Best Irrelevant Content

  • Are races Equal?

    MSCS quote  Unless you demonstrate evidence of systematic intimidation of scientists regarding race, your argument is mute. If anything, today's culture promotes racism, including the scientific culture

      Do you have an English comprehension problem?     Are you dyslectic?     I have already told you the sad tale of how Nobel Laureate James Watson was sacked for daring to give his expert opinion that Africans in general had a low IQ.    I have recounted the hounding of Arthur Jenson for daring to opine that the 15 point differences in IQ between US whites and blacks could had not been closed by the special programs, which the various state and Federal governments had set up, because the problem MIGHT be genetic.  In my last post I recounted the tale of the Macquarie University professor who sent a letter to the Australian PM warning him that the importation of African immigrants would cause yet another surge in ethnic crime.   And he was sacked for saying what eventually was prophetically true.     Lastly, I told you that I had read prominent ant racist Paul Breggins book "The War on Children", where he blurted out that the US NAACP had successfully lobbied the US government to stop any scientific research into funding into genetics and crime.

     Now, have you got it?   Read it again and internalise it.    Remember it.    I don't want to have to keep repeating, over and over again, that science is being intimidated into silence, just to have you come back two posts later and demand that I prove it again. 


    MSCS  For example, if you were to claim as a scientist that white Americans are more pre-disposed to whiteness, and thus act more privileged and discriminatory, then that would be accepted today as a rational opinion, rather than it being disregarded as the inaccurate opinion it actually is. Our culture today in the past decade has become more acceptant of racism, so to claim that our governments are regularly intimidating and funding against racism is rather bogus.

     All branches of science are being intimidated and corrupted, for the reasons I have already stated.   Only this week, the Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul, and a former US National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien  slammed the supposedly respected medical research journal "Lancet" for censoring any information about the possibility of COVID-19 having originated in the Wuhan lab.    The Lancet did this by blocking dissenting voices, accepting the narrative of the CCP, and even accusing people of (wait for it, wait for it) "racism" if they suggested that covid could be from a Chinese lab.  

     How about climate science?    Here is a "Climategate" email.      "If you think that Siairs is in the Greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

     Then there was professor Paul Ridd of Queensland University.    Ridd's "crime" was to criticise the scientific methodology used by marine biologists who claimed the anthropomorphic climate change was destroying the Great Barrier Reef, and he was sacked for it.

     This is how science gets intimidated and corrupted.   If you really do consider yourself as a liberal, you should be appalled by this.   But you are not.  You want to believe that scientific dissenters are just cranks who oppose your sacred ideology, so you don't care if they are sacked or intimidated into silence.


     MSCS quote   I'm not denying the validity of The Bell Curve, although it should also be noted that the book was never peer-reviewed.....

     I don't know if it was peer reviewed or not.    But I can understand why nobody would peer review it and agree with it, they would end up flipping burgers in McDonalds for a living like poor old Siairs,  Watson, Professor Paul Ridd of Queensland university, and that professor from Macquarie university.


     MSCS quote    The book does not prove causation, only correlation. I'm not sure why this concept has been hard to grasp. I've tried explaining it multiple times for you, anyways, here are the definitions of correlation and causality.

     70 years of IQ testing proved conclusively that races have different IQ's, and that accounts for their different economic outcomes.    Three times now I have asked you that if all races have equal intelligence, then why hasn't some smart little Liberal scientist proved, what should be easy to prove?   Three times you have dodged the question.  It is obvious that you are very uncomfortable trying to think up excuses to explain away factors which display that your thinking is plainly wrong.  


     MSCS quote    The definition of correlation: "A relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone."

    The definition of causality: "The relation between a cause and its effect."

     Oh, here we go.    What is this, the third time I have addressed your false premise?    I asked you that if Galton meant that all correlations are false, then would that not completely demolish the entire branch of mathematics called "statistical analysis"?     As usual, trying to find an excuse to explain away your illogical premise was too great of a challenge, so you dodged the question again.


    MSCS quote

     The bell curve only manages to acknowledge a correlative relationship between race and IQ through a statistical analysis of a bell curve. Meanwhile, it does not prove a causal relationship between these two variables, such causality can only be supported through genetic testing, rather than IQ tests. Wherein significantly lower or higher scores may be the result of other factors, such as education and culture. Mind you, it should also be noted that the fact that different cultures have different levels of ethics regarding studying and education leads to different testing results. And that isn't the result of hereditary aspects, rather, it's a reflection of the local needs and traditions created by their local environment.

     The idea that education affects IQ in any significant way in the short term was blown right out of the water by the failure of "bussing" and special educational programs aimed at US blacks and minorities that would supposedly raise their IQ levels.       This is what?  The third time I have explained this to you?  


     MSCS quote      The attitudes of the persons in this video are a result of the current gang culture that has arisen in Chicago. This is due to the fact that in the eastside of the city, where the majority of African Americans live, there is a deficit of police, businesses, and good schooling, thus leading to young man like those in video turning to gangs as a an occupation.

     The young black African men in the video obviously havea  very low IQ, and you don't need to be a psychiatrist to figure that out.    I am absolutely amazed by your ability to look at objective reality and pretend that you can't see what is right in front of your face.    Then you make up a lame excuse to deny the objective reality that you don't want to acknowledge.     How do you do that while thinking that you are an intelligent liberal?   The ghosts of Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson are looking askance at you.


    MSCS quote    But the hereditary aspects of intelligence remain relatively stable and shouldn't change, especially over such an evolutionarily small time of around a thousand years.

     You just crossed the Rubicon again.   You are admitting that intelligence can be hereditary.    Okay now, I am warning you.  I am going to cut and paste that in a file and you can't in future backslide and pretend that you didn't say it.     We have finally made some progress in deprogramming you.   

     In any case, your premise is wrong again.    As "The Bell Curve" explained, when IQ testing was first attempted, there was no scale to judge what was high, low, or average IQ.     So the scientists arbitrarily set the most common IQ score for working class white Americans at 100.   This was the standard upon which all other classes and races would be judged.    But over 70 years, white working class Americans now have a most common IQ score of 103, which proves that education and constantly needing to use your brain to live in a complex society, can, over the generations, slowly raise IQ.


    MSCS quote    Your argument essentially boils down to, "science agrees with me, but scientists who disagree with my statement as simply tools of the government."

     Yes.    Or just neo Marxists hankering for a totalitarian government where their Brahmin caste are the politburo and the upper level managers and oligarchs.  And you think that those who disagree with you are cranks.    Including a  Nobel laureate.


    MSCS quote   In the free world, biologists and anthropologists, have, as I have demonstrated, come to a common consensus that race doesn't exist among humans, humans share very similar genetic structures, and that arbitrarily defined races based purely on phenotypical differences does not effect the behavior and intelligence of a human.

     They do not have a consensus at all.     Academics have always had a fascination with Marxism, probably because they dream of a totalitarian state where the "intelligent", university Brahman caste are the new aristocrats, who tell the dumb proles and the greedy business class, what is what.     University departments today seem to be divided between neo Marxists revisionists and traditionalists, and that is causing serious schisms in science and history departments.    


    MSCS    It is scientifically inaccurate to define humans into subspecies, there simply hasn't been enough time for extensive genetic variation to take place among human population groups.

     That depends upon who's "science" you think is right?    Objective reality says that the side which is intimidating the other side to shut up is the one which has something to hide.     Which side do you think that is?   Hmmmmm?


    MSCS   And in the free world, scientists are able to publish most any research document regarding race.

     James Watson simply gave an opinion about that and he was sacked from his job.   So, the question begs again, if it can be easily proven that the side who says that races are not equal get sacked, then who is going to be stupid enough to write a paper  agreeing with what lost one of the world's leading geneticists his career?      Same for Ridd, Jenson, and "Siairs".   If you have any capacity for reasoned thought, then you must admit that the side that you support are the science intimidators.     That fact alone should make you think again.


    MSCS    There has been no evidence to suggest that the government pressures the vast majority of biologists and anthropologists to adhere to certain views regarding race. Nor does the grant money given to scientific institutions necessitate extortion regarding these aspects, as money doesn't necessarily have to come from the government.

     Bul-lsheet!    How many times do I have to disprove that before you admit I am right?     Your mind is like a cracked record.  It is sitting in a groove, going round and round, and it just can't jump onto the next track, no matter how many times you try to make it realise that it is stuck.


    MSCS quote     Adaptive traits, such as skin color and nose shape, are simply traits that occur as a result as the environmental factors like temperature and sunlight. It is not to be used a variable for genetic differentiation. Furthermore, there has been no consensus on a specified adaptive trait that defines different human sub-species or races, and you still yourself have to define what differentiates one race specifically from another. What physical characteristic determines race, and what gives that determinant credence in a biological, zoological, and anthropological sense?

     That is a half truth.  And a half truth is a complete lie.    Science said that human sub species existed for a hundred and thirty years.    And then came the politicalisation of science.     Neo Marxists in science, history, teaching, and linguistics,are attempting to create a new reality which supports their egalitarian neo-Marxist worldview.  They are using the authority of science to say the most potty things, like that males can be females if they just want to be.

     This is exactly what President Eisenhower warned the US public about in his farewell speech.

     Excerpt from that speech.   


    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.


    MSCS quote   What defines one 'pure-bred' human sub species from another?

     Geographic isolation for a very long period which creates a characteristic appearance.   The same as for every other sub species on planet earth. 


    MSCS     Both you and I are identifiably different from everyone else in the world, are we both our own pure-bred subspecies?



    MSCS quote    Furthermore, there is no such thing as a 'pure-bred' human at this point.

     Using that reductionist add absurdum logic, there is no such thing as a pure bred Kodiak or Grizzly bear, or any other sub species of any organism on the planet.


    MSCS quote  No human population has ever been truly 'fixed' or isolated for a substantial period of time, and no group of people has ever been phenotypically or biologically homogenous, or 'pure'.

     They have been fixed and isolated for such long periods of time that sub species of human beings are as identifiably different from each other as a rainbow lorikeet is from a scaly breasted lorikeet.


    MSCS quote    I have at this point posted 6 sources that support the view that the concept of race doesn't exist. You have thus far provided no source to support the idea of race among modern humans. The only source you have posted in the entire debate is only regarding correlation of IQ and race, not causation. 

     And I have explained to you that traditional science does recognise race and it always has.    I suppose you can get find some neo Marxist 'science" reports which claim that there are 187 genders, too?     Not only that, I have given you three undeniable examples that some races of people have very low intelligence, which you need to deny objective reality to pretend it isn't so.    The reason why I am all over you like a rash, is that I do not need to deny objective reality to conform to some politically invented new way of "scientific" thinking.


    MSCS quote   Race does exist in taxonomy, but it is on a level lower than sub-species, and today refers mainly to individual breeding populations rather than sub-species.

     Last I heard about the "taxonomy wars", the neo Marxists are busy trying to air brush away  that inconvenient science too.


    MSCS quote     The official website does not mention it's source of funding as far as I saw, but given that it's simply an association of anthropologists it likely requires little to no funding apart from grants to students and scientists.

     If even such formerly prestigious publications such as "Lancet" are now infested with the politically correct, then I don't trust them either.


    MSCS quote   I can't care, or can care of your proof of causation as you haven't offered a single hint of it. Your argument revolves around that races are not equal since race is a determinant in IQ, you have only proven correlation through The Bell Curve regarding race, however you have importantly omitted causation between the two factors. Self-evident facts that are derived from a logical fallacy are fallacious, and should be regarded. Causation regarding this aspect would require a scientific paper genetically linking hereditary intelligence with race, however you have not given this. The fallacy of causation based on correlation should not be this difficult to grasp.

     Yeah, and I have a dome a great job of proving it too.    But no amount of reasoned argument can shift an ideologue from his wishful thinking.   I have always been amazed at how similar wokeism is to a non deity religion.


    MSCS quote  The crimes committed by immigrants from many countries can be accounted by cultural differences between them. For example, Arab culture, which is prevalent in Sudan, promotes a tribal culture of revenge. Oftentimes in the Arab world, if one house offends or infringes on another house, there is conflict and oftentimes bloodshed between them. This overall promotes a rather violent culture, and this culture has existed in the Arabian peninsula since ancient times. So when people from Sudan, an Arabic speaking country and a member of the Arab league, come to a country which doesn't have the same culture, they might behave in the way they might've behaved in Sudan, disregarding Australian culture. Additionally, the murder rate in Sudan is around four times larger than Australia, indicating that the policing in Sudan is worse than Australia, so when people from Sudan come to Australia, they might believe that if they hurt people they can get away with it as they might in Sudan since there is far less of a police culture in Sudan..

     I thought that the explanation was more prosaic.    If you can breed dogs that are dumb and dogs that are violent, then environmental conditions can do the same thing.     Whether you like it or not, The Bell Curve proved that some races have very low IQ.    And criminal behaviour and low IQ can be hereditary, which means that it is genetic.     So, the simple and easily explained reason for minority dysfunction is that most of them are as dumb as dogs-hit, which is why they inhabit the lowest level of western society, regardless of which western society that is.    And they are very disproportionately represented in serious (violent) criminal behaviour, which is why they are very disproportionately represented in incarceration rates.    


    MSCS quote    identity politics derives from your argument. Why? Because identity politics is defined as politics in which groups of people having a particular racial identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. Thus, identity politics is built off of the alleged distinctions and differences between 'races', and since your argument encourages such divisions, your argument serves to increase identity politics of which you encourage the "Neo-Marxist, Leftist, Wokist, Socialist"(as you often refer to it) government of doing.

     That is where your "logic" falls flat on it's face.     Leftards never stop claiming that races do not exist, but they can see them as plain as day whenever they have their begging bowls out demanding "equity" for races that they scream don't even exist.     Australia is the only country in the world with a government department especially set up to cater for the welfare of two apparently non existent races. 

     Your position is a contradiction.  Either races exist or they do not exist.    Your side can not claim that race does not exist when you think it is convenient, and then claim that is does exist when you are trying to figure out why that a particular race should be more equal than others, and get preferential treatment.


    MSCS quote  I never claimed that every country has identical curves of IQ, I simply said that IQ levels of countries can be attributed most to education and wealth, rather than race. This was proven by the fact that countries of the same 'race' have widely differing IQ levels, thus eliminating race as a determinant in IQ. (I've had to repeat this to you around three to four times now at this point)

     Education can only make marginal improvements to IQ over generations, which once again proves that IQ is genetic.   


    MSCS quote   I have already explained in a previous post that it clearly listed Israel as the 49th most intelligent country, out of 199 countries tested in total. Israel is definitely not the second lowest country in IQ and if you actually tried looking at the link and paying attention to what was said you would've realized that. Please pay more attention when you are looking over sources.

     Yet Jews make up only 3% of the US population, and they make up 27% of US Nobel prize winners.    The reason?    Jews are the smartest race in the USA, as confirmed by IQ testing.   And it is alsoconfirmed by the fact that they are very disproportionally represented as students and graduates from places of higher learning.    They don't need "Affirmative Action" to get special treatment.  And like all smart races, their proneness to criminal behaviour, especially violent criminal behaviour, is very low.    Which is more than you can say for African blacks.


    MSCS quote   *Sighs* Firstly, both Asians and Africans are not their own sub-species, or much less their own species, thus, those in Indonesia cannot be a 'hybrid subspecies'.

     Indonesians are a hybrid sub species of a east Asians and the indigenous black tribes who very genetically akin to south west pacific blacks.     Same for Phillipinoes.     That is why they look identifiably different from Asians.     Western people lump them all together as "Asians" as a shorthand.


    MSCS quote    Furthermore, there has been no genetic evidence to suggest that there is significant genetic African admixture among the populations of Indonesia(the Philippines isn't relevant).

     Wrong.   Most people do not know that there are even dark skinned Taiwanese, and the Japanese even have dark skinned Japanese living on the north of Hokkaido.  Like Australia, much of Asia was populated by dark skinned people who were displaced by the Asian race, or races.    Remnants of these dark skinned races still exist.


    MSCS quote  Furthermore, even assuming that there is genetic admixture between East Asian and African populations in Indonesia, it does not account for Laos. Laos is very close to China, both genetically and geographically, as both have strong presences of common East Asian haplogroups and are neighbors of each other. So then if they are the same 'race', why don't they perform similarly on IQ tests? After all, if race is a major determinant in IQ, shouldn't those of one race perform similarly highly or similarly lowly on IQ tests? I also have met a large amount of people who were born in China, or their parents or grandparents were born in China, and they refer to themselves as "Asian," not as a "Chinese race".

    They may not.   But the official policy of the CCP, taught in their schools, is that the Chinese race evolved separately from every other race in China.

     And I will say something for the Asians.  They must be smart because they re not du-mb enough to import Africans into their countries.    In China, it is an offense for a Chinese female to have sex with an African.   The Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Koreans must be laughing their heads off at how stu-pid the western world has become, importing Africans.    And they must be laughing at all the trouble we are having because of our stubborn refusal to recognise reality.  I loved it when Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone said that America was once a great country, but now there were just too many Africans, Hispanics, and Puerto Rican's buggering the place up.     A lot of people agreed with him.  The smart people..  


    MSCS quote    Untrue, humans have been know to be relatively nomadic organisms, with large and rapid periods of migration throughout evolutionary history. Humans have never been known to stay in a long time evolutionarily speaking.

     How you come to that conclusion is beyond me.   


    MSCS quote   And again, you still have to prove from a genetic standpoint that humans constitute different sub-species, rather than separate populations with similar adaptive characteristics.

     Already proven.     For the second time.  DNA researchers can tell a person's ethnology from a single drop of blood.  Anthopologists can recognise a person's race from their skeleton.   Race specific diseases exist.    West Africans usually take all the Olympic medals for running, but they can't swim for sheet.    Asians can't digest milk.    African Bantu have a natural residence to malaria.    African blacks can't live in cold climates without vitamin D supplements.    Whites, and especially Celts, are prone to skin cancer.   It is just amazing how you can deny that races exist, when the evidence is right in front of you that they do, and they re different to each other.   The reason was  because they evolved separately in different environments.    How can you deny self evident reality?    How do you do it?    I really would love to know that?  


    MSCS quote    The fact of the matter is, humans are too closely related and have been separated geographically for too short of a time period for use to be separated into geographically distinct races, or subspecies.

     Reality says different.  


    MSCS quote What defines identifiable differentiation among human populations? 

     Your lying eyes.


    MSCS quote   To what objective measures do you determine if someone is a different race from another person, or if one group of people constitutes their own race?

     Physical identity, physical ability, diet, proneness or resistence to desease , and IQ.


     MSCS quote   Indeed, why not take it to that level of absurdity?  

     Because taking any premise to it's most extreme position is simply a tactic to stifle debate not promote debate.     It even has a name reductio ad absurdum


    MSCS quote  I never claimed that people are biologically identical, this is a strawman fallacy.     Instead, I simply said that people are genetically close enough that race among human populations should be disregarded as pseudo-science. Most often, genetic disease occur out of inbreeding in populations

     Except for some neo Marxist "scientists" and some brain washed western youth, the rest of the world does not appear to agree with you on that?    Even so called "oppressed" races recognise their own race when they demand that their non existent race should be more equal than other non existent races.


    MSCS quote    These terms are relevant because you said that observation dismisses the fact that humans are all nearly identical. However this is contrary to biology which relies on genetic testing and make up to determine the similarity of one human to another, rather than simply observing how they look.

     So we need genetic testing to decide which race is which?  Well, you will be happy to know that aboriginal activist organisations agree with you.     With so many benefits being given to people in Australia who identify as being part of a pair of non existent races called "aborigines" and "Torres Straight Islanders", every man and his dog in Australia is clamouring to have their non existent race classified as one of these other two non existent races.       The sight of blond haired, blue eyed "aborigines" claiming that they are aborigines looks a bit susso to the average taxpayer.   With your mindset, I am sure you can't understand why?  Aboriginal activist organisations realise that the more non existent white race people who claim benefits, the less "their" non existent race of people get.    So, they are demanding that people who claim that they are part of their nonexistent race must have a DNA test to determine how much their non existent racial DNA matches their own non existent racial DNA.


    MSCS quote   I can see you're getting upset. Debating can make anyone upset, and it's understandable, however repeated assumptions and insults of myself constitutes a logical fallacy of ad hominem, and focuses on me as a person, rather than the arguments I put forward.

     No, pointing out that the other person must have something wrong with their cognitive abilities if they can not recognise simple connections, should allow any impartial audience member to work out which side is the fearless seeker of the truth, and which side is just the brain washed ideologue, more concerned with muddying the water and putting forward reductio ad absurdum premises, than debating in good faith.


    MSCS This is not a civil war to debate and exchange ideas.  Perhaps you ought to take one or two days off to calm down?

     You wish.   You may wish to destroy the civilization you choose to live in, but I prefer to fight for it.

  • Do We Create Our Own Truths?

    But what makes the premise true?

    Nothing makes the premise true. It's either true or not true.

    If my premise would be that 1 + 1 simply describes a range of percentages of probability, with a 50% chance for 2, a 25% chance for 3, a 12.5% chance for 4, etc, etc

    Gibberish. If the premise 1 + 1 is true, then the conclusion 2 can't be false. I've explained the exact same thing to you now 3 times.

  • Do We Create Our Own Truths?

    John_C_87 said:
    I think you are equivocating the mathematical definition of irrational with the everyday use of the term that is meant to mean crazy. And in which case it would not work anyway; math is designed to be sensible, and not insane. To the best of my knowledge, there is no unhinged law of mathematics.

    The mathematical grievance is there is not term adopted as standard for the practice of assembling a irrational linear equation by accident or the best match to existing mathematical grievances is used. Pick a better connection to established justice and I will make all necessary corrections to my own work ZeusAres42. 

    Sides of an equation - Wikipedia

    It has been demonstrably noted that the practice of assembling an irrational linear equation falls within the confinements of all the elements and all the law of averages that this relates to being fallen on all categories of superficial and artificial rhetoric, and reverence, to a certain degree concordantly ergo vis-à-vis.
    Which side of the equation of one plus one equals three is wrong? Is it faith that we chose the value after the equal sign?  
    (a) The side with the 1+1?
    (b) The side with 3?
    How do you check?
    1 + 1 = 2 or 2 + 1 = 3 How do you test were the mistake was made?
  • War! What is it good for?


    I think you might be conflating two separate ideas here. Everybody should have the right to defend themselves, This is a fallacy for in America evertone has liberty to defend, preserve and protect as a united state of law American Constitution as a United State of higher law.

     but there seems to be a great deal of confusion in America about where defence ends and attack begins. Sending your troops halfway across the world to invade another country is always attack, never defence. Again wrong, when those people do not hold a united state of constitution in law it is an asulat as preservation. The agument before Congress is that the legilsators themselves fail to hold states as a republic for the safty of "We the people."

    In certain rare cases, such as the XXX(rampage)XXX Edit: BLITZKRIEG! of Hitler across Europe, attack can be morally justified. However, it is still attack, ( is not ) and the problem with forgetting that fact is it then becomes abundantly easier to falsely justify future invasions on the same basis. No, its just you coaching a few witnesses.....that's all.

  • The biblical God is a "he" not a "she"


    H-E-L-L-O-?  What part of my proposition shown below didn't you understand to save you from acting like you are from a Third World Country?  Huh?

    AGAIN: To save yourself from further embarrassment, what did I tell you to do?  Correct, take the online "Reading Comprehension Class" shown in the link below, remember?  Therefore, let us know when you pass said class to be able to "maybe" return to this esteemed forum to be able to decipher what the membership it actually telling you, GOT IT FOOL? Yeah, you do. LOL!

    Listen up, I cannot take any more time in easily squashing you little minnow fishes like you and Miss Dee, because I have bigger fish to fry, understood Third World Country fool?

    Now, inept members like you need to have the last word in seemingly making them feel good while they are wiping the egg from their face in not being able to "think outside of the box," and in your case, to continue to hide from your reading comprehension inadequacies!

  • Are economic sanctions an effective strategy for dealing with problem countries?


    I'm not in full disagreement with your thoughts on Ukraine but we still haven't answered what is an effective way to intervene.

    I believe diplomatic discussions are usually preferable but what if the demands being made are insane?  Additionally diplomatic resolutions can't always occur otherwise countries looking to gain more territory/power would continue to make small wars/threats knowing they'd get a small favorable outcome everytime they do so.
  • Are economic sanctions an effective strategy for dealing with problem countries?

    So the question that really being answered here is how do you effectively cause the change you want without causing total war? 

    Or, to put it another way, how can you bully other countries into doing what you want without interfering with their food supply?

  • Are economic sanctions an effective strategy for dealing with problem countries?

    @Dee @Nomenclature @ZeusAres42 @JulesKorngold

    So the question that really being answered here is how do you effectively cause the change you want without causing total war?  However much we'd like to directly target the corrupt rulers any direct target on them would almost definitely cause a war as they are calling all the shots. I'm not sure there is a perfect solution. Sanctions most definetly effect the overall population, but I believe the hope is that may cause enough unrest in the civilian population the government has no choice but to stop without civil war.

    Let's take Ukraine for example.  We only have so many choices.  War, Sanctions, Nothing, or diplomatic discussion which no doubt would involve giving up portions of Ukraine.

    Which do you prefer?
  • Are economic sanctions an effective strategy for dealing with problem countries?

    @Dee said:  I just picked one example from your list 

    What other examples do you reject?  South Africa?  I listed 7...
  • Should abortion be illegal?

    The State of Texas

    Is this the same state of Texas where they think giving guns to teachers is a good idea?


| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021, all rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Terms of Service

Get In Touch