Since I don't know any of the mods...
I've been to spacebattles.com and other forums, and in those places, some of the mods were tyrannical, and banned anyone who even slightly disagreed with them in anything.
Now, as I do not know any mods here personally, or whatsuch...
Do I have to worry about that here?
If any tyrants are amongst ye, who be the ones, so I can know which ones to avoid?

The thread title itself shows how little the thread starter reads. Hapsburg has obviously not bothered to read the little bit of text above "I Agree" in the pre-registration page. The mere fact that he is concerned about which moderators are "tyrannts" or not shows it.

If you've read it at all, you'll notice it says that moderators and the administrator can delete/lock/move/edit posts and threads without any reason. Since you've signed up, you've obviously checked the "I Agree" box.

Posting here is, like someone said, a privilege and not a right. The First Amendment does not and should not apply here.

Only the self-deluded think this place is a democracy. This is a dictatorship, led by Porfiry. Do you know why? Who do you think owns this website? Who do you think works his ass off to break off a chunk of his meager income so that this website may stay online? It's Dave. Dave Watanabe. It's him, and his efforts alone that help keep this place online so that we may enjoy our little debates and flames here.

He decides how things are done here, and it's his decision to give the moderators such authority. If you have a problem with that, either buy the goddamn website from him, remove your head from your rectum and shut up, or leave.

Thanks.

thats not what im worried about.
im worried that some mod will ban me if i take a different opinion to a suject than them. ive seen mods on other sites do it before. im not talking about what they are supposed to do, im talking about what they might do for cruelty and amusement. for example:
poster: "i think the kraken exists"
tyrant mod: "i think it doesn't. you don't have my views. you're banned for life! lol"
ive seen it happen before. i just dont want it happening to me.

I don't think that happens here, from what I've seen, all of the mods are pretty fair (and there are certainly extremely different opinions being thrown around here, and I don't see bannings very often).

And i should believe this why?
anyway.
okay, ive just seen it too many times to want it happen to someone again.

And i should believe this why?

You should not believe it. We would not want you to change your opinion. :rolleyes:
Here is the comprehensive banned members list (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38046) that was started last year.

:m: Peace.

However, if a moderator warns you to say, "tone it down a little" and you don't heed the warning and continue to exhibit the same behaviour that they are telling you to stop then you might get banned.

For instance, goofyfish asked you to stop posting so much and really think about your posts before you submit them. If you can't shut the hell up, he might eventually stop you from posting altogether. Haven't seen that happen yet, but you are the most spammy poster we've ever had.

thats not the point
but, i have toned it down.
dunno why its such a crime to not want be a bottom-feeding newb, with a tiny post count. which is why i increased it.
anyway...
any mods that did ban someone for just having a different opinion?
thats all i want to know.

Mods do not ban you for a difference of opinions.

Here, members consider excessive postings the behaviour of a bottom-feeding "newb".
As I mentioned in our PMs, the members of SciForums respect quality not quantity.

:m: Peace.

If a mod does not like your opinion, they will stop you from speaking about it.

Nonsense, JB. Your position regarding the hierarchies of race are obvious. You are welcome to
discuss them but you are not welcome to continually drag threads away from the point with
sly interjection of seemingly relevant material that you then use to push your bigoted agenda.
The threads which have been directly related to your pet viewpoint have remained open
until the conversations ultimately devolve into festivals of circular reasoning. If we at SciFroums
are to closed-minded for you, please feel free to exercise your right to bother another forum.

:m: Peace.

so, what, do mods ban people for thinking differently or what here?
you haven't clearly answered my question, sir.

I specifically answered your question; re-read my post.

okay. thanks.
please close this.
just a request, as my question has been answered.

Goofy,
First let me say that this is your show so you do as you see fit.

But the threads I have been involved in that you have closed I feel were closed because of my opinion. I have never called people names nor been insulting to other members I have just simply provided facts on a issue (racial differences).
I have notice though that other members who disagree with me are permitted to call me names and be very insulting.

I am sorry if the facts I bring make some people emotionaly upset, but you do advertise this as a intelligent forum.

I have never called people names nor been insulting to other members I have just simply provided facts on a issue (racial differences).
I have notice though that other members who disagree with me are permitted to call me names and be very insulting.

This is a problem that has long plagued the Sciforums experience, and in fact is part of the situation that gave rise to moderators in the first place. In a similar vein, I advised a poster in the EM&J forum, "... it's not much of an argument when all you're doing is repeatedly offering unsubstantiated moral condemnation. See, part of the problem is that you're undermining my ability to force people to be polite and respectful in general.

I remember David Duke in the 1980s and into the '90s. He loved to point to East St. Louis, at the time the highest concentration of blacks in the country, and also the highest crime rate. By the mid-'90s, one of the darkest stats of the drug war was that one in three black males would not live to see their 18th birthday, and of the remainder that did, a third of them would be part of a penal system by age 30. These are among stats that have been used in the past to assert the inherent inferiority of dark-skinned people.

We see a similar problem in global politics, as Americans and their war machine scrutinize Islamic society. Obsolete, repugnant Shari'a law; misogynistic theology; zealous tendencies: all of these and more come together to apply a unique brand of criticism to Muslims and Islamic society.

In neither the case of American blacks nor international Muslims do the condemning arguments look at the contemporary picture as part of a story: what happens today is merely a chapter in history, the progressing tale of humanity.

Show me a time in the history of the United States of America where an entire generation of blacks lived with equal opportunity and in the absence of bigotry. Really, that's a starter. The Emancipation Proclamation is often considered sinister by white supremacists, but the real crime of Lincoln's decision was that it was a war strategy, and the country made no plans to deal with what hindsight suggests are obvious problems: echoes of racism, the challenges of illiteracy, the conundrum of crime and poverty.

When blacks have lived an entire generation without the kind of racist interference that is a glaring cancer in our history, then we can start looking at crime rates and the development of the new generation. That period will show what successful blacks show: dark-skinned people are human, with all the same glories and tragic flaws.

Likewise with Muslims: we still feel the reverberations of a situation described over twenty years ago in an article by Yvonne Haddad, "The Islamic Alternative (http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=120)" (click here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=773531) for a relevant extract). Criticizing "Islam" as we Americans do is much akin to criticizing "the republic" because of (the People's Republic of) China and North (People's Democratic Republic of) Korea. As an American, I find the failures of the United States a more accurate (and useful) depiction of the failures of the republic. I mean, we don't kid ourselves that North Korea is "democratic", either, do we?

The problem is that the demonizing rhetoric is extremely simplistic.

To come back to relevance: neither David Duke's point nor the American demonization of Islam is appropriate, as both rely on extremely simplistic, even superstitious interpretations of what we see. In the years since I first heard Duke going on about East St. Louis, I've heard many a white supremacist repeat points about blacks and crime, but never have I encountered anything approaching a responsible sociological thesis.

With Islam, for years observers have been expecting some sort of violent lashing out after the American mainland; 9/11 was only a surprise for most because it was that day and not another. "Why did this happen?" asked a co-worker as we filed out of the office that day. I told her we wouldn't know until we knew who did it, and then we could probably guess. To the other, though, my first reaction was, "Someone finally went and did it."

The reasons observers expected that this would happen someday include American economic policy, which depends on the creation and sustenance of a massive poverty class; a perceived failure and resulting distrust of Western political institutions (see Haddad extract link above); mutual acknowledgment of the warring way; and also a mutual contempt that not only played a role in the revelation of Islam, but also has sustained animosity between cultures for centuries.

Now that we feel compelled to scrutinize Islam, Americans seem to be repeating the mistake of simplification. "With us or against us" was a successful rallying cry because it is superstitiously simplistic; hopefully, freedom fries are sufficient to testify to that simplicity.

To juggle yet another factor: have you ever been part of a classification that underwent any form of social vilification? Whether it's Cub Scouts or Christianity or heavy metal or rap ... have you ever wondered how the jacket means, "delinquent", or the haircut means, "slut"?

These simplistic vilifications are as offensive as any number of presumptions:

• Male high school wrestlers are gay
• The kid in the denim jacket is the drug dealer/booze runner
• A black man in sweats is a gangster

To sum up the anecdotes: the experience of a friend of mine in high school, an experience of mine in high school, and an experience related to me in a bar one night. The only detail necessary is that the black man was out jogging, and it was a neighbor who called police because a black man in sweats is suspicious.

You don't have to call anyone a nigger or a faggot or a punk. You don't have to cuss at someone or their mother.

Looking through your posting history (http://sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=323496), I see some closed topics on the list:

(1) Obesity (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45399)
(2) How did the different races evolve? (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=16319)
(3) The history of what 'the racists' refer to as race (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36205)
(4) Mixed-race images common in advertising (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45005)
(5) Why Can't Whites Use The Term, "Nigger" (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37589)
(6) 100 Facts (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34112)
(7) Professor Rushton's Book: "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37072)
(8) whites more evolved? (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39390)
(9) The Missing Link? (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44140)

Let's take a look.


But the threads I have been involved in that you have closed I feel were closed because of my opinion

The obesity discussion (1) was closed because its original topic had passed and an anemic secondary argument was all that was left. The question of how races evolve (2) eventually broke down on a digression. The history of what racists refer to as race (3) never really had much of a chance, but it did get over 100 responses before it was closed. The issue of mixed-race images in advertising (4) strayed from its original vein of discussion. The topic about whites and the word "nigger" (5) came apart spectacularly. (Of the offenses in that topic in general, your assertion of "fact" (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=760833)--or is it opinion?--was more humorous than anything else, but in the way that a man dying of lung cancer craves a cigarette is funny.) The 100 facts topic (6) is one of those we could go through over and over again without making any headway; see "The Missing Link" (9). That the 100 facts topic got ten pages (196 replies) and over eight months to play out is an important consideration, especially in light of the note in "The Missing Link". The topic about Professor Rushton (7) was a nest of insults by the time it was closed, but that was predictable given the topic's investment in questionable science in order to denigrate race. The topic asking whether whites are more evolved (8) was merely an exercise in futility, as pointed out by the moderator in closing the discussion. "The Missing Link" (9), was closed for similar reasons, as explained by the moderator.

So the first thing we can point out is that your opinion isn't the factor causing a topic to close. I'm sorry, J.B., but you're just not that important. When topics are closed simply because it's you, believe me, you'll know.

To bring this back 'round to the starting point, though--


I have never called people names nor been insulting to other members I have just simply provided facts on a issue (racial differences).
I have notice though that other members who disagree with me are permitted to call me names and be very insulting.

--I would be sarcastic at the least if I said my heart bleeds for you.

The common component in those closed topics is racism. The coincidence of your opinion and the closure of a topic is simply that you happen to be part of the faction that (A) raises those issues in the first place, (B) establishes questionable relevance, and (C) chronically overlooks even the basics of social science when asserting social hypotheses.

Within that twisted discussion of racism is much tension. The insults I've seen slung at you while perusing these topics are on par with the mud slung at Sciforums over time. So I'm sorry, you can't feel special about that, either.

But you can feel significant in one way at least: one of the reasons moderators are so torn about when to put a stop to the fussing and fighting is that most of the general arguments that get out of hand (as opposed to, say, a one-on-one rumble that shakes the ends of the Earth) have two primary factions: one that is presenting recycled, debunked distortions of fact in order to assert a divisive, condemning, and insupportable hypothesis, while to the other we have a group of people who were sick of hearing that kind of crap even before they showed up at Sciforums.

Take a statement like:

Approximately 50% of all Black males will be arrested and charged with a serious felony during their lifetime.

Great? What does this mean? Since there's no discussion of social science in the assertion, it doesn't mean much. The only thesis it tends toward is an assertion that blacks are genetically inferior, which cannot be established. Regardless of its consistency with your other posts, such implications are insulting even on their own.

In the EM&J forum, I encounter the same problem in a different argument: if we are to presume that one side of a debate has an arguable thesis, we are left to wonder where that argument is. In the ongoing debates about gays, I and others have heard for over a decade of high-tier political fighting all manner of insupportable comparisons. Starting in 1990, Christians in Oregon demonized homosexuality by classifying it with pedophilia and bestiality. Somewhere in that decade necrophilia entered the discussion. Here at Sciforums we have heard everything from the dog to the radio. For fifteen years, conservatives have come back to an argument in which consent is absent from healthy sexuality. As family issues have risen in the gay fray, we keep hearing how it's wrong to put kids in a bad situation--e.g. with gay parents. Yet the science is against that assertion: kids of gay parents do as well or better than their peers on the whole. In one topic, that particular conclusion is given reference at least four times, and yet the assertion of a bad situation persists in order to keep the fundamental question of the topic alive.

Now, I've known a child molester. I've had to suck up and shake his fucking hand before. I've seen the damage he's done. And after fifteen years, I think my neighbors are entitled to a break: it is terribly insulting to see people dedicating their lives and work to supporting an insupportable accusation.

And as I mentioned before, it's come down to having to explain to people that such arguments are undermining my ability to force people to be polite and respectful in general.

It's harder to oblige people to not call someone an idiot if that target of hostility is making a point of idiocy.

Would it be disrespectful to call someone a murderous freak? Well, what if that person is Ted Bundy or Charles Manson?

Sometimes the truth is insulting to someone's character, but if moderators are expected to start disciplining what has been an insistent tone of discord around this site for its entire existence (there was a time when such insults weren't regarded as being so insulting), one of the things we'll have to consider is how to cut off the cause for offense that motivates insults.

It sounds a bit like right-wing radio: cheap bigots got so tired of being called cheap and bigoted that they took offense--it is wrong to call them cheap bigots despite the cheap bigotry that forms the product they sell. To make a superficial observation of American politics, a blowjob is a more serious threat to the country than selling weapons to terrorists or starting a war without any factual basis. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

The disrespectful demand respect, and are continually puzzled and angered when they don't get it. The bully doesn't understand why nobody likes him. Maybe the split lips, black eyes, and even that concussion he gave last week might have something to do with it.

Lastly, J.B., I would encourage you to consider the posted rules. You agreed, when you registered, to a short sentence that said you wouldn't go out of your way to cause trouble when you post. Ironically, the Terms of Agreement have gotten shorter over time in order to accommodate the insistent diversity of insult and outrage. What the people wanted, they got. And now they're not happy with it. Well, they're content enough. People don't like being insulted, but they don't want to give an inch, either.

If you haven't already, I would invite you to consider the contents of the various rules posted in the fora:

• World Events (http://sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=37)
• Politics (http://sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=90)
• Economics (http://sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=91)
• History (http://sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=89)
• Earth Science (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17461)
• Physics & Math FAQ (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42756) (including link (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42924) to guidelines)
• Religion forum FAQ (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33332) (including link (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34473) to guidelines)
• Ethics, Morality, & Justice (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42971)
• SciFi (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44932)
• Pseudoscience (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36496)
• Parapsychology (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20340) (originally "Site Rules")
• SFOG (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32273) (Important: SFOG update (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43161))

The rules have changed over time, becoming more complex and specific (compare Parapsychology with EM&J rules); generally speaking, some form of those rules apply in fora without a specific, dedicated post explaining them. To the other, though, the rules posted in the fora have come about in response to the demand created by Sciforums' posters.

They're not particularly difficult, but wolfen insults dressed up like sheep have always been the complication. When a parent draws a line, a child often stands right at the edge and dares the parent.

So it is here at Sciforums.

Thus, to recap: no, the closures do not appear to have to do with you specifically; the appearance of a connection is coincidental; the line between appropriate and inappropriate condemnation (insults) is made blurry by those who kick dirt all over it.

And, just to make sure:


I am sorry if the facts I bring make some people emotionaly upset, but you do advertise this as a intelligent forum.

As part of this intelligent forum, people are generally expected to understand the facts they deal with. We are, however, sympathetic to a point: you have company in your failure to comprehend. Hell, you might even consider it good company. But there is a difference between reciting a fact like, "Approximately 50% of all Black males will be arrested and charged with a serious felony during their lifetime", and actually understanding why that is and what it means.

I understand why calling someone "ignorant" might seem insulting. But some days it's just true. Give a four year-old a gun and he might figure out how to discharge it. It doesn't mean his discretion is intact; it doesn't mean he knows what he's doing.

There is a saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing: a sugar packet at a two-bit diner can give me "facts", but it generally doesn't provide the deeper understanding of what that fact means in the grand scheme of things. That's left to me to decide. And if I choose to take that fact and make a point of it, I do have a responsibility to understand that fact.

Otherwise, I'll just end up insulting people much like you have, regardless of my intentions.

So yes, you can feel significant inasmuch as posters like you are influential around here: when we cut through the insults and look at the gray zone requiring definition, it's generally those people who insult with a righteous smile on their faces who cause the need for a rule.

Such as Section I of the rules in Ethics, Morality, & Justice:

We ask that posters show a certain basic respect for one another. Additionally, we recognize that some of the topics and issues discussed at Sciforums will be "close to the heart", and subject to some passion among posters. While we do not wish to stifle that passion, we must demand that even political, moralistic, academic, or other intensity manage to achieve a basic, decent respect for other posters.

It is not our intention to stifle people like you, but neither is it our intention to let people like you stifle discussions with cyclical zealotry. The way I figure it, if you have a legitimate point, you'll get around to it eventually or not. It's up to you.

I will concede, though, that of all the "poor me" posts I've read, yours is one of the most elegant, even if discordant with facts on record.

I have a question for the mods: would it be possible to amend the abominable spelling in the title of this thread?

im worried that some mod will ban me if i take a different opinion to a suject than them. ive seen mods on other sites do it before. im not talking about what they are supposed to do, im talking about what they might do for cruelty and amusement.

Beating around the bush, aren't you? You are afraid that a mod would be whimsical, and that there is no justice.


for example:
poster: "i think the kraken exists"
tyrant mod: "i think it doesn't. you don't have my views. you're banned for life! lol"
ive seen it happen before. i just dont want it happening to me.


Why not?


Answer this question, and you should understand how starting this thread betrays your innermost fears and motives.

Show me a time in the history of the United States of America where an entire generation of blacks lived with equal opportunity and in the absence of bigotry. Really, that's a starter. The Emancipation Proclamation is often considered sinister by white supremacists, but the real crime of Lincoln's decision was that it was a war strategy, and the country made no plans to deal with what hindsight suggests are obvious problems: echoes of racism, the challenges of illiteracy, the conundrum of crime and poverty.

When blacks have lived an entire generation without the kind of racist interference that is a glaring cancer in our history, then we can start looking at crime rates and the development of the new generation.
Sure it's whitey's fault, just you saying that is a admission to your belief in black inferiority.
Show me anytime in history when you believe blacks were ever "equal" to any other groups of people.

You speak of how bad blacks have it in America, but it is right here in America where blacks are having the greatest success at anytime in there history.
Since the 60's or the start of civil rights movement, as blacks have been able to determin there own destiny, blacks quality of life has decreased.

Why do you ONLY speak of the blacks in America?

In fact the worst places to live in the world is where blacks live without whites and blacks have complete control (haiti, africa etc..) these places have the highest crime, aids and over all worst quality of life.

In America who was able to vote first, blacks or the Chinese?

Interesting read for you:
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3874.php

Sure it's whitey's fault, just you saying that is a admission to your belief in black inferiority.

Actually, what it says is that I believe I understand some of the reasons the statistics show what they do. "Inferiority" applies to blacks insofar as we measure the average quality of life experience. There are reasons for that, such as the extract you've quoted.

Show me anytime in history when you believe blacks were ever "equal" to any other groups of people.

Egypt? You know, pyramids, high society, flourishing trade, possibly even transatlantic travel?

You speak of how bad blacks have it in America, but it is right here in America where blacks are having the greatest success at anytime in there history.

And?

What is the significance of that particular windmill? Letting the immediate statistical frame define history is an inappropriate method.

Since the 60's or the start of civil rights movement, as blacks have been able to determin there own destiny, blacks quality of life has decreased.

This is expected, given sociopolitical resistance to that alleged self-determination, the trauma of the American drug war, and continuing racist practices among people amid assertions that political and legal protections are no longer necessary.

Why do you ONLY speak of the blacks in America?

Because it's a history I'm inherently more familiar with, and serves well to illustrate certain general points. For instance:

In fact the worst places to live in the world is where blacks live without whites and blacks have complete control (haiti, africa etc..) these places have the highest crime, aids and over all worst quality of life.

There are myriad factors having nothing to do with skin color that affect those places. You would understand this if you didn't let seemingly convenient statistical blurbs define history. Socioeconomic considerations have more to do with the human condition than race or ethnicity. Admittedly, it's complex, but that's the problem, as I noted before:

• In neither the case of American blacks nor international Muslims do the condemning arguments look at the contemporary picture as part of a story: what happens today is merely a chapter in history, the progressing tale of humanity.

• The problem is that the demonizing rhetoric is extremely simplistic.

• The coincidence of your opinion and the closure of a topic is simply that you happen to be part of the faction that (A) raises those issues in the first place, (B) establishes questionable relevance, and (C) chronically overlooks even the basics of social science when asserting social hypotheses.

• Since there's no discussion of social science in the assertion, it doesn't mean much.

• There is a saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing: a sugar packet at a two-bit diner can give me "facts", but it generally doesn't provide the deeper understanding of what that fact means in the grand scheme of things. That's left to me to decide. And if I choose to take that fact and make a point of it, I do have a responsibility to understand that fact.

In America who was able to vote first, blacks or the Chinese?

Are you sure you want to make a point of such a clear illustration of the fact that in the U.S., "whitey" just doesn't get it? It's more justifiable to say that the political majority historically just doesn't get it. Consistently, people have rushed to find reasons to discriminate against others. This is a human trait rife in history, to be sure. But these are the United States of America and there hasn't been a day in this nation's existence when we weren't supposed to be above all that.

Remember that the primary motive and also the main damage of racism is economic. It's rather pathetic, to be honest. It can be an excruciating history to consider, but that, too, is a burden Americans are expected to accept.

Hapsburg, I've never seen anyone get banned here who didn't deserve it. In a couple of cases I found it regrettable. But when a mod gives a warning, and it is ignored, what choice do they have? Think before you post, and you'll never get so much as a PM from any of the mods here. And watch out for Xev.

okay.
well, it seems like that other guy, J.B, is saying differently.
i'm still wavering on what is reality and what's blah...
any mods here who might know what J.B was talkin' about?

Tiassa,
Why is it that you believe that whites are so superiour that they would or could have the amazing ability to change a entire cultures ways to the point that they would be self destructive for generations?

yeah, that is an interesting question, JB.
unless she means that whitey is inferior to the point of being a cancer.
but that'd make very little sense.

i think all races and species are equal.
i dont know why the "human race" his priority over the entire "animal kindom".
sure, we're smarter than most other animals, but we are of the same broad classification.
i'd think it would be interesting to live in a world where tigers and apes and humans and even the miniscule termite are equal in social status. 'course this me rambling, as this cannot be achieved due to humanity's superiority complex.

Your right,

How is it that one group of people was able to domainate another group of people if all groups of people are the same?

That would be immpossible.

not just people, but all mammals. nay, not just mammals, but all animals. we're all put on this earth to survive. humans are just best at it. now, if people could find some equilibrium with nature, instead of just killing and changeing thier surrounding for thier own betterment/convenience/enjoyment, we would live in a much better world.

Why is it that you believe that whites are so superiour that they would or could have the amazing ability to change a entire cultures ways to the point that they would be self destructive for generations?

Self-destructive behavior increases whenever the pressures of poverty merge with opportunities for escapism. That a greater portion of blacks struggle with the socioeconomic challenges of poverty only reflects the demands of history.

My sense of humor points at the Irish: the stereotype of the drunken, violent Irishman is eroding as the nation and its people step farther from the shadows of its colonial history and continues to evolve into its own.

And whether it's drinking, holding countless revolutions, or deepening Catholic faith, yes, the English were able to compel the Irish to self-destructive behavior for centuries.

As I've noted before, allowing the immediate picture, the snapshot if you will, to define history is an inappropriate method.

How is it that one group of people was able to domainate another group of people if all groups of people are the same?

Quit mixing issues. Those are two separate kinds of "same". The argument that people are inherently equal despite race or ethnicity does not regard that form of inequality, since that inequality depends on factors like resource availability and utilization. The Chinese may have invented gunpowder, but Europeans put it to "better" use. What does "better" mean? The Europeans invented better killing machines. The ability to kill humans efficiently is near to the heart of the European experience. "Might is right" is not merely an observation of reality in Western culture, but a functional presupposition.

Nonetheless, my question is why you're distracting this topic with this digression?

stop rabblebabbling about Ireland.
Dang Irish and thier anti-britishism....

mmmrrrrggg!!

now, I still don't know if MODs ban people for merely having a different opinion. Two colficting views on this are skewing my outlook on morality.

But we can still rabblebabble about blacks and how cool white people are by comparison?

We do not ban people for having a conflicting point of view, we ban people for being fucking morons.

Actually, we don't even ban people for being fucking morons. On the other hand, if they are trolling morons, or spamming morons, or insulting morons, then things are different.

Actually, we don't even ban people for being fucking morons. On the other hand, if they are trolling morons, or spamming morons, or insulting morons, then things are different.

Did you forget about MuscleMan and Ralph Nader? Well, I guess one was a troll and the other was a spammer, so it doesn't fall under the category of "moron." But still, they were inept beyond belief.

BUT IF PURPLE SQUID MONEKY DOESNT EXIST THEN PROOF OF GOD EXIST!!!

/Joke that only a few will get.

Nonetheless, my question is why you're distracting this topic with this digression?
Now you see Hapsburg,

You see all I started to talk about was how I had threads closed because of my opinion on racial issues.

tiassa then responed by telling me the many different ways my opinion on racial issues was incorrect.

I then responded to tiassa's statements with more facts and opinions (and might I add I responded with excellent logic) and now we see tiassa telling me how I'm "distracting this topic with this digression".

So you see the "Tyrants among ye"

hum....
you know, Tiassa, he does have a point. even though i dont agree with racism (which seems to be inferred as JB's base logic), he has a point.

Egypt? You know, pyramids, high society, flourishing trade, possibly even transatlantic travel?
What is interesting is how today the people of Egypt are NOT black and the drawings or artwork they drew of themselves have never shown themselves as black.

Ancient Egypt was founded and built by Mediterranean Caucasians as far back as 4500 B.C. Egypt's period of greatness was from 3400 B.C. to 1800 B.C. and was characterized by its amazing architecture, pyramids, temples, and mastery of mathematics and engineering, the remnants of which are still evident today. The White Egyptians pioneered medicine, chemistry, astronomy, and law; In many cases, their achievements remain unequalled.

Hapsburg's original question was answered. Thread closed.