Total posts: 468
Posted in:
Neither Traditional Conservatism or Progressivism are ultimately effective in moderating human behaviour.
Humans should consider voluntary extinction.
When it comes to flavours, strawberry is better than chocolate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
The rewards encourage increased use
Sure, but they don't demand increased use. You can use something called self-restraint.
while the cost is passed onto society at large
This is so vague that only you would understand what you meant by this.
then often people end up spending them like a gift card towards an endorced outlet.
What data do you have to reach this conclusion?
Besides, you're able to choose what rewards you receive, so I don't understand why this is a problem, if it is proven to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
In my experience, credit cards have a bad reputation. Horror stories, such as having the overdue interest rocket well over 25%, are sometimes heard.
However, also in my experience, if you're able to be disciplined and organised with your credit card usage, there are perks:
1) Automatic extended warranty protection for any purchase
2) Any fraud doesn't result in you losing money immediately, like it would with a debit card
3) Rebate points and cashback (e.g. receiving 2.5% cashback almost offsets inflation, and you didn't have to invest a cent)
So, as you can see, credit cards are a handy tool for responsible adults.
Created:
Posted in:
"Anger after white people and men are banned from 'anti-racism' rally at British university by its own student union DIVERSITY OFFICER"
That's the headline to the most profoundly hypocritical decisions I have ever encountered. I'm not sure a fabricated scenario could be more hypocritical than this. Let's unpack the hypocrisy, and then muse over what it could mean:
1) White people are banned from an anti-racism rally (seems a bit "racist")
2) Men are banned from a rally by a diversity officer (seems anti-diversity)
3) Men are banned for sexism (seems pretty sexist)
4) Rally is actually open only to BME (Black and minority ethnics) women (see all parentheses above)
I can't imagine anyone defending this cataclysmic mess, so lets posit reasons as to how this overt hypocrisy is acceptable in someone's mind.
Firstly, the term "racist" has no concrete meaning, and is essentially a slanderous term used when feelings are hurt. Since young people, at least in the education I've seen, are indoctrinated from an age (5 years of age) that doesn't allow them to think critically, to think that white people have done horrible things in the past, and that this horrible history proves they are racist, it's no wonder the term "racist" isn't consistently applied (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174).
Secondly, I think this exposes what racial and gender equality is about: extracting resources from out-groups (i.e. people of different gender and race). Certainly, the underlying principles found here are horribly contradicted, so there must be an alternate train of thought, and a train of thought designed to extract resources, under the false pretence of a higher principle, is the chosen method. This racial zealotry is not surprising, considering that race is the most important factor, in regards to a personal identity (and thus politics, too) (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/107).
Lastly, this is not the first time I've discovered flagrant racial hatred/exclusionary tactics against white people, particularly white men (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915). What does this say of society when such racial hatred seems ignored or even encouraged?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Yeah, I like Sam as well and was surprised to hear this. And I actually can't see any more than you do, I turned down the position of full time assistant mod. Did Sam unleash out of the blue, was there an argument or something?
Yes, it was out of the blue. I barely knew Sam before it happened. I strongly suspect he had something bad happen to him, of which had nothing to do with me. There really isn't much else that could explain his out of control behaviour.
In general I think because many of our members were from DDO, where there was no active moderation to speak of and you had an anything-goes environment, many people may have forgotten what moderation looks like. Laying down new law after such a long period of lawlessness is bound to be turbulent.
Max used to law down the law (we're talking 3+ years ago). I suppose that as the site became dysfunctional, Max just stopped caring. But yeah, whilst I wasn't around for all of it, DDO became pretty wild by the end of it.
As a side note, Poly is actually perfectly capable of intelligent and contributive posts, I just have no idea what determines the Jekyll/Hyde factor. Or what her problem with me and others is.
Her behaviour is pretty trollish -- I wouldn't be surprised if she was just a troll. There is something clearly wrong with her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This is actually an interesting and worthwhile question to ask, one of which I wouldn't normally expect of you, Ethan, making it all the more pleasing to see.
