Total posts: 468
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well when your real life is empty. What you gonna do?
Yeah, that's exactly the point. All the time inciting/continuing drama, playing mafia, entering in-depth discussions about potential site improvements, discussing banal topics etc. is indicative of many unfulfilling lives.
They have the whole world to explore, and they choose to hop into the tightest of bubbles they can find -- quite pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
Of course there's anti-white sentiment.
I just wanted to document it with concrete proof.
Just take the reaction to the "It's okay to be white" slogan. The people who freaked out over this claim that they agree with the slogan. Yet they themselves have never said it and never will, and were shocked to see it openly expressed.
The truth is often seen, rarely heard.
Basically, one side said to the other "We think you're racist against white people", and they responded with "Yes, we are".
As much as they are being hypocritical, I wouldn't start using their faulty language. I deconstruct the term "racist" here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174
Created:
Posted in:
"I care immensely about the site"
Someone has a rich, fulfilling life lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
>ignores all evidence presented
>tone polices
>makes a two-worded, bare assertion, and yet can't even maintain grammar throughout
Another worthwhile poster on Dart.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, because laughing at investment in triviality is far worse than actively engaging in triviality. One has to wonder how many of those 2,500 posts you've made are of high quality, discussing important things.
And lol RM blocked me, all the whilst pretending to care less than me.
Created:
Posted in:
No such thing as anti-white? Whites have nothing to complain about?
White groups are under attack by all kinds of media and jurisdictions. Ultimately, there is a push to pathologise formation of white groups. Let's look at some evidence:
"I feel as if I do not belong when I am the one non-White person in class." This, on the surface, seems to be a harmless quote, wherein a person feels uncomfortable being with other racial groups (which is, to use a bogus leftist term, "racist"). However, notice the underlying implication here of a white-group being seem as something which causes other people stress. Is that too much of a stretch?
"Students of color reported feeling uncomfortable and unwelcomed just walking into or sitting in the classroom, especially if they were the only person of color, or one of a few." Again,there is an issue with the solely white group. Coincidence? Notice how the inverse is never mentioned (whites feeling uncomfortable).
In fact, throughout this entire report (which was taken very seriously by the Huffington Post), it is whites and white groups who are portrayed as problematic, and people of color's feelings that are most valuable -- there is no comment to the inverse(http://www.racialmicroaggressions.illinois.edu/files/2015/03/RMA-Classroom-Report.pdf).
But we've only just begun.
"The Party of White People"..."armed with all the wrong lessons from history":(https://www.salon.com/2015/05/23/the_party_of_white_people_how_the_tea_party_took_over_the_gop_armed_with_all_the_wrong_lessons_from_history/)
"Too old, too white, too male?": (https://www.politico.com...)
"Report: military leadership too white and too male": (https://federalnewsradio.com...)
"Officials Say US Special Forces Are Too White And Too Male": (http://dailycaller.com...)
"New LAFD recruit class is nearly all male, overwhelmingly white": (http://www.latimes.com...)
"Brooklyn school cutting gifted program to boost diversity": (http://www.nydailynews.com...)
Seeing a trend? They pathologise white groups. It is bad for whites to be in a group. That last article is about a school cutting gifted program because students are too white.
Not too bad? How about being attacked purely because you are white?
How about having all your achievements minimised and discounted, due to having "white privilege?":(https://www.dailywire.com...)
Howabout having campaigns to remove a recognised flag, because itdepicts a white person? (Yes, a flag is being attacked)(http://www.newsweek.com...)
How about being banned from a job, purely because you're white?(https://www.express.co.uk...)
Still not done.
Is black pride okay? Yes (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Is National Hispanic month a thing? Yes (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Is white pride okay? No (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
It's no longer the fact that differing racial groups have racial preference and interest towards their own. It's now a fact that white groups are under attack simply for being white.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
@thett3
@bsh1
@Raltar
@Mharman
>caring this much about an online debate site
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
TBH you kinda ruined the topic with the last comment. Considering the mind is more machine like by nature one can know suffering and one can know happiness and all that in between. So why is the positive thinker the mindless drone and not the worrier? what makes one better than the other when both are content being experienced through the mind...
The human mind is rife with confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and in-the-moment activities that keep it from pondering the true nature of existence. It's too busy attempting to find a suitable mate, instead of attempting to ponder whether mating is something desirable. It's too busy attempting to raise a child, instead of attempting to ponder whether raising a child is something desirable. Too busy attempting to increase social status. Too busy attempting to explore the world. Too busy investing years into becoming proficient at a skill. Too busy to contemplate whether life is worth living.
