Athias

That is not what intelligence is at all... That is applicable knowledge, which, contrary to popular belief, isn't that. Intelligence is the ability to understand and comprehend concepts

A market economy is the natural result of autonomy, property, and specialization.

Profit may be a necessary and healthy priority for survival, but it is not necessarily the primary motivation of individual contributions to the economy.

Karl Marx coined the term, capitalism. 

Capitalism vs socialism is definitely a spectrum. And people's stance towards each will vary depending on the issue. (Like, should healthcare be socialized or privatized? What about roads?) But a totality of either on every single issue is patent extremism. 

Why do people continuously insist: "Either Capitalism or Socialism", clearly both economic systems have their faults

Why is it that in other regards can we see that there are middle grounds, third options, etcetera, but in this specific field I've overwhelmingly seen support in one or the other way.

I think that the faults of either are inescapable in their purest forms. In a capitalist society any short term loss for long term profit, in a Socialistic one the way it can be set below the minimum standard. Now, Capitalism does not solve the problems of Socialism, not in a long term anyways; the same is true of Socialism on Capitalism. It is true, of what I've studied, that devaluing the work actually done to obtain, manufacture, create, etc, the product will do nothing but harm in the long run. 

Instead I would just propose an idea, could there not be a mix of the two? Either keeping some elements of both, or mixing them to a point of making something new? Is that not attainable?

As erudite as ever Mr A.

Nonetheless, regarding the veracity of popular GOD stories, you are still no nearer shifting the burden of proof from your shoulders.

And as ever I have nothing to prove.

I, like most people, would love to know the reason for the existence of matter....But, a chap went  up a mountain and had a chat with a GOD....Pull the other one, it's got bells on..... I certainly don't feel the need to disprove these sort of tall tales.

That's a generally accurate standard, but there is a level of nuance I think from topic to topic that it doesn't account for. For example, topics related to positive good fit your standard. If we argue that there is a positive good to installing a 5G network in the United States, then the negative does not bear BoP and can simply say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" if we do not substantiate the claim with evidence that proves a positive good without reasonable doubt. Likewise, If we argue that there is a negative effect of 5G, then the negative could say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" and win if we do not substantiate our claim with evidence that proves a negative effect without reasonable doubt. 

This is true. But "substantiating an affirmation" does not translate to having the BoP of proving that God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt.  "Substantiating the affirmation" could just as easily be the athiest arguing they only have to prove that there is no substantial evidence for God's existence

a belief in something with no evidence is a fallacy in of itself. 

Yes, you're right. I tripped up. Put prove and disprove in place of affirm and disaffirm in my post, because it being a responsive act would necessitate these two actions.

An independent claim would be an invention by man and showing it to those who don't know it exists. This is independent and separate from man. A person doesn't independently say God exists because it is based off a stirring in the conscience. Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject. This is responsive.

For example, saying the apparent order of the universe credits the existence of God is based off a stirring in the human conscience because we perceive order.

Atheists do not make claims, and so have nothing to prove.

Theists claim that specific GODS exist.

Atheists do not claim that GODS do not exist....

.All that atheists require is for you to unequivocally substantiate your claim.....

And then we can all be true believers together.

When it comes to the existence of God, man doesn't have a place to affirm or disaffirm. The reason is that saying God exists or does not exist isn't an independent claim, but a responsive one.

Theists will always try and shift the B.O.P. because they have no actual proof of their claim.

So you're right...Theists make the claim....It's their B.O.P.

Atheists cannot disprove something that theists cannot prove.

And if theists could actually prove the existence of their specific GOD....Then rational thinkers would cease to be atheists.

Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement. 

They did seem to suggest that perhaps the numbers are coded letters.

Perhaps it's not a "sequence of numbers" but rather a "sequence of letters represented with numbers".

If you could, you would.

And of course, the parameters are currently only known to me...That's the nature of a puzzle....The whole idea is that you have to work it out....or it wouldn't be a puzzle.

I might as well just tell you the answers otherwise.

It's easy to fabricate an impossible riddle.

So, you still can't solve them?

Part of what I'm trying to highlight is that there is no utility in believing that all people of similar skin-tone think and act in any sort of uniform way.

BbbbBBbbBBbbbut it's "science"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Though how did you arrive at "hate".....You might be thinking along the right lines.

You might enjoy this, [LINK]

Imagine for a moment that a tribe of Yalyuwara were to evaluate your "general intelligence" and or "general fitness".

I think most of us might look like complete idiots to them.

I think most of us might be unable to find our way back to camp by ourselves.

I think most of us might be unable to find water on our own.

I think most of us might be unable to avoid common predators and poisonous plants and insects, if left to ourselves.

When "evaluating" something (or someone) 99.99% of the "problem" is predetermined by the selection of the measuring method itself (and the creator of the measuring method).

And what does taking the "average I.Q." and juxtaposing them among your so-called "races" intend to indicate?

Great question.

4This was the puzzle I posed:

1 2 5 20 1 4 5 20 ?

What is the missing number.

And here is another:

Firstly Ethang5

Secondly Athias

Lastly Seldiora.

But what was seventh?

Hey, did I ever get back to that post I said I would? If I didn't think you could direct me to it's location? Because I feel bad if I said I would and hadn't gotten to it

If you refuse to cite your claims, then you retract the point and concede the argument.

That helps in the sense that I can now understand your grammatically incorrect sentence. This is what you originally wrote: "A conception no less, which by your description is malleable contingent on our "colloquial" understanding". It needs a comma between malleable and contingent, or else 'malleable contingent' becomes, functionally, a noun (which renders it void of sense).

All of the variables required for "classroom discipline" (e.g. work ethic, punctuality, persistence etc.) are not bundled into the term 'intelligence'.

Thus, the distinction is naturally assumed.

Conscious recognition isn't a prerequisite for allegations of attempting to escape.

I will continue to push for your sources.

It is absolutely necessary to use data, the scientific method and qualitative analysis of sources.

If you refuse, then one of these things is true: (1) your claims are not backed by any source, or (2) you are too lazy to source your claims.

In either case, you are at fault, and in every instance you fault here, you concede the point.

The capacity for everyone to check your previous posts is important. It allows inconsistencies, gish gallops, red herrings etc. to be weeded out by an attentive audience. This is often the function of a moderator in a debate.

It also allows for objectivity.

seeing that we can refer to something everyone is privy to. Hence, "everyone" is very relevant and certainly not irrelevant.

My comments on race-related topics are all backed and informed by scientific research, not the other way around. Arguments made independent of such rigour are your uncited blurts.

My apologies for misconstruing your position, but this position is actually worse than what I thought you argued, and hence I thought you weren't arguing it.

To say that intelligence "cannot be quantified", which implies into the future indefinitely, is pure arrogance and astronomically unlikely.

even in the near future, as science begins to 'find the genes' for various human traits, you will be proven wrong

the intelligence-generating genes are found.

The whole scientific world disagrees with you. Psychometrics, including I.Q, are valid.

You purported yourself to be an authority on the topic, and thus you claimed you didn't need to cite sources to back your claims. That is a unique variation on an appeal to authority, but one nonetheless.

You've, for some reason, left out the entirety of the study I provided which provided to prove my point. I'm going to copy-paste it so you have another chance to respond to it:

No, I disregarded it. But after perusing the study, I've come to the conclusion that you haven't read the entirety of your study, much less pay attention to the language used.

Firstly, why did you disregard it? You haven't at all explained why. You simply ignored it and moved onto other parts of the post. You're only addressing it now because I am holding you accountable.

Because I've read extensively on the I.Q. born from a fervor in my youth. Furthermore, your data does not rebut, refute, contradict, or even "counterargue" that "Black is not a race." Hence, I disregarded it.

