Message from @Arch-Fiend
Discord ID: 447829470490001408
the above statement contradicts the below statement the explaination for the below statement can be found when you compare the populations in whole numbers. technically there were more african americans were slave owners than white european americans that were slave owners too. technicly there were more americans with native american heritage who were slave owners than there were of the americans without any native americian heritage. however. purely european heritage americans were of all slave owners the majority compared to other ethnicitys who owned slaves at the time. meaning of slave owners the majority were ethnic european americans
@Deleted User that is a false statement
Lads if you read the source sighted you will see that it is true. I know it's hard to believe but jews dominated slavery in America.
@Deleted User so to support your arguement you bring up something unrelated and your being very ignorenent if you dont realize how "78% of slave owners were ethnic jews" and "40% of the jewish population are slave owners" would mean that 40% of the jewish population accounted for 78% of the slave owning population. if we take the census of 1860 from here http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html with the 393,975 slave holders, and compare it too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States#Current_situation the jewish population of the united states during 1860 of 150000, it would mean that only 40% of 150000 owned slaves but somehow 78% of 393,975. these numbers contradict eachother. infact only if every jewish person in america owned slaves they wouldent event account for 50% of the slave owning population, they would only account for 38%
maths is hard sometimes
he did say he is dyslexic, but im going to blame lazyness
@Arch-Fiend Bruh... who do you think was running the census.....?
It's noses all the way down. o_o
Holy shit. Mister Metokur is running a stream with all the IBS leaders, hashing out beef. It's an absolute dumpster fire.
Lots of teeth for a 6 month old.
"You can lose weight in lots of ways that aren't very good for you. Smoking cigarettes ... chemotherapy ... getting profoundly depressed ... I don't recommend those approaches."
ah, a professer (actually doesent say anything) debunks. i guess it doesent take much to debunk anymore.
i find it ironic that its a video of people requesting studys, a man saying he cant provide studys, and then the video doesent site any studys except appealing to authority
a diet purely of meat will reduce your lifespan, just as a diet purely of vegitables
difference genetic groups of humans also have different neutritional needs and adaptations to withdraw neutrition from different sources such as the european digestive track which hosts lactic bacteria that can break down milk products after the european matures, or the east asian long gut which is 50% longer than that of other ethnic groups that enables them to digest rice more thuroughly and extract more calorys
happy merchent with a boller hat, pipe, checkered jacket, and tea
Ornish is a doctor, not that doctors are typically educated in the field of nutrition. I'm unable to post here the very brief abstract from the study cited in the video, but if you look up "New England Journal of Medicine Steven Smith," there should be a link. Apparently, you have to subscribe to obtain access to the entire study.
he is a doctor, so is the person hes debunking. i dont really care about authority what i care about is peer reveiwed observations. the video doesent cite a study, it simply shows clips of a debate without the debaters really making any points that provide useful information to the audience because the maker of the video thinks whats important is just showing them complaining about there not being a study without actually showing any relivent information to back up any claim other than "this guy is our guy, this guy thinks the same way we do, this guy says the guy we dont agree with is wrong, dont do atkins kids"