I beg of you...PLEASE stop!

a reply to: CranialSponge

Oh yes, the nuclear option of debate between children!

Hehe!

When arguments can be boiled down to a variation on school yard prattle, embellished one liners extended into alleged reasoned opinion, we all suffer for it. I reckon we have to be better than that.

a reply to: Argus100

If a person is out-of-touch enough to find that kind of corny bull# funny, or even more insanely ridiculous: witty, than how can I sit here and feel comfortable trusting their sensibilities when it comes to other #!??

If it gets to you, that means it worked. Why let that stuff aggravate you anyway. You claim you're above it, if you are don't pay attention to it.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Ah yes, the go to of the three year old.

"They started it" or "Well little Joeys mom and dad let HIM say what ever he wants!"

Thats the sort of seasoned debate skill that we need more of around here, for suuuure.

Good grief.

I think you jumped on the bandwagon of the exact thing you're arguing against. So instead of saying something constructive, you resort to calling me a child. Why stop there? Just call me a racist. It holds about just as much truth as me being a three-year old.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Strictly speaking, everyone is racist, just to a lesser or greater extent than others. I suppose it's also true that everyone is a child to a lesser or greater extent as well.

As to the post you're replying to, I don't think he was debating you or trying to argue with you, just pointing out a flawed position. It's worse than it could have been, but I don't think what you did and what he did are necessarily equatable.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Strictly speaking, everyone is racist, just to a lesser or greater extent than others. I suppose it's also true that everyone is a child to a lesser or greater extent as well.

As to the post you're replying to, I don't think he was debating you or trying to argue with you, just pointing out a flawed position. It's worse than it could have been, but I don't think what you did and what he did are necessarily equatable.

I would have to respectfully disagree. Racism is the belief that your race is superior to another, or all. But people may make generalizations about a race that may or may not be negative and be correct. Depending on the view point of the listener, it may be deemed "racist" when it only appears negative, but not racist when it appears positive. Even though, it's still a generalization, or "trend analysis" as I prefer to call it. But I digress. I think TrueBrit's intent was a personal one. a "child-response" back if I may be so bold to say.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

My response to you is not about your person, it is about your manner of debating and discussing the issues. Going about it in the way that I am protesting about in my response to you, avails you, and those who are participating in this discussion, of NOTHING.

The fact that someone else is doing something ridiculous and wasteful of everyone's time, does not mean that doing it too is going to solve a bloody thing. All it means, is that everyone gets to read a heap of utter BS, and get nothing valuable out of such communications as comprise no actual substance.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

I would have to respectfully disagree. Racism is the belief that your race is superior to another, or all. But people may make generalizations about a race that may or may not be negative and be correct. Depending on the view point of the listener, it may be deemed "racist" when it only appears negative, but not racist when it appears positive. Even though, it's still a generalization, or "trend analysis" as I prefer to call it. But I digress. I think TrueBrit's intent was a personal one. a "child-response" back if I may be so bold to say.

That is somewhat true, but not entirely. That understanding of racism (derogatory generalization or discrimination/prejudice) is what it's colloquially used to mean, but like you later say, it depends on the viewpoint of the individual that is judging it. Believing that Asians are all brilliant at mathematics is racist, believing that all African-Americans are criminal is also racist, though obviously the former is to a much lesser extent than the latter in terms of how it might influence your behavior. Hence why I said, "to a lesser or greater extent."

I suppose you could call it "trend analysis" if you are basing your beliefs off hard data, but you need to avoid falling into certain false conclusions. Some races might be more or less likely to commit crimes than others, for instance, but it would be wrong to ascribe that to a race-based genetic predisposition when the actual cause may be socio-economical and caused by the racism the data is used to reinforce to begin with.
[Simplified Example]
Race is found to kill more people than others.
Lock race in high-crime slums (literally or figuratively.)
Race kills more people as a result of circumstance of being forced into slums where crime is rampant.
Race is found to kill more people than others.

As you can see, the logic is circular.

Truthfully speaking it was more personal than necessary to make his point, but I don't begrudge him that. The man is not a saint, and when you see people constantly whine about other people whining it can get quite irritating. A test of temper, if you would.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You may have been a wee bit quick to judge, TB. It might have been a pointless one-liner (that we are all guilty of from time to time) but it has evidently led to some sort of proper discussion, intentional or not.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Sometimes, saying less is more. That is all.

a reply to: Argus100

I'm a "middle of the road guy" when it comes to politics and agree with you guys on quite a few of your "go to" issues, but Jesus people....

Really? I'm having a very difficult time believing that, because if it were true, then you would not have made any partisan distinction... at all...

My god....does anyone in the group of folks on this board constantly commenting with things like "....msm....libtards....if it were a Christian...." Etc etc etc ever get tired of the never ending circle jerk around here?!!?!

For example, look how easily I can replace key words -- i.e., the conservative insults with liberal insults -- in the above sentence:

"My God... does anyone in the group of folks on this board constantly commenting with things like "... faux news... racists... flying spaghetti monster..." Etc etc etc ever get tired of the never ending circle jerk around here?!!?!"

Exactly the same, but the partisan opposite. Where is the practical difference?

The difference here guys is the level of horribly overused and terribly unwitty/cheesey catchphrases and buzzwords used in the conservative leaning threads. Guys....please...."libtard", "billary" "traitor in chief", they just aren't clever or funny anymore!

Again:

"The difference here guys is the level of horribly overused and terribly unwitty/cheesey catchphrases and buzzwords used in the liberal leaning threads. Guys... please... "rightwing nutjob", "cheetohead" "teabagger", they just aren't clever or funny anymore!"

See how easy that was? What's the difference?

How is it any worse for someone to call Obama the "Traitor in Chief" than it is for someone to call God the "Flying Spaghetti Monster"??? Or how is "faux news" any worse than "msm"? Or how is "libtard" worse than "teabagger"???

And "Billary" isn't even an insult... more like "Brangelina"... just acknowledging that they are a team.

I'm all for getting past not just the partisan insults, but ALL insults. This doesn't help though. It just blames one side while giving the other side a free pass.

a reply to: Boadicea

God the "Flying Spaghetti Monster"

God and Religion might be more commonly associated with the Right-Wing but calling God the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more along the lines of making fun of religion and referencing an actual piece of satire. Calling Obama the Traitor-in-Chief (even if I personally agree with that for the most part to be honest) is different because it's not referencing an actual piece of satire, and is inherently partisan because Obama is a Democrat.

Or how is "faux news" any worse than "msm"

MSM refers to the media as a whole and in my experience is typically used to refer to establishment corruption (right and left) and failure to correctly report on issues. I'm fairly sure Faux News is included within the MSM. Faux News targets Right-Wing while MSM is all-encompassing.

Or how is "libtard" worse than "teabagger"?

No idea, I'm not American. They both seem irritating, though it might be because "liberal" is a lot larger of a category that more people ascribe to. There's also no liberal party that I'm aware of.

Interesting bit of lolziness, The "Nutty Corporate Controlled Right-Wing Party" here in Oz is called "Liberal".

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Believing that Asians are all brilliant at mathematics is racist

I'm sorry, but I can't get behind that. The definition of racism is:

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines racism as. '1 a a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this. b antagonism towards, or discrimination against other races, esp. as a result of this. 2 the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.'

Chinese people for example, use a part of their brain called the "visuo-premotor association network" when doing math. As per this article from 2006. www.futurepundit.com...

Specifically, Chinese speakers had more activity in the visual and spatial brain centre called the visuo-premotor association network. Native English speakers showed more activity in the language network known as perisylvian cortices in the left half of the brain. Reiman and his colleagues suggest that the Chinese language’s simple way of describing numbers may make native speakers less reliant on language processing when doing maths. For example, “eleven” is “ten one” in Chinese “twenty-one” is “two ten one”.

Now because of this, and the "data" one can surmise that Chinese people are indeed better at math. And this has nothing to do with genetic predisposition. It most likely is a direct result of learning the Chinese language that stimulates their visuo-premotor network while others like westerners rely on speech networks. But seeing that there are more Chinese people living in China than westerners, we can apply "trend-analysis" and say Chinese are better at math. Not racists at all. Just a scientific observation.

But if you do want to talk about genetic predisposition, the same can be applied to specific races. Do you like to watch porn? I'll say no more.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

God and Religion might be more commonly associated with the Right-Wing but calling God the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more along the lines of making fun of religion and referencing an actual piece of satire. Calling Obama the Traitor-in-Chief (even if I personally agree with that for the most part to be honest) is different because it's not referencing an actual piece of satire, and is inherently partisan because Obama is a Democrat.

Um... okay. I don't see how the distinctions you are making changes anything. Obama is not God... obviously. So this makes "flying spaghetti monster" less insulting than "traitor in chief" how?

MSM refers to the media as a whole and in my experience is typically used to refer to establishment corruption (right and left) and failure to correctly report on issues. I'm fairly sure Faux News is included within the MSM. Faux News targets Right-Wing while MSM is all-encompassing.

Again... okay. But how is this significant? It seems to me that you are making my case... i.e., whereas "msm" is a generic term which the OP attributed to conservatives only, "faux news" is a specific term for a specific conservative news site used by liberals... so which is worse? Which is more insulting?

No idea, I'm not American. They both seem irritating, though it might be because "liberal" is a lot larger of a category that more people ascribe to. There's also no liberal party that I'm aware of.

So it's more insulting to be called a "libtard" because there's more libtards than teabaggers? Okay. You got me on a technicality! I guess that's true in that sense!!!

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Ah, here is where our misunderstanding comes from. The understanding of racism that I personally follow is

'1.1The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races'

Humans are inherently and subconsciously racist. Most, however, do not let it affect their behavior to any meaningful extent.

Now because of this, and the "data" one can surmise that Chinese people are indeed better at math. And this has nothing to do with genetic predisposition. It most likely is a direct result of learning the Chinese language that stimulates their visuo-premotor network while others like westerners rely on speech networks. But seeing that there are more Chinese people living in China than westerners, we can apply "trend-analysis" and say Chinese are better at math. Not racists at all. Just a scientific observation.

In a sense you're correct, but the issue is your conclusion and how you state it. It is too ambiguous. "Speakers of Chinese as a primary language are better at math" is the significantly superior alternative. Being Chinese is connected to speaking Chinese as a primary language, and speaking Chinese as a primary language is connected to being better at math, but being Chinese is not connected to being better at math directly, just like how being African-American is not connected to a higher crime rate directly. They are correlations and not causations.

But if you do want to talk about genetic predisposition, the same can be applied to specific races. Do you like to watch porn? I'll say no more.

Are you talking about the tendency to find the appearance of one's own race more enticing than the alternatives? I truthfully don't know what point you are insinuating. To answer your question, not particularly. I consider watching porn and the action that goes with it an irritating chore, necessary for the purpose of unimpeded biological functions.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Ah, here is where our misunderstanding comes from. The understanding of racism that I personally follow is

It's the same definition but worded differently. But interpreted different because you believe

Humans are inherently and subconsciously racist.

I don't believe we are inherently racist. You believe we are born that way? Or taught? I believe we are inherently cautious, or make generalizations, but as I pointed out, this is trend-analysis. It becomes racist once you take it to the next level and add the element of hate.

but being Chinese is not connected to being better at math directly

No, I never insinuated that at all. I specifically said it probably has to do with learning Chinese. If roles reversed and whites where in China, then whites would be better at math. I thought I was clear about that. But the fact remains Chinese people learn Chinese and that is the direct link to their superiority is Math. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging this.

Are you talking about the tendency to find the appearance of one's own race more enticing than the alternatives?

No, I'm talking about endowment. Let me change up the subject because I didn't actually think you would go there. Is it racist for a white woman to date black men exclusively?

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

God almighty.

I don't know if it's racist, but it's shallow, seedy, and bloody low behaviour to date based on probable portion size. Only a fool would do so, since a rapier can beat a broadsword through finesse of use, assuming any will on the part of the user.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, I've heard it's not the size of the wand but the magic of the performer but I have been privy to many ladies conversation to the contrary. Regardless of one's depth of intellect, a certain male's lack of endowment can be a deal breaker. But that's another thread. However, it begs a philosophical question one must ponder introspectively. Is it racist to seek larger attributes in specific cultures?

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

I don't know is the answer.

You are talking to a fellow who wouldn't even kiss a woman, let alone date her, unless he was already in love with her. I cannot begin to speculate on the intentions or qualities of those who date to get laid, because the reasons those things happen, let alone the specific preferences of those who indulge in them, elude me entirely.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

I don't know is the answer.

You are talking to a fellow who wouldn't even kiss a woman, let alone date her, unless he was already in love with her. I cannot begin to speculate on the intentions or qualities of those who date to get laid, because the reasons those things happen, let alone the specific preferences of those who indulge in them, elude me entirely.

My question doesn't necessarily have to be about sex. It could mean sports. It could mean war, it could mean science. It was a very open ended question because it's a philosophical one. But if it were to do with sex, or any of the aforementioned, then the answer is no. Because how could a white woman be racist if she's dating a black man while committing a stereotype considered racist? The world is subjective.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Ah yes, the go to of the three year old.

"They started it" or "Well little Joeys mom and dad let HIM say what ever he wants!"

Thats the sort of seasoned debate skill that we need more of around here, for suuuure.

Good grief.

So you say agree with the OP and only allow that side of the aisle or whatever else you want to call it to be the only ones allowed to call names or say anything at all.....

The REAL go to of a 3 year old, and you can't even see you are doing it.