.

[H10]

We should make policies for individuals and treat people as individuals.

People. Women, men and non-binary people.

Because there is more to privilege than number of CEOs. Also, why there are more male CEOs is due to men having less intrinsic value to society and having to work to obtain value; this is explained in my reproductive utility thread.

Cronyism and corruption exists for all races. Here is the level of corruption around the world:

Seems countries with less white people are more corrupt.

Atheism is white privilege?

All religions are dumb. That's independent of the race or sex of the person saying it.

No, it's dumb because it's dogmatic, ignores empirical evidence, and often leads to bad outcomes.

We cannot realistically ignore group dynamics when people do not function as individuals, they function as groups. Corruption perception is just that. I'd believe the opposite is true. The less corruption you perceive the likely more corruption there is. As often what occurs in low corruption perception states is there are less checks and boundaries and no one is even checking for corruption. Canada and Norway are good examples. People get away with murder and the most blatant forms of corruption in these countries because there is so little oversight and the general public is so naive on government corruption.

Like for instance, how is North Korea more corrupt than China with poisionous baby milk? Or how is Libya all that corrupt in 2014? When you dig into the claims you find the same things all go on in Canada that these places are accused of. The funniest thing of all about this, is that they accuse the people of buying fifa and olympics wins except in the years USA wins them. "Defining corruption as "exerting influence, often through the provision of money or favours, to obtain a service,"

In Canada and the USA along with most "white countries" this practice is essentially legalized and called lobbying and almost every major company or industry engages in it. This ranking is essentially worthless. You need a universal definition of corruption. You then have to contend with the fact that there are congressmen in the usa who went in with regular government jobs and are now worth hundreds of millions and how congress gets to legally insider trade. How the hell was that not factored in? 60 minutes did a documentary on this. And the amoutn of backscrathcing to family members of rich and prominent isquiet normal in DC its not even called corruption.

That is why the perception is so low. When Michael McCaul goes from a prosecutor salary to worth $300 million dollars because he pulled strings for his wife's family earning them billions, no one bats an eye. Look how Italy and France are tied for Corruption. That is ridiculous given Berlusoni and the mafia controlling all of Italian business. Even here in Canada much of the trade in construction is hooked controlled by the mafia.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2014/04/24/canadas-largest-construction-union-linked-to-firm-with-alleged-mafia-ties.html

The reality is White countries citizens just choose to be naive about white collar crime or corruption.

White privilege is white is right mentality because they are white. And it is part of saying all religions are dumb. Your white conclusion was religions are dumb because the ancient whites had none so you can mock others. Where you want other groups to respect your views your free to insult others.

Athiest also ignore empirical evidence that supports the truth of religions. They are dogmatic indeed, and they often lead to bad outcomes like communism, communist russia, chi-comms and viet-comms and north korean comms.

There is no worse country on the planet than north korea and they are atheist.

[H10]

That's not how the scientific method works. The scientific method gives preference to the null hypothesis and to simplicity. That's why Occam's razor and Akaike's Information Criterion are used in science.

And btw, the most widely held position about the burden of proof by philosophers of science is that the burden of proof lies on the person arguing for the more complicated model of reality.

So if white people admit that white privilege exists then that is evidence of white privilege. But if white people deny that white privilege exists then that is also evidence of white privilege? Do you not see the problem with that?

You are not properly using the term the scientific method here. The scientific method gives no preferences. In a debate of any nature, where you argue against the widely accepted view point amongst experts, the onus is on you to prove your case. If I am trying to argue gravity doesn't exist, I must prove it. I can't just say the flying spaghetti monster is a simpler explanation

"However, Alan Baker, who suggests this in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is careful to point out that his suggestion should not be taken generally, but only as it applies in a particular context, that is: philosophers who argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve an allegedly "superfluous ontological apparatus.""

See that doesn't fit the criteria here. We have real studies done by scientist. You can't just dismiss the studies without conducting studies that produce counter-evidence.

"And btw, the most widely held position about the burden of proof by philosophers of science is that the burden of proof lies on the person arguing for the more complicated model of reality."

Not at all, that is only limited to a tiny set of circumstances involving superfluous ontological apparatus. This doesn't apply here, nothing about white privilege is superfluous in its ontological apparatus.

"So if white people admit that white privilege exists then that is evidence of white privilege. But if white people deny that white privilege exists then that is also evidence of white privilege? Do you not see the problem with that?"

So if German pilots who have flown many planes admit that planes can fly it is evidence of flight, but if German pilots who have flown many planes deny that planes can fly it is evidence of flight? Do you not see a problem with that?

There is no problem with that at all, the facts do not depend on what German pilots believe.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'd believe the opposite is true.

Of course you would. Anything to keep the SJW narrative alive.

how is North Korea more corrupt than China with poisionous baby milk?

Because North Korea has more poverty, more people resorting to cannibalism, more oppression, less economic opportunity, etc.

Or how is Libya all that corrupt in 2014?

Cause Gaddafi was overthrown, and the west left the country to the chaos of tribalism and Islamists.

because the ancient whites had none

You never heard of Zeus or Thor? How about the fact that days of the week like Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are all named after anglo-saxon gods?

chi-comms and viet-comms and north korean comms.

Wait, I thought you said that atheism is all about white privilege. Are you saying that the communists in East Asia are atheist because of white privilege?

There is no worse country on the planet than north korea and they are atheist.

Maybe... Though I think Somalia might be marginally worse.

[-1=e^ipi]

You are not properly using the term the scientific method here.

So your big counter argument is just deny the scientific method? Okay...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Do you not see a problem with that?

Yes. The ability of the plane to fly does not depend on the claim by the German.

the facts do not depend on what German pilots believe.

Just like the facts do not depend on if a white person claims white privilege exists or not. So you cannot use denial of the existence of white privilege of white people as proof of white privilege.

[TimG]

We have real studies done by scientist. You can't just dismiss the studies without conducting studies that produce counter-evidence.

Nonsense. Bad science is bad science whether the conclusions happen to be right or not. There is no onus to "prove the opposite" if someone is making claims using bad science. The only onus is to explain why the science is bad and why it provides no useful information.

[H10]

Nonsense. Bad science is bad science whether the conclusions happen to be right or not. There is no onus to "prove the opposite" if someone is making claims using bad science. The only onus is to explain why the science is bad and why it provides no useful information.

Except you haven't done that, you merely said bias and cried like a baby rather than point me to peer reviewed studies where it says no white privilege.

[H10]

So your big counter argument is just deny the scientific method? Okay...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Yes. The ability of the plane to fly does not depend on the claim by the German.

Just like the facts do not depend on if a white person claims white privilege exists or not. So you cannot use denial of the existence of white privilege of white people as

proof of white privilege.

I don't deny the scientific method, I am simp;y saying you are using it in an erroneous manner. It would be like me saying golfing, something we all agree exist, is the scientific method. It makes no sense, this is what you have done. That is why I said you were improperly using the term. It looks to me you just do not know what it means.

I use the studies as proof of white privilege, the studies which document its existence like the one the op quoted. You have no counter study, you just cry bias and play the race card.

[TimG]

Except you haven't done that, you merely said bias and cried like a baby rather than point me to peer reviewed studies where it says no white privilege.

I explained myself: you cannot establish causality by mining data for correlations. Establishing causality requires the ability to predict future outcomes of controlled experiments. It makes no difference if someone else comes up with different conclusions using the same methodology because those conclusions would be equally without foundation.

Furthermore, you cannot take small differences in statistical means to make conclusions about individuals if the variance in those distributions largely overlaps.

Now if you can point me to studies that do not make those methodological mistakes and I will look at them but all of the so called research I have seen is garbage for those reasons.

Edited November 28, 2015 by TimG

[Guest]

White privilege is white is right mentality because they are white. And it is part of saying all religions are dumb. Your white conclusion was religions are dumb because the ancient whites had none so you can mock others. Where you want other groups to respect your views your free to insult others.

Athiest also ignore empirical evidence that supports the truth of religions. They are dogmatic indeed, and they often lead to bad outcomes like communism, communist russia, chi-comms and viet-comms and north korean comms.

I think he says religions are dumb because religions are dumb. Nothing to do with hue or shade.

It is dumb to believe in something that doesn't exist. and run one's life based on it. It's dumb but perfectly acceptable if one restricts the running to one's self only. It becomes dumb and utterly reprehensible when one tries to change someone else's behaviour too.

[H10]

Of course you would. Anything to keep the SJW narrative alive.

Because North Korea has more poverty, more people resorting to cannibalism, more oppression, less economic opportunity, etc.

Cause Gaddafi was overthrown, and the west left the country to the chaos of tribalism and Islamists.

You never heard of Zeus or Thor? How about the fact that days of the week like Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are all named after anglo-saxon gods?

Wait, I thought you said that atheism is all about white privilege. Are you saying that the communists in East Asia are atheist because of white privilege?

Maybe... Though I think Somalia might be marginally worse.

I agree North Korea is the worse country to live in but I don't see how it is more corrupt.

I've heard of Zeus but Zeus is an Egyptian god called Amun whose name was hellenized and borrowed by the Greeks. Infact Zeus was originally called Zeus Ammon, and the Ammon was dropped over time.

"Herodotus takes great advantage of the opportunity to hammer down his belief that the Greeks adopted many features and figures of the Egyptian pantheon:[/size]

The names of nearly all the gods came to Greece from Egypt. I know from the inquiries I have made that they came from abroad, and it seems most likely that it was from Egypt, for the names of all the gods have been known in Egypt from the beginning of time, with the exception (as I have already said) of Poseidon and the Dioscuri--and also of Hera, Hestia, Themis, the Graces, and the Nereids. I have the authority of the Egyptians themselves for this.[/size]¹⁴

That Herodotus asserts the probability that the "names of nearly all the gods came to Greece from Egypt" is not surprising, since Greek tradition held Egypt to be one of the worlds oldest civilizations and often ascribes to them the origin of many cultural and technological elements. They also told me that the Egyptians first brought into use the names of the twelve gods, which the Greeks took over from them, and were the first to assign altars and images and temples to the gods, and to carve figures in stone.^15"

[http://i.imgur.com/gDsSZ.jpg]

[http://i.imgur.com/QKwn9.jpg]

Hargeisa

[

[http://www.longlivesomaliland.com/IMAGES/DEERO%20MALL.jpg]

[http://www.slnnews.com/snn/wp-content/uploads/image3102.jpg]

As messed up as Somalia is by Islamist if you can stay out the south you can probably live a decent life. The real problem is the north and central has essentially seperated from the south (where the psycho muslims and central government is in mogadishu), they issue their own passports and do not let those from the south in to keep out the psycho muslims, so those from the south cannot move into the north because they have no passports.

Edited November 29, 2015 by H10
images