Mesmer

I consider my own personal source to be credible enough in a Forum conversation.

Where one generally, only tends to proffer a personal opinion.

In a Forum conversation I only really deem it necessary to back up specific stats or attribute specific quotes.

If for example, one is simply exchanging philosophical, political or religious opinion, then sources tend to be nothing more than arbitrary and secondary opinion often relative to a bias.

You should have confidence in your own knowledge, which is already acquired from sources anyway.

Mesmer and their school of thought should at least stick to this idea rather than fascism which they're posting in their other threads.

You actually didn't click on that website did you? They basically argue the same sorts of things you do, but call the philosophy "the hedonistic imperative ".

I've read some very detailed books promoting the ideology. These are smart people who espouse the philosophy, I just feel they are wrong. I'll get into it more later, maybe tomorrow. 

Or perhaps you suffer from SFD.

SOURCE FIXATION DISORDER.

I screenshotted the relevant graph that I was referring to (it's separate to the paywall link).

Where?

So they've argued that the greater usage cannot account for the arrest disparity, and based on the research I cited for your previous study, I agree.

Which one are you referring to? I read through all the first one but then the others I had trouble with. 

Are you referring to dealers and buyers?

If so, buyers need help, but dealers need the death penalty.

Does that include doctors/physicians, or is it just a licensing thing?

No I mean there's a huge difference between someone arrested and convicted FOR drug possession alone and another who happened to be WITH drugs during another unrelated crime.

There's a huge difference between being arrested FOR drugs and being arrested WITH drugs.

I never called you Hitler, you're more of a Mussolini.

Could you demonstrate why transhumanism/posthumanism will always result in schizophrenia?

It's actually that transhumanism/posthumanism always results from schizophrenia.

You are mostly right here about the solutions transhumanism will bring though. We will be able to stop the dysgenics going on now. Mothers used to be encouraged to kill genetic freaks, now they are kept alive and even reproduce to the detriment to our species as a whole.

This will be prevented soon by voluntary checks for defects and gene manipulation, while still in the womb. Positive eugenics is a good thing, as long as the people creating policies to encourage this can avoid absolutely correct accusations of practicing eugenics.

So far liberals have put planned parenthoods and abortion clinics in black neighborhoods and killed 50% of blacks prior to birth, a plan formulated by open eugenicist Margaret Sanger, and they have successfully eluded any legitimate criticism of being proponents of eugenics. This is despite the fact, they have no defense of it, as the results of these practices, speak for themselves.

- Literal consumption (Modifying humans to not require food or water would clearly be of benefit. Perhaps transhumans/posthumans could generate energy through solar power or wind power. Perhaps something yet to be invented could be our source of energy, too)

To What ends? The experience of eating, if not done in a way where you mindlessly lose control, is very good. Just imagine eating a delicious gourmet cheesecake, and sipping a glass of red wine. It's a very good experience. Consumption is not bad, in fact it is quite good.

- Metaphysical consumption (Humans dislike both discomfort (for obvious reasons) and comfort (generates boredom). Humans aren't designed to be satisfied with anything, and thus this creates a hedonistic treadmill that never satisfies humans. This becomes a problem when humans realize that their chasing will be endless and that there is no difference in death between chasing and not chasing. Add to that the concept of 'achievement' which is created first by the human mind creating problems (they build broken chairs to fix), and often the 'achievement' doesn't generate anything of real value (i.e. kicking a ball into a net doesn't make you less thirsty -- any derived benefit from kicking the ball into the net could be garnered somewhere else; the universe doesn't need you to kick the ball into the net). Rewiring the human brain in various ways could lessen or resolve these problems).

This is a major problem in modern society and one that is being medicated by psychiatrists, trying to hard code the brain with psychotherapy in combination with prescribed drugs. Maybe, like in the brave new world, we could prescribe everyone a happy pill that eliminates this, but it seems like something that would just work on the symptom, not the problem. The problem is the system.

Humans are happiest when they chase goals that are very hard to obtain. With pleasure just a mouse click away, it deprives us of this pleasure of the chase. You aren't explaining why chasing goals, endlessly is bad. You just expect us to accept that it is. We can see the quick dopamine hit of jerking off to porn harms us, the money handed to a prostitute for sex, doesn't satisfy us at all. What makes us happy is chasing what we want, and depriving ourselves of immediate and fleeting moments of joy.

When humans were tribal, there was no such thing as mental health issues. When your daily life is spent overcoming nature and barely surviving you are much happier. As an animal yourself, it is what you were meant to do. You are here today seeking a fight. Some part of you knows that a fight will make you feel alive. The stakes of these online fights aren't enough to make you happy though. It just hints at something that will make you happier.

What's unfortunate is that the seeking of security, probably stops you from having a fight with high enough stakes. You can have that fight though. Find a job that pays you for results and only results, become an entrepreneur, where every day is a fight to put food on the table or pay your mortgage. Anyone who plays sports for a living and other forms of competition can recreate that feeling. Do what works for you.

The human brain is fine. Become hedonistic. Everything that is not about you fighting for survival, should be about indulging your senses, love by being around the people you love, sexual pleasure by fucking like a porn star, taste by eating only the highest quality food. Exercise hard to get the feelings actual combat may give you.

Transhumanism should be used to meet the hedonistic imperative https://www.hedweb.com/ . However we should aim for the hedonistic imperative in a way that also doesn't merely just help make man more a part of the machine. Technology should serve us, not placate us so that way we can continue to be good slaves to the system.

A need for the Divine (Religion solves a lot of problems humans have, such as avoiding a singular, flawed human being responsible for the creation of rules for a society to follow, and instead seemingly makes the rule maker a Divine entity who cannot be questioned. Humans also have a pronounced fear of the unknown, and the Divine entity solves that problem, too -- there are many benefits to believing in the Divine entity (religion was a positive evolutionary adaption). Of course, more educated civilizations start to realize they haven't proven such a Divine entity exists (or even can't), and suddenly people start to stop believing in such a Divine entity. Making humans better (particularly neurologically) may avoid the necessity for a Divine being to be believed in, and thus the problems that come along with it).

Utter bullshit. You'll understand one day, but God is real. Religion may satisfy some things occasionally like filling in gaps of understanding, by assigning them to God. Sometimes those holes religion fill are bad or made worse by religion doing so, sometimes they are made better, but this is a completely different issue than the existence of a creator.

It's currently a royal pain to deal with humans. Rather than trying to endlessly change the world around us to suit human needs, why not start to change the needs humans have?

It's easier to be a sheep. It's also easy once you see the problems with the system, to merely exploit them to your own ends and live an incredible life doing so. It's one of the reasons why the system seems unbeatable. Those who awaken, often times feel it is easier to exploit the system than end it. It's a personal decision we all have to make, when we awaken. Fight the system or use our knowledge of it, to become wealthy, comfortable and loved. Easy doesn't mean better. I would prefer to make a system that benefits humans, than destroying and perverting humanity into some sort of clone of the " Brave new world" universe.

Massive strawman.

Think of it like this.

If a huge amount of police officers have an implicit bias against black people

that is not just individual thats a large amount of people in a system that have a bias.

I’m not well versed in reading studies but it seems you pay for some of yours. One paper is behind a paywall, the other you have to request for it. 

The real problem is.

You think that YOU produce the  good arguments.

And that anyone who proposes a counterargument, therefore proposes a bad argument.

It's what's known as intolerance of any alternative point of view.

Under these circumstances, sourcing is completely irrelevant anyway.

You're forgetting that there are two sides to every argument.

Since you don't mind simply pasting links as your proof, I'll paste links on it.

The op is under the impression that mankind needs some sort of saving from it's very nature. The hidden premise is that mankind is affected in a negative way by the system.

This conclusion of mankind comes from a type of thing that Sigma personalities will do. They feel like an alien in this world, and so they view society from an alien perspective. Mankind is looked down upon, because they are not a part of it, and since they see many problems in the world, they naturally feeling alien from their fellow man, will conclude they somehow are above man, and so they look at traits unique to human nature and call them bad.

Tribalism is seen as bad, because it hurts the system. I am going to dedicate another thread to exactly what I mean by the system, but let's just summarize for now as the current world order, that works to benefit itself and to maintain the power and autonomy of the people at the top, at not only our detriment, but to their own detriment as well.

The system is the matrix you heard about described by Morpheus in the movie The Matrix. It is not something you can taste touch or smell, but it surrounds you. It controls you, and you can only escape it by freeing your mind. Freeing your mind comes with it's own sets of problems as well. If you escape the matrix you still risk mind viruses that try to keep you from being free. That attempt to either pull you back in or enslave you in more insidious ways.

[...]

The truth is mesmer, that the world you live in is like a cloak put over you to shield you from the truth. It isn't that people are bad. Being a human is not wrong. Human qualities, certainly are not bad just because they are inconvenient to the system/matrix. To hate human qualities such as tribalism are harmful to the system and the system alone.

the 3 main mind viruses are Nihilism, egalitarianism and solipsism are the things that enslave you, even if you break free from the system. Fortunately mesmer will never be at risk of the second mind virus, but she is at risk of being hit by the other 2.

The fact is that tribalism is what helps us connect with others. To feel we belong, to feel safe and important. Numerous studies have shown that we just work better in small tribes of 75 people at maximum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Notice how Mesmer also equates logical with best and insinuates it is illogical to be tribal. This is not the case though. In tribes like I said before we feel connected instead of isolated like sigmas such as Mesmer. We feel loved, and we feel important. It is easier to feel important to a group of 50 close people of a tribe than it is to feel important to 5 billion fellow Earthlings.

There is nothing wrong with being human Mesmer, Inherently human qualities are good. Tribalism is good. Instead of fighting your nature.........enjoy it. Fuck like it is going out of smile, eat great food, enjoy the best sites and sounds. As an anti-natalist, you should realize the corect solution is hedonism. Enjoy life. Enjoy life, by indulging in your nature.

Society as it is, is meant to hide you from your nature, that is why people are anxious or depressed. We literally drug those people to make them feel better about being in a system they know is wrong. We have men cutting off their dicks even . These trannies do it, because they feel something is wrong and can't put their finger on it, so decide it is themselves. Trannies are not wrong though, they are just in the wrong environment and cutting off their dick and balls are not going to solve it.

Sexual reproduction is not cumbersome. It's fun to fuck. It is fun to pursue the opposite sex or be pursued. The ego trip seducing a beautiful person gives you, feels really good.

If a system is much harsher on your demographic for being involved with drugs, your demographic ends up more likely to lie about having any involvement with said drugs. That's pretty simple.

You do realize individual actions influence systems?....right?

To address these challenges, we compiled and analysed a dataset detailing nearly 100 million traffic stops carried out by 21 state patrol agencies and 35 municipal police departments over almost a decade. This dataset was built through a series of public records requests filed in all 50 states. To facilitate future analysis, we have redistributed these records in a standardized form.

We analysed data on approximately 95million stops from 21state patrol agencies (blue) and 35municipal police departments (red) across the country.

Weed consumption and arrest rates:

https://norml.org/marijuana/fact-sheets/racial-disparity-in-marijuana-arrests/

Racial disparities when it comes to drug arrests in general:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305409

Traffic stops in general:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/links/S126560-LINK1.PDF

Not a "neighbourhood", 'the hood'. It's not a good idea to go out at night in these ghetto areas, and because Blacks are more likely to live in these ghetto areas, you're going to get less Blacks out at night. The specific graph from the 2020 study you failed to cite properly is data compiled only for Texas (not even close to the entire US), and parts of Texas (e.g. Houston) certainly have these ghetto 'hood' areas.

Here’s the study I was referring to: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1?proof=t

Why are you lying?

As I stated.

Everything has a source.

OK in debate, but not a necessity of the FORUM.

As if I have the time and the commitment to source every FORUM post I make.

The arguments Ryan and Sean make are data-driven. If the data is wrong/misinterpreted/incorrect, that should be the discussion's focus. If the conclusions Ryan and Sean make from the data is wrong, then that should be the discussion's focus. This is not an insurmountable hurdle wherein we must determine the nature of the author. You can get the sources, read to see if what the source say supports what Ryan Faulk or Sean Last is arguing, and that is all you need. That is all that matters.

Stop making these logically fallacious Ad Hominem arguments -- they are never valid.

[no response]

Supposing all his theories were correct

then the cheapest way to go about fixing it would probably be to start mandatory vasectomies for men with low IQs or who are otherwise genetically deficient. Tube ties are too expensive. Problem would fix itself in a generation or two, and people can use the sperm banks. Those among us who are genetically inferior will just have to be cucked for the greater good.

Not taking the bait

just pointing out to anyone else reading that the 'tail doesn't wag the dog' should clearly, blatantly apply to the quality of education and teacher-training (with handling unruly students and techniques of rewarding good behaviour and punishing malicious behaviour within a school) being the dog and the students being the tail.

The police aren't causing the people to be criminal lol. The police are responding to crimes being committed (which are actual crimes and not fake crimes caused by a systemically racist system: Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) ).

Blacks and whites consume cannabis at the same rate yet blacks get arrest far more for carrying it. Are you really that hard lined on criminality, or is it just due to your bias.

That 2020 study you're vaguely referencing failed to control for confounding variables such as the fact there are less Blacks on the road at night (because they are more likely to live in the hood)

There are less blacks on the road at night because they live in a neighbourhood? I assume you added that because most people are at home at night.

The study takes this into consideration. 

carpool violations

Do you have any statistics on that. I’m unable to find any. 

individual police being racially biased thus making them stop only certain races (good luck controlling for that variable) and many other variables. You can't take the data facts of the 2020 and then make inferences from it without controlling for all the variables.

You don’t need to look at the individual police officer to see there’s racial bias in policing. Are you saying there isn’t? If there is, what are you arguing exactly?

The more you crack down on a group of people, the higher their crime will be. e.g. Black traffic stops go down at night due to cops not being able to see their ethnicity. What you’re arguing for is a self fulfilling prophecy. 

I'm just going to assume that your lack of response is implicit agreement.

It’s a motte-and-bailey fallacy. Stick to what you were originally arguing. 

No.

They are phenotypically and psychologically deep.

Are you saying people don’t judge others based on how they look, including skin pigmentation due to preconceived biases and stereotypes?

lack of quality schooling. 

existing schools and Teacher unions need more power and money funded with taxes

Not only is it true the schools do but if you support the education disparity needing to be fixed, there is more that has to be provided for the very poor, a 'few dollars' is a medium purchase the poorest, this seems unthinkable to the more well-off.

A calculator is expensive to them, you need to understand that absolutely everything is costly for them (let alone a laptop to be able to do anything technical-based from home which really caused issues during Covid).

1. You do realise you’re speaking in terms of skin pigmentation/ethnicity when it comes to talents and abilities like the literal Nazi’s did instead of looking at the individual regardless of colour. 

I am talking in terms of phenotypic, genetic and heritable traits that various humans have. Unless you are horrifically stupid enough to think all groups of humans, despite evolving in different environments with different ancestors, evolved to be precisely the same, you should agree with me.

[no response]

You stated:

The OP literally copy-pastes every shitlib argument and replaces every instance of 'White' with 'Black', 'American' with 'Nigerian'.

Spend a couple hours around shitlibs and you'll have every shitlib argument ready for satire in that time.

Do you think there a racial biases which are literally skin-deep? Yes or no. 

You do realise I am associating them with what you’ve said in different regards, right? 

The Nazi one was about you talking about skin colour and ethnicity when it comes to talents and abilities.

While the marxist one was you talking about, “Some people are just better at things than others. The world should be geared to making use of those talents and abilities”, if you just take it at stated value.

Though it’s interesting you didn’t ask what I was actually referring to, instead focusing on perceived fallacies. 

So, pick a link and discuss that

I did. 

Specifically, I questioned the bias and whether the claims are reliable.

But if you want an argument: please look here

https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/comments/7o5hxx/a_response_to_the_alternative_hypothesis_video/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

I say this without any cynicism, you have a point in this thread. I wish to see more of this content from you as opposed to the far-right stuff.

The better answer, and one requiring nothing but change of heart regarding the human condition, and, better yet, offered two thousand years ago, but still not tried successfully, mostly because we think we know better, is the product of Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. Taking less than fifteen minutes to read, even for a slow reader, but still literate, this council given has in it the solution to every single social ill we suffer today, always have, and always will until these principles are embraced.

The exact cause of schizophrenia isn't known, but a combination of genetics, environment, and altered brain chemistry and structure may play a role.

Schizophrenia is characterized by thoughts or experiences that seem out of touch with reality, e.g. Modifying humans to not require food or water 

For someone interested in a debate, you sure do have a fairly comprehensive list of all the things you refuse to discuss, and won’t debate. And for someone who is interested in debate and unwilling to talk about ad Homs and labels - you seem solely preoccupied with calling people names and labelling. The irony is not lost on me.

Likewise, you’ve again refused to justify anything you’ve said.

Broadly speaking, your post lists a set of facts that show that various inequalities of the justice system are derived from black behaviour - and as a result cannot be systematically racist.

Good starting point; the best place to start an intelligent discussion is by assuming everything your opponent says is true, and working back. So let’s do that:

Doing that reveals the assumption inherent in your post: which is that individual behaviour is fully isolated from the socioeconomic system - IE: that everything people do is a product of and solely Influenced by, inherent factors of them.

Your data and argument is meaningless if that assumption is false ; if the system itself is influencing behaviour of individuals through various socioeconomic pressures. Right?

IE: that if African Americans are more likely to be criminals - that is solely down to them, and is not influenced by other factors.

I don’t think that assumption is valid. And inherently, we have to get an agreement on that assumption before we even get to the data or analysis - because the conclusions of the data are inherently based upon it. Right?

So how do I do that? Well, I could advance multiple socioeconomic theories, and ask you to debunk them one by one - but that would be long winded and require substantial effort and time for both of us.

The best use of time is to through our an alternate hypothesis: how socioeconomic factors can influence behaviours

[...]

[trying to take me into your funhouse]

Most people know that Blacks are arrested more often than Whites. Some people see this as systemic racism. Some people see this as Blacks being arrested more because they commit more crimes. I'm going to demonstrate that it's the latter using several arguments.

(1) Arrest Rates and Victimization Reports

We can confirm the validity of official arrest rates via the high degree to which they correspond with victimization reports. Using the National Crime Victimization Survey (for victimization reports) and the Uniform Crime Report (for official arrest rates), we can see that there is high correspondence (Last, 2015): 1.jpg (740×146) (thealternativehypothesis.org) . The fact that there is high correspondence is evidence that arrests being made are legitimate (i.e. not based on systemic racism, but rather actual crime).

(2) Black Misbehavior at School

Blacks get into trouble far more often at school than Whites do:

- Black preschoolers have an above average rate of suspension. Blacks make up 18% of preschools yet 50% of suspensions Education Department: Black preschoolers more likely to be suspended - CBS News 

- Black females account for 12% of elementary school suspensions, but White females only accounted for 2% Schools’ Discipline for Girls Differs by Race and Hue - The New York Times (nytimes.com) 

- A Department of Education report analyzed over 72,000 schools and found that Blacks were 18% of the population, yet 35% of people suspended once, 45% suspended more than once, and 39% of those expelled Black Students Face More Harsh Discipline, Data Shows - The New York Times (nytimes.com) 

- After controlling for socio-economic status, Black middle schoolers were more likely to be suspended than White middle schoolers The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (ccsd.net) 

A potential counter-argument to this is that teachers have racial bias against Blacks. However, there is strong evidence against this. When comparing Blacks and Whites with the same number of previous behavioral problem, both groups were as likely to be suspended Prior problem behavior accounts for the racial gap in school suspensions - ScienceDirect . Also, Blacks and Whites were equally likely to face suspension if they were sent to the principal's office The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (ccsd.net)  .

Due to differences in Black crime rates reflecting the non-biased rate in which Blacks get in trouble at school, this adds evidence to the U.S. criminal justice system being legitimate.

(3) Drug Crime

Some people claim that Blacks do less drugs than Whites, but Blacks are arrested more, therefore systemic racism exists.

Firstly, Blacks are more likely than Whites to lie about using drugs, and this finding has been consistently found Supp82(3).book(jti065.fm) (nih.gov) Urinalysis Screened vs Verbally Reported Drug Use: The Identification of Discrepant Groups: International Journal of the Addictions: Vol 12, No 4 (tandfonline.com) "The Validity of Injection Drug Users Self-Reported Use of Opiates and " by Russel S. Falck, Harvey A. Siegal et al. (wright.edu) Drug Use among Juvenile Arrestees: A Comparison of Self-Report, Urinalysis and Hair Assay | Request PDF (researchgate.net) .

Secondly, Blacks are more likely to buy drugs outdoors than White people (which is riskier in terms of being caught) at 0.31 correlation versus White's 0.14. Blacks are about three times likely to buy from a stranger (0.3 versus 0.09). Blacks are also significantly more likely to buy away from their homes (0.61 versus 0.48) Racial differences in marijuana-users' risk of arrest in the United States - PubMed (nih.gov) . This riskier buying of drugs makes Blacks more likely to be caught.

Lastly, a report from the Justice Department found that Blacks are more likely to use drugs than Whites, use more dangerous drugs than Whites, and are more likely to take drugs in areas with high crime rates The Racial Disparity in U.S. Drug Arrests (ojp.gov) . 

Based on the research, it is wise to assume that Blacks getting arrested more for drug use is a result of their higher drug usage (despite them lying about it), taking drugs in riskier areas, and buying drugs in riskier places.

(4) Police Brutality

It has become popular in some circles to claim that police are disproportionately brutal/murderous against Blacks. The data shows otherwise.

Using the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report like we did in point (1), we see that Blacks account for about 1/3 of rape and assaults, over half of robbery crimes -- the two data points agree (thus Blacks are being arrested as much as you would expect, given the amount of crime they do).

Also, using the Uniform Crime Report only, we see that Blacks are about 1/2 of the murderers, 38% of violent crime, and 29% of people arrested FBI — Table 43 . Given these facts, if police only killed criminals who posed a serious threat to society, and if these criminals were on average equally likely to be killed by police, we would expect people killed by police to be Black between 29% and 38% of the time.

Using other data points to see if people killed by police are Black 29-38% of the time, we have an analysis of Uniform Crime Report data which shows 32% of those killed by police were Black Police Killings of Blacks: Here Is What the Data Say - The New York Times (nytimes.com) . Another analysis of data found 30% Microsoft Word - Moskos 2015 why be a cop.docx (petermoskos.com) . Therefore, Blacks are indeed being killed at about the rate you'd expect based on the percentage of Blacks who are violent criminals (which means that based on this data, officers aren't being biased against Blacks).

(5) Unfair Sentencing

When controlling for how Blacks present themselves in courtrooms, how likely he/she will commit another crime in the future, Verbal IQ and self reported history of violence, we see that there is no unjust racial sentencing gap No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health - ScienceDirect . 

Conclusion

For the above reasons, we should reject the notion of "systemic racism" in the U.S. criminal justice system as being a myth.

Arguments largely copied from Ryan Faulk and Sean Last's works. Credit should go to them.

If we are "perfected", what is left for us to do?

1. You do realise you’re speaking in terms of skin pigmentation/ethnicity when it comes to talents and abilities like the literal Nazi’s did instead of looking at the individual regardless of colour. 

2. When I said social inequalities, I wasn’t referring to talents and abilities. By the way, you sound kinda marxist. 

Every argument can be sourced.

Point of view...Source.

It's a chicken and egg dilemma.

Are you saying it doesn’t happen, or are you saying people should accept it? 

What exactly are you referring to?

Social inequalities. 

Are you saying it doesn’t happen, or are you saying people should accept it? 

Ramshutu, invariably makes substantial arguments.

Argument is invariably about disagreement.

So a conditioned mind must learn to accept disagreement.

However, this is not the same as being logically fallacious, as is the function implied in an 'Ad Hominem' claim. By using Wikipedia's definition, you're essentially arguing that because their conflict of interest *might* have caused the research to be biased, it *has* to be biased. This leap in logic is why Wikipedia's interpretation of logic is wrong.

Moreover, if the bias were to effect the results of the study, that should be evident in the results, and that's where your criticisms should be directed. In other words, the validity of the study exists *independent* of the author's character. More likely to be biased =/= biased.

Therefore, it is logically fallacious to attack the character of the people making the arguments, rather than the arguments"

Probability is exactly what it's about. If a witness is testifying in court who is obviously intoxicated, a known liar and has an obvious reason to lie, we can use those facts - which are entirely ad hominem - to evaluate the probability that the witness's testimony is reliable. When a lawyer is in court advocating for his client, it's obvious that his arguments are very likely going to favor his client's interests because that's his job.

There's so much information in the world we have to use a heuristic filter, and the simplest one is trust. As a threshold matter, a source should have some appearance of credibility. I did look at the blog site and was trying to find out who the sources were, which was Ryan Faulk and Sean something or rather. I don't know much about them, but what they did say on their about page didn't do much for their credibility. In fact it tried to avoid the credibility issue much the same way you have, by encouraging people to evaluate the arguments themselves and to not trust anybody, or something like that. The problem is it takes too long to do that. We have to rely on heuristics. It's somewhat ironic, come to think of it, as racial prejudice follows similar reasoning. But it is what it is.

I suppose you listen to Dave Rubin from time to time.  

And I assume this is like meta-satire? You’re good man, you’re good!

Let me try... Why are you such a fascist? You should be deplatformed. 

Hmm I’ll need to work on it. I have to come into my own.

What are your thoughts on traditional liberalism?

All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.

When evaluating the credibility of a witness / source, ad hominem is relevant and isn't fallacious.

You are logically incorrect.

Ad Hominem is always a logical fallacy.

We should be addressing the arguments involved, instead of assessing the author making them. Furthermore, the thread is about the arguments involved, not the nature of the author.

You are just being a massive idiot like all the other shitlibs here.

That's not true. Read the wiki please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

For everybody:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/comments/7o5hxx/a_response_to_the_alternative_hypothesis_video/

For you:

'Progressive' (shitlib) false narratives and their debunkings (debateart.com)

I posted mine first. You respond to everything first, then I'll respond to everything here.

Now let's watch you not do that.

It's too much work.

This has already been tried and it leads to poor Whites and Hispanics getting crapped on, whilst poor Blacks get the goodies because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and so the Democrat power (when it power) gives them the goodies.

So, I said the words "help poor people" and you chose to read that as "help black people". Do your honestly not see how racist you are coming off?

You're just another shitlib who does little more than larping around with nonsense terms like "racist".

Lol, I said it wasn't about race, it's about economics. You then said i'm somehow a racist. Since you also link to read and use blatantly racist website as sources, I'm guessing you honestly can't see what a racist you are. And you therefore you just assume there must be wrong with other people who point this out to you. 

Ironically your actually playing the ad hominem game you dismissed

ramshutus entire argument and called ant white black supremacist shitlib who hates white people instead of responding to anything hes said.

If I link to a list of nonsensical articles from a ridiculous source, will you feel the necessity of trying to disprove all of them? I seriously doubt you would waste your time doing that. His source is basically a white supremacist website. I have much better things to do with my time than try to explain to a blatant racist why his racism is wrong. He will never see what he is doing as racist. Probably because he doesn't see racism as a problem.