-->
@3RU7AL
Why not just skip to the inevitable conclusion and declare yourself the winner from the start ?
The audience decides the winner lol.
That's the whole point of a debate. It's about convincing the audience.
Why not just skip to the inevitable conclusion and declare yourself the winner from the start ?
What no - all you've pointed out is that on the whole chimpanzees and humans are pretty similar - cool - i've already acknowledge that. by RAWLY looking at the difference between humans we can come to conclusions that are specific to HUMANS. You have not actually acknowledge my point.And yes actually - Chimpanzes and Humans are Eukaryotes, Vertibrates, and decended from Great Apes - so yes - we are pretty similar. We are different by that remaining 4%, similarly we can do the same for humans with the remaining uniquely human genetics, you have not actually addressed my point, your being repetetive.
If your group is voting based on fairness and principles, and you come across a group of equal size voting based on their race, at best you'll get an even playing field if you win, but a racially biased system (against you) if you lose. Eventually, you'll lose enough elections to where the race-based group has majority control and implements policies that are not fair.
So, you’re saying that if a single racial group has total control of the country for long enough; they may well construct some some sort of system that generates unequal racial outcomes that is beneficial to them, and not to other races; the racism is no longer individual, but is kinda, I don’t know... systemic?Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....If only we had an example of where that happened...
Except for gender there is an alternate explanation - hormonal differences caused by a small gene set - which has been demonstrated. Can you demonstrate that black people have a similar genetic exception? No- you can't. Because if you could do that, you would have already done that, but you can't because your a racist conspiracist theoriest with no handle on logic.You have failed to acknowledge my rebuttal - and repeated your argument again. You are an obtuse intellectually bankrupt fraud who loves to be racist without saying - you've proven to me that you don't care about intellectual honesty by refusing to actually engage with my argument, merely repeating your tired old assertion. Good bye
is not currently...
Imagine
You have LITERALLY not engaged my point AT ALL.On a lot of levels humans and chimpanzes ARE the same - they are eukaryotes, they are vertebrates, they are primates! There is a DISTINCT genome which is UNIQUE to humans - within that UNIQUE genome or genetic code for humans - we know that there is MORE difference between black people as a population than between white and black people.YOU are attempting to say, "Well if the measure of difference in the genetics between two populations means that they aren't different, then your saying apes and humans aren't different!"INCORRECT - you are misconstruing the REASON I brought up this difference. You claim that there is a genetic difference which gives black and white people different performances in various fields, HOWEVER, the only way you could substantiate that and prove that those differences in performance aren't merely social differences would be to locate the SPECIFIC difference in genetics that Black people have from White people. HOWEVER, my point was to debunk that argument before you made it - AS if people performed differently BECAUSE of genetics, then CATEGORICALLY the two groups which are being compared HAVE to be different on that genetic level. SO the fact that the populations are actually more different against themselves means that the difference in performence CANNOT BE GENETIC.You have ignored, strawmanned, and continously been obtuse so as to avoid actually discussing my points. This will be my last explanation for you UNLESS you can actually adress my point in its completetion and not merely repeated yourself. Good luck.
This is where you should have stopped and realized that you're not about to talk about reality.
Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Well, the cycle of poverty will keep that going?
Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric?
…, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school…
ImagineThis is where you should have stopped and realized that you're not about to talk about reality.What I was talking about is actually what happened in reality: I’m explaining how overtly racist laws can produce inequality that can be maintained with a fig leaf of non-racial justification.I was simply employing a rhetorical device in its delivery.I think you know this however, and your objection was simply a red herring in order to dismiss an argument you didn’t like.
White flight occurred because of a long term rise in violent crime concentrated in urban areas beginning in the 1960s...
Your "imagine" rhetorical device doesn't prove anything.
Demonstrate using data, facts and research that systemic racism is real.If you can't do that (you haven't so far), you have no logical argument.
we have to start at a point of common understanding and agreement: and from there we can build up.
Your "imagine" rhetorical device doesn't prove anything.Well no: the argument but after does he work to set up my point; so far you’ve been kinda trying to avoid it.
No no no. Right now - my intent isn’t to prove systemic racism exists - that would be you moving the goal posts.
As I’m debating a white supremacist with extreme views
Everyone has their own strategies for how to defend their beliefs from direct attacks
You are not building your arguments correctly.
Nobody but you cares about the 'principles we agree on', your "imagine" speeches or whether I'm a 'white supremacist' or not. These are objectively irrelevant and a waste of time in regards to systemic racism.
State your argument involving systemic racism, defend it with data/research/studies, and we'll go from there. That is how arguments are formed. Your Ad Hominem and red herring pivots are not worth engaging.