Total posts: 206
Fyi I won't be responding to anything HistoryBuff says, as he's so ideologically possessed he thinks that "no" means 'yes' https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=3&post_number=67 .
If anything thinks his points here are worth discussing (lol), then feel free to reiterate them.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Your point is that misusing this term is stupid. Of course. Using All lives matter to shut up a black individual that suffers through existing racist problems is equally stupid.
You agree that "misusing" the term is stupid, and then you proceed to misuse the term.
Amazing.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Only a racist can have racial hatred, but not all racists are hateful. There is an obvious distinction.
If you keep using those terms, I'm going to ignore you.
Up to you.
Created:
-->
@Conway
It's pretty hard to avoid implicating of discrimination in a political context. Why do you think that is?
If you actually read the OP (you haven't), you'd know that I suggest using the term 'racial hatred' instead. I've got no issue with pointing out genuine discrimination on unjust grounds, but please use non-destructive language. That way, since "it's pretty hard to avoid implicating of discrimination", you can do so in a productive way.
I think it's pretty hard for some people to avoid implicating of discrimination because there is a radical, extremist left which promotes a very inaccurate view of the world. That isn't to say that genuine discrimination doesn't exist, but these kinds of people like imagining nails for their hammers.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Imagine using the terms "racists" and "racism" after being shown why they make you look stupid...
Created:
This OP is in response to this quote (plus all the other hysterical dummies on the forums using these words): "If something is racist it is inherently discriminatory, so no, its a category and an adjective not a conclusion of a proposition".
The terms "racism" and "racist" are inherently inaccurate words, loaded with politically charged bias. The latter is self-evident whenever you call something/someone one of these terms. The former takes a bit more explaining.
If someone said, "Blacks belong in slavery," most people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Fair enough. It expresses racial hatred. It deserves the politically charged terminology and social ostracization. I wouldn't criticize the usage of those terms ("racism" and "racist") there.
If someone said, "Blacks have lower I.Q's than Whites", some people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Now, unfortunately, this is a scientifically verifiable fact, and thus in responding with your hysterical, sloppy language, you're not only slandering the people making the claim, but you are engaging in anti-scientific behaviour. Whether a fact is "racist" or not is beside the point, and you're getting in the way of genuine scientific research with this nonsense term.
If someone said, "A lot of Asian people live there", I have heard people say that this is racist. A demographical, verifiable fact gets slammed with a pejorative because your cult lingo is stupid.
That's the issue with the terms. They are catch-all and don't house necessary distinctions required for nuance, AND THEN they slander and destroy factual work in various ways.
Instead of using these stupid terms, when you hear things like "6 million was not enough" or "all Asians eat dogs alive", use the term "racial hatred". It's far more accurate, it doesn't screw up science and demographic observations, and, most importantly, you don't look like a bloody idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
This OP was created in response to a PM received which read as such, "(https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi263) Shows that there may be certain traits of passing down criminal susceptibility, but it is not certain or even likely for this to happen, so a mass killing of violent individuals would not accomplish this via evolution".
This quote was in direct response to the studies I'm about to provide, and since the person in the PM said that I hadn't refuted anything he said, I decided to bring the discussion to the forums. In this OP, I will show that 'criminal susceptibility' in the European genepool was heavily reduced due to the 'war on murder'.
War on murder
In short, the Catholic church started to change its tune on criminality around the 12th Century, and thus things like the death penalty began to become existent in Europe. Harpending and Frost (2015) showed that somewhere between 1-2% of each generation's male population was executed for violent crime. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114 .
Over 30 generations (assuming each is approximately 25 years), you are eliminating each generation's most violent criminals, and hence their genes which made them violent. Moreover, these violent genes set left the gene pool, and the gene pool reshuffled for the next generation *without* that most violent gene set being a part of it. Over time, this meant that the extreme end violent genetic clusters became less and less.
Thus, in effect, removing the most violent 0.5-1% of the population's most violent genes, results in removing about 45% of the violent genes altogether (since the effect is compounded, not a singular generational removal of 22.5%). Thus, the PM quote saying that this is a "mass killing" is misaligned with this phenomenon, because it was not a singular "mass killing", but rather killings that compounded over time to produce a far different effect.
Note that the AIC government source the PM cites was produced in 2003, well before the existence of this 2015 data. Thus, at the time of publication, it is entirely possible that the AIC was correct in its conclusions, at the time of publication.
Severe reduction in homicide rates throughout Europe
The result was that from approximately 1300-1900, homicide rates plummeted in Europe https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/vrcresearch/paperdownload/manuel-eisner-historical-trends-in-violence.pdf . Eisner (2003) completed work estimating homicide rates across various European countries, compiled on this graph https://i.imgur.com/ofIRsYm.png
As you view these graphs, an important point is that they are logarithmic, so a decline from a y-axis interval to another (e.g. 100 to 10) is 10 times a reduction. Understanding this should make the gravity of the data for more potent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. So... You're definitely selectively moral.
Lol, you silly, little thing. How am I meant to judge the validity of an event if I don't have intimate knowledge of it?
B. Read and weep.
Stating the countries you think "violated the f*ck out of everyone that stood in the way," doesn't actually provide evidence. This is called a bare assertion. It is a logical fallacy.
C. So..... Do humans need to exist....Well that depends upon something that we can only speculate about.
Right.
D. Beating someone to death is just that....And not understanding is just that....And morals are intangible projections of internal electro-chemical systems....Thoughts
So you're saying that morals are not important, as indicated by your indifference to a situation which would provoke questions of the valence in morality.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Firstly, relax.
Secondly, when I say, "In this OP, I am going to defend the validity of I.Q. and how it relates to measuring intelligence," it's actually implied that I think I.Q. is valid, hence why I am defending it. Otherwise, if I did not think it was valid, I would not defend it. Among the other things that my OP implies, that is one of them.
Again, you're more than welcome to actually read the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Well yes that's true.....But the circumstances that might prevent one form not being aware, would be exceptional....And expertise is not a requirement.
Yes, I'm aware of U.S. intervention. No, I don't know whether it was justified. That has been my stance the whole time.
B. WW11/German colonialism/Japanese colonialism....British colonialism.....Spanish colonialism....Dutch colonialism.....Portuguese colonialism....French colonialism.....etc etc.
We're missing the "violated the f*ck out of everyone that stood in their way" component.
Do continue.
C. Fundamentally Instinct, and subsequently memory and the acquired ability to manipulate data.
So you wrote this in response to "Why do humans need to exist?" You actually answered 'how do humans exist?'
Please try again.
D. It means that Crocs do not consider morality and that we only consider morality because we have time to make these things up and consider them.
So beating someone to death is moral if the beater doesn't understand morality?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep. An I.Q test, is more a test of acuity rather than a test of intelligence.
The fact that you began with "yep", in response to my OP, before you elaborated to say I.Q. tests much less test for intelligence than acuity, shows that you didn't read the OP. The *whole* OP disagrees with this sentiment. Maybe you'd actually learn something if you read it, instead of knee-jerk posting your fallacious pre-conceived ideas.
Created:
Again, this OP is inspired by a private PM that I received. The quote involved is as follows:
"...learning English isn't a benefit. Not whenever its because if you don't learn English you'll be fucking whipped, second of all, it was a reputation thing in early America, especially near the civil war, as slaves were seen as property and therefore needed to be able to perform, that means they were given enough to eat most times."
The school-taught U.S. slavery oppression narrative is riddled with flaws, and in this OP I will address some of them.
Firstly, I'd like to say that I don't condone slavery and I actively will speak out against it. However, in regards to the slavery conditions of the United States, slaves were treated quite well, relative to the bogus official narrative peddled in U.S. schools.
Eating
American adult slaves were actually quite well fed, so much so that they actually grew to be slightly taller than their slave owner's (apart from English aristocrat and Swedes) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2121481?seq=1 . This work is behind a paywall so I gathered the relevant table here https://i.imgur.com/DKvGFFk.png . Therefore, the evidence suggests that slaves were not "given enough to eat most times", but they were "well fed", thus treated well in this regard.
English
Saying that "learning English isn't a benefit" is, quite frankly, a ridiculous statement that flies in the face of universal standards -- the Human Development Index has "literacy" as a component. In other words, the whole world agrees that literacy is important. In the 1870 census, African American slaves had a literacy rate of over 20%. Comparatively, Russia only had a literacy rate of 15% at this time https://ourworldindata.org/literacy . Further comparison shows that Africa, as a continent, didn't reach 20% literacy rates until 1950. Thus, in terms of literacy, Africans were better off in the United States.
Adjusting for the context of the era involving slavery in the United States, learning English was a benefit because it allowed some of the more talented Africans to become emancipated an integrate into American society. It also helped the slaves to communicate in general.
The claim that Africans were "whipped" if they didn't learn English, flies in the face of logic: why would you buy a slave to abuse and whip him/her? Similar to how well we treat cows, despite owning them, whipping your cow/slave would cause injury and thus stymie his/her ability to produce milk/work for you. Not to mention the official Wikipedia page suggests that teaching slaves English "was discouraged" and made illegal in certain Southern states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_during_the_slave_period_in_the_United_States . Also, data on the brutality of slave owners to slaves is very hard to find (perhaps because it doesn't exist).
Performance
it's true that slaves were expected to perform, but that doesn't mean they were whipped and worked hard. 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 . Add to this the fact that the average free farmer worked 3,130 hours a year, whilst the average black slave worked 2,798 (Fogel and Engerman, 1977).
Thus, slaves worked fewer hours than White free farmers and weren't worked particularly hard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Which Planet did you just arrive from?
Believe it or not, residing on planet Earth doesn't automatically make you an expert on U.S. foreign interventionism.
Since the 10th century Europeans have violated the f**k out of everyone that stood in their way....Which planet did you say?
[citation needed]
You and I as humans refer to things as needs....I'm not sure that animals do the same....Animals are largely driven by the instinctive requirements of survival. My point is that eating the flesh of animals and other creatures has up until fairly recently, been a human necessity/need (still is for some)....And then people like you came along.
Why do humans need to exist?
Jump into a Croc infested river, and the Croc's aren't going to moralise and ask questions
That doesn't mean what they would be doing is moral.
Created:
I've recently come across this argument: "IQ is measuring abstract intelligence, not intelligence as a general concept, hence is proved by my source" (non-source quote).
The source was this: https://som.yale.edu/news/2009/11/why-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart
In this OP, I am going to defend the validity of I.Q. and how it relates to measuring intelligence.
Now, in the article's words, they believe recording a high I.Q. doesn't make you smart because:
"...the [I.Q.] tests fall down when it comes to measuring those abilities crucial to making good judgements in real-life situations. That's because they are unable to assess things such as a person's ability to critically weigh up information, or whether an individual can override the intuitive cognitive biases that can lead us astray."
This "making good judgements in real-life situations" is what the non-source quote is referring to as "intelligence as a general concept". "Making good judgements in real-life situations" is something that isn't necessarily wholly based on intelligence, as sometimes you do not have all information regarding a situation. Absence of all knowledge can sometimes force a bad judgement, despite making a good judgement with the information you had.
Furthermore, other factors such as life-experience will inappropriately weight this metric in favour of older people, as sometimes they will be handle "real-life situations" based on their experience of the past, of which might have been negative and hence they learned from it.
Furthermore still, sometimes people will inadvertently handle a real-life situation well through sheer luck, rather than intelligent thought.
Thus, due to these confounding variables, "making good judgements in real-life situations" has components that you precisely DO NOT want in a measurement of intelligence, because it dilutes measurement of intelligence with facets that are not measuring intelligence.
Interestingly, I.Q. is actually an excellent predictor of positive life outcomes (which extend from "making good judgements in real-life situations"). On page 65 of "The Scientific American Book of The Brain," we see that I.Q. is a predictor of positive life outcomes https://i.imgur.com/WwSHDHN.png . According to a longitudinal study, education level, occupation level and income level were all best predicted by I.Q. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf . So, there is strong correlation with I.Q. and "making good judgements in real-life situations" anyway.
Whilst it is true to say a person with high I.Q. won't always make "good judgments in real-life situations", it is also true to say that a person with a high I.Q. is more intelligent than a person with a low I.Q.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Was very obviously speaking about the US specifically.
Yes, and that's entirely the problem LOL.
You are looking *only* at a majority white country, without looking at other countries which behave *exactly* the same way, and then concluding that "feeling at home" is a manifestation of 'white privilege'. My point is that this "feeling at home" is universal amongst all races.
Do you see how not only wrong but anti-white that is?
I think you should probably read the rest of the post too before making any assumptions about its contents.
You've worked from a faulty premise (that white privilege manifests through "feeling at home"). Therefore, the conclusions you draw from that will be incorrect, even if the argument's structure is sound.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I suppose there is always an inherent benefit to being within the majority
True.
Even something as small as the psychological benefit of feeling "more at home" in your community is technically a privilege. In that sense there is no way white privileges does not exist in the US.
What nasty legerdemain you've engaged in here. You've taken something very natural, something that *all* races enjoy (feeling "more at home" in your community), and turned it into a white only issue, all the whilst glancing over it as if it's already a given. Notice how you haven't applied this logic to India, Pakistan, South Korea or Sudan -- no mention of those countries with non-white ethnic groups being the majority.
None of the rest of your argument follows because this sinister premise is wrong (not to mention grossly anti-white).
Get your anti-white rhetoric out of here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Due to your ridiculous actions which are explained in this post https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=3&post_number=67 , I will no longer be responding to anything you write.
Have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't think there is any point in continuing this. If you honestly think you are genetically superior to another race then there is obviously no way of reaching you with logic. That kind of thinking was disproved a long, long time ago.
So, originally, you asked this question: "do you actually believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people?"
To that question, I answered "no" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=3&post_number=51
You have, somehow, turned my "no" into a 'yes'. Due to this, you've proven that you are incapable of rational discussion, and thus our conversation terminates here.
Created:
Shut up.
Your concession is appreciated.
Have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Death23
Separation is very expensive. There are alternatives which you might not have considered.
Firstly, it's not expensive if you do *before* you let them in.
Secondly, you haven't demonstrated any expense. You're quickly becoming a lazy contributor to the forums, if you're frequently unable to cite any of your assertions (considering the last thread). You need to cite this assertion, otherwise I'll refrain from interacting with you.
Created:
-->
@Death23
Even if what you're saying is true regarding a purported genetic inferiority, it really has no impact on any policy decision from where I'm standing. Lets suppose, hypothetically, that 50% of one group of people - Group A - is stupid while 20% of another group of people - Group B - is stupid. As time goes on, people become prejudiced against all members of Group A - even the half who aren't stupid, and even those of Group A who are intelligent. That prejudice against all members of Group A is unfair, unreasonable and damaging to the collective life experiences of members of Group A.
Yes, and it's reason why these groups should be separated in the first place. That's the ideal policy decision, hence it directly affects policy decision.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I thought it was evident in the post I replied to lmao.
You realise bare assertions aren't arguments in themselves? If I say 'dogs are racist', it isn't self-evident why, and thus requires elaboration?
The two variables not accounted for led to completely different results
In a subsequent post to Trent I briefly explain how "disadvantaged status" and "SES" is a result of black genetics https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=2&post_number=49 . Hence, there is no need to control for them in the study, otherwise you would be controlling for literally black people.
Both approaches are obviously conceivable, but then the question becomes whether overfitting is a problem with the added variables. My personal belief is that there are so many variables that it’s impossible to tell the true effect.
We have sufficient data to prove otherwise; there is no need to have personal, unfounded beliefs that merely speculate.
On a side note “p-hacking” isn’t indicative of intent. Both studies have great approaches but their results of contradictory. That’s my biggest problem with statistical analysis. There are so many approaches that can be right, it just comes to justification and personal belief of which is actually “right”
No. Usage of other studies can explain the lack of SES consideration to be a reasonable approach, in regards to the study I presented. To make it ultra clear: you don't need to control for SES when the lower SES is produced by black genes. If you control for SES, you are controlling for black genes, which defeats the whole purpose of the study.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Classic case of p-hacking in action
Merely stating something doesn't make it true or convincing. You need to demonstrate how "p-hacking" occurred.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
holy shit. do you actually believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people?
No. In regards to I.Q, yes. But there are instances wherein black people are genetically superior to white people (and other races).
For example, African Americans are the majority of professional NBA basketball players in the United States https://www.statista.com/statistics/1154720/nba-ethnic-diversity/ . This would indicate that in regards to a conglomerate skills involving basketball (e.g. vertical jump height), that blacks are genetically superior to whites (among other races).
In regards to other black populations, Kenyan long-distance runners are vastly superior to every other ethnic/country on the planet. Thus, when it comes to slow-twitch genes, aerobic potential etc. Kenyans are genetically superior https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-kenyans-make-such-great-runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/ .
you are using a wildly racist argument do argue that racism isn't an issue. that is some serious irony.
Please keep the toys in the pram.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol, no. There were large waves of immigrants from lots of places. Asia, africa etc. The idea that america is founded on Europeans only is a literal whitewash of history.
The majority of initial settlement in America was European, hence the term "founded". Clearly, there was no reference to subsequent immigration.
I really wanted to avoid having to say your opinions are racist. But saying "different races have different abilities" pretty much closed the door on that. That is some clear cut racism.
"Racist" isn't sufficient or worthwhile criticism. If you had logical issues with my arguments, you would use rationale and data/papers to disprove what I am saying, instead of pejorative labels. If you cannot muster the former, then meaningful discussion isn't for you.
There are cases where that is true. Often because the ruling class discriminates against these people and causes them to have no loyalty to the state or it's ruling class. So it often isn't the immigration that is the problem, but the discrimination causing immigrants to become a problem.
No, every empire for the last 2800 years (minus the most recent 50), since the Assyrian to the British, has experienced this difficulty http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
It may be the case that the ruling class discriminates against these people -- that would need to be analysed on a case-by-case basis, of which you haven't provided, and thus your claim of "often" is currently unsupported. In fact, if I were to afford you this argument, you prove that immigration is the problem, because it causes the ruling class to discriminate against them, and therefore create unloyal people. You have actually argued against yourself here.
But some of those empires he talks about could not have survived as long as they did without immigration. The romans for example relied on immigration to survive. Without it they would have collapsed centuries earlier than they did. The military basically required germans to function.
Lol. You stating that they "could not have survived", when we have no account of them not surviving, begs the question. In other words, your argument requires historical evidence that didn't occur.
why are you assuming that immigrants "do the low-status jobs the native population doesn't want to do"? immigrants come with all sorts of educational backgrounds. There are tons of doctors, nurses, lawyers etc who are immigrants. This seems like more racist assumptions.
That is the function they typically fulfill. That also is the source of the issue, as the doctors and lawyers (nurses is debatable) tend to be desirable people to have in a country (as long as they are kept to a limited amount, given the racial and cultural misalignment with the native population).
I would welcome foreigners, of any colour, with first world genes, so long as the native population remained a racial majority.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
"only used a subsample of African American and White males and did not include any measures of disadvantage status."
Unfortunately, African Americans are far more likely to be disadvantaged than Whites because there is a large, negative genetic component (i.e. not racism). In essence, African Americans create their own disadvantage, and thus that doesn't need to be controlled for. If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap would disappear entirely, because you would be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place. Genetic components such as lower I.Q [1][2], poor delayed gratification propensity [3], presence of the 'warrior gene' [4] etc. create this gene differential between African American and White populations, and thus one group, on average, becomes more "disadvantaged".
To put it extremely bluntly: being African American is an inherent disadvantage -- "disadvantaged status" is heritable.
Conversely, non-disadvantaged African Americans are such because of their better genes (for the most part). I'm struggling to rediscover my source, but during the early stages of slave emancipation in the United States, the average I.Q. of the emancipated slave was 101 I.Q (1 point higher than the White I.Q.). These were African Americans who had genes that made them capable of earning their emancipation, thus acting as a proxy for desirable genes, and, therefore, they were then able to integrate very well into a civilised society.
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.These were these were two of many points brought up to delegitimatize the study
"SES" and "disadvantaged status" seem to be functionally the same thing. Hence, my above response applies to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
No you jackass, if you wanna have a debate go to the debate section instead of flat out calling the op "bad".
Calm down.
I'm not sure what you think a *debate* website's forums should be used for if not substantive discussion. Having a *science* forum wherein people don't post research to support their views is anti-scientific. There are designated areas for you to post your feelings, but this isn't one of them.
it's not just "youtube videos". they're youtube videos from RELIABLE Sources, like TED and literally a guy who is stating facts based on reliable SOURCES like you asked for.
I'll explain it again in more detail because you didn't comprehend it the first time: responders cannot engage with Youtube videos that don't have data/papers/research. I can't see what data the Youtube videos are referring to without manually finding the material myself. Hence, instead of obstructing this process by filtering it through a Youtube video, it would be superior to post the data/papers/research referred to in the videos. That way, we can discuss the actual content, instead of someone's supposed interpretation of data/papers/research.
You're an unprofessional guy altogether.
If you're a real crocodile then you should be munching animals, instead of trash-posting on a debate website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
It's not meant to be a debate constructive, genius. It's meant to expose you to some of the arguments in favor of my position.
The whole point of a *debate* website is to facilitate debate. When you post substance-bereft "arguments", you stymie future posters from engaging in the topic to a worthwhile degree. The fact that you bothered to cite Youtube videos indicates that you understand you should have sourced your arguments, yet were too lazy to find appropriate ones. If you're merely wishing to post your feelings about a topic and not have a debate, that is what the personal section is for.
If you want more substantial sources read the rest of the thread.
Part of making a worthwhile OP is constructing arguments with data and scientific research in the OP (Exceptions apply. For example, a philosophy thread doesn't require data and scientific research). You are the one constructing the "arguments", not the responders, so you should be properly citing your arguments, if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. It shouldn't be the work of the responders to do the job you should have done.
Stop being a dick.
That's an unprofessional comment for a moderator to make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry I am listening to a hour and a half audiobook of John Glubb
That's Sir John Glubb to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
The Neuroscience of NoFap | Why Pornography Changes the Brain
So you referenced a guy referencing a book which references studies, rather than referencing studies.
: /
Escaping Porn Addiction | Eli Nash | TEDxFortWayne
Stop referencing videos and just post the studies so we can analyse them, instead of posting videos. Otherwise, there isn't substantial material to debate.
I believe porn is the root cause of a lot of problems, and I can gladly say I've quit starting this No Nut November.
So because porn addiction is bad (an extreme), you went to the other extreme and quit pornography altogether, based on some Youtube videos.
This is a bad OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The issue was about eating meat, rather than causing harm...The purposes and intentions contained therein, can be manipulated to suit either side of the argument, and we can construct varying morals as justification.Again, "causing harm" is an emotional plea......And nothing to do with actual need......People will not starve if nourishment is available.... In certain regions of the world animals and fish and other sea creatures are still staples.....It's easy to pontificate from a position of comfort and security.
My point is that eating meat causes harm. You cannot extract meat from an animal unless it is dead, and most people don't wait for the animal to die of natural causes. Given this, there isn't an argument I've seen from you that decouples eating meat from harm.
Do you consider an animal's will to live not a "need?"
Do you consider the wellbeing of humans a sufficient cause to inflict harm upon other animals? If so, why?
A tad arrogant and imbued with western extravagance.....Do you think that it was ok to bomb the f**k out of Afghan and Iraqi civillians?
I don't agree. From the 10th Century onward, European countries have become the shining beacons of civilisation. The advancements European civilisations have made for the world outweigh every other part combined: "Whether measured by in people or events, 97% of the scientific inventories occurred in Europe and North America [between the years 800 BC and 1950 AD]" https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642 . My claims cannot be arrogant if they are factual.
I'm not familiar with U.S. interventionism in those countries. I don't know if those actions were justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
3/5 of your post here is requesting that I "show you" where you said/implied something, but my last post to you directly quoted where you did (except for the 3rd point which referenced your first post without directly quoting it). Nonetheless, I cannot get any more direct than directly quoting what you wrote.
On several of the points, you are now arguing against what you originally wrote in your first post. Perhaps you were embarrassed by your first post (and you should be because it was trash) and are now pretending that it doesn't exist.
As funny as it is to interact with someone asking to be shown where he said something, after I directly quoted where you said it, this is a waste of my time and I have better things to respond to.
Jog on.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I would have replied earlier but I agree with pretty much everything you said, so I would have initially just wrote "agreed" to everything. However, I've had a bit of time to think, so I'll try to add to what you said where I can.
Precisely. Multiculturalism brings on a ton of problems to little benefit. As you increase the perceived differences among people and there is any different in outcomes, there is going to be a scapegoat.And when you bring people with different values, cultures, and languages to another country, you are much more likely to have wide disparities. Some cultures don't value delayed gratification, but Asians do a lot, which is obvious from their high savings rates. Delayed gratification is associated with success, so you are stuck with two options: blame people for doing something good that others don't do, or blame people for not making wiser decisions.
100% agree.
Interestingly, [East] Asians people do better under European laws/systems than Europeans do. It's only when they attempt to create their own rules that they experience trouble (consider how corrupt and poorly run China was under Mao Zedong, and then consider your fact of Asian higher savings in America).
That is a really good point. They put so much weight on not "culturally appropriating" and how you aren't allowed to critique other peoples' cultures, yet they do then act like they have no consequences. Even speaking a different language can greatly affect your perception. They studied languages and determined that it is powerful in determining how you deal with abstract issues and shaping habitual thought (like perceptions of time). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010028501907480
It's a shame the study is behind a paywall. I wouldn't mind knowing some statistics on how great the difference in conceptualisation are.
Think of how damaging it must be for kids growing up in a household where "ebonics" is the norm. It is improper English, which will lead to worse school grades. Who knows what other cognitive effects might results from it?
It's probably harmful when it comes to learning English, but perhaps it's useful in the sense it reflects Africans verbal ability. Compared to Europeans, they have lower I.Q. but, tentatively, I feel that they are superior in their musical ability, hence they rhythm generated in ebonics. Although, this argument is only a hypothesis for me.
The word I was thinking about the whole post. You teach people that things are hopeless and they stop trying. I would personally believe that if you are an authority figure and tell kids that no matter what they do, they will never succeed, they will be inclined to believe you.If you say that until reparations, they will never be able to succeed, do you think they will even try until they get reparations? Most probably won't.
I think that Africans in general have a lower ability to integrate into the cerebral European societies. So whilst this learned helplessness won't necessarily affect all Africans (in the sense that some really can't contribute to society), I think the ones that can may be inadvertently affected by what you describe. There are certainly Africans with sufficient 1st World genetics (e.gs. decent I.Q, delayed gratification, lack of criminal genes etc.) that could benefit and contribute greatly. Historically, we know this is correct from the emancipated slaves in America, wherein their average I.Q. (101) was actually higher than the average American White (100), and historical accounts show that this was a peaceful time in America (right before the civil war). Willing to dig up my source if required (just don't have it on hand).
This graph shows that if you ever get a doctor, you want them to be Asian or White lol. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/It breaks down acceptance rate by MCAT and GPA by race.An MCAT between 24-26 and GPA between 3.2-3.39, Asian acceptance is 6% and Black acceptance is 56%!If diversity is our strength, why do they need to alter acceptance rates so blatantly? Why did California's Supreme Court lower Bar score requirements to diversify the law profession(supposedly because of COVID, but then why would it be permanent?)? This article found that the permanent 50 point deduction in score would only lower the racial disparity by 2.7% https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/10/19/study-lower-bar-exam-cut-score-wont-solve-californias-attorney-diversity-problem/?slreturn=20201018201227In the end, medical and legal malpractice will just hurt all of us.
This stuff should be the most alarming to the average American. Affirmative action is producing doctors who are demonstrably worse than merit-based doctors, which will lead to an increase in medical and legal malpractice, as you rightly point out. Nobody wants to be on the wrong end of a doctor wrecking your open-heart surgery. These facts here should be the least controversial.
Thanks for the well-backed post, bruh.
Thanks for the responses to think about.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
The 2012 Booker report found that, all else equal, black people were sentenced 20.4 percent longer than white people. Whenever I argue this I always hear people reference repeat offences, well luckily this report accounts for this stating that the gap between whit and black offenders fell from 20.7 percent to 20.4 percent after taking this into consideration.
I know this isn't addressed to me, but it's a pretty good argument and study and deserves an equally good response.
This study does an excellent job controlling for variables, and Conservatives in general don't produce sufficient counter-arguments. So, to be terse, it is true that black males receive longer sentences than white males for the same crimes, but some of the trickier variables haven't been taken into account.
The variables not addressed in the 2012 Booker report are as follows: (1) how the defendant presents himself in court, (2) and how likely he is to reoffend. The latter is partially controlled for by the Booker report in that it takes into account criminal history, but that isn't the only part in determining future likelihood of committing a crime (e.g. a new drug habit could have been formed). In particular, this Beaver et al. 2013 study found that when we did control for these variables (by measuring in particular verbal I.Q. and self-reported history of violence), we see that this disparity in sentencing evaporates. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000470
Hence, the differences in racial sentencing can be explained by things other than "racism".
Created:
-->
@Death23
Isn't wasting time what people do here? I mean, it's somewhat of a pastime for me.
Some people might but I think that's a poor usage of time. I'm here to have substantive discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You kinda dodged my question
Nope. I told you that institutions peddling these dreadful financial decisions should take responsibility, and any teenager heeding bad advice from friends should also take responsibility. I'm not going to list millions of cases of where the line is. If you wish for insight on a particular case, then present it to me.
and also made a claim that "predatory" is a clear term when dealing with young people making critical life decisions.
Yeah, intentionally and maliciously taking advantage of people is predatory.
You do know the 3 Brookings rules yes? I mentioned them earlier in this thread I think.
It would be nice if you quoted your post.
In any case, Googling the term showed me this:
1. Complete at least a high school education
2. Work full-time
3. Wait until at least age 21 and get married before having a baby
If this what you are referring to?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Death is a pretty cool dude.
Maybe, but his argument here was truly dreadful and a waste of everyone's time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
holy shit that is some jingoistic bullshit. America was founded on immigration. Virtually every single American is an immigrant or a descendent of an immigrant. Almost certainly including you.
It's actually a fact based on mountains of research and statistical analysis.
America was founded on European immigration. This is very distinct from general immigration (i.e. immigrants of every race allowed access) because different races have different abilities and in-group biases. This effects abilities not only in academic and job outcomes, but it also effects the capacity to integrate into native culture.
Fyi I'm not American, so you're not even correct about that either.
this comparison doesn't make sense. If anything, it is the opposite. without immigration the U.S. will die. The population will dwindle and the economy will shrink. And then America drops out of it's status as a super power.
Absolutely not. Historically, every empire that has suffered immigration of differing/races cultures inevitably experiences bloc politics which degenerates the empire into being weak enough to be trampled by invasion or implode. https://www.docdroid.net/5CdrehR/the-fate-of-empires-by-sir-john-glubb-pdf .
Whatever short term benefit you gain from having immigrants do the low-status jobs the native population doesn't want to do, you will suffer tenfold when the ancestors of those immigrants become complacent and expect the same lifestyle as the native population, thus creating the same problem they supposedly fixed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Last I checked, man is a member of the animal kingdom, therefore, the intelligence of al members of the4 kingdom is relative. If you want to be a carrot, be my guest.
Haha you were the one that originally made the distinction, you spastic: "Between man and other animals? What would you call it. Related?"
What is actually wrong with you lol. You are arguing against yourself on several points now.
Related, but it isn't. A man is related to a woman [every one of my half of the species is], but he isn't a woman. Wow. That's profound. Was that from Kellogg's, of Post?
I had to explain this distinction to you because you implied the law *was* morality. So, in essence, you're mocking your initial ability to originally comprehend the basic distinction.
Yes, I did. And it follows, as I then argued that people use tools for different purposes than designed for, and that is innovation. How does that argue against myself.I do not discount innovation. What I'm saying, genius, is that the tool, a canine tooth, was designed to tear flesh, not a carrot. That a tool's designcan be emplyed fore another purpose does not negate the designed purpose. Get it? II didn't think so.
I agree with your argument here, but it wasn't your original one. Your original argument was a naturalistic fallacy implying that because canine teeth were designed for tearing meat, hence that gives reason to eat meat. Unfortunately, this is a text-based website wherein people can go back and see what you wrote. You can't get away with changing your argument and expecting people not to notice.
To conclude that an animal can sense being in the act of being harmed is pathetically obvious. What I contend, is that an animal's reaction to the fear instinct, such as sensing a possible threatening presence from a hundred yards away [like a deer facing a hunter] is not a specific harm instinct but a non=specific survival instinct. It does not know it will be harmed until it is. The cow facing the slaughterhouse has the same instinctual reaction, but to say it is the fear of harm, which may or may not be fatal, is anthropomorphic imposition on the animal. If it were otherwise, that same deer, a buck, which has the instinct to battle with other bucks, an activity that can certainly be harmful, yet its instinct overcomes the fear, because it cannot think far enough ahead to assess whether the battle will be fatal.
In my response to Zedvictor, I addressed this claim https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5147-is-meat-eating-morally-justifiable?page=2&post_number=30
Whilst the jury appears to be out on invertebrates, it is clear that big brained animals (gorillas, dogs etc.) have the capacity for emotion. Your claim of every single non-human animal having only instincts has been debunked. I'm surprised that a well-travelled man such as yourself has never seen a dog show any kind of emotion.
At least you posted something decently reasonable with this paragraph.
But, you will rebut my telling you to put the carrot down. No, I don't have that kind of arrogance, because I eat carrots, too. Like I said, I'm an omnivore. But, since you insist on applying a morality to eating meat, who says your morality of eating a carrot is any more superior to my morality to eat an animal? You.ve entirely ignored that argument. Convenient. [and everything else you wrote]
I'll spell it out for you since you don't seem to cope with implications: part of causing harm to something implies that it has emotions. We don't say 'you caused harm to that pile of bricks you smashed'. Instead, we say, 'you caused damage...'
If a deer's leg becomes damaged, it is 'harmed'. If a rock is chipped, it is 'damaged.'
Hopefully, your double PHD brain can comprehend that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
well, you can also then make the claim that everything that entices young people to make critically bad decisions are also predatory. From people offering jobs to teens to members of the opposite sex. Where do the excuses end and responsibility begin?
I'm not making that claim because there are clear, threshold distinctions between predatory loans and anything that may influence young people to make critically bad decisions.
For example, there is a distinction between one of your friends saying 'it would be cool to have a kid by the time you're 18', versus a governmentally backed institution designed to screw over the majority of people who engaged with it. One is a naïve suggestion whilst the other is willfully malicious.
Created:
-->
@Death23
Obviously other factors can be in play and the situation merits further investigation, but who has time for that?
'I can't be bothered to conduct proper research, therefore racism'.
LOL
Causation is much more difficult to prove then causation, but I can't think of a better explanation for the observed correlation than racism. Well, someone else can do the work because I'm too lazy to find out.
If you can't be bothered to make proper arguments, then please refrain from polluting the website with quarter-baked nonsense.
BTW the cited study was https://www.pnas.org/content/117/35/21194 It's behind a paywall. Anyone got the pirated version?
Actually, this study doesn't support the article's title/your argument (racism affecting black infant mortality rates, whereas this one deals with amount of pain perception of blacks by whites), hence it isn't the main one they are referring to.
Fyi this is the worst post I've seen on this website so far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
there are worse things young people commonly do to wreck their lives like dropping out of highschool and having babies before they are married.Those consequences persist much longer than school debt.
It's debatable whether these are worse but they are certainly quite bad (although dropping out of highschool for a good job is desirable imo), perhaps in the same ball-park as student loans.
The key difference is my usage of the word "predatory", in that we have entities (universities) which intentionally offer students with what are likely useless degrees, in order to saddle them with debt for a serious chunk of their lives. Both of your examples do not involve predatory corporate behaviour, hence they are permissible seeing that they are self-inflicted life-outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Student loans are rather exorbitant and offered to young people who are not capable of comprehending such a life-altering decision at their age. The average college graduate takes 21 years to pay off their student loan https://www.thebalance.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-pay-off-student-loans-4588027#:~:text=Updated%20June%2025%2C%202019.%20Federal%20student%20loan%20providers,timeline%20for%20payoff%20with%20a%20standard%20repayment%20plan. . In real terms, it takes someone half their expected working life to pay off a loan which may not help them become employed, seeing that roughly 2/3 college graduates won't be able to line up a job, let alone use their degree, to acquire a job in their field https://mystudentvoices.com/collegegradjobs-e581bdc078d2 .
Thus, I believe there is reasonable evidence to suggest student loans are predatory and exploit a vulnerable population.
Created:
-->
@Death23
The data suggests that ~42% of the observed difference between white and black infant mortality is being caused by racism. It's time for those babies to shut up and start taking responsibility!
Nope. The study cited in the article is this one https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr69/NVSR-69-7-508.pdf . Control+f for "racism" and "racist", and you won't find it.
What this news article (i.e. not scientific research) has done is assumed the statistical difference is *wholly* accounted for by "racism", even though the study doesn't mention this at all. The news article has assumed that there are no other possible factors, such as difference in genetics, difference in black behaviour etc. that could account for this. Instead, it has taken *some factors*, such as "access to health care", "exposure to pollution" and "the health effects of racism" (lol, what a tautology), and bundled them into the nebulous category of "racism". It's also entirely possible that blacks are inflicting these poor health issues upon themselves by choosing to live in polluted areas, or intentionally living in areas with lower access to health. To reiterate, this isn't the scientific paper which is producing these conclusions, but rather the news article rushing to a conclusion without controlling for variables.
This is sufficient to dismiss your sarcastic remark as juvenile inaccuracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm not saying law doesn't protect property, but the state has historucally established it's sovereignty via force
Yes, but it's a force for good, for the most part, as I've shown through my examples.
The state's existence is predicated on the monopolization of force
Sure, but how else do you protect people's property? Do you expect the common person to 100% of the time defend their property in an ethical way? You continue to say that the state uses force and somehow that is unjustifiable, yet you don't offer an alternative. If the law is constructed with multiple, impartial people, if it can be developed in accordance to objective standards, and if the government can enforce it, why is this a bad thing?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm not a lefty but I may be able to provide valuable points to support your post.
So, it has been seeming like any disparities among races are always just tossed up to "White Racism" or "Systemic Racism", and I was simply wondering, at what point do you consider minorities to be people who are responsible for their own actions?
There is no point. "Racism" is a product of having differing non-European groups involved with other racial groups. Even in their homelands (such as Kenya), Africans still complain of other Kenyans racially discriminating against them. In Singapore, Chinese have to be legally forbidden from spreading Chinese supremacist mantra, in order to maintain the peace.
We can see this clearest through Hispanic immigrants compared to homeland Hispanics. In their homelands, Hispanics rate as one of the highest advocates for freedom of speech https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/americans-more-tolerant-of-offensive-speech-than-others-in-the-world/ . However, once they immigrate to America, their tune changes as "hate speech" (a.k.a. a version of racism) becomes a salient issue https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a6ywqpe9hl/tabs_OPI_hate_crimes_20150511.pdf . If America is such a dreadful country to live in, then why no return to your homeland? When people are really oppressed, they attempt to flee their oppressors.
Worldwide, wherever there is a problem with populations that are not wholly/mostly European, "racism" is far more readily blamed than personal actions.
Are we assuming that all cultures and peoples are the same and that any disparity at all is because of racism? How much disparity in SAT scores and household wealth needs to be closed before you blame individuals for making bad choices like having kids out of wedlock?
It's fascinating that in some leftist's minds they can house this complete contradiction: cultural differences should be celebrated but cultural differences don't matter. This isn't even to delve into the fact that some cultures are objectively abhorrent, such as some parts of the extreme Islamic world wherein women are stoned to death for being raped (for dishonoring the family), or in parts of Uganda where they believe witchcraft is a real thing https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-02/witchcraft-child-sacrifice-uganda-victims/11248026 .
Yes, there doesn't seem to be an end for the degeneracy and awful decisions the government is willing to tolerate. Kind in mind that this issue is exacerbated by the tax-payer having to prop these irresponsible people up.
And how does this apply to disparities in which White people are lower in achievement? Asians from many cultures and countries have the highest IQ scores and earn much higher incomes than White people.
A fact that I've rarely seen lefties address because it destroys their "white supremacist" narrative.
Black women are 3x more likely to die during childbirth than White women, but Hispanics are 13% less likely to die than White people. Are White women making bad health decisions and Black women are suffering from this unspeakable racism on the part of White doctors, and it is of no fault of their own?
Good point.
Maybe telling people that all of their problems are because the White man is keeping people down is causing them to act irrationally. Maybe they don't try as hard to finish high school, because 'what is the point'? The evil White man will keep you from succeeding anyway.
Learned helplessness is a pathology.
It seems to me that removing personal agency from people is only going to cause more harm than good. You can fight the occasional racism when you find it, but it by no means is rampant like lefties try to make it out to be.
If anything, Africans and Hispanics receive, overall, favorable handouts from the government (for example, getting into universities with lower SAT scores through affirmative action) https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/17/affirmative-action/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The law is intersubjectively constructed through the will of people, thus it is "imposed" by the people. Governments are not entities devoid of any human input, in fact their existence is possible only through human input. They reflect reasonable desire which, in some cases, protects private property. Moreover, is it so unclear how law could protect/prevent any individual committing theft? Or breaking and entering? Or trespassing? If there are no official and (mostly) impartial ways of persecuting people who breach private property ethics, then who/what will? Are you suggesting mob rule?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
it is a core principle of right-wing economics. If you funnel all the money to the rich, it will somehow, some day, trickle down to other people. That is some magical thinking.
This is one of the few comments you've made that I agree with. The wealthy tend to horde the wealth for themselves, put it in safe interest-generating assets, and thus don't create anything of real value.
This is why rulers of the past forgave all debt immediately upon entering power. It helped the poor not accumulate a ridiculous amount of debt, prevented the rich from becoming too rich, and incentivised properly investing in an economy instead of engaging in usury.
since that data included food as a "premium item", i have no faith in that info. But again, there are a limited number of jobs. You keep pretending like if every american went to college, they would all be CEOs making millions. That is a fantasy. There are a limited number of high paying jobs. Yes, getting more education will help you fight to get them. but if I get that job, someone else doesn't. no matter how hard everyone works the majority of the country is going to struggle financially. It is how the system is designed.
It depends on the type of food being purchased. Some food should definitely be classified as luxury, such as truffles or exotic cheeses. For the report, it seems that McDonalds is considered a luxury, which isn't too unreasonable considering people shouldn't be living on that.
The majority of the country struggles because it is steeped in debt. If I recall a paper correctly, if you have 10$ American dollars, you are richer than 75% of Americans. Some of the debt is good, such as a loan for a cheap car to be able to work. Some of it is bad and self-inflicted, such as credit card debt to buy luxury items. Given the statistics presented by bmd, it appears that a lot of Americans accrue bad debt through unintelligent purchases.
Whilst I am certainly sympathetic to outrageous students loans debt, the punishment for reckless, debt-driven, luxury item spending should be a poor financial situation.
that's a great plan if you want america to decline. The US needs immigrants or it's population will start to decline. You are right, if america stopped immigration the cost of labor would rise. but this would also cause a drop in the size of america's workforce and cause the economy to decline.
Whatever economic band aid immigrants provide for the U.S. economy is many-fold outweighed by the cultural and spiritual destruction it causes. Most non-European immigrants, be they African, East Asian, Jewish or Hispanic, create an environment of hostile racial conflict and bloc politics that distracts from real issues (such as government size and tax reform).
The U.S. needs immigrants like a man with gangrene needs a chainsaw -- you'll get rid of the gangrene but you'll kill the man.
you keep ignoring my argument. If everyone is a manager, then they aren't managing anyone. There is a limit to the number of high paying jobs. Even if every single american was highly educated, half (if not more) would struggle financially. Education helps you fight over the limited number of good jobs, but no matter how hard the general population fights, half the country will struggle to make ends meet.
You don't need a high-paying job to exist. Responsible financial management, even with a lower-paying job, will allow you to save and invest to build wealth. If half the country is spending most of their paychecks on luxury items, then perhaps half the country deserves to struggle.
Created: