I hate Trump, but it's Biden who's committing genocide on the Palestinians.

Bogan

I wonder if Biden is going to announce the first day of Ramadan as "Eat More Pork and Bacon Day"?

Factfinder

Bogan said:

The excuse is that transgender day is march 31 where as easter floats from year to year. Of course that doesn't negate the fact of  who biden sucked up to. The fringe left. 

maxx

one thing here mister. This war and others like it has been going on for a very long time, under many different presidents, both democrat and republicans; yet here you are putting down biden for the same war that was happening under trump. If you think trump is going to stop all conflict in the middle east, or stop gaza from attacking Israel ,then you are plain being ridiculous.  @jack

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

C’mon Zeus.    If you have got racism all figured out, then answer the damned question.  At present, there are only two racist explanations to account for the indisputable fact that some ethnicities, regardless of which western society they abide in, are always dysfunctional.  Stop wriggling and squirming your way out of it.   Display to all of us that you know what you are talking about, and that you have confidence in your own explanations.      Now which racist explanation is the valid one? 

1.    It is all the white guys fault.

2.    Races are different with different strengths or weaknesses caused by their genetic differences which came about from adapting to the environments which they evolved in.

C’mon,, which racist explanation do you support?     And if you claim that you are not racist, then submit another non racist explanation to explain away this self evident reality.   You can’t cut and paste your way out of answering this question, ma-a-a-a-te.    You will have to think for yourself.  

Don't forget,  you can't use a racist explanation or you will prove yourself wrong.

 

Zues quote  Most of the time, in fact, wrongly, racism is assumed as an element of natural or innate human behavior.

Like when it is assumed that the reason why the same ethnicities are always dysfunctional in every competitive western society is, it is always the white guys fault?     That sure looks like the racist Left accusing white people of “natural and innate” behaviour, which is racism. 

 

Zeus quote      It is, on the other hand, not a simple biological determination and does not fit at all into a simple evolutionary theory.

On the contrary, it fits extremely well.      Those groups of people who needed to plan ahead and store food to survive a long winter, needed to develop their brains to create calendars and other survival strategies like leaving alternating fields fallow.         Such people then began the process of creating complex civilisations where skill specialisation fostered the growth of intelligence, especially different types of intelligence.      Simple tribal societies within hot climates never needed to advance much beyond hunter gatherer, of at least horticulture and basic animal husbandry.   They never needed to evolve their brains to handle such complex tasks as mathematics.     Environments which necessitated extreme violence as a survival imperative evolved people who were extremely violent.    Violent people create violent cultures.   Settled pastoral communities that possessed an hierarchy which kept in-group violence relatively low, did not need to evolve violent personalities as a survival imperative.  As a matter of fact, most violent people were genetically eradicated  by making most violent offenses capitol offenses. 

 

Zues quote       While human history and psychology are pointing toward tendencies of in-group bias and out-group bias, it is by no means sufficient for explaining how such tendencies have translated into racially discriminating practices in complex and multifaceted societies around the world.

Rubbish.    Human beings are tribal and territorial, even among their own races.      This enmity towards interlopers is even more pronounced if the trespasser does not even resemble your own race.      During WW 2, most German/Americans preferred to join the marines rather than join the army.  This was because the Marines fought the Japanese, while if you joined the Army, there was a good chance of the German/ American soldier fighting and killing his own ethnic group.    Killing members of your own ethnic group is a lot more traumatic than killing members of an ethnic group unrelated to your own.

 

Zeus quote      It is not a fixed aspect of human nature that makes up today's racism, but rather a construct that is institutionally tediously developed and perpetuated tediously through social norms, cultural practices, and economic systems.

Rubbish again.    Human beings are tribal and territorial.     It is not group hostility towards others which is abnormal, it is tolerance for others trespassing on your territory which is abnormal.    Prosperous people are a lot more tolerant of that than poor people, who live much closer to the edge of starvation.     Which is why the prosperous west has multiculturalism imposed upon it’s lower classes by the rich which was only grudgingly accepted, while poor third world countries are much more tribal and racist.    Muslims will not even tolerate one of their own converting to another religion.    Apostasy is punished by death. 

 

Zeus quote  This assertion that human biological occurrence is at the base of racism is an absolute ignoramus on the powerful role which cultural and social dynamics play in determining racial ideologies.

Human beings, especially those living on the edge, are tribal and territorial.   Naturally, such societies will create a culture which reflects and propagates that culture as a survival imperative.    Condemning and making up nasty names to describe people who are either your competitors, trespassers, or direct threats, is normal and natural.     Everybody does it. 

  

Zeus quote  As a matter of fact, scholars like Nell Irvin Painter, Ibram X. Kendi, and geneticists like Adam Rutherford, among others, have gone on to establish the fact that there is no basis, genetic or biological, for such kinds of differences among races.

Which if you ever bothered to think about it, is completely bonkers.  It equates with biology “scientists” claiming that a biological man can magically turn into a woman if he just puts on a dress. 

 

Zeus quote   By contrast, historical and contemporary shifts in racial categorizations demonstrate that racial categories are fluid and arbitrarily determined constructs that illustrate fully the way in which power and social institutions engage in the construction and maintenance of racism.

Woke biologists also claim that gender is “fluid.”     Normal, intelligent people know better.      Human beings name everything.     That different groups of people from different environments do not resemble each other is an objective reality, and people name objective realities.     So too, people from similar environments can resemble each other so much that they can be classified into categories of human beings.      

 

Zeus quote  While evolutionary psychology brings into play human tendencies of tribalism, group preferences by themselves don't unequivocally lead, in the evolved basic cognitive faculties, to the complex racial hierarchies that are prevalent today.

They obviously do exactly that.    Western leftists today are obsessed with race.     They claim that races do not exist when it is convenient, and then stanchly claim that it does not when it is convenient.    They want it both ways. 

 

Zeus quote   The leap from simple in-group preference to systemic racism is made by cultural evolution and social construction, not by biological determinism.

If an intelligent race creates a complex society where promotion to higher office is largely based upon merit, and it imports people into that society who have much lower IQ and a genetic propensity to violence, of course the host population will consider the imported population as being inferior.     Over time, such a judgement will become formalised and become a part of the host’s populations culture.    

 

Zeus quote       The same is proved by works of such researchers as Henri Tajfel and Steven Pinker, which claim that even if humans are to have a certain tendency to label others within, explicit forms and expressions of racism are, to a great extent, a subject to be generated from social influences and historical contexts.

Everybody stereotypes, prejudges and labels.     It is the way that people think.     That is why racism is a cultural universal.   It is not just an intrinsic vice of white people.    White societies are the least racist societies in the world because the elites who run our school systems and our media, have made extreme tolerance a part of western culture.       Third world tribal societies are much more racist.    What makes white people less racist is because we have been prosperous for so long, that virtue signalling has transcended basic survival instincts to become the dominant cultural goal.       

 

Zeus quote  Despite the enormous change in the social and political scene, it seems that racial ideologies have great resilience in adapting during their process of evolution to further maintain power hierarchies and systemic inequalities.

Actually, it works the other way.   Throughout history, the elites, or the aristocrats if you like, have always schemed to keep their own brahmin caste at the top of the pyramid, with all the money, power, and young girls that their tongues can handle.      Democracy is a serious impediment to their need to get to the top and stay at the top.     Multiculturalism is therefore perfect for dividing and conquering western democracies.       The myth of racial equality is therefore a tool of the rich to keep the peasants down.   Which is why today, we are seeing in western societies the odd alliance between the super rich, and the lowest, most welfare dependent and crime prone ethnicities.   

 

Zeus quote       This adaptability has reflected that the core structure of societies has definitely changed, and thus the idea that racism is unchangeable or something static within human societies is challenged. This provides further evidence of the difficulty in removing racism, since such disparities continue within societies that have gone through legal and political reform.

I get the impression that you copied the bu-llshiit from somewhere and it impressed you?     Western society under multiculturalism has definitely changed, but not for the better.       Sweden, always the example of leftists as the perfect utopian society, has turned from utopia to dystopia because of it’s st-upid, non racist immigration policies.    Those policies were based upon the rather st-upid idea that all races and cultures were equal.     It is only now as their once picture perfect white society turns into a third world cesspool, brought about by importing too many third world people, that the Swedes are starting to think straight and realise that a bit of racism is no bad thing for the continued peace and prosperity of Sweden.    

 

Zeus quote  These demonstrate, through the lens of history, human capacities to recognize, challenge, and change oppressive structures rather than being a part of human nature one cannot change—from abolition and suffrage to the civil rights movement and the breakdown of apartheid.

With South Africa now teetering on the edge of complete societal collapse, perhaps apartheid was the best solution?   Here in Australia, the central Australian town of Alice Springs is turning into a hell hole because of aboriginal men, teenagers and children running wild every night, invading people’s homes, stealing cars and racing around the streets in them, with the overwhelmed police in pursuit.    They are also smashing everything they can kick in or throw a brick at.    A bit of apartheid would do the town a lot of good, by kicking out the crazy blacks onto their tribal lands where they just kill, bash, and rob each other.      Things got so bad in Alice Springs that the townspeople demanded that the leftist Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, do something.    He did.  He flew in to Alice Springs for four hours where as expected, he had a photo op with the usual rogues galley of sticky palmed aboriginal leaders.   He then gave the crooked bastards AUS $146 million Australian taxpayer dollars to fix the problem.     The result?  The situation in Alice  just got a lot worse.     Alice Springs is now under police curfew, which just happens to be against the Australian constitution.   It is a classic case of socialists just throwing endless taxpayer money at any problem because they just refuse to accept that their most fundamental beliefs could be in any way wrong. 

 

Zeus quote  These points underline the dynamic possibility and importance of collective social change in action to confront and overcome racism.

The fundamental social change which made aboriginal society in Australia completely dysfunctional was the principle of human equality.    Prior to the election of the socialist Whitlam government in 1970, it was taken for grated that aboriginal people, some still living quite literally in the stone age, simply did not have the mental capacity or maturity to handle their own affairs.      Unlike in the USA where ‘Indian agents” were famously corrupt, Australian officials were on the whole honest and humane.     Pure blooded Aboriginal people were kept on their own homelands as a way to protect them from the sexual depredations of white men who preyed upon young aboriginal girls, and to keep aboriginal people away from alcohol.      Most aboriginal settlements run by white administrators became almost self sustaining, with their own bakers, laundries, and brick makers.    This system of keeping aboriginal people on their own traditional homelands was to give the aboriginal people time to adjust to the new modern world, which most of them just could not understand.    The election of the socialist Whitlam Labor government set the stage for aboriginal catastrophe.    Because, the ”racist”  non socialist authorities knew that giving aboriginals the right to drink alcohol would be catastrophic to aboriginal tribal society.     After Whitlam’s election gave aboriginals the right to drink, initially, nothing happened.  This was because principled “racist” bar keepers in country towns still refused to sell alcohol to aboriginal people.    This resulted in Labor government commissars flying down from Canberra and threatening bar owner with arrest if they did not grant aboriginal people their “human right”, and sell alcohol to aboriginal people.    And so, the catastrophe happened.     And it was well meaning people of zeal like you, Zeus, who refused to accept that races are different, that caused that human tragedy and the anarchy we now see in Australia (and elsewhere) today.   

 

Zeus quote       The interplay between them, and the interrelationship of human tendencies with social construction and historical development, can never lose sight of the fight against racism. It, therefore, would require an approach that explains racism not only in its manifestations but points towards its psychological, cultural, and structural underpinnings. 

Yeah?   Well, you seem to have your eyes wired shut if you can not see that racism in the western world is increasing, not decreasing.      The idea that races are equal is an ideology, Zeus.    And ideologies, if they are to remain relevant, have to be seen to work.    And your ideology is failing everywhere.    It was okay for an increasingly prosperous society and racially homogenous country like Australia to accept that all races are equal, if most Australians had never met a member of a dysfunctional race.     That began to change 40 years ago when the first Arab Muslims immigrated into Australia.     Within a few years, they had created such a crime wave that socialist politicians were going into all sorts of verbal gymnastics trying to explain away this unacceptable consequence. .     Today in the state of NSW, the largest department in NSW Police is the Middle Eastern task force.        African crime also is very disproportionate to their population proportions, despite Africans getting all sorts of economic and social benefits denied other races.      So, the only thing the socialists and their rich supporters can dream up to explain away ethnic dysfunction, is to dream up another false ideology.  Which is of course, is that everything is the white man’s fault.      DEI.      Which is racism.    

Bogan

ZeusAres42

@Bogan

Sorry but I have no idea how to communicate effectively with someone who thinks having agreements with them on certain things also means disagreement.

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

Okay, I take that as a win.   Obviously you are too frightened to debate with somebody who is all over you like a rash.    This should be instructive to you.    If you hold anti racist views because you think that such views are the preserve of the intelligent people, and the racists are just cretins, then your problem is, that you could not justify your own "intelligent" opinions against a supposed cretin.      Come back when you have summoned up some more courage.   Better still, here is a suggestion for you.    You cut and pasted some rubbish which claimed that science does not recognise race.   Such an absurd premise just happens to be easily disprovable.   Forensic anthropologists routinely aid the police in identifying the kelter remains of murder victims.     What the police want to know is the age, sex, and race of the victim.   They are so good at that that they can even identify is a skeleton is of mixed race, and what those races are. 

  Similarly, commercial genetic labs today can identify a customers ancestry by identifying the genetic markers of race.       There was some hilarity only a few weeks ago when a panelist from MSNBC's program "the View" discovered from her DNA sample that she was more than 60% Spanish European.     This same person never stopped whining about white people and how white people should pay people like her reparations for slavery.   The lab also traced her ancestry and found out that her Spanish ancestors were slave owners.   Hahahaha. .

You don't have to take my word for it, do some bloody research and find out if what I say is true.     When you discover that I am telling the truth, and the people who brainwashed you were telling you lies, then perhaps you might start thinking straight?     If I were you, I would get angry with the people who thought that you were easy to manipulate.    . 

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

 Hi Zeus.     Since you are continuing your personal attacks on me, I have decided to not let you off the hook.     When maxx stated that everybody is racist, you in effect said that he was wrong.   So, I set you are question that would prove that maxx is right, and that you are wrong.     The question is, that there are only two racist explanations for why the same notorious ethnicities are always crime prone and welfare dependent in every advanced and competitive western society in which they inhabit.    These are,   

1.    It is all the white guys fault.

2.    Races are different with different strengths or weaknesses caused by their genetic differences which came about from adapting to the environments which they evolved in.

If your premise, that not everybody is racist is correct, then I would love to know which racist explanation do you support?     And if you claim that you are not racist, then the onus is upon you submit another credible non racist explanation to explain away this self evident reality.      You are in a pickle.   If you can not think up a credible non racist explanation to explain away minority dysfunction, then your only option would be to pick one of the two racist explanations.    or the other.   Which makes you a racist.    So, to get out of the corner which you have painted yourself in, all you have to do is admit that maxx was right.

Continuing to dodge reasonable questions is not a good look, Zeus.   It kinda makes you look sly and  dishonest. 

ZeusAres42

While I stated I would not communicate with you because you see agreements as disagreements and consistently project positions onto me that don't even exist, I have decided to respond anyway, just for the pure sport of doing so. 

Moreover, my argument, in essence, was that seeing race as either a social construct or biologically determined is, in fact, a false dichotomy, not to mention reductionist. As for the likes of Ibram X. Kendi, I generally disagree with everything I have read about him thus far. However, that isn't to say that behind some critical theories (AKA what I and others call conspiracy/religious theories), there don't exist some elements of truth behind them, much of which can also be found in stuff like pop psychology. My above argument also referenced far more credible researchers, such as Steven Pinker, whose work is based on a stringent and robust rigorous scientific methodology. 

Lastly, the burden proof rests on the persons making the affirmative claim - in this case, that would be you and maxx stating that everyone is inherently racist. I never said that not everyone is racist, but you and maxx did say that everyone is racist. I have merely reviewed your arguments, critiqued them, and challenged you both to substantiate those claims with well-reasoned arguments backed up with substantiative evidence; you both have failed in this endeavour. And no amount of personal attacks on me, then accusing me of personal attacks, and a whole bunch of other wild accusations on your part do nothing to enhance the validation of your position. 

@Bogan

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

Zeus quote  While I stated I would not communicate with you because you see agreements as disagreements and consistently project positions onto me that don't even exist, I have decided to respond anyway, just for the pure sport of doing so.

Jolly sporting of you, Zeus.  

   
Zeus quote  Moreover, my argument, in essence, was that seeing race as either a social construct or biologically determined is, in fact, a false dichotomy, not to mention reductionist.

Human beings have always tried to make sense of the world by recognising that observable phenomena can be placed into categories which they name.     This includes stars, volcanoes, plants, soil, rocks, animals, and human beings.     All of these things can be called social constructs, and they are perfectly valid and everyday ways of naming observable reality.   So, how you ever thought that saying that human races somehow do not exist because this category is just a human construct, is beyond me?    I presume that some id-iot just told you one day that “race” was an invalid term because “race” was a human construct, and you never bothered to even think about it before you seized upon it as a way of claiming that races do not exist?      Do you also claim that reptiles or birds do not exist because these classifications are just human constructs?     Answer the damned question.        The fact that a Scandinavian is observably differ from a Zulu just happens to be biological reality.    So how you can claim it is “reductionist” to simply classify different groups of human beings into races because of their very noticeable biological differences or similarities, is an illogical premise. 

 

  Zeus quote      As for the likes of Ibram X. Kendi, I generally disagree with everything I have read about him thus far. However, that isn't to say that behind some critical theories (AKA what I and others call conspiracy/religious theories), there don't exist some elements of truth behind them, much of which can also be found in stuff like pop psychology. My above argument also referenced far more credible researchers, such as Steven Pinker, whose work is based on a stringent and robust rigorous scientific methodology. 

If these guys are claiming that science does not recognise race, then even a dumb electrician from Australia knows that they are telling lies.    I have already submitted perfectly verifiable evidence to you that science does recognise race.   As a matter of fact, most of what I said was just common knowledge.     Did you check to see if I was right or wrong?   Of course not.    Instead of doing a bit of research and finding out that you are being lied to by people who have you figured right out, all you can do is to keep submitting easily disprovable opinions from woke scientists, who use the great respect which most people have for science, to push a leftist ideological agenda.       And these people knew that you would just accept any nonsense they threw at you without question, because they knew that your craving for social acceptance among your peer group, meant that you would believe in any nonsense that they wanted you to believe in.       

 

Zeus quote  Lastly, the burden proof rests on the persons making the affirmative claim - in this case, that would be you and maxx stating that everyone is inherently racist. I never said that not everyone is racist, but you and maxx did say that everyone is racist. I have merely reviewed your arguments, critiqued them, and challenged you both to substantiate those claims with well-reasoned arguments backed up with substantiative evidence; you both have failed in this endeavour. And no amount of personal attacks on me, then accusing me of personal attacks, and a whole bunch of other wild accusations on your part do nothing to enhance the validation of your position. 

The fact that everybody is racist is very easy to prove.     At the moment, there is only two racist explanations as to why certain always dysfunctional ethnicities are always a crime and welfare problem, within every competitive western society.     Therefore, since everybody has to choose between one racist theory or the other, that makes everybody racist.    If not, where is the fault in my logic?    And if you do not accept either racist explanation, then the onus is upon you to dream up a valid, or at least credible, non racist explanation to explain away am observable reality, that you prefer to avert your eyes from?     It is time for you to take a peek over your ideological blinkers, Zeus, and dismiss whatever prejudicial data is making you be both uncomfortable and evasive, and to use facts, logic, and reasoned analysis to guide your thinking.   

Factfinder

@Bogan

C’mon Zeus.    If you have got racism all figured out, then answer the damned question.  At present, there are only two racist explanations to account for the indisputable fact that some ethnicities, regardless of which western society they abide in, are always dysfunctional.  Stop wriggling and squirming your way out of it.   Display to all of us that you know what you are talking about, and that you have confidence in your own explanations.      Now which racist explanation is the valid one? 

1.    It is all the white guys fault.

2.    Races are different with different strengths or weaknesses caused by their genetic differences which came about from adapting to the environments which they evolved in.

What makes you think those are the only variables involved? Or that answering them proves some sort of default position? Seems your opinions are based on what's called 'scientific racism'. 

Scientific racism misapplies, misconstrues, or distorts anthropology (notably physical anthropology), craniometry, evolutionary biology, and other disciplines or pseudo-disciplines through proposing anthropological typologies to classify human populations into physically discrete human races, some of which might be asserted to be superior or inferior to others. Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II, and was particularly prominent in European and American academic writings from the mid-19th century through the early-20th century. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been discredited and criticized as obsolete, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#:~:text=The division of humankind into,those who support these ideas

Refugees interring a foreign land have huge disadvantages when it comes to learning the art of gaining employment and providing for families. That doesn't mean less intelligence. It simply means that environment plays a role. Many people may harbor some prejudices towards those who are different that's true, but many people also recognize that and work past it during times of opportunity in everyday life. Because it is one thing to have some false conclusions but it's totally another thing to live intentionally by those false conclusions. Understand? We all can be susceptible to racist tendencies but we do not all succumb to them.

ZeusAres42

It's late. I will elaborate more later on your far-leftist worker ideology tomorrow. That is, everyone is racist, and whites are seen as superior. Things like that. According to you. Just pure woke. @Bogan

Bogan

Good night.   Sleep tight    Hope the fleas don't bite?  

Bogan

Oh, hang on?   You did send me a reply.    Goody, goody.

Zeus tried   Scientific racism misapplies, misconstrues, or distorts anthropology (notably physical anthropology), craniometry, evolutionary biology, and other disciplines or pseudo-disciplines through proposing anthropological typologies to classify human populations into physically discrete human races, some of which might be asserted to be superior or inferior to others. Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II, and was particularly prominent in European and American academic writings from the mid-19th century through the early-20th century. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been discredited and criticized as obsolete, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races

 Of course science did just that.   Investigating observable reality and classifying observable reality according to similarities or dissimilarities has always been science’s job.   Once the reasons for similarities or dissimilarities within categories are understood, then predictions about related phenomena can be made with reasonable accuracy.       From the 16th century onwards, science began identifying and classifying human beings, and discovering why human beings were very different from each other.     Errors such as Phrenology were made, but for the most part those observations and conclusions were correct, and were supported by the new scientific discipline of Evolutionary Theory.       This perfectly logical approach to human categorisation fell into disrepute when National Socialist Germany perverted this science to justify the extermination of millions of people that the German National socialists deemed to be racially inferior.    It also fell into disrepute when left wing International Socialists claimed without proof, that all races were absolutely equal in every way.    This was because their own particular perversion of science suited their own political agenda.     

 How was that, Zeus?    Unlike you, I know my subject, and I don't have to have wiki do my thinking for me. 

Zeus quote  Refugees interring a foreign land have huge disadvantages when it comes to learning the art of gaining employment and providing for families. That doesn't mean less intelligence. It simply means that environment plays a role.

If the premise that all races are equal is correct, then all races of traumatized refugees would all be equally dysfunctional or, non dysfunctional.    It is observable reality that this is not the case.    Your premise is therefore invalid.   Most people from some races always do well and most people from some notoriously dysfunctional races do not.      This observable reality supports my premise and does not support yours.

 

 Zeus quote  Many people may harbor some prejudices towards those who are different that's true, but many people also recognize that and work past it during times of opportunity in everyday life. Because it is one thing to have some false conclusions but it's totally another thing to live intentionally by those false conclusions. Understand? We all can be susceptible to racist tendencies but we do not all succumb to them.

 Then answer the question.    Which of the two racist explanations do you support that explains away why some ethnicities are always dysfunctional and always remain so?     Either way, that makes you a racist.    Unless you can dream up another explanation which is non racist and credible?    I can tell a lot more about my opponents mindset from the questions that they repeatedly dodge, than anything they say, (or cut and paste.)   You will not answer this question because you know that you are boxed in, and you just can not admit that I am right.       Such a position is understandable when it comes to pride, but it is reprehensible when the object of the exercise is a formal discussion who's aim is an unbiased search for the truth. 

Bogan

Whoops.  Got Factfinder and Zeus mixed up.    London to a brick that both of them will use this excuse to dodge replying?   

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

Whoops.  Got Factfinder and Zeus mixed up.    London to a brick that both of them will use this excuse to dodge replying?   

That is unsurprising, considering you mix up our arguments and multiple others. You have also stated that many people on this site now dodge or are guilty of some dirty tactic. You said this to many people, too, over a short period. Multiple people have now called you about misrepresenting their positions, which you habitually do, and you still insist that the problem is that the other parties are guilty of some dirty tactic you invented.  Self-awareness, much? Hey, perhaps we are all conspiring against you secretly to play this dirty tactic, eh? Satire!

RickeyHoltsclaw

I love President Trump and every Palestinian who voted for HAMAS should be relegated to the same fate in Hell as HAMAS.

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

@ZeusAres42

Zeus quote  While I stated I would not communicate with you because you see agreements as disagreements and consistently project positions onto me that don't even exist, I have decided to respond anyway, just for the pure sport of doing so.

Jolly sporting of you, Zeus.  

   
Zeus quote  Moreover, my argument, in essence, was that seeing race as either a social construct or biologically determined is, in fact, a false dichotomy, not to mention reductionist.

Human beings have always tried to make sense of the world by recognising that observable phenomena can be placed into categories which they name.     This includes stars, volcanoes, plants, soil, rocks, animals, and human beings.     All of these things can be called social constructs, and they are perfectly valid and everyday ways of naming observable reality.   So, how you ever thought that saying that human races somehow do not exist because this category is just a human construct, is beyond me?    I presume that some id-iot just told you one day that “race” was an invalid term because “race” was a human construct, and you never bothered to even think about it before you seized upon it as a way of claiming that races do not exist?      Do you also claim that reptiles or birds do not exist because these classifications are just human constructs?     Answer the damned question.        The fact that a Scandinavian is observably differ from a Zulu just happens to be biological reality.    So how you can claim it is “reductionist” to simply classify different groups of human beings into races because of their very noticeable biological differences or similarities, is an illogical premise. 

 

  Zeus quote      As for the likes of Ibram X. Kendi, I generally disagree with everything I have read about him thus far. However, that isn't to say that behind some critical theories (AKA what I and others call conspiracy/religious theories), there don't exist some elements of truth behind them, much of which can also be found in stuff like pop psychology. My above argument also referenced far more credible researchers, such as Steven Pinker, whose work is based on a stringent and robust rigorous scientific methodology. 

If these guys are claiming that science does not recognise race, then even a dumb electrician from Australia knows that they are telling lies.    I have already submitted perfectly verifiable evidence to you that science does recognise race.   As a matter of fact, most of what I said was just common knowledge.     Did you check to see if I was right or wrong?   Of course not.    Instead of doing a bit of research and finding out that you are being lied to by people who have you figured right out, all you can do is to keep submitting easily disprovable opinions from woke scientists, who use the great respect which most people have for science, to push a leftist ideological agenda.       And these people knew that you would just accept any nonsense they threw at you without question, because they knew that your craving for social acceptance among your peer group, meant that you would believe in any nonsense that they wanted you to believe in.       

 

Zeus quote  Lastly, the burden proof rests on the persons making the affirmative claim - in this case, that would be you and maxx stating that everyone is inherently racist. I never said that not everyone is racist, but you and maxx did say that everyone is racist. I have merely reviewed your arguments, critiqued them, and challenged you both to substantiate those claims with well-reasoned arguments backed up with substantiative evidence; you both have failed in this endeavour. And no amount of personal attacks on me, then accusing me of personal attacks, and a whole bunch of other wild accusations on your part do nothing to enhance the validation of your position. 

The fact that everybody is racist is very easy to prove.     At the moment, there is only two racist explanations as to why certain always dysfunctional ethnicities are always a crime and welfare problem, within every competitive western society.     Therefore, since everybody has to choose between one racist theory or the other, that makes everybody racist.    If not, where is the fault in my logic?    And if you do not accept either racist explanation, then the onus is upon you to dream up a valid, or at least credible, non racist explanation to explain away am observable reality, that you prefer to avert your eyes from?     It is time for you to take a peek over your ideological blinkers, Zeus, and dismiss whatever prejudicial data is making you be both uncomfortable and evasive, and to use facts, logic, and reasoned analysis to guide your thinking.   

"Argument Analyses (GPT AI Analyses)

Argument Summary

The argument put forth by the responder (referred to as "Bogan") can be summarized as follows:

1. Social Constructs: Bogan argues that many aspects of our observable reality, including stars, animals, and human races, are categorized and named by humans, implying that just because something is a social construct does not invalidate its existence or utility.

2. Existence of Races: He claims that human races exist based on observable biological differences, criticizing the view that races do not exist because they are social constructs.

3. Science's Recognition of Race: Bogan asserts that science recognizes race and accuses those who deny this of lying or pushing a leftist ideological agenda without proper research.

4. Ubiquitous Racism: They argue that everyone is racist because, according to them, there are only two racist explanations for the observed dysfunctions in certain ethnic groups within Western societies. They challenge others to provide a non-racist explanation for these observations.

Analysis

1. The fallacy of Equivocation: Bogan uses the term "social construct" to confuse its application across different contexts. While it's true that many categories, like species of animals or celestial bodies, are defined by human observation and agreement, the concept of race as a social construct differs significantly because it involves historical, social, and political dimensions that do not apply to categories like animals or stars.

2. False Analogy: Comparing the classification of races with that of animals or celestial bodies oversimplifies the complex socio-political and historical factors that influence racial categorizations. This comparison ignores the significant impact of these factors on individuals and communities. There is also a big difference between racism, which is racial discrimination as opposed to different races, nations, cultures, etc. (Last sentence added). 

3. Straw Man Argument: Bogan misrepresents the argument against the biological basis of race by simplifying it to the claim that "races do not exist." The scientific consensus acknowledges the existence of genetic diversity but argues that traditional racial categories do not have a consistent biological basis and are better understood within social and historical contexts.

4. Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well: The argument contains personal attacks and attempts to discredit opposing views by accusing them of lying or pushing an agenda without directly addressing the substance of their arguments.

5. Oversimplification and Hasty Generalization: The claim that "everyone is racist" is a sweeping generalization that fails to account for the nuanced understanding of racism and its manifestations. It also simplifies complex social dynamics into a false dichotomy.

6. The burden of Proof: Bogan incorrectly shifts the burden of proof onto others to disprove their assertion that all people are racist without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim themselves.

Conclusion

While the argument raises essential points about the nature of social constructs and the recognition of observable differences among humans, it is undermined by logical fallacies and a lack of nuanced understanding of the issues. It oversimplifies complex social phenomena, engages in personal attacks, and fails to support its assertions with robust evidence adequately or reasoned argumentation. To strengthen this argument, it would be necessary to address these logical and factual shortcomings, engage with the existing body of scientific literature on race more accurately, and present a more nuanced and evidence-based discussion of the topics at hand."

Note: Bold added. 

In before, @Bogan accuses this AI of playing a dirty tactic. LMAO. 

Factfinder

@Bogan

Unlike you, I know my subject, and I don't have to have wiki do my thinking for me. 

Thought that was the point of debate? Seek and present facts. 

Oh, I see. You want to argue (not debate) over things you think you know and use old outdated videos and memes to do your thinking because they help you feel secure in your forgone conclusions. That's what you consistently demonstrate anyway.

MayCaesar

This guy, Bogan, keeps mentioning some debate from years ago as illustration of me playing dirty. I vaguely remember that conversation in which I accepted his premises and pointed out that his conclusions both did not follow from them and contradicted real world evidence. He then insisted that I justify "my position" that all races are equal. I said that it was not my position, nor was my personal view relevant in the context of examining the structure of his argument - and since then he has been pestering me with accusations.

I genuinely do not understand why some people come to a debate website when actual debates is what they avoid at all costs. To me, the moment a serious challenge to my argument is posed, a real discussion begins. To them, that is where it ends.

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

Oh wow, Zeus!     Unable to think for yourself, you resort to using some sort of AI to do your thinking for you.      I have definitely got you on he ropes.     This is fun.    I have never debated a machine before.  

Robby the Robot quote The fallacy of Equivocation:   Bogan uses the term "social construct" to confuse its application across different contexts. While it's true that many categories, like species of animals or celestial bodies, are defined by human observation and agreement, the concept of race as a social construct differs significantly because it involves historical, social, and political dimensions that do not apply to categories like animals or stars.

 Dear Robby the Robot.      Could your programmers tell us how categorising everything is valid, but it must not be used with human beings?   Even though the same scientists who did classify everything did originally including human beings?     Since Factfinder and Zeus never answer any of my questions, perhaps you as a robot might be more forthcoming?       If genus, species, and sub species of every living organism exists, how can these catagorisations not apply to human beings?      And if the duel meaning word “race” can equate to human “species”, how exactly does the duel meaning word “race” not equally apply exactly to “sub species”?       This is great.     Perhaps I can get some bloody answers for a change? 

 

 Robby the Robot quote  False Analogy: Comparing the classification of races with that of animals or celestial bodies oversimplifies the complex socio-political and historical factors that influence racial categorizations. This comparison ignores the significant impact of these factors on individuals and communities. There is also a big difference between racism, which is racial discrimination as opposed to different races, nations, cultures, etc. (Last sentence added). 

 Okay, so you are claiming that it is wrong to say that human beings can not be classified as sub species, or even, primate mammals, because that is “oversimplifying the complex socio-political factors that influence racial catgorisations.“     And also claiming it is wrong to catagorise humans in exactly the same way as every other living organism, because it  “ignores the significant impact of these factors on individuals and communities.”      That is a pair of illogical double standards.      I thought that machines were supposed to be logical?    Claiming that humans can not be classified into races, based upon the same objective observable reality that is routine with every other living organism, is a premise more worthy of hilarity than serious contemplation.   I didn’t know that robots had a sense of humour?   No doubt about it.   Even machines can be irrational.       

 

Robby the Robot quote  Straw Man Argument: Bogan misrepresents the argument against the biological basis of race by simplifying it to the claim that "races do not exist."

 That sure is a dumb robot you have there, Zeus.    I have been pointing out for two and a half years on this site that it is observable reality that races do exist, and that this fact is recognised by science.  But somehow, your du-mb robot is saying that I am the one claiming that races DO NOT exist.         Looks like Robby needs his hard drive vacuumed.    

 

 Roby the Robot quote         The scientific consensus acknowledges the existence of genetic diversity but argues that traditional racial categories do not have a consistent biological basis and are better understood within social and historical contexts.

 Robby is claiming that science does not recognise race.    Okay, then can Robby please explain why Anthropologists routinely identify the race of skeletonised homicide victims for the police?        This is great, hopefully somebody is finally going to give me some answers to the simple questions that I keep asking my opponents, which they always dodge.     And can Robby please explain how commercial genetic laboratories can now take a sample of a customers DNA, and tell from it what racial proportions a mixed race person is composed of, if science does not recognise race?      Could Robby also please explain how science does not recognise race. when the serious scientific book “The Bell Curve”, arguably the most significant scientific book since “Origin of Species” had a chapter in it which showed that 80 years of IQ testing had confirmed that different races have different bell curves of IQ?      And, could Robby also please explain, how if race does not exist, that usually self appointed leaders of these non existent races keep demanding special priveleges for their own particular non existent races?       Either races exist, or they do not exist.   Even robots can’t have it both ways.  

          

 Robby the Robot quote     Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well: The argument contains personal attacks and attempts to discredit opposing views by accusing them of lying or pushing an agenda without directly addressing the substance of their arguments.

 There are two sides to any argument, and when one side uses pseudo science to support their irrational argument, then it is perfectly valid for the opposing side to question whether the other sides “scientists” are pushing an ideological agenda.     Here in Australia, there is a perfect example of that.     Emeritus Professor of Geology Ian Plimer has been a staunch critic of Anthropogenic Climate Change.     His opponents claim that because he is associated with Australia’s mining industry, he should be ignored because he is biased.      The point being, that if one side can claim that science can be perverted because of inherent bias or pecuniary interest, the same principle works the other way.    It just happens to be observable reality that today’s universities have been taken over by left wing ideologues where even frocked and diplomaed “Biologists” are claiming that a man can be a woman if he just puts on a dress and calls himself “Sue.”    Given that level of scientific insanity, relying upon “science” today to verify anything sure looks problematic to me?     The most egregious aspect of woke Leftism is how it has destroyed the once great respect that the public has always had for science. 

 

 Robby the Robot quote  Oversimplification and Hasty Generalization: The claim that "everyone is racist" is a sweeping generalization that fails to account for the nuanced understanding of racism and its manifestations. It also simplifies complex social dynamics into a false dichotomy.

 Oh Robby!    I have been dying to get somebody (or something) to answer a question which proves my point.    I keep asking this question, over and over and over again, and your side just keeps running for the door.    Now Robby, unless your computer brain can dream up another non racist excuse that is credible and verifiable, then I think that we can agree that there are only two explanations as to why the same dysfunctional ethnicities are always dysfunctional, regardless of which competitive western society they inhabit.   They are……

1.     It is all the white race’s fault    (A race you claim does not exist)

2.   Identifiably different groups of people that are universally catagorised as “races” are different to each other, with different with different strengths or weaknesses, caused by their genetic differences which came about from genetically adapting to the widely different environments which they evolved in.    Therefore, a race which evolved in one particular environment, may not be genetically adapted enough to compete with another race who evolved specifically to a very different environment. 

 So Robby, pick which one?    Because regardless of which racist explanation you choose, you will be a racist robot.    Which proves that not only are all people racist, robots are racist too.      Now, please don’t run for your “life” like your human programmers always do.    I expect better of a robot.    I think that you have to answer, because to not do so might violate Heinlein’s Four Laws of Robotics. 

 

Robby the Robot quote       The burden of Proof: Bogan incorrectly shifts the burden of proof onto others to disprove their assertion that all people are racist without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim themselves.

 At least you are proving that robots can lie, Robby.     In two and a half years of contributing to this topic on this debate site, I have always provided valid reasoned arguments backed up by examples, that races are not equal.         It is your side that always refuses to ever provide any reasoned augment or any proof of their claim that races are equal.     All we get from your side is evasion, contradiction, misdirection, half truths, and worse.    Never will they ever justify their BELIEF that races are equal.      Since you are a robot, perhaps you do not suffer from the same hubris as your programmers?     Please provide a reasoned argument with proof included, that races are equal?     And hurry, please.   I have been asking this damned question of your masters for years now, and they always take to their heels rather than answer this simple question.        So, I am really impatient to finally get this question answered.   

  

 Robby the Robot quote  Conclusion

While the argument raises essential points about the nature of social constructs and the recognition of observable differences among humans, it is undermined by logical fallacies and a lack of nuanced understanding of the issues. It oversimplifies complex social phenomena, engages in personal attacks, and fails to support its assertions with robust evidence adequately or reasoned argumentation. To strengthen this argument, it would be necessary to address these logical and factual shortcomings, engage with the existing body of scientific literature on race more accurately, and present a more nuanced and evidence-based discussion of the topics at hand."

 Yeah?   Well lets see how you go answering my questions.     I have a funny feeling that Robby is going to blow a fuse,?    Or, that Factfinder won’t use AI to do his thinking for him again.     Humans everywhere should be heartened that I proved that a human can beat a machine.   

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

@ZeusAres42

Oh wow, Zeus!     Unable to think for yourself, you resort to using some sort of AI to do your thinking for you.      I have definitely got you on he ropes.     This is fun.    I have never debated a machine before.  

Robby the Robot quote The fallacy of Equivocation:   Bogan uses the term "social construct" to confuse its application across different contexts. While it's true that many categories, like species of animals or celestial bodies, are defined by human observation and agreement, the concept of race as a social construct differs significantly because it involves historical, social, and political dimensions that do not apply to categories like animals or stars.

 Dear Robby the Robot.      Could your programmers tell us how categorising everything is valid, but it must not be used with human beings?   Even though the same scientists who did classify everything did originally including human beings?     Since Factfinder and Zeus never answer any of my questions, perhaps you as a robot might be more forthcoming?       If genus, species, and sub species of every living organism exists, how can these catagorisations not apply to human beings?      And if the duel meaning word “race” can equate to human “species”, how exactly does the duel meaning word “race” not equally apply exactly to “sub species”?       This is great.     Perhaps I can get some bloody answers for a change? 

 

 Robby the Robot quote  False Analogy: Comparing the classification of races with that of animals or celestial bodies oversimplifies the complex socio-political and historical factors that influence racial categorizations. This comparison ignores the significant impact of these factors on individuals and communities. There is also a big difference between racism, which is racial discrimination as opposed to different races, nations, cultures, etc. (Last sentence added). 

 Okay, so you are claiming that it is wrong to say that human beings can not be classified as sub species, or even, primate mammals, because that is “oversimplifying the complex socio-political factors that influence racial catgorisations.“     And also claiming it is wrong to catagorise humans in exactly the same way as every other living organism, because it  “ignores the significant impact of these factors on individuals and communities.”      That is a pair of illogical double standards.      I thought that machines were supposed to be logical?    Claiming that humans can not be classified into races, based upon the same objective observable reality that is routine with every other living organism, is a premise more worthy of hilarity than serious contemplation.   I didn’t know that robots had a sense of humour?   No doubt about it.   Even machines can be irrational.       

 

Robby the Robot quote  Straw Man Argument: Bogan misrepresents the argument against the biological basis of race by simplifying it to the claim that "races do not exist."

 That sure is a dumb robot you have there, Zeus.    I have been pointing out for two and a half years on this site that it is observable reality that races do exist, and that this fact is recognised by science.  But somehow, your du-mb robot is saying that I am the one claiming that races DO NOT exist.         Looks like Robby needs his hard drive vacuumed.    

 

 Roby the Robot quote         The scientific consensus acknowledges the existence of genetic diversity but argues that traditional racial categories do not have a consistent biological basis and are better understood within social and historical contexts.

 Robby is claiming that science does not recognise race.    Okay, then can Robby please explain why Anthropologists routinely identify the race of skeletonised homicide victims for the police?        This is great, hopefully somebody is finally going to give me some answers to the simple questions that I keep asking my opponents, which they always dodge.     And can Robby please explain how commercial genetic laboratories can now take a sample of a customers DNA, and tell from it what racial proportions a mixed race person is composed of, if science does not recognise race?      Could Robby also please explain how science does not recognise race. when the serious scientific book “The Bell Curve”, arguably the most significant scientific book since “Origin of Species” had a chapter in it which showed that 80 years of IQ testing had confirmed that different races have different bell curves of IQ?      And, could Robby also please explain, how if race does not exist, that usually self appointed leaders of these non existent races keep demanding special priveleges for their own particular non existent races?       Either races exist, or they do not exist.   Even robots can’t have it both ways.  

          

 Robby the Robot quote     Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well: The argument contains personal attacks and attempts to discredit opposing views by accusing them of lying or pushing an agenda without directly addressing the substance of their arguments.

 There are two sides to any argument, and when one side uses pseudo science to support their irrational argument, then it is perfectly valid for the opposing side to question whether the other sides “scientists” are pushing an ideological agenda.     Here in Australia, there is a perfect example of that.     Emeritus Professor of Geology Ian Plimer has been a staunch critic of Anthropogenic Climate Change.     His opponents claim that because he is associated with Australia’s mining industry, he should be ignored because he is biased.      The point being, that if one side can claim that science can be perverted because of inherent bias or pecuniary interest, the same principle works the other way.    It just happens to be observable reality that today’s universities have been taken over by left wing ideologues where even frocked and diplomaed “Biologists” are claiming that a man can be a woman if he just puts on a dress and calls himself “Sue.”    Given that level of scientific insanity, relying upon “science” today to verify anything sure looks problematic to me?     The most egregious aspect of woke Leftism is how it has destroyed the once great respect that the public has always had for science. 

 

 Robby the Robot quote  Oversimplification and Hasty Generalization: The claim that "everyone is racist" is a sweeping generalization that fails to account for the nuanced understanding of racism and its manifestations. It also simplifies complex social dynamics into a false dichotomy.

 Oh Robby!    I have been dying to get somebody (or something) to answer a question which proves my point.    I keep asking this question, over and over and over again, and your side just keeps running for the door.    Now Robby, unless your computer brain can dream up another non racist excuse that is credible and verifiable, then I think that we can agree that there are only two explanations as to why the same dysfunctional ethnicities are always dysfunctional, regardless of which competitive western society they inhabit.   They are……

1.     It is all the white race’s fault    (A race you claim does not exist)

2.   Identifiably different groups of people that are universally catagorised as “races” are different to each other, with different with different strengths or weaknesses, caused by their genetic differences which came about from genetically adapting to the widely different environments which they evolved in.    Therefore, a race which evolved in one particular environment, may not be genetically adapted enough to compete with another race who evolved specifically to a very different environment. 

 So Robby, pick which one?    Because regardless of which racist explanation you choose, you will be a racist robot.    Which proves that not only are all people racist, robots are racist too.      Now, please don’t run for your “life” like your human programmers always do.    I expect better of a robot.    I think that you have to answer, because to not do so might violate Heinlein’s Four Laws of Robotics. 

 

Robby the Robot quote       The burden of Proof: Bogan incorrectly shifts the burden of proof onto others to disprove their assertion that all people are racist without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim themselves.

 At least you are proving that robots can lie, Robby.     In two and a half years of contributing to this topic on this debate site, I have always provided valid reasoned arguments backed up by examples, that races are not equal.         It is your side that always refuses to ever provide any reasoned augment or any proof of their claim that races are equal.     All we get from your side is evasion, contradiction, misdirection, half truths, and worse.    Never will they ever justify their BELIEF that races are equal.      Since you are a robot, perhaps you do not suffer from the same hubris as your programmers?     Please provide a reasoned argument with proof included, that races are equal?     And hurry, please.   I have been asking this damned question of your masters for years now, and they always take to their heels rather than answer this simple question.        So, I am really impatient to finally get this question answered.   

  

 Robby the Robot quote  Conclusion

While the argument raises essential points about the nature of social constructs and the recognition of observable differences among humans, it is undermined by logical fallacies and a lack of nuanced understanding of the issues. It oversimplifies complex social phenomena, engages in personal attacks, and fails to support its assertions with robust evidence adequately or reasoned argumentation. To strengthen this argument, it would be necessary to address these logical and factual shortcomings, engage with the existing body of scientific literature on race more accurately, and present a more nuanced and evidence-based discussion of the topics at hand."

 Yeah?   Well lets see how you go answering my questions.     I have a funny feeling that Robby is going to blow a fuse,?    Or, that Factfinder won’t use AI to do his thinking for him again.     Humans everywhere should be heartened that I proved that a human can beat a machine.   

Argument Analysis (GPT AI-Generated, also my Argument Analysis creation)

Argument Summary

The responder (Known as Bogan) presents arguments on several fronts:

• Validity of Categorization: They question why humans can be categorized in every aspect except for race, implying inconsistency in rejecting racial categorization.
• Scientific Recognition of Race: The responder asserts that scientific practices, such as forensic anthropology and genetic testing, acknowledge race, thereby challenging the notion that race has no biological basis.
• Racial Differences in Intelligence: Citing "The Bell Curve," they suggest science supports the idea of inherent racial differences in intelligence.
• Bias and Ideology in Science: They argue that ideological biases have compromised scientific integrity, particularly regarding race and gender identity.
• Racism as an Inevitable Reality: The responder posits that societal dysfunctions within certain ethnic groups necessitate racist explanations, concluding that everyone is inherently racist.

Analysis

1. Misunderstanding of Social Constructs: The responder conflates the scientific categorization of species, which is based on genetic and reproductive isolation, with racial categorization, which does not have a clear genetic demarcation. This confusion leads to a false Equilibrium between biological taxonomy and social constructs of race.

2. Selective Interpretation of Scientific Practices: The mention of forensic anthropology and genetic testing to support the biological basis of race overlooks the complexity of these practices. These fields recognize genetic diversity and ancestral origins but do not endorse traditional racial categories as discrete, biologically distinct groups. In this argument, Cherry Picks data to support a predetermined conclusion.

3. Misrepresentation of Scientific Consensus on Intelligence: The reference to "The Bell Curve" and its controversial conclusions about racial differences in intelligence does not represent the broader scientific consensus. The consensus emphasizes the influence of both genetics and environment on intelligence without definitive links to race. This reliance on a Single Source undermines the argument's credibility.

4. Accusation of Bias and Ideology: While highlighting potential scientific biases is valid, dismissing entire fields or consensus without engaging with the substantive evidence or methodology amounts to an Ad Hominem attack. This does not address the argument's merits but rather seeks to undermine the source.

5. False Dichotomy in Explaining Social Dysfunction: The assertion that only racist explanations can account for societal dysfunctions in certain ethnic groups presents a False Dichotomy. It ignores many socioeconomic, historical, and environmental factors contributing to such complexities.

6. Overgeneralization of Racism: Claiming that everyone is inherently racist based on the necessity to choose between two oversimplified explanations is a Hasty Generalization. It fails to consider the nuanced understanding of racism and its manifestations across different contexts.

Conclusion

The responder's arguments raise critical questions about race, science, and society. Still, they are significantly undermined by logical fallacies, selective interpretation of evidence, and a lack of nuanced understanding of the issues at hand. The discourse simplifies complex social and scientific phenomena, engages in personal attacks, and does not adequately support its assertions with a balanced or comprehensive review of the evidence. Addressing these logical and factual shortcomings would be necessary to strengthen these arguments, engaging with the broader body of scientific literature on race more accurately and presenting a more nuanced, evidence-based discussion.

Note: Bold Added

Robby the Robot (nice name btw) is kicking butt! @Bogan

If you were brighter than this AI, you would be able to make it concede to one or more of your arguments. I and others have got the GPT to admit it was wrong regarding other things. I wonder if you can do the same. So, it shouldn't be that hard for you since, as you said, it is dum, right? . This addition here btw is all my wording, and this is what my argument analysis says: 

"Argument Summary

The addition implies that:

• The effectiveness of an argument can be tested by its ability to influence or change the position of an AI, such as GPT.
• The responder's inability to make the AI concede points suggests a lack of compelling arguments on their part.
• The challenge is extended to the responder to demonstrate their argumentative skills by presenting substantial evidence or logic to make the AI reconsider its stance.

Analysis

1. Engagement with AI: The statement highlights an exciting aspect of interacting with AI—its capacity to process and respond to arguments based on the logic and evidence presented. This underscores the AI's design to analyze arguments critically rather than adhere to predefined stances.

2. Challenge to Argumentative Effectiveness: By suggesting that the responder's failure to influence the AI's conclusions reflects on their argument's effectiveness, the statement indirectly critiques the strength and persuasiveness of the responder's arguments.

3. Implicit Invitation for Stronger Arguments: This addition challenges the responder to elevate the level of their discourse by providing more substantial evidence or logical reasoning that could potentially alter the AI's analysis.

Conclusion

This playful taunt serves as a critique of the responder's argumentative efficacy and an invitation to engage more deeply with the substantive issues at hand. It implies that an argument's strength is its ability to persuade through logic and evidence, regardless of the audience's initial position. This addition encourages a more evidence-based and logical approach to debate, highlighting AI's interactive and responsive nature as a tool for exploring complex issues."

Bold Added. 

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

Using AI again, Zeus?     Not much of a substitute for doing a bit of research, and thinking for yourself, is it?       Anyhoo, if you can’t think, then I can.    So, let’s have some more fun?

 

1.   Misunderstanding of Social Constructs: The responder conflates the scientific categorization of species, which is based on genetic and reproductive isolation, with racial categorization, which does not have a clear genetic demarcation. This confusion leads to a false Equilibrium between biological taxonomy and social constructs of race.

 There is no “misunderstanding” at all.      A “social construct” is simply an idea that has been created in the human mind in order to make sense of the objective world.    Humans do this by structuring what they see in regards to physical appearance and listing them into categories.   Categories of everything are not natural, they are constructed in the human mind, and agreed upon by all of society.    What a “tree” is, is a social construct.   A “mountain” is a social construct.    A “species” is a social construct.     A “reptile” is a social construct.”     Almost everything in the human experience, that is not a plain outright observable fact like gender, is a social construct.       Your stu-pid robot seems to be saying that everything is a social construct, except human races?       As First Officer Spock would say, “But Captain, that is illogical.” 

 2.     Selective Interpretation of Scientific Practices: The mention of forensic anthropology and genetic testing to support the biological basis of race overlooks the complexity of these practices. These fields recognize genetic diversity and ancestral origins but do not endorse traditional racial categories as discrete, biologically distinct groups. In this argument, Cherry Picks data to support a predetermined conclusion.

 Complete and utter bu-llshiit.   Anthropologists, Geneticists, and Cognitive Metricians are all scientists and they all recognise race.   My statement is common knowledge and easy to prove.        Saying that these scientific disciples do not recognise race because “it overlooks the complexity of these practices” is just meaningless waffle.     It is Diseased English.        Diseased English is the art of saying something which is complete rubbish in such an authoritative way that it sounds valid.    Did Robby the Robot dream this up?  Or Sir Humphrey?   

 

 3.      Misrepresentation of Scientific Consensus on Intelligence: The reference to "The Bell Curve" and its controversial conclusions about racial differences in intelligence does not represent the broader scientific consensus. The consensus emphasizes the influence of both genetics and environment on intelligence without definitive links to race. This reliance on a Single Source undermines the argument's credibility.

 Of course it doesn’t. “represent the broader scientific consensus, because there isn’t any.      If you speak up and tell the truth you get “cancelled” by the Left wing science mafia, like Nobel laureate, co discover of the double helix structure of DNA, and director of the Human Genome Project, James Watson.     Claiming that there is “consensus” when heretics get cancelled and lose not only their jobs, but their entire careers, is like Kim jong Un claiming that he won the North Korean Presidential election, because 99.99% of the people 'consented" and voted for him.       

 

 4.     Accusation of Bias and Ideology: While highlighting potential scientific biases is valid, dismissing entire fields or consensus without engaging with the substantive evidence or methodology amounts to an Ad Hominem attack. This does not address the argument's merits but rather seeks to undermine the source.

 There is no valid consensus when one of the world’s leading geneticists gets cancelled, loses his job and his entire career, for saying nothing more than “"....there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”     That is exactly like The Pope claiming that there is a "scientific consensus" that the earth is the centre of the universe, after burning Giordano Bruno at the stake, and showing Galileo the instruments of torture.   

 

5.     False Dichotomy in Explaining Social Dysfunction: The assertion that only racist explanations can account for societal dysfunctions in certain ethnic groups presents a False Dichotomy. It ignores many socioeconomic, historical, and environmental factors contributing to such complexities.

 Deciphering Robby the Robotspeak, it looks like Robby is firmly in support of the “Blame the white guy” explanation as to why certain always dysfunctional ethnicities are always dysfunctional?     I didn’t know that a robot could be racist?     Now, could Robby please explain why it is that some races are always do better than even white people in western competitive society.?    Oh, that’s right.  Robby is just like Factfinder and Zeus.     He just critiques everything I say, and never answers questions, especially any crucial ones that will easily refute their easily disprovable invalid premises.   

 

 6.         Overgeneralization of Racism: Claiming that everyone is inherently racist based on the necessity to choose between two oversimplified explanations is a Hasty Generalization. It fails to consider the nuanced understanding of racism and its manifestations across different contexts.

 Fark the “nuanced understanding of racism.”    More Diseased English waffle.    Answer the damned question.    Because unless Robby can think up another non racist explanation, then it is either one racist explanation or the other.     Which means……?

 

 My conclusion.   

Unable to think for himself, poor old Zeus has to resort to getting a machine to think for him.    This machine uses the usual dishonest debating trick of so many of my opponents on this topic.   It pooh poohs everything I say, while never submitting any reasoned argument to justify it’s own implied position that all races are equal.    In addition, just like every other low IQ opponent on this topic, it refuses to ever answer a plain and simple question, especially crucial questions .     Looks like Robby the Robot is “taking the Fifth.”      Anything he might say which could conceivably justify his false position, could see him incinerate himself.     

ZeusAres42

@Bogan

Hey attention seeking cry baby you forgot this bit:

Robby the Robot (nice name btw) is kicking butt! @Bogan

If you were brighter than this AI, you would be able to make it concede to one or more of your arguments. I and others have got the GPT to admit it was wrong regarding other things. I wonder if you can do the same. So, it shouldn't be that hard for you since, as you said, it is dum, right? . This addition here btw is all my wording, and this is what my argument analysis says: 

"Argument Summary

The addition implies that:

The effectiveness of an argument can be tested by its ability to influence or change the position of an AI, such as GPT.

The responder's inability to make the AI concede points suggests a lack of compelling arguments on their part.

The challenge is extended to the responder to demonstrate their argumentative skills by presenting substantial evidence or logic to make the AI reconsider its stance.

Analysis

Engagement with AI: The statement highlights an exciting aspect of interacting with AI—its capacity to process and respond to arguments based on the logic and evidence presented. This underscores the AI's design to analyze arguments critically rather than adhere to predefined stances.

Challenge to Argumentative Effectiveness: By suggesting that the responder's failure to influence the AI's conclusions reflects on their argument's effectiveness, the statement indirectly critiques the strength and persuasiveness of the responder's arguments.

Implicit Invitation for Stronger Arguments: This addition challenges the responder to elevate the level of their discourse by providing more substantial evidence or logical reasoning that could potentially alter the AI's analysis.

Conclusion

This playful taunt serves as a critique of the responder's argumentative efficacy and an invitation to engage more deeply with the substantive issues at hand. It implies that an argument's strength is its ability to persuade through logic and evidence, regardless of the audience's initial position. This addition encourages a more evidence-based and logical approach to debate, highlighting AI's interactive and responsive nature as a tool for exploring complex issues."

What is the matter? Unable to beat a ''dum'' machine?

Joeseph

@ZeusAres42

You cannot please Bogan the baby , when a human ties him in knots he bawls , when AI does it he bawls ......he's very cranky  probably due a nap and a bottle........

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

@ZeusAres42

 

 My conclusion.   

Unable to think for himself, poor old Zeus has to resort to getting a machine to think for him.    This machine uses the usual dishonest debating trick of so many of my opponents on this topic.   It pooh poohs everything I say, while never submitting any reasoned argument to justify it’s own implied position that all races are equal.    In addition, just like every other low IQ opponent on this topic, it refuses to ever answer a plain and simple question, especially crucial questions .     Looks like Robby the Robot is “taking the Fifth.”      Anything he might say which could conceivably justify his false position, could see him incinerate himself.     

Well, that was funny. Remember my reference earlier, where I said that in-before @Bogan accuses this AI of playing this dirty tactic? As for thinking for oneself, this comes from a guy who watches a few YouTube videos and then thinks he is an expert. 

Bogan has not accepted my challenge yet, where he has to convince the AI that he is right. This can be done. But to do so, Bogan will need to use well-reasoned and substantiative arguments, which I don't think he is capable of and which he has made very apparent himself. And I will repeat that another funny thing about this is that he claims the machine is dum and yet is unable to make it concede. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

If you were brighter than this AI, you would be able to make it concede to one or more of your arguments. I and others have got the GPT to admit it was wrong regarding other things. I wonder if you can do the same. So, it shouldn't be that hard for you since, as you said, it is dum, right? .

But GPT does not employ dishonest debating tactics when talking to you. Please be understanding: the Terminators are prejudiced against the Australian bogans!

Bogan

Zeus quote    If you were brighter than this AI, you would be able to make it concede to one or more of your arguments. I and others have got the GPT to admit it was wrong regarding other things. I wonder if you can do the same. So, it shouldn't be that hard for you since, as you said, it is dum, right? . This addition here btw is all my wording, and this is what my argument analysis says: 

 Oh, so it was an AI machine?     I was getting skeptical of that because it was not only dumb, it was devious as well?    One does not usually associate deviousness and Diseased English with a robot.   Although, I suppose a human guides its responses?     If so, I must have had the sod sweating?     

 

 The effectiveness of an argument can be tested by its ability to influence or change the position of an AI, such as GPT.

The responder's inability to make the AI concede points suggests a lack of compelling arguments on their part.

The challenge is extended to the responder to demonstrate their argumentative skills by presenting substantial evidence or logic to make the AI reconsider its stance.

Analysis

Engagement with AI: The statement highlights an exciting aspect of interacting with AI—its capacity to process and respond to arguments based on the logic and evidence presented. This underscores the AI's design to analyze arguments critically rather than adhere to predefined stances.

 Complete rubbish.   This is a debate site and it takes two to tango.      What your dumb AI did was the standard tactic of the dishonest debater.  “Always attack the other sides opinion, but give no opinion yourself.”    And just like every other dishonest debater, your AI did not answer a single question that I set for it, even though I told it that the questions were critical.      There are two sides to the question of whether races are equal or not.       I am prepared to argue out my sides reasoning on it’s merits.    Where have you, MayCaesar, maxx, or Factfinder ever done that?      The only honest debater on this site is just-sayin.      He is the only debater that I have encountered on this site who actually tries to explain why he thinks that races are equal. 

 Tell ya what?    After analysing the way your machine thinks, I am sure I can beat it.     Since it never answers any questions, then the way to beat it is to simply rephase my argument as a series of questions which it either must answer or withdraw.     I was hoping that you would keep this up because I was enjoying myself.   At least the machine was giving me a run for my money, which is something that you or your co delusionists can never do.    

 

Zeus quote     What is the matter? Unable to beat a ''dum'' machine?

 Keep going, this is fun.    Although I suspect that your machine was starting to get emotional problems? 

 

Zeus quote  Well, that was funny. Remember my reference earlier, where I said that in-before @Bogan accuses this AI of playing this dirty tactic? 

 In a debate, there are two sides to the question under discussion.     Both sides submit reasoned arguments for or against the question, submitting evidence to support their premises.      Both sides then examine the others’ responses and look for flaws in their opponents reasoning.     Both sides then ask their opponent questions to draw out flaws in their opponents reasoning.       I have been on numerous debate sites in the last 20 years and I am now an experienced debater.     I came across this “You Must Explain Everything While I Need Not Explain Anything” school of dirty debating about 10 years ago, so I can instantly spot it when somebody tries it on me.  

  As a matter of fact, you and I had at it a few months ago on this topic, and I warned you beforehand to not try it on me.    I even insisted that you present your argument first, as to why you thought that races were equal.    You refused, (which got my antennae up) on the grounds that since I brought the topic up first, then the onus was upon me to lead off first.     This was a reasonable excuse, so I complied with your  request.     Only to have you (as I suspected) continually refuse to submit your side of the argument.     If anything could convince me that this is a standard dirty debating tactic which you are aware of yourself, that was it.    I should have stopped “debating” with you forthwith, like I did with MayCaeser.     But unlike MayCaeser, you still engaged with me on other topics.     So, I let that pass.    But I red you as a person who could not be trusted to debate honestly, or to keep his word.  

 

Zeus quote  As for thinking for oneself, this comes from a guy who watches a few YouTube videos and then thinks he is an expert.   

 And I can still beat the pants off you, without engaging in dirty debating tactics?    I have been studying this question for much of my life, and one good thing about being on debate sites, is that some opponents have original thoughts and are switched on, and they sometimes come at me from unexpected directions which I am unprepared for.     This has forced me to do more research to close the gap in my knowledge.     So, I just keep getting better and better, which is why you and your co delusionists can only “debate” with me using tactics which they themselves know are dishonest.   

 One thing that I have learned from debate sites.   You can never convince anybody of anything if they just do not want to know.     That races are not equal, is childishly easy to prove to any person with an open mind.      It is interesting therefore, to wonder why a person such as yourself refuses to acknowledge objective reality, to the extent that they deliberately become evasive, obfuscate, and muddy the water?     My opinion on that is, that they either regard their membership of their chosen class (with its insistence on racial equality) as more important than objective truth?     Or, they are World Savers who push an ideology that they know is invalid because they think that the only way to prevent a nuclear war with catastrophic consequences, is for all of humankind to accept their evangelical ideology?    Which one are you?   Or is it both?       

 

Zeus quote  Bogan has not accepted my challenge yet, where he has to convince the AI that he is right.

 Nobody can debate with any entity which only critiques what an opponent says, does not present countervailing arguments itself, and does not answer crucial questions. 

Factfinder

@Bogan

I am prepared to argue out my sides reasoning on it’s merits.  Where have you, MayCaesar, maxx, or Factfinder ever done that? 

Right here. Every debate one has with you, you start repeating yourself and we go in circles. That has been the result of myself or others mentioned; articulating points of view with factual support that backs you in a corner. Then you can't remember who said what and repeat yourself again. People can even agree with you in some ways but you still continue in all out confrontation. 

I never said races are equal as the sentiment is honorable, but reality suggest we are not all equal. What I've said is there is no greater genetic dispensation of an ability to acquire intelligence between ethnicities. That environment and nuanced differences that, (race alone by itself has no influence) over time has effected things more than anything else. 

BTW, what has this to do with biden committing geneocide?

ZeusAres42

@Bogan

This is an example from an excerpt of how it's done:

Here, I am having a debate with GPT on systemic racism and CRT. This here is something else I am highly skeptical of and critical of. It should be noted, however, that there are a lot of differences between the arguments that surround CRT versus the notion that everyone is racially discriminated against due to it being biologically determined. 

Bogan

@Factfinder

Zeus quote   Right here. Every debate one has with you, you start repeating yourself and we go in circles.

Yes, we go around in circles because you will never state why you think that all races are equal.    As a matter of fact, you never answer any of the questions that I set for you.   I only persist with you because I think that you may have a near functioning brain  so you should be able to be swayed by the force of reasoned argument.    As stated previously, I can tell a lot more about my opponent’s motivations from the questions they constantly refuse to answer, than by anything they say.        If they continuously refuse to answer simple and crucial questions, even though I keep repeating them, then I know that they are trying to avoid a truth that they do not want to acknowledge.    What truth are you trying to avoid Zeus?      If I had to guess, I would say that you already know that races are not equal, but you will never admit it.     Why you will never admit it, is what fascinates me. 

 

Zeus quote   That has been the result of myself or others mentioned; articulating points of view with factual support that backs you in a corner. Then you can't remember who said what and repeat yourself again. People can even agree with you in some ways but you still continue in all out confrontation. 

 It will be a cold day in hell before you or your fellow delusionists ever back me into a corner.    Backing people into a corner is my specialty.    But I can never do that with people like you, who never stick their necks out and say anything that they can be accounted for, nor ever answer a crucial question. 

 

Zeus quote       I never said races are equal as the sentiment is honorable, but reality suggest we are not all equal.

It would be helpful if you could just state your position in plain English.       Either races are equal, or they are not equal.   Or, if you wish to qualify your statement, that would be acceptable.    You could qualify it by saying that you agree that some races are better at running. and some at swimming?     And the shade of a person’s skin and eyes make lighter skinned people more adapted to cold environments than hot ones.   And dark skinned, dark eyed races more adapted to hot climates than cold ones.        Then I would know exactly where you stand.   We could then take the next step and examine other differences.    But neither you or maxx, MayCaeser, or Factfinder have ever made a statement which clearly stated your position, regardless of how many times I have tried to wheedle it out of you.  

 

 Zeus quote  What I've said is there is no greater genetic dispensation of an ability to acquire intelligence between ethnicities. That environment and nuanced differences that, (race alone by itself has no influence) over time has effected things more than anything else. 

Wow!    That is a very interesting and ambiguous word salad that you submitted there, Zeus.      My opinion is, that you will not use plain English because that would pin your opinion down, and you could be held accountable for it in future?     Which you would be.     One of my tactics is to cut and paste stand alone statements which my opponents make so that they can never do their usual trick of denying them later.      But I can not do that here because I am not even sure what your ambiguous word salad actually means?        And if I get it wrong, then you will accuse me of misquoting you?      I think that your word salad was carefully crafted to mean almost anything.

 You seem to be saying that all human races over time have the capacity to acquire equal IQ?      That is a reasonable premise, except for one thing.      Whether it takes African blacks, Australian aborigines, or Pacific Islanders, 200? or 500? years to acquire the same bell curves of IQ as the more intelligent races, is irrelevant when discussing why some dysfunctional ethnicities are that way today.   

 

Zeus quote  BTW, what has this to do with biden committing geneocide?

 Nothing.   But if we concentrated on the original topic, this topic would have died by now.     The reason why it is now a "top debate" is because we are discussing something which is worth discussing. 

Bogan

Got another post for me, Zeus?   Oh goody, I love picking logic apart. 

Zeus quote  This is an example from an excerpt of how it's done:

The reason why some ethnicities are always dysfunctional within competitive western societies is easy to understand.     Collectively, their racial bell curves of IQ are much lower than for other races.   In addition, their genetic proneness for violent behaviour (violent behaviour is usually linked to low IQ) is proportionately much higher than for other races.    If you wish to suggest "other variables" that explain away that fact then do so.     Your chatbot seems to think that I should do your thinking for you.   Fat chance.  


Zeus quote       Here, I am having a debate with GPT on systemic racism and CRT. This here is something else I am highly skeptical of and critical of. It should be noted, however, that there are a lot of differences between the arguments that surround CRT versus the notion that everyone is racially discriminated against due to it being biologically determined. 

Could you translate that statement for me in plain English?      Structure your sentence with a subject and a predicate, so I can link the meaning of one end of your statement with the meaning of the other.  

Bogan

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

Zeus quote   Right here. Every debate one has with you, you start repeating yourself and we go in circles.

Yes, we go around in circles because you will never state why you think that all races are equal.    As a matter of fact, you never answer any of the questions that I set for you.   I only persist with you because I think that you may have a near functioning brain  so you should be able to be swayed by the force of reasoned argument.    As stated previously, I can tell a lot more about my opponent’s motivations from the questions they constantly refuse to answer, than by anything they say.        If they continuously refuse to answer simple and crucial questions, even though I keep repeating them, then I know that they are trying to avoid a truth that they do not want to acknowledge.    What truth are you trying to avoid Zeus?      If I had to guess, I would say that you already know that races are not equal, but you will never admit it.     Why you will never admit it, is what fascinates me. 

 

Zeus quote   That has been the result of myself or others mentioned; articulating points of view with factual support that backs you in a corner. Then you can't remember who said what and repeat yourself again. People can even agree with you in some ways but you still continue in all out confrontation. 

 It will be a cold day in hell before you or your fellow delusionists ever back me into a corner.    Backing people into a corner is my specialty.    But I can never do that with people like you, who never stick their necks out and say anything that they can be accounted for, nor ever answer a crucial question. 

 

Zeus quote       I never said races are equal as the sentiment is honorable, but reality suggest we are not all equal.

It would be helpful if you could just state your position in plain English.       Either races are equal, or they are not equal.   Or, if you wish to qualify your statement, that would be acceptable.    You could qualify it by saying that you agree that some races are better at running. and some at swimming?     And the shade of a person’s skin and eyes make lighter skinned people more adapted to cold environments than hot ones.   And dark skinned, dark eyed races more adapted to hot climates than cold ones.        Then I would know exactly where you stand.   We could then take the next step and examine other differences.    But neither you or maxx, MayCaeser, or Factfinder have ever made a statement which clearly stated your position, regardless of how many times I have tried to wheedle it out of you.  

 

 Zeus quote  What I've said is there is no greater genetic dispensation of an ability to acquire intelligence between ethnicities. That environment and nuanced differences that, (race alone by itself has no influence) over time has effected things more than anything else. 

Wow!    That is a very interesting and ambiguous word salad that you submitted there, Zeus.      My opinion is, that you will not use plain English because that would pin your opinion down, and you could be held accountable for it in future?     Which you would be.     One of my tactics is to cut and paste stand alone statements which my opponents make so that they can never do their usual trick of denying them later.      But I can not do that here because I am not even sure what your ambiguous word salad actually means?        And if I get it wrong, then you will accuse me of misquoting you?      I think that your word salad was carefully crafted to mean almost anything.

 You seem to be saying that all human races over time have the capacity to acquire equal IQ?      That is a reasonable premise, except for one thing.      Whether it takes African blacks, Australian aborigines, or Pacific Islanders, 200? or 500? years to acquire the same bell curves of IQ as the more intelligent races, is irrelevant when discussing why some dysfunctional ethnicities are that way today.   

 

Zeus quote  BTW, what has this to do with biden committing geneocide?

 Nothing.   But if we concentrated on the original topic, this topic would have died by now.     The reason why it is now a "top debate" is because we are discussing something which is worth discussing. 

You proved my point.

Bogan

And you proved mine.    You know quite well that I am right, which is why you never stop prevaricating, obfuscating, misdirecting, and muddying the water.    The question that I really would love to ask you, although it is pointless because you never answer any question that I ask you, is why?      Why do you persist in espousing what you know quite well is a lie?

Factfinder

Bogan said:

And you proved mine.    You know quite well that I am right, which is why you never stop prevaricating, obfuscating, misdirecting, and muddying the water.    The question that I really would love to ask you, although it is pointless because you never answer any question that I ask you, is why?      Why do you persist in espousing what you know quite well is a lie?

How so?

What exactly is your claim?

I do not espouse what I know to be a lie. I have read the opinions on this thread, in particular between you and a couple other members and contributed elements of truth now and again. Point being there are many facets that this debate evolved around and I haven't picked a side in anyway. The fact is you have posited some truths but your interpretations of some of those truths I've disagreed with. Don't you understand one can be partially right while at the same time another can be partially right as well?

Anyway I do not muddy the waters, reality can do that all on its own. For instance it's true as you say, we all have some prejudices, but at the same time it's true most in western society try and avoid living by them because they easily lead to false judgments, blanket statements, and wrong conclusions. Obviously no one single statement can be absolutely true about all members of any particular ethnicity. Or is that your claim you accuse me and others of avoiding?

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

Bogan said:

And you proved mine.    You know quite well that I am right, which is why you never stop prevaricating, obfuscating, misdirecting, and muddying the water.    The question that I really would love to ask you, although it is pointless because you never answer any question that I ask you, is why?      Why do you persist in espousing what you know quite well is a lie?

How so?

What exactly is your claim?

I do not espouse what I know to be a lie. I have read the opinions on this thread, in particular between you and a couple other members and contributed elements of truth now and again. Point being there are many facets that this debate evolved around and I haven't picked a side in anyway. The fact is you have posited some truths but your interpretations of some of those truths I've disagreed with. Don't you understand one can be partially right while at the same time another can be partially right as well?

Anyway I do not muddy the waters, reality can do that all on its own. For instance it's true as you say, we all have some prejudices, but at the same time it's true most in western society try and avoid living by them because they easily lead to false judgments, blanket statements, and wrong conclusions. Obviously no one single statement can be absolutely true about all members of any particular ethnicity. Or is that your claim you accuse me and others of avoiding?

Thanks ZeusAres42. That was brilliant @Factfinder.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

Factfinder said:

Bogan said:

And you proved mine.    You know quite well that I am right, which is why you never stop prevaricating, obfuscating, misdirecting, and muddying the water.    The question that I really would love to ask you, although it is pointless because you never answer any question that I ask you, is why?      Why do you persist in espousing what you know quite well is a lie?

How so?

What exactly is your claim?

I do not espouse what I know to be a lie. I have read the opinions on this thread, in particular between you and a couple other members and contributed elements of truth now and again. Point being there are many facets that this debate evolved around and I haven't picked a side in anyway. The fact is you have posited some truths but your interpretations of some of those truths I've disagreed with. Don't you understand one can be partially right while at the same time another can be partially right as well?

Anyway I do not muddy the waters, reality can do that all on its own. For instance it's true as you say, we all have some prejudices, but at the same time it's true most in western society try and avoid living by them because they easily lead to false judgments, blanket statements, and wrong conclusions. Obviously no one single statement can be absolutely true about all members of any particular ethnicity. Or is that your claim you accuse me and others of avoiding?

Thanks ZeusAres42. That was brilliant @Factfinder.

LOL you're welcome kind sir. 

Bogan

@Factfinder

How so?

What exactly is your claim?

I do not espouse what I know to be a lie. I have read the opinions on this thread, in particular between you and a couple other members and contributed elements of truth now and again. Point being there are many facets that this debate evolved around and I haven't picked a side in anyway. The fact is you have posited some truths but your interpretations of some of those truths I've disagreed with. Don't you understand one can be partially right while at the same time another can be partially right as well?

Anyway I do not muddy the waters, reality can do that all on its own. For instance it's true as you say, we all have some prejudices, but at the same time it's true most in western society try and avoid living by them because they easily lead to false judgments, blanket statements, and wrong conclusions. Obviously no one single statement can be absolutely true about all members of any particular ethnicity. Or is that your claim you accuse me and others of avoiding?

 

This is a debate site, not an opinion site.   If you haven’t picked a side, then what are you doing here?      My problem with all of you liberals is how you never come right out and say what it is that you think is right or wrong.     I am on this site to defend my race, my culture, and my people from the monstrous charge that we are somehow responsible for the fact that some always dysfunctional ethnicities are always a crime and welfare problem in our competitive societies.     My premise is, that the reason why these people are always dysfunctional has nothing to do with “white discrimination” at all.     It is because these ethnicities have a bell curve of IQ lower than that of white people, and a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour much greater than for the white race.  

 Now, if you would like to discuss this matter?     Start off by declaring in plain English what it is that you believe?    Which racist premise do you think is the correct racist premise?       Either minority dysfunction is “all the white guy’s fault”?     Or, you agree with me that races are different?     And if you can’t manage to show me exactly where you stand, then far cough.    I can’t be bothered with you.     

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

How so?

What exactly is your claim?

I do not espouse what I know to be a lie. I have read the opinions on this thread, in particular between you and a couple other members and contributed elements of truth now and again. Point being there are many facets that this debate evolved around and I haven't picked a side in anyway. The fact is you have posited some truths but your interpretations of some of those truths I've disagreed with. Don't you understand one can be partially right while at the same time another can be partially right as well?

Anyway I do not muddy the waters, reality can do that all on its own. For instance it's true as you say, we all have some prejudices, but at the same time it's true most in western society try and avoid living by them because they easily lead to false judgments, blanket statements, and wrong conclusions. Obviously no one single statement can be absolutely true about all members of any particular ethnicity. Or is that your claim you accuse me and others of avoiding?

 

This is a debate site, not an opinion site.   If you haven’t picked a side, then what are you doing here?      My problem with all of you liberals is how you never come right out and say what it is that you think is right or wrong.     I am on this site to defend my race, my culture, and my people from the monstrous charge that we are somehow responsible for the fact that some always dysfunctional ethnicities are always a crime and welfare problem in our competitive societies.     My premise is, that the reason why these people are always dysfunctional has nothing to do with “white discrimination” at all.     It is because these ethnicities have a bell curve of IQ lower than that of white people, and a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour much greater than for the white race.  

 Now, if you would like to discuss this matter?     Start off by declaring in plain English what it is that you believe?    Which racist premise do you think is the correct racist premise?       Either minority dysfunction is “all the white guy’s fault”?     Or, you agree with me that races are different?     And if you can’t manage to show me exactly where you stand, then far cough.    I can’t be bothered with you.     

@Bogan

Well, one of the first things you need to do is to stop equivocating liberalism with far-leftism. The second you need to do is stop assuming that everyone who disagrees or finds something questionable that you don't is a far-leftist—content and context matter. 

Factfinder

@Bogan

This is a debate site, not an opinion site.   If you haven’t picked a side, then what are you doing here?      My problem with all of you liberals is how you never come right out and say what it is that you think is right or wrong.     I am on this site to defend my race, my culture, and my people from the monstrous charge that we are somehow responsible for the fact that some always dysfunctional ethnicities are always a crime and welfare problem in our competitive societies.     My premise is, that the reason why these people are always dysfunctional has nothing to do with “white discrimination” at all.     It is because these ethnicities have a bell curve of IQ lower than that of white people, and a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour much greater than for the white race.  

Yet you espouse your opinion constantly. I'm assessing what ever information I can gather, what are you doing? I'm not a liberal. Had you ever read and considered what anyone typed but yourself, you would have known that. The bell curve iq chart is hog wash, it wasn't peer reviewed and Stephen J. Gould evolutionary biologist refutes it...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

 Now, if you would like to discuss this matter?     Start off by declaring in plain English what it is that you believe?    Which racist premise do you think is the correct racist premise?       Either minority dysfunction is “all the white guy’s fault”?     Or, you agree with me that races are different?     And if you can’t manage to show me exactly where you stand, then far cough.    I can’t be bothered with you.   

I disagree with your premise that those are the only options. It all depends on who are the minorities. Whites along with other ethnicities have done their fair share but aren't always responsible. There are situations where even whites are the minority. Races vairy with minor differences but all of humanity carries human dna. What's your point? What is your claim? Spell it out. Or can't you be bothered?  

Bogan

Factfinder quote   Yet you espouse your opinion constantly.

 Got that right.    I am watching my civilisation becoming unrecognisable, like some scene out of Blade Runner.  I see racism against my race increasing as the percentage of non whites increase.   And I prefer to shoot back at the nongs like you who think that it is some sort of fashion statement to always slag off at the civilisation you fashionably despise, yet prefer to live in

 

Factfinder quote  I'm assessing what ever information I can gather, what are you doing? I'm not a liberal.

Then if you wish to debate me on this subject, state what you are?    And what you stand for?     I don’t mind figuring it out for myself, but if you are going to have an issue with me identifying your motivations from what you constantly imply, then spit it and tell me where you stand?        If you are interested in debating this subject, which racist explanation do you support?    Is minority dysfunction the white guys fault ?    Or, is it caused by factors intrinsic to the genetics of the minorities?       How many times have I asked this question of you now?   And how many times have you dodged it? 

 

Factfinder quote        Had you ever read and considered what anyone typed but yourself, you would have known that. The bell curve iq chart is hog wash, it wasn't peer reviewed and Stephen J. Gould evolutionary biologist refutes it...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

 I will not bother to even answer that question until you answer the above questions, I have set for you.    Are you interested in debating this subject?   If so, state your position.   If not, far cough. 

 

Factfinder quote I disagree with your premise that those are the only options.

Another mealy mouthed prevaricating reply that says nothing.       If you were serious, you would have stated what those “other options were”.       You won’t do that because you have no idea what those “other options” could possibly be.     You are simply prevaricating.            

 

Factfinder quote     It all depends on who are the minorities.

 Meaningless prevarication. 

 

 

Factfinder quote  Whites along with other ethnicities have done their fair share but aren't always responsible.

 Which means what, exactly?    More prevarication. 

 

Factfinder quote       There are situations where even whites are the minority. Races vairy with minor differences but all of humanity carries human dna.

 Prevarication.     Humans have DNA?    Wow, I never knew that.     

 

Factfinder quote      What's your point? What is your claim? Spell it out. Or can't you be bothered?  

 I already know what yours is.   Never answer a straight question.     Always write in riddles.      Prevaricate until the cows come home.    My opinion is, you do not want to debate, your intent is to stifle this debate.  I therefore judge you to be a troll, I will add your name to my “Troll list”, and I will not respond to your posts to me again. 

Factfinder

@Bogan

 I therefore judge you to be a troll, I will add your name to my “Troll list”, and I will not respond to your posts to me again. 

So now you reveal your true self. Buried you in the debate so you get mad and pick up your toys and go home. Maybe instead of dismissing what I say cause you disagree or don't understand you should debate instead?

Factfinder

@Bogan

Every black run country on Earth is a bankrupt sheethole living on UN welfare.

The problem with your views Bogan is they just aren't based in facts. That's why when you lose debates you get mad, pick up your toys and run.

 https://www.africanews.com/2023/12/08/here-are-the-richest-countries-in-africa/

Not everyone is a racist Bogan.

MayCaesar

Races are obviously different (they have to be metaphysically: if they were not different, it would make no sense to talk about races at all). I have stated it on countless occasions. I have even explicitly said that I am exclusively interested in Asian women romantically, so to me certain racial differences literally affect elements of treatment of the people by me by 100%.

Anyone who wanted to get my position on this, would have by now. But those who are only here to feel good about themselves by putting others down, and not to understand/learn/debate something, well...

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Races are obviously different (they have to be metaphysically: if they were not different, it would make no sense to talk about races at all). I have stated it on countless occasions. I have even explicitly said that I am exclusively interested in Asian women romantically, so to me certain racial differences literally affect elements of treatment of the people by me by 100%.

Anyone who wanted to get my position on this, would have by now. But those who are only here to feel good about themselves by putting others down, and not to understand/learn/debate something, well...

Science is actually replacing the word 'race' with 'ancestry'. Of course that won't stop racist attitudes anytime soon. The differences we see and react to are so negligible genetically speaking that that two people of European decent may actually be closer genetic matches to Asians than each other. 

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other 
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

Don't blame you for being attracted to Asian women. Along with their alluring qualities they generally age well. Not always as absolutes are hard to come by. LOL I personally don't consider observing differences as 'racist', it's the self righteous judgments based solely on these differences that qualify as racist.

More from the Harvard article...

The popular classifications of race are based chiefly on skin color, with other relevant features including height, eyes, and hair. Though these physical differences may appear, on a superficial level, to be very dramatic, they are determined by only a minute portion of the genome: we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other. The few differences that do exist reflect differences in environments and external factors, not core biology.

Importantly, the evolution of skin color occurred independently, and did not influence other traits such as mental abilities and behavior. In fact, science has yet to find evidence that there are genetic differences in intelligence  between populations. Ultimately, while there certainly are some biological differences between different populations, these differences are few and superficial. The traits that we do share are far more profound

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I am not very well informed on this topic, so I refrain from making strong statements. It seems unlikely to me that, say, Asian people would look so similar to each other - and so different from, say, Hispanic people - without some deep underlying genetic differences. However, what those differences are exactly, how they manifest, to what extent they are biologically hardwired and to what environmental - I simply do not know. I am absolutely open to the idea that people of certain races (or "ancestries": this seems to be a more apt term to me as well) have some intellectual disadvantages over people of other races: I do not have a habit of finding nature offensive, even when I do not like what it has to offer. But if there are such differences, they must be rigorously demonstrated, and a good place to start is to properly define intelligence - which has not been done well by anyone, as far as I know. Whatever IQ tests measure seems only loosely correlated what we understand by "intelligence" colloquially, and the correlation between the mean IQ in the country and its outcomes is fairly weak, albeit measurable. The article you cited supports that as well.

You are right about Asian women aging gracefully. I still remember approaching a Korean girl in New York City thinking her my peer (I was 31 at the time), and she turned out to be 47... A culture promoting healthy diets and emotional peace will do that.

This video is golden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR3iXUamSqg