twitch on.

Please, sort your shit out gentlemen, so I don't have to.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Someone tried to call a shovel a spade?


Yep. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32183
Location: in transit
:lol:

No way. Wow. This thread :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11481
Location: Coalfalls
guy smiley wrote:
:lol:

No way. Wow. This thread :thumbup:

It passed thru Weirdtown quite a while back, heading in the general direction of A Place Without an Adjective


Last edited by MungoMan on Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15684
Location: Haunting your dreams
Pleas tell me someone reported my grandpa Simpson gif :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 37423
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 9721
Location: Stockholm
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Andalu wrote:
What is a non-practising Muslim?


Like a lapsed Catholic or atheist Jew


Which means what exactly? Genuine question because it seems like a really dumb thing to call one-self. "I'm an X that doesn't actually believe or act in accordance to any of the tenants of being an X". Well then you're not an X. You're an idiot.

BTW, if they called him a "monkey", that is obviously racist and a dickhead move. And I hate it when these dumbass closet-racists go about Islam, clearly conflating it with their own racism. It only obfuscates genuine criticism of the doctrine and further re-enforces the dummy notion that critisizing Islam is akin to racism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15684
Location: Haunting your dreams
Mog The Almighty wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Andalu wrote:
What is a non-practising Muslim?


Like a lapsed Catholic or atheist Jew


Which means what exactly? Genuine question because it seems like a really dumb thing to call one-self. "I'm an X that doesn't actually believe or act in accordance to any of the tenants of being an X". Well then you're not an X. You're an idiot.

BTW, if they called him a "monkey", that is obviously racist and a dickhead move.


I assume it's like being brought up in, and still a member of the culture surrounding the religion. Kind of like those kids that wore wallet chains, DC skate shoes and clothes and hung out with the skater kids without ever getting on a board.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 365 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ghost-Of-Nepia, Google Adsense [Bot], RandomNavigat0r, True Blue and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group