[ninurta]

I think you misunderstood me.

This is "part-true" goes to the context of the claim.

I understood you fully, there isn't anything to suggest the story is even part true.

And "even if" does not mean that they are proven to be so, nor that I claim such a thing, the asterisk was for further clarification in case you misunderstood me.

No I didn't misunderstand you, what I am saying is it can't even be said to be part true unless there is proof to back it up. Egyptians were pretty good at recording things.

And yes their myth is irrelevant, but even if they had other evidence to make the claim like DNA for example,

Have they been linked genetically? Never heard of that before. What about the claim that Abraham was from Babylonia? how do you coincide that with him being the ancestor to the canaanite hyksos?

which is lately being used for everything, even then they wouldn't be able to make the claim to the Hyksos due to their standardized ethnic myth.

Their ability to make such a claim has nothing to do with their myth, why would it? Unless they were trying to specifically validate the story of Moses, it is irrelevant.

That does not mean that they do have DNA evidence. Get the point?

Here you lost me since you said they did.

[noemon]

There is a breakdown of communication, you dont seem able to understand.

For the last time, noone claimed the Hyksos have Jewish DNA. REALIZE THAT. HELLO? Am I speaking chinese here?

EVEN IF they had, they would still be unable to claim them. Capisce?

[ninurta]

There is a breakdown of communication, you dont seem able to understand.

For the last time, noone claimed the Hyksos have Jewish DNA. REALIZE THAT. HELLO? Am I speaking chinese here?

No you are speaking clear english, but is it necessary to be talk patronizingly to me. I get what you are saying, and I don't get why you are offended by what i said.

EVEN IF they had, they would still be unable to claim them. Capisce?

And i simply said that is inconclusive, whether they are or not, and the fact that you are still making that arguement implies you either believe they are or for some reason are thinking I am thinking they are.

Capisce may be chinese though, so now you are speaking another language, whats it mean?

I was simply wondering why, if they are genetically linked, they couldnt make a claim, due to their myth? And how it is relevant?

Also, I know you were saying even if. But what I am simply saying, without any evidence of that they can't use that arguement, so therefore it would make it pointless until they find a genetic link.

Thats why i kept asking that.

You kept the same arguement, though it either was was incoclusive and never once did you state why my statement that there is no evidence to the biblical exodus, they you could back up why what i said was part true. what you said was inconclusive.

[noemon]

The point is that we do not need to enter the debate on whether they are historically, genetically or culturally related to the Hyksos. From the old testament(.ie their standard ethnic myth) alone we can say that they do not have the ability and prerogative to claim them, end of and period.

Why? Because their ethnic myth excludes them from the community. Thus they are exluded from the community entirely.

Get it? So the Old testament is relative to settle the debate with a period mark, and not "irrelevant" at all. All other claims(if any ever appears) are made irrelevant by the Old testament.

I am patronizing you, because you arguably are unable to understand what I am saying, and despite the asterisk, despite the second post that clarifies again, you required a third post just to let you know, that this is not what I am saying so stop asking for evidence and making claims that I make such claims.

[ninurta]

The point is that we do not need to enter the debate on whether they are historically, genetically or culturally related to the Hyksos. From the old testament(.ie their standard ethnic myth) alone we can say that they do not have the ability and prerogative to claim them, end of and period.

And that is why I don't get why you say that what I said was only partly true, I said that moreless without conclusive outside proof it remains inconclusive, and not really able to be debated until there is at least evidence that point to it. Which was simply a response to a statement made that linked the exodus to the hyksos as if it were proven historical fact. Since you seem to agree with me on this, I don't get where you disagree, thats why it sounded like you were hinting at there being genetical evidence.

Why? Because their ethnic myth excludes them from the community. Thus they are exluded from the community entirely.

But how? How does a myth exclude them?

Get it? So the Old testament is relative to settle the debate with a period mark, and not "irrelevant" at all.

Depending on what the debate is, and yes i get your point, I just disagree with you. you just haven't explained how it was relavent.

I am patronizing you, because you arguably are unable to understand what I am saying, and despite the asterisk, despite the second post that clarifies again, you required a third post just to let you know, that this is not what I am saying so stop asking for evidence and making claims that I make such claims.

Then maybe you should patronize yourself because you obviously have yet to understand that I understand and comprehend you perfectly, it is the very fact that you would bring up DNA/genetics where there would be no reason to, that made me think you believed there may have been, in spite of the asterisk also, I figured if you didn't believe there was, it wouldn't have been part of the reason you thought what I said was only part true.

I got it since you said it, but you keep evading my question and i don't get why. Since obviously I will never get out of you why you brought up genetics when I never suggested once there was any genetic evidence, I simply then kept asking and asking:

how does ones mythology, if their is a genetic or cultural link or relation, exclude them from a community? And how? Its a really simple question, and I haven't patronized you and treated you like you were stupid for disagreeing with me, please don't do that to me. I respect you, please respect me.

[noemon]

Listen, I have no appetite for this. Whatever the case it is not "inconclusive", but conclusive and the Old Testament concludes it. Because if I as a community have no tradition telling me that he was my ancestor even remotely, then he definitely wasnt my ancestor. Therefore it concludes the subject. If on the other hand my mythological tradition tells me so, then I require more concrete evidence to argue so, like culture as printed in linguistics and pottery and so on. Or for some idiots, genetics.

So, if the Hyksos were part of the Jewish tradition according to the Jewish records(old testament), then we would be inclined to search for links and say that it is at least inconclusive at the absence of further evidence.

But when there is no mention, and in fact when the role of the 2 peoples is diametrically opposed, then we have no need to say it is "inconclusive at the absence of further evidence". It is conclusive, that Jews=/= Hyksos. With a period.

Therefore the Old testament is relevant in clarifying what the Jews can and cannot claim through their records.
They cannot claim the Hyksos. Simple as that. And conclusively.

[ninurta]

Listen, I have no appetite for this. Whatever the case it is not "inconclusive", but conclusive and the Old Testament concludes it.

No appetite for it? Then simply stop replying and don't debate in the thread nor debate against someone if you are unable or unwilling to have the appetite for the whole debate.

I just simply also ask, how does the OT conclude it? Its a simple question, it doesn't require a huge appetite when you have already ate half of it giving your answer, why not finish by saying why?

Because if I as a community have no tradition telling me that he was my ancestor even remotely, then he definitely wasnt my ancestor.

No community tradition has anything stating that ancestral adam is our ancestor but all of our ancestors can be traced back to him. No community tradition of my family says we are descended from germanic pagans, but I learned we are through personal study. While this can sometimes indicate such, it really isn't a way to tell whether it's true or not.

Therefore it concludes the subject. If on the other hand my mythological tradition tells me so, then I require more concrete evidence to argue so, like culture as printed in linguistics and pottery and so on.

Tradition or no tradition, you need more concrete evidence to base the arguement, so it makes tradition handy in some cases, but for the most part its unnecessary. I see what you are saying, thank you for explaining why tradition can be relavant.

Or for some idiots, genetics.

they aren't idiots, they are people who are smart enough to realise the significance of genetics.

So, if the Hyksos were part of the Jewish tradition according to the Jewish records(old testament), then we would be inclined to search for links and say that it is at least inconclusive at the absence of further evidence.

I agree with you on everything but needing the jewish tradition to know that though. Why do you need the jewish tradition? Or are you saying it just can be helpful? Or is it absolutely necessary?

But when there is no mention, and in fact when the role of the 2 peoples is diametrically opposed, then we have no need to say it is "inconclusive at the absence of further evidence". It is conclusive, that Jews=/= Hyksos. With a period.

Well seeing that Hyksos was an egyptian word for them, I would be suprised to find it once in the jewish legends or any jewish record. I see what you are saying, but I don't see how you are still disagreeing with my post in saying there is no reson to believe that its historically accurate without further information to say so, you said the same thing I did in other words by saying it is inconclusive at the absence of further evidence.

Therefore the Old testament is relevant in clarifying what the Jews can and cannot claim through their records.
They cannot claim the Hyksos. Simple as that. And conclusively.

In that we can agree that its not in their records, but what about when most of them couldn't write? Seeing that the torah was written long after the time of moses, it wouldn't be to easy to know exactly what happened, if to know anything at all, that long after when traditions can change with time.

[noemon]

We are not debating, I am simply explaining things to you. Things that you should be understanding without requiring so much explanation.

It is ofc such repetitions that I have no appetite for.

We are not agreeing in that a) the Old testament is irrelevant, it is not, and b) that this is "inconclusive on the absence of further evidence". It is in fact conclusive.

If people have no oral or written memory(OF THEIR OWN) of their ancestors, they were not their ancestors. That is absolute and concrete. Genetics, alien records and everything else are worthless.

[ninurta]

We are not debating, I am simply explaining things to you. Things that you should be understanding without requiring so much explanation.

It is ofc such repetitions that I have no appetite for.

If you could listen I would never half to repeat myself, and if you listened to what i said, you wouldn't feel the need either. So lets stop repeating ourselves and stop trying to explain to people stuff they already know. It's a really simple thing to do. I don't like the repetitions either, I agree with you, but sometimes people don't get it, and you have to repeat things until they say "I get it" or they show they get it, whichever comes first. I have told you already I get it, so stop wasting your own time explaining what I already understand, it will make both of us happy I promise.

We are not agreeing in that a) the Old testament is irrelevant, it is not, and b) that this is "inconclusive on the absence of further evidence". It is in fact conclusive.

And thats the debate, hence an arguement, of whether its relevant or not. And here you go again, uselessly repeating yourself for no apparent reason. Why are you so defensive? I honestly have nothing against you, honestly. That is no longer my question, as you in your last post explained what I asked over and over, how it could be relavent. And now you are debating an outdated arguement that I no longer and asking.

If people have no oral or written memory(OF THEIR OWN) of their ancestors, they were not their ancestors. That is absolute and concrete. Genetics, alien records and everything else are worthless.

And I explained why its not necessarily the case, oral and written records aren't always surviving. As for alien records, again you bring up something no one is argueing for. Genetics are not worthless, how would they be?

For further reference on our debate on how relavant or irrelevant oral traditions and traditions in written records are:

"Listen, I have no appetite for this. Whatever the case it is not "inconclusive", but conclusive and the Old Testament concludes it."
No appetite for it? Then simply stop replying and don't debate in the thread nor debate against someone if you are unable or unwilling to have the appetite for the whole debate.

I just simply also ask, how does the OT conclude it? Its a simple question, it doesn't require a huge appetite when you have already ate half of it giving your answer, why not finish by saying why?

" Because if I as a community have no tradition telling me that he was my ancestor even remotely, then he definitely wasnt my ancestor. "
No community tradition has anything stating that ancestral adam is our ancestor but all of our ancestors can be traced back to him. No community tradition of my family says we are descended from germanic pagans, but I learned we are through personal study. While this can sometimes indicate such, it really isn't a way to tell whether it's true or not.

"Therefore it concludes the subject. If on the other hand my mythological tradition tells me so, then I require more concrete evidence to argue so, like culture as printed in linguistics and pottery and so on."
Tradition or no tradition, you need more concrete evidence to base the arguement, so it makes tradition handy in some cases, but for the most part its unnecessary. I see what you are saying, thank you for explaining why tradition can be relavant.

" Or for some idiots, genetics. "
they aren't idiots, they are people who are smart enough to realise the significance of genetics.

"So, if the Hyksos were part of the Jewish tradition according to the Jewish records(old testament), then we would be inclined to search for links and say that it is at least inconclusive at the absence of further evidence. "
I agree with you on everything but needing the jewish tradition to know that though. Why do you need the jewish tradition? Or are you saying it just can be helpful? Or is it absolutely necessary?

"But when there is no mention, and in fact when the role of the 2 peoples is diametrically opposed, then we have no need to say it is "inconclusive at the absence of further evidence". It is conclusive, that Jews=/= Hyksos. With a period."

Well seeing that Hyksos was an egyptian word for them, I would be suprised to find it once in the jewish legends or any jewish record. I see what you are saying, but I don't see how you are still disagreeing with my post in saying there is no reson to believe that its historically accurate without further information to say so, you said the same thing I did in other words by saying it is inconclusive at the absence of further evidence.

" Therefore the Old testament is relevant in clarifying what the Jews can and cannot claim through their records.
They cannot claim the Hyksos. Simple as that. And conclusively."

In that we can agree that its not in their records, but what about when most of them couldn't write? Seeing that the torah was written long after the time of moses, it wouldn't be to easy to know exactly what happened, if to know anything at all, that long after when traditions can change with time.

[noemon]

And I explained why its not necessarily the case, oral and written records aren't always surviving. As for alien records, again you bring up something no one is argueing for. Genetics are not worthless, how would they be?

And I added "oral" as well. If they dont survive, that means that the people are either dead because communities maintain their heroes or assimilated somewhere else and thus do not care enough to keep them hence they are no longer these people but someone else, they are what their current records tell them they are.

Genetics are the most worthless, since cultural units with fixed traditions(ethnie) are not defined by genetics since people marry whatever they like but by their standardization as communities, their aspirations, their myths, their songs and bards and their standard and memorized ancestry. Modern people with no history though, seek whatever bullshit they can find to scratch themselves with some glory hence the popularization of genetics in layman environments since genetics are so wide that you can link yourself to anything you want to.

Genetics can be relevant insofar they are used to solidify the oral and written records pre-existing. Not create new records. This is wishful thinking of modern idiots.

And in case you dont realize why my tone, then re-read what you said and how many times I repeated myself for no reason.

[ninurta]

And I added "oral" as well.

I know, and its just fine and dandy.

If they dont survive, that means that the people are either dead because communities maintain their heroes or assimilated somewhere else and thus do not care enough to keep them hence they are no longer these people but someone else, they are what their current records tell them they are.

But how does that exclude their relationship to their pre-historical history?

Genetics are the most worthless, since cultural units with fixed traditions(ethnie) are not defined by genetics since people marry whatever they like but by their standardization as communities, their aspirations, their myths, their songs and bards and their standard and memorized ancestry.

What does that gave to do with historical relations though? That doesn't make the exodus part true, or the idea that there is no evidence part true. And because they don't say it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Or alternatively, in cases such as the Kalasha, just because you say it because of tradition doesn't make it true.

The Kalasha tribe of Pakistan are the last surviving pagan tribe in pakistan that is not muslim, zoroastrian, hindu nor anything like that. They claim through tradition to be macedonian, left there by alexander the great who told them to not leave until he returned. he did not return to them so they remained there in Pakistan. genetics, which you say are worthless, and i disagree, were able to prove that the legend was false, they are not related either patrilinearly nor matrilinearly to the greeks or macedonians as they claimed. Also, biblical tradition said that the sun stood still and it didnt become night, did that happen? No. The earth spins continuously and for crying out loud, the sun not moving would not keep it as day since the movement of the sun is irrelevant to the cycle of night and day. As I proved, genetics is not worthless.

Modern people with no history though, seek whatever bullshit they can find to scratch themselves with some glory hence the popularization of genetics in layman environments since genetics are so wide that you can link yourself to anything you want to.

and what happened to genetics having nothing to do with your arguement?

Genetics can be relevant insofar they are used to solidify the oral and written records pre-existing. Not create new records. This is wishful thinking of modern idiots.

No they are not used for that, and its not wishful thinking of what you call modern idiots. You claim you are not argueing about genetics, are you are or aren't you? If not, stop mentioning it because its irrelevant to your arguement.

And in case you dont realize why my tone, then re-read what you said and how many times I repeated myself for no reason.

I clearly can see you are agitated, and I can see why. You needlessly and pointlessly without reason feel the need to repeat yourself uselessly thinking and assuming I don't understand, even though I do, what you are saying.

I also clearly pointed out that I realised your tone, I honestly think you are working yourself up over nothing, and I hope you realise real soon that I am not trying to irritate you, and I do understand what you are saying, I really really do get it. I am just saying, lets continue, lets move on to whatever else we are to discuss, lets not get hung up over this. Its not that big.

[noemon]

Fucking hell, can you please stop posting so long empty and devoid posts? And please do make an effort. I mean please, wtf is this:

The Kalasha tribe of Pakistan are the last surviving pagan tribe in pakistan that is not muslim, zoroastrian, hindu nor anything like that. They claim through tradition to be macedonian, left there by alexander the great who told them to not leave until he returned. he did not return to them so they remained there in Pakistan. genetics, which you say are worthless, and i disagree, were able to prove that the legend was false, they are not related either patrilinearly nor matrilinearly to the greeks or macedonians as they claimed. Also, biblical tradition said that the sun stood still and it didnt become night, did that happen? No. The earth spins continuously and for crying out loud, the sun not moving would not keep it as day since the movement of the sun is irrelevant to the cycle of night and day. As I proved, genetics is not worthless.

Genetics can be relevant insofar they are used to solidify the oral and written records pre-existing. Not create new records. This is wishful thinking of modern idiots.

This renders your entire paragraph void and simply demonstrates that there still exists a breakdown in communication, quite apparently.

And if you are incapable to see why, our argument is not that genetics are worthless in so far they are within the context of an existing tradition, but they are worthless in so far they are used to appropriate people that do not exist in the records of said people either oral or written. Understand?

But how does that exclude their relationship to their pre-historical history?

There we go again. You claim to understand yet you clearly do not. The fact they they do not know this "pre-history" is evidence that it is not their own. If it was their own, they would know about it. Its that simple, there is no relationship betwen 2 people that dont know each other. And if they are related somehow genetically but dont know each other, their relationship is irrelevant to their lives. Thus it is irrelevant and hence one more reason why genetics are worthless. This entire debate consists of you disputing this.


And genetics for the Kalash are unclear. Their traditions are not proven wrong, genetics drift which makes them even more worthless. Moreover there you go again posting bollocks, I never said tradition alone makes something true. Do not invent such stuff just so you continue posting.

If on the other hand my mythological tradition tells me so, then I require more concrete evidence to argue so, like culture as printed in linguistics and pottery and so on. Or for some idiots, genetics.

Hello? You know? This is already too late for me writing the same stuff again and again.

[ninurta]

Fucking hell, can you please stop posting so long empty and devoid posts? And please do make an effort. I mean please, wtf is this:

"The Kalasha tribe of Pakistan are the last surviving pagan tribe in pakistan that is not muslim, zoroastrian, hindu nor anything like that. They claim through tradition to be macedonian, left there by alexander the great who told them to not leave until he returned. he did not return to them so they remained there in Pakistan. genetics, which you say are worthless, and i disagree, were able to prove that the legend was false, they are not related either patrilinearly nor matrilinearly to the greeks or macedonians as they claimed. Also, biblical tradition said that the sun stood still and it didnt become night, did that happen? No. The earth spins continuously and for crying out loud, the sun not moving would not keep it as day since the movement of the sun is irrelevant to the cycle of night and day. As I proved, genetics is not worthless."
and you quoted yourself:
"Genetics can be relevant insofar they are used to solidify the oral and written records pre-existing. Not create new records. This is wishful thinking of modern idiots."

I will explain to you in simple english wtf this is. It seems like you are playing games, because it is very very obvious (meaning hard not to get) that I was speaking of an example where tradition was proven to be wrong, or found to be a story and not truth. DO you need me to better explain because I can, I have all the time in the world.

This renders your entire paragraph void and simply demonstrates that there still exists a breakdown in communication, quite apparently.

No, you just simply fail to read and at least try to hear the other persons point. Try to see something from someone else's perspective, as i am doing for you. Thats how you have a conversation.

And if you are incapable to see why, our argument is not that genetics are worthless in so far they are within the context of an existing tradition, but they are worthless in so far they are used to appropriate people that do not exist in the records of said people either oral or written. Understand?

Again with the outdated arguement, no one is argueing that. I asked you for an answer, it took you a while, and you already explained why it was, and I agreed with you. Why do you keep bringing it up?

There we go again. You claim to understand yet you clearly do not. The fact they they do not know this "pre-history" is evidence that it is not their own. If it was their own, they would know about it.

Seeing that I am not argueing that the hyksos are the jews, I am actually argueing against it, its not like i am just saying this to back up a pointless arguement. I am just saying, and I clearly already gave examples, which you quote without reading and ignore, where oral history, in spite of its relavance, can be unreliable.

Its that simple, there is no relationship betwen 2 people that dont know each other.

I am related to you and the rest of the worlds humans through ancestral adam, and I am related to my great great great great great grandfather, though I don't know most humans and I don't know that ancestor of mine. So this is not necessarily true.

And if they are related somehow genetically but dont know each other, their relationship is irrelevant to their lives.

In most cases yes, unless we are trying to find out if they are related, but beyond that I don't argue against that.

Thus it is irrelevant and hence one more reason why genetics are worthless. This entire debate consists of you disputing this.

And genetics for the Kalash are unclear. Their traditions are not proven wrong, genetics drift which makes them even more worthless.

They can track genetic mutations, and within the time period, there isn't very significant ones. Yeah they are clear, there was a genetic study on them and they are by no means related to macedonians, they are related to the dari peoples and others in that area. So its not unclear, and thats why I brought that up, to point out that oral tradition isn't always right.

Moreover there you go again posting bollocks, I never said tradition alone makes something true. Do not invent such stuff just so you continue posting.

I didn't invent anything, I was just pointing out that you can't draw conclusions of ones relation to something based on oral tradition, stories travel, and they are passed culture to culture, and was the reason you can't say how people are related to something based on oral tradition or any tradition except by scientific and historical means.

"If on the other hand my mythological tradition tells me so, then I require more concrete evidence to argue so, like culture as printed in linguistics and pottery and so on. Or for some idiots, genetics."
Hello? You know? This is already too late for me writing the same stuff again and again.

HELLO!!! YOU have to know what you just did, you quoted yourself, so don't argue with yourself.

To save you the trouble I will say this one more time:

I get it, you don't have to keep repeating yourself. I don't see where we are disagreeing nor why you say I am only part right initially, that is not because you haven't made yourself clear, but because you keep agreeing with me in your posts as you claim to disagree. So I really don't get why, but it seems you think that I don't get it, but I do, and really, save yourself the trouble, whats the use in us debating when we are making the same arguement.


The reason I thought you were argueing oral tradition alone was because I can't see where outside that there is a disagreement anymore.

Please save yourself the frustration and read my posts, because if you have you would have seen there really isn't much of a difference between what we have been saying, And thats why I don't get why you said what I said was only part true.

[noemon]

I will explain to you in simple english wtf this is. It seems like you are playing games, because it is very very obvious (meaning hard not to get) that I was speaking of an example where tradition was proven to be wrong, or found to be a story and not truth. DO you need me to better explain because I can, I have all the time in the world.

And I will explain it you with even more simple english.

Why are you arguing with me and even argue that "you proved your point"? WHEN I HAVE POSTED THIS BEFORE YOU?

Obviously, you have a problem with communication, and you even militantly try to patronize me with something that Ive said before you realized it yourself? Do you realize and understand the stupidity of this conversation?

How can I not be agitated? We are already in the second page for literally nothing, and putting me in a position where I have to address a whole bunch of void bollocks. And you literally enlarge your posts with every next post, for what? Nothing.

No, you just simply fail to read and at least try to hear the other persons point. Try to see something from someone else's perspective, as i am doing for you. Thats how you have a conversation.

Thats exactly our problem you do not understand what I am saying, and you are throwing back at me what I have already said. This is unreal.

Seeing that I am not argueing that the hyksos are the jews, I am actually argueing against it, its not like i am just saying this to back up a pointless arguement. I am just saying, and I clearly already gave examples, which you quote without reading and ignore, where oral history, in spite of its relavance, can be unreliable.

Listen, we cannot have a conversation, now I have to explain to you that what I said is not about the Hyksos and Jews, but generally, I have to explain to you again, that what you say I have already said, I have to explain to you the same stuff again and again. Its evidently pointless.

If on the other hand my mythological tradition tells me so, then I require more concrete evidence to argue so, like culture as printed in linguistics and pottery and so on.

DO YOU SEE?

And I did not ignore anything of what you said, are you seeing things? Here you cant see what I am writing and you are seeing other things as well? This is ridiculous. Its banging your head in the wall.

I am related to you and the rest of the worlds humans through ancestral adam, and I am related to my great great great great great grandfather, though I don't know most humans and I don't know that ancestor of mine. So this is not necessarily true.

So you can claim my history and the history of my cultural unit? Grande, its all that simple. How foolish of me to be unable to see it.

Listen, lets get this over and done with. Ignore everything and answer this question and this question alone, this is the point of the discussion and nothing else.So be a gentleman enough to settle this.

You argue that if a people have no memory either oral or written, and can claim through genetics, links to other people they have a right to appropriate these people and their history, despite of them having no memory of them. Forget about existing traditions being proven wrong through genetics, forget about genetics in other contexts, forget about everything. They are irrelevant. Stop confusing yourself and tiring myself. Answer this very simple question, do you believe that or do you not? That if a people have no memory of a people, then they have no right to claim any people through anything.

Yes, or no, If you argue that, explain yourself, and do not use already addressed arguments. Do not repeat yourself and do not tire me.

In most cases yes, unless we are trying to find out if they are related, but beyond that I don't argue against that.

So you agree with me? Then this is over and done with, there is nothing more to be said.

They can track genetic mutations, and within the time period, there isn't very significant ones. Yeah they are clear, there was a genetic study on them and they are by no means related to macedonians, they are related to the dari peoples and others in that area. So its not unclear, and thats why I brought that up, to point out that oral tradition isn't always right.
I didn't invent anything, I was just pointing out that you can't draw conclusions of ones relation to something based on oral tradition, stories travel, and they are passed culture to culture, and was the reason you can't say how people are related to something based on oral tradition or any tradition except by scientific and historical means

Still the same, you argue what I say against me. This is surreal.

HELLO!!! YOU have to know what you just did, you quoted yourself, so don't argue with yourself.

And you say that I shouldnt have quoted myself to show you that I already said so? In this same post you say we agree, but you still took the time to argue that we do not agree in the quotes above for the very same thing. So are we in agreement or are we not?


And lastly regarding the Kalash, do you mean to say that if you meet a Kalash and he plays you a song thousands of years old that is memorized on his oral tradition where he praises Greeks and Alexander. You will stop him and say: "Oi, some people found that some Y-chromosomes in your blood are not the same as regural Greek chromosomes, I dont know much about chromosomes but you are singing bullshit mate. Forget about them, be a Pakistani like your genetics. Forget about your community, better yet destroy it alltogether cause gentics you know is 'science man' for the real guys."

How stupid will you feel? Traditions can be false, like the Skopjans for whom we can trace the creators of the false tradition within a few decades and for whom the false tradition serves a political purpose. But for the Kalash, their tradition is not manufactured by political elites seeking to appropriate territory, it is generic and real tradition maintained at the face of extinction valiantly. That genetics do not agree with their tradition, points to the evidence that genetics are worthless, not their tradition which they maintain orally and in their art for as long as they remember. Moreover ethnie are not constituted by blood in academia, but by tradition, by a set of given and standard cultural units and ideals which they retain.. If people in any given community marry outsiders but the outsiders move inside the community and become part of the community, that does not make the community they moved into "dirty" or "false" as long as the community retains its identity, its norms and traditions and is not instead overwhelmed by the others resulting in ethnicide and utter assimilation, leading to them adopting the others traditions and becoming part of the other community. Will that make the other community "dirty" for assimilating them? Ofc not. This is why genetics are worthless, because people have been marrying others for centuries, but each one of the couple given that they belong to different communities became part of the others community. NOt necessarily both but usually at least one of them. That does not affect the "purity" of the community. Ethnicity in academia is about the mind, about social history, behavior and aspirations, not dnas. The sooner laymen start understanding this very simple thing which is obvious and evident, the sooner things are going to become very simple in discussions such as these. Instead of degenating in pointless muffling.

To understand how stupid your argument is calling their tradition "false", I will tell you this just to give you some perspective. Washington was not your president, the fact you have statues, poems, songs, history and art is irrelevant, genetics show that a large percent of American society is Sub-saharan Negroid peoples. Washington is a myth you ve been enginnered to parrot and its false. How do you like that? MM, very smart, yes outstanding 'science' does it again. And lets not even get into the British.

[ninurta]

Obviously, you have a problem with communication, and you even militantly try to patronize me with something that Ive said before you realized it yourself? Do you realize and understand the stupidity of this conversation?

No, you said wtf is this, so I simply explain wtf it was. I just treated you how you treated me.

Thats exactly our problem you do not understand what I am saying, and you are throwing back at me what I have already said. This is unreal.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and I keep repeating to you what we are saying to point out that I understand fully.

Seeing that I am not argueing that the hyksos are the jews, I am actually argueing against it, its not like i am just saying this to back up a pointless arguement. I am just saying, and I clearly already gave examples, which you quote without reading and ignore, where oral history, in spite of its relavance, can be unreliable.

That is not my arguement, that was a question, in which you finally answered a few posts back.

Listen, we cannot have a conversation, now I have to explain to you that what I said is not about the Hyksos and Jews, but generally, I have to explain to you again, that what you say I have already said, I have to explain to you the same stuff again and again. Its evidently pointless.

And as I said, you are explaining to me what I already know, and you're right its pointless, so why waste your own time trying to keep explaining it? I get what you are saying, its not like its necessary.

If on the other hand my mythological tradition tells me so, then I require more concrete evidence to argue so, like culture as printed in linguistics and pottery and so on.

I don't disagree with you.

DO YOU SEE?

As clearly as if I were looking through a glass window.

And I did not ignore anything of what you said, are you seeing things? Here you cant see what I am writing and you are seeing other things as well? This is ridiculous. Its banging your head in the wall.

I see what you are writing, and it sounds practically like the same thing I am saying, but you continued to disagree with me.

So you can claim my history and the history of my cultural unit? Grande, its all that simple. How foolish of me to be unable to see it.

That's not what I am saying, what I am saying is that not everything survives through cultural traditions. Like what color hair did Moses had, though highly irrelevant I know, it still didn't survive. If you get what I mean?

Listen, lets get this over and done with. Ignore everything and answer this question and this question alone, this is the point of the discussion and nothing else.So be a gentleman enough to settle this.

Okay

You argue that if a people have no memory either oral or written, and can claim through genetics, links to other people they have a right to appropriate these people and their history, despite of them having no memory of them.

To some degree yeah, they can claim relation to them yeah, as long as they can prove through genetics. Thats not if they claim, but if they prove.

Forget about existing traditions being proven wrong through genetics, forget about genetics in other contexts, forget about everything. They are irrelevant. Stop confusing yourself and tiring myself. Answer this very simple question, do you believe that or do you not? That if a people have no memory of a people, then they have no right to claim any people through anything.

That part is not my claim, and thats what I was trying to explain with the kalasha example. What you can do is verify claims made, if the jews claimed to be related to them, they can use DNA tests to say without doubt whether they are in fact directly related to them or not.

As for proving existing traditions with genetics, as you've been saying, its worthless. But as I have been saying, its impossble, genetics doesn't tell you if Moses parted the Red Sea, it just tells you if he is related to the hyksos or not.

Yes, or no, If you argue that, explain yourself, and do not use already addressed arguments. Do not repeat yourself and do not tire me.

"In most cases yes, unless we are trying to find out if they are related, but beyond that I don't argue against that."

So you agree with me? Then this is over and done with, there is nothing more to be said.

Yeah, now you see.

Still the same, you argue what I say against me. This is surreal.

Nah, just explaining how they were able to know the relation to the kalasha. Thats all, not really argueing against you, just the idea that the kalasha genetics were unproven.

" HELLO!!! YOU have to know what you just did, you quoted yourself, so don't argue with yourself. "

And you say that I shouldnt have quoted myself to show you that I already said so?

Nah, I just thought you were disagreeing with yourself thinking you were me. Sorry bout that.

In this same post you say we agree, but you still took the time to argue that we do not agree in the quotes above for the very same thing. So are we in agreement or are we not?

As far as I know we are.

And lastly regarding the Kalash, do you mean to say that if you meet a Kalash and he plays you a song thousands of years old that is memorized on his oral tradition where he praises Greeks and Alexander. You will stop him and say: "Oi, some people found that some Y-chromosomes in your blood are not the same as regural Greek chromosomes, I dont know much about chromosomes but you are singing bullshit mate. Forget about them, be a Pakistani like your genetics. Forget about your community, better yet destroy it alltogether cause gentics you know is 'science man' for the real guys."

How stupid will you feel? Traditions can be false, like the Skopjans for whom we can trace the creators of the false tradition within a few decades and for whom the false tradition serves a political purpose. But for the Kalash, their tradition is not manufactured by political elites seeking to appropriate territory, it is generic and real tradition maintained at the face of extinction valiantly. That genetics do not agree with their tradition, points to the evidence that genetics are worthless, not their tradition which they maintain orally and in their art for as long as they remember. Moreover ethnie are not constituted by blood in academia, but by tradition, by a set of given and standard cultural units and ideals which they retain.. If people in any given community marry outsiders but the outsiders move inside the community and become part of the community, that does not make the community they moved into "dirty" or "false" as long as the community retains its identity, its norms and traditions and is not instead overwhelmed by the others resulting in ethnicide and utter assimilation, leading to them adopting the others traditions and becoming part of the other community. Will that make the other community "dirty" for assimilating them? Ofc not. This is why genetics are worthless, because people have been marrying others for centuries, but each one of the couple given that they belong to different communities became part of the others community. NOt necessarily both but usually at least one of them. That does not affect the "purity" of the community. Ethnicity in academia is about the mind, about social history, behavior and aspirations, not dnas. The sooner laymen start understanding this very simple thing which is obvious and evident, the sooner things are going to become very simple in discussions such as these. Instead of degenating in pointless muffling.

I am not saying tradition is bad, what I am saying is its not reliable for being historically fact, thats not the point of tradition. The tradition is what makes a culture unique and its something to be cherished no matter how unscientific or historically fact it is. And that is where we also agree when you said you would look for evidence to back the traditions claim. So there isn't any disagreement here either.

[noemon]

To some degree yeah, they can claim relation to them yeah, as long as they can prove through genetics. Thats not if they claim, but if they prove.

Okay then you should find out that in academia, not in laymen, this is not possible. You should read Anthony Smith's 'National Identity'. And this highly distinguished scholar will explain to you in this book with very simple terms, why this is impossible indeed.

Good day.

[ninurta]

Okay then you should find out that in academia, not in laymen, this is not possible. You should read Anthony Smith's 'National Identity'. And this highly distinguished scholar will explain to you in this book with very simple terms, why this is impossible indeed.

Good day.

I'll check it out.

So we can agree we are good for now?

[noemon]

Coarse we are.

[QatzelOk]

It seems like the only people who are interested in genetics are those who have a master race discourse.

"If only science could clearly demonstrate that I am from a superior race of mammals."

Problem: there is no such thing as "superior" in science. You have to wait for nature to determine who gets to survive, and if you interfere with the process using your own normative values, it is no longer science. It's just you being a tyrant with the little bit of knowledge you have.

[ninurta]

It seems like the only people who are interested in genetics are those who have a master race discourse.

"If only science could clearly demonstrate that I am from a superior race of mammals."

Problem: there is no such thing as "superior" in science. You have to wait for nature to determine who gets to survive, and if you interfere with the process using your own normative values, it is no longer science. It's just you being a tyrant with the little bit of knowledge you have.

What are you talking about? Who is talking about superiority? who cares, thats not what we, nor even real scientists and historians, are really even interested in.