Total posts: 5,890
Miracles are identified by various people in our world.
I’m asking you for your definition. What are you calling miracles? That’s a pretty important place to start if we’re going to have a conversation about them.
What is the expected standard of proof to prove a miracle? Is it beyond lingering doubt? Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Is it on the balance of probabilities? Is it the pub test? And why is it that particular standard?
You’re confusing the burden of proof with the standard of evidence. The burden of proof is just the question of who is obligated to do the proving, the standard of evidence is the degree of confidence must we have in the conclusion for it to suffice.
The standard of evidence depends on the situation. If we’re talking about throwing someone in jail for life, we need an extremely high standard in order to protect the innocent. If we’re talking about proof in the sense of whether a belief is justified, then I’d say preponderance of the evidence (aka more likely than not) is sufficient.
As far as how we get there, to me it’s a simple matter of two principals; first is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I told you I went shopping yesterday, you wouldn’t need evidence to be justified in believing that claim because it’s not extraordinary at all. If I told you I met Beyoncé you might need something more than my word, say a picture, before you’re willing to accept that. If I told you I bought a time machine and went back to see the dinosaurs, I’m pretty sure I could take you through it and you would still think it must be a hoax. The more extraordinary the claim the more it takes to justify it.
The second principal is Occam’s razor. Is it more plausible that a statistical impossibility occurred by chance, or that a deity intervened? Statistical anomalies may be relatively rare, but on a planet with over 6 billion people on it and stories tracked for hundreds or even thousands of years it’s not outlandish at all to assume some pretty unlikely things would occur.
So when someone says “how do you explain X” the answer is quite simple… I don’t, but there’s nothing remarkable about accepting that remarkable things can just happen, and if I am to believe that some supernatural force or whatever other cause one claims is behind it they need to provide some pretty extraordinary evidence to justify that.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Calling it a miracle does not imply that. Also too many coincidences happen. We should be getting the right amount of coincidences, not too many . For example the Mayan prophecy that predicted the exact day, hour and minute that they would see their first white guy, is beyond coincidence
Please define “miracle”.
Also, please be clear as to what you mean when you say it’s beyond coincidence. If it is not a coincidence then what was it and how do you know?
And take note that this is all before we’ve even established that your story is accurate.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Miracles have occurred in the past.
Please define miracle. Specifically, please address whether the involvement of a deity or the supernatural is required for an event to qualify.
The bible is evidence for this
The Bible is the source of the claim, not the evidence.
On the other hand atheists are irrational if they say that miracles have not happened.
An atheist who makes the claim that miracles have never occured are making a positive claim and have therefore adopted a burden of proof, so you are technically correct. The problem here is that you are taking what is overwhelmingly offered as a colloquialism and treating it as a literal claim. Atheists by and large recognize that you cannot prove miracles have never occurred. Rather, the statement is made in response to those who are claiming miracles do or have occurred. Those individuals have never met their burden of proof, so if you actually cared about rationality that would be the place where you would begin.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
The story mentioned is beyond coincidence, especially when you get into why each person who was always on time, were late this one time in the past decade, preceeding the event.What about the Mayan prophecy that predicted the arrival of white man, the exact same date and time it happened and in the same area?Coincidence again.
More like a clear example of confirmation bias. If one person had been on time to the choir it still would have been touted as a miracle, and if the entire choir had died you would just move on to another story. Your claim is unfalsifiable, making it definitionally irrational.
Anyone who understands anything about mathematical probability understands that when given large enough quantities of examples, things that are considered statistical impossibilities become statistical certainties. This is why such anecdotes are evidence of nothing, not because atheists are just hand waiving it away.
So where does that leave us here? It leaves us with a remarkable event for which we are trying to discern the cause. By calling it a miracle you are implying a deity was behind it. So unlike the atheist, you are claiming to know what the cause is.
But you have a problem… things that do not exist cannot be regarded as the cause for other things. Therefore, you have to prove that the thing you are attributing as the cause exists *before* you can even offer it as a candidate explanation.
So prove a deity exists. Then, we can talk about whether a deity should be regarded as the explanation here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I wonder if this is you being genetically incapable of understanding racial in-group bias and the effect that it has on politics.
No, this is me recognizing that politics had nothing to do with our conversation until you realized that you were finding yourself pinned to a corner and needed to change the subject. Let’s recap, here’s your comment from post 17;
You have a false conception of race realism. Race realism is about outlining the differences between racial groups. That's it
Then in post 35 you asked me the following question which kicked off the topic of conversation we were actually having:
**if** certain racial groups had better abilities (say Jewish people with 108 I.Q. being better able to comprehend the written word -- you don't have to agree that this is true), would it be a good idea to attempt to account for that in policy?
Then we went back and forth where you responded to me in posts 37;
Is there any racial difference that, in your mind, should ever be accounted for through policy?
40;
How would such a policy, based on race, be "arbitrary?"
53;
So I've argued that:(1) Chinese is a valid racial category(2) The vast majority of Chinese people are lactose intolerantHence, when a government produces policy that aims to aid its Chinese population's lactose intolerance, this is functionally policy that is responding to Chinese genetics
& 70;
You're rejecting race realism on the grounds that you don't like what you see as the "white supremacist" talking points. That's fine and you're well within your rights to do that.However, you are indeed a race realist because you believe human racial categories as valid concepts.
Not once in any of this posts did the subject of politics come up until post 74. As soon as you brought it up, I responded with the following in post 75:
The topic of this conversation has been whether race realism *should* play any role on government policy, so unfortunately almost nothing you argued addresses anything I’ve said.
You have been attempting to deflect the conversation ever since. If you want to change the subject and argue about the intersection of race and politics I’m fine with that, but not until this conversation is resolved or you about admit that you have nothing left to contribute to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
they like to say but carbon dioxide levels but they dont realize carbon dioxide levels r so tiny they cant even make a difference.they say "temature is going up" but climate has always changed its natural we have seen it in the past from ice ages warmin up
You really need to tell the climatologists about this, I’m sure they will be shocked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I think I've crystallized my position best in the previous post: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . You've decided to drop most of it and ask specific questions, but I think I already answered those
You haven’t addressed a damn thing, that’s why I dropped the rest of it and asked you again to address the part of the conversation that actually mattered. You now respond by dropping the entire conversation.
Once again, you cannot claim the government should be doing anything without a conception, standard, ideology, (call it whatever you want) of what a government is supposed to be in the first place.
Like I said earlier, I find it very telling when someone is challenged on the foundation of their position and responds by first pretending not to understand the most basic of concepts (like what is a standard?) and then ending the conversation when it becomes clear that they cannot pivot their way out of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The alternative is to be honest and straightforward with the people about what happened. But the people don’t want that, people want to be lied to and told everything is fine. Or to be told everything is terrible, as long as the other side gets the blame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You can’t respond to someone’s post with “exactly” and then claim you were not arguing what they were.
But whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
Why are right wingers so incapable of telling the difference between censoring speech that violates the law or terms of service, and censoring people based on the side of the political spectrum they fall on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It’s the core lesson of the Trump presidency - if you don’t like reality just create a new one. Then it’s not a scandal and no one can ever take you down because of it.
I figured right wingers would love this.
Created:
Posted in:
So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government *should* be in the first place.
From my last post - Respond to this point.
I specifically walked you through the Chinese example showing:(1) That lactose intolerance is a problem for Chinese people(2) That China is a overwhelmingly majority Chinese (specifically Han).(3) That people vote primarily on race; you need to make issues race based to best have a chance when running for office(C) Policy in China should address the Chinese lactose intoleranceYou've agreed to all the premises yet won't accept the conclusion
I never denied this conclusion, but I am questioning how you came to yours.
How did you determine that the Chinese government should do anything? Cause it sounds almost like you have some standard in your mind regarding how a government should function and are applying that standard to inform your conclusion about what you think should happen here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That is precisely what I have been saying. I commenced this thread because of that view by Atheists. I don't have to agree with it of course. An Atheist has no Atheistic worldview.
The reason atheists have no atheistic worldview is because there’s no such thing as an atheistic worldview. It’s an incoherent concept. A worldview is a collection of ones beliefs, atheism is not a belief.
Whether it is small or not, it is still part of it. We can no more raise it to the top level than to dismiss it altogether. Why wouldn't it make sense? There seems to a large motivation by atheists who want their cake and to eat it as well - to try and dismiss the notion.
Atheists aren’t dismissing their atheism, atheists are pointing out that a non-belief is not and cannot be the basis for a set of beliefs. Why is that so difficult?
Again, a worldview is a collection of beliefs. Theism, by definition, entails beliefs. Therefore theism can serve as a basis for one’s worldview. Atheism, by definition, is not a belief. Therefore atheism cannot serve as a basis for one’s worldview. You are equating two things that are complete opposites of each other.
Well, you obviously have a distorted view or narrow view of religion. Christianity does not merely teach obedience. What a silly thing to say. When Jesus teaches - do good to others. Or treat other people how you want to be treated - it is clearly encouraging rational application and critical thinking
Just because someone has to think doesn’t mean they are engaged in critical thinking. Critical thinking is about questioning the information you are given and only accepting it if it passes muster. Where in Christianity does it encourage its followers to question the word of God?
The question of good unless it has an objective standard from our point of view - loses its intrinsic value as a word.
There is no such thing as an objective standard, the term is another incoherent concept. The standard is the thing by which everything else is judged against. That must be chosen by the subject doing the judging, making it subjective by definition.
Once we have an agreed upon standard, only then can we determine whether something objectively meets that standard. But the first part will always be a matter of personal values (aka opinion).
I do accept that God's standards from his point of view are subjective. This of course does not mean that they are arbitrary, vindictive, irrational, or sinful or even prone to error. From our point of view - this is objective.
Can you please define objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
It is difficult to grapple with the fact that you agree your standard is impossible to meet, yet you want to argue for it anyway.
Mesmer, do you know what a standard is? I mean I know that I just explained it, but do you understand it? How else can I explain it?
Jesus is a standard. Every Christian I know strives to be as perfect as Jesus, that doesn’t mean any Christian actually thinks they could ever be as perfect as Jesus.
A 100% efficacy rate is the standard for any vaccine, that doesn’t mean any vaccine could realistically stop 100% of all cases.
A 0% auto theft rate is the standard of every car alarm company, that doesn’t mean anything they do could ever stop every car with their alarms from being stolen.
How many more examples would you like?
Without a standard you cannot form a judgement. The standard is the thing you are measuring everything else against to determine which of any two outcomes is better. You cannot have a conversation about what anything should be without determining what standards you are using to judge everything against.
Do you understand this?
So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government should be in the first place.
Not having a "standard" is just big-brain nonsense that doesn't deal with our real world; you need to start dealing with the world as it is and could be, rather than what you wish it would be.
I’m sorry if you find this conversation so difficult that only big brained people would talk about it, but every decision you make and every position you take stems from your core beliefs. We seem to have fundamental disagreements here, so if our conversation is going to get anywhere then we have to start at the beginning, to me there is nothing more telling than someone who refuses to do that. It strongly suggests that you really don’t want your core positions to be understood, I just can’t tell whether it’s me you are trying to shield them from or yourself.
It's a nail in a coffin for your argument when we see race/ideological/nationalist groups speak to human elements far better than your race-blind argument
It’s as if you’ve forgotten the point of your own thread.
I am aware of no group anywhere in this country or any other who has made an argument convincing people that racial genetics is an established field of study and should be the basis of government policy.
Not one thing I’ve argued in this thread has had anything to do with racial issues, nor has anything I’ve argued in this thread had anything to do with achieving political power. These are entirely separate conversations.
Whatever happened to ‘I just want people to accept the facts, then we can have a conversation about government policy’? Now, without even resolving our differences on the facts you’ve skipped over government policy and went straight to staining the power to exact it. Stick to the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
The epidimicity of this virus would suggest that everyone has been exposed. That is, if one hasn't succumbed to it, one has already developed a response to it.So how does your response contradict what I've stated?
That’s not the comment I responded to. This is:
The likelihood that a person has not come into contact of Covid-19 at some time in the past 2 years is outrageously low.Exactly. And the prospects that one has been exposed to this virus but has yet to develop an immune response in almost two years is also outrageous.
“Exactly” - as in you doubling down on the idea that there’s hardly anyone left who hasn’t came into contact with Covid, and then talking about the prospect of those who have been exposed (which would be just about everyone) developing an immune response. If you add this all up, what you get is contradicted by the reality I laid out.
If that’s not what you meant that’s fine, you are free to correct it.
Created:
Posted in:
So you pull out of your ass some obscure statement from the CDC that absolutely nobody in state media NOR ANYONE ELSE IN A POSITION OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY reported on
Wow.
This is the United States. We don’t have state media.
The CDC is the government authority that handles this. Everyone else gets their information from them, so it’s not any other authority’s responsibility to report on it. What they tell you is to listen to the science. That’s the science.
The CDC sets the government’s position. Can you think of anyone in government that contradicted the CDC? Oh yeah that’s right, Trump, by saying this would all disappear. But you seem to have no issue with that.
also posted March 2021 when this was known way back in may of 2020.
My god dude you are lazy. Those were the first examples that popped up in my Google search. Here’s another, I had to scroll aaaaaaalll the way to about half way down the page to get to this one…
CDC: Obesity among conditions that up risk of severe COVID-19 disease
Alyson Sulaski Wyckoff, Associate Editor
June 26, 2020
Editor's note:For the latest news on COVID-19, visithttps://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/01/28/coronavirus.
In a briefing Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its list of underlying conditions that may increase the risk of illness from COVID-19 and reminded the public to take precautions as the Fourth of July holiday approaches.
Again, if you were one of the 90% obese people that died from Covid19 and you trusted government to let you know you were at risk from dying, then you are responsible for killing yourself through your own stupidity, willful ignorance, and naivety.If you were one of the 30,000 dead in New York retirement homes because you "trusted government" to keep you safe from Covid-19Then you are 100% responsible for your own death.
You have an amazingly cartoonish view of how the world works. Who exactly do you think is sitting around saying “I know this Covid is coming around, but I’ll be safe cause the US government is on my side!”?
No obese person turns on the news every night to see if the US President singles them out as being at risk of Covid, and then if they don’t say anything go “we’ll he didn’t say I’m at risk so I guess I can go to that party!”.
This just isn’t serious. And even if it were, does this sentiment also include Trump? I have yet to hear your thoughts on that.
And of course there’s the nursing home fiasco. No right wingers could ever get through a conversation about Covid without pointing out the scandal over a year ago at the very beginning of the pandemic before any policies were established, by one governor in one state whose own party would eventually ruin him out of town. But hey whatever makes you feel better I guess.
If you are one of the 10,000+ Americans about to die in Afghanistan....see the pattern?
Yes, every time someone dies in a situation the US government might have been able to prevent you put the blame for it squarely on the government and cartoonishly paint every person that died as some pathetic ignorant fool who just sat around doing nothing to help themselves waiting for the government to come save them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The entire states of Texas, Florida, and Alabama are outliers? Wow, I’d hate to see what an outbreak would look like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And what is this intended to illustrate?
You claimed the idea that anyone out there has not by now developed an immune response to Covid to be outrageous. So do you not find the facts of what we are seeing right now to be problematic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
now show me anything said by Biden, Psaki, or Fauci over the past 520 days of "slowing the spread"
Why? You said you don’t trust the government because they won’t say fat people are at greater risk of Covid. So here are multiple examples of the government saying fat people are at greater risk of Covid. The end right? No, of course not. Now you want to single out individuals within the government and claim your distrust is valid because they haven’t personally opined on the subject. What nonsense.
I don’t care what Biden or Psaki has said, and more importantly a certainly don’t care about what they haven’t said. I care about science.
BTW just out of curiosity, do you trust Donald Trump? If yes, please show me his excerpt talking about fat people being at greater risk due to Covid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is the Atheist who says they do not have a worldview
Atheists do not say they have no world view, atheists are saying that their worldview is not tied to atheism. Once again, atheism is a position on a single issue - that of whether a god exists. That’s all.
Morality does not fall out of the sky. Our morality typically comes from our environments
Our morality tends to reflect our culture, because much of our sense of morality is learned through the behaviors we observe. But at some point in our lives we develop the ability to question our own morality and in so doing we improve. Our history with slavery is a perfect example of this.
The problem with religion is that the only thing it teaches with regards to morality is obedience. It completely discourages any type of rational application or critical thinking. ‘Do as god says’ it’s literally all religion offers. This is why theists cannot fathom the idea of morality without god, because they’ve never had to figure it out for themselves.
Can you name a non-theistic worldview?
A worldview is a term we use to describe the totality of ones beliefs. Theism/atheism is just one small part of it, so it doesn’t make sense to say “name one”. I have a non-theistic worldview because my worldview doesn’t include a belief in a god, but there is no one name that describes the totality of how I see the world. I’m just not that important.
But even secular thinking is a religious doctrine
Secular thinking is literally the opposite of a religious doctrine. This is like arguing that abstinence is a sex position.
Define good
Good is that which corresponds to a moral standard. The moral standard is subjective, even if you’re using God’s.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
However, what I've demonstrated is that your fantasy world of racial blindness DOESN'T EXIST. You agree with the notion that race will always play a role, and that "there is no getting around that". You understand what you are arguing for is pure fantasy, a true impossibility, yet you continue to posit that's what we should strive for.
Yes, that’s what we call a standard. It’s kind of a necessary component of assessing anything.
You are engaged in a classic is/ought fallacy. Having a standard does not mean you live in a fantasy world. It means you have a metric by which to judge actions and/or outcomes. If you do not begin with a standard then you have nothing to judge anything against.
The standard is just a compass telling us what direction we should be moving in. Imagine an Olympic sprinter sets a goal of 9.7 in the 100M final. He then goes on to run a 9.6. If the standard were a 9.7 then his time would be a bad thing, he would have been better off slowing down by one tenth. Of course that’s ridiculous, because the standard is actually 0 seconds. It has nothing to do with how achievable it is, it’s just a compass.
If your standard is that race should play a role in politics then you are in no position to criticize anyone for bringing race into it. They’re acting in accordance with your standard making your position to be that what they are doing is a good thing, which means that the examples you gave me were actually demonstrating the virtues of your position. In other words ‘see this is how politics is supposed to work’, yet I somehow doubt that is what you were trying to accomplish.
So, because what you argue for *can't* exist, we should then focus on race-based policies that help the most amount of people.
Helping out the most amount of people is kind of the point of government, the debate we’re having is whether race based policies achieve that outcome better. I’m arguing it doesn’t. It again, has nothing to do with whether a 100% race neutral world could ever exist.
If you don't vote based on your race, if you're so high-minded that you vote based on 'principles' or 'Libertarian based philosophy', you get smacked around by the other racial groups WHO DO vote based on their race.
We’re not running a political campaign, this is a debate site. Do you have any actual arguments to support your positions, or does all of this just boil down to “my position will win more power”?
That's why we should vote based on genetic realism.
Not one thing you’re arguing has anything to do with genetic realism. Take note of where this thread began and there we have ended up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
The topic of this conversation has been whether race realism *should* play any role on government policy, so unfortunately almost nothing you argued addresses anything I’ve said.
Race will always play a role, there is no getting around that. But we can’t evaluate whether that’s a good thing without a standard to hold it against. If we begin with the position that race shouldn’t play a role, only then can we criticize those who invoke it. But your position as far as I understand is that race should, so I’m not sure exactly what you’re criticizing.
To the extent that I believe race should play a role in government policy it’s in regards to dealing with injustices that occurred because of a wrongful focus on race. That however is a very different thing than grouping individuals by race and using some kind of genetic “realism” to determine what our policies should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The likelihood that a person has not come into contact of Covid-19 at some time in the past 2 years is outrageously low.Exactly. And the prospects that one has been exposed to this virus but has yet to develop an immune response in almost two years is also outrageous.
Texas just yesterday ordered two trucks from FEMA to store dead bodies because the morgues are full. The entire state of Alabama has no ICU beds left. And then there’s Florida…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why should I trust a government that won't publicly say being fat puts you at great risk of dying from Covid?
Obesity Worsens Outcomes from COVID-19
Adults with excess weight are at even greater risk during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Obesity increases the risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness.
What is added by this report?
Among 148,494 U.S. adults with COVID-19, a nonlinear relationship was found between body mass index (BMI) and COVID-19 severity, with lowest risks at BMIs near the threshold between healthy weight and overweight in most instances, then increasing with higher BMI. Overweight and obesity were risk factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. Obesity was a risk factor for hospitalization and death, particularly among adults aged <65 years.
Overweight and obesity
Overweight (defined as a body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m2 but < 30 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2 but < 40 kg/m2), or severe obesity (BMI of ≥40 kg/m2), can make you more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19. The risk of severe COVID-19 illness increases sharply with elevated BMI.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Theism and atheism are positions on a single proposition - ‘a god exists’. If you believe that proposition you’re a theist. If you do not believe that proposition you’re an atheist.
You’re confusing a person’s position on a single proposition… with a person. The fact that one does not believe in a god tells us nothing about what they do believe in regarding morality or where it comes from. That’s where we look at other positions regarding morality. Humanism for example.
The idea that an atheist must borrow from a theistic world view to do or be good is nonsense. Both atheists and theists get their morality from the same place - within themselves. You can’t say god is good if you haven’t yet figured out what you think the word good means.
Created:
Posted in:
However, you are indeed a race realist because you believe human racial categories as valid concepts.
No, I never agreed to that. What I argued was that all races would fare differently in any outcome metric because all humans would fare differently. I even used the example of twins to emphasize this point.
It’s not a race thing, it’s a human thing. Not sure how many times I need to repeat that.
The question of whether race is a valid concept depends entirely on what were talking about. Validity is a term in logic meaning that the conclusion follows from the premise. So what’s the premise? If we’re talking about appearances then race is a valid concept because we can use easily identifiable physical features to tell whether someone is of one race or another. But this conversation is about government policy. That’s an entirely different conversation and my position is and has always been that race plays no rightful role in that.
You stopped responding to the Chinese lactose example I was discussing with you to jump to the discussion I was having with Thett.
No, I responded to your example in post 62 and afterward jumped in on your conversation with Thett. You ignored my first post and focused on the second.
You're already a race realist, it's just a matter of determining what flavor of race realist you are.
Then your definition of race realist is the most meaningless and useless definition I have ever heard. I’d love for you to get to the part where any of this actually matters.
That's a wild claim that you've failed to demonstrate at all. Good luck proving "everyone else" (you know, all 7 odd billion of them) believes that they are sensical. Surely you can understand how ridiculous a claim this is.
Ok Drax
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It comes from myself. The need to be worshipped is demonstrative of ego and narcissism. Why would anyone find that worthy of worshipping?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Then your argument defeats itself because combining "white" and "supremacist" doesn't create a whole new concept. Instead, white refers to the white race, and supremacist as someone who thinks they're/their group is the best
I’ve already explained this to you as have others in this thread. You are clearly just going to believe whatever you want so I’ll just leave you with the dictionary…
“a person who believes that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society…”
Oxford
“a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races”
Miriam Webster
“the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups”
Dictionary.com
“beliefs and ideas purporting natural superiority of the lighter-skinned, or 'white,' human races over other racial groups.”
Britannica
“the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them.”
Wikipedia
Notice how not one of these definitions begins with “a white person”.
I don’t have service where I’m typing this so if you’d like to verify the definitions feel free to Google them yourself, you might learn something.
My point was that black nationalists, Hispanic nationalists and Chinese nationalists aren't labelled as supremacist, yet white nationalists are. Do you see now how whites are being slurred for their nationalism, yet all the other racial groups aren't?
Nationalism and supremacy are not the same thing. Nationalism is about supporting a particular race, supremacy is about believing one race is better than the rest and should therefore dominate them.
The latter applied to any other race is nonsensical in today’s society. White people are clearly the current dominate race, so the idea that any other race will become the dominate race in the near future is not realistic. Conversely, the former is nonsensical for white people. Because white people are the dominate race, there is nothing to be in support of. How do you move up when you’re already on top? White nationalism is often used as a false label for white supremacy, apparently to the point where people like you really buy into the propaganda thinking they mean the same thing.
If I walk into China and start DEMANDING that they build churches and white only spaces for me, are they "entitled" for denying me that?
No one is demanding that the US government build spaces for black people only. This statement has nothing to do with this conversation or reality.
But I will that say you’d be on far more reasonable grounds to make that demand of the Chinese if the reason you were in China was because they dragged your ancestors here so they could enslave them for 400 years and build the country’s wealth on their free labor, then once finally freed gave your people nothing to compensate them for it.
You do understand that you agreed with this, right? You do understand that if you no longer agree with this, you've changed your argument, right?
No, please explain it to me.
The point before I made was this: you previously said "white supremacist" doesn't apply to all white people. Furthermore, "white supremacist" DOES refer to race. Similarly, "cotton picker" doesn't apply to all black people. Furthermore, "cotton picker" DOES refer to race. Your logic is inconsistent because you think the first example is NOT an example of a racial slur, whilst the latter IS.
No, because you’re just wrong. ‘White supremacist’ points to a person’s ideology, not their race.
And even if it was referring to that persons race, it still would not be a racial slur because in that definition the race of the person is merely a descriptor. Your argument is like saying that calling someone a male whore is a slur against all males.
You also completely twist my argument on cotton picker. I explained to you, twice now, how it does apply to all black people. What is the problem here? Why can you not absorb this point?
but if you want to single out white people for wanting white groups as being "entitled" or "white supremacist", and totally be fine with all other races wanting their own racial groups and NOT being labelled as "entitled" or "[insert race] supremacist", then you're racially biased against white people.
Other groups are fighting for equality, white groups are fighting for dominance. Those are not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
Any God that needs worship is a God that’s not worthy of worship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
If you don't want to respond to what I wrote to you
I did. Read post #62
"Racism" and "racist" are nonsensical, malicious terms
They are perfectly sensical to everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I'm not sure if you intentionally did this, but you've changed your argument to be the same as mine, and now you are framing your argument (which is mine) as the one I'm arguing against.
You didn’t pay attention to a thing I said.
You argued that a word does not have to apply to everyone in a race in order to be a racial slur and used cotton picker as an example. I then went on to explain why you’re wrong. I wasn’t explaining why cotton picker doesn’t apply to all black people, I was explaining how it does. Once again, those who were forced to pick cotton were so because they were black. The term is an attempt to dehumanize the individual by reminding them of a time when they would have been reduced to less than a human being because of their skin color. That is entirely about their race.
It's been my contention all along that you don't have to think *all* people of a certain race are a slur, in order for the slur to be a slur. Moreover, you don't have to think *all* white people are white supremacists, in order for white supremacist to be a slur.
Read the title to your own thread; “White Supremacist" is a racial slur
Any word can be a slur to any one, if we’re talking about racial slurs then we’re talking about a slur directed at ones race. You cannot then argue that the word does not apply to others of that same race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
IF we were arguing about "white and supremacist", what you are saying here is correct, but we are arguing about the latter, so your distinction doesn't apply.
Nonsense. Combining two words doesn’t create a whole new concept, it just combines the concepts within those two words. If I gave you hot chocolate served cold, it’s not hot chocolate. Nor would it be hot chocolate if there was no chocolate. You need both for the phrase to apply. That’s English 101.
If it was just about ideology, then why is black nationalism not considered black supremacist, whilst white nationalism is considered white supremacism?
If a black person believes black people are the superior race then that by definition would make them a black supremecist. Which BTW, would not be a racial slur.
How could whites wanting to form white groups, without any reference to supremacism, be considered to be supremacist, especially when blacks do the same and that's *not* considered supremacism?
Because we live in a country dominated by white people. Black people forming an all black group is a response to their status as ethnic minorities and the discrimination that comes along with it. White people forming an all white group is a response to nothing.
If IQ researchers conclude that Asians/Jews have the highest IQ, why are they called white supremacists? Surely, if Lynn argues that Asians are doing best in IQ tests, why isn't Richard Lynn called an Asian supremacist?
Researching IQ scores is not “supremacy”. It’s the intent of the research that matters. IQ scores do not measure genetics or cognitive potential, they measure current ability. That ability can be cultivated and improved just like any other. It’s when one for example tries to use the research to justify inequality as a means to stop helping those in need that out crosses into suprematist territory.
Believing that one race is superior is the literal definition, but that’s not the focus of the phrase white supremecist. The focus is really more about entitlement. Any white person who tells a minority to go back to their country for example, I would argue is a white supremecist. What gives them the right to declare this “their country” to be telling someone else to leave it? What makes them think they are more entitled to this country than any other human being?
It’s that mentality that those who tend to use the phrase are pointing to. Jan 6th is another example. It is not credible to argue that the people who stormed the Capitol were doing so based on facts and reason. They did so because they couldn’t accept that the votes of people who don’t look like them were a legitimate catalyst to remove their President. The Capitol belonged to them and they had to take it back. That’s white supremacy.
So can this apply to other races? Of course it can. It’s just that the phrase black supremecist or Asian supremecist carries no connotation because it’s a useless thing to even talk about in a country dominated by white people.
Created:
-->
@coal
Critical race theory is not a threat to the United States. But it is a threat to the wellbeing, both social and psychological, of all infected by it.
Do you even know what critical race theory is?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is not a single policy that discriminates against an ethnic group.
Do you believe literacy tests were racially discriminatory?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Shame on Biden and his frauds
Right, because the 20 year failure spanning 4 administrations to train the Afghan government to protect and secure its own country occurred all in 6 months.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Black people use the N word towards black people more than any other race.
Do you seriously not understand the difference between nigga and nigger?
And I was referring to people living in Africa. They don’t get called the N word.
That’s because they don’t live with people who use the n word. Do you believe that a word is only a racial slur if it is used in every corner of the globe where that race exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Let's take for example "cotton picker". Let's say a White American used to this describe an African American -- this is a racial slur. However, it's possible that this White American doesn't believe *all* African Americans are "cotton pickers", BUT "cotton picker" remains a racial slur regardless of that fact. Again, you don't have to think that all African Americans are "cotton pickers" for "cotton picker" to be a racial slur -- your qualification/standard of 'you have to think all people of that race are the slur' isn't valid."
The slur in cotton picker comes from its historical connotation. What you fail to understand is that not all black people were forced to pick cotton, but those who were forced to pick cotton were so because they were black, so this absolutely was about their race.
White supremecists are not supremecists because they are white, they’re supremecists because they’re ignorant, assholes, or both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Great. Now explain how black people who came over from Africa never hear themselves being called the n word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You've already conceded the argument with this statement because you described them as "white" people. If race had no bearing on this, then the (non-racial) slur would be "supremacist".
First of all, the term “white supremecist” combines two words. Therefore, in order to qualify under this term *both* of the words must apply. So instead of demonstrating your fragility over the first word, look at the second… “spremecist”. Notice how the second word has nothing to do with your race but is rather an ideology. That’s the part you need to focus on explaining if you are really trying to stick to this argument.
Second, “white” in this phrase isn’t even referring to the race of the of the ideology holder. It’s referring to the ideology itself. White supremacy means you believe white people are ultimately the superior race. Nothing about this precludes that you must be white to hold this attitude, as bizarre as would be for a non-white person to think this way, hence the David Chappell skit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Then you need to take a look again at history my friend
Show me a black Person who is not subject to the N word. I’ll wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
The differing genetics have resulted in differing levels of success and technological advancement -- that's my point.
So in other words… the reason some groups (like black people) are doing worse than others is because they’re genetically inferior, and you think government policy should take that “realism” into account when it decides on policy.
But this has nothing to do with racism or spreading racist rhetoric. Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you have an argument for why murder is wrong that isn't dependent on your worldview?
I have arguments for why murder is wrong, they’re based on reason. Are you equating religious faith with reason?
You have created a definition of "omnipotent" that I reject and is contradictory to the Bible…You have created a definition of "merciful" that I reject and is contradictory to the Bible…
So God is neither omnipotent nor merciful. Interesting. Thank you for clarifying.
God says it is wrong. He is the Creator, we are the creature. He is the Judge so He makes the rules. You can disagree, but you will still have to answer to God on judgment day.
More Bible waiving. So is ” because God says so” really all you have, or do you have an actual argument against abortion?
Because God created humans as moral agents and is not culpable for our sin.
I asked you how he is not responsible.
If I told you 2+2=5 and you asked me how I came to that conclusion, repeating 2+2=5 would not be an answer.
I can see we’re at the point of the conversation where you have no where else to go and just place yourself on auto repeat so unless you have something new to say… have a good day I guess…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Is the N word applicable to all blacks?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
It's also true that this "white supremacist" racial slur is essentially an attack on white groups in general,
No, it’s an attack on white people who hold racist attitudes. HUGE difference.
Calling someone out on their racism is not racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You can try to cloak it in 'it's a lactose intolerance issue', but it's effectively a Chinese issue.
No, it’s a general health issue. The fact that one particular race suffers more than others from a condition does not make any policy aimed at treating that condition a “racial policy”.
Once again, government policy is proactive. It sets the standards for how people will be treated in various situations as well as what we can and cannot do. Race plays no role in that discussion. If it turned out that Chinese people are more lactose then they’re the ones who will end up getting the most treatment. That’s the result of the policy, not the policy itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Simply put, ending the life of another human unjustly is wrong because you that person is an image-bearer of God.
Until you can demonstrate that a God exists this argument is irrelevant. Do you have an argument against abortion not based in your religious faith?
God cannot "nullify" sin because a just God cannot let sin go unpunished.
If he’s all powerful then he can do whatever he wants.
And I thought God was supposed to be merciful? Whatever happened to that?
And you still haven’t addressed the point here… why is it wrong to sin? Wrong says who? The same God who is not responsible for what happens to us when we sin (according to him)?
But why is God obligated to create a reality in which people don't sin?
I never argued that God was obligated to do anything. You are making the claim that God is not responsible for whatever happens to us as a result of our sins while disregarding the fact that God is the one who decided that there would be sin in the first place and is the one holding us to his standards of sin. How are you claiming he is not responsible for what happens within a system that he created?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It's the same responsibility that the sex participants have to a late-stage fetus, an early-stage newborn, a pre-pubescent teen, etc. Namely, don't murder it.
You’re putting the cart before the horse.
Why is murder wrong, and how does the answer to this question apply to an early stage fetus?
God is not culpable for my bad decisions. Do you blame others for your bad decisions?
Well first of all, I don’t consider not believing in something unless there is valid evidence for it to be a bad decision.
But more importantly, you believe God is all powerful and all knowing… therefore not only does he have the power to nullify sin and not only is he the only reason sin is a “problem” in the first place, but it also means he created each of us already knowing what we would do and chose this version of reality over any other he could have picked from. So if he is real then your sin was actually his choice, not yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I would be behind the “don’t talk about it” position if our political culture wasn’t enthusiastically pointing out every single metric of inequality as proof of racism and scapegoating white people as the culprit.
Q1: Do you believe white people are largely responsible for the racial disparity within our society?
Q2: If yes, what do you think the appropriate response would be to the overall majority of white people who refuse to acknowledge this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
With the China example I gave, you can still have lactose products for sale, but clearly they need to indicate that they have lactose, otherwise the majority lactose intolerant population is going to be sick. How would such a policy, based on race, be "arbitrary?"
Because race has nothing to do with it. Even if you can find an established correlation between races on lactose, that still has no place in government policy. The policy would be aimed at *people* who are lactose, not at people who share genetic traits with others who are lactose.
Created: