In defense of we who lack logic and the Jew forum

[m5lange1]

Inquisitor,
First my apologies to you regarding this particular subject. It is not aimed at you but rather at those who have accused so many of us of not competing with your brilliant logic.
I disagree with, but completely respect your right to voice, your opinion. Especially since I have not seen you condone any violent acts against those you dispise.

Regarding the actual subject matter being debated under "holocaust" and the "Jewish question" I could not care less if Inquisitor were arguing that grey rocks are more stupid than brown rocks.

This is in response to:

Paavo ..........he sure debates better than most others do here IMO.

IMHO Inquisitor is very eloquent, brave enough to take up a very unpopular stance, and stay cool under the ensuing barrage of negativity..
BUT also
OMHO the substance of his arguments AND his supporting evidence is the same old tripe marched out by every bigot I have ever encountered.

THEREFORE it seems to me that in the glare of his courage at being so anti PC some have neglected to really read the posts with a detached and critical eye. I wish to highlight what I feel has been skimmed over.

Paavo If his logic is flawed in your opinion, you prove it wrong.

Hopefully to show that this HAS been done by many of us here and quite effectively if one takes the time to really read the posts.

Paavo I haven't even clicked his links, so I can't say how legit they are.

I have. Please do so. You will find that it is not so much that they are illigitimate but they are frequently simply published opinions or (as I shall point out below) make statements that to not support the argument he is presenting.

Suburbanite He has clearly done his homework .......

To which Nono accurately replied

Nono He's done some homework, yes...... The remaining (and yawning) gaps he fills in with anecdote and speculative musings.

Suburbanite ........and is more than prepared for any comment you can send back his way.

Really? Truthfully I cannot imagine, whether you agree with him or not, you would be so oblivious to the comments that HAVE been sent his way.

Please note any boldface are comments my me (M5)

Let us now look at the statements objectively. Forget the actual subject being right or wrong and concentrate on the logic, the evidence, or lack thereof.....

Inquisitor regarding the holocaust There is no factual evidence apart from suvivour's accounts, which leads me to reason #2 I have meet many jews in my life ( some 60-70) some were good people, most were not, but every single one without exception was a pathological liar. By factual evidence I mean: results of forensic investigation, body remains, in short something tangible.

Two points to be made here.
1. He is rejecting the notion of the Holocaust in light of "no factual evidence". Please note his definition of factual evidence. It is tremendously relevant in that his claims are not backed by any such "factual evidence" using his own definition.

2. He rejects eye whitness accuonts based on his belief that all Jews are pathological liars. However all survivors of the Holocaust were NOT Jews.

Dunedan I supposed you'd deny the evidence of all the other Catholics, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Slavs, and Dissidents who went to the camps? Or are we Unter-Menschen not to be trusted?

Inquisitor's well researched and logical response?

Inquisitor My own grandfather's eye witness ( he was a Russian POW, goes against official version of holocaust). Who exactly do you mean by we? What group you belong to? gypsy? homosexual?

This is a solid debater's response? That we should deny all surviving eyewhitnesses because his Grandpa spent time in a POW camp? That was not even the same TYPE of camp as the ones in question?
OK.

Inquisitor While British government as well as American are indeed controlled by jews,

I have seen people repremanded on this website for making such statements without some supportive proof. I do not agree with such repremands but I am a bit flabbergasted when I see the one making such bold and unproven statements praised for their logic and research.

Inquisitor I hope you have heard of 1917 revolution? This event lead to the bloodiest government of all times. Number of human casualties are in 100 million. Let's see what eye witnesses had to say about this event.

Where is that "factual evidence" that is so lacking in the holocaust claims? If one is going to deny historical referrences based on such requrements would you not expect one who...

Paavo debates better than most others do here

to hold his own hstorical referrences up to the same scruteny?

I am not trying to complain, to die for Russia is the duty of every noble ( part of the price of that " fancy privileges"). Yet execution of women and children is a lot harder to forgive.

