Total posts: 206
What a paranoid bunch of conspiracy theorists lol. Imagine trying to derail a thread with this nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Due to your continued refusal to explain your sources, moreover how they are relevant/disproving to/of points being made, you are no longer a part of this conversation.
Run along now, child.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have fulfilled my burden by providing sources to prove my assertion
Absolutely not, and at this point you're intentionally lying. Unfortunately, this isn't an irl debate, so you can't get away with such egregious lying.
You made this post: United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
I responded by asking you to elaborate on your sources to demonstrate that they weren't mere anecdotes: United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
You then told me that it was "my burden" to do this: United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
Thus, you never attempted to prove your assertion. In fact, you told me that it was *my* responsibility to do so, you liar.
This is the second time you've attempted to shirk your responsibility to engage with genuine criticism of your opinion : 12th - 18th Century Europe's war on murder resulted in positive genetic change in Europeans (debateart.com) .
Until you can properly contribute to conversations, you will take no further part in this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You do realise that you asked for "a list of views that the left tends to disagree with," not leftist views I personally disagree with?
Anyway, I'll attempt to respond to your points, seeing that you went to effort of constructing them.
This will have to boil down to policy. From my understanding most people are for a mixed economy which tends to lean left in the U.S. (ignoring hot rhetoric).
Yes, I'd argue policy, rather than the label for the United States economy as a whole. It's not of consequence whether the U.S. is labelled "left" or "right", when it comes to economics. All that matters are the policies.
In what way do you want smaller government? In terms of political sets, budget, regulation, or all? And in what regards?
I think smaller government is a pipedream, and a lot of people on the right waste time speculating and postulating as to what a smaller government would manifest as. Government is not subject to relinquishing power by contracting, given that it nourishes its very existence. You'd be burdened with convincing the thing you want less powerful to become less powerful, if you wanted smaller government.
Truth be told, I've put little thought into it, further than that.
I’m not sure you know what flat tax is. Flat tax doesn’t mean no tax.
The implication within my words was that flat tax is different and more extreme (in terms of lower popular support) than lower taxation, hence the "even" signifying this extremity, not extreme in the sense that flat tax is more extreme by having non-existent tax.
For the record, flat tax isn't a good idea, due to wealthier people snowballing their wealth out of control with their surplus income.
This is a broad topic. Do you mean the nuclear family? Can you get into specifics?
Not nuclear families.
Basically, its formal recognition of people's job/social status, such as being a boss of an organisation, or having lower status as a manager. Some leftists argue that everyone should be treated in all regards, and that's what "social hierarchies" responds to.
There’s a difference between sex and gender.You might be conflating the two.
In recent times, there has been a push to have semantic distinction with these terms, in order to aid the left's push to normalise gender/sex fluidity. Currently, this distinction is formally recognised through dictionary definitions, but I believe this to be folly because what you would refer to as "sex" is genetically determined, and thus there is no room for a term such as "gender", despite the latter being formally recognised.
The left has been quite excellent at controlling language, hence why they get their way on many things.
Historically intelligent civilisation have been pretty diverse and enervative in which “western civilisation” been built upon.
I'd argue this diversity occurs prior to civilisational collapse, in that it also causes it to some degree.
Created:
-->
@Barney
extreme racism
That's a stupid term and you are stupid for using it: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)
such as claiming that enslaving a black person is little different than owning a dog
Nope, I said it was similar, meaning there are parallels to be drawn, but it's certainly not little difference.
I've also said, repeatedly, that I don't condone or want slavery to exist.
I am done attempting to interact here.
It's probably for the best, seeing that all you're capable of doing is virtue-signaling with hyperbolic platitudes, and then sobbing when people with data and actual arguments don't agree with you.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
What's stupid is that a debate on racism had one vote, and it wasn't any of the dozen-plus of you on this string. That's stupid. Sorry to interrupt.
Voting is difficult, has a high degree of accountability, and it time-consuming. I don't fault anyone for not wanting to vote, especially if they don't believe they can do it properly.
Besides, I'm more interested in whether my interpretation of this topic is correct, rather than deciding whether two people's are.
Created:
-->
@Barney
You haven't demonstrated it to be nonsense, you've just bemoaned that it used ethics.
Merely the OP demonstrates that, on several relevant points, you are woefully incorrect. It isn't "far worse than anything we can imagine", or whatever virtue-signaling platitude you'd like to use instead. We have data, we have artefacts, we have anecdotes etc.
In fact, the whole thread demonstrates what you are saying is nonsense.
You seem to have missed the key word: slave. Something being less awful, still does not magically make it good.
"Good" is an extremely slippery term that could mean a myriad of things, so you'll have to define it.
