Freedom of speech et al.

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 08.09.2013 at 20:52

Napisano przez Vermeer, 23.08.2013 at 10:08

9) Not racist and of course not a sexist!

Translated to ''If you aren't a progressive multiculturalist like me, GTFO! And FOLLOW YOUR LEADER!''

In our coalition, you can speak your mind freely. None of this ''feelings'' crap. We're manly and respectful but we'll smack eachother around if needed. Shits and giggles, son.

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Guest, 08.09.2013 at 21:25

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 08.09.2013 at 20:52

Napisano przez Vermeer, 23.08.2013 at 10:08

9) Not racist and of course not a sexist!

Translated to ''If you aren't a progressive multiculturalist like me, GTFO! And FOLLOW YOUR LEADER!''

In our coalition, you can speak your mind freely. None of this ''feelings'' crap. We're manly and respectful but we'll smack eachother around if needed. Shits and giggles, son.

So that's why I left your coalition twice because all of you couldn't stop throwing your national socialistic and anti-everything vibes at me? IB is by no means a "Progressive multiculturalist" clan, everyone in it has their own opinions- they just know when to keep their mouth closed, or to be a decent and understanding human.

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Columna Durruti, 08.09.2013 at 22:33

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 08.09.2013 at 20:52

Napisano przez Vermeer, 23.08.2013 at 10:08

9) Not racist and of course not a sexist!

Translated to ''If you aren't a progressive multiculturalist like me, GTFO! And FOLLOW YOUR LEADER!''

In our coalition, you can speak your mind freely. None of this ''feelings'' crap. We're manly and respectful but we'll smack eachother around if needed. Shits and giggles, son.

Some pc-spanky (just for the giggles and not promoting violence, specially not against children).

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Guest, 08.09.2013 at 21:25

So that's why I left your coalition twice because all of you couldn't stop throwing your national socialistic and anti-everything vibes at me? IB is by no means a "Progressive multiculturalist" clan, everyone in it has their own opinions- they just know when to keep their mouth closed, or to be a decent and understanding human.

Don't bullshit, you left when I wasn't even there. Of coruse there is respect, we don't go around swearing blindly at people but if someone has an opinion, they can speak it. I'm not some nutty mod who needs to shelter everyone from possible instrusion of ''MUH FEELINGZ R HURT.'' You left for your own reasons, not becuase of me. ANy political debate we had was started by you, not I. Tunder and I have similar but also very different views and we get along great, you dont see us crying at one another over some spilt milk.

''decent human''
That phrase again. Grow up, mate. I honestly dont care what a persons race or background is in CS but if they ask my opinion, they will get it. You asked, you got whiney and you got told and ran away because you couldn't hack it.

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Columna Durruti, 08.09.2013 at 22:33

Good fatherly discipline. Kids that age shouldn't be in gangs getting tattoos.

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 06:01

I'm not some nutty mod who needs to shelter everyone from possible instrusion of ''MUH FEELINGZ R HURT.''

Who might be that Mod?

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Columna Durruti, 09.09.2013 at 07:37

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 06:01

I'm not some nutty mod who needs to shelter everyone from possible instrusion of ''MUH FEELINGZ R HURT.''

Who might be that Mod?

Not you silly. I dont think you've ever banned me for anything.

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 08.09.2013 at 20:52

Napisano przez Vermeer, 23.08.2013 at 10:08

9) Not racist and of course not a sexist!

Translated to ''If you aren't a progressive multiculturalist like me, GTFO! And FOLLOW YOUR LEADER!''

In our coalition, you can speak your mind freely. None of this ''feelings'' crap. We're manly and respectful but we'll smack eachother around if needed. Shits and giggles, son.

Actually, some of us at IB identify as libertarians and/or right wing. We also have nationalists (of various sorts) and religious members. So no, your translation is incorrect.
I think we also all believe in freedom of speech. Obviously, this does not extend to hate speech.

So how does being racist and sexist make one more manly?

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

Napisano przez Grimm, 09.09.2013 at 13:41

Actually, some of us at IB identify as libertarians and/or right wing. We also have nationalists (of various sorts) and religious members. So no, your translation is incorrect.
I think we also all believe in freedom of speech. Obviously, this does not extend to hate speech.

So how does being racist and sexist make one more manly?

''freedom of speech. Obviously, this does not extend to hate speech.''

Then it isn't free, kid. Why do you parrot progressive doctrine if you call yourself a Libertarian? Restricted Speech isn't free. Hate speech is controverial topics you dislike and ban, that isn't ''free.''

''racist''

A buzzword. Standing up for ones ethnic interest is what men have done for thousands of years. We all have tribalistic instinct and tribal sameness benefits us long term. Homogenus societies are superior in almost everyway.

''sexism''

Masculinity has a pillar of its foundation in the idea that men and women have roles. Modern feminism attacks these roles and in doing so destroys the relationship between men and women. It emasculates men, it weakens the women and makes her dependent on the state for care rather than a man which how things have been for thousands of years. Low birth rates, High divore rates, High single motherhood and High Crme are all related due the disaster of breaking family values. What you call sexism is merely the expression of understanding one anothers roles in the family. Another progressive buzzword.

You are not free, you do not live without racial tension and your ideal to protect women is in essense, a patrirachal desire which feminists, the proponents of anti-sexism, despise.

Libertarian? No you aren't. They would support any type of speech regardless.

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

Napisano przez Grimm, 09.09.2013 at 13:41

Actually, some of us at IB identify as libertarians and/or right wing. We also have nationalists (of various sorts) and religious members. So no, your translation is incorrect.
I think we also all believe in freedom of speech. Obviously, this does not extend to hate speech.

So how does being racist and sexist make one more manly?

''freedom of speech. Obviously, this does not extend to hate speech.''

Then it isn't free, kid. Why do you parrot progressive doctrine if you call yourself a Libertarian? Restricted Speech isn't free. Hate speech is controverial topics you dislike and ban, that isn't ''free.''

''racist''

A buzzword. Standing up for ones ethnic interest is what men have done for thousands of years. We all have tribalistic instinct and tribal sameness benefits us long term. Homogenus societies are superior in almost everyway.

''sexism''

Masculinity has a pillar of its foundation in the idea that men and women have roles. Modern feminism attacks these roles and in doing so destroys the relationship between men and women. It emasculates men, it weakens the women and makes her dependent on the state for care rather than a man which how things have been for thousands of years. Low birth rates, High divore rates, High single motherhood and High Crme are all related due the disaster of breaking family values. What you call sexism is merely the expression of understanding one anothers roles in the family. Another progressive buzzword.

You are not free, you do not live without racial tension and your ideal to protect women is in essense, a patrirachal desire which feminists, the proponents of anti-sexism, despise.

Libertarian? No you aren't. They would support any type of speech regardless.

Or you could just friendly to everyone, instead of creating borders between everything. You make many good points, but this argument needs to cease. To each his own.

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

''freedom of speech. Obviously, this does not extend to hate speech.''

Then it isn't free, kid. Why do you parrot progressive doctrine if you call yourself a Libertarian? Restricted Speech isn't free. Hate speech is controverial topics you dislike and ban, that isn't ''free.''

Freedom of speech is a liberal ilusion (delusion?) that has its fundamental barrier on the access to speech. It is enough to review some ideas developed by the post-structuralists (like Foucault, Derrida, Butler, etc.) to know that not everybody has the same acces on discourses. Furthermore, discourses are not "mere interchange of opinions", they rather are performative, meaning that they define what becomes considered as truth or fals by the very society.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

''racist''

A buzzword. Standing up for ones ethnic interest is what men have done for thousands of years. We all have tribalistic instinct and tribal sameness benefits us long term. Homogenus societies are superior in almost everyway.

This is an ideological discourse based on an assumption - false in my opinion - that there is a universal constant, which will never change over time. As if mankind does not evolve and change over time.
Furthermore, homogenous societies are basically inexistent: from the very origin of the human speciess, we have lived from migrations and fusion of cultures. Migration is at the very foundation of civilizations; more than you can imagine. Finally, the very concept of culture can be defined in two ways: as a static concept (far from reality and not recognizing the multiple origins of the culture referred to) which leads to culturalism and cultural chauvinism or, on the other hand, as a dynamic concept that recognizes the permanent change in cultural patterns... btw, changes have accelerated with the third industrial revolution (micro-electronic revolution) and the new forms of communiation.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

''sexism''

Masculinity has a pillar of its foundation in the idea that men and women have roles. Modern feminism attacks these roles and in doing so destroys the relationship between men and women. It emasculates men, it weakens the women and makes her dependent on the state for care rather than a man which how things have been for thousands of years. Low birth rates, High divore rates, High single motherhood and High Crme are all related due the disaster of breaking family values. What you call sexism is merely the expression of understanding one anothers roles in the family. Another progressive buzzword.

You are not free, you do not live without racial tension and your ideal to protect women is in essense, a patrirachal desire which feminists, the proponents of anti-sexism, despise.

Ohhh Jesus, to many pseudo-arguments which, again, try to naturalize human relations. Again, there are two ways to look at one social phenomenon: to see it as nature (and God?) given state or to deconstruct it as a social construction that took place over time. To be honest, I preferr to see the "masculine domination" (words of Pierre Bourdieu) as an imposition of a power relation (words of Judith Butler and Simone de Bouvoir) based on a difference of sex.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

Libertarian? No you aren't. They would support any type of speech regardless.

If we accept the definition of Libertarian = Anarchists (as defined during the spanish civil war and after that by some leftist movements), then freedom of speech does not include the freedom of promoting hate speech and hate discourses against specific portions of the population.
Again, freedom of speech, if taken seriously, and few ideologies accept the full extent of freedom of speech, is something woderful, as long as it does not become the tyranny of the majority over minorities. Freedom of speech is a freedom, as long as it does not enslave people.

Cytuj:

Topic moved to here

Napisano przez Columna Durruti, 09.09.2013 at 23:12

Freedom of speech is a liberal ilusion (delusion?) that has its fundamental barrier on the access to speech. It is enough to review some ideas developed by the post-structuralists (like Foucault, Derrida, Butler, etc.) to know that not everybody has the same acces on discourses. Furthermore, discourses are not "mere interchange of opinions", they rather are performative, meaning that they define what becomes considered as truth or fals by the very society.

And you are not going to call someone out on the hypocrisy of ''I support Free Speech but Hate Speech?'' But you are going to give me a lecture on the idea that some people are not capable and dont have the same acceess as others? So then we should restrict just because? Using that logic, you should restrict Atwar for similar arbitrary reasons becuase certain people dont have acceess to computers or internet. That entire paragraph was masturbation that doesn't attack the actual argument at all.

Napisano przez Columna Durruti, 09.09.2013 at 23:12

This is an ideological discourse based on an assumption - false in my opinion - that there is a universal constant, which will never change over time. As if mankind does not evolve and change over time.
Furthermore, homogenous societies are basically inexistent: from the very origin of the human speciess, we have lived from migrations and fusion of cultures. Migration is at the very foundation of civilizations; more than you can imagine. Finally, the very concept of culture can be defined in two ways: as a static concept (far from reality and not recognizing the multiple origins of the culture referred to) which leads to culturalism and cultural chauvinism or, on the other hand, as a dynamic concept that recognizes the permanent change in cultural patterns... btw, changes have accelerated with the third industrial revolution (micro-electronic revolution) and the new forms of communiation.

And you made a strawman fused with pseudo intellectual drivel. I never claimed culture is a constant but there are concerntrations of ideals and identity in specific eras. Migration can be beneficial but if you are comparing small germanic tribes entering Mercia 1500 years ago and spreading their knowledge of Smithing, then you'd be correct. But if you are claiming that hundreds of thousands of Pakistani and Somalian or Sudanese Muslims with no skills, no wealth who are hihgly likely to go on welfare the moment they are able to and also likely to commit crime, in modern day Britain, then that isn't beneficial. Their culture, an archaic and sterile form of a religon that lost its philosophical core centuries ago, isn't beneficial to the larger and greater culture that exists in Britain and much of Europe today. Homogenus socieites do exist and areas like London were Nativist cities for over 400 years. Numerous anti immigration laws were put in place to preserve much of that culture and though it changed overtime in mild ways due to changes in Law, it still remained very similar.

Here you are discussing culture and giving some brief and vague definition of what it is. I have no clue why as it had nothing to do with the actual topic of ''racism.'' If you are denying the idela of ethnic interest and that multiple groups around the world practice this then end the discussion because I refuse to disucss such a fool who cant see the obvious tribalistic instincts human groups have practised since man first began walking. It doesn't matter how you define it, it exists and its not going away.

Such an opinionated concept? Ask the Alawites fighting Sunnis in Syria? Ask the Sh'ites and Sunnis in iraq? Ask the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. Ask the damn Kosovans if culture is such a fluid and undefined concept because they seem to define it so damn well, they cant stop killing eachother to protect it. The moment the power structure fails, people retain their tribalistic instincts and in desperation, they attack all alien tribes for their own interest and goals.

Napisano przez Columna Durruti, 09.09.2013 at 23:12

Ohhh Jesus, to many pseudo-arguments which, again, try to naturalize human relations. Again, there are two ways to look at one social phenomenon: to see it as nature (and God?) given state or to deconstruct it as a social construction that took place over time. To be honest, I preferr to see the "masculine domination" (words of Pierre Bourdieu) as an imposition of a power relation (words of Judith Butler and Simone de Bouvoir) based on a difference of sex.

And yet it would be considered sexist to point out that definition. To claim men are more capable than women at certain actions. It is an entirely natural role and has existed long before man could walk. Men have always been the warriors, the meat sent to meatgrinders to protect his woman who carried his child. Women have have alwyas been respected as chidlbearesr and rearers of the children of the future. That is their role and if they do not play such a role, their tribe dies. It is not a pseudo argument if your main rebuttal is more philosophical drivel.

Napisano przez Columna Durruti, 09.09.2013 at 23:12

If we accept the definition of Libertarian = Anarchists (as defined during the spanish civil war and after that by some leftist movements), then freedom of speech does not include the freedom of promoting hate speech and hate discourses against specific portions of the population.
Again, freedom of speech, if taken seriously, and few ideologies accept the full extent of freedom of speech, is something woderful, as long as it does not become the tyranny of the majority over minorities. Freedom of speech is a freedom, as long as it does not enslave people.

Suddenly you went from pseudo logic to emotion. Dont clal it Freedom of Speech if you censor it, it's that simple. It is restricted speech. The most disgusting part is the hypocrisy to call onself and Anarchist that claims a lack of state but then demands certain speeches and thoughts be restricted but with what power? What of the minrotiy that prfers such controversial subjects and who defines what is hate? Oh right, you do, mister stateless nihilist. Mister man of people who knows what they want and need.

Hilarious and typical hypocrisy from an Anarchist. Dictation and censorship.. I doubt Orweel would agree with your definition.

At least, as a man advocating Third Position ideals, I admit what I am and that I would censor certain speech and ideals in charge. But you hypocrites still cling to your ''freedom of speech but not hate speech.'' For someone so intent on travelling down the ungraspable road of philosophy, you can't even judge yourself and your own thought and see its glaring holes. You censor, you restrict, admit it. Dont claim to be a pioneer of Liberty if that is what you do becuase then you are just another Trotskyite, pretending to be a Liberator when all you end up doing is solidifying more power to egomaniacs thats tare the people in their ridiculous economic fallacies.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
― George Orwell

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
― Voltaire

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
― George Washington

"We want freedom of speech for ourselves, therefore we must defend it for others, even those whom we hate (yes,even fascists)"
-Khal.eesi

Napisano przez Khal.eesi, 10.09.2013 at 08:33

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
― George Orwell

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
― Voltaire

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
― George Washington

"We want freedom of speech for ourselves, therefore we must defend it for others, even those whom we hate (yes,even fascists)"
-Khal.eesi

Yes, but what of the fact that hateful behaviour can drive people away, or manipulate them? They say Freedom of Speech is the penultimate freedom not because you may say whatever you please, but because it is the ultimate weapon. Speech should never be hindered, but people should have the common decency not to tell a man (That does not wish to hear it) that the sweat on his brow is worthless, and that his low-paying job and dysfunctional family are more important than his dreams or his self-esteem.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

Napisano przez Grimm, 09.09.2013 at 13:41

Actually, some of us at IB identify as libertarians and/or right wing. We also have nationalists (of various sorts) and religious members. So no, your translation is incorrect.
I think we also all believe in freedom of speech. Obviously, this does not extend to hate speech.
So how does being racist and sexist make one more manly?

Why do you parrot progressive doctrine if you call yourself a Libertarian?[...snip...]
Libertarian? No you aren't. They would support any type of speech regardless.

Actually, you are right! I am not a Libertarian. Nor did I ever claim to be one. I merely mentioned that some IB members are (so your assumption that we are all like-minded progressives is wrong).

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

''racist''
A buzzword. Standing up for ones ethnic interest is what men have done for thousands of years. We all have tribalistic instinct and tribal sameness benefits us long term. Homogenus societies are superior in almost everyway.

From a genetic standpoint, you are wrong. I say this as a professional molecular biologist and geneticist. For one thing, homogeneous societies have more genetic diseases and health problems. Also, the idea of genetic "purity" - or that such a thing might be desirable - is ridiculous, as is eugenics. I don't think that tribal sameness and instincts provide a significant benefit in modern society.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

''sexism''
Masculinity has a pillar of its foundation in the idea that men and women have roles. Modern feminism attacks these roles and in doing so destroys the relationship between men and women. It emasculates men, it weakens the women and makes her dependent on the state for care rather than a man which how things have been for thousands of years. Low birth rates, High divore rates, High single motherhood and High Crme are all related due the disaster of breaking family values. What you call sexism is merely the expression of understanding one anothers roles in the family. Another progressive buzzword.
You are not free, you do not live without racial tension and your ideal to protect women is in essense, a patrirachal desire which feminists, the proponents of anti-sexism, despise.

Masculinity is also a buzzword. You can debate the merits of traditional vs. modern gender roles all you want. Yet, if you are a true Libertarian, you must recognize that even women should have freedom to chose what role they play in society and family. I do not desire to protect women. I think women can protect themselves! And actually, I happen to live in a society with very little racial tension.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 09.09.2013 at 16:20

''freedom of speech. Obviously, this does not extend to hate speech.''
Then it isn't free, kid.

That sounds like some good ol' cowboy wisdom lol. You are oversimplifying by implying that freedom of speech is a clearly defined concept. You must realize that what constitutes freedom of speech is a hotly debated topic. I think freedom of speech has limits when other people's freedoms are threatened. For example, in Rwanda, radio hosts were promoting and organizing the killing of Tutsies on the airwaves. This, IMO, does not constitute freedom of speech. Would you defend the right of these individuals to organize mass killings under the pretext that they should have no limits on what they say?

So yes, you are right, I am not absolutely free. Then again, nor are you. Or, for that matter, anyone that ever lived. We all live within boundaries imposed by various external factors (society, culture, religion, biology, ...).

Let me start by saying that was all way too confusing to read. Coalition circlejerk, anybody?

Napisano przez Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 16:16

Actually, you are right! I am not a Libertarian. Nor did I ever claim to be one. I merely mentioned that some IB members are (so your assumption that we are all like-minded progressives is wrong).

No, instead you make the same bullshit claim that you support Free Speech but not Hate speech but cant admit that you prefer restricted speech. That's what it is, it is not Free.

Napisano przez Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 16:16

From a genetic standpoint, you are wrong. I say this as a professional molecular biologist and geneticist. For one thing, homogeneous societies have more genetic diseases and health problems. Also, the idea of genetic "purity" - or that such a thing might be desirable - is ridiculous, as is eugenics. I don't think that tribal sameness and instincts provide a significant benefit in modern society.

Then you are clearly a bad one brought up on the same illogical fallacies that there is no such thing as ''race.'' Yes, it's a primitive word but the idea that there are not actual genetic clusters of people is an insane claim from someone with your supposed credentials but I expect you'll take some idiotic quote out of context that claims that there are more similarities between individuals from different groups than their are between those in their own groups. That quote has been so debunked and is a joke but I expect you'll play it and speak it and give a nice little source to it. I never claimed genetic purity, don't straw man. Eugenics are fine and have been practiced for thousands and thousands of years. Children who can never take of themselves when they are adults are a burden. Certain genetic traits are more desirable. Genetic disease and health problems? This is common in many places and the idea that mixture makes us more healthy is another fallacy. Instead, we simply take on more genetic issues.

No significant benefit? HA HA. Lower crime? Higher trust? Higher charity? Similar cultural background? Similar respect for the law? Lack of ethnic tension? Larger more connected networks of communities? All of this benefits the workers, it allows them to bond better, to work harder, to protect one another and back one another. The more people have in common, the better a society becomes. People like you think some melting pot is beneficial and yet there is ZERO evidence of this.

Modern society is dying because of children like you, children who claim higher intellect yet use emotional arguments and logical fallacies. A unified ethnic group isn't beneficial to modern society? How? How is less tension and strife less beneficial? Look at America, Britain, completely divided by ethnic strife. Look at what happened to Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union. Look at India, Palestine/Israel, Greeks/Turks. Why do you people keep making the same BULLSHIT FALLACIES? History is SCREAMING AT YOU and here you are, repeating it over and over. ''WE'RE ALL ONE RACE, THE HUMAN RACE, I STUDY GENETICS AND YET I PANDER TO PROGRESSIVE IDEALS.'' Fantastic scientist, ha ha. I dare you to investigate intelligence levels between ethnic groups on a genetic level. I dare you to touch the subject of Eugenics and watch as your career, funding and prospects are torn down by a mountain of progressive politics and fear mongering. The area is untouched due to fear of complete ostracization.

Napisano przez Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 16:16

Masculinity is also a buzzword. You can debate the merits of traditional vs. modern gender roles all you want. Yet, if you are a true Libertarian, you must recognize that even women should have freedom to chose what role they play in society and family. I do not desire to protect women. I think women can protect themselves! And actually, I happen to live in a society with very little racial tension.

I'm not a Libertarian. I promote Third Position. I am a traditionalist, a socialist and a nationalist. Women have a role, it is behind the front lines, it is the child bearer and rearer, it is the kitchen and by the mans side. She can speak her mind, her view, she is important but she has a role as do the men. Women cannot protect themselves, if they could, rape wouldn't be an issue and they wouldn't need the state to intervene in their matters. Little racial tension? Where do you live? Japan? Singapore? Don't mention a single western nation or you are lying.

Napisano przez Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 16:16

That sounds like some good ol' cowboy wisdom lol. You are oversimplifying by implying that freedom of speech is a clearly defined concept. You must realize that what constitutes freedom of speech is a hotly debated topic. I think freedom of speech has limits when other people's freedoms are threatened. For example, in Rwanda, radio hosts were promoting and organizing the killing of Tutsies on the airwaves. This, IMO, does not constitute freedom of speech. Would you defend the right of these individuals to organize mass killings under the pretext that they should have no limits on what they say?
So yes, you are right, I am not absolutely free. Then again, nor are you. Or, for that matter, anyone that ever lived. We all live within boundaries imposed by various external factors (society, culture, religion, biology, ...).

It isn't hotly debated. it is either free or it is not. Hate speech is simply speech you do not like and censor. That is not free, it is restricted. Don't claim you support Free speech if you openly restrict it. In my coalition, anyone can say whatever they damn well please. It's not a state to govern. If I did have a state to govern, I would restrict speech and ideals to an extent. I would have to, to cleanse this poisonous land of the progressive poison that kills us from within.

Well ive been debating with people lik Tik for 10 years,while fun im kind of over it by now.I respect their opinion and it stops there.But whats bothering me is the confusement in the "left" area (my area).You cant say you believe in free speech "but"...there is no but.You either do or you dont.Who is to say what is allowed and what is not?If you accept that, then you accept a form of dominance (someone who can decide whats good and whatsnot).And then all your ideology goes to shit.Free speech is either free or its not.If its not, its a form of fascism.
The same goes with equality in all aspects,racial,gender,religion,sexual.Hypocrisy everywhere.Immigrants screaming about rascism and mistreatment when at the same time in their country they cut off your hand if you steal a nut and gangrape and torture you if you offend their god.
Or the "feminists".Unlike them i actually believe in total equality.That means that a woman can have a career,vote,be respected,everything.That also means she can take care of herself,she will get punched if she slaps me,i dont pay her drinks,she doesnt get to cry and win her way,she can be physically strong to survive her breaking of a nail and so on.
And that is exactly why nationalists and right wingers are gaining ground in so many western countries.Because the left side is confused and dont know what the hell it wants..

Napisano przez Khal.eesi, 10.09.2013 at 21:41

Well ive been debating with people lik Tik for 10 years,while fun im kind of over it by now.I respect their opinion and it stops there.But whats bothering me is the confusement in the "left" area (my area).You cant say you believe in free speech "but"...there is no but.You either do or you dont.Who is to say what is allowed and what is not?If you accept that, then you accept a form of dominance (someone who can decide whats good and whatsnot).And then all your ideology goes to shit.Free speech is either free or its not.If its not, its a form of fascism.

So should death threats be covered by freedom of speech? What about encouragement/planning to kill others? Or even someone standing outside your house all day yelling so that you can't sleep? OK, that last one's ridiculous. But the point is, all freedom rights should be limited when they impinge on others' freedoms. Don't you think so?

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 10.09.2013 at 19:52

No, instead you make the same bullshit claim that you support Free Speech but not Hate speech but cant admit that you prefer restricted speech. That's what it is, it is not Free. [...]

Cytuj:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

This is the definition of freedom of speech. I've bolded the 3rd point, which you obviously disagree with. That said, you can't deny that this is the widely accepted definition. I happen to agree with this definition and, therefore, am comfortable with saying that I support freedom of speech. If you are not comfortable with this definition, perhaps you should coin a new term for your concept, such as unrestricted speech

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 10.09.2013 at 19:52

Napisano przez Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 16:16

From a genetic standpoint, you are wrong. I say this as a professional molecular biologist and geneticist. For one thing, homogeneous societies have more genetic diseases and health problems. Also, the idea of genetic "purity" - or that such a thing might be desirable - is ridiculous, as is eugenics. I don't think that tribal sameness and instincts provide a significant benefit in modern society.

Then you are clearly a bad one brought up on the same illogical fallacies that there is no such thing as ''race.'' Yes, it's a primitive word but the idea that there are not actual genetic clusters of people is an insane claim from someone with your supposed credentials but I expect you'll take some idiotic quote out of context that claims that there are more similarities between individuals from different groups than their are between those in their own groups. That quote has been so debunked and is a joke but I expect you'll play it and speak it and give a nice little source to it. I never claimed genetic purity, don't straw man. Eugenics are fine and have been practiced for thousands and thousands of years. Children who can never take of themselves when they are adults are a burden. Certain genetic traits are more desirable. Genetic disease and health problems? This is common in many places and the idea that mixture makes us more healthy is another fallacy. Instead, we simply take on more genetic issues. [...]
Fantastic scientist, ha ha. I dare you to investigate intelligence levels between ethnic groups on a genetic level. I dare you to touch the subject of Eugenics and watch as your career, funding and prospects are torn down by a mountain of progressive politics and fear mongering. The area is untouched due to fear of complete ostracization.
[...]''WE'RE ALL ONE RACE, THE HUMAN RACE, I STUDY GENETICS AND YET I PANDER TO PROGRESSIVE IDEALS.''

Race. Please, you who are such a paragon of logic, give me a logical definition of race. Is it what you call a "genetic cluster"? Anway, I'd be very interested to read it. That said, I never mentioned that there is no such thing as race. And contrary to your claims, many genetic studies have been carried out with the objective of comparing different racial/ethnic groups. As to intelligence, barring mental retardation or other diseases, you would need to exclude education and culture to assess it appropriately. We are not "all one race", we are all one species. What constitutes a species can be clearly defined. What constitutes race is more subjective.
Eugenics. Children who can't take care of themselves as adults don't reproduce. That's called natural selection, not eugenics.
Genetic disease. Your statement here is flat out wrong. There are now thousands of studies on the subject. Classic examples are Orthodox Jewish, Japanese, French Canadian and Iceland communities. A certain amount of heterogeneity increases overall population fitness. Again, there countless studies on this topic and I would add that any serious geneticist would agree with this.
Politics and science. Genetics and science in general is not political. Nor should it be conducted with a political agenda. That said, that past work has long ago dismissed theories like eugenics or the notion of "beneficial genetic purity" is not a political opinion of mine. It is a consensus in the scientific community based on overwhelming evidence.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 10.09.2013 at 19:52

[Stuff about homogeneous societies vs. heterogeneous. Mixed in with a few ad hominems.] [...] Little racial tension? Where do you live? Japan? Singapore? Don't mention a single western nation or you are lying.

I live in a western country with little racial tension. That said, if you look at most historical powers, they all integrated many cultural groups and managed to have them coexist or even integrate productively. Think of the ancient Greeks, Rome, the Mongols, Great Britain, USA and now China and India. These all include(d) different cultural and/or ethnic groups. On a smaller scale, when you look at almost any existing, supposedly homogenous, country, you find that it is composed of various sub-groups.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 10.09.2013 at 19:52

I'm not a Libertarian. I promote Third Position. I am a traditionalist, a socialist and a nationalist. Women have a role, it is behind the front lines, it is the child bearer and rearer, it is the kitchen and by the mans side. She can speak her mind, her view, she is important but she has a role as do the men. Women cannot protect themselves, if they could, rape wouldn't be an issue and they wouldn't need the state to intervene in their matters.

OK, I didn't mean protect in the physical sense. I don't live in a country where we have to protect our women from pillage and rape. That said, my country, as many others employs women in it's military and police force. I think you will find that when it comes to modern weapons, there is little difference in combat ability. Rather, what I meant was terms of defending their own ideas and opinions (feminist or otherwise).

Napisano przez Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 00:06

This is the definition of freedom of speech. I've bolded the 3rd point, which you obviously disagree with. That said, you can't deny that this is the widely accepted definition. I happen to agree with this definition and, therefore, am comfortable with saying that I support freedom of speech. If you are not comfortable with this definition, perhaps you should coin a new term for your concept, such as unrestricted speech

I don't care what they say or what laws the claim. It isn't Free unless it is unrestricted. It is restricted speech. I have no issue with people who claim they want restricted speech, but people like you like to call it FREE SPEECH. You love that word free, you love the emotion that comes with it because if you tell people flat out, that you want to restrict what they can say. They will feel uneasy. You can bring out a UN charter and I wouldn't care. It means nothing to me. What Elitists claim are law does not change the fact that FREE SPEECH isn't FREE if you restrict it in anyway shape or form.

Napisano przez Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 00:06

Race. Please, you who are such a paragon of logic, give me a logical definition of race. Is it what you call a "genetic cluster"? Anway, I'd be very interested to read it. That said, I never mentioned that there is no such thing as race. And contrary to your claims, many genetic studies have been carried out with the objective of comparing different racial/ethnic groups. As to intelligence, barring mental retardation or other diseases, you would need to exclude education and culture to assess it appropriately. We are not "all one race", we are all one species. What constitutes a species can be clearly defined. What constitutes race is more subjective.

Even the term species isn't clearly defined. Are you studying? I don't believe you are who you claim to be if you say species is a clearly defined term when its been debated for a long time. I'm not going to post sources and websites of what a ''race'' is but it's pretty damn clear there are differences between ethnic groups. There are clusters of one larger group and sub groups. Slavs, Mediterraneans, Iberian, Celtics, Germanic's, Nordics, Slavic's, Berbers, Arabs. That's just Europe and North Africa. But all these are part of a general European cluster. You compare that to East Asians or South Asians or the many groups in Sub Saharan Africa, only a fool would deny these groups don't exist and that their are no differences between them. Genetic studies which attempt to see the differences in terms of intelligence between these groups are instantly ostracized unless they come up with the conclusion that we are all equally capable, which is clearly bullshit. A DNA Pioneer was destroyed by the scientific community for daring to oppose this.

Napisano przez Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 00:06

Eugenics. Children who can't take care of themselves as adults don't reproduce. That's called natural selection, not eugenics.
Genetic disease. Your statement here is flat out wrong. There are now thousands of studies on the subject. Classic examples are Orthodox Jewish, Japanese, French Canadian and Iceland communities. A certain amount of heterogeneity increases overall population fitness. Again, there countless studies on this topic and I would add that any serious geneticist would agree with this.
Politics and science. Genetics and science in general is not political. Nor should it be conducted with a political agenda. That said, that past work has long ago dismissed theories like eugenics or the notion of "beneficial genetic purity" is not a political opinion of mine. It is a consensus in the scientific community based on overwhelming evidence.

But they cost the state and the family alot of resources that could be better spent on another healthy child. We have an Olympics for them and Spain recently elected one of them as a local council member. When will this madness end? I never denied genetic diseases exist but the solution isn't mass immigration. A few Germans would solve the issue, or even a few Poles. Iceland has solved such issues by openly practicing Eugenics by only allowing certain peoples to be with certain peoples to prevent further breakdowns in genetic heritage. There is a WHOLE CONTINENT of Europeans who can solve such minor issues in Island nations.
Government shouldn't mix with science and genetics? I suppose NASA should close shop, we should stop building roads, bridges, hospitals because we shouldn't mix government and science? We already practice forms of genetic meddling. We do so by paying many thousands of lesser intellectuals to breed while forcing higher intellectuals to pay for it. That is what is commonly called Dysgenics. Eugenics can be a well practiced form of science, weeding out genetic faults and retardation. Focusing on the best of ourselves. Eugenics doesn't work? Who made that claim? The same scientific community that claims all humans are equal and capable and that race doesn't exist? That same scientific community that would shit on you from a great height of you DARED touch the subject.

Go on, I dare you. Research it and see how fast your grants, funding and credentials go to shit.

Napisano przez Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 00:06

I live in a western country with little racial tension. That said, if you look at most historical powers, they all integrated many cultural groups and managed to have them coexist or even integrate productively. Think of the ancient Greeks, Rome, the Mongols, Great Britain, USA and now China and India. These all include(d) different cultural and/or ethnic groups. On a smaller scale, when you look at almost any existing, supposedly homogenous, country, you find that it is composed of various sub-groups.

Name it. Are you a yank? I'd laugh if you were while claiming no racial tension. Integrated cultural groups? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Rome FELL because of its openness to multiple cultures. They were invaded by the Germanic's. The Mongols killed more people in terms of population than both World Wars. Britain had migration from multiple tribes for over 500 years or more and that led to over a millennium of civil wars, constant changes of monarchy and religious institutions. And you want us to go through that again despite the fact the Scottish and English STILL DON'T GET ALONG? This is exactly what I mean. People like you don't know a damn thing about History. You point to a few Italians and Irish going to America and say, ''this can work anywhere.'' China also had multiple giant civil wars. Tibetans want independence, Turkistanis are autonomous. Muslims are treated like dirt. And India? You bring up India? A country that has OPENLY practiced Eugenics for over two millennium by dividing its own different ethnic groups into classes of hierarchy?

Yes homogeneous groups are likely made up of sub groups, that spent millenia integrating through constant warfare until one side dominated. How is that a good idea? If it took a millennium for similar peoples to get along, who spoke the same language and worshiped the same God? How bloody long would it take for people who were thousands of miles away, who don't speak the same language, who don't worship the same god and who refuse to assimilate?

That is NOT beneficial. That is a future war waiting to happen and it is happening across Europe and America as different ethnic groups are segregating and clashing. The Balkans are a perfect example of where groups that don't get along will tear each other to pieces the moment the nation breaks apart.

Napisano przez Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 00:06

[/size] OK, I didn't mean protect in the physical sense. I don't live in a country where we have to protect our women from pillage and rape. That said, my country, as many others employs women in it's military and police force. I think you will find that when it comes to modern weapons, there is little difference in combat ability. Rather, what I meant was terms of defending their own ideas and opinions (feminist or otherwise).

No difference in combat capability? SAYS A GENETICIST? Did you fail your exams? Were you snorting coke when you wrote that sentence? There's no difference in capability between male and female soldiers? You must be a yank. Men, on average, always dominate women in terms pf physical capability as well as weapons training. Always. They have to lower the average standards just so women can join. The military is more than firing a gun, it's about being at your physical peak and women on the whole, cannot even approach male competitiveness in this area. They literally cant on a biological level.

And yes, the state pays for women. Single mothers get all sorts of free little goodies. Their irresponsible behavior is funded by the state. They have replaced a good husband and father figure with the state and the children live with that. Single motherhood is poisonous to children. The statistics show higher likelihood of crime, suicide etc. Not to mention women don't want to have children into later in their lives where they are far less fertile.

What country do you live in? I can give you your own rape statistics and if you are an America. I can show you the ethnic groups committing rape against other ethnic groups and then you can tell me, that isn't a form of ethnic warfare.

Yes they are different but not as different as you are making them out to be...

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 11.09.2013 at 06:50

It is restricted speech. I have no issue with people who claim they want restricted speech, but people like you like to call it FREE SPEECH. You love that word free, you love the emotion that comes with it because if you tell people flat out, that you want to restrict what they can say.

Look, I agree with the consensus definition. You disagree with it. This is becoming a trivial semantic debate. Lets just say that we both agree that the right to express opinions freely should be exercised within certain limits (like all rights IMO). Again, I suspect we also disagree on the nature of those limits. And no, I don't react emotionally to the word "free". Maybe from this you can deduce that I am not an American Also, you keep stating that I am being emotional, yet I have answered rationally to your arguments and have not responded to your personal attacks (not to mention constant capitalization).

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 11.09.2013 at 06:50

Even the term species isn't clearly defined. Are you studying? I don't believe you are who you claim to be if you say species is a clearly defined term when its been debated for a long time. I'm not going to post sources and websites of what a ''race'' is but it's pretty damn clear there are differences between ethnic groups. There are clusters of one larger group and sub groups. Slavs, Mediterraneans, Iberian, Celtics, Germanic's, Nordics, Slavic's, Berbers, Arabs. That's just Europe and North Africa. But all these are part of a general European cluster. You compare that to East Asians or South Asians or the many groups in Sub Saharan Africa, only a fool would deny these groups don't exist and that their are no differences between them. Genetic studies which attempt to see the differences in terms of intelligence between these groups are instantly ostracized unless they come up with the conclusion that we are all equally capable, which is clearly bullshit. A DNA Pioneer was destroyed by the scientific community for daring to oppose this.

Here you have been straw-manning me systematically. You pretend I am defending some ludicrous idea (like denying that race exists) and use this as a grounds to discredit my expertise. I rather think that because my expert opinion is at odds with your personal beliefs, you react emotionally by attacking my credentials. I'll be happy to provide them BTW, just PM me.
The concept of species is clearly defined, although you are right that there are many problematic cases. Still, species is a clearly definable concept. Race is not. I am not disputing that ethnic differences exist. What I am saying is that traits we usually use to define race are arbitrary. For example, in genetic terms, the european ethnicities you mentionned could all be lumped together into one big family, while there would be ten or more families in Africa with equivalent genetic diversity.
About measuring intelligence, I mentioned previously that this was problematic. There are, however, statistics available for IQ in many countries. In the US for example, I think blacks and hispanics generally score lower in IQ tests than whites and SE asians generally score higher. Yet there is nothing that links this to genetics. Education as well as sociological and cultural factors weigh too heavily in the balance and are almost impossible to eliminate. Moreover, the genetic basis of brain development and function are still relatively poorly understood. There aren't any clearly identified "intelligence genes". Perhaps there will one day be a better understanding of the genetic basis of intelligence. Then, it will be possible to make valid comparisons between individuals and ethnic groups. The taboo you hint at does not have to do with fear of tackling controversial issues, but more with politically motivated pseudo-science posing as sound science. Please provide the name of this DNA pioneer. Is it James D. Watson?
As a final note on this issue, I'd mention one controversial issue recently addressed by science. Perhaps you are aware on controversy surrounding sexual orientation and genetics. Namely, is it a learned behavior or does it have a genetic basis. Well recent work suggests there is a clear genetic basis for sexual orientation, at least in some animals (for example, there's a gene in fruitflies called fruitless that determines whether males will prefer females or other males). There is no reason to believe that humans differ from these animals in this respect. The scientists that pioneered this work were not shot down by some gay rights lobby nor by the scientific community. So you see, science and the scientific community does not shy away from such controversial issues.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 11.09.2013 at 06:50

But they cost the state and the family alot of resources that could be better spent on another healthy child. We have an Olympics for them and Spain recently elected one of them as a local council member. When will this madness end? I never denied genetic diseases exist but the solution isn't mass immigration. A few Germans would solve the issue, or even a few Poles. Iceland has solved such issues by openly practicing Eugenics by only allowing certain peoples to be with certain peoples to prevent further breakdowns in genetic heritage. There is a WHOLE CONTINENT of Europeans who can solve such minor issues in Island nations.
Government shouldn't mix with science and genetics? I suppose NASA should close shop, we should stop building roads, bridges, hospitals because we shouldn't mix government and science? We already practice forms of genetic meddling. We do so by paying many thousands of lesser intellectuals to breed while forcing higher intellectuals to pay for it. That is what is commonly called Dysgenics. Eugenics can be a well practiced form of science, weeding out genetic faults and retardation. Focusing on the best of ourselves. Eugenics doesn't work? Who made that claim? The same scientific community that claims all humans are equal and capable and that race doesn't exist? That same scientific community that would shit on you from a great height of you DARED touch the subject. Go on, I dare you. Research it and see how fast your grants, funding and credentials go to shit.

The scientific community doesn't claim that race does not exist. That's a ridiculous statement.
I also did not claim that government and science should be separate. That's also ridiculous. I meant that science should be apolitical. Scientists should not have a political agenda when formulating hypotheses.
Eugenics is an obsolete theory and it's historical and modern practice has always been based on unsound scientific foundations. In principle, it might be possible to "weed out" specific undesirable genetic traits, but you would not do this at the expense of introducing other non-beneficial traits. There are problems that anyone with a basic background in genetics would know.
First, every individual carries thousands of genetic "defects" called recessive alleles. This means you have 1 out of 2 "bad" copies of a gene, but that this has no observable biological consequence. If your progeny happens to have both bad copies (say if you breed with a genetically similar individual), only then will there be a problem. These "defects" cannot be eliminated by selective breeding, but you can avoid breeding with genetically similar individuals. As you mentioned, this is done more systematically in some Icelandic, Japanese, Orthodox Jewish and French Canadian communities. You might be able to eliminate some of these "defective genes" with selective breeding over centuries, but you would only increase the frequency of other "defective genes". Moreover, other "defects" would appear faster than you could eliminate the first ones. The only way to correct these "defects" would be to use genetic engineering.
Second, some defects are actually beneficial in specific circumstances. For example malaria resistance in people with anemia and HIV resistance in Africans with altered immune cell receptors. Or take skin color and the tradeoff between skin cancer and vitamin D deficiency. These "inferior" individuals are what protects populations from epidemics or allows humanity to adapt to different climates. So defining what a "defect" is often difficult.
Third, almost all of us are "defective" in a natural selection sense. How many of us modern humans could resist to small pox or plague without medical treatment? How many of us have perfect vision? In modern societies, these traits are no longer "selected for" as they no longer provide a significant survival benefit.
Finally, many genetic deficiencies are not hereditary. Instead, they arise from gene copy "errors" in reproductive cells or even during development. These cannot be weeded out by selective breeding.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 11.09.2013 at 06:50

Name it. Are you a yank? I'd laugh if you were while claiming no racial tension. Integrated cultural groups? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Rome FELL because of its openness to multiple cultures. They were invaded by the Germanic's. The Mongols killed more people in terms of population than both World Wars. Britain had migration from multiple tribes for over 500 years or more and that led to over a millennium of civil wars, constant changes of monarchy and religious institutions. And you want us to go through that again despite the fact the Scottish and English STILL DON'T GET ALONG? This is exactly what I mean. People like you don't know a damn thing about History. You point to a few Italians and Irish going to America and say, ''this can work anywhere.'' China also had multiple giant civil wars. Tibetans want independence, Turkistanis are autonomous. Muslims are treated like dirt. And India? You bring up India? A country that has OPENLY practiced Eugenics for over two millennium by dividing its own different ethnic groups into classes of hierarchy?
Yes homogeneous groups are likely made up of sub groups, that spent millenia integrating through constant warfare until one side dominated. How is that a good idea? If it took a millennium for similar peoples to get along, who spoke the same language and worshiped the same God? How bloody long would it take for people who were thousands of miles away, who don't speak the same language, who don't worship the same god and who refuse to assimilate?
That is NOT beneficial. That is a future war waiting to happen and it is happening across Europe and America as different ethnic groups are segregating and clashing. The Balkans are a perfect example of where groups that don't get along will tear each other to pieces the moment the nation breaks apart.

I mentioned I don't live in the US. I'm not European either. Can you guess?
The "historical" point I was trying to make is that these were all successful empires at a time or another. In fact, the most successful in history. The point I was getting at was that these empires, formed of multiple cultural groups and ethnicity were productive. I wasn't claiming they were the most peaceful. Then again, I don't think homogeneous societies are more peaceful (the Japanese, for example, had many civil wars and started many wars with other nations).
Still, ever heard of Pax Romana? After conquest, the Romans brought stability and development to the peoples they conquered and this lasted for centuries. The causes of Rome's downfall are multiple and complex. India did not really practice eugenics, inter-caste marriage is not the same thing (they do not seek to weed out negative traits, just preserve supposed caste differences).
Despite you're negative outlook on current racial tensions, you must admit that for people living in modern developed countries, it is one of the most peaceful periods in human history. This meaning that most people living today in these countries have not directly experienced a war that threatened civilian lives in their community. Yet most of these countries are "multicultural" societies. Most racial tensions in these countries are being resolved relatively peacefully. For example, Scotland may peacefully become independent from the UK. Another example is the Czech republic and Slovakia. And the violence that did occur in developed nations had much more limited civilian casualties (proportionally) than their historical equivalents.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 11.09.2013 at 06:50

No difference in combat capability? SAYS A GENETICIST? Did you fail your exams? Were you snorting coke when you wrote that sentence? There's no difference in capability between male and female soldiers? You must be a yank. Men, on average, always dominate women in terms pf physical capability as well as weapons training. Always. They have to lower the average standards just so women can join. The military is more than firing a gun, it's about being at your physical peak and women on the whole, cannot even approach male competitiveness in this area. They literally cant on a biological level.
And yes, the state pays for women. Single mothers get all sorts of free little goodies. Their irresponsible behavior is funded by the state. They have replaced a good husband and father figure with the state and the children live with that. Single motherhood is poisonous to children. The statistics show higher likelihood of crime, suicide etc. Not to mention women don't want to have children into later in their lives where they are far less fertile.
What country do you live in? I can give you your own rape statistics and if you are an America. I can show you the ethnic groups committing rape against other ethnic groups and then you can tell me, that isn't a form of ethnic warfare.

OK, to be fair, women's combat ability isn't a topic covered in genetics courses and textbooks
I meant that women can fill many positions in the military & police with equivalent skill. After all, how much hand-to-hand combat occurs in modern conflicts? Some tasks still require men, sure. For example, where I live, firemen exam standards were never lowered for women. Women that do want to be firefighters have to pass the same physical exams as men do, so there are generally less women firefighters.
How is single motherhood automatically the mother's fault!? If the father (even husband) leaves, it can just as well be his fault. Show me the evidence for ethnic groups specifically raping other ethnic groups in the US. Again, I'm curious where you would get such an idea.

When you argue with a fool, you become a fool.

"The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor."

- Albert Camus

Drink beer instead, you will care less.

Napisano przez hamilton456, 23.09.2013 at 22:31

When you argue with a fool, you become a fool.

*sigh* You're probably right. I guess I get riled up when people make these wild claims about genetics and biology.

You would hope though, that a good debate between two people that disagree is still possible in this day and age. I sometimes feel that political opinions are so polarized that a productive exchange of ideas is no longer possible.

Aaaand you both see the other as the fool, I'm not going to say which I agree with but both of you keep in mind everyone has different definitions and beliefs/ideals/motives.

Napisano przez Xenosapien, 24.09.2013 at 18:10

Aaaand you both see the other as the fool, I'm not going to say which I agree with but both of you keep in mind everyone has different definitions and beliefs/ideals/motives.

Actually, Hamilton was the one who said "fool" and I don't know whether he meant me or Tik-Tok
I can only speak for myself, but I don't see Tik-Tok as a fool. My opinions differ from his on many points, but I think I was respectful in arguing with him. That said, it might be a little foolish to challenge a geneticist on the topic of genetics... And call him incompetent because his expert opinion differs from your personal beliefs. On other topics though, I may well be wrong. Freedom of speech for example. Now, that's a tough one.

So this got about Freedom of Speech into science? Ok well that escalated quickly. Take this into pms!

Off-topic. We can do whatever we want.

Napisano przez Xenosapien, 25.09.2013 at 06:07

Off-topic. We can do whatever we want.

Not really