Comments on: Making a monkey of Kansas

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:52:31 +0000

Ben Huie,

You can’t be serious about a lost tribe of isrealites doing a founder effect experiment in SE USA, can you? There is no scientific evidence to support that notion. Are you simply part Native American and are just seeking to be allowed to emigrate to the 51st state of the Union, Israel?

By: Hidalgo Mataindios

Hidalgo Mataindios — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:37:03 +0000

Crusader X,

Please be easy on the Holy Trinity. Remember your Catholic upbringing? You must capitulate to the overwhelmingly eloquent and elegant nemesis that has rendered your lilliputian rationalizations pulverized. Concomitantly you have only succeeded in excoriating your own soul. Go in peace, my son, and sacrifice by eviscerating with one hand a pulsating cardiac organ from a dark maiden on the top of Mt. Pinatubo, even as you hold Ashaka’s family jewels in the other. Your God, Gerald Ford, will be with you always, and the vainglorious citizenry of the US of Amalgamation will always be there to hand you your pecuniary set asides to make retribution for the mental health they have taken from you! All you need do is acquiesce to their ignorance, my dear philosopher, and thus indirectly accept their pronouncement on the quality of your intellect. May Democritus, the God of Indivisibility, be with you always!!!

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:20:11 +0000

CrusaderXYZ,

Tsk, tsk, have you betrayed your own argument? How can one person be three individuals at the same time? Sort of like the holy trinity: Ian, John, and truth. Ha ha ha!

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 03:17:41 +0000

Truthregardless, John Malkovich,HELLO IAN!!!Nice to see you again. Please stop posting under different pen names, once again Ian, you choose not to understand that the very definition of an individual is that it is an INDIVISIBLE entity. I must admit I was suspicious of your first post which held racist overtones. However, your later posts show that truthregardless, Ian, and John Malkovich have the exact same reasoning pattern! IAN IAN!!! POST UNDER YOUR NAME NEXT TIME, TROLLING IS BAD MANNERS!!Hahahaha! I caught you Ian, you little twerp! You must be surprised sitting there at your keyboard while knowing that an inferior mestizo like myself FOUND YOU OUT, you punk bitch!! hahahaha! Oh, my my my! What would Adolf think Ian? I think you’ve just lost your ticket to Valhalla buddy! HAHAHAHAHA!! Ian is truthregardless AND John Malkovich! HAHAHAHAHA!!! ahhh, you suck Ian, you should know that if you’re going to pretend to be someone else, you have to CHANGE your thought process, you dumbass!!! Oh, I think I just wet myself! I CAUGHT YOU SUCKER!! hahahahaah!

By: HERR KOMMANDANT

HERR KOMMANDANT — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 03:10:08 +0000

I SEE YOU ARE HERE IN BOTH YOUR IDENTITIES JM/IAN!

By: Ian Santiago

Ian Santiago — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:32:39 +0000

lol

By: John Malkovich

John Malkovich — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:26:26 +0000

CrusaderX is a monkey who should be swinging from a tree, pay him no mind.

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:04:42 +0000

Hi, CrusaderXTo be guilty of the ad hominem fallacy one uses the credentials (or lack of) of the opponent in an argument to discredit his reasoning. In other words, one would try to win an argument by substituting the low repute of his opponent for facts or reasoning. I may have insulted you, but I did not try to win arguments using your race or whatever as a substitute for reasoning or facts. It was an ad hominem attack, but not ad hominem fallacy (there is a difference, ad hominem simply meaning “to the man”). You also insulted me, using various zoological terms to offend me (and I replied in kind). By the way, I had already pegged you as a philosopher before you revealed that info to me, as I have taken philosophy courses before and am familiar with the interminable and circuitous argumentation of members of your do-nothing profession. If you want to argue about the mind-body problem I’ll be glad to take you on. This is exactly what your problem is. To what extent is the DNA contained in your cells YOU? Is the chemical blueprint the same as YOU? And is YOUR mind separable from the physical substance, the brain? You see, your lack of scientific sophistication is an impediment to our arguments. As for my statements being rascist, yes they were, but I plead not guilty insofar as I am not rascist. Try that one one Aristotle (who by the way injured the advancement of the physical sciences more than any other do-nothing). I’ll clarify this before you pull all of your diverse hairs out of your scalp. I wanted to see how you reacted to certain stimuli. I was being very much the biologist experimenting on lower animals. I enjoyed the rancid and acerbic responses you gave me. What was my point? I wanted to see how you would react if you were put in Ian’s place. So forgive poor Ian. You resorted to the same kind of vitriol as Ian. As for the fact that you claim that you are not an entertainer, I disagree. You have been quite entertaining. I hope to meet you in person someday. I do go to science museums a lot.

By: Ben Huie

Ben Huie — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:54:11 +0000

Truth – a diversion if I may. You mention an interest in anthropology. I had heard long ago speculation that a Lost Tribe of Israel might have made its way to the Southeastern US region millenea ago. Any information on that speculation?

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:19:23 +0000

CrusaderX,My, my. What invective from an amoeba like you. You are still too stupid to see the point. Ian is not claiming to be an oreo in the first place. YOU are making the claim that he is. Why should you think he is hypocritical when he is not making the kind of choice in your example? He probably doesn’t have much Moorish ancestry to speak of. If I drew his blood and/or checked his DNA I would probably be able to verify that he is what he claims he is or nearly so. You keep going around in circles because, as Ian would have put it more crassly, you are exactly what the rascists contend you are. He is not denying part of his ancestry. Is this too complicated for your invertebrate little and mixed up brain? You seem not to have read your own statements correctly. But then again, how many like you can claim Ian’s IQ? Besides, and I will repeat it, people can hate one side of themselves. They do it all the time, AND THEY ARE NOT BEING HYPOCRITES!!! You may find it distasteful, but it happens all the time. Look up the definition of hypocritical. I have come to the conclusion that it is people like you that cause intelligent people like Ian to lose his composure. He doesn’t like part of you. YOu may have trouble with hating half of yourself, but he doesn’t have trouble hating half of you. He probably would love the truly Spanish part of you. He might even like the other parts, but separately. Moron, the problem you’re having is due to the fact that from an early age you had to reconcile the dichotomy of your background to preserve your mental health. The basic US government pseudo-anthropological “food groups” never made sense, but their irrationality challenged you in a painful way. You escaped hating a part of your heritage through a number of quasi-productive rationalizations, and now they are coming to the surface. YOU SEE, YOUR MAJOR PROBLEM IS PHILOSOPHICAL. YOU ARE CONFUSING THE MIND WITH YOUR DNA. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE ONLY ONE PERSON BECAUSE (I HOPE) YOU ONLY HAVE ONE MIND. PRESUMABLY THE MIND IS INDIVISIBLE. THE ISSUE HERE IS YOUR ANCESTRAL GENES. YOU CAN DIVIDE YOUR GENES INTO DIFFERENT POOLS OF ORIGIN. YOU MAY NOT LIKE YOUR DIABETES-PRONE GENES BUT YOU MAY LIKE YOUR MATH ABILITY GENES. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU, THE MIND. I AM THINKING GENE POOL, YOU ARE THINKING MIND. It would be more profitable for you to open up a philosophical discussion, not argue endlessly when in fact we are talking about different things. The reason you have gotten ridiculous is because I am challenging a very deep part of your psyche. It isn’t all your fault. The problem is that you have to face stupid people that have forced you to reconcile the irreconciliable. If you would stop buying into the typical American’s stupidity about race and ethnicity (talk about hypocrisy!!) you would be free to be a single person. You keep insisting that you are one person. For the last time, Ian is not being hypocritical. You are characterizing his ancestry to suit your misinformed fantasies. It’s your persistent assumption that he is denying part of his heritage, but he would say no. But even if he admitted to being some kind of oreo, he can still hate part (e.g., genetic heritage)of himself and not another. It’s hard to believe that something so commonplace and obvious causes you so much angst. You habe become extremely irrational and illogical. You are guilty of a number of logical fallacies, including circular argumentation, ad hominem, and fallacy of composition (one of your biggies!). You try to impugn me by discrediting my reading comprehension. Never mind that I scored higher than 99 percentile on my GRE verbal part. You still grant yourself the license to impugn my ability to comprehend reading material. You seem to forget also that goodcomprehension requires two participants: the reader AND the writer. Stop being jealous of people you wish you could absorb into your league and claim as yours. Yes, brilliant people like Ian are not going to sacrifice their identities to give you the opportunity to claim their successes as yours!! Do the math. One part of you (Spanish and Oriental) succeeds, the other part (God knows what) fails when assessed separately. Taken together, the mixture fails. So you prostitute yourself by allowing the government to arbitrarily categorize you so you can get minority set asides to help you through school. That’s you, my indivisible buddy!!

