That's a good point....if you dump a bag of Legos, they will form something random and make a new "design" but the crucial factor is that they fall to design something specific, like a toaster.
well fruitcake, not all questions can be answered. in these situations we 'dont know'.....not that it is 'unknowable' its just that right now...our understanding, technological and cognitive capability prevents us from knowing. it is intellectually lazy to harp on about GOD GOD GOD. Talking about GOD does not expand our knowledge. It add's nothing. Its all fairytale speculation. We don't live in a world of abolutes...as traumatic and worrying that might be.
WTF!? Who i the world said that evolution explains the origin of everyting (the universe)?! Evolution NEVER claimed to explain the origin, only the progress and how things.. Evolve '-.- fun how those two words are so familuar, right? '-.-
I wish Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or some equivalent to them, was there to school that creationist scum. He could use some hard facts thrown at his face! I get so worked up over this.
I agree with MrWagman11, it's quite disturbing hear adults, let alone public and political leaders, talk with such gross naivety about what so many others nations accept as sound scientific understanding. Why is the USA so behind in this regard? Is it just smug conservatism?
Are you kidding me? They get some guy that is still learning English to debate two actors that have control of the format, ask two questions at a time, never let him ask a question, gang up on him and never even let him speak. Great debate. That was very informative on neither side. At least the creationists can finally feel proud of a debate.
2:00 OMG the stupidity is mind numbing. I feel so sorry for this guy.
The origin of the universe has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution ONLY makes claims on the diversity of species. Evolution is NOT teaching speculative cosmology. They are completely different sciences. These two white guys are fucking morons. They don't even know the difference between evolution and cosmology.
2:25 "nobody was there when the big bang took place"
Holy shit these creationist just make up facts as they go along don't they? We have found over 400 neanderthal fossils. The only people saying that the Neanderthal is dis-proven is lunatic creationists that would rather lie and say it's all a hoax then try to refute the mountain of evidence it creates for human evolution.
Such an unfair debate. Scientist are bound to evidence and reality while crazy creationist can say basically anything without proof.
FFS science doesn't claim that the Universe came from nothing. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows. And to fill the gap in knowledge with a make believe god is frankly retarded.
Evolution is a fact, the only people who don't agree are religious nuts who don't understand it (or do and don't want to) and non religious people who don't understand it. Like it or not, it is a fact and you need to find out why otherwise you'll continue to be stoooopid. Though it has to be said the only people who are taking ID and Creationism seriously are Americans. Even the Pope admits that Evolution is a fact; time to get over yourselves people!
@TheMogulmonster ...Evolution is not a fact. If you put the shoe on the other foot, evolutionists don't agree with God's creation because they don't understand it ....For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; But unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18 . The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Psalm 14:a
@savedbygrace2001 You creationists are just intellectual vandals, wasting everyone's time with crackpot theories that have no basis in fact. Keep your vicious sky gods and your counterfactual claptrap if you please and leave the business of civilisation and science to the grown ups.
Yes, actually we have seen small changes in populations accumulating, leading to new species. Look up ring species, including Ensatina salamanders. Evolution has been observed many times. The theory of evolution explains the observations. Can your creationist dogma explain observed evolution?
@VictorLaszloLives Yes, creatures will adapt but I know that God created this universe not because of my research or even a capricious notion but because I was given the Lord's Word" one day by a believer and I in turn heard the Word and believed it. I then "Called upon the Lord" Romans 10:13 and got saved. The Grace of God is given purely by faith. There are believers and unbelivers, heaven and hell. Trust man or God. One of us right. I wouldnt want to be u. Jesus Saves.
@savedbygrace2001 Your faith most certainly does not give you the permission to undermine science, nor the right to deny the realities inherent in what you claim is God's creation. If anything, I would think that your belief in God would compel you to investigate and understand the universe around you.
@VictorLaszloLives My faith DOES give me the authority to "undermine" your false conclusion of evolution, see Titus 2:13-15. There are brilliant men who study the universe and hypothesize but it doesn't take a genius to know that salt is salt and pepper is pepper, ur belief is obvious. Common sense shows that you cannot disassemble a complex piece of machinery or Legos for that matter, put it in a bag and shake it until it re-assembles itself. it must be created.
@savedbygrace2001 I have given you examples of evolution. You do not have the ability to undermine reality. Your mistaken dogma does not change reality, only your perception.
I haven't said anything at all against the existence of God. You are such a fool. You still do not know what I believe. Who exactly made you God, to pass judgement?
@VictorLaszloLives For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16; Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your path Proverbs 3:5,6 Repent and call on Jesus. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13
@savedbygrace2001 Actually if you shake legos you would guet a design or a shape. it would be random and not how you want if but it would build something.
No he's not a scientist and it shows. He has a seven year old child's understanding....why would they let him talk. Creationism....it's just plain silly and real scientists simply don't consider it because it is an empty myth and has nothing to do with science.
we study those areas some more until we do find out. The issue with the genesis idea is that it is stated as being absolute, never changing. It is unwilling to accept new ideas or admit its errors and fallacies. It does not support any scientific research methods to verify its claims, and this is why it IS NOT SCIENCE. No matter how many people want to believe in fairy tales, it doesn't just magically make them true.
So many people tend to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, and it's quite annoying. The general principles of evolution by natural selection are long studied and well proven, so that they are a practical truth. The REAL opponent to the genesis idea of how life was created is abiogenesis, which researchers are currently studying, and they make more progress every day. We may not know everything, but at least we are willing to admit when there are things that we do not know - and then (cont)
Don't know why Atheists waste time on ID lunatics. Creationists simply don't understand that they are merely products of their society / social environment. Born in Iran, you would almost certainly be Muslim, Israel, you would practice Judaism, U.S.A. Christianity, etc., Not a particularly good reason to subscribe to the notion of an all seeing, all knowing boogy man in the sky! You will never get anyone to admit that his/her brand of Theology is simply a question of Geography!!!
Neaderthal was not disproved. And there is no way a global flood can account for the sedimentary rocks and fossils of the world. If you think one can I suggest reading the book Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters by Donald Prothero. That book thoroughly refutes the psuedoscience of flood geology.
good science my ass. There is no science behind ID and that idiot is not a scientist, he doesn't even understand evolution bringing up the big bang theory. They are not related they are completely different theories on different subjects it's stupid. ID being tought in science class is like teaching 1 + 1 = 3 in maths. There's no reason or evidence to suggest 1 + 1 = 3 but hey we've got to show all the sides right? wrong. Science in science class religious crap in philosophy nd church
its ok to not know what we came from but i know we werent created... creationist are always trying to throw that in there,. "We Cant Come from nothing" wtf how do you know ? you werent around. where did your god come from,. nothing ? lol "can't come from nothing" EVOLUTiONS THE WAY =D
its funny how this creationist pretends to be in favor for "good" science. but creationism/ID is not science... its more like a STOP-(thinking)-sign in people's heads: whenever they see something that is too complex for their little minds they immediatly stop thinking and say "God did it.". to me that is much more a sign of stupidity than a sign of the existence of a "god".
science is the exact opposite: you go beyond that stop sign and try to understand the complex things in the universe.
creationist owned this one of course God exists and you dont need to look to far into hari cristina or vodo muslim ect to know that the outstanding historical evidence points to christianity jesus christ is the way to life. repent and trust in him and you will be saved
@mamainmancj The question wasn't whether a god exists, the topic was whether intelligent design should be taught in science classes and as Rahman pointed out, ID is not a scientific theory.
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
Evolutionist = open mind to the unknown to accept and acknowledge the facts as they are discovered by an inquiring, inquisitive mind.
Creationist = make conclusions to what the unknowns are and jamming down the innocent minds of kids. Since the conclusion to all unknowns is god, is it the wish of creationists to stop all scientific research?
The creationist is speaking of how some facts of evolution are wrong, and he thinks because of that creatism must be right. well there is no fact in creationism its all just an imagination.
Setting a scientist who does not speak English fluently and is probably quite inexperienced in debate against a sophist and an interviewer who sides with the sophist was probably not a tactically sound decision.
@mastersausagemaker the guy is Indian... I'm sure he speaks English fluently, maybe you wanted someone who speaks "American"? in this same logic, I guess the English don't speak English either...
Actually, I find the Canadians speak a nicer form of English over both the English and Americans. Also, I'm not an American.
Surely one can appreciate that there is nothing overtly racist or ethnocentric in pointing out the obvious. His English sucks. It doesn't matter if he's Indian, if he can't get native pronounciation and similar native fluidity, then his English sucks
It's clear he's not a native speaker. Would you have preferred had I said "native speaker" or something more pc?
Yes, I know they speak English in India. I work with people from India. Some speak English better than others. They also speak English in Singapore, where I lived for a while. They speak better English over the aggregate than the Indians do. In Hong Kong, English is also spoken. Their English is worse.
Some accents are noted for their difficulity being understood by the larger groups. These inlcude Singlish, Chinglish, and the highly variant Indian English accent. They all suck.
@mastersausagemaker this is hilarious, quite frankly. we're talking about accents here, by your logic Canadians have the best English... umn, ok, this conversation is going no where and it's not worth my time... peace out.
You should know that you have misused the term "logic" twice now. It wasn't by my "logic" that Canadians have a nicer accent, I wrote that I found it nicer - a subjective evaluation of aesthetic, not an objective deduction.
The point stands, when you have a debate in a culture with a specific accent, it is unwise to use a heavily different accented non-native speaker against a professional sophist. Why you find this so difficult to understand or accept is something I find bizarre.
@mastersausagemaker Obviously I think that the way certain English people speak English is divine and far better than the Canadian accent, but this is, as you say, totally subjective and it's possible that, had I grown up where you had and subsequently lived in the places that you had, I might agree with you.
I agree with your broader point, though, that imnodog misuses the word "logic". Hasn't he chosen to go, now?
I find that the Canadian accent is a good compromise between the US and English variants. It retains the strong pronounced -r (eg. beer = be-uhr) which I prefer along with the softer use of dipthongs (eg. about = a-bowe-t, ~ a-baoht). The result is a reasonably clear English, though it may lack the oratorical style of some English variants.
He misuses the word logic, but I am puzzled why he thinks using someone who is linguistically at a disadvantage is not unwise.
I met a Canadian recently, I didn't mind her accent at all. She told me that she met the woman (Kim Phuc) who was photographed as a little girl, running over a bridge in Trang Bang during the Vietnam war, with her back horribly burnt.
I don't know if he even had a real point to begin with. It doesn't seem like he really understands the position that he is taking.
I think he means to argue that there are really no poor ways to speak English, only different ones, and I think this is absurdly silly. He doesn't consider that the accent must be compared to how closely it relates to the group in question, the closer the better, the farther the worse.
@mastersausagemaker I can't remember if I've seen these videos before, or not, I'll have to watch them again to find out. All these videos blend into each other, when you've seen so many.
@mastersausagemaker Tell me about it. I have found that i get more easily distracted away from these things, nowadays, I think, oh, someone's sent me a message, I'll just check that and come back, then I rarely come back, these people need to make it more interesting. What I need are some beautiful women debating, that'd do the trick.
Also, I think that the same tired old arguments being wheeled out time and again, don't help.
@mastersausagemaker "but I am puzzled why he thinks using someone who is linguistically at a disadvantage is not unwise" because the Indian guy is NOT at a linguistically disadvantage in my opinion...
"because the Indian guy is NOT at a linguistically disadvantage in my opinion..."
He is, he clearly cannot compete with his competitor, and the outcome of debates is often determined by fluidity of prose and clarity of diction. To ignore the oratorical component of a debate is to ignore one of the major influencing factors in determining who is more influential at presenting their case and swaying the viewers. There's a reason why there are schools of diction.
It seemed more like a draw to me. With these things, Christians often say the apologist won and us heathens often hold that the scientist won. Here, the apologist made his key points, and they were poorly addressed by the Indian who did not succeed in making his case. Thus, the Christians hold their position without serious challenge.
Sure, whether or not you think he did well in the debate is your subjective opinion. The main point I made was, however, putting someone into a situation where their accent is so heavy compared to the native group against a professional sophist of that native group was an unwise debate choice.
@mastersausagemaker question, what qualifies the American as a "professional sophist" in your view? second, how is the Indian guy going to have trouble counter-arguing in English with his native accent? both of our arguments are subjective, except I did throw a fact at you, fact being that the Indian guy speaks English fluently, you saying it "sucks" is your opinion...
"what qualifies the American as a "professional sophist" in your view?"
Simple, his job there is to win the argument rhetorically by any means without regards to the truth.
"how is the Indian guy going to have trouble counter-arguing in English with his native accent?"
Native accent? I doubt English is his native language, he most likely learned it as a second language. In a debate, it's important to be understood. Much about communication, unfortunately, is how things are said.
This is sociologically well known. Often, proper pronunciation isn't taught by ESL studies. The Indian here wasn't unintelligible, but I would think even you must admit that he loses emphasis and dynamics due to his inability to connect with the native accent group. Using an American to debate an American to an American audience with an American accent would have been the prudential move.
", fact being that the Indian guy speaks English fluently,"
@mastersausagemaker "The Indian here wasn't unintelligible, but I would think even you must admit that he loses emphasis and dynamics due to his inability to connect with the native accent group"
no I wouldn't, because I'm not that ignorant, and if the audience to which this is being broadcaster to feels that way, then that would make them ignorant as well.
You seem to be under the impression that a debate is a contest of facts and logical arguments. They are not. They are pulpits for people to make quick points by stating their position, this is why those who tend to believe one side usually claims their side won.
Debates are about presentation, style, and audience connection. A charismatic speaker with flawless local accent with prepared lines scores better in debates than does a better informed person with a thick accent.
@mastersausagemaker I agree. The message is lost in the attempt to differentiate the words. When the listener is focussing on individual words they often fail to comprehend the sentence they are in. Frustration can then lead to a further devaluing of the ideas or a tuning out. A common problem in lectures where students can come away feeling they have missed the point or that the speaker doesn't speak english.
Thank you Philo, can you tell this to imnodog? I don't seem to be making any headway in that presentation and style may actually be more important in debates than content.
While it is most likely you are indeed correct in your conclusion that we are talking past one another, how dare you suggest that I, a pupil of the Vulcan School (non-mystic) have emotions ! >:(
Quite so. I shall inform this to the Acadamy of Sciences so that they may undertake an internal review of this. The accusation of another Vulcan having emotions is a serious one, as are any such claims mental illness.
@imnodog I'm going to have watch this set of videos again, as I can't remember. I don't think that mastersausagemaker is saying that the Indian guy is unwise, just that he's at a disadvantage, which is a different thing.
@pineapplepenumbra sure, he's saying he's at a disadvantage linguistically because he's native Indian. That's just not true though, we're not talking about someone who learned English as a second language and is having trouble speaking it, we're talking about someone who has been speaking English his whole life, having a thick accent doesn't mean you can't sound eloquent and get your points across, I don't see how he's at a disadvantage because of that quite frankly.
Most Indians do learn English as a second language, usually through school. That's why their accents are so heavy, because they speak mostly their home language and learn English in non-immursive ways. At least that's what I've been told by the Indians I know.
Your page says your from Brasil, is that correct? Portuguese is really just a bastardised Spanish. Go to Colombia and speak Portugese and see how many people can follow you without hesitation and think you to be persuasive.
@mastersausagemaker "they're accent is so heavy" it's heavy to you, Americans have accents to them. Portuguese from Portugal have a heavy accent to us, as we do to them, but we still speak Portuguese fluently and so do they. Portuguese and Spanish are two very different languages, even though Portuguese derived from Spanish, and Spanish derived from Latin, they're three very different languages and this is a totally different discussion. Accents only applies to pronunciations of the same words.
@imnodog cont. Accents are nothing more than a different way to pronounce the same word, this has more to do with the region your reside. Even in Brazil there are very different accents throughout the country depending where you reside, but that's not the point, everyone in the end of the day still speaks the same language...
I'm not saying they speak different languages, I'm saying if you want to connect to people, you are best off using their own native accent, especially when the differences are very significant.
Yes, that's the point. He may have been in place at IIT, but in the US, he speaks less in line with the American accent and is thus worse off. Much of Portuguese is like German into English in its infinitive forms. But despite the similarities, the pronunciation throws people of and they can't understand what "Das Maus ist im Haus" means. The structure here is the same, the words etymologically equivalent, but pronounced different.
@mastersausagemaker well, if you're trying to connect with a bunch or rednecks who can't stand other type of accents and therefore will disregard everything the Indian has to say, than I say who cares? If I (who doesn't speak English fluently in live conversations) is able to understand him, I'm sure most Americans can understand him as well. by the way, you are very mistaken about the Portuguese language, we can understand most of Spanish and vice versa, yet it's still different languages.
I'm not mistaken about Portuguese. I don't speak it, but I've seen enough of it in contrast to Spanish, one language I do speak (though not as well as I used to from little practice), to discern the similarities. Take an accent far enough, change some words around, and Spanish becomes Portuguese.
Let me ask you: they have the choice between two people to send, one with an American accent, the other with an Indian accent. Both being equal, who would you choose to send?
@mastersausagemaker brother, this is getting tiresome... Portuguese and Spanish are two DIFFERENT languages. "the milk" = "O Leite" (Portuguese), "la leche" (Spanish), this is not different accents, it's different grammar and spellings, but we can still understand most of the other language and vice versa. This is not true to English and German... now, we're talking about accents, in northern Brazil there is a different pronunciation for the word "leite" than the south. hence the accent...
@mastersausagemaker cont: "Let me ask you: they have the choice between two people to send, one with an American accent, the other with an Indian accent. Both being equal, who would you choose to send?"
the most qualified is who I'd choose, and by qualified I don't mean if they're foreign or not... I mean by their accomplishments.
@mastersausagemaker accents IMO are nothing more than just that, accents, it doesn't negate an argument IMO. I know you want me to say the guy without the accent, but that's just non-important in my view, therefore the question quite frankly is a dumb one (and an ignorant one). it's like asking me, do you choose between a black guy and a white guy to speak on TV about something? now, some people will argue a white guy has more credibility, you're arguing the same except for nationality.
"I know you want me to say the guy without the accent, but that's just non-important in my view"
Then you are sacrificing efficiency and reality for your idealised fantasy of how you think things ought to be. The most logical and indeed, obvious, conclusion is that the person without the accent is chosen because he would accomplish the job better, regardless of your wishful thinking. There is nothing ignorant about this, you are simply playing the politically correct inclusivity game.
"it's like asking me, do you choose between a black guy and a white guy to speak on TV about something? now, some people will argue a white guy has more credibility, you're arguing the same except for nationality."
If the show is about African slavery, choose the black guy. Sometimes, contexts matter. Television networks realise this, apparently you can't.
Furthermore, I noted nothing about race or nationality. Even within countries, particular accents are favoured such as high German.
@mastersausagemaker "If the show is about African slavery, choose the black guy. Sometimes, contexts matter. Television networks realise this, apparently you can't."
well, that pretty much says it all, don't it? You look at things with the context of color based or nationality based, which is very ignorant to say the least. this conversation is now over...
"You look at things with the context of color based or nationality based"
Not really.
Being from Brasil, I thought that you would be one to promote racial equity given the numerous races and cultures that Brasil has. I now also see that you are willfully colour-blind and prefers to live in an imaginary world where everyone is the same height, weight, and grey colour.
Have you not ever wondered why black people talk on TV shows about slavery? Because using a white guy is insensitive.
@mastersausagemaker I do promote racial "equality", not division, though you are the one promoting division with your logic quite frankly. btw, I am black, and there is nothing "insensitive" about a white guy talking about slavery so long as he knows what he's talking about.
@imnodog cont: "Have you not ever wondered why black people talk on TV shows about slavery? "
because it happened, and we are still living with the side effects of it. my community is relatively poor in contrast to other races because we are still leaving with the side effects of slavery. How the hell does a white guy talking about this, somehow makes it inappropriate? it only strengthens the argument to be quite honest, to have everyone fighting for the same cause.
don't be condescending, because one, you're not from Brazil, and two, you haven't lived in Brazil, whatever it is you "think" you know of Brazil from reading wikipedia pages, trust me, you don't. stop making broad generalizations will you, this only makes your argument look weaker and weaker...
False. I lived there for three months when I was young, I lived many places around the world. Don't make claims about things you don't know.
"stop making broad generalizations"
So say, rather than speaking about Brasilians in general, should I perhaps explain in detail the perspectives of each individual within the country to avoid generalising them?
@mastersausagemaker "I was being patronizing, not condescending." to be patronizing is to be condescending... hey, maybe you should learn English before addressing me too? :p
"False. I lived there for three months when I was young, I lived many places around the world. Don't make claims about things you don't know."
I don't believe you, but even if that's true, it doesn't make you an expert on the land.
No, synonyms are similar but inexact in meaning."
"I don't believe you, but even if that's true, it doesn't make you an expert on the land"
It doesn't matter if you believe me. I stand by what I said, if you want to think me a liar because we disagree on a different issue, then do so. You're right that it doesn't make me an expert on the land, but it was a rebuttal to your claim that I never lived in Brasil and nothing more.
"How the hell does a white guy talking about this, somehow makes it inappropriate?"
Tell you what, why don't you take an informal poll. Ask all people, not just black, without leading them on or giving away to much information, what would they think if they saw a white person on TV talking about black slavery.
Also tell me, do you think the viewer will think that the white person will understand the legacy of slavery, or do you think they will think he is out of place?
@mastersausagemaker there's nothing, and I say, NOTHING wrong with a white person talking about slavery. Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, black included, who feels this way is ignorant to say the least.
"there's nothing, and I say, NOTHING wrong with a white person talking about slavery"
I agree, there is nothing wrong with this. I would like to see a time where this doesn't matter. I don't pretend, however, that there are not other people out there who would take offense.
"Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, black included, who feels this way is ignorant to say the least."
Again, it's not about your ideals. Go ask people and see what they think. Conform to reality.
"I do promote racial "equality", not division, though you are the one promoting division with your logic quite frankly"
That's at least the third time you've misused the term "logic". No, you're "equality" constitutes denial of reality. One can recognize differences and hold people equal at the same time. That's why I don't pretend that accents don't matter in debates.
@mastersausagemaker lol, I don't think you know what the word "logic" means. two, equality =/=division. You're the one preaching on keeping communities divided, saying speakers from different communities shouldn't address people of different race/nationality, that's your argument buddy, not mine, you're preaching on keeping things segregated and not unified...
"and there is nothing "insensitive" about a white guy talking about slavery so long as he knows what he's talking about."
And most descendants of slaves perceive the only knowledge white people know about slaves is how to trade and work them. Unlike "progressives" such as yourself, many would be offended at the prospect and so TV shows avoid problems like this like the plague.
@mastersausagemaker "And most descendants of slaves perceive the only knowledge white people know about slaves is how to trade and work them. "
quite honestly, you're a fucking idiot and a racist, you generalize what black people "perceive" even though you couldn't be more wrong. yes, that's my "progressive" mind talking. goodbye, go on preaching your nonsense, I am finally done with this shit, I don't debate racists...
"quite honestly, you're a fucking idiot and a racist"
I'm of mixed race you idiot, why would I be a racist?
"you generalize what black people "perceive" even though you couldn't be more wrong"
Do you simply have a problem with generalisations? Read set theory.
"I am finally done with this shit, I don't debate racists..."
By racists you mean people who acknowledge the existence of different races? Fine, go talk to other people who don't believe that people have different ethnicities.
@mastersausagemaker lol, are you a professional troll? I keep trying to leave this debate and I just can't help but reply.
"I'm of mixed race you idiot, why would I be a racist?"
wait, are you saying mixed people can't be racist? that's a huge fallacy.
"Do you simply have a problem with generalisations? "
generalizations are, of course, ignorant to say the least. and you "assuming" the way black people in general may feel about something makes it a racist remark, no way around it.
@imnodog cont: "By racists you mean people who acknowledge the existence of different races? Fine, go talk to other people who don't believe that people have different ethnicity"
having differences doesn't mean one group can't address the other, again, that's divisive not unifying... you're not acknowledging differences between culture, you're saying different cultures shouldn't address the other, that's your argument, again, that's divisive...
"doesn't mean one group can't address the other, again, that's divisive not unifying"
And indeed they do. If, however, one wants to debate with a heavy accent, one must acknowledge that the audience will perceive them to do worse. This is a consequence of base psychology, no matter how much you deny its significance.
"you're saying different cultures shouldn't address the other"
Again, I never once wrote that. Stop making me repeat myself and actually read what I write.
@mastersausagemaker "I never once wrote that. Stop making me repeat myself and actually read what I write"
this whole debate started by you implying the evolutionist's English "sucked" and by implying he was at a "disadvantage" and that the TV channel SHOULD HAVE brought someone without any accent to debate. that's your argument, and it is divisive, try to dance around it all you want, but your argument IS divisive.
There is no objective criterion of the quality of speech, if you want to maintain some post-modernist "nothing is wrong only different" stance, then sure, his English wasn't bad from the native speakers perspective, it was only "different" but of equal quality (though measurably harder to understand). I admit, the quality of speech is relative from perspective, and I still maintain that from the American perspective his English sucked. There is nothing complicated in this.
I thought you weren't American... are you saying Americans can only understand or give credibility to people who speaks like they do? That's another "ignorant" remark... you have made plenty of them throughout this debate...
yes, seems like you lived everywhere for a while, I didn't realize I was speaking to Forrest Gump. You are quick to point out you have personal experience with everything I point out, makes me realize you're full of bullshit.
"This is endemic within their culture."
another generalization... and yes, very, very ignorant of your part...
"yes, seems like you lived everywhere for a while"
I've lived and worked in many countries. You don't have to believe me. Still, that would be as arbitrary as my doubting whether you really are black or are from Brasil. After all, being black gives you personal experience about being black and being from Brasil gives you Brasilian experience too.
"another generalization... and yes, very, very ignorant of your part..."
The correct term was "stereotype". Generalisations can be true.
@mastersausagemaker you can doubt me saying I'm Brazilian, but you're the one who went to my page and found that out on your own, I didn't mention it. I did however say I was black, I can point you out to many posts I have made in the past where I mention this. But I have only made one claim to who I am throughout this debate, you have made plenty, the bullshitter is usually the one who talks way too much, in this case, it is you, not I.
"you can doubt me saying I'm Brazilian, but you're the one who went to my page and found that out on your own"
Right, because I didn't assume you were lying like you assume I'm doing. I was pointing out how stupid it is to question claims of the personal experiences of strangers on the internet. Perhaps you chose a fake country?
Also, I have noted that you tend to be overly politically correct and somewhat post-modernist, but I've never made a truth claim that you were either of these.
I don't see why. I note that your first proposition is a non sequitur and the second that one can indeed lie by planting false information. Perhaps you didn't understand it then?
@mastersausagemaker the thing is, I didn't lie, you just went around looking for information and then confronted me with such information that you had gathered, again, the claim wasn't made by me, this is filled with fails...
Oh? So when you selected in the YouTube sign up process which country you were from, that wasn't you? And when you acknowledged you were from Brasil, as it said on your page (also not you), that also wasn't you?
So if I write on my channel I was born on Saturn, that's not a lie? Even if someone points out the absurdity, it's actually them in error because I never "made the claim" I was from Saturn even though I planted the information as if it were true?
@mastersausagemaker "So when you selected in the YouTube sign up process which country you were from, that wasn't you?"
this is a serious question; but are you retarded? I'm talking about making claims in THIS DEBATE... yes, I went back in time and figured out you would make a connection about Brazil, therefore I signed up to youtube making sure Brazil was selected as my country of residence, therefore when you brought it up, I would have that covered! yes, I'm so clever! come on man, be real..
"this is a serious question; but are you retarded?"
It wasn't a serious question (I would think this obvious), your entailment doesn't apply.
"I'm talking about making claims in THIS DEBATE"
And the sources of these claims are also important. Since you doubt my living in many places, I'm also arbitrarily doubting the credibility of your source. Recall that you did, in the debate, acknowledge that you were from Brasil. This alone can be question regardless of your channel.
"This is a consequence of base psychology, no matter how much you deny its significance."
throughout this whole debate, you keep trying to make scientific statements without any grounds to do so, do you have a degree in the field or something? Just because you're ignorant enough to make such assertions, it doesn't make said assertions "true" by any means... please provide PROOF or good arguments that accents have a negative impact on the audience or STFU.
No, but I did extensive reading in cognitive science while I was an undergraduate and still do try to keep current in computational psychology.
"please provide PROOF or good arguments that accents have a negative impact on the audience"
There are many ideas I'd like to justify, but the data doesn't exist to support it. I think that the food in America is worse than Europe, but no data exists to support this.
"so you don't know what you're talking about. thank you for making my point"
Where did I say this?
"yeah, that's basically what you're doing here, accent discrimination"
You didn't look it up did you? Scientific American has a nice online article about it entitled "Why the Brain Doubts a Foreign Accent", read it.
I knew people who said that the humans on Star Trek didn't sound like Klingons. Psychology permeates our understanding of things, not the other way around.
you didn't, I concluded, given our debate, it sure seems you don't know what you're talking about, your answer only emphasizes this...
"Scientific American" all your knowledge seems to come from reading articles online and taking any of them as fact on diverse matters (that includes the Americans this, Brazilians that part), that's your error, you can find things to back up almost any ignorant claim, including racist claims about purity races, etc.
@mastersausagemaker I doubt the credibility of ANY study that is not peer reviewed. The study you mention is not peer reviewed, I don't subscribe to authority, just because there was an "article" on Scientific American doesn't make such article accurate. I also said you CAN find articles online to back up any claim, including racist claims SUCH as racial purity, you need some reading comprehension classes it seems...
"I doubt the credibility of ANY study that is not peer reviewed"
Markus Brauer, Abdelatif Er-rafiy, Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimination, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, p. 871-881
"I don't subscribe to authority"
A politically correct post-modernist like you? Of course not.
"just because there was an "article" on Scientific American doesn't make such article accurate"
@mastersausagemaker funny, I just went to that study, and guess what it concluded:
"Increasing perceived variability of an out-group DECREASES prejudice/discrimination"
guess what I'm arguing, for the Indian guy to debate, guess what you're arguing, for him NOT TO and have an American instead. again, you're the one promoting Accent Discrimination, not I.
"A politically correct post-modernist like you? Of course not."
" funny, I just went to that study, and guess what it concluded:
"Increasing perceived variability of an out-group DECREASES prejudice/discrimination""
Did you only read the title or abstract? Without interaction with outgroups, there is inherent prejudice. This suggests that those without such socialization would be naturally inclined to discrimination.
"guess what I'm arguing, for the Indian guy to debate"
I never said you couldn't, I said it wasn't prudent.
Correction: I never said *he* couldn't, I said it wasn''t prudent.
Also, you stated you trusted peer-review. You didn't state whether you trusted Scientific American, which has entries from credible and notable scientists who cite peer-reviewed sources for their submissions.
Tell me, do you trust all peer-review? Some are garbage since the peers are credulous dolts. Peer-review doesn't equate credibility, reputation also matters (think Elsavier or Springer-Verlag, even SA)
@mastersausagemaker if the articles are peer reviewed, it certainly gives them credibility, the article you mention was indeed peer reviewed therefore I will accept its findings. Do I trust all peer reviewed articles? From what I understand, there sure are some journals that are not very credible, but overall I do trust peer review, it is the best system we have to separate good claims from bad ones. You are avoiding my questions. you still have not given me the definition to "generalization".
The best way may be to think of a set. There is a noted rule and it shows that the domain is not complete. So an inductive argument is made to make an extrapolation to extend the domain.
The common property makes the extension to greater degrees a reasonable argument. Even should this rule not apply universally, it should still apply over the aggregate such that the generalisation is an accurate model of the observation.
"this is total bullshit, but whatever, you have made plenty of generalizations as per my definition of the word."
And you're a white person, as per my definition of black person.
Seriously speaking now, that is what a generalisation is. I'm not sure what you think a generalisation is, but I described quite accurately the inductive generalisation. I suggest you learn more about what a generalisation is, and how it applies in science and statistics.
Do you think I enjoy debating postmodernists? It should be noted, the worst I've called you was a "postmodernist". I don't like debating you, you don't understand specific terms, refuse to read the material, uncharitably misinterprate what I write, make claims about things I never said, and can't acknowledge simple trivial obvious things like "heavily accented people are at a disadvantage against native speakers in their own land".
That's a good point....if you dump a bag of Legos, they will form something random and make a new "design" but the crucial factor is that they fall to design something specific, like a toaster.
savedbygrace2001 4 days ago
"questions that need answers..."
well fruitcake, not all questions can be answered. in these situations we 'dont know'.....not that it is 'unknowable' its just that right now...our understanding, technological and cognitive capability prevents us from knowing. it is intellectually lazy to harp on about GOD GOD GOD. Talking about GOD does not expand our knowledge. It add's nothing. Its all fairytale speculation. We don't live in a world of abolutes...as traumatic and worrying that might be.
DIGITALSCREAMS 1 month ago
WTF!? Who i the world said that evolution explains the origin of everyting (the universe)?! Evolution NEVER claimed to explain the origin, only the progress and how things.. Evolve '-.- fun how those two words are so familuar, right? '-.-
JensAgain 2 months ago
i love the brown guy and delataylors comment.
which creationist theory do you want to speak? *puts hands up in questioning fashion*
haha!
youngs1ncere 2 months ago
I've never seen a crappier moderator, so clearly biased.
VictorLaszloLives 3 months ago
Ah...the famous "nobody was there" line.
Here's a question: how is it that scientists are able to gather evidence from a crime scene if they weren't there to observe the crime?
CaptainAwesomeoh13 3 months ago
I wish Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or some equivalent to them, was there to school that creationist scum. He could use some hard facts thrown at his face! I get so worked up over this.
martinbondesson 3 months ago
I agree with MrWagman11, it's quite disturbing hear adults, let alone public and political leaders, talk with such gross naivety about what so many others nations accept as sound scientific understanding. Why is the USA so behind in this regard? Is it just smug conservatism?
skworq 3 months ago
Are you kidding me? They get some guy that is still learning English to debate two actors that have control of the format, ask two questions at a time, never let him ask a question, gang up on him and never even let him speak. Great debate. That was very informative on neither side. At least the creationists can finally feel proud of a debate.
delataylor 4 months ago 7
@delataylor lol true
youngs1ncere 2 months ago
Origins of the universe is not the study of evolution.
MrWagman11 4 months ago 12
America needs to grow up. There is no controversy. Evolution is a fact. God is a myth.
MrWagman11 4 months ago 2
2:00 OMG the stupidity is mind numbing. I feel so sorry for this guy.
The origin of the universe has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution ONLY makes claims on the diversity of species. Evolution is NOT teaching speculative cosmology. They are completely different sciences. These two white guys are fucking morons. They don't even know the difference between evolution and cosmology.
2:25 "nobody was there when the big bang took place"
Nobody was there when God created it all either.
Pooverse 5 months ago 2
Neanderthal "dis-proven". ROTFLMAO
Holy shit these creationist just make up facts as they go along don't they? We have found over 400 neanderthal fossils. The only people saying that the Neanderthal is dis-proven is lunatic creationists that would rather lie and say it's all a hoax then try to refute the mountain of evidence it creates for human evolution.
Such an unfair debate. Scientist are bound to evidence and reality while crazy creationist can say basically anything without proof.
Pooverse 5 months ago
FFS science doesn't claim that the Universe came from nothing. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows. And to fill the gap in knowledge with a make believe god is frankly retarded.
Triipticz 5 months ago
Evolution is a fact, the only people who don't agree are religious nuts who don't understand it (or do and don't want to) and non religious people who don't understand it. Like it or not, it is a fact and you need to find out why otherwise you'll continue to be stoooopid. Though it has to be said the only people who are taking ID and Creationism seriously are Americans. Even the Pope admits that Evolution is a fact; time to get over yourselves people!
TheMogulmonster 5 months ago 2
@TheMogulmonster ...Evolution is not a fact. If you put the shoe on the other foot, evolutionists don't agree with God's creation because they don't understand it ....For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; But unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18 . The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Psalm 14:a
savedbygrace2001 3 months ago
@savedbygrace2001 You creationists are just intellectual vandals, wasting everyone's time with crackpot theories that have no basis in fact. Keep your vicious sky gods and your counterfactual claptrap if you please and leave the business of civilisation and science to the grown ups.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
@savedbygrace2001 "Evolution is not a fact."
Yes, actually we have seen small changes in populations accumulating, leading to new species. Look up ring species, including Ensatina salamanders. Evolution has been observed many times. The theory of evolution explains the observations. Can your creationist dogma explain observed evolution?
VictorLaszloLives 3 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives Yes, creatures will adapt but I know that God created this universe not because of my research or even a capricious notion but because I was given the Lord's Word" one day by a believer and I in turn heard the Word and believed it. I then "Called upon the Lord" Romans 10:13 and got saved. The Grace of God is given purely by faith. There are believers and unbelivers, heaven and hell. Trust man or God. One of us right. I wouldnt want to be u. Jesus Saves.
savedbygrace2001 3 months ago
@savedbygrace2001 Your faith most certainly does not give you the permission to undermine science, nor the right to deny the realities inherent in what you claim is God's creation. If anything, I would think that your belief in God would compel you to investigate and understand the universe around you.
VictorLaszloLives 3 months ago
@savedbygrace2001 By the way, just who in the hell do you think you are to pass judgement on me, when you haven't a clue what I believe???
VictorLaszloLives 3 months ago
@VictorLaszloLives My faith DOES give me the authority to "undermine" your false conclusion of evolution, see Titus 2:13-15. There are brilliant men who study the universe and hypothesize but it doesn't take a genius to know that salt is salt and pepper is pepper, ur belief is obvious. Common sense shows that you cannot disassemble a complex piece of machinery or Legos for that matter, put it in a bag and shake it until it re-assembles itself. it must be created.
savedbygrace2001 3 months ago
@savedbygrace2001 I have given you examples of evolution. You do not have the ability to undermine reality. Your mistaken dogma does not change reality, only your perception.
I haven't said anything at all against the existence of God. You are such a fool. You still do not know what I believe. Who exactly made you God, to pass judgement?
VictorLaszloLives 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLaszloLives For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16; Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your path Proverbs 3:5,6 Repent and call on Jesus. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13
savedbygrace2001 3 months ago
@savedbygrace2001
Rover did exactly that. not saying they worked well or lasted but, they worked.
rach44w 4 weeks ago
@savedbygrace2001 Actually if you shake legos you would guet a design or a shape. it would be random and not how you want if but it would build something.
NemesisDarkLord 5 days ago
@NemesisDarkLord sorry typo: get not 'guet'
NemesisDarkLord 5 days ago
@savedbygrace2001 "creatures adapt" thats evolution right there.
StrelokNikitin 2 months ago
No he's not a scientist and it shows. He has a seven year old child's understanding....why would they let him talk. Creationism....it's just plain silly and real scientists simply don't consider it because it is an empty myth and has nothing to do with science.
masala505 5 months ago
we study those areas some more until we do find out. The issue with the genesis idea is that it is stated as being absolute, never changing. It is unwilling to accept new ideas or admit its errors and fallacies. It does not support any scientific research methods to verify its claims, and this is why it IS NOT SCIENCE. No matter how many people want to believe in fairy tales, it doesn't just magically make them true.
bcloss7175 5 months ago
So many people tend to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, and it's quite annoying. The general principles of evolution by natural selection are long studied and well proven, so that they are a practical truth. The REAL opponent to the genesis idea of how life was created is abiogenesis, which researchers are currently studying, and they make more progress every day. We may not know everything, but at least we are willing to admit when there are things that we do not know - and then (cont)
bcloss7175 5 months ago
evolution is not science, it's a religion.
ikawpipa 5 months ago
Oh, c'mon! Evolution is a speculation because you weren't there to witness it?! Are creationists arguments so lame always?!
maujo2009 5 months ago
Don't know why Atheists waste time on ID lunatics. Creationists simply don't understand that they are merely products of their society / social environment. Born in Iran, you would almost certainly be Muslim, Israel, you would practice Judaism, U.S.A. Christianity, etc., Not a particularly good reason to subscribe to the notion of an all seeing, all knowing boogy man in the sky! You will never get anyone to admit that his/her brand of Theology is simply a question of Geography!!!
foreversurfingthenet 5 months ago
This guy was much more polite than I probably been lol
davidt0504 5 months ago
Neaderthal was not disproved. And there is no way a global flood can account for the sedimentary rocks and fossils of the world. If you think one can I suggest reading the book Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters by Donald Prothero. That book thoroughly refutes the psuedoscience of flood geology.
jeremythehuman 5 months ago
good science my ass. There is no science behind ID and that idiot is not a scientist, he doesn't even understand evolution bringing up the big bang theory. They are not related they are completely different theories on different subjects it's stupid. ID being tought in science class is like teaching 1 + 1 = 3 in maths. There's no reason or evidence to suggest 1 + 1 = 3 but hey we've got to show all the sides right? wrong. Science in science class religious crap in philosophy nd church
youbetzler 6 months ago
its ok to not know what we came from but i know we werent created... creationist are always trying to throw that in there,. "We Cant Come from nothing" wtf how do you know ? you werent around. where did your god come from,. nothing ? lol "can't come from nothing" EVOLUTiONS THE WAY =D
TyeDye07 6 months ago
he said neanderthals have been disproven.... everyone g o o g l e . "Aboriginies...." enough said.. O_o
TyeDye07 6 months ago
its funny how this creationist pretends to be in favor for "good" science. but creationism/ID is not science... its more like a STOP-(thinking)-sign in people's heads: whenever they see something that is too complex for their little minds they immediatly stop thinking and say "God did it.". to me that is much more a sign of stupidity than a sign of the existence of a "god".
science is the exact opposite: you go beyond that stop sign and try to understand the complex things in the universe.
ksqoo 6 months ago
creationist owned this one of course God exists and you dont need to look to far into hari cristina or vodo muslim ect to know that the outstanding historical evidence points to christianity jesus christ is the way to life. repent and trust in him and you will be saved
mamainmancj 6 months ago
@mamainmancj The question wasn't whether a god exists, the topic was whether intelligent design should be taught in science classes and as Rahman pointed out, ID is not a scientific theory.
CyberBushBush 6 months ago
Evolution is FACT, Creation is wishful thinking :)
xNoReligionx 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Evolutionist = open mind to the unknown to accept and acknowledge the facts as they are discovered by an inquiring, inquisitive mind.
Creationist = make conclusions to what the unknowns are and jamming down the innocent minds of kids. Since the conclusion to all unknowns is god, is it the wish of creationists to stop all scientific research?
MonkeySpecs301 7 months ago
The creationist is speaking of how some facts of evolution are wrong, and he thinks because of that creatism must be right. well there is no fact in creationism its all just an imagination.
belal81195 7 months ago
Setting a scientist who does not speak English fluently and is probably quite inexperienced in debate against a sophist and an interviewer who sides with the sophist was probably not a tactically sound decision.
mastersausagemaker 7 months ago
@mastersausagemaker the guy is Indian... I'm sure he speaks English fluently, maybe you wanted someone who speaks "American"? in this same logic, I guess the English don't speak English either...
imnodog 7 months ago
@imnodog
Actually, I find the Canadians speak a nicer form of English over both the English and Americans. Also, I'm not an American.
Surely one can appreciate that there is nothing overtly racist or ethnocentric in pointing out the obvious. His English sucks. It doesn't matter if he's Indian, if he can't get native pronounciation and similar native fluidity, then his English sucks
It's clear he's not a native speaker. Would you have preferred had I said "native speaker" or something more pc?
mastersausagemaker 7 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "his English sucks"... er, he has something called an accent... they speak English in India you fool.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
Yes, I know they speak English in India. I work with people from India. Some speak English better than others. They also speak English in Singapore, where I lived for a while. They speak better English over the aggregate than the Indians do. In Hong Kong, English is also spoken. Their English is worse.
Some accents are noted for their difficulity being understood by the larger groups. These inlcude Singlish, Chinglish, and the highly variant Indian English accent. They all suck.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker this is hilarious, quite frankly. we're talking about accents here, by your logic Canadians have the best English... umn, ok, this conversation is going no where and it's not worth my time... peace out.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
You should know that you have misused the term "logic" twice now. It wasn't by my "logic" that Canadians have a nicer accent, I wrote that I found it nicer - a subjective evaluation of aesthetic, not an objective deduction.
The point stands, when you have a debate in a culture with a specific accent, it is unwise to use a heavily different accented non-native speaker against a professional sophist. Why you find this so difficult to understand or accept is something I find bizarre.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker Obviously I think that the way certain English people speak English is divine and far better than the Canadian accent, but this is, as you say, totally subjective and it's possible that, had I grown up where you had and subsequently lived in the places that you had, I might agree with you.
I agree with your broader point, though, that imnodog misuses the word "logic". Hasn't he chosen to go, now?
pineapplepenumbra 6 months ago
@pineapplepenumbra
I find that the Canadian accent is a good compromise between the US and English variants. It retains the strong pronounced -r (eg. beer = be-uhr) which I prefer along with the softer use of dipthongs (eg. about = a-bowe-t, ~ a-baoht). The result is a reasonably clear English, though it may lack the oratorical style of some English variants.
He misuses the word logic, but I am puzzled why he thinks using someone who is linguistically at a disadvantage is not unwise.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker He's just not being Logical, lol.
I met a Canadian recently, I didn't mind her accent at all. She told me that she met the woman (Kim Phuc) who was photographed as a little girl, running over a bridge in Trang Bang during the Vietnam war, with her back horribly burnt.
pineapplepenumbra 6 months ago
@pineapplepenumbra
I don't know if he even had a real point to begin with. It doesn't seem like he really understands the position that he is taking.
I think he means to argue that there are really no poor ways to speak English, only different ones, and I think this is absurdly silly. He doesn't consider that the accent must be compared to how closely it relates to the group in question, the closer the better, the farther the worse.
No kidding, that was a disturbing picture.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker I can't remember if I've seen these videos before, or not, I'll have to watch them again to find out. All these videos blend into each other, when you've seen so many.
pineapplepenumbra 6 months ago
@pineapplepenumbra
After a while, they all start to seem the same. They do tend to be somewhat formulaic.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker Tell me about it. I have found that i get more easily distracted away from these things, nowadays, I think, oh, someone's sent me a message, I'll just check that and come back, then I rarely come back, these people need to make it more interesting. What I need are some beautiful women debating, that'd do the trick.
Also, I think that the same tired old arguments being wheeled out time and again, don't help.
pineapplepenumbra 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "but I am puzzled why he thinks using someone who is linguistically at a disadvantage is not unwise" because the Indian guy is NOT at a linguistically disadvantage in my opinion...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"because the Indian guy is NOT at a linguistically disadvantage in my opinion..."
He is, he clearly cannot compete with his competitor, and the outcome of debates is often determined by fluidity of prose and clarity of diction. To ignore the oratorical component of a debate is to ignore one of the major influencing factors in determining who is more influential at presenting their case and swaying the viewers. There's a reason why there are schools of diction.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker the Indian guy won this debate hands down IMO, so I disagree with you completely.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
It seemed more like a draw to me. With these things, Christians often say the apologist won and us heathens often hold that the scientist won. Here, the apologist made his key points, and they were poorly addressed by the Indian who did not succeed in making his case. Thus, the Christians hold their position without serious challenge.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker we'll agree to disagree than.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog I thought that you both might have to do that, lol.
pineapplepenumbra 6 months ago
@imnodog
Sure, whether or not you think he did well in the debate is your subjective opinion. The main point I made was, however, putting someone into a situation where their accent is so heavy compared to the native group against a professional sophist of that native group was an unwise debate choice.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker question, what qualifies the American as a "professional sophist" in your view? second, how is the Indian guy going to have trouble counter-arguing in English with his native accent? both of our arguments are subjective, except I did throw a fact at you, fact being that the Indian guy speaks English fluently, you saying it "sucks" is your opinion...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"what qualifies the American as a "professional sophist" in your view?"
Simple, his job there is to win the argument rhetorically by any means without regards to the truth.
"how is the Indian guy going to have trouble counter-arguing in English with his native accent?"
Native accent? I doubt English is his native language, he most likely learned it as a second language. In a debate, it's important to be understood. Much about communication, unfortunately, is how things are said.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@imnodog
cont.
This is sociologically well known. Often, proper pronunciation isn't taught by ESL studies. The Indian here wasn't unintelligible, but I would think even you must admit that he loses emphasis and dynamics due to his inability to connect with the native accent group. Using an American to debate an American to an American audience with an American accent would have been the prudential move.
", fact being that the Indian guy speaks English fluently,"
That is actually subjective.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "The Indian here wasn't unintelligible, but I would think even you must admit that he loses emphasis and dynamics due to his inability to connect with the native accent group"
no I wouldn't, because I'm not that ignorant, and if the audience to which this is being broadcaster to feels that way, then that would make them ignorant as well.
"That is actually subjective"
nope, it's factual actually.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
You seem to be under the impression that a debate is a contest of facts and logical arguments. They are not. They are pulpits for people to make quick points by stating their position, this is why those who tend to believe one side usually claims their side won.
Debates are about presentation, style, and audience connection. A charismatic speaker with flawless local accent with prepared lines scores better in debates than does a better informed person with a thick accent.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker that's your opinion.
imnodog 6 months ago
Comment removed
Philodiogenes 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker I agree. The message is lost in the attempt to differentiate the words. When the listener is focussing on individual words they often fail to comprehend the sentence they are in. Frustration can then lead to a further devaluing of the ideas or a tuning out. A common problem in lectures where students can come away feeling they have missed the point or that the speaker doesn't speak english.
Philodiogenes 6 months ago
@Philodiogenes
Thank you Philo, can you tell this to imnodog? I don't seem to be making any headway in that presentation and style may actually be more important in debates than content.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker I suspect that it would not make much of a difference. This exchange has gone past the open minded stage.
Philodiogenes 6 months ago
@Philodiogenes
What do you mean?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker My observation is that all involved are talking past each other. Emotion is preventing recognition of valid points.
Philodiogenes 6 months ago
@Philodiogenes
While it is most likely you are indeed correct in your conclusion that we are talking past one another, how dare you suggest that I, a pupil of the Vulcan School (non-mystic) have emotions ! >:(
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker My mentat training allows me to do so.
Philodiogenes 6 months ago
@Philodiogenes
Quite so. I shall inform this to the Acadamy of Sciences so that they may undertake an internal review of this. The accusation of another Vulcan having emotions is a serious one, as are any such claims mental illness.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker I would question you parents to see which one has flawed human ancestry.
Philodiogenes 6 months ago
@imnodog I'm going to have watch this set of videos again, as I can't remember. I don't think that mastersausagemaker is saying that the Indian guy is unwise, just that he's at a disadvantage, which is a different thing.
pineapplepenumbra 6 months ago
@pineapplepenumbra sure, he's saying he's at a disadvantage linguistically because he's native Indian. That's just not true though, we're not talking about someone who learned English as a second language and is having trouble speaking it, we're talking about someone who has been speaking English his whole life, having a thick accent doesn't mean you can't sound eloquent and get your points across, I don't see how he's at a disadvantage because of that quite frankly.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
Most Indians do learn English as a second language, usually through school. That's why their accents are so heavy, because they speak mostly their home language and learn English in non-immursive ways. At least that's what I've been told by the Indians I know.
Your page says your from Brasil, is that correct? Portuguese is really just a bastardised Spanish. Go to Colombia and speak Portugese and see how many people can follow you without hesitation and think you to be persuasive.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "they're accent is so heavy" it's heavy to you, Americans have accents to them. Portuguese from Portugal have a heavy accent to us, as we do to them, but we still speak Portuguese fluently and so do they. Portuguese and Spanish are two very different languages, even though Portuguese derived from Spanish, and Spanish derived from Latin, they're three very different languages and this is a totally different discussion. Accents only applies to pronunciations of the same words.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog cont. Accents are nothing more than a different way to pronounce the same word, this has more to do with the region your reside. Even in Brazil there are very different accents throughout the country depending where you reside, but that's not the point, everyone in the end of the day still speaks the same language...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
I'm not saying they speak different languages, I'm saying if you want to connect to people, you are best off using their own native accent, especially when the differences are very significant.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker than I say no more Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens debating Americans! (sarcasm btw...).
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"it's heavy to you"
Yes, that's the point. He may have been in place at IIT, but in the US, he speaks less in line with the American accent and is thus worse off. Much of Portuguese is like German into English in its infinitive forms. But despite the similarities, the pronunciation throws people of and they can't understand what "Das Maus ist im Haus" means. The structure here is the same, the words etymologically equivalent, but pronounced different.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker
Correction: Much of Portuguese to Spanish is like German to English in its infinitive forms.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker well, if you're trying to connect with a bunch or rednecks who can't stand other type of accents and therefore will disregard everything the Indian has to say, than I say who cares? If I (who doesn't speak English fluently in live conversations) is able to understand him, I'm sure most Americans can understand him as well. by the way, you are very mistaken about the Portuguese language, we can understand most of Spanish and vice versa, yet it's still different languages.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
I'm not mistaken about Portuguese. I don't speak it, but I've seen enough of it in contrast to Spanish, one language I do speak (though not as well as I used to from little practice), to discern the similarities. Take an accent far enough, change some words around, and Spanish becomes Portuguese.
Let me ask you: they have the choice between two people to send, one with an American accent, the other with an Indian accent. Both being equal, who would you choose to send?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker brother, this is getting tiresome... Portuguese and Spanish are two DIFFERENT languages. "the milk" = "O Leite" (Portuguese), "la leche" (Spanish), this is not different accents, it's different grammar and spellings, but we can still understand most of the other language and vice versa. This is not true to English and German... now, we're talking about accents, in northern Brazil there is a different pronunciation for the word "leite" than the south. hence the accent...
imnodog 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker cont: "Let me ask you: they have the choice between two people to send, one with an American accent, the other with an Indian accent. Both being equal, who would you choose to send?"
the most qualified is who I'd choose, and by qualified I don't mean if they're foreign or not... I mean by their accomplishments.
imnodog 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imnodog
"the most qualified is who I'd choose, and by qualified I don't mean if they're foreign or not... I mean by their accomplishments."
That's not what I wrote. I wrote "BOTH BEING EQUAL, who would you choose to send", the only difference being their accents.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker accents IMO are nothing more than just that, accents, it doesn't negate an argument IMO. I know you want me to say the guy without the accent, but that's just non-important in my view, therefore the question quite frankly is a dumb one (and an ignorant one). it's like asking me, do you choose between a black guy and a white guy to speak on TV about something? now, some people will argue a white guy has more credibility, you're arguing the same except for nationality.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"I know you want me to say the guy without the accent, but that's just non-important in my view"
Then you are sacrificing efficiency and reality for your idealised fantasy of how you think things ought to be. The most logical and indeed, obvious, conclusion is that the person without the accent is chosen because he would accomplish the job better, regardless of your wishful thinking. There is nothing ignorant about this, you are simply playing the politically correct inclusivity game.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@imnodog
"it's like asking me, do you choose between a black guy and a white guy to speak on TV about something? now, some people will argue a white guy has more credibility, you're arguing the same except for nationality."
If the show is about African slavery, choose the black guy. Sometimes, contexts matter. Television networks realise this, apparently you can't.
Furthermore, I noted nothing about race or nationality. Even within countries, particular accents are favoured such as high German.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "If the show is about African slavery, choose the black guy. Sometimes, contexts matter. Television networks realise this, apparently you can't."
well, that pretty much says it all, don't it? You look at things with the context of color based or nationality based, which is very ignorant to say the least. this conversation is now over...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"You look at things with the context of color based or nationality based"
Not really.
Being from Brasil, I thought that you would be one to promote racial equity given the numerous races and cultures that Brasil has. I now also see that you are willfully colour-blind and prefers to live in an imaginary world where everyone is the same height, weight, and grey colour.
Have you not ever wondered why black people talk on TV shows about slavery? Because using a white guy is insensitive.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker I do promote racial "equality", not division, though you are the one promoting division with your logic quite frankly. btw, I am black, and there is nothing "insensitive" about a white guy talking about slavery so long as he knows what he's talking about.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog cont: "Have you not ever wondered why black people talk on TV shows about slavery? "
because it happened, and we are still living with the side effects of it. my community is relatively poor in contrast to other races because we are still leaving with the side effects of slavery. How the hell does a white guy talking about this, somehow makes it inappropriate? it only strengthens the argument to be quite honest, to have everyone fighting for the same cause.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog cont2: "Being from Brasil"
don't be condescending, because one, you're not from Brazil, and two, you haven't lived in Brazil, whatever it is you "think" you know of Brazil from reading wikipedia pages, trust me, you don't. stop making broad generalizations will you, this only makes your argument look weaker and weaker...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"don't be condescending"
I was being patronizing, not condescending.
"you're not from Brazil"
True.
"you haven't lived in Brazil"
False. I lived there for three months when I was young, I lived many places around the world. Don't make claims about things you don't know.
"stop making broad generalizations"
So say, rather than speaking about Brasilians in general, should I perhaps explain in detail the perspectives of each individual within the country to avoid generalising them?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "I was being patronizing, not condescending." to be patronizing is to be condescending... hey, maybe you should learn English before addressing me too? :p
"False. I lived there for three months when I was young, I lived many places around the world. Don't make claims about things you don't know."
I don't believe you, but even if that's true, it doesn't make you an expert on the land.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"to be patronizing is to be condescending"
No, synonyms are similar but inexact in meaning."
"I don't believe you, but even if that's true, it doesn't make you an expert on the land"
It doesn't matter if you believe me. I stand by what I said, if you want to think me a liar because we disagree on a different issue, then do so. You're right that it doesn't make me an expert on the land, but it was a rebuttal to your claim that I never lived in Brasil and nothing more.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@imnodog
"How the hell does a white guy talking about this, somehow makes it inappropriate?"
Tell you what, why don't you take an informal poll. Ask all people, not just black, without leading them on or giving away to much information, what would they think if they saw a white person on TV talking about black slavery.
Also tell me, do you think the viewer will think that the white person will understand the legacy of slavery, or do you think they will think he is out of place?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker there's nothing, and I say, NOTHING wrong with a white person talking about slavery. Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, black included, who feels this way is ignorant to say the least.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"there's nothing, and I say, NOTHING wrong with a white person talking about slavery"
I agree, there is nothing wrong with this. I would like to see a time where this doesn't matter. I don't pretend, however, that there are not other people out there who would take offense.
"Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, black included, who feels this way is ignorant to say the least."
Again, it's not about your ideals. Go ask people and see what they think. Conform to reality.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@imnodog
"I do promote racial "equality", not division, though you are the one promoting division with your logic quite frankly"
That's at least the third time you've misused the term "logic". No, you're "equality" constitutes denial of reality. One can recognize differences and hold people equal at the same time. That's why I don't pretend that accents don't matter in debates.
"btw, I am black"
Well woop-dee-doo for you.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker lol, I don't think you know what the word "logic" means. two, equality =/=division. You're the one preaching on keeping communities divided, saying speakers from different communities shouldn't address people of different race/nationality, that's your argument buddy, not mine, you're preaching on keeping things segregated and not unified...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
No, I know what logic means. That's why I did not abuse its meaning.
"two, equality =/=division. You're the one preaching on keeping communities divided"
No where anywhere have I said this. I said people can be equal and still different.
"saying speakers from different communities shouldn't address people of different race/nationality"
I said someone with a heavy accent is disadvantaged in a debate with a native in their native land. This is not racist or nationalist.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@imnodog
"and there is nothing "insensitive" about a white guy talking about slavery so long as he knows what he's talking about."
And most descendants of slaves perceive the only knowledge white people know about slaves is how to trade and work them. Unlike "progressives" such as yourself, many would be offended at the prospect and so TV shows avoid problems like this like the plague.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "And most descendants of slaves perceive the only knowledge white people know about slaves is how to trade and work them. "
quite honestly, you're a fucking idiot and a racist, you generalize what black people "perceive" even though you couldn't be more wrong. yes, that's my "progressive" mind talking. goodbye, go on preaching your nonsense, I am finally done with this shit, I don't debate racists...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"quite honestly, you're a fucking idiot and a racist"
I'm of mixed race you idiot, why would I be a racist?
"you generalize what black people "perceive" even though you couldn't be more wrong"
Do you simply have a problem with generalisations? Read set theory.
"I am finally done with this shit, I don't debate racists..."
By racists you mean people who acknowledge the existence of different races? Fine, go talk to other people who don't believe that people have different ethnicities.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker lol, are you a professional troll? I keep trying to leave this debate and I just can't help but reply.
"I'm of mixed race you idiot, why would I be a racist?"
wait, are you saying mixed people can't be racist? that's a huge fallacy.
"Do you simply have a problem with generalisations? "
generalizations are, of course, ignorant to say the least. and you "assuming" the way black people in general may feel about something makes it a racist remark, no way around it.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog cont: "By racists you mean people who acknowledge the existence of different races? Fine, go talk to other people who don't believe that people have different ethnicity"
having differences doesn't mean one group can't address the other, again, that's divisive not unifying... you're not acknowledging differences between culture, you're saying different cultures shouldn't address the other, that's your argument, again, that's divisive...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"doesn't mean one group can't address the other, again, that's divisive not unifying"
And indeed they do. If, however, one wants to debate with a heavy accent, one must acknowledge that the audience will perceive them to do worse. This is a consequence of base psychology, no matter how much you deny its significance.
"you're saying different cultures shouldn't address the other"
Again, I never once wrote that. Stop making me repeat myself and actually read what I write.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "I never once wrote that. Stop making me repeat myself and actually read what I write"
this whole debate started by you implying the evolutionist's English "sucked" and by implying he was at a "disadvantage" and that the TV channel SHOULD HAVE brought someone without any accent to debate. that's your argument, and it is divisive, try to dance around it all you want, but your argument IS divisive.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
There is no objective criterion of the quality of speech, if you want to maintain some post-modernist "nothing is wrong only different" stance, then sure, his English wasn't bad from the native speakers perspective, it was only "different" but of equal quality (though measurably harder to understand). I admit, the quality of speech is relative from perspective, and I still maintain that from the American perspective his English sucked. There is nothing complicated in this.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker so his English doesn't "suck"...
"from the American perspective"
I thought you weren't American... are you saying Americans can only understand or give credibility to people who speaks like they do? That's another "ignorant" remark... you have made plenty of them throughout this debate...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"I thought you weren't American"
I'm not, but I lived there for a while. I like to think that I understand them, even if I dislike their culture.
"are you saying Americans can only understand or give credibility to people who speaks like they do?"
For the most part, yes. This is endemic within their culture.
"That's another "ignorant" remark"
No it's not.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "I'm not, but I lived there for a while."
yes, seems like you lived everywhere for a while, I didn't realize I was speaking to Forrest Gump. You are quick to point out you have personal experience with everything I point out, makes me realize you're full of bullshit.
"This is endemic within their culture."
another generalization... and yes, very, very ignorant of your part...
"No it's not."
er, yes it is...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"yes, seems like you lived everywhere for a while"
I've lived and worked in many countries. You don't have to believe me. Still, that would be as arbitrary as my doubting whether you really are black or are from Brasil. After all, being black gives you personal experience about being black and being from Brasil gives you Brasilian experience too.
"another generalization... and yes, very, very ignorant of your part..."
The correct term was "stereotype". Generalisations can be true.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker you can doubt me saying I'm Brazilian, but you're the one who went to my page and found that out on your own, I didn't mention it. I did however say I was black, I can point you out to many posts I have made in the past where I mention this. But I have only made one claim to who I am throughout this debate, you have made plenty, the bullshitter is usually the one who talks way too much, in this case, it is you, not I.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"you can doubt me saying I'm Brazilian, but you're the one who went to my page and found that out on your own"
Right, because I didn't assume you were lying like you assume I'm doing. I was pointing out how stupid it is to question claims of the personal experiences of strangers on the internet. Perhaps you chose a fake country?
Also, I have noted that you tend to be overly politically correct and somewhat post-modernist, but I've never made a truth claim that you were either of these.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "because I didn't assume you were lying like you assume I'm doing"
I didn't bring up anything regarding Brazil until you did, so there was nothing for you to 'assume'.
"I was pointing out how stupid it is to question claims of the personal experiences of strangers on the internet"
I think it's stupid to bring up any personal thing on the internet, not question it.
"Perhaps you chose a fake country?"
again, I made no claim I was Brazilian, you SEARCHED FOR IT.
imnodog 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imnodog
""because I didn't assume you were lying like you assume I'm doing"
I didn't bring up anything regarding Brazil until you did, so there was nothing for you to 'assume'."
This is a non sequitur.
""Perhaps you chose a fake country?"
again, I made no claim I was Brazilian, you SEARCHED FOR IT."
From information you claimed.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker this comment of yours is pure comedy gold...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"this comment of yours is pure comedy gold..."
I don't see why. I note that your first proposition is a non sequitur and the second that one can indeed lie by planting false information. Perhaps you didn't understand it then?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker the thing is, I didn't lie, you just went around looking for information and then confronted me with such information that you had gathered, again, the claim wasn't made by me, this is filled with fails...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"the claim wasn't made by me"
Oh? So when you selected in the YouTube sign up process which country you were from, that wasn't you? And when you acknowledged you were from Brasil, as it said on your page (also not you), that also wasn't you?
So if I write on my channel I was born on Saturn, that's not a lie? Even if someone points out the absurdity, it's actually them in error because I never "made the claim" I was from Saturn even though I planted the information as if it were true?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "So when you selected in the YouTube sign up process which country you were from, that wasn't you?"
this is a serious question; but are you retarded? I'm talking about making claims in THIS DEBATE... yes, I went back in time and figured out you would make a connection about Brazil, therefore I signed up to youtube making sure Brazil was selected as my country of residence, therefore when you brought it up, I would have that covered! yes, I'm so clever! come on man, be real..
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"this is a serious question; but are you retarded?"
It wasn't a serious question (I would think this obvious), your entailment doesn't apply.
"I'm talking about making claims in THIS DEBATE"
And the sources of these claims are also important. Since you doubt my living in many places, I'm also arbitrarily doubting the credibility of your source. Recall that you did, in the debate, acknowledge that you were from Brasil. This alone can be question regardless of your channel.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker cont...
"This is a consequence of base psychology, no matter how much you deny its significance."
throughout this whole debate, you keep trying to make scientific statements without any grounds to do so, do you have a degree in the field or something? Just because you're ignorant enough to make such assertions, it doesn't make said assertions "true" by any means... please provide PROOF or good arguments that accents have a negative impact on the audience or STFU.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"do you have a degree in the field"
No, but I did extensive reading in cognitive science while I was an undergraduate and still do try to keep current in computational psychology.
"please provide PROOF or good arguments that accents have a negative impact on the audience"
There are many ideas I'd like to justify, but the data doesn't exist to support it. I think that the food in America is worse than Europe, but no data exists to support this.
Actually, look up accent discrimination.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker so you don't know what you're talking about. thank you for making my point...
"look up accent discrimination"
yeah, that's basically what you're doing here, accent discrimination. it's a shame you can't see it...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"so you don't know what you're talking about. thank you for making my point"
Where did I say this?
"yeah, that's basically what you're doing here, accent discrimination"
You didn't look it up did you? Scientific American has a nice online article about it entitled "Why the Brain Doubts a Foreign Accent", read it.
I knew people who said that the humans on Star Trek didn't sound like Klingons. Psychology permeates our understanding of things, not the other way around.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "Where did I say this?"
you didn't, I concluded, given our debate, it sure seems you don't know what you're talking about, your answer only emphasizes this...
"Scientific American" all your knowledge seems to come from reading articles online and taking any of them as fact on diverse matters (that includes the Americans this, Brazilians that part), that's your error, you can find things to back up almost any ignorant claim, including racist claims about purity races, etc.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"you didn't"
So when you said "thank you for making my point...", I actually did not make any point?
"all your knowledge seems to come from reading articles online"
I also read books and learn through dialogue. Do you doubt the credibility of Scientific American?
"that's your error, you can find things to back up almost any ignorant claim"
I told you about accent discrimination and the article in SA. Did you read either of them?
When did I say anything about racial purity?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker I doubt the credibility of ANY study that is not peer reviewed. The study you mention is not peer reviewed, I don't subscribe to authority, just because there was an "article" on Scientific American doesn't make such article accurate. I also said you CAN find articles online to back up any claim, including racist claims SUCH as racial purity, you need some reading comprehension classes it seems...
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"I doubt the credibility of ANY study that is not peer reviewed"
Markus Brauer, Abdelatif Er-rafiy, Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimination, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, p. 871-881
"I don't subscribe to authority"
A politically correct post-modernist like you? Of course not.
"just because there was an "article" on Scientific American doesn't make such article accurate"
Again, do you doubt Scientific American?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker funny, I just went to that study, and guess what it concluded:
"Increasing perceived variability of an out-group DECREASES prejudice/discrimination"
guess what I'm arguing, for the Indian guy to debate, guess what you're arguing, for him NOT TO and have an American instead. again, you're the one promoting Accent Discrimination, not I.
"A politically correct post-modernist like you? Of course not."
thank you for the compliment :p
the thing about SA, asked and answered.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
" funny, I just went to that study, and guess what it concluded:
"Increasing perceived variability of an out-group DECREASES prejudice/discrimination""
Did you only read the title or abstract? Without interaction with outgroups, there is inherent prejudice. This suggests that those without such socialization would be naturally inclined to discrimination.
"guess what I'm arguing, for the Indian guy to debate"
I never said you couldn't, I said it wasn't prudent.
SA wasn't answered.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker
Correction: I never said *he* couldn't, I said it wasn''t prudent.
Also, you stated you trusted peer-review. You didn't state whether you trusted Scientific American, which has entries from credible and notable scientists who cite peer-reviewed sources for their submissions.
Tell me, do you trust all peer-review? Some are garbage since the peers are credulous dolts. Peer-review doesn't equate credibility, reputation also matters (think Elsavier or Springer-Verlag, even SA)
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker if the articles are peer reviewed, it certainly gives them credibility, the article you mention was indeed peer reviewed therefore I will accept its findings. Do I trust all peer reviewed articles? From what I understand, there sure are some journals that are not very credible, but overall I do trust peer review, it is the best system we have to separate good claims from bad ones. You are avoiding my questions. you still have not given me the definition to "generalization".
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"if the articles are peer reviewed, it certainly gives them credibility"
No it doesn't. There are many crack-pot peer-reviewed journals. Consider that even the creationists for a time had a "Journal of Creation Science".
"but overall I do trust peer review"
Which is nullified if the peers in question are credulous dolts.
"You are avoiding my questions. you still have not given me the definition to "generalization"
I don't recall you ever asking me that question.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker "There are many crack-pot peer-reviewed journals" I acknowledged this, again, you fail at comprehending text.
"Which is nullified if the peers in question are credulous dolts"
yes, there are journals you give more credibility to than others, again, I acknowledged this.
"I don't recall you ever asking me that question"
I must have asked it 5 times at least.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"acknowledged this, again, you fail at comprehending text"
No, I understood this, I was using this for emphasis. Read up on the "Principle of Charity".
"I must have asked it 5 times at least"
Cite each instance not including the last where you actually did ask.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mastersausagemaker "No, I understood this, I was using this for emphasis. Read up on the "Principle of Charity"."
how about you make the arguments instead of citing something to read?
"Cite each instance not including the last where you actually did ask."
hit ctrl+F on your keyboard, type "generalization", you'll find each, I promise!
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
So, what is a generalisation then?
The best way may be to think of a set. There is a noted rule and it shows that the domain is not complete. So an inductive argument is made to make an extrapolation to extend the domain.
The common property makes the extension to greater degrees a reasonable argument. Even should this rule not apply universally, it should still apply over the aggregate such that the generalisation is an accurate model of the observation.
This is generalising.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker this is total bullshit, but whatever, you have made plenty of generalizations as per my definition of the word.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"this is total bullshit, but whatever, you have made plenty of generalizations as per my definition of the word."
And you're a white person, as per my definition of black person.
Seriously speaking now, that is what a generalisation is. I'm not sure what you think a generalisation is, but I described quite accurately the inductive generalisation. I suggest you learn more about what a generalisation is, and how it applies in science and statistics.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker you're an idiot, I'm out, this is tiresome.
imnodog 6 months ago
@imnodog
"you're an idiot, I'm out, this is tiresome."
Do you think I enjoy debating postmodernists? It should be noted, the worst I've called you was a "postmodernist". I don't like debating you, you don't understand specific terms, refuse to read the material, uncharitably misinterprate what I write, make claims about things I never said, and can't acknowledge simple trivial obvious things like "heavily accented people are at a disadvantage against native speakers in their own land".
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago