posted
There is a certain majority consensus about the Nile valley population being Black and biologically Africans and Kemet included of-course and their culture African..ergo the Moors,Ethiopians and others,The Carthaginians??No clear consensus...Black Asians or the decendants of the 1st OOA's Culturally and even biologically..being Africans...a fight developes everytime that subject is broached. Some beleives that phenotype makes a race others think there is no such thing as race...we are very much diverse in opinion.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed Brada-Anansi. To suggest all members of the board, whom I guess are not considered "disruptive", are all in total agreement across the board all the time, is a stretch and can only be made from a premise to engage in red herring and logical fallacy by implicating "everyone else", and thereof knocking down strawmen, without the need for naming and specifying the target, that could open up a possibility of holding one accountable for said charge(s). This is what resident disruptive personalities like Afroslayed-nut, for instance, engage in -- by initiating arguments against nameless "Afronuts" and thereby calling anyone who challenges him/her on anything "Afronut". The mentality here, so Afroslayed nut thinks, is that just by calling someone "Afronut" will necessarily save him/her from being intellectually thrashed, or render said person preliminarily discreditable.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Variation can include both one attributed to gene flow and natural selection/adaptation.
Yes
quote: Remember, that Lachish crania classified into other crania as well, including the Gabonese sample; should we then infer that there were Gabonese folks amongst them, from this piece of information?
The Gabonese phenotype seen in Lachish crania, in my opinion should be seen as belonging to a subset of middle nile populations. This phenotype has been in Egypt from the beginning as evidenced by Keita saying (of the top): 50% of Badari crania classify in the Gabon series. That they found this phenotype to me, is only logical especially if you take into account what was said earlier by Brada Anansi, that the Egyptian army consisted, more often than not, of darker middle nile populations who could have resembled the Badarians even more than other Egyptian regions, and thus it could easily be argued that they took this phenotype with them.
quote: So, either an Exodus of some sort took place, explaining the sudden appearance of a socio-ethnic complex such Israelites in the Levant in the historic period, or they had been there all along; what do you figure is the case?
I've heard archeologists claim before that there is skeletal continuity and that because of this, there couldn't have been any large migration as implied by the humongus proportions of the biblical exodus. The sudden changes in cultural complexes could just as well be explained by the nomadic Hyksos deciding to settle down, after having experienced the benefits of doing so in Egypt. They took a lot of cultural innovations with them when they entered Egypt so there is no doubt in my mind that these Hyksos nomads or other ones who were similar were capable of building what is now the heritage of the ancient kingdom of Israel.
They were surrounded by Syria in the north, the Cretans to the east, The Egyptians in the south and the Sumerians in the east, and complexes like Jericho nearby. Whenever it was that the nomad ancestors of the ancient Israelites decided to settle down, they had all the resources these people innovated available to them, including primitive forms of monotheism.
Maybe if we gather more information about when the state formation occured exactly, we can pin point better what events or population movements could've sparked the sudden stateformation, and offer other altertives if the biblical exodus appears impossible.
quote: I'm the wrong person to be asking this question, since it should be directed to the posters in question, but from what I recalling from reading the exchanges, al Takruri was basing that on biblical linguistic grounds, as opposed to physical anthropological data grounded on skeletal remains.
I was the one who brought in the skeletal data, because I've seen it used here before. Good lookin' out for that link you posted to that extra info. Sometimes the dots representing populations on plots can make you think they're homogenous. Whenever one takes an average of something like for exemple a population and turns into a simple dot on a plot, the data of the individual crania become invisible. This created the impression that they (Lachish) had few to none middle nile physical traits.
quote: Isrealites would be the folks who were locals of what was the ancient kingdom of Israel.
Good, I will be referring to Isrealite from now on when I'm talking about the inhabitants of the kingdom to prevent confusion
quote: I'm asking if there is or isn't one, to be made between what is Hebrew and what is Israelite.
I don't think so. I think that the people who were in place by the time of the stateformation, wheter by conquest and coming from Egypt, or wheter by indigenious people deciding to settle down from a nomadic lifestyle, were the ones who wrote the bible. I haven't heard about other scenario's and I can't think of none either.
I however do suspect there may be a difference (perhaps ethnic, not physical) between the Jericho/canaanite population and the inhabitants of the much later kingdom of Israel. I suspect this because the stories in the bible, whoever wrote them, have all the evidence inbedded in them of the thought processes of a population who either before, or during the process of writing the bible had a nomadic lifestyle. A person of settled population can never, with such detail, describe the stories of the bible without having knowledge of a nomadic lifestyle. Just try to make up a detailed story about being in the desert for 40 years and you find yourself asking yourself all sorts of questions to prevent your story from sounding fake to someone who has lived that lifestyle. Kinda like gangsta rap really,
posted
It's funny to me how for everything people say MysterySolver asks for evidence.
It's my opinion..!! nobody has to agree!! sjeeesh
But no, al joking aside, let me give you an exemple of what I mean
Again, this is just an example, so don't come asking me for evidence MysterySolver..
Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right? But there is no data on their Mtdna, mayb its been updated now, but last time I checked it wasn't
What if lets say, tommorow a study comes out thats says 75% of their Mtdna is non African, would you tell me that is isn't something that would baffle a LOT of people here? Tell me that wouldn't shake things up Add a littly persuasiveness to the arguments and that could in some peoples minds mean that African diversity isn't as large as previously maintained and that all populations with those kinda features who haven't been sampled yet could have similar frequencies of non african dna (Naqqada and Kerma for exemple) known for a large componant with elongated features. Now, thats what I mean
Now, afterwards, some people with a more stable, resourcefull frame of mind could come in and still debunk them But this is what I mean, when people learn to rely on a ruling consensus, (for exemple the Tutsi having african diversity) They are more or less vulnerable to new research and paradymes ESPECIALLY if it has been months and you wouldn't have fruitcakes like Dirk8, who've been praying for something like this for christmas. Just picture what would happen, nobody coming in and bringing in this new research
Ofcourse eventually one of the more resourcefull veterans with access to journals would come in evaluate the implications this has
this is what I mean with there is also diversity here that can update new paradymes
quote: Remember, that Lachish crania classified into other crania as well, including the Gabonese sample; should we then infer that there were Gabonese folks amongst them, from this piece of information?
The Gabonese phenotype seen in Lachish crania, in my opinion should be seen as belonging to a subset of middle nile populations. This phenotype has been in Egypt from the beginning as evidenced by Keita saying (of the top): 50% of Badari crania classify in the Gabon series. That they found this phenotype to me, is only logical especially if you take into account what was said earlier by Brada Anansi, that the Egyptian army consisted, more often than not, of darker middle nile populations who could have resembled the Badarians even more than other Egyptian regions, and thus it could easily be argued that they took this phenotype with them.
But do you know *for sure* that the classification into Gabonese sample is the product of that element of gene flow from the Nile Valley? After all, both the Gabonese and Badarian series were used in the Lachish cranial analysis in question, and percentage-wise, more classified into the Gabonese series than the Badarian.
quote:
quote: So, either an Exodus of some sort took place, explaining the sudden appearance of a socio-ethnic complex such Israelites in the Levant in the historic period, or they had been there all along; what do you figure is the case?
I've heard archeologists claim before that there is skeletal continuity and that because of this, there couldn't have been any large migration as implied by the humongus proportions of the biblical exodus.
I suppose some level of continuity is to be expected, even if a band of Nile Valley emigrants were to arrive in the Levant, and integrate thereof with surrounding Levantine populations. Which "archeologist works" did you have in mind?
quote: The sudden changes in cultural complexes could just as well be explained by the nomadic Hyksos deciding to settle down, after having experienced the benefits of doing so in Egypt. They took a lot of cultural innovations with them when they entered Egypt so there is no doubt in my mind that these Hyksos nomads or other ones who were similar were capable of building what is now the heritage of the ancient kingdom of Israel. They were surrounded by Syria in the north, the Cretans to the east, The Egyptians in the south and the Sumerians in the east, and complexes like Jericho nearby. Whenever it was that the nomad ancestors of the ancient Israelites decided to settle down, they had all the resources these people innovated available to them, including primitive forms of monotheism.
There is a considerable time gap between the disappearance of Hyksos in the Nile Valley and that of the earliest *tangible* attestations of Israelites in the Levant. Furthermore, there is no record that I know of, which suggests that the Hyksos were 'monotheistic' in their spiritual tradition, let alone that they would have encountered such in the Levant, where no such concept was present at the time the Hyksos disappeared from Kemetic record; on the other hand, the Nile Valley emigrants [biblical accounts] had cosmological traditions that was already heavily slanted towards monotheism, which is understandable given that the event supposedly occurred after the monotheistic approach put in place in the Amarna epoch.
quote: Maybe if we gather more information about when the state formation occured exactly, we can pin point better what events or population movements could've sparked the sudden stateformation, and offer other altertives if the biblical exodus appears impossible.
The earliest literal mention of Israelites suggests that they were a socio-ethnic entity whom, while not necessarily nomads, were not in control of any territory to their name *yet*; rather, that they had integrated into the Levant and managed to make a name for themselves as "Israelites" before actually bringing territory under their own primary independent and political control. Do you have any tangible evidence linking these Israelites to Hyksos?
quote:
quote: I'm the wrong person to be asking this question, since it should be directed to the posters in question, but from what I recalling from reading the exchanges, al Takruri was basing that on biblical linguistic grounds, as opposed to physical anthropological data grounded on skeletal remains.
I was the one who brought in the skeletal data, because I've seen it used here before. Good lookin' out for that link you posted to that extra info. Sometimes the dots representing populations on plots can make you think they're homogenous. Whenever one takes an average of something like for exemple a population and turns into a simple dot on a plot, the data of the individual crania become invisible. This created the impression that they (Lachish) had few to none middle nile physical traits.
Precisely, and which is why it would be a mistake to assume that the Lachish would more readily blend in with Magrebians before they did with Egyptian groups, on the basis of centroid plotting.
quote:
quote: I'm asking if there is or isn't one, to be made between what is Hebrew and what is Israelite.
I don't think so.
"Don't think what" -- that there is a distinction to be made?
quote: I think that the people who were in place by the time of the stateformation, wheter by conquest and coming from Egypt, or wheter by indigenious people deciding to settle down from a nomadic lifestyle, were the ones who wrote the bible. I haven't heard about other scenario's and I can't think of none either.
Where these people Hebrews; were they Israelites, or were they both?
quote: I however do suspect there may be a difference (perhaps ethnic, not physical) between the Jericho/canaanite population and the inhabitants of the much later kingdom of Israel. I suspect this because the stories in the bible, whoever wrote them, have all the evidence inbedded in them of the thought processes of a population who either before, or during the process of writing the bible had a nomadic lifestyle. A person of settled population can never, with such detail, describe the stories of the bible without having knowledge of a nomadic lifestyle. Just try to make up a detailed story about being in the desert for 40 years and you find yourself asking yourself all sorts of questions to prevent your story from sounding fake to someone who has lived that lifestyle. Kinda like gangsta rap really,
Kalonji
Well, working with suspicion is the basis on which you supposedly interjected in this discussion. Why should we entertain the same from you?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I see contradictions in your position; first it seems that you are insinuating there is some sort of unison in thinking on this board, that we seem to hold some sort of view across the board, which I guess may or may not be scientifically or objectively supported (?), and then, you acknowledge there is indeed diversity of viewpoints; which is it?
I went back to my post to see if I was contradicting myself and I wasn't:
sim·i·lar (sm-lr) adj. 1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
Similar doesn't equate identical so one can belief something is similar without excluding variation. Why is this now Similar now all of a sudden equite Identical? Aren't you a supporter of the idea that Crania can be similar but still exibiting variation? And now, all of a sudden when I use it, it means identical? hmm..
I never said everyone here has the same beliefs. I've experienced that today and yesterday when discussing the origins of the ancient Hebrews and cannabalism in Africa
anyway, I don't even know why I'm defending myself, I know what I meant
It's funny to me how for everything people say MysterySolver asks for evidence.
It's my opinion..!! nobody has to agree!! sjeeesh
Well, I'll have to take it that your opinion is not grounded on fact, in which case, your rationale for the need for disruptive elements of the board to keep the rest "in check" has no logical basis to it. You may well find it funny, but it is from this premise that I questioned you, and all can see why it was worth it.
quote:
But no, al joking aside, let me give you an exemple of what I mean
Again, this is just an example, so don't come asking me for evidence MysterySolver..
Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right? But there is no data on their Mtdna, mayb its been updated now, but last time I checked it wasn't
Now, your example is what I would consider "funny", because it seems to suggest that nose shape is determined by mtDNA
quote: What if lets say, tommorow a study comes out thats says 75% of their Mtdna is non African, would you tell me that is isn't something that would baffle a LOT of people here? Tell me that wouldn't shake things up
If other reports suggest otherwise, and one report comes up with such an anomalous reporting, tell me that no normal person would be curious as to why the disconnect between previous reporting and the anomalous one? In any case, how does that help a deceitful disruptive personality put the "rest" in check, unless you are suggesting that there is never an objective approach here to examining studies as they come in?
This board had been operating just fine and peoples' ideas put through their paces regardless of who the person is before clowns like Dirk or Afroslayed nut started their disruptive campaigns; what makes you think it can do less better with such elements gone?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I went back to my post to see if I was contradicting myself and I wasn't:
sim·i·lar (sm-lr) adj. 1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
Similar doesn't equate identical so one can belief something is similar without excluding variation. Why is this now Similar now all of a sudden equite Identical? Aren't you a supporter of the idea that Crania can be similar but still exibiting variation?
Crania taken as a collective can project certain "trends", but this doesn't imply that all individual crania will necessarily be similar to one another or at all levels. Crania examines "physical relationship" and in some cases, arguments have been made for "genealogical" inference from elements of cranium. I fail to see how that applies to *viewpoints* of people socializing in discussion board.
quote: And now, all of a sudden when I use it, it means identical? hmm..
Your words, your context; recap:
just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
Ho do you propose people to have "similar beliefs" if there are variations in those beliefs? If there are variations, how do you explain that they "think in similar ways", and that "they more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?
By the use of the word "belief", you seem to be insinuating that viewpoints here are necessarily open to objectively unsubstantiated subjective opinionation, like say... your "opinions" of the nature of the range of viewpoints on the board?
Ps - How do you know the individuals who post here are "semi-isolated", on the account that they are posting here? This is the internet; people are known for posting in multiple social networks; I know, because I'm one of them, even in ones where I think my viewpoints may find hostile reception.
quote:
anyway, I don't even know why I'm defending myself, I know what I meant
Kalonji
You are defending yourself, because you were questioned on a definitive assessment you made about the board, which needs to be substantiated, and YOU know it.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right?
Right now...? Slow down, how about right now you provide evidence to suggest that any features associated with the elongated phenotype (Hiernaux) is non African in origin in the first place, can you?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: But there is no data on their Mtdna, mayb its been updated now, but last time I checked it wasn't
First of all the case in point for the Tutsi population being "Caucasoid" is because it was believed they were migrants from east Africa, wherein they would've carried Y-chromosome E1b1b (E3b), but come to find out they don't.
Now what does that tell you?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: What if lets say, tommorow a study comes out thats says 75% of their Mtdna is non African, would you tell me that is isn't something that would baffle a LOT of people here? Tell me that wouldn't shake things up
...and what happens when what you're saying has already shown to be false? What do you say then?
What happens when the Buba Clan Priestly class carrying Hg J at frequencies of 50% look like the following?
^^Why didn't this turn the Lemba who exhibit haplogroup J at high frequencies into individuals with supposedly non AFRICAN features....pray tell?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Indeed, using Kalonji's rationale, said Hg J-carrying folks should be teeming with so-called "caucasoid" noses and other outdated typified characteristics attached to that label.
Takes me back...
According to our own anthropological examination (data not shown), the non-sub-Saharan haplogroups are not carried by "West Eurasian-like" individuals, as might be anticipated, but were rather detected in common "Fulani type" peoples. - Cerny et al. 2006
...said of Fulani sample.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
LET US NOT FORGET, THAT CHRISTMAS IS REALLY ABOUT THE BLACK MAN DEPICTED BELOW.
In that vein, Merry Christmas to all.
This wall painting, depicting the Healing of the Paralytic, is the earliest known representation of Jesus, dating from about 235 AD. The painting was found in 1921 on the left-hand wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria. It is now part of the Dura Europos collection at the Yale University Gallery of Fine Arts.
(Kalonji for more info. you would have to contact Yale).
Kalonji - It seems like you are really trying, but your logic is still wanting.
A few things;
1)You seem to be suggesting that a White mans genetic classification has a true real-world meaning.
Except for Y-hg "R" being White, I don't know of any such DNA that is definitively "non-Black".
2)You see to be suggesting that there is a prototypical Black crania.
If so, please tell me what it looks like.
3)You also seem to believe that the Hebrews appeared out of thin air.
They did not, they were Anatolian's who have a history of their own.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Look at what I've said in the introducing myself thread about features.
quote: Makes sense Congoman,
You know, sometimes I wonder how antropology would've looked differently if Africans were the ones who started the discipline. Elongated features would've been ascribed to africans, M, and E would have been African from the start. Afro Asiatic would have been given an African name, etc etc.
Just to think so called ''European'' features started to pop up in the mesolithic era, while elongated features were present in Africa twice as long before that. The audacity!!!
Kalonji
I don't want to stay online too long because doing so may come off as rude, but when it's a little later I'll come back and it'll be hammertime. I see there has been some serious misquotations going on
quote: Originally posted by StTigray Never believe a Eurocentric when He tries to establish himself as Black. He only attempts this so as to anchor some credibility for his racist views. Never and I mean never fall for that attempt. Not only have you fallen for it but you then Alienate one of our own in the process, in this manner he has accomplished a double touche.
Afronut you may fool some but never the initiated in your game there is one premise that you have forgotten in Black, White relations in the states.
"We know you, but you DON'T know us".
If you're talking about me, I wasn't convinced about him being African at all. Neither do I think it is important, as Djehutyhotep and King (if I'm right) aren't African neither. Even if he is white and racist, he can still have a good argument. I personally think people like him are needed to keep us in check.
They are quite useful actually Whenever new research is being done they come here and try to ''debunk'' the ruling consensus here. Then (like you all usually do) you all kick their buts, so everyone, including those who aren't registered know about, and are constantly updated with their most recent venom and the subsequent butkicking provided here.
And that is why I am here, to learn more, aren't you? If you are, don't get swayed from your original goal, why you were here in the first place, which I hope, is to seek knowlegde.
Kalonji
Kalonji
Yeah I do agree with you I think the presence of those like Afronut Slayer are a much needed inconvenience
Ive read your post on this thread and others and I agree with your view points, My main concern is that in recovering our history that we dont fall into the same sin that the whites perpetrated on us and that is claiming everything under the sun as our invention. BTW I am not talking about this thread.
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
Look at what I've said in the introducing myself thread about features.
quote: Makes sense Congoman,
You know, sometimes I wonder how antropology would've looked differently if Africans were the ones who started the discipline. Elongated features would've been ascribed to africans, M, and E would have been African from the start. Afro Asiatic would have been given an African name, etc etc.
Just to think so called ''European'' features started to pop up in the mesolithic era, while elongated features were present in Africa twice as long before that. The audacity!!!
Kalonji
I don't want to stay online too long because doing so may come off as rude, but when it's a little later I'll come back and it'll be hammertime. I see there has been some serious misquotations going on
Kalonji
We'll be waiting, and expecting answers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yeah I do agree with you I think the presence of those like Afronut Slayer are a much needed inconvenience
Ive read your post on this thread and others and I agree with your view points, My main concern is that in recovering our history that we dont fall into the same sin that the whites perpetrated on us and that is claiming everything under the sun as our invention. BTW I am not talking about this thread.
Notice, it is always certain *newbies* who keep helplessly crying to others about the urge for the entertaining of deceitful disruptive personalities; why?
StTigray, tell us how a deceitful disruptive personality is supposed to be a "much needed" inconvenience? And don't hesitate to provide material support in your response where necessary.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explorer, you wanted evidence of my following statement?
quote: just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
Just notice: 1.Notice how Brada Anansi and you both had the same argument when I said the above. 2.AGAIN notice that when I post an example and state CLEARLY state I’m just using an example, by no means to be taken as something that I believe, AGAIN Knowledgeiskey, Mike111 and you all respond in the same manner and with similar content and arguments 3.Notice how you (Explorer) argued a couple of arguments before that not only evolution, but also geneflow can alter variation/heterogeneity and thus produce an altered phenotype. Why did the three of you act like it is impossible that non African geneflow could have caused Africsn elongated features ALONG with evolution? 4.Notice how StTigray who is hasn’t been here too long agrees with me..
I’m NOT saying Tutsi features actually were produced by this, not at all. I’m saying that according to what anthropology teaches us, it isn’t impossible, yet three of you responded like it was impossible, this is understandable of course, but it still confirms my opinion that:
quote: people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
Let's continue:
quote: in which case, your rationale for the need for disruptive elements of the board to keep the rest "in check" has no logical basis to it. You may well find it funny, but it is from this premise that I questioned you, and all can see why it was worth it.
All opinions don’t have to be based on facts, are you serious? If everything a person thinks and says is based on fact, you know what he is? simply a robot. It just totally went over your head that I mentioned that this ‘’checking’’ can also be done by the people of this forum, like for example Evergreen who not only keeps us updated about the pro African papers, but also the con African papers as he has done several times, most recently with the Fulani paper. One could easily see that my definition of checking in this context I provided overlaps with and could also be interpreted as ‘’updating conflicting information’’. But never mind looking at what someone really means by the examples he gives, as a matter of fact, let’s just skip over the fact he said that this ‘’checking’’ can also be done by posters on this board. Let’s just keep repeating his quotes selectively, right?
quote: Crania taken as a collective can project certain "trends", but this doesn't imply that all individual crania will necessarily be similar to one another or at all levels. Crania examines "physical relationship" and in some cases, arguments have been made for "genealogical" inference from elements of cranium. I fail to see how that applies to *viewpoints* of people socializing in discussion board.
AGAIN you try to claim for the second time, that I by saying similar mean that something is Identical. First you do this when I’m talking about similar beliefs, and now you do it AGAIN when I give an example to demonstrate that you of all people should know that something (read the words) can be SIMILAR while still displaying variation.
Note that I nowhere say that crania can or can’t be similar on all levels. You have such a need for finding flaws in the things people say that you start rambling off and are starting to produce straw men. What I was saying is that you know well that similar doesn’t equate identical because you are a supporter of the fact that crania can be similar but still exhibiting variation. You’re so busy rambling off and trying to qualify yourself by parading your knowledge about crania that you can’t even comprehend that I was not even saying that crania can or can’t be similar on all levels. If you really think about it, nothing tangible is similar on all levels. At the atomic level no two objects are the same, even objects that on the surface would be called identical. A simple dust particle or a minuscule fracture on the objects would be enough to make it not the same on all levels.
quote: I fail to see how that applies to *viewpoints* of people socializing in discussion board.
It’s disappointing to hear you say that you fail to see that a simple concept like: sim•i•lar (sm-lr) adj. 1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical. Can, and IS used in the discipline of skeletal examination. As seen for example in:
quote: Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical.
NEXTT!
quote: Ho do you propose people to have "similar beliefs" if there are variations in those beliefs? If there are variations, how do you explain that they "think in similar ways", and that "they more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?
Huh?? What are you talking about? ? Do you even know what being similar means? READ THE DEFINITIONNN, if you did, you would know that similar does NOT mean identical as you for some strange reason seem to belief
quote: sim•i•lar (sm-lr) adj. 1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
Also note that 1.I didn’t say identical, I said similar 2.Also note the word you conveniently didn’t highlight. I said people TEND to think in similar ways. The combination of similar instead of identical AND my use of the de-generalizing word: tend, further show that I wasn’t generalizing at all, and even more so, that you and brada anansi response proved me right, and that when I posted an example, you, knowledgeiskey and Mike111 AGAIN proved me right. Can you see how asking a person for evidence can give a misleading impression when he is unable to cite evidence in the moment? I don’t know you, but your respond patterns to others and me make it seem that you’re a supporter of the idea that a lack of evidence means there is no evidence. But let’s go on.
quote: By the use of the word "belief", you seem to be insinuating that viewpoints here are necessarily open to objectively unsubstantiated subjective opinionation, like say... your "opinions" of the nature of the range of viewpoints on the board?
Even more trying to come of smart while really showing you have a hard time grasping the full meaning behind my choice of words. First you fail to understand the meaning of similar, and now you’re implying that, by calling the viewpoints expressed here on this forum BELIEFS, I am somehow reducing their objectiveness per se.
quote: be•lief Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
It hasn’t even occurred to you, that not only opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, but also facts, as a fact can also be believed. You seems to believe (fact by the way) that a belief is somehow of a lower quality than a fact.
quote: Ps - How do you know the individuals who post here are "semi-isolated", on the account that they are posting here? This is the internet; people are known for posting in multiple social networks; I know, because I'm one of them, even in ones where I think my viewpoints may find hostile reception.
Why didn’t you quote me? You didn’t quote me because you can’t find me saying that individuals who post here are isolated. This is what I said.
quote: Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
I said the location is isolated. You may, or may not agree with me but don’t put words in my mouth. I know nothing about these users nor do I know anything about their behavior on the internet. The only thing I know about these users is their usernames.
quote: What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"? New material is posted here all the time that differs from the last, and they are critiqued all the same. Not everyone is going to be on the same page all the time. Some are more rigid in their thinking, others not so; some are quicker in learning, other's not so. So, again, unless put forward, I have seen no evidence to suggest that everyone agrees to some sort of "belief system", that I guess is not grounded on objective material backing(?)
When you ask me a question about something I’ve said previously, you need to fully articulate what is said, so there is no confusion when people who might not have read my original statement, read your question.
My original statement
quote: People who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
YOUR reconstructed question
quote: What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?
-I did not say that people are inflexible as that would imply there is something wrong with them. If you reconstruct my statement and feed it back in a question, quote me right, so people don’t get the wrong idea, especially since: -You also changed my statement from people in general, to people from this forum, If you read my statement, it’s clear I’m not saying members of Egyptsearch are inflexible and invulnerable, so quote me well. A wrong quote like that could linger in people’s minds for months while I didn’t even say it
Now I’d like to talk about what I meant with:
quote: Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
And by the way, you don’t have to agree with it, this is just to other readers that may want to know what I meant.
First of all, really on all types of forums people tend to think in similar ways about a topic. as I was implying in my original statement. Yet people seemed to prove my statement by the fact that they were both responding in the same way about the same thing. They were even agree with eachother in their post, so how can you tell me, that what I said has no basis to it? Let's continue
What needs to be noted about the nature of forums and discussions, is that most of the time, there aren’t a lot of possibility’s that one can offer for something, for example, the origin of the Egyptians.
Even IF there would be a lot of possibilities, through investigation people can narrow down the scenario’s to several, of not one scenario. It would actually be weird if I said that there is no similarity in beliefs here on Egyptsearch, as that would imply you all are using an opinion based approach like on stormfront where there are prolly still idiots who believe everybody and their mother populated the ancient Egyptians including Nordics, Meds and Middle easterners. Everybody except for indigenous Africans. Now, because their beliefs are less similar and way more random, it is way harder to debunk them because if you try to disprove a European origin for the Egyptians, another one might say it were aliens who gave them their knowledge, or people from the midde east. Hence:
quote: Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
Notice also, that people on Stormfront dont have similar beliefs to begin with. They have way more diversity when it comes to topics like the origin of Egyptians with and thus proving my statement to be true. One could cite a paper there that shows europeans are cold adapted and thus disproving European affinity, but then they can say because of their diversity that it really were dark europeans who aren't cold adapted. Thus way more flexibility and less vulnerability, which is why it may be hard do disprove them because their numerous theory's aren't narrowed down by science as is the case on Egyptsearch more often than not.
Let’s evaluate the qualities of a belief to determine whether or not what I originally said is true.
• be•lief Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
If you look at the ‘’conviction’’ part of the definition, what happens when we as humans get convinced of something? Does that make us inflexible or flexible? Let us look at the definition of convinced:
quote: to overcome the doubts of; persuade by argument or evidence; make feel sure Again, does being convinced of something make us inflexible or flexible?
Lets change the wording, what if I ask you, does being convinced broaden or narrows the number of the possibilities one considers?
Of course, if you’re convinced of something, you exclude all other possibilities, and if you’re in doubt you’re considering all the possibilities. So does having limited possibilities makes one flexible or inflexible? Inflexible ofcourse!
It is a scientific fact that a belief, whether it’s true or not, is causing other options to appear unlikely in a person’s mind. Beliefs can make people even more inflexible if the belief refers to something we can’t do, causing people to coin the popular expression: limiting beliefs. We’ve all had the experience of trying to convince someone close to us of something but still fail to do so even with all the evidence of the world.
Can you now see what’s wrong with how Explorer formulates the question? Let me repeat it real quick
quote: What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?
Now the people on this forum don’t have to wonder whether I accused them of being inflexible because there is something wrong with them, as your reconstructed sentence might invoke in the readers mind. The invulnerable and inflexible part needs to be seen as: in regard with the human mind. Now, whether you agree with this or not it doesn’t matter, we can agree to disagree, you already know by now I didn’t say this out of thin air, I’ve given a explanation above on why I think beliefs can make people both inflexible and vulnerable
quote: Notice, it is always certain *newbies* who keep helplessly crying to others about the urge for the entertaining of deceitful disruptive personalities; why?
Notice, STtigray he unknowingly partly agreeing with me as he might be implying that there are some differences in thought patterns between people who are new/foreign and people who have been here a long time.
Kalonji
Edit When I said diversity when I was talking about stormfront members I was'nt talking about European diversity, I was talking about their diversity in beliefs, as observant people may have figured out already
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I’m saying that according to what anthropology teaches us, it isn’t impossible,
Are you implying that I or others on this board do not understand what anthropology "teaches us", if not then what are you saying?
If so give examples....
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: yet three of you responded like it was impossible
What exactly did I say for you to make such a faulty accusation where I said it was "impossible"?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: but it still confirms my opinion that:
quote: people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
If thinking in "similar ways", analyzing the available scientific data and coming to the most logical conclusion is leaving "us" more vulnerable then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?
Btw -as already noted- every poster on this board does not hold to similar beliefs in every topic discussed and hence you're opinion was incorrect from the start.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trying to say that most if not all the posters on this board think alike, Is just wrong.
We have people who promote the truth, and then we have those who push "Their" truth.
I am a veteran of this forum, yet I rarely post in the threads about Christianity or anything religous on this forum because I don't feel the need to defend my Faith in God. I read them...and gain some knowledge about some posters views, and I just continue to move on from these subjects. I know people like Mike have an agenda to prove that Jesus was Black and or that Hebrews were originally Black. To me these questions are just immature and does not take in that Jesus was for ALL people regardless of skin color or origin.
Let me say that in the Bible, we have verses that say that the Ancient of Days(Jesus) had feet like Brass. So that should put to rest what color Jesus was at the time.
Moving on. We have people on this forum that can be safely called Afrocentric and Eurocentric. I will not name the posters but I will say that we learn from all people on these forums and I find it difficult to say that we all think alike, simply because people analyze a study and agree on the conclusion.
All I will say is that we all have knowledge to contribute to this forum, so we should not attack each other or make it fall into namecalling etc. Let peace rain in this forum.
If we want to see change in this world, We are going to have to be the change. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Are you implying that I or others on this board do not understand what anthropology "teaches us", if not then what are you saying?
Give YOU examples for YOUR interpretation of my text? How am I supposed to give YOU examples of YOUR interpretation of my text? Isn't that something YOU must do? After all, its YOU interpretation of my text.
Notice that you said earlier:
quote: Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Right now...? Slow down, how about right now you provide evidence to suggest that any features associated with the elongated phenotype (Hiernaux) is non African in origin in the first place, can you?
In response I told you what I've said earlier about features:
quote:
You know, sometimes I wonder how antropology would've looked differently if Africans were the ones who started the discipline. Elongated features would've been ascribed to africans, M, and E would have been African from the start. Afro Asiatic would have been given an African name, etc etc.
Just to think so called ''European'' features started to pop up in the mesolithic era, while elongated features were present in Africa twice as long before that. The audacity!!!
Kalonji
You were accusing me of believing elongated features are non-african just because I posted an example of what could happen. Instead of saying you was wrong in accusing me for saying elongated African features are non African you continues this animosity towards me Notice:
quote: then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?
Then notice something Afronut slayer said when I asked him why he was asking why he came at Al Takruri like he did.
quote: Kalonji,
When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked.
Again, I don’t know how he came in this forum but you seem to be proving him right, by the way you talk to me.
Let me ask you a few questions about your understanding of anthopology and science in general. You said
quote: If thinking in "similar ways", analyzing the available scientific data and coming to the most logical conclusion is leaving "us" more vulnerable then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?
Questions 1.Are you suggesting ANY scientific paper is in anyway absolute in its findings and unable to be refined? 2.Are you suggesting you're above such a new finding if that finding appears legit and above changing your current beliefs?
If the answer is yes to the above, then why are you maintaining that my original statement about the tendency of people who belief in something, whatever it is, can make them vulnerable, to new paradymes and research is false, and means I have ‘’screws loose’’ in my head?
If your answer to my two questions is yes, your understanding of science DOES seem to make you inflexible and vulnerable because you seem to be suggesting that current findings and what currently seems the most logical is the absolute truth.
By the way, if you continue your animosity towars me I will stop responding to you because as I have said before, I am here to learn. I could've just as easily respond back with similar name callings but I didn't because there is absolutly no reason to
posted
Kalonji..and I hesitate to respond for fear of looking like folks are ganging up on you but,pick any post Between Mike and Djhuti,Minder-over and Dr.Winters,myself and mike,the list goes on in any different combinations,DJ vs Bogle sometimes it's down right bloody..let's not forget some of the most veteran posters slug-fest,when someone post new info for sure..folks might be skeptical and begin picking away at but if the science is weighty they get over it example the Ba-lemba genitics...what tends to unite folks around here is random trolls with racist agenda..but funny enough not what to do about them..I commented before on an old post that trying to get people to make a unified stance against trolls or move to a new site..was like herding cats... Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Let us examine my original statement and see how my original statement is NOT in conflict/incompatible with what you're saying. This, I've tried to explain earlier but for some reason, no one seems to pick up on this
lets say on topic x
People like Mike111, Clyde may agree People like Explorer, Knowledgeiskey may not agree
Lets say on topic y people cluster differently
People like Mike111, Explorer, agree People like Knowledgeiskey, clyde disagree
How can this in any way, shape or form be incompitable with my original statement:
Just saying that people who have similar beliefs (for example any of the two clusters) and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
Isn't the statement ''people who have similar beliefs'' the equivalent of any of the two x/y clusters, whether or a cluster can also sometimes include everyone like on the topic of the ancient Egyptians and thus fully compatible with the idea that -People who on one topic cluster may not cluster on another -Isn't it so that ''new research and paradymes'' could be in the hands of any of the two clusters present on this forum, just as well as tools like Dirk8?
Explorer, you wanted evidence of my following statement?
Precisely.
quote:
Just notice: 1.Notice how Brada Anansi and you both had the same argument when I said the above.
This is your evidence that everyone on the board agrees with everything all the time?
Surely, you have something more solid, and that you were basing your unsubstantiated opinionated personal feelings on prior to people calling you out for said unsubstantiated claims, which you now run off with as "evidence" for your material-free personal feelings.
quote:
2.AGAIN notice that when I post an example and state CLEARLY state I’m just using an example, by no means to be taken as something that I believe, AGAIN Knowledgeiskey, Mike111 and you all respond in the same manner and with similar content and arguments
Tell me what is similar about the content of my follow up to your "example", to that of MikeIII and MindoverMatter. That aside, I know that MindoverMatter and I agreed with one another that your "example" was predicated on *underlying* assumption that was flawed; the onus is on you to show that is in fact not the case.
quote: 3.Notice how you (Explorer) argued a couple of arguments before that not only evolution, but also geneflow can alter variation/heterogeneity and thus produce an altered phenotype. Why did the three of you act like it is impossible that non African geneflow could have caused Africsn elongated features ALONG with evolution?
In order for you to show that "elongated features" is caused by "non-African" gene flow, you'll have to first establish that so-called "elongated features" is non-African to begin with. Can you?
If not, then it doesn't matter if ten, a thousand, or even a population of us call you out on the apparent flaw of your personal opinionated feelings; such undertaking would be warranted and grounded on objective thinking, which is why there is agreement in this case between the parties calling you out. Or are you proposing that people shouldn't call you out, on the account of your accusing them of agreeing [rightfully so, unless proven by you otherwise] with one another on the prospect that you are flaunting around flawed unsubstantiated opinions, and that this therefore serves as a "belief" system between the agreeing parties, not grounded on objective merit, but on subjective dogma?
quote: 4.Notice how StTigray who is hasn’t been here too long agrees with me...
Should we then interpret this in the sense that you both "share similar dogma", that both of you are "therefore vulnerable to being inflexible to any findings that may obliterate your rigidly-held sectarian dogma", and therefore, both of you require deceitful disruptive personalities to keep "you in check"? LOL.
quote: I’m NOT saying Tutsi features actually were produced by this, not at all.
Your so-called "example" is predicated on an underlying unsubstantiated assumption that the Tutsi possess said features, because of gene flow, presumably regardless of how it came about--which in your case--you presented in the form of mtDNA. It doesn't matter if you pass it off as a joke or your professed "purpose" as an "example', the underlying assumption would still be questionable. If it pains you to see people point this out to you, then so be it.
quote: All opinions don’t have to be based on facts, are you serious?
Then I rest my case, that your fact-free opinion about the need for deceitful disruptive personalities to be around just to keep the rest of "us" in check is illogical. If YOU need these disruptive elements to keep YOU in check, then that is entirely YOUR own concern or anyone else who personally feels likewise, but to implicate everyone else's need for this nonsense is not your call, and which is why you were called out.
quote: It just totally went over your head that I mentioned that this ‘’checking’’ can also be done by the people of this forum, like for example Evergreen who not only keeps us updated about the pro African papers, but also the con African papers as he has done several times, most recently with the Fulani paper.
This further highlights the bankruptcy of your logic. If as you acknowledge, that posters like Evergreen can serve a purpose of keeping the board in check, presumably through posting newly published "pro" and "con African papers", then why do we need deceitful, not to mentioned bigoted disruptive elements to keep the rest of the board "in check"; and how does deceitful characters keep anyone else in check any how, presumably to be objective?
quote: One could easily see that my definition of checking in this context I provided overlaps with and could also be interpreted as ‘’updating conflicting information’’.
And we need deceitful, bigoted and reactionary elements to "update" everyone else? Aren't those very characteristics the anti-thesis of progress? If we have folks like Evergreen, as you put forth, posting new publications that come out, is this not then indicative of the normal operation of the board?
quote:
AGAIN you try to claim for the second time, that I by saying similar mean that something is Identical. First you do this when I’m talking about similar beliefs, and now you do it AGAIN when I give an example to demonstrate that you of all people should know that something (read the words) can be SIMILAR while still displaying variation.
And I will ask you again: Elaborate on how you deem the people here have "similar beliefs", such that they are "vulnerable to being inflexible to any new discoveries and paradymes", to the point that deceitful reactionary personalities are necessary to keep the rest "in check". That is a rather serious charge you are making there. What do you understand by similar "belief", because to me, that term is insinuating that there is unison in dogma that is not grounded on objective thinking, but to the whim or satisfaction of individual members' subjective personal feelings.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: By the use of the word "belief", you seem to be insinuating that viewpoints here are necessarily open to objectively unsubstantiated subjective opinionation, like say... your "opinions" of the nature of the range of viewpoints on the board?
Even more trying to come of smart while really showing you have a hard time grasping the full meaning behind my choice of words. First you fail to understand the meaning of similar, and now you’re implying that, by calling the viewpoints expressed here on this forum BELIEFS, I am somehow reducing their objectiveness per se.
quote: be•lief
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
It hasn’t even occurred to you, that not only opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, but also facts, as a fact can also be believed. You seems to believe (fact by the way) that a belief is somehow of a lower quality than a fact.
Not so fast buddy. You used the words in a particular context, that together project a certain impression to me, as noted above again. You are being asked to clarify it. Or are you having trouble grasping what the concept of "clarifying" means?
2)Your cited definition has keywords that need to be kept in mind:
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
"Mental acceptance" of something does not necessarily imply it is grounded on objective assessment formulated around material evidence.
Furthermore, from elsewhere, just to further clarify this point, take the following for instance:
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Origin: 1125–75; earlier bile(e)ve (n. use of v.); r. ME bileave, equiv. to bi- be- + leave; cf. OE gelēafa (c. D geloof, G Glaube; akin to Goth galaubeins)
Source: dictionary.reference. com
...then couple the above use of word in the cotext of your comment [below] to get the context of it, and you expect no sane person will question you on it?
people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes. - Kalonji
quote:
quote: Ps - How do you know the individuals who post here are "semi-isolated", on the account that they are posting here? This is the internet; people are known for posting in multiple social networks; I know, because I'm one of them, even in ones where I think my viewpoints may find hostile reception.
Why didn’t you quote me? You didn’t quote me because you can’t find me saying that individuals who post here are isolated. This is what I said.
quote: Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
Is this not a forum? Was this not your follow up to a question made of a comment you made about this board needing disruptive characters like Dirk, Afroslaynut, etc? Should this therefore not be understood as applying to this board? Who make up a forum; is it not individuals? If you are not implying that the very individuals who make up the social component of the forum are "semi-isolated", then what else would you be referring to; an empty forum--which btw--also happens to "think" [as you have used that word too]?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
You may, or may not agree with me but don’t put words in my mouth.
Why would you say that, unless you are implying that the "social components"--meaning the individual posters of the board--are by extension, "isolated"? Should this be the case either way, your reasoning belies logic. This is the INTERNET. How does one stay "isolated" in the internet? Do you know how the internet works?
And before advising anyone about not putting words into another's mouth, you ought to practice it yourself.
quote:
quote: What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"? New material is posted here all the time that differs from the last, and they are critiqued all the same. Not everyone is going to be on the same page all the time. Some are more rigid in their thinking, others not so; some are quicker in learning, other's not so. So, again, unless put forward, I have seen no evidence to suggest that everyone agrees to some sort of "belief system", that I guess is not grounded on objective material backing(?)
When you ask me a question about something I’ve said previously, you need to fully articulate what is said, so there is no confusion when people who might not have read my original statement, read your question.
My original statement
quote: People who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
YOUR reconstructed question
quote: What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?
-I did not say that people are inflexible as that would imply there is something wrong with them.
You can't even read what you just cited, and you are lecturing me on properly citing you? LOL.
quote:
If you reconstruct my statement and feed it back in a question, quote me right, so people don’t get the wrong idea, especially since:
-You also changed my statement from people in general, to people from this forum, If you read my statement, it’s clear I’m not saying members of Egyptsearch are inflexible and invulnerable, so quote me well. A wrong quote like that could linger in people’s minds for months while I didn’t even say it
AGAIN, your damage control effort--aka the post you cited above--was a follow up to a question made of your comment about the need for this board to have certain characters -- to be specific, disruptive, not to mention deceitful characters like Dirk. So, your comment was tacitly "including" this forum as the subject matter; for your sake, it would have to be the case, unless you are some off-tangent ranting lunatic. Furthermore, you did mention, "who operate in semi isolated places like forums"; AGAIN, is this not a forum? Are you suggesting that we are the "exception to the rule" in your opinionated observation in question? Because if so, you have not made that apparent either. And you suffer from a deficit in attention span. I said "people here", meaning people on this board, since after all, the discussion was supposed to be focused on the people of this forum, not elsewhere, and secondly-- and to sound like a broken record here, you said: "who operate in semi isolated places like forums". Given the accumulative data reiterated just now, how can you say I have changed the implication of "people" in your post?
quote: Can you now see what’s wrong with how Explorer formulates the question? Let me repeat it real quick
Nope, but I sure would like to see how you demonstrate it with ANSWERS to the questions awaiting you above.
quote:
quote: What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?
Now the people on this forum don’t have to wonder whether I accused them of being inflexible because there is something wrong with them, as your reconstructed sentence might invoke in the readers mind. The invulnerable and inflexible part needs to be seen as: in regard with the human mind. Now, whether you agree with this or not it doesn’t matter, we can agree to disagree, you already know by now I didn’t say this out of thin air, I’ve given a explanation above on why I think beliefs can make people both inflexible and vulnerable
LOL at the damage control effort above. YOU know that what you said--which sparked this whole round of exchange--was a serious charge, a blanket statement, and lacking logic since it lacks material foundation, and hence, this long winded effort at damage control; in other words--a desperate effort at defending yourself, in direct contrast to your earlier proclamation that you see no need for doing so, presumably because it was just an "opinion", and thus, presumably no harm done.
quote:
quote: Notice, it is always certain *newbies* who keep helplessly crying to others about the urge for the entertaining of deceitful disruptive personalities; why?
Notice, STtigray he unknowingly partly agreeing with me as he might be implying that there are some differences in thought patterns between people who are new/foreign and people who have been here a long time.
I'm beginning to think that reading is not your strong suit. I did write "certain" newbies, which greatly contrasts your blanket baseless statement. From what I can discern, and I could be wrong here [I will not deny the possibility of that on this occasion], the longstanding posters [including myself] here do not see the need for disruptive deceitful reactionary clowns to "keep us in check", as if we need deceitful people to tell us what is presumably accurate, LOL. The logic of that notion itself makes me laugh. Longstanding posters have been here long enough, and have been posting here before these disruptive clowns came along to pollute the place to no limit. Therefore, any sane longstanding poster, who is not a disruptive personality him/herself, knows that operation is possible without the disruptive clowns, as they have already witnessed it having been done so. But if you wish to engage in more damage control in explaining away how you managed to turn this piece of information into something that somehow finds some sort of harmony with your baseless opinionated blanket suppositions about the forum, then shoot away...I'm all ears.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Are you implying that I or others on this board do not understand what anthropology "teaches us", if not then what are you saying?
Give YOU examples for YOUR interpretation of my text?
I asked you a question that required a yes or no answer, if it was yes then I asked for examples, doesn't have anything to do with my interpretation of your text, rather clarification.
You said that according to what anthropology "teaches us" that it wouldn't be impossible for the Tutsis to be admixed, and that yet we attacked you as if it were impossible.
What makes you think that I or others say it was impossible and wouldn't you be suggesting that we don't understand what anthropology teaches us but you do if as you say we think it's impossible, while you say it's possible?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Notice that you said earlier:
quote: Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Right now...? Slow down, how about right now you provide evidence to suggest that any features associated with the elongated phenotype (Hiernaux) is non African in origin in the first place, can you?
In response I told you what I've said earlier about features:
quote:
You know, sometimes I wonder how antropology would've looked differently if Africans were the ones who started the discipline. Elongated features would've been ascribed to africans, M, and E would have been African from the start. Afro Asiatic would have been given an African name, etc etc.
Just to think so called ''European'' features started to pop up in the mesolithic era, while elongated features were present in Africa twice as long before that. The audacity!!!
Kalonji
You were accusing me of believing elongated features are non-african just because I posted an example of what could happen. Instead of saying you was wrong in accusing me for saying elongated African features are non African you continues this animosity towards me
No, actually, the way you said "Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right?"
Notice how you specifically mentioned the Tutsis as if there is evidence for elongated features in other Africans but not the Tutsis understand?
Which prompted me to ask you what evidence is there to suggest that any population in Africa with elongated features were due to a non African origin in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Notice:
quote: then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?
Then notice something Afronut slayer said when I asked him why he was asking why he came at Al Takruri like he did.
quote: Kalonji,
When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked.
Again, I don’t know how he came in this forum but you seem to be proving him right, by the way you talk to me.
Actually Afronut came on here same way he is now, a bigoted unintellectual peon.
Btw I didn't attack you I asked some questions.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Let me ask you a few questions about your understanding of anthopology and science in general. You said
quote: If thinking in "similar ways", analyzing the available scientific data and coming to the most logical conclusion is leaving "us" more vulnerable then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?
Questions 1.Are you suggesting ANY scientific paper is in anyway absolute in its findings and unable to be refined?
Where did I imply such a thing? I said we analyze available scientific data and come to the most logical conclusion, when you do this your views don't become refined but enhanced as the future scientific data will most likely concur with an add more evidence on top of past discoveries.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: 2.Are you suggesting you're above such a new finding if that finding appears legit and above changing your current beliefs?
My current "beliefs" come from analyzing available scientific data and coming to the best conclusion, if I do so, how would a new study totally overturn my view if my view is the consensus?
If a new view was brought about and went against the consensus it would have to be questioned of course and analyzed in the same way. A study comes out that goes against the majority of what has been published for years, doesn't leave me vulnerable as I know how science works and it would have to be dealt with accordingly .
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If the answer is yes to the above, then why are you maintaining that my original statement about the tendency of people who belief in something, whatever it is, can make them vulnerable, to new paradymes and research is false, and means I have ‘’screws loose’’ in my head?
Because as noted above you made a generalizing sweeping statement that "us" would be vulnerable, I say how so if not all of are on the same page and a lot of "us" take time to scrutinize the available data with an unbiased approach?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If your answer to my two questions is yes, your understanding of science DOES seem to make you inflexible and vulnerable because you seem to be suggesting that current findings and what currently seems the most logical is the absolute truth.
No, but if it's the consensus and when study after study keeps complimenting the one before it according to the majority then I'd have to say no it doesn't leave me vulnerable to new data.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Explorer This is your evidence that everyone on the board agrees with everything all the time?
Come on now, Explorer, you’re AGAIN implying something I didn’t say. Nor did I imply or say my ‘’proof’’ was meant to prove this, which is clearly visible when I said that StTigray agrees with me.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji Notice how StTigray who is hasn’t been here too long agrees with me..
On the other hand it did ‘’prove’’ something that is a perfectly normal phenomenon that occurs in any discussion, but some people still seem to have a problem with it. Again, read the statement and try to understand what it implies
quote: just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
This doesn’t imply none of these things you’ve previously said it implies -Everyone thinks similar on this forum -I was talking specifically about people ‘’here’’
If I knew this would happen I would’ve never made such a statement, I didn’t know this was a forum where you had to walk on your toes because certain people might twist your words and quote you wrong. Normally you, especially you Explorer, dissect papers and I’ve never seen you do this with scholars, why now when I’m talking you are assigning these untruths to my words and are continuing doing so even though I’ve explained myself thoroughly?
quote: Surely, you have something more solid, and that you were basing your unsubstantiated opinionated personal feelings on prior to people calling you out for said unsubstantiated claims, which you now run off with as "evidence" for your material-free personal feelings.
To be honest, I didn’t have something more solid before you were ‘’calling me out’’ but that doesn’t matter, you know why? I was making a general statement about the way I believe a forums/discussion functions, and because of this, certain external characters might be useful because of the tendency some people might have to only allow pro African papers into this forum. You may or may not agree about the usefulness of characters like Dirk8, but that is just my own opinion and possible one you spite me for, I don’t care. If anything, you explorer in the process of you debunking people, should have already noticed that people have the tendency to block information from coming in as they for example do when they only selectively register information in their minds from a study and conveniently read over the things that debunk their own theories. You say we don’t need characters like Dirk because this forum as been doing fine without them and that is fine, but don’t ask me for evidence on things you have already find out to be true like: -The usefulness of the word ‘’similar’’ in anthropology -The tendency people have to only cite things they agree with -The fact that gene flow by way of genes that accompany mtdna CAN cause intermediate types, again, I didn’t say a specific mtdna haplogroup is associated with a feature, but the fact is that admixture with non African types can and will produce intermediate types, whether it in reality happened or not. Can you see what I’m saying? So in reality, my example was valid, as even in the example I didn’t say elongated features are the result of non Africans, even if they DID carry 75% mtdna. I argued that certain individuals with strong persuasive skills could convince certain people that it did. I was arguing from the devils perspective. You don’t have to take my word for it, go back and see. You still searched for reasons to attack these points instead of try to see how it can also be true that people who have certain believes would be vulnerable to that. I would definitely have been at some point in my life when I was starting out. Even if the amount of people would not include you or any other veterans, it still demonstrates my point that it could baffle people. A simple belief structure like say: Elongated features in Tutsi are African so all people who have them are fully Africans would get shattered. Just as simple as that.
quote: Tell me what is similar about the content of my follow up to your "example", to that of MikeIII and MindoverMatter. That aside, I know that MindoverMatter and I agreed with one another that your "example" was predicated on *underlying* assumption that was flawed; the onus is on you to show that is in fact not the case.
I’m not going to, as you’ve on several occasions have demonstrated that you (at least in discussions with me) repeatedly show you don’t grasp the full meaning of the word similar. Why should I again show you something similar? Only so you can try to imply I said Identical again as you did with the crania strawmen and the part where you argue for variation in beliefs? No thanks, the statements of you and others aren’t going nowhere and are there, clear for everyone to see.
quote: In order for you to show that "elongated features" is caused by "non-African" gene flow, you'll have to first establish that so-called "elongated features" is non-African to begin with. Can you?
Notice how you try to steer this discussion further and further in a direction that isn’t leading nowhere useful. We’re now light-years away from the topic I, brada and Astenb were friendly discussing and it was going quite well, even when you came I enjoyed it because I was learning, for example when you gave me that link. Then you had to engaged in the ‘’disruptive’’ behavior you accuse other people of, by quoting me wrong and other behaviors I described in my previous posts. Even IF my assumption was flawed, It was still useful in demonstrating a point, which is: that if there is a consensus or anything resembling it, conflicting research can cause people who carry those beliefs to be more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveryies and paradymes. And demonstrating this was the whole point, not being flaw free in the process of doing so. Don’t you know people give metaphors all the time, even made up ones to demonstrate their point? Yet you again fail to grasp this and try to stray the conversation to a place that is neither helpful to your original question, (for proof of how people can be inflexible or vulnerable) nor is it helpful for the current topic which by now seems to be lightyears away thanks to your original accusation which doesn’t even have merit at all. Then why should I by your demand produce evidence of Tutsi elongated features having a non African origin, if I myself don’t even believe the content of the example. Again, the original reason of why I gave this example totally went over your head and either by trickery or some other motive you first ask for an example, and then when I give you one, you try to find flaws in it, while it was meant to demonstrate a point. Should've known better.
quote: If not, then it doesn't matter if ten, a thousand, or even a population of us call you out on the apparent flaw of your personal opinionated feelings; such undertaking would be warranted and grounded on objective thinking, which is why there is agreement in this case between the parties calling you out.
More and more straying from your original question, and the example I gave in response.
quote: Or are you proposing that people shouldn't call you out, on the account of your accusing them of agreeing [rightfully so, unless proven by you otherwise] with one another
My observation was a truthful observation, nothing more nothing less. Whatever the content or whether or not the ‘’calling out’’ was appropriate, the observation remains valid.
quote: Should we then interpret this in the sense that you both "share similar dogma", that both of you are "therefore vulnerable to being inflexible to any findings that may obliterate your rigidly-held sectarian dogma", and therefore, both of you require deceitful disruptive personalities to keep "you in check"? LOL.
I can only speak for myself as STTigray might disagree, but sure, why not? I for one, don’t have a problem with knowing that any of my beliefs are as much as they are helpful, also a restriction that causes me to be vulnerable to whatever finding that proves it wrong. Like for instance when I after observing your source came to the conclusion that my beliefs about Lachish crania clustering with Maghreb, was not based on Lachish as a whole resembling the Maghreb population. I’m down with learning, not trying to be right. Why would I, if I can BE right by learning? NEXT
quote: And we need deceitful, bigoted and reactionary elements to "update" everyone else? Aren't those very characteristics the anti-thesis of progress? If we have folks like Evergreen, as you put forth, posting new publications that come out, is this not then indicative of the normal operation of the board?
The reason why you may not realize their usefulness perhaps, is because seeing these idiots get debunked wasn’t a big part of your learning process. Like I said in the introducing myself thread, I’ve spend quite some time here on this forum before I actually registered. Maybe the next time you feel irritated when they open another thread, you can realize there are more people reading than you think. Seeing people get debunked provides a much faster learning curve than if you’d have to search for all the information yourself because in a discussion between two opposing parties, there is usually a lot of concepts and studies being thrown back and forth. Another useful aspect of seeing people get debunked is that you get to learn how you can scientifically debunk Dirk8 and his siblings when you encounter them in real life. Yet another reason, is that it keeps the people (newbies) of Egyptsearch on top of their game, and it makes sure that they are able to refute the most recent lies and tactics. Sure there are already discussions taking place because of differences of opinions by the ‘’normal folks’’, but a different topic might require a different approach. Topics for which there is a consensus may not get covered as there can hardly be a difference of opinion about a topic that already has reached a consensus. Here is where the use of Dirk and his siblings comes in. That’s three reasons 4 ya Three reasons why I maintain my opinion that outside input is can be helpful despite objectiveness in situ. But my original argument was twofold 1.The usefulness of Dirk8 and his siblings because of the reasons I explained above -It keeps Egyptsearch members on top of our game and we’re constantly updated when it comes to the most recent lies and tactics -The readers get to speed up their learning curve -The readers get to see how you can effectively and scientifically debunk racists verbally 2.To maintain the internal integrity. Again, you might scoff at this idea, but generally speaking, it’s always good to have people around who you don’t agree with. All great leaders have advisers and all scientific environments have people who interpret data differently. To me, this is absolutely no problem, its wanted, because my intention is to learn. One can easily see this is the case with me when I admitted earlier not only to Explorer, but also to Al Takruri I was wrong in my thinking. Because I see the virtues in having people who you don’t agree with around you, I reasoned this argument would fall in good ground especially because I assumed other people had similar experiences I had (learning from discussions). One thing Explorer doesn’t take into account is the fact that objective people and even groups of objective people can still be wrong either in their interpretation of data or in the way they collected their data. This becomes obvious when you take notice that I’ve pointed out your flaws in denying certain concepts, reconstructing questions (not including the one where I was wrong) and producing strawmen out. Also, the places where I unintentionally didn’t finish reading his sentences. Furthermore, objective people are STILL subject to the same mental tendency’s I described earlier when Explorer raised his doubts the first time. Therefore, at least for those cases, a regular discussion and pinging of ideas can be useful to make sure current held beliefs evolve with the most recent studies and new interpretations of data. This first one is a lot easier to get, but the second isn’t. Its seems that society agrees with me as there are everywhere you look institutions above institutions to make sure whatever tendencies the human mind has doesn’t happen. Scientist, no matter how big their reputation is, still publish not only their findings, but also how they came to their conclusions. Should an employer leave his employees to their fate because there are honest, standup, objective people present amongst them? Should Americans as citizens rely on their president or their political representatives to make sure all their needs are met and that the president acts in their best interests? Of course not! Whenever we are treated unjustly strike, sue and fight for our cause whenever needed. Why would you EVER rely on someone whether they’re honest or not, to give you information that is conflicting to their beliefs and interests. I sure as hell won’t. That’s why I argued that Dirk8 and his siblings have uses whether there is objectiveness in situ or not. Of course all of these examples aren’t applicable to forums, but I’m just saying, there may be more uses to the Dirks and Mathildas than you suspect. They only can get irritating if you let them so you yourself can not only use them for the benefits cited above, but also control how much they bother you. So why even worry about their presence? You and the readers can have the best of both worlds.
quote: And I will ask you again: Elaborate on how you deem the people here have "similar beliefs", such that they are "vulnerable to being inflexible to any new discoveries and paradymes", to the point that deceitful reactionary personalities are necessary to keep the rest "in check". That is a rather serious charge you are making there.
By now you've read the man speech I held above
quote: What do you understand by similar "belief", because to me, that term is insinuating that there is unison in dogma that is not grounded on objective thinking, but to the whim or satisfaction of individual members' subjective personal feelings.
Glad you asked There can be a similarity/difference of beliefs on two levels relevant to this discussion. -The first level is the general similarity of beliefs present on a forum or place. In general, scientific forums or those aspiring to be, have higher similarities of beliefs, and fewer clusters on topics. Either people buy into something or they don’t. Unscientific forums on the other hand such as Stormfront and other opinion based forums, have in general, a much lower similarity of beliefs and numerous clustering or no clustering at all in one topic is not unusual in these forums. These forums are even in disagreement about the things scientist have agreed on for the longest. (doesn’t Mathilda claims OOA didn’t happen?) -The second level is as you might have guessed from what I just said, is the similarity of beliefs on specific topics like for example, the affinities of the ancient Egyptians, the physical traits of the Hebrews The first one is what I originally meant when I said
quote: People who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways
Notice My original sentence does NOT say: People on this forum tend to think in similar ways
Also notice that whether I would've used the higher or the lower level to assess this forum, both ring true and this does NOT by any way shape or form, overlap what you all have been accusing me of. when you read my original statement with the levels in mind. You wanna know why?
(drumroll
Not only does similar mean identical, as I earlier argued, the bit ‘’who have similar beliefs’’ itself recognizes there is diversity present because people who don’t have that belief aren’t included because they DON’T have similar beliefs
Also notice that I was trying to say this the first time,
quote: With that being said, the diversity already present here can just like outside influence have this checking effect too.
You not only interpreted it wrong and said I was contradicting myself,
quote: I see contradictions in your position;
You then accused me of saying something I didn’t even say, and put me in a position where I had to defend a viewpoint I didn’t even take in the first place. How could I? I just came out of a discussion where you and King were both arguing with STTigray.
quote:
quote: first it seems that you are insinuating there is some sort of unison in thinking on this board, that we seem to hold some sort of view across the board, which I guess may or may not be scientifically or objectively supported (?), and then, you acknowledge there is indeed diversity of viewpoints
quote: It hasn’t even occurred to you, that not only opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, but also facts, as a fact can also be believed. You seems to believe (fact by the way) that a belief is somehow of a lower quality than a fact.
quote: Not so fast buddy. You used the words in a particular context, that together project a certain impression to me, as noted above again. You are being asked to clarify it. Or are you having trouble grasping what the concept of "clarifying" means?
The statement Explorer prolly is speaking of:
quote: Just saying that people who have similar beliefs (for example any of the two clusters) and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
Explorer, from what part of this statement, do you extract an underlying insinuation that beliefs of people are opinion based per se? If these believes were in majority opinion based, they wouldn’t need changes in discoveries and paradymes to be debunked in the first place as we would have you, the ultimate evidence man .
quote: –noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Yes explorer, everyone knows both facts and opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, as I’ve said earlier. It’s still unclear to me how you made the, as you yourself are fond of saying, ‘’flawed unsubstantiated opinion based’’ jump from me saying believes (clearly not talking about beliefs of lower quality as shown by the research part) to:
quote: Not so fast buddy. You used the words in a particular context, that together project a certain impression to me
quote: Is this not a forum? Was this not your follow up to a question made of a comment you made about this board needing disruptive characters like Dirk, Afroslaynut, etc? Should this therefore not be understood as applying to this board? Who make up a forum; is it not individuals? If you are not implying that the very individuals who make up the social component of the forum are "semi-isolated", then what else would you be referring to; an empty forum--which btw--also happens to "think" [as you have used that word too]?
LOL, good one.. but we seem to not be talking about the same thing here. What I was referring to when I said semi isolated places, was not to an isolation of members of this site. It was referring to this site being in semi isolation to the rest of the world compared to other media outlets. Does that make sense? If it doesn’t read on
quote: You can't even read what you just cited, and you are lecturing me on properly citing you? LOL.
Lol, my bad, what’s the count though? 1-10?
quote: So, your comment was tacitly "including" this forum as the subject matter; for your sake, it would have to be the case, unless you are some off-tangent ranting lunatic. Furthermore, you did mention, "who operate in semi isolated places like forums";
Explorer, it still doesn’t take away what I was arguing, which is that when you leave out certain de-generalizing parts of the original statement, the full meaning/intention gets lost. My statement wasn’t made abstract for nothing, I did it partly to make it less personal exactly because it wasn’t personal.
Notice what would have came out if I wasn’t sensitive about this: just saying that people who have similar beliefs on Egyptsearch tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes..
By saying that, it would’ve become personal, just like when I would say for example to a politician: all politicians are liars, so why should I believe in your promises?
This is a whole world different from, and will have different consequences than saying:
You’re are a liar, so why should I believe in your promises?
Even though he too is a politician, the first statement wouldn’t hit as hard as the second. Furthermore, the abstraction prevented the underlying meaning that only Egyptsearch needs ‘’checking’’ or as I've better said elsewhere ''updating new information''.
quote: Why would you say that, unless you are implying that the "social components"--meaning the individual posters of the board--are by extension, "isolated"? Should this be the case either way, your reasoning belies logic. This is the INTERNET. How does one stay "isolated" in the internet? Do you know how the internet works?
The isolation part refers to the fact that not a lot of people know about this place and so, they aren’t able to share their input. An internet forum is indeed ‘’semi isolated’’ compared to real life public forums and television, magazines etc. Note for comparison that when Zawi Hawass had the world buzzing when he made his statements regarding the nature of the ancient Egyptians. Everyone was able to butt in and share their opinions, he caught heat for saying that. This (a large audience of who can let their opinions be heard) is not the case for internet forums in general and therefore, not in the case of Egyptsearch.
quote: I'm beginning to think that reading is not your strong suit. I did write "certain" newbies, which greatly contrasts your blanket baseless statement.
Notice the ‘’might’’ and ‘’partly’’ part in my sentence, which may not be equal to ‘’certain’’ to you, but it’s still implying the possibility that it might not always be the case, much like certain newbies does. That would NOT make it:
quote: greatly contrasts your blanket baseless statement.
quote: From what I can discern, and I could be wrong here [I will not deny the possibility of that on this occasion], the longstanding posters [including myself] here do not see the need for disruptive deceitful reactionary clowns to "keep us in check", as if we need deceitful people to tell us what is presumably accurate, LOL. The logic of that notion itself makes me laugh.
Maybe you won’t find it as ‘’out of the blue’’ now that I’ve explained myself better. If not, you at least know why I think like I do about the usefulness of Dirk and his family (LOL)
posted
I don't have time to respond to your long-winded efforts at damage control that only do more to expose you further with each attempt, with more elaborate responses as I had done in the last occasions. Come on, don't be afraid; admit it. You were caught trying to portray the rest of board (forum) as necessarily a biased institution which had to be "balanced", as per your mentality, by the obstructions of the likes of Dirk and AfroSlayed nut. There is no way around it. And in fact that is the only conclusion that makes sense, when one considers this:
Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to *sudden changes* in discovery's and paradymes.
Pray tell, if you are not tacitly charging this forum--since it was in response to a question made of a comment you made prior about the need for having disruptive personalities to "keep us in check"--with bias, then why would people therein be "inflexible" and "vulnerable" to "sudden changes in discoveries"? If you are not implying that said beliefs are not grounded in objective thinking, why then would said people be "vulnerable" and "inflexible" to "sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"; if we are dealing with people NOT charged with bias, and subjective dogma as a "collective", then why would they have "similar views" and "think in similar ways" , and thus "vulnerable" and "inflexible" to said "sudden changes" as opposed to confronting them, adapting to them, and going with the flow in the direction of predominating evidence? Admit it and save yourself from having to drown further in futile attempts to defend the indefensible.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
For an analysis of Keitas study relating to Lachish Cranial IssuesPosts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No explorer, it's not I who is practicing damage control. You're just now starting to see you may have been wrong. There is continuinity throughout my posts as is clear for anyone to see. You accused my first attempts of showing I didn't mean ''everyone thinks the same'' as a contradiction. And enforced this thing on me where I had to defend myself. To me, your refusal to responds shows you're really unable to prove me otherwise
You couldn't even respond to the other core questions of my post -The usefulness of characters like Dirk. This opinion you made out to be ''unsubstanted opinionating''. By now you know, it was'nt unsubstantiated at all. -the part where I explain the levels of on which something can be similar
Nor could you respond to the fact that ''similar beliefs'' doesn't refer to people who have ''conflicting beliefs'' in situ. How can someone who isn't agreeing with the blackness of Hebrews in the first place, or the blackness of europeans before the middle ages be affected by ''updating'' from Dirk8, ot snyone for that matter? This in fact, shows you that it is impossible that ''people with similar beliefs'' refers to every non destructive person on this forum. Only people who agree with certain beliefs would be affected by ''updating'', whether this updating happens by in situ or by ''disruptive elements''.
You're now, using the fact that a post is detailed and long, as a way to get out of this, didn't you say:
posted
I said I'm all ears, and to a specific matter; I didn't say I'll respond to the redundant excuses of damage control effort gone wrong. What more does anyone need? This is all the proof needed, for anyone who is capable of basic reading:
Kalonji writes:
If you're talking about me, I wasn't convinced about him being African at all. Neither do I think it is important, as Djehutyhotep and King (if I'm right) aren't African neither. Even if he is white and racist, he can still have a good argument. I personally think people like him are needed to keep us in check.
Sparking this question:
Why do you think despicable personalities are needed to "keep us in check"; are you suggesting the "us" here agree on everything, such that interjection is needed from elsewhere? - The Explorer
Answered with this:
Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to *sudden changes* in discovery's and paradymes. - Kalonji
Clear as day. Don't know whom you think you are fooling here, but it sure ain't me.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by knowledgeiskey: What makes you think that I or others say it was impossible
The thing is, instead of posting all those examples, (lemba etc) you also could've looked at what I was attempting to show, and see how it might be possible that a person who is believing something, is vulnerable to whatever contradicts his belief. The reason why I chose the Tutsi example was because it's something most people seems to be in agreement about, and thus could demonstrate my point better then say, something that less people agree on.
quote: Originally posted by knowledgeiskey: What makes you think that I or others say it was impossible and wouldn't you be suggesting that we don't understand what anthropology teaches us but you do if as you say we think it's impossible, while you say it's possible?
A difference of agreement doesn't necessarily mean either one of the parties has a lack of understanding, but rather, a difference of interpretation.
quote:Originally posted by knowledgeiskey: My current "beliefs" come from analyzing available scientific data and coming to the best conclusion, if I do so, how would a new study totally overturn my view if my view is the consensus?
It isn't the first time that has happened in anthropology, as any new discovery has implications for everything that came before it. If the discovery is big enough the implications it has for everything before it can easily destroy current held beliefs like for example, the tags with primitive writing in pre-dynasting egypt when everyone thought writing first appeared in Mesopotamia. Or the discovery that there was a line of kings before Narmer, this discovery was big enough to introduce a new dynasty called dynast 0.
quote: Originally posted by knowledgeiskey: I said we analyze available scientific data and come to the most logical conclusion, when you do this your views don't become refined but enhanced as the future scientific data will most likely concur with an add more evidence on top of past discoveries.
Yes, most often the data points in the same direction but our interpretation can only based on what we have so far. So if the evidence is incomplete, it is still possible that new evidence might prove our earlier interpretations wrong like for example geneticist claiming M and other african things non african. If I can for example, only see your feet (part of evidence) I can estimate how tall you are, but find that I was totally wrong when I see not only your feet but youre complete length (complete evidence).
quote: Originally posted by knowledgeiskey: My current "beliefs" come from analyzing available scientific data and coming to the best conclusion, if I do so, how would a new study totally overturn my view if my view is the consensus?
Are you familiar with the boaz immigrant study? With the view that Khoisan may not be the people with the oldest Dna? etc These examples that quickly come to mind might not be something Dirk8 is fond of posting but they did change beliefs
quote: Originally posted by knowledgeiskey: No, actually, the way you said "Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right?" Notice how you specifically mentioned the Tutsis as if there is evidence for elongated features in other Africans but not the Tutsis understand?
Intermediate features are visible whenever admixture accurs. So yes, there is evidence in Africa whenever you look at a the ofspring of biracial couples. But again, the Tutsi example, even if it was bogus, was meant to demonstrate a point, not being flaw free in the process. I could've used any example, but chose Tutsi because there seems to be a consensus here.
quote: Originally posted by knowledgeiskey: Which prompted me to ask you what evidence is there to suggest that any population in Africa with elongated features were due to a non African origin in the first place.
Even though I asked Explorer specifically not to ask for evidence as it is just an example? Even though I was playing devils advocate? You could've also said, yes I agree that evidence in general can destroy beliefs, but your Tutsi example is wrong because... Then I would've said yes I agree, but .. you see what I'm saying?
quote: Originally posted by knowledgeiskey: Because as noted above you made a generalizing sweeping statement that "us" would be vulnerable, I say how so if not all of are on the same page and a lot of "us" take time to scrutinize the available data with an unbiased approach?
Can you produce I quote where I did so? Doesn't the de-generalising statement: tend, coupled with the word similar, should even in your interpretation of my sentence which prolly is that similar beliefs refers to this forum in its entirity, give enough room for diversity, which can include you, especially if you know it does.
posted
Doesn't the de-generalising statement: tend, coupled with the word similar, should even in your interpretation of my sentence which is that similar beliefs refers to this forum in its entirity, give enough room for diversity, which can include you, especially if you know it does.
Furthermore, you inability and reluctance to respond to the things you accused me of, for which I then produced evidence is conveniently left out by you. I therefore conclude you were WRONG about -My example of Tutsi being wrong as it was meant to demonstrate a point -My opinion being ''unsubstandiated'' with regards to the usefulness of characters like Dirk -Numerous times implying that similar somehow means identical Etc.
You're fooling YOURSELF if you think that by going back to the original root of this discussion, your OWN ''unsubstantiated'' accusations go unnoticed
posted
Doesn't the de-generalising statement: tend, coupled with the word similar, should even in your interpretation of my sentence which is that similar beliefs refers to this forum in its entirity, give enough room for diversity.
Especially when you note that even in this interpretation of yours, of my original sentence, you can't even deny that opinions in this forum with regards to the Africanity of AFRICANS, whether the topic is Tutsi, Egyptians, Fulani, Ethiopians, Somalians, Nubians, etc is not very Heterogenous if one excludes the likes Dirk8
The disagreements of the people ''in situ'' typically occur when the discussion is about populations outside of Africa -Hebrews -Olmecs -Europians
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Afronuts never tire in their ability to display utter ignorance and lack of education. Many Afronuts appeal to scriptures like Rev1.14 to claim Jesus had wooly hair, thus was an African Negro. Well... Let us see what the bible passage says:
Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
Of course to a semi-literate the verse appears to say Christ had wooly hair. However, the fact is that that is NOT what it is saying. Look again:
[...] hairs were white like wool.
This statement does not even require critical reading to understand it. The verse does not say "hairs were like wool." It says, "hairs were WHITE like wool." The author is comparing the whiteness of Christ' hair to wool. Obviously at that time wool was used as a metaphor to symbolize whiteness/purity, hence the comparison of the whiteness of Christ' hair to wool.
Yep, Revelations says "White like wool" and Daniel says "Pure like wool" which means white and pure means the same thing. I don't know why black people want Christ to have hair like a nappy African. I think Christ had good hair.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
is a knock off of Daniel 7:9. but before examining the Hebrew a careful analysis of even the English version of the Revelations quote show two similes given for the hair: 1 - wool 2 - snow.
If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.
Now Daniel 7:9 has
quote: I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.
Notice white snow is in reference to garments whereas the hair is simply "pure wool." The Revelations writer, a Greek, didn't remain true to the Hebrew original. He botched up by leaving out the garment and substituting hair for the garment.
See, he used two similes for one item, both wool and snow for the hair alone. Quite unnecessary. Lamb's wool is white and, well, it's wooly.
The Hebrew writer sensibly uses two similes for two items. Snow for garments and wool for hair. Wool is perfect for an old man's grey nappy hair.
Maybe if the Greek hadn't reversed the order of snow and wool he would've got himself on target.
'Pure' is used in the same context as 'White.' There is no where in the bible where it says Christ had hair like wool. But it tell us that it is like pure wool and white like wool. That is not texture but color. What is the color of something that isn't cleansed or pure. If it is not like 'pure' wool then what does "un-pure" looks like?
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I'm completely neutral in this as I see evidence for both sides in this discussion. Because I want to learn more about this discussion I want to know what Al Takruri, Astenb and other people who believe in a largly black/dark skinned makeup of the hebrews.
quote: Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.
Jeremiah 13:23
quote: "I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of kedar as the curtains of Solomon."
Song of Solomon 1:5
In my opinion, these passages imply that they had a markedly different skin color than the Hebrews. In the first exemple because they seem to use Africans as an exemple for darkness, which is weird if they themselves were black or dark skinned.
The second quote to me demonstrated that there may have been a tendency to look down on people with a dark skin tone. Or the person who wrote it might have felt that way. Why would there be a need to feel that way if females of Judah had the same or a slightly lighter colouring?
If the judah had brown skinned people, they probably had black skinned people too because no population has 100% the same colour. Why wouldn't she/he blend in nicely with the darker skinned people? Another question is why would it be needed to give an exemple of an external source like a black tent somewhere in Arabia, if the majority of the Hebrew population was dark skinned like Africans?
In Songs of Solomon the girl skin color was literally black. She described it as black as the goats of kedar which is literally black in color. So we know that the hebrews weren't black in color regardless of what color they were. We also know from this text that being literally black was unusual just as it is today.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: ^ My opinion: I think when they said "Cushite" they meant THESE cushites:
Biblical Cush is usually in reference to Sudan. Some Sudanese being VERY dark skinned can be "markedly different" from other Africans while Both Africans being "Black".
See the Egyptian stereotype as an example:
When the people of Ethiopia and Egypt are spoken of in the Bible then it is most likely the region of Sudan. However, Ethiopian (Cushitic) people roamed and dwelt in North East Africa all the way to present Iran. But of course, they didn't inhabited all the land that make up India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, "middle east" etc...They did have nations situated in these land areas. Most of the Ethiopians you read about in the bible are indeed from the Middle East and Asia. The ones that are spoken of alongside the Egyptians are most likely those from present day Sudan.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yep, Revelations says "White like wool" and Daniel says "Pure like wool" which means white and pure means the same thing. I don't know why black people want Christ to have hair like a nappy African. I think Christ had good hair.
So a man of Semitic speaking back ground living in the Lavant at the age of about 30 or so during Roman rule had white hair. not impossible but highly unlikely
And what the hell is good hair?
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: kalonji,
The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;
ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.
What scripture or passage this is written. I can't find anything describing Ham descendants as black; Shem descendants as some "ruddy" color whatever that is. I thought Ruddy meant manly or masculine...more like vigor or strong and healthy; Ruddy in the scripture is not being 'red' or red in color since no one is red or like red. If ruddy is indeed "red" then that means when the scriptures describes anyone or anything as 'ruddy' it is actually speaking of the color RED. And where is yafet written as being white or white-like?
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Betto Boo Boo
quote:Yep, Revelations says "White like wool" and Daniel says "Pure like wool" which means white and pure means the same thing. I don't know why black people want Christ to have hair like a nappy African. I think Christ had good hair.
So a man of Semitic speaking back ground living in the Lavant at the age of about 30 or so during Roman rule had white hair. not impossible but highly unlikely
And what the hell is good hair?
The white hair is metaphor for purity in the spirit or someone that is cleansed and pure; without fault; without sin; perfect in spirit; washed; etc...Good hair is anything that isn't nappy.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?
and
Isaiah 43:3
quote:For I am the LORD thy God, The Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour; I have given Egypt as thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
show that that only certain black nations were worth the same as Israel in their own self-view.
A ransom is valuable not worthless. The ransom is equal to the ransomed.
The bible did say that salvation will be given also unto the gentiles. The Hebrews and those of other nations were different and not the same. The greatest difference is culture and language.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Well, I'll have to take it that your opinion is not grounded on fact, in which case, your rationale for the need for disruptive elements of the board to keep the rest "in check" has no logical basis to it.
Jewboy, shut the f!ck up about logic, your dumb@ss belives six million Jews were killed in gas chambers.
quote:I don't know why black people want Christ to have hair like a nappy African. I think Christ had good hair.
You stupid ignorant superstitious b!tch, why are you still posting in here?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Doesn't the de-generalising statement: tend, coupled with the word similar, should even in your interpretation of my sentence which is that similar beliefs refers to this forum in its entirity, give enough room for diversity.
Especially when you note that even in this interpretation of yours, of my original sentence, you can't even deny that opinions in this forum with regards to the Africanity of AFRICANS, whether the topic is Tutsi, Egyptians, Fulani, Ethiopians, Somalians, Nubians, etc is not very Heterogenous if one excludes the likes Dirk8
The disagreements of the people ''in situ'' typically occur when the discussion is about populations outside of Africa -Hebrews -Olmecs -Europians
etc
Deny that
Kalonji
These futile damage control excuses just have the inadvertent [on your part] accumulative effect of bringing out more deficits about you; for instance, you come out looking like you don't even understand what you YOURSELF writes. Picking one or a few words out of your comment, will not change the context of your comment, as cited unedited [by me]. It is clear to anyone who can read the letters a,b,c. It is not a matter of just charging folks with "similar beliefs" and "thinking alike", which in any case only further underlies your newbie status and lack of proper research, but you imply a "biased community", which is not driven by objective principals, and hence, their "inflexibility" to "sudden changes" in discoveries. Just to demonstrate the futility of your post, factually-- i.e. contrary to your opinionated personal feelings, disagreements occur on topics involving Africans as well, not just non-African entities as you dichotomize. In fact, an example of it is happening as we speak on the Egytology section; check out Charlie's thread. Bow out gracefully, while you can.
As for anguished piece of shyt, do me this favor: go clean out the sewer from yo mama's torn up ho pussy, and relax on the constant pimping after penis. You are irrelevant here.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
coalburner queen, I'll never fall for yo mama's overused nasty ****.hole. I guarantee you.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The good old days: anguished heap of shyt, getting a good plugging session...
...a bygone era! [Hence, the hysterical pimping after alpha males like The Explorer everywhere on ES.]
A sad story. Check it out from your nearest Blockbuster. LOL.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic