Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
No. Eugenics is about selective breeding.
And quite literally dawkins said he deplores the idea of eugenics in humans. He just said it would be possible to do regardless.
But this still doesnt have anything to doneith science working. So not sure why you are so desperate to deflect from that with this stupid attempt of accusing dawkins that he supports eugenics
Diversity of opinions has nothing to do with superficial traits like sex or ethnicity.
And well its pretty undeniable that women tend to not to be as interested in stem subjects
Well in the end i didnt become a scientist anyway, so its not like it matters.
Studying medicine would be impossible without experimenting on animals and humans, so i dunno what you are on about with that.
But well ultimately you cant. Because other people with opposite values and political ideology exist and will do it anyway
Imho its essentially antiscientific to say we should reconsider researching evolutionary biology because nazis could exploit the findings.
Pretty much. These fundamental changes need to be global. Shit like carbon tax on everyday joes is not something i see will actually help with the climate issue though.
I guess i didnt phrase it precise enough then. I tried getting at whether gender dysphoria is a legit condition or whether he thinks trans people just make shit up for the sake of it
And quite literally dawkins said he deplores the idea of eugenics in humans. He just said it would be possible to do regardless.
But this still doesnt have anything to doneith science working. So not sure why you are so desperate to deflect from that with this stupid attempt of accusing dawkins that he supports eugenics
Post automatically merged:
Diversity of opinions has nothing to do with superficial traits like sex or ethnicity.
And well its pretty undeniable that women tend to not to be as interested in stem subjects
Post automatically merged:
Well in the end i didnt become a scientist anyway, so its not like it matters.
Post automatically merged:
Studying medicine would be impossible without experimenting on animals and humans, so i dunno what you are on about with that.
But well ultimately you cant. Because other people with opposite values and political ideology exist and will do it anyway
Post automatically merged:
Imho its essentially antiscientific to say we should reconsider researching evolutionary biology because nazis could exploit the findings.
Post automatically merged:
Pretty much. These fundamental changes need to be global. Shit like carbon tax on everyday joes is not something i see will actually help with the climate issue though.
Post automatically merged:
I guess i didnt phrase it precise enough then. I tried getting at whether gender dysphoria is a legit condition or whether he thinks trans people just make shit up for the sake of it
Last edited:
H
Go to a 3rd World Country first before talking shit.
Country comparison: Brazil / United States (worlddata.info)
Brazil vs USA
Unemployment rate: 9.5 % vs 3.6 %
Inflation rate: 9.28 % vs 8.00 %
Cost of Living: 49.78 % vs 100.00 %
Commercial taxes and contributions: 65.10 % vs 36.60 %
Average income: 8,140 US$ vs 76,770 US$
USA has near 1/3 of unemployement. Less inflation. Althought cost of living is the double of Brazil the average income is around 9,5x. And way less taxes (current governament is increasing those taxes absurdly lately in Brazil).
Let's see Quality of Life
Political stability: 50 vs 67
Civil rights: 42 vs 83
Health: 56 vs 71
Climate: 56 vs 66
Cost of Living: 37 vs 42
Popularity: 40 vs 87
Now I ask you what is your idea of 1st World Country that USA doesn't fit?
Country comparison: Brazil / United States (worlddata.info)
Brazil vs USA
Unemployment rate: 9.5 % vs 3.6 %
Inflation rate: 9.28 % vs 8.00 %
Cost of Living: 49.78 % vs 100.00 %
Commercial taxes and contributions: 65.10 % vs 36.60 %
Average income: 8,140 US$ vs 76,770 US$
USA has near 1/3 of unemployement. Less inflation. Althought cost of living is the double of Brazil the average income is around 9,5x. And way less taxes (current governament is increasing those taxes absurdly lately in Brazil).
Let's see Quality of Life
Political stability: 50 vs 67
Civil rights: 42 vs 83
Health: 56 vs 71
Climate: 56 vs 66
Cost of Living: 37 vs 42
Popularity: 40 vs 87
Now I ask you what is your idea of 1st World Country that USA doesn't fit?
Come on dude Kink shaming is not cool 
@Rej I'm not into feet but I respect your choice of anime, truly a masterpiece and (at least for me) Anime of the year :cheers:
@Rej I'm not into feet but I respect your choice of anime, truly a masterpiece and (at least for me) Anime of the year :cheers:
Haha surprising tbh.
Oh sorry !
It was meant as "I do not believe in merit" lol
It was not an attack at all.
Like I would really rather be in an environment that agrees with what I say rather than live in an environement where I need to constantly defend my point of view. But here we are. In reality, i'm not attacking you, I'm not really interested in that kind of behavior, I just want people to understand why I'm talking the way I am and potentially make them de-learn pressupposed mythical ideaologies and fallacious teachings about reality.
Oh but yes ! I can of course be wrong sometimes ! In fact, I'm one of the rare person that can instantly change my point of view if presented sufficient evidences here (you will see that its not a common behaviors on this thread)
Its just that I come from a really problematic startpoint, I've therefore realized that I was wrong a lot, and I mean MASSIVELY wrong, over the years.. and this was more than 15 years ago. So I had time to change drastically myself and my point of view when presented clear evidences and good reasonning.... so now... its really hard to find grounds on subjects that I'm familiar with where I can be wrong as I base all my reasonnings on scientific and militant knowledge and the words of those who are concerned by the subjects.
I'm still subject to biases a lot (sexism, racism, individualism, psychophobia even tho I'm quite literally mentally ill) but those are now reduced to the minimum.
But do try to change my mind ! I love to learn new things.
Let me explain:
In our lives, there are what we consider as core beliefs on the way we must act in the world. We call them "value"
For example when we consider that we should be helpfull to the community this is one value, when we consider that animals are not to be considered as human this in another value, when we consider that we should always help the poor, its another value. Etc. We live in our lives with thousands and thousands of core "values". Those values are what shape our opinion on the way in wihch we should act upon the world. Those values can also become "value system", for example meritocracy is a "value system", its a big value and a big belief system that uncompass a lot of small similar values. Those values can be also value system and so on, like sub files if you want.
So.. now that we have values and value system, what happen when those values are entering in opposition with other opposite values Well, this create a conflict of opposition of values and value systems.
This is how I define a political paradigm.
Politic, for me, is therefore just the name I place on the conflict between opposite values. For example : Egalitarism VS individualism
Now that we understand that. What can be observed is that in the world values tends to follow two massive groups of value systems:
- A value system that consider that humans are the result of their own making and can control their environment
- A value system that consider that humans are the product of their environment and must live in adequation with it
In the entire history of mankind, in every cultures and every myths or political conflict, you will observe this opposition. Sometime, like in native north american culture, the value system that consider that we must live in adequation with the environment will be dominant. but right now, one system is dominating the other in the world and its the opposite.
And of course, only one of those value system can be really accurate with reality.
So.. The belief that we are free or can free ourself from the "shackles" of the the influence of our environment is hegemonic.. Its almost everywhere... but one specific discipline : sciences.
Indeed sciences is meant to make us understand reality with the least possible biases as possible. So it's the discipline that has the potential to make us understand best the world.. But even this discipline can be influenced by biases coming not only by our natural evolutions but also by one of the two big value system mentionned above.
So we must always be careful to keep the scientific biases as reduced as minimum. And sometimes, it means injecting the opposite values system into the mix to balance the domination of a core belief system. For example, its hard to understand social sciences if we believe in merit, so we will need to balance that with value system that indicate that we are indeed influenced by our environment and therefore that merit is not a reality. And sadly, most of the time, we will need to reduce the impact of the hegemonic value system, the value system that consider that we are free from our environment and can control it.
Sorry about the missunderstanding, I wasn't clear in the reply.
The question is, do we want a civil wars ? And, until what point can we old the belief system that a civil war is preferable than welcoming illegal immigrants ?
Therefore the ideas that we should only select the one that are not presenting any kind of "conditions" and blaming opposite choices on immorality is eugenistic.
This was a point meant to explain why we should be careful when we share the vision of people like Dawkins's.
Actually it does. Gender and ethnicities also have an impact on the way we see the world and the way we can interprate it. For example, gender diversity in medecine can greatly improve the way we approach treatment for women and ethnical diversity in social sciences can often help the reduction of biases considering racialized and ethnical groups and therefore deepens the researches. In hard sciences, the simple fact of having more diverse gender can equate to a addition of a more diverse pool of background and potentially more efficient and different results.
You are entitled to your value system, I do not have the same. (And when I say experimenting on someone, I mean a living someone, not just dead people)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2254450/
Is it really tho ?
(but that just an example of value in the scientific process)
Yes you can. By increasing ethical and progressive value system in the scientific process. For example, you can prevent people playing with nuclear war heads to test climate just with political restrictions and ethical interdictions.
No one is saying that mate
It was meant as "I do not believe in merit" lol
It was not an attack at all.
Like I would really rather be in an environment that agrees with what I say rather than live in an environement where I need to constantly defend my point of view. But here we are. In reality, i'm not attacking you, I'm not really interested in that kind of behavior, I just want people to understand why I'm talking the way I am and potentially make them de-learn pressupposed mythical ideaologies and fallacious teachings about reality.
Oh but yes ! I can of course be wrong sometimes ! In fact, I'm one of the rare person that can instantly change my point of view if presented sufficient evidences here (you will see that its not a common behaviors on this thread)
Its just that I come from a really problematic startpoint, I've therefore realized that I was wrong a lot, and I mean MASSIVELY wrong, over the years.. and this was more than 15 years ago. So I had time to change drastically myself and my point of view when presented clear evidences and good reasonning.... so now... its really hard to find grounds on subjects that I'm familiar with where I can be wrong as I base all my reasonnings on scientific and militant knowledge and the words of those who are concerned by the subjects.
I'm still subject to biases a lot (sexism, racism, individualism, psychophobia even tho I'm quite literally mentally ill) but those are now reduced to the minimum.
But do try to change my mind ! I love to learn new things.
Let me explain:
In our lives, there are what we consider as core beliefs on the way we must act in the world. We call them "value"
For example when we consider that we should be helpfull to the community this is one value, when we consider that animals are not to be considered as human this in another value, when we consider that we should always help the poor, its another value. Etc. We live in our lives with thousands and thousands of core "values". Those values are what shape our opinion on the way in wihch we should act upon the world. Those values can also become "value system", for example meritocracy is a "value system", its a big value and a big belief system that uncompass a lot of small similar values. Those values can be also value system and so on, like sub files if you want.
So.. now that we have values and value system, what happen when those values are entering in opposition with other opposite values Well, this create a conflict of opposition of values and value systems.
This is how I define a political paradigm.
Politic, for me, is therefore just the name I place on the conflict between opposite values. For example : Egalitarism VS individualism
Now that we understand that. What can be observed is that in the world values tends to follow two massive groups of value systems:
- A value system that consider that humans are the result of their own making and can control their environment
- A value system that consider that humans are the product of their environment and must live in adequation with it
In the entire history of mankind, in every cultures and every myths or political conflict, you will observe this opposition. Sometime, like in native north american culture, the value system that consider that we must live in adequation with the environment will be dominant. but right now, one system is dominating the other in the world and its the opposite.
And of course, only one of those value system can be really accurate with reality.
So.. The belief that we are free or can free ourself from the "shackles" of the the influence of our environment is hegemonic.. Its almost everywhere... but one specific discipline : sciences.
Indeed sciences is meant to make us understand reality with the least possible biases as possible. So it's the discipline that has the potential to make us understand best the world.. But even this discipline can be influenced by biases coming not only by our natural evolutions but also by one of the two big value system mentionned above.
So we must always be careful to keep the scientific biases as reduced as minimum. And sometimes, it means injecting the opposite values system into the mix to balance the domination of a core belief system. For example, its hard to understand social sciences if we believe in merit, so we will need to balance that with value system that indicate that we are indeed influenced by our environment and therefore that merit is not a reality. And sadly, most of the time, we will need to reduce the impact of the hegemonic value system, the value system that consider that we are free from our environment and can control it.
Sorry about the missunderstanding, I wasn't clear in the reply.
The question is, do we want a civil wars ? And, until what point can we old the belief system that a civil war is preferable than welcoming illegal immigrants ?
Therefore the ideas that we should only select the one that are not presenting any kind of "conditions" and blaming opposite choices on immorality is eugenistic.
This was a point meant to explain why we should be careful when we share the vision of people like Dawkins's.
Actually it does. Gender and ethnicities also have an impact on the way we see the world and the way we can interprate it. For example, gender diversity in medecine can greatly improve the way we approach treatment for women and ethnical diversity in social sciences can often help the reduction of biases considering racialized and ethnical groups and therefore deepens the researches. In hard sciences, the simple fact of having more diverse gender can equate to a addition of a more diverse pool of background and potentially more efficient and different results.
You are entitled to your value system, I do not have the same. (And when I say experimenting on someone, I mean a living someone, not just dead people)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2254450/
Is it really tho ?
(but that just an example of value in the scientific process)
Yes you can. By increasing ethical and progressive value system in the scientific process. For example, you can prevent people playing with nuclear war heads to test climate just with political restrictions and ethical interdictions.
No one is saying that mate
Come on dude Kink shaming is not cool
@Rej I'm not into feet but I respect your choice of anime, truly a masterpiece and (at least for me) Anime of the year :cheers:
@Rej I'm not into feet but I respect your choice of anime, truly a masterpiece and (at least for me) Anime of the year :cheers:
my man
@RobinsFeet
Sorry my bad, was to quick to just tag. This means nothing.
Sorry my bad, was to quick to just tag. This means nothing.
