Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26409286 - 12/31/19 12:39 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".



Not the same case, egoistically speaking yes. But ethically speaking no. And as an ethic or a moral, nobody said anything if it being good or wrong, and emotionally you might feel guilty by not opposing slavery.
Not having a relationship with someone is not even remotely close to slavery

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!




That is absurd and a strawman, not even remotely what anybody said.
Would you drive your car blindfolded? no, it is risky i can already do it without being blindfolded.


Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
(...)
So you believe we should conform our behaviors and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else? If that approach was widely adopted, wouldn't we still be living under divine monarchies and believing that the sun revolved around the earth? Challenging these views was once considered "not socially acceptable" either.




He is not stating and nobody stated in any moment that it is good to follow blindly the community values. Just that in that case it is irrational to be with a black guy when the community will reject you (because you know, every ethical and moral decision is singular). As anybody knows, even if one takes GREAT PLEASURE by being with a black guy it is not equivalent to fighting a monarchy or against the Heliocentrism.


Also no, if egoistically speaking fighting the monarchy is bad for you because people will reject you i can assure you only the antisocial rejected fellas would fight the monarchy, because that is pretty much what happened the most in history.
Another different question is when fighting the monarchy is only addressed by the law and order and not society, and when fighting (which is indeed a big risk) a monarchy is better than the alternative egoistically speaking, not as some kind of... categorical imperative? i don't know.

So no, indeed, people usually choose to not fight monarchies when social rejection is presented. So your hypothetical case of eternal monarchies because the thing that destroyed them was bravery ignoring society rejection is just that, hypothetical, it is not how the world works.


Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




I never stated anything about racism, i even stated that i am not racist.
I was literally explaining why from the point of view of the text that qman said love it is seen as a rebellious act.

First of all, racism can be rational (and irrational), from my point of view it is wrong, and i am ready to argue about the wrong parts of rational racist thought because i am not afraid of rational people nor an authoritarian.

Not al racism is build of hatred or fear, and not everybody doing good deeds are rational of with good will. This is not high-school, world is not black and white, racist are not crazy scientific nazis.







Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Ask Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopolous




The court of opinion always wins at the end of the day. Shitty ideas and ideologies fall apart, why don't you have any faith in this very basic premise?



Because your premise is patently unsound.

17 million killed in the nazi holocaust, 100 thousand during the Bosnian genocide, 1 million in Rwanda.

Human economic activity is directly leading to a global environmental catastrophe without any signs of stopping despite all the necessary information haven been available for decades.

Totalitarian dictatorships that ignore all basic human rights still exist going into 2020.

Sometimes shitty ideas thrive.




I think he is just optimistic that your train of thought does not end killing the amount of people stalin killed or the amount of soldiers that died during ww2 because you know, they were human beings too, even the evil ones.




Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I don't hold them on equal standing, but I do believe they should be given an equal opportunity to voice their opinions on a political discussion board.

I think we can agree there's some people who are too racist to have a serious discussion with, but I'm generally ok with qman's approach.  Sure, we have some serious disagreements, but I think he's better than XUL.

And I didn't even find XUL that bad, but what irritated me with him is that he started a thread asking for statistical evidence of white privilege, and when it was shown that people are clearly discriminated against based on black sounding first names, he still dismissed it.



That opportunity exists. We have at least one member here who has consistently put forth arguments in defence of fascism - actual arguments - and I do not believe they have received any warnings for their opinions. I've put forth very contentious arguments regarding the nature of anarchism, sabotage, property destruction, and violence.

My experience on this board is that no one has ever been punished for putting forth actual arguments on difficult issues. Even the occasional shitty racist opinions without any supporting argument are tolerated until the poster (like XUL) makes it clearly obvious that they are not here to actually participate in a discussion.

Would you disagree with this perception?

As for qman, if the result of their warning is that we have them putting more effort into making actual arguments and backing up their claims, and less racist non sequiturs like the quote below - GOOD.

Quote:

qman said:
What makes you think they [US jews] are sincere at all? 

Many promote self-destructive policies for the West, while simultaneously knowing that Israel will never do the same thing. It's called do what I say, not what I do.


https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26100434#26100434




Qman was banned, even if they removed the ban, he was indeed banned.
It served exactly the opposite, qman is now afraid of speaking, which is what you wanted and that makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.


Qman have already stated that antisemitism is not equal no critique of in this case US jews. And i believe that those two things are in fact different.
Just in case, again, i do not agree with him in that matter.

Edited by living_failure (12/31/19 12:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26409321 - 12/31/19 12:57 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".

That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!



Why is qman leaving you to defend their statements anyways? I want to hear their explanation.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else? If that approach was widely adopted, wouldn't we still be living under divine monarchies and believing that the sun revolved around the earth? Challenging these views was once considered "not socially acceptable" either.




I'm not the only one acknowledging that inter-racial relationships are sometimes viewed as problematic to their communities.

You do realize black women are usually the most outraged when black men date/marry white women?  There's tons of books on the very subject. https://www.amazon.com/Aint-All-Good-Black-Should/dp/0913543993

"Why do black women feel so hurt when they see black men with white women?"



I also agree that everything changes with time, but we're discussing the current environment, not why or how it should change for the better.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26409332 - 12/31/19 01:03 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




Fear is a survival mechanism, is fear sometimes irrational?  Yes. Is it sometimes rational? Yes, that's why the trait still exists in humans today.

Racial tribalism exists in basically every human today, is that rational?  If it improves the chances of survival, yes it is.  Is that still applicable in the year 2020?  It depends on the environment.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26409336 - 12/31/19 01:05 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
To be honest, i think you just have the superpower to label anybody you disagrees with as "intolerant" "racist" "fascist" or whatever, allowing you to be intolerant yourself. Well, you are just plain intolerant.



How is what you are doing right now any different?

Any time I have ever given something a label, I have also supplied my reasoning behind that labeling - never has it been as simple as 'I disagree with them' - but what are your reasons for labeling me right now as "plain intolerant", other than the fact you clearly disagree with my 'paradox of intolerance' argument?

You are using claims of intolerance to shut down my argument, without actually engaging with my argument itself - at least I always engage with the argument first before passing my judgment.





It is not different, i am intolerant (not intolerant of intolerant bullshit). But intolerant of what i think bad or unfair, and you do the same, that is authoritarian and intolerant behaviour. Even more when you actually act about that idea.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
You actually called him antisemitic multiple times. So you, you take him personally, and talk about his as a person (in this case as a person poster).
You label him an xul multiple times (not that the label of xul was incorrect, just telling you that you are judging them, even if you judge the words too).



Did I call qman antisemitic, or did I call their opinion/ideal/belief antisemitic? I know english isn't your first language so perhaps you don't understand the difference. If I called qman antisemitic, please show me where - I'm generally very precise in my use of language and I don't know qman personally so I am very careful to avoid making claims of that nature. You might even get me to make a retraction.




I am pretty sure you implied him being racist and antisemitic and deserving a ban. But if i am wrong, sorry, i am still new here and there are so many user names that i could totally mixed up post. If it is not what you said ok. I just thought wrong.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Over and over, you position yourself as holder of the truth. Since there was no formal discussion (even then, winning an argument doesn't make you hold the truth or the opposite) there was no way to prove them wrong or prove you right.
You can already came back from the heavens of the truth and try to make and adult conversation with other people maybe you can even try to take understand their point of view.



True, no formal discussion ever happened so no conclusive evidence for the topic of debate was reached - I don't believe I ever claimed our aborted debate ever proved me right on the matter.

But, qmans complete inability or refusal to put forth an argument on the matter did provide significant evidence for whether qman wished to engage in formal discussion on matters of Israel and the Jewish people, or just post vague references to antisemitic conspiracy.

That thread is still open - nothing is preventing qman from making an argument still.





Refusal to discussion is not equal to losing and argument or not being right.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
But since you are the holder of the truth, the authority, judging who is antisemitic, fascist, racist or whatever and even saying that everybody would benefit for people like qman leaving/getting banned...



I have never claimed I am the holder of truth - any claim I have ever made on this website, I provided my reasoning and supporting evidence behind my conclusions. I don't expect people to accept my claims based on a blind authority - I expect people to accept my claims based on the supplied reasoning and evidence.

And how about you? Can you provide an example where I expected people to accept me as an authority on a subject without reason or evidence - or should I just accept you as the holder of truth in this?





I am starting to believe that i actually mixed up post. There were a lot of people directly claiming or implying qman to be racist and antisemitic. And i thought that you actually said that.
Honestly, my mistake.

At the moment, i just have a more or less opinion of what the ideas and about the words of qman, But i honestly belive that you are labeling him (even if you never directly name-called him racist or antisemitic) as racist. Am i wrong?

Far as i know, you are tired of void discussions and repeating over and over yourself, i understand your boredom, but i genuinely think that qman is not the same case as xul. He is just a guy with less time of with less energies of discussing with you, but he looks rational enough to maid points and recognize other points. What i am criticizing so much is your sentence on qman.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Just and example of the world desired by shiva, a world without discussion, just totally and pure political correctness:
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22915704


Looks like Goebbels level of propaganda and crazy thought to be honest.




I really like how, years later, this thread is still brought up as conclusive evidence that I am too politically correct and want to shut down discussion of non-pc issues. If you bothered to read through the thread you would have found out I was joking and everyone was having fun - or do you honestly believe I think words like 'hamburger' and 'monday' need to be banned?

Looks to me you are the one judging a poster based on your perception of their person and not their actual words - and then using this personal judgment to condemn a discussion (or joke in the case of the linked thread).

I'm confident in my reputation as a poster both willing to participate in good faith discussions of all types and provide well thought out arguments on defence of my own beliefs.




I think you got me totally wrong. I quoted that text because i was trying to prove that judging a person and his intentions by his past posts is pointless and impossible.
The post was on Pub, here you are a lot of more serious, but i am still unsure if part of the post was actually serious, not that i care.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26409359 - 12/31/19 01:27 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Ask Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopolous




The court of opinion always wins at the end of the day. Shitty ideas and ideologies fall apart, why don't you have any faith in this very basic premise?



Because your premise is patently unsound.

17 million killed in the nazi holocaust, 100 thousand during the Bosnian genocide, 1 million in Rwanda.

Human economic activity is directly leading to a global environmental catastrophe without any signs of stopping despite all the necessary information haven been available for decades.

Totalitarian dictatorships that ignore all basic human rights still exist going into 2020.

Sometimes shitty ideas thrive.




Well, "shitty ideas" are subjective. That's why I suggest we examine why the court of public opinion exists the way it does in certain environments. Even war or genocide isn't always considered a shitty idea in the court of public opinion. It depends on which side you're on in the war or the genocide, correct?

The thing is, you don't get to decide what is a shitty idea and then claim you're saving humanity by de-platforming those ideas. The court of public will ALWAYS override your attempts to micromanage the flow of information and ideas.

So I agree, sometimes what me and you might consider shitty ideas will still thrive. Our goal shouldn't be to shut it down, but to examine and understand the thought process behind the motivations for the ideas.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 3 hours, 14 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26409385 - 12/31/19 01:48 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".



Not the same case, egoistically speaking yes. But ethically speaking no. And as an ethic or a moral, nobody said anything if it being good or wrong, and emotionally you might feel guilty by not opposing slavery.
Not having a relationship with someone is not even remotely close to slavery.



I agree that, ethically speaking, a community that doesn't accept interracial couples is not the same case as a community that accepts slavery. That doesn't mean there still isn't an ethical reason to support interracial dating, and I was under the impression that you were just discounting the ethical arguments as less important than the social ones.

At what point does the ethics of the issue outweigh the social repercussions?




Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!




That is absurd and a strawman, not even remotely what anybody said.
Would you drive your car blindfolded? no, it is risky i can already do it without being blindfolded.



Driving while blindfolded is an inherently dangerous proposition, so I hope we aren't comparing that to interracial dating - which gains its risk from possible social attitudes.

Perhaps you can better explain what exactly you mean by "risky and troublesome" then because I'm not understanding why you consider my analogy to be a straw man. Driving is a lot more risky and troublesome than walking, but there are still many rational reasons to drive - interracial dating might be more risky and troublesome (depending on the community attitude), but there are still many rational reasons to date interracially.

Perhaps this analogy is more appropriate: same-sex relationships are often more risky and troublesome because of anti-lgbtq social attitudes - does that mean there is no rational reason to date if you're queer?





Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
(...)
So you believe we should conform our behaviors and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else? If that approach was widely adopted, wouldn't we still be living under divine monarchies and believing that the sun revolved around the earth? Challenging these views was once considered "not socially acceptable" either.




He is not stating and nobody stated in any moment that it is good to follow blindly the community values. Just that in that case it is irrational to be with a black guy when the community will reject you (because you know, every ethical and moral decision is singular). As anybody knows, even if one takes GREAT PLEASURE by being with a black guy it is not equivalent to fighting a monarchy or against the Heliocentrism.



I think you should stop trying to answer for qman. Speak for yourself, rather than what qman hypothetically thinks.

Clearly there is support here for blindly following community values when considering the single issue of white women dating black men - I'm asking qman questions to better understand exactly how widely they apply this principle.

And yes, dating a black guy is not the equivalent to fighting a monarchy in the same way that saying fuck the king is not the equivalent to fighting racism - even if one takes GREAT PLEASURE in saying it - let's try and apply a little intellectual honesty in this discussion okay?




Quote:

living_failure said:
Also no, if egoistically speaking fighting the monarchy is bad for you because people will reject you i can assure you only the antisocial rejected fellas would fight the monarchy, because that is pretty much what happened the most in history.
Another different question is when fighting the monarchy is only addressed by the law and order and not society, and when fighting (which is indeed a big risk) a monarchy is better than the alternative egoistically speaking, not as some kind of... categorical imperative? i don't know.

So no, indeed, people usually choose to not fight monarchies when social rejection is presented. So your hypothetical case of eternal monarchies because the thing that destroyed them was bravery ignoring society rejection is just that, hypothetical, it is not how the world works.



"I can assure you only the antisocial rejected fellas would fight the monarchy, because that is pretty much what happened the most in history."
What are you, the holder of truth? Why should I take your assurances without evidence?

To be honest, I'm not sure if I fully understand the point you are trying to make here. I don't think I made the argument that bravery in ignoring society rejection is what destroys monarchies - I made the argument that too much stock put onto social acceptance would significantly limit progress as a society, and gave some examples where our development as a society was only able to occur when social norms were discounted.

I agree that most people usually choose to not fight monarchies, and social rejection is likely to be an aspect in this decision - that doesn't contradict my claim that 'socially acceptable' is not a very useful category, nor does it form a defence for your argument that going against social norms is irrational.



Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




I never stated anything about racism, i even stated that i am not racist.
I was literally explaining why from the point of view of the text that qman said love it is seen as a rebellious act.

First of all, racism can be rational (and irrational), from my point of view it is wrong, and i am ready to argue about the wrong parts of rational racist thought because i am not afraid of rational people nor an authoritarian.

Not al racism is build of hatred or fear, and not everybody doing good deeds are rational of with good will. This is not high-school, world is not black and white, racist are not crazy scientific nazism.



Yes and from the point of view of that same text, listening to the racist beliefs of the community (see: hatred and fear) is a rational act.

Please provide one rational form of racism, oh holder of truth.




Quote:

living_failure said:
Qman was banned, even if they removed the ban, he was indeed banned.
It served exactly the opposite, qman is now afraid of speaking, which is what you wanted and that makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.



Qman was indeed permabanned, and then upon further consideration it was revoked - so therefore that initial permaban became just a warning.

Since then, I've seen qman make numerous posts in reference to their newfound victim status and fear of speaking - but I haven't actually seen them refuse to participate in discussions nor am I aware that their continued participation is being punished. I do see less dogwhistles though. Have you noticed anything different?

Furthermore, can you show me where I stated that I want qman to be afraid of speaking, and any stated reasons why? I don't remember saying that?

Besides, what's your end goal? It's not like I have any more authority on third website than any other poster - why should I listen to you and feel bad for just speaking my mind? That makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 3 hours, 14 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26409394 - 12/31/19 01:52 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

qman said:
I'm not the only one acknowledging that inter-racial relationships are sometimes viewed as problematic to their communities.

You do realize black women are usually the most outraged when black men date/marry white women?  There's tons of books on the very subject. https://www.amazon.com/Aint-All-Good-Black-Should/dp/0913543993

"Why do black women feel so hurt when they see black men with white women?"



I also agree that everything changes with time, but we're discussing the current environment, not why or how it should change for the better.



"Black women can be racist too" doesn't answer any of the questions posed.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else?



Please answer the questions posed.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 3 hours, 14 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26409412 - 12/31/19 02:03 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




Fear is a survival mechanism, is fear sometimes irrational?  Yes. Is it sometimes rational? Yes, that's why the trait still exists in humans today.

Racial tribalism exists in basically every human today, is that rational?  If it improves the chances of survival, yes it is.  Is that still applicable in the year 2020?  It depends on the environment.



Rational doesn't mean 'improves chances of survival', it means in accordance with reason and logic. Taking care of a sick orphan doesn't improve my chances of survival, but it would not be irrational to take care of them anyways.

Racial tribalism is irrational. What environments in 2020 do you still consider it applicable?

Why should we listen to irrational hatred/fear over irrational love?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRJ Tubs 202
Male

Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,123
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 11 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26409425 - 12/31/19 02:07 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:

Driving while blindfolded is an inherently dangerous proposition, so I hope we aren't comparing that to interracial dating - which gains its risk from possible social attitudes.




When we consider the vast history of our species, there may be many good (functional) reasons for not mating with people outside of your immediate community. From a biological and epidemiological standpoint. Consider the diseases you might expose your family and community to by going with an outsider.   

If a Chinese boy is raped by three Mexican men, and he grows up in fear of Mexicans, I believe that's rational.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 3 hours, 14 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: RJ Tubs 202] * 1
    #26409448 - 12/31/19 02:15 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

RJ Tubs 202 said:
When we consider the vast history of our species, there may be many good (functional) reasons for not mating with people outside of your immediate community. From a biological and epidemiological standpoint. Consider the diseases you might expose your family and community to by going with an outsider.



Skin tone is not a reliable predictor of physical proximity. Just because we share the same skin tone does not necessarily mean we will share the same resistance to disease. Interracial dating is not an inherently dangerous activity.


Quote:

RJ Tubs 202 said:
If a Chinese boy is raped by three Mexican men, and he grows up in fear of Mexicans, I believe that's rational.



The fear would be understandable, but it wouldn't be rational. Using a sample of three to make a statistical conclusion about a population of over 140 million people is not based on reason or logic


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRJ Tubs 202
Male

Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,123
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 11 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26409465 - 12/31/19 02:27 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Skin tone isn't a reliable predictor of physical proximity in a multi-cultural society, such as the US right now. But for most of human history it has been, right? Our brains evolved in an environment that was much different than modern multi-cultural society. And when it comes to trauma and being harmed, I don't think the mind is overly concerned with statistics or sample size. It's focused on avoiding the chance of being harmed again. As a kid I was abused by a woman and today I still sometimes struggle with a fear of women.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26409507 - 12/31/19 03:03 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
I'm not the only one acknowledging that inter-racial relationships are sometimes viewed as problematic to their communities.

You do realize black women are usually the most outraged when black men date/marry white women?  There's tons of books on the very subject. https://www.amazon.com/Aint-All-Good-Black-Should/dp/0913543993

"Why do black women feel so hurt when they see black men with white women?"



I also agree that everything changes with time, but we're discussing the current environment, not why or how it should change for the better.



"Black women can be racist too" doesn't answer any of the questions posed.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else?



Please answer the questions posed.





What method?  Just hearing how humans interact with each other and the attitudes associated with interracial relationships REGARDLESS of the racial or ethnic makeup of the community. You do accept that seems to be universal to some degree in most cultures?

As far as myself, I would state I'm pretty picky and discriminatory in regards to the women I date. But guess what?  Everyone is discriminatory when it comes to relationships and mating.

As far as behavior that isn't socially acceptable at the time, that's a decision everyone has to make and see if it's worth it or not. Tripping on LSD isn't socially acceptable, but that didn't stop me 20 years ago.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 3 hours, 14 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: RJ Tubs 202]
    #26409525 - 12/31/19 03:14 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Not even historically. Skin tones are spread across large physical areas. Two dark skinned people could originate as far away from each other as Nigeria to Australia. Two light skinned people could originate as far away from each other as London to Constantinople. Cultural aspects like language, fashion, and custom would be much more reliable predictors of physical proximity and immunity compatibility imo.


And you are correct that the mind, especially when dealing with trauma, is not particularly concerned with statistics, sample size, or rationality - it's focused on avoiding further trauma. That is why I say that the fear can be understandable despite being irrational. I was in a house that was destroyed by a tornado when I was very young and I left with an irrational fear that the slightest hint of stormy weather was another tornado on way. Given my history, a fear of rough weather was understandable, but there was rarely any rational reason to fear a tornado.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 3 hours, 14 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26409539 - 12/31/19 03:29 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
"Black women can be racist too" doesn't answer any of the questions posed.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else?



Please answer the questions posed.





What method?  Just hearing how humans interact with each other and the attitudes associated with interracial relationships REGARDLESS of the racial or ethnic makeup of the community. You do accept that seems to be universal to some degree in most cultures?

As far as myself, I would state I'm pretty picky and discriminatory in regards to the women I date. But guess what?  Everyone is discriminatory when it comes to relationships and mating.

As far as behavior that isn't socially acceptable at the time, that's a decision everyone has to make and see if it's worth it or not. Tripping on LSD isn't socially acceptable, but that didn't stop me 20 years ago.




What method? You made the claim that "most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man" and I'm asking what method you used to form that conclusion. "Just hearing how humans interact" isn't very specific.

I also asked 'what reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant?' and again you neglected to answer.

I also asked 'do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?' and you neglected to answer it directly - opting instead to dodge the question and talk about how you and everyone else can be discriminatory when it comes to relationships.

And finally, instead of the vague response about how the decision to conform to the socially acceptable is one everyone has to make and an anecdote about the time you took some LSD, why not explain your specific conditions that lead you to conform with the socially acceptable (like with interracial dating) and what specific conditions lead you to not conform (like the time you took lsd).

Evasive answers don't make a discussion. It only gives me the impression that in the 7 years since you made that post in Sexuality and Relationships, the only real change in your beliefs is that you learned to avoid being so explicit.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26409548 - 12/31/19 03:37 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




Fear is a survival mechanism, is fear sometimes irrational?  Yes. Is it sometimes rational? Yes, that's why the trait still exists in humans today.

Racial tribalism exists in basically every human today, is that rational?  If it improves the chances of survival, yes it is.  Is that still applicable in the year 2020?  It depends on the environment.



Rational doesn't mean 'improves chances of survival', it means in accordance with reason and logic. Taking care of a sick orphan doesn't improve my chances of survival, but it would not be irrational to take care of them anyways.

Racial tribalism is irrational. What environments in 2020 do you still consider it applicable?

Why should we listen to irrational hatred/fear over irrational love?




Hmm, I'll actually disagree with you that human survival mechanisms are not usually rational. It is logical that humans are programmed to survive at almost any cost. If taking care of a sick child doesn't hurt your chances of survival, there's nothing illogical about it.

"Racial tribalism is irrational"

That's not true, if it was "irrational" it wouldn't still exist in humans today. You don't like this part of human nature, but it does serve a function.  In fact, it's so important for the survival of humans, it still remains a very active trait even in modern civilizations.

Racial tribalism is alive and well in many parts of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks

Look at the political world today, people are constantly dividing themselves and the issues with their racial identity. That is racial tribalism at work. Are you going to tell minorities to stop self organizing based on their racial makeup?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26409571 - 12/31/19 03:56 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
"Black women can be racist too" doesn't answer any of the questions posed.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else?



Please answer the questions posed.





What method?  Just hearing how humans interact with each other and the attitudes associated with interracial relationships REGARDLESS of the racial or ethnic makeup of the community. You do accept that seems to be universal to some degree in most cultures?

As far as myself, I would state I'm pretty picky and discriminatory in regards to the women I date. But guess what?  Everyone is discriminatory when it comes to relationships and mating.

As far as behavior that isn't socially acceptable at the time, that's a decision everyone has to make and see if it's worth it or not. Tripping on LSD isn't socially acceptable, but that didn't stop me 20 years ago.




What method? You made the claim that "most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man" and I'm asking what method you used to form that conclusion. "Just hearing how humans interact" isn't very specific.

I also asked 'what reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant?' and again you neglected to answer.

I also asked 'do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?' and you neglected to answer it directly - opting instead to dodge the question and talk about how you and everyone else can be discriminatory when it comes to relationships.

And finally, instead of the vague response about how the decision to conform to the socially acceptable is one everyone has to make and an anecdote about the time you took some LSD, why not explain your specific conditions that lead you to conform with the socially acceptable (like with interracial dating) and what specific conditions lead you to not conform (like the time you took lsd).

Evasive answers don't make a discussion. It only gives me the impression that in the 7 years since you made that post in Sexuality and Relationships, the only real change in your beliefs is that you learned to avoid being so explicit.




I'm answering the questions, but you just don't like the answers. Do you really have to even ask why interracial relationships are considered deviant behavior in must cultures across the world? I'm sorry you can't accept that my EXPERIENCE dictates my sentiment on the issue. I asked you a question, do you accept that interracial relationships are considered problematic to some degree in most cultures?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this discussion is about how people across different cultures and races view interracial relationships, not my personal opinion about it. What I think is irrelevant and meaningless relative to how humans in general view it and for what reasons.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 4 hours, 50 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26409640 - 12/31/19 05:10 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".

That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL




I don't know that that analogy is correct. It would be correct, if posed directly to Qman, but Qman's relentless apologist is making the case that, to use your analogy - A person is not an advocate of slavery (or racist), just because they abide the culture of slave ownership (or culture of racism) that surrounds them.

Which begs the question, if you stand idly by, and watch evil men do evil things, and even follow suit, due to intense social pressures (even against your desire), are you guilty of the same evil? The Nuremberg trials would certainly say yes.

I would argue, that a person is the sum of their actions, rather than that of their ideals (particularly those that they do not live, or act upon).

A quote that is appropriate here is 'Be the change you wish to see in the world' - Ghandi

Is it irrational to be the change you wish to see in the world? I think not.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 4 hours, 50 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 1
    #26409794 - 12/31/19 07:07 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

To address Qman's post, and why it is in fact racist, I think we ought to first define racism.

Racism, in my mind, is active discrimination against a group of people, based on their race. That is the most basic, fundamental definition of racism.

Qman has made one of two possible, dubious assertions, in my mind. (Not trying to be fallacious, these are the only two ways I see to interpret his post)

A) Society is observably racist, and therefore there is no conceivable reason why a white woman would engage in race-mixing. Adherence to societal norms is paramount, above all else, lest a person be subject to the most tragic of fates (in his mind); ostracization. Succumbing to societal pressures is the only rational way a person can act.

B) There is no reason for a white woman to fraternize with black folk, as they are beneath her. She could only be doing such a thing to get back at her parents, as there is no other reason a white woman would bump uglies with an untouchable. White men won't date her, if she has been tainted by black cock, the forbiddenest of cocks, because it's gross.

If A is true, Qman is a coward, if B is true, Qman is a racist. I suspect B is true. I guess I'll leave that up to Qman, though.

In either case he is suggesting she engage with black folks in a discriminatory way, based on their race, though, so I guess in either case he is a proponent of racism.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/31/19 07:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 4
    #26409802 - 12/31/19 07:18 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

do not have a lot to add to this,
but as someone who has too much interest in the production side of professional pornography
there has been a long-standing sentiment that actresses who do a scene with even one black guy on film lose a financially significant portion of their audience
remember an interview with Lisa Ann where she talked about how the start of her career was spent under contract that outright did not allow her to film with black actors

not me agreeing with the sentiment or arguing against there being racism within it; just recognizing that it has been a larger social sentiment bearing economic reprecussions

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 4 hours, 50 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Tantrika] * 3
    #26409932 - 12/31/19 08:55 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Tantrika said:
do not have a lot to add to this,
but as someone who has too much interest in the production side of professional pornography
there has been a long-standing sentiment that actresses who do a scene with even one black guy on film lose a financially significant portion of their audience
remember an interview with Lisa Ann where she talked about how the start of her career was spent under contract that outright did not allow her to film with black actors

not me agreeing with the sentiment or arguing against there being racism within it; just recognizing that it has been a larger social sentiment bearing economic reprecussions




That's an excellent observation, which I suppose gives credence to Q's assertion that white men aren't interested in a woman who has been with a black man. I suppose that is a sad reality. I don't believe that it hinders the points I have made, but it does demonstrate that there are many men who feel the way Qman does, which is unfortunate.

I will say that in my personal life, when I see a woman with a black man, I often assume she is culturally dissimilar to me, and I am less likely to pursue her down the road. That is, until I get to know her better. My xgf is half black, but culturally she is very similar to me. The cultural differences between black and white people, particularly here in Michigan, as opposed to the West coast, are quite profound.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NO FLAMING RULE IN FULL EFFECT
( 1 2 all )
RonoS 4,865 33 08/25/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Evoting rules! phi1618 462 2 04/22/04 02:32 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Flaming: What it is and what it isn't
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 2,568 36 06/22/04 01:11 PM
by Innvertigo
* Bush Wants Marijuana Ruling Struck Down
( 1 2 all )
Edame 2,335 30 07/13/03 07:59 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Forum Rules (Please read or re-read before posting) RonoS 32,161 0 02/25/03 05:57 AM
by Rono
* Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 4,238 48 12/25/03 02:31 PM
by Anonymous
* Sooo whats with the new OVertime rules?
( 1 2 all )
GabbaDjS 1,915 29 07/16/03 10:03 PM
by Cornholio
* FCC Rule changes repeal vote passes Senate! GernBlanston 650 4 09/17/03 12:45 AM
by DoctorJ

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,405 topic views. 3 members, 5 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.