Life, if examined properly, is a horrific nightmare, plagued with all kinds of hardship and tragedy. People are only friends because they are useful to each other, not because they care about each other. People get upset when their sports-team loses, yet are largely indifferent to African people defecating their guts and dying due of disease. Children are cute to manipulate parents in surrendering decades of their lives and resources. You can't ever be content with your life; you will always want more. No matter what you do in life, you are going to die, and all your efforts will eventually be forgotten and for nothing.
There is no way, in my mind, that a human could comprehend the horrors of existence, and thus remain a positive thinker, hence the "mindless drone" label.
both negative thoughts and positive are chosen
>sitting at home peacefully with family, playing a game of Monopoly
>the windows shatter as your children burst with blood
>both flop to the ground, eyes rolled back, pumping blood into blood puzzles
>tires screech until the roar of an engine fades
>call police
>Police officer: "just choose positive thoughts."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
FST is an objective measure of the 'genetic distance' between populations. The FST between widely separated human populations (Germans and Polynesians, say) is as great or greater than the FST between many zoological subspecies. I think that is mildly interesting,but perhaps not that surprising.
Yeah "mildly interesting", in that in blew a gaping hole in your 'more variation within than between' meme.
If that is all AnalSpec was saying I'd say he had a valid point.
You're not acknowledging the gravity of my argument. If humans are sufficiently genetically diversified to greater subspecies, then a whole host of less diversified subspecies (from other species) now exist in hypocrisy.
What can one say? What on earth does the average of a person's race have to do with what professions should be open to them? Note: not their personal genetic merits; their average of the race. The racist doesn't see individuals - they only see faceless representives of a race.It seems clear that AS is trying to smuggle racism in by the back door by feigning academic detachment and objectivity. I am gratified that it doesn't seem to be fooling too many people.
Again, this doesn't belong in this thread.
Again, if you want to discuss it, then create a different thread.
Again, I will not be discussing this here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
How does a person "handle" negative thoughts well? Is it by becoming dispassionate about them?
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Relax -- it's just a joke :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Do you have any sources for this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
For humans, there is no amount of comfort that will ever be sufficient; we're designed to be motivated, not satisfied.
If technology advanced to the point wherein robots performed every task for us (well beyond what you're stating in the OP), we would be crippled with depression-inducing boredom.
The fact that people, who have insane amounts of comforts by historical standards, "talks crap" about consumerism, should be weighty evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
That's like saying that nobody can call anything blue because #0000FF doesn't really exist as a natural pigment. Things aren't disqualified or made 'subjective' by being inexact; if that were the case we would have to scrap all of taxonomy.
There's no point in bothering with him. He literally stated that data (you know, the thing that makes or breaks most arguments) doesn't matter, if you started with an opinion he disagrees with: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/831?page=3&post_number=51). You are wrong as soon as you disagree with him lol.
The masked guy turns into an NPC after a couple responses -- not something to bother with, either.
Keith is usually a much better poster than this, but his brain switches off, when it comes to discussion of race.
I miss the old DDO where this flagrant retardation would be relegated to the religious forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Keith, I know you tried your best, but you accidentally didn't respond to a little bit of what I wrote, in that you responded to none of it. I know that it is hard for you to read things. I know that responding to other people's comments, rather than restating your own monologue, is a big person's thing to do, but I believe in you. You are a special person, and I believe the super basic skills of reading and responding to other's comments is well within your reach.
Remember: shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll still be among the stars.
Have another go, special person: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/831?page=3&post_number=62)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If people wanted to they could say there are four races of human, A, B, AB and O. It is no more logical to discriminate on skin colour genes than on blood group genes - but we can't see blood groups.
Yeah, dude. Just like we determine subspecies in other animals using purely bloodtypes.
Bloodtypes and races (populations of people geographically separated that interbred, and thus are genetically and physically distinguishable) are exactly the same thing. That's why they have different terms and can't be defined using the same semantics, because they are exactly the same.
Lol.
The mass insanity is our tendency to focus on trivial but conspicuous differences which blind us to the fact that there is more variation within a 'race' than there is between races.
You're reaching gender pay gap levels of pedalling debunked arguments, of which you probably have no idea where they came from (your favourite social media platform is not a reliable source, Keith).
I remember explaining to this you in the past, but you clearly didn't learn (not surprising, seeing that you think bloodtypes and race are the same thing).
To put this incredibly briefly, calculation of fst values (you don't know what those mean, Keith, so search it using a Google search) shows that humans have more genetic variation, when compared with other species with enjoy subspecies classifications (a recent human fst value is 12%) (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837).
Some examples of these other species are, but are not limited to: Plain Zebra (5 subspecies with an fst of 11%), Kob (2-3 subspecies with an fst of 11%, Southwestern European Cow (18 subspecies with an fst of 6.8%) and the Red Winged Black Bird (5 subspecies with a 1% fst) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18466230) (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03382.x) (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1439-0388.2003.00384.x) (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=icwdm_usdanwrc).
So, humans have a greater amount of genetic variation than other species whom enjoy subspeciation, despite all being subject to the 'more variation within than between' meme. That should make you think (it won't).
I didn't expect you to understand any of this, Keith, just like last time. I'm just hoping that someone, who hasn't been beaten over the head with a shovel half a dozen times, will read this and post something worthwhile. Perhaps that is radically optimistic, on a website such as this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
>When you start with an opinion, the data doesn't matter because you are simply demonstrating predictable confirmation bias. There is nothing objective about "race"
>When you start with an opinion, the data doesn't matter
>the data doesn't matter
That summarises your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Melanin is not a race.
Strawman.
I never argued that melanin is race.
Races based on one phenotype are meaningless classifications.
Instead of littering this thread with bare assertions, why don't you address the data and conclusions I provided?
Created:
Posted in:
Whenever I heard someone bloviate about the power of positive thinking, that "just being happy" was all that you needed, I rolled my eyes and thought 'here we go, another instance of mindless platitudes making people think they know the deeper mechanics of human psychology'.
However, there appears to be sufficient research to suggest that merely being optimistic, even when there is no reason to be, should be encouraged in life, as this article reads:
"The study found that women who were optimistic had a significantly reduced risk of dying from several major causes of death — including cancer, heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, and infection — over an eight-year period, compared with women who were less optimistic."
...
"The most optimistic women (the top quartile) had a nearly 30 percent lower risk of dying from any of the diseases analyzed in the study compared with the least optimistic (the bottom quartile), the study found. The most optimistic women had a 16 percent lower risk of dying from cancer; 38 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease; 39 percent lower risk of dying from stroke; 38 percent lower risk of dying from respiratory disease; and 52 percent lower risk of dying from infection."
It is conceivable that the optimistic women are the ones who are not experiencing life's hardships, hence why they are optimistic. It is also possible that this is a matter of correlation, rather than any significant causation.
Nonetheless, it is nothing short of fascinating that being a mindless, smiling drone, unable to ponder the complex, often terrifying facets of life, has a better chance of survival than a well-educated realist.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not going to respond to further thread derailments. If you wish to discuss the implications of race, make a different thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If you aren't a racist
Read, but this time, try to comprehend: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174
When you write that certain races shouldn't be in certain professions on the basis of dubious average IQ data then you look like a racist, not just to me but to anyone who reads it.Should I give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to your writing style? I wish I could.
Should you stop derailing this thread? I wish you would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yep so "being white" is the same as "Hitler enabling mass genocide of Jews", when it comes to "racism".
Stating that Blacks have, on average, lower I.Q. than whites, is the same as saying all Blacks must be permanent slaves on the cotton fields.
Stating that Blacks are higher represented in the NBA when compared with Whites, is the same as saying that all White basketball player's should be lined up and shot.
Stating that someone is White, is the same as flying planes into buildings.
These things are all "racist".
No, that's great.
Really.
Please keep using that crystal clear term.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
You must have tinnitus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Read this:As you are not a racist
I'm almost sure that is what you meant to say. NOT!
Verr nyce, Borat.
Now stop derailing my thread.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Analgesic is Zarroette? That does explain why she's so b*tchy all the time lol.
Yeah, mate. All the time. Whilst walking to work. Whilst walking from work. Whilst walking. Whilst eating. Whilst happy. Whilst sleeping. Whilst praising my students. Whilst watching memes.
All.The.Time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Having thought more about this, I'm not even sure these "true historians" can exist. Even if they're attempting to capture objective truth about history, they're still loaded with cognitive biases that cloud their perception, often without them knowing.
I can agree that their versions are far better than the forgeries of history, though. It's rather saddening that some people aren't capable of agreeing with someone trying to be accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If humans were objective, we would not have laws or government.
This seems correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, this really goes beyond the scope of this thread. All I wanted to do was show that human races exist, and it seems like you agree with that, and therefore there isn't anything to discuss with you, in this thread.
If you want to discuss the implications of races existing, you're welcome to make another thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This goes beyond the scope of this thread, but if human races do exist, then we can begin to cluster people into different ability categories, so as to give them the maximum chance in life. For example, a race with an average low I.Q. doesn't belong in high I.Q. professions, such as law or university research. However, that same race may excel is visio-spatial awareness, and thus would do much better on a sporting field. Treating low I.Q. groups with the same standards as average or high I.Q. groups, leads to the low I.Q. group being miserable and shut-off from society, or if affirmative action is in effect, totally incompetent.
We could also begin to deal with the fact that racial in-group bias is far stronger than any other factor, in regards to things like voting patterns and friendship. But, again, this goes beyond the scope of this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
>:(
UR MOM SO DUM WHEN I SAY COWS ARE GOOD MONEY SHE TOOK IT PERSONALLY!!!!111!!!!!!
(x) Ownaged
( ) Not ownaged
(x) ur mom biggest noob in runescape
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
ur jus mad cus ur mom is still stuck in lumby
noob
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
It is not reached by assuming that our own age is the absolute to which Luther and Calvin and their generation are only relative; it is only reached by fully accepting the fact that their generation was as valid as our generation, their issues as momentous as our issues and their day as full and vital to them as our day is to us.
People aren't ever going to emotionally connect with this, barring extreme reconfiguration of the brain. They can think about the parallels with past civilisations, but they can't emotionally connect with them. For example, when people give to African aid charities, all because they hear it's bad over they, they don't emotionally connect with their charity (it's mostly done as virtue signalling). That's why charities load ads with shocking images -- that's the only way people will emotionally connect.
People don't care that an entire city was wiped out by a volcano -- that's too abstract and removed. Unless you show people the twisted, volcanic remains of a dog from Pompeii, they won't care about the fallen city.
The historian seeks to explain how the past came to be turned into the present but there is a very real sense in which the only explanation he can give is to unfold the whole story and reveal the complexity by telling it in detail. In reality the process of mutation which produced the present is as long and complicated as all the most lengthy and complicated works of historical research placed end to end, and knit together and regarded as one whole.
This is noble and all, but who is going to listen to the historian? Learning the complexities of history, in its non-edutainment, abstract way, isn't sufficiently thrilling for the majority. They'd much rather learn "Orange man bad", rather consider the parallels of moral decay in the current West and Assyrian Empire, because "Orange man bad" is much easier to understand, and it's a concise narrative.
Butterfield's analysis is super idealistic (if I read it correctly). He's right in that humans, for various reasons, don't understand the past very well. But I think talk of the historian's role is utterly useless, if all he/she's doing is accurately documenting the past. When you seriously think about the monumental effort it would require to capture an accurate version of history (it's a full-time profession), and then consider how lazy (Netflix and Youtube culture) and mentally hampered humans are by default (look at all the psychology experiments I provided in the OP -- they're just the surface), the historian is not only fighting an uphill battle, but a vertically uphill battle.
If you make history digestible for humans (through edutainment/simplicity/shock etc.), then it's probably rendered inaccurate. If you make the history lessons too accurate, it's probably not digestible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I thought detractors of human race theories were merely being obtuse, when they mentioned the interbreeding point. I didn't know it was ingrained in the profession. I was beginning to lose hope in learning anything from this thread, so thank you.
Also, Belle Delphine's version is better than Nyannyan's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And you can't tell us your point.
I'll do it for you. You are a lowlife heretic. You think your "science is cool" argument supports the extension you also believe. You believe it, but are afraid to clearly state it.
You state it for the same reason all heretics harp on apparent scriptural inconsistency and insist on petty silly scriptural interpretations, so you can later claim your "science" is the superior one, and some other god is inferior.
I'm sure you think of yourself as one of those new fangled free thinkers, who deny being heretical, and insist they only state facts, but you smell like the same old funky heretic of yesteryear.
There, I've said it for you. You can relax now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
:: You either aren't reading things I write, or you don't understand what I write.: And you didn't answer the question.
Let's take a moment to dwell on how utterly idiotic your comment is here. In response to being accused of not reading what I write, or at least not understanding it, you simply concede it. I don't think you understand the gravity of your concession here -- you are admitting that you know you're engaged in a monologue. In other words, you get on a debate website to ignore what other people say (or not understand it), and then enter a monologue.
Let's grant you your claim. Let's agree that human races exist in the way you claim.
What way do I claim races exist? In your own words, explain to me exactly how I'm making that claim. I think you've seen the title of the thread and proceeded to enter your customary monologue.
Something even a 12 year old takes for granted, so what?
12 year olds take heterozygosity, loci and fst values for granted, do they?
Bloody, spoiled children.
What are we to take from that? What is your point? It cannot be so stupid as to be pointing out obvious differences just to point them out.
Heterozygosity is an "obvious difference", is it now? I guess I need to tell all the scientists to stop conducting rigorous scientific tests, sell off their equipment and forget everything they know about cluster analysis, because heterozygostiy is an "obvious difference", completely observable to the human eye.
So now that you've pointed out the differences, so what? What are we to draw from your obvious point? What are you saying? Surely it cannot simply be,Different groups of people have different loci and alleles.Is it?
The reason you are asking for what I'm arguing is because you haven't read the OP, or at the very least you don't understand it. You are virtually an NPC in a monologue, as it stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Humans are undeniably polytypic, thought the quibble over whether to call the infraspecific taxa 'subspecies' has more to do with the limits of the zoological classification system imo. Botany is way more permissive of 'splitter' taxonomists, who have three different taxa available to them beneath the level of species, whereas zoologists only have one and get terribly pernickety over its use. If we used the botanical system, human races and ethnicities certainly qualify, as we divide things up over much, much less severe levels of differentiation.
I honestly don't know how zoologists could get pernickety over its use, in regards to humans. I couldn't even play Devil's Advocate. I'm fairly certain their objections are merely visceral fits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Then in what way is "race" scientific? Just that scientists simply acknowledging the social norm?Socially constructed classifications are by their nature, subjective.
This is only partially true. They are subjective, in the sense of pre-determined numbers (K) to be filtered, and also the nature of those types. However, that doesn't mean the product of the filtration is subjective, too. For example, we can set K=3 (e.g. African, Asian and European), or we can set K=20 and have far more specific subspecies (e.g. Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese etc.), and given enough loci, the result will produce correspondence between genetic cluster and geography.
In other words, regardless of the number of types (or even the nature of those types) of humans you want sorted genetically, the results are clear and not liable to subjectivity.
It seems to me that you have picked out a physical difference, and called it a racial difference. That isn't scientific. Anyone can do that using any physical difference. The question is, why do you point out the blindingly obvious? Whites have lighter skin. Everyone knows that. You cannot be so stupid as to be pointing out obvious differences just to point them out. So now that you've pointed out the differences, so what? What are we to draw from your obvious point? What are you saying? Surely it cannot simply be,"Different groups of people have different physical features."Is it?
I specifically referred to "loci" and "alleles", of which aren't "physical", in the sense you're using the word, at all (albeit, they sometimes produce physical phenotypic expression). In fact, I haven't at all mentioned physical racial attributes until now (e.g. skin colour, cranial shape). You either aren't reading things I write, or you don't understand what I write.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If you are against keeping people alive, you are in favour of euthanasia.
Textbook false dichotomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
*nods respectfully in acknowledgement of the great sacrifices you have made in the name of autism (modern day chivalry), whilst stating that I am doing so, in order to help your amazingly autistic mind comprehend, whilst also covering ears to prevent "m'lady's" from infecting me with autism, too*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ShabShoral
I edited it C:
Finally, a ShabShoral I can respect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I will say I may have topped this post in autism by publishing a book based on my ddo writings (https://www.amazon.com/Collected-Works-Thett3-Thett-Three/dp/1719940940/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1535901132&sr=8-1)
No comments are possible. There is only applause.
*applause*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
It's just an assumption of the times, admittidly with a western slant. The world is just not as big as it used to be though.
No offence intended, but I really don't care about assumptions. If you have any data or evidence to support what you're saying, then please provide that. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother posting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
It doesn't have to be, since races are socially constructed classifications.A race would be a relatively small population by modern standards of population
and most groups resembling a race are probably comblobulated by now.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Do you have a source to support your claim?
Also, since it's not longer being talked about, I assume you're okay with the response here: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/831?page=1&post_number=3).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Are you saying that 'race and 'subspecies' are synonyms?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
I find it absolutely baffling how hard drafterman derailed this thread with his irrelevant rape tangent.
Created: