So apparently JonTron is a racist

[SimpleFool]

If by tribe you mean race then yes at least one of those apply

If the social more my hypothetical preference violates is, indeed, publicly explicable, then, please, explicate it publicly and show how my hypothetical preference would be, or should be, punishable.

Several those are also vague. For example sufficient land and resources. It's not as if those are allocated by 'tribe'. The implication appears to be not just the people continue to live but that they are able to exist seperately since you call them a tribe. Especially a problem if by tribe you mean race.

Which tribe would you say should not exist, should not have sufficient land and resources, whose children should be denied freedom of association? The Constitution of the United States of America was explicitly ordained in contemplation of doing these things for the American descendants of white Europeans, according to its Preamble.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

If by tribe you mean race then yes at least one of those apply

If the social more my hypothetical preference violates is, indeed, publicly explicable, then, please, explicate it publicly and show how my hypothetical preference would be, or should be, punishable.

How very dishonest. Punishable was only one of the listed possibilities. Saying yes implies at least one and not necessarily that one.

And racism is quite morally reprehensible yes.

Several those are also vague. For example sufficient land and resources. It's not as if those are allocated by 'tribe'. The implication appears to be not just the people continue to live but that they are able to exist seperately since you call them a tribe. Especially a problem if by tribe you mean race.

Which tribe would you say should not exist, should not have sufficient land and resources, whose children should be denied freedom of association? The Constitution of the United States of America was explicitly ordained in contemplation of doing these things for the American descendants of white Europeans, according to its Preamble.

Now, now, I never said that. Surely you can either read, or have someone read to you, the bit in the middle about 'seperately'?

No it does not explicitly mention white europeans. And quite frankly wouldn't matter if it did.

 

[SimpleFool]

Also, is it morally reprehensible to notice that ancestors pass features on to their descendants?

Is it morally reprehensible to notice that some ancestral groups have passed on features which, in competition with other reproductive groups, are less valued?

If it could be shown, rationally, that "structural discrimination" was nothing more than the cashing out of ancestral features passed by heredity to descendants through differences in valuation of those features, would that change the conversation?

Or is evolution false, and are all humans infinitely malleable, and inherently equal in every capacity?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh I see what this is lol

 

[SimpleFool]

What do you think this is?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

What do you think this is?

Social Darwinism.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

What do you think this is?

Social Darwinism.

Bit worse than that. The 'just asking these questions' thing is a bit obvious. The way of framing it is too. Why does someone ask the questions the way he does? Why does he tip toe around what he means? Dude knows what it is and how it would be taken

And I mean the dude talking to me not JonTron, however much of a racist dick he seems to be.

 

[SimpleFool]

One of the implications to evolutionary theory is that humans are subject to evolution.

Differences in capacities get cashed out in human society in, well, cash and prizes.

It so happens capacities may be heritable. If they aren't, evolution is false, or somehow, humans have become immune to the forces of natural selection and heritable variation.

So, is it morally reprehensible to note the outcomes of evolution upon the human stock?

 

[SimpleFool]

I'm asking questions because there seems to be a lot passing as "common sense" and "knowledge" among this group that goes unexamined.

Unexamined dogma remains dogma in the end. How many of you have thought these things through from first principles?

 

[Dizchu]

I'm asking questions because there seems to be a lot passing as "common sense" and "knowledge" among this group that goes unexamined.

Unexamined dogma remains dogma in the end. How many of you have thought these things through from first principles?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that aggression and criminality are genetic traits predominantly seen in those of African descent?

 

[SimpleFool]

I'm asking questions because there seems to be a lot passing as "common sense" and "knowledge" among this group that goes unexamined.

Unexamined dogma remains dogma in the end. How many of you have thought these things through from first principles?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that aggression and criminality are genetic traits predominantly seen in those of African descent?

There's no need to call for evidence, no need to cite studies. When I make any such claim, then I think it is appropriate to ask me to substantiate that claim. Until then, I invite you to answer my questions.

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

There's no need to call for evidence, no need to cite studies. When I make any such claim, then I think it is appropriate to ask me to substantiate that claim. Until then, I invite you to answer my questions.

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

Of course you're not making any claims. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions]

Hey, mods? Is there a point to letting people from the colourful areas of YouTube to settle in here?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

There's no need to call for evidence, no need to cite studies. When I make any such claim, then I think it is appropriate to ask me to substantiate that claim. Until then, I invite you to answer my questions.

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

Of course you're not making any claims. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions]

Hey, mods? Is there a point to letting people from the colourful areas of YouTube to settle in here?

He's from YouTube? I thought a bit more rain and thunder.

 

[Dizchu]

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

Dogs have been selectively bred by humans though... big difference there.

In fact using your logic, all it does is make white people look bad because what do African-Americans generally have in common? They're the descendants of slaves. Of course I don't think African-Americans were selectively bred to be aggressive but if your argument is that aggression is hereditary and you use domesticated dogs as an example then we're talking about roughly the same timescale.

 

[SimpleFool]

That is correct; I have made no claims.

You guys assert JonTron has made some kind of reprehensible, censurable, or punishable claims or stated such views. But I'm not seeing a clear explanation of why JonTron is reprehensible, censurable, or punishable, even if he holds whatever views he is asserted hereabouts to hold, or even if he were to hold and state viewpoints at the logical end of whatever he is claimed to actually have expressed. I haven't even seen anyone prove him wrong.

And it seems you guys aren't able, or willing, to publicly explain how it is your views give you the moral high-ground.

So I am asking questions to find out if you have the moral high-ground. Your reluctance to answer my questions is giving the appearance that you may not hold the moral high-ground after all.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Snip

He may be from there, but I've encountered conversations sharing the same template all over YouTube for years and I have no frame of reference for your typical Stormfront conversation (and don't feel like finding out). Even in videos that cannot possibly be construed as having anything to do with race politics. Or even politics at all. It comes up on friggin' cat videos.

 

[SimpleFool]

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

Dogs have been selectively bred by humans though... big difference there.

Are you saying humans do not selectively reproduce themselves, but instead reproduce indiscriminately?

In fact using your logic, all it does is make white people look bad because what do African-Americans generally have in common? They're the descendants of slaves. Of course I don't think African-Americans were selectively bred to be aggressive but if your argument is that aggression is hereditary and you use domesticated dogs as an example then we're talking about roughly the same timescale.

I'm sorry; I've read your "response" twice now, and I'm not seeing a clear answer to my question - are you denying aggression may possibly be a heritable trait? Yes, or no, if you please.

 

[SimpleFool]

Yes, I suppose some may feel that way about my diction. I find it revealing when, rather than addressing the content of my questions, my interlocutors begin faulting their style.

It indicates that I'm talking to those for whom truth is not a high priority, but instead hold winning to be the goal. Winning, unfortunately, has not often got anything to do with truth.

 

[Leg End]

Sadly yes, and its because of idiots like this that everyone is scared to do or say anything that might offend.

I've had friends mention a black person and apologise for being racist, to which I've had to laugh and say it wasn't.

Basically, idiots and real racists ruin the fun for everyone else.

That's insane and why we need to throw shit at the idiots and actual racists and spread the word that mentioning ethnicity is not goddamn racism.

Fuck people man.

 

[Dizchu]

Are you saying humans do not selectively reproduce themselves, but instead reproduce indiscriminately?

People reproduce with people that they find sexually attractive. It's not a conscious effort to breed the ideal humans. Well unless we're talking about royal families but I think most of us aren't in favour of inbreeding.

I'm sorry; I've read your "response" twice now, and I'm not seeing a clear answer to my question - are you denying aggression may possibly be a heritable trait? Yes, or no, if you please.

If you mean genetically then no. If you mean in terms of environment then absolutely.