Total posts: 468
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
If my opponent was a lesser debater than bluesteel, I would have won that debate. A lot of what he did was Jew me on semantics (unsurprising, since he is a Jew). If I were to debate him again, I'd hand him a convincing L.
Seriously, the prosperity I've experienced by staying away from videogames and Mafia is palpable.
Created:
-->
@EvilNom
Settle, petal.
Well, firstly let's "address the fact" that you made a wild claim that "Jews have a superior IQ". You provided no evidence to support this claim
That doesn't give you the right to claim that they don't -- both claims have a BoP.
Anyway, Wikipedia is a good start for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence.
If there really are no genetic markers for Jews (or at least an insufficient amount to create the race), why is it that those labelled Jews outperform other racial groups consistently? Is it merely coincidence? Just look at the achievements:
- 54% of World Chess Champions are Jews
- 37% of National Medal of Science recipients are Jews
- 29% of U.S. Nobel Peace Prizes are Jews (despite being 2% of the population: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States))
- 42% of Nobel laureates in medicine or physiology are Jews
Also consider that the world's Jewish population is roughly 14 million, of which is a tiny fraction of the world's population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country).
Which is disproved merely by what you yourself quoted, since you swapped the words biological and meaningful around to create your own amended version of the text.
I restated the quote.
Which is a straw man argument of your own devising. Nowhere in the study does the author claim he does not believe in the concept of race. Hence, you are continuously making false assertion after false assertion.
I merely suspected this was another instance of a race denying argument, especially since the researcher(s) used the term "racist".
I have no idea what this even means and I strongly suspect neither do you. You are merely inventing your own fallacious gobbldegook language which you are using as a springboard for yet more false claims.
A common race-denying argument is that because there is greater variance within humans than between human races, human races don't exist. I still suspect this is a covert attempt at that.
As I re-read the research, I'll only prove my point further:
"Race, a loose term of socio-morphological classification (and evaluation/discrimination) of living creatures (plants included) now became a formal term in the sequence of the biological hierarchy of nature. But, whereas species were the ultimate assemblage of the Linnaean systematics for which an empiric criterion of discrimination could be conceived, namely the possibility of producing (fertile) hybrids between its members, races were an added—subjective—non-biological level of classification within species, between the members of which fertile hybrids may be produced. There have been no accepted empiric criteria to differentially classify any human races or other sub-species. Thus, how can genetics help decide who is a Jew?"
This part appears to be the false continuum argument which, again, is common in race denying.
I might write a thread on this problem, but in short, if we categorise humans with sufficient number of loci, we can accurately sort humans into their colloquially identified races. Bamshad et al (2003) demonstrates the process https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/
Again, the underlying problem with your research paper is that it doesn't fully accept the concept of human race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
IQ is a psychometric for g factor, which accounts for around 30-50% of variance between different cognitive skills. The other 50% variance is not accounted for by the g factor. If you claim g factor is a true measure of "intelligence" you're about 50% correct, which is exactly how much predictive validity you have to work with.Intelligence theories use factor models and IQ is one of them. the g factor is the most broad and is only apparent after dimentionality reduction. Each IQ test has subsets that all items load onto, and each loading itself loads onto the g factor with pretty high strength. As with all factor reductions, a lot of variance is sacrificed in the process. Anyone who claims the g factor is the only predictor of intelligence doesn't understand factor analysis. It's merely the most obvious predictor. A scree plot however would show you that the sum of the next dozen strongest factors summed together wouldn't match the eigenvalue of the g factor, so it's clearly the only factor worth using.In short, IQ is a measure of g factor, g factor is the correlation of performance between unrelated cognitive tests, and the g factor accounts for up to 50% of the variance in performance. For an individual an IQ test result doesn't mean much, but in large populations we see trends and correlations that are very useful for scientific study.
> Makes many claims
> Provides no sources
The know-it-all kid is at it again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
The issue most people have with IQ tests is that they misunderstand it as a measurement of innate intelligence independent of socio-economic factors. Its not, it just measure current intellitigence, and that IQ raises the more educated you become is thoroughly established.
I'd appreciate it if you could cite your research, so as to maintain the integrity of this thread.
Plus, i think this came up in another thread where I said that differences in average IQ are realatively meaningless because even though averages may differ, peak differentials are negligible.
Are you suggesting that environmental factors are able to mostly compensate for heritability of intelligence?
Whereas say, peak strength differentials between women and men are hugely disproportionate to the tune of double to triple strength differentials if not more depending upon the type of excercise.
Women are a bit physically weaker (not that it matters too much in the modern world), but your proportions are off. Also, women can actually be stronger than men, in some instances.
For example, in deadlifting at 105lbs, the 50-54 age range has the best man's lift at 220.4lbs (https://rawpowerlifting.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/World-Mens-Deadlift-Records.pdf), whilst the best woman's lift was 264.9lbs (https://rawpowerlifting.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/World-Womens-Deadlift-Records.pdf).
Not bad for a weak and worthless woman, isn't it? ;)
Created:
Posted in:
I did't make it clear that when I wrote "I don't know if there are innate genetic differences between the races and neither do you." I was referring only and specifically to genetic differences relating to IQ scores.
My response to Swagnorok very briefly deals with the percentage of I.Q. that is genetic: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/194?page=1&post_number=6
As for establishing the Black-White I.Q. gap, this meta-study should do the trick: http://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/15/100-years-of-testing-negro-intelligence/
if you and I both do an IQ test today it would reveal which of us has better solving power today. I think it is obvious that how we do on such a test would depend on a whole raft of factors - it is not clear at all that the winner has better genes.
I somewhat agree. If we live in different environments, the environmental factor will obfuscate genes to some degree. However, genetic I.Q. differences would be readily apparent, if we were to test Albert Einstein and a homie g from da hood.
If we had taken the test as children it is quite likely the higher scorer would now be earning more in a better job than the loser - but it still wouldn't show that IQ score is genetically determined.
Actually, and this can be found on the Wikipedia page linked in the Swagnorok response, children's genetic component (heritability) of I.Q. is less detectable, when compared to late teens' and adults' (it's know as the Wilson Effect). For instance, if you're referring to 5 year olds, then the detectable heritability of I.Q. is roughly 22.25% (https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/iq-heritability-age.png).
I do not dispute that IQ score measures something real about an individual - What is absurd is that racists use the 'average' scores to judge individuals. Consider person X. Whether he is 'ok' or not doesn't depend on his qualities but the average of which ever group he is classified as belonging to.
Sure.
if intelligence matters so much then logically we should discriminate between high-iq and low-iq individuals regardless of race. But racists don't do that - they use the race average to excuse over-valuing low-iq members of their favoured race over high-iq members of non-favoured races.
Yes, there is a case for that.
Also, please don't use the word racist. Reasons for my request can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174
It seems almost paradoxical that in this area it is the left that focuses on the individual and the right that treats people only as members of a collective.
I don't care about identity politics.
i m sorry to have drifted off iq tesing in the narrow.. in the narrow, i agree iq tests reveal real something about the individual beng tested.
It's okay. If you want to talk about racial I.Q, make a thread on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Yes, that's a great start. I'd add to that death threats.
Also, as for your suggestion of repeated offences, multi-accounting and continual harassment of members should also warrant bans, much like the behaviour exhibited here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/197?page=8&post_number=188
Created:
-->
@EvilNom
Spectre. I think you need to learn how burden of proof works buddy. You were the one who made the claim, so you are the one who needs to cite the sources.
Let's look at the claims you made:
"Jews don't have a superior IQ."
"Recent research in genetics has entirely debunked the myth that Jews are a race (something which was predicated on the Biblical account of the Exodus being true)."
"Judaism is a religion from the dark ages, not a racial group."
"Believing in a religion from the dark ages doesn't make you smart."
To be fair, you did provide evidence to support your second claim, so let's address that. It didn't take me long to find what I suspect to be the problem:
"But races are not biological-meaningful classification entities. And if so, why is racism a bad property? The answer must be: Because it provides socio-cultural justifications for discrimination on the basis of presumed and irrelevant biological properties."
1) The study claims that the concept of "race" can't be used to classify groups in a meaningful, biological way. Of course they're going to have a hard time determining race, when they don't believe in the concept to begin with. There are countless studies that can be used to differentiate subspecies (or race) for a plethora of animals. This appears to be a covert 'there is greater variation within than between' argument, which has been debunked to death. If you genuinely agree with their claim here, I can write a thread debunking the claim.
2) The concept of racism is deconstructed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174
Created:
-->
@EvilNom
Please cite sources to support your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So, you've dropped most of my counter-points. That's a great start.
My dear chap
I'm not a chap, but whatever.
I don't know if there are innate genetic differences between the races and neither do you.
How could you possibly conclude this?
I mean, you're not only wrong (http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php -- one of a plethora of things I could cite), but the arrogance in which you assert this is profoundly appalling. Not to mention that racial I.Q. differences isn't relevant to I.Q. validity at all LOL. You made a whole post making an enormous digression about racial I.Q, and you couldn't even use a single bit of research.
Why is this site plagued with idiots masquerading as pseudo-intellectuals? Seriously, drafterman is repeatedly one (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174?page=1&post_number=2 , and then consider his post here, just to name two), Smithereens is another (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12?page=2&post_number=43 ; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/106?page=1&post_number=12 , Triangle.128k is another: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=21 ; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=22).
What are these people doing here? This is a place to thoroughly examine claims, not to blurt out whatever pops into your head -- it's an incessant deluge of self-assured halfwits posting stream-of-thought.
You are fantastically disappointing.
Shoo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
The brain is a muscle. Like with actual muscles, some people got the genes for a more "athletic build" than others, while some people are predisposed to be less fit. However, it is my belief that hard work can overcome any such barriers, within reasonable limits.
I think you're underestimating the genetic percentage of I.Q. Whilst the environmental facet would be more pronounced in areas with abject poverty (Indian slums, rural China etc.), and is more pronounced with young age, I.Q. is largely genetic.
Without slugging through time-intensive heavy research, I can briefly state that the I.Q. heritability falls anywhere from 57-86%, based on Wikipedia (with my personal estimate being 80% -- I might make a thread about this) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ). Taking even the least favourable estimate of 57%, more than half of your I.Q. is based on genetics, and this is a barrier that certainly can not be overcome with "hard work".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I suppose we can accept that all other things being equal a 'more intelligent' person will score higher on an IQ test than someone 'less intelligent'.
Of course.
Ideally, a IQ test would measure something innate about an individual, ie something that is indepedent of culture and education, but current test fail to to that as is demonstrated by the 'Flynn Effect', ie the observation that mean IQ scores have risen over time.
Even if I.Q. was 100% determined by the environment (lol), I.Q. could be a valid measurement of intelligence. In actuality, your talking point referencing the Flynn Effect doesn't belong here, but I'll address it anyway because the point you make is still wrong.
The Flynn Effect and differences between racial I.Qs have nothing to do with each other. James Flynn, the man who discovered the Flynn Effect, said this:
"The magnitude of white/black IQ differences on Wechsler subtests at any given time iscorrelated with the g loadings of the subtests; the magnitudeof IQ gains over time on subtests is not usually so correlated;the causes of the two phenomena are not the same." (https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-e2809cflynn-effecte2809d-and-flynns-paradox.pdf).
To put it very basically, whilst both White and Black I.Qs are increasing, the White-Black I.Q gap is not affected by this.
IQ scores is not measuring an innate, culturally and educationally independent quality.
There is certainly an environmental aspect to I.Q. However, I.Q. is still a valid term, regardless of why there are I.Q. differences.
The sad fact is that there are inequalities in human societies(such as the quality of schooling) that impact on IQ scores.
This is like saying that we can't approximately guess what time the sun will rise tomorrow, if we don't know the time of year. Sure, we can't be ultra-accurate with our prediction (due to changing orbital patterns -- analogous to the environment), but we can determine a range in which the sun will rise between (due to the inherent properties of sunrise -- analogous to genetics).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
A block feature would stop it all before it begins.
Lol no it wouldn't. You can't preemptively block someone before they abuse you.
Not to mention you can post a slander hit-piece in the forums with next to zero evidence cited, without ever PMing someone: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/198?page=1
You're literally contributing to the problem you're attempting to fix xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are destined to inflict the scars the monsters inflicted upon you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not a fan of modern politics, and I'm less a fan of modern politicians, but you could write with at least slight tact, seeing that a man lost his life.
Created:
Probably because I'm not trying to derail a thread on something that has nothing to do with IQ?
Yet you made several posts dedicated entirely to I.Q. (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=15 ; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=20), all in response to my brief mentioning of I.Q. whilst I responded to your OP (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=11).
Cutting down your self-righteous and a$$hole personality would surely help, thanks.
When I made a thread dedicated to defending my position (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=21), you responded by saying that I "gave no evidence of your [my] own" (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=20).
When I gave a point-by-point refutation of your article (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=22), in spite of issues outlined here: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=21), you then conclude that I'm "self-righteous" with an "asshole personality".
I'll let the fair-minded members of Dart draw their own conclusions, but those are the facts.
We are done.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Here are all the problems I found on the article, and this isn't even looking at the research, because...
1. The research paper is not linked to the article. You would think, given the fact that the research paper is the driving force behind the article, that linking the research would have been a good idea.
2. "In fact, the researchers say that no single test - at least none that has been devised already - can give an accurate assessment of all types of intelligence" - The article never defines "types of intelligence", and if they're referring to things like 'emotional intelligence', those are not valid intelligence denominations.
3. "The test also included a survey that asked about participants' background and lifestyle" - This is not relevant to measuring I.Q.
4. They object to the I.Q. research on the basis of that "performance" could be attributed to "a wide variety of factors," yet these factors (reasoning and short-term memory) *are* parts of measuring I.Q. They even state that one of the components of I.Q. is "reasoning", and then they complain about it being measured LOL.
5. Finally, their main objection to I.Q. tests is that they are not holistic. Yes, some don't measure every facet of intelligence. That's like saying, "Well, our car is only running on 3 cylinders, therefore we can't drive it". Not to mention that when multiple tests are conducted, there is sufficient overlap to account for any facet missed on a particular test.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Remember that you gave no evidence of your own.
I provided a a thorough, ground-up argument to support my claim, drawing conclusions based on a large number of studies (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/194).
Meanwhile, you've completely ignored all my argumentation and research, probably Googled "IQ Tests Do Not Accurately Predict Intelligence", and posted the first article you found, without reading any of it, let alone the research which supposedly supports said conclusion.
This is laughably pathetic.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
IQ is more closely related to culture and how much that culture embraces education over like...ability to rap obscenities.
Please cite evidence to support your assertion.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
I presume you've accepted the other parts of my original comment: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/187?page=1&post_number=11).
I don't subscribe to any particular ideology, so you may cease your political pigeonholing attempts. I argue without regard for personal tribalistic nonsense.
Your three objections are quick to make, yet lengthy to quell. Seeing that these are recurring objections for me, I've addressed your first claim here: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/194).
When I find the time, I will address the other two.
Created:
Posted in:
A plethora of times I've seen words to the effect of, "IQ isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of intelligence" (although that particular quote is far less egregious than I've seen), implying that I.Q. is often inaccurate in measuring intelligence. Rather than individually addressing instances of said claims, I'll expound upon the topic here in a holistic way.
Generally, I.Q. tests are a combination of measuring: pattern recognition, verbal comprehension, mathematical ability, vocabulary and short-term memory. Whilst these are not perfect measurements of intelligence, they are heavily correlated with predictions of how well peers will rate a person's intelligence, school and workplace abilities: (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.799 ; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.1979.10533422 ; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/1977/00000005/00000001/art00016). Unless people's perception of intelligence is wild guessing, it matches measurements of I.Q. exceedingly well.
In fact, I.Q. predicts income and educational achievement (things which, I hope we can agree, are indicators of intelligence) better than parental socioeconomic status (http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf). Not only that, but I.Q. is the best predictor of educational level, occupational level and income level (again, more indications of intelligence). Surprisingly, I.Q. even beats 'grades' as a predictor of educational level. The average sample size for the groups is approximately 97,000: (http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/).
Whilst there isn't a panacea to alleviate the concern of I.Q. being intelligence, there is an abundance of research to suggest that I.Q. probably measures intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Lmao, you go right ahead and tell me how peak strength differentials between men and women aren't worlds apart, and how that doesn't at all matter in combat. War still exists, you ready to jump on the frontlines and fight against people who can bench 300-400 and squat 500-600+? I know for a fact, because its basic biology, that you arent anywhere near that kinda strength. How well do you think you could handle carrying 150 pounds+ of equipment while on foot for miles?
Physical strength is of little importance when bullets exist. If you're needing to carry such heavy equipment, then you should be driving your car, instead of falling victim to male bravado.
Come back and talk to me about how "protection isnt needed" when you can not shit your pants and carry 150+ pounds for 10+ miles on foot without getting winded or tired so as to still be in peak combat condition
Don't swear at me, thank you.
I don't see why doing such a thing is necessary. If people have invaded your country, you should be able to fight from your home. Otherwise, it appears you're being unjustly aggressive.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the Jews were so genetically smart...why were they so easily dominated by almost every cultural group?
They're not technically dominated, because they foster the domination. If a country is in cultural flux, due to an onset of multiculturalism, then they are safe, because there is no clear cultural majority to remove them (as has historically happened).
Like, couldn't they figure out how to escape Egyptian slavery or the Gas Chamber if they were so smart?
Are you being facetious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Both have their benefits, and both have their negatives. Competition breeds excellence, cooperation breeds togetherness. You see this encapsulated perfectly in team sports, where cooperation and competition are intertwined.
Currently, sure. However, perhaps we could re-engineer males to not engage in such a wasteful exercise (competition), and harvest excellence in an alternative fashion.
And no, it wouldn't. Society wouldn't be some place where violence ever occurs either. Females are aggressive in their own way, generally it tends to be passive aggressiveness. But interestingly enough, the coupling with the highest rates of domestic abuse? Lesbian relationships
Females are readily engaged in collaboration that isn't cut-throat competition. I've never seen a guy consoled by his male friends, whereas I've seen it happen countless times with girls. Sure, sometimes girls become hot headed and engage in covert competition, but that only further condemns competition.
Females are just as savage as men, they're savage in a different manner generally, but nonetheless, one that can hardly be argued as any better than direct aggression.
At least females have the capacity for better collaboration.
Especially when the swing side of aggression when channeled constructively is, in part but not exclusively, protection.
We no longer require protection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
This is just untrue as an axiom. Humans are in a sense, beasts of burden. Meaning and purpose is found most often in the undertaking of responsibility. Needing to do that isn't worse than not needing to. Especially when such a need provides huge benefits, and not doing so tends to reap many harms
This is circular reasoning.
And I would say this need is more a result of higher intelligence and conscious individuation. To remove these benefits, you would have to revert humanities intelligence. Really, the same goes for morality, a sense of right and wrong comes with consciousness and individuation. In essence, seperation of our actions from nature. Again, reversion to pre-individuation total ignorance of the self would be required fmpov
I don't see why this has to be the case. Consider the fact that 100 years ago, the conception of the internet was unfathomable. Education required memorisation of facts. Nowadays, we have all the facts at our fingertips, and this has radically transformed education. Imagine where technology will be in 100 years, let alone 1000 -- it's incredibly hard to predict.
This just strikes me as having a bit of a "god" complex, wanting to tool around with things we arent even anywhere close to understanding fully
You may pathologise me if you wish, but re-engineering humanity would likely accelerate human progress. Sure, we *currently* haven't the sufficient understanding to implement radical changes, but it remains an expedient cause.
For example, the "nuclear family" developed over time as the best way to raise kids to optimize potential success in adulthood.
This is woefully incorrect, but I won't derail the thread with digression.
Recent cultural pushes to glorify single parenting and change that order has resulted in kids suffering very detrimental affects. The same goes for this "gender theory" stuff that's based off a study that amounts to child abuse by John Money, or "toxic masculinity". Well, now testerone levels are dropping across the board, males are getting less intelligent, and checking out on a mass scale(suicide rates, employment etc).
Currently, sure, we are not detached from nature. However, this thread is about future predictions.
All from an opinion that aggressive and dominant male tendencies are "toxic" and "unnecessary" as opposed to something to be embraced and constructively channeled for noble purposes. No instead lets just put em on meds and watch as they're fucked up later on in life. Certainly none of the aforementioned could have anything to do with that
Here's an interesting thought: if you could remove these male tendencies, like re-engineer males, would it not make society a better place? Is it desirable to have creatures hell-bent on competing with each other? Would not collaboration be preferable?
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
In short, Jews have the superior I.Q. and racial group preference to infiltrate and eventually own nations. Not only those, but they have access to powerful political tools, such as the ever nebulous but potent "racism" (deconstructed here: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174), and the Holocaust narrative. Whether by conscious deceit or subconscious indoctrination, these tools will be used to any opposition of Jewish influence.
Add to these tools a political stranglehold on social media and legacy media (arguably not the most credible source, but the sheer number of Jewish people can be readily verified: http://eta-45.blogspot.com/2013/07/who-controls-your-mind-2013.html), and Jews have the ability to spin narratives and forge potent tools to suit their wishes.
To be fair to Jews, they are only doing what all other races attempt to do: survive and cater to their racial group. The exception is that Jews, despite being minorities in all Western countries, are incredibly effective at doing it.
Thus, it is not surprising that Jews meddled in the US election. It is also not surprising that news outlets are quiet about it.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
@Mister_Man
Thank you both for posting reasonable interpretations of what I wrote. Drafterman, for whatever reason, is developing a habit of over-simplifying and strawmanning my OPs (another example: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/170), and I was beginning to lose faith in the people of this website.
My faith is restored.
Created:
After witnessing an interesting yet ineffective conversation on racism in a thread (this one: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/160?page=1), I decided to formally congeal my thoughts. I think the thread touched on some truths, but it did not do so accurately, thus the necessity of this thread.
The term "racism" is most certainly nebulous, and I suspect this is by design. What constitutes racism exactly? In short, it is anything that references race:
Hitler enabling mass genocide of Jews? That's racism.
The black-white I.Q. gap documented in a scholarly fashion? That's racism.
Observing the fact that certain sections of a nation have disproportionately higher volumes of certain races? That's racism.
A white man lecturing on another race's history? That's racism.
Suggesting that separate races exist? That's racism.
Being white? That's racism.
The long answer is that dependent on the individual, different definitions of racism will be found, but all with the same zealotry -- this is a critical point. Most people will not have qualms with labelling Hitler a racist, but calling a white man racist, purely because he is white, is a tough pill to swallow for even the most Antifa of Antifas. So, whenever the label "racism" is awarded, negative affect results, regardless of whether a concrete definition has been established (it hasn't, which is why I suspect this is by design: it's an incredibly powerful political tool). Moreover, it is not that racism is meaningless, but that its definition is wildly varied.
The sinister part comes when you consider that empirical conclusions (there is a black-white I.Q. gap) are linked with extreme racial hatred (justification for killing millions of Jews), but only with one word: racism. Instead of being able to discuss the validity of black-white I.Q. gaps, we're no longer able to do so under the threat of parity with Hitler. This suppression of speech continues with the race notion, wherein we are threatened with racism whenever racial groups/differences are suggested, even ones that are benign (e.gs. Kenyan marathon accomplishments are partially a result of genetics; Asians don't sweat, hence the lack of deodorant in their countries).
It is this disingenuous conflation, rather than complete meaninglessness, that plagues the definition of "racism". A far better approach would be to abandon the hysterical term, and develop a distinct definition for people of the Hitler variety: racial hatred. That way, we can avoid disingenuous conflation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That must be your life's greatest achievement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Please refrain from posting your shallow, dog-whistle comments on my threads.
Much appreciated.
Created:
Posted in:
In the past 50 years or so, sex has transpired without the need for explicit rejection or consent. By virtue of the fact that a woman is not physically rejecting your advances, it is apparent that she is just fine with you forcing the issue. If she has to resort to a firm "no" (as opposed to a playful "no"), then you've, as a man, already missed at least several cues of rejection. The benefit of this approach is that it allows sex to be sexy. Women enjoy being taken by a masculine man, and men enjoy the masculinity found in leading the interaction.
Skipping forward to the current decade, and the conception of "yes means yes" is all but ruining the sexual experience. Nothing kills the mood quicker, for both men and women, than the man grovelling for permission. Yet people are dispensing this unsexy add-on of sex all around college campuses, requesting revision of laws (http://endrapeoncampus.org/yes-means-yes/).
Clearly, this is a byproduct of Feminist philosophy, and is thus an extension of undesirable facets of female psychology. Women need to understand that men are unable to just know what she wants, and that courting attempts, by unworthy suitors, may eventuate. In reality, the ideal environment for Feminists would be:
1) Unattractive men are not legally allowed to flirt with women
2) Attractive men just knowing when a woman likes her, and thus will automatically court her
3) Men who have, in the eyes of women, unfairly garnered sex, are to be legally prosecuted (e.gs. lying about ownership of a big boat; the woman being drunk and having sex with a man she would have rejected, had she been sober)
This Feminist utopia is a hellscape for men, as men are unable to naturally gauge their attractiveness to a woman, without flirting with her, thus it devolves into Russian Roulette. Hence, as societies draw closer to it, we see counterpushes from the MRM and MGTOW, suggesting anything from men fighting back against the misandric culture, to walking away from women altogether.
Personally, I would like to see women held responsible for their decisions. We need to stop enabling the pricklier facets of female psychology, and encourage women to realise their potential to become fully functioning, responsible adults, rather than little girls protected from their emotional whims by laws. They are more than capable of owning their actions, and I think would derive great pride and respect from being recognised as fully autonomous individuals, far more than any Feminist notion of imaginary incorrigibility has to offer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Are we to believe that you're stalking me, given that you are able to recount the sting I inflicted upon you in our discussion of mind reading? Or perhaps, and this is a wild theory, people can actually remember things *without* stalking people?
I know sexual desperation reeks in the emasculated Melbourne metropolitan, given that no sane girl finds a weak nerd like you attractive, so perhaps tortured logic (we're talking Jesus-style Crucifixion) is a necessity to convince oneself of amorosity directed at you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
> Remembers your name
> "Wow you're stalking me"
> I'm not homosexual
> "You're in love with me"
This is why you should go outside at least once a month.
Off you go, Benjamin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
I'm not homosexual. My apologies for dashing your hopes. There's always that anime girl in your display picture (although a "TOP NEP" may be out of your league).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Sounds like another unfounded ego. The site was depleting of them...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The kind of anal retention required here is for the stuff that comes out of your mouth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Benjamin, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that people would create a Wikipedia article about something, whilst believing that this something doesn't exist, and yet not blatantly stating that it does not exist.
You could argue that mind reading techniques are nascent (personally, that appears accurate to me), but you claimed they didn't exist. That, like your conception of Australia's 60% Christian majority making a mostly secular society, and your wasteful meat-eating habits, are nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Thank goodness one of us is pleasant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'd be interested in hearing about your indefinite absence from this site.
Created:
-->
@Zeichen
You clearly have a very poor grasp on reality. Although, neither me nor any other commenters in this thread should be surprised. All you have done upon joining this website is throw wildly inaccurate claims around -- claims which have clearly been formed as a result of acute mental illness on your part. To phrase it bluntly, you are little more than a demented troll.To that extent, I pity you.
Your moderately veiled trolling fools no one, troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Not that I think Zarroette's post are much more than emotional hysterics embroiled with the odd semblance of truth, but your answers have been far from convincing -- again. You've engaged in all kinds of dog-whistle name-calling (racist, right wing crank, antisemitic etc.), *attempted* witty one-liners and managed to link only a dictionary definition. Even Smithereens, who is prone to prolonged bouts of mental dysfunction, managed to salvage the morsels of truth in Zarroette's posts.
Unquestionably, you're a shadow of a man with an ego made of glass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Perhaps you consider it "bad form", but you're not the lord of this land.Yes, but it is considered bad form to mention people by name.
People trying to switch the BOP is one of those things you will have to live with if you continue debating online.
It may be difficult to believe, but I remain alive, despite encounters with BoP switches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
You call me "extremely upset" and "butt-hurt", yet you pule here with several passive-aggressive digressions. I know that manhood is illegal in cucked Melbourne, but if you're going to disagree with someone, at least have the internal fortitude to do so directly, Benjamin.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
This post is as silly as the average Smithereen's comment.
Created:
Posted in:
Routinely, I find issue with people's inability to provide evidence for their arguments, coupled with a reversal of burden. Perhaps laziness incites this. Perhaps ignorance incites this. Nonetheless, it is ineffective argumentation. Let's look at a couple examples I have encountered:
Since your OP enumerated failings of Democracy, it would be more instructive for you to offer a system that you think has proven superior.
Stronn, who failed to post anything of substance in that thread, suggests that because someone claims Democracy fails, that an alternative system needs to be proven superior. It is not mutually exclusive that (1) Democracy fails, and (2) every other system fails.
Or, you could show us how OkCupid does not attract people who wish to engage in casual sexual relations. Why is it that you believe this site to be an exception?
Zeichen also engaged in this logical fallacy. When she agreed that a "willingness to engage in casual sexual relations is the intention of the [OkCupid's] users", I asked for evidence. As quoted above, Zeichen attempted to flip the BoP by suggesting I had to prove something else, as if that had anything to do with his bare assertion (quite a dishonest burden reversal, and one I suspect was made intentionally).
Have you too encountered this reversal of burden?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
You mistake vagueness for depth.
As for the elaboration of your quote, I'm not sure Democracy feeds a sense of belonging. Is it not possible that Democracy reflects people's sense of belonging, in that people are already part of a group, and that Democracy merely shows what part of group they feel they belong to? Are you able to use evidence to carve a distinction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
I offered a maxim, and you refuse to listen. Given that, I doubt you would listen to the substance behind it.
You don't understand my critique. I'm not interested in proverbial sayings, because they are too vague and lack the argumentative depth required to beget thorough analysis. The fact that you refuse to present the substance, unless I first agree with your shallow quote, shows how twisted your question begging is.
If you could refrain from inserting your fragile male ego into this discussion like drafterman did, please elaborate on the quote, so that we can discuss its substance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Fools that seek the end of democracy would likely see, in their ideal scenario, a quickly grown democratic uprising.
Vague, universal quotes are not substitutes for argument or substantive elaboration. To grant objectivity to this issue (it's hard to see your work objectively), drafterman encountered the same issue here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/26?page=2&post_number=30
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Nope, any summary of world history would be a laundry list of systems which have been tried and failed worse than Democracy.
This is a textbook example of begging the question.
Our conversation is over.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Because men and women have equal value, but are not the same.
How did you reach this conclusion?
If you feel you have no advantage, just don't. Methinks thou forth protest too much.
What exactly are you suggesting?
I think you mean, "a seemingly innocuous request CAN hold...." Your thoughts and reality are different things.
My comment needs no correction. Thoughts are born of a reality, not Tabula Rasa.
If this is true, then your entire OP is nonsense.
Not quite. There is a vital distinction.
It doesn't matter in the sense of the writer (i.e. a woman/man writing 1+1=2 is always correct, regardless of gender).
It does matter when considering gender and its place in society.
Created: