Pac_Man

You have a point; I should have ignored him. But when someone keeps digging at you and digging at you, it's tough not to put the little weasel in his place.

I believe CTM has called himself a Mensa member, and I've done the same. Given that he was the one who wrecked this thread, I'd like to think your second paragraph was in reference to him.

Not everyone follows your morning routine.

Dude, lighten up. You honestly see nothing ironic about the fact that you're calling me a Nazi at the same time you're trying to teach me German? Well, you may be thinking, if this guy is going to be a Nazi anyway, I'll make him a proper Nazi who speaks proper German! You dragged me--kicking and screaming--into this discussion in the first place. I mean, there I was, minding my own business, making comments about the relatively placid subject of judicial activism--judicial activism for crying out loud--when along you came with your efforts to relate the subject to "marital genocide" and so forth. Evidently you had a need to talk about things that reminded you of Nazism. But if you couldn't get a real Nazi, someone who opposed interracial marrage was--by your standards--close enough. This obsessed need to have an argument with a "Nazi," your knowledge of German . . . hmmmm. I think you see where I'm going with this.

If you want to look inward, go ahead.

There's a difference between hearing about it and taking the time to figure out how to put one on the web. You know, there's a theory that the people who hate gays the most have some latent homosexual tendencies themselves. Maybe the people who have expressed the most hatred towards me on this thread--and are presently trying to give me a lesson in German--have some inner issues they need to deal with.

That's not the way it went. I pointed out the error in your logic--repeatedly, and apparently you repeatedly suffered from some kind of amnesia or something. Your warped thought process didn't just result in calling me a Nazi, but in an "avowed" Nazi. In case you don't know the meaning of your own words, an "avowed" Nazi is someone who has professed him- or herself a Nazi. My response was to tell you to either show me where I'd professed myself a Nazi, or else take it back. I correctly predicted you'd choose to do neither, because waiting for you to do the right thing is like waiting for water to run uphill. Actually, my response was to point out you looked very foolish for calling a Mensa member an idiot. You've shown no particular need to tell the truth, so why not point that out? As for things being "self-evident," I guess they would appear that way to a victim of brainwashing such as yourself.

In that case, I suggest you contact the Encyclopedia Britannica, Time magazine, and the tens of thousands of others who've spelled it "Godel" and let them know how "completely ignorant" they all are. Maybe if you joust with that particular windmill it will keep you out of my hair for a little while.

I can't believe the number of times I keep having to deal with this. Does some selective blindness or mental breakdown inflict you each time your eyes look at my response? For the umpteenth time, you are calling me a Nazi because, in your opinion, something I wrote about race resembled something a Nazi wrote about race. But since Rosenberg began his quote by calling for respect of different races, your logic could be used to "prove" that anyone who called for racial respect was a Nazi. Of course, I expect you to ignore this refutation--just as you have in the past--and go on repeating your name-calling. Typical.

You do know what the word "avowed" means, don't you? Show me anywhere, anywhere, where I've stated that I'm a National Socialist. Or else do the right thing and take it back. . . . waiting for it, waiting for it . . . Hold on here. Waiting for you to do the right thing is like waiting for water to run uphill. Nevermind.

I hate to get into an argument about the correct spelling of Godel's name, but below are a few links to sites which spell it Godel. http://www.nas.edu/history/members/godel.html http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/Co...icon/godel.html http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist...file/godel.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...051692?v=glance http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/fire...bsc/aids/godel/ http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/Kurt_Godel.asp http://www.supernaturalminds.com/KurtGodel.html http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9365748 I guess both Time magazine and the Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong, and you got it right. Google found just 8310 documents with "Kurt Goedel" but 39,300 documents with "Kurt Godel." As someone who thinks as highly of himself as you seem to ought to be aware, most or all academics who studied race in Nazi Germany came to support the Nazis' conclusions. Most people, including myself, agree this had more to do with the pressures and incentives these scientists faced than with any inherent correctness in the theories themselves. If this discussion has shown anything, it is that there is at least as much hatred towards those who dissent from racial orthodoxy today was there was in Nazi Germany. This intolerance and hate can affect people directly--witness the way the authors of The Bell Curve were treated--or indirectly. Funding requests are either granted or denied, professorships are granted or withheld, works are published or left alone. When a very shaky and dubious study was performed to "demonstrate" the races were all the same, the mass media lapped it up; treated the study's authors as heroes, and its conclusions as established fact. Expecting the academic world to be more immune to these pressures now than it was in Nazi Germany is hopelessly naive.

They haven't put you back in the zoo yet?

This is even more of a stretch than trying to cram Mike Williams into a size 2 dress.

I don't care about what "most people" think or don't think. I care about accuracy. It's not accurate to use emotion-laden words like "hate" on reasonable interpretations of scientific data. In other words, they're acting in a spirit of emotionalism rather than scientific inquiry. I refuse to make that my problem. I'll probably drop dead with shock if anyone mentions a single fact in their disagreement with me. I've seen plenty of labels, emotion, hate, intolerance, but not a single fact. An idiot label. How original. You were accusing me of spreading hate? Pot? Kettle? Black?

If you enjoy feeling this warm and fuzzy sense of unity with a bunch of posters who've come to feel you're a complete jerk, go ahead. Far be it from me to take from you your few crumbs of comfort. As for your accusations against me, you've fallen on your face every time you were stupid enough to try to defend them; but that hasn't stopped you from shamelessly repeating them, now has it? You haven't even bothered to defend your own honesty when I called it into question. If you want agreement and harmony, I guess you and I can agree honesty ranks pretty low on your current list of priorities.

You are aware that mixed marriages were illegal in most states back in the 1920s, and (I believe) even as recently as the 1940s. Are you suggesting that America was a Nazi nation back then? Oh, the most recent American president who created concentration camps for so-called "inferior subspecies" was CTM's hero, FDR.

All known biological and genetic theory? You can't possibly be serious. In case you're wondering, the real Kurt Godel was a brilliant theoretical mathematician. If you'd like to know more, I suggest the book Godel, Escher, and Bach.

In case the point escaped you, I'm not spewing hate. You are. You attacked me personally for having a difference of opinion on a subject related to race. I realized I live in a society every bit as brainwashed about race as Nazi Germany was, but in the opposite direction. I realize that, as in Nazi Germany, people in this country have been conditioned to attack those who disagree with the prevailing racial orthodoxy.

You did so much lying in the above post it's amazing you don't have bedsores. It's clearly useless to try to have a rational discussion with someone apparently intent on proving himself not merely brainwashed, ignorant, hate-filled, and hysterical, but also dishonest. Those are his good qualities. For the sake of everyone other than CTM, Charles Darwin observed that geographical separation appeared to cause species to drift apart. His observations, conducted on the Galapagos islands, showed that when species become physically separated, their genetic paths can fork. Darwin concluded this forking process was so powerful it could gradually turn one species into a completely different species. This is the basis for Darwin's theory. Until very recently, the races were more or less geographically separated from each other. A typical peasant would never leave the 30 mile radius surrounding the place where he or she had been born. The geographic separation came well before there were peasants. Over time, this separation led to physically recognizable differences between the races. The extent of these differences is open to legitimate debate. The best way to achieve intellectual honesty is to have someone like CTM label anyone who disagrees with his own personal views a Nazi. [sarcasm] In general, the spirit of scientific debate is aided by fanatics preaching hate against anyone who disagrees with their orthodoxy. That's why the Catholic Church had to put Galileo to death for advancing a heliocentric view of the solar system, and that's why we need people to jump up and scream "Nazi" whenever someone hints there might be differences between the races. Contrary to popular belief, intolerance for heresy is perfectly compatible with the scientific method; and always results in being told the truth as opposed to what you want to hear. [/sarcasm]

Imagine a clean cage. Suddenly there's a piece of feces. Then another piece. And another. The feces-throwing monkey just keeps going, and going, and going . . .

Uh . . . are you suggesting we go back to the way things were in the Stone Age? That would mean no more welfare checks or social safety net. If you're too unqualified to get a job, you starve. If you lose a war with a neighboring tribe, you get castrated or murdered, and your wives get murdered or taken by the men of the conquering tribe. That's nature. Nature is many things, but nice is not one of those things. I don't think that any of us, including even you, is demented enough to want to go back to that kind of system. Instead, we put in place laws, cultural mores, and other practices to create a kinder world than the one nature would have given us; while hopefully not removing the kinds of pressures towards a better gene pool nature had been providing.

At least you're not acting like a hysterical idiot whose warped emotions have entirely overcome whatever sense of reason he might once have had.

Good point about this being newsworthy. The kids who published the yearbook didn't do anything to deserve being part of a nationally publicized racial controversy. Any time the subject of race comes up, a lot of people become vicious in propounding their views. That's not to say that the girl in question doesn't have a reason to complain. Having your name replaced with a label in your own high school yearbook isn't something any teenager wants. So the bad situation created by careless editing was made worse by unnecessary reporting.

A fair question. Most people I know acknowledge several races: Native American, black, white, East Asian, Indian/Arabic, and Latino. Though technically speaking, Latino isn't really a homogenous race; as different Latinos have different ancestries. Some may be mostly Native American, others mostly black, and still others mostly Spanish in their heritage. As for whether your marriage is interracial, I don't have enough information to say. If one of you is a white Russian, and the other a Japanese, then I'd consider it interracial. On the other hand, if one of you has ancestors who hail from Ireland, and the other's ancestors are from France, then it's not. BTW, if you get rid of the concept of or definition for race, you also have to get rid of affirmative action. I'm not attributing any view of affirmative action to you, just pointing something out.

Are you saying that the genes for high intelligence and a great personality are recessive?