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:12:12 +0000

truth,just in case you didn’t comprehend the above explanation i have come up with the following example:Suppose you were a half-black half-white (mullato) person. Now, suppose someone goes up to you and calls you a nigger, can you shrug it off and tell him you were white? Sure you COULD! but not without denying your black genetic heritage. Now suppose someone else comes up to you and calls you a Cracker, can you shrug it off and tell him you were black? Sure you COULD! but not without denying your white genetic heritage. Finally, (pay attention now) If a white or black person came up to you and called you a mixed race Oreo, that would imply that 1) the person (white or black) who called you an Oreo knows you are 1/2 black and 1/2 white. 2)INDIRECTLY insults his OWN genetic heritage by ridiculing yours (black or white heritage depending on the person) Hopefully this layman’s example will clarify my position on the matter, and hopefully is able to be absorbed into that bigotted reptilian brain of yours.

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:15:51 +0000

Your argument now is that he can’t hate the mixed person because he himself is mixed.

Perhaps someone should teach you how to properly interpret “big words”. My previous argument was based on the premise that it was HYPOCRITICAL for someone who shares a particular ancestry with a mixed-race person to condemn the latter for his genetic condition. Why? Because the latter is an individual, who can not separate himself from either of his mixed ancestries. And consequently, the former who condemns the latter condemns the ENTIRETY of the person, and (think real hard now, dummy!) since the latter can NOT separate himself from both ancestries, the former is forced to condemn the ENTIRETY of the latter’s ancestries! (ding ding ding)which in my previous example was illustrated between the shared Spanish ancestry between Ian and myself. (do you get it yet? maybe you should read SLOWLY)

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:54:08 +0000

truthregardless,where, oh where did I insult you? Because I am critical of your arguments? Ha! What a laugh!”Why don’t your people show the rest of the world what you can do outside of sports and Rickie Martin?” Is it just me, or was that a bigotted racial generalization!? I don’t need white people to agree with me to prove your fallacious and utterly ridiculous analogies equating racial hatred with hatred of inanimate objects, and just because you fail to understand that hybrid people can not separate their respective cultural heritage without fundamentally claiming to be something they are NOT, doesnt mean you can resort to ad hominem attacks which is another fallacy you committed by the way. I am neither a professional athlete or a pop-star, I am a law student, I make arguments for a living. I have a master’s degree in philosophy so if you wanna dispute logical fallacies with me, you better go take up Formal Logic first! If you had even an elementary school understanding of contemporary Spanish, you would know that the word “cabron” means “man” or “dude”, e.g. What’s up man? or How ya doing, dude? Maybe you took that as an insult, may I suggest you study the language of a people if you are to have any credibility as an anthropologist? You do know that if you want to understand a particular group of people’s thought processes then you must have an intimate knowledge of their semantics, right? I didn’t even provoke you, and yet you respond with sweeping racial generalizations. Are you sure you don’t go by the name of John Malkovich?

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:23:38 +0000

CrusaderX,

My interest in this is very personal. I am a researcher in anthropology, and I feel vulgar, public pseudo-anthropology has no place in a modern, industrialized society. I call things as I see them. Yes, I said before I am collecting blogs. It is painful to see this Cuban vs other Latino war going on. If you think this site is an exception, dream on. Sometimes I find it perversely entertaining, watching how ignorance begets ignorance. If Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, etc., had been given their own personal identity all of this mess would not have taken place. Start with Gerald Ford and the ignorance of the American public. I have known a number of Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, and Cuban-Americans, as well as Spaniards. I know the profound differences. This whole debate has slipped into the depths of emotionalism. Just be yourself. I am just an honest scientist trying to inject truth into the picture. Yes, I do some cajoling because I want to expose the arteries. That way, I can see the emotional trauma this society has generated in its people. Thank you, Gerald Ford, you luminary genius.

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:13:08 +0000

CrusaderX,So I guess you’re wild urges are overtaking your cerebral cortex. First of all, you have all the premises screwed up. Originally, it was being stated that Ian couldn’t hate the mixed person, such as yourself, without hating himself, because the mixed person also had part of him in him. Your argument now is that he can’t hate the mixed person because he himself is mixed. How absurd. You’ve switched tactics. Ian doesn’t admit to being mixed within the bounds of a broader group of people he calls whites. I agree he is right. You, CrusaderX, are illogical. You CAN hate the mix without hating the components. Are you simply that stupid? Does the Black-person-hating southerner of English descent hate himself because most Black Americans also have English ancestry? Does he necessarily hate the English? WE KNOW THAT’S NOT TRUE. It is people like you who bring down rascist stereotypes upon themselves. You keep insisting, irrationally, that one CAN’T dislike the whole without disliking the parts. In fact, it happens very often. If you can find one intelligent white person who agrees with your illogic, I will be extremely surprised. You and Ian are both emotionally disturbed. I am sure you resent those angry, intelligent and successful Cubans because you hate yourself (to use your illogic in reverse). Don’t blame them. Blame the people of the United States whose knowledge of other people, cultures, and places is legendary, as the main cause we are having this ugly discussion. Can’t everyone just be a human being in this stupid place? You’ve taken to insulting me because my logic is obvious. Ian would probably blame what he would think is your low IQ on your Puerto Rican ancestry, because of the strongly Black heredity of Puerto Ricans(another example of how the “Hispanic” category conceals the truth). Why don’t your people show the rest of the world what you can do outside of sports and Rickie Martin? Or would you rather consider yourself a Filipino? Then you won’t resent people like Ian, and you will prove them wrong. I forgive you, CrusaderDNAjumble, for you know not what you are doing.

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:50:12 +0000

You also make a bad analogy:Ice cream and tomatoes can be separated, but can a hybrid man separate his dual heritage? I think you know the answer to that, cabron.

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:46:52 +0000

Hating a combination is not the same as hating the parts. That would be a logical fallacy.

Once again, I must respectfully disagree with you. A WHOLE IS NO GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS.Because YOU CANT HATE THE COMBINATION… WITHOUT HATING THE PARTS. Saying the opposite would be fallacious.

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:40:15 +0000

truthregardless,my mistake, i interpreted your “Spain being a collective of different nations” as meaning that there were different national governments, I thought you were questioning the fact that Spain does indeed have a single sovereign centralized government. No matter. Spain has an existence of minorities, no argument there. I agree with you that the labeling of the melting pot composition of South, Central, and Carribean people of the Americas was a politically incorrect misnomer that didn’t include the niceties of giving each and every ethnic group and amalgamation. But then again, it is not only an American fault since Columbus and the rest of the conquistador bunch incorrectly regarded there New World as the “West Indies” and regarded its people as Indios, “Indians” in English. The Pilgrims of course followed suit. But, I won’t argue about that, I won’t kick that dead horse anymore.”Imagine how you would feel if you had red hair, blue eyes, the features of a leprechaun, and you were always told you are dark-complexioned and look like Pancho Villa.” From this post I sense you take this “Hispanic” thing quite personally. Are you Cuban as well? As for my feelings on being called something I’m not, they’ve been calling Filipinos and Puerto Rican natives as “Indians” for much longer than they have called us Hispanics, however, you don’t see me making racist durrogatory comments about white Europeans, do you? Let sleeping dogs lie.

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:26:05 +0000

To your other comment about criminals. I posed it as a question. The point was that disliking, for example, boats because they make you sea-sick is not the same as disliking all things made of lumber. Hating a combination is not the same as hating the parts. That would be a logical fallacy. I may like ice cream and tomatoes separately, but I may not like them together. Is this any clearer?

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:20:35 +0000

CrusaderX,There are Basque separatists in the northeast of Spain today, still active, still bombing other Spaniards. The Catalan people also are fighting for their independence. The Galicians in the Northwest of Spain have more affinity for the Celtic in themselves, and we often see their incarnation in vociferous Cubans like Ian. But really, Ian wouldn’t protest being called a Caucasian, even if it includes Arabic people (I am well aware of that, and by the way, Asiatic Indians are also Caucasians),SIMPLY BECAUSE HE kNOWS THAT MOST PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ALSO KNOW THAT IT IS AMBIGUOUS. I am referring specifically to the U.S. Census and other questionnaires. This would diffuse his anger, since he would simultaneously be on the same “par” as an Irish Caucasian. He knows that most Americans have a unified, set ideation of what a so-called Hispanic is. In his mind, I believe, it is the exclusion from the Caucasian category that bothers him the most. He probably feels that denying his OBVIOUS phenotype is what happens when he is placed into the “Hispanic” category. This is a very, very real and common problem in Cuban-Americans. The stupid, unscientific category “Hispanics” has generated a tremendous identity crisis in Cuban-Americans. I see this in blogs day in and day out. I feel sorry for them. It’s not just Ian. Many others, and I have been collecting their blog messages. This nation is guilty of causing mental illness in these people. The young ones don’t know who they are (confused by the discrepancy between what their mirrors tell them and the discordant public categorizations), and their parents do, and it isn’t what the US government and most Americans think. It makes for an interesting psychological study. Imagine how you would feel if you had red hair, blue eyes, the features of a leprechaun, and you were always told you are dark-complexioned and look like Pancho Villa. But yes, there are Spanish regional differences even today. Also, you must not exaggerate the influence of Moorish ancestry. The reason most Americans always drag Moors into the picture is because they are trying to account for the darkness of so many Latinos, since Spaniards are Europeans. The problem is that they don’t know how important Indian and Black genes are in the coloring of Latinos, not Moorish genes. Spanish immigration to this country over its history has been almost nil. Check any almanac. Thus, to most American minds, “Spanish” = Latino = dark people. They simply haven’t seen too many Spaniards up close. But no matter how you put, it is ignorance.

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:08:26 +0000

Also, is hating a criminal, for example, the same as hating yourself, because we all share, ultimately, a common human genetic origin? I think your logic was attractive emotionally, but misleading in its implications and application

No, because hating a criminal for being a criminal is DIFFERENT from hating a criminal on the sole basis of his being of a particular race. There is a dichotomy between the cause of the hatred which you must address.

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:01:14 +0000

truthregardless,You make a good point, however you seem to regard the hybrid individual as being racially divisible. For example: I, as a hybrid Filipino Puerto Rican would be a hypocrite if I made derrogatory racial comments on Ian’s Spanish heritage, because consequently, the Puerto Rican side of my family is very similar to Ian in the respect that they are fair-skinned and brunette. I as a hybrid individual can not simply cast aside either my Filipino heritage or the Spanish heritage without DENYING a part of my ancestry. You see, a white racist hates a purely black person for his being black. However, those same white racists who hate mullatos do not comprehend the fact that a bi-racial individual is not racially divisible. Individuals are indivisible is basically what my inner logic is. In Ian’s case, he cannot stand me, because I don’t fit neatly into his stereotypical view of the “Hispanics” who share in his gene pool. He even goes so far as to condemn fully white people as evidenced by his calling my girlfriend a “self hating guilt ridden bitch.” Now, if that is clearly not evidence of self-hatred of his own gene pool, then I don’t know what is.

By: CrusaderX

CrusaderX — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:44:52 +0000

truthregardless,you mean how most peninsular Spaniards in the coastal south are darker and that the Spaniards of the northern hinterlands are fairer skinned? That fact was not lost on me. But there is a problem when you say that Ian should be regarded as “Caucasian”, because scientifically, racial differences are determined by FACIAL STRUCTURE not SKIN COLOR. They classify the races into 3 main groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Consequently, Arabs are also considered CAUCASIANS, because of their facial structure and I don’t think Ian would like to be lumped together in that class. And I don’t quite understand your idea that Spain was a conglomerate of nations. What time period are you thinking about? Perhaps you are thinking about the time of the North African invasion when the southern half was governed by Islamic caliphates. Was that what you were thinking of?

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:39:13 +0000

CrusaderX,

I wish to address your thesis about Ian hating the “Spanish” in the mixed-race (hybrids) when he hates the hybrids. Although your presentation was prosaic and in good spirit, I have to pose a question: Doesn’t your logic extend also to Anglo-American people who hate Black Americans? It has already been demonstrated that Black Americans are at least 25% Caucasian in their genes. Can’t you use the same argument and accuse white racists in this country of hating the “English” in them, simply because they hate the mixture, i.e., Black Americans, that resulted?Also, is hating a criminal, for example, the same as hating yourself, because we all share, ultimately, a common human genetic origin? I think your logic was attractive emotionally, but misleading in its implications and application.

By: truthregardless

truthregardless — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:13:11 +0000

Jed,I was trying to point out that racism begets racism. When someone dumps another person into a category of people who are disparaged and that category is mythic, the net result is that the person will try to differentiate himself from the group he has been placed in. One such differentiation strategy is to resent the group to which he doesn’t truly belong (this part is not a rascist reaction, by the way, but a natural reaction to absurdity). Thus, Ian will “hate” brown-skinned mestizos knowing full well that he is not, scientifically, one of them. This becomes “rascism.” But then again, the categorizers were the original rascists. Another example is that exhibited by the hatred that so many people of Italian descent have for darker people. They want to distance themselves from people they are too dangerously close to being miscategorized as. I know this example is anecdotal, but I have personally witnessed this numerous times (OK, Italo-Americans, pour your vitriol on me!). Why can’t we be scientific about all of this? If you are going to categorize people into a very few racial “food groups”, then you had better find scientific justification for doing so. If 300 million Americans think the Earth is flat, it doesn’t prove it is so. If almost all Americans are unaware that “Spanish” is not the same thing as Indian, it should not result in the institutionalization of ignorance. I find it comical that we Americans as a group cannot accept that other countries have more than a single race in them. They lump people together as one race or ethnic group (e.g., “Hispanic”)without knowing, much less acknowledging, that the US does not have a monopoly on diversity. Why can’t a Cuban like Ian be simply Caucasian (the group which clearly, and probably correctly, he identifies with)like his genes say he is, and another Cuban, a black man, for example, be a black man. We expect us to stratify ourselves but deny that right to other nationals just simply because of our profound and seemingly indelible ignorance on this issue. By the way, to another writer, not all Italians have Etruscan ancestry, and degree of its influence varies greatly from place to place and person to person. Ian is not necessarily disparaging all Spaniards. Evidently, he is disparaging the darker ones. You should remember that Spain is really several nations, and that there are major cultural and ethnic regional differences.