Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So are we voting for Trump or what?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
    How are near death highs logical? Not high enough to guarantee a death. There are more effective and clean ways to die.

    Your going to dance around the terms now? Rational and logical are fairly similar ideas so define each.
    The adrenaline rush is for people that plan to survive the jump, obviously. And sure, there are more effective ways to die, but jumping off of high stuff is easier than other methods.

    "Dancing around the terms", the next argument from " majority and most aren't the same thing" guy, lol. But to answer your deflection, I explained the difference, and I illustrated how it works. Your job now is to prove that someone can make a decision with literally no logic underpinning it, now with the handicap of not including things that seem silly at first blush. Your job is not to try and move the argument to semantics so that you can avoid the burden of proof.
    Last edited by OrganizationXV; August 12th, 2019, 09:36 AM.
    Originally posted by Wade
    Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

    Comment


      Why do you people insist on bickering? Why not use this site for something constructive, like helping one another get laid or whatever? Get some Japanese girls on here and stuff.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Helly View Post

        All you've done is repeatedly misunderstand everything I've put forward, what do you mean? You never once demonstrated that your arguments can't be applied to other species, you just avoid addressing it altogether because you understand how stupid anti-realism is, until we get to racial categories.

        Wait, so you're allowed to cite all the alt-left sources you want and I don't give you shit about it, but when you ask me for evidence it has to come from a source that meets your nebulous standards? Okay. No. You want to play this extremely stupid game,how about you find me an "unbiased" source for your ideas on race. Then and only then will this autistic game be even remotely fair
        What "alt-left" sources are you talking about? Literally every source I have shared has been neutral, some of them have even been taken directly from the sources you and your ilk love to cite. Also here you go again witht his "alt-left" bs. There is no alt-left, no one identifies as alt-left. Stop with your false equivalencies.




        Actually, yes it is for you to define. You're saying that human subcategories fail to meet some "objective" measure, I need to know what "objective" measure this is otherwise there won't be a point in giving my points since you're just going to take issue with it all because you have some magical "objective" standard that only exists in your mind.
        No actually it isn't because I'm not the one arguing that racial categories are objective and meaningful, you are. I've already told you what objective is, so have several other studies delving into this same topic. You know what the scientific method is, so use that and tell me what race is.



        Like I've mentioned dozens of times, anything that can lead to a useful prediction or revelation on a population or group should become a subcategory. This is what we're already doing with qualifiers and context-sensitive categorizations like "asian", "non-hispanic", "west african", etc etc. All of these categories are all being used today, by the same people you cite, because all of them are useful and can tell us things about ancestral history, racial biases, cultural elements, etc. If you don't agree, then tell me this: without dividing people into ethnic groups at all, how would you describe the origins and themes of Hip-Hop?
        They're all being used and they are all arbitrary and not predictive of anything meaningful at the end of the day, and race changes depending on what country you even visit as well.





        Not an "objective" measure, no. Everything is based in assumptions and percentages.


        If you're not saying they don't exist, then what's your problem with racial categories?
        My problem with them is that they are arbitrary and no based in any scientific fact. I basically treat racial categories as I do any other socially constructed dilemma.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
          What "alt-left" sources are you talking about? Literally every source I have shared has been neutral, some of them have even been taken directly from the sources you and your ilk love to cite. Also here you go again witht his "alt-left" bs. There is no alt-left, no one identifies as alt-left. Stop with your false equivalencies.
          Bro, literally everyone you've brought up has used terms like "Nazis", "white supremacists", "scientific racism", etc. These are all politically chsrged terms that on top of being innacurate betray their extremely apparent alt-left biases. Itd be like if I went and brought you a bunch of "scientists" rambling about PC culture. You would throw it out immediately and refuse to engage with the data and arguments presented, because you seem to be under the impression that being s scientist magically makes simeone immune to biases, but I haven't tried playing that dumb game because I know better than to believe in such myths.


          No actually it isn't because I'm not the one arguing that racial categories are objective and meaningful, you are. I've already told you what objective is, so have several other studies delving into this same topic. You know what the scientific method is, so use that and tell me what race is.
          Except I've never claimed any objectivity for any type of classification. I've just stated their usefulness.The scientific method is built upon predictive validity, or the ability to make predictions. I've already presented you with myriads of studies that can predict a person's self-identified race and that can predict ancestral backgrounds, but you have been unsatisfied with them. Tell me why.


          They're all being used and they are all arbitrary and not predictive of anything meaningful at the end of the day, and race changes depending on what country you even visit as well.
          So, you're denying that AIMs can predict a person's ancestral background now? Tez, go look up what AIM stands for.


          My problem with them is that they are arbitrary and no based in any scientific fact. I basically treat racial categories as I do any other socially constructed dilemma.
          "Not based in scientific fact", this is blatantly false and I have demonstrated it repeatedly with the various papers I have linked. So, tell me, because you completely dodged my challenge for you to describe the themes and history of Hip-Hop without using racial categories - which tells me that you can't, because racial categories are undoubtedly helpful and can give us a ton of information that we otherwise would not have with your anti-realism; do you use words like "blue" and "red", or "warm" and "cold", or "stale" and "fresh", or what about "he" and "she" in your day-to-day life? These are all arbitrary terms, moreso than taxonomic categories, yet you would agree that they can all provide us with helpful information, right?........Or do you just have an existential meltdown and run away screaming whenever you're trying to describe anything at all?

          Comment


            Originally posted by Helly View Post

            Bro, literally everyone you've brought up has used terms like "Nazis", "white supremacists", "scientific racism", etc. These are all politically chsrged terms that on top of being innacurate betray their extremely apparent alt-left biases. Itd be like if I went and brought you a bunch of "scientists" rambling about PC culture. You would throw it out immediately and refuse to engage with the data and arguments presented, because you seem to be under the impression that being s scientist magically makes simeone immune to biases, but I haven't tried playing that dumb game because I know better than to believe in such myths.
            Because this is VERY often used by nazis, white supremacists and racialist. This is just a fact, maybe one you're uncomfortable with. If you're so dedicated to making extreme distinctions between human populations you're very likely to fall into these categories, one of the sources was even straight up from the american-anthro association, no one deadset on dividing humans up like this has any good intentions in mind. That being said, there is no alt-left or any left-wing equivalent to the alt-right for that matter. At worse SJW's just aren't fun at parties, right-wingers legit go out and massacre a whole synagogue full of jews or a church full of black people.



            Except I've never claimed any objectivity for any type of classification. I've just stated their usefulness.The scientific method is built upon predictive validity, or the ability to make predictions. I've already presented you with myriads of studies that can predict a person's self-identified race and that can predict ancestral backgrounds, but you have been unsatisfied with them. Tell me why.
            Except it's not and I've already shown you why it's not, phenotype is almost entirely unreliable for predicting someones genetic ancestry so how exactly would you even classify race at this point? I mean Obama and Tiger Woods identify as black, and are phenotypically black, but genetic wise they are also both Chinese and white, and this is the case with a lot of different people as I've also shown.

            Obviously, if someone looks black they are going to be treated as such and identify so as well, but this just isn't the whole story most of the time. So there goes your "ability to make predictions."



            So, you're denying that AIMs can predict a person's ancestral background now? Tez, go look up what AIM stands for.
            I know exactly what it stands for, but there is a reason why that study considered phenotype irrelevant to the study, I want you to figure out why.



            "Not based in scientific fact", this is blatantly false and I have demonstrated it repeatedly with the various papers I have linked. So, tell me, because you completely dodged my challenge for you to describe the themes and history of Hip-Hop without using racial categories - which tells me that you can't, because racial categories are undoubtedly helpful and can give us a ton of information that we otherwise would not have with your anti-realism; do you use words like "blue" and "red", or "warm" and "cold", or "stale" and "fresh", or what about "he" and "she" in your day-to-day life? These are all arbitrary terms, moreso than taxonomic categories, yet you would agree that they can all provide us with helpful information, right?........Or do you just have an existential meltdown and run away screaming whenever you're trying to describe anything at all?
            You're pretty much making my point for me by bringing up hip-hop, obviously, it has origins in african-american roots, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think this in itself is proof that race is a social construct, ask someone what a black person is and you'll get 10 different answers. Some will say if they look black they are black, some would say you'd have to enslaved ancestors so no west africans don' count. And to top it off if you "look" black in america you basically are black and that's how you'll be treated, but we've already gone over how there are many other ethnicities that look black but are genetically distant from african americans.

            Comment


              Autism, genuine autism

              Comment


                It's like Trump and Race inseparable. I mean, even in online forums Trump threads have Race discussion in them.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                  At worse SJW's just aren't fun at parties, right-wingers legit go out and massacre a whole synagogue full of jews or a church full of black people.
                  Actually, the Dayton shooter was a Demoncrat, not Republicunt, who voted Hillary, and he was arguably worse than a "regular" spree shooter for being sororicidal on top of that. Not to burst your bubble or anything.
                  Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; August 13th, 2019, 05:12 PM.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                    The adrenaline rush is for people that plan to survive the jump, obviously. And sure, there are more effective ways to die, but jumping off of high stuff is easier than other methods.

                    "Dancing around the terms", the next argument from " majority and most aren't the same thing" guy, lol. But to answer your deflection, I explained the difference, and I illustrated how it works. Your job now is to prove that someone can make a decision with literally no logic underpinning it, now with the handicap of not including things that seem silly at first blush. Your job is not to try and move the argument to semantics so that you can avoid the burden of proof.
                    Not to drag out a dead thread, but humor me. Define both terms.

                    Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                    Actually, the Dayton shooter was a Demoncrat, not Republicunt, who voted Hillary, and he was arguably worse than a "regular" spree shooter for being sororicidal on top of that. Not to burst your bubble or anything.
                    Even if that was the case he didn't shoot people for political reasons. He was actually an incel and misogynist . Which is why I have a hard time believing he voted for Hillary or is a "Demoncrat".
                    I'm a great guy, except I am not - Helly
                    Originally posted by Helly;n539159
                    {I} gives poor ppl jobs,is all-around great guy
                    Originally posted by Helly;n531786
                    son ive laughed at child rape jokes, endorsed misogyny, fired poor people, advocated the denial of south american refugees,

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                      At worse SJW's just aren't fun at parties,
                      You hear about that Antifa guy that had attempted to shoot up an ICE facility, only didn't kill because his gun jammed? How about that guy that tried to shoot up a baseball field and only failed in his endeavor because of a quick police response? Andy Ngo sustaining injuries from Antifa members? Brain hemorrhage apparently? Or how about some old guy that apparently had his skull severely injured from Antifa members as well?

                      You'll notice that in all of these instances of extreme Leftist violence, they only didn't really kill or truly cripple people because they had actually just been...really bad at their jobs, so to say, or the victims simply got immediate medical attention as well.

                      This whole "Only Right-Wingers are violent" thing is pretty lame, TBQH. Don't really give a shit about "who does it more" either so don't bring that up, because the numbers are just so small anyway and neither the Righties or Lefties are particularly enthralled with any of these unsavory folks under discussion in the first place anyway...
                      Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; August 14th, 2019, 02:13 AM.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post
                        Even if that was the case he didn't shoot people for political reasons. He was actually an incel and misogynist . Which is why I have a hard time believing he voted for Hillary or is a "Demoncrat".
                        >Not political
                        >Misogynistic

                        Pick one (and provide proof of the latter while you're at it).

                        And I'm curious how you just happened to determine that Betts was an "incel" like Elliot Rodger. Is it simply because he had glasses, you ableist twit? Or is this allegation just as unfounded as him being a low-key sexist?

                        Comment


                          Shut the fuck up, RCA

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post
                            Shut the fuck up, RCA
                            ...Nah.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post
                              >Not political
                              >Misogynistic

                              Pick one (and provide proof of the latter while you're at it).

                              And I'm curious how you just happened to determine that Betts was an "incel" like Elliot Rodger. Is it simply because he had glasses, you ableist twit? Or is this allegation just as unfounded as him being a low-key sexist?
                              The incel part is a mistake from my part. Police were looking into seeing if he was associated with incel groups but haven't said anything yet.

                              As for him hating women.

                              "But officials briefed on the investigation told ABC News the suspected shooter demonstrated a misogyny that was far more extreme than any of his political leanings."

                              https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews...%3fid=64826324
                              I'm a great guy, except I am not - Helly
                              Originally posted by Helly;n539159
                              {I} gives poor ppl jobs,is all-around great guy
                              Originally posted by Helly;n531786
                              son ive laughed at child rape jokes, endorsed misogyny, fired poor people, advocated the denial of south american refugees,

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post

                                The incel part is a mistake from my part. Police were looking into seeing if he was associated with incel groups but haven't said anything yet.

                                As for him hating women.

                                "But officials briefed on the investigation told ABC News the suspected shooter demonstrated a misogyny that was far more extreme than any of his political leanings."

                                https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews...%3fid=64826324
                                Nice op-ed piece disguised as an editorial, lol.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                                  Actually, the Dayton shooter was a Demoncrat, not Republicunt, who voted Hillary, and he was arguably worse than a "regular" spree shooter for being sororicidal on top of that. Not to burst your bubble or anything.
                                  Democrat =/= leftist or even left-leaning, the Overton window in America is so far right that even democrats are basically Republican-lite, hence why like an 8th of democratic candidates are against basic things such as meidcare for all. Regardless, the majority of mass shooters within recent memory have been far-right

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                                    Because this is VERY often used by nazis, white supremacists and racialist. This is just a fact, maybe one you're uncomfortable with. If you're so dedicated to making extreme distinctions between human populations you're very likely to fall into these categories, one of the sources was even straight up from the american-anthro association, no one deadset on dividing humans up like this has any good intentions in mind. That being said, there is no alt-left or any left-wing equivalent to the alt-right for that matter. At worse SJW's just aren't fun at parties, right-wingers legit go out and massacre a whole synagogue full of jews or a church full of black people.
                                    I'm not uncomfortable with it at all. I don't care who uses it, what matters is if it's useful, and the overwhelming consensus has been that they are useful. That's why your own sources continue using subcategories of humans even though they try arguing against them, it'sso utterly self-refuting.

                                    Actually, no, at worst the alt-left also become murderers who take it a step further and actually kill people close to themselves, such as their polyamorous feminidt girlfriend or their own sister.



                                    Except it's not and I've already shown you why it's not, phenotype is almost entirely unreliable for predicting someones genetic ancestry so how exactly would you even classify race at this point? I mean Obama and Tiger Woods identify as black, and are phenotypically black, but genetic wise they are also both Chinese and white, and this is the case with a lot of different people as I've also shown.

                                    Obviously, if someone looks black they are going to be treated as such and identify so as well, but this just isn't the whole story most of the time. So there goes your "ability to make predictions."
                                    Except it's not unreliable at all, odds are certainly higher than 0% that when you use terms like "white", "asian", etc you will have a very good idea of what the person looks like and narrow down where their ethnic background might be from. Or do you literally spaz out whenever someone describes a friend you've never met as "black"?



                                    I know exactly what it stands for, but there is a reason why that study considered phenotype irrelevant to the study, I want you to figure out why.
                                    Well, no, my job isn't to puzzle out what it is you mean, dude. If you're trying to say "boo, AIMs are cheating", then I hope you're prepared to do the same for literally everything else in biology because we don't analyze every detail of an entire genome every time we want to figure out what species or subspecies some animal pr remains of an animal belongs to,



                                    You're pretty much making my point for me by bringing up hip-hop, obviously, it has origins in african-american roots, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think this in itself is proof that race is a social construct, ask someone what a black person is and you'll get 10 different answers. Some will say if they look black they are black, some would say you'd have to enslaved ancestors so no west africans don' count. And to top it off if you "look" black in america you basically are black and that's how you'll be treated, but we've already gone over how there are many other ethnicities that look black but are genetically distant from african americans.
                                    Tez for the millionth billionth time I've never said that it wasn't a construct, literally everything in every language is a construct, what I'm pointing out to you is that you still need to use racial categories to describe the history because having these categories tell us information that we could not have otherwise. And this is my point, they are helpful, they are useful, they give us information that is important to describe the world around us and make predictions, and you admitted this the moment you said "obviously, it has african-american roots", thereby using a racial subcategory to convey important information.
                                    Last edited by Helly; August 14th, 2019, 11:31 PM.

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X