Re: Stephen J. Gould and anthropological fraud

From: P.Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 06/24/04 

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:49:38 GMT

"Anonymous457267" <anonymous457267@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9d9d816e.0406191117.340d0648@posting.google.com...
> >I did read his books and heard him speak. The serious PROBLEM with
> his
> >penis size thing is that he had to have picked specific whites.
> Maybe he
> >picked Irish - they tend to be small. Maybe he picked SE Asians,
> they tend
> >to be small. NE Asians are not small. Turk-Tatars - if we are
> lumped in as
> >Asians are not only big, but THICK. And Polish and German men - even
> some
> >English, tend to be damned big. Watch any porno movie! John Holmes
> was
> >English. 14 inch penis is not average, LMAO. Still, the size of
> the penis
> >does not correlate to the IQ of any of these other people.
> >
> >He stuck his foot down his throat with that, and the ridicule he got
> due to
> >is is obviously never gonna die.
>
> I don't think so. I mean yes he will continue to get ridicule about
> such a thing, some people seem to be childish like that. But it's
> quite possible there are racial differences in penis size, why don't
> you look at the survey's and links I've posted at the bottom of this
> thread, they're probably more reliable than Rushton's.

Well, there is also the small testicle/large penis data - versus the large
testical/small penis - each type has differrent percentages of types of
sperm, too. That's hard data too but few know about it. I did post about
it. I gave sources.

Sure there is gonna be differences in ethnic groups - just like nose size
and shape is gonna be different. That's due to sexual selection.
(scratching my head, why ANY woman would choose thin and short is beyond my
ability to figure out)....
>
> Your personal experiences of penis size and the odd porn movie you've
> watched doesn't really represent good scientific evidence, lol.

No, the porn movie (and I'm not a fan of porn, btw) is better evidence
thatn Rushton going around ASKING men "how long is your penis." Got any
idea how many male porn actors there are? LOTS. MOST of them are white.
That IS what he did, he went around asking men! Again, the data is very
selective. The AVERAGE penis size of men in my ethnic group is about 8 to 9
inches. And thick. But do they buy a lot of condoms? NO. Were they
included in any studies? NO.
>
> The Spectrum thing he talked about, where racial differences go from
> one extreme to the other from black > white > asian, seems to have
> some truth in it.

WHAT is he calling Asian? US? Are we Asians? We are Tatars. We are
generally bigger and thicker than white guys are. Polish guys are big -
where do you think "Polish sausage" comes from - that expression in sex
talk? Are Polish guys white? Do they buy a lot of condoms?

In SO many things the spectrum applies, I don't know
> if it's because there are a few racial differences which effect a lot
> of behaviour strongly such as different levels of testosterone or
> whatever, but for example I was surfing and found the below site:
>
> AGE OF FIRST SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (IN %)
> RACE UNDER 17 OVER 17
> Orientals 24 76
> Whites 37 63
> Blacks 64 36
>
> Just another example. Actually they used something from rushton as
> their source it seems.

You do realize that most WHITES used to get married when they were 12 or 13
years old, right? They used to have KIDS by the time they were 16. And
again, asking people when they first had sex is a problem. People LIE. If
I could count the white virgins (that all had sex but LIED about it) in high
school, aged about 14 to 16, I'd be rich. It used to be a kind of tradition
in some Catholic countries (white ones) to take a boy just entering puberty
to a prostitute who'd teach him about sex.
>
> http://www.lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/13/virginia.html
>
> > Anyway, Rushton did say some dumb stuff about that - and it's too bad he
> > did. People make fun of it and then reject EVERYTHING ELSE he had to
say -
> > which he did get from scientists. Oh well.
>
> I don't think that's the reason they reject what he says. I don't
> think any decent person with an open-mind will just reject things
> because they are controversial or touch a sensitive subject (like
> race). I think the reason people reject what he says, sometimes
> without even reading and considering his work, is simply because he is
> putting forward theories of racial differences, probably one of the
> most sensitive subjects there is.

Yeah, no *** sherlock! But when he makes a blunder like that regarding
sex, EVERYONE jumps on the bandwagon and mocks the holy *** out of the guy.
I said I read his works. I'd say that SOME of his data is on target. Some
OTHER of his data misses the mark by a mile. Remember, he got that data
second hand, dumbed down, and he himself is not a biologist or geneticist or
neurologist. If you can find exceptions to any of it, even a lot of
exceptions as I just posted about - then the entire theory falls to ***.
It has to be ACROSS THE BOARD, verifiable. You can't have huge hung penis
men with high IQ walking around to refute what he said. And there are HEAPS
of really stupid, dumb*** to the bone, men with tiny peckers out there.