Incorrect. "Black" can be a race, if given sufficiently low K in population divisions.

What I attempted to convey to you is that skin colour alone doesn't determine race all that well. It's fine for Europeans and Africans. It's not fine for Africans and Australian Aboriginals.

This is precisely how we determine race (assuming the person hasn't migrated there recently. e.g. a Swedish person living in Turkey for a week).

Appropriate is substantiated in that, for example, lumping all Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Koreans etc. into Asian, isn't as accurate as dividing them further. Of course, there is infinite regression until the individual has his/her group, but the same logic applies to colours, and we take no issue calling things red, orange, yellow etc. (i.e. what is considered to be appropriate).

I must be typing to Stevie Wonder.

African Americans frequently refer to themselves at 'black'.

I have heard other Africans make identical references.

On the contrary, I have never heard Australian Aboriginals refer to themselves as black (they do say 'black fella', though, black fella =/= black).

You provided a direct quote from a source without giving credit to the author.

Therefore, you plagiarised.

The study demonstrates that genetic divisions fits ancestral geographic locations extremely well, virtually at a 1-to-1 ratio when sufficient genetic markers are used (160+). If you disagree, you haven't read the study properly (but at least you're reading it).

Populations of humans geographically separated who also interbred, and hence are physically and genetically distinguishable.

Clearly, for people to become admixed, there needs to have been race-mixing.

Nobody knows, including you.

Nope. You simply failed to derive meaning from it.

Lol racial I.Q. is an average, not a calculation of the individual's I.Qs. You don't seriously think I'm arguing that all African Americans have an I.Q of 85?

That's when the fetus can feel pain.

The vast majority of pro lifers claim that if you don't want children, don't have sex, yet only 3% of the US population waits until marriage, so the vast majority of these people are hypocrites. 

The democrats advocate contraception use for people wanting to have sex and unwilling to concieve.

But pro lifers instead advocate for abstinence only education, which the stats show is counterproductive to reducing abortions.

So, then why don't pro lifers adopt kids if they are so concerned about life?

I'm not responsible for their deaths; I just didn't feel like saving them.  Just as people shouldn't be forced to save a kid from hunger, people shouldn't be forced to bring a kid into the world.

Thoughts?

You still need to cite this claim: "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3." Again, it is not the responsibility of the person you're talking to.

If you are unable to cite your claims,

your claims are bare assertions, which are logical fallacies.

Firstly, you never cited this claim: "And if you look into the history of I.Q. you'd discover that what was once colloquially defined as "intelligent" was physical strength."

you are not fit for this discussion.

Secondly, I assume you mean 'mealleably contingent', as opposed to "malleable contingent", because I've never seen the latter which is implied as noun (correct me if I'm wrong).

So, our "colloquial understanding" is being tested against I.Q. tests. This colloquial understanding isn't changing across studies. The fact that this colloquial understanding remains consistent, involves results which is replicable, and coincides with I.Q. test findings, shows that there is something real being measured here. Thus, this indicates this indicates that I.Q's attempted measure coincides with colloquial undertandings of intelligence.

Does it "measure" intelligence, or reinforces the standards on which it is based (i.e. classroom discipline?)

Thirdly, since I think I need to be plainly said (since you miss the inference every time), these studies aren't the only studies required to prove that I.Q. is a valid metric of intelligence. These studies were used to counter-act your original claim of: "At best, it gives some speculative gauge of classroom discipline. Trying to quantify intelligence is like trying quantify "dancing skills" or a person's "appearance."" Thus, I presented these studies that show that general conceptions of intelligence (i.e. NOT classroom discipline, and not something as nebulous as "dancing skills") correlate with I.Q. test scores. That's all the studies were meant to do.

Fourthly, you still haven't cited this claim: "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3." This isn't a verbal debate where you can use sophistry, deflects and pivots to escape. Everyone can go back and see you didn't cite this claim.

Finally, I cited all the studies multiple times, of which you proceeded to say all "meant nothing" lol.

At this point you're arguing that the "abstract" of intelligence doesn't exist.

So you're arguing that psychometrics are completely worthless. LOL.

So you are able to verify their "veracity", hence I am not merely "appealing to authorities".

LOL so now you're appealing to authority, something which you accused me of, and better yet you've made yourself the authority xD

You are so obtuse lol.

Okay so you've probably read only the abstract of the study lol (and then complained I hadn't read all of the study hahaha).

Anyway, what this is saying is that the colour of your skin isn't sufficient to correctly group you in terms of race, in all cases.

Now, I showed you data which suggested that despite this shortcoming, even if we used the super-broad term of African, we get very good race distribution of people into African, European and Asian (so long as the loci/SNPs are high enough).

I would contend that we shouldn't use super-broad, K=3 categorisation of humans in place of better categorisations, and hence, if you actually read the study (instead of complaining that I haven't read it), it goes on to break down humans into far more appropriate categories wherein races (shown in figure 4).

However, what I showed is that even if we use a super-broad term like African (which was implied when I used the term "black", we can genetically divide most of humanity incredibly well.

Finally, again, "black" is typically referred to as meaning "African", or in the United States (which was implied in my OP), to mean African American. No one refers to Australian Aboriginals as being black, despite having black skin.

Firstly, you've literally copy-pasted all of this from this paper: doi:10.1086/368061 (cell.com) . It's amusing that you'd try to play this off as you painstakingly looking through all these studies yourself, you plagiarist dickhead. I have no idea why you thought you get away with this.

Firstly, why did you disregard it? You haven't at all explained why. You simply ignored it and moved onto other parts of the post.

You're only addressing it now because I am holding you accountable.

Secondly, how do you know I haven't read the entirety of the study or paid attention to the language used? Again, no explanation of a pretty sizeable claim.

Membership in these groups is commonly inferred by use of a proxy such as place-of-origin or ethnic affiliation. These inferences are frequently weakened, however, by use of surrogates, such as skin color, for these proxies, the distribution of which bears little resemblance to the distribution of neutral genetic variation. Consequently, it has become increasingly controversial whether proxies are sufficient and accurate representations of groups inferred from neutral genetic variation.

Historically, proxies such as skin color, race, and ethnic label have been used to make inferences about population structure, even in the absence of corroborative genetic data (Cooper 1994; Laveist 1997; Williams 1997; Aspinall 1998). As a result, there is a large body of literature comparing phenotypes between cohorts defined, for example, as “blacks” and “whites.” In recent years, the validity of this classification scheme has been criticized for its weak conceptual underpinnings and its strong assumptions about underlying biology (Lee et al. 2001; Wilson et al. 2001; Foster and Sharp 2002). Given the growing availability of large collections of human genetic data from populations throughout the world, it was anticipated that the reliability of such proxies would be resolved via empirical testing (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Rannala and Mountain 1997; Shriver et al. 1997). Instead, recent, well-publicized studies have led to disparate and sometimes contradictory conclusions (Wilson et al. 2001; Risch et al. 2002). The result has been increased polarization about the nature of human population structure and a widespread belief that all commonly used proxies correspond poorly to genetically inferred clusters (Witzig 1996; Goodman 2000; Schwartz 2001). However, contrasting interpretations of the same set of data (Wilson et al. 2001) suggest that the signal from these data is too weak to justify such strong inferences (Risch et al. 2002).

To determine the amount of data needed to identify population structure and assign membership accurately, we used a data set of 60 microsatellites and 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms (hereafter referred to as “Alu markers”) to infer genetic clusters in a heterogeneous sample of >500 individuals from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, southern Asia, and Europe. We found that substantial genetic structure exists among samples from different continents, with samples from sub-Saharan Africa falling into two separate African-specific genetic clusters. Second, the geographic origin of individual samples, even from an admixed population, can be assigned with a moderate level of accuracy. Third, Alu markers and microsatellites have comparable power to detect population structure and assign origin, although accurate cluster assignment requires substantially more markers than have typically been tested. Fourth, the proxies associated with the samples used in this analysis were sometimes, though not always, sufficient representations of the inferred genetic clusters, reflecting the complex and interwoven history of the human species.

For the power analysis, we genotyped 100 Alu polymorphisms and 60 tetranucleotide microsatellites in 206 individuals in 20 ethnic groups from sub-Saharan Africa (58), East Asia (67), and Europe (81). The Alu polymorphisms were also genotyped in 55 individuals from these groups who lacked microsatellite data, including 33 additional Mbuti pygmies from the Ituri forest, 41 sub-Saharan Africans from another three ethnic groups, and 263 individuals in various caste populations from the subcontinent of India. Thus, a total of 565 individuals from 23 ethnic groups and southern India were used in subsequent tests of sample assignment to inferred genetic clusters.

We found that substantial genetic structure exists among samples from different continents, with samples from sub-Saharan Africa falling into two separate African-specific genetic clusters. Second, the geographic origin of individual samples, even from an admixed population, can be assigned with a moderate level of accuracy.

Thirdly, why would the second point even matter? Are you going to address the conclusions I make from the study or not?

Again, you really need to stop blindly asserting things. No reasonable person is going to accept that.

We are using science to verify it. Why is this even a question?

It's good that you agree intelligence exists.

Thus, we can delve into how to measure it (and I'd argue through I.Q.).

Similar to how "we don't know for sure" whether we will win the lottery or not, we can guess that we are not going to, based on the probability.

No reasonable person, as you're doing here, will hammer on about "we don't know for sure", and refuse to guess.

"we don't know for sure" doesn't mean "we have absolutely no idea and cannot make guesses which are probably true"

Since you refuse to provide links/data to support your claims, you're no longer capable of discussing this with me.

Goodbye.

You've, for some reason, left out the entirety of the study I provided which provided to prove my point. I'm going to copy-paste it so you have another chance to respond to it:

"This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it."

Now, using data-based arguments like this above, is it unreasonable to assume that 'Black' could easily be replaced with 'African', given that African Americans and Africans use the term to describe themselves? I didn't think so, and so becoming hung up on this semantic is unwise.

As for the latter part of this comment, again, the research I provided showed that we can sub-divide people into other categories other than "African descent" (Asian and European), all the whilst retaining the category of "African descent". Hence, if we use the term Black/African, not everyone would have to be racially classified as of "African descent".

These objections all fall under the broad category of "I.Q. calculation is a soft science",

I.Q. calculation is a soft science that relies on correlation instead causation -- I agree. It relies on correlation because, currently, science is not able to determine all the genes which generate the 'g' factor (which is intelligence).

Are we then to say that intelligence is a myth that doesn't exist?

Or, using the strong correlations which are produced in I.Q. calculations, could we determine that despite not knowing for sure (a casual link), we can say that I.Q. *probably* measures intelligence?

Which of those seems more reasonable to you?

You did not, at any stage, cite your claim that "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3."  Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com) . Hence, it was an assertion.

Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to cite the claims you're making,

asking me to "confirm" your uncited claims isn't reasonable.

Believe it or not, we are not living in the past, and hence we don't have primitive conceptions of intelligence (if that was even true, since you haven't cited anything you claimed, let alone this claim). It would be appreciated if you started to cite even the odd thing you say.

You're incorrect because these studies did replicate the results with near unerring accuracy. This is what happens when you get hung up on word games about terms like "soft science": this science is conducted, the results show strong correlation which is replicated across all studies, and you no longer have a leg to stand on. Studies cited are re-posted below:

The fact that you think a collection of studies, of which use the scientific method showing their methodologies, all amount to meaning "nothing", is ridiculous.

If you have an anti-science stance that prohibits you from engaging with scientific research, then you are not fit for debate.

These "authorities" have shown their workings.

This is not a case wherein the studies are behind a paywall and I've said 'just believe me', or I blankly assert that 'the authorities agree with me on this'.

You are able to verify the veracity of the claims made, analysing their methodologies and logical conclusions. That is what you should do.

This is a word game that is actually meaningful and would give a lot of credence to your argument. Unfortunately, it misaligns with the data I've provided. 

I typed this into Google and found this definition: "drawing conclusions about individual-level behavior from aggregate-level data." If there is an issue with this, let me know.

Anyway, if I were to cite research that had the methodology of 'people looked at other people and determined how smart they were.", this would precisely be the ecological inference that you refer to. However, there was an extra step involving an I.Q. tests, of which was then compared to these ecological inferences. *That* is the crucial step because now we can see if these "ecological inferences" have rhyme and reason backed by I.Q, and the answer is that they do. Hence, the studies I provided are not purely "ecological inferences", in fact they are testing to see if the ecological inferences have any merit. Thus, no fallacy was committed. 

Is correlation a completely worthless metric? You are arguing that it is. Do I need to explain why that isn't correct?

This is incorrect. What you have committed is the continuum fallacy in that you've implied that because it's possible to place all races into a broad category of "African descent" (which is debatable anyway), then there are no phenotypical distinctions if we sub-divided into "race". This fallacy is best understood by the layman when it is compared to colours. Sure, red, blue, green, orange etc. can be broadly defined as "colours" (the human race), but that doesn't mean we are not able to divide them into smaller groups of shades of the same colour (races). Similar to how it makes no sense to say there are distinctions between colours therefore we can't divide them, the same logic can be applied to human races.

Whether I.Q. is a psychometric

whether it's a hard science or not,

isn't particularly relevant.

There is no doubt that the science shows us I.Q. isn't a perfect measurement of intelligence, but that's besides the point.

The question then becomes how accurate is I.Q. is in determining that. Whilst you've failed to reference any scientific material, I've already written an OP on covering the correlation between "success" and I.Q. On the validity of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence (debateart.com) . Depending on what you define as success (education level, job title, income level etc.), the correlate varies and isn't a static "0.3" as you've asserted without a shred of evidence.

I.Q. correlates even better with what we colloquially define as intelligent.

 Antecedents and consequences of peer‐rated intelligence - Denissen - 2011 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library Interpersonal Perceptions of Intelligence in Late Childhood and Early Adolescent Friendships: The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Vol 135, No 1 (tandfonline.com) PERCEIVED INTELLIGENCE IN MARRIED PARTNERS: Ingenta Connect (PDF) Self-Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests? (researchgate.net) Gender differences in self-estimated IQ: The need for care in interpreting group data - ScienceDirect 

Clearly, despite there not being a perfect causal link

I.Q. most likely measures intelligence

Thus, what is more "reckless" is to ignore statistical probability.

In a meritocracy, skin color means nothing. Either you can do a task competently or you can not.

No DNA testing required.

The terms "racism" and "racist" are inherently inaccurate words, loaded with politically charged bias. The latter is self-evident whenever you call something/someone one of these terms. The former takes a bit more explaining.

If someone said, "Blacks belong in slavery," most people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Fair enough. It expresses racial hatred. It deserves the politically charged terminology and social ostracization. I wouldn't criticize the usage of those terms ("racism" and "racist") there.

If someone said, "Blacks have lower I.Q's than Whites", some people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Now, unfortunately, this is a scientifically verifiable fact, and thus in responding with your hysterical, sloppy language, you're not only slandering the people making the claim, but you are engaging in anti-scientific behaviour. Whether a fact is "racist" or not is beside the point, and you're getting in the way of genuine scientific research with this nonsense term.

Instead of using these stupid terms, when you hear things like "6 million was not enough" or "all Asians eat dogs alive", use the term "racial hatred". It's far more accurate, it doesn't screw up science and demographic observations, and, most importantly, you don't look like a bloody idiot.

So, it has been seeming like any disparities among races are always just tossed up to "White Racism" or "Systemic Racism", and I was simply wondering, at what point do you consider minorities to be people who are responsible for their own actions?

Are we assuming that all cultures and peoples are the same and that any disparity at all is because of racism? How much disparity in SAT scores and household wealth needs to be closed before you blame individuals for making bad choices like having kids out of wedlock?

And how does this apply to disparities in which White people are lower in achievement? Asians from many cultures and countries have the highest IQ scores and earn much higher incomes than White people.

Black women are 3x more likely to die during childbirth than White women, but Hispanics are 13% less likely to die than White people. Are White women making bad health decisions and Black women are suffering from this unspeakable racism on the part of White doctors, and it is of no fault of their own?

Maybe telling people that all of their problems are because the White man is keeping people down is causing them to act irrationally. Maybe they don't try as hard to finish high school, because 'what is the point'? The evil White man will keep you from succeeding anyway.

It seems to me that removing personal agency from people is only going to cause more harm than good. You can fight the occasional racism when you find it, but it by no means is rampant like lefties try to make it out to be. 

So lefties in particular, let me in on this: At what point do you blame people over a boogeyman?

I don't accept that well established sources of fake news must always be lent credence until disproved.

To my mind, that's the guy who forgives his girlfriend multiple infidelities in the hopes she may one day fall in love or the wife who forgives her husband's abuse for the sake of the marriage.

I don't care what Dr Ayyadurai has to say on any subject, he has demonstrated that his motivations are corrupt and self-serving.

If Dr. Ayyadurai is your only source of evidence, then I see little value in investigating further, as far as I'm concerned you have no evidence to back your claim.  

Because then you would be guilty of attacking the source and not addressing the information

So be sure to address post #10 and post #14 where Dusty & I explained why Dr Ayyadurai's claims were bullshit

This is a perfect example.

The entire point of that story is to highlight exactly why it's so important to evaluate EACH INDIVIDUAL CLAIM ON ITS OWN MERIT.

If you remember the parable, the villagers were eaten by the wolf at the end because they ignored valid warnings.

--> @oromagi

the counterargument is not "3RU7AL is a liar and his argument therefore disproved"  

Let's take a look at your actual statement from [POST#7]

the counterargument is "3RU7AL's claim lacks any credible evidence in support"

Oh, really?

Is that what you meant when you said,

"I don't think its an ad hom to point out that Dr Ayyadurai is a famous conspiracy theorists whose false reports have previously led to major retractions of claims from the Washington Post and the Smithsonian Institute (Ayyadurai absurdly claims to have invented email while attending high school in 1979,  8 years after the first documented emails were transmitted) Ayyaduria went to MIT but that doesn't make his analysis an "MIT analysis" MIT does publish a well respected voter analysis 6-8 months after the vote.  Hell, Michigan won't even publish an official vote count until Nov 23rd.  Do we really think MIT is analyzing data that hasn't been published yet?"

Hmmm, I can't find the part where you say anything at all about the claim itself.

Than the progressivism I'm talking about isn't a political ideology, because I'm referring to the philosophy and applying it to politics, as far as I was aware that's how all political ideologies work, where is your authority to claim what is and isn't a political ideology, one of the words in it is literally ideology.

• Parents aren't obligated to rearing their offspring,
  
• The minimum wage should be abolished,
  
• It's a woman's decision to continue or terminate her pregnancy.
  

• Progressives believe that abortions should be legal because "it's her body, her choice."
  
• Progressives believe in raising the age of consent [because it's their body, but not their choice.]
  

I'm sorry I'm simply not in the mood to respond today, I'll create a more in-depth rebuttal a little later :)

Ah, you cut out an essential part of my response in order to make your rebuttal seem more fluid than it actually was, here is my entire response:

I can be a net progressive and still not support specific tenents of progressivism, such as a Christian can not support everything in the bible and yet still believe in god. Same as them, I can value the overall goal of progressives without actually adopting any positions they bear.

I believe the general goal of progressives should be to lead a country to positive progress, specifically in regard to the civil rights of people in general. Such as a woman's right to an abortion, such as a homosexual man's right to marriage, such as a transgender person's right to transition. Etc, etc.. 

Except I think by use of context clues, you can easily tell I am referring to the Christina god, if not, regard this example instead: I can still be a theist and not believe the tenants of typical theism and still believe in a god.

That should satisfy your need to nitpick.

There is no arbitrary about it, I believe in the central goal of progressivism, but because of the ideology, people can disagree about what that best way there. As well as the fact that yes, I technically could determine how progressive I was, by measuring how towards the goal of progressivism my goals align. 

I would disagree, that is one way you could say that they are made up,

but this is a naive approach that is limiting unneedlessly.

As you were so quick to ignore, one could simply identify the goal of one's political ideology and measure yourself based on this.

This is you assuming that there is only one way to define or measure a political ideology. 

I am still a Christian if I believe in god/jesus but I also believe that we shouldn't stone gay people. I am still a Christian if I believe I shouldn't own slaves, etc, etc...

Never did I say I disagreed with any of them, I was simply saying I may or may not reflect all of their opinions. Same answer as the last one, and as far as I am aware, yes.

I am a progressive, ask me anything, now bear in mind that my views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of the majority of progressives.

I can be a net progressive and still not support specific tenents of progressivism, such as a Christian can not support everything in the bible and yet still believe in god.

I've changed my mind for some reason to being pro choice up until 20 weeks of pregnency.  The reason for this is the vast majority of pro lifers don't adopt and there are many kids that are orphans that die due to hunger.  This should be a meme:

600,000 fetuses die due to abortion per year, most of which die by a painless way since they can't feel pain and everyone loses their minds.

Over 10,000,000 children die to hunger per year, all of which die by a painful way and no one bats an eye.

If pro lifers wish to be consistent, they would save one of these kids from hunger.  Instead, the most famous pro life organization, the Catholic church spends their money protecting priests who violated their vow of chastity by raping little boys.  They need to fix their priorities.

Then why don't I have a right to put my baby in a dumpster, especially if it's not immoral? 

Taking a bath isn't immoral and I assume you'd agree I have the right to do that. 

You said individualism leads us to the  logical analyses of which rights we have. You said individualism posits an "inalienable right to live as one sees fit" which you've just repeated here. So why don't I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster if that is what I see fit?

I was asking because people can identify as being of the same school of thought while holding contrary positions, so saying you are an "individualist" does not tell me which position you would take on issue X whereas deferring to someone I'm familiar with might. For instance, an anarchist like Mises is different than one like Proudhon. But I agree a proxy is not necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by moral system, but what does agreement have to do with it? 

Do rights matter (have any meaningful real world application) if there is no consensus on what those rights are and/or no way to enforce them?

I'm not sure what you mean by moral system, but what does agreement have to do with it? 

Not all of them.

Yet.

What does moral agency have to do with rights?

Are you suggesting that you only have rights if you're capable of understanding another's rights?

Does a 1 month old not have rights then? 

I would sooner come to his defense than imply such an accusation toward the man whom the deck is stacked against.

I simply haven't watched the footage and have no reason to.

The little girl was obviously asking for it.

Everyone knows he is inappropriate around women and weird around children. 

It's weird that someone is probably getting paid for that headline. 

I don't see much point in watching this.

Nope-  the thumb and index finger don't come together. 

Look like you're going have to make that image even blurrier before FOX will run it as news.

Or maybe get the guys who doctored up the photo the last time Republicans tried this one.