Total posts: 516
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
(1)
You originally said: "Fortunately no one is white....Therefore no one should be offended." "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .
I responded to this by directing you to my other post wherein I show that human races are real (and thus "white" is real): "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .
You've now attempted (whether intentionally or not) to shift the topic involving "taxonomic" human racial distinctions to "discrimination": "1. Culture is such that all becomes cultural. Discrimination is cultural..." "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .
If you want to argue that "no one is white", you need to demonstrate that human races are purely "cultural". I provided you a truckload of arguments which demonstrate why race IS a real concept for humans, that there is a genetic component to it: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) . You haven't addressed this argument at all. Have you conceded it?
(2)
I don't agree that "white supremacist" isn't currently discriminatory -- that's why I made the thread. You haven't demonstrated that it isn't currently discriminatory, either, so that's a bare assertion on your behalf.
Again, I posited that (a) It clearly has racial overtones ("white" is literally built into the term) and (b) it clearly is meant as a slur. (a) is asserted because there is literally mention of race in the term "white". (b) is asserted because no one wants to be called a "white supremacist". You haven't addressed this framework at all, hence you've currently conceded all of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well taxonomically one can discriminate in all sorts of ways.And just like everything cultural, taxonomic discrimination is no more or less a data management exercise.
Could you please explain to me how differences in ability to sweat is "cultural?"
Could you please explain to me how differences in cranial shape are "cultural?"
Could you please explain to me how differences in lactose tolerance are "cultural?"
Could you please explain to me how differences in skin color are "cultural?"
And currently "White supremacist" doesn't have the same social significance as "n*gger".
So how did you get from this statement to "white supremacist" *not* being a racial slur?
So call me wh*tey.....And all will be good.
The thread is about "white supremacist", not "wh*tey".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
personally i think vaush did pretty good
What points did Vaush make that you think are good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Fortunately no one is white....Therefore no one should be offended.
You've made the same argument to secularmerlin. I've addressed it under the second quote being this: "Indeed there is no taxonomic difference between the various human "races". We are all just human. Any observable differences between social groups is entirely cultural and claiming that white supremacist is a slur sounds like an attempt to make discussing the issues of systemic racism and white supremacist attitudes more difficult."
Here is a direct link to the post wherein I address merlin's point: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .
And some people are sensible, and some people are particularly stupid....And we've always known this...So we should be used to it by now.
Whether or not some people are "particularly stupid" doesn't impact whether "white supremacist" is a racial slur. We could have 145 I.Q. people and 70 I.Q. people calling African Americans the n word, and in both instances the n word is a racial slur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No one is claiming that a white supremacist attitude is something all white persons are white supremacists.
You've strawmanned everything in the OP. The claim the OP makes is that "white supremacist" is a racial slur. Whether or not someone claims all white people have white supremacist views is irrelevant to the term being a racial slur or not.
Indeed there is no taxonomic difference between the various human "races". We are all just human. Any observable differences between social groups is entirely cultural and claiming that white supremacist is a slur sounds like an attempt to make discussing the issues of systemic racism and white supremacist attitudes more difficult.
Firstly, whether or not human races are real is irrelevant as to whether "white supremacist" is a racial slur. The slur is generated through racial animus (faulty as it may be) and is not dependent on whether human races are valid. For example, saying "go back to the cotton fields, you bootlipped n*gger" remains a racial slur regardless of the validity of human races. If you don't agree, go say that to an African American and see how far you get in explaining human races don't exist.
Secondly, human races are of taxonomic value. There is sufficient fst value for humans that are similar/above other animals' species whom DO have species (read: race). Heterozygosity reflects the same findings of fst value evaluation. SNP/loci grouping distribution, done blind by a computer, distinctly groups 'African', 'European' and 'Asian' racial groups (super broad racial groups) when the SNP/loci number reaches 100 The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . On a scientific level, humans are of taxonomic value.
Furthermore, here are different human skulls from varying races (differences noted, too): main-qimg-6f0736c16e8265de9f98f40e7ef7e76a (602×610) (quoracdn.net) . You're essentially arguing that these differences in skull shapes are culturally caused (?!). Forensics actually use skulls to determine human race because it has predictive validity Microsoft Word - 07. (pharmainfo.in) . Again, is the fact that forensic police use this notion of human race, and are able to accurately determine human race, just a series of extremely lucky guesses?
We're also able to observe albinism in differing races and easily determine their race, based on their phenotypic traits: main-qimg-54acc098bd279b12f95dd678b2395091 (602×566) (quoracdn.net) . Empirically, we can observe what we typically call human races (Asian, African etc.) through something as blanketing (e.g. changes skin colour) as albinism. Why are all African noses broader, generally speaking, if race has no taxonomic significance?
Conclusively, in either the first case where we conceded your argument, or the second case where we prove human races exist, "white supremacist" is a racial slur.
People interested in truth rarely make discussing it more difficult.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
They openly say whiteness is bad. I see tweets all the time. I follow a bunch of leftist Twitter users so I can see what the average democrat thinks
Yeah, there's plenty of tweets with anti-white hatred (took me 1 min to find -- there's loads more):
I'm not convinced all these are genuine people, though. Some might be grifters looking to make a quick dollar of racial hatred. Hell, the average Democrat might not even be the vitriolic against white people, but there are certainly people who are.
Created:
Posted in:
I find it hypocritical this nasty term is freely available for use in general society. People get bent out of shape with terms like the n word, racial jokes and sometimes mere mention of race, but the general public seems complicit in slurring white people with this derogatory term. It clearly has racial overtones ("white" is literally built into the term) and it clearly is meant as a slur. According to the nonsense usually attributed with the term "racist" Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , SJWs and progressive should be calling usage of this term "racist". Yet, these SJW and progressive people are usually the ones calling various white people this racial slur. This is a case of systemic racism against white people.
It's also true that this "white supremacist" racial slur is essentially an attack on white groups in general, whereas other racial groups are allowed to form groups without being slurred. If we search the term "white nationalism" on Wikipedia, we see "Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism", whereas a search of the term "black nationalism" has Wikipedia making the term free from black supremacism: "Black nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or a subset of, Black supremacism and Black separatism, and these terms have often been used interchangeably by journalists and academics.[2][3][4] They are in fact very different philosophies". So, despite having white and black people attempting to form ethnostates, only white people are slurred -- more systemic racism against white people.
I think SJW and progressive types need to thoroughly reconsider their usage of this racial slur against white people, because not only is it thoroughly hypocritical, it's indicative of racial hatred against white people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
They should be ignored. If say, African Americans are more prone to a particular type of disease, then that gives us an indication as to where the resources to fight that disease are likely to be needed. We don’t create a policy to fight the disease for African Americans in a way we would deny anyone else who comes down with the same illness.
Yes, policy shouldn't (ideally) deny other groups treatment. However, if you had a 95% of the same ethnic group in a particular country (South Korea has 95% Koreans South Korea - Wikipedia , China has Han Chinese at above 90% The Largest Ethnic Groups In China - WorldAtlas ), wouldn't it make sense to have a variety of policies that cater to the majority's needs and issues? It doesn't have to be at the expense of other groups. With the China example I gave, you can still have lactose products for sale, but clearly they need to indicate that they have lactose, otherwise the majority lactose intolerant population is going to be sick. How would such a policy, based on race, be "arbitrary?"
This is exactly what happened with COVID, and in many cases we sent more resources to black communities. That’s not a racial issue, we did the same thing for seniors. Any group we recognize as being more likely to be in need of a resource will be more likely to have those resources available.This is distinct though from policy. Policy is a proactive conversation, this is reactive. The policy says we’re going to fight COVID for everyone, the method figures out how to do that so we all have an equal chance of getting through it with our health in tact.
Sure, Covid policy isn't a race issue.
However, I gave several examples of policies that could be affected by race.
With the Chinese example, the policy could say 'we're going to make sure lactose is labelled on every product', in order to fight the fact that, genetically, Chinese people are lactose intolerant.
Created:
-->
@Vader
If you're going to ban someone on the grounds of making a "racist" comment, you should be banning people like Oromagi who make racist slurs against white people by calling them "White supremacists" IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) .
After all, "White supremacist" is such a directly racist and unforgivable statement :)
Created:
God, even such a directly racist and unforgivable statement isn't condemned by them, shows the fucking level of degeneracy here.
This is why the general public doesn't take SJW's seriously. You take a comment that was designed to be a joke, in a joke thread, that the person whom it was directed at didn't get offended, and suddenly we have to all be compelled to condemn this person to purgatory.
Yeah, it's an off-color joke. Yeah, I personally wouldn't say it. But when you're so damn sensitive over an off-color joke, when you're so ready to un-person someone the moment they aren't perfect in your eyes, you become the extremist nutjob you think you're fighting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I’ve never seen a convincing argument against race realism, because there isn’t one. I would like someone who denies any significant differences between human populations to explain, for example, why 79 of the last 80 100 meter dash finalists at the last ten Olympics were of African ancestry
I was going to reply to this earlier but I forgot to, so sorry. Still, better late than never imo.
They'd argue that (historically) African cultures promote sprinting. These kinds of people will argue that culture is the only thing that can affect people, assuming that people are born into a tabulsa rasa genetic set-up (i.e. you can be anything, so long as you try your best). They'd say that more money and effect is put into modern African sprinting, too. Finally, they'd also say that because we haven't found the sprinting genes, we can't yet say they exist (or even that they don't exist, or that it's random and based on individuals).
Those are the arguments of which I've heard.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't think hinting that Africans look like monkeys is going to please anyone. While I'm personally not against crass jokes like this, this is a debate website wherein ideas and arguments should be addressed. If we start implying that people look like monkeys, the rationality will quickly dissolve.
I don't think it's "hate speech", "racist" or that you're a "Nazi" (they're all nonsensical terms designed to slander, rather than argue anything of substance, btw). RationalMadman is far too sensitive, so just ignore him if he starts crying about everyone being Nazis or whatever nonsense extremist left-wing term he likes to use.
It's just an off-color joke that probably shouldn't be said, especially if Drlebronski is black. However, you didn't say it in the worst place, given that the thread was about roasting people, so it's even less bad because of that. I don't think it's anything more than that. I don't think you need to be perma-banned, or that the website is overrun by "ring-wing nutjobs" making far too "racist" claims. I don't think we needed a thread dedicated to witch-hunting you. I personally don't think it's appropriate comment to make, but I don't care that much that it exists.
Created:
"Racist" is a nonsense term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) . What you could logically argue is that there is racial hatred or racial bias against human racial groups, but you need to specify your grievance because "racist" is a nonsense term.
Anyway, I can agree in saying that calling Africans gorillas/monkeys is in poor taste, and generally shouldn't be done (especially in their presence). I don't think what TheUnderdog wrote here is appropriate, given the TOS.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If some race realists believe that America would be better as a white ethnostate due to the possibility that whites tend to have higher IQ than blacks, why aren't they consistent and wanting America to be an Asian ethnostate? I mean, Asians (according to race realists) have the highest IQ out of any ethnicity. You'd figure it would be Asians that would be the race realists and whites that agreed would sterilize themselves to make way for the smarter Asians.
Yes. Purely on I.Q. grounds, white ethnostates can't be justified. Otherwise, you'd argue for a population with only Ashkenazi Jews or Singaporeans (both having at least 108 I.Q., Ashkenazi Jews arguable having higher). Even East Asians would have to go with their brainlet 105 I.Q.
Although, a lot of race realists who want to argue for a white ethnostate in America would argue that it's also about preserving culture and identity, and that I.Q. isn't the only reason you'd want this societal set-up.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2794763/ "The purpose of this article was to examine the logic and the empirical data supporting the proposition that intelligence tests are not necessary for the definition of a learning disability. Four assumptions of the use of IQ test scores in the definition of learning disabilities were examined. These assumptions were (a) IQ tests measure intelligence; (b) intelligence and achievement are independent, and the presence of a learning disability will not affect IQ scores; (c) IQ scores predict reading, and children with low IQ scores should be poor readers; and (d) reading disabled children with different IQ scores have different cognitive processes and information skills. It was argued that IQ scores measure factual knowledge, expressive language abilities, and short-term memory, among other skills, and that because children with learning disabilities have deficits in these areas, their scores may be spuriously low. It was also shown that some children with low IQ scores can be good readers, indicating that low IQ scores do not necessarily result in poor reading. Empirical evidence was presented that poor readers at a variety of IQ levels show similar reading, spelling, language, and memory deficits. On logical and empirical grounds, IQ test scores are not necessary for the definition of learning disabilities." yes i did copy the abstract doesnt take away from my argument
This is only the abstract and the full paper is locked. I can't address this properly without the full paper, but I'll address what I can.
Having a high I.Q. is never going to be associated with learning disabilities to the same degree that low I.Q. does. High I.Q. learning disabilities tend to come from autism or ADHD, rather than simply not being able to process information at all. I'd also posit that not being able to understand something at all is far more impactful than having autism (which doesn't impact your entire ability to learn anything). Hence, on this ground alone, I.Q. is going to predict the severity of learning disabilities, and so has predictive value in that regard.
As for the paper specifically, I'm not sure what exactly they did when they "examined" these "four assumptions". Did they question the validity of these assumptions? Did they use these assumptions as premises in their arguments, or perhaps examined and negated some of them but not others? We don't know because we don't have the full paper.
Another quote I'd like to address: "It was argued that IQ scores measure factual knowledge, expressive language abilities, and short-term memory, among other skills, and that because children with learning disabilities have deficits in these areas, their scores may be spuriously low"
-- with IQ scores measure "factual knowledge", what exactly did they consider to be "factual knowledge?" Is this "factual knowledge" derived from the I.Q. test and is thus g loaded. Or is this "factual knowledge" required from *before* the test starts, hence allowing cultural/learned bias, thus lowering the g loading? Again, abstract doesn't explain this.
-- On another note, "expressive language abilities" sounds like a g loaded facet of an I.Q. test, so I'm super skeptical of them arguing that the I.Q. test becomes spurious when this g loaded factor is accounted for. In other words, they seem to have attempted to control for "expressive language abilities" when this factor *is* part of g loaded I.Q. tests. Again, would be nice to see the full paper to make sure this is exactly what they did.
-- I'm not sure they controlled for "short-term memory" properly (and it's debatable whether it's g loaded in itself) because having a lack of short-term memory can be mistaken for not being able to process the information in front of them, and so they might be accidentally removing a g loaded part of the test which they think is not g loaded. Again, abstract only etc. etc.
The final part I'd mention is that they've decided to say this: "It was also shown that some children with low IQ scores can be good readers, indicating that low IQ scores do not necessarily result in poor reading". I'd argue that reading ability *is* a "spurious" ground in which to measure I.Q, because clearly this is non-g loaded (i.e. can be learned before the test). Just because someone is reading, that doesn't mean they are understanding what they are reading -- that would be g loaded. Also, "good reader" isn't defined in this abstract, so you know what we need...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
**if** certain racial groups had better abilities (say Jewish people with 108 I.Q. being better able to comprehend the written word -- you don't have to agree that this is true), would it be a good idea to attempt to account for that in policy?No.
Alright. Let's move away from I.Q. for a moment.
Is there any racial difference that, in your mind, should ever be accounted for through policy? Like if a certain racial group was far more prone to a certain disease, or a certain racial group excelled in a particular field? Or should these racial differences be totally ignored in policy?
I can think of some non-I.Q. examples for you to consider:
For example, lactose intolerance is particularly rampant across East Asian populations Percentage of Lactose Intolerance by Ethnicity (and Geographic Region) - Milk Pro Con . Would it not be prudent policy to make sure lactose is noted on food/liquid products?
Another example, Koreans don't sweat to any significant degree, whilst Africans sweat a lot fgene-03-00306-g003.jpg (892×1167) (frontiersin.org) (taken from: Frontiers | Pharmacogenetics of human ABC transporter ABCC11: new insights into apocrine gland growth and metabolite secretion | Genetics (frontiersin.org) ). If these two racial groups lived in two different areas, should not one area aim to provide deodorant for its African population, whilst the other shouldn't bother with it nearly as much? Should the policies be the same for both areas, despite this genetic racial difference?
Another example, let's say (hypothetically, because it's hard to quantify musical ability) African Americans are genetically predisposed to music and making better music than other racial groups. What it not be prudent policy to focus on nurturing this better ability through having more state-backed musical programs and different school curriculums, so that African Americans could polish their natural ability for music, and then better export this public good to the international market (as well as help African Americans self-actualize better)?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@drlebronski
Are either of you race realists?
I am a race realist. I'm generally a more softer one than what you're probably used to. For example, I'm not convinced that making America a white ethnostate is the solution to making America better, whereas a lot of race realists would.
iq does not predict whether you are retarded or not.
It actually does. Intellectual disability occurs to people who are under 70 I.Q. Intellectual disability - Wikipedia .
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sperm jacking is definitely something that should be considered. If a woman sperm jacks a male, there needs to be a punishment for that, but I don't know a good punishment for it.
Some kind of jail sentence seems reasonable.
If there is enough evidence to confirm a sperm jack, then the guy wouldn't have to get a vastectomy as punishment. But sperm jacking is one reason why I don't want sex until I get a vastectomy and I recommend all males follow that advice. Otherwise, it is like playing Russian Roulette; I feel sorry for you if you get shot but you really shouldn't have played that game. With sex, if your girlfriend sperm jacks you, I feel sorry for you but you really shouldn't have played the sex game. People say that's hard, but not having sex is so easy; I don't have to date or court a girl and I don't have to spend all this money on a useless female. It's so easy to not search for sex and porn is available if you have urges to look at naked girls.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect all men to get vasectomies, just so they don't get sperm jacked. Sperm jacking (according to the U.K. statistic), cannot happen at a rate any higher than 20%, and I doubt it's anywhere near that (most of that statistic is probably women becoming impregnated through casual sex, and then finding another man to take care of the child, without telling the new man that she's already pregnant -- cucking). It's a serious problem when sperm jacking happens, but it's not the majority of cases. It think it would be easier to punish the women in the few instances where it did happen, rather than vasectomizing all men just in case they get sperm jacked.
The rate of sterilization reversibility is variable. My idea is a vastectomy, which is reversible around 30 to 90% of the time(Vasectomy reversal - Mayo Clinic).
Firstly, the average of those two numbers is 60%. That means 40% of the time, if a man wants to become fertile again, he simply can't. Remember that these are men who didn't choose to not have children. These are men who got a vasectomy *in the case* that they were sperm jacked. I think it would be easier to give jail sentences for sperm jacking.
Secondly, this is going to cost money. Vasectomies cost anywhere from $300 to $3000 dollars How Much Does a Vasectomy Cost? (verywellhealth.com). If we take an average of those, $1500 per man is something to consider. Now, add to this the cost of vasectomy reversal ($5000-$15000), and we can bump this average cost up to $11500 per man Vasectomy Reversal Costs - Vasovasotomy and Affordable Options . Again, giving jail sentences to the women who commit the crimes is far cheaper than administering vasectomies and vasectomy reversals to every man, and probably acts as a better deterrent for women.
Some females could end up exploiting men which is why males should be as careful with sex as what females currently are. The female is more scared of a pregnency than a male is, so if males have to worry about pregnency as well (even due to a sperm jack), then males will be more careful about sex, which there would be benefits to that such as the significant reduction in unwanted pregnencies, abortions, and STI transmissions.If sperm jacking is a fear, then I wouldn't recommend sex then as it is similar to Russian Roulette.
I agree that making women and men more careful about sex is a good thing. I'd even go a step further and argue that casual sex should be societally shunned, but that's another argument.
However, my point was that your 'if he leaves he's guilty' standard is an invitation for toxic women to attempt to entrap men. Sometimes, the female behavior is appalling to the point of being potentially criminal (sperm jacking, lying about being on the pill etc.) If a man leaves because of this, especially in light of there being little recourse he has to this toxic female behavior, you see how we're giving toxic females a weapon to entrap men? It's fine if the woman wants to get pregnant and have children, but she must have the man's consent because he usually pays for most of the child's upbringing.
Where did you get this figure from?11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family (43,083 children).which means that 89% get adopted within 5 years. Another cite said it was 96%, but I couldn't find it. Either way, the vast majority of kids get adopted within 5 years.
Thank you for providing the source.
It's good that adoption rates are so high that the children are likely to find a new family within 5 years. Still, this process does cost money and time, and it's better if no child had to be adopted. But I can agree, given your source, that finding (eventual) adoption isn't going to be a major problem for most children.
Lets say for the sake of argument that this is correct. If it's correct and significantly more people who get vastectomies end up adopting kids when they feel like it (assuming they aren't on welfare or on a sex offender list), then those foster kids are still getting an upgrade from the alternative; having no parents. If I was a foster kid and I had to pick between no parents and parents that treated me worse than the typical parent treats their biological kid, I'd pick the ladder because some parents are better than none.
I agree that within the dichotomy of having no parents or having adopted parents, that having adopted parents is preferred.
Still, it's better that we avoid adoption altogether and encourage children's biological parents to raise them in a stable relationship. That should be the goal of every society because stable relationships with biological parents are (1) the best for children, and (2) easier to set-up than adoption. I'm not yet convinced that taking single mother's children away from them helps societies produce the most stable relationships wherein both biological parents are raising the child.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@drlebronski
What's a race realist?people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people
You *can* be a race realist and think that black people are genetically inferior to white people. However, that isn't the definition of a race realist. You could actually believe that black people are genetically superior to white people and still be a race realist.
A race realist is someone who believes that there are distinct, racial differences between groups of humans -- the concept of 'human races' is a valid concept. That's all you have to agree with to be a race realist.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Who is Sean Last?
That's a bit tricky to answer because he keeps a lot of his information private (rightly so, given the current political persecution of right wing ideas).
He's definitely a race realist and arguably ring wing in general, although he has some left wing views (pretty sure he's in favor of abortion and is rather liberal about it).
His arguments are almost always fueled by data and statistics, and he seems to have an understanding of data better than a lot of academics (or sometimes even the people who write the papers). Due to him being more data driven, he's not as flashy or prone to flowery language as other people, so I guess we could classify him as a reserved person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
My God dude, grow up. You clearly do not understand what an ad hominem is. I never argued that your claims are invalid because you are a racist, I never even called you a racist. I implied that racism is the overwhelming driver of this conversation and challenged you to explain how and why I am wrong by providing some other reason this conversation matters. All you did was complain that I'm calling you names.
You've implied that my argument is wrong because I'm an intellectually dishonest person Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .
You implied that my argument was invalid because I was a "racist" trying to justify my "racism" here Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .
In both instances, you've ad hommed -- you've attacked my character in place of the argument I presented, and me being grown up or not doesn't change that fact lol.
Again, if you want to address the topic of this thread, rather than my character, feel free to start doing so.
That's because your definition of race realism is probably the most pointless thing I've ever seen discussed on this site. There will always be differences between races because no two human beings are exactly alike, so those differences I described will always apply to any group of any kind that could ever be put together. Even if you separate a bunch of twins and create two separate teams out of them you will still have differences among them, so what is the point of talking about this? Please explain how we get from this to any policy discussion.
"Pointless" is not equivalent to incorrect, hence you've already agreed that my argument is correct. If you want to then argue that race realism is "pointless", that comes after the fact of accepting race realism as a fact. Again, you're a race realist, not one who believes in valuing ethnostates, race-based social outcomes or deporting all black people, but one who believes that races can be grouped into genetically distinct groups (and thinking that it's pointless to do so). This is excellent because we can now discuss the policy implications of race realism which is a far more debatable topic. That's how we get to policy.
It goes beyond the scope of this thread, but this thread has been derailed into oblivion so there's little point in refraining from derailing it further, so I'll start to ask you meaningful questions: **if** certain racial groups had better abilities (say Jewish people with 108 I.Q. being better able to comprehend the written word -- you don't have to agree that this is true), would it be a good idea to attempt to account for that in policy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
It's a shame you can't put your pretty words to good use, but I don't have time to read more ad homs and waffling.
Sod off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
1. Do not address me as "big boy."
Alright, small boy.
2. Your nonsense about race is unpersuasive. For example, you linked a blog that is non-responsive to what I wrote written by an individual who lacks familiarity with the subject matters on which he opines. To illustrate this point: I reviewed some of his other writings. He clearly does not understand such basic concepts as psychometric testing, and yet purports to use data he doesn't understand to argue a point that is over his head.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether human races are real/equal. This is just ad hom against Ryan Faulk.
The website quotes numerous papers and data-points that show human races are a valid genetic concept. The fact that you don't think this disproves your argument ("Race has absolutely nothing to do with nature"), is either extremely bad faith or totally ignorant.
You further tried to make a point about skull shape. That point was incoherent, and non-responsive to what I wrote. Google the term "phrenology," and consider whether arguing with me over skull shapes is an efficacious use of your time.
Unless you think human skull shapes are shaped purely by "culture", the image very clearly shows that human races have distinct skull shapes. To even being fathoming that human skull shapes, across various races, are PURELY determined by culture and not genetics, if mind-warpingly stupid.
You totally dropped my point on phenotypic traits showing through albinism. I can't even begin to imagine how phenotypic traits (such as flatter noses for Africans) is something determined PURELY by culture.
3. Your comment that "If that's too complicated for you" will surely result in me not taking you or anything else you have to say seriously. That is particularly where, as here, you have been taken for a ride by a series of ideas that are devoid of any kind of scientific or other evidentiary basis.
Lol you're thin skinned.
You're not saying anything of substance. You're just finding fancy ways to say 'you're wrong'.
It's not even clear you can correctly repeat what, for example, Murray wrote on race and IQ; much less understand how Murray's methods were wrong, why or on what grounds.
More Ad hom and a red herring. Even if I personally couldn't cite ANYTHING Murray wrote verbatim, how does that make human races an invalid concept? It doesn't, and the perhaps even you know that, hence why you continue to deflect with ad homs are irrelevant waffling.
Furthermore, there's plenty of data/research on this topic that isn't Charles Murray's work. The fact that you think the only race realist arguments I've referred to are Charles Murray's is objectively wrong, and everyone can click the link to see how ridiculous you are https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/ .
To wit, exactly nothing you have put forward can be taken seriously.
I don't know why you bothered to repeatedly ad hom and write 'you're wrong' in a pretty fancy way several times. If you're going to do that again, don't bother.
What a complete waste of time you've been so far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
Not really, largely because "race realism" is an amorphous thing that isn't clearly defined. What do you mean, specifically?
It's really not -- it's literally within the term itself. Race realism is about showing that human races are real. That's it. You can argue things from that (such as policy), but race realism in itself isn't anything more than that.
Again, believing that human races exist doesn't necessarily mean that you believe 'black people bad', as you implied here Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . You CAN argue further and say mean things about black people, BUT it's entirely possible to be a race realist WITHOUT doing that.
I reiterate that you've made no case to support it nor have you presented any evidence. You need evidence.
Again, the thread/OP is about critical understandings of race realism. This is not a thread/OP proving any of the claims, I'm merely stating what those claims are. Hence, again, stating that 'you have no evidence' isn't a criticism of the OP/thread because that's not what it is claiming.
For example, I can say that mathematicians believe that 2+2=4, without having to prove that 2+2=4.
Again, if you want to argue that the critical understandings of race realism are wrong, which is a perfectly fine argument to make, go make your own thread, because this thread/OP is not about that.
Leave the goalposts alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
That sounds like a bunch of bullshit.
Calm down, big boy.
- Race has absolutely nothing to do with nature. What we call nature, is the result of the psychological effect of ingratiation in a particular culture. All human beings are created equally; race is an irrelevant factor to distinguish them. The subjective meaning human beings attach to race is the result of that culture, as well.
I'm surprised there are still people who believe human races aren't real or created "equally".
Ryan Faulk made a truly excellent piece arguing the validity of human races: The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . If you don't agree with anything he wrote, I'd be happy to discuss it here.
If that's too complicated for you, here are different human skulls from varying races (differences noted, too): main-qimg-6f0736c16e8265de9f98f40e7ef7e76a (602×610) (quoracdn.net) . I honestly don't know how you could defend these different skull shapes with a purely cultural explanation.
We're also able to observe albinism in differing races and easily determine their race, based on their phenotypic traits: main-qimg-54acc098bd279b12f95dd678b2395091 (602×566) (quoracdn.net) . Again, explaining phenotypic traits through "culture" is something I've never seen.
2. What you are calling racial differences are no such thing. They are cultural differences, manifested by the observance of human behavior that itself is product of what I described in No. 1, above.
See above.
3. You propose a theory of human nature, that people "balkanize based on race" by some kind of "default." This is unpersuasive. Aside from the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your position, human cooperation is something that biologically predates the manifestation of race in homo sapiens. The history, for example, of cross-breeding between denisovans, neanderthals and homo sapiens alone is sufficient to demonstrate that your argument is false. For, if it were true, that cross-breeding would have never happened; they would have either killed each other or been killed. Yet, they interbred to the point that they were indistinguishable from one another --- no small part of why a large percentage of modern people have the genetic remnants of each pre-modern human species in their genetic code.
I'm more clarifying the race realist position, rather than making the position itself. It's like saying mathematicians believe that 2+2=4, as opposed to arguing why 2+2=4. You're welcome to disagree and note that I haven't provided argumentation for the position, but that was never the intention of the OP.
I can agree that race-mixing can happen, it's just not something that usually happens. But I'd need evidence and arguments to make that claim, something that will take several hours, so I might make a thread later on that topic and post the link here.
Anti-racism, as that term is understood among the lot of woke-type fools, is stupid, sure. But this is hardly groundbreaking.
Yeah well I thought the fact that human races exists was hardly groundbreaking, but that appeared a bridge too far for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
I wasn't talking about policy. I was talking about your desire for "people to accept race realism as factual".
So, this thread was about critical understandings of race realism. By no means is it an exhaustive defense of every facet of race realism, and nor was it ever intended to be. Clearly, I made a short thread OP designed to clear some misconceptions about race realism. Again, you've decided to derail the thread by moving the goalposts.
Ultimately, I do want people to accept race realism as factual because I'm virtually certain it is, but again, this thread is not an exhaustive defense of race realism, and you criticizing the OP for not being exhaustive isn't an actual criticism of the OP/thread's intention.
cognizable factual claim
I've claimed multiple things in the OP that are cognizable. If you want to disagree with that, then address the claims rather than flatly asserting (without argumentation or evidence) that I haven't made "cognizable factual claim[s]".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
I'll talk about what I want to talk about. Do something about it.
Settle down, keyboard warrior.
If you don't want to talk about the thread's topic, why post in it lol? Again, go make your own thread, if that's what you want to discuss.
BTW you've made no case. You've presented no evidence. You haven't even made a cognizable factual claim. You're pretty far off from convincing anybody.
You haven't addressed anything in the OP or thread's topic. You've attempted to derail the conversation into policy, which isn't the topic. Why would I need to present evidence on an irrelevant topic, one of which I haven't made arguments for at all in this thread?
It's adorable that you want to be a keyboard warrior, but go somewhere else because we've had our laugh now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Can you point to one of these “multiple” instances where I’ve ever done this?
Yep. You've already ad hommed me in this thread, which you should be able to find.
You've also ad hommed me in this thread by inferring that I was a racist Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .
I've yet to have a discussion with you wherein you abstain from ad hom. Perhaps this is where you will do better.
Which makes this all the more concerning. You call it ad hominem because you are unwilling to take an honest look at how your words should be viewed by any rationally thinking person.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy which makes whatever you are arguing logically invalid -- you are already incorrect. If you don't have any response to the OP, just don't post anything rather than resorting to ad hom and wasting people's time.
The central idea of race realism is that there exists clear empirical evidence that some races are superior to others. The question of why this matters to you is very important to the conversation, because to most it is completely irrelevant to government policy so it just comes off as an excuse to spread racist rhetoric.
You have a false conception of race realism. Race realism is about outlining the differences between racial groups. That's it. If you want to argue that one racial group is superior to another, then that's another argument. Sure, some race realists will argue certain races are superior (or commonly: more superior at certain things), but that is not a necessary facet of race realism.
It's funny that you asked me where you derail/deflect the topic, yet you continue to attack with slanderous nonsense like 'racist'. Perhaps your time would be better spent actually engaging in race realist discussions, rather than attempting to slander with ad homs and other derailments/deflections.
The idea that all men were created equal is not a literal statement, all men are not. Some are taller, some are stronger, some are smarter. If we were able to somehow test everyone on earth in any given category, it’s not plausible that each racial group would score the same. Someone has to be at the bottom of that list, and someone has to be at the top. But again… so what?
You say "so what?" yet you continue to be belligerent with your slanderous labels of 'racist' and variations of it. So, even you don't agree with your 'so what?' as you've become very upset over mere discussion of race realism. So which is it? Is it 'so what?' or is discussion of race realism important?
Also, you've actually agreed with the singular and core tenant of race realism: "it’s not plausible that each racial group would score the same". The discussion should be over there -- we agree. You don't have to argue that any race is superior than another, or that we need to deport people of a certain race, or we need to ban certain races from entering your country. You're already a race realist.
The point of that statement and one of the founding principals of this country is that everyone is *treated* equally, meaning that we ensure everyone has an equal, or as close to an equal *opportunity* to succeed as possible. So unless you intend to challenge these principals there is no situation where the alleged superiority or inferiority of any race plays any role in that discussion.
Again, racial superiority/inferiority isn't a core tenant of race realism.
You don't understand race realism to such an egregious extent that you don't realize you're already a race realist, despite attempting to argue against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
Even if it is true, the policy implications are negligible and the factual inquiry is therefore moot.
The thread's OP is about clearing race realism conceptions. I assume that because you've refused to engage in the thread's topic, you agree that race realism is true. If you want to argue that the "policy implications" are "negligible" or "moot", go make another thread and discuss that there. Stop derailing this thread.
Created:
Race realists have historically had problems with live debates, in that they're usually deplatformed, receive bad-faith opponents or are not debate-savvy to defend the position (particularly against sophistry but sometimes because they don't know what they are talking about).
However, Sean Last provided a resounding defense of race realism in his recent debate with STRDST DEBATE! Sean Last & STRDST will be debating Systemic Racism - YouTube .
It should be noted that STRDST was a good faith debater for most of the debate, and therefore we got to see the arguments for race realist positions. It allowed Sean to actually engage in the content of the arguments, rather than being called a racist over and over. It also allowed Sean to show us that he's actually quite a good debater, which usually isn't the case for data nerds who sit around reading studies all day.
Sean/Ryan Faulk are potentially going to debate Destiny next, and thus have far tougher opposition. I have doubts that this will take place, because opponents of race realism far more often go after weaker opponents because it's safer. Still, if it happens (because I think Destiny argues in good faith), we'll get a debate worth watching, if you're interested in race realism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Mesmer, I will grant that in my experience most people that criticize Race Realism do so by applying the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy or they criticize the proponents with ad hominems. This makes it hard to find any source that tries to criticize the idea from a more scientific view.
After reading most of the mainstream arguments against race realism, I think the reason most people engage in those fallacies is that opposing race realism is an indefensible position, so people resort to other tactics to deflect/derail the discussion (as we've seen Double R do multiple times). Smarter people, such as Sofia Rune and TheSkepticalHeretic, derail the argument by getting heavily caught-up in minutiae semantics, rather than just engaging in logical fallacies. Even the top-tier opposition of race realism (James Flynn, Richard Lewontin etc.) tend to have their scientific arguments devolve into 'you're racist' or something of the equivalent.
As I continue to see race realism land blow after blow, as I don't find the "experts" who have the answer to these questions, it becomes more and more likely that this view is simply indefensible, let alone plagued with people who simply don't want people to accept race realism, and will do anything to attack it.
However, I must ask why, if you do not wish to engage with the political aspects yet, after all you said "Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality", why did you post this in the political forum instead of the science one?If you wish for discussion on the merits of the idea of race realism irrespective of the politics around it then it does not make much sense to post in the politics forum.
It's a political topic. I've chosen to address the validity of it, based on current misconceptions about it. That's the political element. I haven't addressed the policies that would result from it because that's a whole other discussion, and again, involves first accepting race realism.
Of all the things to be upset over, this seems quite petty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This tells us all we need to know. The focus of any intellectually honest person is to enhance their own understanding of the facts, not on getting others to accept theirs.
I've spent 100s of hours learning about race realism, understanding the concepts involving it from scratch (SNPs, fst values etc.) and understanding all the opposing arguments to it (more variation between than within, social construct, red-lining, lead poisoning, bad schools etc.) I'm almost certain that race realism is as valid a concept as other commonly accepted things. I could be wrong about race realism, but I haven't seen an argument come close to debunking what informed race realists actually argue.
If you're interested in discussing the actual topic, instead of Ad homming and wasting everyone's time, feel free to post something worthwhile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Thank you for the compliment. I was planning to read it. Personally, this has been difficult. To be frank, I could just be johnny-on-the-spot and reply quickly to your earlier post. But I appreciate literature and a well-researched OP, so i won't be doing that. I commit time to worthy endeavors (like your op) when I realize that something is worth reading. However, me taking actual time to focus and read what you post is difficult because of my circumstances. I'll keep them short: I'm maintaining dual identities.My real identity is that I've apostatized from the muslim faith. If Allah exist, he'll know that I've said the words of apostasy. I take solace primarily from my western literature that I read in my free time. I consider DART a close second. Anyway, you could probably guess it: my second false identity is to pretend to be an adherent of the muslim faith, because most of my relatives and friends are religious muslims. I think maintaining both identities are extremely tiring. I have to really act like a muslim and I have to take a hiatus from the website because both identities are really not compatible. I can't really read DART and western poetry while maintaining my second identity. I want to note that transitioning between the two identities takes time and it's only pleasurable if I'm reverting back to my real identity.Unfortunately, this is still ongoing. There's lots of religious festivals here and I don't want to give cause to my deranged taliban-look-a-like father. My brother (he's equally religious) is also well-versed with the internet, and while he's busy fvcking a complete dumb bum on the side (I'm pretty sure she never held a book in her entire life), who knows what he's up to. He could spy on me and he once snitched on me. I'm not trusting anyone ever again. My father's ire should not be underestimated, I'm currently manipulating my whole family by pretending that I'm one of them.I think youre going to have to wait even longer. I'm just being honest. I know that's not a satisfactory answer since I think you're looking for insightful views. Again, i can't do much. I think my western literature deserves equal time and I haven't been devoting myself to it either.
Firstly, thank you for the kind words.
Secondly, I'm sorry to hear that you've left Islam because I know that leaving Islam, especially when everyone around you accepts it, can easily result in severe consequences. It's also a pain to pretend to be someone who you're not. Don't worry if you can't get around to responding to what I write. Your health/life is way more important than responding.
Interesting. If the general coming together is measured, then it follows that most people would consider measured interactions as a basis for close friendships. That said, the only possible challenge that I could think of is the probability that i'll enjoy someone with similar experiences. For example, in romantic relationships, opposites attract but they're also the main demographics of divorce. I think people are inadequate; they employ the vast majority of their measured interactions on polar opposites. I think it's probably why I whine alot about my enemies while never mentioning my loyal friends. My enemies are probably polar opposites.
Yeah it makes sense that measured interactions are reserved for closer friends, if they ever get that far.
I know "opposites attract" is a cliché but it isn't completely true with romantic relationships. Interest wise (e.g. attitudes towards political topics), the research shows that similarity draws people together. However, having sexually dimorphic traits is important in these romantic relationships as well, even when couples are the same biological sex. Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com)
I can't remember where I read it, but in general people overestimate other people's agreement with them (probably because people would rather lie in agreement than cause a stir in disagreement). So, applying measured interactions to people who don't like them happens quite a fair bit, so yeah people are "inadequate" like that.
Perhaps, I do think that I agree with the fact that facial attractiveness is a determining factor for most people. There's also attraction on wealth (for most women and some men) and attraction on bodies (for most men and some women). Plus, if a country is currently undergoing an economic crisis, I think people won't read economic journals; they'll just read newspaper opinions. Yeah, I guess you're right.
Yes, wealth is attractive to people, particularly women.
People tend to read opinions anyway, rather than journals, and if they do read the journal, they've usually already made up their mind and only read the abstract to confirm their bias. Economic ones are somewhat hard to read, to be fair.
Ok. I understand. I'm assuming that you're referring to sociology and psychology. Imho, Soft sciences are still scientifically valid and reliable, despite what some observers would say.
They were mostly sociology but some of them were in the field of biology, wherein it gets remarkably more complicated. Soft sciences tend to produce weaker correlations and never causation, hence their bad wrap.
I think It remains spurious because you're trying to make a cause-and-effect from a correlational study. Well, i think I really should've read your sources now that I've read your reply. I should follow a more determined work ethic. Ugh.
Across more than half-a-dozen studies, I think I've shown that similarity is important in people's choosing of social groups. I agree that it's not *the only* cause of the relationships, but it consistently plays apart across varying social formations. I haven't argued causation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
You didn't answer the question. You are deliberately withholding information. Generally when someone withholds information the reasonable inference is that the information withheld is damaging to their position. Didn't deny it, therefore guilty.
Your question isn't what the OP is about. Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality. You're moving the goalposts by demanding that I provide airtight governmental policy with race realism. As to what governmental policy should be applied when race realism as accepted is entirely irrelevant to the validity of race realism.
If you want to discuss policy after race realism is accepted, make your own thread about it and stop derailing this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
Facts are used to support policies. So, what's the corresponding policy? Here's how it usually goes: "Black people's lives suck because, by and large, black people suck. There is no problem with observed racial disparities. They are an expected and natural consequence of the inferiority of black people. Black people are to blame for their problems. Combating systemic racism will do little to improve the lives of the black population as it is not the true cause of their problems." The policies being pushed are generally a laissez-faire approach to racism. Generally, just do nothing.How am I doing so far?
I agree that some race realists can argue like this.
However, this is all after the fact and I certainly haven't argued this in the OP. You are perfectly capable of disagreeing with your quoted arguments but agreeing with race realism. Currently, most people are not race realists, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting it, so we should address that premise first, before discussing what policies should be involved if given that premise.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
What do you really want?
People to accept race realism as factual.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The kids would be set up for adoption and have a 96% chance of being adopted by a better family within 5 years.
Where did you get this figure from?
Your source doesn't confirm this. It merely confirms that 82% of women had sex in the past year whereas 72% of men have. But unless a woman isn't a prostitute, she isn't having multiple sex partners, whereas it's common for a man to have multiple sex partners. So male sexuality is more variable than female sexuality.
Yes, I posted the wrong source.
I couldn't find the original source (the link was broken) I found to argue that women are having more sex than men, so I Googled it and this graph looked like the one used in the correct study.
I'll keep looking for a working link and post it here if/when I find it.
I think this is a stereotype. I know a few adopted kids and they seem to be treated well. If people treat dogs well (who are also technically adopted), why would they treat an adopted human any worse?
I addressed this in the OP near the title the 'Cinderella Effect'. We have plenty of data on this already. The data clearly shows that adopted kids, on average, get treated way worse. No one of rational thought is going to be convinced by a few anecdotes.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Child support isn't enough as a father being absent in the home causes kids to suffer with school much more which leads to poverty and dropping out of highschool. You can't make him be with his kids as that leads to abuse. Sterilization + child support is the only decent way I think to punish deadbeat dads.[...]The BoP is easy to fufill and is high. If a woman gets pregnant and the father ditched her, that seems to be crystal clear evidence of the male being a deadbeat dad. I don't think women would get pregnant just to force a guy to stick with her because women who don't want to be mothers don't want to be pregnant.[...]I don't believe sterilization would be damaging.[...]I think a jury would decide who is in the wrong from the unwanted pregnency. If the female texts the guy stating that she is pregnant and the guy blocks her, then you know the guy is a deadbeat. Condoms often fail so if they had sex with a condom, it can be assumed to be a unwanted pregnency. I don't think women sperm jack someone. If you know your girlfriend wants a kid and you don't, don't have sex with her until you get sterilized. It works for me.
I've clumped these comments together because I think they're arguing the same point that sterilizing the "deadbeat dad" is the way forward.
Firstly, at least in the U.K, 20% of fathers, who have been lead to believe they are fathering their biological child, are actually not the biological father Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar | Daily Mail Online . Paternity fraud is a real thing that can happen, so at least some women have sperm jacked men. As to the other type of fraud (tricking your male partner into having a baby), this is also something that can happen (but seems far rarer) Women Reveal The Shameless Reasons They Baby Trapped Their Men (babygaga.com) . So, some women do sperm jack men, and some women will fall pregnant on purpose to trap men.
Secondly, sterilization is usually not reversible (or at the very least difficult to undo) Sterilization (medicine) - Wikipedia . Unless you specifically have a reversible method in mind, I don't see how you could disagree with it being damaging.
Thirdly, your standard for proof isn't high enough and confirms my suspicions about your gung-ho attitude towards sterilization. For example, if a woman gets pregnant and the father ditched her, that might be an attempt at entrapment. However, under the standard you've provided here, you've now *enabled* entrapment and given it legal precedence -- that's an invitation for toxic females to exploit men. Another example: if a woman texts a man and he blocks her, there could be a variety of reasons he has done so: entrapment, thinking she's lying, already requested a paternity test to which she refused, threatening/abusive behavior from her etc. You are making a massive assumption in assuming cutting contact with the woman means the man is in the wrong.
So, because (1) women successfully lie and manipulate to entrap/trick, (2) sterilization is damaging (and often irreversible), and (3) your standard of proof isn't high enough to weed out false claims, your advocacy for sterilization shouldn't be endorsed (but it was a decent idea).
Created:
Posted in:
Race realism is slowly becoming accepted by mainstream thought. In days gone by, a lot of people believed race wasn't a valid concept, whereas today that view is held only by fringe, ideological extremists. Nowadays, the focus of the discussion has shifted towards implications of accepting race realism, which is a far more productive conversation.
Nonetheless, here are some critical tenants about understanding race realism:
1) It's entirely possible to find people of any race to be good natured. There are good natured and bad natured people of every race, and this fact does not detract from the message race realism attempts to disperse (that racial differences are real).
2) The economic benefits of importing well-to-do foreigners is pitted against the cultural degeneracy of waning identity and decreased societal trust. There is great debate as to which has more impact, but both certainly have impacts.
3) By default, people balkanize based on race and it takes a lot of conditioning to have a chance of shifting this default. Even if people learn to "tolerate" each other, often they still build communities wherein they cater to their racial/cultural groups and generally avoid other races/cultures (e.g. shops in different languages, religious-based food etc.) Most critically, acknowledging this fact has nothing to do with any race being superior to another.
4) More controversially, anyone who is an "anti-racist" gets blown to bits at elections. If your group is voting based on fairness and principles, and you come across a group of equal size voting based on their race, at best you'll get an even playing field if you win, but a racially biased system (against you) if you lose. Eventually, you'll lose enough elections to where the race-based group has majority control and implements policies that are not fair.
I hope these understandings help you comprehend race realism better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, your "defense" is that your comment is a NON-SEQUITUR.
If someone repeatedly posts stupid things, they are probably stupid. I never said that he is stupid, therefore his arguments are.
Anyway, I really don't care about this anymore. I read some awfully stupid posts from someone who is probably stupid, and so I called him stupid. If you want to get hung up on trying to label that as Ad hom or a non-seq, I think there are more important things to discuss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
It's not really clear what people mean when they say "racist" these days. It's like when people say something is "rape", the definition has become so amorphous that it now, in some cases, appears to encompass not paying the hooker after having sex.
True.
That's because the term "racist" is nonsense. In practice, it's a label used to denote anything that implies race which someone might find offensive. Since offence is taken and not assumed, it's a lottery as to whether something is "racist", and hence why it isn't clear what someone means when they say it.
It gets worse when you consider how impactful the term is. For something so poorly defined, it has the ability to end careers and cause complete social ostracization.
It's ridiculous that every time someone says "racist", it has to be followed up by 'what do you mean by that?', 'what's your definition?' or 'how is that racist?'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
This is objectively wrong. Per the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2019 "There were 5.3 times as many violent incidents committed by black offenders against white victims (472,570) as were committed by white offenders against black victims (89,980)." Since white people outnumber black people in the US around 6-1 this ratio should be reverse. If white people were the most dangerous people, as you allege, the ratio should actually be 7+ white on black crimes for every black on white crime, the reality is the exact opposite.
Firstly, this is based.
Secondly, he's not interested in reading any studies that don't support his narrative: "As for your studies? They're bullshit. I don't care to engage further than that". He didn't even read the first study he posted, and I know this because it contradicts the argument he made for homosexual marriage: "... our findings indicate that children particularly benefit from same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex couples if the couple is cohabiting rather than married."
This guy seems to be the type to Google his arguments, copy-and-paste the first study he finds wherein the abstract agrees with him, and leave it at that. Watch him call your referenced argument "bullshit" or "racist" and leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm clear what begging the question is, and you're actually incorrect, you see it's more that you use your conclusion as your foundational premise. Which is decidely not what I'm doing, I'm merely defining civil liberities, aka, liberities or freedoms which granted to citizens. There is nothing there that is a conclusion hiding as a premise, you are merely incorrect in your deduction of the fallacy.
You can't lie about this because I can directly quote you.
You said that TheUnderdog's church couldn't refuse marriage between homosexuals "Because its denying a civil right to a person based on religious exception, nothing gives the church that right." Homosexuality (debateart.com) So, implicit within this argument is (1) because homosexual marriage is a "civil right" (2) nothing gives the church "the right" to deny homosexual marriage. Your reasoning begs the question because your argument has the implication of homosexual marriage being a "civil right", of which is debatable.
At no stage did you explain why homosexual marriage is a "civil right". You just asserted it and assumed it as a premise, despite it being the conclusion of your argument. Hence, the charge of begging the question stands.
I don't quote what I'm responding too, I'm responding to your entire point, one thing at a time, if you aren't familiar with the bit I'm responding too than I don't believe you are quite sure enough of your own argumentation. :)
You don't do this all the time.
This is why you didn't respond to the discrimination point until after you responded to me the second time Homosexuality (debateart.com) , when the discrimination point was made in the first round of replies (my response) Homosexuality (debateart.com) --> (your response without responding to it) Homosexuality (debateart.com) .
You also didn't do this with my previous post Homosexuality (debateart.com) wherein I directly quoted your own study to show that it didn't agree with what you were arguing. Your responses Homosexuality (debateart.com) Homosexuality (debateart.com) didn't address this point.
Perhaps you're the one who needs to become more familiar with what is written.
In regards to the "semantics of marriage", you are entirely incorrect with your claim here, or at least contradicted by what you claimed earlier: "Marriage is about supporting the best child-rearing unit: two biological parents", which seems to me entirely about the semantics of what marriage is, you are changing the goalpost, where you establish one metaphorical "endgoal" and later change it midconversation without properly addressing your previous point. This entire paragraph is literally just hand waving away the point, no actual substance.
You've strawmanned my point, likely unintentionally.
My argument is that the specific term doesn't matter. Whether 'marriage' is 'union', 'coupling' or something wild like 'duckwater sausage igloo' is the label used to describe heterosexual marriage, all that matters is that it's held in higher esteem than homosexual unions. The label needs to be held in higher regard -- that is my point. Currently, when homosexuals argue for the term 'marriage' to be applied to their unions, they are arguing that their union should be held in the same esteem -- exactly what I don't want.
I'll excuse your misunderstanding because this point is the most nuanced here.
As for your studies? They're bullshit. I don't care to engage further than that [...] Bring it here and we'll see if you have actual links.
Without reading my studies, you've concluded that they are "bullshit", and then demanding that I link them here, despite it already being linked.
What are you doing lol.
you're the type to submit reports without any reference and trust them without critical thought, linking articles as if they mean anything. No, you've established that you've made an argument regarding the subject.
You're arguing that I'm the type to link articles without critical thought, yet it was established that your own study said that homosexual marriages **weren't** the best unit for their children's schooling, despite you arguing that it was:
"... our findings indicate that children particularly benefit from same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex couples if the couple is cohabiting rather than married."
It appears that you're the one trying to submit reports without critical thought.
I'm not digging through your homework honey.
They're called references. You're the one with homework, child.
As for the short quote... so what? You quoted exactly zero in the MLKjr. thing, you paraphrased sure, but regardless I got my point across.
It's funny to watch you retract an accusation midsentence.
The study is simple, testing various academic outcomes between children with same-sex parents and hetero-parents. There is no need for elaboration, you're being an moron.
If it's so simple, then why did you use it as evidence for homosexual marriages being better for childrearing, when the study found the opposite conclusion:
"... our findings indicate that children particularly benefit from same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex couples if the couple is cohabiting rather than married."
In regards to your contradiction here, there is no need for elaboration, moron.
"No differences were observed between household types on family relationships or any child outcomes. Same-sex parent households scored higher on parenting stress (95% confidence interval = 2.03–2.30) than different-sex parent households (95% confidence interval = 1.76–2.03), p = .006. No significant interactions between household type and family relationships, or household type and parenting stress, were found for any child outcomes."
My name is Theweakeredge and I already know that's bullshit because I haven't read the study or what you quoted here.
Also, just gonna respond to the discrimination point - while you aren't technically wrong that we all have built in biases, you are incorrect in applying them. You see, me personally, I view white people as the most dangerous people
Ah, I'm wrong (and probably a moron) because you have racial hatred against white people.
Thanks for clearing that up.
- I've taken several hidden biases tests for my psychology major friend. Furthermore, some people of specific races and sexualities are discriminated against empirically a WHOLE LOT FUCKING MORE because of various events in history as well as racist, homophobic, etc, etc mindsets.
Yeah. I've met this guy on the internet who thinks I'm dangerous due to the color of my white skin. What a racist lol.
Such things might include: Slavery, Jimcrow, Misogony, Stonewall, etc, etc... you're being even more moronic! What an "well actually!" You must have won the "I like debating like Ben Shaprio" award cuz' you're arguments are laughable! I'm actually cracking up here.
Pure cringe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You really need to learn to quote the parts you're responding to. That's the whole point of it: making it crystal clear what you're responding to, instead of forcing the poor reader to go back and see the context in which you're responding.
False on a whole lot of fronts, but um... civil liberities are liberties or freedoms that citizens ought to have, therefore if one group of people have them, the others ought to as well.
Yeah so when I say you're begging the question, what that means is that you've embedded the conclusion of your argument within the argument itself. You clearly don't understand that, hence why you've done it here again. What citizens "ought" to have is entirely debatable. You can't define civil liberty as someone all people "ought" to have and then make an argument in favor of homosexual marriage because it's pre-determined a "civil liberty". Hopefully, you understand this time.
no... marriage is not about raising children, that is not the only reason that there is
No one of intellectual merit cares about the semantics of 'marriage'. What we care about is the fact that heterosexual marriage is distinct from homosexual marriage, one is superior to the other, and therefore one should be supported more than the other. That's the argument. You're about to address that, too, so don't waste everyone's time with the 'that's not real marriage' worthless semantics.
also, studies have indicated that two homosexual parents can raise a child with negligible to BETTER outcomes for the children than straight couples, the real importance is that there are at least two parents and that they aren't too young.
You say "studies" yet dump a singular study. You've also, again, just dumped your study and not elaborated to any worthwhile degree. This study is over 11,000 words long, yet all you could manage was a run-on sentence worth of description and a singular quote from the study.
Also, you've entirely ignored my OP that I linked you on why heterosexual marriage is better Children should be born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents (debateart.com) . I made a heavily sourced argument as to why heterosexual marriage is best for childrearing, and you've just conceded it all. You've conceded things like the Cinderella Effect, wherein adopted children are 100-300 times more likely to be bashed to death by their parents, are far more likely to be neglected, and have less parental funding for their education. Getting slightly better grades doesn't matter much when your parents are beating you to death.
Children raised by same-sex parents perform better in school:"n. It appears from column (1) that children from same-sex couples perform significantly better at the end of primary education than their peers from opposite-sex couples. In particular, we find that children from same-sex couples have 0.252 standard deviations higher test score than children from opposite-sex couples."
In the singular study you posted, you haven't even addressed the topic properly. We're discussing whether hetero/homosexual marriages are better for childrearing, and you've mentioned one factor (school grades). That's not the entirety of the topic. What about mental health? What about self-actualization? What about number of friends made? What about ability to attract the opposite (or same) sex? What about the ability to learn social skills? The list could go on. You've essentially argued that all that matters in childrearing is school grades.
Also, your study doesn't even agree with your argument lol: "... our findings indicate that
children particularly benefit from same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex couples if the couple
is cohabiting rather than married." It argues it's better that homosexuals **don't** get married, if you're interested in the children doing better at school.
Try to do better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your a gay person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another gay person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage? Marriage is a religious institution.
The underlying issue here is that committed gay couples aren't as valuable as committed heterosexual couples. This is what religions all throughout the world realized, and hence why most of them stress the importance of heterosexual marriage. Religion solidified the institute of marriage by making it of divine importance -- secularism failed (and still fails) to do it to the degree religion did (we should thank religion for this because it made the most important claim). This is why people want to maintain the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples -- one is clearly more valuable than the other.
On another point, an aversion to homosexuality mattered a lot more in eras gone by, wherein resources (food, shelter etc.) were limited. To put it super bluntly: homosexuals were genetic dead-end. Spending resources on genetic dead-ends isn't going to help the tribe survive as much as spending resources on heterosexual couples. Nowadays, there are plenty of resources to go around, and so this aversion to homosexuality isn't nearly as warranted. Nonetheless, that's another other part of why religions saw homosexuals as less valuable.
So, in our modern era, it doesn't make as much sense to see homosexuals as lesser people, but it absolutely makes sense to revere heterosexual marriage as superior to homosexual marriage, and hence make it clear that the two are distinct (marriage and a civil union).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because its denying a civil right to a person based on religious exception
Who ever said it is a "civil right" in the first place? You're begging the question lol.
You aren't allowed to discriminate against people because your holy book says you can
Firstly, all people discriminate, so your argument is a non-starter. If you say that you get equally worried about a petite, old Chinese lady and a large, black man following you down a dark alley, you are lying. I assume a man in a suit is more likely to have a better paying job than a disheveled, unshowered man sitting in the gutter. I assume a lady with a distinct lump in her chest is pregnant, whilst a thin woman is not. All people discriminate.
Secondly, what you're actually not allowed to do is say why you're discriminating against someone, because then they have evidence and the law on their side. All people like you have done is made people silent about why they are discriminating -- no real effect.
this is all accepting the axiom that your church has the claim on marriage, it doesn't, and it never has had it.
Religion has the claim on marriage. Marriage is about supporting the best child-rearing unit: two biological parents. This is clearly superior to any other child-rearing unit, including homosexual couples Children should be born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents (debateart.com) . Hence, it makes sense that this superior unit is given more credence than others. I'm not saying that homosexual couples have no value, but they are inferior to two biological parents when it comes to child-rearing.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
If a parent has an abusive partner and chooses to leave that partner and take the child with them, in that situation, it is very plausible that this situation is best for the parent and the child. It'd be great if the abuse wasn't present, and having only one parent puts the child and the parent at risk in the future, but it's the only reasonable option in that scenario. Similarly, if a woman becomes pregnant and then their partner leaves them, they effectively have no say in the matter. What are they supposed to do about it?
A potential problem with this conception is that the term "abusive" is subject to inconsistent interpretation. Some women claim that their husband is abusive when he bashes her after drinking -- I have no problems with abusive being used like this. However, some women claim that their partner is abusive when he denies them the 45th pair of designer shoes. Some women will claim their partner is abusive if he refuses to have children with her. Some women will claim their partner is abusive if he refuses to take out the bins after she nagged him several times. Men can also be fake-abusive to women, too (demanding that she cleans the dishes despite her just coming home from a 12 hour shift, demanding that she changes the kid's nappies whilst he sits on the couch all day doing nothing etc.) Whilst a definition of "abusive" can be clear, its application and usage can be leveraged to gaslight the other partner. We need to make sure we're addressing actual abuse.
So, if there is genuine abuse in the relationship, then perhaps it is better if the partner leaves. However, this set-up remains objectively inferior to having a both biological parents raise the child in a non-abusive environment. Hence, it's the abusive element that determines the quality, and if that is held constant as a non-factor, wedlock marriages are superior to single parent child-rearing.
Perhaps if we had fault divorce, single mother stigma and 'no children before wedlock' values, people would be far less likely to partner with abusive people because they would be more careful with whom they are intimate with, due to the more severe consequences in getting it wrong. Perhaps we're re-discovering why ancient people had these rules in the first place.
I have no qualms when it comes to pointing out these statistics, with mentioning that one-parent homes for example lead to less successful and happy kids, but I have a problem when we use those stats to say that certain home environments are inferior, because it leaves out so much of the situation. It just feels like rubbing salt in the wound to say "this home environment is not ideal and is inferior" when people in these situations probably know that already. The implication that the ideal environment for a child is the same one that the parent of that child may have had to leave to escape abuse is one that is not only deeply uncomfortable, but unjust.
I have no idea why you would want to partner with an abusive person, other than you being infatuated with a person whilst ignoring the red flags. People need to be held accountable for their actions, and so if you're ignorant enough to partner with an abusive person, you deserve to have your single-parent set-up regarded as objectively inferior.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It depends on the definition. My definition is someone who makes kids, doesn't set them up for adoption and then refuses to take care of them and makes the female take care of them. Also people that ditch girls that they get pregnant. If your divorced, I would generally advocate for split custody of the kids so neither parent is a deadbeat and so the kids get exposure from both parents.
I agree with all of this.
I agree. Do you think sterilization is a good punishment for these deadbeat dads? I assume every deadbeat dad ditches their pregnant girlfriend or wife.
It's a lot of power to give a legal system (maybe too much), but I'm not completely against the idea. I'd want the burden of proof to be pretty high for the prosecutors. Certainly, forcing them to pay for these children is a great start and may be sufficient. We'd have to make sure the family courts don't devolve into what they are (low burden of proof, woman assumed innocent and man assumed guilty until prove otherwise), otherwise this is far too harsh for men.
This I agree with. I don't know how common this is, but as a principle if a woman does that and she doesn't abort, I'd take the kids away from the mom since single motherhood is inevitable. I would prefer it if men weren't as promiscuious so there doesn't have to be unplanned pregnency, or if you do have sex at least keep all of your clothes on. I'd also want the woman to get sterilized once the kid is born because we can't risk her getting pregnant again. I don't trust women who lie about being on the pill for sex, pregnency, and the commitment that would come with it.
The problem with taking the kids away is that neither biological parent is going to raise the children now. The man didn't want them, and now the woman can't have them -- who will raise the children? I agree that these women shouldn't be enabled and should be punished somehow, but society will have serious amounts of trouble (lots of children without parents) if this deterrent doesn't prevent women from lying about being on the pill.
Agreed, male promiscuity is absolutely a problem. However, young women are having roughly 80% more sex than young men young men driving the decline in sex - Bing images . If anything, we should should be holding women as a collective more accountable for this promiscuity. However, I'd further argue that it's the top 20/10% of men who are having promiscuous sex with most women, although this argument has a lot of sources to it and probably goes beyond the scope of this thread (so I don't expect you to agree). These men (if you agree that they exist) are quite the problem, too, because a man having 10 sexual partners a month isn't going to be able to support them (and women decrease in value with the more partners they have). I'm not sure how you get these women and men to stop being promiscuous in an age with birth control and condoms are readily available, especially when the stigma of out-of-wedlock sex is virtually nonexistent An analysis of out-of-wedlock births in the United States (brookings.edu) (barring some religious communities).
%2farc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-sltrib.s3.amazonaws.com%2fpublic%2fVGEVP6QJJFCSVGTVGLUBYFX32Y.jpg&exph=752&expw=970&q=young+men+driving+the+decline+in+sex&simid=608003280016188438&FORM=IRPRST&ck=32FC68EB07A708320A8E6374D8ECC036&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0){kind=link}
With the sterilization, again I'd say I'd want the BoP to be quite high. It's also quite difficult to prove that someone verbally lied (as opposed to lying via text). Unless you've recorded the incident (which is sometimes not legal evidence in court), it's going to come down to his word versus hers at least some of the time. I'm not sure we'd generate enough convictions to make this method effective at preventing women lying like this.
If she slept with 5 other guys, she either would have gotten pregnant from one of those other guys or she would have not gotten pregnant so their prior sex would result in a pregnency. But if a female sperm jacks a male and gets pregnant, I'd still punish the woman by sterilizing her after she births a kid. Those people can't be risked reproducing again since they could sperm jack instead. Since during pregnency, a female sacrifices more than a male, I don't imagine sperm jacking is a common thing among women but the ones who do it should be sterilized after they birth, miscarry, or get an abortion.
Again, I'm just not sure sterilization is the way forward. It's super damaging to a person and these crimes are pretty damn hard to prove. How often will cases be his word against hers, without concrete evidence on either side?
Here I would probably require evidence; in order for the courts to believe that a male was being violent, there has to be evidence of it beyond a reasonable doubt. The kids should also be a witness if available.
Yes, this is what *should* happen, but men are not always afforded this right. Men are sometimes accused and even convicted on the basis of a woman's (lying) word, and even if they survive trial, the accusation of violence is enough to partially damage their lives (even if they're completely innocent). The Unspeakable Injustice to Brian Banks | The Anticitizen Manual (wordpress.com) False rape allegations (boysmeneducation.com) The false rape accusation model (northwestern.edu)
This is true. This is why I recommend getting a vasectomy before you have any sex if your a male and I recommend getting your tubes tied before you have any sex if your a woman. If you want kids in the future, your free to adopt(at least until there are no more kids dying of starvation); people love adopted kids as much as biological kids and we see this with dogs; dogs are adopted and people love their dogs. Why would a kid that's adopted be any different?
If you change your mind and decide you want children, how are you meant to have children if you have a vasectomy?
Not all people with adopted kids love them as much as biological kids -- this was in the OP with the reference to the Cinderella Effect. Step-parents are notoriously dreadful for children. I'm not saying that all adopted kids are treated poorly, but they're way more likely to be so.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is why being a deadbeat dad should be illegal and punishable.
It's super important to consider the context involving this, because not all dads who are classified as "deadbeat" actually are. Just because the dad isn't around doesn't mean he is actually a deadbeat.
Yes, men who have sex with women whilst knowing that there is no protection involved (e.g. condom, pill etc.), should be held accountable for the children they make as a result. That's a form of toxic masculinity that does exist and should be punished (although, the women involved are also responsible for allowing this to happen, if neither party wants a child). Furthermore, men who promise that they'll hang around to raise the child, and then leave as soon as she gets pregnant, are arguably the worst deadbeat dads. What you suggested in your comment should be applied to these men.
However, men who are entrapped through trickery *also* get lumped into this "deadbeat dad" classification. If you, as a man, make it clear that you won't have sex with a woman unless she's on the pill, and she lies to about that, the woman is to blame. If a woman sperm jacks you from the condom you put in the bin, or if she says the child is 100% yours when she knows she's slept with 5 other guys, we need to blame the woman. If a woman denies visitation rights or tells the family courts that the man was violent with her (when he wasn't), we need to blame the woman.
Both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity exist; it's not always the "deadbeat dad" who is to blame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@clokflokleberrymojimbo
"Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) . It's a non-starter.
If you're interested in knowing whether he exhibits racial hatred, use that term. If you're interested in knowing whether he exhibits racial bias, use that term. I can't blame you much for using this nonsense term, given that even conservatives seem to accept it, but please stop using it and describe what you actually mean.
Created: