I would never argue that there aren't any biological differences between different ethnicities. Clearly there are many differences, physical features like skin/eye/hair color, height, and so on being the most obvious examples. There are also many differences that you can't directly see, like sickle-cell disease, different enzymatic makeups, bloodtypes.. the list goes on.
It's only logical that there would be psychological differences as well, but unlike sickle-cell-disease they would also be heavily influenced by someones environment.
If you grow up in a dysfunctional country, of course you have a higher probability of turning out dysfunctional yourself, that is not really surprising.

In the same vein, if you know anything about counfounding, you also know that this chart is completely useless for making points about biology. If you REALLY want to know about the psychological impact of genes, you'll have to do crazy longitudinal studies, you have to have big control groups, you have to try to eliminate any counfounding factors you can think of... and even then you probably can't be sure that your results are valid. Cultural psychology, behavioral neuroscience, biopsych... combine them all and you have one of the most difficult matchups in all of the empirical sciences.


But it gets better. On top of the confounding, intrapopulation variation is way greater than interpopulation variation, so whenever you see someone quoting genetic studies to discriminate against an entire population you know that they've understood nothing, right off the bat.

Pointing to that rape-chart to make a point about biology is about the safest and fastest way to brand yourself as a complete idiot to anyone with even just a little bit of scientific literacy.

And lastly, on the individual level, none of that has to have anything to do with cultural identity.


Spencer is a buffoon, and I can only laugh when he tries to cite scientific studies to make a point. The guy probably doesn't even know basic statistics. Intellectual underpinning my ass. The guy bastardizes science, all he's doing is exploiting it as an apparent source of authority. Disgusting.

B1rd wrote:

Talking about Rome though, Rome has always had a very strong conception of the "barbarian". Is it a coincidence that the downfall of Rome coincides large group of barbarians being integrated within Roman society and the downfall of the identity of being a Roman? You can draw many parallels between Imperial Rome and the EU. As it is said, "tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society".

LOL

here. have a response video to this exact argument




P.S. your linked study is BS. It tries to establish a causal link between a certain allele's prominence in collectivised societies and depression rates of those countries. to be honest, you could extrapolate that it advocates for collectivisation as something that makes a society happier overall, and somehow I doubt you'd want to put that message forward lol

Railey2 wrote:

I would never argue that there aren't any biological differences between different ethnicities. Clearly there are many differences, physical features like skin/eye/hair color, height, and so on being the most obvious examples. There are also many differences that you can't directly see, like sickle-cell disease, different enzymatic makeups, bloodtypes.. the list goes on.
It's only logical that there would be psychological differences as well, but unlike sickle-cell-disease they would also be heavily influenced by someones environment.
If you grow up in a dysfunctional country, of course you have a higher probability of turning out dysfunctional yourself, that is not really surprising.

In the same vein, if you know anything about counfounding, you also know that this chart is completely useless for making points about biology. If you REALLY want to know about the psychological impact of genes, you'll have to do crazy longitudinal studies, you have to have big control groups, you have to try to eliminate any counfounding factors you can think of... and even then you probably can't be sure that your results are valid. Cultural psychology, behavioral neuroscience, biopsych... combine them all and you have one of the most difficult matchups in all of the empirical sciences.


But it gets better. On top of the confounding, intrapopulation variation is way greater than interpopulation variation, so whenever you see someone quoting genetic studies to discriminate against an entire population you know that they've understood nothing, right off the bat.

Pointing to that rape-chart to make a point about biology is about the safest and fastest way to brand yourself as a complete idiot to anyone with even just a little bit of scientific literacy.

And lastly, on the individual level, none of that has to have anything to do with cultural identity.


Spencer is a buffoon, and I can only laugh when he tries to cite scientific studies to make a point. The guy probably doesn't even know basic statistics. Intellectual underpinning my ass. The guy bastardizes science, all he's doing is exploiting it as an apparent source of authority. Disgusting.

You an abraker are perfect for each other, you can't read and he can't write. That's the second time in a row you've misread my posts.

On that note, I could call you a buffoon, but that wouldn't be productive now, would it?


By the way, Zimbwe was objectively better off under every relevant measurement under apartheid. Isn't all that matters, Mr. "we should dispense with common moral conceptions in favour of what's best for society"?

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Talking about Rome though, Rome has always had a very strong conception of the "barbarian". Is it a coincidence that the downfall of Rome coincides large group of barbarians being integrated within Roman society and the downfall of the identity of being a Roman? You can draw many parallels between Imperial Rome and the EU. As it is said, "tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society".

LOL

here. have a response video to this exact argument

P.S. your linked study is BS. It tries to establish a causal link between a certain allele's prominence in collectivised societies and depression rates of those countries. to be honest, you could extrapolate that it advocates for collectivisation as something that makes a society happier overall, and somehow I doubt you'd want to put that message forward lol

Okay so what I got from your video was a few points

-the Roman empire failed to integrate migrants into its empire
-the Roman empire was too big of a bureaucracy to be able to satisfy all its constituents

Seems highly-relevant to the EU. Also if you didn't notice, your video debunks your claim that there was no national identity within the Roman empire, considering that each individual tribe. city state and province of the Roman Empire still retained its identity.

Oh no, don't bring Rome into all of this..... my professors would be getting cancer lmao.

B1rd wrote:

You an abraker are perfect for each other, you can't read and he can't write. That's the second time in a row you've misread my posts.

On that note, I could call you a buffoon, but that wouldn't be productive now, would it?

You completely misread my last comment and needed vipper to explain to you what I meant, don't be so cocky.
I called spencer a buffoon, yeah, but I also explained in detail how I came to that conclusion. My last two posts were mainly about Spencers ideology, so I wasn't even directly responding to you. Read them as a general statement.

I have no idea how far you agree with Spencer anyway. I do suspect that there is some overlap since you posted that chart in a discussion that was also about biological differences, and because you seem weirdly offended over it..

If you have any specific objections to my last post, let's hear it.

B1rd wrote:

By the way, Zimbwe was objectively better off under every relevant measurement under apartheid. Isn't all that matters, Mr. "we should dispense with common moral conceptions in favour of what's best for society"?

What are you saying here? "Your moral system would support apartheid and is therefore bad?" Well yes, it does favour apartheid when the only alternative is an insanely murderous dictatorship...

If you make me choose between horrible and worse than horrible, of course choosing horrible would be what I'd do. Doesn't mean that apartheid is good or should be instituted in countries that are already better than horrible. What's your point? Do you even have a point or are you just trying to provocate here?

I realised who you were talking about, but I don't spend all my day correcting people.

You seems to be talking about the Sweden rape statistics as if they were an example of biological differences, when it had absolutely nothing to do with biology and was a completely separate point to the main discussion as I noted right before I posted it. But now you're telling me you wan't actually directly responding to anything I said and it was just a general statement, that if someone did point to the chart about rape and make an use it to make argument about biology it would be wrong, even though you acknowledge neither I nor Spencer did? Your posts are incoherent, you need to define what you're talking about.

And as for the apartheid argument, I'm just holding you to your political philosophy of expedient utilitarianism, considering that according to you, if it were proven that Blacks were better off being rules by Whites, then that should be the case, since you don't value individual autonomy as intrinsically valuable.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/sta ... 1849522176


jordan peterson proving his intelligence and rationality once again

sorry b1rb, this guy isn't worth respect

B1rd wrote:

And as for the apartheid argument, I'm just holding you to your political philosophy of expedient utilitarianism, considering that according to you, if it were proven that Blacks were better off being rules by Whites, then that should be the case, since you don't value individual autonomy as intrinsically valuable.

Something worth mentioning is that not many people are extremists. People largely want a combination of individual freedoms and collective good, and their disagreements are generally over the specifics.

e.g. no laws at all would be maximum individual freedom (see ancaps)

however, with lawlessness comes people who exploit that in order to oppress others, which reduces individual freedom

so basically you need laws to exist (which take away individual freedom) to ensure that people are freer and have more equal opportunities overall.

In a world where apartheid everywhere would reduce crimerates, it still wouldn't be a good option, because race-based segregation hurts people's freedoms and equality too much for it to be a good thing.

Unlike the Left I don't base my estimation of someone on whether or not they've violated my PC codes, I base it on their achievements. If I were to use your tactics, I'd dismiss your Rome video because the author called Zimmerman White. If some Tweets are the only ammunition you've got against J. Peterson, you need to re-evaluate why you hate him so much. I think it's because he isn't partisan or politically inclined, but instead used his extensive knowledge of psychology and philosophy to rebut left-wing ideology, and it really hurts the left if they can't dismiss all those who disagree with them as ignorant religious fundamentalists. Sorry, but you can't dismiss him with a Tweet.

You really have understood anything about anarcho-capitalism, a.k.a Voluntaryism if you think it doesn't have any laws. To put it simply, instead having the laws and civil rights of people dependent on a political process in which they are eroded by special interest groups and tyranny of the majority, peoples rights and the laws of the land are agreed upon beforehand, and are enshrined under the non-Aggression principle. I would be content if we could have a few small Libertarian societies, that actually might make the "social contract" theory somewhat valid. But it seems more the case that rather than the Left being worried about Libertarian societies not working, they are worried about not being able to oppress the rich for the benefit of equality, like how Railey was talking about with Catalonia.

And the point about apartheid was directed at Railey, since he doesn't believe freedom is intrinsically good so it's to be completely disregarded if it can be abolished for some other benefit. But talking about equality isn't very valid in this instance, since Rhodesia spent a very large amount of White tax dollars educating blacks and trying to establish a black middle class.

B1rd wrote:

Unlike the Left I don't base my estimation of someone on whether or not they've violated my PC codes, I base it on their achievements. If I were to use your tactics, I'd dismiss your Rome video because the author called Zimmerman White. If some Tweets are the only ammunition you've got against J. Peterson, you need to re-evaluate why you hate him so much. I think it's because he isn't partisan or politically inclined, but instead used his extensive knowledge of psychology and philosophy to rebut left-wing ideology, and it really hurts the left if they can't dismiss all those who disagree with them as ignorant religious fundamentalists. Sorry, but you can't dismiss him with a Tweet.

must be fun to arbitrarily decide whether or not something is "just a tweet" when it suits you. If someone's on record saying really stupid things, I'm going to judge them for it.

also, explain how the NAP is enforced in a realistic libertarian society without it just being another word for "laws" and "police"

Well the NAP basically is the law. See this video for greater details about how law and order could work without government.

B1rd, in a world where apartheid is the option that makes most people the happiest, yes apartheid would be the way to go. But I don't think that anyone apart from a couple of nutjobs actually believes that we live in that world, so this is a useless argument. Don't you think?

And besides, nobody is ever truly free, laws alone are a necessary restriction of freedom and so are social and cultural norms. It's a very complex balancing act that should be directed at the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which is what lawmakers in most progressive countries generally appear to be trying for (although there are of course exceptions.) Freedom is only part of a bigger equation, that's my opinion on what it is and what it's worth: It has meaning insofar as it probably significantly influences the outcome of the utility-equation.

If you have troubles with the definition of utilitarianism, feel free to read up to it anytime. Also why call it "expedient utilitarianism"? I get that you're trying to use language to frame every alternative viewpoint in a negative way in an effort to undermine every opinion that doesn't align with your own, but in this case it really sounds ridiculous. It's just normal utilitarianism, there is nothing about it that makes it more "expedient" than any of the major utilitarian schools. It's bad enough that you have to start your post with ""Unlike the Left, I [don't do this thing that only stupid people do haha look at me]".

Try being a little less blatant about it, it's seriously annoying. I really don't know how vipper can muster the patience to talk to you for so long.

And yes, if someone consistently says stupid shit on twitter, that is a valid reason to criticise them, and it's certainly not insignificant. You would be happy to criticise people that you don't already agree with based on their twitter-history, as I am sure you've done before many times.

B1rd wrote:

Well the NAP basically is the law. See this video for greater details about how law and order could work without government.

This video is actually so deluded and naive that I wish it were all an elaborate joke.

B1rb, I know you're not the type of person to see any nuance or critically analyse things when they share your beliefs, but can you really not see the numerous inherent and massive flaws with what this video is propositioning?

Do they have anything to do with roads?

Nah, roads would be voluntarily crowdfunded by voluntary taxes unless you paid the Premium Roads Plus (tm) police package which allows you to avoid the road construction tax. No issue there.

Glad we're clear on that. You should be the first one to advocate for the privatisation of police, since they are significantly more effective and less brutal in their methods, they are accountable for their actions and they have to provide a product that the consumer wants (prevent crime as well as arrest perpetrators after the fact). In comparison, monopolised state police have a very loose obligation to the taxpayer, they don't have to provide results of less crime or take care of their public images and refrain from police brutality

Witness the horrors and depravity of private police in real life!



Also relevant

I don't know, I don't spend my time scouring the Twitter of people I don't like. And it's not something I making up that Vipper and the Left try to discredit someone or something by posting something they've said or done as if it invalidates everything else. It's a tactic he consistently uses.

The reason I call it "expedient utilitarianism" is that you don't seem to have any conception of how values can play out in society over the long term as values that shape society for the better. You can't sacrifice civil rights and freedom for some supposed political gain. The political process is inherently corruptible and it's very unclear what any specific change will actually have on our society even if things are properly considered (which they often aren't), so that necessitates a conservative approach to politics and the scope of government. So you can't confuse foolhardy interventionism with actual utilitarianism, when in fact utility is very hard to establish and determine.

B1rd wrote:

I don't know, I don't spend my time scouring the Twitter of people I don't like. And it's not something I making up that Vipper and the Left try to discredit someone or something by posting something they've said or done as if it invalidates everything else. It's a tactic he consistently uses.

I agree that there's a character assassination problem on the internet in general (very hesitant to blame left-wingers for this, the right wing do it all the time too). I don't engage in it myself, though.

When I post particularly stupid tweets/videos from people I dislike, it's because I'm making a judgement of their character based on those things, and showing others the same by linking them (also because I find them amusing and they bait arguments to some extent).

Not really the same as trying to discredit them based on irrelevant, morally-debatable things. I post examples of legit idiocy.

How can you say that and not realise how silly it is to take one or two comments someone has made and use base their entire character off that?

Because they're putting them forward, publicly, endorsing those opinions and often doubling down on them when people respond confused as fuck. It's very telling about their personalities, and shows that they're not worth respect, at least in my eyes.

Besides, I can forgive one ridiculous comment or two- but they definitely add up.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

When I post particularly stupid tweets/videos from people I dislike

imagine using the internet for the sole purpose of getting angry over stupid shit

Imagine all the people, posting all their lives in peace

FuZ wrote:

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

When I post particularly stupid tweets/videos from people I dislike

imagine using the internet for the sole purpose of getting angry over stupid shit

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

(also because I find them amusing and they bait arguments to some extent)

You've never put any thought or effort into insulting me- your entire point was disproven within 2 lines of the actual post. Are you stupid?

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

(also because I find them amusing and they bait arguments to some extent)

imagine finding "amusing" stupid shit that makes you angry

Yeah, because I'm sure you wouldn't want a tool to identify if the courses you're spending tens of thousands of dollars on aren't secretly Nazi, because free speech? We should dispense with all tools that helps us label the information we are to consume.

Also, I'm sick of people misidentifying what a classical liberal is. It's not just a buzzword for pro civil rights. It's a broader philosophy that advocates for limited government, property rights and laissez-faire capitalism.



inb4 it was just a bait post.

B1rd wrote:

Yeah, because I'm sure you wouldn't want a tool to identify if the courses you're spending tens of thousands of dollars on aren't secretly Nazi, because free speech? We should dispense with all tools that helps us label the information we are to consume.

Also, I'm sick of people misidentifying what a classical liberal is. It's not just a buzzword for pro civil rights. It's a broader philosophy that advocates for limited government, property rights and laissez-faire capitalism.



inb4 it was just a bait post.

That chart assumes the the services are controlled in the manner displayed. Example: graph doesn't apply to cases where Energy is government controlled while everything else isn't. I know that's rare or might even be possible to come by, but in theory, the discrepancy remains.

If energy is controlled it's not true classical liberalism.

That's actually a pretty good picture

can the government stop controlling people's ability to affect themselves (e.g consuming powders)

afterwards i wouldn't care what is "controlled"

Would you extend that policy to charlatans and the harm they cause?

maybe by differentiating between direct and indirect harm, but both can affect other people so definitely not fully.

Momiji wrote:

can the government stop controlling people's ability to affect themselves (e.g consuming powders)

afterwards i wouldn't care what is "controlled"

If you're forcing people to choose what services they use by forcing them to use tax to fund certain services, then you're controlling people's ability to affect themselves.

if the people can at least choose to use different services (like private hospitals) then it's not really preventing them from affecting themselves in that way... It's more about having taxes at all, which is hard to avoid (only reduced or increased based on how many sectors/services the government controls, either fully or partially)

Also taking away money is two-sided (government gains, the people lose)
which is a tiny bit better than one-sided things like laws that restrict consumption of powders (people lose the ability to consume powders)

You could argue that drugs it two-sided because people harming themselves affects society. It's the same forcing of positive obligations on people the same as taxes, which aren't necessary because you can just privatise the sectors that the government controls.

Time to exercise my ignorance on political matters.

While on topic of drug control, I wonder if the war on drugs could have went better if the government bought out the supply, discarded most of it, and provided it to dealers for a price high enough to cover the costs of buying and discarding it. Artificially inflate the price of it and exhaust supply such that people would have had a harder time acquiring it while still keeping them legal.

That seems like a very dumb idea.

Best solution is to make drugs fully legal (but perhaps only sold at state-owned stores?). That way, addicts can get what they need without risk of impurities etc since then it'd be regulated like any other product.

We should crucify the drug dealers

The government already bankrupts pensioners with the taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and the government is doing its best to smother all of the budding artisan breweries and distilleries in the state. The government trying to regulate the illicit drug industry would be a horror show,.