Race Realism: Critical understandings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 320
Topic's author
#151
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Your new points don't get responded to until you address all the previous points of mine you've dropped: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .

Dart needs to stop rewarding dodgy posters who pivot and ignore points made by other posters.
#152
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
You're not entitled to anything.
Topic's author
#153
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
I never said I was entitled to you behaving like a reasonable person. I told you the basic standard you needed to meet before I'd respond to your new points.

You failed to meet that basic standard, therefore I won't address your new points.

That's how this is going to go.
#154
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
Again, you're the one who decided to drop all my points. You're the one who shut it down by refusing to respond to all my points here: [link to post 89]
Nonsense. Up until post 74 our entire conversation was about policy, you suddenly shifted the conversation to politics so in post 75 I explained to you that politics and policy are not the same thing and tried to steer the conversation back to what we had been talking about all along.

You keep linking to post 89 as if it shows that you did respond to my points. You didn’t, you talked about nothing but politics. Show me one sentence from post 89 that addresses anything from a policy standpoint. I’ll wait.

What you acted as if you were addressing was my point about standards, but you clearly don’t understand what standards are or why they matter. Telling me they’re unrealistic as if that is a criticism demonstrates that.

Once again, standards are not supposed to be realistic. That’s not the point.

So here, for the third time is the point I made which you have been running away from ever since:

So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government *should* be in the first place.
Show me where in any of our previous conversations you addressed this. Show me where you explained what you think government is and how it’s supposed to work. If you can’t do that, then explain how on earth we have a conversation about what policies the government should enact if we don’t first discuss what government is supposed to be in the first place.

Or, you can also argue that government should be nothing more than a vessel for ambitious individuals to ascend to power. I suppose that’s another position you can take that squares with everything you have said.
Topic's author
#155
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
In the amount of time you've spent being irrationally stubborn about not responding to this post Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com), you could have responded to this post, shown that it doesn't do whatever you're arguing (if that's the case), and we could have long since moved on.

Instead, you've continued to waste everyone's time by not responding to it.

Lol.
#156
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
There’s nothing irrational about not allowing someone to change the subject because they know they cannot support their own position.

Next time, just say that instead of pretending your post had anything to do with what we were previously talking about so you can act like you’re not the one who ran away from the conversation.
Topic's author
#157
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
#158
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mesmer
Genetically there isn't much difference, mostly hormonial, further - that doesn't matter cuz' it falls in the same boat as the rest of your bullshit, bullshit. You've repeated yourself, like, the exact argument - saying that you've shown it like night and day - without actually responding. Your still being a moron.
#159
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
Respond or leave: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) [post 89]
“You keep linking to post 89 as if it shows that you did respond to my points. You didn’t, you talked about nothing but politics. Show me one sentence from post 89 that addresses anything from a policy standpoint. I’ll wait.

What you acted as if you were addressing was my point about standards, but you clearly don’t understand what standards are or why they matter. Telling me they’re unrealistic as if that is a criticism demonstrates that.

Once again, standards are not supposed to be realistic. That’s not the point.

So here, for the third time is the point I made which you have been running away from ever since:

So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government *should* be in the first place.”
That last quote came from post 87.

87 comes before 89.

Respond to my point and I’ll respond to yours.
Topic's author
#160
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Topic's author
#161
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
Genetically there isn't much difference, mostly hormonial, further - that doesn't matter cuz' it falls in the same boat as the rest of your bullshit, bullshit. You've repeated yourself, like, the exact argument - saying that you've shown it like night and day - without actually responding. Your still being a moron.
You made the argument 'more difference within than between' proves human races invalid. I showed you analogies that demonstrate how ridiculous that logic is (makes grouping chimpanzees and humans separately invalid, and grouping men and women separately invalid). You've previously responded by saying 'we're talking about humans'. At that point, you've already dropped the argument. In fact, you still haven't addressed it, even with this post.

I honestly don't care if you can't address the analogies that show your 'more variation within than between' logic to be horrendous. You floundering around with those simple analogies is doing wonders for putting race realism in a positive light, so thank you :)
#162
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
87 comes before 89…

So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government *should* be in the first place.

#163
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
What's your policy proposal ?
Topic's author
#164
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
#165
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Double_R
He acts like it's "his" thread. It isn't, and the implication's pretentious. It's the site owner's site. He's not pursuing truth. He's pushing falsehoods with sophistries. Yet, he actually thinks they're true. It's some species of misguided faith, and it's hopeless. Consider doing yourself a favor and throw him away.
Topic's author
#166
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
He acts like it's "his" thread.
No lol.

I'm done with people making arguments, me responding to them, and then the other person ignoring what I wrote. It's tedious and unproductive having to look back to what I previously wrote and point out that the other person didn't respond to my counterargument, only to have the other person get upset and say 'it's not your thread wah wah wah. I'll do what I want!'

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in having conversations wherein you talk past what I responded with, or try to hide the fact that you're objectively wrong about something. I can't force you to respond to what I write, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that you haven't responded to what I wrote.

It's no surprise that you've decided to cry about this. You're one of the posters who does this, albeit it took you way longer to start behaving like this compared to the average user on here.

That's how this is going to go down. If you don't like it then shove off.
#167
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@dfss9788
What I find most amusing is that after all that complaining about how people wouldn’t engage in the actual topic, I was giving him the exact conversation he pretended to want - the role that objective empirical differences in races should play in government policy. But when asked what he believes government should be in the first place, he changes the subject to politics and pretends I’m the one who won’t engage in the conversation.
Topic's author
#168
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
They should redo Mean Girls the movie except replace the female cast with more capable adult men like the two above.
#169
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
and then the other person ignoring what I wrote.
In other words, "not being instantly convinced".
Topic's author
#170
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
and then the other person ignoring what I wrote.
In other words, "not being instantly convinced".
Nope.

They both stopped responding to what I wrote. Not that it's worth doing, but you can look back at who stopped responding to the other person first.
#171
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
Topic's author
#172
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
That's a silly rule because most debaters aren't going to award their opponent's any points. Even if they agree with you, they're just going to ignore your line of argument -- no use in wasting characters/time to give the opposition points.

Topic's author
#173
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
For anyone actually reading the Double R or dfss discussions, I'll post my last comments wherein they were somewhat still responding to what I wrote, because the conversations were worthwhile up until these points:


#174
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
That's a silly rule because most debaters aren't going to award their opponent's any points. Even if they agree with you, they're just going to ignore your line of argument -- no use in wasting characters/time to give the opposition points.
By the same token, your method of "declaring YOURSELF victorious" is equally silly for the exact same reason.

You might as well be giving yourself a trophy that you made yourself.

(IFF) you don't believe there is any chance of convincing your opponents (THEN) why the hell are you talking at us ?

While it seems "rare", it is not unheard of for an interlocutor to acknowledge a "good point".
#175
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
- the role that objective empirical differences in races should play in government policy.
That would seem to be the rather obvious "point".
#176
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Arius was a Cyrenaic presbyter, ascetic, and priest best known for the doctrine of Arianism. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized God the Father's uniqueness and Christ's subordination under the Father, and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology [**]
#177
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mesmer
No... I responded more specifically by saying "we can isolate the comparisons to HUMAN differences and similarities, which we as humans are more than capable of" you're literally ignoring the biggest point I made, AGAIN.

Because you don't actually care about the truth, your just a racist bullshitter who gets off on being racist, and whenever people actually rebuke your arguments you freak out and ignore the actual argument, repeating the same tired claim over and over.
Topic's author
#178
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
By the same token, your method of "declaring YOURSELF victorious" is equally silly for the exact same reason.

You might as well be giving yourself a trophy that you made yourself.

(IFF) you don't believe there is any chance of convincing your opponents (THEN) why the hell are you talking at us ?

While it seems "rare", it is not unheard of for an interlocutor to acknowledge a "good point".
The primary function of debate is for someone to win. If you're looking for the truth of the matter, you're much better off taking the 10s of hours required to dig into the weeds and capture all the nuance. But most people aren't interested in doing that for various reason (time constraints, apathy etc.). You're not going to convince your opponent mid-debate because they're trying to win and it takes a lot of time for people to change their believes (because it's often thoroughly tied to their identity).

The reason I talk to other people is to see if I'm right and potentially learn from other people. Even if I don't convince you, I get to make my arguments better and see if you have anything that will convince me. This forum is not a debate, btw.
Topic's author
#179
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
No... I responded more specifically by saying "we can isolate the comparisons to HUMAN differences and similarities, which we as humans are more than capable of" you're literally ignoring the biggest point I made, AGAIN.
Yes. If we look only at humans, we can see that there is 'more variation within than between', and what you then do is argue that human races are a myth/unsubstantiated/too blurred to be real, based on that logic.

What I have done is shown you that when we apply the 'more variation within than between' logic to chimpanzees-humans and men-women, we see that these groups are subject to this logic. Hence, if you were being consistent with your logic, you would deny grouping distinctions between humans AND grouping distinctions between chimpanzees and humans AND grouping distinctions between men and women.

Because you don't actually care about the truth, your just a racist bullshitter who gets off on being racist, and whenever people actually rebuke your arguments you freak out and ignore the actual argument, repeating the same tired claim over and over.
Relax.


#180
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
The primary function of debate is for someone to win.
Why not just skip to the inevitable conclusion and declare yourself the winner from the start ?