Epic Rap Battles of Edenism – Koanic vs. anthro nerd Eric Orwoll
|March 11, 2013||Posted by Koanic under face reading, Neanderthal Pride|
Eric Orwoll, an anthro nerd with a Thal front, rips into Edenism in this recent video:
My notes from which I spoke for the video. (They’re rough):
Explain why you’re never going to hurt us.
Regardless of the anthro theories, the phrenology is correct.
In my type-segregated Neanderhall, people hear the thoughts of others like themselves for the first time. It’s a life changing experience. Those people are permanently converted, and they will go out and convert more like themselves. It’s a message that instantly resonates with the kind of people who have the facial features that I describe – the deep neanderthals.
Guild, peer review
Global warming, paleo diet
If wants to apply actual scientific method, go out and test my face reading
eyes, back of head, etc
Eric has: Good testosterone, socket depth, biggish eyes, narrowish spacing. Socket depth supplies the focus to become an anthro nerd without compensation. “Because, why wouldn’t you, I’m curious, that’s who I am.” Exactly. Amud. Like him.
tremendous bias in anthro for gradualism, against intervention, and for a tree with homo sapiens at the top. add in an ossified guild and major scandal and history of ethical problems, and you have something that looks very like global warming.
I will have a post on the Amud coverup in anthropology later today.
“I thought it would be more complex”
You were correct, it is. My views are heterodox, which leads to a limited set of initial reactions.
#1 Intelligent, over mensa, triple 9. Complex, nuanced, advanced. You’re not getting it.
#2 Obsessively honest, had to work for many years on social skills because of this.
I may be wrong, but I will be wrong in a clever way, not a dumb way. A 2 second glance won’t be enough to dismiss me unless your IQ is in the 170′s.
Your anthro nerd sensibilities are offended by oversimplification. We don’t believe in oversimplification, we merely focus on what is useful out of the great complexity available.
“A little bit of research to completely disprove”
No, a little bit of research to show is outside consensus. Not the same thing. Look up the word “disprove”.
Our contention is that basic anthropology is structurally biased and wrogn, which cannot be disproven by saying that basic anthropology disagrees.
Melonhead – you don’t know what you’re talking about. Lots of examples of head binding, and they cannot increase skull volume, only change shape. That’s why the pharaonic enlarged skulls are attributed to deformity, not binding. Binding leaves characteristic marks on the skull that are not present in melons.
If you reject prima facie that melons could exist on earth with no place in the evolutionary tree, you are biased.
I’ll meet your cognitive bias and raise. You don’t want to accept that despite your huge amount of investment in time and research into conventional anthro which has uncovered nothing useful for your life, heterodox amateurs have found something that blows all that out of the water.
“3 or 4 combinations of humans, and we all descend from one of those” – gross oversimplification, for face reading, not anthro.
Starchild caused by disease – no, impossible. Name the disease that alters cancellous holes in bone marrow, makes all bone enamel like, adds unprecedented strengthening fibers in bone, and many more anomalies. You haven’t even read Lloyd Pye’s books or watched his videos presenting the evidence. You are grouping together very different skulls under “starchild”, as well.
Laziness – is accepting consensus when easily performable experiments are available. Go and test my face reading theories.