That fails in any way to absolve the choice of involvement, a choice which further incentivized slavers.
Contextually, slavery was rampant throughout the world -- you need to acknowledge this. Perhaps, in a similar vain, people of the future will look back on our current treatment of animals, in that we use and kill them for their flesh. Morality is born of pro-social group consensus; it isn't objective.
We should be applauding the Americans of past for evolving morality into a better state, rather than condemning them for what was, at the time, normal.
I have elsewhere on this site countless times. In a debate I would bring out my sources to support that bad is bad, torture is torture, and evil is evil. This isn't a formal debate. Plus you're ranting about lack of knowledge to one of the very rare people with first hand knowledge of the horrors of slavery
If you're going to be lazy and refuse to contribute properly, then do so elsewhere.
At least we agree on something. To me a society falls below the threshold of being civilized if slavery is legal and/or socially acceptable.
Again, you haven't contextualised the environment. Similar to how you'd own a dog, Americans bought and owned African slaves. Very rarely, a slave owner would treat his slaves incredibly harshly. In other parts of the world, slave brutality was far more commonplace.
Furthermore, I have yet to see you rail against the Arabs, Jews and Africans for their brutal treatment of slaves.
And as previously stated: "having your fingernails pulled out doesn't hurt nearly as much as you would imagine before it happens, yet that something is less awful, doesn't make it a positive"
Your analogy is nearly worthless, in that serves to show your inability to contribute properly.
Either post substantial data/sources to add weight to your arguments, or get out.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
Whilst I haven't read the entire meta-analysis you linked, I've glanced in enough areas to discern the argument it presents (this study you cited): The Relationship between Race, Ethnicity, and Sentencing: Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Sentencing Research (ncjrs.gov)
Incredibly, even when analysing 85 studies, none of them were quoted to address the sentencing factors of verbal I.Q. and self reported violence, two factors that I maintain are important in accounting for racial disparity in sentencing length (this study I continue to cite: No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (psu.edu) . Now, this isn't to say that this study is completely worthless, because it does comprehensive analysis to show that a statistically significant racial disparity exists, it's just that it's missing two key variables that would alter its conclusion.
I'm struggling in finding a full-version of this source, but I will continue searching The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta‐Analysis1 - Mazzella - 1994 - Journal of Applied Social Psychology - Wiley Online Library
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you perhaps familiar with the Jensen (button) box? [**]
I honestly wasn't. I'm surprised that reaction time correlates with intelligence so highly.
Also, for reference, g-factor (general ability), [**]The g factor (short for "general factor") is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities. It is a variable that summarizes the consistent finding of positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflected in the fact that individuals who excel at one type of cognitive task tend to excel in other kinds of cognitive tasks, too, while those who do poorly on one task tend to do so on all tasks, regardless of the tasks' contents.
Yes, I've mentioned this several times in the thread. It's hard enough to beget consensus with people on I.Q, let alone its relation to the 'g' factor. I've found that once people accept that I.Q. probably measures intelligence, teaching them of the 'g' factor is a breeze.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Can you make a list of views that the left tends to disagree with?
Capitalism, smaller government, lower taxation (or even flat tax), social hierarchies, gender duality, homogenous countries (both racial and cultural), validity of I.Q. etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Whenever I see someone has Zero losses, I'm instantly suspicious.
Rightly so.
Created:
To satisfy the burden of proof you must have enough. The claim here is that the slaves were “treated quite well” - That claim is broad and encompasses the totality of the treatment of slaves. What you have is adult food rations, literacy rates and hours worked per year. That is hardly adequate. There is a lot more to life than that, as I pointed out in my previous post.
I've covered substantial. Slaves worked 54 hours a week, and thus that and sleeping (similar amount of time: 56 hours) accounted for most of the time. Eating accounts for a little time, too. That's the majority of the time accounted for.
I suppose I could have added how poorly slaves were treated in Africa, especially compared to the United States, and thus by virtue of being shipped across, African slaves were treated better as slaves in the United States when compared with Africa. This (correctly) assumes that slave supplies were inelastic. Perhaps this should be included in a 2.0 version of this thread, of which would account for criticism of this one.
Also, I know that the source which shows adult food intake also states that childhood food intake was rather poor. That is relevant evidence and it was hard to miss.
Absolutely. Albeit, this is the only data-driven source that suggests slaves were treated poorly, but it is a rather damning one.
EDIT: If you’d like to point out that the portrayal of antebellum slavery in textbooks is misleading that’s a different issue. History books often are. We hear a lot about how horrible the internment of the Japanese was. We hardly ever hear about the Nihau incident.
"Misleading" isn't sufficient. As an Australian, I was only taught about how evil the White American man was to slaves. I never heard about the Japanese. I never heard about the Arabs and their slaves. Or the Chinese. Or the Jews. Or the Africans. Yet, it was the Americans who were the ones who abolished slavery.
This isn't "misleading". It is outright slanderous and condemns the people who were the kindest to slaves.
Created:
-->
@Barney
On a personal note, it doesn't matter if crimes against humanity far worse than anything we can imagine were not quite as horrible as we presume. They were still horrible beyond our ability to imagine, and the perpetrators were objectively evil.
This is precisely the hyperbolic nonsense that inspired me to write this thread.
The fact is that slaves were treated better in the United States than anywhere else in the world, being far kinder than the Chinese, Jews, Arabs and Africans themselves. The American slaves would have been slaves had they stayed in Africa, too, so it isn't as if they were held captive against their will and would have been free otherwise. It's incredibly irresponsible to rattle off a source-less opinion piece that is so damning of something you've failed to demonstrate knowledge of. If you can't be bothered to cite anything you write, and if all you want to do is emote, then you don't belong in this thread.
Again, just for the record, I'd never condone slavery and it shouldn't exist in our civilised societies, but that doesn't mean Africans were barbarically treated in the United States en masse.
Created:
The evidence you've presented isn't comprehensive. You have shown adult food rations, literacy rates, and hours worked per year. I would look toward the quality of food, housing, healthcare, education, working conditions, and personal security and dignity, just off the top of my head. If I were to debate this seriously, I would simply deny that slaves were "treated quite well" on the basis that I lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the treatment of slaves in those areas. "You are making the argument, thus, you have the burden of proof."
This is essentially a concession.
The fact that common, leftwing narrative claims have been dismantled by my data, shows that the leftwing narrative isn't trustworthy. Sure, I don't have every data point on every facet of slavery, but I have a lot and they blow the leftwing narrative out of the water. If I'm, as a layman, am able to find and articulate data that proves the leftwing narrative wrong, why would anyone still agree with it? Why would you continue to believe something that has been caught lying multiple times?
What I believe is happening here is that people are indoctrinated from a young age, before they are able to think, into believing that U.S. slavery was as bad as a genocide. Then, when they get into adulthood, they'll come up against people like me, and they'll quickly realise that they have no idea why they believe what they believe. That's why they write drive-by comments, Wikipedia one-liners, anecdotes from a random website, or just spam a bunch of sources they haven't read. In other words, they're trying to rationalise their beliefs, rather than citing what built them. You were doing the same thing, until recently.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Look, I get you don't understand history, let me explain something
You are so kind. I wish I was an expert historian at the age of 16.
We don't have accurate or unbiased data collection fo 1600 to 1800s
Nope, we have the U.S. census data. We also have the average hours worked of free farmers and slaves, of which *both* sides of the argument agree on. That's just to name a few.
so we use our only evidence we have, documents. These are all primary or secondary sources, which are the best sorts, and if two independent sources collaborate each other, that typically means that they are true
Your anecdotes just don't cut it, little guy. I'm not interested in reading "all slaves were beaten and brutally treated" when we have data that shows the slaves were growing taller than their masters, because they were so well treated. I'm not interested in reading "slaves were worked to the bone", when we have data that shows they worked considerably *less* hours than comparable free farmers.
Again, I'm not interested in you spamming a bunch of "sources", of which you said it was my duty to read (it's not. You are making the argument, thus, you have the burden of proof). United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com) . If you can't be bothered to read your sources and make an actual argument, then don't reply to me.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
Perhaps for very very simple topics yes, all variable could be accounted for. But for a topic as multifaceted as this, I can't imagine everything being taken into account.
Sure. I was responding more in the vain future-proofing, as opposed to current capabilities.
Your study sidesteps the question I think. This isn't about whether high or low SES made you more likely to commit crime, we want to see how it impacts sentencing specifically.
Yes. My apologies for answering the wrong question. Let's get back to the topic.
I currently don't have a response to this study that you cited, seeing that I can't read it and haven't encountered it before. I'll endeavour to look more into this: The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta‐Analysis1 - Mazzella - 1994 - Journal of Applied Social Psychology - Wiley Online Library .
-----
I've revised and mulled over your cited blog response (which was more than substantial, given its thoroughness) Race and IQ | Alan Duval (patheos.com) , which responded to my study No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (psu.edu) (thank you for finding a working link for it). I think I can provide better answers now. You cited this as the chief concern:
Firstly, age was controlled for to a decent extent. With wave 1 of the data cited (Urdy's Add Health study, 2003, cited in the text), all 90,000 participants were in "middle or high school". Although the sample decreased with each wave, we know that mostly adolescence were used for wave 2 (1.5 years later), "young adults" with the wave 3, and adults aged "24-32" for the final wave. Whilst 1-to-1 correspondence isn't the control method, it appears that at worst 8 years was the gap between participants, and thus the average age for each racial group should have somewhat evened out.
Secondly, SES was controlled for using the following methodology: "Specifically, we recalculated the statistical models by controlling for ameasure of SES that was drawn from wave 1 interviews with theprimary caregiver. This single-item question asked the primarycaregiver whether they were currently receiving public assistance,such as welfare (0 = no, 1 = yes)." So, the question then becomes: is asking whether you're receiving public assistance, enough to control for SES? Again, this isn't the matching of participants called for in the blog, but instead a controlling of it.
Lastly, in regards to controlling for I.Q, the study claims: "almost no study examining racial disparities in criminal justiceprocessing has controlled for both offense severity/frequency andintelligence. What this necessarily means is that IQ and offensefrequency/seriousness may explain the association between raceand criminal justice processing, ruling out the ‘‘biased system’’explanation." Probably the most important distinction to make is that the study did appear to control for "verbal I.Q". "Composite I.Q." is referenced a similar number of times, but that seems to be merely calculated for the races, as opposed to controlled for.
So, for any future study you cite, I will contend that it doesn't control for the participant's verbal IQ and their self reported history of violence, like the Booker report doesn't, and hence the racial sentencing gap is a myth.
I am not quite sure, but I did find this as a top result when I searched around. [SOURCE FOR QUOTE] Page 45
Yes. Age certainly seems to be a predictor of sentencing severity. Therefore, age needs to be controlled for in a crime severity study.
I'll read it and respond in the near future. I'm strapped for time and wanted to give a better response and defense of our original contention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Most of Ragnar's debates are on DDO where you say the problem is reduced.
True. He instead noobsnipped and didn't really need voter manipulation, because he crushed people.
Not to mention BladeofTruth managed to win 99 debates in a row just like Oromagi.
Yes. He did something similar to Ragnar.
On DART the mod team may be smaller but the amount of debates are also less. If I purposefully vote in biased favor mods would very easily notice and delete the votes.
This is difficult when people like MissChris, speedrace and others are bother moderators and part of this group. We've already seen MissChris acting inappropriately for a mod, and no one batted an eyelid.
In any case, Oromagi would never be able to beat the top 5 from DDO (Mikal, bluesteel, Roy Latham, Subutai and Kleptin), and anyone else from DDO's front page would be a significant challenge for him. This website is significantly weaker, in terms of debaters, so being the king of a smaller hill is less impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
False.Fruit - Short for Fruit_Inspector, the person who defeated Oro in this debate.Had Oro employed vote manipulation, debate vetting, and/or any of the other tactics that you suggested he did, he would not have lost that debate. This is the point that Seldiora is making.
It's funny that a nobody like you would understand, hence proving my point.
Run along now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I guess this hammers the point home lol.
Nobody understands the point being made lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
there's no vote manipulation though.
You're adorable.
Nobody knows Fruit; everyone knows Oromagi.
I don't know who this "Fruit" is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You mimicked an SJW quite well. It's difficult to detect sarcasm when people behave like this. On this website, there are quite a few people who would agree with your title and interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
It's easy to attain a 100% win record, if you vet your debates, are selective about your opponent, and you get all your friends to vote on your debates (seeing that friends, generally, would rather abstain than vote against you).
Consider, as a comparison, Dart's predecessor: Debate.org.
Mikal, bluesteel, Roy Latham, Kleptin, Subutai etc. are seated comfortably at the top of the debate.org leaderboard, all battling many other strong debaters, including themselves. Hell, even the front page of the debate.org leaderboard has imposing debaters that would rival Oromagi. I doubt Oromagi could beat any of the top 5.
The only ones retained from there are: Danielle (certainly not as strong as her rating indicated, as she often lost to the very best debaters, but she definitely deserves to be on the front page), bsh1 (who has recently left Dart. Also had various voting cliques on Debate.org, although, like Danielle was certainly strong), tejretics (doesn't appear to be much here anymore), thett3 (similar case to tejretics), Wylted (perm banned. Never had a stellar record but certainly argued some ridiculous positions, just to see if he could win), Whiteflame (is arguably the best debater on this website, and certainly the best voter), Ragnar (mostly noob-sniped to a perfect record) and Zaradi (doesn't appear to be active here, anymore).
In short, Dart's debater pool is significantly weaker that other websites'. It is also smaller, so voter manipulation is far easier to engage in.
Created:
Posted in:
Imagine thinking that someone else's loss on a debate website, of which hardly anyone knows/cares about, is a "huge upset", and that emotional maturity and stoicism is required to deal with it because "life goes on". You'd think, that based on this emotional reaction, that someone had died or lost their job.
Also imagine making a prediction that "I'm sure after Thanksgiving ppl are gonna be right back at the eachothers throats," and then forcing that prediction to be incorrect by being at someone else's throat before the predicted date.
It is truly astounding how little conception of real life these children have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
He's just a troll man
Then block me. No one is stopping you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Depresseddad
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Depresseddad
Why are you being such a bitch?
Calm down, child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Oro's loss was a huge upset, but life goes on.
How empty your life must be...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Stupid title and a worthless conversation over nothing important.
This is relevant: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com) .
Created:
U is in turn a product: hours/day x days/year x intensity/hour. The product U of theslave plantations in the southern United States was greater than that of the non-slave onesin the northern states, even though on average slaves worked 2798 hours/year andworkers in the plantations in the north worked 3100 hours/year. The difference (slavesworked 10% less than the time of the non-slaves) is explained by the greater intensity ofthe slave work hour: around 94%. John F. Olson, “Clock Time versus Real Time: AComparison of the Lengths of the Northern and Southern Agricultural Work Years,” inFogel and Engerman, Without Consent or Contract, 77-79.
Just so this is clear, John F. Olson is the one who calculated the hours per year worked. He did not purport the 94% figure. Fogel and Engerman did.
The conclusion they makes is clear, but I don't see how they reached it. Given that this is a paper citing a paper that cites papers, I wouldn't expect them to go into detail, but the fact is that we don't know how they reached this 94% figure. Mathematically, 94% implies that by working roughly twice as intensely, the slaves only saved 10% of time? Intuitively, it seems plausible that by working twice as hard, the slaves should have saved half the time. Again, we need to see the way in which they calculated this figure, in order to determine its veracity.
Also, you should attempt to contemplate how slaves were so much more efficient. How does one become twice as efficient in picking cotton? Were they sprinting between the cotton trees and delivery stations? Were they using equipment so advanced? Again, we don't yet know how Fogel and Engerman reached this conclusion.
In the meanwhile, I've already stated that "a study in 2015 by Trevor Logan found that his children were able to pick cotton at 95% the rate of the average, same-age slave *child* https://i.imgur.com/xnAtnnS.png ". Due to ethical issues, the children in the study weren't worked to the bone/whipped, so how were they able to produce similar results?
Furthermore, according to this study, the equipment used was relatively basic across all plantations (be it slave or free): "they used relatively little machinery". This eliminates one of the explanations for how efficiency could be so much higher. The study continues, referencing and using Fogel and Engerman's work on occasion, to show how slave plantations weren't particularly efficient, and part of that reason was that records and management weren't nearly as streamlined as we see today. Hence, again, there doesn't seem wriggle room to claim that slaves were so egregiously more efficient. Enterprising America: Businesses, Banks, and Credit Markets in Historical Perspective (nber.org)
Created:
Posted in:
I don't care. You make the jump from "some people insulted me on the site and the mods didn't do anything" to "let me make a thread full of everyone I disagree with online + insults"
You do care because you continue to harangue over it.
Get over it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But also, no its not. Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
Your leftwing, slanderous terms are anti-science and rational thought Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com) .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Except I never claimed that
I never claimed that you did. I was responding to the argument you were referring to, as it was clear you were not purporting it yourself.
and if MisterChris did, I'm 95% sure you misunderstood his point, you seem to do that a lot.
You're entitled to this wrong opinion.
Also that fact doesn't support your argument, you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get even close to your positions and ignore a literal bible full of sources that say you're wrong.
Anyone can write a narrative, and if there is financial incentive involved, anyone can write one that is fabricated (think reparations). That isn't to say that all these narratives are fabricated, it's that we have quotes like "all slaves were whipped", and there is no data/objective measurement to verify this. This is precisely the issue with these kinds of sources. These "sources" are narratives that are not nearly as valuable as data, hence why I asked if they had any data in them United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com) .
Btw, you, in response for my asking to clarify your sources, stated that it was my responsibility to check your sources, which is ridiculous argument and indicative of either (1) your laziness, or (2) the fact that you haven't read your sources (this seems likely, given your history). You also said that they couldn't have data on the topic, yet several of my sources deal with data United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
It's weird that he considered the idea that slaves were whipped "a left-wing narrative."
This is not what I argued.
Clearly, the thread in question is titled "overall", which leaves room for *some* slaves being treated extremely poorly (which they were).
My argument is that overall, the vast majority of slaves were treated well, not that every, single one of them was treated well.
Created:
The conduct of these users was an entirely predictable result of what you did. Surely you’ve been debating these subjects and conducting yourself in a highly critical and offensive manner long enough to know this. Perhaps you should “take responsibility”. Or are you going to continue to blame everyone else for your problems?
Nonsense.
Originally, I was highly critical of a thread that was posted, which is well within the bounds of social decorum. In response, the thread's owner, who happens to be a moderator, responded by engaging in personal attacks. In other words, he got offended and upset that I criticised his OP, and then initiated personal attacks.
Afterwards, he contacted his friends. They too proceeded to be abusive.
Again, if you cannot handle your OP being criticised, then debate websites are not for you, as lashing out at critical opinion of their OP isn't acceptable, especially when you're meant to be a moderator.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You can circumvent moderator action*¹ through other means too.*¹The liberal progressive management of this website don't like*² the word "punishment".*²They will punish, they just won't call it punishment.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And MisterChris no being a racist isn't a left-winged view
Race denialism is leftwing.
Furthermore, to claim that evolution happened in everything but humans(lactose intolerance, average height, immune diseases in general etc.), or everywhere but the human brain (I.Q.), should be self-evidently absurd.
Created:
It is unlikely that whoever wrote "systemic" in there was referring to the conduct of multiple members acting similarly.
That's my point. You can circumvent moderator punishment through mob action.
That meaning would cause the punishability of one person's conduct to be contingent on the conduct of another, and that isn't just.
Your legal system disagrees with you because there is such a thing as 'an accessory to crime', which has potential criminal charges.
Of course, talking smack on the internet isn't a criminal offence, but the parallels shine.
What's more likely is that the author made a drafting error. Specifically that he used the word "systemic" to refer to similar conduct from a single user that is repeated and excessive.
I don't particularly care, but you seem to be right.
Created:
-->
@Athias
First, it is not a "claim." And as I've already informed you, I do not have any intention of providing you a link. Confirm at your own leisure. Or block me again at your own leisure. Unable has nothing to do with it. I do not have any intention of getting into a contest over links. No one has asked you to "trust me." Besides, it would be counterintuitive since I've already told you to "confirm at your leisure." Once again, not a claim. I made reference to the information. If you require confirmation from another party or source, then you can confirm at your leisure.
If you refuse to cite your claims, then you retract the point and concede the argument.
So, thank you for your concession.
Next point.
No. That would suggest that malleable is qualifying contingent. I meant "malleable contingent." And no, the syntax does not imply a noun. Here let me put in layman's:"An [idea] no less, which by your description is [subject to change] [depending] on our [understanding of the language's ordinary use.] Does that help?
That helps in the sense that I can now understand your grammatically incorrect sentence. This is what you originally wrote: "A conception no less, which by your description is malleable contingent on our "colloquial" understanding". It needs a comma between malleable and contingent, or else 'malleable contingent' becomes, functionally, a noun (which renders it void of sense).
To be fair, you did attempt to type two larger words consecutively, so you get an 'A' for effort on your report card.
Does it "measure" intelligence, or reinforces the standards on which it is based (i.e. classroom discipline?) How have any of your studies made a distinction between the methodology of I.Q. and classroom discipline?
All of the variables required for "classroom discipline" (e.g. work ethic, punctuality, persistence etc.) are not bundled into the term 'intelligence'. Thus, the distinction is naturally assumed. Hence, again, all I.Q. data shows that it probably measures intelligence, and yes, it is a soft science, and yes, I used the word probably. You will be brought into the inter-subjectively agreed upon realm of correlation and probability, even if you are kicking and screaming.
I never employ sophistry, nor do I try to "escape." You're pushing an exchange where we exchange sources to supplement our statements. I refuse. You're using my refusal to inform an alleged incapacity to inform claims with sources. Can't and won't are two different things.And "everyone" is irrelevant. I'm not concerned with them, only that which you offer in this exchange.
Conscious recognition isn't a prerequisite for allegations of attempting to escape.
I will continue to push for your sources. It is absolutely necessary to use data, the scientific method and qualitative analysis of sources. If you refuse, then one of these things is true: (1) your claims are not backed by any source, or (2) you are too lazy to source your claims. In either case, you are at fault, and in every instance you fault here, you concede the point.
The capacity for everyone to check your previous posts is important. It allows inconsistencies, gish gallops, red herrings etc. to be weeded out by an attentive audience. This is often the function of a moderator in a debate. It also allows for objectivity, seeing that we can refer to something everyone is privy to. Hence, "everyone" is very relevant and certainly not irrelevant.
Yes, you've demonstrated a capacity to make reference to the rationalizations of others with the help of "links." Now, where's your actual argument?
My comments on race-related topics are all backed and informed by scientific research, not the other way around. Arguments made independent of such rigour are your uncited blurts.
Non sequitur. I stated that it can't be quantified. Not that it doesn't exist.
My apologies for misconstruing your position, but this position is actually worse than what I thought you argued, and hence I thought you weren't arguing it.
To say that intelligence "cannot be quantified", which implies into the future indefinitely, is pure arrogance and astronomically unlikely. Even in the near future, as science begins to 'find the genes' for various human traits, you will be proven wrong as the intelligence-generating genes are found. Quantification of said genes will begin thereafter.
I suggest you retract this ridiculous claim.
Not completely. They're entertaining.
The whole scientific world disagrees with you. Psychometrics, including I.Q, are valid.
No, I've been able to verify that they've made conclusions. Veracity is different.
You are being obtuse again in taking definitions, obviously not employed by me, and inserting them into my words.
Verify was used in the sense of 'affirm to be corrected', clearly not in the sense of 'affirming their existence'.
You are wasting everyone's time.
No. You asked me to explain the reason I disregarded your citation. I told you the reason. Had I qualified the conclusion of an argument using myself as an "authority," then I would've been appealing to authority.
You purported yourself to be an authority on the topic, and thus you claimed you didn't need to cite sources to back your claims. That is a unique variation on an appeal to authority, but one nonetheless.
Not an argument.
Yes. It is an axiomatic truth that you are obtuse, on occasions.
No, I read the whole thing. The information presented in the abstract and introduction explicitly provided the information I needed for my rebuttal.
True. I read what you're responding to here before you started to actually engage my source.
So, Black is NOT a race. What are you arguing?
Incorrect. "Black" can be a race, if given sufficiently low K in population divisions.
What I attempted to convey to you is that skin colour alone doesn't determine race all that well. It's fine for Europeans and Africans. It's not fine for Africans and Australian Aboriginals.
No, you showed information which showed incidence of discovery of particular genetic structures in assigned geographic locations.
This is precisely how we determine race (assuming the person hasn't migrated there recently. e.g. a Swedish person living in Turkey for a week).
No, it doesn't. It does break these samples down into categories. "Appropriate" has not been substantiated.
It is empirically verifiable by sight of figure 4 -- this is not debatable.
Appropriate is substantiated in that, for example, lumping all Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Koreans etc. into Asian, isn't as accurate as dividing them further. Of course, there is infinite regression until the individual has his/her group, but the same logic applies to colours, and we take no issue calling things red, orange, yellow etc. (i.e. what is considered to be appropriate).
You've shown no such thing.
I must be typing to Stevie Wonder.
What you "imply" has nothing to do with addressing my statement that "Black is not a race."
The implications are paramount. African Americans frequently refer to themselves at 'black'. I have heard other Africans make identical references. On the contrary, I have never heard Australian Aboriginals refer to themselves as black (they do say 'black fella', though, black fella =/= black).
Your inability to accept a colloquially coined racial distinction is, again, obtuse.
Furthermore, there's has been no plagiarism. Not only did I quote the information, but also I told you where I got it. Hence, there's no need for me to "get away with this."
You provided a direct quote from a source without giving credit to the author.
Therefore, you plagiarised.
But you don't seem old enough to be in university yet, so you'll learn.
You don't know what "they like to do."
African Americans like to refer to themselves at black. You are wrong. You are being obtuse.
And note that your study never defines race by geographic location.
The study demonstrates that genetic divisions fits ancestral geographic locations extremely well, virtually at a 1-to-1 ratio when sufficient genetic markers are used (160+). If you disagree, you haven't read the study properly (but at least you're reading it).
"Meaningful" racial groups? Define racial group.
Populations of humans geographically separated who also interbred, and hence are physically and genetically distinguishable.
No, that's not what it is stating. It's stating that those of admix populations can have their genetic structure assigned to a geographic location with "some" level of accuracy.
Clearly, for people to become admixed, there needs to have been race-mixing. The fault here is that your conception of genetic admixture is myopic.
You don't know.
Nobody knows, including you.
Meaningless impression.
Nope. You simply failed to derive meaning from it.
Another inept analogy. If a doctor analyzed my blood and determined that my pancreatic and/or liver enzyme levels were dangerously elevated, and (over)eating would "likely" result in my death, that would be one thing. If a doctor told me that my pancreatic and/or liver enzyme levels were disparate from those with whom they'd categorize as belonging to same demographic as me, and that (over)eating would likely result in my death, then I'd seek a second opinion. Only after that, I'd yell, "hurrr that is IRRATIONAL LANGUAGE." The I.Q. reflects the latter, and is informed by no more than an ecological inference.
Lol racial I.Q. is an average, not a calculation of the individual's I.Qs. You don't seriously think I'm arguing that all African Americans have an I.Q of 85?
You don't know how I look. If you intend to submit your impressions, then if you haven't gathered this so far, they don't concern me.And for future reference, spare the fits of rage and respond at your leisure. You don't need to "block" me. Say the word, and I'll do you the courtesy of never responding to you again.
Lol.
Created:
I didn't say why. I looked more toward the "systemic" aspect of it.
Not only did I refer to this, but I also correctly guessed that you were referring to this, and have thus already responded to it.
An isolated incident is probably not going to be sufficient, and that's all that I've seen.
As already explained, the incident wasn't isolated, in that multiple people continued to harass me. Hence, the issue with cliques on this website is that they circumvent the rules of moderation by each member taking a shot at someone.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope, sources and data are just other stuff that you base your opinion upon.My opinions are based upon acquired data, acquired from other stuff, such as sources and data.
Yeah, sources and data that you never link.
K.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
You must acknowledge that no study can address every variable under the sun, can you find a study that controls for both of these? I did some google searching and couldn't.
I'm not sure "no study" can do this, but it's certainly an extremely tall order that the overwhelming majority of studies haven't/will not be able to do.
We also had (what I would purport to be) a worthwhile conversation involving the Booker report and arguments relating to it.
So, for context, I originally posted this study in response: No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health - ScienceDirect .
You responded by saying that, "It is unclear what methodology was used to account for confounding variables. Without that information, we have to allow for the fact that the study had only a 1 in 15 chance of getting reasonably matched populations, and even then, only on SES." You cited this web article: Race and IQ | Alan Duval (patheos.com) . It also complained the other confounding variables not being accounted for (I.Q and age).
After our conversation ended here, I did some research to see if SES actually affects crime. A meta-analysis (Faulk 2016), of a whole variety of topics involving race and SES, found that there was only a "weak" relationship with crime in general Race, Poverty, and Crime – The Alternative Hypothesis . Although, that is not to eliminate low SES entirely as a predictor of crime(as it is still weak), but we know what is left is "small", if it exists at all. So, SES matching the participants wouldn't matter all that much.
As for age, I don't know how much this affects crime (will need to research further).
Controlling for I.Q. is difficult because African Americans have significantly less I.Q. than whites. Albeit, I agree in that I do think this should have been controlled for.
Well yes, from my understanding the gender gap in sentencing just isn't disputed (though I'm sure flaws in this individual study could be nit picked). Every study has limitations, and they all recognize them as such, including that 2015 Michigan study that found the 63% disparity. This is why we must err on the side where the majority or the plurality of data rests.This is why I believe in racial sentencing disparities actually, we have the meta analyses (this one looks at 85 studies) and we can see where the totality of the data points.
This links only to an abstract. Do you have the meta-analysis in full?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
When I say insulted I'm referring to the action (i.e. saying something r00d). Not the effect that the action has on the person receiving the insult.
Clearly, you meant "insulted" as in "saying something rude".
This is why I called him obtuse lol. He'll take a statement and either give the worst, bad faith interpretation of it, or he'll engage in hyper-reductionism to the point where everything is meaningless.
The fact that he's doing it, in response to simply stating that someone insulted another, is comedy gold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Aww, I'm hurt, you couldn't even add me?
Your narratives weren't eviscerated like others.
Also, Chris? Left wing? HAhahahaha! You're fucking hysterical!
Again, the title is "leftwing narratives", not leftwing people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
He hasn't insulted me. He's only attempted.
Lol you're even being obtuse here hahahaha
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Not to worry Demon, those same actions will have "merit" when you do them against one of their clique.
Based on how correct you were in this post TOS infractions engaged in and ignored by a moderator (debateart.com) , I'm going to assume that this is correct, also.
Created:
It must be "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives". It's obvious that what you're complaining about didn't rise to that level. This allegation is meritless.
Very clever.
Your clique argues that it doesn't reach "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives". You've justified abuse directed at me being "warranted" because I was being "toxic, a "dick", and a "jackass". You've justified it not being systemic because no individual user abused me all that much, yet I was harassed by at least 5 members in that thread (if my memory serves me well).
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I might have to bring back the Weekly Stupid for this shit
Rather than ridiculing it, it would be preferable to engage with the sources and arguments, and thus reach a conclusion that is backed by them instead of feelings.
Even the chronic shit-poster Death23 is making substantial, evidence-backed claims now, and thus (finally) making worthwhile posts. If he can do it, anyone can.
Created:
The difference (slaves worked 10% less than the time of the non-slaves) is explained by the greater intensity ofthe slave work hour: around 94%.
Can you post a link that isn't locked behind restrictions? You know, so we can actually see and discuss it?
Also, I cannot find this quote anywhere on the internet, even using different search engines.
Created: