Total posts: 3,192
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is the same thing as saying that pro choice people believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.
If you're suffering from kidney failure, and refuse to donate my kidney, despite our being a match, have I infracted upon your "right to life" in my refusal?
No bodily sensation that is temporary is worth infinite dollars.
That is an estimation to be made by the rightful owner of the body.
By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Right to life > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).
Hence, I'm pro-choice all the way, even after the child is born. That is, a parent should not be coerced into sustaining a child--i.e. labor, resources, time, etc. This must be understood, that is rearing children, as A GIFT not AN OBLIGATION.
The right to have fiscal autonomy is the same as the right to not have your money stolen.
O.K. So I misunderstood what you had meant by "fiscal autonomy." Let me rephrase:
BODILY AUTONOMY =/= RIGHT TO STEAL MONEY FOR DRUGS.
Because pro lifers argue that only a parent has the obligation to take care of their child. If pro lifers believed that the right to life was absolute, they would believe in forced kidney donations are justified if it saves lives. These aren't my beliefs; they are the beliefs of pro lifers.
Fair enough. I actually see the reasoning. That is if the parent is obligated to the child despite the undermining of the parents' bodily autonomy, then it would stand to reason that pro-lifers would not object (I don't think parents denying their children the use of their kidneys is prominent enough to warrant pro-life attention) to parents' being coerced to submit their kidneys if they can spare it to their child or children suffering from kidney failure.
I think this position is biting the bullet. Most pro lifers (when they aren't thinking about abortion) don't believe kidney donation should be FORCED to save the life of their biological child.
Again, I don't think its prominent enough to warrant enough attention to subject it to public referendum. But it would be an interesting thought exercise if the issue ever did come up. But if any person who has conveyed through argumentation that a parent is obligated to the sustenance of their child from the point of the conception and that bodily autonomy is secondary to the child's "right to life" refuses to acknowledge that this reasoning would also endorse a parent's being coerced into providing a kidney in the event of a child's kidney failure, then you are right--that argument is inconsistent.
A pro lifer (who believes a child's life > bodily autonomy) would need to support forced kidney donation to save the life of their hypothetical 8 year old child. I know if I had a kid that was like that, I wouldn't want to donate a kidney to save their life. I can barely get through a blood prick, let alone an invasive surgery.A pro choicer (who believes bodily autonomy > a child's life and if they are a democrat, would also believe that a child's life > fiscal autonomy) would believe that bodily autonomy > fiscal autonomy, which means that they would believe it's okay for a cocaine addict (who is broke due to their addiction) to steal from others to buy cocaine because their bodily autonomy > fiscal autonomy for other people.
You had me until you mentioned the cocaine addict. Once again, bodily autonomy does not equate to the right to steal money from others. Perhaps a more suitable proviso would be the coerced financial obligation that parents bear when they have children.
If hypothetically, your ranking was fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy > right to life (in the context of what a parent has to do for their child), then you would believe that not paying child support for your is totally okay even if your kid starves to death because by your logic, fiscal autonomy > right to life, even for your own child.
Not necessarily. If can join both bodily and fiscal autonomy as "Resource Autonomy" for lack of a better term, then I would state that one's "right to life" as it is commonly described is mutually exclusive from one's "resource autonomy."
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I disagree. It isn't arbitrary. It is always based on something. No one has ever said, I want that tree to be a legal person and poof it was so. You might not agree with the logic or reasoning behind a determination, but it isn't arbitrary.
Nope, it's arbitrary. It's not necessarily a matter of my disagreeing with the reasoning. Granting personhood to an inanimate object is not consistent with the description of personhood. Its even less consistent when a zygote/embryo/fetus is not legally protected because they're not persons, but a "lake" can be.
So the logic between the 2 is not consistent. But it still isn't arbitrary.
What is your preferred description of "arbitrary?"
what conclusion specifically are you scrutinizing and finding silly? A specific case of someone/something being a person? The entire concept of personhood? Are you saying that who is a person should be simple?
Honestly? I don't think personhood should even be considered. A pregnant woman has a right to behave her womb as she pleases whether the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Like whiteflame or Barney.If someone violates the rules, send them a dm warning them to stop and act accordingly, if they don't.oromagi has done precisely the exact opposite.
- Posting publicly about Best.Korea's comment while pretending to play neutral while secretly taking his message out of context and allowing the community to scrutinize him.
- Publicizing personal mod issues by calling out BrotherD.Thomas out and openly.
- Putting Greyparrot on blast by once again, publicizing private mod info by warning him to cease a nickname he created for IWRA. While simultaneously ignoring the repeated insults of IWRA and doxxing of Greyparrot's RL career. (Favoritism and hypocrisy.)
But then repeatedly engaging aggressively with TWS by calling him personalized nicknames he came up with, and addressing him as a racist and a transphobe, insulting his intelligence. As well as engaging in cross-thread contamination.If you think it's just the users that are frustrated with oromagi's actions, consider for a moment that the mods themselves are getting tired of it also.It's not THE mods. It's the actions and behavior of one mod. Also, keep in mind that I was the one who tried convincing former president Wylted to make oromagi a moderator and the one who wanted oro as a mod. Of all people, Wylted warned this was a bad idea.Oro has a history of making callout threads too. So just keep that in mind.
Have you brought this to DebateArt.com's attention? (Just to be clear, I mean the user, not the website.)
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't think that makes it moot. Legal personhood is a complicated subject. And yes, inanimate objects can be a legal person. Deciding what is and what isn't a person is always a difficult question to answer.
It's not complicated; it's whimsical and arbitrary. You can grant an inanimate object "person-hood" but not a human being at the first phase of its development? This demonstrates to me at the very least the concept of "person-hood" isn't based on any consistent principle.
Saying that because a question is difficult and sometimes comes to strange answers makes the whole concept absurd and moot, is a bit silly.
No, stating that a question, which is "difficult" and sometimes comes to a strange answer, is moot and absurd is actually quite rational and erudite when the conclusion being scrutinized is quite silly.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. Technically a cancerous tumor is still human.
Except, it's not a cancerous tumor. And the subject of personhood is made all the more moot (and frankly absurd) when a State CAN GRANT A BODY OF WATER PERSONHOOD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It was 1 moderator, not all, and the hypocrisy issue was separate from the fact that their 'new enforcement' is faked anyway. Whatever this 'new enforcement' is just seems to be being louder and more public about warnings.
How would you have them moderate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The goal of the site's owner is to attract users to the site to host debates and logical discussions.While I agree that this site is his property, users arent his private property.
I did not suggest anything of the sort. Like in any association, you have the authority to participate with a willing party, bring up a grievance and/or persevere in the midst of grievance, attempt to persuade, or willfully walk away. Because ultimately, when there's conflict, the ball is in the court of the participating member, not the moderation team or staff. It's Mike's property, and he can behave it however he sees fit. Of course, this means that if there are members who maintain a grievance or an objection to how he maintains his property, he could risk alienating and ostracizing existing and prospective members. But that has nothing to do with the authority of the moderators, unless Mike chooses to make it so. Hence, Mike is the "dictator." (I'm not suggesting that Debateart.com behaves like a dictator; I'm only using "dictator" as a metaphor for his proprietary right.)
Oromagi is a mod now. He is expected to set an example for others on how to behave.
I personally agree with this. However, whether we agree or not does not at all qualify, much less modify oromagi's capacity and function as a moderator.
However, to fullfill the purpose of ban on insults completely, the ban must apply to all cases where insults are irrelevant to the topic.Insults arent arguments, unless the topic is about insults, such as rap battles.Appealing to opponent's intelligence or bias is not an argument of any kind, since anyone can do it to anyone and the relevance to the topic is non-existent.When in debates, person should focus on the given arguments, not on another person.
I agree.
I have a long history of using insults, but I am very happy to give up on using insults when everyone agrees to do the same.
I maintain that one should give up on using insults even when everyone is doing the opposite. It's all about self-discipline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In that case you have actually said nothing. I misunderstood and thought you were saying to stop bickering and leave if we had an issue.
My contention is against the notion that the moderators are somehow in dereliction of their duties by being (allegedly) hypocrites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Would you explain why you believe they are not? Are you basing your decision on lack of empirical equality or human value, and do you believe regardless of human values existence it would be better for society to act as though it does or doesn't exist?
I bear no expectation that human value can be quantified; only expressed through emotion, opinion, and abstract behaviors. People aren't "equal" because that would suggest homogenizing individual value. In any social interaction, each individual will be treated and will act with respect to a composite of their respective individual values, and thus treat others and be treated by others differently. Case in point: I do not treat strangers the same as I do my siblings. Because of my affection (individual value) for my siblings, my behavior toward them as well as my mere association with them will undoubtedly express favor. This can manifest in many ways--e.g. more willing to provide my time, labor, and resources in maximizing my estimation of their utility. I wouldn't do that for mere strangers. What I can do, and have done for strangers is respect their individual discretion and their capacity to act in their own interests so long as it does not or did not interfere with another's capacity to act in service to their individual interests.
You gave a very clear explanation of what you perceive, but can you back this up with any suggestive evidence or relative comparisons?
Suggestive evidence or relative comparisons for which part? Or do you request evidence and comparisons for all of it?
Additionally, do you believe that people are aware that they are as you described, or do you believe they perceived themselves differently, and how so?
Best assumption? Not generally.
I am certain that not every voluntary arrangement would suffice to hold together a society.
Why not?
However, I am interested in hearing more about your description of how the government should be run, and why.
If there is to be government, it should operate in the private sector subject to its market decisions and the satisfaction of its consumers.
I clearly understand you suggest Christianity, but I don't receive your implication as you seem to expect. Can you explain why?
Just a joke.
I wasn't expecting a joke, LOL. I already put my responses above anyways. Would you further explain how individual value being objective is irrational?
No worries. As far as the irrationality of individual value being objective, it will be contingent on our unresolved dispute over the description of objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Did this site make you better at debating IRL?
Not really. (That's not intended to discredit this site at all.) I've been debating long before I joined this site--e.g. formally, informally, at school, at home etc. My interest in debate was probably born from my watching the adults in my life at an early age discuss among themselves a wide-range of topics. If anyone wondered the reason I disengage arguments with a "Have a nice day, sir" or "Enjoy your day, sir," I get that from my father. He never wastes time shouting or getting overly emotional with anyone. In fact, quite recently, my father and I were at a pharmacy, and some random woman wanted to argue with him about a joke he made (a joke which frankly did not concern her.) And unfailingly, my father states, "Ok. Have a nice day, Ma'am."
I suppose one could state I like debating in "real life" or online because I'm attempting to stress-test the consistency of my held positions. They've held up well so far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
*FP*
Excuses, excuses of the hypocrisy. *yawn*
Excuses, more excuses for the hypocrisy.
Projecting those excuses for others onto me, unremarkable. *FP*
I'm grouping these together since they operate on similar "motif." And why would I make excuses for the moderators? I'm simply acknowledging the extent of their authority. Please point out any error in my description.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I give myself no credit in this regard. I'm sure even Sir.Lancelot could find several incidents of you being triggered.
By all means, feel free to list these "several incidents" of my being "triggered."
And I react to disrespect,
You do, and you initiate it as well.
As if you have any authority to give unsolicited options whereas this site is concerned.
I do not presume any authority. It's simple deduction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Some of us like to fight for change and if you say this is insulting and violates the rules, you are making it seem like others are incapable of comprehending that they can leave the site, they know they can but want to change it.
Athias Post #24:
Your only authority is to attempt to persuade them, deal with it, or leave.
This is among the many reasons "seem" is not an argument. And since the implementation, regulation, and enforcement of policy is not subject to a site-wide referendum, but instead a consensus among active moderators, what have I said in my statement that excludes what you've just stated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
"...it is well within their authority to be hypocrites." - Hmmm... nice contradiction to your previous assertion that they should be setting the example in the wake of so-called provocateurs!?!
It's not a contradiction. Would I prefer they--the moderators that is--hold themselves generally to the same standards as they would hold other participating members? Yes, i.e. setting a good example. Does that have anything to do with their authority? Absolutely not. So read my statements again: Mike is this site's dictator. The moderators act on Mike's authority by proxy. Our participation on this site is solely contingent on Mike's discretion and the proxy he's extended to his appointed moderators.
Reporting it is futile
You mean, reporting will not produce your desired result.
It matters not how constructively I argue anything, as noted in the thread I started that Oromagi trolled for the sole purpose of directly insulting me with unsubstantiated and unwarranted ad hominem attacks.
You also called him an "intellectual fucking coward." And while I do believe oromagi did levy an ad hominem attack your way, the subject of the ad hominem, while irrelevant, is not "unsubstantiated." You can own it or deny it.
I will never leave.
That is your privilege until Mike and his moderators say otherwise.
Despite your and Sidewalker's (among other easily triggered whiners)
You give yourself too much credit. You have never "triggered" me--much less have I ever been "triggered" by anyone else on this site. You and I have had discussions on the subject of so-called "race,"and when you'd get disrespectful, I disengaged you respectfully. Don't project emotional tendencies on to me.
wishful thinking that I do so.
I honestly couldn't concern myself less with what you do. I'm merely providing the options available to you.
MTFU is what is truly not complicated.
And part of manning up is understanding the effect of how you comport yourself. You want to complain and act like a martyr? That is your prerogative; but just know that you're actively enabling the hypocrisy you allege through your participation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The question is: Are people equal,
The question is... WILL IIIIIIIIIII EVER LEAV... Sorry, I got sidetracked. No people are not equal.
or are peoples equal?
No, peoples aren't equal either.
What is the US currently?
A microcosm of a globalist one world communist government nose deep in Luciferian practices and rituals.
What should the US be?
Anarchy. Particularly, Anarcho-Capitalism. But any voluntary arrangement should suffice.
Which is religiously correct?
Christianity of course!
Which is correct from the perspective of human value?
Christianity of course.
1 & 2: People aren't equal because individual value creates a constellation and market for individual behaviors. Individuals acknowledge their own estimations of the most attractive; the most talented; the smartest; the most athletic, etc. Equality would necessitate the streamline of individual values, and/or making individual value objective. And objectivity is irrational.
3: The United States is a hodgepodge of diverse demographics in order to indoctrinate the diverse cultures around the globe with the Luciferian a.k.a. Babylonian mysteries which was brought in by this nation's Masonic "Founding Fathers." As far as my description of "Communist," you need only look into the history of this nation's central banks, as well as Joseph McCarthy's "Red Scare." You can also look into project paperclip.
4. All associations should be voluntary--even at the societal level. Involuntary associations are immoral and should be condemned.
5 & 6: I'm joking for the most part with this one. I'm not religious. If I had to provide an answer, I would state that they're all "correct," in the absence of an alternative term, even if they contradict each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You have clearly missed this post by Oromagi, which has resulted in other users calling him out for his blatant (albeit flagrant) hypocrisy subsequent to this enforcement thread. A thread that was initiated by HIM calling out Sir Lancelot for repetitively using GreyParot’s “Fanchick” reference to IWRA.
Yes, that was a poor example set by Oromagi in the face of a talented provocateur. And I'm well aware of the "fanchick"-"dummy" feud instigated by iwantrooseveltagain, Sir.Lancelot, and Greyparrot. Even with all of that, I still maintain that Oromagi is generally respectful. I am not disputing any one moderator's capacity for hypocrisy, only that it is well within their authority to be hypocrites. You have a problem with it? Report it. Converse constructively like Sir.Lancelot did. Deal with it. Complain. Or leave. It's not that complicated.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your pro choice and believe a zygote is a human being, you believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.
No, it simply means that one believes that one human being does not bear the right to compel and coerce the service and/or labor of another.
Pro choice people tend to be democrats
Luckily for me, I am not a Democrat.
who believe that the right to life outweighs fiscal autonomy (the right to not fiscally sacrifice for someone else).
Even if the concern about money, one's financial does not qualify one's right to bodily autonomy.
By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).
What?! So both A & B represent Bodily Autonomy?
Consider the following question: Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction? If you believe that Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy, then you would have to believe that it's okay to be addicted to meth even if you must steal from people in the name of your bodily autonomy to be happy.
No. THIEVERY =/= FISCAL AUTONOMY.
But lets be real; no normal person is okay with people being addicted to hard drugs if it means that the addict robs people to get high. So since this is a contradiction, I can't call myself pro choice.
Your premises are substantially inadequate, and you've created a false equivalence, i.e. ROBBERY = FISCAL AUTONOMY.
If your pro life, you believe that the right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy (not in ALL cases, but in the specific case of what a parent has to provide their child).
Why has your description of "pro-life" allowed for a modifier which qualifies the position on a case by case basis?
Consider the following scenario: Lets say your a parent with 2 working kidneys and your 8 year old son needs a kidney transplant to survive. Pretty much any parent that isn't a deadbeat would agree to give their child a kidney. However, should you as a parent be OBLIGATED to give your kidney to save the life of your 8 year old son (when everyone believes an 8 year old son is at least as valuable as a fetus, and I also think everyone would agree that giving your kidney to save a life is less of a sacrifice than to be pregnant for 9 months to save a life)? If you believe a parent must do whatever is needed to save their child's life under the pro life ethic, you would have to answer yes to that question.
Yes, and this is the reason I believe that the pro-life position, at least here in the United States, is more consistent that that of the pro-choice.
No matter if your pro choice or pro life, your going to have to bite the bullet. This is why I am strictly neutral on the abortion issue.
Please elaborate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That’s hilarious given the fact that at any given time a mod may declare a completely innocuous made up term like “fanchick” a so-called ‘insult,’ then the next moment a moderator is actually outright insulting a user of the site carte blanche.
Yes, that is one of the slippery slopes. And while I do not claim to have seen every interaction, I am under the impression that the moderators of this forum (i.e. Whiteflame, Barney, and Oromagi) are generally respectful and do not instigate or initiate insults. Though that does not mean that they should not set a good example even in the face of this forum's most talented provocateurs.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Naturally. Of course, they operate by a different--however nuanced--set of rules. As I've already stated, the moderators are Mike's proxies.
Do as I say, not as I do.Wishy washy mentality.
I do not believe that the moderators are the least bit, "wishy-washy."
In other words…hypocrisy, this is the way.
There's NO SUCH THING as "free speech" on private property. In other words, it is their prerogative to be hypocrites. Contrary to what you may think, YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to state what you want to state on their platform--more to the point, conscript their cosigning your statements on their platform. You can call them an "asshole," and they can reciprocate the insult and ban you for it--and that would be well within their authority. Because as I've already informed you, Mike is the site's dictator, and the moderators act upon his authority.
I as well as some other members--I presume--have never been reprimanded by the moderators. Why is that? Is it because I'm incapable of expressing myself sincerely? Or that I hold my tongue when it comes to criticizing certain actions of the moderation staff? (I supported 3RU7AL's call for delineating clear and quantifiable rules during his presidential bid.) Your only authority is to attempt to persuade them, deal with it, or leave. And since you're still participating, I can only assume that your grievance of their alleged hypocrisy does not mean as much to you as posting your statements on the platform they manage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The Republicans love to scream about the debt. I have been hearing about it since ReaganBut it has bever caused us a single problem
The fact that a standard basket of goods is grossly overpriced would be an example of the debt causing problems.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I have no problems with a person appealing this decision in court. Make your case that you should have gunsThat's due process
Rights are not (ought not be) subject to referendum. It's not his onus to justify his right to own property; it's the onus of those who object to justify their seizure without contradicting the principles which they allege they maintain--(P.S. they can't.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
My question is simple. Would you vote for Biden, or any other legitimate Republican candidate as President.
Neither. Democracy is fundamentally immoral.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I wish we had access to the underlying quote code so we could save to text file.
So do I. I may reengage this discussion at some later point in time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@zedvictor4
I've never objected to the moderators' capacity to function within the parameters of their conceived rules, even if I may have objected to certain rules. But at the end of the day, the moderators as Mike's (DebartArt.com's) proxy can implement and enforce whatever Mike allows. While I agree with zedvictor that complaints of "offense" are usually manufactured by an oversensitive recipient (hell, I've been called a Nigger, Paedophile, Autistic, 'Frenchie,' Clown, Ignoramus, etc. on this site alone, much less did I ever once complain about it) I do however maintain that Mike is this site's "dictator," and justifiably so. So if he allows his proxies, his viceroys, his governors, his moderators to act upon his authority, then that's all the justification needed for the implementation of policy which regulates his site. There's NO SUCH THING as "free speech" on private property. The only authority members outside of the moderation team have is the power to participate and the power to leave--that's all. So while I do think some slippery slopes may be broached with letting the moderators determine that which constitutes an "insult" and that which doesn't, I am all for their regulating this site however they see fit.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Okay. Nice discussion. (I had a response, but it has now been deleted three times, and frankly I'm not interested in rewriting it again.) Take care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
After all, there is no point in arguing about a symptom to the root cause of our dispute, it is only by getting to the source that we can make progress in our discussion.
Agreed.
Please let me know that we are in agreement for the definitions I have found for these commonly misunderstood words:
- Subjectivity means something that is based on one’s feelings, opinions, beliefs, or assumptions.
- Objectivity means something that is based on facts, data, or evidence.
- Rational means sensible or reasonable.
- Logical means being well reasoned.
- Hypothetical means something that is based on a suggested idea or theory, but not necessarily true or real.
- Theoretical means something that is based on theory rather than experience or practice.
- Illusion is a distortion of the senses, such as a misinterpretation of a true sensation.
- Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. It is the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge.
- Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.3
1. Subjective is that which is subject to perception and experience.
2. Objective is that which is independent of perception and experience.
3. Ok.
4. Ok.
5. A hypothetical requires an assumption, its being based on theory notwithstanding.
6. Theoretical describes the attempt to explain phenomena based on observational data.
7. Ok.
8. Ok.
9. "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is [unreasonable]; the external world and other minds cannot be known and [can] not exist outside the mind."
Being that a consensus is a general agreement among a group of individuals, I believe you are confusing collective subjectivity with general objectivity.
I am not. My intention was to establish that objectivity =/= consensus (e.g. collective subjectivity.)
No person is capable of being completely objective, nor can they perceive the world objectively.
So explain how Objectivity can be rational?
Therefore, anything that exists is subjectively experiencing the universe because it exists within the universe.
What are the controls for the experiment which established this conclusion?
The only thing that could be objective is the thing that does not exist
How can the nonexistent bear any description if it, in fact, does not exist?
such as a metaphysical concept or consciousness itself.
Consciousness does not exist?
The reason being is that it is nonexistent and therefore has no biases. It is not an evolutionary byproduct and therefore not self-interested or skewed in its views. It can see the universe clearly and accurately.
How can it "see the universe clearly and accurately" if it does not exist? How are subjective beings able to confirm this "accuracy" if their observations inextricably tied to their being subjects in their own experiences?
Therefore, anything that does not exist can still be real, such as a plan, a strategy, or an abstract concept, even without physical properties and natural characteristics. These things can be objective because they are not influenced by the subjective factors that affect human perception.*** This is not my currently held belief nor am I willing to stand by the following, but I figured I must say something since it has been teasing me lately. Perhaps it is possible for a subject within the universe to use consciousness to project an ideal of themselves which would be considered a metaphysical construct and therefore the ideal would be unbiased and objective. It would then be possible for the bias subject within the universe to make the decision to follow the guidance of their own ideal metaphysical construct and act as if they were the ideal. It's important to keep in mind that even in this hypothetical scenario the individual would still be subject to minor subjective confines as they are still projecting the metaphysical construct with a biased mindset skewed towards their own existence and pursuits. Nonetheless, I thought it a fascinating concept and would be interested in your insights. ****** In response to the above I suppose that describing one's ideal would be a detrimental task as it would be done by the subjective individual and determining the moral relevance of the metaphysical ideal is impossible from a subjective standpoint and therefore objectivity is unattainable. Choosing the moral standard would be relative to the culture, in fact I would determine this as moral relativism. I suppose this would be considered a form of subjectivity. It seems to be a complex topic as it is almost a sort of subjectivity that underlines the objective choices, Similar to a hybrid structure. Yes, it seems that an individual could create a metaphysical construct of their ideal self as an unbiased version that would act objectively and not personally skewed in one way or another and not affected by emotions or impulse almost like a deity. However, the goal of this ideal self and the values that it's given would almost be subjective as they were created by the subjective individual and so even though the metaphysical construct is an objective self it is still underlined with the set goal of a subjective individual of which it would pursue the goals objectively therefore creating a sort of hybrid structure, acting objectively-subjective. ***I apologize for the drift in thought, but I figured I should not lose the moment to write it down. I hope we can now move forward.
The problem with the materialistic approach in ontology is that all physical and natural properties are subject to abstracts. The materialistic approach attempts to create distinction between that which is within our minds (e.g. plans, strategies, abstracts, etc.) and that which is physical. In order to create this distinction, one must establish a control; in order to establish a control, one must establish independence. Materialistic reasoning has yet to do anything of the sort.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Lighter skin (excluding albinism) is as far as I known a sure sign of mixing with non SSA10kBC.
Excluding the San people.
In the US indoeuropeans are the most common source of lighter skinned genes
Demonstrate.
Also my subconscious also says there is something about the forehead and eyes that is european.
Your candor is welcomed.
There are other groups in 10k BC that also had dark skin. Australians for instance had and still have (when unmixed) very dark skin.
SSA10kBC is my attempt to consolidate a vauge concept to a precise one. SSA10kBC ~= SsO-CALLED "BLACKS" (the race)SSA10kBC is a subset of "dark skin". They had dark skin and without mixing continue to have dark skin.
So then is it your position that descendants of SSA10KBC are the most suited from a genetic standpoint to be characterized as so-called "Black"? And since I've already mentioned Steph Curry as an example, how would you characterize him despite his identifying himself as well as being generally identified as so-called, "Black"?
There are other groups in 10k BC that also had dark skin. Australians for instance had and still have (when unmixed) very dark skin.
And what does this indicate to you about the genealogical history of the Australian Aboriginals?
To have a language you need people.
Redundant.
There are only two options: Indoeuropeans were white OR indoeuropeans were white and everywhere they moved to and mixed with were white already
False dichotomy. There are indeed other options.
Some degree of the latter is almost certainly true
There's no "almost true." It either is or isn't.
Racial categorization is already enough of a mess,
Very much so. So then how is it prudent to exclude or exempt a person from a so-called, "racial categorization," without first "sorting through the mess"? It would be one thing to state, "attempting to identify Cleopatra's race would be too much of a mess," and another to state, "Cleopatra cannot be [so-called] Black."
I have no interest in figuring out what "people of color" means if it doesn't mean dark skin.
So wouldn't that include the very dark skinned peoples of Australia before 10K BC whom you had just referenced above? As admittedly messy as racial categorization can be, why again are you restricting the parameter to just SubSaharan Africans 10K BC?
Sedentary populations from 10kBC and before at 40 degrees north have light skin. I know of no exceptions.
Demonstrate.
Therefore this "people of color" stuff has no bearing on my case.
Actually it does. Skin Albedo as an arbitrary division was your premise, not mine.
Excluded? Did I give a list?
SSA10KBC necessarily excludes--particular North Africa which bears proximity to Greece. I presume you have a reason for doing this.
SSA10kBC weren't really in the afro-asiatic zone at that time either. Obviously (as could be expected) there were far more SSA10kBC cultural/genetic exchange, but it takes more than a small influx to start to affect gene frequencies to a noticeable degree.
But were not talking about a "noticeable" genetic frequency among an entire population; we're talking about whether there's enough evidence to exclude Cleopatra from the characterization of so-called, "Black." And thus far, at least as far as our discussion is concerned, no has provided or demonstrated any.
The lack of detectable genetic markers even to this day. In fact I believe I saw an article about the remarkably homogeneity of genetic makeup of Greece of today compared to then.
May you reference this article?
We know the skin albedo is caused by gene frequency. It's not that one is a proxy for another, it's that if gene frequency is not changed neither will skin albedo.
Except Greeks are not monochromatic and never were.
I don't understand.
Genetic variation in the region at the time would necessarily suggest what?
Um, skin albedo is and was a reliable indicator of the presence of the genes which control it.
Redundant.
We know the indoeuropeans were white because everywhere they migrated people are white today (or rather were until significant migrations from outside occurred).
Except everywhere they migrated, the people being white has not been substantiated.
Or so nearly exclusively as to make any exception very remarkable and therefore the lack of contemporary remark would be absurd.
Please demonstrate.
That's not a matter of liklihood, if there was a significant ancestry 2000 years ago it would still be detectable and it isn't.
What about significant ancestry from North African countries?
Unfortuantely we would also know that if there was a migration from Ethopia 7000 years ago, that population died before it had time to mix genes with neighboring populations to any degree.
It wouldn't necessitate a linear migration from Ethiopia to the Trypillian region.
When combined with the end state of the migrations (what we observed during the historical period) it is.
Please demonstrate.
Either way...
How is it "either way..."? Would the contention against her depiction have been qualified if Jada had chosen a much lighter skinned so-called, "Black" woman to portray Cleopatra?
In many contexts including this one they have the same result.
No, they actually don't. And in this context, you have yet to substantiate your presumption of unlikelihood, which is predicated not just on a restrictive parameter that excludes the African countries within Greece's proximity, but also an imputed ecological inference which necessitates the substantiation that the Indo-Europeans of the Hellenistic Age inhabited Greece inhabited Greece and spread their genes to the exclusion of so-called "Blacks."
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not exactly an assumption, an informed guess. Yes.
Informed by what? The misconception that lighter-skinned Negroid individuals must necessarily have a Caucasoid ancestor?
I am not saying "the white race", I'm saying that they were one of many many peoples that by that time were white (reflective, or rather more transparent skin).
You're stating that they were exclusively so-called "White."
The genealogy, the archeological culture, and the linguistic analysis can't be perfectly correlated. To say one particular group of burial mounds was "the original indo-europeans" is probably never going to be a provable statement.
We've jumped through our first hurdle--i.e. the acknowledgement of that which can and cannot be proven especially given the lack of observational data.
I don't know who calls modern Hungarians, Turks, and Romanians "people of color" but they are not SSA10kBC.
I do. I've been in the company of some. But I also acknowledge that they are not a monochromatic geographic group. Just like I acknowledge the government designation of so-called "Black" does not apply to a monochromatic geographic group. And since you've continued to mention SSA10kBC and "dark skin" in place of so-called "Blacks," let me propose this question: does SSA10kBC and "dark skin" = SO-CALLED "BLACKS"; and SO-CALLED "BLACKS" = SSA10kBC and "dark skin"?
Historical Turks and Hungarians were steppe people that diverged from the indo-europeans before they were indo-europeans. [That's why their language is not indo-european].
Because Indo-European isn't necessarily an "ethnic" group; they're a language-based (linguistic) group. All the more reason I question the reason you're associating strict "Whiteness" to them based solely on migration patterns.
They were also white (reflective) as they are today and as would be expected by the latitude they lived.
The latitude argument does not help your case especially considering Greece/Macedonia shares a latitude with the "people of color" in the Middle East and parts of South East Asia.
The commonality after the split is the substantiation that it existed before the split. The only alternative is that the trait simultaneously appeared in isolated populations. This is unlikely. Again this observation is the heart of all evolutionary analysis.
Using a "concordance" of genetic clusters and migrations patterns. I would understand if you were talking about the southern most parts of the African Continent and the northern most parts of the European continent where skin albedo can be a somewhat sufficient proxy. But our focus is Greece which neighbors Northern Africa, (which has not escaped my notice that you've excluded) Iraq (formerly the Parthian Empire) the Arabian Peninsula/Plate, the Middle East, etc.
I don't know, but I'm fairly certain that no other precise collection of ancestors would have higher correlation with the modern categorization "black people".
Once again, I ask: does SSA10kBC and "dark skin" = SO-CALLED "BLACKS"; and SO-CALLED "BLACKS" = SSA10kBC and "dark skin"?
I don't know who you've been talking to where turks are considered "PoC" (or black or whatever).
I didn't have to talk to anyone.
See above.
I did. You did not substantiate.
People get around, but one guy/gal in a 100,000
What is the basis of this estimation?
isn't going to alter the gene frequency of the population. i.e. he won't cause the population of the region in a thousand years to have "significant ancestry" in wherever he came from.
And since when is "skin albedo" a reliable proxy for "gene frequency" especially if the geographic groups are relatively close, e.g. Greece and indigenous North Africa?
You mean you consider it unsubstantiated until it is somehow ruled out that she or her parents were very genetically very unusual for the region they came from?
Genetic abnormalities in relation to the region necessarily resulting in what?
I mean she might have been native American, you can't rule out an insane ocean voyage where her parents came over (or greater grandparents) and nobody wrote down any commentary about their unusual features that we've found.In fact she might have been a sasquatch. Nobody wrote down "She was definitely not covered in hair standing 2.5 meters tall".
You're the one who stated that Macedonians presumably at the time of her birth (69 BC - Hellenistic Age) were strictly "White". Skin albedo has never been a sufficient proxy for genetic distinction especially among neighboring regions. All you've offered so far is this:
- Greece is directly descended from the Indo-Europeans (linguistic group) who migrated from North of the Black Sea.
- Pure Indo-Europeans are exclusively so-called "White," given that in precivilization, skin "albedo," as you allege was a reliable indicator of genetic selection.
- Macedonia during the Helenistic Age comprised of an exclusively so-called "White" population given that pure Indo-Europeans were exclusively so-called, "White."
- Subsaharan Africans 12,000 years ago unlikely provided enough genetically frequent selection in the area for descendants to be labeled so-called "Black."
I've contended:
- Even if we were to analyze the Indo-Europeans of 7000 years ago who were North of the Black Sea as you've proposed, the Hamangia Culture cultivated in that region would indicate an African presence given that the artifacts are very similar to Ethiopian artifacts.
- Migration patterns of Linguistic groups is not an indicator of so-called "Whiteness"
- Does the government designation of so-called "Blackness" = SSA10kBC.
- You have not substantiated that Macedonians/Greeks of the Hellenistic Age were exclusive so-called "White."
It's enough to say that any possible argument that she was SSA10kBC OR dark skinned has no evidence and the probability that her family was genetically similar to the rest of Macedon was 99.9% (verified by genetic legacy today).
Except the contention was against her being so-called, "Black," not necessarily "dark skinned."
When someone (the people who made this movie) chooses to grasp at tiny probabilities the motivation must be questioned.
TINY PROBABILITIES =/= FALSE.
Again, not that I'm cosigning Jada's depiction. First, why would I even bother watching a "documentary" by Jada Pinkett Smith? Or anyone in Hollywood for that matter? Second, why would I make conclusions about characteristics which lack observational data? Thus undermining claims of "inaccuracy"?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yea but what else is a pansexual luciferian practicing pedastry behind closed doors going to say?
That homosexual people are "born" gay? I've seen children at gay pride parades, so these pansexual luciferian pederasts who sponsor these psyops are not covering their tracks as well as they think. Case in point: NAMBLA in the nineties and early 2000's.
Created:
Rich Ferraro, the chief communications officer at GLAAD, wrote in an email to USA TODAY that "LGBTP" is not an acronym used or supported by the community.“No LGBTQ organization has condoned pedophilia or advocated for a ‘P’ to be added to the acronym in support of pedophiles,” Ferraro wrote. “It pains me to have to clarify that no, the LGBTQ community does not embrace pedophilia, and LGBTP is not an acronym used or supported by the LGBTQ community.”
I'm not suggesting that homosexual and transgendered people by virtue will attempt to promote pedophilia. I'm suggesting that the sociopolitical movement known as "LBGTIQA" meant for public consumption, which is lead by Luciferian sponsors, will attempt to ingratiate the populace with pedophilia at some point eventually. Very much like how "Black Lives Matter," also sponsored by Lucifierians, attempted to ingratiate the so-called "Black" populace with Lesbianism and Transgenderism (all you need to do is look at their mission statement.) That's not akin to stating "black people are trying to make their women gay, and their men dickless."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The mistake here is that I said Hypothetically we could assume our perception is an illusion,
Hypotheticals necessarily incorporate an assumption. Hence, my statement. If you glance again at that which had followed my statement, you'll see that it applies. Why would one entertain irrationality even as a hypothetical?
Again, my point is not that the universe does not exist, but that we cannot know the universe exists how we see it.
And this reflexively proposes that there's a universe outside of how we see it. Posits of that which lies independent of perception (independence being a prerequisite for existing outside or beyond) are irrational and epistemologically irrelevant. In order to establish independence, we'd have to control for that which is devoid of our minds' use and influence. That would be logically absurd.
I don't believe that things beyond perception are irrational,
They are.
but that believing in things with no evidence supporting them is illogical.
Belief may be subject to reason, but not necessarily bound by the rules of logic.
However, acknowledging that something that has no evidence to support it may still exist is not illogical or irrational. To say that nothing exists that we don't have evidence to believe is both illogical and irrational.
Correct, otherwise one risks imputing an argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance.)
My case is that it is possible that our perception of the universe is an illusion and therefore it is accurate to say, "one can only know one's own mind to exist."
If you're entertaining the possibility, then how can one propose that the perception of our universe is an illusion and state one can only know one's own mind to exist? Isn't the description, "illusion," being used comparatively?
Illogical means that something lacks logical consistency and does not follow the rules bound by logic.Irrational typically means lacking rationality which consists of clear levelheaded thought that is not emotional or impulsive.
I appreciate the submission of your descriptions. I would like to add that "irrational" can also be described as that which is incapable of being rationalized, or that which is absent/devoid of reason.
I agree with the first part of the sentence but not the second.
The second is a necessary consequence of the first.
As seen here you have used irrationality as an idea to be examined, but no one examines irrationality nor is irrationality a thing that examines; this is because it is an emotional impulse. Therefore, it was not correctly used here, but I have a good idea of what you intended to convey. I will show the presumed sentence below.
I'm not using "irrationality" in the context of emotional impulse given that the connotative application of this term does not apply to our discussion.
I am not saying I believe that the universe is entirely an illusion nor do I. What I'm attempting to say clearly is that it's possible; therefore, we cannot know with certainty that what we see is what really exists.
This is the concern I brought up earlier. When you describe it as an "illusion," you're suggesting a comparative error--i.e. what we see, and what (allegedly) "really" is. Now, if what we see is an "illusion" because our perception is essentially subject to the bias of our minds, then how does any assessment or measure of that which one alleges "really exists" less immune, for lack of a better term, to the bias of our minds?
I believe what you're saying here is that in the quote, "one can only know one's own mind exists," you interpret mind as something that is mental or spiritual
I don't restrict the mind to just the the mental and/or spiritual. As I stated earlier, it's all indistinguishable--i.e. mental, spiritual, physical, etc.
I interpret the mind as the thing thinks (the consciousness of you), which includes whichever aspects are necessary in whatever universe the mind exists.
Are you proposing that you and your mind exist in two separate universes?
"The statement that there are certain things or concepts that are beyond the scope of proof because they exist independently of our minds and are not within the realm of reason. It implies that some aspects of reality or existence may be beyond the reach of rational understanding or logical proof."
No. I would never posit that anything exists independently of our minds because I maintain that nothing exists independently of our minds. I'm actually arguing quite the opposite:
there are certain things or concepts that are [independent] of proof [but nothing can] exist independently of our minds [because it is] not within the realm of reason. It implies that [no aspect] of reality or existence may be beyond the reach of rational understanding or logical proof."
I disagree, I believe that you could not know if the universe goes beyond our minds or if it is to the extent of our minds.
How?
This is the point; we can only know that our mind exists and what is within the mind while everything external is merely a projection of what we believe.
How have you rationalized that which is external?
I think it quite plausible (not with certainty of one way or the other, rather valid potential). You only believe what you know because you have perceived it and you only think you think what you know because you think it; this is not because of external factors or a result of an objective reality but it is entirely built upon how you have perceived it or think that you have perceived it. It is logically valid to then claim potential that the external reality which we believe to exist is merely our perception's own creation and that it's possible the universe is to the extent of one's own mind.
Bingo! Well stated!
You claim here that perception is subjective, and objectivity is irrational. I agree that perception is subjective, but I disagree objectivity is irrational.
Objectivity is irrational because there's no ontological experience, observation, determination, examination without a subject. It's important to note that CONSENSUS =/= OBJECTIVITY. Neither does "peer review."
You know when you are correct in understanding when you can consistently predict outcomes and inevitability of certain situations. The more consistently you can predict events and understand certain situations the more you know that you have an accurate understanding.
Accuracy is a description you've given to a desired end, not necessarily an indicator of "truth," much less one which exists independent of your capacity to understand and rationalize it. But that doesn't equate "consistency" to "objectivity." Because through all your experience of consistency, you've never stopped being the subject.
I also recognize that from a darwinian perspective everything has a certain obligation towards itself a sort of bias.
Explain.
To me these seem like valid contributions to my basis for presuming that people's perception is biased and not consistent.
CONSENSUS =/= OBJECTIVITY.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You might be able to argue that all populations have been getting whiter as clothing availability increased, but there are contemporary clues that would make that unlikely.
I'm not indulging any of this in my own arguments--i.e. clothing influences the genetic expression of skin tone. And yes, it would be unlikely that this plays any role, as is the "lack of clothing" would play a role in how so-called "black" a person would be.
It's basic Mendelian genetics that descendants can express traits that neither parent do. If "so-called black" means significant ancestry from the people of subsaharan africa circa 10,000 BC then they are "so-called black" (based on other racial cues).
Hence the reason I included his son. And if you read on his parents, i.e. Dell and Sonya, they claim that their parents respectively were so-called "Black." Ayesha claims that her parents are so-called "Black," i.e. John and Carol Alexander (who claim Jamaican, Chinese, and Polish Ancestry.)
It's also certain that since there are no recessive traits (of any commonality) of the people of subsaharan africa circa 10,000 BC [From now on I shall call this group of people SSA10kBC] which give such reflective skin: Steph Curry also has significant ancestry from humans outside that group, probably indoeuropeans by the look of him.
So you're assuming that by the look of him, (and I don't dispute it since I don't know Curry's genealogical history) that he has pure Indo-european ancestry--which you have taken to mean, "white?"
That is the group of people who were north of the black sea 7000 years ago were all white.
A group of strictly so-called "whites" who cultivated the Hamangia culture 7000 years ago despite their geographical neighbors like Hungary and Turkey and even Romania bearing, what we call today, people of "color?"
We know this because they went in different directions and everywhere they went people are white. This is a basic technique of identifying hereditary traits including language and speciation. The common trait after splitting was present before the split.
You haven't substantiated the "trait" before the so-called "split."
Macedon and Hellas were white. Her parents both came from white populations. Whiteness is inherited. She was therefore white.
Please substantiate this. You don't necessarily have to make a reference. A detailed explanation will suffice as well.
You aren't, I'm a major history buff
So am I. But my interest grew from studying religion and mythology.
The race in question can loosely be defined as SSA10kBC and all those with significant ancestry in that group.The split between the gene group "Macedonian" and SSA10kBC would be 80,000 years ago (or longer). No one who left before 10k BC would be direct descendants and the subsequent gene outflows from SSA10kBC were insignificant.
And how many so-called "Black" people, or those who governments designate as so-called "Black" are closely descended SSA10kBC? And why are we setting the parameter to that which we consider so-called "Black" as closely descended from Sub-Saharan Africans 10,000 BC?
Not all people with white skin are macedonian, but all macedonians had white skin (at that point). Someone without white skin is someone whose skin is certainly dissimilar to Cleopatra.
Please substantiate.
Inaccuracy for the sake of practicality might be forgiven. However the perception here is that the inaccuracy is intentional to give a false impression of race in history.
I'm by no means cosigning Jada Pinkett Smith's depiction (personally, I think she's a despicable woman who's being prompted by her sponsors to spread misinformation and disinformation.) What I do contend against is the dispute that Cleopatra cannot be, what governments designate as so-called "Black," because she was Macedonian. That is, can those who dispute the accuracy substantiate their grievance? And thus far, no one has done this. I can provide my own contention and substantiate that there were in fact so-called "Blacks" in Macedonia, Greece, Rome, (modern day) Germany, (modern day) Scandinavia, Hungary, Turkey, (modern day) Ukraine, Russia, etc. But that would only be necessary if I were proposing that Cleopatra was indeed so-called "Black." I bear no such obligation. Only those who claim that she would be exempt or excluded from the designation of so-called "Black." And I intend to hold you accountable to providing rigorous argumentation which verifies your position.
Indo-European != SSA10kBCIndo-European != Dark SkinThese two facts don't cause one each other, they are merely correlated such that dark skin implies non-indoeuropean or not pure indo-european.SSA10kBC arises because that is the racial definition (as good as you're going to get) for the "black race".
An erroneous logical bi-conditional. I never demanded that you substantiate that Indo-European =/= SSA10kBC or that Indo-European =/= Dark Skin. My demand of you was to substantiate how Indo-European =/= so-called "Black." Now you've offered up SSA10kBC as an indicator of the so-called "Black" race, and by conventional wisdom, presume that these people are too dark of skin--with the exception of the San people, ironically considered to be the world's "oldest race," who are of lighter skin tone--some whose tones reflect that of Steph Curry. Even if we indulge SSA10kBC, it does not substantiate your claim that (Purely) Macedonian exclude peoples who governments designate today as so-called "Black."
If you told me the actor had dark skin, I could tell you her skin isn't the same as Cleopatra's.
Does Cleopatra's skin have to be considered "dark" in order for her to be designated by governments as so-called "Black"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
If we assume hypothetically, we're living in an illusion, we still need something to create that illusion. So, there must be something beyond the illusion (aka real).
That's the issue right there: assuming perception is an illusion. If there's "something" beyond perception, then it is irrational.
Moreover, this forum does not claim the universe does not exist, but that we can only know one's own mind to exist.
I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. I would instead put it this way: only that which we can perceive and rationalize with the functions of our mind have epistemological relevance. All other considerations are exercises in attempting to examine irrationality.
Acknowledging the possibility, the entire universe could be an illusion proves that Solipsism is accurate to say that we can only know one's own mind to exist, and that what we think to be the universe is in fact an illusion (including other people).
Except in the reflexive acknowledgement of material existence in the distinction between "mind," and lack of a better term, "matter." In other words, I'm proposing that it's all ontonlogically indistinguishable (i.e. mental, physical, spiritual, etc.)
Having no knowledge of what the real universe is and assuming this is an illusion it could in fact be 4 or 5 dimensions. Perhaps the real universe only needs consciousness to experience feeling and emotions. We have no knowledge of this, and we have no proof, but we cannot disprove it either.
It's not even subject to proof because proof is within the realm of reason; that which one posits lies independent of our minds, is not within the realm of reason.
is it not logical to then say the only universe we can know to exist could be to the extent of one's mind
It's actually necessary to state that the universe--or as I like to refer to it, "everything"--goes only as far as our minds' abilities to perceive, conceive, and rationalize it.
(aka our mind is the universe, forget the room).
Our minds are the universe, and the room doesn't matter. To control for that which we experience independent of our private or public experiences, we would have to be able to shut our minds off, and perceive, conceive, observe, and rationalize. This is a logically absurd proposal.
One way solipsism can help us understand the world more accurately is by emphasizing the subjective nature of our perceptions and experiences.
Perception and experience are necessarily subjective. Objectivity is irrational.
By recognizing that our perception of reality is filtered through our individual consciousness, we become more aware of the potential for bias and subjective distortions in our understanding.
What is your basis for presuming that data accumulation through perception is "filtered" as opposed to "conceived" through individual consciousness?
Created:
Posted in:
Not being treated differently just by the way they are a different sex. Same pay rate for the same job, regardless of their gender.
But people are naturally treated differently based on differences. Why should the convention change on the basis of sex? I would assume that if you were in the company of a person you found attractive, you'd treat them "differently" than one whom you don't find attractive, correct?
They are females, that doesn't mean they are any less than a man;
And feminists have never been able to substantiate how social, economic, political conventions up until now have reflected a chauvinistic view towards women, especially considering that historically, the safety of women and children have always been prioritized.
That's the problem.
The problem, in my estimation at least, is that feminists have little to no understanding of that which they intend to pathologize--i.e. inequality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
Gender wage gap; they want same pay. Gender equality.
If women were being paid less for "the same work," then women would have priced-out men in the labor market. One example that could be used to illustrate this was the prominent political narrative in the 2000's that Mexicans were "taking all the jobs." This had quite a bit of merit to it since Mexican immigrants who performed low-skilled (Economic term) work provided a cheaper alternative, especially considering the minimum wage. So why were women not "talking all the jobs," especially if it was cheaper to hire them? Corporate employers can overlook their usually connoted "racist" attitudes for profit, but not their supposed "sexist" attitudes? It makes no sense. There is indeed a wage-gap, but this can simply be explained. If you want references, I'd personally recommend Thomas Sowell's Discrimination & Disparities. If you're looking for a female perspective, I'd recommend Claudia Goldin's Hours Flexibility and the Gender Gap in Pay.
Still doesn't matter.. It exists, and controversally, it shouldn't even with your reasoning.
If you understand the reason the wage-gap exists, then you'll understand the reason it should exist.
One can work the same job, same hours, complete the same "standards" and still a wage gap.
Yes, and in many cases, this favors women, i.e. they're the ones who get more than the men.
In fact, someone (female) could be the boss of their employee and the employee can still get paid more. Now if he was the boss, it would've been different.
Context matters, and this almost never happens.
It doesn't matter the reasoning behind it
Actually it does.
it's still an (baised) inequality
Of course it is.
That's what feminism is for: calling out the inequalities and fighting against it.
Equality necessarily reduces freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Genders are inherently unequal. Otherwise there would be one gender.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
Feminists do want equality with both sexes, that is the only true type of feminism.
Context matters as well as definition. The proposition of equality for both sexes--by the way, seekers of liberation should NEVER seek "equality"--is based on the false narrative that women as a sex were disenfranchised from, lack of a better term--"essential" functions of society--most notably from positions of so-called "power." Of course when "power" is equal, there's no power, or more to the point, there's no need for power. If feminism sought to balance the scales, they would seek to DISEMPOWER the very mechanism they claim has oppressed them, and the designated sex, on behalf of whom, they claim to advocate. In contrast, feminists are seeking positions in this very mechanism, because the exercise of unjust authority wasn't the problem; it was those who were exercising it. The patriarchy, which feminists condemn, manifested to PROTECT women, not oppress them. Any rudimentary research into the subject of sex-based laws would reveal that women were the primary beneficiaries--especially women with families. And even if she was unmarried, she can apply for "femme-sole" status which permitted her to hold property in her own name--a custom which spans back to Norman Feudalism. In the Western Territories, women were allowed to vote long before the passing of the 19th amendment; it wasn't until the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, that women lost the right to vote--and even then, it wasn't even about them--women, that is; it was more a campaign against the Mormons in the area.
True Feminism has always been based on a lie--especially since political participation among the masses is a fairly RECENT phenomena (even "men" in large number didn't have the right to vote, for example, especially considering it was privilege sanctioned for just nobility.) But even if if we were to accept the definition of feminism without context, I would still oppose it. Because Feminism isn't liberation--quite the opposite actually. Equality necessarily undermines freedom, so any philosophy, political ideology, trend, etc. which advocates for equality would necessarily attempt to reduce freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Rieka
It seems that pissing off feminists has become a grand new hobby of mine.
Why do you concern yourself with "pissing [them] off"?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Look, twit, human beings are not all “African” as the other interloper suggests.Have you had a DNA test done? Has that interloper? Nope. I’d gather not given your stupid ass replies.I have. Nowhere I. My genome on the M or P side is there any ancestral relations to “Africa.”I’m of Scandinavian descent. Nothing to do with Africa. No more than millions of others across the planet
Athias Post#24:
Enjoy your night, sir.
I’m of Scandinavian descent. Nothing to do with Africa.
Haha!
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
From what I've gauged you know very little about actual history--namely in that you present pictures TODAY as an accurate reflection of a population over 2000 YEARS ago. And from the looks of it, you know very little about the skin tones and physical features Western countries use to characterize women of color as so-called "Black." The fact you're attempting to juxtapose a very light of skin, Macedonian woman (note that I did not once state that Greeks COULD NOT BE what governments today characterize as so-called "White") and a dark of skin, so-called "Black" woman, and propose "Here's my proof!" conveys to me that your dispute is over superficial non-sense. Don't bother responding, because I have little expectation that your responses will be informed. Enjoy your night, sir.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
A Greek (Macedonian) is no more black/African than a Viking from North Umbria is a black/African.
Can you substantiate this? If I'm the "dummy" especially when comparing me to your own "intellect," then I would presume it would not take much effort in substantiating how one's being Macedonian excludes or exempts one from being what governments today designate as so-called "Black" especially if you have the pure "Facts-based History" on your side.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Nothing. Have you watched the documentary "manufacturing consent"
Yes, I have.
I would not think the electoral system is bad ideal . It seems the bad ideal is allowing certain people to control the thinking of Americans instead of creating independent thinkers
The electoral system can never produce "independent thinks" because it expressly functions on legitimizing the positions of those who agree en masse.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Pure indo-europoeans would be in the 1/3 most reflective albedo (all of them).
And this is controlled for chronologically? Or is this an assumption based how census data collects this information since it has started--the census data, that is?
I haven't a clue what your skin albedo
Neither do I.
is nor whether a government would label you "Black"
I would assume so.
As explained pure indo-europoeans would be in the 1/3 most reflective albedo.
No, you haven't explained. You merely presented reflective albedo as a metric in differentiating skin tones, which would presumably differentiate between so-called "whiteness" and "blackness." But this doesn't necessarily determine much of anything, much less the statement I proposed you substantiate earlier, i.e. INDO-EUROPEANS =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK." An example of someone who would meet this criterion, i.e. 1/3 most reflective albedo, would be NBA player Steph Curry, and particularly his son, Canon Curry. Steph is presumably so-called "Black." And his parents, too, are presumably so-called "Black." And when you compare Steph Curry and his siblings Sydel and Seth, you can tell there's a difference in "reflective albedo" despite their being born (presumably) to the same parents. My point is this: stating that Indo-Europeans are purely so-called "White" or descended from those, who modern governments would characterize as purely so-called "White" has not been substantiated.
You asked both about "black" and "africa".
Actually I didn't. I was merely reflecting TWS's characterization. Technically speaking, as queen of Egypt, she would naturally be "African" or an African National--i.e. being the queen of an African country and ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom which spanned from Northeast Africa, the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of the Middle East (You can correct me if I'm wrong.) Now if we're talking about so-called "race," then I'm still waiting on those who dispute that she is so-called "Black" to substantiate how Cleopatra is "exempt" or "excluded" because she was Macedonian.
For this reason the genetic cluster of subsaharan humanity circa 12,000 years ago is also called "black". When the genetic cluster is being referred to, skin albedo is merely a proxy and it is not meant to imply that someone who has darker skin must qualify.
No more than having lighter skin disqualifies. So what was the point of "reflective albedo"?
Cleopatra would not qualify for either sense of the word. Her skin would have been in the top 1/3 of reflectivity and she would not have any large proportion of ancestry from subsaharan africa 12,000 years ago (10,000 years before her birth).
Since when were we restricting the parameters to "Subsaharan Africa"? Again, I ask you to explain:
INDO-EUROPEAN =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The lawsuits so all the explaining necessary to quash your asinine ignorant bigotry of incontestable historical facts:And the journalism reporting on it:
I've skimmed through these articles and they all state the same thing: Cleopatra was Greek/Macedonian. What I'm demanding of you is to explain:
MACEDONIAN =/= "BLACK/AFRICAN"
That is, how does her presumably being "Greek" exclude or exempt her from being characterized by what modern governments, as well as yourself, designate as so-called, "Black"? I'm not concerned with articles about lawsuits, nor am I concerned with articles about that which I already know--i.e. Cleopatra was Macedonian. Provide an argument, or make reference to that which substantiates the statement which I've emboldened above.
For you to even question uncontested fact based history
And the "fact based history" indicates what? That Cleopatra was not a so-called "Black" female? Then you should have no trouble substantiating the emboldened statement above.,
all in the name of Afrocentrism
My being "Afrocentric" is neither accurate nor relevant.
is hugely laughable at best, annoying at worst.
I honestly couldn't care less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Critical-Tim
@3RU7AL:
a pure illusion is impossibleeven an illusion must be rooted in substance
Define substance.
I agree, even if life was an illusion, there must be something for it to illude for there to be an illusion. Additionally, there must be a different real view of the world to be seen that the thing that is being illuded from in order to be an illusion.Ultimately, for there to be an illusion there must both be the real existence of the thing that is perceiving, and a correct view of the circumstances that are being distracted by the illusion.
How do you know this?
Created:
Posted in:
I think for the most part that the members who participate in the discussions on this site are intelligent. (I won't attempt to exclude anyone.) Even when engaging those with whom I disagree on politics, it's for the most part a challenge of consistency than it is "partisan tribalism." Though I will admit I have a particular distaste for modern "liberalism" because its philosophy as well as its advocates are self-righteous yet frequently inconsistent. In other words, I don't attempt to quantify and gauge one's intelligence with how frequently they agree or disagree with me.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Macedonia was settled in prehistory by indo-europeans
Explain:
INDO-EUROPEANS =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."
whose skin has never been darker than Arabs or Punjabi without external cross-breeding.
And this means, what? Are the skin tones of Arabs or Punjabi monochromatic?
We know Cleopatra was genetically entirely helenistic.
Explain:
GREEKS OF HELENISTIC AGE =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."
Everybody is of african descent, but there have been uncountable exoduses from Africa and the vast majority of Cleopatra's ancestors probably left Africa over 80,000 years ago.
My ancestors probably left Africa 80,000 years ago. How does that explain Cleopatra's presumable "exemption" from a demographic governments today label as "Black"?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Try rephrasing that word salad.
Try answering it. Explain:
MACEDONIAN =/= "BLACK/AFRICAN"
With "Black" or "African" denoting an expression you employ to gauge one's so-called "blackness."
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Nobody can be blamed for sins of father, but it is odd that a place claiming to be a meritocracy all have leaders whose ancestors have several generations of being the top 1% wealth wise.
So what does this indicate to you about the concept of the American Electoral System?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
That is because Trump's father was born in Germany.
There were no slavers in Germany?
EX-PRESIDENT Donald Trump's ethnic-German father, Fred, was a racist, Nazi-lover and worked to boost the Third Reich's evil leader, Adolf Hitler,
So did Winston Churchill, William Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.
sources tell GLOBE!
Which sources?
"Fred Trump's racism and support for Hitler's regime is a terrible chapter in the Trump dynasty," says a family insider.
A "family insider" who can neither be named nor scrutinized for public consumption.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Claiming Cleopatra was black (an African), is like claiming Jada Pickett Smith is a loving and faithful wife.
Explain how being Macedonian = Non-so-called-"Black." Or of "African" descent?
Created: