Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stick with what you know?

nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 1:53:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Now you may completely disagree with me, and I might rub a lot of people the wrong way, but... I notice that there are people who like to talk about things they don't know much about. And it's fine if you want to learn more, because that's why many of us are here. But some people, and I won't name names, assert things without a basic understanding of the things they are talking about. And it's really frustrating and annoying to have a conversation with someone who lacks a basic understanding, yet is persistent in their views.

I ask you to ponder this: Imagine a bunch of Econ newbs came along and dominated the Economics forum and filled it up with a bunch of retarded crap. Not only do they not have a basic understanding, but they also make wild assertions and call everyone stupid. It would be even more annoying if the majority of the site lacked a basic understanding of economics and sided with the newbs. For this reason (that I know nothing about economics), I mostly stay out of the Economics forum.

I'm not asking people to stay out of forums or not to post in certain forums.

Just food for thought.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:04:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Seriously, though, people will never stop spouting off about things they know nothing about. It's partly because people, for the most part, know almost nothing about almost everything. It's also because so many use discourse on unusual or controversial topics as an opportunity to project stereotypes and assumptions rather than absorb information. People find more personal discomfort in admitting ignorance or challenging their own beliefs than they do in making unsubstantiated claims or attacking the views of others.

In this regard, online conversations are superior to real-life ones, in that it is easy to identify those members you describe and ignore them.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:23:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:04:27 AM, Maikuru wrote:
You clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Seriously, though, people will never stop spouting off about things they know nothing about. It's partly because people, for the most part, know almost nothing about almost everything.

All I'm asking for is the basics lol It's so hard to have a conversation with someone when you aren't even coming from the same page. It's like if someone has no understanding of logical fallacies, and you accuse them of using the No True Scotsman fallacy, and they say "Yes, but he really isn't a true Scotsman" it's like *facepalm*, you know what I mean?

It's also because so many use discourse on unusual or controversial topics as an opportunity to project stereotypes and assumptions rather than absorb information.

This x 10

People find more personal discomfort in admitting ignorance or challenging their own beliefs than they do in making unsubstantiated claims or attacking the views of others.

In this regard, online conversations are superior to real-life ones, in that it is easy to identify those members you describe and ignore them.

Sigh. Too bad nobody else had anything to say for themselves :p I think one day I'll make a trip to the Economics forum and just start spouting nonsense :p
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:32:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know what you mean. I once accepted a debate thinking it would be done using history primarily, by once they got into complex economics, I had to forfeit since I didn't understand what he was saying.

I do however, think that its wrong to put people down simply because you know more than they do. When people get qualified in a certain area, they tend to assume that no one below their level ought to challenge them simply by virtue of their status. Instead, if you know more than they do, USE your superior knowledge to kick their butts. Otherwise, put up with their ignorance.

However, if thats too much effort being put to waste, you could just ignore them.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:39:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 2:32:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
I know what you mean. I once accepted a debate thinking it would be done using history primarily, by once they got into complex economics, I had to forfeit since I didn't understand what he was saying.

I do however, think that its wrong to put people down simply because you know more than they do. When people get qualified in a certain area, they tend to assume that no one below their level ought to challenge them simply by virtue of their status. Instead, if you know more than they do, USE your superior knowledge to kick their butts. Otherwise, put up with their ignorance.

However, if thats too much effort being put to waste, you could just ignore them.

I'm not asking people to be experts, or to know a lot about anything. I'm just asking for the basics to be down, especially when you're making a bunch of assertions, and you continue to make them despite them being shot down, because you don't understand the rebuttals.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:45:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 2:39:09 PM, nonentity wrote:

I'm not asking people to be experts, or to know a lot about anything. I'm just asking for the basics to be down, especially when you're making a bunch of assertions, and you continue to make them despite them being shot down, because you don't understand the rebuttals.

It's one thing to be ignorant about something and be humble enough to acknowledge it. It's a completely other thing to make assertions that are ridiculous AND offensive, while not understanding the basics.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:45:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 2:40:57 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
If you wanna be cool there is just one simple rule:
stick with what you knoooooooooooow.

High School Musical ftw haha
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:51:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agreed - people should definitely stick with what they know.

I think that people definitely propagate ill informed views on many sections. People in the economics forum are often blind to more complex issues (try negative externalities, provision of merit goods etc.) and yet we have these people without great knowledge posting.

There is a degree to which one should attempt to post about things one does not know - it is a learning process. However, if one does not know something one should not be so aggressive in pronouncing their answer or have great conviction in their position.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:52:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 2:51:36 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
Agreed - people should definitely stick with what they know.

I think that people definitely propagate ill informed views on many sections. People in the economics forum are often blind to more complex issues (try negative externalities, provision of merit goods etc.) and yet we have these people without great knowledge posting.

There is a degree to which one should attempt to post about things one does not know - it is a learning process. However, if one does not know something one should not be so aggressive in pronouncing their answer or have great conviction in their position.

This---better conveyed than my apparently condescending OP.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 3:24:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 1:53:40 AM, nonentity wrote:

I ask you to ponder this: Imagine a bunch of Econ newbs came along and dominated the Economics forum and filled it up with a bunch of retarded crap. Not only do they not have a basic understanding, but they also make wild assertions and call everyone stupid. It would be even more annoying if the majority of the site lacked a basic understanding of economics and sided with the newbs. For this reason (that I know nothing about economics), I mostly stay out of the Economics forum.


Many times this often occurs...........

Take for example, the gold standard. Almost no economist supports the gold standard:

http://blogs.wsj.com...

However, I'd say the majority of members in the economics section supports the gold standard.

Nobody is really an "expert" in the topics they debate.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 3:51:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 3:24:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Take for example, the gold standard. Almost no economist supports the gold standard:

However, I'd say the majority of members in the economics section supports the gold standard.

Nobody is really an "expert" in the topics they debate.

I don't think she said you have to be an "expert" in what you debate, but rather one should have some basic education on the topic - preferably the formal kind to ensure that your perceived understanding can be verified by others who also know what they're talking about and are educated on the matter. Various "experts" can have different opinions and POVs, but it's frustrating when someone disagrees with you without having a grasp on the basics.

Then of course there are people who are just flat out ignorant not in regard to any particular issue but just in general... i.e....

At 2/8/2012 9:37:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no future in being a homosexual. It ends with you, no legacy to pass on. You die and are forgotten as there is nothing to pass on the memory of your existence.

No one including an "expert" can successfully combat this stupidity. All you can do is feel sorry for a person like this. I genuinely see people who think like this as having some form of mental retardation.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 3:59:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 3:51:47 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/11/2012 3:24:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Take for example, the gold standard. Almost no economist supports the gold standard:

However, I'd say the majority of members in the economics section supports the gold standard.

Nobody is really an "expert" in the topics they debate.

I don't think she said you have to be an "expert" in what you debate, but rather one should have some basic education on the topic

What's considered a "basic" understanding is relative. If one has studied a subject for years, his/her definition of "basic" is different from someone who has studied it for just a a few weeks.

- preferably the formal kind to ensure that your perceived understanding can be verified by others who also know what they're talking about and are educated on the matter.

Formal education is very expensive, and especially in the social sciences, highly bias.

Various "experts" can have different opinions and POVs, but it's frustrating when someone disagrees with you without having a grasp on the basics.


Again, the definition of "basics" is relative. Also knowing the "basics" is more of a tool, then a requirement argumentation, since one can easily source arguments without understanding the "basics". Understanding how the data was derived is less important then the actually cold data.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And yes, sadolite is incredibly frustrating to deal with.

His idea of economics: "Economics is easy it's just cost in and cost out".

Oh, and then in another topic he didn't even understanding what we were talking about in economics of scale. Not that I mind ignorance, but arrogance + stupidity = fail. His understanding of economics makes free-marketers look incredibly bad.

I had it in my sig for awhile.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:08:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If someone came around and actually did know what he/she was talking about, the rest of the forum goers probably wouldn't even know.

The problem is that most of the people around here have a very surface level, bachelor degree type understanding of most subjects. They don't see how all these subjects relate.

It's either a narrow scope of knowledge that disregards everything else, or a broad but shallow scope of knowledge.

Just look at how the people debate around here. If they aren't just being insulting and uncivil, they are using text book arguments.

I don't really see understanding around here, I mostly see a bunch of trained monkeys and parrots.

Pardon me for coming across as being arrogant, I'm just being honest.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:21:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sure, if you're looking to have a conversation Assuming a certain level of knowledge about the common ideas and terms.. I can see having someone jump in totally unprepared to do so could be annoying..

But, generally, I think it's good when people explain what they think and why they think it.. Even if they're not very well acquainted with the general ideas on the subject...

I could see it being a chore to bring people up to speed on common ideas on the topic.. but, so long as the person's not completely obstinate (which is a separate, worthy, thing to complain about) then their points can be addressed by explaining, from the bottom up, the theories or whatnot that address them.

now.. you might say they shouldn't bother people in this manner and stay out of it.. and go learn the stuff on their own.. Read a book or something..
But actually interacting with someone on a topic where the person directly addresses your points with counter-points of their own makes learning much much easier and I wouldn't blame someone for seeking that at all.

Further.. oftentimes there are people with legitimate points who simply don't know the specialized terminology that those somewhat acquainted with such conversations deals in... and those more acquainted folk attempt to evade legitimate argument by leveling trite dismissals of the person, hiding behind their special terms.

The Vast majority of topics discussed here (complicated science/math conversations excluded) aren't so complicated that the basic ideas can't be explained in a few minutes... and I know I enjoy explaining my thoughts to people.. and enjoy arguing over them with people.. and in doing a bit of work to explain what you mean/think to someone you could possibly gain a person who can engage with you back and forth.

So I wouldn't rag on all people who chime in who don't know
I would rag on those who refuse to genuinely engage.. and, whether they're comfortable with the terminology or not, remain a brick-wall impervious to all attempts of reasoning
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:23:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Right on, Matt
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:28:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:23:50 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right on, Matt

Thank you, Cosmic 8)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:44:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 3:51:47 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 2/8/2012 9:37:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no future in being a homosexual. It ends with you, no legacy to pass on. You die and are forgotten as there is nothing to pass on the memory of your existence.

No one including an "expert" can successfully combat this stupidity. All you can do is feel sorry for a person like this. I genuinely see people who think like this as having some form of mental retardation.

lol :/

Anyway, based on the comments, I guess my title was a little misleading. I'm not sure where mattrodstrom and I disagree. Again, I'm not asking anyone to be an expert on anything, and I'm not asking anyone to have a lot of knowledge of anything. What I'm talking about are people who assert things without a knowledge of the basics.

If you don't know that 2+2=4 I don't really care. It's when you assert a complicated mathematic equation that doesn't pan out, and you don't understand the basics of math, but then call everyone else stupid for telling you that you are wrong. Not only that, but they explain to you how you are wrong, and you continue to persist in your stupidity. If it's not obvious by now who I'm talking about...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:19:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:44:51 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 3:51:47 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 2/8/2012 9:37:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no future in being a homosexual. It ends with you, no legacy to pass on. You die and are forgotten as there is nothing to pass on the memory of your existence.

No one including an "expert" can successfully combat this stupidity. All you can do is feel sorry for a person like this. I genuinely see people who think like this as having some form of mental retardation.

lol :/

Anyway, based on the comments, I guess my title was a little misleading. I'm not sure where mattrodstrom and I disagree. Again, I'm not asking anyone to be an expert on anything, and I'm not asking anyone to have a lot of knowledge of anything. What I'm talking about are people who assert things without a knowledge of the basics.

If you don't know that 2+2=4 I don't really care. It's when you assert a complicated mathematic equation that doesn't pan out, and you don't understand the basics of math, but then call everyone else stupid for telling you that you are wrong. Not only that, but they explain to you how you are wrong, and you continue to persist in your stupidity. If it's not obvious by now who I'm talking about...

I don't think the conversion about race and intelligence can be broken down as simply as a simple "mathematics error".

Yes, your talking about jimtimmy. However, do you really think you were never uncivil to him? I realize that you two have sort of a feud, but Wnope was able to have a 1000 page conversation with jimtimmy without trouble.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:23:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:19:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:44:51 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 3:51:47 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 2/8/2012 9:37:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no future in being a homosexual. It ends with you, no legacy to pass on. You die and are forgotten as there is nothing to pass on the memory of your existence.

No one including an "expert" can successfully combat this stupidity. All you can do is feel sorry for a person like this. I genuinely see people who think like this as having some form of mental retardation.

lol :/

Anyway, based on the comments, I guess my title was a little misleading. I'm not sure where mattrodstrom and I disagree. Again, I'm not asking anyone to be an expert on anything, and I'm not asking anyone to have a lot of knowledge of anything. What I'm talking about are people who assert things without a knowledge of the basics.

If you don't know that 2+2=4 I don't really care. It's when you assert a complicated mathematic equation that doesn't pan out, and you don't understand the basics of math, but then call everyone else stupid for telling you that you are wrong. Not only that, but they explain to you how you are wrong, and you continue to persist in your stupidity. If it's not obvious by now who I'm talking about...

I don't think the conversion about race and intelligence can be broken down as simply as a simple "mathematics error".

Yes, your talking about jimtimmy. However, do you really think you were never uncivil to him? I realize that you two have sort of a feud, but Wnope was able to have a 1000 page conversation with jimtimmy without trouble.

Jimtimmy was the first to be uncivil to me, in case you've forgotten. In fact, I was perfectly cordial to him due to his flattery.

The analogy works. He does not understand the basic (eg. 'correlation =/= causation', or even the difference between 'genetic' and 'heritable') and yet he makes claims that rely on those basic assumptions.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:31:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:23:35 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:19:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:44:51 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 3:51:47 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 2/8/2012 9:37:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no future in being a homosexual. It ends with you, no legacy to pass on. You die and are forgotten as there is nothing to pass on the memory of your existence.

No one including an "expert" can successfully combat this stupidity. All you can do is feel sorry for a person like this. I genuinely see people who think like this as having some form of mental retardation.

lol :/

Anyway, based on the comments, I guess my title was a little misleading. I'm not sure where mattrodstrom and I disagree. Again, I'm not asking anyone to be an expert on anything, and I'm not asking anyone to have a lot of knowledge of anything. What I'm talking about are people who assert things without a knowledge of the basics.

If you don't know that 2+2=4 I don't really care. It's when you assert a complicated mathematic equation that doesn't pan out, and you don't understand the basics of math, but then call everyone else stupid for telling you that you are wrong. Not only that, but they explain to you how you are wrong, and you continue to persist in your stupidity. If it's not obvious by now who I'm talking about...

I don't think the conversion about race and intelligence can be broken down as simply as a simple "mathematics error".

Yes, your talking about jimtimmy. However, do you really think you were never uncivil to him? I realize that you two have sort of a feud, but Wnope was able to have a 1000 page conversation with jimtimmy without trouble.

Jimtimmy was the first to be uncivil to me, in case you've forgotten. In fact, I was perfectly cordial to him due to his flattery.

Looking at his Race and Intelligence topic, which I believe was his first discussion about the topic:

You're quoting Rushton? Seriously?

It's amazing how people purport a veil of "science" to hide behind their bigotry. Especially when their methods are completely unscientific and unsupported by science. Brain size is correlated with intelligence? Lololololol


Not exactly the most civil of response.

The analogy works. He does not understand the basic (eg. 'correlation =/= causation', or even the difference between 'genetic' and 'heritable') and yet he makes claims that rely on those basic assumptions.

I think he realizes that correlation =/= causation. However correlation means that the two variables are linked somehow. To be fair, in the social sciences it's almost impossible to find experimental data to support one uses, so one has to rely on correlations. Almost everyone uses correlations to support their worldview, even If they are aware of the fallacy.

In terms of the heritability and genetics, the differences can easily be explained easily in a matter of seconds and it's a common mistake.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:39:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:31:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:23:35 PM, nonentity wrote:

Jimtimmy was the first to be uncivil to me, in case you've forgotten. In fact, I was perfectly cordial to him due to his flattery.

Looking at his Race and Intelligence topic, which I believe was his first discussion about the topic:

You're quoting Rushton? Seriously?

It's amazing how people purport a veil of "science" to hide behind their bigotry. Especially when their methods are completely unscientific and unsupported by science. Brain size is correlated with intelligence? Lololololol


Not exactly the most civil of response.


That was also like 4 or 5 months ago and I had thought he was a troll due to his trollish behaviour. He has also acknowledged that he did come off as trollish in the beginning. Soo... nice try.

The analogy works. He does not understand the basic (eg. 'correlation =/= causation', or even the difference between 'genetic' and 'heritable') and yet he makes claims that rely on those basic assumptions.

I think he realizes that correlation =/= causation. However correlation means that the two variables are linked somehow.

Ice cream consumption is also positively correlated with crime. That doesn't mean the two are linked.

To be fair, in the social sciences it's almost impossible to find experimental data to support one uses, so one has to rely on correlations. Almost everyone uses correlations to support their worldview, even If they are aware of the fallacy.


Yes, but in the social sciences, causal claims are NEVER made based on correlations.

In terms of the heritability and genetics, the differences can easily be explained easily in a matter of seconds and it's a common mistake.

And I have explained the difference multiple times; it was even the last post in a thread and to this day there is no response and there will never be a response. As I pointed out in that thread (and numerous times before), his response is simply "that's stupid". Even with me explaining the basics, he persists in his views and calls ME stupid.

I don't know why you're so eager to defend him. I've lost some respect for you to be honest.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:50:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:03:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
And yes, sadolite is incredibly frustrating to deal with.

His idea of economics: "Economics is easy it's just cost in and cost out".

Oh, and then in another topic he didn't even understanding what we were talking about in economics of scale. Not that I mind ignorance, but arrogance + stupidity = fail. His understanding of economics makes free-marketers look incredibly bad.

I had it in my sig for awhile.

Sadolite is the archetype of conventional morality. Stage 4 on Kohlberg's scale, and unfortunately also one of the most powerful arguments against democracy.

OP: While I usually don't post on topics I don't know about extensively, I'll still certainly ask questions to users who know more. DDO work well is different people are knowledgeable in different subjects, and the difficulty often arises when two people with opposing views both consider themselves an authority on a given subject matter.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:13:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:39:34 PM, nonentity wrote:

Not exactly the most civil of response.


That was also like 4 or 5 months ago

So because it happened months ago that means it was alright? Remember, this is the first time you instigated with him. First impressions are incredibly important and are remembered, and you were the first to act uncivil.

and I had thought he was a troll due to his trollish behaviour.

He seemed pretty serious to me in the topic. Thinking someone is a troll doesn't justify an uncivil response. At the very least, if you think someone is a troll, you fvcking ignore the response, because that's what they want from you. Why engage with someone who you think is a troll?

He has also acknowledged that he did come off as trollish in the beginning. Soo... nice try.

Where did he say that and how does this justify your act?

I think he realizes that correlation =/= causation. However correlation means that the two variables are linked somehow.

Ice cream consumption is also positively correlated with crime. That doesn't mean the two are linked.

Yep the link is obvious. Summer.

To be fair, in the social sciences it's almost impossible to find experimental data to support one uses, so one has to rely on correlations. Almost everyone uses correlations to support their worldview, even If they are aware of the fallacy.


Yes, but in the social sciences, causal claims are NEVER made based on correlations.

No, it isn't conclusive "proof", but it can provide evidence especially If there is a good theory to support the correlation. Especially with debate topics, the topics discussed are usually not conclusively proven. That's why the debate exists, since there isn't enough conclusive "proof" for either side.

In terms of the heritability and genetics, the differences can easily be explained easily in a matter of seconds and it's a common mistake.

And I have explained the difference multiple times; it was even the last post in a thread and to this day there is no response and there will never be a response. As I pointed out in that thread (and numerous times before), his response is simply "that's stupid". Even with me explaining the basics, he persists in his views and calls ME stupid.

Curious, where did he say it? I wouldn't be too surprised If he said this, but I like sources.

I don't know why you're so eager to defend him. I've lost some respect for you to be honest.

I'm kind of a jimtimmy sympathizer. I honestly believe that how race can influence cognitive abilities is highly plausible. If somehow, you lose respect for me because of this, so be it.

I don't believe that everything he says is civil and he isn't always innocent, but his adversaries are often just as bad or worse. I showed evidence where you were uncivil to him.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:29:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm kind of a jimtimmy sympathizer. I honestly believe that how race can influence cognitive abilities is highly plausible. If somehow, you lose respect for me because of this, so be it.

Jimtimmy has a plethora of studies to support his position, I'll give him that,...but the conclusions he wants to reach from that evidence are not logically attainable. Its like if I said Obesity is genetic, and Americans are fat...therefore Americans are fat due to the genes that define their status as American. Theres no reason for you to think race influences cognitive abilities..
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:30:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:13:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:39:34 PM, nonentity wrote:

Not exactly the most civil of response.


That was also like 4 or 5 months ago

So because it happened months ago that means it was alright? Remember, this is the first time you instigated with him. First impressions are incredibly important and are remembered, and you were the first to act uncivil.


Yes, and after the initial conversations, we were quite civil to each other. In fact, he was very complimentary toward me, not only in threads, but in PMs. And flattery will get you places with me, so I was quite civil toward him despite his general stupidity. Then out of nowhere he was quite rude to me and from there he was on my List.

and I had thought he was a troll due to his trollish behaviour.

He seemed pretty serious to me in the topic. Thinking someone is a troll doesn't justify an uncivil response. At the very least, if you think someone is a troll, you fvcking ignore the response, because that's what they want from you. Why engage with someone who you think is a troll?


At the time he had made that thread, he had also derailed every thread topic and had made other threads regarding the topic as well.

He has also acknowledged that he did come off as trollish in the beginning. Soo... nice try.

Where did he say that and how does this justify your act?


I don't remember which thread it was, but I'm pretty sure it was in the debate.org forum. He acknowledged that, when he first came on DDO, he did make a lot of threads/comments about Race and Intelligence, and that the only reason he continues to talk about it is because people keep bringing it up.

I think he realizes that correlation =/= causation. However correlation means that the two variables are linked somehow.

Ice cream consumption is also positively correlated with crime. That doesn't mean the two are linked.

Yep the link is obvious. Summer.

But they are not linked directly to each other. Although ice cream and crime are correlated, you can't make the claim that ice cream causes crime or crime causes ice cream. That there may be a link between self-reported race and IQ test scores does not mean one can make the quantam leap to a causal assumption that not only is race and intelligence linked, but also that it is a genetic link.


No, it isn't conclusive "proof", but it can provide evidence especially If there is a good theory to support the correlation. Especially with debate topics, the topics discussed are usually not conclusively proven. That's why the debate exists, since there isn't enough conclusive "proof" for either side.


Right. And as I've said a million times before, despite evidence to the contrary, jim persists in his views. As I said before, when I've presented rebuttals, he just responds "that's stupid" when he can't think of an answer.

In terms of the heritability and genetics, the differences can easily be explained easily in a matter of seconds and it's a common mistake.

And I have explained the difference multiple times; it was even the last post in a thread and to this day there is no response and there will never be a response. As I pointed out in that thread (and numerous times before), his response is simply "that's stupid". Even with me explaining the basics, he persists in his views and calls ME stupid.

Curious, where did he say it? I wouldn't be too surprised If he said this, but I like sources.


http://www.debate.org... I quoted it near the bottom of that page. Also, on the last page, I posted a link explaining it and he will never respond to that link. This is not the first time I have said this. In the Race and Intelligence thread, FOUR MONTHS AGO, I said the same thing. In several other threads, I have also said the same thing. On his profile I've said the same thing. He has no rebuttal. Period.

I don't know why you're so eager to defend him. I've lost some respect for you to be honest.

I'm kind of a jimtimmy sympathizer. I honestly believe that how race can influence cognitive abilities is highly plausible. If somehow, you lose respect for me because of this, so be it.

I don't believe that everything he says is civil and he isn't always innocent, but his adversaries are often just as bad or worse. I showed evidence where you were uncivil to him.

You say that arrogance + stupidity = fail. Jimtimmy is obviously arrogant and if you don't see that, then look at OMG's sig (he claims he is more intelligent than me, ike, Royal, and Danielle). Numerous times he has called me stupid despite the fact that I'm currently finishing up a Specialized Honours Degree in Psychology and despite the fact that I've actually taken a Statistics Course and several Research Methods courses; despite the fact that I'm actually currently doing research. You don't think that's arrogant.

I've also pointed out that I've pointed out to him how his premises are flawed from their basics, and he puts his fingers in his ears and turns around and tells me that I'm stupid. If that's not stupid, I don't know what that is.

So yeah, I can only assume there is some other reason you sympathize with him, considering you think if someone else does it, it's fail.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:50:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jimtimmy is obviously arrogant and if you don't see that, then look at OMG's sig (he claims he is more intelligent than me, ike, Royal, and Danielle). Numerous times he has called me stupid despite the fact that I'm currently finishing up a Specialized Honours Degree in Psychology and despite the fact that I've actually taken a Statistics Course and several Research Methods courses; despite the fact that I'm actually currently doing research. You don't think that's arrogant.

It's arrogant to the point of ridiculous. I don't see how after that quote you could even get mad at him anymore.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:58:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:50:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Jimtimmy is obviously arrogant and if you don't see that, then look at OMG's sig (he claims he is more intelligent than me, ike, Royal, and Danielle). Numerous times he has called me stupid despite the fact that I'm currently finishing up a Specialized Honours Degree in Psychology and despite the fact that I've actually taken a Statistics Course and several Research Methods courses; despite the fact that I'm actually currently doing research. You don't think that's arrogant.

It's arrogant to the point of ridiculous. I don't see how after that quote you could even get mad at him anymore.

I've never taken him seriously lol The only reason I actually responded to some of his claims was because other people were agreeing with him, and they took my lack of a real response as evidence that he was more willing to engage in debate than me, and more scientific than me. What boggles my mind is people still take him seriously...

Even if people agree that he is smarter than me, Royal and ike, only a moron would agree that he is smarter than Danielle.

(inb4 someone says "you're stupid hurr durr you said "me" when you should've said "I")
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 7:06:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:58:11 PM, nonentity wrote:

Even if people agree that he is smarter than me, Royal and ike, only a moron would agree that he is smarter than Danielle.

(inb4 someone says "you're stupid hurr durr you said "me" when you should've said "I")

I know I've failed at grammar with you before lol, but isn't "me" grammatically correct in that sentence since you're the object pronoun.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault