Sigiriya rock fortress you asswipe…now go back to the jungle troll.Also culture and religion are two different things you uneducated monkey.

to be perfectly fair, we were never a culture of women showing off thighs. We’re more of a showing off boobs country

Culture and religion are NOT 2 different things. Culture is moulded by religion. That is why muslims bring cows to their home, and slaughter it cold bloded in front of entire family. They are both related. You cannot talk about one without the other.

now now noble souls like gamunu only get reincarnated as singhala buddhist males, and the occasional squirrel.

Gota NEVER changed sides like a politician. He is not a politician. Gota went to America only because the then UNP government discriminated against him because he was a SLPyer. He came back after the 1st opportunity he got. You cannot compare that, to some 1/2 breed slut who can jumps into the SL team cos she can’t make to the US team.

But Gota still has US citizenship.

How did the UNP “discriminate” against Gota. And the so called 1st opportunity was when his brother came to power, oh please. If he such a lover of SL, then he should renounce his US citizenship.

Liberal philosophy based on the well defined concept of individual liberty, which was definitely developed in the West, mostly after the enlightenment. This is why William Wallace crying “freeeedom” at the end of Braveheart was unrealistic.

If you think the concept was already there in SL, you probably also think that people were allowed to be openly skeptical about Buddhism too, because religious freedom is essential to individual liberty. If you are of this view, then I’d think it is one your fine ideas, like you idea to spend billions of rupees on track and field events.

I think whoever brings Mel Gibson into an argument about Sri Lankan ‘culture,’ whatever that may be…wins hands down.

realist,
There really should be a limit to your stupidity. Your comment is completely irrelevant since my argument doesn’t depend on Mel Gibson crying freedom at all.

Lol, Sharanga, you really are entertaining.

Actually there seems to have been a lot of tolerance of other religions and customs.
In Anuradhapura there were separate areas set aside for different peoples like Nighantas, Persians, Damedhas (whoever they were, probably Hindus), and I dont think it was a case of segregation.

Ha-ha, Mel Gibson. The subject came up in a dicussion on another blog on Kottu, where he was compared to our Keppetipola for tragic bravery in fighting for freedom.

For fame in connection to liasons with the opposite sex, the figures I would quote are Konappu Bandara who later became Wimaladharmasuriya the 1st, and maybe the young Ehelepola Nilame who was said to have been popular with the ladies of the king’s harem.

One thing is certain we didn’t treat the human body as something to hide out of shame. That is a very western thing. All those statues of women with big boobs we see all over the place seem to signify fertility.

Mmm..where do you get ancient statues of females here? Isn’t that in India? Here it’s mostly frescoes, paintings and wood carving, like the “narilatha” figure, of a more sensuous nature. But yes, there’s the Isurumuniya carving, where it even gets a bit touchy feely with entwined limbs etc.

Are you sure it’s india. I recall seeing alot of statues at the entrance of temples and other places.

“some ethnic groups are simple better at abstract thinking because of their genes”, really? And you call others primitive?

Oh Dear! You weren’t refering to the bahirava figures on the guardstones, were you? Those are male boobs :D

Nudity isn’t same as sex.

Rodi women were not allowed to cover their breasts, not thousands of years ago, just hundred years ago. It’s not because they liked exposing their breasts. They were simply not allowed to do that by higher caste people.

There is a story I read somewhere, where when some African women were told that Western men find breasts extremely attractive, and considered them sexual organs, and play with them during sex, they were surprised and started giggling. One of them asked “you mean they suck them, like babies?”

I really don’t believe this story. Female breasts are attractive, if you are human and male. This attitude was there even when we were all still in Africa. The shape of a woman’s breast is unsuitable to feed infants. They took that shape due to the selection pressure of having to attract males, at the cost of making suckling difficult. (if you want to know the optimum shape for suckling, take a loot at a female monkey, or a dog, or cow, or any mammal except a woman).

But different cultures have different attitudes toward different body parts. A certain culture may allow women to show their breasts, but that doesn’t mean it is sexually liberal.

@kevin,

“some ethnic groups are simple better at abstract thinking because of their genes”, really? And you call others primitive?

Say the human race lost all its knowledge. They went back to the hunter-gatherer era. You are a nice alien who has found a database that contains all its knowledge. You want to teach humans how to use that knowledge. But you have to do it within one Earth week. So the best you can do is take about fifty people, and teach they how to read and write and do maths. They will figure out the rest.

To do this, you better find fifty people where some of them are geniuses. You cannot pick geniuses individually. You are not omniscient. But you have knowledge about earth. So you have pick fifty random individuals in a way that those fifty people include a high number of geniuses. From where would you pick those fifty individuals? Would you pick fifty central Africans, or would you pick fifty European Jews?

Truth is what it already is. Owning up to it doesn’t make matters worse.

Human female breasts became attractive after humans adopted an upright posture, and the orientation of sexual organs changed. They replaced buttocks, which served the purpsoe up until then. In ancient civilizations breasts were also a symbol of fertility.

In ancient Sri Lankan culture breasts definitely were considered ornamental, whatever the reason for exposing them. They have been generously admired in art and literature, especially in verse, along with eyes, lips, hair and hips (not thighs and legs), and like Dodo said they were not shy about it either.

Jews are not intelligent because of genes, it’s their culture. Also, notice that German Jews were the highly intelligent ones, as were other Germans. Their culture valued learing.

A case in point are the Polgar sisters. Their father taught them chess and coached them from the time they were infants. If that was done to you, you would be a chess master, too.

@Kevin

That is exactly what the communists thought. They thought humans were like blank slates, and that you could teach puppies to read if you gave them the right textbooks.

In the hunter-gatherer era, there’ll be no Jewish culture. So you, the nice alien, would pick fifty central African and try to teach them theoretical physics and economics. Good luck with that.

The super intelligent jew hypothesis is almost impossible to prove, but easier to disprove. Just see if all jews, or at least the european ones, share a common genetic heritage. There should be research around

Or rather they all share a unique genetic heritage.

If Sharnaga is right, Jewish women should also display high IQ scores, which is not the case, unless intelligence was also Y chromosome related.
Even if you were armed with all the knowledge of the world, you wouldn’t survive long without the help of a variety of people with different skills and abilities.

And the dodo is back to being a moron.

The super intelligent jew hypothesis is almost impossible to prove, but easier to disprove. Just see if all jews, or at least the european ones, share a common genetic heritage. There should be research around

Or rather they all share a unique genetic heritage.

What do you think, that I think Jews don’t share the same common ancestor as other humans? Or do you think that I think ability to do abstract thinking is unique to jews?

That is stupid as stupid can be. Whatever the genetic conditions that makes Jews good at abstract thinking, it isn’t unique, because they are not the only people who can do it.

So, if you have read a book on the method of science, you’d know that the way to go about proving a hypothesis is to try hard to disprove the hypothesis, from every possible angle, and fail.

But the Jews will not have unique genes even if I’m right. You won’t be able to falsify my hypothsis even if you find that Jews don’t have a unique genetic heritage. I didn’t say Jews can fly without machines or something.

Bad science.

Shammi, if you’ve been watching the Olympics, and had the ability to learn something from watching something, you wouldn’t have said what you said.

The biggest biological divide within the human species, or any other sexually reproducing species for that matter, is along gender lines, not race or ethnicity or anything else. This is why men and women compete separately at the Olympics.

One thing that is consistent throughout the world, regardless of culture, is the fact that women aren’t as good as men when it comes to abstract thinking. To be politically correct, there might be things at which women are better than men. But abstract thinking isn’t one of them, and there is no denying that sex is the biggest division within our species.

Even if you were armed with all the knowledge of the world, you wouldn’t survive long without the help of a variety of people with different skills and abilities.

Never denied this. That is why I’m against killing all humans except Einstein and Marie Curie and cloning them repopulate the earth.

So you ARE saying that the ability to think in abstract is related to the Y chromosome. That would be the only genetic difference between a Jewish man and woman with a common ancestry.
If this was the case, shouldn’t some evidence to support this have emerged by now, after all the advanced research they’ve completed in this field?

‘Bad science’ says the person who doesn’t quote one study or source.

” They took that shape due to the selection pressure of having to attract males, at the cost of making suckling difficult. (if you want to know the optimum shape for suckling, take a loot at a female monkey, or a dog, or cow, or any mammal except a woman). ” – Can you please cite this? Sounds fascinating and I’ve never heard that suckling is difficult for humans vs. the rest of the known mammals.

@shammi,

It is studied. Psychometric tests are done everyday and the difference between male and female IQs have been studied. I mentioned this in an earlier discussion.

@realist,

You’re a moron. Do you think I’m writing scientific research papers here? If you want a source, just ask. Moron.

Naked Ape by Desmond Morris
http://www.amazon.com/The-Naked-Ape-Zoologists-Animal/dp/0385334303

You do realize when I asked you to cite that meant I asked for a source and not to write a scientific paper right?:) Given your general understanding about science, I don’t think I would ask you to do that anytime soon. For the sake of science at least.

I like your certainty about Desmond Morris’ book, given that Bentley, Gillian R. (2001). “The Evolution of the Human Breast”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology links breast shape with the development of larger brains in humans and actually making it easier to breastfeed human babies with those lovely mammaries.

@realist,

This is simply moronic. You have no idea how evolutionary science works, don’t you? Moron.

This is how it works, moron. You asked for a source. I gave you that. What Desmond Morris presented was a pretty standard theory. I didn’t make it up. I think it’s plausible, and many other people think so as well. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s the last word on it, moron. Science is not a religion.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology may present a different view, based on some evidence they have. These views are peer reviewed, and their fates would be decided over time. Other scientists may come up with alternate views ad well. They too will be peer reviewed.

For now, the view Desmond Morris presented was pretty standard, and I’m totally justified in subscribing to it. The companies that make nipples for baby bottles seem to agree as well.

So, dear moron, go ahead and make boob-like rubber caps.

Lol, comprehension is not high on your skill set is it. I was referring to your comment, ‘If you want a source, just ask.’ I did ask for a reference, you simply did not seem to know what cite means.

I do have quite a good understanding of how science works, hence I didn’t actually say that the hypothesis I mentioned was the superior one. I was simply giving an alternative view that the scientific community has. You need to take a break and learn to read and more importantly comprehend.

Just out of curiosity (in the hope, however faint, of eventually getting an intelligent answer out of you), how do you make the assessment that Desmond Morris’ view is ‘standard’ apart from the design of baby bottle (btw boobs have nipples as well and they become distended when breastfeeding so not much different to those on baby bottles, if somewhat more fun).

Are those boob like rubber caps fun? Must be because you’ve never had access to the real thing?

P.S. Bad grammar really pisses me off, “You have no idea how evolutionary science works, don’t you? ” It should be “do you?”

Realist the typical moron,

Lol, comprehension is not high on your skill set is it. I was referring to your comment, ‘If you want a source, just ask.’ I did ask for a reference, you simply did not seem to know what cite means.

Really? Read you moronic comment again, which you started by saying ‘Bad science’ says the person who doesn’t quote one study or source. If you need a source, ask for it, without making moronic statements about saying things in a blog comment without a source being bad science. Moron. Yeah, you asked for a source, but you first had to show that you are a complete moron by saying Bad science’ says the person who doesn’t quote one study or source.

Moron

I do have quite a good understanding of how science works, hence I didn’t actually say that the hypothesis I mentioned was the superior one. I was simply giving an alternative view that the scientific community has. You need to take a break and learn to read and more importantly comprehend.

Oh really, as if it isn’t obvious that there are more than one hypotheses? Then what is this,

I like your certainty about Desmond Morris’ book, given that Bentley, Gillian R. (2001)…..

Now this really doesn’t sound like you are simply presenting an alternative view. It has the air of a moron saying, “hey, take this”.

Just out of curiosity (in the hope, however faint, of eventually getting an intelligent answer out of you), how do you make the assessment that Desmond Morris’ view is ‘standard’ apart from the design of baby bottle

How do you determine whether any theory is standard or not? Moron. When a leading figure in some field has some idea, and when that idea is reference in hundreds of books about that field, and when it is not seriously disputed by his peers, that is a pretty standard view. Moron.

Are those boob like rubber caps fun? Must be because you’ve never had access to the real thing?

Typical loser behaviour.

P.S. Bad grammar really pisses me off, “You have no idea how evolutionary science works, don’t you? ” It should be “do you?”

I think I have a pretty good model of you now. I actually saw this coming when I read the post after posting it. You, being utterly beaten in every possible way a moron can be beaten, will simply take cheap shots, like pissing on the floor because his opponent who ruined him doesn’t proof-read before he posts blog comments, and saying childish stuff that losers say, like Are those boob like rubber caps fun? Must be because you’ve never had access to the real thing?

Moron.

By the way,

Are those boob like rubber caps fun? Must be because you’ve never had access to the real thing?

This must be a new low on this blog.

Okay. Now you are trying to win the argument by assuming my own position, and since it was not your own position, you haven’t thought about it hard enough, so you go about it all wrong.

The fact that Jews have been persecuted over the last 3000 years is a fact about their history, not a unique feature of that culture. The history of an ethnic group, and the features of their culture, are conceptually different.

Your claim that adversity gives birth to genius is right, but only if you are talking about hundred thousands of years. You cannot become a genius because you want to battle adversity. It doesn’t work like that. The Jews in USA face less adversity than African Americans. But African Americans don’t produce a lot of geniuses.

I said that you are going all wrong.

1. History of an ethnic group is conceptually different from the features of an culture.
2. If you say that Jews are geniuses due to historical facts, this should be a genetic thing. Unlike features of Jewish culture, some persecution that happened to some dead Jews 2000 years ago, does not directly influence modern day Jews. If their effect is not genetic, and yet those terrible events has some influence, then they must be indirect, in which case you will be able to identify them as unique features of Jewish european/american cultures. You haven’t identified any such feature.
3. So if those historical events (environmental factors) have any influence on Jewish genius, it must be genetic. But you are only talking about historical events that happened within the last 3000 years. Not enough time. A good genetic explanation will go further.

How have I assumed your position? I’m not attributing anything to evolved genius. I thought the traumatic history of the Jewish people may have contributed to a culture where they would feel they had to favour their own, strive harder, get an earlier start, things like that.

If you were intelligent at all, you would have realised by now that I dont really think hard about anything I post here. But I’m right anyway.

You werr assuming my position when you said Jews become geniuses due to the adversity they had to face.

The one you are making now is different. No worries, let us consider that. You say due to the persecution they went through during the last 3000 years, their culture became something that made people feel they had to try hard to amount to something. Never mind your hypothesis is conpletely unscientific because it is untestable. Do you think any of the things that you think are the features of Jewish culture, are unique to that culture?

Anyway, my argument is pretty clear, and sound. You can’t become a genius. You are born that way. You may become doctor because your parents, relatives, friends pushed you to study hard. But they can’t push you to think creatively and become Richard Feynmann. Creative genius is something you either have, or don’t have, not something you acquire. And if you think there are Sri Lankan geniuses who don’t amount to anything, don’t create anything new, because their mothers don’t push them hard enough, I seriously doubt their claim to genius. Geniuses are supposed to be curious.

By the way, just what sort of reality would correspond to the claim you made about getting things right without thinking hard about anything? Probably something that resides only in your mind.

I never assumed your position. You misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough for you. I sometimes make the mistake of thinking that others are able to make the connections/ associations that I do, and dont spell things out.

“Do you think any of the things that you think are the features of Jewish culture, are unique to that culture?”
The combination of a number of features would make it unique. Please note that I am not even making any concrete claim here. All along, I’ve just been putting forward an alternate position, unlike you.

Genius and creativity may come in different forms. Speak for yourself. Who are you to say that I could never be a genius. Who knows? I could be like the sloth. ” The road is not closed to my genii, but I just dont have the time”

And I can easily say I’m always right because it is so. Yes, in my universe.

I never assumed your position. You misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough for you. I sometimes make the mistake of thinking that others are able to make the connections/ associations that I do, and dont spell things out.

I’m inclined to think, rather understandably I would say, that you didn’t realize that historical events that happened to an ethnic group, and the features of their present culture, are conceptually different until I pointed it out. But if that is not the case, as you noe claim, I suppose that is an effect of you talking to youself too much. Others are not supposed to guess your internal monologues.

The combination of a number of features would make it unique. Please note that I am not even making any concrete claim here. All along, I’ve just been putting forward an alternate position, unlike you.

It is an alternate position that you can’t even clearly define. I challenged both you and dodo to point to the unique feature of Jewish culture that made them so good at abstract thinking. Dodo hasn’t even attempted to answer. I suppose he has some sense. Your answer is “just some combination of cultural features”. Not good enough. What exactly is the combination, and how is it unique, anymore than Sinhalese culture? What is so off the world unique about Jewish culture that no other culture has, so that unlike any other ethnic group, they win many many Nobel Prizes?

If you hadn’t already committed to your moronic hypothesis, you’d see that the fact that 3% of country’s population account for 27% of its Nobel Prizes can never be attributed to a mere cultural difference. Jews aren’t living on Mars. In USA, Jews are more American than most Americans. They go to the same schools, to the same universities, read the same books, and many of them are atheist. They hardly resemble traditional Jews. But somehow, they end up winning Nobel Prizes for Physics and Economics, but never an Olympic 100m gold medal. That must be one hell of a cultural difference.

Genius and creativity may come in different forms. Speak for yourself. Who are you to say that I could never be a genius. Who knows? I could be like the sloth.

Well, most geniuses are exceptionally good at maths, because laws of the universe are written in maths. And they don’t come up with untestable hypotheses.

And I can easily say I’m always right because it is so. Yes, in my universe.

Yes. But in the one we are living, you probably need medication.

You thought wrong. I know very well that a complex genetic characteristic would take much longer than 3000 years to evolve, considering the average human lifespan.

I dont agree that you absolutely need math to be a genius. Like I said there are many forms of genius. And I like the bit about my needing medication, it would be a sure sign of my genius if you thought so. But someone with your lack of imagination could never be a genius.

About the cultural background to genius, I haven’t conducted any tests, and I dont intend to trawl the internet to find any that may have been done, just to win this argument. But consider the recent blooming of child prodigies in music from countries like Japan and China. These countries have a recent trend of starting to train kids from a very early age, from the time they are toddlers, and even exposing the foetus in the womb to classical music, which I believe was common for Jewish children of the late 19th/early 20th century.

As for your racial/male supremacy argument, It’ll take a lot more proof than you’ve shown here to convince me. Though I’ll own that there may be subtle differences in the nature of their abilities, I think eliminating cultural differences could close the gaps considerably.

Mathematical talents are a test. A genius, usually can do a lot of stuff well, like reading fast, writing brilliantly, conducting scientific experiments. But maths is the thing that clearly differentiate them from the rest. Morons simply can’t do maths. And it doesn’t matter whether they actually do maths or not. What counts is whether they can.

And yes, you can define genius whatever the way you like. Then you’d end up calling a moron like Sachin Tendulkar a genius, like cricket commentators do.

Child prodigies hardly ever amount to anything. Most child prodigies don’t create new things. They are simply good at doing existing things, like learning calculas before they turn 10. They never learn to do anything new and win Nobel Prizes. But in any case, child prodigies are not a product of culture, it’s product of genes. No amount of training would make a kid compose something as good as Beethoven’s ninth, unless they already have the talent. There is no doubt though, identifying talent early and training it, does make a difference.

But musical genius is different from creative genius. I’m quite certain that if you take pygmie population that is equal to the Jewish population, which is 0.2% of the world’s population, and teach them as hard as you can, give them all the books ever written, even punish morons with death, they are still not going to win 25% of world’s Nobel Prizes. My bet would be against the pygmies. I don’t want to lose money.

I wonder whether I can make living out of betting here. You people have a complete averasion to reality. Basically, you people are bleeding-heart liberals. Seriously, how are you guys going to solve any problem after refusing to see the problem. How much I had to type to make you say there might be subtle differences in the nature of people’s ability? It’s just sad.

The cultural background is a part of the environment or the conditions to test your hypothesis. Your two samples have to be tested in identical conditions before you came to any conclusion. You want people to simply accept your hypothesis based on guesswork and incomplete observations? How scientific and genius is that?

Dont get all triumphant because I said people may have subtle differences. I still reject your theory, which was that certain races could not produce a genius even if all the right conditions were met, unless you proved it conclusively, of course.

Sharanga jewish culture doesn’t have to breed more ‘geniuses’. It could simply allow for more of them to be identified early and allowed to do things where they can express their ‘genius’.

The reason i’m not going to name cultural reasons for jewish ‘genius’ is because I don’t have the hubris claim that i know jewish culture well enough to be able to say. Although i suspect that i might know a lot more jews a lot better than you.

Dont get all triumphant because I said people may have subtle differences. I still reject your theory, which was that certain races could not produce a genius even if all the right conditions were met, unless you proved it conclusively, of course.

From now on, I don’t going to care much about your opinion. As you yourself said, you are a jobless troll.

The cultural background is a part of the environment or the conditions to test your hypothesis. Your two samples have to be tested in identical conditions before you came to any conclusion. You want people to simply accept your hypothesis based on guesswork and incomplete observations? How scientific and genius is that?

Never said it’s scientific. I can’t do science by arguing with trolls on a blog. But it’s rational. The goal of a rationalist is to win. I bet that no matter how hard you try, you can’t get Pygmies to win 25% of Nobel Prizes. You, being a jobless troll, will lose the bet.

That’s all there is to it. Bye.

Dodo, go ahead and try to get the Pygmies to win 25% of Nobel Prizes. Good luck with it.

I’ve changed my mind. I’d rather be a jobless Trylle. They look better, and have powers. And I didn’t know you cared about my opinion, I thought you were suffering from a full blown case of hypergraphia. Your arguments were so unscientific.

sorry, genes not intelligence

See. Even though you have no answer to my question, you have unfairly privileged the alternate hypothesis that culture does everything.

At least I have some basis for my hypothesis. It is as far as a hypothsis can go, without actually doing a test.

1. If there are differences in skin colour, height, metabolism rate, sizes of the brains, shape of the skulls etc. that are genetic, there should be differences in cognitive abilities that are genetic.
2. Jews, being 3% of the US population, have won 27% of that country’s Nobel Prizes, 25% of Turing Awards. That is not likely to be a mere cultural difference.Further, being 0.2% of world population, they have produced 50% of world chesd champions. This list is long. But somehow they are not very good at winning Olympic 100m gold medals.
3. So probably, it’s genetic.

On the other hand, your culture does everything theory doesn’t fit the data at all. Your hopful prediction that Indians and Asians will win Nobel Prizes just like Jews (probably because their cultures out-Jew Jewish culture itself), is just a prediction, and not evidence at all. And it’s too hopeful a prediction. You know passing exams in style isn’t the same as creative genius.

Further, there is no way a cultural difference can account for the fact 3% of country’s population winning 27% of its Nobel Prizes.

So basically, you have two standards for the two hypothses. You are biased. You won’t believe one hypothesis without a rigorous scientific experiment that proves it. But you privilege another hypothesis, which is less likely ( because it doesn’t explain 3% of country winning 27% of its Nobel Prizes, even though they go to the same schools, colleges, read the same books, and many of them atheist), without testing it, and predict Indians surpassing Jews in terms of Nobel Prizes.

It looks exactly like something someone who wants to avoid reality would do. Make no mistake, I hope you are right, so that Indians and Asians will start to win Nobel Prizes just like the Jews. It means the universe is not as unfair as I thought and that is a good thing. It’s just unlikely.

Did i ever say culture does everything? I don’t think so. Your first major flaw is that you simply brush culture aside. Secondly, you argument is at the very least incomplete. All you have shown here is that Jews are an intelligent race of people, it doesn’t in any way prove that they are intelligent because of their genes. And there seems to be nothing conclusive out there that suggests that they are intelligent because of their genes. Even in the wikipedia entry the objections seem quite strong.

Did i ever say culture does everything? I don’t think so.

Not explicitly. But are you saying it isn’t implied when you predict Indians and Asian kids will someday surpass Jews in terms of Nobel Prizes? Especially taking into account all the other statements you made, about convicts being products of culture and all?

Whatever. I’m tired of this debate since it is getting nowhere. As I said to shammi, nothing I said is conclusive scientific proofs. But everything I said was rational. The goal of rationality is to win. So basically, I would bet anything that you can’t get the Pygmies to win 25% of Nobel Prizes. I’ll win the bet. That’s enough for me.

I almost forgot. You did favour the culture does everything hypothesis. Remember the following comment?

Shammi, IQ tests are all poo poo. They don’t measure anything inherent in anyone. Our median IQ has been going up steadily over the past few decades. furthermore, the gap between genders & races have been fluctuating over past few decades as well. That’s not genetics, it culture and upbringing.

And, I don’t think I trivilize the impact of culture. Culture simply does not explain 3% of a country’s population winning 27% of its Nobel Prizes.

And culture simply does not explain why men deviate more than women where IQ is concerened.

And culture really doesn’t explain why those of African ancestry do so well in athletics.

Well, a man with a very keen Jewish brain, deferred to the wisdom of an Asian one, which you consider inferior. Just an example.

Seriously, I was speechless for about 30 seconds after reading. This dumb. Dumb dumb dumb dumb. This more moronic than anything realist or dodo ever said to me. Oh goodness.

And it’s very amusing to see the effort a self-proclaimed genius puts in to type unconvincing reams in reply to a jobless troll, just to have the last word. Oh goodness!

Refer to my comment made on 2012-08-13 08:03:33

Sharanga always gets the last word, even on the weekends :)

@realist the typical moron who says stuff like Are those boob like rubber caps fun? Must be because you’ve never had access to the real thing? when he’s lost a debate,

Yes. I have no social life. I spent my whole day sitting in front of a computer. But still I win, every time I argue with a moron like you. Bwah hah hah

Ooooo! Is that the cost of the Mattala airport. We can do without the gold paved runway surely? Help Cooray place within the first 20 with a good training regime, plenty of motivation and encouragement.

Or, you can be happy about this guy placing 55th, and avoid spending 1,000000000000000000 rupees of tax money on this guy to to place him within first 20 (unlikely, but not impossible). After all, the man’s never going to win a medal, so the SL flag will never be raised because of him, so there really is no difference between him being 19th and being 55th. hah hah hah.

The only advantage to be obtained by improving the sporting performance of a country is to raise a flag. Yes. Genius.

Oh. I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to improve sports. I only said we shouldn’t waste huge sums of money on a sport we’ll never be good at. Tell me, what exactly is the advantage we can gain by spending a huge sum of money to get the guy who placed 55th, to place 19th in the next Olympics?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Instead, we could save a quadrillion or more and raise a flagpole at home.

And the sad thing is, you think you are being sarcastic, just like Mahinda would be if you told him he’s wasting far too much money on one district.

Isn’t he wonderful? I’m willing to share. ;)

On behalf of shammi, I thank you, the flower of chivalry, for trying to rescue her. Bwah hah hah (evil laugh)

Shammi can look after herself and certainly doesn’t need by chivalry. Do people still use “Bwah hah hah”?

typo: should read “..certainly doesn’t need my chivalry

Thank you for trying so hard to protect her from me. Bwah hah hah

How can that be right when someone like you claims to be at one end of the distribution? Unless you got the two ends mixed up, of course.

Bwah hah hah. Aristotle called this ad loser hominem.

That was certainly not an ad hominem attack.
If the intelligence you have displayed here is an example of a high IQ person’s thinking, I have issues regarding this IQ business.
The decisions you have reached and the future action you recommend based on the given data is seriously flawed.
This thread is getting very old, and this will be my final comment on it. Feel free to have as many last words as you like. I know how devoted you are to them.
Hope you will be around to provide more entertainment in the future. Have a nice weekend.

Oh Aristotle, the last man to know everything in the world before I came along, sorry for letting this woman murder your again.

Did my argument ever depend on me being a genius? Even if I am an absolute moron whose IQ was measured to be high because I cheated, does my argument depend on me having a high IQ?

It does not. So it is indeed an ad loser hominem attack. Bwah hah hah

differences like that are always accounted for, that’s basic statistics. you don’t know what you are talking about.

You seriously don’t get it, do you? Even if those differences are accounted for (for the sake of the argument), it still doesn’t explain how you got to be so certain about culture and upbringing causing all the fluctuations, without having conclusive scientific proof, and requiring me to provide conclusive scientific proof to support my hypothesis. No matter what you say now, you cannot deny you privileged one hypothesis over another, simply because you preferred it. Hence the double standard. Bwah hah hah.