Dissociated Skin Cells Regenerate Hair Follicles In A Microwound, "the Punch Assay".

[BaldAndBalder]

Hateful Retards exists everywhere, even in this place sadly.
as if life wasn't tough enough, you have to deal with random hate because "empirical evidence" based on a subjective definition, Add to that a big touch of bandwagon fallacy and you get yourself a pathetic attempt at rationalizing primitive tribalism and projecting self hate on others.

This kind of idiocy has nothing to do on a hairloss forum, the admin should delete all posts related to it.

 

[kiwi666]

Awesome, well-reasoned rebuttal, "bro."

Note, unlike you, I'm not going to downvote you, because downvoting is for triggered faggots.

So you’re a closet religious nut job AND you don’t know what a rebuttal is (since I never offered one

The guy has sustained his points, one could agree or not with him, but there is no reason to ban him, at least for what I have read.

Other than calling straight atheists faggots he’s a charming individual. He’s not very smart. Doesn’t know the difference between a rebuttal and somebody who just thinks he’s an idiot. Why isn’t he a moderator?

No actually I think people who are racist, sexist and / or homophobic should be banned.

 

[Tano1]

I’d rather you be bald too.

Me though? Well I’m an atheist with zero scruples when it comes to Christian ‘fairytales’ getting in the way of ‘scienctific’ progress.

Mutilated dead babies for some strands of hair follicles constitutes scientific progress huh.

Religion isn’t the sole determining factor in what is ethically acceptable and what isn’t. I’m sure you don’t need to be told that atheists also hold moral values. It’s not like they have no emotional attachments to any ideals or beliefs themselves. They’re still human. This topic has more to do with moral values than religion.

Since you did bring up religion though, I’d have to ask: are you even atheist though? Because your name sounds like you support the idea that a devil exists to you. I’d assume that would be contradictory to your beliefs if that were the case. I mean if I believe in God then I wouldn’t be trying to support atheism by calling myself something that completely opposes what my beliefs are. After all, I’d be supporting a view that I don’t agree with.

If you are seeking out such desperate measures, then you should ask yourself at what point you would draw a line and say that this is not a point you would go past because clearly scalping a fetus for some strands is still within your boundaries.

 

[kiwi666]

Mutilated dead babies for some strands of hair follicles constitutes scientific progress huh.

Religion isn’t the sole determining factor in what is ethically acceptable and what isn’t. I’m sure you don’t need to be told that atheists also hold moral values. It’s not like they have no emotional attachments to any ideals or beliefs themselves. They’re still human. This topic has more to do with moral values than religion.

Since you did bring up religion though, I’d have to ask: are you even atheist though? Because your name sounds like you support the idea that a devil exists to you. I’d assume that would be contradictory to your beliefs if that were the case. I mean if I believe in God then I wouldn’t be trying to support atheism by calling myself something that completely opposes what my beliefs are. After all, I’d be supporting a view that I don’t agree with.

If you are seeking out such desperate measures, then you should ask yourself at what point you would draw a line and say that this is not a point you would go past because clearly scalping a fetus for some strands is still within your boundaries.

In terms of the number I just like the symmetry. I don’t believe in either. And because it’s easy to remember (probably mostly this).

I think calling a fetus a mutilated baby is un fair and un true. How can you have an argument when it’s so loaded with hyperbole. Nobody here has any idea if they are mutated or what the conditions are.

A fetus is not a baby by my standards. Nor many other people in the scientific community.

For what it’s worth I’d never hurt a baby. I’d never condone anything that did.

And bring on the fetuses!!!!! (If they can help me or anybody with anything worse than balding)

 

[Dat5Years]

The only empirical evidence is that Occulus is a pent up weird religious bigot prick. Also would you let the gov tell you what you can do with your own bodies? What if having a wank was illegal? It's technically life in your defiinti

Hateful Retards exists everywhere, even in this place sadly.
as if life wasn't tough enough, you have to deal with random hate because "empirical evidence" based on a subjective definition, Add to that a big touch of bandwagon fallacy and you get yourself a pathetic attempt at rationalizing primitive tribalism and projecting self hate on others.

This kind of idiocy has nothing to do on a hairloss forum, the admin should delete all posts related to it.

Every thread hijacked by incel/alt right whining bullshit. I often think the problem with these people isn't their hair, it's themselves.

 

[BaldAsshole]

So you’re a closet religious nut job AND you don’t know what a rebuttal is (since I never offered one


Other than calling straight atheists faggots he’s a charming individual. He’s not very smart. Doesn’t know the difference between a rebuttal and somebody who just thinks he’s an idiot. Why isn’t he a moderator?

No actually I think people who are racist, sexist and / or homophobic should be banned.

I'm an atheist, but I can sustain scientifically that there are differences between races and sexes, Nicholas Wade, despite not being a scientist, has a very interesting book about this, I also believe that homosexuality is caused by certain unusual alterations in the brain, that can be induced by endocrine disruptors, and that homosexuality is not a common condition in the animal kingdom, this was all argumented and demonstrated by Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist.

I have been calling racist and homophobic for saying those things, which are supported by data and objective facts; why am I racist if I share an statistic showing that 75% of the crimes in my country are committed by non nationalized inmigrants (~10 of the population)? This is fact. Why am I homophobic if I say that there are correlations with the intake of endocrine disruptors, altered brain structures and homosexuality, which can be understood as a consequence of chemical poisoning during fetal development? This is also fact, with a little bit of speculation, I agree, because many of our models came from animal research; still, is the most credible explanation I have encountered.

Social justice warriors are the same that radical christians or muslims in my opinion, they are only interested in their faith, everyone else is an enemy and should be banned, silenced, tortured or killed.

I don't think that laws should legislate about abortion, but I also believe that abortion shouldn't be paid by public founding, as it is in my country. I also see with disgust the 100.000 anual abortions in Spain, and I think that a woman that uses this as a contraceptive measure doesn't deserve my approval or personal interest.

I believe in personal freedom, but I also believe in moral judgement. You can think that I'm the devil, I'm fine with it, you deserve the right to think whatever you want about me, but you don't have the right to silence me, since I have insulted or attacked no one, I have only derailed this topic quite a bit, and I assume my guilt with this and I will accept any consecuence in form of dislike or ban.

 

[kiwi666]

I'm an atheist, but I can sustain scientifically that there are differences between races and sexes, Nicholas Wade, despite not being a scientist, has a very interesting book about this, I also believe that homosexuality is caused by certain unusual alterations in the brain, that can be induced by endocrine disruptors, and that homosexuality is not a common condition in the animal kingdom, this was all argumented and demonstrated by Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist.

I have been calling racist and homophobic for saying those things, which are supported by data and objective facts; why am I racist if I share an statistic showing that 75% of the crimes in my country are committed by non nationalized inmigrants (~10 of the population)? This is fact. Why am I homophobic if I say that there are correlations with the intake of endocrine disruptors, altered brain structures and homosexuality, which can be understood as a consequence of chemical poisoning during fetal development? This is also fact, with a little bit of speculation, I agree, because many of our models came from animal research; still, is the most credible explanation I have encountered.

Social justice warriors are the same that radical christians or muslims in my opinion, they are only interested in their faith, everyone else is an enemy and should be banned, silenced, tortured or killed.

I don't think that laws should legislate about abortion, but I also believe that abortion shouldn't be paid by public founding, as it is in my country. I also see with disgust the 100.000 anual abortions in Spain, and I think that a woman that uses this as a contraceptive measure doesn't deserve my approval or personal interest.

I believe in personal freedom, but I also believe in moral judgement. You can think that I'm the devil, I'm fine with it, you deserve the right to think whatever you want about me, but you don't have the right to silence me, since I have insulted or attacked no one, I have only derailed this topic quite a bit, and I assume my guilt with this and I will accept any consecuence in form of dislike or ban.

My god that was boring.

Except that bit about the 100,000 fetus we could be using. Boom!

 

[BaldAsshole]

My god that was boring.

Except that bit about the 100,000 fetus we could be using. Boom!

Hey, as long as they are already there, I'm all in.

 

[kiwi666]

Hey, as long as they are already there, I'm all in.

Good man!

 

[Tano1]

I think calling a fetus a mutilated baby is un fair and un true. How can you have an argument when it’s so loaded with hyperbole.

Fair enough.

Nobody here has any idea if they are mutated or what the conditions are.

By “nobody here” you must be including yourself. I’ll agree that many don’t have any idea even several among the scientific community about what their conditions, current state etc are.

A fetus is not a baby by my standards. Nor many other people in the scientific community.

This would now become an unfair argument as you stated earlier. You earlier said you had no idea and so your conclusion is just to assume that they’re not a living human being?

There’s not enough data to conclude when actual human life for a baby/fetus in the womb begins.

1/3 of the scientific community says they aren’t a living human being until about 22 weeks into pregnancy or right around the third trimester

1/3 of the scientific community says they’re a living human from the time they’ve developed all the parts that a functional human would have around the time it becomes a fetus.

1/3 still can’t decide unequivocally when an unborn becomes a living human.

Forget ethics though, first you’ll have to get those women to agree to let you start drilling holes in their embryo because they still have a right to their pre-natal alien looking thing. Many women ask if their unborn will suffer pain and hold funerals giving a high degree of implication that their unborn does still hold sentimental value to them coupled with some emotional attachment.

The abstract shows this was still in experimental phases with mice and dealing with something at a cellular level would require a lot of regulatory hurdles to be overcome even in China. This is still too early and you’ll probably be fully bald by the time this comes out.

Why do this when proof of concepts have shown we can do it from our own cells? Even more accurately, they’re not foreign cells being introduced so you can forget about something like rejection.

Would you rather have something taken from a place where you know is resistant to miniaturization such as the back of your head? Or take a stab in the dark and introduce a new strand and hope they didn’t already possess some balding gene that would throw you back to square one coupled by the possibility of other complications.

Do we have enough fetuses to supply the demand? After all only a single country will be marketing it first. How many abortions per year will take place in that country and how many years until your name pops up on that waiting list from the time that (and if) this goes to market? How long even upon success would you think it would take for other countries to implement this technology upon its release from patents?

Do you think that the ongoing progress of artificial wombs will disrupt any chance of you obtaining one of these aborted fetuses? There will be competition there.

Maybe the answer to these questions will help me understand your point of view better.

 

[Heinrich Harrer]

Now we understand what Errol Childress was working towards. f*** you, Matthew McConaughey!

 

[Soundwave]

Not really. I'm not religious; on my best day, I'm agnostic. My position against abortion is founded in a profound belief in basic human rights, the fundamental of which is the right to life. There is no consensus as to when the spark of life ignites. Given we don't know the exact moment life begins, performing abortive procedures that potentially could take place AFTER that moment would result in murder, and as murder is not only immoral but also irreversible, I think we should err on the side of caution and not perform abortive procedures that may result in murder. I am similarly against the death penalty; since the legal system isn't infallible, innocent people are, on occasion, executed, and since executions aren't reversible, we shouldn't be metering out punishments that could potentially result in the murder of an innocent person. That's just the philosophical/practical reason I'm against abortion. You could also make a biological one, but it's more subjective. To wit, I think there's a good argument to be made that life can be defined - fundamentally - as a sustained metabolic process, which is to say, the ability to grow and/or maintain homeostasis. If that's the case, then life begins the second we're concieved, and ends the moment our bodies are no longer able to metabolize. If this is the case, then whether you permenantly interrupt that metabolic process at day 0 or day 30,000, if you do it unjustly (and I can't think of anything more unjust than killing a baby), you've committed murder.

Since we're on the subject, and as this is the last post I'll make about it (I promise), I'll ask the Americans on this site who are curious about this issue to read the cases that culminated in Roe v Wade. The decisions that shaped our abortion laws are totally nonsensical and have no basis in law or science. For example, the trimester framework which so rigidly controls when and when you can't abort a child isn't a scientific concept - Blackmun just made it up based on some research he did over a weekend while writing the decision. Roe was and remains a political compromise, and was not nor was it ever intended to be a dialectic on the morality of abortion.

But yeah, I'm all for sex education and free birth control.

But there's nothing wrong in your view with blanket generalizations against people of different skin colors, so why not allow for harvesting of black/brown babies. After all in your "moral view" they are "inferior". Sorry dude, but you're in no position to preach to anyone.

 

[Soundwave]

I don’t know why I bother engaging in these debates with people who are so fantastically gormless as to employ strawmen (it’s a kind of fallacy - look it up and stop using them) or any other fallacious arguments, and I really should stop - it’s nothing but a waste of my very precious, expensive time. But I’ll give it one more go.

Just because objective, empirical data - as well as centuries-long historical anecdote - has proven that black and brown people are genetically cognitively inferior to whites and Asians does not mean that they may be treated anyway one wishes. So no, since I try to be logical and intellectually consistent, I don’t support the abortion of black or brown people, as they are still human and should be afforded all the basic human rights that entitled to everyone else.

Look, you’re either not that bright, or you’re the type of person who simply accepts whatever the prevailing popular opinion may be. Personally, I seek dialectics, not rhetoric, and prefer objective reality to subjective ones. As to being banned, so be it - banning people who say truthful but unpopular things is all the rage these days. I’m not going to start threads about things other than hair loss, and if threads about hair loss feature some aspect about the human condition other than hair loss (such as this one did), I’ll give my opinion while doing my best not to thread jack.

There are flaws in your own little theory, like Indian Americans for example being the highest earning ethnicity in the US and Indian students often being the top students in their class.

Lots of scientists would also say its perfectly fine to abort a fetus, but obviously on that topic you pick and choose what makes you feel "good" rather than what's "logical".

All I'm saying is it's rich you're standing on your soap box and preaching morality to everyone else when you have some pretty screwed up views that are hardly scientific consensus either. You pick and choose your morality, so step off your high horse. You're no more moral than anyone else from what I can see.

 

[kiwi666]

I don’t know why I bother engaging in these debates with people who are so fantastically gormless as to employ strawmen (it’s a kind of fallacy - look it up and stop using them) or any other fallacious arguments, and I really should stop - it’s nothing but a waste of my very precious, expensive time. But I’ll give it one more go.

Just because objective, empirical data - as well as centuries-long historical anecdote - have proven that black and brown people are genetically cognitively inferior to whites and Asians does not mean that they may be treated anyway one wishes. So no, since I try to be logical and intellectually consistent, I don’t support the abortion of black or brown people, as they are still human and should be afforded all the basic human rights entitled to everyone else. It’s more than ironic that “progressive, inclusive” people support abortion, considering that abortion overwhelmingly affects the black and brown community more than it does whites or Asians. So who’s the bigot? The man that acknowledges a biological reality, or the man who supports an act that disproportionately and negatively affects black and brown babies?

Look, you’re either not that bright, or you’re the type of person who simply accepts whatever the prevailing popular opinion may be. Personally, I seek dialectics, not rhetoric, and prefer objective reality to subjective ones. As to being banned, so be it - banning people who say truthful but unpopular things is all the rage these days. I’m not going to start threads about things other than hair loss, and if threads about hair loss feature some aspect about the human condition other than hair loss (such as this one did), I’ll give my opinion while doing my best not to thread jack.

On the basis that I wouldn’t think twice about impregnating your partnet (consensually) and then support her to have an abortion (if she wanted) so that I can use that fetus for my own selfish means... I absolutely agree with you. In that I have no idea why you continue to cry your moral river in a community of people that want to see scienctific breakthroughs.
Furthermore I wholeheartedly support any woman that wants to have an abortion. It’s their body. Their fetus. And my hair. And nothing more than your ‘opinion’.

 

[HairSuit]

You guys are exactly right. There isn’t 100% consensus on when life begins. I know this. When my second child was born, they were going to perform a DNC (medical abortion) on my wife because it was assertained that the fetus had never developed. It was an “ectopic pregnancy” by their judgement. On the day of the scheduled procedure, they always do one last ultrasound for confirmation. As my wife was crying on the table over the loss of everything that might have been, the doctor says to her, “ ma’am, why are you crying? I’m staring at a perfectly heathy baby. See that right there? That’s the heart beating.” That was at 6 weeks. About the time when most woman suspect pregnancy. Heart beat. Whatever your benchmarks for life, the beating heart is one of mine. My daughter is 9 years old now, and the thought that a day earlier she might have never had a chance in this world gets me more than a little fired up. The fact that we DON’T know for sure should be reason enough for us to withhold frivolously throwing the perverbial “baby out with the bath water”, and should give us pause to realize that our hair may not be worth the means taken to restore it (as if that will be the only method). To so flippantly demean @occulus and yet let @kiwi666 get away with talking about “impregnating someone else’s partner” as if that somehow passes the high-road test, is ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We all want the same thing in the end, but it’s okay to disagree with how we get there. At least do so respectfully.

 

[kiwi666]

You guys are exactly right. There isn’t 100% consensus on when life begins. I know this. When my second child was born, they were going to perform a DNC (medical abortion) on my wife because it was assertained that the fetus had never developed. It was an “ectopic pregnancy” by their judgement. On the day of the scheduled procedure, they always do one last ultrasound for confirmation. As my wife was crying on the table over the loss of everything that might have been, the doctor says to her, “ ma’am, why are you crying? I’m staring at a perfectly heathy baby. See that right there? That’s the heart beating.” That was at 6 weeks. About the time when most woman suspect pregnancy. Heart beat. Whatever your benchmarks for life, the beating heart is one of mine. My daughter is 9 years old now, and the thought that a day earlier she might have never had a chance in this world gets me more than a little fired up. The fact that we DON’T know for sure should be reason enough for us to withhold frivolously throwing the perverbial “baby out with the bath water”, and should give us pause to realize that our hair may not be worth the means taken to restore it (as if that will be the only method). To so flippantly demean @occulus and yet let @kiwi666 get away with talking about “impregnating someone else’s partner” as if that somehow passes the high-road test, is ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We all want the same thing in the end, but it’s okay to disagree with how we get there. At least do so respectfully.

Radiolab do a great story on the ethics around this subject.

They interviewed a stem cell scientist from India on this subject from India who pointed out that in his culture a person isn’t a person until they are born. So according to a very large percentage of humans on earth (more than all the right wing Americans put together) this is fair game.

My whole pissed off reaction is that this thread was ruined by somebodies ‘right wing personal opinion’ and saying that I’m a f*****. I’m not gay or a bundle of twigs. It’s unclear what his point was.

Anyway at this point I stopped caring and started trolling. While I admit to trolling I don’t believe anything I’m saying is untrue.

 

[Soundwave]

When I say, "brown," I don't mean Indians, I mean blacks and mestizos. There is data on Indian IQ, and it's actually 2-4 points higher than whites (as are Asians, with the biggest brains belonging to Ashkinazi jews, who have a whopping average IQ of 115). But even if I were speaking of Indians, who's claiming that income is strongly correlated with IQ? If you can find me a study that says so, I'll believe it, but that's how dialectics work - you claim something, I remain open-minded until you can prove it rationally, or close minded when you start calling me names (an indication you have no rational argument).

How many world-class sprinters are black? How many world-class long-distance runners are black? How many world-class basketball players are black? American Football players? How many of France's World Cup team were actually "French?" In every sport in which blacks participate in numbers (not a lot of black skiers, cyclists, ice hockey players, etc.), they dominate. If someone says, "blacks are generally better athletes than the other races," do people scream "RACISM!" Of course not, because it's objectively true. So why is it racist to point out other objective, empirical differences between the races? Are all dog breeds ("races" if we were speaking about humans) the same, or are there differences between breeds? Are Shitzus generally the same size as Great Danes? Are Bulldogs generally as bright as Border Collies? Of course not, yet making similar observations about the differences between races is "hatred;" it's the equivalent of arguing about the color of the sun, with one person saying, "it's yellow," and the other screaming, "NO IT'S GREEN YOU HATEFUL BIGOT!"

To selectively accept objective facts is to live in a subjective reality. I'm not "picking and choosing" my morality, I'm carefully considering all the objective data at hand and drawing the most logical, reasoned, and intellectually consistent conclusion I can.

There are great footballers of virtually every ethnicity where the sport is popular (go figure).

There is no definitive "race science" that's rock solid, just like there is no literal consensus on when life begins.

That said, even if there are some differences in ethnic groups, so what? What the f*ck gives you the right to make a statement as bigoted as "everyone should have a problem with non-white/Asians". Who are you and what have you ever done to make such a statement? Does anyone ever say because white people aren't as good as basketball that people should have a problem with them or some how they don't deserve to exist side by side other people? Of course not, because it's plainly a stupid statement.

The value of humanity does not rest on a f**king multiple choice test or sprint dash or any other metric you want to pull out of you ***. Every human being has far more in common than they have differences apart from each other. A good "moral" person has a good heart, a good heart does not have such hate rooted inside of it. So spare us the lectures on morality until maybe you recognize that within yourself that is also lacking in morality. Maybe this will be a teaching moment you, but I doubt it, a heart that is rooted in hate at the end of the day generally takes a lot of courage to confront and own up to, and most people lack the real "morality" to take that on but I applaud the few that do.

 

[Soundwave]

1. There is definitive "race science," tons of it actually. It's called psychometrics and genetics. I've read quite a bit about it, you've read nothing about it. Google is your friend, there are plenty of studies in both disciplines that discuss the cognitive differences between the races, all authored by real, legitimate scientists from accredited, world-renowned institutions of higher learning.

2. I don't think I said I had a problem with Asians. I have no problem with Asians - they are an intelligent, industries, and ordered people. Blacks, on the other hand, exhibit hyper-criminality and low average intelligence, (for example, in the US, blacks are 13% of the population but commit 50% of all murders, and as I mentioned earlier, the average IQ of an American black is 85 while the average IQ of a Black African is 70 - these are irrefutable data collected by legitimate, published studies, and it's backed up by historical anecdote).

3. Why would anyone have a problem with someone who is bad at basketball (except a basketball coach, I guess)? Being bad at basketball is a benign deficiency, unlike, say, hyper-criminality, which could lead to robbery, rape, murder, and a general degradation society.

4. Again, you have no rational rebuttal, so you just regurgitate the typical multikult tripe about "diversity is our strength," "all cultures are equal," "acknowledging differences is hatred," etc. Autistically screeching, "RACIST! HATER!" isn't an argument.

It's laughable that someone as uninformed as you, who is so incapable of formulating a reasoned rebuttal to anything I've said, and has failed to refute a single piece of data I've offered, would suggest I'm the one who needs a "teaching moment."

1.) It isn't definitive, many scientists speak out against it, even with things like IQ testing, gaps between races are falling in many of the studies they've done. That shouldn't be possible if this is just pure cut and dry issue of genetics. IQ tests measure by and large ones ability to think like a computer, it's not the be all end all, there is no test that can measure. Though just for the record this 12-year-old Indian girl apparently scored one of the highest I.Q. scores recently ever at 162 ... that's higher than Einstein (estimated) and Stephen Hawking.

https://yourstory.com/2017/05/rajgauri-iq-higher-than-einstein/

2.) Yes there certainly are problems, but this is also to me akin to a person who's father raped/abused a person saying to them later on in life "geez, you're really f**ked up, why are you so screwed up?". Well gee, no sh*t, thanks for the brilliant insight here. African Americans have been treated in the most immoral ways possible for several hundred years in America that extends well past slavery with Jim Crowe laws, segregated neighbourhoods, etc. etc. And really it's only ended very recently in America, the damage done there will take a long time to undo. This is a culture that's been systemically abused for a long time and suffered pain that most people today would find unimaginable. This was never something that was just going to fix itself with a snap of a finger and be happy go lucky overnight because of a civil rights act. By the way the same "they're all criminals/lower class people!" reasoning was also used against the Irish and Italians about 70-80 years ago. There's always an "other" class, that's the crux of poisonous hate and xenophobia, it will never satisfied or quenched, it will always turn on something else like the diseased rot it is.

3.) The whole thing about "well sports proves without a doubt racial superiority/inferiority is definitely a thing!" ... though if you actually look at it ... that whole picture falls apart rather quickly. Sure, the best basketball players tend to be African American, but if this is due mostly to genetics, if not then why aren't the no.2/3/4 basketball countries African? Croatia or Greece would destroy most African nations in basketball. They would also destroy Ireland and probably Germany also too. But wait ... does that mean Croatians have a magic basketball gene? No these things are not so easily quantifiable. Croatia has a history with basketball that's been passed down through multiple generations and multiple generations of coaches that nurture upcoming talent. Genetics play a role but it's not as cut and dry as people think. If it were Michael Jordan's sons should at least at minimum be average basketball pros (they're not), Wayne Gretzky has like six children, one of them should be in the NHL (no where close). 100 meter dash is dominated by black guys ... but swimming is dominated by white guys. Sure there are differences ... but not as large as people would want to cling to in order to justify their hatred. Dirk Nowitzki can play basketball just fine, Tiger Woods can golf just fine, etc. etc.

4.) I never said "all cultures are equal/the same", only that human beings have more in common than not. If you can't understand the difference, maybe you're not the Mensa case you think you are. I never said "RACIST", I'm saying you don't have the pure heart moralistic "heart" that you're claiming so loudly that you do. A "real" good person does not make the types of statements you've made. We can see with your statements the truth, it's like a person who smells like crap trying to say "I smell great!" ... well saying it louder doesn't make it so. Hopefully one day maybe you can grow as a person, but I have my doubts.