Hungarians: Did you get vaccinated?

[Benyzero]

20's, as old.

Vely old

[Benyzero]

20's, as old.

Vely old

[Jana]

My friend got vac last week, not old, lives in Budapest.

wtf?

[Rethel]

Im just gonna point out the main point here in my eyes.

When you quote, leave the name of user in first quote, because otherwise, he will not be informed, as I wasn't.

I don't get it. If you are not talking about genetics, what is your justification for your proposed "reindoeuropeanization" of Hungarians?

The fact, that some percent of them are Indoeuropeans, and huge majority of them are not Ugrofinians.
It has nothing to do with genetics per se, with my wishes, or with any positive or negative feelings towards that group - it is just logical conclusion.
And that's it.

You said (I quote): they shouldn't "pretend to be Ugrofinians from Manchuria, becasue they are not." This is an obvious hint at their mixed genetics. You're not being consistent in your arguments when you pretend to not speak about genetics. Because you do. And the way I see it, this is even your main point in questioning the identity of Hungarians.

Firstly, there is no need for genetic, to know, that some part of them even huge majority, is not Ugrofinian.
As I allready said, before the honfoglalás there allready lived Slavs and remains of Gepids, Avars, Illyrians and Romans. This is fact.
Tribes which settled in Pannonia with Arpad were not only Ugrofinians, but also Turks, Jews and Iranians.
After that, Hungary have couple of periods of massive depopulations, after which, new settlers were brought to Pannonia, especially Slavs and Germans.
And at the end, in XIXth century 1/3 of "native" Hungarians, were recently magyarized Jews, Germans, Slovaks, Romanians aso.

So, why would you need genetics to know this?

And as I said, genetics are not completely unimportant

The only usefullness of genetics here is the final confirmation, if some things are true or not. That's it.

(also for me), but I just feel that you're taking your conclusions and proposals too far.

Talking about facts, history and logical summary is not even a proposal.

There is nothing wrong in stating however the genetics of Hungarians.

I don't understand what you meant here.

I understand. Language has always been an important factor of unifying people of different ancestral backgrounds (or similar tribes) into one state. Language thus was not only important for self-identitifcation but also to gain (political) power as a unified state is much more potent and powerful as some scattered tribes over a defined territory. In the case of Hungary, being in a mixing zone of various tribes/people with different background this has led to the genetic variation we see today.

+/- Yes.

[Rethel]

(out of the ten things you stated)

[Universe]

fuck off already, read first line of my previous post carefully.

[Universe]

he chose wrong enemies, better Iberian Moors, but anyway- nice topic, I am eating pierogi

I didn't choose enemies (plural), I have one enemy and that is Rethel. Why would I have a problem with everyone from his group? Btw I didn't choose him, he chose me.
Iberians aren't my enemies either, I just made a thread about their admixtures. If I make a thread asking "Are eastern Poles german admixed?", does that make me anti-Polish?

Yes, it is.
You made a big deal about it. You showed, that you'll say anything, to contradict me,

I'd argue you're making a bigger deal about it than I do because you keep bringing Pannonia to the discussion even though I stopped talking about it pages ago.

even if you have deny your own country and civilisation.

I didn't do that though.

The other explanation is that you showed your ignorance.

Sure..

So, there is hard to get to some agreement with you, if the only thing which you are interested in, is your own thoughts and being right, even if you do not know what you are talking about, or you contratict on purpose.

I explained myself previously a couple of pages ago, I said don't really care about the term pannonia, I already said I have a problem with your agenda in general, not with the word Pannonia.
I said this earlier, but if you aren't even reading what I said as you claimed, they why even keep replying to me?

So you can say I found an excuse to attack you, but that doesn't necessarily mean I was incorrect about what I said about Pannonia.
My point was modern Hungary isn't called Pannonia anywhere officially in 2020 and Pannonian isn't an ethonym that refers to modern day Hungarians, so saying Hungarians are Hungarians is more accurate than saying they're Pannonians.
How is that wrong?

What I said about Pannonia was just one of the many things I said, why bring it up of all things days after I talked about it?

No, it wans;t the case. You can't even acklowledge, that you was wrong.
So any disscussion is pointless, because you allready are right, and you never admit that you are wrong.

Wrong about what? That Hungarian is a more accurate way to describe Hungarians than "Pannonians" that isn't even an ethonym?

As stupidity — the same as this comparision between Prime Minister and a guy who has physical dissability.
Yea, you have no sense of humour at all.

First off, you claimed "Nick Vujicic has strong will power because he is R1". It makes as much sense as saying R1 made him born without limbs.

Saying I'm humorless is funny coming from the guy who took Longbowman's jewish suprmacists comments literally even though they were obviously jokes.
I couldn't tell if what you said about Churchill was joke or not, because when Longbowman contradicted you and said Churchill is a popular person in UK, you insisted he was disliked. You also have a history of making absurd R1 supremacist statements, how would I be able to tell you were joking? EVen if you were indeed joking, then that makes us even in this respect because you also took Longbowman's jokes seriously, Mr Humor guy.

Can't count.

You have a weird definition of "fake quote". If I rephrase what you said then you will say I'm "creating fake quotes" even if the paraphrased sentence means the same thing. For example, I said "you think half hungarians shouldn't speak hungarian" instead of the original quote "Hungarians with Indo-European haplogroups should be linguistically Indo-europeanized", then you accused me of creating fictional statement even though they techincally mean the same thing.
Judging by the weird criterion you used previously, I guess saying "97% of hungarians are fake hungarians for you" is also "creating a fictional quote", and even though you indeed didn't state that explicitly, you clearly implied it when you said only "3% of hungarians are real ones". Saying there are "real hungarians" implies the existence of "not real hungarians" aka "fake hungarians" or "lesser hungarians", so the rephrased sentence means what you implied/meant.

What are these ten things which you mentioned? I am still waiting.

Read the first sentence of of my previous post.
Here it is(directly after I quoted your question)

I didn't count them, I meant that figuratively not literally. My point was just becase people agree with you on ONE thing ("Hungarians are mixed") that doesn't mean they agree with everything you say/ support your world view.

Disscussion with you equals constant explaining what was not said, then you build on this another things which
have to be explained, becasue you do not listen or understand, or won't admit that you don't know or that you're wrong. In
the result, at the end, you don't even know, what the disscussion was about.

Funny because the other guy who disagreed with you (rero) made the similar observations to mine, so if two different persons read you the same way, then maybe you really mean that and people aren't misunderstanding you. He wasn't the only one to make similar observations to me btw..

[Rethel]

I have one enemy and that is Rethel.

[Jana]

Stears school friend died from corona He wasn't vaccinated and he had type I diabetis. Only 39 years old

Stears is very sad and upset RIP poor soul! :

[Benyzero]

I got my ass vacced yesterday