Mad respect to white people

[guerilla]

You asked to be called out when you're wrong, and so I have.

And then you stalked me over your supposed call out in how many threads now?

Are you able to recognize obsessive and stalkerish behavior?

Most people, whether their argument was good or not, are usually able to post it and move on. They don't feel the need to stalk someone for a response. I don't think it is forum etiquette, but it seems to be the behavior of somewhat well adjusted people.

Rather than admit it though, you just ignore the facts.

I didn't ignore the facts, I ignored you. Big difference. You take these arguments personally, which is probably why you continue to stalk me. You can't control yourself, which leads to thread jackings like this over something almost 3 weeks old. Again, not the behavior of someone we might consider socially adept.

That said, your "facts" are interesting. I'm not sure bastard children account for enough of the population, and successive breeding in and out of families to make your "facts" valid. Bring me back some tables and statistics and double blind studies and we can confab on your "facts".

Just figured I'd point it for you - you can thank me later princess.

Ha, now your stalking and obsession with me is a public service. Priceless. I swear 90% of my fun on forums this day is experiencing the many forms of public and private delusion.

 

[p0ck3taces]

I almost never make appeals to science, and I think you should know that if you have been reading my posts, including the ones you've responded to in this thread.

You talk of following "reason", who's reasoning? From where do you derive this reasoning? Seems to me the reasoning laid out for you from science which is why I brought up what is currently happening in science.

Reality isn't constantly changing. Our comprehension of reality is changing.

Reality isn't changing? Were there always humans? Was there always consciousness? Has the earth been here forever? Why can people now run a mile in 4 minutes when before a few years ago no one was ever able to?

The earth wasn't flat when we believed it was, and then it changed to round and we discovered that. It was always round. Likewise, as our understanding improves, so does our perception of the nature of the universe around us.

And currently with science we have learned that we affect our reality (the conscious observer) and nothing can be completely defined (chaos theory).

You can see anything the way you want, but if you think you have the power to fly, and you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, my reality where I take the law of gravity into account, is going to terminate your reality with extreme geographical and aeronautical prejudice.

Don't confuse your perception of reality with objective reality. We're shaved monkeys with limited perception of energy fields, time and subatomic processes. What we don't know about reality far exceeds what we think we do know. And certainly, your brain isn't capable of making it up as you go, or you would be omniscient (God).

Why do you deny logic? Not science. Reason.

I do not deny logic or reasoning, I am reasoning with you now. But sometimes logic is not a good tool for understanding. Can you wrap your brain around the concept of forever or god or intuition? Some things you cannot "prove" because there is no proof currently available to show or science has no way of showing proof, but just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true.

It is mostly impossible to debate with people who take your stance. Folks who refuse to analyze their own beliefs aren't likely to provide any additional value to a discussion. If you insist you're right because you feel you're right, not because you can prove it or that you have tested it, what is the point in talking? You have your position, and you're not willing to challenge it.

People couldn't prove the world wasn't flat before they explored it. Did that make the world flat?

Likewise, other than asserting a bunch of things "this is this, that is that" you're not willing to deconstruct and analyze my position.

So again, what's the point in discussing further?

I am analyzing and I am responding.

You're welcome to believe what you want. You're even welcome to believe I am wrong, an idiot, or a fool. However, without you being able to prove it, who really cares?

I mainly just wanted to say that your leading yourself down a very lonely emotionless road. I would critically assess that. I already have for myself as I used to think along your lines. It's great to develop the left logical side of your brain, but don't forget about the right intuitive side as well. They are both useful.

 

[guerilla]

You talk of following "reason", who's reasoning? From where do you derive this reasoning? Seems to me the reasoning laid out for you from science which is why I brought up what is currently happening in science.

Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think its not unreasonable for me to expect you to know what reason is, given that you're trying to express ideas about how the mind works.

It's not like I started quoting Aristotle or anything ...

Reality isn't changing? Were there always humans? Was there always consciousness? Has the earth been here forever? Why can people now run a mile in 4 minutes when before a few years ago no one was ever able to?

The Roger Bannister bit is my line. Did I tell you that one on Skype or something?

Anyway, that stuff is not the dispute.

If I have understood you correctly, you deny there is an objective reality. In other words, if some people believe the earth rotates around the sun, and other people believe the sun rotates around the earth, you believe they are both correct.

And if one person believes there is a law of gravity, and another person does not and believes they can fly, you believe they are both correct, and gravity only affects the person who believes in it?

And currently with science we have learned that we affect our reality (the conscious observer) and nothing can be completely defined (chaos theory).

This is precisely why logic, induction and deduction are necessary tools for understanding.

I do not deny logic or reasoning, I am reasoning with you now. But sometimes logic is not a good tool for understanding.

Logic isn't for interpretation. Logic helps you remove contradictions. It's completely value free.

I think the issue here is that you're conflating values with objective facts. They operate in different domains, and must be treated separately.

Can you wrap your brain around the concept of forever or god or intuition? Some things you cannot "prove" because there is no proof currently available to show or science has no way of showing proof, but just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I don't want to think too hard on this, so I will say I definitely agree with the second half.

But now you're lecturing me on epistemology, when I am pretty much the biggest promoter of epistemology on this forum. So we have something lost in translation here, because I never claimed any of the arguments you're putting up.

I mainly just wanted to say that your leading yourself down a very lonely emotionless road.

I would say, that you don't know me, and you haven't been able to articulate my argument so far, so I am not sure how you're able to tell me things about my life path. This is one of those times when you should respect what you don't know, instead of assuming knowledge you don't have.

I would critically assess that. I already have for myself as I used to think along your lines. It's great to develop the left logical side of your brain, but don't forget about the right intuitive side as well. They are both useful.

Again, you can't articulate my position or ideas, I am not sure how you're able to make these broad statements about how my mind works. You're assuming stuff and its both awkward and uncomfortable.

 

[p0ck3taces]

Again, you can't articulate my position or ideas, I am not sure how you're able to make these broad statements about how my mind works. You're assuming stuff and its both awkward and uncomfortable.

It's a lonely world for those of us who prefer to think rather than emote.

It's somewhat of an assumption, but you practically say it out loud. Awkward and uncomfortable? Hmm well. "but obviously you believe it passionately, so I am not going to challenge it and get you all worked up and defensive." Sorry I don't mean to get you emotional over our simply logical discussion.

Also I don't understand you constantly repeating "you can't articulate my position". I am quoting you bro, you are articulating your position and I am replying...

Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think its not unreasonable for me to expect you to know what reason is, given that you're trying to express ideas about how the mind works.

It's not like I started quoting Aristotle or anything ...

Come on... Not everyone's reasoning leads to the same conclusions. Even the philosophers of aristotle's time couldn't agree on shit.

The Roger Bannister bit is my line. Did I tell you that one on Skype or something?

Don't know Roger Bannister and havn't talked to you on skype before.

Anyway, that stuff is not the dispute.

If I have understood you correctly, you deny there is an objective reality. In other words, if some people believe the earth rotates around the sun, and other people believe the sun rotates around the earth, you believe they are both correct.

And if one person believes there is a law of gravity, and another person does not and believes they can fly, you believe they are both correct, and gravity only affects the person who believes in it?

No I just state "objective reality" cannot be concretely defined.

Logic isn't for interpretation. Logic helps you remove contradictions. It's completely value free.

Logic has plenty of its own pitfalls and assumptions. For one, it assumes all the facts are laid out on the table.

 

[cardine]

good point. i used to live in a trendy part of downtown Atlanta with all these hipster white 30 somethings. it was hilarious to listen to them congregate at the dog park and talk about the latest home invasion, rape, murder. there is absolutely nothing more hilarious than a white liberal being scared out of his mind for good reason and at the same time feeling guilty for having a survival instinct. and OF COURSE when i moved it was because i was a scared racist white boy. anyone that wants to see the race war brewing....move to inner city Atlanta.

Would you feel safer around a rich black person in the suburbs or a poor white person in inner city Atlanta? What you're talking about is socioeconomic status, not race.

 

[MarkCharles]

I'm far from racist, but what I don't get is why is it perfectly ok for a Mexican to have 'brown pride' tattooed across his chest? But if a white guy had 'white pride' across his, suddenly he is dubbed a white supremacist and a menace to society?

It's called a sophism when a conclusion is based on first believing bullshit.

And technically, it's racist bigotry that's a problem (it's stupid).
ie. when someone claims one "race" is superior to another.
For two reasons:-

1. there is no such thing as "race" (only families, and even then stereotypes tend to crap out in reality)
2. so one can't be superior to another.

Families is different though.

You do understand that evolution is vertical, not horizontal. Right?

As Uncle Frank once said "people are dumb the whole world over".

NOTE: racism is discrimination by race. Nothing wrong with that (discrimination) - try finding your car at the shopping centre without discriminating by colour, make, and type ;-p
Discrimination is like exploitation - something demonised by the illiterate. Who then justify their idiocy by claiming words mean what they want them to mean - like they're the fucking Red Queen.

Hello friend,

History do show that white people very good at conquer other people, take land, take resource and sometime make them work for little to no money.

Good point - I'll bite
Look at it another way - recent history (the last 2K years) shows that the combination of alcohol, monotheism, and the military does the same thing.

If you get the chance, read Guns, Germs, and Steel - where's it's convincingly argued that the events you describe are the result of materials and animals (resources) rather than qualities unique to particular groups of humans.

eg. the reason why the natives of Australia didn't conquer Northern China was not because of a lack of a land bridge - but because you can't ride a kangaroo. i.e. much of human history is the result of geographic coincidence, not genetic superiority.

Anyone who worships any flag is probably mentally retarded, or at least incredibly stupid.

That bit I agree with.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks - we could solve a lot of problems by just having one flag, with a picture of our parents fucking on it.

Trying to define people by geographical and political boundaries (or ideologies) only works for idiots. Nothing against idiots (as long as they have money!)

Arguing that we've always done something a particular way, and therefore should continue to do it is iffy (and conservative by definition.).
eg. Your father tells you his grandfather never had a car, and he never had car, so you don't need a car. But maybe you want to go somewhere...

The whole point of evolution is to fucking evolve - it didn't stop with us growing thumbs. That doesn't mean the whole class should slow down so the lazy don't feel left behind. So remove laws against sharp corners on furniture and let Darwin's Law take care of idiots. Could mean social workers and incompetent lawyers will starve - but progress doesn't come for free.

I'll go wander out side in my underpants now, see how the lawn is doing, and survey my goober domain ;-p

Y'all be kind to each other (and wear rubbers).

 

[REIMktg]

Wait.

What color are each of you so I know who to believe.

 

[guerilla]

It's somewhat of an assumption, but you practically say it out loud. Awkward and uncomfortable? Hmm well. "but obviously you believe it passionately, so I am not going to challenge it and get you all worked up and defensive." Sorry I don't mean to get you emotional over our simply logical discussion.

You're not making any logical claims. You're trying to tell me what my mental state is.

It's like your last post. First you didn't know what reason was, then you told me you were reasoning. I don't know how to have an intelligent discussion with someone whose argument is that everyone is making it up as they go, and they are in fact making it up as they go as well!

Also I don't understand you constantly repeating "you can't articulate my position". I am quoting you bro, you are articulating your position and I am replying...

You quoted me talking about science? You quoted me saying I didn't acknowledge chaos theory?

You quoted me saying anything which contradicted myself?

Come on... Not everyone's reasoning leads to the same conclusions. Even the philosophers of aristotle's time couldn't agree on shit.

And this is the argument. Human agreement, or understanding, isn't necessary for reality to exist. When we're gone, the universe will probably still be here.

Don't know Roger Bannister and havn't talked to you on skype before.

Do you know who Roger Bannister is?

No I just state "objective reality" cannot be concretely defined.

Sure it can. You're concretely defining that it can't be defined.

This is where logic comes in. You can't say, "I am always lying" and have the statement be true.

Logic has plenty of its own pitfalls and assumptions. For one, it assumes all the facts are laid out on the table.

It does not assume any facts. Do you understand what logic, and logical thinking are?

Ok, I have to stop posting to you because my brain hurts, and this is frankly, kinda depressing. Assume my questions were rhetorical.

 

[Moxie]

NOTE: racism is discrimination by race. Nothing wrong with that (discrimination) - try finding your car at the shopping centre without discriminating by colour, make, and type ;-p

That would be an analogy for racial discrimination. Racist discrimination would be more akin to seeing two different color cars that were identical in every other way, and then saying that one is superior because of its color.

 

[Dresden14]

EDIT.... Giggedddy

 

[p0ck3taces]

eh your responses are so far off what I was saying that I can't even reply. Plus we're not evenly remotely close to discussion in the OP, although I guess that is usual for threads on wickedfire that make it past page one.

 

[MarkCharles]

Click on the link to see a handsome happy man

That would be an analogy for racial discrimination. Racist discrimination would be more akin to seeing two different color cars that were identical in every other way, and then saying that one is superior because of its color.

If you can't discriminate between colours finding your car is going to be difficult. It's how we differentiate (well, some of us).
Bigotry is what you're referring to - a "bias", generally deeply held (despite the number of people who misuse the term discrimination).

The first thing we must do to improve the world is change back the names ~ some dead Indian guy.

 

[Moxie]

Again, differentiating in that case would be an analogy for RACIAL discrimination, not RACIST, which is a form of bigotry.