I'll post an Albanian or a Jew and you have to choose?
I'll make it even easier. Jew or NON jew.
If you like. But you are arguing over nothing. You seem to be implying that because jews are so varied in their appearance then that somehow negates Israel. I've heard it all before, and I try not to get into those arguments any more. They are pointless. The fact is that Hoffman and Cohen ARE jews. Muhammad Ali doesn't look much like this guy either.
muslim.jpg
I have looked into it a bit more and it seems the 'khazar' nonsense has been well and truly debunked through DNA testing.
No it has not. Jews have vested interests to validate their claim to Palestine. and the mDNA testing is circular. In any event, Koestler make it quite clear and argues very well that such claims to attribute the ownership of land based on claims over two thousand years are absurd.
You are right Mohammed Ali never looked like this guy, but he did not claim ownership of Meccah as far as I can tell.
And in fact you make my arguement for me. Neither "jew", or "muslim, or "Israeli" are genetic categories.
Greta wrote:
Not at all true, Hobbes. People have switched sex roles from the dawn of humanity, just that there were no surgical means to do so until the modern age. Do you think that sex change surgery emerged without a long history of resistance? If medicos could have found a way to cure trannies and gays in those conservative times, they would have done. Conversion therapies are proven failures, time and again.
I saw a doco on a trans conversion facility some years ago. Their touted "big success" stopped prostituting him/herself, found God, got married and seemed happy. A few of years later, in deep depression, the former transperson died. In their final interview, this poor messed up human being who only wanted to be authentic but was not allowed to do so by society, and said in the final interview, "I would have rather have been a woman" after years of furious denial of his/her past.
If transpeople can't have the surgery then many will do more of what they did before it was possible to change over - suicide. Or they will be discriminated against harshly because their queerness is so transparent. The surgery is basically an alternative to suicide for those who feel disallowed by society to behave authentically. Of course, if society had a more mature attitude towards gender then such surgery might not be needed. Given the west's reversion to autocratic right wingers, it seems that sex change surgery will be essential for some individuals for many years to come.
Greta, I love you. If only more understood like you do.
For myself, it's the secondary sex characteristics I seek to revert, through HRT and complete hair removal. I'm not certain regarding vaginoplasty (SRS) for myself, but I probably will have an orchiectomy so that the HRT will have a greater effect, without the need for antiandrogen drugs.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful posts. I don't always respond, but I do read them, and they help.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Rubbish.
DO you want to take challenge.
I'll post an Albanian or a Jew and you have to choose?
I'll make it even easier. Jew or NON jew.
If you like. But you are arguing over nothing. You seem to be implying that because jews are so varied in their appearance then that somehow negates Israel. I've heard it all before, and I try not to get into those arguments any more. They are pointless. The fact is that Hoffman and Cohen ARE jews. Muhammad Ali doesn't look much like this guy either.
muslim.jpg
I have looked into it a bit more and it seems the 'khazar' nonsense has been well and truly debunked through DNA testing.
No it has not. Jews have vested interests to validate their claim to Palestine. and the mDNA testing is circular. In any event, Koestler make it quite clear and argues very well that such claims to attribute the ownership of land based on claims over two thousand years are absurd.
You are right Mohammed Ali never looked like this guy, but he did not claim ownership of Meccah as far as I can tell.
And in fact you make my arguement for me. Neither "jew", or "muslim, or "Israeli" are genetic categories.
That was facetious on my part, but I've learnt that hardly anyone on here has a sense of humour. That 'khazar' claim is crap and I'm amazed that you buy into it. People don't have to love Israel, but they have no right to make up stupid lies to back themselves up. Countries come into existence for all kinds of reasons. Why do you choose to believe this Koestler, with his complete lack of evidence? What do you mean by 'circular' DNA testing? You don't seem to have any facts to back up your claims. I've already told you that arguing about this is pointless, unless you are going to be completely objective. If Dustin Hoffman didn't get his looks from his genes, where did he get them from? And if judaism is passed down the mother's line, then of course there is going to be genetic variation. The fathers don't have to be jewish.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
If you like. But you are arguing over nothing. You seem to be implying that because jews are so varied in their appearance then that somehow negates Israel. I've heard it all before, and I try not to get into those arguments any more. They are pointless. The fact is that Hoffman and Cohen ARE jews. Muhammad Ali doesn't look much like this guy either.
muslim.jpg
I have looked into it a bit more and it seems the 'khazar' nonsense has been well and truly debunked through DNA testing.
No it has not. Jews have vested interests to validate their claim to Palestine. and the mDNA testing is circular. In any event, Koestler make it quite clear and argues very well that such claims to attribute the ownership of land based on claims over two thousand years are absurd.
You are right Mohammed Ali never looked like this guy, but he did not claim ownership of Meccah as far as I can tell.
And in fact you make my arguement for me. Neither "jew", or "muslim, or "Israeli" are genetic categories.
That was facetious on my part, but I've learnt that hardly anyone on here has a sense of humour. That 'khazar' claim is crap and I'm amazed that you buy into it.
Says someone that has only read the zionist counter argument, but not ever opened the book in question.
People don't have to love Israel, but they have no right to make up stupid lies to back themselves up. Countries come into existence for all kinds of reasons.
Name ONE!
Why do you choose to believe this Koestler, with his complete lack of evidence? What do you mean by 'circular' DNA testing? You don't seem to have any facts to back up your claims. I've already told you that arguing about this is pointless, unless you are going to be completely objective. If Dustin Hoffman didn't get his looks from his genes, where did he get them from? And if judaism is passed down the mother's line, then of course there is going to be genetic variation. The fathers don't have to be jewish.
If genetic inheritance had EVER been a reason for a claim to nationhood, then Wales would have to be in control of the UK; North American Indians would have to be in control of the entire Americas; and even then according to their own history the Jews would have to go back to the Egyptian desert. But guess what. Jewish scholars refute Exodus conveniently.
I don't give a rat's arse if you think Leonard Cohen looks like Dustin Hoffman, when you ignore thousands of other 'jews' that look nothing like them.
We are all humans and the same race; the human race. Genes are not nations. Culture is not a genetic phenomenon.
uwot wrote:
It's a bit of a giveaway when the religious insist that scientific theories, the big bang and evolution in particular, are based on faith. I can't help thinking that in terms of brain circuitry it is either religion, or irony; it is rare to find both in an individual, as the claim that science is undermined because it requires faith doesn't appear to trouble the religious.
Are you claiming this of all the religious, or just the ones that you have encountered?
Just the ones who say it. I have nothing against people who believe in god. It is a viable hypothesis and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with believing that science is the business of understanding god's method. The problem I have is with the narcissists who are convinced they are made in their god's image, and therefore believe it is their mission to inflict their ghastly personality on the rest of us.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
No it has not. Jews have vested interests to validate their claim to Palestine. and the mDNA testing is circular. In any event, Koestler make it quite clear and argues very well that such claims to attribute the ownership of land based on claims over two thousand years are absurd.
You are right Mohammed Ali never looked like this guy, but he did not claim ownership of Meccah as far as I can tell.
And in fact you make my arguement for me. Neither "jew", or "muslim, or "Israeli" are genetic categories.
That was facetious on my part, but I've learnt that hardly anyone on here has a sense of humour. That 'khazar' claim is crap and I'm amazed that you buy into it.
Says someone that has only read the zionist counter argument, but not ever opened the book in question.
People don't have to love Israel, but they have no right to make up stupid lies to back themselves up. Countries come into existence for all kinds of reasons.
Name ONE!
Why do you choose to believe this Koestler, with his complete lack of evidence? What do you mean by 'circular' DNA testing? You don't seem to have any facts to back up your claims. I've already told you that arguing about this is pointless, unless you are going to be completely objective. If Dustin Hoffman didn't get his looks from his genes, where did he get them from? And if judaism is passed down the mother's line, then of course there is going to be genetic variation. The fathers don't have to be jewish.
If genetic inheritance had EVER been a reason for a claim to nationhood, then Wales would have to be in control of the UK; North American Indians would have to be in control of the entire Americas; and even then according to their own history the Jews would have to go back to the Egyptian desert. But guess what. Jewish scholars refute Exodus conveniently.
I don't give a rat's arse if you think Leonard Cohen looks like Dustin Hoffman, when you ignore thousands of other 'jews' that look nothing like them.
We are all humans and the same race; the human race. Genes are not nations. Culture is not a genetic phenomenon.
I really don't give a rat's arse, but when I see someone talking conspiracytard shit I will point it out. And yes, conspiracytards love the khazar 'theory'. How would you know what I've read? At least I don't use pseudoscience and only dig out literature that's going to support (an extremely biased) position. Did I mention race? And you are stating as fact things you know nothing about and that are still in question scientifically. This is what I mean about these arguments. They get nowhere. You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about Israel, and nothing is going to change that.
Countries generally come into existence because the stronger side wins, and that is EXACTLY what happened with Israel! And you should go and ask those Jordanian landowners why they sold their land to zionists. What does it serve to rehash this stuff over and over again? Strange that your side always moans when the Holocaust is mentioned, yet continually harks back to '8th century khazars'. The country is there, in existence, now. What do you think should be done about that? Should Israelis all migrate to Iran? Do you know of a country that wants to take that many people?
Actually your friend Al Husseini destroyed any hope of a peaceful solution.
It's also staggeringly ironic that Koestler wrote his absurd book naively thinking it would end persecution of jews, but it ended up doing the exact opposite.
Funny that you would say I only read zionist literature. Actually I rarely read either side. My views come from a lifetime of observation, general knowledge, and historical fact (as opposed to historical fiction).
Both sides are fanatics, and it's impossible to reason with a fanatic. The most reasonable ones seem to be the ordinary Israelis. It's the ones who claim to speak for those most involved who are the ones to worry about.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
That was facetious on my part, but I've learnt that hardly anyone on here has a sense of humour. That 'khazar' claim is crap and I'm amazed that you buy into it.
Says someone that has only read the zionist counter argument, but not ever opened the book in question.
People don't have to love Israel, but they have no right to make up stupid lies to back themselves up. Countries come into existence for all kinds of reasons.
Name ONE!
Why do you choose to believe this Koestler, with his complete lack of evidence? What do you mean by 'circular' DNA testing? You don't seem to have any facts to back up your claims. I've already told you that arguing about this is pointless, unless you are going to be completely objective. If Dustin Hoffman didn't get his looks from his genes, where did he get them from? And if judaism is passed down the mother's line, then of course there is going to be genetic variation. The fathers don't have to be jewish.
If genetic inheritance had EVER been a reason for a claim to nationhood, then Wales would have to be in control of the UK; North American Indians would have to be in control of the entire Americas; and even then according to their own history the Jews would have to go back to the Egyptian desert. But guess what. Jewish scholars refute Exodus conveniently.
I don't give a rat's arse if you think Leonard Cohen looks like Dustin Hoffman, when you ignore thousands of other 'jews' that look nothing like them.
We are all humans and the same race; the human race. Genes are not nations. Culture is not a genetic phenomenon.
I really don't give a rat's arse, but when I see someone talking conspiracytard shit I will point it out. And yes, conspiracytards love the khazar 'theory'. How would you know what I've read? At least I don't use pseudoscience and only dig out literature that's going to support (an extremely biased) position. Did I mention race? And you are stating as fact things you know nothing about and that are still in question scientifically. This is what I mean about these arguments. They get nowhere. You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about Israel, and nothing is going to change that.
Countries generally come into existence because the stronger side wins, and that is EXACTLY what happened with Israel! And you should go and ask those Jordanian landowners why they sold their land to zionists. What does it serve to rehash this stuff over and over again? Strange that your side always moans when the Holocaust is mentioned, yet continually harks back to '8th century khazars'. The country is there, in existence, now. What do you think should be done about that? Should Israelis all migrate to Iran? Do you know of a country that wants to take that many people?
Actually your friend Al Husseini destroyed any hope of a peaceful solution.
It's also staggeringly ironic that Koestler wrote his absurd book naively thinking it would end persecution of jews, but it ended up doing the exact opposite.
Funny that you would say I only read zionist literature. Actually I rarely read either side. My views come from a lifetime of observation, general knowledge, and historical fact (as opposed to historical fiction).
Both sides are fanatics, and it's impossible to reason with a fanatic.
There is a very good reason Koerstler wrote that book. The formation of Israel is utterly unprecedented, ugly and has plunged the world into conflict since 1948 with no sign of a let up, it has disenfranchised and killed million and shall continue to do so, used as it is as a satellite of the USA to continue to disrupt and destabilise the Middle East.
It does not matter if the book is factual or not; it does have many truths. There is not doubt that many modern Jews are descended from Khasaris. What is does bring up is a situation where people might ask what is the basis of ZIonism.
By any measure it is absurd.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I really don't give a rat's arse, but when I see someone talking conspiracytard shit I will point it out. And yes, conspiracytards love the khazar 'theory'. How would you know what I've read? At least I don't use pseudoscience and only dig out literature that's going to support (an extremely biased) position. Did I mention race? And you are stating as fact things you know nothing about and that are still in question scientifically. This is what I mean about these arguments. They get nowhere. You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about Israel, and nothing is going to change that.
Countries generally come into existence because the stronger side wins, and that is EXACTLY what happened with Israel! And you should go and ask those Jordanian landowners why they sold their land to zionists. What does it serve to rehash this stuff over and over again? Strange that your side always moans when the Holocaust is mentioned, yet continually harks back to '8th century khazars'. The country is there, in existence, now. What do you think should be done about that? Should Israelis all migrate to Iran? Do you know of a country that wants to take that many people?
Actually your friend Al Husseini destroyed any hope of a peaceful solution.
It's also staggeringly ironic that Koestler wrote his absurd book naively thinking it would end persecution of jews, but it ended up doing the exact opposite.
Funny that you would say I only read zionist literature. Actually I rarely read either side. My views come from a lifetime of observation, general knowledge, and historical fact (as opposed to historical fiction).
Both sides are fanatics, and it's impossible to reason with a fanatic.
There is a very good reason Koerstler wrote that book. The formation of Israel is utterly unprecedented, ugly and has plunged the world into conflict since 1948 with no sign of a let up, it has disenfranchised and killed million and shall continue to do so, used as it is as a satellite of the USA to continue to disrupt and destabilise the Middle East.
It does not matter if the book is factual or not; it does have many truths. There is not doubt that many modern Jews are descended from Khasaris. What is does bring up is a situation where people might ask what is the basis of ZIonism.
By any measure it is absurd.
You haven't answered a single question.
I was following your lead.
I asked you to name a nation that was made this way; there is none.
This was easy since none of your questions were on topic.
As for what we do about Israel, stop supporting them until they respect human rights and comply with UN resolutions concerning the occupied territories and their responsibility as a member of the western family of nations, and stop acting like tin-pot dictatorship.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
There is a very good reason Koerstler wrote that book. The formation of Israel is utterly unprecedented, ugly and has plunged the world into conflict since 1948 with no sign of a let up, it has disenfranchised and killed million and shall continue to do so, used as it is as a satellite of the USA to continue to disrupt and destabilise the Middle East.
It does not matter if the book is factual or not; it does have many truths. There is not doubt that many modern Jews are descended from Khasaris. What is does bring up is a situation where people might ask what is the basis of ZIonism.
By any measure it is absurd.
You haven't answered a single question.
I was following your lead.
I asked you to name a nation that was made this way; there is none.
This was easy since none of your questions were on topic.
As for what we do about Israel, stop supporting them until they respect human rights and comply with UN resolutions concerning the occupied territories and their responsibility as a member of the western family of nations, and stop acting like tin-pot dictatorship.
A lot depends on who is in power there at any given time. The present PM is very right wing I think. There are no nations that have been made because one side was stronger than the other? That's news to me. And name any Govt. that gets it right all the time. The US is the biggest shit-stirrer in the ME and you know it. It's been in cahoots with GB to destroy the ME for what seems like an eternity.
I've always found curious the categories in porn. Like categories in films, they are separated because of what people are searching for, and porn consumers are usually males, so the categories can be "blond, asian, fat, young..." or the things they are doing (lesbian, masturnation,... how is that said, by the ass? XD...) there is not a categorie for "blue eyes" cause that doesn't get enough people seeking for it (like it isn't a categorie for very tall or very small, things like that). So, even though people don't look for the same in a mate than in an image o masturbate (or whatever they do with porn XD), I guess it can be said that, just by knowing how many people visit those pages wich each video having many millions of visits (some of them more of the population of a big country, and there are probably millions of videos too), it can show some things that are common in sexuality.
Well. The thing is, there is a categorie for what in videos is called "shemale" (men operated to have the appearance of a woman, with tits etc, but they have a penis), but there is not a categorie for "short woman", there is a categorie for "bdsm" but there is not a categorie for "smelling flowers".
Ok, men are usually sexualy frustrated, and frustration can lead to strange things in psichology, people usually use their sexuality as a weapon too etc, sexuality is related with love, and that's usually related with suffering...I guess there are not many men who would see porn if they could be for a moment with a woman forgetting she is a human and with no consequences. And many men who don't want to admit that they like men to themselves may see that (there is a gay categorie too of course). But I still find curious all of that.
Yeah yeah, women see porn too, I already know that, but evidently most of viewers are men (or most of women in planet earth are secretly lesbians XD)
Sexuality is one of the things where people, no matter what they say, tend to have a "clear" opinion. No matter if they say that being "straight" is what they are an is correct, or say that being "gay" is as genetic as the other one, or seeing what exact proportions do we like, or... this fucking sadly hilarous thread XD. I mean, how many people want to chane their sex? What is the percentage? absolutely small. But there is a tread about this, there isn't a tread about tobbaco.
For me, just the idea of having the thought, the idea, or maybe the image of something exact in my head, something more than a smell or an action, a figure or something like that... I don't believe it. I mean, ok, suppose you like women (or men) with a figure. Evidently that's going to be an aproximation, you can't have an exact image in your mind even before seeing, we don't have it either for food, etc. But we have the insctinct of eating and what we learn, and yeah, we have "something". How did you get to like some things in the food and not others? do you really belive that you can grab your DNA and there you are going to find a "this guy won't like tomatoes" there? Nah, it's a combination and the feeling and taste will touch some receptors etc... and in the end, you probably won't like to smell death animals. Well, what are the visual differences between men and women? genitals, tits, muscles, size and hair. We can't see genitals. What is the percentage of liking big tits or big muscles? it's not so big I think, and it's certeanly not a "necesary thing to be attractive", size... whatever, there are people of every size in every part of the world, the same, and hair... ok, I have a beard, but... c'mon, it's the same. So, what's left? yeah, there are more few more common things. And we are different in mind too, ok. In the end, I haven't met any person who liked to be with just one kind of body. We learn what we like in sex, for sex, or for mate, like we learn what we like in food: eating, thinking, or friends: knowing people. Cheesus, just look at traditions, single mates, harems, etc... so different, and people seem to think that they are the "natural"... who cares about what is "natural"? the word natural is put after people doing it. Do you know what is more natural than men liking women who smell flowers? Shemales.
Just live and let live. What other people do with their genitals is not of my business. Or what they do with their life, or their dead, I don't even know them! We are not equal! why would I stop a suicide if he wnats to die because of a lot of pain? We don't suffer because of the same things just like we don't enjoy the same things. I may know that person and know that the person is wrong, or not. In the end, the generalization is absurd, nobody is gong to look for suicides to make them do what he wants them to do (and that would be pretty creep). Smoke your fucking expensive cigarette if you want. I can't stop idiots for causing harm to others, I can't stop soldiers for going to war... and people start a fucking topic about how "ethic" is to say a man or a woman what to do with ther genitals.
Greta wrote:
Not at all true, Hobbes. People have switched sex roles from the dawn of humanity, just that there were no surgical means to do so until the modern age. Do you think that sex change surgery emerged without a long history of resistance? If medicos could have found a way to cure trannies and gays in those conservative times, they would have done. Conversion therapies are proven failures, time and again.
I saw a doco on a trans conversion facility some years ago. Their touted "big success" stopped prostituting him/herself, found God, got married and seemed happy. A few of years later, in deep depression, the former transperson died. In their final interview, this poor messed up human being who only wanted to be authentic but was not allowed to do so by society, and said in the final interview, "I would have rather have been a woman" after years of furious denial of his/her past.
If transpeople can't have the surgery then many will do more of what they did before it was possible to change over - suicide. Or they will be discriminated against harshly because their queerness is so transparent. The surgery is basically an alternative to suicide for those who feel disallowed by society to behave authentically. Of course, if society had a more mature attitude towards gender then such surgery might not be needed. Given the west's reversion to autocratic right wingers, it seems that sex change surgery will be essential for some individuals for many years to come.
Greta, I love you. If only more understood like you do.
For myself, it's the secondary sex characteristics I seek to revert, through HRT and complete hair removal. I'm not certain regarding vaginoplasty (SRS) for myself, but I probably will have an orchiectomy so that the HRT will have a greater effect, without the need for antiandrogen drugs.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful posts. I don't always respond, but I do read them, and they help.
Aw shucks, Dalek, don't - it feels weird when people are nice to me :lol:
You are looking for different way to relate to the world and appearance deeply affects those relationships. Since retiring I have basically lived in old t-shirts and daggy sort. It's quite extraordinary how differently certain people behave towards you. In that sense, I feel like a scumbag detector - anyone who turns their nose up at me can safely be assumed to be a superficial child in an adult's body. Unless you look spot on from the get go, when you are out and about you too will be a walking, talking scumbag detector :)
You simply won't find more reputable sources.