Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 minutes ago, Hades said:

You cannot concede the scientific high ground to the worst of the right.

 

https://quillette.com/2016/06/23/on-the-reality-of-race-and-the-abhorrence-of-racism/

 

That's really not very compelling.

 

They maintain that "race exists" but blur the lines between "race exists as a social construct that many/most people believe in" (true) and "race exists as a biological sub-division of homo sapiens sapiens" (false).

 

They attempt to disprove three key objections to the claimed existence of race and - in my opinion - in each case they fail.

 

If you want to talk about race in the context of social sciences, knock yourself out.  If you want to talk about race in the context of biological sciences, you'll probably just expose your ignorance.

[Denny Crane]

This is a decent summary. Although "no deal is better than a bad deal" actually made it into the Conservative manifesto. Although May now stands on a bad deal is better than no deal. 

 

 

Ally Fogg

 

@AllyFogg

 

Want to know how & why the British constitution has failed us so badly over the past two years? Leaving aside rights & wrongs about Brexit itself, it comes down to two Prime Ministerial decisions which I suspect are both among the worst in all of British history #BrexitShambles >

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ally Fogg

 

@AllyFogg

·

Nov 15

 

Replying to

@AllyFogg

1/ Cameron calling a referendum when he was not prepared to stick around and implement the result if it went against him. Referendums are dodgy enough as it is, but Brexit was always going to be impossible to implement when Parliament fundamentally disagrees with the result.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ally Fogg

 

@AllyFogg

·

Nov 15

 

2/ May calling a General Election before she had laid out her own plan for Brexit. Had the last GE been fought on firm Brexit manifestos & won by either side after their positions had been scrutinised and debated, then the winning side would have had a mandate to proceed. >

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ally Fogg

 

@AllyFogg

·

Nov 15

 

> As things played out, May failed to win a majority then scraped together a coalition government with no mandate on Brexit of any kind. That basically drives a coach & horses through the entirety of Mackintosh's Government and Politics of Britain.

 

 

 

 

 

Ally Fogg

 

@AllyFogg

·

Nov 15

 

Where that leaves us, I am convinced, is with ongoing #BrexitShambles until there is another general election that is won by any party with a mandate for a Brexit deal (and a second referendum merely kicks that into the grass for a few months, it doesn't resolve it.)

 

 

 

 

Ally Fogg

 

@AllyFogg

·

Nov 15

 

We need a general election where both Labour and the Tories say "This is our vision of Brexit that we all agree on as a party" and then wins on that basis. That is the only measure that gets us back on any kind of rails of parliamentary democracy.

 

 

 

 

·

Nov 15

 

And if members of either party cannot in good conscience stand behind the manifesto of their party leader at that general election, they need to quit and stand for another party, or quit altogether. That's the only way it can work.

[Pidge]

Those articles are a mess just in terms of establishing their own terminology.  I assume this is deliberate since that leaves room for the reader to apply their own definitions (and enabling the satisfaction of existing opinions rather than trying to present a clear outcome).

 

There is correlative evidence that genetic selection varies depending on geological areas, but these are not biological subdivisions and these (almost entirely superficial or a matter of degree rather than distinction) do not separate distinct racial groups (which only really exist as broad collections of different communities by common characteristics, usually skin tone alone), let alone produce a naturally occurring incompatibility between such groups (which is the end-argument of the far-right, that these groups cannot co-exist).

 

TL:DR I don't think there's any ground to concede there, let alone "high ground".

[cloggypop]

2 hours ago, Hades said:

Someone might be a racist for the wrong reasons ie. a mistaken belief that people of other races don't have right to the fruits of their ancestors' achievements. You show that person the error in their reasoning by pointing out that the moral circle of concern isn't set in stone. It's not 'White Man's Burden' for the 21st century but simply a recognition that different people evolved under different conditions and some compromise is necessary to prevent the greater evil of genocide. A minor level of cultural pluralism will be necessary in the short term to achieve the historical project. This would require a degree of acknowledgement of the ingrained historical and biological differences between groups of people, which the left is unwilling to concede, I guess, for pragmatic reasons.

 

 

 

[Hades]

1 hour ago, moof said:

Hades, look at the sources you’re quoting, for fucks sake man

Quillette pisses me off as well. MSM won't touch the issue honestly though.

50 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

That's really not very compelling.

 

They maintain that "race exists" but blur the lines between "race exists as a social construct that many/most people believe in" (true) and "race exists as a biological sub-division of homo sapiens sapiens" (false).

 

They attempt to disprove three key objections to the claimed existence of race and - in my opinion - in each case they fail.

 

If you want to talk about race in the context of social sciences, knock yourself out.  If you want to talk about race in the context of biological sciences, you'll probably just expose your ignorance.

Colour is a spectrum yet we still use discrete categories of colour every day in an advanced civilisation.  The debate hinges on whether certain races are less capable in a technologically and morally advanced (Western) civilisation.

42 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Those articles are a mess just in terms of establishing their own terminology.  I assume this is deliberate since that leaves room for the reader to apply their own definitions (and enabling the satisfaction of existing opinions rather than trying to present a clear outcome).

 

There is correlative evidence that genetic selection varies depending on geological areas, but these are not biological subdivisions and these (almost entirely superficial or a matter of degree rather than distinction) do not separate distinct racial groups (which only really exist as broad collections of different communities by common characteristics, usually skin tone alone), let alone produce a naturally occurring incompatibility between such groups (which is the end-argument of the far-right, that these groups cannot co-exist).

 

TL:DR I don't think there's any ground to concede there, let alone "high ground".

We are always evolving. Environment, epigenetics, natural selection and sexual selection see to that. The idea that groups of people separated for tens of thousands of years didn't evolve in a way that affected their cultural evolution is hard to accept. Is it just coincidence that certain racial groups dominate sprinting and others the academic, legal, financial and media professions? The far-right can't be countered based on principle alone.

[Pidge]

First of all, natural selection is not evolution.  We are not always evolving, we are always adapting, but within a common genetic identity.  

 

Secondly, those examples are a matter of degree and cultural stereotype (almost always over inflated when put in context of broader demographics and often ignoring variation within the proposed groupings) not characteristics which can be used to delineate distinct racial identity in scientific terms. 

 

The only "principle" the far-right have in that respect is a flimsy associative one that again only has any value when used to reinforce existing prejudice.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

"The debate hinges on whether certain races are more capable"?????

 

No it fucking doesn't.  Give your head a wobble.  There's no more debate to be had about that than there is to be had about the flatness of the Earth.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

59 minutes ago, Hades said:

 The idea that groups of people separated for tens of thousands of years didn't evolve in a way that affected their cultural evolution is hard to accept. Is it just coincidence that certain racial groups dominate sprinting and others the academic, legal, financial and media professions? The far-right can't be countered based on principle alone.

Anti-scientific claptrap.

 

There are no genetically distinct "races" of humans.

[Jairzinho]

Apparent from the Hmongs, of course.

[mattyq]

And the Gammons

[Anubis]

And Evertonians. Born, not chosen...

[aRdja]

Some interesting views from both sides.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/15/a-fudge-not-what-we-voted-for-the-brexit-view-from-shropshire?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR3WUr8JOHpEeMZKHGQLU7Dzl4SMXy_tn8hjeMwdBKV9Q4yV7OvNT5NzVoI

[skend04]

40 minutes ago, aRdja said:

Some interesting views from both sides.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/15/a-fudge-not-what-we-voted-for-the-brexit-view-from-shropshire?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR3WUr8JOHpEeMZKHGQLU7Dzl4SMXy_tn8hjeMwdBKV9Q4yV7OvNT5NzVoI

"It was prophesied in the Bible"...that's all anyone needs to know.

[Strontium]

Yep, if you wanted an article to sum up arguments for Brexit, that's as good as any.

 

- They speak forrin!

- The EU stops me selling dangerous chemicals!

- IT IS PROPHESIED

[Oh Buoy]

2 hours ago, Anubis said:

And Evertonians. Born, not chosen...

Viewing this on my phone so cant see if anyone has negged accordingly and because I can't neg I'm going to call you a balloon.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, aRdja said:

Some interesting views from both sides.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/15/a-fudge-not-what-we-voted-for-the-brexit-view-from-shropshire?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR3WUr8JOHpEeMZKHGQLU7Dzl4SMXy_tn8hjeMwdBKV9Q4yV7OvNT5NzVoI

A nice little summary of the welter of lies that drove the Leave vote.

 

We pay out too much money to the EU

 

we should be running our country ourselves/we shouldn’t be ruled by Brussels

 

There are too many foreigners

 

They are taking our jobs

 

getting the houses

 

Brussels imposed some “silly” laws on the UK

 

Every line is demonstrably false.  Most of them were disproven before or during the campaign.  And yet, people are still prepared to believe them, even now.  This is why a second referendum can't necessarily be relied upon to get us out of this fucking mess.

 

 

 

[Hades]

13 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

"The debate hinges on whether certain races are more capable"?????

 

No it fucking doesn't.  Give your head a wobble.  There's no more debate to be had about that than there is to be had about the flatness of the Earth.

You misunderstand my intentions. The evidence shows that certain clusters of genetics have certain strengths and weaknesses. I want to make sure that those that have certain weaknesses are given all the targeted help they need, rather than left to struggle against some false race-blindness because people refuse to accept the evidence. If you don't have a benevolent science of race, then the malevolent opportunists will fill the vacuum.

[Lee909]

15 hours ago, Hades said:

 The debate hinges on whether certain races are less capable in a technologically and morally advanced (Western) civilisation.

 

 

 

WOW

 

 

[Hades]

10 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

 

 

WOW

 

 

I don't understand the reaction. I can apply the same reasoning to groups of people with mental illness. I wish people were brave enough to speak about genetic vulnerabilities rather than push a false blank slate agenda. It would have saved me a lot of pain in my life had I known I had certain genetic vulnerabilities to mental illness. I would have taken fewer risks and planned better.

 

There are groups in Australia that suffer lives of horrible privation and sickness, no matter the amount of money given them. Rather than encourage suffering I want to think about ways to reduce it in the most humane way possible.

[aRdja]

3 hours ago, Hades said:

I don't understand the reaction. I can apply the same reasoning to groups of people with mental illness. I wish people were brave enough to speak about genetic vulnerabilities rather than push a false blank slate agenda. It would have saved me a lot of pain in my life had I known I had certain genetic vulnerabilities to mental illness. I would have taken fewer risks and planned better.

 

There are groups in Australia that suffer lives of horrible privation and sickness, no matter the amount of money given them. Rather than encourage suffering I want to think about ways to reduce it in the most humane way possible.

Just say indigenous people, no need to be cryptic about it. I must say though, it’s very brazen of you to blame their current plight on genetics.

[Anubis]

12 hours ago, Seasons said:

...I'm going to call you a balloon.

 

Vegan...

[cloggypop]

I see Hades has been on the Sam Harris podcasts again. 

[moof]

4 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

I see Hades has been on the Sam Harris podcasts again. 

Harris, Peterson and Quillette. The 2018 recipe for a fucked up worldview 

[Hades]

I wish we could all go back in time to a pre-Trump era. Wont happen without painful work.

[aRdja]

51 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

I see Hades has been on the Sam Harris podcasts again. 

I never get tired of reading this exchange.

 

https://samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/

 

”why are you so mean!?”