Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/8/2013 10:37:37 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Okay. Your last response pretty much consisted of you screaming "Your stupid and science supports my position".

Well it was much more detailed then that, but yeah, that's the gist of it. Not much more needs to be said.

You weren't providing evidence here, just repeating that.

I'm sorry, the claims of the geneticists working of the bloody HUMAN GENOME PROJECT is not evidence?

Then, pray tell, what is?

Anyways, the mainstream science on this actually is totally in contradiction with you here.

And yet, you've provided no evidence of this.

Also, lolwut? Modern geneticists and biologists are not part of "mainstream science"? The Human Genome Project is not mainstream science?

What planet are you living on?

You are basically endorsing a position that is taken as seriously as Young Earth Creationism.

You heard it here first folks. The geneticists and biologists who worked on the Human Genome Project, are the equivalent of Young Earth Creationists.

*facepalm*

In fact, just like Creationists, you pretty much deny evolution.

I've never denied evolution.

I'm saying there is not enough evolutionary difference amongst people to constitute the usage of sub classification.

Nice straw man though.

That is, you deny evolution in the brain.

Never.

By denying that races have any biological, genetic differences in behavior, mental traits, etc, you are denying evolution.

Nope.

I'm saying evolution has not impacted those spheres in such a dramatic way in human beings so as to give rise to sub classification. Learn to pay attention.

You are denying it because evolution and science contradict your preexisting belief in egalitarianism.

Straw man blah blah blah.

I don't waste time on anti science, evolution deniers like you.

Amusing, considering the only one who is posting actual science, is me. Again, do you consider the Human Genome Project scientists to be "anti-science"? Laughable.

To be frank, I am simply too intelligent and knowledgable on this topic to waste time talking to someone as ignorant and unintelligent as you. We are simply on different levels.

Translation: "I have no evidence for my position, and my position has been discredited, so I'm just going to act superior and attack straw men, and hopefully, no one will notice my positions lack of intellectual weight."

If you show yourself to be more intelligent or more knowledgable, perhaps I will consider continuing this discussion.

I know I am.

For now, you have shown yourself to be out of your league intellectually.

Says the man creating straw man after straw man.
Forums Home > Politics

Mother Teresa was a Wolf in Sheep's ClothingPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/8/2013 3:42:31 PM, PrivateEye wrote:
At 6/8/2013 3:02:30 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
Mother Teresa was immoral, and nothing short of it, leaving people suffer and die so as to "bring them closer to God". Disgraceful.

To be honest I haven't the first f*cking clue about Mother Teresa, but that sounds good. F*cking Mother Teresa. A demon I say!

Long story short, she was famous for her belief that pain and suffering brings one closer to God, and so pain ans suffering were, in a sense, good. She ran hospitals that could only be called such in name only, where she housed the sick and dying, giving them no medication to dull pain, and really, lackluster treatment all around. All to bring them closer to her God.

If that is not a perfect example of disheartening, disgraceful, immoral behavior, I do not know what is.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Mother Teresa was a Wolf in Sheep's ClothingPosted 7 years Ago

Mother Teresa was immoral, and nothing short of it, leaving people suffer and die so as to "bring them closer to God". Disgraceful.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/8/2013 3:20:31 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Wow. You are really stupid. The funny part is that you make snide remarks like "reality can be pesky" in the middle of your mind numbingly stupid statements.

Uhuh. Keep digging that hole.

I don't want to dwell on the stupidity of what you said.

In other words, you don't want to look at the clear evidence put before you? Right. Like I said, reality can be pesky.

But, I do think we need to stand back a minute and appreciate your ability to have such confidence in such stupid statements.

Okay.

Race is basically used to categorize humans into groups with different evolutionary histories.

Wrong.

A race is a subspecies. It is based upon particular amounts and extremities in genetic variation. This is key to understanding, because it's not simply "people being different". It's more complicated than that.

Some groups of people evolved in Africa for the past 10,000 or so years. Others evolved in Europe, etc, etc. Races are, basically, like dog breeds.

Except not. But go on.

The whole question of whether race exists is irrelevant. It is the same as asking whether or not dog breeds exist. Whether or not you think dog breed is a legitimate classification for dogs, you cannot deny that there are different groups of dogs that have different evolutionary histories. The whole idea that "race doesn't exist" really is just playing with definitions.

No, it's really not. Again, if you're going to play the "race is just differences in groups" card, literally EVERYONE can be said to be a part of their own unique race. Red heads are their own unique race. Short people are their own unique race. And so on and so forth. Your idea strips race of any practical meaning, and therefore, is bollocks.

Alternatively, we can go by what biologists actually mean when talking about race, and, low and behold, there is not enough genetic variation amongst human beings to warrant subclasses.

This is important, because it utterly wrecks the common usage of the term race, which is to suggest extreme differences amongst people. The fact is, that's not true.

So, no, whether races exist or not is not irrelevant; it's the most relevant question.

Let us assume that race does not exist. Okay, we still have different groups of people that evolved in different parts of the world with different climates.

And how do you, genetically, identify these "groups of people", when, as the Human Genome Project points out, there are no alleles that will be found in all members of one population, and none of another? DNA is blind to this concept you call "race", and it does not see "different evolutionary paths". What you are discussing is human adaptation to various environments; not major differences that warrant the usage of subspecies. We are homo sapien sapiens, and nothing more.

These groups of people look different from people from other groups and the groups have different average intelligence.

Wrong. Average intelligence is not a biological product of "race". And further more, again, you use incredibly vague terms like "look different". Literally everyone looks different. Everyone is their own unique race according to you.

Thank you, however, for giving light to your own racist, bigoted attitude about different people groups. It explains why you are so hell bent on this idea of race.

Whether or not you call these groups races doesn't change these facts.

And I have a different colour hair tone from others, and different colours eyes to, ect.. Guess green eyed people are their own unique race according to you.

Jesus bloody f*cking christ...


I would love to stop talking about race. But, progressives insist upon using the term racism to justify all of their policies and to discredit all of their opponents.

Well, yeah, racism is bad. And if someone is holding a racist attitude, their views ought to be discredited.

So, since we are talking about race, we might as well use sound science.

Oh, you mean like the science I shoved in your face, that you then said you wanted to ignore?

The science here is clear and it supports genetic, biological differences between groups of people we call races. And, please don't embarass yourself further by committing lewontin;s fallacy and saying "Derp. There is more genetic diversity within races than between.Derp" That is true but there is a reason they call it a fallacy.

First of all, that is not a logical fallacy. Simply calling something a fallacy because you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

Further more, genetic variation is the whole basis for classifying people as different races. So, yeah, if not enough variation is there, there aren't separate races. Period. That's no fallacy, that's reality.

Finally, genetics support the idea of races? Allow me to re-quote something for you:

"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."

So are you accusing the Human Genome Project of lying?

I repeat. If progressives didn't abuse the term racism to justify things like affirmative action, quotas, more spending on social programs, etc as well as shutting off all rational discussion, we could stop talking about race. But, progressives use race to deny science on genetics and justify bad policies.

Except, you know, science and genetics agree with them. But hey, like I said, reality is pesky. Better to just ignore it, amirite?

So, if you don't like people using the term race, go talk to progressives and take it up with them.

Or how about people like you get over your willful ignorance, accept reality, and stop spewing this inane, idiotic, crap?

Aw who am I kidding? That'll never happen.
Forums Home > Politics

FeminismPosted 7 years Ago

I'm opposed to it. At best, I find it misguided. At worst, I find it completely evil. There is no reason to focus on the problems of women, or how problems effect women, when instead we could be focusing on the problem itself,. The solution to an equal society is to de-gender our way of thinking and problem solving, not engender it. We must destroy the value of sex, not increase people's value of one sex.

At 6/7/2013 10:55:45 AM, darkkermit wrote:
One of the central tenants of feminism is that males and females are equal in all ways. This is simply not too. The sexes are different. Men on average act more aggressively , logically and have stronger spatial reasoning. Females have stronger verbal reasoning and have greater social and emotional intelligence. Men also have to put much more effort into mating, since women are pickier than men.

All wrong. At least in terms of claiming these as biological reality.
Forums Home > Politics

Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/7/2013 3:45:55 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Nothing of value here.

Except the proving that race is no a thing in human beings. But I understand how reality can be pesky for people like you.

Don't be stupid.

Back 'atcha.

The whole "race is not a thing" point isn't really a point. You are just playing with definitions to avoid talking about the science of the matter.

No, just the opposite; I'm using science and the biological usage of "race" to point out major differences that would give rise to sub classification, do not in fact exist in people.

Assumably, you're going to next go one to say something about how "people are different, therefore races." That's not the scientific usage of the term race. Race is much more involved than that.

Race is a category, just like any other category. Whether or not you think it is a "real" category is irrelevant.

No, that has all the relevancy in the world. If race is not a real biological phenomenon, then whether or not people BELIEVE it's really is irrelevant; it's a false belief, and those people are delusional or willfully ignorant.

People believing in an illusion, doesn't make the illusion real.

All categories are as real as you make them.

Wrong.

This doesn't change the fact that there are real biological differences between people, including groups of people.

Skip to 34:00 in the attached video and watch:

http://www.youtube.com...

Also wrong. Again, race is much more than "some people look different". By your reasoning, because everyone is in some ways different from others, everyone is their own race. People with red hair are a different race from people with other colours of hair. People with green eyes are their own race. People with freckles are their own race. And so on and so forth. You are taking a technical term, used for classification in biology, and making it nonsensical, by calling everything that has the most minute amount of difference a different "group".

I again advice you to read the quote by the Human Genome Project, to understand why your post is utter garbage. Read it carefully this time. There is not enough genetic variation amongst human beings to account for the usage of race in human beings. This is a biological fact, and your whining doesn't disprove it. Accept it.
Forums Home > Politics

Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

Wait wait wait wait wait. Is someone here honestly trying to justify racism, or pander to the belief that race is a real thing?

I refer you to this recent debate of mine: http://www.debate.org...

A quote used in said debate, from the Human Genome Project:

"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."

Race is not a thing, case closed.
Forums Home > Politics

Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 11:08:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:23:52 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
It is entirely just, as most of these rich, upperclass yuppies did nothing to warrant their mass wealth in the first place. Better to redistribue it to people who have to work for a living, to alleviate their suffering and oppression.

You don't fancy yerself a Marxist do you?

Does it matter?
Forums Home > Politics

Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 8:35:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:23:52 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
It is entirely just, as most of these rich, upperclass yuppies did nothing to warrant their mass wealth in the first place.

But their parents did... Recognize that I'm not opposing higher tax rates for the rich, but the idea that wealth shouldn't transfer across generations is ludicrous.

Arguably, no. But really, it doesn't matter. The point is, being able to live a lavish life, never having to worry about anything, while doing so at the expense of those who toil below you, and the only reason for this being because you happened to be born into one family or another, is immoral.

The question of whether or not wealth should reach across generations is irrelevant to me, as in my view, wealth should not exist in the first place. However, I think it is not at all unreasonable to say that simply being the child of something does not mean you "deserve" all that money, as you did nothing to earn it. Hell, your parents probably did nothing to earn it either. They just exploited the labour of others, and denied them the full breadth of the wealth they generated.
Forums Home > Politics

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

Just because we may not need to kill cows, or even as many cows, does not necessarily make it immoral. Seriously, what is with this assbackwards attitude that "only what you need" is moral, and any form of excess or pleasure, is immoral?

Human beings may not need to eat meat, but that does not make eating meat, simply because we want to, automatically immoral. The need argument is one of the weakest arguments for vegetarianism, let alone veganism.
Forums Home > Philosophy

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.