frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Being unkind doesn't make something untrue.

Debate Information

That's right, so can we as a society please have open debate about issues like the racial IQ disparity?

In a society guided by truth, (which is essential for any decent society) the pursuit of truth must not be hindered by folks who want it to be a certain way.
Pepsiguy



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    Most people believe that being a members of society implies having some debt before that society, and one of the installments on that debt constitutes contribution to social stability through conforming with its culture - "do not rock the boat". Debates on sensitive subjects do exactly that: they rock the boat. Hard.

    I, however, maintain that the boat is there exactly to be rocked. A society in which the boat cannot be rocked without flipping upside down is not worth preserving. If people are afraid of mere words, then the first thing they must do is expose themselves to the most uncomfortable words and defeat this irrational fear.

    All opinions should be okay to express. Of course, the other part of the equation is also there: anyone should be able to call anyone else out on the ridiculousness of their position. But there is a difference between callinh someone out on this, and group bullying of that person.

    The racial IQ debate should absolutely be openly had. It is a pretty silly and pointless debate, but there is nothing horrible about having it out in the open.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    That's right, so can we as a society please have open debate about issues like the racial IQ disparity?

    No we can't and we shouldn't. I'm sure that there is much debate about the subject but that would be generally confined to red-neck billiard rooms in cheap bars.

    In decent society such a debate serves to do nothing but inflame hatred and bigotry and who the heck says it's an issue in the first place? Bigoted, red-neck are soles who want to mouth off their ugly hatred towards others, that's who.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:

    In decent society such a debate serves to do nothing but inflame hatred and bigotry and who the heck says it's an issue in the first place? Bigoted, red-neck are soles who want to mouth off their ugly hatred towards others, that's who.
    I would not call a society "decent" if merely having this debate would inflame there hatred and bigotry. Sounds like a society of fragile oversensitive children to me.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @anarchist100
    That's right, so can we as a society please have open debate about issues like the racial IQ disparity?

    No we can't and we shouldn't. I'm sure that there is much debate about the subject but that would be generally confined to red-neck billiard rooms in cheap bars.

    In decent society such a debate serves to do nothing but inflame hatred and bigotry and who the heck says it's an issue in the first place? Bigoted, red-neck are soles who want to mouth off their ugly hatred towards others, that's who.

    Tough turds, that doesn't make it untrue, and if we're going to have a civilized society it must be based upon the truth, and if we're going to get to it then we're not going to let the pursuit of truth through science and scientific debate be hindered by whinners.

    Having a society that is guided by truth matters more than the wellbeing of any group or individual.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    Sounds like a society of fragile oversensitive children to me.

    It doesn't to most people though.

    I don't think that you would find anybody short of billiard room hoons who are going to debate such a maliciously contrived, unproductive topic let alone have a public debate about it.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Most people are fragile oversensitive children when it comes to, at least, some topics. People attribute almost magical power to words, believing that the mere act of someone saying something they find to be abhorrent somehow makes the world a worse place.

    Philosophers as far back as in Ancient Greece understood the value of having debates on the most marginal subjects, however unproductive they may appear at the first glance. If I remember correctly, Democritus was interested in the following question: if a merchant hires a cart with a donkey, then who does the shade cast by donkey belong - is the merchant free to use that shade without the donkey's owner's permission? Obviously, the question itself has virtually no practical value - yet discussing it requires one to delve surprisingly deep into the question of property rights.
    anarchist100
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 4
    So hate speech is now re-defined as “unkind speech “ to make racists , bigots and homophobes like pretend anarchist  feel more comfortable and play the victim card as in fact they are the oppressed ones by not being allowed to vent their fury and hate  at those they detest …….of course in your own deluded minds you’re fighting a noble battle for freedom of hate speech which is why you lot re-brand it “unkind speech “ …….Now run along to your monthly meet up of the klan or you will miss the monthly dose of “unkind speech “ 
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    anarchist100 wrote "That's right, so can we as a society please have open debate about issues like the racial IQ disparity?"

    Good luck with that.       I have brought this topic up on several sites and have been thrown off three of them for having the temerity to examine the inconvenient facts.     On this site, and on other sites, you will find people who will claim that races are equal, but if you ask them how they know that, they change the subject, claim that they need not prove their own opinion, and just attack the opponents position.    It really is cowardice.      This is an important question with serious ramifications towards the continued existence of western civilisation, but too many people who claim high intelligence refuse to even discuss it.    The reason why, of course, is for two reasons.     The first, is that they are not very intelligent at all but think that by advocating that all races are equal, they are walking in lockstep with the "intellectual" caste they admire and aspire to join, and displaying that they are one of them.     Their opinion is a fashion statement.        The second reason, is because those who advocate racial equality are smart enough to know that they are wrong, but their self interest, and the self interest of their peer group trumps any commitment they may have for the truth.

    Races can not be equal.     Races look different because each race evolved within environments that were very different from each other.   And each race evolved physical and mental attributes to give them an advantage within whichever environment they evolved in.     Even Piloteer, Dee, and Barnadot should be able to possess the wit to figure that out?   Well, with a bit of coaching anyway. 
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw wrote      "No we can't and we shouldn't. I'm sure that there is much debate about the subject but that would be generally confined to red-neck billiard rooms in cheap bars."

    I find your attitude incredible.     It is exactly like saying that Evolution, the existence of God, the earth centric universe, or whether the earth is flat must not be discussed.     Attitudes such as these are indicative of people who consider their ideologies as absolutely beyond question and never to be examined.    And you want to emulate them?     Ama-a-a-a-azing.    And you consider yourself an intelligent person?     No intelligent person thinks that way, Mr Swallow.      

    Oh, and I love how you imply that people who do not agree that races are equal are all cretins.    Esp0ecially when you, yourself are thinking exactly like the moral puritans and moral absolutists who for thousands of years managed to hold back civilization because they demanded that some subjects must not be examined.

    Mr Swallow wrote

    In decent society such a debate serves to do nothing but inflame hatred and bigotry and who the heck says it's an issue in the first place? Bigoted, red-neck are soles who want to mouth off their ugly hatred towards others, that's who.

    Now you are implying that it is indecent for people to examine this question,   Hahahaha!    You are thinking exactly like a bigoted and one eyed moral puritan, not like an intelligent  person with an inquiring mind who refuses to accept moral absolutes imposed by powerful interest groups.      Voltaire is shaking his head at you, Mr Swallow.     Some far seeing liberal social progressive, you are.


  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Hi Dee, I was going to reply to your post but I checked my "Troll List" and your name is at the top.    No sense in debating hecklers who can't debate for nuts.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 4
    @Bogan

    Fill it out son get them tears and emotions out , I’m sure someone will take your whi-ing seriously …..


    Hi Dee, I was going to reply to your post but I checked my "Troll List" and your name is at the top.

    I’m thrilled you do know your non reply is a reply you st-upid f-uck?

        No sense in debating hecklers who can't debate for nuts.

    Well yes I enjoy heckling racists and bigots and see how your  liddle feelings get all hurt ……. you don’t debate you rant and rage like the brave tough guy racist you are
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    So hate speech is now re-defined as “unkind speech “ to make racists , bigots and homophobes like pretend anarchist  feel more comfortable and play the victim card as in fact they are the oppressed ones by not being allowed to vent their fury and hate  at those they detest …….of course in your own deluded minds you’re fighting a noble battle for freedom of hate speech which is why you lot re-brand it “unkind speech “ …….Now run along to your monthly meet up of the klan or you will miss the monthly dose of “unkind speech “ 
    Zip it Dee, we mature adults are not going to allow you whiney little children to stop us from discussing things that hurt your little feelings, being mean, racist, homophobic, sexist, or transphobic does not make something untrue, our goal is to find the truth, you go back to your safe space now, the adults are talking.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    Make sure you do it in private with the other klan members as you guys have very limited free speech in Murica ..come to Europe and you're good to say what you want .....
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @anarchist100

    Make sure you do it in private with the other klan members as you guys have very limited free speech in Murica ..come to Europe and you're good to say what you want .....
    Our troops shall come to Europe. We'll ask them how they feel.
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    It has been at least 20 years since I read that great scientific book "The Bell Curve" which dealt with how important intelligence was in modern society.     The book said that all cultures throughout history had known that some people were very intelligent, and that these people were usually highly valued.    It also said that all cultures knew that some people had very low intelligence, and such people were not valued at all.      One chapter in the book claimed that in the modern age, IQ's were gradually increasing.     This it speculated was because modern society was becoming increasingly more complex and it needed ever smarter people to make it work.     People's brains were evolving to cope with this phenomena.

    The book speculated that IQ was linked to the length of civilisation.     Those cultures and races which had created functioning civilizations long ago, which continued to this day, typically had a disproportionate number of people with high intelligence.    Those cultures and races which had only escaped from tribal barbarism and a hand to mouth existence, typically had low intelligence.    This did not mean that all of them were dumb, just that the proportion of people with low, average, or high intellects had "bell curves" of IQ displaced when compared to people from long established civilisations.

    The book maintained that intelligence can be measured accurately.    The most common IQ for European Americans was considered the yardstick with which to compare intelligence quotients between different racial and ethnic demographics.     This was set at 100, although through the years, living in an increasingly complex world has increased the most common IQ for European Americans to 103.     Asians are 106, Jews 120, Hispanics 93, and African Americans 70-85, depending upon which African hemisphere the original ancestors came, with west Africans smarter than east Africans.

    Surprise, surprise, this finding appears to be correct as it exactly matches the social demographics of the USA.     Prior to "affirmative action" and other woke programs, entrance into US ivy league universities was entirely by intelligence tests (SAT scores).    This was because too many universities had trouble with some students who had been marked by their high school teachers very liberally, who were just not intelligent enough to handle the university level work.      SAT scores reinforced the "Bell Curves" findings that US Jews were the smartest by far, followed by Asians, whites, Hispanics, and then African Americans.     African Americans scored so low in SAT scores that African Americans were once almost absent from US universities.

    "Affirmative Action" was based around the false idea that all races were equal in intelligence.   So, if African and even Hispanic Americans were excluded from higher learning, it must be caused by racism.    Strict racial quotas were instigated among most universities to allow African Americans in particular to attain university degrees.      Unremarkably, these "degrees" are in subjective Artz courses like "Gender Studies" and :Black Studies" which hardly impress any prospective employer.    Black Africans are not represented in university level Mathematics at all, which prompted black activists to claim that "Mathematics is racist."   My opinion is, that the main reason why US universities seem so over run today with left wing loonies is because the USA got rid of merit based university admissions based upon IQ, and instead allowed low IQ candidates to enter university, where they could disrupt the activities of the higher learning establishments.


    anarchist100
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    Our troops shall come to Europe. We'll ask them how they feel.

    …….And go running like they always do back to daddy , you guys got your b-utts kicked by starving rice farmers in Vietnam and are still waiting to win your first war  …..”super power” ….bwahahahahahahaha 
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    It has been at least 20 years since I read that great scientific book "The Bell Curve" which dealt with how important intelligence was in modern society.     

    Stop pretending you’ve read books the only books you do are ones that require crayons you big D-ummy
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    Hey good news anasswipe gave you a ….wait for it ……an “informative “ bwhahahahahaha ……hey maybe you both could do book swaps? Say you give him Mein  Kampf for one of his David (Holocaust never happened ) Icke  books ?……..yeee haaaaa……
  • Argument Topic: You can be a person who isn't very nice, but still know a lot of facts.

    You can be a very mean person who says harmful stuff to people, but say a lot of true facts.
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    Let the truth be told, though the heavens may fall.     If telling the truth makes some low IQ people think that you are "mean", then the onus is upon the low IQ people to figure out how du-mb they are, and try and grow up.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @anarchist100

    Our troops shall come to Europe. We'll ask them how they feel.

    …….And go running like they always do back to daddy , you guys got your b-utts kicked by starving rice farmers in Vietnam and are still waiting to win your first war  …..”super power” ….bwahahahahahahaha 
    I wasn't talking about the current American government Dee.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    No one knows what you're on about ,do you ever actually debate?
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    Yes so tell us again how a d-,,mmy like you finds the truth when you're that st-pid you cannot tie your own shoelaces 
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    Yes so tell us again how a d-,,mmy like you finds the truth when you're that st-pid you cannot tie your own shoelaces 
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    @Dee blathered   "Yes so tell us again how a d-,,mmy like you finds the truth when you're that st-pid you cannot tie your own shoelaces" 

    Thank you for displaying to our audience that people with your worldview are unable to formulate reasoned arguments, and can only toss around insults.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Bogan


    Thank you for displaying to our audience that people with your worldview are unable to formulate reasoned arguments, and can only toss around insults.

    Come buddy you and your buddy anasswipe are just bigoted trolls you two Id-iots have never debated because you both cannot as you’re both st-pid as f-uck ……That’s why I’m at top of leader boards and you and your boyfriend are near the bottom ….ZING …..
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Bogan


    Thank you for displaying to our audience that people with your worldview are unable to formulate reasoned arguments, and can only toss around insults.

    Come buddy you and your buddy anasswipe are just bigoted trolls you two Id-iots have never debated because you both cannot as you’re both st-pid as f-uck ……That’s why I’m at top of leader boards and you and your boyfriend are near the bottom ….ZING …..
  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 26 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I agree.

    For example in our modern, degenerated, mentally insane society it is considered "unkind" to not to use a trannie's "preferred pronouns" but trannies are clearly in self denial of their biological sex(I.e men thinking they're women or women thinking they're men) which is by the way something that will never change by gender is determined by your 24th chromosome pair.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    Pepsiguy said:
    For example in our modern, degenerated, mentally insane society it is considered "unkind" to not to use a trannie's "preferred pronouns" but trannies are clearly in self denial of their biological sex(I.e men thinking they're women or women thinking they're men) which is by the way something that will never change by gender is determined by your 24th chromosome pair.

    "Never"? How can you be so sure that 10,000 years from now changing one's 24th chromosome pair will be impossible?

    You also seem to be confused about the concept of "kindness". It is, indeed, unkind to address someone in a way that you know makes someone feel deeply uncomfortable. If I only referred to you with the "r" word, I bet you would call it unkind, even though I could claim that that is just how I categorize you and there is no ill intent behind it.
    There is a world of difference between someone asking you to refer to them as "she" instead of "he" and you stubbornly refusing - and someone asking you to agree that the person is a woman. You do not have to agree with someone's identity to accommodate their basic requests, and intentional refusal to accommodate them out of some ideological stubbornness is, indeed, unkind. Note that I specifically said "unkind", not "wrong" or "evil".
    anarchist100
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: is truth always true and wise?

    @Bogan
    Asians are 106, Jews 120, Hispanics 93, and African Americans 70-85
    As you probably know, there is no consensus on the scientific validity of the IQ measurements.
    Also, there are different forms of intelligences such as the emotionnal intelligence.

    Yet, about the numbers: can you prove their calculations are scientifically correct?
    If they were indeed, can you specifiy the assessment methodology used?

    Indeed, if one wishes to extract objective IQ data based on skin colors, then one has to make sure that the studied information is ponderated accordingly:

    For example, I have been to uni. If I take into accounts all the years of "schooling" from kindergarden to end of university, then my brain has been trained into logicial thinking for more than 20 years.
    When a 3 years old plays at school, learn to sing and draw, what is he doing? acquiring thinking and cognitive abilities.
    Now you take someone who has never been to school at all and lives in an illiterate environment.
    How can one intend to compare the both of us if my brain has been "trained" for years. I surely have one heck of an advantage.

    To this, let's add the environment factor:
    If my parents are uni or even high schoolers, their own cognitive and critical abilities will impact my own. For example, if they are able to answer to my questions and offer logical answers, I will have countless learning opportunities from a young age and this will in turn shape my own observation/cognitive abilites.

    To this, let's add grand parents who also are educated, at least literate.
    This also will affect my own abilities because I will train/learn things through my interactions with them.

    To this, let's add the fact that there must be books available around since my environment is literate.
    That gives me again many accessible opportunities to train and shape my cognitive abilities.

    And so on.
    At the time of the book you mentioned, the "white" surveyed had access to at least 3 generations of literate educators. Not the blacks nor the hispanics.

    Why do the jews have a higher IQ? They are much more educated than average, and so their parents and their grandparents.

    How can one expect to come with objective data if the environments and the backgrounds, which give or not opportunites to shape one's cognitive abilities, are so drastically different ?

    Otherwise, how can we explain the general increase of IQ if it wasnt for the fact that most parents have had access to higher knowledge (at least high school) which has allowed them to assist the next generation?

    This also explains why asian perform better than whites. The average top IQ performers per country are:
    Hong Kong
    Singapore
    South Korea
    Taiwan
    Japan
    China

    All those Asian countries have specific cultures that make it a duty to perform well and to respect the boss/parents/eldest/authority figures.
    An asian spends an average of 77hours studying, which is twice as much as regular non asian students.

    Add to this the parents factor:
    In these cultures, there is no failing. The psychological pressure from the parents and the competition is just incredible.
    77hrs is just the average kid with an average family which cannot afford to pay for (more) private lessons. For those who can, count on some 100 hours/week. And these students will make up for most of the asians you see in top international universities.

    Hence, such raw data from such book prove nothing.
    Like we impose it for medical research, the surveyed population must have an identical background and environment. This is the necessary requirement if one wishes to compare the raw IQ abilities per skin color.

    @Bogan
    Races can not be equal. Races look different because each race evolved within environments that were very different from each other. And each race evolved physical and mental attributes to give them an advantage within whichever environment they evolved in.

    Emotional intelligence is much more necessary to evolve, structure and "civilize" a society than cold cognitive abilities are.
    Studies have shown that EI performs better as a whole:
    Goleman states IQ can sort people before they start a career; it determines which fields or professions they can hold. To learn which individuals rise to the top or which individuals fail, however, IQ ‘short circuit’ and EI proves to be stronger predictor of success (Goleman, 1998 & 2001). 

    @anarchist100

    if we're going to have a civilized society it must be based upon the truth, and if we're going to get to it then we're not going to let the pursuit of truth through science and scientific debate be hindered by whinners.

    The general understanding of what is a "civilized society" is defined by its abilities to build an environment which provides mostly benefits to its population which in turn, can thrive and excel in arts, military, politics, science, for the common good.

    Also, what should be define as Truth? It will be difficult to find a common definition because, by essence, truth has several meaning, among which:
    . Conformity to fact or actuality
    - Sincerity; integrity: the truth of his intentions.
    - A statement proven to be or accepted as true

    Truth doesnt mean it is necessarily proven to be "true": it can be accepted as such by general consensus, or can even be sincerely thought to be so when science says the contrary. Yet, that doesnt make it untrue as long as it has the quality of "sincerity and integrity".

    For example:
    A says "it's hot here"
    B says "it's cold here"
    Who is telling the truth? Well, let's ask science.

    The thermometer gives a temperature which "science" says is neither hot neither cold.

    Are A and B wrong? No, this is the truth of their sensation. They are cold and hot. Who can contradict that?
    Not even science. 
    For example, B could be female for which science has proven she is likely to experience more sensation of coldness.
    Or, for example, A and B both have fevers, and as such, scientifically experience truth although their sensations are opposite.
    So A, B and science all tell the truth. Who should we listen to?

    Truth is closely related to "perception/view". Science is the "mathematical/physical" perception/approach of the world we live in. Do we need science to survive? No, history has proven it.

    But we do need other qualities to survive, such as emotional ones.

    Hence, scientific truth is not the only principle that defines a "civilized" society.


    @MayCaesar
    Philosophers as far back as in Ancient Greece understood the value of having debates on the most marginal subjects
    Philosophers didnt search for knowledge but for wisdom.
    As such, any debate is valid, as long as it allows to draw wisdom from it.

    What is the wisdom that could be drawn from the suggested topic? None.

    If there were some knowledge to be drawn from it, and I doubt it, it would not be used with wisdom. This would allow some to justify their passions and commit the most horrible crimes.

    History has some examples to meditate upon.

    @MayCaesar
    I would not call a society "decent" if merely having this debate would inflame there hatred and bigotry. Sounds like a society of fragile oversensitive children to me.

    There is no use for knowledge if it kills wisdom.
    This is what distinguishes a "civilized" society from a barbaric one.

    Refusing to debate some topics is wise. This is one of them.

    @anarchist100
    The principle of science is to understand our environement in order to derive knowledge from it for the benefit of humanity. This ability is what may build a great "civilization". But it is also what could destroy it.

    This could explain why some "smart" and powerful civilizations have suddenly collapsed.

    If we look at ancient ones, apart from natural causes, we see that wars (internal or external ones) often triggered the collapse of an empire. Bad judgment, bad choices.

    As such, they give evidence that knowledge isn't wisdom; that science is not the Truth and that, as long as society judges with wisdom, it will thrive.

    Should a civilization judge otherwise and in the detriment of the well being of the society it pretends to serve, it will collapse.

    @Bogan

    We are now being IQ outperformed by artificial intelligence.
    Since AI is scientifically proven to be more intelligent than us, shouldn't we let AI define what is Truth?
    Since they are more intelligent than us, shouldn't we let them make the decisions for us?

    You wouldnt, would you? Because intuitively, one understands that despite all the knowledge AI may have, this isnt necessarily Wisdom.
    One understands that AI may not necessarily decide upon or even have in mind, humans's best interests. Just its own interests.

    Here again with the combo common good + wisdom.

    Yet, we take pride in our knowledge. Without seeing that we have lost wisdom along the way.

    If we had to consider achievements by skin colors, why is it that these same populations are actually the most unhappier? The most medicated populations for mental disorders?
    Is this why higher IQ civilizations have thrived for? 
    What is the purpose of all these achievements if they harm us?
    What is the purpose of high IQ if we use it to create the tool that could annihilate our own planet (the atomic bomb and AI)?

    I dont see how such achievements are proofs of Truth, Wisdom, Race superiority; quite the contrary actually.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername

    You can refuse to debate a certain topic, indeed. Or you can cause a ruckus over the fact that the topic is at all brought up, which is a completely different mode of behavior.

    It does not bother me that some people advocate for communism, which I find to be an abhorrent ideology - and you do not see me screaming at public speakers doing so, demanding that they are deplatformed. At the same time, I have little to talk to a communist about, for we come from completely different mindsets with virtually no intersection, and I do not like hearing communist ideas broadcasted. Advocate for communism all you want; but if you want to do it at a party in my house, then you better bring a ton of value to it to compensate for this, lest I might not want to invite you to the next one.

    "You are unkind, therefore you should not be able to speak" - is a completely different approach.
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    You can refuse to debate a certain topic, indeed (..) You are unkind, therefore you should not be able to speak" - is a completely different approach

    Upon rereading some sentences of mine, I understand it can suggest such ideas. Yet, this isnt the case, let me clarify my thinking:
    It isnt a matter of being unkind or not.
    It isnt a matter of being wise or not (on a futile topic)
    it involves an unfounded judgement of value (IQ) based on the color of one's skin which could give ground for dangerous situations
    This is just a discussion to unleash passions rather than reasoning.

    It does not bother me that some people advocate for communism, which I find to be an abhorrent ideology  
    This isnt about an impersonal ideology. This is about human beings.
    If I come to your house and speak about communism, it will not affect your self worth or identity. Like you said, the idea may bother you but thats about it.
    If now I base decisions that could affect you in your everyday life on the basis of my ideology, you will surely be bothered.

    I have just one question: should the pro-debate had been of another skin color, do you think they would insist on debating on their so called lower IQ value? I doubt it. There is necessarily an underlying ideology.

    So a debate that involves other things than common sense, evidence and proof is doomed to be fruitless at best, and dangerous at worst.



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -   edited November 28
    @NoUsername

    The fact that a topic may ignite passions in people and cause them to behave irrationally is not an argument against discussing it, but is an argument for people learning to control themselves. Hearing a statement about differences in IQ between races can cause an emotional turmoil in a sensitive child; an adult should be mature enough to stay cool when hearing a mere opinion from someone, no matter what this opinion is.

    You are welcome to come to my home and make the argument that I am an inferior human being that should be put to death. If you make the argument peacefully, I will happily debate you - although you should not expect me to ever invite you to my home again. However, when I come to a public square and hear someone make this argument, then I cannot disinvite them, for the public square does not belong to me. And no one has ever made a compelling argument for kindness being a prerequisite to speaking on a public square.

    To your last question, sure, why not? I am happy to argue the case that us, Western people, are significantly worse runners than Ethiopians, statistically. Why should I be ashamed of an empirical fact that disadvantages "my group"? I do not expect or want absolute equality. And it is interesting and useful to understand why Ethiopians are so much better than us. No ideology is needed; just pure curiosity is enough.
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -   edited November 28
    @MayCaesar

    The fact that a topic may ignite passions in people and cause them to behave irrationally is not an argument against discussing it but is an argument for people learning to control themselves. 
    How would you engage a conversation with someone who cant control his passions?

    As @Swolliw said, there is a population that should keep their "debate" in a billiard room where one can vomit their assertions without having to prove anything.

    You are welcome to come to my home and make the argument that I am an inferior human being that should be put to death. If you make the argument peacefully, I will happily debate you
    Even if I were a christian fundamentalist? :)

    I will be honest to say that I wouldnt. I wouldnt welcome you in my home if you made such argument because I dont expect any type of wisdom coming from such a character. Hence, there is no need for me to interact with such a person.

    What really strikes me on this site is that I have read many anti-religious comments to the point where some dont even want to discuss anything with them, yet have no problem debating the topic of IQ between races because it supposedly fit with their preconceived ideas.

    no one has ever made a compelling argument for kindness being a prerequisite to speaking on a public square.
    We are not on a public square. And even if we were, that's what civilized people do.
    Being polite doesnt mean to be kind, it means to be respectful. You keep mixing respect with kindness, that says a lot..

    That being said, if one has registered to this site, he has accepted its rule. This site asks to debate "with civism" (check the top left hand corner of your screen).
    Then, one has to do so.

    Hearing a statement about differences in IQ between races can cause an emotional turmoil in a sensitive child; an adult should be mature enough to stay cool when hearing a mere opinion from someone, no matter what this opinion is.
    Voicing politely one's opinion doesnt make one a child.
    No wonder why the "mature" people you mention stay "cool", they are cold and love such statement.

    Have you read my assertions and arguments? 
    The differences in IQ are unproven, yet you insist on saying they are.

    I dont see any "objective reasoning" or prima facie evidence to support such claim. And if there were, I would only accept to debate such topic with people who have enough wisdom to do so.

    I am happy to argue the case that us, Western people, are significantly worse runners than Ethiopians, statistically.

    Ethiopians or Kenyans are not better runners than us, they are better runners than everyone else, including other africans. I see you come with your racial differences. Yet, you're wrong: they are better simply because they are healthy, thin and live in higher altitudes: the magic combo for a heart to excel in running.

    Nothing to do with IQ... No wonder why you are happy to argue the case...

    Yet this wasnt my question and assertion
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  

    if we're going to have a civilized society it must be based upon the truth, and if we're going to get to it then we're not going to let the pursuit of truth through science and scientific debate be hindered by whinners.

    The general understanding of what is a "civilized society" is defined by its abilities to build an environment which provides mostly benefits to its population which in turn, can thrive and excel in arts, military, politics, science, for the common good.

    Also, what should be define as Truth? It will be difficult to find a common definition because, by essence, truth has several meaning, among which:
    . Conformity to fact or actuality
    - Sincerity; integrity: the truth of his intentions.
    - A statement proven to be or accepted as true

    Truth doesnt mean it is necessarily proven to be "true": it can be accepted as such by general consensus, or can even be sincerely thought to be so when science says the contrary. Yet, that doesnt make it untrue as long as it has the quality of "sincerity and integrity".

    For example:
    A says "it's hot here"
    B says "it's cold here"
    Who is telling the truth? Well, let's ask science.

    The thermometer gives a temperature which "science" says is neither hot neither cold.

    Are A and B wrong? No, this is the truth of their sensation. They are cold and hot. Who can contradict that?
    Not even science. 
    For example, B could be female for which science has proven she is likely to experience more sensation of coldness.
    Or, for example, A and B both have fevers, and as such, scientifically experience truth although their sensations are opposite.
    So A, B and science all tell the truth. Who should we listen to?

    Truth is closely related to "perception/view". Science is the "mathematical/physical" perception/approach of the world we live in. Do we need science to survive? No, history has proven it.

    But we do need other qualities to survive, such as emotional ones.

    Hence, scientific truth is not the only principle that defines a "civilized" society.
    By Truth I mean the first choice, that which is in line with reality, (but since we clearly have different definitions, let's just call it reality) We can only get the reality of a matter (as a society) when we have a Free and open exchange of information in as a society, now of course we are not always able to have the reality of every matter, so we can decide what is the best thing to do, looking at the likelihood at possibilities and the consequences if they are wrong, and using logic to decide that what is most logical. Logic is essential to survive, not only as a society, but often as individuals as well, a ruler needs to use logic when implementing a policy, so that he can do what is best for his people, if he does not use logic, and instead just does what he feels will be best for his people, there will be tragedy, when making decisions in one's personal life one must use logic, an individual might use it to find the best way to hunt an animal with their tribe, or make wise financial investments.

    All that we need to survive, we can provide best, when we use logic to go about it.
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    By Truth I mean the first choice, that which is in line with reality, (but since we clearly have different definitions, let's just call it reality)
    This is the thing, not 2 persons will have the same reality. This is too subjective, too personal.
    My reality isnt yours for many reasons: I dont live in your country, I'm not under the same social or political laws, culture, environement, family, friends, personal and financial situations. All this play a part in defining our vision of reality.

    looking at the likelihood at possibilities and the consequences if they are wrong, and using logic to decide that what is most logical.
    I agree, this is why I believe a wise society "needs to build an environment which provides mostly benefits to its population which in turn, can thrive and excel in arts, military, politics, science, for the common good."

    But this include everyone without consideration for a religion or an IQ or a skin color.

    The common denominator should be wisdom, like the ancient greek did: they invented philosophy and defined what politics should be (long the time where politicians were philosophers....)

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername

    How would you engage a conversation with someone who cant control his passions?

    As @Swolliw said, there is a population that should keep their "debate" in a billiard room where one can vomit their assertions without having to prove anything.

    I do not have to engage with them. My point is that those who do want to engage with them must be free to do so, and even if no one is willing to engage with them, they should not be barred from speaking.
    That said, I consider myself pretty good at dealing with people who let their passions get the better of them. Sometimes they may be excited too much to do anything other than walk away, but in many cases you can play along, understand where they are coming from emotionally, acknowledge their feelings and go from there. People love that.

    As for @Swolliw, he may be one of those people who wants to be sheltered from opinions that he dislikes. In that case, maybe it is him who should go to a billiard room to hide from the world in which there are people who hold opinions he finds distasteful.

    Even if I were a christian fundamentalist? :)

    I will be honest to say that I wouldnt. I wouldnt welcome you in my home if you made such argument because I dont expect any type of wisdom coming from such a character. Hence, there is no need for me to interact with such a person.

    What really strikes me on this site is that I have read many anti-religious comments to the point where some dont even want to discuss anything with them, yet have no problem debating the topic of IQ between races because it supposedly fit with their preconceived ideas.
    Sure; I lived in a house with a Christian fundamentalist for a year and had no issues with him whatsoever. He was a cool guy. I do not only invite people to my home based on a narrow subset of their beliefs. A Christian fundamentalist may be fun in other respects, and I may be willing to listen to his preaching in exchange for the pleasure of his company.

    I cannot speak for other posters, but I am okay with debating any topic.

    We are not on a public square. And even if we were, that's what civilized people do.
    Being polite doesnt mean to be kind, it means to be respectful. You keep mixing respect with kindness, that says a lot..

    That being said, if one has registered to this site, he has accepted its rule. This site asks to debate "with civism" (check the top left hand corner of your screen).
    Then, one has to do so.
    I am not mixing respect with kindness. This thread is about kindness, as per the title, not about respect, so I am talking about that. And yes, you are right: private platforms are free to set their own rules on how people should behave on them. I do not have to approve of those rules, however.

    NoUsername said:

    Voicing politely one's opinion doesnt make one a child.
    No wonder why the "mature" people you mention stay "cool", they are cold and love such statement.

    Have you read my assertions and arguments? 
    The differences in IQ are unproven, yet you insist on saying they are.

    I dont see any "objective reasoning" or prima facie evidence to support such claim. And if there were, I would only accept to debate such topic with people who have enough wisdom to do so.
    Okay, now let us not put words in each other's mouths. I have not said that "voicing politely one's opinion makes one a child", nor have I "insisted on saying that the differences in IQ are proven". These claims are just plain false. I was talking merely about the ability of people to talk about the differences in IQ, regardless of whether they are proven or not.

    And fair enough, you do not have to debate topics with everyone that lack evidence in supports of claims made in them. Others do not have to comply with your preferences though.

    Ethiopians or Kenyans are not better runners than us, they are better runners than everyone else, including other africans. I see you come with your racial differences. Yet, you're wrong: they are better simply because they are healthy, thin and live in higher altitudes: the magic combo for a heart to excel in running.

    Nothing to do with IQ... No wonder why you are happy to argue the case...

    Yet this wasnt my question and assertion
    No, I never mentioned any race in my example. I mentioned "Ethiopians" and "Western people"; neither is a race. My example was aimed at merely illustrating that I am okay with talking about traits in which "my group" is statistically inferior to some "other groups".
    Your explanation, by the way, is false. People in Ethiopia in Kenya, on average, are much less healthy than people, say, in the US; they live much shorter lives, are regularly subjected to malnutrition and pollution, have all kinds of illnesses unheard of here, and so on. However, they do happen to be extremely good runners statistically, for various reasons, such as culture of running having developed in those countries - such cultures tend to be self-perpetuating, much like the culture of chess in the Soviet Union was, or the culture of football in Brazil is.

    And again, I have never mentioned that any differences in outcomes have anything to do with IQ. You are confusing me with someone else (and I think I know who).
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    I do not have to engage with them. My point is that those who do want to engage with them must be free to do so, and even if no one is willing to engage with them, they should not be barred from speaking.
    I agree yet I havent said they should be barred from speaking.

    In that case, maybe it is him who should go to a billiard room to hide from the world in which there are people who hold opinions he finds distasteful.
    As said in my previous comment, I didnt understand the question as "can people hold distasteful opinions" but "should we debate topics which are not proven true and which involve judgement of value". This is a totally different perspective.

    People can believe whatever they want. A belief can be for the good or the detriment of the person who holds it. One is entitled to harm his mind or his body if that's his wish.
    Yet, that person has no right to negatively affect somebody else because of his beliefs. 

    I cannot speak for other posters, but I am okay with debating any topic.
    I am too. But with wisdom otherwise, this is not a debate.

    I am not mixing respect with kindness. This thread is about kindness, as per the title, not about respect, so I am talking about that.
    You previously wrote "no one has ever made a compelling argument for kindness being a prerequisite to speaking on a public square."
    I didnt understand you related this comment to the topic, but rather to my assertion that it is necessary to debate with civism. My comment was in reaction to the form rather than to the background.

    See the confusion of using such words as "unkind"..

    And yes, you are right: private platforms are free to set their own rules on how people should behave on them. I do not have to approve of those rules, however.
    I didnt say you have to approve those rules; I said you have to comply with them.

    And fair enough, you do not have to debate topics with everyone that lack evidence in supports of claims made in them. Others do not have to comply with your preferences though.
    I never said they had to.
    I said such topics bring no knowledge and no wisdom. I said they are dangerous because they can harm and history has proven it several times. Remember slavery? Hitler and his theories? They were just theories. Then they became policies.

    Such topics are of the same caliber as pedoph-il$ or cannibalism: you will always find someone to say everything is debatable. I just say no, there always has to be limits to things; debate is included in those things; otherwise, its an open door to chaos.

    I cannot force people to comply with my preferences, I just voice my opinion.

    My example was aimed at merely illustrating that I am okay with talking about traits in which "my group" is statistically inferior to some "other groups".
    Your example didnt involve the same criterias : again, physical abilities are not as sensitive as intellectual abilities.

    Your explanation, by the way, is false.
    It is not.
    I explained that they are better runners because they live in conditions that are favorable for their heart.

    Endurance running's performance is mainly related to cardiac abilities. Hence, training is mainly focused on breathing and long distance run.

    Ethiopians living in high altitude have a heart that functions differently from yours and mine. No matter what their food diet is. Their heart can tolerate extreme oxygen pressure; hypoxia. We cannot.

    Have you heard of the Olympics games organized in Mexico in the 60s? What happened? The general performances were poor because of lower oxygen.
    Ethiopian running centers are 1000m above Mexico's altitude level. 

    You mentioned poverty, yes there is poverty.
    Yet, that same poverty is actually an advantage: running barefoot for long distances is certainly a good practice. Remember in those part of the worlds; walking or running 10 miles each way to go to school is just normal.

    No wonder why our own national runners go there to train in the same conditions.

    And again, I have never mentioned that any differences in outcomes have anything to do with IQ. You are confusing me with someone else (and I think I know who).

    My apologies then

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername

    People can believe whatever they want. A belief can be for the good or the detriment of the person who holds it. One is entitled to harm his mind or his body if that's his wish.
    Yet, that person has no right to negatively affect somebody else because of his beliefs. 
    Anyone has the right to negatively affect somebody by saying something that they dislike. It is coercion that constitutes a violation of one's rights, not saying something that displeases them. If you tell me that I am a piece of guano, then you will not have violated any of my rights, you will just have been a bit of a jerk.

    I didnt say you have to approve those rules; I said you have to comply with them.
    I actually do not. I can violate those rules, and the owner of the platform is free to kick me off it for doing so. I can also just criticize those rules while following them as a prerequisite to me staying on the platform, which is something all of us have to do.

    I never said they had to.
    I said such topics bring no knowledge and no wisdom. I said they are dangerous because they can harm and history has proven it several times. Remember slavery? Hitler and his theories? They were just theories. Then they became policies.

    Such topics are of the same caliber as pedoph-il$ or cannibalism: you will always find someone to say everything is debatable. I just say no, there always has to be limits to things; debate is included in those things; otherwise, its an open door to chaos.

    I cannot force people to comply with my preferences, I just voice my opinion.
    A topic in itself cannot harm anyone. People's reactions to discussion of this topic can. And history shows that the best reaction is to let people speak their minds and then challenge their assertions. Trying to silence them, whether by means of the governmental apparatus, or societal condemnation, only causes bad ideas to go underground and fester there - and when they do make it back to the surface, you get things like Holodomor an Holocaust.

    Your example didnt involve the same criterias : again, physical abilities are not as sensitive as intellectual abilities.
    I can give an example involving intellectual abilities as well. Immigrants from China statistically strongly outperform "my group" in the STEM fields, which is where I happen to work - and this is a highly intellectual field. Go to any American computer science department and look at the students and the professors there - they will exceed what would be expected by random selection across the whole population by a factor of 10-20. 

    And that is perfectly fine. These amazing people surrounding me inspire me to work harder; they certainly do not make me feel bad about myself. Those who look at someone else's success and feel bad over it are insane, and their opinion is completely irrelevant. Back when I lived in Russia, I also looked at the success of Americans or the British and was inspired, not offended. I understood why the US and the UK did so much better than Russia, and while other Russians kept complaining about the injustice of it all, I quietly packed my bags. Good riddance, for both of us, I think.

    It is not.
    I explained that they are better runners because they live in conditions that are favorable for their heart.

    Endurance running's performance is mainly related to cardiac abilities. Hence, training is mainly focused on breathing and long distance run.

    Ethiopians living in high altitude have a heart that functions differently from yours and mine. No matter what their food diet is. Their heart can tolerate extreme oxygen pressure; hypoxia. We cannot.

    Have you heard of the Olympics games organized in Mexico in the 60s? What happened? The general performances were poor because of lower oxygen.
    Ethiopian running centers are 1000m above Mexico's altitude level. 

    You mentioned poverty, yes there is poverty.
    Yet, that same poverty is actually an advantage: running barefoot for long distances is certainly a good practice. Remember in those part of the worlds; walking or running 10 miles each way to go to school is just normal.

    No wonder why our own national runners go there to train in the same conditions.
    This explanation does not align with the evidence. If the effect you described was indeed responsible for better running ability, then we would expect the runners from such countries as Switzerland or Vanuatu to generally outperform other runners, which does not seem to be the case. In the US, the states with generally higher elevation than other states (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado...) do not seem to correlate with the abundance of successful runners.

    The reason American and other Western runners go to Ethiopia and Kenya to train is not because of some specific conditions that these countries offer, but because of their running cultures. Running side-by-side with the top runners in the world and their trainers is going to be extremely beneficial to any competitive runner, regardless of what part of the world this running takes place in.
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    I keep trying, my post is being "reviewed", cannot answer to your comments unfortunately
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername ;      We are now being IQ outperformed by artificial intelligence.
    Since AI is scientifically proven to be more intelligent than us, shouldn't we let AI define what is Truth?
    Since they are more intelligent than us, shouldn't we let them make the decisions for us?

    You wouldnt, would you? Because intuitively, one understands that despite all the knowledge AI may have, this isnt necessarily Wisdom.
    One understands that AI may not necessarily decide upon or even have in mind, humans's best interests. Just its own interests.

    An interesting series of philosophical questions.  You would be better putting such questions to a philosopher.    I just deal in facts and reasonable assumptions.  

    @Nousername wrote     If we had to consider achievements by skin colors, why is it that these same populations are actually the most unhappier? The most medicated populations for mental disorders?

    If western society is so unhappy, why do billions of third world people want to barge into our societies, one way or the other,  to be so unhappy with us??     

    @Nousername wrote      Is this why higher IQ civilizations have thrived for? 

    It is a reasonable assumption that people who live in complex societies need higher intelligence to make that civilisation work.    This premise appears to be validated by data.    In the western and Asian world, people keep getting smarter.     This also applies to members of dysfunctional minorities within such societies, who appear to be getting more intelligent at a greater rate than whites and Asians.     This could be explained by the fact that they are improving from a much lower IQ base.  

    @Nousername wrote     What is the purpose of all these achievements if they harm us?   

      
    Harm us?    People who live in western, or western style Aian societies, have never been taller, healthier, or long lived.  

    @Nousername wrote   What is the purpose of high IQ if we use it to create the tool that could annihilate our own planet (the atomic bomb and AI)?

    So what is your alternative?    Do you think the world would be a better place if we just got dumber?

    @Nousername wrote    I dont see how such achievements are proofs of Truth, Wisdom, Race superiority; quite the contrary actually.

    People like your good self always amaze me.    Human beings today are living in the most prosperous civilisation ever with living standards which could only be dreamed about even 200 years ago.   But self flagellating people like yourself can only see gloom and doom.    Get a grip and stop being a snowflake.  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch