OT is not a osu!forumRailey2 wrote:
even if you rule over this forum, you'll still only rule over a pile of shit
And I am just having fun, that's all
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,187
And I am just having fun, that's all
For autistic people who see problem with their own lack of interest in wide area of things - yes.Milkshake wrote:
33 and MLP seems like a problem.
I don't even care lul.
True
Yes i can be your daddy
hey daddy
oh yeah
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia means fear of long words.
Mikrophobiakai99 wrote:
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia means fear of long words.
-_-
best 40 secs of my life
ITT2 a.k.a Political Debate Thread should be on top
One shall not simply dump this legendary thread to the oblivion
One shall not simply dump this legendary thread to the oblivion
no
Black people had it great in the 1960s and welfare's existence is the only thing contributing to black households not succeeding? Are you fucking stupid?B1rd wrote:
https://youtu.be/chph_EPNNAs?t=10m53s
Social Democracts BTFO
How are people so willfully ignorant of MASSIVE amounts of history, able to look at 2 data points and say "Yep, see, I'm completely justified in my worldview!"
I have to ask you B1rd: why do you enjoy baiting people?
I'm almost 100% sure he's not baiting but is actually standing behind his posts. I mean it's Birdman, the edgiest man alive. :p
You're creating a strawman and twisting words into something no one has said, and your typical tactic of using correlation vs causation arguments is weak and you can't just explain away all evidence against you that way in stead of actually coming up with a valid counter arguments. If you have to resort to using such weak argumentation methods all the time you really have to question the validity of your position. I guarantee that Sowell has pored over far more statistics than you have, and knows far more about history than you do, so don't try and again make the false claim that people are making wide-sweeping and definite conclusions from a few out of context cherry-picked pieces of statistics.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Black people had it great in the 1960s and welfare's existence is the only thing contributing to black households not succeeding? Are you fucking stupid?B1rd wrote:
https://youtu.be/chph_EPNNAs?t=10m53s
Social Democracts BTFO
How are people so willfully ignorant of MASSIVE amounts of history, able to look at 2 data points and say "Yep, see, I'm completely justified in my worldview!"
If that Blacks are far worse off now after the welfare state than in the 20th century when they had just come out of slavery and the Great Depression was in effect (really doesn't sound like a "great time for blacks" to me), you really have to question of a fundamental level this affirmative-action doctrine of yours, if it not only comes at a large cost to the taxpayer, but evidently is a detriment to the elements of society that it purports to benefit.
Why, then, is this not a problem in other countries that have generous welfare states, but is one in America? You're making the direct implication that black people fuck themselves over because of the "generous welfare state" that exists in the US, while other countries have -better- support and don't have the same "side effects" that you're talking about.
I can understand one single supporting argument against such a thing, though- one supported by evolutionary biology. But since you've never mentioned that particular argument then I'll just assume you're trying to imply the usual:
Black people in the 1960's can't have kids because they get no support.
Support is introduced and they take advantage of the system by having children out of wedlock, pumping out kids for dat welfare $, etc.
Black people are now worse off than they were before, due partly to their own choices, partly due to the system that they're living in.
Am I mischaracterising your argument there, or is that an accurate summary?
I can understand one single supporting argument against such a thing, though- one supported by evolutionary biology. But since you've never mentioned that particular argument then I'll just assume you're trying to imply the usual:
Black people in the 1960's can't have kids because they get no support.
Support is introduced and they take advantage of the system by having children out of wedlock, pumping out kids for dat welfare $, etc.
Black people are now worse off than they were before, due partly to their own choices, partly due to the system that they're living in.
Am I mischaracterising your argument there, or is that an accurate summary?
Sigh, to think that I actually have to watch whatever Bird posted in order to understand what kind of bullshit you're spouting now. :V
Aurani wrote:
Sigh, to think that I actually have to watch whatever Bird posted in order to understand what kind of bullshit you're spouting now. :V
I mean, after having watched that video I have to say that I have absolutely no idea why the black people in murrica are abusing the welfare whilst they aren't doing so in other countries (according to what you said). That might stem from me not having a single clue about the murrican welfare system in the first place, so the only thing I could really say about that is that they differ in some way(?).
Aurani wrote:
I mean, after having watched that video I have to say that I have absolutely no idea why the black people in murrica are abusing the welfare whilst they aren't doing so in other countries (according to what you said). That might stem from me not having a single clue about the murrican welfare system in the first place, so the only thing I could really say about that is that they differ in some way(?).
It's an awfully complicated situation in America, as it is for just about anything. To point at a single factor (the welfare state existing) and then to extrapolate massive conclusions from that one factor is dishonest at the very least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-A ... e#Theories
Here's a wikipedia article with a bunch of different possible reasons for how African-American families have ended up the way they are today.
I just really, really dislike the kind of disingenuous arguments that get jerked about in any political discourse. People who buy into that kind of thing without even questioning it are letting themselves turn into idiots.
Something worth noting: Putting more money (gasp) into helping black families, encouraging two-parent households, may be a great help. For example, guaranteed paid parental leave when a baby is born.
" The chance that black males will be arrested and jailed at least once in their lifetime in many areas around the country is extremely high. For Washington, D.C., this probability is between 80 and 90%."
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
Yes, exactly. I can't actually say what's wrong with the welfare system in America, but it definitely isn't the best in the world. Perhaps resources are being spent where they shouldn't be, perhaps in other areas there isn't enough. I'm certainly no expert and can't be the one to say "I know how to fix this, just do X and Y". The problem is that people will often be very happy to do the exact same thing, just in a different way- "Welfare in America is a problem, we need to remove it all together, because I know that would fix things." They're not qualified to say that, so why are they even proposing anything?Aurani wrote:
" The chance that black males will be arrested and jailed at least once in their lifetime in many areas around the country is extremely high. For Washington, D.C., this probability is between 80 and 90%."
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
I generally have these complaints relating to right-wing claims because they're the ones who are being the most ridiculous right now, as well as being the people who have the most influence (since Trump won the election, etc).
Not many other welfare states have large black populations. I don't know what you're talking about when you say evolutionary biology, we have already established blacks have a biological disadvantage in industrial societies, but from what I remember of the last argument, the statement was that affirmative action via welfare was needed to overcome these intrinsic disadvantages. What I'm calling into question now is the Leftist idea of radical egalitarianism, that we need to try and force equality with the redistribution resources from the worthy to the unworthy.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run. It seems that the hardest thing for the government to do is nothing, and we get used to the idea of the government being the universal solution for all problems, and so the role of the government continually expands without any good results.
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run. It seems that the hardest thing for the government to do is nothing, and we get used to the idea of the government being the universal solution for all problems, and so the role of the government continually expands without any good results.
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
That's the very thing I hate seeing in discussions, both real-life ones and the ones on public forums. Having ideas about something is something we should encourage and nurture, but blatantly saying that "X thing must be done in order to improve Y thing!" when you have no actual qualification to make such a claim and are just looking at one point/variable due to it is something called ignorance.
As with everything, we must question things. I'm going to neither protect nor blame the right-wing for their way of thinking, but we have to begin from somewhere. Things have not gotten to this point out of blue. We have to analytically resolve every issue at hand.
As with everything, we must question things. I'm going to neither protect nor blame the right-wing for their way of thinking, but we have to begin from somewhere. Things have not gotten to this point out of blue. We have to analytically resolve every issue at hand.
Jesus Christ no, I'd never agree to black people have a "biological disadvantage in industrial societies". But whatever, I'm not going to go into that.B1rd wrote:
Not many other welfare states have large black populations. I don't know what you're talking about when you say evolutionary biology, we have already established blacks have a biological disadvantage in industrial societies
I think redistribution of wealth can have great benefits, yes. I don't think it's immoral if the people within society are OK with it (i.e. most people are perfectly okay with paying taxes. The ones who aren't can leave, or at the very least stop using public resources that are paid for by taxation, for example.)B1rd wrote:
but from what I remember of the last argument, the statement was that affirmative action via welfare was needed to overcome these intrinsic disadvantages. What I'm calling into question now is the Leftist idea of radical egalitarianism, that we need to try and force equality with the redistribution resources from the worthy to the unworthy.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Also the "worthy" vs "unworthy" claim is pretty.. weird. Who's deciding who is unworthy to benefit from redistribution of wealth/socialistic systems? How is that decided?
Works plenty well elsewhere. Scandinavian countries are pretty fucking top-notch as far as society goes, and many have generous welfare systems, for example. Look at Norway's wonderful rehabilitation prisons as a similar example. Also, I'd say your video quite ignorantly implies that America's welfare system is the cause of the African-American family structure to be failing, but whatever. You saying that "letting society do its thing" would be better is a quite extravagant claim that I really don't think you are qualified to make.B1rd wrote:
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run.
That's Communism, not Socialism. I also don't particularly advocate for either of them, I'm just capable of recognising the potential benefits of a Socialist society without simply discarding the idea entirely, as well as advocating for many socialistic policies existing in coexistence with economy that is Capitalist overall.B1rd wrote:
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Jesus Christ no, I'd never agree to black people have a "biological disadvantage in industrial societies".
Haven't we talked a lot about black people having lower IQ and thus lower intelligence? The evidence shows this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't accept this you're just being willfully ignorant of reality.
Aren't all Libertarian asking for it the ability to opt-out of taxes and pay for the individual services and utilities they use? Just leaving and going to another country with the exact same system isn't a solution. It's immoral because obviously not everyone is going to agree with their money being spent and taken with this way. If the people in society actually were all OK with it, you wouldn't need to enforce it with coercion would you.
By worthy, I mean people who have earned money through their own ability and therefore are worthy of it as opposed to people who've just taken it from someone else. It's like taking apples from a healthy apple tree and giving it to one that is withered and failing and then expecting them to be equal.
Just talking about Scandinavian countries is hardly a valid argument, considering they don't have a large black population like America. Arguing for the existence of a social safety net within a white homogenous country is one thing, which can be done voluntarily by the way. But as we will see in the coming years, these countries and their system won't cope well with a large influx of non-white non-Western immigrants. And the "safety net" will turn into something more like affirmative action.
If you want to talk about Scandinavian countries I can do that, I think they're more of a proof of the Right wing position than anything. Socialists like to make out they are proof of the superiority of democratic socialism over capitalism, but they don't realise that it's a lot more nuanced than that (talk about drawing large conclusions from a few bits of evidence). America is a good example of big-government crony-capitalism more than anything.
Considering that Capitalism has been responsible for some of the greatest successes in human history, and socialism some of the worst low points, I wonder why you throw out the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism and a classical liberal society in favour of a socialist one. And by the way, there is very little difference between Socialism and Communism, the Soviet Union called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Aren't all Libertarian asking for it the ability to opt-out of taxes and pay for the individual services and utilities they use? Just leaving and going to another country with the exact same system isn't a solution. It's immoral because obviously not everyone is going to agree with their money being spent and taken with this way. If the people in society actually were all OK with it, you wouldn't need to enforce it with coercion would you.
By worthy, I mean people who have earned money through their own ability and therefore are worthy of it as opposed to people who've just taken it from someone else. It's like taking apples from a healthy apple tree and giving it to one that is withered and failing and then expecting them to be equal.
Just talking about Scandinavian countries is hardly a valid argument, considering they don't have a large black population like America. Arguing for the existence of a social safety net within a white homogenous country is one thing, which can be done voluntarily by the way. But as we will see in the coming years, these countries and their system won't cope well with a large influx of non-white non-Western immigrants. And the "safety net" will turn into something more like affirmative action.
If you want to talk about Scandinavian countries I can do that, I think they're more of a proof of the Right wing position than anything. Socialists like to make out they are proof of the superiority of democratic socialism over capitalism, but they don't realise that it's a lot more nuanced than that (talk about drawing large conclusions from a few bits of evidence). America is a good example of big-government crony-capitalism more than anything.
Considering that Capitalism has been responsible for some of the greatest successes in human history, and socialism some of the worst low points, I wonder why you throw out the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism and a classical liberal society in favour of a socialist one. And by the way, there is very little difference between Socialism and Communism, the Soviet Union called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
안녕하세요 나는 카이.
Bird mate, what is your definition of IQ? You seem to be the ignorant one here if you use that term when the term itself is of quite a debatable status when it comes to its definition.B1rd wrote:
Haven't we talked a lot about black people having lower IQ and thus lower intelligence? The evidence shows this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't accept this you're just being willfully ignorant of reality.
I'd also like to see actual evidence of what you claimed about them there (that is: evidence which is not from some random extremist or heavy right-wing source) since I could actually both agree with you or completely disagree with you based on the evidence that you provide and your answer on the question above.
I have my own opinion on that and it either aligns with yours or is completely different, based on what you say.
There is only one definition of IQ
I'm not gonna bother to dig out any evidence, I'm just gonna state the results, and that is that blacks have lower IQ than whites, even when factoring in sociolo-economic level. All the races vary in IQ to some degree.
I'm not gonna bother to dig out any evidence, I'm just gonna state the results, and that is that blacks have lower IQ than whites, even when factoring in sociolo-economic level. All the races vary in IQ to some degree.
Now, it's completely alright if you don't provide any links if you can't be bothered, since I mostly wanted to hear the IQ part, but for us to even begin discussing it we would need to be on the same page about generalization, which we're not. I can't for the life of me accept "racial variations in IQ" as IQ itself varies not based on race, but on culture, surroundings and genes.
Saying that I, as a white person, am in the same IQ bag as some inbred hillbilly from rural Georgia solely based on the mutual colour of our skin is both statistically distasteful and insulting to me as a human being.
Saying that I, as a white person, am in the same IQ bag as some inbred hillbilly from rural Georgia solely based on the mutual colour of our skin is both statistically distasteful and insulting to me as a human being.
Of course all those things that you mention influence IQ, but if all those factors are the same and race is the only variable, then there will be somewhat significant differences.
Well that's the thing. For all those factors to be the same, we would need to look at a much narrower picture. For example, you COULD compare blacks vs whites in, say, France, as they for the most part have an identical culture and surroundings. However, if we broaden it onto Europe and Africa we lose the core of what defines IQ - a black guy from Paris can't be mixed together with a black guy from Kongo.
To compare races on a planetary level, we'd need identical circumstances everywhere, which we can't get. Usually you could argue that statistics are valid and do not require every variable to be identical for the bigger picture to be formed, but in this case we're discussing something that completely DEPENDS on those same variables to be identical in order for it to work.
To compare races on a planetary level, we'd need identical circumstances everywhere, which we can't get. Usually you could argue that statistics are valid and do not require every variable to be identical for the bigger picture to be formed, but in this case we're discussing something that completely DEPENDS on those same variables to be identical in order for it to work.
Of course you can never get 100% the same set of circumstances, that's impossible, but you can get them close enough to sensibly draw conclusions.