My guess (and I do mean guess) is that they are, but perhaps to a smaller degree than humans, due to social complexities being lesser in non-human animals. I think fashion is determined by in/out-group status, and thus animals, given that they also have these group selection mechanisms, would also be capable of fashion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Absolutely. A debate site, when filled with personal attacks, becomes unproductive and a breeding ground for trolls. I think people are forgetting why a site like this should exist at all: to facilitate interesting and intellectual content. The odd frivolous post is fine, but when the content degrades to personal attacks, it's not longer of use to anyone.Ah, so what. Those are about the numbers I was expecting. I don't get why people are clutching their pearls over temp bans. Unless personal attacks are stricken from the CoC, this is what you get.
At this point I half wish they were, dealing with them is a mess. Of course, then you'd just have users like Poly tearing around completely unpunished.Yes. I think we can all agree that Poly has a nasty habit of doing that. We do need procedures in place for users like her.
Also I'm not sure why you formed an opinion about this ban before you knew anything about it.
I think it's largely because we wouldn't expect Sam to behave in such a horrible way. A week ago, if you had told me that Sam would go on a doxxing tirade, all with the clear intent of ruining someone's life, I wouldn't have believed you. But hey, he did it, and if people saw it like you and I did (assuming that you, being a mod, have access to the deleted thread), I'm certain people would quickly realise that Sam made a horrible decision.
Maybe Sam was having a bad day. Maybe Sam was overly emotional about something. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, given his excellent track record. Certainly, no one is celebrating his actions or banning -- it's actually quite sad to see someone completely lose it. Despite attempting to do something horribly malicious, I think it's best to hope that he comes to see how out of control he was, and then forgive him so that we can move on.
Created:
You and I were never friends in the first place.
D:
Bu-but.
No...
No...
No!
This cannot be true! You do not mean those words, RM! This is some kind of twisted joke, designed to test our friendship.
Surely! Right?
...
I refuse to give up on you. No matter how much we fight, we will always be the closest of friends.
I will brave the coldest of Winters. I will survive the harshest of Summers. I will dance with those crabs on the beach.
My heart will go on.
Together forever.
Created:
Posted in:
I know this comment will be unpopular, especially most people are not sure what Sam did, but I couldn't be happier with this moderation. Seriously, bsh and his team are setting the reasonable rules and following through with them, something Max was a bit loose on (he was still an excellent mod).
Being a teacher myself, I know how difficult it is to set and follow through with rules, so I have a lot of respect for this work being done. It is thankless, often nasty work, and whilst it could be argued that it's not all smooth sailing, they are human and I'm willing to overlook the very occasional misstep.
I've watched Sam flagrantly and maliciously break the rules (he attempted to doxx in my AMA thread, and then spammed doxxing questions and information in it, too), and he gets banned for it. I've watched other people break the rules, and they get banned for it. None of the bans are draconian, and the punishments seem to be thoroughly thought through and weighted, something Max continuously got right, too.
Anyway, I know Sam probably thinks he's a martyr for a good cause, but he's shown a complete disregard for the community by so odiously ignoring the rules. No one wants a community wherein people are continuously attempting to doxx and ruin people's lives. What's more shocking is that Sam seemed to be one of the more sane members on this site, someone I really didn't have any beef with. But again, moderation has shown that it doesn't give special privileges to people breaking the rules, which is nothing short of admirable. When Sam receives another chance, I hope he returns to his old, sane self so that the community can welcome him again.
I hope we appreciate how great this moderation is, because boy oh boy it can get A LOT worse.
Created:
Sowwie.
I didun mean to buwwie.
I hope we can stiwl be fwiends : >
Created:
Am I a bully now? ;(
pls no bully
Created:
Oh yes, RM. I won't be laughing for long. You're a very scary person who is going to teach me a lesson with those twig arms of yours -- a lesson about the necessity of a gym xD
Created:
I was genuinely tempted to write the vintage "see you next week," but I think your points deserve a bit more than derisory dismissal.
I don't have a whole lot of time to write something extensive tonight, but I'll briefly outline my view.
Whilst I think the userbase of this site is worse than DDO, in terms of posting quality (although, there are some posters worth reading), I think the moderation and structure of the site is on par with DDO, if not better. Moderation is responsive and rapidly becoming better (it was appalling to begin with), with decisions becoming better overtime. Copying DDO's website structure was a smart idea, but this site doesn't have all the bugs, glitches and spam of DDO, so it's already ahead there. Add to that the owner who is making this site better everyday, and you really have a lot going for this site.
The debaters forfeiting rounds was far worse on DDO. People clinging to the forums, instead of debates, has become a recent problem for both this site and DDO. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy making unique, sometimes controversial threads on the forums, arguably more than I did debating. I learn so much faster when I'm receiving a multitude of feedback. Debating is really about bragging and inflating your ego, so I'm not against this forum culture at all.
If this site welcomes a few more Skeps, thetts, whiteflames and maybe even a bluesteel, it will become better than DDO.
Created:
>yfw all of the people complaining about bsh's moderation are the ones breaking the rules and getting banned
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Yeah, it's strange how Zeichen didn't want any messages from me, yet at the same time followed me around on the forums and didn't bother to block me.
It's almost like Zeichen is just crybully trolling, and has been doing this for years.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol people being stalked don't follow their stalkers around on forums.
Everyone can see your post history, Zeichen -- you're not fooling anyone.
Now shush. Bsh has had enough of this nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
Awww, Zeichen is following me around, like a lost, lil puppy.
Look at his post history.
Poor, wittle Zeichen :<
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What I said is not an opinion. Its a fact.
What did you use to support your two sentences? Did you even attempt to prove that it was indeed a fact? Did you attempt to show it was axiomatic, and thus didn't need evidence?
You did none of those things, because you don't understand how completely incompetent you are at argument. You routinely, without deviation, post unsupported, terse opinions. The fact that you think two sentences of opinion is fact, proves how utterly insignificant your words are, and how unfit you are to pilot a Dart account.
You do not belong here. You are not welcomed here. Get the hell off my thread.
Created:
Posted in:
This is excellent to see. It's about time Dart cracked down on serial multi-accounters, like Zeichen. They cause nothing but trouble to sites.
Also good to see that you're giving a chance to people whom already have multiple accounts to come forward and be honest.
This is admirable moderation.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Two cocks discussing hens and egg laying. Go figure.
Who are you writing to? What are you writing about?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
A mother who actually takes care of her kids doesn't have to think about her career. Her career is being a good mother.
Why do you even bother to make comments like this? Seriously, all you ever do on here is state opinions.
You're an utterly worthless user.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm going to post the abstract and "highlights" from this paper, purely because they are a seriously excellent summary of the paper:
Abstract: "Two dysgenic models of declining general intelligence have been proposed. The first posits that since the Industrial Revolution those with low g have had a reproductive advantage over those with high g. The second posits that relaxed purifying selection against deleterious mutations in modern populations has led to g declining due to mutation accumulation. Here, a meta-analytic estimate of the decline due to selection is computed across nine US and UK studies, revealing a loss of .39 points per decade (combined N = 202,924). By combining findings from a high-precision study of the effects of paternal age on offspring g with a study of paternal age and offspring de novo mutation numbers, it is proposed that, 70 de novo mutations per familial generation should reduce offspring g by 2.94 points, or .84 points per decade. Combining the selection and mutation accumulation losses yields a potential overall dysgenic loss of 1.23 points per decade, with upper and lower bound values ranging from 1.92 to .53 points per decade. This estimate is close to those from studies employing the secular slowing of simple reaction time as a potential indicator of declining g, consistent with predictions that mutation accumulation may play a role in these findings."
Highlights:
• g Losses due to dysgenic selection in nine US and UK studies are meta-analyzed.
• A decline of .39 points per decade is found.
• Mutation load should enhance losses due to selection
.
• Each year of paternal age adds 2 new mutations and reduces offspring g by .084 points.
• Combining selection and mutation losses reveals decadal g decline of 1.23 points.
• A decline of .39 points per decade is found.
• Mutation load should enhance losses due to selection
.
• Each year of paternal age adds 2 new mutations and reduces offspring g by .084 points.
• Combining selection and mutation losses reveals decadal g decline of 1.23 points.
I'd like to elaborate on the first dysgenic model, because I think I can add something worthwhile. Since the Industrial revolution, comfort has become more commonplace in countries, because production is more efficient. No longer does a person have to be self-sustaining, but rather needs only to specialise in an area of labour, in order to generate personal income. I think this is sufficiently self-evident to be assumed axiomatic.
Thus, as 3rd World immigrants, from areas such as Africa and the Middle East, are given access to these Western countries (U.S and U.K), we see their 3rd World breeding rates (addressed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1065) lessened, but remain higher than that of native populations (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables75/). Considering the lower average I.Qs of African and Middle Eastern countries, when compared to Western White countries (https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php), we now have an elaboration on why the Industrial revolution could cause an I.Q. drop, therefore adding to the credibility of the paper.
Created:
Intuitively, we assume that as a person's social status increases, so too do their options for breeding, and thus we assume they are more likely to breed. This is somewhat true of men, but not so of women.
A study by Hopcroft (2015) found a negative correlation with personal income, intelligence and education (measures of social status) and the number of offspring a woman has. However, this study was conducted within contemporary U.S,(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001330), but there does seem to be a worldwide pattern. If we take countries not exactly known for having high personal income, education or women's rights, such as Niger and Somalia, we can see that their fertility rates are 7.2 and 6.3, whereas the U.S. sits at 1.8, and other 1st World Countries, such as Australia and the U.K, sit at almost identical rates.
Perhaps an explanation for this is women's hypergamy. Hypergamy is a necessary tool for women, given their role in reproduction. Moreover, men can take 30 seconds to fulfil their part in sexual reproduction, whereas a woman takes 9 months to fulfil hers. Thus, since a woman's capacity to breed is far more restricted, she needs to be choosier in her partners. So, in relation to this article, as a woman increases her social status, her potential breeding partners decreases also, because she doesn't want to trade down, given her hypergamy (that would be an evolutionary bad decision). This is not to say that women are "gold diggers" (as this stupid Wikipedia article says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy), but rather they have been programmed, through evolution, to feel this way.
Another explanation, not one which is mutually exclusive to the above, is that women in poorer countries feel it necessary to breed more, given the likelihood of infant mortality. Again, to use data as illustration, Niger and Somalia have infant mortality rates of 48 and 80 per 1000, whereas the U.S., Australia and the U.K. all have infant mortality rates of under 10, and Australia has 3 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?year_high_desc=false).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Probably being too nice.
I remember fondly the words he used to say to me:
It really angers me to see such a sweet, incorruptible soul be banished so unfairly.
Created:
Posted in:
He was such a lovely user. I can't believe he's been banned:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
My goodness! No one has the ability to accurately predict the world 200 years into the future. To envision a better perspective of how ludicrous your request is, consider someone from the early 1800s predicting the internet and digital storage, cars, aviation etc. There's just no way -- it's a wild guess. Alas, you'll have some of Dart's finest throw their guesses at you, thinking they're intelligent predictions with any merit.
As an extension of this -- to be a bit more specific -- what are your thoughts on strong AI research and the development of strong AI more generally?
Whilst I'm being hyper-generalised, I think AI development is the way forward, in terms of human evolution. In particular, any cyborg or transhumanist advancements, of which blunt/eradicate human flaws, should be welcomed. Furthermore, having AI to complete menial tasks is an excellent solution to the inevitable problem advanced civilisations encounter, when they become too comfortable (they import foreign people, of which eventually turn on the natives).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
It is a well known fact that coal is an increasingly obsolete power source.
Oh wow. I'm sure the whole site is so glad that they waited a week to read that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Otherwise known as follow the leader, most people are indoctrinated to not think for themselves but to follow the mob. Most humans aren't nearly as evolved as they might want, if they were they wouldn't need religions.
Right.
Now what? Attempt to completely ignore how people are with an assimilation model of 'let's all get along?'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I think that subsidiarity helps with managing diverse subgroups.
But there's no point in managing these subgroups, when not having to manage them is preferable.
What we have now is the worst of all worlds: no political subsidiarity, self-segregation is illegal, no enforced universal culture, and a drive towards ever-increasing diversity. The entirely predictable outcome of this, for anyone with an unclouded mind and two brain cells to rub together, is a violent backlash the likes of which will shatter our society and result in atrocities.
Yes, but I'm not sure even hardcore segregation, let alone subsidiarity, will suffice in preventing this violence. Humans have an alarmingly low threshold for incorporating out and in-groups to any given population. If people don't divide on the ever popular race, then they'll find something else to divide on. To me, given the current state of humans, this violence appears unavoidable.
I'm still haunted by a historical retelling of Boston's busing policy and the violent, neighborhood-dissolving backlash which followed. Not just white against black, but black against jew and every other ethnic combination. Pretty universally, minorities were tolerated with politeness. One teach, a black women from the West Indies who taught in a white school, testified that nobody had every called her a nigger in all her years of teaching. But as soon as any school reached a point where there was no clear minority, it triggered those deep limbic systems that humans have and jaw-dropping violent, hatred, and resentment came to the forefront. What had been a tapestry of more or less self-contained, content, functioning communities dissolved into a violent, chaotic free-for-all because every community was deprived of its backbone (and all of them, black white and Jewish, fought tooth and nail against it) in pursuit of vapid utopianism.
This theme is common throughout every population I've seen. The first generation immigrants seem to try their hardest to integrate (I think I'm safe in assuming this black teacher did), and those who don't quickly find themselves in a world of trouble.
However, once the population's demographics change (to the point where there is "no clear minority"), there suddenly becomes an instinctive drive towards in-group dominance, so that more resources can be acquired for the in-group (and therefore, the individual of the in-group gets more resources, too, which would facilitate survival, hence why all this happens instinctively). So, whilst the black teacher is content with being accepted by the white majority, her instinctual part is a bubbling cauldron of tribalism, ready to erupt when her in-group is capable of seizing power.
"A bad peace is even worse than war" - Tacitus
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You're appearance will still be good 200 years from now pretty never goes out of style
Aww. How sweet :)
but look at the photo that exists of billy the kid. He was considered a heart throb in his day but he is clearly ugly as fuck.
Social status and demeanour are important, when it comes to calculating a man's attractiveness.
There is no such thing as timeless beauty for men. If I become a vampire, I'm fucked.
It does seem to change, throughout the years. Rather than becoming a vampire, you could always transgender, although that's a far more controversial move.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Yeah it's a product of love and respect
anathema to wingnut godists.
Who are you talking to, and what on Earth are you calling them, lol?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Uhhhh I'm pretty sure I just explained this - Protestant planters creating a racial boundary to change the tribalism dynamic to be based on race in order to prevent indentured whites and black slaves from cooperating for their benefit.There was absolutely no concept of white identity in Medieval Europe prior to this, and even after racial identity was never hard-engrained into much of Europe and doesn't remain so.
You're not understanding my point.
It's like staring into water and seeing a reflection of yourself (white identity), but not realising that the reflection is coming from you (evolutionary tribalistic drives).
It's like you think racial differentiation is purely a cerebral conception, which is just laughably wrong.
And? Tribalism occurs due to a variety of reasons
Did you even glance at what the Robbers Cave experiment was? Even if, for some unknown, retarded reason, you thought that I thought tribalism didn't occur due to a variety of reasons (a horrible, unsupportable strawman), you would see that the experiment has nothing to do with racial identity.
and I fail to see the necessity of being hardline on race. There are several people of X race who were born, grew up in, and assimilated to a culture of Y country. I fail to see the necessity in mandating these people to be discriminated against. Immigration restrictions may be necessary everywhere, but society isn't going to simply collapse in on itself if a person of X race has citizenship in a country of Y race. There's a big difference between hardcore racial identity and demographic displacement as with what's occuring today.
Yes, the society won't collapse if a singular person of a different race (another strawman of yours).
The society will being to collapse if multiple people, of different races and cultures, are allowed into a country. It's not merely "demographic displacement" at play. People's subconscious drives, of which how they determine their behaviour to strangers, is also at play.
To give some evidence to my point (certainly not exhaustive), here is a thread wherein I outline the role genetics plays in political discourse, of which these genetics encompass racial identity: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/107).
By nature, empires do expand and encompass a wide variety of cultures. Yes.Multiracialism and multiculturalism are, however, different. I fail to see how multiracialism always necessarily causes the latter effects you described. These effects aren't necessarily present in culturally homogenous but racially heterogenous Latin American countries.
You don't think trust, charity, duty, unity etc. are important in maintaining a society?
Ah, I suppose this is where the argument ends. You sure are a ficety one, Cassie. I suggest you leave this site before displaying your mental problems, lack of anger management, and your b1tchiness. I would advise against you sperging out, then crying about your real life problems and trying to make people feel sympathetic - and repeating the cycle.
I mean what's the point in discussing this with you, when you make horrible strawmans? When I have to repeat myself, it's a lot of effort and time wasted. I'd much rather be expanding on my points or having them tested.
Seriously, please respond to this, because I think any rational person would see this as arguing in horrible faith:
"Seriously, after reading this: "Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not," why did you decide to think that this applies only to race? Where does it even HINT at that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
I too am puzzled at myself.
Nothing puzzling at all. You're just a hypocrite.
"Hahahaha I'm so much smarter than other people, LOOK AT MY DDO RECORD GUIZ IM SO SMART UR ALL DUM XD" I too believe myself to be a genius for winning a few debates on an ONLINE website - most of which are noobsnipes.You sure are insecure, aren't you?
Right, so you accuse me of several things, and when I give pretty conclusive evidence that I'm none of those things, you attempt to mock me based on half of the proof.
If proving you wrong makes me insecure (lol), then so be it.
Anyways, by your DDO record, I was referring more to things like this
It's more than four and a half years old...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And assimilation is a foolhardy attempt to achieve that end.
Ftfy
Created:
Posted in:
The long purported conception of more males falling outside the mean I.Q. has, for me, finally discovered an answer. If you're not acquainted with this conception, this graph should suffice: (https://blacklabellogic.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/male-and-female-iq-distributions.jpg). In short, the conception helps to explain why we have fewer outstanding females with tasks associated with super high I.Qs (e.g. notable inventors, decorated politicians etc.), but also why males tend to exhibit more braindead behaviour (e.g. riding a shopping cart down a hill). The implications of the male-female I.Q. distribution conception are numerous and have yet to be properly elaborated upon here, but not the purpose of this thread.
Instead, the purpose of this thread is to purport why there is such a difference in distribution. Strauss and Strauss (2009) discovered that it was largely the X chromosome that was accountable for the difference. To be terse, the X chromosome is largely responsible for brain develop (and also has approximately 1,100 genes. The Y chromosome has only about 50). Females are born with two X chromosomes, but due to the overwhelming difference in genes between X and Y chromosomes, nature has evolved to balance this between males and females, and so female bodies will naturally determine most of those X chromosomal genes to be inactivated (at random).
Hence, whilst males have only one set of X chromosomal genes, females are far more likely to have a set that is nearer the mean, due to exceptional genes having a chance of being inactive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Oh well, I guess the secret about me having dozens of tactical nukes is out.
If only I had politely disagreed with people, instead of making the minor mistake of nuking their cities...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
I love the wisecrack that you post in these forums. The beautiful way you flex on others sheds ungovernable tears of delight.
:)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Not that I'm overly interested in cricket, but modernity hasn't treated it well.
Cricket should be a game about nuance and detail. It should be about bowlers attempting to fizz the ball into the rough patch. It should be about a batsman receiving several unplayable delivers, but having the mental fortitude to strike a loose ball to the boundary the next delivery. It should be about a tailender, whom averages 2.50 with the bat, needing to survive 3 overs of hostile bowling, in order to draw the match and win the series. There's a lot of story and wholesome feeling, in test cricket.
T20 cricket and shorter forms are like rollercoaster rides. Sure, they're super exciting, but they're more a cheap thrill. This isn't even to begin on how the bowlers are cheated -- only given a handful of overs, and are basically bowling to restrict the score, rather than dismiss the batsman. The pitches are flat, too. Batsman can fling the bat around with little regard for technique, top-edge several pull shots for six, and still be praised for "being aggressive" and knowing that "they all count".
T20 and shorter forms are nothing more than inferior baseball matches -- they are not real cricket.
Created:
Posted in:
Typically, Cold Reading is found within scams and trickery, in order to make people think you are able to determine a wealth of information about their lives. In actuality, the Cold Reader is proposing broad generalities, waiting for a visceral reaction in the recipient (if possible), and then adjusting their reading accordingly. Whilst I personally, for obvious reasons, think fortune telling and similar quackery are bunk, what is not bunk are the psychological effects Cold Reading has on people. Rather, the psychological effects are quite fascinating.
Firstly, the ability to make logical observations, based on the physical (i.e. haircut, manner of speech, age, body language etc.) is interesting. It's interesting because on the surface, you'd think guesses weren't able to so accurately evaluate people's lives, let alone guess consistently to warrant quackery professions (i.e. fortune telling). This demonstrates the overwhelming plethora of information someone's mere existence offers to the world, yet also how remarkably similar people are, all at the same time (fascinating!)
Secondly, moving into why Cold Reading is effective, we need to address the Forer effect (also called the Barnum effect). In short, tailoring information to a person, even if it's vague or generalised, causes them to think the information is accurate. This is especially true if confirmation bias is activated (wherein the Cold Reader accurately guesses what a person already thinks about themselves). The reason this effect is effective, is because people insert their own meaning into vague, generalised statements, and then have the option to confirmation bias their way into believing it. We also see this effect in politicians, wherein the politician knows that if he/she is sufficiently vague, people will insert their own meaning, *and* think the message is being tailored to them. So, when you're intentionally being vague or generalised, people actually think you're tailoring your message to them (again: fascinating!)
So profound are the effects of Cold Reading that they consistently trigger ironic results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I worry how people will jidge my photos 200 years ffom now
Currently, we look rather fondly upon dress from 200 years ago (at least imo). We tend to think it's classy, put on a fake, posh British accent, and it seems to instil a kind of respect in others.
Unless it's something outrageous from the 80s, or something stupid like sagging your pants as if you're from "da hood", I think you don't have a lot to worry about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Not true, the idea of a "white identity" comes from Protestant European planters in the New World using race as a diving line between black slaves and white indentures to prevent them from cooperating and overthrowing them, as they were initially trying to.
Mate, what do you think inspired white people to beget the idea of white identity? Do you honestly think that a white person, suddenly out of the blue as he sat in his stately office, just thought, "You know what? F*ck black people," for not apparent reason? Or, and this is only supported by a plethora of research, maybe his evolutionary derived tribalistic feelings encouraged such a thought as "white identity?"
In reality, "whites" would encompass a loosely defined people of a great multitude of cultures, languages, religion, etc, that could never unite simply based on skin color.
You do realise that tribalism isn't limited to skin colour, right? You do realise that experiments, like the Robbers Cave experiment, showed how little humans need to have their tribalistic tendencies trigger?
And empires divided over a multitude of causes... To attribute this entirely, or even significantly to the lack of racialism, is quite absurd. Moreover, "multicultural" and "multiracial" are different terms.
Yes, there are other factors, too. However, in every major empire for the last 2,500 years, multiculturalism and multiracialism have been present as said empires fell. As to the specific effects of multiculturalism and multiracialism, that really needs it own thread. But, to be awfully terse, those things make people less trusting of each other, causes people to be less charitable to one another, erodes a sense of duty etc. -- none of these things help keep a society functioning.
You're assuming ingrouping/outgrouping, homogenity, and tribalism are all entirely based on race.
Wow.
How the f*ck do you people even operate?
Seriously, after reading this: "Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not," why did you decide to think that this applies only to race? Where does it even HINT at that?
And you wonder why I get angry with people like you...
Just get out of here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
Sorry that he is so slow that you practically have to be a special ed teacher here.
Talking to RM, I've gained a lot of respect for special ed teachers -- this is very hard :(
On a side note, we should give him a big, star-shaped "you tried" sticker. He should cherish it, as he gets that way small accomplishments on inconsequential matters such as this site.
I was going to do that, but I was worried he would eat it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Honestly I didn't expect anything different. Zarroette's an angry and mentally unstable lunatic that always tries to project a self-righteous "I'm so much smarter than you idiots" attitude. Quite a waste of time for you guys to be putting up with her lmao.
You say not to waste time with me, but then you recently spend time with me constructing a response: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915?page=2&post_number=40).
But who cares about consistency, right?
Just look at her record on Debate.org lol.
Yeah let's do that: (https://www.debate.org/Zarroette/):
- 145 debates with a win ratio of 92.25%.
- 5,077 Elo -- the highest of any heterosexual female, and that puts me on the front page of the debate leaderboard
- 1384 votes (you'd think if I was a "mentally unstable lunatic," I wouldn't be able to post an acceptable vote)
- I'm currently 20 and I already have a Bachelor's degree
Please tell me how that is "mentally unstable". Please tell me why I don't have a right to assume I'm smarter than a lot of people. Please tell me why I shouldn't be angered by people, like you, making horribly wrong claims like this.
Created:
Posted in:
Your OP doesn't seem to clarify who you're referring to, it leaves that up to the reader.
Wow, you were so close, RM. I am incredibly proud of you. You came SO close to following the 1 step.
You see, and this is in no way a sleight against your intellect, there is a difference between "thread" and "OP" -- they're not actually the same. The "thread" is the OP and every comment that comes after it, whilst the "OP" is just the opening comment.
So, when I say: "Read the thread," I don't just mean the OP, but everything that comes after it, too.
I know, it's VERY complicated. It actually took me 1 whole second to understand the difference. But you are a very, very special boy (and I do mean special), so you have the amazing ability to see the difference. Believe in yourself.
So proud : >
Created:
Posted in:
Is he not? Who are the ones you described then if not REF?
Here is a radical, unorthodox trick that I've learned from spending countless hours on this debate website. I'm not sure you're worthy of such information, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (I guess it's good karma).
Now, this is going to be complicated, so make sure you read all the steps VERY carefully, so as to avoid serious harm.
Ready?
Here is how to determine the ones I described:
1. Read the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you know that I'd be banned for calling you the same?
Yes, it's just not fair.
If only your bans could be permanent...
Created:
Posted in:
Do you realise you're one of the people she described?
And I thought I was about to miss my daily dose of autism on steroids...
Created:
Posted in:
Now THIS I do agree with.
Wow, RM agrees with me on something that's blatantly obvious.
I finally feel qualified as a person.
Created: