Avery

-->@oromagi

Argument from anecdote

Nonsense. 

Argument by Dismissal

The secret to Singapore? Forced nationwide urbanisation. I am not sure that isnecessarily a good thing.

It's possible to have liberal and black respondents, but the results to overwhelmingly represent white and right-leaning answers.

We don't need to know this data

The demographics of the respondents is relevant. If we are to take the conclusions of the poll as a reflection of pluralistic American opinion, knowing the demographics is representative of the American populace is important. 

It doesn't matter with Blacks because they are voting themselves most racist anyway.

Where did you get that? I see no break down of showing 100% blacks think they are the most racist. In fact, this poll shows "Blacks see themselves, whites, Hispanics and Asians as equally racist." 

It's totally unreasonable to imply or argue that all or even the majority of poll respondents were voting Black [...]

I'll stop you short. The article says of the 75% that acknowledged racism as "any discrimination by people of one race against another", only 27% thought blacks were racist. 75% of 1000 is 750 and 27% of that is ~202...far from a majority. Even if we add those who preferred the other definition for racism (15%), only 21% voted black.. .that's another ~31 people. Rasmussen itself admits to only 25% of respondents voting against blacks:

"[...]25% believe most black Americans are racist." 

We don't need to know this data, but here's where the answer will be: "Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only."

It doesn't matter with Blacks because they are voting themselves most racist anyway.

So it's only Liberals who buck the trend with this: "Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans." That 6% gap isn't going to be enough to cover all the other gaps from the other demographics (White, Asian, Hispanic, Republican, no strong political belief etc.) 

Hence, unless the poll is absolutely stacked with 95% Liberals (which would make it unfairly biased towards one demographic), we don't need to know the exact demographic number breakdown to conclude that Blacks are the most racist.

It was the democrats that voted for Obama a black candidate and did it again to have Obama re-elected. This time they voted for Biden who is white.

So Democrats have proven they are not a racist party.

We can strive for perfection within certain circumstances; I can for instance attempt to draw a perfect circle as I know what one is. As to human perfection you mention physical perfection and this may to an extent be identified and improved, say the elimination of physical ailments the alleviation of suffering, this could be considered an aim towards physical perfection. As to what is attractive, this is a more abstract concept, particularly with humans. Sexual attraction should be based on finding a partner who we consider the fittest to carry our genes and for that purpose there may be a few identifiable standards, but when it comes to sexual attraction we can be a very strange beast indeed.

Regarding your comment:

“Or how about a human psychology that doesn't adapt to drug usage, and thus you could live in a constant state of bliss, as if you'd taken heroin and cocaine for the first time AND that effect never subsides. Compare that to what we currently have, and there's no doubt in a reasonable mind that a constant state of bliss is superior to what is normal now.”

 

This made me think and from those guidelines I may have identified what could constitute a perfect human, and that would be “one who is completely satisfied with their social environment.” It would of course remove all desire for knowledge, as the need to know is driven by the dissatisfaction of not knowing, but would that really matter.

If you are going to implement transhumanism you need to have an identifiable objective and you mention obtaining a high IQ as a possible objective, the problem with IQ, is that doesn’t measure rationality.

I'm not really bothered by the tribalism I feel,

Though what I 'do feel is usually muted by my preference of myself above the various tribes I could be said to belong to.

How can one really 'avoid loyalty to one's ideals, one's values?

I suppose it might be increased or decreased,

But to cease altogether, seems a bit much.

Hm, I see in your post you mention people turning to ideas rather than race,

So you 'specifically mean genetic tribalism I suppose,

I think myself that quite a number of people already think more of ideas and 'personhood, more than genetics,

Not saying I approve or disapprove,

Nor am I saying genetic tribalism does not still exist heartily.

Liberals voted in this poll, too. Same with Black people.

What percentage? It's possible to have liberal and black respondents, but the results to overwhelmingly represent white and right-leaning answers.

Besides, maybe those people who voted were influenced to become Republican after experiencing racism from Black Americans.

Prove it.

why would you think Black people are racist for no reason?).

I doubt anyone believes another group of people is racist for no reason, but I recognize a racist and someone who has been the target of racism might give the same answer.

Is it solid evidence for Black Americans being the most racist in America? Yes.

No, its not. At best, it records what 1000 people believe or want everyone else to believe. The questions make no effort to weed out personal biases or ignorance. How would someone harboring distrust/dislike for another group answer the questions? How would someone who doesn't understand racism answer the questions?

Avery is convinced only rape can turn her fantasies into reality. The evolutionary advantage Rape brings has convinced her to solicit such pioneers.

It would appear to me to actually be a self report. All you really actually told me is you don't have a robust moral philosophy and a deplorable moral compass if you're capable of falling in love with someone who murders your husband. 

Even if it were the case that this did exist in human female psychology, it will act as a disposition (epigenetics) rather than a sure fire thing. I think it would be unjustified nonsense to also say all women would like this, just like not all men would rape in a war scenario.

Although, all of this stuff is exceptionally reductionist. You point out how men who conquered others places married the women there, you never offer information on consent to such marriages, or on if they willingly chose to have children with them, etc.

And what kind of ego do you have?

Shaking cowards, afraid to step wrong, terrified, permanent thin ice vibes.

Are you pretending America is a Democracy?

Better a benevolent dictator than soulless corporations

Two points, firstly, the negative side and discrimination towards those we perceive to be outside our group. To compensate for this through what is sometimes termed “positive discrimination,” I still see as discrimination.

Secondly, to address your final point and one I see as crucial. You say “I think we should very clearly define what a more perfect human would look like, and then work towards that.” There is a fundamental problem here and it’s a big one, as I said previously “perfection” is subjective. So how do we define perfection and who is the “we” who gets to decide what constitutes perfection. I’m guessing that if you were to ask a large group of people from any walk of life as to what their idea of a perfect human would be you would get varied answers. I personally can’t think on an objective definition and I have been unable to find one, so if perfection cannot be objectively defined then striving for it is impossible.

There is another factor, assuming there is an agreement on what constitutes perfection, then by the fact that it is perfect, it would be applied to everyone, so there would be no individuals and we would become a collective. As to whether that would be considered beneficial or detrimental is subject to opinion, but I do have a feeling that those in power who would be implementing this perfection, would probably prefer to remain imperfect.

I don't know much about DDO, so I can't weigh in much on this, but the way I see it, this thread evaluates the best debaters "on this site," not a different one. 

There were multiple polls referenced in the OP, not just a South African one. There is American data referenced in the OP.

Yes, there were two polls referenced in the OP - one reflects the views of a group of right leaning American

Neither prove black Americans are more racist than other races. 

In my reply above to PW I provided some links to stories of drag queens being outed for their pedophilia criminality and male prostitution.

I mean, there are NO women with dicks, just men with tits. And for those so-called transwomen who enjoy sex with other men (even other transwomen), that's just homosexuality. For those transwomen who go both ways, that's bisexuality. Same applies to transmen too. There are no men with a vagina, just women with no tits and a lot of body hair.

Cute. Do you know my winrate against Novice? :)

Check their old account to find out.

But this isn't rape. The woman will likely be thrilled to have a strong winner want to mate with her.

is this a troll? or are you really saying most women would be happy if their husbands got literally were killed in a fight for a chance to mate with Eddie hall?

I forgot about this thread, but since it was updated today, can someone please explain to me how RationalMadman is a good debater, talk less of the best one? 

If rape had any evolutionary advantage, raped women would not be seen as victims but held as models of human advancement.

So everyone's perception isn't worth trusting? You think people just make stuff up or constantly see things incorrectly? That's essentially your argument. Just like Ramshutu, you're essentially a conspiracy theorist.

It's quite astonishing the wild arguments people grasp at to dodge a poll's obvious conclusion.

The poll was regarding South Africans. The OP is about Americans.  Isn't it a reach to deem OP's conclusion "obvious"? 

The best debaters on DDO in the last few years were easily: 

1) bluesteel 

*sizable gap*

2) Raisor 

3) whiteflame 

Whiteflame is the only one on DART and I haven’t seen anyone else here that would be comparable to him so I would say whiteflame is the best 

Before the huge fashion shows of drag queens making a mockery of women, showing/proving men can be better than women, there was pedophilia.

Pedophiles are in fact transgenders. Homosexuals and even bisexuals in disguise. 

Children are being targeted in masse, and if adults do not do anything about it... our future generations will be the end of us all. 

Arguably in ancient society, two men fight, the stronger wins, thus the stronger mans genes were selected rather than the weaker man's,

The stronger man is then able to pillage gold and take the woman of the weaker man, giving him a wife if he had not previously one, or two if he had one previously.

Arguably in modern society, if a country practiced 'forced eugenics, that required people of desirable genes have X many kids, and people of undesirable genes have less or no kids,

Genetics of later generations would improve.

A tenet of some religions I've heard, allow neither the husband nor wife to refuse their partner sex, even if they don't want it.

One would suppose this would result in more children.

A tenet of some religions I've heard, disapprove of some aspects of modern medicine, resulting in death sometimes from situations where some medical practice might have saved.

Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race.

#1

Truth is truth. I stand by the truth. I defend the truth. That's my position. 

The only truth shown by the poll is that a group of right leaning Americans *perceive* blacks to be more racist than other groups...which, for the record, doesn't show blacks *are* more racist than other groups.

The conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided.

Empathy was central to the evolutionary process that produced tribal societies and that empathy meant we sought to protect each other and share any food, it also enabled cooperation and by working together we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves against predators. Unfortunately it also has a negative side, also driven by our need to survive and that is competition with other tribal groups for resources, which can lead to violence. This negative side still exists, where we feel hostility towards those we perceive to be outside our group, I don’t think I need to provide examples. 

You are right that we have empathy for those outside our group and not just people but also other animals. I think it is largely down to our intelligence, our ability to rationalise that enables us to transcend that negative side and to see that those outside our group are no different to ourselves … doesn’t always work.

Perhaps if we could remove that negative side to tribalism, maybe that would be beneficial but I’m not sure it would. It would probably remove things like nationalism and racism and maybe create a more egalitarian society but by removing that aggression could we become less competitive, complacent and lose some of that force that drives to succeed … I don’t know.

However, I am not in favour of messing with people’s brains, we would be messing with a mechanism we don’t as yet fully understand and attempts to create a more perfect human sets a dangerous precedent, as perfection is a very subjective concept.

Here is the question I am answering>>> "You believe there are no genetic differences for violence in human races, despite them evolving in completely different environments."  My answer>>>>  Yes, Violence is a  learned behavior. I will answer it the same way no matter how many times you ask me. 

As for measuring, as I've said to Ramshutu plenty of times already, you don't need to measure the precise amount of racism. When a Black men gets called a cotton picker or porch monkey, everyone knows that this is racist without having to measure how racist it is.

So, do you have a definition of the term 'racism' that you understand?

Please elaborate.

Just curious, how are you defining 'racism' and coming up with a measure for it?

Firstly - do you understand what an Ad Hom is? Too many people throw our fallacies like buzzwords, without explaining how or why they apply - as is saying it makes it true: An ad hominem attack is where I make an attack on the person making an argument instead of addressing their argument. Can you please explain how either of those apply.

Now; if you look at the data: Republicans we’re +37 white black difference, way higher than any other listed groups +/-.That isn’t balanced out by liberals who were -6.

What this means is that the headline number is skewed because one individual group had an extreme response. The broader point of Americans thinking a>b; is in no small part because a group we suspected believed a>b believe a>b very strongly.

This is the only point I was making; it a statistical one.

No - that would be an absurd misrepresentation. You largely ignored my point and just restated this silly argument:

Perceptions are perceptions they are sometimes true; often not. Are perceptions of how smart people are based on how they look accurate? are peoples perception of risk accurate? No.

You are asserting that the perception is accurate. That is assuming your preferred conclusion. We do not know the perception is accurate; it could be right - it could be very wrong.

You are falsely asserting that I am suggesting that perception is definitely wrong I am not. I am saying that it’s simply perception - and doesn’t show what’s real, only what people think is real - those two things often differ.

69% haven't experienced or witnessed sufficient racism from Blacks to conclude that most of them are racist. Believe it or not, Blacks aren't racist all the time. It's possible to interact with Black people and have them not be racist.

And how exactly do you know this? Is this in any of the polls, is this supported by any data? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

What about the slightly higher percentage talking about whites? On what basis are you concluding that that 70+% is absolutely right and haven't simply experienced white racism? Does that imply the 20+% of people who think whites are racists have experience that racism?

Perhaps that 31% had one or two bad experiences that coloured everything else they see?

We don’t know - the poll doesn’t show it; so without relying on your assumptions, you can’t really say anything.

What you’re doing is just pulling whatever assumptions that allow you to draw your conclusion. Nothing about this comes from the polls.

How do you know thats what it’s capturing? Is there a reason to beleive all - or enough -responds when asked “are Black Americans mostly racist” in a robocall are basing this on upon severity and quantity.

Why does that not apply to whites too?

Again - to suggest the poll says what you claim; you have to assume about the response that you can’t possibly know, nor have any reason whatsoever to believe is true.

We're not asking 'who is the most racist and how racist are they?'-, we're asking 'who is the most racist?'

You’re asking who is the most racist. If you don’t mean “how racist they are” then let’s be accurate to avoid any equivocation:

What the poll collects is people's experiences of racism.

No it doesn’t - that’s pulled out of your ass again - it collects perceptions not experiences

There are indeed polls about experiences of racism - all the ones I’ve seen show whites having a far smaller experience of racism than any other race.

Blacks are being voted as the most racist, so they're the most racist. We don't need the precise level of their racism to determine that fact.

Hence, the two questions are close enough to measure the same thing: who is more racist?

So the above posts amount to:

Of course I don’t mean more racist.

Of course I don’t mean more racist.

Of course I don’t mean more racist.

Of course I mean more racist.

What you did here: is go through my post and repeatedly  agree - that these polls don’t show that blacks are more racist than whites.

Then you assert that it actually does show black are more racist than whites.

For literally no reason. 

I’m happy to amend my quote:

I’m bang on - actually: this post is just you asserting they actually pretty much mean the same thing - they really don’t at all (see above) 

You STILL have not answered Avery's question. 

You dropped your argument suggesting that the poll was "heavily biased" due to "republican responses". I don't blame you, though, because it was a trash argument.

But it is - republicans hit a high of 49%; which brings the rest of sample up.

Peoples perceptions about almost everything are wrong all the time. Without data confirming whether perceptions are accurate in this case - it doesn’t show   What’s true - only what people think is true.

Worse: who’s perceptions are right? The 31% who say blacks are mostly racist - or the 69% who say no - they can’t both be right

No they’re not. They’re not even close. 

Are most blacks racist would be asking whether the perception of the respondent is that a majority of blacks are racist. Not how much, or how strongly - just want that it they are.

What does that mean - does that mean hate whites and feel they’re superior - or black supremacy - no: it could mean something much lower.

Likewise: If 75% of whites were fine - and 25% we’re hardcore kkk white supremacists; but 51% of blacks hold some animosity to whites - if perception mapped reality - 100% would say blacks are mostly racist, and 0% would say whites are mostly racist -  so there’s little real use for the measurement.

I’m bang on - actually: this post is just you asserting they actually mean the same thing - they really don’t (see above)

What does any of this have to do with violence.

Violence is a learned behavior.

Well, there we go. You believe there are no genetic differences for violence in human races, despite them evolving in completely different environments.

Do you also believe there are no genetic differences between human races at all? Lactose tolerance? Height? Sweating?

Human DNA is human DNA. Mental disorders and physical disorders are present in all races. All races have short and tall people all races have all the same shit and problems .

It has never been about race.

Do you think every race has precisely the same capacity for violence, despite evolving in completely different parts of the world and having different genes?

Ya   [I've cut the rest that doesn't address the question]

Also the single poll doesn’t show black Americans are more racist; only that more Americans (heavily biased by republican responses) feel that most blacks are racist Than [think most] whites.

Liberals voted in this poll, too, so they had an opportunity to say other races were most racist.

[Not responded to by you]

Liberals voted in this poll, too, so they had an opportunity to say other races were most racist. Even 31% of Blacks themselves thought that Blacks were most racist (only 24% thought Whites were the most racist).

Anyway, it's not definitive proof, but it's certainly a piece of evidence to help make the case that Blacks are the most racist in America.

But it didn’t show that.

Also the single poll doesn’t show black Americans are more racist; only that more Americans (heavily biased by republican responses) feel that most blacks are racist Than [think most] whites.

The problem with removing tribal elements from the brain is that empathy is intrinsic to tribalism, so by removing tribalism you would be removing empathy, which would result in a society of psychopaths.

These all refer to the same one poll.

It has never been about race.

It's certainly a massive evolutionary advantage in modern, Western countries. Women in the USA who attend religious services weekly have almost one more child on average than nonreligious women and have for the last 40 years. Of course not all of these kids remain religious, but even the secular people of the future will largely be the descendants of todays religious people. From a purely Darwinian perspective secular humanism is very bad

https://ifstudies.org/blog/americas-growing-religious-secular-fertility-divide

You still aren’t addressing this:

So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you are an atheist, but then say religion solves our problems, which implies that we should follow religion because it solves said problems, which entails believing in religion.

Of broadly speaking evolutionary advantage,

I'm thinking Avery doesn't 'specifically mean the propagation of genes, though I may be wrong,

But that he suggests religion to be an advantageous quality/tool for an individual and/or people, in living their lives, in propagating, but not 'purely in propagating,

It's simply that those who live well, tend to propagate, maybe.

I'm guessing a very high cut, paisley patterned Y front.

Like the colour of GODDO's underpants.