Total posts: 857
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
It does for humans, overall. Whilst the individual receiving the surprise did not have the preceding negative affect, the person organizing the surprise did.Why is this a necessity?
Organizing surprises takes planning and work, both of which generate negative affect in humans. Therefore, it's necessary that there is negative affect in organizing surprises.
Although, you appear to be onto something.For example, if a non-human constantly organized random surprises for humans, this could be argued as a net positive because there isn't a sentient creature to experience the negative affect involved in organizing the surprises. VR simulating surprises to humans would also fulfill this requirement, too. Albeit, if enough surprise events are given, humans may become accustomed to them and expect them, so there are diminishing returns involved.It doesn't just have to be "surprises." There are plenty of things that bring joy to us without a negative affect preceding it. For that matter, there are cases where the negative affect is minimal to the point non-existence. For example, when I eat dinner, I usually have yet to reach the point of noticeable hunger. I anticipate that you will argue that the net affect is still negative, but the world has gone from a zero sum game to a positive sum game in this recent era of human existence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ. It is no longer the case that what benefits me is necessarily harmful to someone else.
If the negative affect is minimal, then the positive affect is also minimal. That's why eating dinner after you've starved for a week feels far better than eating dinner when you're not hungry. The more we've felt negative affect in our starvation, the greater the positive affect that is felt as a reward for eating.
The zero-sum game you've referenced does refer to a part of antinatalism, but not all parts. The part you've referenced through your video does argue well that there are a greater amount of resources to share with people (i.e. more food to make sure we don't have to fight for it).
However, the issue with the human condition is that we're designed to be motivated, not satisfied, so once our basic needs are met, we quickly begin to ask again 'what next?' So, even if our food and water needs are met, our psychology immediately starts to want more. That's where the zero-sum game truly shows it colors -- we're experience negative affect before we've satisfied our desires *AND* after we've satisfied our desires (because we get bored). In other words, humans have a psychology that is designed to produce negative affect at all times.
It's the internal zero-sum game found within human psychology that is the major problem.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
If it’s too late to have your own children, you can still adopt, assuming you’re able.
This thread is about the validity of antinatalism. It's not about my personal circumstance.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I don't think you'd be successful forcing people to move,Or enticing people to move,
Well, people are going to end up moving anyway.
No one wants to live around hordes of unemployed Black people in Chicago, except maybe unemployed Black people.
No one wants to live around La Raza cartel members on the Californian border with Mexico, except maybe La Raza cartel members.
No one wants to live around entire suburbs covered in Chinese writing on shops, street signs and everything else, except maybe Chinese people.
It would be cleaner and quicker if we could organize some sensible state lines that represent the people from the area, and then suggest that people move to those areas that represent them (you probably wouldn't have to force them). But okay. Maybe people would prefer thinking it's their own idea that they don't want to live in an area defunding the police and letting the Walmarts close down.
But the State of Jefferson would have held a number of people, still wasn't successful in becoming a state.
Sure, this wasn't successful.
Would be interesting to see if this would be successful a decade later, though (2023). California isn't exactly a red state and taxes haven't exactly lowered.
But in just 'asking the here and now people, I'm doubtful any would want to go for it.
White nationalists don't really have a place to call home atm. They have their White communities, but nothing massive. A think the offer of a White state would be enough to get them to move, at least that's what I've heard from a lot of White nationalists.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Aww, you have all these lil quotes about him and involving him <3
You better not tell your wife about your obsession with Trump, or else your bedroom will end up colder than Biden's chance for re-election.
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Overall, I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good. Negative affect is a prerequisite to positive affect, at least in humans (probably other sentient creatures, too). A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect). In other words, you're always going to have more instances of negative affect than positive affect.If I am not expecting a birthday party, and someone surprises me with one, did a negative affect precede that positive affect?
It does for humans, overall. Whilst the individual receiving the surprise did not have the preceding negative affect, the person organizing the surprise did.
Although, you appear to be onto something.
For example, if a non-human constantly organized random surprises for humans, this could be argued as a net positive because there isn't a sentient creature to experience the negative affect involved in organizing the surprises. VR simulating surprises to humans would also fulfill this requirement, too. Albeit, if enough surprise events are given, humans may become accustomed to them and expect them, so there are diminishing returns involved.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yeah, you and Trump. The "pee tape" allegedly showed Trump watching two prostitutes pee on a bed at the Ritz-Carlton.
Why are libtards so often flagrantly gay for Trump?
You know everything Trump has ever done. You're so often steering the conversation back to Trump. You positively love Trump.
Trump lives in not only your head but also heart rent-free and you prefer it that way.
Created:
-->
@Savant
I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably goodDo you think it's in an individual's best interest to commit suicide?
No. It causes a dreadful amount of negative affect, and it doesn't solve the problem of procreation.
Most people don't (not even anti-natalists), so it seems to me that people tend to prefer existing to not existing.
Most people don't even think about whether it's worth living. They don't have thorough, reasoned arguments that extend from philosophical axioms as to why they should live. Living isn't really a conscious choice at all for these people. They just live.
A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect).I don't think that's how dopamine works. A lot of food tastes better than not being hungry in the first place.
Yes, not being hungry doesn't feel that good because it's the satisfaction of relieving oneself of hunger that creates the positive affect. We don't naturally rejoice constantly when we are not hungry, similar to how we aren't constantly jumping for joy when we don't have the plague.
The issue with food that generates a lot of dopamine is that it's unhealthy. Sure, if you could just wire someone up to have hamburger after hamburger shoved into them, and there weren't any health issues in doing so, you might reach a point wherein the negative affect is overwhelmed by the positive affect (it was one of the solutions for antinatalism I suggested in the OP).
After all, you don't need real world interaction in order to feel a sense of achievement.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
So, the author of reality (God) chose to make these people suffer substantial more than other people, because why? He's omnipotent and omniscient, but still chooses to make these people suffer more? God could choose to have a perfectly level playing field, but doesn't choose that. What an asshole lol.there can be purpose in struggle. there is a wise video circulating about a priest saying how God answers prayers. he asked for strength and God gave him difficult people to deal with... that develops strength. the priest asked for courage, and God gave him scary siutations that required him to develop courage.
Why couldn't God design existence so that purpose could be found without struggle? Why can't God simply grant people strength? Why impose negativity when you get to choose if it exists at all?
life is about creating our reality as a species. we're co creators. the higher purposes require us to find meaning in doubt, to live in faith... to create based on faith. we use our free will, without having all the answers, to embrace a higher possible purpose.
Why would God set-up humans to find purpose in such a convoluted way? Why not give humans all the answers? What about people who never see any of the answers or even hear about God?
ultimately, i admit that you have formidable philosphical arguements. but it really comes down to optimism v pessimism. your arguments dont necessarily describe existence the best. it's just a way of looking at it. pessimistic, instead of optimistic. you see the glass half empty. it might not be the right way to look at it. you are being like an ingrateful teenager who doesnt get things their way, so they assume the world is unfair, instead of just figuring out that there's something to gain in not always getting things the way you would like. our desires of our flesh, v our desires of our spirit.bottom line, you are simply just choosing to be a pessimist, when it's possible to be an optimist, and there's good reason to think the optimists have it right.
Lol I'm actually not an antinatalist. I'm defending it against what I see to be ineffective criticism.
Not always getting what you want is a negative experience. If we could engineer a world wherein we always got what we wanted, or never have wants in the first place (so that they could never go unfulfilled), that would be a better world.
You haven't addressed the core tenants of antinatalism I outlined in the OP. Calling my argument 'pessimistic' doesn't disprove (1) negative affect being a prerequisite for positive affect, and (2) on average, negative affect per unit is impactful than positive affect per unit. You really need to show neither of those things are true.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
there's instability for the average person on the globe, i'll give you that. but, the average person has evolved to have decent health until they die or get close to death, and the ones who don't have decent health are the exception. they might not live lavishly, but they have enough to survive. life is about more than lavish living. it's about gratitude, and making the best of not having everything one wants.
There's a fair bit to unpack from the language you use here.
Firstly, we need to look at humanity as a collective average, rather than just what most people experience. Yes, most people have decent health until they die or get close to death, but the exceptions to this should be built into the equation. Life can get truly awful for some people (especially if you agree that negative affect is experienced with far more vivacity than positive affect), and when you give birth to someone, you risk imposing that truly awful life upon someone. These exceptions drag the average quality of human life far further down than if you were to exclude them from the equation.
Secondly, having "enough to survive" doesn't justify human existence, because survival doesn't objectively make life worthwhile due to life not being inherently valuable. However, avoidance of negative affect and attraction to positive affect is objectively valuable (at least to sentient life). If all human life involves greater negative affect than positive affect, even if all human life "survived", that would be a net negative.
Lastly, when a person doesn't get what they want, that is a small negative affect that comes with it. Every unfulfilled wish produces a negative affect until it is fulfilled, and those add up to be larger overall. Gratitude may help cope, but it's only ever mitigation, not complete removal. The only complete removal is to not exist.
our dispute the way i see it, is whether the average person on the globe has a decent life or not. it's at least gotta be good enough to think existing is better than not existing. the way you describe it, most people would be better off not being born, but the irony is that almost none of them agrees with that. life can be a struggle and still worth living, and still worth being grateful for, for the average person.
Most people don't ever think about whether life is worth living. They're so caught up in the distraction of existing that they don't ever stop to consider whether existing is worth it in the first place. Just because they continue to exist doesn't mean they have an extensive, thorough reasoning as to why they exist. What actually happens is that they exist and tack on ad hoc reasoning as to why they do it.
In any case, if life is such a pointless struggle with more negative affect than positive affect, why live it in the first place?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
life is a struggle for almost everyone. but i would still say overall the good outweighs the bad.
It's always fascinated me how people say things like 'life is a struggle' or 'life is unfair', and yet somehow, magically, the good outweighs the bad.
How do you know this at all? Does it just feel like the right answer to you?
even the poorest among us have a lot to be thankful for.
The poorest are born into the same deprivation mechanism as everyone else. The poorest still experience negative affect as being per unit worse than positive affect.
How do you deal with the above issues?
there's a lot of people born with disease, or people who come into massive problems, but those are the exception, not the rule.
Antinatalism isn't just about the outliers who have it bad. It's about everyone, on average, having more negative affect than positive affect. You're not dealing with the core tenants.
as jesus said about those who are born diseased, they were allowed to be made that way... allowed, not created... so that one day, even if it's in the afterlife, when their poor condition is changed for the better
This is a tangent but I'll address it anyway.
So, the author of reality (God) chose to make these people suffer substantial more than other people, because why? He's omnipotent and omniscient, but still chooses to make these people suffer more? God could choose to have a perfectly level playing field, but doesn't choose that. What an asshole lol.
trying to make a virtual reality or otherwise escape reality is just avoiding the truth as it is. i mean i guess it's okay to have a way to escape, if it's done in a healthy way, but the truth needs accepted as the truth, otherwise a person is living a lie. i suppose the details would need to be determined on a case by case basis.
If the 'truth' is just pointless suffering, then it's better to have never been.
At least VR is attempting to work with reality in a way that attempts to fix it.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Are you related to Jim Jones?
Antinatalism is different from a mass suicide movement (i.e. what Jim Jones spearheaded) because antinatalism wants to prevent suffering, and suicide invokes suffering. Thus, an antinatalist prefers to prevent humans from being created in the first place, rather than kill off humans whom already exist.
Created:
Ever since I lost my Christian faith at a young age, I've struggled with this topic a lot. Mainstream intellectuals either don't ever address it or mangle their understanding of arguments in favor of antinatalism, so antinatalism always seemed a rather large beacon of truth to me.
Overall, I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good. Negative affect is a prerequisite to positive affect, at least in humans (probably other sentient creatures, too). A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect). In other words, you're always going to have more instances of negative affect than positive affect.
You can add to this conundrum by realizing that people generally experience more units of negative affect when bad things happen, than the inverse. We see this with loss aversion in regards to financial decisions, wherein someone will prioritize avoiding losses Prospect Theory and Loss Aversion: How Users Make Decisions (nngroup.com) You can also theorize about the best thing that could happen in life (e.g. winning a massive competition) versus the worst things (e.g. early onset Alzheimer's).
I think a possible solution to the antinatalist argument involves humans being radically genetically engineered to not have this deprivation mechanism that has them have more instances of negative affect and experience more units of negative overall in their life. Effectively, you'd be removing the desire part of the human psychology, whatever that comprises. If tasks still needed to be done, you could replace the deprivation mechanism model with an algorithmic one, of which simply does required tasks without the need for motivation (the thing is done because it is logical to do so). I guess this new being would be far enough from a human to be considered post-human.
Another solution is to simply have humans in a dream state or virtual reality world that allows for unrealistic levels of deprivation fulfilling, of which doesn't come at the expense of other real humans (e.g. you win a gold at the Olympics in your dreams, but you don't realize than you are dreaming, so no real human actually lost and feels the negative affect). Perhaps we could even pre-program a device/human to allow the human to experience a life they think is real but is a linear progression that allows the human to feel better and better as their perceived life continues (e.g. winning the Olympics in one category, then in two in the next Olympics). The pre-programming would protect against unwanted negative affect because the perceived life is pre-determined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Based OP and thread comments.
I'm a pretty disagreeable person and I literally can't find anything to disagree with lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
If you want to vastly increase the prison population just admit you have to pay for it
Wtf are you on about.
Vastly increase?
You think there are lots of people going around with this bike scam that attempts to scare money out of people? How the hell is that going to "put everyone in jail?"
Massive L take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We've spent a couple dozen posts each arguing about whether transgenderism is a mental illness.white suPREEEEEmacisthurrhurr hurrwhite suPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmacistwhite suPREEEEEmacisthurrrrrrr*drools over the keyboard*
Yep good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
And don't worry, if I say I would kick your ass, it means I would get you the fuck out of my sight.That's not what 'kick your ass' means.Are you a bit ashamed that you threatened to physically assault a woman over mere words?No, how could I? If I tell you to kiss my ass you shouldn't take it literally. 😆When people threaten to kick someone's ass, they never, ever mean, "I would get you the fuck out of my sight".What they always imply is physical violence, even if they don't carry through with the threat (which you obviously can't over a forum).Your violent threats over mere words doesn't belong in the 1st world.[No response, acknowledgement or apology from IlDiavolo]
Expected.
There's enough variety in humans to justify sub-speciation classification (i.e. race): Human races exist (debateart.com)You agree that there are genetic differences, but you don't want to use the 'race' word because it makes you feel bad. That's your hang up here.There are more genetic differences within a "race" than between "races", for example a european can be genetically more similar to an asian than to another european. sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
Lewontin's counterargument (more variation within than between) is really dumb and it's one of the dumbest reasons to deny human races.
The (1) argument I already linked in the previous post actually already addresses your argument here by demonstrating sufficient fst values for subspeciation: Human races exist (debateart.com) . However, it's clear that you're pretty stupid when it comes to this race stuff, so I'll put it in dumb-dumb terms for you:
There's more variation within than between with men and women. Should we stop distinguishing between men and women?
There's more variation within than between humans and chimpanzees. Should we stop distinguishing between humans and chimpanzees?
There's more variation within than between human races. Should we stop distinguishing between human races?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
When and where did they attack you.
In various ways through anti-White rhetoric. It's certainly not obvious or incessant, but it occurs frequently enough to be an issue.
Here's a list of some examples: Anti-white sentiments (debateart.com)
I cycled across the USA a few years back and never met an unfriendly person of any colour.
Anecdotes are not suitable replacements for arguments.
And their aggression is underpinned by their conditioning
Racial in-group bias is innate. It has to be drummed out of children at school and reinforced with propaganda constantly to be stunted, and even then that doesn't work on everyone (it mainly works on White people, particularly cause-driven Liberals).
As is your desire for Planet Monotone.....And your fear of perceivable differences.....And your fear of change.
Humans haven't changed a great deal in the past 10,000 years. They certainly haven't evolved past racial in-group biases.
"Perceivable differences" run as deep as genetics. They're not merely decorations; they literally drive behavior and life outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You haven't given us a reason to respect people's wishes by default. It's just logically incorrect.This really is most of the most basic rules of living in a civilized society. Either we respect other people’s wishes as our default or we do not respect other people’s wishes until we are given a reason to do so. This means that every stranger you come across must demonstrate to you why you need to respect their wishes in order for you to do so. That’s an absurd ideal for a way by which society functions.
I agree with your rewording of my argument, but I don't see how your conclusion follows.
How can you respect something you don't yet know (i.e. people's wishes)?
Mental illness is basically a neurological condition that causes a person to see a false distortion of the world/self.Then not only have you failed to demonstrate this, you haven’t even argued it.
We've spent a couple dozen posts each arguing about whether transgenderism is a mental illness. I've argued it in most if not all of those posts.
I argued it to debates levels in this post: The transgenderism debate (debateart.com)
I don't believe for a second you've forgotten what I've argued. You're just lying on this point.
There is nothing about a man claiming that they see themselves as a woman in a man’s body and wanting the world to see them as a woman that stems from a distorted view of reality. Gender dysphoria is a feeling, not a claim about reality. Transgender people are not telling you that they meet your definition of the gender they want to be identified as, they’re telling you they meet theirs, which tends to have nothing to do with the genitals they were born with or whatever biological marker anti-trans activists want to appeal to.
Transgenderism is about claiming you were born in the wrong biological body, hence the compulsion to transition into the opposite biological sex. Transgender people believing that transitioning into their 'correct' body will fix their feelings is wrong, and the feelings themselves are a mental illness because it isn't based on reality at all.
It is possible to have incorrect feelings, by the way. You could have a gut feeling about someone lying when they're not. You could have a premonition that it's a good idea to buy a stock, and the next day the stock's company goes bankrupt. Feelings are subject to scrutiny, and your incessant implication that they are beyond scrutiny continues to beg the question.
And again (we've already discussed this at length), if you can just make anything up with regards to gender, gender can mean anything and thus doesn't have a coherent definition. That's when people start claiming they're attack helicopters, 57 million genders at once, otherkin furies etc. That's why gender should be grounded in biological markers: it gives gender a consistent, coherent definition that makes biological sense.
Spouting random reasons doesn't make for valid argument. You need evidence to support your claims.My claim is that you haven’t met your burden of proof. I don’t understand why this is so complicated for you.
I think transgenderism is a mental illness because it has many indications of mental illness (excessive violence, unexplained higher suicide rates, correlates highly with other mental illnesses, 40% incaration rates etc.), and none of the left-wing explanations fully explain (or really come close to) explaining why transgender people are the way they are.
I did not come here claiming trans people are not mentally ill, my claim was that we should treat them with respect and also that your claim that they are mentally ill is unfounded. That’s what we’ve been arguing for the past few weeks.
Yes, you don't have anything to claim that they are not mentally ill.
Again, I am fine with treating transgender people with basic human respect -- I agree with you on that. I don't think that this basic human respect extends to placating what I see as mental illness.
Out of interest, hypothetically, if transgenderism was confirmed as a mental illness to you, would you still respect transgender people's wishes?
In unsurprising fashion, you try to save face by taking my pushback against your claims and painting them as if I were claiming the opposite. That’s not how logic works.
You claimed to have "provided reasons to help fill some of that gap which some of your studies agreed with".
Again, victimization just simply doesn't explain the higher suicide rates of transgender people. You already agreed with this in posts before you made that comment. Why are you reverting back to your original stance that you agreed was wrong?
So back to my point on this, spouting perfectly reasonable alternative explanations that may be contributing to the high suicide rate and pointing out that none of your studies go into any depth to rule them out absolutely does refute your case, because your case literally hinges on the notion that there are no other factors thereby leaving mental illness as the only thing that could fill the remaining gap.
Again, just spouting "perfectly reasonable alternative explanations", without reference to a single shred of evidence, doesn't cut it.
We're already addressed your counterclaim that victimization explains transgender suicides. 24% of transgender people claimed that victimization was a factor in their suicidal thoughts/suicide attempt. That isn't a majority and it's not even close. So, in this instance, your "perfectly reasonable alternative" failed to explain a quarter of the reason, let alone all of it.
It's also perfectly possible that transgender people attempt suicide/think about suicide for both mental illness and other reasons. Many reasons aren't going to be mutually exclusive.
Again, I haven't argued that 'there is no other explanation for higher suicide rates, therefore it must be mental illness'. The fact that your "perfectly reasonable alternative explanations" fail to fully explain the highly erratic, mentally unsound behavior of transgender people is only part of my argument. I've made other, independent arguments showing things like transgender people having way more other mental illnesses than the general population (additional mental illnesses become more likely the more you have), transgender people having greatly elevated rates of anti-social personality disorder, transgender people more likely to be bullies than bullied, more likely to resort to violence over speech, more likely to be jailed (40% incarceration rate) etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, just so everyone understands: you are saying that there are no genetic differences between human races?A different skin, eyes and hair color, namely a different level of melanin, is the result of the adaptation to a specific environment, which is obviously written in the DNA, but it doesn't mean different races. Race is a serious term that imply great genetical differences, which is not the case in humans.
There's enough variety in humans to justify sub-speciation classification (i.e. race): Human races exist (debateart.com)
You agree that there are genetic differences, but you don't want to use the 'race' word because it makes you feel bad. That's your hang up here.
And don't worry, if I say I would kick your ass, it means I would get you the fuck out of my sight.That's not what 'kick your ass' means.Are you a bit ashamed that you threatened to physically assault a woman over mere words?No, how could I? If I tell you to kiss my ass you shouldn't take it literally. 😆
When people threaten to kick someone's ass, they never, ever mean, "I would get you the fuck out of my sight".
What they always imply is physical violence, even if they don't carry through with the threat (which you obviously can't over a forum).
Your violent threats over mere words doesn't belong in the 1st world.
Created:
Posted in:
Women pretty much have the intellectual capacity to fill these roles, but they're just not interested -- that's always been the big issue. The vast majority of women don't have any interest in designing/building skyscrapers, bridges, IT infrastructure, maintaining sewerage etc., even if they probably could. Most women aren't interested in cut-throat, tournament style competition to make it to the top. Most women are happy raising a family and maybe working on the side, usually part-time, or maybe being involved in the community with volunteer work or community building.
Yes, there will be the odd exception.
We also know that when women have the freedom to choose any job, when they finally got that opportunity to create things or go into male fields, they're actually more likely to choose the stereotypical female ones, rather than the atypical ones: Sci-Hub | Sex Differences in Personality Traits and Gender-Related Occupational Preferences across 53 Nations: Testing Evolutionary and Social-Environmental Theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 619–636 | 10.1007/s10508-008-9380-7
Without men, a lot of these essential roles will at least struggle to be filled by women, if not fail to be filled. This isn't even mentioning the essential low status, gritty jobs that a decent number of men will fill, but women won't touch. Women bang the pots and pans for equality when CEO positions are on the line, but not when it's a chance to become a garbage collector.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Give the mods a week from now and they will get you.
You're one who needs luck, and a girlfriend. Obviously have too much free time if you have time to multiaccount.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You asked for a date to "start it", not end it.
Idiot.
You obviously didn't have the balls to learn English, nor the breasts to be anything but an incel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
No, you silly incel.
The mods take longer than a day to check for multiaccounting.
Do you not have the balls to wait longer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Sure, whatever. You're getting banned lol so idc what the bet is.
We can start right now.
You'll have no account soon :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I bet that you will be banned for multiaccounting. The mods might take longer than a day.
So much for not having "balls".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Why don't I report your account to the mods and see what they say.
Would be funny if you got banned for multiaccounting xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Social inequality does predict some of it and is a better predictor than poverty, but the say that there is no genetic component to violence, to say that all races of humans evolved to be exactly the same, that's denying evolution happened.You're confusing evolution with adaptation. Human being's body has adapted to a specific environment, it's not that we become a new kind of human (or race) if we move to a different environment. Your argument just reveals your ignroance about genetics.
So, just so everyone understands: you are saying that there are no genetic differences between human races?
And don't worry, if I say I would kick your ass, it means I would get you the fuck out of my sight.
That's not what 'kick your ass' means.
Are you a bit ashamed that you threatened to physically assault a woman over mere words?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The mods might go easier on you if you admit you are IWRA. They will ban you for some time if you outright refuse to admit you are multiaccounting. That means you won't be able to post on your IWRA account for something like a week.
If I were you, I'd just admit you are IWRA, so that you don't get banned for a week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Are you IWantRooseveltAgain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I admitted I was a White nationalist.
Why are you multiaccounting, IWantRooseveltAgain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
We've already proven that you're racist against Nigerians because they have a Black nationalist state (of which you call racist).
That's why we moved onto the topic of you and your multiaccounting.
Nobody understands you when you claim my ass was kicked. Maybe you just like to talk about things you never get.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Settle down
This was one of the big factors that gave you away. Your knee-jerk reacting to pivot/deflect, when the going is getting tough for you, is exactly what IWRA does.
The fact that you're doing it again, when you're being accused of being IWRA, is so beautiful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
IWantRooseveltAgain, I was talking about you.
Are you going to lie about having kids and a family on this new account of yours, too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Yeah, but IWRA is in your face nasty with name calling and asserting he is better than everyone else.
That's true, but I think he's stepped off the gas on that a bit to not evoke suspicion.
This clown Vegas is more like RM.
'Vegas Giants' sounds like a sporting team to me, and RM was too weak and fragile to ever do sport. RM is also not American. That username isn't something he'd write, imo.
But honestly, I pay neither no mind as they’re both (VG & IWRA) not worth my time.
I only respond when I'm tired after work and just want to counter troll these trolls whilst listening to music. Albeit, I didn't know Vegas was a troll until this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So Kaitlyn are you a woman or a man?
That's a really interesting, non-trollish question that deserves deep contemplation.
I suppose it's hard to tell who is what when you're such an emasculated incel who has never interacted with women in the real world.
Keep trolling, though. That will fix your shortcomings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So who is attacking you?
Anti-white people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Oh. So, it's like they're irrationally violent and wouldn't be great to be around?Kinda like what I'm calling Brazilians.Way to make my point for me, dumbass.No, we all latinamericans can be violent with dishonest racists sob like you, it's something that we can't stand. I would myself kick your ass back to your white supremacist's paradise, no matter if you're a woman. That's the way we usually teach some manners to racists that use conveniently real data to make false conclusions and diminish people only for their skin color.
So, rather than use debate and discussion to revolve things in a civilized manner, Brazilians and you resort to violence.
Wow! Seems like these are the kinds of people I'd love to be around, especially if they're fine with violence against women!
The best way to show you're not a violent, backwards group of people is to be a violent, backwards group of people.
You have compulsively been suggesting that blacks are genetically unintelligent, more agressive, and culturally inferior, but oh, you're not a white supremacist but an innocent lady that only wants to bring peace to the world. Lol.
Yeah, I do think all of that, and all of that is backed by data.
I also think Asians are smarter than Whites. I think Jews are smarter than Whites. I think Asians are far less violent than Whites. I think Africans are better at music and comedy than Whites.
You should know that any serious researcher would never state that violence in the world is genetic-driven, that's foolish.
This is a total non-argument.
The most likely explanation for violence, and actually there is a great concensus of it, is socieconomic inequality, not poverty, so the more the wealth gap between rich and poor, the more violent the society is.
Social inequality does predict some of it and is a better predictor than poverty, but the say that there is no genetic component to violence, to say that all races of humans evolved to be exactly the same, that's denying evolution happened.
Race is just a social construct that some people -like you- use to project their fears and frustrations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
It certainly was an interesting and oft humorous read.I believe you are correct about Vegas, he is a sock puppet for IWantRoseveltAgain.Not quite.That’s RationalMadman.
I don't think it is. This guy speaks nothing like RM. Vegas pivots hard and often, and also intentionally misreads people in order to try and troll them.
This is exactly what IWantRooseveltAgain does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You completely dodged the logical conclusions of your argument, and everyone can see this.
It must feel pretty bad being so intellectually inept you can't defend your arguments for 10 posts.
No wonder you troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
We're past providing evidence for claims.
Why are you not okay with Black people having space to call their own? Why do you feel the need to deny Black people the right to form nations and become Black nationalists? What did those poor Nigerians ever do to you? :(
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I don't see any evidence where they discriminate against white people
I didn't say Black supremacist, wherein proof of discrimination is required. I said Black nationalist. We don't need to show discrimination against Whites to confirm they are Black nationalist.
Nigeria is a Black nationalist country, and due to their Black nationalism, you called them racist.
Why do you insist on calling Black nationalists racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It's very simple.
Nigeria is majority Black and has a government that serves its majority Black people. That sounds like Black nationalism to me.
I don't have a problem with that.
Why do you? Why do you call it racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You should have an idea.
You said before that racial nationalism was racist.
Nigeria is a Black nationalist country.
So, your actual answer should be 'yes, Nigeria is racist'.
Strange that you decided to backpedal instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Do you think Nigeria is racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Do you think BLM is racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
There's nothing racially hateful about White nationalism, or any racial nationalism for that matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
At least I had something to begin with.
Dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Very good. Now you're getting the hang of it
Imagine being so roasted that you clap your own roasting.
Ouch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Leave the long posts to the serious people
That explains all your short comments on here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Oh, you're just a troll, too.
Noted.
Created: