Total posts: 152
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
@badger
I honestly think thett is one of the best people in the entire world.
Martyr for a lost cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I don’t see any evidence that Hispanic voters want illegal immigration
More specifically the notion is that Hispanic voters might be sympathetic to the interests of the illegal immigrants who are already here. I did look it up, and apparently you are correct on that point. The sympathy just isn't there. Though, it does seem to me that the idea that such sympathy might exist nonetheless guides political decisions. It seems that way to me, anyway, as I can't figure out why the GoP really hasn't done anything about it since Eisenhower.
Created:
Well who knows what they really settled for. I've talked to corporate lawyers before about their settlement strategy. It's usually to keep dragging things out until the other side gets in a financial bind and needs the money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
a democratic administration = your country doesn’t get to have a border. I will be voting Republican for the foreseeable future no matter who is the nominee, and no matter what other policy issues are at stake. [...] This is now a question of sovereignty. Do the American people have the right to say no to over a million people forcing entry into our country each year, or not?
Politicians don't see beyond the next election. Fear of the latino vote keeps that border open. Nobody is going to do anything about it. There was a whimpering yelp from Trump, but he couldn't fix it without funding. It was too little, too late. Don't worry though, you can always renounce your citizenship at an American embassy inside a country that's party to the 1954 UN convention on statelessness and be entitled to residency and a work permit as a stateless person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
convincing young people to have kids, which is something we desperately need
Whaaaaaaaaat? I thought the plan was to correct the overpopulation problem by normalizing abortions and making wealth and income inequality so bad that hardly anybody can have kids and have a good life too. Don't worry, the missing children will simply be replaced by immigrants whose children will hop on the conveyor belt of genetic annihilation that is western society once their conservative values are destroyed with the public school system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Also, there are a great many conservatives (including myself) who have no problem with previous vaccines that have shown safety over a long period of time, but would like to see long-term safety data on a brand new vaccine technology before it is forced into use for the entire global population.
Summarized safety data from VAERS is here:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I have to say I'm pretty enraged at the powers that be for letting something like this happen, especially in an environment with rock bottom interest rates. I'm insulated from this because all of my money is in the stock market and my house
I just hope home prices keep skyrocketing then I'm going to cash out and be a lazy bum until I'm dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Guns were part of it, but the depopulation of the indigenous was largely the consequence of old world diseases. 90%+ of the population decline in the Americas were causes by things like smallpox and measles. It's pretty easy to dominate a population when the overwhelming majority of it is wiped out. Columbus's voyages were a key event in history that led to the formation of United States. In that respect, celebrating Columbus day is celebrating America in a sense. Indigenous people's day represents a counter-celebration that intentionally excludes people. It's not unifying. It's divisive, and it's just one more symptom of all the divisive tribalism that always seems to be happening.
You know, I'm sick of all this crap from people having a chip on their shoulder about what some people did hundreds of years ago. Those people are all dead and nobody alive today did any of it. Grievances aren't legitimately heritable. A lot of progressives got the notion that members of historically marginalized groups possess moral superiority. It's a big lie. There is no original sin for being a white guy, and the whole thing is this twisted, delusional perspective which isn't fair at all. Modern progressivism isn't egalitarian. It puts white people, especially white men, in a position of inferiority, and I categorically reject it on that basis. Go look at the bills that are coming from leftist legislatures. They explicitly discriminate against white people or men, or are designed to do so. They're not even trying to hide it anymore. They just come right out of the closet and say fuck white people. If that's their attitude well they can go fuck themselves. That kindof shit happens all the time (e.g. https://www.governing.com/columns/col-problem-with-preferential-bids.html https://nypost.com/2021/02/25/bidens-covid-relief-bill-is-chock-full-of-anti-white-reverse-racism/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/oregon-cares-fund-lawsuit.html ) Giving preference to bids based on gender or race. Giving loans and other relief to businesses based on race and sex. Giving money out only to businesses owned by black people. Please, that's not egalitarian.
Why I should be on board with a party that advocates discriminating against people like me because of race or sex? Last I checked nearly every Democratic house representative, every Democratic senator, and Kamala Harris all voted for the legislation (tie-breaking vote) and President Biden signed it. There are words for these sort of things. It's called racism, sexism, and prejudice. That's what the Democratic party is doing these days, and if you can't see it then God help you because I sure can't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The legacy of colonialism has been pretty good for 1st worlders. Being one of them, I have little to complain about and much to celebrate. Columbus day it is. As to the indigenous in the United States, they have all the same rights as regular Americans and usually even more so due to their status within their tribes. Indian reservations are shitholes that people who are good enough leave for a better life elsewhere in the United States. Those left behind are generally those who weren't good enough to make it on their own. This is brain drain. The same thing happens with Puerto Rico and the rust belt.
Created:
Posted in:
They're pretty annoying. It takes me 5+ minutes just to login by cycling servers until I happen to find one that's not blacklisted. What's the point? I'm not giving anybody my IP here. That's a deal breaker. It's not like it's Netflix where content licensing agreements are in play. Use captchas instead of blacklists if bots are a concern.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Perhaps it's time to go to Switzerland, renounce my American citizenship, and apply for a residency permit under the 1954 UN convention on statelessness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Probably plenty of blame to go around. I don't see how being in either party has any impact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I forgot to show the posts - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3024/post-links/294957
I mean if you look at what he wrote, there doesn't seem to be a lot of passion in it. It comes across as hate-speech, but not really invective. I guess you could call it stoner racism, or something. Also, as another user pointed out, Wylted makes a lot of posts. The standard under the CoC also states that these things have to be "systemic", which I think is fairly interpreted as meaning that the body of his content is polluted with vulgarities and invective to the point where that's the norm from him. If someone is making 50 posts a day, and 4 posts per day have hate-speech, (4/50 = 8% hate speech; not systemic) this is not the same as someone who makes 6 posts per day with 4 of those being hate speech. (4/6 = 67% hate speech; systemic)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I think it’s very easy to argue a variety of issues in that CoC clause covering invective, hate speech, etc; and I have no doubt that Wylted was repeatedly warned for it; and the repeated systematic ignoring of all those warnings is probably more closely related to his ban than any individual thing he’s said
The clause from the CoC does not prohibit hate speech per se. It reads in full:
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
So, it's more like the "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives" is what's prohibited rather than hate speech. The way it was drafted suggests to me a lack of understanding of what is fairly encompassed by the meanings of the words. Invective is an uncountable noun like milk or fish. Yet, it's written here with an S on the end of it. The word as a more precise meaning then what you're going to see as the first entry in the dictionary. For example, see here:
insulting or abusive language : vituperation
If you don't know what the word means and the extent of your inquiry is simply "insulting or abusive language", then you would probably conclude that the posts amounted to invective. If you study the word further and have a more complete understanding of it's meaning. For example, within that same dictionary you're going to find that the referenced entry for vituperation is "sustained and bitter railing and condemnation". On the same page as the entry for invective you will see:
Did you know?
Adjective
Invective originated in the 15th century as an adjective meaning "of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse." In the early 16th century, it appeared in print as a noun meaning "an example of abusive speech." Eventually, the noun developed a second sense applying to abusive language as a whole. Invective comes to us from the Middle French word invectif, which in turn derives from Latin invectivus, meaning "reproachful, abusive." (Invectivus comes from Latin invectus, past participle of the verb invehere, one form of which means "to assail with words.") Invective is similar to abuse, but it tends to suggest not only anger and vehemence but verbal and rhetorical skill. It sometimes implies public denunciation, as in "blistering political invective."
Anger, vehemence, bitterness etc. are fairly implied. This isn't isolated to this dictionary. For example, see:
Invective is rude and unpleasant things that people shout at people they hate or are angry with.
The use within sample sentences also shows this:
Examples of invective in a SentenceNoun a barrage of racist invectivehurled curses and invective at the driver who heedlessly cut them off in traffic
The word root is "from Latin invectus, past participle of invehī, to inveigh against" https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=invective
If you look at the entry for "inveigh" you're going to see "To give vent to angry disapproval; protest vehemently." https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=inveigh
This is what I mean when I say that I do not think the posts rose to the level of reasonably being considered "invective".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
the issue is not specifically one of disallowing speech
The code of conduct requires "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives" to objectively justify the bans, which is a pretty high bar. It's doubtful that what happened rose to that level. I don't think it did. This is the issue that seems problematic to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thanks. I've been pondering lately is the "why" regarding the generally accepted racial divisions. I was definitely looking toward human vision and tribalist tendencies; This video helps provide some insight by relating the range of variation of the facial features to what was typical for a human to see among his tribe within the formative period of human evolution. There is probably more to it than that, and I'd be interested in a complete answer to the question as the question of why society constructed race as it did is curious. I think the divisions are likely from a white american perspective. (All east asians viewed as one "race" despite distinct ethnic identities)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think you misunderstood. I don't believe in informal social hierarchies. That something is "superior" or "inferior" is meaningful to me only in relation to an objective end. A hammer is superior to a wrench when the job is to drive a nail through wood. I meant "superior" not in an intrinsic way, but merely in relation to the accumulation of wealth and influence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
That american jews have, on average, substantially greater socioeconomic status than the american gentiles is fairly well known. It may be due to a superior culture, superior intelligence, and/or in-group favoritism. Resentment in response to the greater wealth and influence of jews is common. Perhaps the situation's a good way for american whites to understand how historically marginalized groups may feel toward white people in general. The more generalized problem, I think, is the lack of a unifying national identity. The disharmony between the legal identity and the ethnic ones is a destructive weakness which can be resolved by either fixing the identities around the nation (i.e. adoption of a unifying ethnic identity and culture, "melting pot"), or by the fixing the nation around the identities (i.e. ethnic separatism, either wholly or through some new form of federalism). The former is objectively more desirable.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are Nigerian-Americans less prone to crime and more successful and wealthier than white skinned Americans?
Probably because the ones that got here were vetted by immigration policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There does seem to be some genuine anxiety regarding this counter-point
Hypothesis: Site owner wants to sell ads and advertisers don't want to associate their products with anything that might be a dog whistle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
If you hate the jews you can turn that in to something positive with a career with the IRS or a state tax collection agency. The jews got the money so they get audited a lot more often. The IRS and state tax agencies are going after them all the time.
The tax dispute remains the subject of ongoing proceedings [...] the auditor declared that she was going to “get that Jew bastard.” [...] sought out respondent’s Nevada home, peering through his window and examining his mail and trash. JA267. After she had closed the audit, she boasted about having “convicted” respondent and returned to his Nevada home to take trophy-like pictures. [...] pressed for harsh action against respondent, including rarely issued fraud penalties. JA263. To bolster this effort, she enlisted respondent’s ex-wife and estranged members of respondent’s family. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-1175_resp.authcheckdam.pdf
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
POE'S LAW
I interpreted the post as a sardonic jibe directed at a perceived double standard in western culture with respect to black people. That a double standard exists is pretty obvious with simple thought experiments, and it has begun to be institutionalized lately. https://nypost.com/2021/08/11/bidens-infrastructure-bill-is-chock-full-of-anti-white-racism/ The double standard seems to be that ethnic groups which have been historically marginalized are entitled to superior treatment than those groups which have not been. (i.e. some ethnic groups are indebted to others on account of history) In that way, the double standard is symptomatic of an inferiority complex among whites, commonly referred to as white guilt. It's too bad that suckers fall for all the guilt tripping. In Vermont I heard people are just giving money to black people as reparations for the slavery, largely because they're idiots. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/05/993976420/diy-reparations They'll get evolved out, eventually, because they are weak. Natural selection will do its job. I think Eastwood was right when he called these people the pussy generation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
critics of Race Realism frame the idea as inherently attacking the dignity of people based on race
I'm a critic of the idea but I don't view it that way. Race realism, and its liberal counterpart critical race theory, are both part of the political blame game going on between the racial identities. Who is to blame for the observed racial disparities? Pick white people and call it systemic racism. Pick black people and call it race realism or, as people seem to say, it's about taking responsibility. A superior position is that collective racial responsibility is a farce. Nobody is responsible for the conduct of another simply because he is the same race. When people accept that viscerally, not just intellectually, then there can be healing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I have a few employees who refuse to get vaccinated. One of them actually came to me because he got fired from his other job for refusing the vaccine. It seems to be about mistrust and such, along with strange ideas about medicine. Lots of belief in quackery and holistic things. At least that's what I'm seeing.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
I take it that you agree now that Ad Hominem is always logically fallacious.
Not really clear what you mean by "logically" fallacious. Ad hom can be relevant when there's a relationship between the conclusion of an argument and the person (or entity, I guess) in question.
I think by now pretty much everyone is reasonably aware of scientific racism arguments, which is pretty much what's being advanced in the blog. I don't see anything new there. They do seem to organize it rather well, though there are clear missing logical steps here and there where the advanced conclusion simply defaults to racist one. For example, in their article showing that genes coding for some brain development have higher interracial variance than other genes, this is regarded as a clear mechanism for interracial IQ variance. Yet, no evidence is presented that those genes have any actual impact on IQ. Also, in the existence of race article, a definition for race is advanced which is presented as self-evident because that's "obviously" what it is. I'm afraid it's not so obvious, and if we use that advanced definition the categories for race don't line up with Ryan and Sean's categories at all because a lot more groups of people (e.g. Okinawan, Nordic) would satisfy the definition.
Questions of causes of trends within identified groups are difficult to answer. For me, confidence in conclusions happens solemnly and reluctantly, like when you're faced with irrefutable evidence that someone you liked and trusted has betrayed you. The bloggers appear passionate and biased about this topic. It comes across as tribalist advocacy rather than something academic.
We don't need to suppose and they're not theories. They are data-driven arguments that lead to conclusions.
If you don't agree with any argument in particular, specify it.
OK. Lets talk about the existence of race argument. Since I'm already reasonably familiar with it, it's not that much work for me to talk about it. Without making any counter-case, I will speak strictly as to why the argument isn't persuasive.
First, none of the links to the studies on questionnaires work. They are all broken links. For that reason, all that evidence can be disregarded.
Second, the argument is heavily based on genetics. Yet, concepts of race have existed long before genetics ever did. If we're going to try to understand what race is, then we should be looking at when and how the notion originated and how the idea has been carried forward, at least from a linguistic standpoint. So, focusing on genetics as a starting point seems a bit misplaced.
Further, the genetic evidence being presented doesn't justify the purported races advanced on the site. Populations that have been geographically separated for long periods of time are genetically distinguishable through testing, just as black, white and asian are. So, this test he is presenting - It can also be done for groups that aren't considered races. Ancestry tests (e.g. "23 and me") have become big business these days.
Good luck getting anyone to agree with that.
I was making a subtle point in a humorous way. Ofc nobody is going to agree to that. It would be too great a sacrifice for the benefit of their race, or country or whatever. Sure, my people would be better off (probably) if everyone agreed to some optimal polygamous mating system. But I'm not going to do that because I'm going to put my interests ahead of my people's. Ah, selfishness when the interests of your people and your own conflict. Perhaps I want you to see that when you are doing what is best for your people, it can be a "cuck move", as you say. The only people when it's really not are close family, I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
In Liberia you can't be a citizen unless you're black.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Your reasoning has consistently been a mere rationalization of whatever it is you happen to be feeling at the time. Most of the people who push these sorts of things seek to foment racial divisions, probably trying to push for racial separatism or something like that. I don't think racial separatism is necessarily a bad thing per se, I mean if that's what people really want and that's what makes them happy, but it'd be pretty expensive. It's a lot cheaper to just get over whatever it is that's bothering them about other groups.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
The arguments Ryan and Sean make are data-driven. If the data is wrong/misinterpreted/incorrect, that should be the discussion's focus. If the conclusions Ryan and Sean make from the data is wrong, then that should be the discussion's focus. This is not an insurmountable hurdle wherein we must determine the nature of the author. You can get the sources, read to see if what the source say supports what Ryan Faulk or Sean Last is arguing, and that is all you need. That is all that matters.Stop making these logically fallacious Ad Hominem arguments -- they are never valid.
Supposing all his theories were correct, then the cheapest way to go about fixing it would probably be to start mandatory vasectomies for men with low IQs or who are otherwise genetically deficient. Tube ties are too expensive. Problem would fix itself in a generation or two, and people can use the sperm banks. Those among us who are genetically inferior will just have to be cucked for the greater good.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The recent meta-analyses of the random control trials which exclude the falsified Egyptian study suggest that Ivermectin is not effective for treating COVID-19. The notion that it was potentially effective had to do with how the COVID-19 virus responded to it in a petri dish or something. This is quite different than having Ivermectin in the blood, and to get the same amount of Ivermectin in contact with that virus the doses would have to be very high. This might be the thinking some people have when taking very large doses of the drug and then ending up calling poison control centers. There is some R&D in to Ivermectin, trying to get it in some vaporized form to be inhaled so that the respiratory tract can have high levels of the drug where it would be in direct contact with the COVID-19 virus like it was in the original petri dish study. This would avoid the necessity of ingesting dangerously large quantities. However, this method requires new technologies and testing which haven't been developed yet. So, it will probably be some time before we know for sure about it. Hopefully the developing technique produces a good treatment.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
However, this is not the same as being logically fallacious, as is the function implied in an 'Ad Hominem' claim. By using Wikipedia's definition, you're essentially arguing that because their conflict of interest *might* have caused the research to be biased, it *has* to be biased. This leap in logic is why Wikipedia's interpretation of logic is wrong.Moreover, if the bias were to effect the results of the study, that should be evident in the results, and that's where your criticisms should be directed. In other words, the validity of the study exists *independent* of the author's character. More likely to be biased =/= biased.Therefore, it is logically fallacious to attack the character of the people making the arguments, rather than the arguments"
Probability is exactly what it's about. If a witness is testifying in court who is obviously intoxicated, a known liar and has an obvious reason to lie, we can use those facts - which are entirely ad hominem - to evaluate the probability that the witness's testimony is reliable. When a lawyer is in court advocating for his client, it's obvious that his arguments are very likely going to favor his client's interests because that's his job.
There's so much information in the world we have to use a heuristic filter, and the simplest one is trust. As a threshold matter, a source should have some appearance of credibility. I did look at the blog site and was trying to find out who the sources were, which was Ryan Faulk and Sean something or rather. I don't know much about them, but what they did say on their about page didn't do much for their credibility. In fact it tried to avoid the credibility issue much the same way you have, by encouraging people to evaluate the arguments themselves and to not trust anybody, or something like that. The problem is it takes too long to do that. We have to rely on heuristics. It's somewhat ironic, come to think of it, as racial prejudice follows similar reasoning. But it is what it is.
Ah.So you were perfectly fine with expecting me to respond to the 10,000 word hitpiece on Ryan Faulk and the Alt Hype website.But we shouldn't expect you to respond to a dozen articles totaling about the same amount of work.How charitable of you.
I didn't expect you to respond to it entirely. That portion of my post was directed to everybody, not you specifically.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.When evaluating the credibility of a witness / source, ad hominem is relevant and isn't fallacious.You are logically incorrect.Ad Hominem is always a logical fallacy.We should be addressing the arguments involved, instead of assessing the author making them. Furthermore, the thread is about the arguments involved, not the nature of the author.You are just being a massive idiot like all the other shitlibs here.
That's not true. Read the wiki please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
For you:I posted mine first. You respond to everything first, then I'll respond to everything here.Now let's watch you not do that.
It's too much work.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.
When evaluating the credibility of a witness / source, ad hominem is relevant and isn't fallacious.
For everybody:
Created:
-->
@Barney
the current mod team is showing a ton of leniency towards past offenses
Sounds like an offer he can't refuse. Perhaps he'll get the message.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i dont actually support this, because of freedom and all. but i dont know what would happen if this law was implemented? id think the cost of a house would plummet and it'd be affordable to own a house for almost everyone who works full time. what do you think would happen?
There would be a large inventory of housing sold as quickly as necessary for people to comply. This would probably wipe out a lot of middle class wealth. There wouldn't be enough qualified buyers for those mortgages. That's why people rent generally. You'd probably start to see a lot of seller financing. The landlords wouldn't be responsible for maintenance anymore as they'd be mortgage holders. So, there'd probably be a lot of properties becoming dilapidated as renters-turned-owners neglect the houses because they can't afford things like HVAC systems and roofs.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
@Barney
@949havoc
What the hell has this MEEP to do with Death23?
The only thing I can think of is this:
What happened was characterized as a threat of violence:
When two people are activity having a dispute, and one out of nowhere says to the other something to the effect of: What a pretty little house you have (description of house), and that domestic partner (listed by name), and your kid (name of kid plus where to find them... yes, Death23 literally went there), it'd be a real shame if something should happen...Much like a bad mobster stereotype doing a protection racket, the poorly veiled threat is still obviously a threat.
Under the CoC threats of violence result in a permaban and this was why there was a permaban https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3024/post-links/252783
Under this MEEP // SPES threats of violence result in a 30 day ban rather than a permaban:
- If a user threatens violence against any person or persons (barring hyperbole against public figures), moderation will
- FIRST, issue a 30 day ban and impose a restraining order between the two users.
If it's a threat to dox it results in a permaban under SPES:
- If a user intentionally exposes or threatens to expose the sensitive information of another user (i.e. real name, address, social security, and all other private or identifying information) without express permission from the exposed party, moderation shall
- FIRST and FINALLY, issue a permanent ban.
So, the question would then be if the SPES is adopted would it apply retroactively or prospectively? Assuming it was applied retroactively, the question would then be if the incident was a threat to dox, a threat of violence, or both? There may also be the question of what to do if there was no way to know one way or the other.
I would consider threats of violence more severe than threats to dox, but this is what's written.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
No, not to teach doxxing. Like, purportedly to say "your identity is exposed i can show you why". He had a beef with the user its not surprising how it came across.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Don't forget appeal to intellectual snobbery.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
If anyone has insight i to what happened with death23, please let me know.
From what I heard he looked someone up then PM'd that person and ostensibly attempted to trade the knowledge of how he found out. Names and other things were ostensibly given as proof that he had the goods. The mods interpreted this as "I know where you live, so don't fuck with me". The real truth is probably not knowable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'll help you on your sherlock adventure as we pin this moriarty as the permabanned racist they are.
Your support and passion, appreciated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Perhaps, but the phrase "continuum fallacy" does not appear in that article. Further investigation is appropriate.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
This is possible. Yet, that both accounts would call it the "continuum fallacy" and then respond with the same study strikes me as an extraordinary coincidence. I will continue to investigate as I like to play detective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
For you, friend. I believe you are correct.
Post from "Mesmer" account:
What you've decided to argue is the old, dumb and wrong continuum fallacy argument [...] Bamshad then looked at K=4 and got results that further sorted humans into racially distinct groups with even more accuracy Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) [links to same study]
Compare to post from "MgtowDemon" account:
This is incorrect. What you have committed is the continuum fallacy in that you've [...] This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Striking similarity.
Post from "Mesmer" account:
What you've decided to argue is the old, dumb and wrong continuum fallacy argument [...] Bamshad then looked at K=4 and got results that further sorted humans into racially distinct groups with even more accuracy Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) [links to same study]
Compare post to "MgtowDemon" account:
This is incorrect. What you have committed is the continuum fallacy in that you've [...] This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Are you MgtowDemon? ( https://www.debateart.com/profiles/MgtowDemon )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
he admitted that he is basically allowing Mgtowdemon to create an alt [...] Mesmer makes a username to escape his/her past
I did look at the moderation log and forum history and the thought crossed my mind awhile back. I didn't see anything definitive though because there are a lot of people like that in the world. Are you able to share the content from the PM's?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I hate 25% percent of the users on this site.
This doesn't strike me as a good thing.
Created:
-->
@Barney
I disagree with the assessment that after years of said behavior from him, I'm thin skinned and vindictive for being concise toward him and his ramblings.
A lot of what you've said about him is probably true as far as I can tell. He seems like a rooster in a cockfight. He thinks you're the other rooster and just can't help it. He experiences anger, aggravation, rage and those sorts of things which aren't pleasant. It's not a good place to be for him and it's not like you have to defend your reputation against his allegations as I doubt anybody is taking them seriously. (I'm not)
Anyway, my underlying concern had more to do with appearances than what really happened. When a moderator appears intemperate, even if it's only upon a cursory examination, it begets a concern that intemperance may pollute his moderating decisions. A potential consequence is erosion of community confidence.
Created:
-->
@Barney
You are angry now because you know I'm rightYou are just a poor functionally illiterate soul trapped in a world of your imagination... You're not worth my anger, but you have my pity.
OK so he says whatever and then you imply that he is delusional, stupid, worthless and pitiable. Were you just having a bad or are you really that thin skinned and vindictive?
Created: