this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
So I'm currently arguing with one of these racists, who keeps typing, "Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white!" at the end of every one of his comments. Makes me snicker.
So I asked him what's wrong with considering all humans a part of one race? He said that if we get rid of race, we get rid of the notion of genocide.
I don't know if I'm high or my mind is just blown...but isn't that a good reason to get rid of the notion of race?
@BigLundi Well either way, genocide is an act of political convenience, another part of an out of control powertrip. Wether races are something people take into account or not, genocides are stemming from multiple reasons, interconecting into politics of any level, and they may continue to happen. But surely racism can't do much to stop genocide. Its far more possible for racism to start genocide.
@ONESPECIES Well I agree, even if we got rid of the notion of race, genocide would just refer to killing any group of people in the name of a political ideology, be it religious or otherwise. "You're all poor, therefore I shall kill you." Or "You don't believe in my god, you all must die." And all that nonsense.
Still though, thinking of everyone in the human species as one race of people would do a lot to get away from that, I would think.
@BigLundi Yes, by all means, thats why I am all for considering all humans as one race. Each individual should be treated and juged according to their own actions and behaviors. Nothing more nothing less. I just pointed out that unless we seriously update our "politics" and generally the way we do our business in the world all together, we won't have anything such as across the board results. But escaping racism is surely a great start. Better even discard all sorts of dehumanization. :)
@ONESPECIES Start small. That's the best way to spread memes. Keep the concept smal, and simple. All humans are of the same race. Real simple, real succinct, easy to understand.
You seem to be repeating this quite often to serve your own insane and incoherent, furthermore malicious, racist, agenda.
The bias and siding you're talking about is strictly political and has nothing to do with colors of any sort, especially not the skin tone or whatever bullshit conspiracy you have in your head. Including the lack of coverage of the latest massive atrocity on Kosovo in March 2004.
It has much to do with strategic interests and means to reach them, but that's it.
You might learn a lot from this channel and the guy behind it.
Start small...
Start by reading the name under which he goes - ONESPECIE.
We ARE one specie, and that's not even a question anymore.
But I guess there will always be people trying to find ways to rationalize and justify their indiscriminate hate, people like you; and people with an agenda behind it, those smarter than you. We just look to a world in which the roll of either of you will be reduced to one of a benign tumor.
The Islamic theocracies are so technologically impaired that all together wouldn't, objectively, stand a chance against Israel alone. How are they "Imperialistic threat" to anyone? Although there probably are some insane Islamist, probably many, who are as delusional as you.
It's like if we were talking about Portuguese imperialism - It's the thing of history.
Hate crimes are hate crimes; they aren't white, brown nor black.
I know what you mean. Someone does not have to swear to make your brain wanna eject out of the skull. But he does offer a rare glimpse on all the things one has to know wrong about life to be a racist.
yes that is a very valid point-I guess having seen this 'persons' comments and videos i go for blocking because he is so offensive(you dont hve to swear to be offensive) and there is clearly no getting through to him and he is so arrogant in his opinion that he is right that it can easily result in futile slanging matches- you are a better man than I :0)
And genetics is of virtually no value in discussions about race. According to geneticists there is hardly any difference between human beings and chimpanzees. Yet in reality the differences are profound. As is indicated by the fact that this discussion is taking place in cyberspace via computers rather than consisting of howls and shrieks from the treetops.
@atticana Again, you are making more statements to the effect that people are not born that much different, but grow up to be more different than birth could ever manage to make them.
Science is of far more limited value in this field than many suppose. In strict scientific terms there may indeed be no such thing as 'race', but in historical and cultural terms there certainly is. And human beings are historical and cultural beings. In strictly scientific terms the word 'weed' is meaningless. But go ask any farmer or gardener if there are such things as weeds!
@atticana Thank you for this Brilliant comment. It proves or agrees with the simple fact that while people are demonstrably different by effects of culture, are not so by effect of birth.
@dancingnancy09 Thank you! But why Block the man? At least he is not swearing. But what he offers is an in depth look of the homemade philosophies that ammount to racism. We will see how he uses his place in this thread. (plus I was away for some time).
The book to read is, 'Race; A Study in Superstition' by the historian Jacques Barzun. It was written in the late 1930s and revised in the early 1960s. As you read it, consider what we have learned from the human genome project.
I don't understand the point of this video. Whether you agree with the "race realists" or not, they present studies to try to back up their claims. Just saying "present the evidence!" suggests that you may not have watching videos from the other side.
Secondly, saying that the "race realists" are just using insults is beyond ridiculous. Video after video of these "YouTube atheists" jumping on the bandwagon of abuse hurling. Have you seen how much abuse HeyRuka has received?
@StatelessLiberty Thats all peachy, now back to the facts. The Racial Realists presented studies already debunked or not peer reviewed. They also misrepresented studies that do not support racism, but used them anyhow. And in the very simple lyrics you will listen that I refer to their view that races should be separated by land. Even if they had evidence for race, which they don't, proving race is about 1000 pieces of evidence away from sending people "home". And 4 that as 4 all, no evidence.
Why? I didn't comment to debate race realism, I commented to address the content and purpose of the video, which as you stated, does not attempt to debunk race realism. Claiming a lack of evidence for race realism is just a red herring.
You implied in your video that the race realists were doing nothing more than making empty assertions (false), and were just basing their arguments on insults (false). Your response doesn't address this at all.
@StatelessLiberty It should address it just fine. They did make empty assertions, and they did resort to calling the people that noted this "race creationists", self-hating whites, politically correct sheep, and others after their half baked case failed to meet the goal post. So give me a break with the list of fallacies. Facts are simple. A racist view while it may stand as an opinion of someone, it has no sound backing by evolutionary biology, PERIOD.The rest is apologetics, creationist style.
@SacrificiumSpiritus I did not know this before, but my channel name is a perfect trap for idiotic uneducated racists. Wanna know why? Because most of them make the same ignorant comment with you. But you know the funny thing buddy? Even the most ardent Nazis and Racists accept we are all one species, I mean we can produce offspring among us right dummy? The debate of the side you are on is RACE, not SPECIES. But you are so infatuated with segregation, you would doubt we all carry water inside.
@SacrificiumSpiritus Hey nut case, you can't call anyone borderline autistic. Because thats you. As I said, even the most ardent racists will recognize we are one species. And no one argues blacks and asians are a different species. So whatever small part of my comment you focused your obsessive compulsive disorder on, the fact remains you can not even argue for your own case with this goo brain of yours.The argument of racists is not that we are different species, but that there are faces. GTFO
@dungeoncrawler55 hearing you is like witnessing an attempt to describe the world by means of LEGO bricks. There are a thousand things wrong with what you said, but I don't think you got open mind for discussion, nor its a topic that would fit in the comments. I am preparing a series on racism, and it will deal with all the diverse issues you people conveniently accuse some nucleotides off. Hold your unimpressive horses until then. Cheers.
No one involved in the debate was arguing for completely distinct biological races with clearly definable lines. They were arguing for a continuum
Your "defenders" of reason and logic in this debate are laughable. The only one of them I've seen who appears to be intellectually honest is SofiaRune. Most of the rest have engaged in flagrant intellectual dishonesty, misrepresenting the opposition, poisoning the well, guilt by association, lies & other crap.
@AnarchistPhilosopher Propaganda? WhOW. Thats rather bold coming from your side. And you can't even make out the meaning of words. Go throughout the whole lyrics and you shall find no misrepresentation. Ruka said she is for distinct races living in their continent of Origin. Thats what I presented. And besides this is just a laughable facade for aggressive racism, since the "Race Realist" side is suggesting relocation of populations shamelessly. Shifting the point wont add grace to this crap.
Show me one instance where Ruka or anyone else said there were "categorically distinct biological races with no overlap"; if you can, I shall gladly concede the point. If you have no such evidence, then we have reason to believe you misrepresented her and the other RR you so graciously included you video.
And Interesting, so knowing an enquiringly into the truth of population differences is a front for "racism;" so I suppose by that logic evolution must just be a front for atheism
@AnarchistPhilosopher Fallacious to the bone mate, congrats! HeyRuka did say that in her video. The video is down now or private and honestly I do not care much, hundreds of people watched it and if you missed it thats your problem. If you did not watch the relevant videos you should not be commenting with such certainty here. And your last bit is simply pathetic. She supports MarmiteMan, SpawkCock and Stormfront, its not like one needs to jump to vague examples to get a grip of this one.
"However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, then they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance"
–Richard Dawkins
I suppose that Biologists like Dawkins who could be characterized as a sort of Race Realist is espousing aggressive racism as well.
"It is an article of passionate faith among politically correct biologists and anthropologists say that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty fascist things anyway."
@AnarchistPhilosopher Wow. You were severe in asking me for proof and answers, I gave them to you twice, and then you pass me the red herring trail, with Quote-mining. Laughable. But lets play then.
"Race has no serious value in Social terms" - Richard Dawkins How's that for you Sugar?
@AnarchistPhilosopher Easy on the Hypocrisy dude. HeyRuka herself removed my and everyone else's access to her video by taking it off. Sorry I do not keep a live constantly updating library of BULLSHIT, for people like you to demonstrate too. If thats how you treat the word evidence, I can hardly believe you wear your pants without help. She made the claim, and now she hided it back, what evidence do I need? She even says she means it the "voluntary way" . The quote is in a book. Go read some.
@spiritualbully Egalitarianism is the humble understanding, that in the intricate experience we call life, no single one factor decides the outcome of anything. Everything is based on multi-factor systems. One feature that may be positive in one situation, is negative in another. Therefore, egalitarian thinking doubts the ability of subjective human beings, to successfully link variation to a certain hierarchy from good to worse in an objective manner of any value. Variance & Equality.
@ONESPECIES "no single one factor decides the outcome of anything." I challenge you to find me ONE person who disagrees with that.
Now, can I ask, are SOME factors stronger than others? Or are all factors I can pull out of my ass equal weight?
Can I use heredity of height to predict the success of a person in basketball? Or must we assume all humans have an absolutely equal chance of success in it? Or is there a 3rd option?
@spiritualbully You are quite pointless in the discussions you make. Would you mind having actually something to say, instead of moving goal posts to bring fatigue to other party? I just told you how I view egalitarianism. Now you wanna know if height plays a role in basketball careers? What the fuck is that? Should we start explaining everything from the bing bang to now in a comment section? The relevant talk is heredity of IQ and races. Not tall and slim. Now be relevant, or I can't bother.
@ONESPECIES a common response to creationists is "what is the wall that stops ONE KIND of an animal from accumulating differences and becoming ANOTHER KIND".
So I will ask you, is IQ measurable? If so, is it hereditary at least in part?
If IQ is hereditary, what stops the differences from accumulation?
What stops differences from forming among populations?
Forget race, let's get start on the right foot , IS THERE OR IS THERE NOT, genetic IQ difference between populations (is that fair?)
@spiritualbully Now I will bust your balls for a change, because all this IQ nonsense is really getting to my nerves. Americans yeah? Primarily Whites yeah? supposedly of higher IQ according to the racial realists. Why the FUCK did they elect the lowest IQ President of all time TWICE? If you explain to me, what role the IQ of Americans played in electing Bush (who blacks do not like much), I will gladly continue this discussion. If you can't, go ahead make a video, and I will question you.
@ONESPECIES yes, please do bust my balls, I asked for it.
"IQ nonsense is really getting to my nerves" which is why I asked, IS THERE SUCH THING AS IQ, can it be measured? If not, we can leave it at that. If so, then what's wrong with comparing people with it?
I'll take up your offer to make a video. Thanks for the question. talk soon.
"IS THERE OR IS THERE NOT, genetic IQ difference between populations (is that fair?)"
I would say yes. I would also say that IQ is very closely linked to environment and plays a bigger role than genetics. I've come across some literature and videos on the subject and it seems most experts agree with my view.
My question is: What is the significance of hereditary IQ differences? Why is it a political question for you guys?
@HerrKnitler "What is the significance of hereditary IQ differences?"
None unless we establish the predictive powers and utility of IQ to begin with.
" Why is it a political question for you guys?" For me? It's much of a social economic question if there are consequences, but also because liberals can't just admit facts and always need to make everything about political correctness. So no, not per se a political Q.
"also because liberals can't just admit facts and always need to make everything about political correctness."
Well, you need to prove it first for "liberals" to admit facts. The facts all point to that all humans all over the world have the exact same psychology (spend a day in sales and you'll know exactly how predictable people really are). The facts also point to that IQ is mostly an environmental thing.
I don't care about political correctness, I care about being correct...
@spiritualbully What social cost you Troll? The Prime minister in my country just makes sloppy statements on financial matters, and the next day the borrowing cost of my country almost doubles. We are talking in the billions here. Enough to cover for all the disabled people in my county's History. The social cost is not the disabled people. It is those who are not disabled or officially retarded, but act as retarded and disabled just out of their own will.
@ONESPECIES mentally and physically disabled people have no societal costs? (I apologize that this may have deviated from IQ, race, but I am answering the question you gave just now).
Just because you have a stupid politician or leader than makes retarded decisions, does not make other ones OK. By your logic, if somebody is a murderer, I can't condemn stealing or raping.
I don't disagree, that those who are not retarded but act as such are intolerable (and should be punished)
@HerrKnitler no, I am not. is there a reason you're not a parent of a dozen retarded children? Or a dozen amputees? Why don't you have them or enjoy having them if they do not have costs?
Funny, I find logic to be superior to any 'intricacy' that you might have. Especially since all of the relevant data supports the idea of variation in the human population. In fact, basic logic can show that Creationists are moronic, as there is variation and election, with the micro/macro difference only being one of time.
Basically, I'd like to know what intricacy the "racists" lack
@SaviorOfLogic #1 Variation is not in doubt by anyone, so quit with the strawmaning. Its just that variation permeates everything in out life, and you pretend you invented the wheel. However Variation does not somehow equal inequality. Especially legislated inequality. The intricacy they lack, is that they have never presented a set of evidence and falsifiable predictions as intricate as their long standing conclusion of "everyone needs to go back home now, party is over, but No Pressure!" LMAO
@ONESPECIES By 'variation', I mean between different populations, ie. different probability curves of different traits. if this exists, regardless of if you call it race or not, there is no equality in humanity, so this would oppoe affirmative action style legislation, for anywhere, the workplace, university or NBA, though my political views preclude this, regardless of the science.
I' like to see how the Minnesota Trans-racial adoption study is not evidence of their predictions.
@SaviorOfLogic You do not get what good variability does for our species, and you still refer to inconclusive localized research and then extrapolating it on the whole world. I did not get your point on affirmative action nor which side you take on that. However I will tell you this. Lets say 2 unequal people get the same job. Why should they be paid equally? Because 1) they both dedicate the same amount of their time, 2) they both have the same needs to survive 3) arbitrary inequality Sucks.
@ONESPECIES I'd like to know hoe the MTRAS is localized, that sounds pretty unscientific. I am opposed to affirmative action, but because I believe state intervention is bad.
If 2 people are unequal, I see no reason why they should be paid equally, if an employer wants to pay them differently (for any reason he wishes to), that is their right, just as a customer can choose not to shop at a place owned by member of a group.
So you don't believe cops should arrest someone assaulting you or firemen should put out your house if it's on fire? Those are both "state intervention". I get the feeling this is another case of an arbitrary distinction.
@PatchesRips Nope, I'm opposed to the state. However, you could also say, I'm happy to pay an insurance company to protect me from fire or criminals, but I don't care about bigots.
@SaviorOfLogic "I'm happy to pay an insurance company to protect me from fire or criminals"
And in this case, that "insurance company" is one in which you are by birth a part owner, along with the rest of your society, and is colloquially referred to as "the state", to which you pay fees generally referred to as "taxes".
@SaviorOfLogic "who then just makes up the law on it's land."
Okay, so without, you'd do what, exactly? Take your chickens -- because there'd be no "money"; that's issued by a state in which the people hold a common trust -- to an insurance company... and who, exactly, would defend this insurance company in the event someone decided they wanted whatever goods (of yours and others) it held in its vaults? Another "insurance company", perhaps?
@PatchesRips Money can be issued privately, and was until the state monopolized it. The insurance company could hire security guards, if that is what you mean. If you wish to know about my position, "anti-statism at light speed" is a good introduction, and addresses most objections.
Yeah, and good luck using it beyond your own river valley. That's why we stopped doing that in the Western world 150 years ago.
"The insurance company could hire security guards"
The bad guys could just bring more bad guys. What's to stop them? If they heist is big enough, all they have to do is overwhelm the stakeholders, and there the consequences end. That's essentially the reason we have states in the first place.
@SaviorOfLogic "You've yet to show state run money is better."
Its liquidity and broad acceptability its superiority. Do you consider it better to be able to spend US dollars for a purchase in Japan, rather than try to persuade someone in St. Louis that your "Bank of Elm Street" pesos from Baltimore are worth his trouble to put in his vault and exchange for his "real' money? I would imagine you do.
@PatchesRips USD have lost 97% of their value since the Federal Reserve. These have led to a larger boom/bust cycle. Also, if the pesos aren't being accepted, you'll switch to another money, as the notes would be backed up by commodities.
@SaviorOfLogic "USD have lost 97% of their value since the Federal Reserve. "
I didn't say the US dollar was, at least at the moment, a well-run currency. I said its ubiquitous acceptance made it unquestionably preferable to private currencies.
"if the pesos aren't being accepted, you'll switch to another money"
How, if no one will exchange them in the first place? Oh, you mean you might come together with others to form a more generally-accepted currency like, oh, the USD, GBP, yen, euro...?
Of course they were; they absolutely were. The only thing giving a currency its value is the faith in which people hold it, in common. That's consensus.
@PatchesRips No, while there is a consensus in the state, ad there is a relative consensus on fiat money, society did not accept the money through the emergent social order of the market.
@SaviorOfLogic "society did not accept the money through the emergent social order of the market."
Wrong; it was the market that drove the adoption of state-defined currencies as trade expanded. "Joe's Bank" wasn't a good enough guarantor three counties over. The national government was.
@SaviorOfLogic "Also, a state action, by definition, is not a consensus, as people have to be forced to accept it."
The fact that you can't set up your own currency today doesn't alter the fact that the adoption of modern state currencies was driven by market forces seeking liquidity in transactions.
Presumably you're talking about "private" currencies here, so-called. Can you name one, from any time in history, that was not, in fact, simply a privately-issued note representing private holdings denominated in a publicly-created and regulated currency?
@SaviorOfLogic "The Americans definitely had banks which were able to issue their own notes"
What they issued were bills, denominated in federally-mandated US dollars, attesting to a matching deposit. That's not the same thing as a "private currency". It's essentially a cheque; an agreement to pay the bearer in gold or silver the amount set in the currency of the United States. No one was required to accept them by law, and if you didn't do business with that bank, odds are you wouldn't.
@SaviorOfLogic "That was just a basis for the quantity"
I don't care how you want to slice it, it still comes up peanuts. A "dollar" was a currency organized on federal standards, replacing, by the way, previous such standards maintained by colonies (not to mention the pound, maintained by the British government), and was fixed to an amount DESIGNATED BY LAW. All the "private currency" you're talking about meant was "yeah, this joker has X dollars in deposit at our bank".
@PatchesRips The dollar was a quantity of weight. Saying you had 'seven dollars' was similar to saying you had 'fourty ounces' or whatever, there was a certain amount of silver (or gold) in a vault somewhere. It would be like the state saying "any private money must be weighed in grams", a opposed to ounces or whatever. In some place, food packaging must be labelled with it's weight, and sometimes this is only allowed to be done it gram/kilos, this doesn't mean it's state-run food.
Yeah. A federally-defined, regulated, and enforced one. The banks were not issuing their own currency. They were issuing US currency representing their deposits, as mandated by the US Treasury Department. I'd like you to finally acknowledge that point rather than continue tiptoeing around it, making the same non-point over and over.
@PatchesRips Yes, they were, and there were fears of 'wildcat banks' which would issue the currency and then run off. And private currencies such as the Liberty Dollar are trusted despite being 'illegal'.
@SaviorOfLogic (cont'd) The reason that was useful even to the limited extent it was was that everyone in the United States knew EXACTLY what a "dollar" was because the value was set BY LAW. If you wanted to issue "freds" from Fred's Bank, no one but a fool would accept one because they would have no idea how much value that represented, nor a recourse to an enforcement mechanism.
@PatchesRips Nope. The state owns huge tracts of land it does ton have 'rightful' claim to. While rightful is subjective, I'm pretty sure you can't argue that someone ca just assert they ow thousands of mile and it be fine. It is only accepted because it is 'the state', which is why I say it is not a rightful claim.
@SaviorOfLogic "I'm pretty sure you can't argue that someone ca just assert they ow thousands of mile and it be fine"
That's a very good point. One of the reasons Anglo-American economies are so strong is that they have long featured property registration. That enables someone to borrow against property because they can demonstrate unambiguous ownership as registered with the state. This feature has been largely lacking in, for instance, Latin American systems, with obvious results.
@SaviorOfLogic "No, the state owns huge tracts of land, that i ti's principle characteristic."
That has nothing to do with my point about land registration and the necessity of a state in order to organize and enforce such a system, facilitating the leveraging of land ownership for the purposes of borrowing.
@SaviorOfLogic "Nope, as it was done 'privately' (ie. on state) in Ireland, Iceland and the 'Wild West'."
Again, it's bad enough when you don't provide context for things I've said; should your OWN statements be devoid of context? Is this how you think people win arguments; by saying things with no mooring so that your opponent can't even begin to organize a response?
Please be clear about what your point is. No points for being coy at the cost of lucidity.
@PatchesRips OK, while I agree that secure private property rights are important of economic development, it has been done privately, so that is not a necessarily function of the state.
@PatchesRips No, a state s the monopolist of law over a arbitrary area of land. There have been private 'creators' of law (judges) and enforcers without the need of a state, such a in Medieval Ireland.
@SaviorOfLogic Listen I am not gonna mix here anarcho-libertarianism or whatever with racism here. In the stateless environment you refer to, the Chinese would not have to work their ass off to provide you with cheap goods, nor would the Iraqis have to give you their oil in below profit prices so that a part of that industry sleeps in golden sheets. We are talking about here and now, and here and now a shop keeper can not be the arbiter of justice nor an agent of inequality.
@SaviorOfLogic "Basically, I'd like to know what intricacy the "racists" lack"
For instance: describing what a "race" actually is such that it could differentiate people living in two adjacent villages in northern Sudan or eastern Siberia, say, as belonging to either one race or another, distinct from each other, and how that determination is made.
@PatchesRips How do you differentiate blue from red? In both cases, while there are differences in their code (DNA and RGB), their is no natural delineation.
@schizotypalgrasp Yap, that what I would get, just wanted to be sure. Well I piled on to be honest, but although I was not planning to make a video on this issue, the response of the racial realists to their critics was completely infuriating to me. I felt I had to school them a bit, while releasing my anger in some other form than facepalm. I was all black and blue at the time, due to facepalming. At least I tried to keep it short and sweet.
This has been flagged as spam show
this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
chauncyhead 1 week ago
So I'm currently arguing with one of these racists, who keeps typing, "Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white!" at the end of every one of his comments. Makes me snicker.
So I asked him what's wrong with considering all humans a part of one race? He said that if we get rid of race, we get rid of the notion of genocide.
I don't know if I'm high or my mind is just blown...but isn't that a good reason to get rid of the notion of race?
BigLundi 2 weeks ago
@BigLundi Well either way, genocide is an act of political convenience, another part of an out of control powertrip. Wether races are something people take into account or not, genocides are stemming from multiple reasons, interconecting into politics of any level, and they may continue to happen. But surely racism can't do much to stop genocide. Its far more possible for racism to start genocide.
ONESPECIES 2 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES Well I agree, even if we got rid of the notion of race, genocide would just refer to killing any group of people in the name of a political ideology, be it religious or otherwise. "You're all poor, therefore I shall kill you." Or "You don't believe in my god, you all must die." And all that nonsense.
Still though, thinking of everyone in the human species as one race of people would do a lot to get away from that, I would think.
BigLundi 2 weeks ago
@BigLundi Yes, by all means, thats why I am all for considering all humans as one race. Each individual should be treated and juged according to their own actions and behaviors. Nothing more nothing less. I just pointed out that unless we seriously update our "politics" and generally the way we do our business in the world all together, we won't have anything such as across the board results. But escaping racism is surely a great start. Better even discard all sorts of dehumanization. :)
ONESPECIES 2 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES Start small. That's the best way to spread memes. Keep the concept smal, and simple. All humans are of the same race. Real simple, real succinct, easy to understand.
BigLundi 2 weeks ago
@BigLundi the main issue is not that "we are one race", but the double standards.
Like for example, when NATO bombed Serbia and even their schools - there was no protection for the white serbs.
When Serbians in 2004 were ethnically cleansed from brown albanians... they were not protected from UN.
I will ignore the butcher of white south africans and focus on something nastier, the tolerance toward pedophile brown gangs.
BBC documentary about that:
watch?v=fyIHoGSOZhM
FailLeviathanSailor 2 weeks ago
@FailLeviat
You seem to be repeating this quite often to serve your own insane and incoherent, furthermore malicious, racist, agenda.
The bias and siding you're talking about is strictly political and has nothing to do with colors of any sort, especially not the skin tone or whatever bullshit conspiracy you have in your head. Including the lack of coverage of the latest massive atrocity on Kosovo in March 2004.
It has much to do with strategic interests and means to reach them, but that's it.
Orthodoxcrusader 2 days ago
@FailL
You might learn a lot from this channel and the guy behind it.
Start small...
Start by reading the name under which he goes - ONESPECIE.
We ARE one specie, and that's not even a question anymore.
But I guess there will always be people trying to find ways to rationalize and justify their indiscriminate hate, people like you; and people with an agenda behind it, those smarter than you. We just look to a world in which the roll of either of you will be reduced to one of a benign tumor.
Orthodoxcrusader 2 days ago
@Orthodoxcrusader First of all, how do you expect to fight with racism while focusing only on one group - whites?
How ignoring Islamic Imperialism, Brown/Black hate-crimes will stop racism?
This is the issue - the double standards
FailLeviathanSailor 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FailL
What Islamic Imperialism?
Are you living in the 15th century?
The Islamic theocracies are so technologically impaired that all together wouldn't, objectively, stand a chance against Israel alone. How are they "Imperialistic threat" to anyone? Although there probably are some insane Islamist, probably many, who are as delusional as you.
It's like if we were talking about Portuguese imperialism - It's the thing of history.
Hate crimes are hate crimes; they aren't white, brown nor black.
Orthodoxcrusader 1 day ago
I know what you mean. Someone does not have to swear to make your brain wanna eject out of the skull. But he does offer a rare glimpse on all the things one has to know wrong about life to be a racist.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
yes that is a very valid point-I guess having seen this 'persons' comments and videos i go for blocking because he is so offensive(you dont hve to swear to be offensive) and there is clearly no getting through to him and he is so arrogant in his opinion that he is right that it can easily result in futile slanging matches- you are a better man than I :0)
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
Let's just kill Brown Pride
FailLeviathanSailor 2 weeks ago
@FailLeviathanSailor ??
ONESPECIES 2 weeks ago
And genetics is of virtually no value in discussions about race. According to geneticists there is hardly any difference between human beings and chimpanzees. Yet in reality the differences are profound. As is indicated by the fact that this discussion is taking place in cyberspace via computers rather than consisting of howls and shrieks from the treetops.
atticana 2 months ago
@atticana Again, you are making more statements to the effect that people are not born that much different, but grow up to be more different than birth could ever manage to make them.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
Science is of far more limited value in this field than many suppose. In strict scientific terms there may indeed be no such thing as 'race', but in historical and cultural terms there certainly is. And human beings are historical and cultural beings. In strictly scientific terms the word 'weed' is meaningless. But go ask any farmer or gardener if there are such things as weeds!
atticana 2 months ago
@atticana Thank you for this Brilliant comment. It proves or agrees with the simple fact that while people are demonstrably different by effects of culture, are not so by effect of birth.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
Christian radio show host proves atheist are stupid:
watch?v=x1uFOPLgcl8
deshaebeasley 4 months ago
@deshaebeasley ... while in the meantime only succeeding to prove he is stupid?
ONESPECIES 4 months ago 2
@ONESPECIES one of most brilliant videos on youtube! Love it! ps-why hasnt that moronic dullard racist creationist atticana been blocked?
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
@dancingnancy09 Thank you! But why Block the man? At least he is not swearing. But what he offers is an in depth look of the homemade philosophies that ammount to racism. We will see how he uses his place in this thread. (plus I was away for some time).
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@deshaebeasley biggest LOL in a long long time!
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
The book to read is, 'Race; A Study in Superstition' by the historian Jacques Barzun. It was written in the late 1930s and revised in the early 1960s. As you read it, consider what we have learned from the human genome project.
Lifeiscurious 4 months ago
@Lifeiscurious I will look it up!
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
You should have hired a real rapper, the voice is awful. But good idea and content.
TWSceptic 4 months ago
@TWSceptic Thats why this was a one off!
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
I don't understand the point of this video. Whether you agree with the "race realists" or not, they present studies to try to back up their claims. Just saying "present the evidence!" suggests that you may not have watching videos from the other side.
Secondly, saying that the "race realists" are just using insults is beyond ridiculous. Video after video of these "YouTube atheists" jumping on the bandwagon of abuse hurling. Have you seen how much abuse HeyRuka has received?
StatelessLiberty 4 months ago 2
@StatelessLiberty Thats all peachy, now back to the facts. The Racial Realists presented studies already debunked or not peer reviewed. They also misrepresented studies that do not support racism, but used them anyhow. And in the very simple lyrics you will listen that I refer to their view that races should be separated by land. Even if they had evidence for race, which they don't, proving race is about 1000 pieces of evidence away from sending people "home". And 4 that as 4 all, no evidence.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
"Thats all peachy, now back to the facts."
Why? I didn't comment to debate race realism, I commented to address the content and purpose of the video, which as you stated, does not attempt to debunk race realism. Claiming a lack of evidence for race realism is just a red herring.
You implied in your video that the race realists were doing nothing more than making empty assertions (false), and were just basing their arguments on insults (false). Your response doesn't address this at all.
StatelessLiberty 4 months ago
@StatelessLiberty It should address it just fine. They did make empty assertions, and they did resort to calling the people that noted this "race creationists", self-hating whites, politically correct sheep, and others after their half baked case failed to meet the goal post. So give me a break with the list of fallacies. Facts are simple. A racist view while it may stand as an opinion of someone, it has no sound backing by evolutionary biology, PERIOD.The rest is apologetics, creationist style.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
HeyRuka is awesome.
SacrificiumSpiritus 5 months ago
@SacrificiumSpiritus Sorry but lol at your channel!
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES
I am also sorry but I have to lol at your username! "OneSpecies"
A golden retreiver and a pit-bull are the same species.... yet their average intelligence and behavioral patterns differ greatly.
Humans are no different.
SacrificiumSpiritus 5 months ago
@SacrificiumSpiritus I did not know this before, but my channel name is a perfect trap for idiotic uneducated racists. Wanna know why? Because most of them make the same ignorant comment with you. But you know the funny thing buddy? Even the most ardent Nazis and Racists accept we are all one species, I mean we can produce offspring among us right dummy? The debate of the side you are on is RACE, not SPECIES. But you are so infatuated with segregation, you would doubt we all carry water inside.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Neanderthals were also able to reproduce with humans.
Stupid analogy.
There are different bird species that can reproduce.
Your comment is incoherant and borderline autistic.
If aboriginals and SubSaharan africans were extinct, and all scientists had were their bones, they would be classified as a seperate species.
SacrificiumSpiritus 5 months ago
@SacrificiumSpiritus Hey nut case, you can't call anyone borderline autistic. Because thats you. As I said, even the most ardent racists will recognize we are one species. And no one argues blacks and asians are a different species. So whatever small part of my comment you focused your obsessive compulsive disorder on, the fact remains you can not even argue for your own case with this goo brain of yours.The argument of racists is not that we are different species, but that there are faces. GTFO
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
'intellectual pollution' - religion summed up in two words. Nice one!
JebelUcapKrong 5 months ago
What is a "racist"?
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
Any white person who opposes this ethnic cleansing and geNOcide they call a "racist".
They don`t call Tibetans resisting Chinese colonists "racists".
They don`t call Palestinians resisting Israeli settlers "racists".
They only ever call whites "racist" for wanting our group to be able to continue it`s existence.
Just admit it: Anti-racist is a codeword for ant-white.
dungeoncrawler55 5 months ago
@dungeoncrawler55 hearing you is like witnessing an attempt to describe the world by means of LEGO bricks. There are a thousand things wrong with what you said, but I don't think you got open mind for discussion, nor its a topic that would fit in the comments. I am preparing a series on racism, and it will deal with all the diverse issues you people conveniently accuse some nucleotides off. Hold your unimpressive horses until then. Cheers.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@dungeoncrawler55 If you don't understand how those are the worst examples, ever, of all time. Then you're head is permanently affixed to your colon.
watch?v=zMp1s6HYv9c&
xdassinx 5 months ago
@dungeoncrawler55 lol retards are funny.
aznlalaland 5 months ago
Awesome rap, dude :) .
Jaybird196 5 months ago
@Jaybird196 Cheers!
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
What is this I don't even.
justicetrooper 5 months ago
What a lovely piece of pure propaganda
No one involved in the debate was arguing for completely distinct biological races with clearly definable lines. They were arguing for a continuum
Your "defenders" of reason and logic in this debate are laughable. The only one of them I've seen who appears to be intellectually honest is SofiaRune. Most of the rest have engaged in flagrant intellectual dishonesty, misrepresenting the opposition, poisoning the well, guilt by association, lies & other crap.
AnarchistPhilosopher 5 months ago
@AnarchistPhilosopher Propaganda? WhOW. Thats rather bold coming from your side. And you can't even make out the meaning of words. Go throughout the whole lyrics and you shall find no misrepresentation. Ruka said she is for distinct races living in their continent of Origin. Thats what I presented. And besides this is just a laughable facade for aggressive racism, since the "Race Realist" side is suggesting relocation of populations shamelessly. Shifting the point wont add grace to this crap.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Show me one instance where Ruka or anyone else said there were "categorically distinct biological races with no overlap"; if you can, I shall gladly concede the point. If you have no such evidence, then we have reason to believe you misrepresented her and the other RR you so graciously included you video.
And Interesting, so knowing an enquiringly into the truth of population differences is a front for "racism;" so I suppose by that logic evolution must just be a front for atheism
AnarchistPhilosopher 5 months ago
@AnarchistPhilosopher Fallacious to the bone mate, congrats! HeyRuka did say that in her video. The video is down now or private and honestly I do not care much, hundreds of people watched it and if you missed it thats your problem. If you did not watch the relevant videos you should not be commenting with such certainty here. And your last bit is simply pathetic. She supports MarmiteMan, SpawkCock and Stormfront, its not like one needs to jump to vague examples to get a grip of this one.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES
"However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, then they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance"
–Richard Dawkins
I suppose that Biologists like Dawkins who could be characterized as a sort of Race Realist is espousing aggressive racism as well.
AnarchistPhilosopher 5 months ago
"It is an article of passionate faith among politically correct biologists and anthropologists say that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty fascist things anyway."
–Richard Dawkins
AnarchistPhilosopher 5 months ago
@AnarchistPhilosopher Wow. You were severe in asking me for proof and answers, I gave them to you twice, and then you pass me the red herring trail, with Quote-mining. Laughable. But lets play then.
"Race has no serious value in Social terms" - Richard Dawkins How's that for you Sugar?
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES
So proof is asserting she said it; that's fantastic. And the quote wasn't a red herring, it was an analogy to a previous statement you'd made.
What's also interesting, I can't seem find that quote anywhere with a Google Search.
AnarchistPhilosopher 5 months ago
@AnarchistPhilosopher Easy on the Hypocrisy dude. HeyRuka herself removed my and everyone else's access to her video by taking it off. Sorry I do not keep a live constantly updating library of BULLSHIT, for people like you to demonstrate too. If thats how you treat the word evidence, I can hardly believe you wear your pants without help. She made the claim, and now she hided it back, what evidence do I need? She even says she means it the "voluntary way" . The quote is in a book. Go read some.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES What the fuck would Richard Dawkins know about "social terms"?
I didn't know he was a social expert.
FreeVonHelton 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ONESPECIES What the fuck would Richard Dawkins know about "social terms"? I didn't know he was a social expert.
FreeVonHelton 5 months ago
phat beats!
soulinite 5 months ago
@SecularNumanist Must you always be an asshat?
BobChaos23 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist It would be nice if you had switched on your hearing aid too.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Nice!!!!
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior Thanks a million! But you're the Pro!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
This is hilarious!
jippzmcghee 6 months ago
@jippzmcghee :-)
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@jippzmcghee MC Hawking would be proud.
soulinite 5 months ago
@soulinite Whoa! Thanks XD
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
:D *likes*
Fir3bird23 6 months ago
@Fir3bird23 :)
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Sounds like a candidate for the Pwnage Olympics.
Satanos777 6 months ago
@Satanos777 Hahahah, thanks! Nah, its too too early. But I am sure somebody will be fooling around at that time, and I might just jump on them.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Teh warrior iz strong in this one :)
akylae101 6 months ago
Marvelous
CMO999 6 months ago
@CMO999 Cheers!!!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
30 viewers had convictions.
wordup60 6 months ago
@wordup60 Or a higher taste in rap I suspect! : )
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
There is no such word as "flied". The preterite form of the verb "to fly" is "flew." Nice video, though. I really enjoy your work.
raskolnikov1873 6 months ago
@raskolnikov1873 I know, I made the mistake but it Rhymes. Many Thanks!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
good show ol' chap
yazerith 6 months ago
@yazerith Cheers mate!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
This rhyme session needs to increase the intricacy :)
Haha
Nice video though. I would like to see a rap response from the racists.
HerrKnitler 6 months ago 2
@HerrKnitler Hahaha, I was hoping for something like that, but.... well, I keep low expectations! Cheers.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Eargasm!
crankysaint 6 months ago
@crankysaint Hahaha, cheers!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
BTW, I'm still waiting for you to give a non-strawman explanation of egalitarianism. I hate to misunderstand you.
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@spiritualbully Egalitarianism is the humble understanding, that in the intricate experience we call life, no single one factor decides the outcome of anything. Everything is based on multi-factor systems. One feature that may be positive in one situation, is negative in another. Therefore, egalitarian thinking doubts the ability of subjective human beings, to successfully link variation to a certain hierarchy from good to worse in an objective manner of any value. Variance & Equality.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES "no single one factor decides the outcome of anything." I challenge you to find me ONE person who disagrees with that.
Now, can I ask, are SOME factors stronger than others? Or are all factors I can pull out of my ass equal weight?
Can I use heredity of height to predict the success of a person in basketball? Or must we assume all humans have an absolutely equal chance of success in it? Or is there a 3rd option?
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@spiritualbully You are quite pointless in the discussions you make. Would you mind having actually something to say, instead of moving goal posts to bring fatigue to other party? I just told you how I view egalitarianism. Now you wanna know if height plays a role in basketball careers? What the fuck is that? Should we start explaining everything from the bing bang to now in a comment section? The relevant talk is heredity of IQ and races. Not tall and slim. Now be relevant, or I can't bother.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Maybe now I can ask you, is egalitarianism useful in deciding how to decide basketball players? If so, good. If not, what do you use?
Answer me if you can, are SOME factors stronger than others, since there are multi factors in life.
I ask about height and heredity to see later, why you'd stop at IQ being hereditary (if you do, if you do not, I apologize).
(cont)
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES a common response to creationists is "what is the wall that stops ONE KIND of an animal from accumulating differences and becoming ANOTHER KIND".
So I will ask you, is IQ measurable? If so, is it hereditary at least in part?
If IQ is hereditary, what stops the differences from accumulation?
What stops differences from forming among populations?
Forget race, let's get start on the right foot , IS THERE OR IS THERE NOT, genetic IQ difference between populations (is that fair?)
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@spiritualbully Now I will bust your balls for a change, because all this IQ nonsense is really getting to my nerves. Americans yeah? Primarily Whites yeah? supposedly of higher IQ according to the racial realists. Why the FUCK did they elect the lowest IQ President of all time TWICE? If you explain to me, what role the IQ of Americans played in electing Bush (who blacks do not like much), I will gladly continue this discussion. If you can't, go ahead make a video, and I will question you.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES yes, please do bust my balls, I asked for it.
"IQ nonsense is really getting to my nerves" which is why I asked, IS THERE SUCH THING AS IQ, can it be measured? If not, we can leave it at that. If so, then what's wrong with comparing people with it?
I'll take up your offer to make a video. Thanks for the question. talk soon.
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@spiritualbully
"IS THERE OR IS THERE NOT, genetic IQ difference between populations (is that fair?)"
I would say yes. I would also say that IQ is very closely linked to environment and plays a bigger role than genetics. I've come across some literature and videos on the subject and it seems most experts agree with my view.
My question is: What is the significance of hereditary IQ differences? Why is it a political question for you guys?
HerrKnitler 6 months ago
@HerrKnitler "What is the significance of hereditary IQ differences?"
None unless we establish the predictive powers and utility of IQ to begin with.
" Why is it a political question for you guys?" For me? It's much of a social economic question if there are consequences, but also because liberals can't just admit facts and always need to make everything about political correctness. So no, not per se a political Q.
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@spiritualbully
"also because liberals can't just admit facts and always need to make everything about political correctness."
Well, you need to prove it first for "liberals" to admit facts. The facts all point to that all humans all over the world have the exact same psychology (spend a day in sales and you'll know exactly how predictable people really are). The facts also point to that IQ is mostly an environmental thing.
I don't care about political correctness, I care about being correct...
HerrKnitler 6 months ago
@HerrKnitler "all humans all over the world have the exact same psychology " except for babies, retards and geniuses.
And a person needs not have low IQ to be a societal cost, physical disabilities are often worse.
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@spiritualbully What social cost you Troll? The Prime minister in my country just makes sloppy statements on financial matters, and the next day the borrowing cost of my country almost doubles. We are talking in the billions here. Enough to cover for all the disabled people in my county's History. The social cost is not the disabled people. It is those who are not disabled or officially retarded, but act as retarded and disabled just out of their own will.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES mentally and physically disabled people have no societal costs? (I apologize that this may have deviated from IQ, race, but I am answering the question you gave just now).
Just because you have a stupid politician or leader than makes retarded decisions, does not make other ones OK. By your logic, if somebody is a murderer, I can't condemn stealing or raping.
I don't disagree, that those who are not retarded but act as such are intolerable (and should be punished)
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@spiritualbully
Costs?
I hope you're just trolling...
HerrKnitler 6 months ago
@HerrKnitler no, I am not. is there a reason you're not a parent of a dozen retarded children? Or a dozen amputees? Why don't you have them or enjoy having them if they do not have costs?
Is there any benefit to their costs?
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@spiritualbully
Well...
1. How did this turn back and forth turn to societal costs?
2. We were talking about race and IQ and you didn't provide an argument except that I'm a liberal and politically correct.
3. If I did have "retarded" kids I would care for them... what's your point?
4. Most societies have a social contract to take care of people. Would you want to be tossed aside if you lose a leg?
You just seem to be an antisocial dirtbag with fascist tendencies. (Not ad hominem if it's true)
HerrKnitler 6 months ago
lol You rap like an old speak n spell low on batteries.
groovyengineer 6 months ago
@groovyengineer Hahah, if you only knew what I had to go through to get it sound even like that.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@schizotypalgrasp :-)
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
There isn't enough genetic variation between people for actual races to exist, just different ethnicities.
cjdragon1988 6 months ago
cyxoro 47 FTW!
nishbrown 6 months ago
Funny, I find logic to be superior to any 'intricacy' that you might have. Especially since all of the relevant data supports the idea of variation in the human population. In fact, basic logic can show that Creationists are moronic, as there is variation and election, with the micro/macro difference only being one of time.
Basically, I'd like to know what intricacy the "racists" lack
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic #1 Variation is not in doubt by anyone, so quit with the strawmaning. Its just that variation permeates everything in out life, and you pretend you invented the wheel. However Variation does not somehow equal inequality. Especially legislated inequality. The intricacy they lack, is that they have never presented a set of evidence and falsifiable predictions as intricate as their long standing conclusion of "everyone needs to go back home now, party is over, but No Pressure!" LMAO
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES By 'variation', I mean between different populations, ie. different probability curves of different traits. if this exists, regardless of if you call it race or not, there is no equality in humanity, so this would oppoe affirmative action style legislation, for anywhere, the workplace, university or NBA, though my political views preclude this, regardless of the science.
I' like to see how the Minnesota Trans-racial adoption study is not evidence of their predictions.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic You do not get what good variability does for our species, and you still refer to inconclusive localized research and then extrapolating it on the whole world. I did not get your point on affirmative action nor which side you take on that. However I will tell you this. Lets say 2 unequal people get the same job. Why should they be paid equally? Because 1) they both dedicate the same amount of their time, 2) they both have the same needs to survive 3) arbitrary inequality Sucks.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES I'd like to know hoe the MTRAS is localized, that sounds pretty unscientific. I am opposed to affirmative action, but because I believe state intervention is bad.
If 2 people are unequal, I see no reason why they should be paid equally, if an employer wants to pay them differently (for any reason he wishes to), that is their right, just as a customer can choose not to shop at a place owned by member of a group.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "I believe state intervention is bad."
So you don't believe cops should arrest someone assaulting you or firemen should put out your house if it's on fire? Those are both "state intervention". I get the feeling this is another case of an arbitrary distinction.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips Nope, I'm opposed to the state. However, you could also say, I'm happy to pay an insurance company to protect me from fire or criminals, but I don't care about bigots.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "I'm happy to pay an insurance company to protect me from fire or criminals"
And in this case, that "insurance company" is one in which you are by birth a part owner, along with the rest of your society, and is colloquially referred to as "the state", to which you pay fees generally referred to as "taxes".
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips Nope, a state is an arbitrary land monopolist, who then just makes up the law on it's land.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "who then just makes up the law on it's land."
Okay, so without, you'd do what, exactly? Take your chickens -- because there'd be no "money"; that's issued by a state in which the people hold a common trust -- to an insurance company... and who, exactly, would defend this insurance company in the event someone decided they wanted whatever goods (of yours and others) it held in its vaults? Another "insurance company", perhaps?
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips Money can be issued privately, and was until the state monopolized it. The insurance company could hire security guards, if that is what you mean. If you wish to know about my position, "anti-statism at light speed" is a good introduction, and addresses most objections.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Money can be issued privately"
Yeah, and good luck using it beyond your own river valley. That's why we stopped doing that in the Western world 150 years ago.
"The insurance company could hire security guards"
The bad guys could just bring more bad guys. What's to stop them? If they heist is big enough, all they have to do is overwhelm the stakeholders, and there the consequences end. That's essentially the reason we have states in the first place.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips You've yet to show state run money is better.
As for insurance, defense is cheaper than offense.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "You've yet to show state run money is better."
Its liquidity and broad acceptability its superiority. Do you consider it better to be able to spend US dollars for a purchase in Japan, rather than try to persuade someone in St. Louis that your "Bank of Elm Street" pesos from Baltimore are worth his trouble to put in his vault and exchange for his "real' money? I would imagine you do.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips USD have lost 97% of their value since the Federal Reserve. These have led to a larger boom/bust cycle. Also, if the pesos aren't being accepted, you'll switch to another money, as the notes would be backed up by commodities.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "USD have lost 97% of their value since the Federal Reserve. "
I didn't say the US dollar was, at least at the moment, a well-run currency. I said its ubiquitous acceptance made it unquestionably preferable to private currencies.
"if the pesos aren't being accepted, you'll switch to another money"
How, if no one will exchange them in the first place? Oh, you mean you might come together with others to form a more generally-accepted currency like, oh, the USD, GBP, yen, euro...?
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips You mean the private currencies which are banned?
Currencies weren't formed by consensus, and have legal tender.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Currencies weren't formed by consensus"
Of course they were; they absolutely were. The only thing giving a currency its value is the faith in which people hold it, in common. That's consensus.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips No, while there is a consensus in the state, ad there is a relative consensus on fiat money, society did not accept the money through the emergent social order of the market.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "society did not accept the money through the emergent social order of the market."
Wrong; it was the market that drove the adoption of state-defined currencies as trade expanded. "Joe's Bank" wasn't a good enough guarantor three counties over. The national government was.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips [citation needed] Also, a state action, by definition, is not a consensus, as people have to be forced to accept it.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Also, a state action, by definition, is not a consensus, as people have to be forced to accept it."
The fact that you can't set up your own currency today doesn't alter the fact that the adoption of modern state currencies was driven by market forces seeking liquidity in transactions.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips Where is your evidence for such an assertion? Also, if this were true, they wouldn't need to ban competition.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Where is your evidence for such an assertion?"
What assertion are you addressing? Again, please provide context to your points. It's quite easy to do. You'll notice I just did it.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips The notion that market forces seeking liquidity dove the creation of state currencies.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "they wouldn't need to ban competition."
Presumably you're talking about "private" currencies here, so-called. Can you name one, from any time in history, that was not, in fact, simply a privately-issued note representing private holdings denominated in a publicly-created and regulated currency?
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips The Americans definitely had banks which were able to issue their own notes, backed by their own reserves of precious metal.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "The Americans definitely had banks which were able to issue their own notes"
What they issued were bills, denominated in federally-mandated US dollars, attesting to a matching deposit. That's not the same thing as a "private currency". It's essentially a cheque; an agreement to pay the bearer in gold or silver the amount set in the currency of the United States. No one was required to accept them by law, and if you didn't do business with that bank, odds are you wouldn't.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips That was just a basis for the quantity (like pounds, kilos), it was not in actual dollars issued by a central bank.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "That was just a basis for the quantity"
I don't care how you want to slice it, it still comes up peanuts. A "dollar" was a currency organized on federal standards, replacing, by the way, previous such standards maintained by colonies (not to mention the pound, maintained by the British government), and was fixed to an amount DESIGNATED BY LAW. All the "private currency" you're talking about meant was "yeah, this joker has X dollars in deposit at our bank".
(cont'd)
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips The dollar was a quantity of weight. Saying you had 'seven dollars' was similar to saying you had 'fourty ounces' or whatever, there was a certain amount of silver (or gold) in a vault somewhere. It would be like the state saying "any private money must be weighed in grams", a opposed to ounces or whatever. In some place, food packaging must be labelled with it's weight, and sometimes this is only allowed to be done it gram/kilos, this doesn't mean it's state-run food.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "The dollar was a quantity of weight."
Yeah. A federally-defined, regulated, and enforced one. The banks were not issuing their own currency. They were issuing US currency representing their deposits, as mandated by the US Treasury Department. I'd like you to finally acknowledge that point rather than continue tiptoeing around it, making the same non-point over and over.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips Yes, they were, and there were fears of 'wildcat banks' which would issue the currency and then run off. And private currencies such as the Liberty Dollar are trusted despite being 'illegal'.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic (cont'd) The reason that was useful even to the limited extent it was was that everyone in the United States knew EXACTLY what a "dollar" was because the value was set BY LAW. If you wanted to issue "freds" from Fred's Bank, no one but a fool would accept one because they would have no idea how much value that represented, nor a recourse to an enforcement mechanism.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "As for insurance, defense is cheaper than offense."
Precisely why you pay taxes to support a police force. Thank you for making my point.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips Nope, a state is not a private firm.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Nope, a state is not a private firm."
What is this even in reference to?
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips You said that paying taxes for the police force is equivalent to an insurance firm
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "You said that paying taxes for the police force is equivalent to an insurance firm"
It is. The general difference comes down to the nature of ownership of shares. One model is general and the other exclusionary.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips Nope. The state owns huge tracts of land it does ton have 'rightful' claim to. While rightful is subjective, I'm pretty sure you can't argue that someone ca just assert they ow thousands of mile and it be fine. It is only accepted because it is 'the state', which is why I say it is not a rightful claim.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "I'm pretty sure you can't argue that someone ca just assert they ow thousands of mile and it be fine"
That's a very good point. One of the reasons Anglo-American economies are so strong is that they have long featured property registration. That enables someone to borrow against property because they can demonstrate unambiguous ownership as registered with the state. This feature has been largely lacking in, for instance, Latin American systems, with obvious results.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips No, the state owns huge tracts of land, that i ti's principle characteristic.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "No, the state owns huge tracts of land, that i ti's principle characteristic."
That has nothing to do with my point about land registration and the necessity of a state in order to organize and enforce such a system, facilitating the leveraging of land ownership for the purposes of borrowing.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips Nope, as it was done 'privately' (ie. on state) in Ireland, Iceland and the 'Wild West'.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Nope, as it was done 'privately' (ie. on state) in Ireland, Iceland and the 'Wild West'."
Again, it's bad enough when you don't provide context for things I've said; should your OWN statements be devoid of context? Is this how you think people win arguments; by saying things with no mooring so that your opponent can't even begin to organize a response?
Please be clear about what your point is. No points for being coy at the cost of lucidity.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips OK, while I agree that secure private property rights are important of economic development, it has been done privately, so that is not a necessarily function of the state.
Also, 'on state' was a typo, I meant 'non-state'
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SaviorOfLogic "while I agree that secure private property rights are important of economic development, it has been done privately"
When? What private institution has the authority to determine who does and does not hold title to what land?
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips When law was decided on a non-state basis, in Medieval Ireland and so on.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "When law was decided on a non-state basis
Where you have "law", you have, by definition, a state. "Law" implies an enforcement mechanism; without one, you have mere convention.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips No, a state s the monopolist of law over a arbitrary area of land. There have been private 'creators' of law (judges) and enforcers without the need of a state, such a in Medieval Ireland.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SaviorOfLogic "a state s the monopolist of law"
"Law" obligates an authority. In any case of societal stewardship, that is called the state.
"There have been private 'creators' of law (judges)"
The judiciary is a branch of the state, and judges are its officeholders.
"Medieval Ireland."
Medieval Ireland was a collection of states, not a single state, much as "Europe" is today.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips There are ways of obliging authority without being a state, a crude example being a highwayman.
Yes, and there have bee judges without a state.
No, Medieval Ireland had no states, until one was imposed by Britain. Unless you define the enforcement of law as being a state.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic Listen I am not gonna mix here anarcho-libertarianism or whatever with racism here. In the stateless environment you refer to, the Chinese would not have to work their ass off to provide you with cheap goods, nor would the Iraqis have to give you their oil in below profit prices so that a part of that industry sleeps in golden sheets. We are talking about here and now, and here and now a shop keeper can not be the arbiter of justice nor an agent of inequality.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES I don't see the point of this.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic Wild Wester doesn't see the point? Surprise!
spiritualbully 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Basically, I'd like to know what intricacy the "racists" lack"
For instance: describing what a "race" actually is such that it could differentiate people living in two adjacent villages in northern Sudan or eastern Siberia, say, as belonging to either one race or another, distinct from each other, and how that determination is made.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
@PatchesRips How do you differentiate blue from red? In both cases, while there are differences in their code (DNA and RGB), their is no natural delineation.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@schizotypalgrasp Yap, that what I would get, just wanted to be sure. Well I piled on to be honest, but although I was not planning to make a video on this issue, the response of the racial realists to their critics was completely infuriating to me. I felt I had to school them a bit, while releasing my anger in some other form than facepalm. I was all black and blue at the time, due to facepalming. At least I tried to keep it short and sweet.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago