a.n.kirillov
velle non discitur
- Nov 17, 2019
- 1,831
I guess I have to concede the point to @Epsilon0 , since she is inherently right.
What he describes is similar to someone who cannot get laid and starts to play the victim card by saying women are evil, the dating game is unfair, sex is overrated or even sinful to feel better about his failure – or to make others feel worse about sex and thereby regain some sense of power.Uhhh...nope too many big words for me
Last edited:
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
In early grad school, I had a professor who was so smart, he spent an entire lunch trying and failing to explain to me -- in a way I could understand -- what an argument is.
It was one of the most frustrating conversations of my life. The only one more frustrating was the philosophy professor who refused to answer any fucking question at all! He only answered questions with questions, Socratic jerk.
Anyhow, an argument...
It's just the main point of a paper you write, or a conversation you start, as @nitrogen did here. It's the stand you take. And for the rest of the paper/OP, you stay on topic, as one hopes to in a thread, you defend your stand, and you pick holes in it, as if you were having a conversation with other people -- if it's an academic paper, it is a conversation, because you bring in the support and arguments of others, which you get from doing your research on the subject, as well as the field in which it's discussed, like psychology or a branch of philosophy or science or literature. On a forum, others actively join in the conversation, and people are happy to pick apart holes in your thesis and find fault, especially if you don't beat them to it.The OP had elements of an academic paper, presented in a forum environment. Argument ensued.
I didn't really write this to explain anything to anyone. @L0ne1ygh0st's comment reminded me of that old conversation, and as I was writing, I related it to this thread and to forum conversations. Please excuse the navel gazing.
It was one of the most frustrating conversations of my life. The only one more frustrating was the philosophy professor who refused to answer any fucking question at all! He only answered questions with questions, Socratic jerk.
Anyhow, an argument...
It's just the main point of a paper you write, or a conversation you start, as @nitrogen did here. It's the stand you take. And for the rest of the paper/OP, you stay on topic, as one hopes to in a thread, you defend your stand, and you pick holes in it, as if you were having a conversation with other people -- if it's an academic paper, it is a conversation, because you bring in the support and arguments of others, which you get from doing your research on the subject, as well as the field in which it's discussed, like psychology or a branch of philosophy or science or literature. On a forum, others actively join in the conversation, and people are happy to pick apart holes in your thesis and find fault, especially if you don't beat them to it.
The OP had elements of an academic paper, presented in a forum environment. Argument ensued. I didn't really write this to explain anything to anyone. @L0ne1ygh0st's comment reminded me of that old conversation, and as I was writing, I related it to this thread and to forum conversations. Please excuse the navel gazing.
Last edited:
nitrogen
Schrödinger's cat
- Nov 5, 2019
- 339
If I could (but I won't even if I could), I'd invite you all to the basement of my house, have intelligent debates and pick each other's brain as an Alzheimer's Prevention Movement. Intellectual stimulation on this level works much better than doing crossword puzzles in the newspaper.
And we can also have video or movie night, bond over something like this. In no time, you'll start kissing again.
@Underscore I'm no longer bored.....for now.
@Iloveyouall This is a thread you might find interesting.
Here's a subthread under this thread: Unicorn farting rainbows. GO
And we can also have video or movie night, bond over something like this. In no time, you'll start kissing again.
@Underscore I'm no longer bored.....for now.
@Iloveyouall This is a thread you might find interesting.
SHE. Did I come off as a dude again?
Here's a subthread under this thread: Unicorn farting rainbows. GO
Last edited:
I vote for an SS pub quiz night. I could see it now
Those bloody unicorns do a lot of rainbow farting, what is it with them?
Those bloody unicorns do a lot of rainbow farting, what is it with them?
Quarky00
Enlightened
- Dec 17, 2019
- 1,956
nitrogen
Schrödinger's cat
- Nov 5, 2019
- 339
@Quarky00 Interesting topic you've started: internet trolling. It might spark another interesting round of discussion at the SS pub. My "unicorn farting rainbow" subthread didn't catch on.
Here's my short input:
The word "trolling" has been applied to behaviors ranging all the way from innocuous rickrolling to deliberately targeting someone with cyberhate and publishing their personal details online. The word "trolling" is overused and misused so frequently that people slap the word "trolling" on anything that annoys them.
It's one of those semi-useful but also dumb Internet words that means whatever you want it to mean.
And let's not forget to take the alledged troll's intention into account. For someone to fit the definition of a troll, the person would have to say something they themselves don't even believe just to provoke negative reactions, or they'd need to have a sinister intention. It's impossible to read people's minds in most cases. Labeling people without knowing their full story is another form of cyberbullying.
Hey come back people @a.n.kirillov @Epsilon0 @GoodPersonEffed @Underscore @Una @Jean Améry , it's not bed time yet.
Is liquor enough? If not, I'll throw in a few strippers.
Here's my short input:
The word "trolling" has been applied to behaviors ranging all the way from innocuous rickrolling to deliberately targeting someone with cyberhate and publishing their personal details online. The word "trolling" is overused and misused so frequently that people slap the word "trolling" on anything that annoys them.
It's one of those semi-useful but also dumb Internet words that means whatever you want it to mean.
And let's not forget to take the alledged troll's intention into account. For someone to fit the definition of a troll, the person would have to say something they themselves don't even believe just to provoke negative reactions, or they'd need to have a sinister intention. It's impossible to read people's minds in most cases. Labeling people without knowing their full story is another form of cyberbullying.
Hey come back people @a.n.kirillov @Epsilon0 @GoodPersonEffed @Underscore @Una @Jean Améry , it's not bed time yet.
Is liquor enough? If not, I'll throw in a few strippers.
Last edited:
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
Some thoughts on "hypocrisy."
It generally doesn't feel so great when someone tells us we're in the wrong. I don't know what it is about humans that we're generally more concerned about saving face than saving relations.
Chimps have face-saving behaviors, too.
I read this in de Waal, about how when two strong males have fought, a female will sit between them and start grooming one, and he'll huff and kinda start grooming back...
and she'll turn to the other and start grooming him, and he'll huff and kinda start grooming back...
and she goes back and forth until each of the dudes is really into it...
and then she slips out and the males start grudgingly grooming each other in her place, not huffing as much as when it all started but still huffing...
and grooming...
and huffing less...
and eventually they get their serious grooming groove on until emotional regulation has returned...
and all is back to normal.
When someone has the -- shall I say it? -- utter au-da-city (!) to call out a bad behavior, to say someone did something wrong, they'd better watch the fuck out. They're going to be put under a microscope. They'd better never have done what they called out, and they'd better never do it in the future, or all bets are off!
J'accuse!!!
HYPOCRITE!!!!!!
The word "hypocrite" is perhaps the penultimate example of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy of logic, also called the "you too" fallacy. It is a claim that one's argument is flawed if they don't act consistently with the claims of their argument. "It takes two to tango" is that kind of fallacy, on the broadest possible scale, saying: "You can't blame someone for doing wrong to you when you were doing wrong, too."
When the person making such an accusation wasn't even an involved party, they're part of the Greek chorus. It's shaming. It's saving the face of a perpetrator at the expense of a victim. I think because both are part of the pwck, the social order, and who wants to identify with the victim? So it's a big fat "How dare you?! The fallacy is you!"
And when the tide at last turns...
and the Greek chorus finally reaches a level of evolved civility that victim blaming is no longer the done thing...
then those who prefer the old way, because goddamnit things were good (appeal to tradition fallacy btw), begin to yell:
"PC!"
and
"You fucking hypocrites! Just last week you were saying it takes two to tango!"
Nobody likes being called a hypocrite.
The chorus members doubt themselves.
They look at each other, look away, scratch imaginary nits, start huddling for protection.
Pick a few nits from each other, from the perpetrators, just to be safe.
Shun the victim to be even safer. We can't condone that shit -- as if the victim were the shit that was done to them.
She was probably lying anyway. Or did something to deserve it. Or she will. Fucking hypocrite.
Faces saved.
Now move along...
...and all is back to normal.
Back to keeping our heads down and our mouths shut. We forgot, it's best not to notice, be uppity, dare to say what's wrong is wrong. We're gonna get crucified for that shit if we do it again.
It's no wonder the worst ones win.
It generally doesn't feel so great when someone tells us we're in the wrong. I don't know what it is about humans that we're generally more concerned about saving face than saving relations.
Chimps have face-saving behaviors, too.
I read this in de Waal, about how when two strong males have fought, a female will sit between them and start grooming one, and he'll huff and kinda start grooming back...
and she'll turn to the other and start grooming him, and he'll huff and kinda start grooming back...
and she goes back and forth until each of the dudes is really into it...
and then she slips out and the males start grudgingly grooming each other in her place, not huffing as much as when it all started but still huffing...
and grooming...
and huffing less...
and eventually they get their serious grooming groove on until emotional regulation has returned...
and all is back to normal.
When someone has the -- shall I say it? -- utter au-da-city (!) to call out a bad behavior, to say someone did something wrong, they'd better watch the fuck out. They're going to be put under a microscope. They'd better never have done what they called out, and they'd better never do it in the future, or all bets are off!
J'accuse!!!
HYPOCRITE!!!!!!
The word "hypocrite" is perhaps the penultimate example of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy of logic, also called the "you too" fallacy. It is a claim that one's argument is flawed if they don't act consistently with the claims of their argument. "It takes two to tango" is that kind of fallacy, on the broadest possible scale, saying: "You can't blame someone for doing wrong to you when you were doing wrong, too."
When the person making such an accusation wasn't even an involved party, they're part of the Greek chorus. It's shaming. It's saving the face of a perpetrator at the expense of a victim. I think because both are part of the pwck, the social order, and who wants to identify with the victim? So it's a big fat "How dare you?! The fallacy is you!"
And when the tide at last turns...
and the Greek chorus finally reaches a level of evolved civility that victim blaming is no longer the done thing...
then those who prefer the old way, because goddamnit things were good (appeal to tradition fallacy btw), begin to yell:
"PC!"
and
"You fucking hypocrites! Just last week you were saying it takes two to tango!"
Nobody likes being called a hypocrite.
The chorus members doubt themselves.
They look at each other, look away, scratch imaginary nits, start huddling for protection.
Pick a few nits from each other, from the perpetrators, just to be safe.
Shun the victim to be even safer. We can't condone that shit -- as if the victim were the shit that was done to them.
She was probably lying anyway. Or did something to deserve it. Or she will. Fucking hypocrite.
Faces saved.
Now move along...
...and all is back to normal.
Back to keeping our heads down and our mouths shut. We forgot, it's best not to notice, be uppity, dare to say what's wrong is wrong. We're gonna get crucified for that shit if we do it again.
It's no wonder the worst ones win.
Last edited:
K-O
FU(KOFFEE
- Apr 16, 2020
- 1,462
This is obv OP's 'point' .. Divide and conquer.. oldest trick in da book.. YAWN..Uhhh...nope too many big words for me
yep..
krauts unite! :)
peace out wankers..
nitrogen
Schrödinger's cat
- Nov 5, 2019
- 339
You are heavily emotionally rattled, and that's oozing from every sentence of your posts. The wording you used "I'm disgusted by individuals" 3 times, "wank", "idiot", "scum", "bully", "BS" twice, the exclamation marks, the angry and snickering tone......
It's unclear who you're directing that first long-winded post at. Since you quoted my entire original post, I'm assuming you're directing it at me.
I ignored you until now and the reason why I ignored you before is that when your reasoning is heavily clouded by emotions, you can't rationalize. Yet you just keep on buzzing around.
Instead of laying out cogent counterarguments, you rambled on about your personal preferences, laced with choice words. Choice words seem ferocious at first glance, but the true reason why posters use them is that they lack debating skills and logical reasoning skills. They try to appear bigger than they really are by adding the emotional component - a form of bluffing. The lack of validity in their otherwise weak argument gets somehow compensated by emotional intensity.
There's a lot more I can write, but I've made enough points. This is the first and last message I write to you. Good night.
K-O
FU(KOFFEE
- Apr 16, 2020
- 1,462
K-O
FU(KOFFEE
- Apr 16, 2020
- 1,462
mate i live on fags and coffee! "you fuckooffee?" (private morning joke)
I agree so much, that everything is manipulation and this is in our nature. Some do it better, others don't.
Can't find the logic behind this - but i don't like how sociaty works - people are manipulated so they can choose who will f*ck with them and their money or lives. If you don't use manipulation you won't be choosed at all. So i understand the politicians, don't judge, but don't like them, because they sometimes forget or have no idea where their rules ends. The power they have is given to them by stupid creatures, the only power they have is over other stupid creatures, ok people, so why the f*ck should i care about that?
-Because i have to pretend to be what i'm not. Because when someone asks me how i'm doing i have to lie. Every single time, on every single hallo. And i do it for years. Ya, i'm manipulator too. So i got tired and don't wanna meet people so often. I aways avoided those asking questins. Like - what's your job???me:"I go to the gym few times a week"... But that's not a job???...me:"OK, nobody knows what i'm working.", my best friend at that time:"He is not lying, i don't know too".
And it doesn't end only about business. I have to lie about my interests, my opinions, basicaly - what i think. What is in my head is too dangerous or extreme for most people/all people/. Joking about our babysitter being my drug dealer infront of other parents was not accepted so good.
So what i did - got tired of this, since this pandemic stuff i'm almost alone with my wife and kids, don't wanna meet anyone else from my old surroundings, because of the questions like ("where have you been?, how did you survive?, have you lost money like most of us?, was it so terrible like all of us?).
I used to f*ck around and give them the truth, knowing they won't believe me. Didn't care i was accepted as the crazy one. It was still manipulation, telling the truth without the detais. Till one of my alters didn't recognise one guy nearby and talked and talked about some "funny" and spicy stuff about 15min of a single day we had. So we had to stop the spicy stuff.
Since i'm in manipulation my whole life i accepted it. I don't mind when someone tries to manipulate me, but smart. What i hate are manipulations done by idiots, i avoid them so much.
Can't find the logic behind this - but i don't like how sociaty works - people are manipulated so they can choose who will f*ck with them and their money or lives. If you don't use manipulation you won't be choosed at all. So i understand the politicians, don't judge, but don't like them, because they sometimes forget or have no idea where their rules ends. The power they have is given to them by stupid creatures, the only power they have is over other stupid creatures, ok people, so why the f*ck should i care about that?
-Because i have to pretend to be what i'm not. Because when someone asks me how i'm doing i have to lie. Every single time, on every single hallo. And i do it for years. Ya, i'm manipulator too. So i got tired and don't wanna meet people so often. I aways avoided those asking questins. Like - what's your job???me:"I go to the gym few times a week"... But that's not a job???...me:"OK, nobody knows what i'm working.", my best friend at that time:"He is not lying, i don't know too".
And it doesn't end only about business. I have to lie about my interests, my opinions, basicaly - what i think. What is in my head is too dangerous or extreme for most people/all people/. Joking about our babysitter being my drug dealer infront of other parents was not accepted so good.
So what i did - got tired of this, since this pandemic stuff i'm almost alone with my wife and kids, don't wanna meet anyone else from my old surroundings, because of the questions like ("where have you been?, how did you survive?, have you lost money like most of us?, was it so terrible like all of us?).
I used to f*ck around and give them the truth, knowing they won't believe me. Didn't care i was accepted as the crazy one. It was still manipulation, telling the truth without the detais. Till one of my alters didn't recognise one guy nearby and talked and talked about some "funny" and spicy stuff about 15min of a single day we had. So we had to stop the spicy stuff.
Since i'm in manipulation my whole life i accepted it. I don't mind when someone tries to manipulate me, but smart. What i hate are manipulations done by idiots, i avoid them so much.
Deleted member 17949
Visionary
- May 9, 2020
- 2,238
Let's look at the main points here.
The line between victim and perpetrator isn't always clear.
This is true. There are lots of situations where it's very ambiguous who is in the wrong and fewer where the situation is clear. In cases of one-sided violence we can almost always agree that the one who was assaulted is the victim if they were not attacking the attacker first in some way, but in cases where both parties were attempting to get get the upper hand against each other and one happened to manage it first, neither are really innocent victims. However, I don't think it's fair to say that vulnerable people should not be acknowledged as vulnerable simply because their vulnerabilities could also be seen as personal flaws. A person that is gullible or irresponsible is vulnerable to manipulation; these things are not mutually exclusive and we should not treat them as if they are. We can acknowledge that a person is flawed while also acknowledging that we can work around these flaws by being paying attention to their situation and helping to prevent them from being manipulated or otherwise harmed.
People follow the crowd and knock down those with differing opinions.
Again this is true. Herd mentality makes up a lot of human behavior, and for good reason; groups function better when internal conflict is minimal, so people try their best to not clash with people. While this does make flaws in a social structure less likely to be exposed openly, it also helps to tie the structure together and ensure that people are more trusting of each other. When you know that people agree with you you worry less about them taking actions against you, and this allows people to work together more effectively without having to question the motives of others as much.
With that said, herd mentality has it's problems. It's easy for certain valid outlooks to be ignored simply because they go against a widely accepted narrative. Through history people believed that the world was flat, pathogens didn't exist and that black people were below whits, and these damaging beliefs were hard to question because people were positioned against any conflicting discussion by majority opinion. In a perfect world everyone would be open to various arguments and would look at them objectively without caring about whether they supported an established agenda, but in reality this does not happen. Because stable mentalities hold society together people are scared of disturbing them, and this can make unbiased analysis of situations hard.
Selfless or supportive behavior is shallow because people often do it for approval
I agree with this concept but do not think that it's a bad thing. As you stated, humans are social creatures. Being kind does play to our egos because our brains are wired to crave the approval of others while empathy further serves so make us feel happy when we help people. This isn't a flaw, but rather the human brain's solution to the problem of getting people to work together when the benefits you get from certain interactions aren't always totally clear or appealing to you. From the perspective of a species trying to survive as a whole, there isn't much benefit in single individuals seeing potential ways to exploit others; it's more beneficial for humanity if the desire for personal gain is balanced by a desire to not harm others too much and to help them where possible.
Overall conclusion
Yes, people's desire to fit into social structures does make them worship illogical ideas while rejecting ones that may be useful. Does this mean the system is bad? No, it's just flawed. Many of these problems just state from human nature rather than constructs we've deliberately made. You also need to acknowledge that a lot of the resistance to certain idea comes from the fact that the people pushing them have agendas. Did any information that came from the Nazis help us? Yes it did, but we don't praise them for it because the people that push this idea are usually trying to defend the Nazis and suggest that their other actions weren't too bad. Does intelligence ever vary with race? Maybe it does, but the people pushing this idea are often pushing it to justify some dislike towards or discrimination of a race.
The line between victim and perpetrator isn't always clear.
This is true. There are lots of situations where it's very ambiguous who is in the wrong and fewer where the situation is clear. In cases of one-sided violence we can almost always agree that the one who was assaulted is the victim if they were not attacking the attacker first in some way, but in cases where both parties were attempting to get get the upper hand against each other and one happened to manage it first, neither are really innocent victims. However, I don't think it's fair to say that vulnerable people should not be acknowledged as vulnerable simply because their vulnerabilities could also be seen as personal flaws. A person that is gullible or irresponsible is vulnerable to manipulation; these things are not mutually exclusive and we should not treat them as if they are. We can acknowledge that a person is flawed while also acknowledging that we can work around these flaws by being paying attention to their situation and helping to prevent them from being manipulated or otherwise harmed.
People follow the crowd and knock down those with differing opinions.
Again this is true. Herd mentality makes up a lot of human behavior, and for good reason; groups function better when internal conflict is minimal, so people try their best to not clash with people. While this does make flaws in a social structure less likely to be exposed openly, it also helps to tie the structure together and ensure that people are more trusting of each other. When you know that people agree with you you worry less about them taking actions against you, and this allows people to work together more effectively without having to question the motives of others as much.
With that said, herd mentality has it's problems. It's easy for certain valid outlooks to be ignored simply because they go against a widely accepted narrative. Through history people believed that the world was flat, pathogens didn't exist and that black people were below whits, and these damaging beliefs were hard to question because people were positioned against any conflicting discussion by majority opinion. In a perfect world everyone would be open to various arguments and would look at them objectively without caring about whether they supported an established agenda, but in reality this does not happen. Because stable mentalities hold society together people are scared of disturbing them, and this can make unbiased analysis of situations hard.
Selfless or supportive behavior is shallow because people often do it for approval
I agree with this concept but do not think that it's a bad thing. As you stated, humans are social creatures. Being kind does play to our egos because our brains are wired to crave the approval of others while empathy further serves so make us feel happy when we help people. This isn't a flaw, but rather the human brain's solution to the problem of getting people to work together when the benefits you get from certain interactions aren't always totally clear or appealing to you. From the perspective of a species trying to survive as a whole, there isn't much benefit in single individuals seeing potential ways to exploit others; it's more beneficial for humanity if the desire for personal gain is balanced by a desire to not harm others too much and to help them where possible.
Overall conclusion
Yes, people's desire to fit into social structures does make them worship illogical ideas while rejecting ones that may be useful. Does this mean the system is bad? No, it's just flawed. Many of these problems just state from human nature rather than constructs we've deliberately made. You also need to acknowledge that a lot of the resistance to certain idea comes from the fact that the people pushing them have agendas. Did any information that came from the Nazis help us? Yes it did, but we don't praise them for it because the people that push this idea are usually trying to defend the Nazis and suggest that their other actions weren't too bad. Does intelligence ever vary with race? Maybe it does, but the people pushing this idea are often pushing it to justify some dislike towards or discrimination of a race.
nitrogen
Schrödinger's cat
- Nov 5, 2019
- 339
@GoodPersonEffed You're adorable, witty, smart, and annoying in your own way and I love you for that.....occasionally. You're neither my enemy nor my friend, like everybody else on this forum.
"my mastery of the English language is far superior to 99% of native English speakers". You really think so? Thank you hun. I've always been self-conscious about it.
Btw, I don't use endangered animal species fur products, faux or not. I'm much more fond of animals than humans. Faux human skin pillowcase sounds more fitting.
Edit: Why did you @GoodPersonEffed delete that post? I was gonna give you a precious hug. Bummer.
Last edited:
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
@GoodPersonEffed You're adorable, witty, smart, and annoying in your own way and I love you for that.....occasionally. You're neither my enemy nor my friend, like everybody else on this forum.
"my mastery of the English language is far superior to 99% of native English speakers". You really think so? Thank you hun. I've always been self-conscious about it.
Btw, I don't use endangered animal species fur products, faux or not. I'm much more fond of animals than humans. Faux human skin pillowcase sounds more fitting.
Edit: Why did you @GoodPersonEffed delete that post? I was gonna give you a precious hug. Bummer.
Meh. I deleted it because I wrote it for me, but I also figured there was a chance you might see it anyway, and that didn't bother me. I ain't ashamed of it, and I wasn't in attack mode, more like rough play mode. I knew you'd probably like it -- yet more reason to delete.
Yeah, I don't hate you. Sometimes I'm even inspired to think and write some decent to great shit because of your provocation. Doesn't mean I appreciate the motives that inspired it, but that's life in general. I don't fart gratitude, however I do love to show respect where it's merited, at least by my standards, and I say that without hubris. I'm not all that, and I know it. I'm 60% self-confident and 40% cautiously humble about it.
If you are sincerely self-conscious about your mastery of the English language, seriously, get over that shit. Pretty sure you know by now I'm sincere and don't sling bullshit unless it's dry humor, and that wasn't humorous. I don't say things to make people feel better unless I also mean it. I'm not going to tell you that outfit looks good when it's an atrocity. And it is. Seriously. Thank god no one else here (that I know of) can see that shit. So you can knock that non-native worry right off, because your writing is so good, it comes across as potentially fishing for compliments. I am a trained writer and editor, and I have every reason, again without hubris, to be confident in my ability to assess writing skills and style. You're a fucking good writer. And anyone could make the error of saying infantry instead of infancy -- I swear, that is the only error I've seen you make since I've been on the forum, and it wasn't even in the OP. Have a party, celebrate your mastery. I think it's likely incredibly long overdue.
Your preference for faux human skin does not surprise me in the least. I knew my imaginings would somehow prove to be in error, but of course that was the last one I expected, and of course, again, such is life.
nitrogen
Schrödinger's cat
- Nov 5, 2019
- 339
You're quite likable in rough play mode.rough play mode. I knew you'd probably like it -- yet more reason to delete.
And yes I liked that deleted post.Same here. I know you don't hate me. I don't hate you, either. I admit not everything I wrote to you was without personal bias - and I do apologize for it. I appreciate you challenge my views and poke holes in my arguments cuz that's the type of intellectual stimulation I relish. And I do admire your ferocity, intelligence, and of course sophisticated writing.
The only courses I never got A or even A- in high school AND college were English writing.
Compared to my surgical skills, writing is a weakness. Now I have no live humans to cut, I can only cut dead chickens for fun. Check this out:
I caught that spelling error and corrected it shortly after posting.
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
So I get why people are upset about the idea that races can have differences. The first place we go in our minds is someone doing something bad with that information like denying people rights.
It might also be used to help certain disadvantaged groups finally catch a break, too. If you were allowed to talk about a biological basis for behavior and ability, then you could provide programs and aid for groups tailored to their specific needs in order to level the playing field. This is another way to look at this situation, at least.
That being said, I do not think human beings are capable of making tempered, rational choices so probably it would just end up with people getting denied rights. For example, I don't think we'd just forgive women for being interested in biology and nursing and let them be happy. We'd just bar the few women who like physics and engineering from having a career they enjoy.
It still doesn't feel right to have taboos on certain information. There should never be such a thing is "dangerous knowledge" or "dangerous questions" in a truly democratic society. Freedom of inquiry is also a democratic concept.
