The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

I would prefer others stand by me if I were being prejudiced against, incapability has nothing to do with it, morality does though.

Why do you need others to stand with you? Maybe there is some value in self actualization...

I'll give you a real life example: I've got bitchin long hair and a Beard - kinda like this: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/M...qikVttuq3x.jpg

I was once told by a GM of a company that if I cut my hair and had a shave, he'd promote me on the spot. I should point out (for relephancy) that I don't work in a customer facing capacity.

I could have kowtowed, I could have complained and "got others to stand with me" - or I could do what I actually did: Told him in no uncertain terms to get fucked and it was never going to happen.

And FYI - I was promoted less than 6 months later.

Back to the original point - if everyone is equal, then there is no reason that they require or need your help, it might be nice - but there is no imperative.

If, however, not everyone is equal - then absolutely it is right to help people stand on their feet.

And I'm saying you are trying to have your cake and eat it with your 2 semi-contradictory statements.

And here's the bonus kicker: Sometimes, if you don't stand back and let people struggle and sort it out on their own, they will never attain a level of parity (or equality if you will) with those around them.

[TheDemonLord]

Tell you what, if they conclude that iq variance is directly due to biological differences, I'll read the whole article.

Catch 22.

you claims the article doesn't prove causality, without reading the article
You'll only read the article, if it proves causality.

Until then, your evidence is all red herring and worth as much as I've put forward (or not put forward as the case may be).

At least you admit, you ain't got shit to back up any of your viewpoints, glad we could agree.

Everything else in there is just semantics, sexism, and scientific illiteracy so I can't be arsed...

And with a wave of the magic dismissal wand, you get to maintain your viewpoint, ignore any and all evidence and prove that you've lost the debate.

[Katman]

And with a wave of the magic dismissal wand, you get to maintain your viewpoint, ignore any and all evidence and prove that you've lost the debate.

Oh, the irony.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh, the irony.

Because you never dismiss anything out of hand....

I'd suggest stepping out of the artificial tropical climate area, before engaging in ballistic activities with small, hardened mineral deposits.

[Banditbandit]

W I've got bitchin long hair and a Beard - kinda like this: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/M...qikVttuq3x.jpg

Fuck - you're Rick Wakeman's son ???

[TheDemonLord]

Fuck - you're Rick Wakeman's son ???

Nah, Prog rock isn't my jam, I can just about stand Dream Theatre though...

[Katman]

Nah, Prog rock isn't my jam...

Yeah, it'd be a drag having to learn a fourth chord.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, it'd be a drag having to learn a fourth chord.

You are still stuck on Chords?

I shouldn't tell you about Modes then....

[Graystone]

Why do you need others to stand with you? Maybe there is some value in self actualization...

I'll give you a real life example: I've got bitchin long hair and a Beard - kinda like this: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/M...qikVttuq3x.jpg

I was once told by a GM of a company that if I cut my hair and had a shave, he'd promote me on the spot. I should point out (for relephancy) that I don't work in a customer facing capacity.

I could have kowtowed, I could have complained and "got others to stand with me" - or I could do what I actually did: Told him in no uncertain terms to get fucked and it was never going to happen.

And FYI - I was promoted less than 6 months later.

Back to the original point - if everyone is equal, then there is no reason that they require or need your help, it might be nice - but there is no imperative.

If, however, not everyone is equal - then absolutely it is right to help people stand on their feet.

And I'm saying you are trying to have your cake and eat it with your 2 semi-contradictory statements.

And here's the bonus kicker: Sometimes, if you don't stand back and let people struggle and sort it out on their own, they will never attain a level of parity (or equality if you will) with those around them.

Here's another one, slavery used to be a thing, then not just the slaves stood against it (on the principal that they were equals), now it isn't a thing.

[Graystone]

Catch 22.

you claims the article doesn't prove causality, without reading the article
You'll only read the article, if it proves causality.



At least you admit, you ain't got shit to back up any of your viewpoints, glad we could agree.



And with a wave of the magic dismissal wand, you get to maintain your viewpoint, ignore any and all evidence and prove that you've lost the debate.

Yup, you point out an article which shows causality by highlighting the authors conclusions to that effect and I'll read it, fucking simple task if you have the evidence you claim to have...

So I'm asking to see your evidence, and you are refusing to provide it, you said something about losing the debate? Perhaps since I've explained how burden of proof and causality works you realise you have fuck all so wish to hide it?

[TheDemonLord]

Yup, you point out an article which shows causality by highlighting the authors conclusions to that effect and I'll read it, fucking simple task if you have the evidence you claim to have...

Already done that.
Multiple times.

So I'm asking to see your evidence, and you are refusing to provide it, you said something about losing the debate? Perhaps since I've explained how burden of proof and causality works you realise you have fuck all so wish to hide it?

Look at my previous posts.

Problem is, you've explicitly stated you are ignoring the evidence I post.

If you genuinely want proof, look back at my previous posts.

If you instead want to grandstand, then continue as you are.

[Katman]

Problem is, you've explicitly stated you are ignoring the evidence I post.

It's probably marginally better than automatically digging for some perceived 'dirt' on the author of the evidence.

[TheDemonLord]

Here's another one, slavery used to be a thing, then not just the slaves stood against it (on the principal that they were equals), now it isn't a thing.

So, you are saying that people aren't equal, and that the slaves needed other people to first make the rational argument, then the legal one, then finally someone to back up the law with Force.

So as you demonstrate, it's irrational to think of people as equal, but it's right to treat them as equal.

Oops. There goes your semantic quibbles. Again.

[TheDemonLord]

It's probably marginally better than automatically digging for some perceived 'dirt' on the author of the evidence.

Part of evaluating evidence is checking for biases.

If you used unbiased sources, I wouldn't be able to find any Dirt...

And that door swings both ways: "of course that's what the Govt/big pharma/jews woukd say"

[Katman]

If you used unbiased sources, I wouldn't be able to find any Dirt...

The only bias is in your perception and interpretation.