Again, I sympathize. But where is the rationale that his complaint is legitimate while he denies others?

Inquisitor In short jews are responcible for the worst massacre in the history of humanity. Their cinical attempt to hide it behind their suffering from Nazie's is sickening. As I said even if Hitler did kill 6 million jews it pales compared to what jews did.

Here we have but one example of abslolutes. The WORST massacre in history????? A good debater would not make such a claim. It is totally unprovable. What Rome did to Carthage, The Third Crusade, Wounded Knee, The Reign of Terror in the French revolution, The Boxer Rebellion, The Holocaust (whether he recognizes it or not). This is not the statment of objective logic nor is it substantiated. Not to mention that putiing the entire blame on Jews would be a controversy in itself.

In fact here is his justification for blaming the Jews for his rather dubious clame of the WORST massacre in history....

Inquisitor I have never stated that ALL bolsheviks are jews, nor that all jews are bolsheviks. Yet, jews are very overepresented among the bolsheviks. The fact that jews made up 90% of bolshevik government cannot be conviniently ignored.

Let us take a look at these claims and how they are defended with logic and homework...

Inquisitor 1. Obviously no research exists which looks into predisposition of various nations towards sexual perversions. Anecdotal evidence suggests however that jews are extremly prone to sexual perversions. Check it for yourself, get a jewish boy/girlfriend. Or watch any hollywoood movie/show. Where there are homosexuals, lesbians or other perverts, there are always jews. Let's not forget that a lot of "homosexual rights activists" are jews. Look around you, it's easy to see when you know what to look for.

This is a statement which comes out and admits that it is not provable, just that you have to "know what to look for". This to you is logical?
I think it is more logical to say "when you are predisposed to look for certain things you tend to find them."

Inquisitor 2. Much easier with this one ( this was referring to mental disorders). Untill jews started to dominate social science and took media under their control ( early 20th century) it was a well known scientific fact. I refer you to Chezare Lombrozo ( a jew himself) who in his book " Genius and insanity" said: " incidence of serious mental disorder is 4-5 times higher among jews than among any other nation". Let's look at jewish mental health from another prospective. The most common mental disorder is schizophrenia which is one name for two manias, mania of persecution and megalomania. Now, let's look into couple of judaic laws: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts..." -Saba Mecia 114, 6 Clearly the case of megalomania. Following is the case of mania of prosecution: "To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." -Libbre David 37 Once again if one knows what to look for, he will see all this among jews.

Interesting. The statement is rediculous on its surface so lets look at the evidence and rationale.
First Chezare Lombrozo stated an opinion with no statistcal facts to back himself up. Besides...he is a jew and according to the author of this statement that makes him a pathological liar.
Second, taking schizophrenia and attributing it more commonly to Jews will take a LOT more that the convoluted path of logic noted above for proof. Read what you are defending people!!!!!

Inquisitor 3. Physical deformities among jews is the easiest one, for they are the hardest to hide. Jews have the highest incidence of redheads ( extremly degenerative trait).

WOW. Come on guys.... He really pulled this one out of his ass.. had to have. There is no such evidence. I was so surprised by this that I actually did some seraching. The Scotts and the Irish might want to chime in on this one :rolleyes: Also that red hair is an "extremely degenerative trait" is tacked on as if it were a fact. Where is the proof on that fantastic claim?

Inquisitor Jews have very high incidence of genetic disorders: http://www.jewishgeneticscenter.org/

Please go to this link. This is one I was referring to that bears no proof of his statement. I begin to wonder if some of you just see a link and think "oh well it must be proof". Since I doubt that you will, I will tell you it is simply a medical site that notes diseases that are more common among Jewish families. Like Cycle cell is among Blacks or any other myriad of maladies that are more prone to afflict certain races than others. It can be done for ANY ethnicity.

Look at photos of famous jews, they aren't generally beautiful people.

Now here is a fine piece of irrefutable logic. Lets pick out any race and go back looking for beautiful people.

In light of Suburbanites skepticism of our ability to send back comments, lets look at a few of our responses.....

Inquisitor Why is it that in any country where jews would take residence, anti semitism woould follow? Why it has been the case for thousands of years? If anti-semitism is without merit ... then it follows that there is something wrong with ALL the nations in the world. Can it be true?

Bishop by that logic, blacks are naturally slaves - because people from all regions (minus east asia i suppose) have owned black slaves at one time or another.

That looks like a solid response to me.
Inquisitors counter?

Inquisitor Yes I have heard this before. Poor prosecuted minority is always right. I can think of other minorities disliked by majority, criminals for example.

Yes I have heard THAT before... every time bigots want ot keep a minority down. A little denial of human nature seems to be surfacing here.

Then to go on and call criminals a minority as if they are some kind of ethnic group unto themselves? This is the "logic and debating style that impresses you?

I thought LLuvatar did beautifully... where is his (her) pat on the back?

LLuvatar Inquisitor, You base a good deal of your arguement on the idea that lot's of people of hated jews for a long time. This is a combination of two logical fallacies, appeal to tradition and Bandwagon Fallacies. To draw the conclusion that because it has been done before, it is therefore correct, is highly fallicious. That is the logic that has been keeping anti-seminism going for these thousands of years. I can explain some of it, though. Most of the jewish persecution began in the last 500-700 years. In Europe (where the worst persecution took place), most people were Christians, and they were bibicaly forbidden to have insurence or banking (I believe it fell under the heading of gambling). The Jews, however, had no problem with these actions, and used them to great advantage. This, in combination with the general spirit of hard work and education that Judaism taught, put a large nuumber of jews in relatively well off financial statuses. Since parents tend to pass off their financial status to theri children, most jews tend to be upper-middle class. These are the people at whom anger, when there is a social climate for it, is directed. For example, when hitler came to power, he pointed at the successful people, the jews, and said 'These people are casuing your problem!'. Long jealousy allowed people to overcome logic and blame those who had mopre stuff than them. As for anecdotal evidence, I know only one Jewish family. The father is a docter, the mother is a lawyer (and a black belt), the son has a GPA of 98, and is one of the most popular kids in my school. The sister wa the same, but has recently left for collage, where she is doing very well. Your logic is like swiss cheese, and I look forward to poking holes in it later on, when I have more time.

What follows is the absolute that I could not believe was presented. NO debater would make this statement and expect it to stand (in fact in defense of Inquisitor he did rephrase this statement after I hounded on it a few times).

Inquisitor I am saying that a jew is much more likely to be evil than any other ethnicity on this planet.

I asked for evidence... I got this

Inquisitor I have already done so. I am sorry if you unable to see it. QUOTE They then list the proportions of various ethnic groups in the Soviet secret police: Jews: 39 % Russians and Ukrainians 36 % Latvians, Germans, Poles 14% Others 12% This is particularly significant since the Jews made up only 1% of the Russian population!" Now, for those of you who don't know. Being a member of Soviet Secret Police, was a career choice to torture and execute innocent people. Therefore by definition these people were evil. If jews are 39 times more likely to be represented among this group it's a good indication of their psychological pathology.

I am unsure of the validity of thes numbers but I concede them since they are not the point. I will further concede the evil of the Soviet Secret Police since that is also not the point.
The point is the abosoluteness and its indefensability.
KKK ws evil and I do not NEED numbers. They were all white americans.
The SS were overwhelmingly German.
AlQueda is overwhelmingly Arabic


And this...

Inquisitor Here is the link, all the evidence anyone needs is there. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p-99_OKeefe.html Look it up if you pride yourself to be a free thinker. I know from personal experience how hard it is to overcome propaganda condtioning. Yet if one hears something on TV, reads about it in the papers, forced to learn about it in school, it has all the traits of propaganda.

Here was my response....

M5 When someone makes statements that one group is MORE anything than ANY other some comparitive data is required. I see references to Jewish involvment in the red revolution (which we are supposed to accept on no more evidence than exists for verification of the holocaust which he denies) and the Russian Mafia, and I see reference to how many cultures have hated Jews. Someone could dupicate his arguments holding up the holocaust as evidence that arians are the MOST EVIL of all ethnic groups, or the Itallians and their involvement in the Costa Nostra as evidence. I have seen NO comparitive evidence. ... When you say MORE evil than ANY other ethnicity... Just think how impossible that statement is to prove. 1. "Evil" is somewhat subjective in itself. 2. "More" requires defending the LACK of equal evil in, say, the Muslim community. 3. "Any" is an absloute. Good debators seldom use such absolute terms for obvious reasons. His arguments are for lack of evidence on the part of almost anything supporting Jews such as the Holocaust. What is his main argument? That you canot trust Jews because they are liars? C'mon. That is saying a statement proves itself. All redheads are compulsive deniers. If they deny it, they prove your point. Circularly misleading. His "evidence" has almost totally been presenting articles and books regarding the opinions of various individuals. So? That is painstakingly boreing but can be done for almost any subject where there is a prejudice or contoversy. What if we say all those people he quotes are pathological liars like the Jews? He is simply saying the opinions of his sources are enlightened and anything to the contrary is based on Jewish propaganda. It is an old Highschool debate trick. Try to universally refute any counter evidence by making the presenter or the source seem like part of the poor duped majority. M5 His "done so" is comprised of examples of Jewish historical 'wrongs' which are a mixture of truth and opinionated assumptions. All of which I could duplicate for Americans, Itallians, Germans, Native Americans, Catholics, Protestants, Blacks, Irish, British, Hispanics and several social organizations.

Again Inquisitor, my apologies. You are sort of being fought over rather than with and I mean no disrespect, but I felt it necessary to defend those who I felt mad very valid arguments (myself included) who seemed to be dismissed out of hand as floundering boobs.

[Inquisitor]

Yes, I agree, my argument is not always perfect.
My evidence is not always convincing.

Yet, I have very serious reasons to hold the views I do. Give me some time and I will present more ( in fact much more) evidence.

Thanks for feedback.

[m5lange1]

Inquisitor,
You are being a very good sport through all of this.
I hope I do not sound condescending but, in light of your apparent desire for honest critique, here are some suggestions.

1. Avoid using absolute words like "all", "every", "always" etc.. It forces you into comapritive defense and distracts from your message. In nearly all (notice the avoidnece of saying every ) cases absolutes are impossible to prove.

2. If you demand a specific type of evidence for proof of something be absolutely sure you have that type of proof available for your own claims.

3. Be wary of depending on published opinions as proof. Liars and buffoons get published too. There usually has to be some statement of credibility for a person if you are referring only to an opinion rather than gathered stats. For example, as I pointed out above, if your premise is that Jews are pathological liars, it does not do you much good to use them for a source.

4. Question your own sources. Ask yourself if you would believe that if it were information against your beliefs. For example, linking to a site that shows Jews are prone to certain deseases does not necessaryly lead to proof of genetic inferiority since it can be done for almost any ethniticy that exists. My wife is professor of medicine and she teaches genetics.

This is meant as friendly advice, not a criticism (I did enough of that above).

[Nono]

Thanks for going to the trouble of drafting that exhaustive and telling post, m5lange1. I agree that Inqui is a good sport and admire his humility.

Here's a challenge for Paavo and Suburbanite (and any others whose prejudices have been titillated by Inquisitor's views and have leapt to his defence with hogwash about his debating strengths): go back through this thread and draw his points together into a cogent and convincing summary.

Well guys? Dare ya.

[Suburbanite]

If I recall correctly, which I always do, I am there with everyone else arguing against him.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Nono+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>... hogwash about his debating strengths ...[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite
So far (Inquisitor) has done an amazing job of not only remaining tamer than his opponents but done quite an eloquent job justifying his positions.[/quote]

Yeah, awesome power of recall you have there.

[Suburbanite]

It doesn't mean I agree with him though, nor does it mean that all his sources check out, most sources don't. But his expression of those ideas were as sturdy as any others I've seen, but far too many replies just called him a bigot.

[Inquisitor]

I disagree with, but completely respect your right to voice, your opinion. Especially since I have not seen you condone any violent acts against those you dispise.

No I have never done any violent acts against jews, even though it's very tempting. However any violence of an individual will only benefit jews. The mos powerful weapon against jews is the truth ( untill one has political power to do more).

1. He is rejecting the notion of the Holocaust in light of "no factual evidence". Please note his definition of factual evidence. It is tremendously relevant in that his claims are not backed by any such "factual evidence" using his own definition.

I disagree. I refer you once more to the site of Institute for Historical Review. If one goes to their online library, one will see the following books.
Paul Rassinier's The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses (former title: "Debunking the Genocide Myth")
David Hoggan's The Myth of the Six Million
Michael Connor's Dealing in Hate
Richard Harwood's Did Six Million Really Die?
Fred Leuchter's Forensic Examination and Engineering Report on the alleged Nazi gassing facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek (aka The Leuchter Report)

As evidence I present these works. So one has to disprove their facts.

2. He rejects eye whitness accuonts based on his belief that all Jews are pathological liars. However all survivors of the Holocaust were NOT Jews.

Holocaust survivour is very profitable ( 100% assurance that your book will be published ) and comfortable ( 100% assurance that media willl say only good things about you) position to be in. Hardly surprising that not only jews but other conscience-traders jumped on the band wagon.

I have seen people repremanded on this website for making such statements without some supportive proof. I do not agree with such repremands but I am a bit flabbergasted when I see the one making such bold and unproven statements praised for their logic and research.

Political power in both countries ( US and Britain) is based on elections. Majority of politicians depend on mass media to be elected. Therefore control of media is control of the government. Under "jewish question" I provided evidence that it is indeed jews who control almost all influential media in US, one can easly find similar data for Britain.

QUOTE Inquisitor I hope you have heard of 1917 revolution? This event lead to the bloodiest government of all times. Number of human casualties are in 100 million. Let's see what eye witnesses had to say about this event. Where is that "factual evidence" that is so lacking in the holocaust claims? If one is going to deny historical referrences based on such requrements would you not expect one who...

So what evidence do I have to provide?
That 1917 revolution took place?
That it was organised by jews?
That number of victims was higher than of any other government?

I am happy to provide the evidence requested, if you specify which of the above facts looks doubtful to you.

Here we have but one example of abslolutes. The WORST massacre in history????? A good debater would not make such a claim. It is totally unprovable.

Sorry, but it is provable. Providing we accept that number of victims is the measure of evil.
Of course one can argue that 6 million jews are more valuable than say 60 million people of other ethnicity. In which case you are right.

First Chezare Lombrozo stated an opinion with no statistcal facts to back himself up.

Incorrect he did provide statistics.
In 1869 there were;
1 insane per 1775 catholics
1 insane per 1725 protestants
1 insane per 384 jews

Please go to this link. This is one I was referring to that bears no proof of his statement. I begin to wonder if some of you just see a link and think "oh well it must be proof". Since I doubt that you will, I will tell you it is simply a medical site that notes diseases that are more common among Jewish families. Like Cycle cell is among Blacks or any other myriad of maladies that are more prone to afflict certain races than others. It can be done for ANY ethnicity.

Now, you accuse me of making absolute statements yet you use the word ANY in your reply. Therefore, plese tell me what genetic disorders occur disproportionally frequently among : Poles? Finns? Russians? Chinese? Germans?
Also please direct me to Centre for study of ( insert ANY ethnicity) genetic disorders.
True there are groups of people who due to historical and geographical reasons have higher tendency for genetic disorders. Yet, plese identify one such group ( let alone ethnicity) which compares to jews in this respect.

[m5lange1]

Please keep in mind the topic of this thread is debating technique and the use of logic/evidence. My debate points here have to do with Inquisitors logic and evidence, not Jews or raceism.


All quotes by Inquisitor, exceptions are noted.


OK Inq here we go....

I disagree. I refer you once more to the site of Institute for Historical Review. If one goes to their online library, one will see the following books. Paul Rassinier's The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses (former title: "Debunking the Genocide Myth") David Hoggan's The Myth of the Six Million Michael Connor's Dealing in Hate Richard Harwood's Did Six Million Really Die? Fred Leuchter's Forensic Examination and Engineering Report on the alleged Nazi gassing facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek (aka The Leuchter Report) As evidence I present these works. So one has to disprove their facts.

So... If you present a book, the burdon of proof falls on the one you are trying to convince?
It would never fly in competition, rather you would have to prove the quality of your sources but....
I will use your methods.

QUOTE  (from M5) 2. He rejects eye whitness accuonts based on his belief that all Jews are pathological liars. However all survivors of the Holocaust were NOT Jews. Inquisitors reply Holocaust survivour is very profitable ( 100% assurance that your book will be published ) and comfortable ( 100% assurance that media willl say only good things about you) position to be in. Hardly surprising that not only jews but other conscience-traders jumped on the band wagon.

Note: No subject is 100% assured of publication. That is ridiculous.

Firstly, you are changing your justification from lying jews to greedy authors of all sorts. Changing your justification is not defending your position it is running away from your first argument.

Secondly, Anti Holocaust revisionism is very popular. Reasonable assurance that you book will be published. Hardly sruprising that not only anti-semites but other hate-mongers jumped on the band wagon.

Hey.... If it works for you it works for me. If you use a technique to dismiss a mass of works out of hand... that same technique can be turned on you with equal rationality... As just noted.

Political power in both countries ( US and Britain) is based on elections. Majority of politicians depend on mass media to be elected. Therefore control of media is control of the government. Under "jewish question" I provided evidence that it is indeed jews who control almost all influential media in US, one can easly find similar data for Britain.

I must have missed that bit of conclusive evidence. But lets follow your logic anyway...
You say a country is based on elections..
You say the candidates are dependant on media..
You say jews control almost all influential media..
You therefore conclude that the governments are controled by jews.
This is blatant conspiricay theory logic.
There are yawning gaps in the facts and the links in your chains.

Inquisitor I hope you have heard of 1917 revolution? This event lead to the bloodiest government of all times. Number of human casualties are in 100 million. Let's see what eye witnesses had to say about this event. Quote by M5 Where is that "factual evidence" that is so lacking in the holocaust claims? If one is going to deny historical referrences based on such requrements would you not expect one who... Quote Inquisitor So what evidence do I have to provide? That 1917 revolution took place? That it was organised by jews? That number of victims was higher than of any other government?

The same evidence you require Inquisitor.

Inquisitor regarding the holocaust There is no factual evidence apart from suvivour's accounts....... By factual evidence I mean: results of forensic investigation, body remains, in short something tangible.

Do you not see the box you put yourself in here?
You are, all too obviously, not playing by the same rules you expect your opponants to play by. You weaken your own case.

Inquisitor Let's see what eye witnesses had to say about this event.

Again, your audience is supposed to believe your whitnesses yet you dismiss all opposing whitnesses by calling them lying Jews, when it is pointed out they are not all Jews you back off that argument and say any others are profiteers. I am sure that when someone points out a non-Jewish speaker that is volunteering time by speaking on the holocaust you will say they have a polical agenda or some other motive.
Yet your whitnesses are somehow pure and truthful?
This is not logic, this just says 'if they do not agree with me they lie if the do agree with me they are credible.'

In reference to Chezare Lombrozo.....

............. he did provide statistics. In 1869 there were; 1 insane per 1775 catholics 1 insane per 1725 protestants 1 insane per 384 jews

Chezare Lombrozo ( a jew himself)

So is it that Jews are pathological liars unless they provide evidence you approve of?
Or are they liars who are incapapble of making up numbers?

This is really weak. Remember how I advised you to substantiate the credentials of your sources. Calling them a liar yourself does NOT meet this criteria.

Quote from m5 It can be done for ANY ethnicity. INSERT for context This was regarding a site reference that addressed medical conditions that people of the Jewish race were more prone to. Now, you accuse me of making absolute statements yet you use the word ANY in your reply.

Touche'.... That is a bad technique. But I am relatively certain I can back up the "any" in this case..... the word ethinicity was truly my error. I should have said race. Various races are simply more prone to some conditions than others due to differences in the immune system.

Therefore, plese tell me what genetic disorders occur disproportionally frequently among : Poles? Finns? Russians? Chinese? Germans?

Again my a admisssion to using "ethnicity" instead of "race" painted me into a corner.
However let me change the word to race.
Seceptability to various conditions does NOT prove genetic disorders in the way you are presenting the term. As if "genetic disorders" somehow equate to degeneracy and mental ilness. That is something you have just stated as fact that is simply innaccurate. While your knowledge of history is impressive, you need to brush up on your medical information.

Also please direct me to Centre for study of ( insert ANY ethnicity) genetic disorders. True there are groups of people who due to historical and geographical reasons have higher tendency for genetic disorders. Yet, plese identify one such group ( let alone ethnicity) which compares to jews in this respect.

Here are a few but it is far from exhaustive:

First a quote from your own link:

Many racial and ethnic groups have "their own" genetic disorder disorders which are not unique to the group, but which occur more frequently in the group.

This is a good one to let you know what genetic disorders really are:
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/disord...ders/whataregd/

This one is a bit hard to navigate so I have just included a quote from it below:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1221.asp

Do We All Have the Same Chance of Inheriting Sickle Cell Disease? No. In the United States, most cases of sickle cell disease occur among African-Americans, and Hispanics of Caribbean ancestry. About one in every 400 African-Americans has sickle cell disease. It also affects people of Arabian, Greek, Maltese, Italian, Sardinian, Turkish and Indian ancestry.

This makes it very clear:

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/science_ed/g...enepop/faq.html

Why are some genetic conditions more common in particular ethnic groups? Some genetic disorders are more likely to occur among people who trace their ancestry to a particular geographic area. People in an ethnic group often share certain versions of their genes, which have been passed down from common ancestors. If one of these shared genes contains a disease-causing mutation, a particular genetic disorder may be more frequently seen in the group. Examples of genetic conditions that are more common in particular ethnic groups are sickle cell anemia, which is more common in people of African, African-American, or Mediterranean heritage; and Tay-Sachs disease, which is more likely to occur among people of Ashkenazi (eastern and central European) Jewish or French Canadian ancestry. It is important to note, however, that these disorders can occur in any ethnic group.

The point being... Pick a target! diging up a site that shows a race (and I am surprised but they are using the term ethnicity too although I think one would be hard pressed to differentiate between an Ausritan and a northern Itallian for example) is geneticly prone to a given condition.
It is easy to do but it does NOT prove degeneracy nor infiiriority.

In other words the eveidence is not relevant to the point and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of medicine and genetics will know that.


Edited for a PS.

I have to concede thatn I fell into the "any" trap. Data cannot be found on "Any" race. I should have known that and it was astute of you, Inquisitor, to point out my falling into a pit I should know better than to walk across.

Some races simply have no data available. The Basks (sp?). The various west indian nations such as the Incas as opposed to the Souix. It is either too obscure to find or (more likely) the data does not exists.
See? Those absolutes will getcha every time..