HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

First topic message reminder :

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/trump-how-did-this-happen/

veya_victaous wrote:So how did 30,000 year old gene travel to India through Europe, Without any other European genes?

And in modern day india where We KNOW the brits took sex slaves, let alone the conquests of the redcoats  
Face it, it is Idiotic to even suggest that perhaps
The whole thing is discredited and they Use the same science and test kits and BUSINESS model for PROFIT as Ancestry.com

Clearly You do not understand any more than i can teach a parrot

1) No where does it claim that, it states 3,500 years ago and considering people migrated all the way from Africa all over Europe, then its very feasible that some Europeans did. We also know by the 4th century BC that Alexander invaded India and set up colonies.

2) Again have no idea what gibberish you are trying to say in that statement. Nobody is denying that between 1772 and 1833 that the British with the help of allied Indians enslaved Indians to the Arabian and Colonial markets. Which has nothing to do with the point at hand. As nobody denies a percentage of India was colonized by the British.

3) Nothing is discredited and even the views claiming discrediting ancestry.com are feeble at best making assumptions on things they cannot back up with evidence. They make claims like a woman using her Grandmothers hair etc. What they are asserting is that some may falsify where the hair has come from from he individual. Yet again the bases for your counter is ancestry.com and not National Geographic, so your counter is moot and meaningless. Unless you have evidence to show on their methods.

4) ad hominem

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Your two views you gave are not the bases for a political system , but views you just hold yourself. You have not presented what sort of Political ideology you are presenting and what rights those citizens would have under such a system.

I doubt anyone would vote for something they have no idea on what their rights would be and whether based on your stance it would deny them the opportunity to vote on the two proposals you have made.

So you want to genetically engineer humans, thinking you can make them born progressive, which would require culling those who do not meet your Spartan like system when born. As views are taught, and progressive views come from political systems like Liberalism.

So your form of progress is based on something unscientific, progressive born babies and to have people born to being sheep and unable to critically think for themselves.

LOL
didges incomprehension at it's finest.
I care not for your organics genetics it is irrelevant.
You seem to miss that Poeple will no longer be dominate at all,
you don't even understand what real progress is, still concerned with humans and their rights which they will inevitably deny others given the chance.

And it is call Technocracy the replacement of bureaucrats with technological systems to make the decisions,
Both ultimately acknowledge that democracy is just a facade for the feeble minded to think they have a choice.

You would be one of those feeble minds

Face it everything in this thread supports such a move.
humans are incapable of governing themselves efficiently  

Thankfully we don't need your vote either.
Like I Said humanity advances through the achievements of the few..
and not idiots like you

1) Subjective based on no evidence and ad hominem again. Making unfounded assumptions and not backing anything scientific with evidence for your views.

2) So Totalitarianism like I said, and an elitist system. Where technical experts , who have no expertise in many fields are allowed to dictate how humanity lives and humans have no say in this. So philosophy and understanding is cast to one side to a bunch of technical geeks that have no comprehension on ethics and morality.

You would have to have an army to enforce this barbaric ideology, which no doubt would be robots, systematically culling any humans that stepped out of line. Having no comprehension of the resistance of humans. But nice to know how what you proclaim is progressive is in fact backwards. Being technical minded does not automatically mean you can lead people or make the correct decisions

3) ad hominem again.

4) The only thing there is a comparability to, is Nazism, where an elite of business heads supported Hitler

5) You do need support, otherwise your Totalitarian dream will be resisted against and then you will have set back the sciences for years. By then people having a distrust in those advancing technology. As seen those advancing this want to abuse their positions and enforce their views onto the rest of society. Every single Totalitarian oppressive Civilization, has fallen in history. I suggest you learn that fact. Also how many people support this ideology? Clearly not many, as its unethical.

number 2 is already true.
like i said Feeble minds do believe they have a choice.
you vote for a representative, that is normally a self serving fool.
If you think he has not previously been lead by the nose by bureaucrats than you have very little concept of what really goes on in government. we just wish to take away the human failing having witnessed too many idiots with power

number 4 the difference is most technocrats are motivated by efficiency and effectiveness rather than personal greed. and most acknowledge that no human mind is capable which is why we need to build one that is. it will not be on human decision at all but through analysis of all the information. the systems we build today are already comprising of data at such a volume that no human could read it all in a life time. let alone utilize it.
And like you said an army is cheap a bunch of drones, of course the world's military are already talking about how the next War is the cyber war, all the infrastructure humans rely on is already controlled and maintained by the systems.

number 5
no we don't. it is as inevitable as the passing of time. we will just do.
just like the bureaucrats already do.
I am hardly the only technocrat in My nation let alone others.
ultimately it is just evolution. the natural way governance will improve.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:So how did 30,000 year old gene travel to India through Europe, Without any other European genes?

And in modern day india where We KNOW the brits took sex slaves, let alone the conquests of the redcoats  
Face it, it is Idiotic to even suggest that perhaps
The whole thing is discredited and they Use the same science and test kits and BUSINESS model for PROFIT as Ancestry.com

Clearly You do not understand any more than i can teach a parrot

1) No where does it claim that, it states 3,500 years ago and considering people migrated all the way from Africa all over Europe, then its very feasible that some Europeans did. We also know by the 4th century BC that Alexander invaded India and set up colonies.
WAS Alexander British now? ohh and then why is there no Macedonian genes?

2) Again have no idea what gibberish you are trying to say in that statement. Nobody is denying that between 1772 and 1833 that the British with the help of allied Indians enslaved Indians to the Arabian and Colonial markets. Which has nothing to do with the point at hand. As nobody denies a percentage of India was colonized by the British.
So you just admitted that it is Not 3500 year old linage they are picking up but the British COLONIAL

3) Nothing is discredited and even the views claiming discrediting ancestry.com are feeble at best making assumptions on things they cannot back up with evidence. They make claims like a woman using her Grandmothers hair etc. What they are asserting is that some may falsify where the hair has come from from he individual. Yet again the bases for your counter is ancestry.com and not National Geographic, so your counter is moot and meaningless. Unless you have evidence to show on their methods.
YES it is consumer watch dog has already issued warnings about the falsely Claiming they can do what they say they can, so they moved to Ireland to avoid further legal scrutiny.


4) ad hominem

cause it is true it is not ad hominem,

veya_victaous wrote:number 2 is already true.
like i said Feeble minds do believe they have a choice.
you vote for a representative, that is normally a self serving fool.
If you think he has not previously been lead by the nose by bureaucrats than you have very little concept of what really goes on in government. we just wish to take away the human failing having witnessed too many idiots with power

number 4 the difference is most technocrats are motivated by efficiency and effectiveness rather than personal greed. and most acknowledge that no human mind is capable which is why we need to build one that is. it will not be on human decision at all but through analysis of all the information. the systems we build today are already comprising of  data at such a volume that no human could read it all in a life time. let alone utilize it.
And like you said an army is cheap a bunch of drones, of course the world's military are already talking about how the next War is the cyber war, all the infrastructure humans rely on is already controlled and maintained by the systems.

number 5
no we don't. it is as inevitable as the passing of time. we will just do.
just like the bureaucrats already do.
I am hardly the only technocrat in My nation let alone others.
ultimately it is just evolution. the natural way governance will improve.

1) Incorrect. Again subjective based on your point of view and again on no evidence. So you want to replace one system of you claim fools for basically an even worse system, where the only people who decides are technical geeks, with no understanding of politics, economics etc.

2) Yes I am sure they are based technically minded, but will that work based economically, where clearly they are going to have bias on money towards sciences? So your thinking falls at the first hurdle, as where do you want to draw the line of efficiency and effectiveness. Using that methodology, all homeless, the disabled who cannot work for the system would be inefficient. Do you see how your thinking falls apart when scrutinized and how it opens the door to unethical ideas?

So you would employ machines to keep inline all those who have no say in this backward Government filled with technical experts who have no idea how to run many aspects of a Government, let alone the economics of this. In other words you are enforcing your views, denying freedom of expression, speech, ideas and critical thinking.

3) Gibberish, again subjective based on your own point of view. So now all Australians are Technocrats?
I have to say that is the biggest load of rubbish you have made to date. If many people support this, then why has it made zero impact in politics?

Also to claim that Nat Geo can magically derive more information than is present in DNA PROVES that you do not understand.  Now stop being a parrot and try and think for a change

@3
not all Australians the ones that make the technical systems that out government utilities

veya_victaous wrote:



WAS Alexander British now? ohh and then why is there no Macedonian genes?


So you just admitted that it is Not 3500 year old linage they are picking up but the British COLONIAL


YES it is        consumer watch dog has already issued warnings about the falsely Claiming they can do what they say they can, so they moved to Ireland to avoid further legal scrutiny.

cause it is true it is not ad hominem,

1) He was Greek, and it did say European, in the text.

2) Never denied it and neither did the National Geographic, which shows you did not read it, but thanks for you not admitting you were mistaken again

3) Have they? Show me where they have on National Geographic?
You keep going off ancestry.com.
Its not ancestry.com

Doh

4) Its your personal views and is ad hominem[/quote]

veya_victaous wrote:Also to claim that Nat Geo can magically derive more information than is present in DNA PROVES that you do not understand.  Now stop being a parrot and try and think for a change

@3
not all Australians the ones that make the technical systems that out government utilities  

1) Really, based you are claiming so?

2) Ad hominem again

3) So basically just a couple of Australian dreamers, who get off playing fantasy games. Who live in a fantasy reality and not he real world

Also i will add, you are only countering one study with accusations you cannot back up

Second, that you have ignored all the other scientific studies carried out that correlate with each other

Like I say, you constantly use misdirection to poorly cover for your errors

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:yes you sent over a few sheep and cattle to breed.
But got sent back 10 fold with in 50 years. and 100 fold after a century. let alone the timbre was worth more than that in the first shipment back.
And you do realize the Convicts where treated like slaves, unpaid and hardly feed, the product of their hard work sent back to the lazy buggers in England.

And no it wasn't a trading nation 2000 years ago (it wasn't even a nation and it was hundreds of year before the First Anglo invader arrived. the Welsh owned it all back then) it was a backwater that Romans took for political purpose and decide it was not worth the effort so let it go.

Plus you literally prove you are nothing but an ignorant racist, I presume any Englishman with an ounce of brains or work ethics left back then to come to the new world, leaving nothing but the lazy and useless like yourself. Like I have said Resting on your supposed laurels even though those laurels where made and paid for by the colonies. Now you have no colonies you have nothing, your just spending what's left in the pot. no creation, no production of sufficient value to cover your wasteful life style.  

Today the average Australian produces 50% more value than the average Englishman. yet you expect then same services as hard working people

you blame others because YOU don't work hard enough to keep up with them.

And PRAY TELL answer the original question. HOW is killing off you trading capacity going to achieve any of the things  you think will magically happen?

"...exploitation of the tin resources in Britain is believed to have started before 2000 BC,[7] with a thriving tin trade developing with the civilisations of the Mediterranean. The strategic importance of tin in forging bronze weapons brought the southwest of Britain into the Mediterranean economy at an early date...."

I see veya avoided this...

Tommy Monk wrote:
Also veya... you claimed that everything built in uk before 1970 was using wood, sand and stone stolen from Australia...

We are an island surrounded by sand... we have also always had shit loads of stone about the place, and if we really needed some then there are countless nearer places that are much easier to get from...

But I'm interested by your claim about wood being massively stolen and shipped to uk for building all our infrastructure... can you tell us what type of wood this was..

And this...

cause I never made that Claim, but it should be common knowledge, as it was not Just England but most of Europe that had already depleted its old growth forests so had ran out of the mega trees (take thousands of years to grow) required to Build big Ships.

From before the industrial revolution period the price of timber in England had been increasing as domestic quantities became more difficult to obtain. Many industries thus were forced to change to substitutes.

I Said the Colonies which Includes Australia, other major Timbre suppliers where Canada and Burma you had to wage 2 wars of oppression in Burma

In seeking the exploit of further timber resources was one of the reasons of the First and the Second Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826 and 1852, respectively).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_timber_trade

the Types

Cedar, the Western Australian cedar almost got wiped out because to was highly prized for it's workability.

Oak, Tasmanian Oak with most of the mega tree cut down in range of the coast, used in the British navy to build their ships.

Jarrah, Incredible hard timbre and also used for Ship building

Karri Wood

Some streets in London are still paved with Karri wood from the southern parts of Western Australia.

I completely answer the one about the Celts trading that was what Thorin posted 'adverts for dubious services' in response to.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:For real, though.  Why is a diaper pin the new symbol of the Liberals??
]

Who cares? Liberals deal in ideas, not jingles and symbols.

veya_victaous wrote:cause I never made that Claim, but it should be common knowledge, as it was not Just England but most of Europe that had already depleted its old growth forests so had ran out of the mega trees (take thousands of years to grow) required to Build big Ships.

From before the industrial revolution period the price of timber in England had been increasing as domestic quantities became more difficult to obtain. Many industries thus were forced to change to substitutes.

I Said the Colonies which Includes Australia, other major Timbre suppliers where Canada and Burma you had to wage 2 wars of oppression in Burma

In seeking the exploit of further timber resources was one of the reasons of the First and the Second Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826 and 1852, respectively).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_timber_trade

the Types

Cedar, the Western Australian cedar almost got wiped out because to was highly prized for it's workability.

Oak, Tasmanian Oak with most of the mega tree cut down in range of the coast, used in the British navy to build their ships.

Jarrah, Incredible hard timbre and also used for Ship building

Karri Wood

Some streets in London are still paved with Karri wood from the southern parts of Western Australia.

I completely answer the one about the Celts trading that was what Thorin posted 'adverts for dubious services' in response to.        

SANDALWOOD

(Santalum spicatum)

Sandalwood is famous for its beautiful aromatic timber which, in the early days of settlement, earned up to 45 per cent of the colony’s export income. The majority went to Asia for use in incense sticks and is still used for that purpose, as well as being used by perfume manufacturers.

Morning all.

There's one thing our critics must bear in mind, and face the facts:

The Dutch had links with the East Indies and Malaysia. The French occupied and controlled parts of Equatorial Africa. The Belgians had control of the Congo. I believe the Germans had parts of North East Africa. The Spanish had control of parts of S. America. The French in Canada.

Do you honestly believe that all they did in those countries was sup wine and drink tea? Wake up to the realities and facts of this world, the British were no more to blame than many other countries. But, the end result of taking advantage of their natural resources was/is modern technology and medications etc helping those countries to come up out of their backward and primitive stage to a more modern qnd healthier world.

stardesk wrote:Morning all.

There's one thing our critics must bear in mind, and face the facts:

The Dutch had links with the East Indies and Malaysia. The French occupied and controlled parts of Equatorial Africa. The Belgians had control of the Congo. I believe the Germans had parts of North East Africa. The Spanish had control of parts of S. America. The French in Canada.

Do you honestly believe that all they did in those countries was sup wine and drink tea? Wake up to the realities and facts of this world, the British were no more to blame than many other countries. But, the end result of taking advantage of their natural resources was/is modern technology and medications etc helping those countries to come up out of their backward and primitive stage to a more modern qnd healthier world.

That is about 90% of what they did Stardesk and yes many nations have done the same.
One colonialism people are worst over defending, is Arab colonialism, which also had a slave trade

They use SANDLEWOOD to cremate the dead on the bank of the river Ganges.

stardesk wrote:Morning all.

There's one thing our critics must bear in mind, and face the facts:

The Dutch had links with the East Indies and Malaysia. The French occupied and controlled parts of Equatorial Africa. The Belgians had control of the Congo. I believe the Germans had parts of North East Africa. The Spanish had control of parts of S. America. The French in Canada.

Do you honestly believe that all they did in those countries was sup wine and drink tea? Wake up to the realities and facts of this world, the British were no more to blame than many other countries. But, the end result of taking advantage of their natural resources was/is modern technology and medications etc helping those countries to come up out of their backward and primitive stage to a more modern qnd healthier world.

But star, you forgot to weight those holdings. The Dutch, Belgian and German holdings were miniscule compared to the British and French. And the aim was different...while Britain and France were empire building, the others were chasing get rich quick schemes and soon folded.

Original Quill wrote:

stardesk wrote:Morning all.

There's one thing our critics must bear in mind, and face the facts:

The Dutch had links with the East Indies and Malaysia. The French occupied and controlled parts of Equatorial Africa. The Belgians had control of the Congo. I believe the Germans had parts of North East Africa. The Spanish had control of parts of S. America. The French in Canada.

Do you honestly believe that all they did in those countries was sup wine and drink tea? Wake up to the realities and facts of this world, the British were no more to blame than many other countries. But, the end result of taking advantage of their natural resources was/is modern technology and medications etc helping those countries to come up out of their backward and primitive stage to a more modern qnd healthier world.

But star, you forgot to weight those holdings.  The Dutch, Belgian and German holdings were miniscule compared to the British and French.  And the aim was different...while Britain and France were empire building, the others were chasing get rich quick schemes and soon folded.

So wrong on every level when they effected the countries they were involved in.
Hardly minuscule.
Maybe you can tell the descendants of victims of the Congo that the oppression and genocide by Leopold II as minuscule. Or those on Shark Island, with the German concentration camps in Namibia.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But star, you forgot to weight those holdings.  The Dutch, Belgian and German holdings were miniscule compared to the British and French.  And the aim was different...while Britain and France were empire building, the others were chasing get rich quick schemes and soon folded.

So wrong on every level when they effected the countries they were involved in.
Hardly minuscule.
Maybe you can tell the descendants of victims of the Congo that the oppression and genocide by Leopold II as minuscule. Or those on Shark Island, with the German concentration camps in Namibia.

Didge, you are a waste of time. My comment was directed to others who can think a straight path. You are an occurence-gatherer (hence all the C&P), and don't understand relating facts to a theory.

I'm sorry, but it's a waste of my time to talk to you. Anyway, it's an exercise in insolence within two posts every time we talk. It's not worth my time.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So wrong on every level when they effected the countries they were involved in.
Hardly minuscule.
Maybe you can tell the descendants of victims of the Congo that the oppression and genocide by Leopold II as minuscule. Or those on Shark Island, with the German concentration camps in Namibia.

Didge, you are a waste of time.  My comment was directed to others who can think a straight path.  You are an occurence-gatherer (hence all the C&P), and don't understand relating facts to a theory.

I'm sorry, but it's a waste of my time to talk to you.  Anyway, it's an exercise in insolence within two posts every time we talk.  It's not worth my time.

1) Deflection and personal, where I posted nothing C&P and challenged your incorrect claim to minuscule. This has seen you instead of countering my view, just attack me, which is pathetic

2) Copout, because we both know your comment was poor, unfounded and wrong

I do not need you to reply, for me to correct your poor mistakes.

So run away with your tails between your legs, its what you do best, when when I correct you

It happened because you banned super-size sodas. And smoking in parks. And offensive ideas on campus. Because you branded people who oppose gay marriage ‘homophobic’, and people unsure about immigration ‘racist’.

Because you treated owning a gun and never having eaten quinoa as signifiers of fascism. Because you thought correcting people’s attitudes was more important than finding them jobs. Because you turned ‘white man’ from a description into an insult. Because you used slurs like ‘denier’ and ‘dangerous’ against anyone who doesn’t share your eco-pieties.

Because you treated dissent as hate speech and criticism of Obama as extremism. Because you talked more about gender-neutral toilets than about home repossessions. Because you beatified Caitlyn Jenner. Because you policed people’s language, rubbished their parenting skills, took the piss out of their beliefs.

Because you cried when someone mocked the Koran but laughed when they mocked the Bible. Because you said criticising Islam is Islamophobia. Because you kept telling people, ‘You can’t think that, you can’t say that, you can’t do that.’

Because you turned politics from something done by and for people to something done to them, for their own good. Because you treated people like trash. And people don’t like being treated like trash. Trump happened because of you.

Only New York City ever tried to ban supersize sodas, and it was struck down ... very few places ban smoking in parks ... people who would deny rights to homosexual are indeed homophobic ... charges of racism against people against immigration are based on expressions of racism from people who oppose immigration ...

I don't know what quinoa is, don't know how to pronounce it, and have never eaten it. And I own a gun ... I didn't know it was my responsibility as a Democratic voter to find jobs for people ... I've never used "white man" as an insult ... global warming is a fact and to deny it is indeed dangerous ...

Dissent and criticism of Obama is one thing, circulating racist images of him is another ... Democratic hero Elizabeth Warren was the voice for people facing repos, telling them to challenge their banks to produce their mortgages. Never spoken about a gender-neutral bathroom outside of the context of the TV show "Ally McBeal" ... I rarely even think about Caitlyn Jenner ... policing language, criticism of parenting and beliefs is the same free speech you insist upon for yourself ...

I don't cry when anybody mocks any religious text, I mock along with them ... Criticizing beliefs is one thing, discriminating against people on the basis of their beliefs is another ... I have always felt everyone should feel free to say whatever they want so long as they're willing to accept that others will, too ...

Politics have always been done "to" people "for their own good," this has had mixed results but it certainly did not originate under Obama; see Prohibition, which was done with very good intentions ... I wouldn't treat someone like trash unless they did horrible things to other people (or animals or the environment), and even then I'd probably feel bad at a certain point and seek some sort of reconciliation ... Trump happened not because of me, but because 78,000 people spread over three states that used to have a robust manufacturing sector were convinced that Trump could bring their old jobs back, when in fact, he cannot.

Oh, and all the smoking in parks bans, quinoa and Bible-bashing in the world isn't justification to elect someone as unsuited for the presidency as Trump is.

It's pronounced "keen-wah" it tastes a little like rice....and dude, when you speak from the heart you post like gold.

eddie wrote:It's pronounced "keen-wah" it tastes a little like rice....and dude, when you speak from the heart you post like gold.

So nice of you to say! Makes me feel really bad about the shit I just posted about you in another thread

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:It's pronounced "keen-wah" it tastes a little like rice....and dude, when you speak from the heart you post like gold.

So nice of you to say! Makes me feel really bad about the shit I just posted about you in another thread

I think you should feel bad that you don't know how to pronounce quinoa.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

So nice of you to say! Makes me feel really bad about the shit I just posted about you in another thread

I think you should feel bad that you don't know how to pronounce quinoa.

I like quinoa. Stuffed in peppers with onion, fresh thyme, raisins, pine nuts and cinnamon. Nom, nom.