They are welcome to their boycott. It would be a great advantage to the civilized world.
A Jewish Boycott
Some time ago, Iran 's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.
In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:
"Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.
“A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.
Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.
If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.
Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.
Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.
Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick” reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.
“Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.
They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.
“Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.
Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.
“In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott.”
Oh, and by the way, don’t call for a doctor on your cell phone because the cell phone was invented in Israel by a Jewish engineer.
Meanwhile I ask, what medical contributions to the world have the Muslims made?”
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world’s population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
Economics:
(zero)
Physics:
(zero)
Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 7 SEVEN
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World
Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino
I wonder what happened to the boycott.
It was Steven Weinberg who said,
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
LL
Science gives us things that can be discovered or created using observation and experimentation. The only thing that is required is an atmosphere of curiosity and open sharing of knowledge. It makes no difference what-so-ever the religion of the person or the region. Any number of factors affect the climate of knowledge, and all religions have been known to sometimes have positive affects and sometimes negative.
The scientists and doctors listed here have very little affect on the politics of the region. They neither cause nor prevent the oppression of Muslims through their work. What they do in their free time may be a different story and varies with individual.
Science gives us things that can be discovered or created using observation and experimentation. The only thing that is required is an atmosphere of curiosity and open sharing of knowledge. It makes no difference what-so-ever the religion of the person or the region. Any number of factors affect the climate of knowledge, and all religions have been known to sometimes have positive affects and sometimes negative. The scientists and doctors listed here have very little affect on the politics of the region. They neither cause nor prevent the oppression of Muslims through their work. What they do in their free time may be a different story and varies with individual.That is true in the abstract, but how do you account for the high percentage of Jews who have won Nobel prizes? And these Jews were not from one country or even one part of the world. What's the answer? I'm not Jewish, by the way, so I have no skin in this game. LL
Science gives us things that can be discovered or created using observation and experimentation. The only thing that is required is an atmosphere of curiosity and open sharing of knowledge. It makes no difference what-so-ever the religion of the person or the region. Any number of factors affect the climate of knowledge, and all religions have been known to sometimes have positive affects and sometimes negative. The scientists and doctors listed here have very little affect on the politics of the region. They neither cause nor prevent the oppression of Muslims through their work. What they do in their free time may be a different story and varies with individual.That is true in the abstract, but how do you account for the high percentage of Jews who have won Nobel prizes? And these Jews were not from one country or even one part of the world. What's the answer? I'm not Jewish, by the way, so I have no skin in this game. LLVery briefly, and risking sounding a little bit prejudiced, history. Whatever you think of the Bible, it is a story of a people that revolted against a repressive government and had some ideas about social justice, primitive yes, but it was a long time ago. They are also one of the rare instances of a culture that survived losing their homeland. After that, look at what they were allowed to do. In both the Christian and Muslim worlds, they couldn't be Kings or Caliphates but they could be business owners, bankers and doctors. It's the basic success story of any culture, value learning, nurture your children, fight for your rights, but be prudent about it.
It was Steven Weinberg who said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." LLBINGO
Well, the OP is very rough: while it may show facts, it is the interpretation that matters. Jews were scattered all over the world, but mostly in the western world. So they could profit from all the social and technical progress going on there.
I agree with two of the factors that Lausten mentions: that Jews were not allowed to work in many professions, so if they had the intellectual and emotional capabilities they had to work in certain areas like banking, medicine, and who knows, as a scientist. Their cultural and religious background might have helped there too: a certain positive stance to work and knowledge (Spinoza was grinding lenses…). And of course George would add that the Ashkenazi Jews had some strong genes in favour of intelligence (no idea if this is true but it could be a factor).
Contrast this with the Arabs: living in their own countries with a traditional religion which ‘enlightened period’ was already a while ago, and that were conquered and oppressed by the west. They were catapulted in the modern age, did not naturally grow with and into it. The new social ideas and technologies did not arise from their own culture, they were confronted with them in a very short time. This caused them, for fear of loss of power and identity, to cling to one of the only factors they all shared that did not come from the west, and could unite them: Islam. So they kept their cultural and intellectual life more or less separated from the west.
So is there a joke in Khamenei’s call not to use anything that originates from the Jews? Yes, of course. Is the comparison between the lists of Nobel price winners fair? No, of course not. Even if the lists are facts, joyful presenting them in this way has a racist odour.
Handling the problem with the Moslem world needs to be based on knowledge: of their history, how they think and feel, and how and why we differ from them. Just basing our actions on emotions of fear and anger, be it actions against radical Islam, Islam in general, or religion in general, will not bring us closer to any kind of peaceful solution.
PS
Lois’ OP is obviously a combination of two text pieces that went viral on the internet. The second one, about the Nobel prices, can be found on many fundamentalist christian web sites. For me it is a clear case of a hate campaign.
Excellent post Gdb. Not only were Muslims conquered by Europe via Spain, they were earlier overrun by Mongols in Baghdad. At the same time, they were experiencing some crazy Caliphates and fundamentalist movement was putting pressure on their intelligentsia. (see Al-Gahzali).
Well, the OP is very rough: while it may show facts, it is the interpretation that matters. Jews were scattered all over the world, but mostly in the western world. So they could profit from all the social and technical progress going on there. I agree with two of the factors that Lausten mentions: that Jews were not allowed to work in many professions, so if they had the intellectual and emotional capabilities they had to work in certain areas like banking, medicine, and who knows, as a scientist. Their cultural and religious background might have helped there too: a certain positive stance to work and knowledge (Spinoza was grinding lenses...). And of course George would add that the Ashkenazi Jews had some strong genes in favour of intelligence (no idea if this is true but it could be a factor). Contrast this with the Arabs: living in their own countries with a traditional religion which 'enlightened period' was already a while ago, and that were conquered and oppressed by the west. They were catapulted in the modern age, did not naturally grow with and into it. The new social ideas and technologies did not arise from their own culture, they were confronted with them in a very short time. This caused them, for fear of loss of power and identity, to cling to one of the only factors they all shared that did not come from the west, and could unite them: Islam. So they kept their cultural and intellectual life more or less separated from the west. So is there a joke in Khamenei's call not to use anything that originates from the Jews? Yes, of course. Is the comparison between the lists of Nobel price winners fair? No, of course not. Even if the lists are facts, joyful presenting them in this way has a racist odour. Handling the problem with the Moslem world needs to be based on knowledge: of their history, how they think and feel, and how and why we differ from them. Just basing our actions on emotions of fear and anger, be it actions against radical Islam, Islam in general, or religion in general, will not bring us closer to any kind of peaceful solution. PS Lois' OP is obviously a combination of two text pieces that went viral on the internet. The second one, about the Nobel prices, can be found on many fundamentalist christian web sites. For me it is a clear case of a hate campaign.It's a hate campaign to note that a certain group made more scientific advances than any other? I am disturbed at your definition of a hate campaign. So people should refrain from discovering and inventing things necessary to human life, lest they be accused of executing a hate campaign? Now there's an intelligent analysis. It's people like you who are engaging in a hate campaign. You can't even bring yourself to give credit where credit is due if it means giving credit to a group you hate. You are the worst kind of misanthrope. What advances in science, peace, literature, physics or ecnomics have you been responsible for, pray tell? Lois
It's a hate campaign to note that a certain group made more scientific advances than any other? I am disturbed at your definition of a hate campaign. So people should refrain from discovering and inventing things necessary to human life, lest they be accused of executing a hate campaign? Now there's an intelligent analysis. It's people like you who are engaging in a hate campaign. You can't even bring yourself to give credit where credit is due if it means giving credit to a group you hate. You are the worst kind of misanthrope. What advances in science, peace, literature, physics or ecnomics have you been responsible for, pray tell? LoisSo many levels of wrongness. I'm giving a talk on Oct 5 in Duluth, MN that will cover this very topic. I'll link you to the audio when it's up. The differences are not just "noted", they used in a specific way to make a specific point. Khamenei was wrong to make his statement in the first place, no argument. However, responding to arrogance and isolationism with equal measure is equally wrong and adds to the wrong, making it more wrong. If Jews are in fact better, then show it by being understanding and helping the person who is wrong see their wrong-ness. The Jews are also in the more powerful position, making it doubly their responsibility to act accordingly. Lois, you send this into the stratosphere of logical fallacies when you suggest that Gdb is suggesting Jews stop being so smart because that somehow harms others. It's a just a rant after that, which I will ignore. During the Abassid Dynasty of the early Islam Empire, many contributions to science were made. On wikipedia, and other sources, an Islamic scientist is credited with the first modern implementation of the scientific method with his study of optics. There is no actual "first" in this case, but still, it is the earliest case of a book that has survived in totality, showing the use of first principles, natural cause premises, and peer review. Unfortunately, around the 13th century, just when Europe was getting out of its fundamentalist dark ages, some Islamic theologians decided to start theirs, plus they were being hit from two sides militarily and from bad leadership within. It's my belief that the understanding of how all cultures of the world have contributed to modernization will help to heal the divides that were created in the late Middle Ages. Claims about Jews being better scientists, BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS, is a step in the wrong direction. And, they shoulda cleaned up the list a little too. Henry Kissinger gets a prize for peace, gimmee a break.
Well Lois, Lausten said the most already.
Maybe you can read my posting once again, and see if you really react on what I meant.
Just to be sure: I do not accuse you of racism or doing a hate campaign. Read carefully again if you think that. I know you a little from your rather intense activities here, and I am pretty sure you are not really racist.
To see the list of Nobel price winners is somehow funny on the surface, especially if you contrast them with Khamenei’s appeal to the Muslim world. But if you understand the background then it is already less funny. And if you find these lists so often on Christian fundamentalist websites, then it should be clear that the lists are meant to offend.
Interesting timing for this study to come out]
They are counting patents, so this is a modern analysis of the current climate. If you were going to try to do this with the last 500 years of history, you would have to spend a lot of time determining who really invented things then count that. If you could, I believe the relationship would hold. So when there was a lower degree of “religiosity” we would see Arabian countries producing more and the opposite affect when religion became more central. For Christians it would show less innovation during the dark ages of religious rule and more after the enlightenment. In both cases, the genetic stock would be the same, but the culture would change. Proving this is a matter of culture.
It's a hate campaign to note that a certain group made more scientific advances than any other? I am disturbed at your definition of a hate campaign. So people should refrain from discovering and inventing things necessary to human life, lest they be accused of executing a hate campaign? Now there's an intelligent analysis. It's people like you who are engaging in a hate campaign. You can't even bring yourself to give credit where credit is due if it means giving credit to a group you hate. You are the worst kind of misanthrope. What advances in science, peace, literature, physics or ecnomics have you been responsible for, pray tell? LoisSo many levels of wrongness. I'm giving a talk on Oct 5 in Duluth, MN that will cover this very topic. I'll link you to the audio when it's up. The differences are not just "noted", they used in a specific way to make a specific point. Khamenei was wrong to make his statement in the first place, no argument. However, responding to arrogance and isolationism with equal measure is equally wrong and adds to the wrong, making it more wrong. If Jews are in fact better, then show it by being understanding and helping the person who is wrong see their wrong-ness. The Jews are also in the more powerful position, making it doubly their responsibility to act accordingly. Lois, you send this into the stratosphere of logical fallacies when you suggest that Gdb is suggesting Jews stop being so smart because that somehow harms others. It's a just a rant after that, which I will ignore. During the Abassid Dynasty of the early Islam Empire, many contributions to science were made. On wikipedia, and other sources, an Islamic scientist is credited with the first modern implementation of the scientific method with his study of optics. There is no actual "first" in this case, but still, it is the earliest case of a book that has survived in totality, showing the use of first principles, natural cause premises, and peer review. Unfortunately, around the 13th century, just when Europe was getting out of its fundamentalist dark ages, some Islamic theologians decided to start theirs, plus they were being hit from two sides militarily and from bad leadership within. It's my belief that the understanding of how all cultures of the world have contributed to modernization will help to heal the divides that were created in the late Middle Ages. Claims about Jews being better scientists, BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS, is a step in the wrong direction. And, they shoulda cleaned up the list a little too. Henry Kissinger gets a prize for peace, gimmee a break. Nobody said they received Nobel Prizes because they are Jews (except maybe you). I see no reason not to point out such an anomaly. If you have an argument against it, please present it. Why do you suppose Jews have been so successful in winning Nobel Prizes? I see that when you don't like a simple statistics you criticize the statistics instead of making a reasoned argument. If you have a quibble with the Nobel committee's selection of Kissinger for the Peace Prize, take it up with the committee. Don't blame Kissinger--or anyone else. Lois Lois
Nobody said they received Nobel Prizes because they are Jews (except maybe you). I see no reason not to point out such an anomaly. If you have an argument against it, please present it. Why do you suppose Jews have been so successful in winning Nobel Prizes? I see that when you don't like a simple statistics you criticize the statistics instead of making a reasoned argument. If you have a quibble with the Nobel committee's selection of Kissinger for the Peace Prize, take it up with the committee. Don't blame Kissinger--or anyone else. Lois LoisThen please explain what the hell you meant. I already answered your question about why I think Jews have been successful. Why do you think so? And lots of people quibble over Kissinger, I just happen to agree with them.
Nobody said they received Nobel Prizes because they are Jews (except maybe you). I see no reason not to point out such an anomaly. If you have an argument against it, please present it. Why do you suppose Jews have been so successful in winning Nobel Prizes? I see that when you don't like a simple statistics you criticize the statistics instead of making a reasoned argument. If you have a quibble with the Nobel committee's selection of Kissinger for the Peace Prize, take it up with the committee. Don't blame Kissinger--or anyone else. Lois LoisThen please explain what the hell you meant. I already answered your question about why I think Jews have been successful. Why do you think so? And lots of people quibble over Kissinger, I just happen to agree with them. So do I. But the Peace Prize is different than all the other prizes. It's political, for one thing, and the choice has always been controversial. It's more in line with Time Magazine's Man of the Year than with other Nobel Prizes. IMO, here should be no Nobel Peace Prize, but, as usual, they don't ask me. Lois
Nobody said they received Nobel Prizes because they are Jews (except maybe you). I see no reason not to point out such an anomaly. If you have an argument against it, please present it. Why do you suppose Jews have been so successful in winning Nobel Prizes? I see that when you don't like a simple statistics you criticize the statistics instead of making a reasoned argument. If you have a quibble with the Nobel committee's selection of Kissinger for the Peace Prize, take it up with the committee. Don't blame Kissinger--or anyone else. Lois LoisThen please explain what the hell you meant. I already answered your question about why I think Jews have been successful. Why do you think so? And lots of people quibble over Kissinger, I just happen to agree with them. So do I. But the Peace Prize is different than all the other prizes. It's political, for one thing, and the choice has always been controversial. It's more in line with Time Magazine's Man of the Year than with other Nobel Prizes. IMO, here should be no Nobel Peace Prize, but, as usual, they don't ask me. Lois So are you going to explain why you are accusing me of criticizing this post without good reason? I already gave you an explanation, a reasoned one, and you come back with some weird thing about me not liking statistics and a repeat of an earlier question.
Nobody said they received Nobel Prizes because they are Jews (except maybe you). I see no reason not to point out such an anomaly. If you have an argument against it, please present it. Why do you suppose Jews have been so successful in winning Nobel Prizes? I see that when you don't like a simple statistics you criticize the statistics instead of making a reasoned argument. If you have a quibble with the Nobel committee's selection of Kissinger for the Peace Prize, take it up with the committee. Don't blame Kissinger--or anyone else. Lois LoisThen please explain what the hell you meant. I already answered your question about why I think Jews have been successful. Why do you think so? And lots of people quibble over Kissinger, I just happen to agree with them. So do I. But the Peace Prize is different than all the other prizes. It's political, for one thing, and the choice has always been controversial. It's more in line with Time Magazine's Man of the Year than with other Nobel Prizes. IMO, here should be no Nobel Peace Prize, but, as usual, they don't ask me. Lois So are you going to explain why you are accusing me of criticizing this post without good reason? I already gave you an explanation, a reasoned one, and you come back with some weird thing about me not liking statistics and a repeat of an earlier question. You didn't explain anything beyond stating your own prejudice. Lois
You didn't explain anything beyond stating your own prejudice. LoisThat must be some new definition of prejudice that I don't know about. What I talked about are the factors that lead to scientific discovery, innovation and increased knowledge. As an aside, I alluded to how cultures tend to acknowledge their own accomplishments sometimes missing how they affect others. I think many Palestinians don't see any of this "peace" that Kissinger supposedly created. The only thing I can figure you are doing is some sort of reverse-racism claim. Wherein, if I say anything about the historical factors that led to a group of people acting in similar ways, that's racism. I'll wait for your response before I attempt to undo that any further. For now, I made a clear statement about how intelligence is not related to genetics, at least not at the level of country of origin or the religion of your ancestors. That is the opposite of prejudice.
You didn't explain anything beyond stating your own prejudice. LoisThat must be some new definition of prejudice that I don't know about. What I talked about are the factors that lead to scientific discovery, innovation and increased knowledge. As an aside, I alluded to how cultures tend to acknowledge their own accomplishments sometimes missing how they affect others. I think many Palestinians don't see any of this "peace" that Kissinger supposedly created. The only thing I can figure you are doing is some sort of reverse-racism claim. Wherein, if I say anything about the historical factors that led to a group of people acting in similar ways, that's racism. I'll wait for your response before I attempt to undo that any further. For now, I made a clear statement about how intelligence is not related to genetics, at least not at the level of country of origin or the religion of your ancestors. That is the opposite of prejudice. I never claimed that intelligence is related to genetics, nor did the piece I sent in, it simply noted an interestimg phenomenon--one which no one has refuted. Least of all, you. You are protesting too much. Lois
You didn't explain anything beyond stating your own prejudice. LoisThat must be some new definition of prejudice that I don't know about. What I talked about are the factors that lead to scientific discovery, innovation and increased knowledge. As an aside, I alluded to how cultures tend to acknowledge their own accomplishments sometimes missing how they affect others. I think many Palestinians don't see any of this "peace" that Kissinger supposedly created. The only thing I can figure you are doing is some sort of reverse-racism claim. Wherein, if I say anything about the historical factors that led to a group of people acting in similar ways, that's racism. I'll wait for your response before I attempt to undo that any further. For now, I made a clear statement about how intelligence is not related to genetics, at least not at the level of country of origin or the religion of your ancestors. That is the opposite of prejudice. I never claimed that intelligence is related to genetics, nor did the piece I sent in, it simply noted an interestimg phenomenon--one which no one has refuted. Least of all, you. You are protesting too much. Lois Okie Dokie. Either you don't understand what you did, or you do understand and you're trying to exit gracefully. Exiting gracefully is hard to do on a discussion forum. You made a comparison. Call it an "interesting phenomenon" if you want, it was a comparison and there was a reason for doing it. It was a response to something someone else said and it had a conclusion, that original someone appeared to be stifled by the response. How could you explain all of this if not that the intention was to point out that Jews are better than Muslims? If there is some other intention, you should explain that, because that's how most people would take it.
I never claimed that intelligence is related to genetics, nor did the piece I sent in, it simply noted an interestimg phenomenon--one which no one has refuted. Least of all, you. You are protesting too much.You noted an interesting phenomenon? No, no, you just got a funny email or found a funny website, and copied it for us, because you wanted to share your schadenfreude. There are no facts to refute, of course not, Lausten and I did not deny the facts. But we are looking for the motive behind such texts. For you it might be schadenfreude (which is not such a terrible offense. I know this feeling also too well, just at other facts.), but for others the motive might be clearly racist, or if you want, discriminative. If you read my first posting again, you will see I did not accuse you of racism or of being on a hate campaign. By copying texts which were published with a racist intention, even if they only contain facts, you just take a little part in helping to distribute this meme. A fact can be very insulting depending in the context in which it is said. 1. The doctor, reading the dossier of her patient, said with a lot of empathy in her voice: "So your mother died in a psychiatric clinique?" 2. The girls of her class were always teasing her. But it became to much for her, when one of the girls said: "So your mother died in a psychiatric clinique?" Same sentence, same fact. Context and interpretation matter. It is deadly when somebody hides behind "Well, it is true, isn't it? Am I not allowed to say truths?"