Total posts: 857
-->
@Greyparrot
It's time to turn off legacy news, regardless of your political alignment.The guy is a die hard MSNBC fanchick.
Ah okay.
Thank you for calling him a fanchick, too. The feminine vibes I get from Roosevelt's posts deserved to be recognized.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It's time to turn off legacy news, regardless of your political alignment.And how to you stay informed?
Informed about what exactly?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Tucker Carlson is gone without even being allowed to say goodbye to the Wack Jobs that were his audience.
Like all of legacy media, Tucker Carlson is a serial liar whose lies ranged from distortion of the truth to pure lies that had nothing to do with reality.
It's time to turn off legacy news, regardless of your political alignment.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Try pretending to take her nonsense seriously, the poor thing is utterly desperate to be taken seriously.When she is defeating your arguments why wouldn't you take her seriously?Seriously why are my rebuttals (somebody who agrees with her), better than your rebuttals to her arguments?
Their inability to respond with anything but Ad Hominem or irrelevancies indicates how good my arguments are. Watching people fail to address my arguments properly is quite satisfying.
They can hide behind trolling and sarcasm all they want, but in the deeper recesses of their mind they know my arguments are better and that worries them.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
She is a female thoughYeah, thats bad. Females dont belong in the rainbow 🌈
Awww.
Can't I wear rainbow clothing?
;*(
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am female lol. I've also learned the hard way about posting too much personal information online, so I won't be repeating that mistake anytime soon.Sorry if any of these psychos tracked you down.
Not yet, but they've come close. I've learned my lesson.
There is something about you that draws me in. It is very unusual. I have never felt that way about someone I have never met before and very rarely for people I have met. It's not important though, it's likely an immature feeling. I wish you well and am just happy when I see you active in the community.
Thank you. You're very kind :)
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I mean sure, the sideliners rooting for violence are cowards and morally in the wrong, but they still haven't hit anyone. I'd like to try and minimize the violence to only necessary violence.That's why violence is best left to young men with no criminal history. You know how many minorities Mark Wahlberg fucked up?You get it over with by the time you are 22, know you fought well against the fall of civilization and then do other things to fight when you get older that are legal.
No, I don't agree with any of this at all.
I don't want innocent individuals, regardless of color or gender, getting smashed by some people with genuine racial hatred for them (which is what Mark Wahlberg seemed to do). Those individuals are mostly going about their daily lives, trying to eek out an existence in this world. I don't agree with young White men going around bashing random ethnics.
The whole point of me making arguments for White nationalism is to avoid people getting violent together. I don't think different races can co-exist together, hence the need for White nationalism (and other colors of nationalism, too). I want different race and cultures to be separate, so they stop hurting and killing each other.
Now, if someone attacks me first, I've got no issue in being violent in self-defense. I've got no issue in voting yes on a death penalty for serious crimes, either.
Violence should always be avoided if possible and used only as a last resort, but it's sometimes not possible.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You're getting Kaitlyn wet.I hope so. I have a huge crush on her tbh, but it's not reciprocated. I am not even sure if she is actually a female so 50/50 chance I am gay.
I am female lol. I've also learned the hard way about posting too much personal information online, so I won't be repeating that mistake anytime soon.
I think there are ways around these paywalls like public libraries often let you past them for free. There may be sites that collect the data as well which are borderline illegal. Worth looking into
Yes, worth looking into, but probably not for this data collection point.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Yes. The right to self-defense is inalienable. If they attack you first, especially over a speech, you have every right to neutralize that threat.Just allow cowards who sit on the sidelines rooting for the people willing to get their hands dirty, get away with it?Those people approve of violence even if they don't engage in it. Why would you only consider them fair game when they hit first?
You're going to get into a whole lot of legal trouble by hitting people who don't hit you first (or significantly threaten to do so).
I mean sure, the sideliners rooting for violence are cowards and morally in the wrong, but they still haven't hit anyone. I'd like to try and minimize the violence to only necessary violence.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
So, the polling data was taken either through the phone or via an online survey (or both??), I'm just not sure how you know which one.The reason I think it was a telephone poll is because I read about 20 articles by respected publications before commenting on this thread. People who were willing to pay the pay wall or get around it I guess and they seemed to indicate it was a phone survey
Well okay. It's a shame they don't make it clearer. People aren't paying just to know if they used phones or a survey.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It's just we want people thinking critically in this thread).You think criticising black people is "thinking critically" LOL.
So you're saying that if we want critical thought, Black people can't be criticized? Black people are above criticism, huh? You seriously stand by that?
Also, we're all still waiting for you to address the four scientific facts that showed human races exist, since you were so confident that human races don't exist: Is it okay to be White? A lot of Black Americans don't think so (debateart.com) .
You're getting Kaitlyn wet.
No, my shower does that.
Creepy comment though...
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Anyone who opposed far right and Islamic violence against these people should look at the fact, they themselves are fine with engaging in violence despite being physically weaker in general.
Yes, that's all completely true. The data supports it completely.
They are just asking to engage on those. Grounds and being rewarded with what they want.
Yes. The right to self-defense is inalienable. If they attack you first, especially over a speech, you have every right to neutralize that threat.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Firstly, I don't think we should be calling them that word. There is no use or need to unnecessarily antagonize African Americans.I have had sex with black chick in the past as I have explained in other posts, I get a pass.My use of crude language wasn't accidental. If you hear a pollster ask "How do you feel about the phrase "it is okay to be white" you will probably have a more emotional response than other questions.Let's be honest they asked how do you feel about that phrase as opposed to asking how do you feel about white people, because they already intuited it would get a more favorable response that they were looking for.The Crude language was meant to pull at you emotionally. Even most self proclaimed white nationalist cringe when they see. Or hear the word nigger. A statement like "It's okay to be white" where trolls have also left images of. Swastikas and other hateful material around could evoke an emotional response.
Okay I can see you're playing 3D chess and kinda joking around, but it's just not a good look, even if freedom of speech allows you to say it. Lots of people are going to see the n word and immediately think 'white supremacist' or 'racist', and that will be the end of critical thought (which was the effect you were trying to convey. It's just we want people thinking critically in this thread). It's just too radical a word for a hill I'm not even sure is worth dying on.
You could have said a whole host of other things to get an emotional reaction out of me, if that was what you were after. You didn't have to n bomb and lose some of the people reading this thread.
People are less likely to be perfectly rational when they are emotional. You are a woman, so you understand this. Men are taught to suppress their emotions, but women generally don't get the same pressureIf I get you emotional and ask you a question, you will answer differently depending on how you feel. If you are mad at your significant other, you may yell that you hate his guts, if I give you an orgasm you might scream that you love me.Your most logical and honest answer will not be when I make you horny or angry. It will be when you are in an unemotional state.The statement due to the media attention that surrounds it, evokes an emotional response where answers are more likely out of anger.
This line of argument made me realize something...
I think it's easier to get the truth out of people when they're more emotional, not less. Perhaps not horny, but certainly angry. It's obviously harder for people to think straight when they're emotional, but the platitudes and filtering of their words usually goes away.
If anything, the pollsters should be trying to agitate the respondents, in order for a better shot at the truth (not that the results are full of lies anyway). Hell, get the respondents drunk as well so they become impulsive and unable to filter their words, as long as they're not too drunk to function.
Anonymous, angry and drunk -- that actually is probably better than the opposite.
Why did 50% answer in a way that seems less racist?Well I believe this was a phone poll, so most likely an older demographic that isn't terminally online meaning those 50% perhaps have not heard the phrase, perhaps that 50% is more rational and in control of their emotions than the rest.The 27% are perhaps mostly from a younger demographic or seen posters with swastikas nearby in their neighborhood or something that made them emotional before responding. Maybe only half of that 27% is racist. The unsure ones, given it is a phone poll I could see myself landing on that listPollster calling me on my lunch break:"What do you feel about the phrase It's okay to be white"Realistic response by me on the phone"I don't know man, like I don't give a shit about the phrase"Pollster checks box next to unsure
The link to the actual study is paywalled, so I can't see specifically how they conducted the poll.
However, if Wikipedia is to be trust, they say about Rasmussen, "Surveys by the company are conducted using a combination of automated public opinion polling involving pre-recorded telephone inquiries and an online survey". Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia
So, the polling data was taken either through the phone or via an online survey (or both??), I'm just not sure how you know which one.
The poll doesn't mean as much as the polls using more neutral language which are also available.Now if they asked me"Scale of 1 to 10, how much do you like black people"I would probably be like "I don't know 5, unless I just finished watching rocky then it's like 3, "
I think the questions were neutral enough, but we've already been through that.
Created:
Some people are far more likely to be violent than others, at least according to a recent 2023 study commissioned by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), but conducted by College Pulse. The sample size was enormous at roughly 45,000.
Some of the results will surprise you!
Is it okay to use violence to stop a campus speech?
One of the most explosive findings was that Agender people, in response to this prompt: "How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker? Using violence to stop a campus speech," the results showed that roughly 64% of them said it was at least "rarely" acceptable FuS_QjOXgAIuJZO (1176×870) (twimg.com) , whilst 38% of them said it was at least "sometimes" acceptable, and 8% saying always -- scary! FtEWsUoaUAAU65t (911×611) (twimg.com) . This places them a top of any group as being the most prone to violence over a campus speech.
Queer/Gender fluid is the next worst category for gender having splits (at least "rarely" 49%, at least "sometimes" 22%, and "always" 4%). Non-binary and unsure gender results were only fractionally better with their splits. It should be noted that sample sizes for these groups were: 1,249 for nonbinary, 810 were genderqueer, and 411 agender.
Both males and females were the gender group least likely to cause violence over a speech, with neither group getting at least a "rarely" response more than 20% of the time, females 3% for "sometimes" and 1% for "always", whilst males were 4% and 2% respectively.
In regards to race, a surprising finding was that Native Hawaiians (at least "rarely" 36% - at least "sometimes"15% - "always" 5%) were the most likely to get violent over a campus speech, with only Middle Easterners being marginally better (35%-15%-4%). Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Mixed races were all roughly the same and significantly less than the previous two, whilst Whites were the least prone to violence (17%-4%-1%).
Super surprisingly, with respect to religion, Buddhists were the most likely to throw hands over speech on campus (30%-10%-2%). Atheists were 2nd (24%-6%-1%). Christians were least likely (11%-3%-1%).
"Something else" was the most likely political category to be violent (29%-7%-2%). Strong Democrats were 2nd (24%-7%-2%). "Independent, lean Republican was the least likely (11%-3%-1% -- exactly the same as Christians).
For the "field of study", African/Afr-American Studies (56%-31%-10%) Ethnicity and Race studies (52%-18%-1%) people were easily the most prone to violence. Real Estate was the least prone to violence and the lowest group out of anything I saw (4%-1%-1%). Jewish Studies should also get a mention (8%-8%-0%).
(use this resource to play around with the data for all above categories) --> 2022 College Free Speech Rankings Data | Tableau Public
Other important questions from the study relating to interference with speeches
Among many other statements, two other interesting statements were given to the students to evaluate how acceptable they are (1) "Block other students from attending a campus speech", and (2) "Shouting down a speaker or trying to prevent them from speaking on campus".
Agender (72%-41%-12%) and Non-binary (65%-33%-6%) were the 1st and 2nd worst genders for answering statement (1), with Non-binary (87%-64%-17%) and Agender (81%-55%-15%) switching places for statement (2). Males were least likely for (1) (33%-11%-3%) and (2) (58%-26%-6%).
Middle Easterners were again the least tolerant race for (1) (47%-22%-5%) and (2) (68%-37%-7%). Whites were the most tolerant for (1) (34%-10%-2%), but "other" was most tolerant for (2) (56%-27%-5%).
For religion, Agnostic (46%-15%-2%), Atheists (44%-15%-2%) and Buddhists (45%-18%-3%) were all about 1st for (1), whilst only Atheists (73%-43%-10%) and Agnostics (75%-41%-7%) were the worst for (2). Christians most tolerant for (1) (29%-9%-1%), and Orthodox Christian for (2) (55%-25%-4%).
Strong Democrats were the worst for (1) (49%-19%-3%) and (2) (77%-47%-9%). Independent, lean Republican were the best for (1) (20%-4%-1%), and Strong Republican was best for (2) (37%-13%-3%).
Field of Studies had African/Afr-American Studies (61%-32%-12%), Ethnicity Studies (61%-28%-6%), and Women's and Gender Studies (and Sexuality) (59%-25%-5%) were the worst for (1), whilst Jewish Studies took the cake for (2) (92%-37%-0%). Ethnicity and Race Studies should get a mention, too (83%-70%-22%). Robotics and Intelligent Systems were the best for (1) (13%-0%-0%), whilst European Cultural Studies were the best for (2) (18%-0%-0%).
What to make of all these statistics?
Anyone who doesn't identity as a man or woman is likely to be against genuine freedom of speech, with the mythical agender and non-binary people the most prone to violence of any groups. Middle Easterners are not quite as bad as the mythical genders, but they certainly don't seem to support freedom of speech either, and thus are the most troublesome race. Whites seem to support freedom of speech the most and are the least likely to be violent over it. Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and Strong Democrats are somewhat intolerant, but not as prone to violence as Middle Easterners or the mythical genders. Christians are the most tolerant in all regards. African/Afr-American Studies and Ethnicity Studies people are almost as violent as the mythical genders but won't engage in other disrupting tactics as much (but they are still the worst from any field of study). Real Estate study people were the least violent of any group.
Another interesting recurring theme I found was that Asians were slightly more intolerant of freedom of speech than Blacks, even in regards to violence.
Finally, the worst college for freedom of speech, in accordance with the study's "2022 College Free Speech Rankings," was Columbia University by some margin, garnering an "abysmal" rating of 9.91 (the only "abysmal" rating out of 203 campuses) 2022 College Free Speech Rankings | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Republicans think that giving money to rich people causes them to work more, and giving money to poor people causes them to work less.
We don't need to know what Republicans think, in order to reach a reasonable conclusion about the OP's claim. This is an irrelevant tangent.
Instead, we should focus on deciphering and synthesizing the results of various studies, in order to reach a coherent, informed conclusion.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
As a white nationalist you should know that niggers have an average IQ of 85 at best. This means they are likely not capable of having your ability to effectively use logic. They instead may have an emotional response that made them give a response that doesn't accurately portray how they feel about honkeys.
Firstly, I don't think we should be calling them that word. There is no use or need to unnecessarily antagonize African Americans.
Secondly, whilst African American's I.Q. is on average 85, that doesn't mean they cannot comprehend the distinction between a statement and a movement. I haven't seen any evidence to say that they cannot, therefore I won't believe that they cannot.
Your own arguments about their impulsivity and and low IQ should inform you that they are more likely to have an emotional response to questions about how they feel about the phrase, and remember they were asked how they feel about the phrase, not how they feel about crackers
Impulsivity and comprehension are not interchangeable terms, and we can even see this reflected in the polling data. *If* African Americans were incapable of comprehending the distinction between a statement and a movement, how come "It's okay to be white" was agreed with 53% of the African American respondents? Unless you think they're all guessing or randomly voting on the poll, at least some African Americans are capable of understanding the distinction, and there is no reason to think that the others are not.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The correct response is to point out that the pollsters asked about 100 African Americans the following question.
The Black respondents represented 13% out of the 1000 respondents (so 130), which actually slightly over-represents the U.S. national average of around 12.1% (2020 U.S. census data Race and ethnicity in the United States - Wikipedia ).
In terms of raw numbers that we can confirm don't think it's okay to be White, it's only 130. In terms of finding a representative sample that almost exactly matches the U.S. population demographics, it's remarkably close.
Do you agree with the phrase "It's okay to be white"They didn't ask respondents if it was okay to be white, but basically how they feel about a phrase that the media has spun as a dog whistle for white supremacists.
I don't think this caveat is valid excuse for the racial hatred exhibited in the poll.
Remember, the poll question was as follows, "1* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”" Questions - Okay To Be White - February 13-15, 2023 - Rasmussen Reports® . The poll specifically asks if the respondent agrees with the statement, not the movement that is apparently associated with it.
As a White nationalist, I'm completely capable of agreeing with the statement that 'Black lives matter', despite me see the movement of Black Lives Matter as a Black supremacist movement that shouldn't be supported. I can separate the statement from the movement with ease, as should everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The main problem with UBI as opposed to charity is that UBI pays for more than just basic needs and pays money to everyone...It is good to give poor people food, water, clothes and house. However, giving them too much money? Probably a bit bad idea.
The studies show that conditional UBI for poor people in developed countries seems to help them out in regards to employment. It can pay for more than just basic needs, hence why the mentoring on investing is needed so that these poor people receiving UBI don't just blow the money on rich people items (which is a typical poor person spending habit).
I guess it is good to be giving mothers the money so they could be raising children instead of working.
The Italian study that tested for this showed giving mothers money had no impact, regardless of whether the money was conditional or not.
Sure, the capitalists are often shitty people and they abuse workers a bit too much, but that doesnt change the idea that unemployment is sometimes a choice and not something an individual is forced into.
That's why the UBI needs to be conditional. None of the studies found unconditional UBI to be positive, and one even found it to be negative. Therefore, I don't think UBI should go to people who are choosing to be unemployed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think telling schizophrenics the voices in their heads are real isn't treating them with basic dignity and respect.No. You cant decide whats real. They arent hurting anyone. Maybe they are trying to be our friends and we make them sad by being mean to them. You dont know how they feel. All they need is love.
Oh, you're right. I can't decide what's real. Schizophrenia isn't a mental illness and the voices in their heads are always trying to be their friends. That's why when schizophrenic head voices tell the schizophrenics to kill people, it's out of love -- a big 59 stab wounds to the torso, face and limbs causing death by loss of blood of 1st degree murder worth of love <3
Likewise, we shouldn't tell transgender people that they are the opposite of the biological sex they were born.Maybe the person has 2 sexes. 1 biological and 1 non-biological. I think both sexes are equally valid. I dont remember reading in biology that person can only have 1 sex at the time. I think the person can have up to 60 sexes at the same time. I dont see why the limit would be just one.
Having one sex at a time is for people who can't think outside of the box.
I think having 60 sexes at once is so 2022. You should really have your simultaneous sex total into the billions, in order to keep up with the fashion.
For example, I have a penis and I can produce sperm, therefore I am male. However, I am also a female because I feel like I have a vagina. I feel like I can get pregnant. Therefore, you should respect my feelings and admit that I am female in my feelings.
If you can feel it, it's true. Being a biological female shouldn't be gatekept by biology.
People just need to listen and believe to people who feel like being women, attack helicopters or wolves.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Oh look, a white supremacist with alternative facts about race, that's not something you see every day.Oh wait, yes it is.Typical intellectual c0ward retort. Can’t refute anything put forth so you drop the libtard “white supremacist” ad hominem. 🙄
100% this.
It's so obviously a massive response failure that when conservatives, moderates or even some lefties see it, they're going to see that I have a significantly superior argument that is all uncontested.
These libtards are useful idiots and I love making use of them <3
They mistake it for being clever too while it's clear enough to the rest of us that it's some lack that's driven them to accrue this whole shitheap of studied obnoxiousness via internet hate browsing.Two of the same peas 🫛 whining about facts they cannot discredit, so out come the ad hominem bombs. Pathetic intellectual cowardice.
True.
I'm not fussy about what type of useful idiot I get. They all provide Ad Hominem slander that makes my arguments look like superstars ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I don't believe in races.Lol.Race is only a social construct, it is not a biological attribute or a category of human genetic variation.You're extremely wrong.Human populations separate throughout history, and thus evolve into physically and genetically distinguishable groups (i.e. "races") due to adapting to different environments and interbreeding. When you say race is "only" a social construct, you are denying that this divergent evolution happened in humans. You're arguing that despite being separated, adapting to different environments and also interbreeding within the group, all of those separated groups of humans ended up *precisely* the same. You really expect us to believe that?Skin color is first determined at birth by genetics/hormones (inherited through your parents). Unless you want to argue that skin color doesn't exist or everyone paints it somehow before they're born (wtf), differing skin colors clearly demonstrates genetic variation as a racial phenotype (i.e. human race).I won't go hard into the science, but there's enough genetic variation within humans to have subspecies (Read Table 2 from this source comparing fst values of humans to other species who do have subspecies): Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications (wordpress.com) ) , and genetic clustedness separates humans into distinct racial groups (even at rather low SNP/loci totals (100-160) with K only being set to 3 -- Asian, African and European): Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership - PMC (nih.gov) .So, hopefully you have a better idea of how extremely wrong your sentence was.Oh look, a white supremacist with alternative facts about race, that's not something you see every day.Oh wait, yes it is.
What an embarrassing response from someone intellectually bankrupt. You must have felt powerless seeing four separate scientific arguments eviscerate your braindead claim that race doesn't exist, and hence had to resort to Ad Hominem to deflect from your intellectual shortcomings.
I love seeing responses like this because it's a white flag of desperate surrender to anyone who was looking for a substantial debate, because you've so obviously failed to address any of the scientific claims I made.
So, thanks for making such a dreadful argument that anyone on the fence about human races existing can clearly see your side has absolutely nothing to combat the science proving race exists. You're converting more people than I ever could :D
Created:
Posted in:
Unconditional income appears to make poor people work less, according to the research I've recently found from developed countries (Spain, Finland and Italy). As the first study I'll cover notes, developing countries are so poor that unconditional income helps things like health, educational outcomes and psychological well-being, so unconditional UBI for them might be okay, but let's have a look at UBI for developed countries.
In a paper published earlier this year (2023), Barcelona's poor people responded negatively to an unconditional UBI (roughly half the minimum wage of Spain) by having the main recipient be 20% less likely to work, whilst the household receiving the income was 14% less likely to have at least one member working. These negative outcomes persisted at least 6 months after the final UBI payment. This result appeared to be softly affected by care responsibilities of the household (i.e. taking care of children, elderly grandparents etc.) The Employment Effects of Generous and Unconditional Cash Support by Timo Verlaat, Federico Todeschini, Xavier Ramos :: SSRN
A study from Finland (Hamalainenet al. 2022) found there to be no employment effects (or "minor at best") after a year wherein unconditional income was given to a randomized group of 2000 people already on welfare benefits (as opposed the Barcelona's UBI which targeted the neighborhoods with lowest mean average income). It should be noted that this UBI handout was coupled with a "lowered participation tax rate [of] 23 percentage points for full-time employment," in other words a massive tax incentive for people to take up full-time work. Removing Welfare Traps: Employment Responses in the Finnish Basic Income Experiment - American Economic Association (aeaweb.org)
A similar Italian study conducted in Turin (Del Boca, D., Pronzato, C., and Sorrenti, G. (2021), directly compared giving conditional basic income to unconditional basic income, but only to households with children. These conditional income recipients were required to attend "mentoring courses regarding job-seeking and reconciliation between work and family tasks". 1500 people, all already eligible for welfare support and receiving it, were randomly split into three groups: (1) ones to be given conditional basic income, (2) one to be given unconditional basic income, and (3) ones who got nothing (control group). The cash transfer amounts to € 2500–3500, about 75 percent of recipients’ yearly labor income. This Italian study found that fathers assigned to the conditional basic income were 14% more likely to be employed than fathers giving unconditional income or the control group (of no income given). Interestingly, there was zero effect on mothers of any group. Conditional cash transfer programs and household labor supply - ScienceDirect
From the three recent studies covered above, we can see that UBI doesn't appear to work at all if it's given unconditionally, even appearing to have a negative effect on aspects of employment. However, if the UBI is given conditionally with recipients being required to attend things like financial or family/work-life balance mentoring, there appear to be some positive results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I know this isn't addressed to me but I think it's a good point that needs to be addressed.
All we're really talking about is how we should handle the fact that there are a lot of people in our society who experience gender dysphoria and many who chose to alter their bodies because if it. I believe we should feel empathy for these people and their struggles, and treat them with basic dignity and respect.
I agree with everything you've said up to here.
If that means addressing a person who was born a man but transitioned as a she then I'm fine with that, who the hell cares?
I care because it enables their delusion, of which is a product of mental illness.
I think telling schizophrenics the voices in their heads are real isn't treating them with basic dignity and respect. Likewise, we shouldn't tell transgender people that they are the opposite of the biological sex they were born. Enabling people's delusions harms them, ESPECIALLY when it's a mental illness producing those delusions.
I know that the left is trying to help transgender people by showing them empathy and treating them with basic dignity and respect, but it's like they're trying to put a fire out with gasoline, in my eyes.
I can't speak for everyone on their rejection of transgenderism, but that's where I'm coming from.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
No, I don't need to provide data or evidence for any point I provide in my arguments since there is something called "logic"
You need to provide data/evidence for the types of arguments you're making. This isn't a philosophy debate wherein providing no data is sometimes fine, because the syllogism, axioms etc. are sometimes the evidence.
You can't just say, "blacks have more sexual stamina" and "blacks are the best in sports", without demonstrating that through data/evidence, because we have no metric to compare between races, hence can't make any conclusions.
You need to provide data/evidence for your arguments, elsewise they are a bunch of bare assertions.
the basic use of inference rules. Science uses it all the time
Yeah and guess what "science" uses inference rules with? Data ("all the time").
And finally, this is not a competition, nobody is here to win a debate (there is a debate board for that), but just to leave OPINIONS
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.
Created:
-->
@Platypi
Traditional superstitions held within the United States became obsolescent for common people sometime between around 160 and 60 years ago. It's pretty normal for someone below the age of retirement not to have formed belief in such notions in the 21st century, and it's not unheard of among the elderly.
You can say all this drivel that anyone can makeup, but the fact is that you're: (1) deny evolution happened in humans, (2) denying skin color is genetic, (3) denying that humans have sufficient genetic variation between groups, despite their fst values matching or being greater than other animals who have sub-species, and (4) SNPs/loci analysis doesn't comfortably fit humans into races, despite doing so at relatively low levels (low SNP/loci; low number of divisions).
I've explained it in terse detail to the other race denier here: Is it okay to be White? A lot of Black Americans don't think so (debateart.com)
Do you think I am hateful or something?
No, I just think that your denial of human races is really stupid.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I'm not interested in Googling your own research for you.You WILL find that MANY members here wish, desire, if not DEMAND that you do their research for THEM!!!
It's not only annoying but logically fallacious. I'm just not going to engage with people if they can't cite their own research, and I'll end the conversation with them pointing that fact out.
Double_R refuses to click on ANY citation you give in support of your argument. He always wants the Cliffnotes version cause he’s too lazy to review an opponents supporting sources. Fact. I speak from experience with this clown.
I personally don't mind summarizing my sources for people. I'm happy to point directly to things, directly quote or even copy-and-paste the table I'm referencing, in order to make it crystal clear what I'm citing.
But if they're expecting me to summarize and cite both my own AND their research, they're not going to like my response.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Okay, this is a lot better and something we can work with.
You still haven't shown specifically how Blacks have the longest penis size, but at a glance, we can see that a lot of African countries are nearer the top of this chart (and it's not too much of a stretch to assume that African countries are majority Black), so it's not an unreasonable to guess to assume that this table is showing that Blacks have the longest penises in the world.
You still should provide data/evidence for your other points noted here Blacks and Hispanics are rather useless when it comes to invention (debateart.com) and also in the rest of the thread, otherwise you don't have the data/evidence necessary to make your arguments.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Racists are stupid.
I agree. I too think the Black Americans who don't think it's okay to be White are stupid.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not believe in anything.
You believe in the meaning of words and my ability to read them, hence why you wrote that sentence.
Easy dunk.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I don't believe in races.Lol.Race is only a social construct, it is not a biological attribute or a category of human genetic variation.
You're extremely wrong.
Human populations separate throughout history, and thus evolve into physically and genetically distinguishable groups (i.e. "races") due to adapting to different environments and interbreeding. When you say race is "only" a social construct, you are denying that this divergent evolution happened in humans. You're arguing that despite being separated, adapting to different environments and also interbreeding within the group, all of those separated groups of humans ended up *precisely* the same. You really expect us to believe that?
Skin color is first determined at birth by genetics/hormones (inherited through your parents). Unless you want to argue that skin color doesn't exist or everyone paints it somehow before they're born (wtf), differing skin colors clearly demonstrates genetic variation as a racial phenotype (i.e. human race).
I won't go hard into the science, but there's enough genetic variation within humans to have subspecies (Read Table 2 from this source comparing fst values of humans to other species who do have subspecies): Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications (wordpress.com) ) , and genetic clustedness separates humans into distinct racial groups (even at rather low SNP/loci totals (100-160) with K only being set to 3 -- Asian, African and European): Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership - PMC (nih.gov) .
So, hopefully you have a better idea of how extremely wrong your sentence was.
Humans races exist whether you "believe" in them or not.Racism exists whether you admit it or not.
Racial hatred exists, yes. I never denied that.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's reasonable to assume that humans exist.
Yes.
Though race is an abstract concept derived from subjective processing in response to varying incoming stimuli. So it's just as reasonable for Platypi to not believe, as it is for you to believe.
You could say that for virtually everything and end up not believing in anything.
You could say that for colors, ice-cream flavors, job titles etc.
This hyper-reductionist 'you can never truly believe in anything; everything is subjective' is a dumb 7th grader argument that should remain in 7th grade.
You do not have the monopoly on thought labelling.
But I appear to have the monopoly on reasonable arguments that 7th graders don't make, at least with you.
Have you read 1984 by George Orwell?
Yes.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You don't need to wear women's clothes to get dominated, though, so you can take those off.Yes Mistress Kaitlyn.
Good boy. Your mother is getting tired of you wearing her clothes. She bought you that doggie collar for a reason.
I'm not into it.Are you sure? It’s definitely the most reliable way you could support yourself based on what I’ve been seeing. You aren’t going to make any money with that wee brain of yours.
I literally have a job right now with my "wee brain" of mine, besides dominating you intellectually on here.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
There we go. Finally got you to admit you were wrong.What color is your face right now? xDJC, you are stupid. The website isn’t tracking self defense incidents and you are a total moron to think they might be.
But you said I could just click on the links to see if they were self defense examples.
I guess you were wrong when you said that.
Or are you done getting dominated?Ooh, are you into that? I may have found something you could be useful for. I’ll set up the John’s for you and take half the money. Deal? What country are you in again?
I'm not into it. You seem to be. I keep correcting most of your points and you seem to be loving it. You don't need to wear women's clothes to get dominated, though, so you can take those off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I'm explaining how gender and biology differ, yet all you're doing here is claiming they are the same without reconciling the differences.
That hasn't been my argument at all anywhere in this discussion.
My argument has always been that gender is a product of biological sex. Gender extends from biological sex, but isn't the same as biological sex.
I agreed with you that behavior is part of the equation as well. Behavior is also observable, so that does nothing to conflict with my point. Whether that behavior is caused by female neurology is irrelevant because you do not scan other people's brains before making a determination as to their gender.
No, no. Don't start playing a cheeky little semantics game.
You originally meant purely physical traits as being the part that is "observable", not behaviour being observable as well: "Agreed, except that the concept of "biological female" we are extrapolating from is based entirely on observable characteristics such as genetillia and physical traits like soft facial features or non muscular arms." The transgenderism debate (debateart.com)
That was the original point of disagreement.
Your observations are not always reality. The magician's trick performed in front of you is often missed by the naked eye, but does that mean magic exists? There is an underlying reality to the universe and you cannot just make things up and expect them to always be true. Sorry!Complete (and absurd) strawman.
Of course it seems absurd. It's a repurposing of your argument to show your reasoning can produce ridiculous conclusions: "The question of whether transgenderism is a mental disorder has nothing to do with the fact that we as humans do, always have, and always will rely simply on our observations to make a determination regarding ones gender and/or biological sex."
If we "rely simply on observations" to determine things, we get wild conclusions that 100,000 of aliens have visited Earth, and that putting on a wig, makeup and dress can turn a man into a woman. That the necessary wild extreme of your argument. That's why we shouldn't simply rely on observations to determine truth.
You've dropped the contention on whether lived experience is a valid form of evidence (that because I'm not transgender, I can't make arguments involving them), so I'll assume that you agree that it is not.Your point that I responded to had nothing to do with evidence. It had to do with you determining how other people should live their lives, to which I stand by my statement that your lack of experience with their struggles absolutely makes you unqualified to weigh in on it.
Yes, it didn't have anything to do with evidence, because that wasn't required given the style of argument. You originally said words to the effect of, 'you're not trans, therefore you don't know what it's like'. I responded with the fire analogy. I don't see why I would need to cite anything for that type of argument. Do you not believe fire exists or something?
And again, I'm not arguing about trans people should do with their lives, I'm arguing what we shouldn't do to them. We shouldn't label their mental illness as a 'gender'.
I specifically found another study showing trans people are more likely to be the instigators of bullying, rather than the bulliedFunny, because that same source says something else...Conclusion: Transgender identity, especially non-binary identity, is associated with both being bullied and perpetrating bullying even when a range of variables including internal stress and involvement in bullying in the opposite role are taken into account.
You're confusing the data points.
It's simultaneously true that trans people (1) are more likely to be bullies than bullied, and (2) are more likely to be bullied than the general population. There's no contradiction in both those being true simultaneously.
But sure. Make an unfalsifiable hypothesis wherein no study is valid because 'trans people are the most ridiculed and least welcomed people in our society [citation needed]', and thus handwave their horrendous incarceration rate (40%) and their higher likelihood to have a mental disorderIt's not an unfalsifiable hypothesis, is applying basic logic and common sense to a fact. Just as most child rapists turned to be raped themselves, those who are bullied are more likely to bully others. It's human nature, there's nothing surprising about it.
Sorry but it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You want to handwave bad trans behavior and indications of mental illness because people are sometimes mean to trans people. We can't ever legitimately criticize or define trans people because the meanness affects them too much.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Here's a relevant question: can a shooting that's results in multiple people dying ever be self-defence?Of course, but it’s rare, it isn’t what these websites track, and you are a moron for saying that you doubt the data is saying mass shootings are out of control in this country because you think maybe some of those listed may have been incidents of self defense. I mean it’s just dumb.
There we go. Finally got you to admit you were wrong.
What color is your face right now? xD
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Singular instances don't define people in their entirety,Unbelievable. Stop and think for a moment why that statement is so stupid for you in particular to say.
I stopped and thought and realized I was right.
Anything else? Or are you done getting dominated?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You already said that the context was provided in the links, and now you're saying that the keepers of the website couldn't possibly keep track of it. Which is it, champ?Are you stupid? The keepers aren’t going to declare they are not tracking self defense shootings, wars, police shootings, or any other stupid idea you can think up. Because they don’t need to except for the rare idiot like yourself.
Here's a relevant question: can a shooting that's results in multiple people dying ever be self-defence?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Thank you for inadvertently admitting you didn't provide the evidence required to make your argument.What? You telling the world that a website on mass shootings might be tracking self defense incidents or wars or whatever nonsense you can come up with, and me admitting that the keepers of that website couldn’t possibly anticipate your moronic doubts about their data, isn’t helping your case.
What? Huh? Who? Where are my dentures?
You already said that the context was provided in the links, and now you're saying that the keepers of the website couldn't possibly keep track of it. Which is it, champ?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Again, for the umpteenth time, the national average doesn't matter, in regards to the specific three states that you are talking about. What matters, believe it or not, are the statistics for the three states, you complete idiot.we just started talking about turnout rates today. It has nothing to do with your original argument and “logic” about the three swing states.
I noticed you tried to sneakily add in "swing" states with some of your previous posts, before you edited them soon after. Your original point never made that distinction: "That’s a lie. He won by a total margin of 80,000 votes in 3 states and he actually lost the overall popular vote." "teen shot after accidentally" the next liberal psy-op (debateart.com) .
Looks like you've been caught red-handed in the doggie-treat cupboard. Bad doggie!
If I'm the moron correcting you, what does make you? What's stupider than a moron?If your correction is moronic, that still makes you the moron.
Wrong.
Singular instances don't define people in their entirety, you gigantic moron.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It took you a day to realize you needed to find those statistics to make those arguments.Only to a moron like you.
If I'm the moron correcting you, what does make you? What's stupider than a moron?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The way your website defines "mass shooting" is based on the number of people killed/injured. There isn't a qualifier as to whether the shooting was self-defence.Well they didn’t figure idiots like you would be reading their website.
Thank you for inadvertently admitting you didn't provide the evidence required to make your argument. Only your careless stupidity could help you to be right here.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wrong. It took you a day spread out across 5 posts.No, you would have to assume each time you responded with a stupid comment, I went looking for an article from a credible source to illustrate the obvious to your wee female brain.
It did take you a day. We can look at the timestamps. It took you a day to realize you needed to find those statistics to make those arguments.
Shame I didn't get to see your face turn bright red when you realized I was right.
Here’s where you can see that the last 5 US presidential elections had an average voter turnout rate of 58% or higher.See the turnout statistics spreadsheet in the column for turnout as a percentage of VEP. For 2016 it was 59.2%
Again, for the umpteenth time, the national average doesn't matter, in regards to the specific three states that you are talking about. What matters, believe it or not, are the statistics for the three states, you complete idiot.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No, I'm not going to do the work to make your argument for you.You are the one with a stupid, ridiculous argument. That the mass shootings being tracked by these organizations may actually be examples of self defense.I mean so stupid, so ridiculous. What country were you educated in? I have to know.
The way your website defines "mass shooting" is based on the number of people killed/injured. There isn't a qualifier as to whether the shooting was self-defence.
I clicked one of the links and they didn't even know who the perpetrator was, let alone why they shot people.
It's fair to guess that a lot of them are going to illegal homicides, but my point is that we don't know that. Again, you don't have the necessary data to make the argument you're making.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm not interested in Googling your own research for you.
You need to cite your own sources otherwise we end up having a discussion where people can just make things up and it's the other person's job to disprove them. I don't want that burden of proof reversal, thank you.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Which worsens reality. I mean, what would you do if everyone throws shades at you because you just look like a cancelled celebrity? You defend yourself. Stereotypes stem from reality but that doesn't mean it should remain in reality. We should reduce their effect on society if anything.
I think people are pretty quick to realize if you're an educated Black person or something a little less socially desirable, especially if they can just glance at you and see your attire/physical presentation. It probably would took longer to realize a celebrity doppelganger isn't a celebrity.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It took me less than a minute to find a citation.Again, once I went looking for a citation that would explain the obvious, that 80,000 votes over 3 swing states is a paltry victory, it took less than a minute to find.
Wrong. It took you a day spread out across 5 posts. I also had to repeatedly tell you why your argument didn't prove what you were sayuing.
Repeating your argument of "it took me less than a minute" doesn't make it right.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Again, you're free to demonstrate that these "mass shootings" were all done illegally and not in self-defense, since that's what you are claiming.Utter nonsense. These organizations are not tracking mass shootings conducted in self defense and I seriously doubt we have any mass shootings conducted in self defense in this country. What are you imagining here, a home invasion by multiple assailants and the homeowner shot them down? Are you stupid?The circumstances of each mass shooting is described on the website, you can read it if you really believe your ridiculous idea.
No, I'm not going to do the work to make your argument for you. It's your job to provide the evidence to make your argument.
Feel free to address all of your other dropped arguments, too.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is yet another post of yours wherein you dropped your argument.
I'm going to make a quick list of every argument/bare assertion you've dropped in this thread, just so others can see what kind of person you are:
It's entirely possible that a number of these shootings were performed in self-defense against criminals,Gee, if only someone or some organization tracked these events so we could know the circumstances of each shootingThere is no overall tally of circumstances involved in all shootings on that website, and clicking the individual links is rather time-consuming (especially to discover that the perpetrator is currently unknown).Again, you're free to demonstrate that these "mass shootings" were all done illegally and not in self-defense, since that's what you are claiming.
It took me less than a minute to find a citation.Uh no. It took you five posts, a day, and me literally holding your hand and repeatedly telling you what you needed to make your argument, in order for you to make your argument:
You're really trying to make fun of someone for being disabled, someone who potentially is disabled through serving his country in the military?He wasn’t disabled in his short military service before he was sent packing. He’s “disabled” because he can’t get anyone to hire him.It’s a great counterpoint because in America the people with the lowest education enlist in the military, and the army is at the bottom of the armed services.I, on the other hand was a Captain in the Marines and a helicopter pilot.
You're the only who was instructed like a little child,I’m the only who? A child? It seems you don’t know anything about children because god didn’t want you to be a Mom.I'm not religious, either.What was that about false assumptions again?
We can clearly see that you're trying quite hard to provoke me with lies and half-truths. I mean, you're doing this to the point of other people noticing your sexism "teen shot after accidentally" the next liberal psy-op (debateart.com) (which is surprising coming from a Roosevelt supporter -- Roosevelt was a big advocate of women's right).A more interesting question is why are you doing this? Does your wife ignore you at home? Do you like picking on girls? Or are you still stung from me having to hand-hold you through your argument, posting repeatedly as to why your figures didn't match the argument you were trying to make, in order to make it correctly?So even you consider yourself a girl instead of a womanThis is yet another instance of you dodging the question and accountability for what you said.
If about 1/4 of them voteAgain, as usual, you are way off in your assumptions. That’s how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.60-80% of a state’s population is registered to vote.and each state gets a 60-80% voter participation rateAgain, it's a rough estimate to demonstrate a hypothetical point. I never claimed all numbers were 100% accurate, dumbass.Your 60-80% voter turnout rate is actually way off. The voter turnout for Hawaii was 42.5% 2016 United States presidential election in Hawaii - WikipediaThat's how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yes, and because asian and white americans are "smarter" than hispanic and african americans, the stereotypes solidify and makes the problem harder to tackle.
Isn't the stereotype just a product of reality?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I literally just demonstrated to you that if one of those states was Hawaii,You are so clueless that you don’t know Hawaii isn’t even in the top ten smallest states by population.We had about 160 million voters in the last 2 presidential elections. That’s about have the population - by state or nationally overall, including Hawaii
I never claimed it was in the top ten smallest lol. Quote me or admit that you falsely made that accusation.
Again, we need to see individually how many people voted in Hawaii based on population percentage. You're doing the dumb thing again where you take the nationwide statistic and superimpose that onto a state.
I just gave a rough example to demonstrate what I was claiming; I never said the numbers were 100% accurate.
If about 1/4 of them voteAgain, as usual, you are way off in your assumptions. That’s how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.60-80% of a state’s population is registered to vote.and each state gets a 60-80% voter participation rate
Again, it's a rough estimate to demonstrate a hypothetical point. I never claimed all numbers were 100% accurate, dumbass.
Your 60-80% voter turnout rate is actually way off. The voter turnout for Hawaii was 42.5% 2016 United States presidential election in Hawaii - Wikipedia
That's how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.
Created: