Total posts: 857
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What do you think of this statistical finding?That it's identifying a culture, not a race.What do you think produces culture?The extraordinarily chaotic system whose general study is known as "history"
You're reversing cause and effect. History isn't creating culture. Culture creates history.
Would you not agree that humans create culture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What do you think of this statistical finding?That it's identifying a culture, not a race.
What do you think produces culture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Fatherlessness is a consistent predictor of violence: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/206316.pdf
My thread OP talks about homicide rates, not specifically violence. Not all violence leads to homicide, therefore these two terms aren't synonymous.
But sure, this study appears to show that fatherlessness correlates with violence, and since murder requires violence, fatherlessness will explain some amount of the murders. As to how many is another question your source doesn't appear to address.
If fatherlessness (and poverty) is "statistically prominent" in their communities, that would be evidence against your bare assertionYou're going to have to explain this better—I'm not sure why crimes being committed by a small number of people means that fatherlessness can't correlate with higher crime. Did you think I was saying that literally every child who grows up without a father becomes a criminal?
You've changed your argument from causation to mere correlation, so my argument here doesn't apply anymore.
Your argument hinges on the reality of police getting less funding, not the mere support of it.People vote, actually, so the two are correlated.
U.S. public opinion actually negatively correlates with U.S. policy (yes, it's shocking). It's the wealthy elite who have the impact on what policy gets passed.
When the wealthy elite and average person support a policy (i.e. over 75% of them support it), it gets passed 49% of the time. When the wealthy elite support something and average people don't (i.e. average people sub 25% approval of the policy), it gets passed 55% of the time (a -6% change when average people supported the policy).
Likewise, when the wealthy elite don't support the policy and neither do average people, it gets passed 29% of the time. When wealthy elites don't support it but the average people do, then it gets passed 24% of the time (a -5% change when the average people supported the policy).
So, you arguing that the public supports less funding actually makes it less likely to manifest in reality.
You can also see that the 0-10 U.S. income percentiles for White people (from the OP) aren't sky high, despite being as poor as the 0-10 Blacks. In fact, none of the divisions had Blacks being as murderous or less murderous than Whites: Blacks were always more murderous.I didn't drop that. I said, "You only accounted for one of those factors," which is still true. I also never said that these factors explain 100% of the discrepancy, but you seem to be repeating that strawman.
You said, "The causes have been known for quite some time. Homicide correlates strongly with poverty and fatherlessness, both of which are more statistically prominent in black communities".
Hence, the way you constructed your sentence implied that you believed there were only two causes.
Poverty is a consistent predictor of crime: https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol07x03TheCauseofCrime.pdf
How much are you claiming? What correlation effect are you referring to?
You also still haven't addressed how race is a better predictor of poverty than crime:
Race is a better predictor of crime than poverty. Whatever effect poverty has on crime (certainly not strongly correlational), race has a bigger effect, so the fact that they are African Americans is more important than the fact they are poor. Someone has already addressed this on this site: Race is a Better Crime Predictor than Poverty (debateart.com) .
Created:
Posted in:
Poor people inherit crime which is very big business in America.Wrong.Poor people sometimes inherit criminal genes that make them commit more crimes. That's why the poor Eastern European countries don't have wild homicide rates. That's why the 0-10 U.S. income percentile Whites don't have sky-high homicide rates. It's not poverty causing the crimes; it's the rubbish genes.[dropped by badger]
Add in guns and you get high murder rates.Why don't U.S. poor White people match the homicide rates of U.S. poor Black people? They are both poor. They both have access to guns. Your unsourced, bare assertions are crumbling.Because the big criminal enterprises in America are a cornered market. Very simple and very obvious. Where one race is poorer than the other, young black men have laid claim to crime. Poor white folk got no bone to shoot each other over. It's interesting actually. Machiavelli might have given it a chapter in "The Prince."
No, Whites with an income percentile of 0-10 are as poor as Blacks with an income percentile of 0-10. In that instance, one race isn't "poorer than the other".
That's "very simple and very obvious".
Try again.
If there was no black people in America, it'd be white people killing each other.Yeah killing each other at far less of a 1/10th of the African American rate. Do you understand why that's a problem? Did you even read the OP?[dropped by badger]
American criminal industry has been something awesome for the last century. What's interesting, I guess, is a crime race has supplanted the crime family. Which is fair enough. They laid claim.Your narrative is wrong because none of your (uncited) arguments are incorrect.It's funny because you made fun of me for citing sources before in another thread, and now studies are sledgehammering you into the ground here with their cold, hard facts.[dropped by badger]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Fatherlessness is a consistent predictor of violence.
Your source doesn't prove your statement. Wrong link?
Also, you failed to respond to this (implying that environment has little effect on crime):
I don't know how you reached your conclusions about fatherlessness (zero citations from you), but the majority of crime is committed by a small number of people. If fatherlessness (and poverty) is "statistically prominent" in their communities, that would be evidence against your bare assertion https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/239dfad4-1f16-419d-b6a5-83a1a169ea78_861x574.png (861×574) (substackcdn.com) taken from When few do great harm - by Inquisitive Bird (substack.com) .
Poverty is a consistent predictor of crime.
Link is broken. Still no evidence to suggest it "correlates strongly".
You also didn't address my counter-argument at all, so I'll post it again:
Race is a better predictor of crime than poverty. Whatever effect poverty has on crime (certainly not strongly correlational), race has a bigger effect, so the fact that they are African Americans is more important than the fact they are poor. Someone has already addressed this on this site: Race is a Better Crime Predictor than Poverty (debateart.com) .
This was also dropped:
You can also see that the 0-10 U.S. income percentiles for White people (from the OP) aren't sky high, despite being as poor as the 0-10 Blacks. In fact, none of the divisions had Blacks being as murderous or less murderous than Whites: Blacks were always more murderous.
Black Americans are more consistently against police funding.
This doesn't actually prove your prior statement as Black Americans being against police funding doesn't mean there is less police funding. Your argument hinges on the reality of police getting less funding, not the mere support of it.
Care to try again?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yeah and guess what "science" uses inference rules with? Data ("all the time").You might be thinking that scientists only draw conclusions from lab experiments. That's wrong. We can infer certain things based only on simple observations, like when Newton witnessed an apple falling to the ground, he elaborated his gravitational theory from that simple fact.
Inferences don't control for all variables, hence relying purely on inferences is unreliable.
That's why we have controlled experiments which allows us to control for as many variables as possible, so that these variables don't interfere with the results.
Observations can spark you to test something, but they should never be the conclusion. Maybe you should have some more "thoughtful observations" about your thoughtful observations.
In the same way, people have long OBSERVED that blacks dominate certain sports because of some physical traits they have. And we were not wrong about that because there is indeed a biological difference that makes blacks better than their white counterparts in sports that involve speed.
Why can't you stop wasting everyone's time trying to suggest observations are sufficient for understanding, when you're going to post studies like this anyway? It's just baffling.
Anyway, the study doesn't actually agree with you (which is a bit funny), "The researchers believe that these differences are not racial, but rather biological". Funnier still is that I don't actually agree with the study on this point (since Western African genes appear to produce more people with a higher center of gravity and longer limbs with smaller circumferences, it appears that the higher center of gravity is somewhat phenotypic), and thus I agree with you.
If your opinions are just a bunch of unsupported bare assertions, then they don't matter.Sorry, but make better arguments or don't bother.No, ma'am, I already told you, my assertions are based on thoughtful observations.What I see, though, is that you are making the same mistake as in DDO, you're using argument traps. This is not honest at all.
Lol.
So, me asking for studies/data for the points you make is an "argument trap". We should just believe whatever you think you observe.
Peak comedy.
Anyway, I'm happy to see studies for the other claims you've made, whenever you want to post them.
Created:
Posted in:
Poor people inherit crime which is very big business in America.
Wrong.
Poor people sometimes inherit criminal genes that make them commit more crimes. That's why the poor Eastern European countries don't have wild homicide rates. That's why the 0-10 U.S. income percentile Whites don't have sky-high homicide rates. It's not poverty causing the crimes; it's the rubbish genes.
Add in guns and you get high murder rates.
Why don't U.S. poor White people match the homicide rates of U.S. poor Black people? They are both poor. They both have access to guns. Your unsourced, bare assertions are crumbling.
If there was no black people in America, it'd be white people killing each other.
Yeah killing each other at far less of a 1/10th of the African American rate. Do you understand why that's a problem? Did you even read the OP?
American criminal industry has been something awesome for the last century. What's interesting, I guess, is a crime race has supplanted the crime family. Which is fair enough. They laid claim.
Your narrative is wrong because none of your (uncited) arguments are incorrect.
It's funny because you made fun of me for citing sources before in another thread, and now studies are sledgehammering you into the ground here with their cold, hard facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
The causes have been known for quite some time. Homicide correlates strongly with poverty and fatherlessness, both of which are more statistically prominent in black communities. Then there's distrust of police going back to the civil rights era, and decreased police funding leads to higher crime.
Wow. Don't overload us with citations/evidence for your claims!
Race is a better predictor of crime than poverty. Whatever effect poverty has on crime (certainly not strongly correlational), race has a bigger effect, so the fact that they are African Americans is more important than the fact they are poor. Someone has already addressed this on this site: Race is a Better Crime Predictor than Poverty (debateart.com) .
You can also see that the 0-10 U.S. income percentiles for White people (from the OP) aren't sky high, despite being as poor as the 0-10 Blacks. In fact, none of the divisions had Blacks being as murderous or less murderous than Whites: Blacks were always more murderous.
I don't know how you reached your conclusions about fatherlessness (zero citations from you), but the majority of crime is committed by a small number of people. If fatherlessness (and poverty) is "statistically prominent" in their communities, that would be evidence against your bare assertion https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/239dfad4-1f16-419d-b6a5-83a1a169ea78_861x574.png (861×574) (substackcdn.com) taken from When few do great harm - by Inquisitive Bird (substack.com) .
Created:
Posted in:
African Americans, from the bottom half of the American income distribution, have had worse homicide rates than any other country in the world.
Crunching the numbers, we can see that some of the worst homicide rates (per 100,000) worldwide range from 20.8 (Dominica, 2020) to the 49.3 (Virgin Islands, 2012) FuF7chEWIAAb0ux (844×592) (twimg.com) . Most of the countries listed here are from South America, Carribean and (a few) being from Africa. South America and the Carribean are the most violent today, whereas Africa has been so in the past but appears to have improved (if African data is to be trusted, which is debatable: FuGF-N6WYA8dHjI (712×811) (twimg.com) ) FuF8yp1WAAMvQCg (850×620) (twimg.com) .
For African Americans of the 0-10 income distribution decile, their homicide rate has ranged from 86.1-117.0 homicides per 100,000, making them on average twice as bad as the worst country (Virgin Islands 49.3). The 10-25 percentiles ranged from 48.1-63.9, again making them on average worse than the worst country. Even the 25-50 percentiles ranged from 39.8-65.2, still average higher than the worst country, thus proving that at least the bottom half of African Americans, in terms of U.S. income distribution, have greater homicide rates than the worst country in the world. FuF7cgzXoAIV0nR (660×413) (twimg.com) taken from Unequal Incomes, Unequal Outcomes? Economic Inequality and Measures of Well-Being (newyorkfed.org)
What do you think of this statistical finding?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Wouldn't a woman marry a guy they have already tested then? I understand an unmarried guy being tested like this, but why a married guy? Hasn't the woman already tested and selected him? I don't understand. I wouldn't do that.You wouldn't even know you were doing it Kaitlyn [...] I have no doubt you are not your average girl and that you can take a different strategy to make your man feel like he is a source of security for you, but you need that feeling as well.
I agree that women will test men like this, but I don't think a well-adjusted woman is going to constantly test her man after she's selected him for marriage. The time for testing him like this is when you're on a date or before you're married (to see if he can handle adversity, other whether he's going to fold under pressure). If she's still not sure of him after she marries him, then that's the woman's fault and she's showing that she isn't well-adjusted. Even if she doesn't feel secure, it's not okay to screw your man around like that after you've married him. That's when a woman should look within herself and think about why she doesn't feel secure, rather than projecting that insecurity onto others in the form of a test. Just because you feel like doing something, that isn't necessarily a good reason to do it, especially if it harms others.
However, I think there are times wherein a woman would genuinely like her bag held, because she has to do something that requires two hands (e.g. tie her shoelaces), and when a guy says no, he's just being a jerk. That's different from when a woman says, "hold my bag" and there isn't a reason for it.
In any case, I think relationships should be a two-way street wherein you're both doing nice things for each other. The whole point of relationships is to support each other.
Yes, predictive value is very valuable in truth ascertaining. But I don't see how you could that irl with any kind of consistency, at least outside of a proper scientific test.You can test this stuff in real life yourself, by identifying shit tests and seeing whether the relationship appears healthy when the men fail them vs pass them on a regular basis. However, if you dig deep enough the scientific record confirms these theories.One example is that there was a study done with several heterosexual couples. As a test to see what would happen researchers secretly asked the men to stop saying the word "no" to their wife. The women and men on a scale of 1-10 were asked their happiness prior to the study and after.The study was ended early because they found it was destroying relationships. The more the women got their way the shittier they treated their husbands, the more demanding they got. Several couples broke up or began divorce proceedings and the study was ended early due to ethical concerns.Here is the interesting. Prior to the study all women and men were about a 8 in happiness. After the study the happiness of the women went down to about a 7, but the happiness of the men went down to about a 4.Fitness tests need to be passed if a man wants a healthy relationship, and it benefits both parties. Test these theories through your own observation as well. Midwits will call it anecdotal, but if you are seeing if patterns you personally witness verify or debunk your theories than it isn't mere anecdote.
So, you are talking about a study!
Which study is it? I wouldn't mind seeing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
JewishJewish is a religion, not a race
They are both. That's why we have notions like 'non-practicing Jew'. They're still Jewish despite not practicing Judaism.
So, do you think all human races are perfectly the same?Yes. All races are human. Cranial shapes and politics do not vary by race. Nobody, not even you, is born a stupid racist right winger.
Cranial volumetric capacity varies from race to race Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits - ScienceDirect . Craniometry uses the phenotypic traits of racial skulls to determine someone's race (often used in forensic science) Racial variations in different skulls (researchgate.net)
Politics vary by race. The proportion to which a race is individualistic/collectivistic can be accounted for by a great deal of the allele frequencies at A118Gand MAOA-uVNTR gene locations (see Figure 1 and 2) Wayback Machine (archive.org)
I could provide plenty more data/examples for both. All of this proves that divergent human evolution is happened and that humans races exist.
You just have no idea what you are talking about and are completely wrong.
So why don't they have that civil right?For the same reason women are allowed on golf courses. Progress.If non-marginalized groups were allowed to create segregation laws it would be a mechanism to keep marginalized people marginalized.The well off would keep all the good stuff for themselves and leave the crumbs for the marginalized.What good stuff you ask? The good real estate, schools, water, air, police protection, hospitals, sidewalks, streets, power grid etc…
I understand your what you're saying.
White people should have their own segregated spaces in Nigeria, Chad and the Central African Republic, seeing that they are the marginalized minority group there. White people should have good real estate, schools, water, air, police protection, hospitals, sidewalks, streets, power grid etc. White people should be granted quotas to that they have equal representation in Black country parliaments, as well as quotas for all jobs. White people should be granted land in those countries to build White only churches. White people should be able to build White only neighborhoods.
If you disagree with this, you are a bigot and racist supporting Black supremacy.
I think the White only parts of the U.S. should let me in, but this whole thing isn't really about me individually. It's about separating the U.S. into safer, calmer segments that don't want to kill each other.You need to understand that you are a racist and a bigot and there is no amount of pseudoscience that is going to give you cover for your horrible ideas.You are not a white nationalist you are a white supremacistYou are not a race realist you are a racist.And just because you aren’t advocating for violence such as lynchings to enforce your ideology, it doesn’t mean you are not harming people.
You're being very silly. Try to calm down so you can think properly.
Shouldn’t we segregate by sex as well? There’s no question men and women are different, right? And there’s lots of violence between men and women. You said that was a reason to separate the races. Why should men have to share the good schools with women? Especially the graduate schools, business schools, law schools etc…So we need more segregation right? Maybe not by country but certainly within the country. Men should be able to self segregate and exclude women wherever they choose. You know, there was a time in Ireland when women couldn’t go to a pub. Then later, they had separate rooms for them. Ah, the good ole days.
I think men and women should be able to segregate to some degree (e.g. having men's and women's toilets). Of course, men and women need to be not too segregated, otherwise they won't be able to breed with each other.
Women are so inferior physically
Only in relation to some activities, such as sport.
, that conservatives are saying it is a crisis if a handful of transgender students play sports with women because they will dominate the games and take all the records. And these aren’t exactly the strongest men out there. Obviously the brain of a female is different than a male too.
This is all fine.
They are not good at math, or investing.
Do you have any evidence?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Perhaps we (D_R and I) did get off on the wrong foot, but one thing he does that is annoying is his penchant for a lack of attention to detail and reading comprehension issues. His penchant for misinterpreting what you say and coming back at you with something you never said or implied is irritating. He did this to you here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9219/posts/386480 your post #225 you began by correcting him for that very reason.After a while of him doing that over and over one cannot help but feel like you’re just banging your head against the wall. Or beating a dead horse.Well alright.I just didn't think it was fair to lump Double_R with Sidewalker. One is clearly vastly superior to the other, when it comes to arguments, even if they are both flawed.Alright, they shouldn’t have been lumped together. I will give you that. But I would not use the term “superior,” just better than the other at argumentation.
Agreed :)
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Is it possible to have a trophy husband? You know, some pretty boy that doesn't do much but is gorgeous?It happens sometimes with wealthy older women yes.
Yes, that's true. Didn't think about older women.
Also, I don't understand why a woman would be with a guy that they can henpeck into not working a job. It seems to be that you agree the usual case is women select for men with greater status/wealth than they have themselves. So, what would be the point in henpecking a guy into not working, when a part of his attraction is generated through his ability to work?You are dealing with a battle between conscious motivations and subconscious motivations. Part of it is also the case of a self conscious motivation to test a man to see if he is worthy. The subconscious belief is that a real man cannot be henpecked into becoming a beta male.
Wouldn't a woman marry a guy they have already tested then? I understand an unmarried guy being tested like this, but why a married guy? Hasn't the woman already tested and selected him? I don't understand. I wouldn't do that.
I don't see how you know this either, at least from the data.It's from developing theories and testing their predictive value. It's possible that the theories have great predictive value but are incorrect, but the best current way to test the accuracy of a belief is to see if it has predictive value.
Yes, predictive value is very valuable in truth ascertaining. But I don't see how you could that irl with any kind of consistency, at least outside of a proper scientific test.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think wealth is sufficient to attract a mate.You probably watch too many slushy movies.
You think wealth and wealth alone is sufficient to attract a mate?
Have men ever cared about a woman's wealth, let alone only cared about a woman's wealth?
Besides, both men and women are primarily attracted to looks first.There's an element of truth in this statement, but over the past 300000 years, context has obviously changed markedly and intellectual reasoning has modified how we regard our responses to innately inspired behaviour. But for sure, the females would have been attracted to the dominant male. Whereas today we consciously organise society differently and therefore apply alternative criteria to the pairing and mating processes.
Organized societies still produce dominant males, just in a different way to pre-organized societies. The "alternative criteria" doesn't eliminate the testing and selecting of a dominate male.
As for the little 5'0 balding but extremely wealthy hypothetical. I'm sure that he would have no problems attracting a cooperative mate. Slushy concepts such as love would have very little to do with itThough once again it's all about contexts and comparisons. Remove money from the equation and the little chinless bloke wouldn't stand a chance. Just as back in the day he would have long since have been eaten by lions.
I mean we can look at dating data PCJuM9C.png (565×800) (imgur.com) and things like that old ABC show that had those women rate men behind a two-way glass mirror (and the shortest guy wasn't picked under any circumstance, even if he was filthy rich WAW1.2: Do Looks Matter To Women? The TRUTH - YouTube ). Being 5'0 as a man is basically a death sentence in the sexual market.
And that's only data and evidence for 5'0 men, not 5'0 balding men.
You should hear some of my girl friends talk about men like this. It's utterly brutal how 5'0 men are treated. I feel sorry for them because they didn't choose to be that short.
My initial post, wasn't about acquired modern behaviour, but about how modern behaviour is only a conscious modification of the innate programme, and how this relates to modern gender roles compared to primary gender roles.And in this instance, let's not get hung up on modern conscious modifications and approaches to gender. That's a related but separate issue.
I think our conception of "innate programme" is different. For example, you seem to place great emphasis on wealth for men, in regards to attracting a woman. I think wealth is important but physical looks are way more important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That's correct, but I extend this nationalism to other races, too. It's okay to be Black. Black people should have their own spaces. It's okay to be a Black nationalistThat’s very big of you. Which countries do you think would be appropriate to be designated “Black people only”Should the United States let someone like you into our country?
I think Africa should be Black people only. Historical, native ancestry is a good standard for land ownership.
I also think the United States should split the union. I think part of the U.S. should be given to Blacks only.
I think the White only parts of the U.S. should let me in, but this whole thing isn't really about me individually. It's about separating the U.S. into safer, calmer segments that don't want to kill each other.
Hitler tried giving Jews money to leave GermanyInteresting, what race to you believe German Jews to be?
Jewish.
all the human races are perfectly the same?By perfectly the same what do you mean? They all have the same skin color, eye color and hair color?
Those and also the genetics that are below the skin. Do you think cranial shapes cannot be divided racially? Do you think political opinions on freedom of speech are random across the races?
So, do you think all human races are perfectly the same?
So majority/non-marginalized groups do or do not have the "civil right" to be segregated if they want to be?They do not, although I would love to exclude women from my golf club. They play so slow.
So why don't they have that civil right?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Perhaps we (D_R and I) did get off on the wrong foot, but one thing he does that is annoying is his penchant for a lack of attention to detail and reading comprehension issues. His penchant for misinterpreting what you say and coming back at you with something you never said or implied is irritating. He did this to you here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9219/posts/386480 your post #225 you began by correcting him for that very reason.After a while of him doing that over and over one cannot help but feel like you’re just banging your head against the wall. Or beating a dead horse.
Well alright.
I just didn't think it was fair to lump Double_R with Sidewalker. One is clearly vastly superior to the other, when it comes to arguments, even if they are both flawed.
Created:
-->
@timjohnston
Rasmussen did a bad job forming the question and they have been criticized by 538 on this particular poll.
What exactly did they criticize the poll for?
Keep in mind that something like 25% of all respondents (not sorted by race) answered "no" to it's not okay to be white. White people not thinking it's okay to be white is also nutty but it's an insight into the idea that people probably aren't taking this question literally, but the responder probably was engaging in some kind of no-literal interpretation of the question.
Yes, this is true.
There is a breed of White person who is essentially a White person with an out-group preference regarding White people. It's part of a complex virtue-signaling game progressives and some liberals play in order to show how non-racist they are.
I'm not convinced that all people were thinking of a non-literal interpretation. There are people out there who would like to wipe White people off the Earth.
Still, I can't imagine most people answering "no" to the question of "Is it okay to be black?" or some other other racial group of color. Rasmussen, if it cares to be genuine, should rephrase the question and do the poll again.
As a White nationalist, I think it is okay to be Black or any other racial group. I don't support BLM, but I still think Black lives matter. I'm completely able to separate the literal question with a non-literal interpretation.
I talked to some really racially hateful people who wouldn't be okay with others being Black, but that's precisely the type of person who answers "no" to that a question: a racially hateful one.
And yes, of course, anyone can be racist regardless of their skin color. A review of FBI hate crimes shows that black americans not only participate in hate crimes, but that they are over represented relative to their population size. Black people are just people. To think any one race is incapable of racism is itself a racist assumption.
Yes. That's the polling statistic that no one else has talked about in this thread yet, but it's also a worrying one. The counter argument that I encounter is that Black people aren't in power, hence they cannot be racist. But I also mention that Blacks can be in power, particular in parts of Africa wherein there are clear Black majorities and they hold all the powerful positions. I've never had a coherent response to that.
Imagine the backlash if someone were to say 'White people can't be racist'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My friends and I don't have racial animus towards people of different races.You are a self declared white nationalist who doesn’t have racial animus. Ok
That's correct, but I extend this nationalism to other races, too. It's okay to be Black. Black people should have their own spaces. It's okay to be a Black nationalist.
you believe black people a great, but whites and blacks just shouldn’t live together. People of differing races shouldn’t share the same country. You are just a race realist.
I am a race realist, yes. Everything you've said is correct so far.
But you’re a very tolerant person. You’re not saying there should be any bloodshed, just get rid of them.
It's awfully difficult once they're already here, but yes I don't think people of different races can live together peacefully enough.
Hitler tried giving Jews money to leave Germany, and we have clear ideas about how Hitler is perceived in the history books.
For the U.S. specifically, perhaps dividing the union into multiple separate ethnostates would be feasible.
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.[1][2][3][4] Before the mid-20th century, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.
Do you believe that despite evolving in different environment, all the human races are perfectly the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No idea what you are saying is my way of life but if marginalized groups want to be separate, such as an all girls school, that’s fine. It’s when they are forced to segregate it’s a violation of civil rights. Understand dummy?“The graduation ceremonies serve as a “unique form of graduation that offers a more intimate celebration of students' academic journeys,” accorinding the university's website”
So majority/non-marginalized groups do or do not have the "civil right" to be segregated if they want to be?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm curious: when you do look at them, does that happen automatically and you feel tingles? Or does something else occur?If a man is straight, he gets tingles, excitment and desire to get some action.Its not just "breasts = good", but its more like "see breasts = observe other parts of body and imagine lots of sexual activities with that girl".However, I have to add that man isnt pleased by sex alone. In fact, after his orgasm, man loses most of his desire, and doesnt get same feelings when looking at breasts until his desire becomes stronger again.Man is happier before orgasm than after. Silly things, really.
Alright.
Thanks for explaining it to me.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I've been having a discussion with Double_R that is miles above anything I've had with Sidewalker or IWantRooseveltAgain The transgenderism debate (debateart.com) . Double_R is engaging with my points and providing critiques that make sense.
Maybe you got off on the wrong foot with him. I know he's probably Progressive/Libertarian, but I just don't see him being as bad as Sidewalker.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I didn't respond to them because they weren't addressed to me lol.Well that can’t be the reason. You have responded to things I’ve said that weren’t addresses to you lol.
You're attempting to call me out for not responding to something not addressed to me.
Lol.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
For example, there are some guys who attend women's rallies (particularly the bra-burning or slutwalk ones) just so see women's breasts.Yes. Breasts are good to look at.
I'm curious: when you do look at them, does that happen automatically and you feel tingles? Or does something else occur?
Although, in the era of porn and all sort of nonsense, not really sure if seeing breasts alone is good enough.
Desensitization is a real thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We know that transgender people have an increased suicide risk for some reason. We know that this reason is not caused by bullyingSerious question; are you reading the studies you are citing? Here is what your own study said about that:ResultsVictimisation and mental health were key risk factors across the dimension self-harm and suicide identified through all analyses.Which study?(3) Suicidal transgender people also typically don't cite bullying as a reason for their attempts at suicide A systematic review and meta-analysis of victimisation and mental health prevalence among LGBTQ+ young people with experiences of self-harm and suicide | PLOS ONE
Yes, the study does say that, but let's look at the number they used to make that conclusion:
The "suicide attempt" "prevalence rate" was 0.26, meaning that 74% of LGBTQ+ people (not all trans to be fair) did not cite bullying/harassment as a reason for their suicide attempt (Table 3, page 11: A systematic review and meta-analysis of victimisation and mental health prevalence among LGBTQ+ young people with experiences of self-harm and suicide | PLOS ONE ) . Self-harm (0.39) and Suicidal ideation (0.35) prevalence rates were higher, but again do not explain the majority of transgender people's suicide-related activities.
If the issue with transgender people was merely that they were bullied/harassed, we would expect 100%, not sub-50%.
Incorrect.You were the one who failed to respond to my defense of the source The transgenderism debate (debateart.com) (people can see that you never responded after that).Correct, I missed that. My apologies.
Alright. I'll back off.
You're claiming we should treat trans people as mentally ill and one of the studies you cite in support of this claim is the one concluding that trans people are more likely to bully others than to be bullied. But here is an excerpt taken from its conclusion:Programs that promote gender diversity should be implemented in schools and in larger context in the society with the aim of reducing heteronormativity and promoting the acceptance of gender diversity.If the people you are getting your information from conclude the opposite of what you're arguing you've got a pretty weak case.
This is an interesting point.
One of the things I've noticed with some of the research papers I cite is that their data doesn't agree with their conclusions. I think this is partly because anti-transgenderism is frowned upon pretty much as much as discussion of human races (if polling of U.S. college students is anything to go by). There's a personal risk to arguing heterodox beliefs, especially when your name and college are attached to them. A great example of this is Robert Putnam (he's famous enough that you might have heard of him). He'll make graphs and tables that race realists use a lot, but his abstracts and conclusions sometimes totally contradict his data and said race realists!
So, to address your point, I don't agree with the conclusion of the paper because I don't think it follows from the data that is presented. If you still think that is weak, oh well.
The studies don't explicitly say what should be done. They are there to construct the necessary premises and arguments needed to reach my conclusion. None of them by themselves reach the conclusion that transgenderism is a mental illness.And you don't find it odd that with all these professionals out there studying this stuff there is no serious movement within the medication community who agrees with you?
I'm not interested in appeals to authority. Authority used to think that the Earth was flat.
I'm interested in data and interpretation of it. That's how good, logically valid arguments are constructed.
Much as we treat schizophrenics with dignity and respect, we should treat transgender people the same way, despite both of them having mental illnesses.We don't treat schizophrenics with dignity and respect, we treat them like children incapable of making their own decisions. Dignity and compassion are not the same thing.
Well, I respect the fact that they are humans, and thus deserve basic rights. I imagine most people think that, too.
I'm certainly not an expert on schizophrenia, but from what I'm reading, a lot of schizophrenics seem to be able to live normal lives 10 Facts You Should Know About Schizophrenia | Mental Floss . Would you not consider that dignified?
you've claimed that they're the most socially ostracized group. That was unsupported by any data.It's supported by your own studies. We've been talking for days about how they get bullied more than any other group.
Oh come on. What happened was this:
(1) You made this claim "Trans people are the most ridiculed and least welcomed people in our society." It came from this post #175 and was uncited The transgenderism debate (debateart.com)
(2) In post #287 I cited a study here The transgenderism debate (debateart.com)
We only had some data to establish that they were the most bullied in post #287. You were making a lot of unsupported claims until then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Conservative people are actually more likely to be married and have families.Maybe he meant for you to get a female husband as he may be a male wife.
That's actually disgusting.
It's even more disgusting that he might have meant it like that.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Does any other species behave in the same way to an unclothed body.
Not that I'm aware of, but no other species is advanced as humans, either.
If everyone is too distracted with sex and the thought of it, no work will get done.
For sure, naked people have become a distraction, but only because we have been brainwashed into thinking that they are a distraction.
Sexual drives are innate. You could put a man/woman in complete isolation and they'd still want to do it. This is basic human biology.
Such is one drawback of overthink I suppose.And also the drawback of elaborately overthought recreational sex.
I don't agree with any of your take at all.
There's a real cost to sex to the individual, be it emotional/physical. Recreational sex is a product of women's sexual liberation. It's not natural and civilizations weren't built off it, so there's a cost to civilizations, too.
I'm probably not highlighting how severely dangerous your idea is; degeneracy erodes civilizations until there is nothing but debauchery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yeah, I do. I don't have racist pals,You’re a self declared white nationalist, a racist, and you want people to believe your friends aren’t racist too?
My friends and I don't have racial animus towards people of different races.
I don't think there is a point in responding to him on this topic anymore.Do yourself a favor Kaitlyn, get off this chat site and go find yourself a husband before it’s too late and you end up all alone with no children like most of the conservative losers on this site.
Conservative people are actually more likely to be married and have families.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That's actually true. Thanks for trying to guess my bra size, like I predicted you would.I did? What size did I guess?
You guessed that it was small.
Now we just need you to guess my underwear color,You wear underwear? What do your racist pals think about that?
Yeah, I do. I don't have racist pals, but even if I did, I wouldn't be showing them my underwear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
There we go. I knew it was a matter of time.Now we just need the underwear color guess to make my prediction come true.You shouldn’t measure your worth by your bra size Kaitlyn, even if that’s what the men in your life do.
That's actually true. Thanks for trying to guess my bra size, like I predicted you would.
Now we just need you to guess my underwear color, in order for my other prediction to be right. It's only one color today, so you've got a good chance of being right.
Obsessing" = asking someone one time?You have mentioned your weight several times since you offered your height and weight here on this site.
I've only mentioned it after you brought it up. I think since you keep brining it up, perhaps you're the one obsessed with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wanting to know the opinion of others demonstrates low self-esteem?Obsessing over what strangers think about your weight does demonstrate low self esteem, yes.
"Obsessing" = asking someone one time?
Really?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
asked for my bra sizeOh no, are you flat chested too?
There we go. I knew it was a matter of time.
Now we just need the underwear color guess to make my prediction come true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That is true. I'm a bit surprised that he or one of the other simps haven't asked for my bra size or underwear color yet. I guess I'm lucky so far.You are aware you are encouraging the support of a creepy substitute teacher who has never kissed a girl and lives in his mother’s house, right?
Are you aware that you've provided zero evidence to support these accusations?
We were talking about false accusations in the other thread, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What's wrong with it?Hey, that’s something you have to come to terms with on your own. The fact you want to know why I think your weight is a negative shows how little self esteem you have.
Wanting to know the opinion of others demonstrates low self-esteem?
Really?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He has the hots for me. I can't blame him :)I wouldn't be flattered. There's no shortage of simps on the web.
That is true. I'm a bit surprised that he or one of the other simps haven't asked for my bra size or underwear color yet. I guess I'm lucky so far.
(all 142 lbs of you)I can only guess how small a man would be to be threatened by 140 pounds of anything.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure most men are heavier than that. I guess that says a lot about his manhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I think he's using it as an excuse to guess my age.He has the hots for me. I can't blame him :)It’s so cute how Grey Parrot tries to support you (all 142 lbs of you) and you welcome his support as you feel overwhelmed by me.
Okay, let's talk about my weight now.
What's wrong with it?
Created:
Posted in:
Roosevelt won't address all of my argument I made here The transgenderism debate (debateart.com) .
I don't think there is a point in responding to him on this topic anymore.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Best Korea says women are inferior to men. What do you think of that Kaitlyn? You didn’t respond to my earlier post on his ideas.
I didn't respond to them because they weren't addressed to me lol.
I don't like Best Korea's take then. I'm not sure what you were expecting me to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
MSNBC Fanchick has no idea about anything women want or experience with all that nonsense talk.Pretty sure there is a huge area between teenager and "past the prime"(except for pedophiliacs, jus sayin)
I think he's using it as an excuse to guess my age.
He has the hots for me. I can't blame him :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Are you going to address the rest of my argument, or will you simply concede it?Your assertions about the brains of transgender people?“Falling within the aegis of the neurohormonal theory of sex differences, we hypoth- esize that cortical differences between homosexual MtFs and FtMs and male and female controls are due to differently timed cortical thinning in different regions for each group. Cross-sex hormone studies have reported marked effects of the treatment on MtF and FtM brains. Their results are used to discuss the early postmortem histological studies of the MtF brain”First tell mean what this paragraph above means in your own words
No. I don't need to do that to have my argument be shown as correct.
Either address my argument or concede it.
Created:
It's not necessarily that this woman is malicious, although if her accusation is proven to be false, then she would be.
It's anyone who thinks accusation = guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What exactly are you talking about? I have an idea, but I'd like to know exactly.We had this conversation a few days ago. I speculated you have no children because, I mean, what guy would want to start a family with a moron. You replied you have plenty of time. I responded, you don’t have as much time as you think, because women have a small window of being desirable as a mate. Get it?
No, doofus. I asked what *exactly* are you talking about? What age do you think women "expire" at? What age do you think I am? What do you think happens to women when they "expire?"
Risks are lowered but not eliminated -- that's my point.Well even if that simply isn’t just you backpedaling after citing a source that doesn’t support your ideas, it’s still stupid.
There's no backpedaling. This has been my argument all along. You can read the entire thread, if you think I've been inconsistent anywhere with this.
Lowering risk =/= elimination of risk. There is no contradiction; the source supports my argument.
Again, are you going to address the rest of my argument?
Should cancer patients not use chemotherapy because it’s not guaranteed to eliminate the risk of cancer? You are a dummy Kaitlyn
Cancer is an already verified reality. Transgender notions involving being in the wrong biological body are not. Hence, we are attempting to discover whether transgender's mental malaise is a product of merely not being able to become their preferred biological sex, or whether they remain mentally unwell *after* all appeasement to accommodate their will to transition. As my argument showed (of which you've mostly unaddressed), it's the latter which is true.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You shouldn't allow the criminal justice system to become a weapon of the malicious.What makes you think this woman, E Jean Carrol, is being malicious in her accusation?
It's not necessary this woman who is malicious, although if her accusation is proven to be false, then she would be.
It's anyone who thinks accusation = guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I'm not a teenager, btw.Oh, so you are rapidly approaching your expiration date.
What exactly are you talking about? I have an idea, but I'd like to know exactly.
More unverified rubbish.That the language you speak
You didn't make any sense here.
Try again.
I'm not as well versed on homosexuality. I think transgender people are basically homosexuals with a mental illness, but I'm not sure whether homosexuality is a mental illness in itself.You are not well versed in either subject toots.Did you read the study you cited? The abstract contradicts what you think the study say.Overall, utilization of transition-related medical care was associated with significantly lower estimated odds of suicidal ideation, binge drinking, and non-injection drug use. Findings suggest that utilization of transition-related medical care may reduce risk for mental health problems, especially suicidal ideation, and substance use among transwomen.
Risks are lowered but not eliminated -- that's my point. The fact that transgender people still have an elevated chance of suicide, even after trans-surgery, indicates that there is something else wrong with them.
Are you going to address the rest of my argument, or will you simply concede it?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is why we have the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' in any functional criminal justice system. Mere accusation isn't sufficient to warrant conviction, and allowing accusation to have such enormous power leads to people making false accusations to shut-down people they don't like.
You shouldn't allow the criminal justice system to become a weapon of the malicious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
[Best.Korea's words]No. I have issues with people thinking women are equal or above men, when they are not.Yeah, screaming is wrong. But its not like you can talk to a woman without screaming at her. Being nice to women is a path to failure.[Roosevelt's words] Ha, see Kaitlyn, this is how conservatives think. And you’re a conservative, lol[Best.Korea's words] No. This is how I think. Most conservatives would disagree, I believe.
F in the chat for Roosevelt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I think Grey Parrot has a thing for you. He’s always coming to your defense. He’s a creepy substitute teacher who has never kissed a girl and lives with his mother. He tries to hang out with teenagers by buying them alcohol.
More unverified rubbish.
I'm not a teenager, btw.
Stupid ideas include white nationalism and calling transgender people mentally ill
I could hardly disagree with your argument, given that you've provided the extensive data/evidence to irrefutably make this claim.
You really are a worthwhile contributor to this site.
Do you think gay people are also mentally ill?
I'm not as well versed on homosexuality. I think transgender people are basically homosexuals with a mental illness, but I'm not sure whether homosexuality is a mental illness in itself.
I care because it enables their delusion, of which is a product of mental illness. Yeah, it's scientifically backed. It's remarkable when the science agrees with your worldview.Gender dysphoria is a term that describes a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. This sense of unease or dissatisfaction may be so intense it can lead to depression and anxiety and have a harmful impact on daily life.
I've already addressed this point with Double_R, but basically this unease (1) doesn't go away when physical surgery is undertaken (suicide rates remain above the normal population, and (2) transgender people do not have the brain of the opposite biological sex. Therefore, (C) this unease isn't supported by reality (suggesting that it's caused by something else). Here are the full arguments:
Transgender surgeries do not remove the increased suicide chance
(1) You've claimed that we should support the gender expression of transgender people. Let's see what happens when we appease transgender people's wish to undergo genitalia altering surgeries.
(2) Transitioners in San Francisco (a super-pro trans area) still had the elevated chance of suicide relative to the general population, despite the various surgeries 11524_2014_Article_9921.pdf (nih.gov)
(3) Other studies from other areas have the same conclusion Intervenable factors associated with suicide risk in transgender persons: a respondent driven sampling study in Ontario, Canada (biomedcentral.com) LGBT-2017-0011-ver9-Zeluf_3P 180..190 (nih.gov) Factors Associated with Suicidality Among a National Sample of Transgender Veterans - PubMed (nih.gov) The Effects of Hormonal Gender Affirmation Treatment on Mental Health in Female-to-Male Transsexuals: Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health: Vol 15, No 3 (tandfonline.com)
(3) There is even a high quality study that found transitioning increased the risk of suicide Trans-GNC-Suicide-Attempts-Jan-2014.pdf (ucla.edu) . Similar studies found the increase in suicide as well Suicidal ideation and attempted suicide amongst Chinese transgender persons: National population study - PubMed (nih.gov) LGBT-2013-0048-ver9-Rood_3P 270..275 (nih.gov)
(C) Therefore, the evidence suggests we should not support transgender people in getting surgeries related to their gender dysphoria
Transgender people do not have brains of the opposite sex (i.e. transgender born a male = mostly male brain)
(1) Some pro-trans people will claim that transgender brains resemble the opposite biological sex (I don't think you made this claim, but it will make my case)
(2) A study found that while some regions of a transgender brain may resemble the opposite biological sex they were born into, the brain is mostly the same biological sex's A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism (nih.gov) Same result was found when brain imaging was used Structural, Functional, and Metabolic Brain Differences as a Function of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation: A Systematic Review of the Human Neuroimaging Literature (springer.com)
(3) Both studies noted that transgender people's brains were basically always homosexual, hence the pockets of the brain that were the opposite biological sex
(C) Therefore, transgenderism is caused by things unrelated to the opposite gender nature of the brain
Created:
I love my girlfriend very much though. She's a sweetheart.
You love her so much you'll turn your sweetheart into a bleedheart.
You are criminally underrated.
Created:
Still beats providing girlfriend experience for incels on the internet. There's a reality in there for one of us.
Yes, you are an expert on beatings, hence your criminal record.
I suspect your "Italian girlfriend" will soon become an expert in beatings, too, but she'll get there in a different way.
Created:
Oh in that case I actually have the sister poll of this poll where the particulars of these women's circumstances are probed into. Let me dig that out for you.
The only kind of sister you have is the one you "poll" regularly in your drunken Irish confusion.
Sorry, your "Italian girlfriend".
Didn't mean to tell the truth there.
Created:
Based on other data you've found? Polling results?I'm asking because I don't know myself.You're asking a question about women in poll, the particulars of whose circumstances we know nothing.Repeat poll the women. All the rest of us can do is guess. I provided my guess.
You might have access to data that I don't know, which could break down the categories and help to elucidate the situation.
I don't know what you know until I ask.
Created: