Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by cronicler, Nov 29, 2014.
Love you too, Tagz.
He means racism that is supported by so-called science to prove that certain peoples deserved to be enslaved and treated like sub-humans because the group doing said enslaving is only doing it for the benefit of the people who have been proven to be inferior. At least, that's what I think it means.
just to be clear, science is just a word/concept. So yeah, for itself it can't be racist, or sexist or whatever.
However, the people making science, can be, and they very often have, if you look at history, hell its just maybe 50-60 years ago where many individuals in the US army SERIOUSLY thought that black people would not be physically and mentally fit to fly fighter planes, and often enough science was used to back it up.
Truth is, most people posting in here are probably neither scientist nor do they really understand it. What we do, when we parrot the magazines, websites, statistics or whatever we see as great source, is always to repeat a certain theory or thought by someone who has spent time in gathering the data, or doing eventually years of research. Yes, numbers don't lie. However most research isn't so clear like simple math, and thus different scientists might come to very different conclusions. That's why it is so important not to just listen constantly to one side or one opinion. Even if you do not agree with other opinions.
Does it mean they are lying? No. Not necessarily, just coming to different results based on the data they have in front of them. That is why scientist have to get their work evaluated by the scientific community as whole, and not just come out saying "we found the faster-than-light particle!" or we discovered "cold fusion" in our lab, which usually turns out most of the time to be human error. See Cherenkov Radiation. And there are many more examples of that. When you're dealing with science, and I mean not like we do, I mean doing years of research, then it's not always good to think in patters like right or wrong.
I am not saying this as like it would be a bad thing. Just don't forget. Scientists are humans too, and as such they are bound to make the same errors like you or anyone else here, and yeah ... there are also idiots among the scientists. Smart idiots. But still. Idiots.
IQ tests ... they have absolutely zero meaning. And I can tell you why. Because there is no clear definition of what inteligence is. Want to hear a funny thing? Most apes are more inteligent then humans. It is true! They did some tests and reveleaed that in certain situations, apes are more succesfull then humans. aaah! But they are not as inteligent like we are will you now say, right? We have poetry, we have math, we have weapons of mass destruction! Well. Still. The Ape will beat us in pure survival I guess.
Like I said. IQ tests for them self, are rather meaningless. To believe that one nation is inherently supperior to another nation based just on IQ tests, for example. I am not saying this is what you believe. But often enough ... some groups of people use that as some kind of evidence.
Using your administrator status as an argumentum ad baculum. Impressive.
He said, looking in the bathroom mirror.
Actually, I didn't see any restraints. Vegeta is meant to be much stronger than Picollo anyway.
Also, aren't Green and Purple complementary colors? Isn't that a very common combination?
What do you mean by that? Cherenkov radiation is real, and it really is caused by particles traveling faster than light (in a medium, of course. C is still a hard limit as far as we know. And there is a way for Cherenkov radiation to occur at sublight speeds, too, but generally Cherenkov radiation is real ).
No. Red and Green are complementary colours, and Yellow and Purple are as well. Blue and Orange is the other one. (Scientifically speaking, it's Magenta+Green, Yellow+Blue and Cyan+Red.)
Certain shades of green and purple do go wel together, though, that's true.
Blargh, @Hassknecht, you know what I mean! Faster then light travel in vacuum. But dont quote me on it, I can't remember all the details anymore. But they found particles that had a strange behaviour, and thus some believed that it would finally tear down Einsteins rules or something like that. It was a stupid article, because it turned out to be just like how you explained it.
What I mean here is what Lesh describes as the difference between expectations and results, where reality is sometimes different to our expectations and experiments. Muons are what Lesh is using as example here, Muons in our atmosphere should not reach the surface of the earth because they exist only for 2 microseconds in experiments which is not enough time for them to reach the surface, yet they do because of special relativity.
Ah, you probably mean last year or so when a group at CERN measured neutrinos to move faster than light which turned out to be a measurement error.
But yeah, that's how science work.
Ah, I must have been thinking of Magenta and Green. Thank you for the explanation.
Scientific racism does seem to be a thing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ze-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html
The only way he can express himself. It's not his fault, he was never hugged as a child.
He's a Tiger. What did you honestly expect what happens when you poke one?
he mentions the "manosphere" and then does not describe it
he mentions the MRAs, and then does not describe it.
you know what i DO see him describing?
feminists and muslims.
and of course i am sure you know that does not get Nazism correct other than segregation.
no wonder that Chu guy comes off as off-his-rocker-crazy-batshit-insane type.
I've noticed that feminists shy away from any physiological explanation for trends between the sexes, instead relying on psychology as an explanation. This seems very limited to me. You could say the same thing about psychology that you do about physiology, most people have a poor understanding of it -- you could even call it pyschotruth. I think the first reason that feminists shy away from physiological explanations is their negative historic connotations, as have already been illustrated. But also they are defeatest for the feminist movement; if you say "sexist culture is causing such and such a result," then there is action to be taken. If you say, "such and such a result might be explained by differences in hormonal make up," then there's no place to go from there and you must accept the world as it is.
This is a genuine question.
Do you believe that females are less powerfull then males with their intellectual performance becaues of their biology?
Well, the problem is that historically (and currently) very poorly-understood biology has often been used to justify all sorts of disparities and various forms of oppression. So when people start making claims about what biology does and doesn't do exactly, the burden of proof is going to be very, very high. Unfortunately, what we see a lot is people making very strong claims based on vague notions of biological factors, and that's something feminists have a very strong problem with.
I also wouldn't say that if we were to discover gender differences due to biology (beyond the already obvious physical characteristics), that necessarily means we have to accept the world as it is, because culture and human beings in general have proven to be very, very good at overriding biological factors. It's also a moral position to not treat anyone as inferior based on their gender, race or other in-born characteristics.
You also see people making very strong claims regarding psychology, which is, I'd say, even more impossible to prove than physiology. Why are there fewer women in game design? Sexist culture. Where does rape stem from? Rape culture. XYZ? Patriarchy. Not to say that those notions are wrong, but the fact that physiology is completely ignored is very suspicious to me -- it makes me think that the conclusion is drawn from the desire to advance women (not such a bad thing), rather than a sincere attempt at understanding the world.
If we somehow managed to prove that women shied away from fields such as game design, science, or business for physiological-based preference reasons, would it be right, to you, to choose to accept the world as it is, or should we seek to introduce them into positions even though it's not their inherent preference to be in them?