Women's Olympic Boxing

[CouchPotato]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

I didn’t name it anything.  You’re the ones getting all bent out of shape over a piece of art, snowflake. 

You think it’s fine to insult gays and everybody you don’t like, and when somebody offends you, it makes you go into a tantrum. Boo hoo, snowflake. 

No one here would expect the Olympic Opening ceremonies to insult gay people. It's fine to insult people. There is a different standard for the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Not a legal standard, though. They have free speech as well. No one is suggesting they should not have been allowed to do this. They are simply withdrawing support.

To put things in perspective, a Brazilian surfer was asked before the Olympics to use a different board than usual because his board has an image of Jesus on it. This is something very few people would even see. On the one hand, this surfer is expected to comply with the Olympics standards for "secularism" so as not to offend snowflakes. On the other hand, well ... this.

So people are not getting all bent out shape. They notice the double standards. They know the Olympics wouldn't allow this type of "art" related to a certain middle eastern faith. They know that displaying any religion in a positive light would not be accepted. So... some of these people are saying you know what... these people don't have any respect for people like me. They would not let someone like me have an image of Jesus at the Olympics. And after a while they think to themselves, you know maybe I just won't watch this anymore. Leftists would demand some kind of compensation for an insult. Then, they would want someone cancelled.

Edited August 5, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Rebound]

14 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

No one here would expect the Olympic Opening ceremonies to insult gay people. It's fine to insult people. There is a different standard for the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Not a legal standard, though. They have free speech as well. No one is suggesting they should not have been allowed to do this. They are simply withdrawing support.

To put things in perspective, a Brazilian surfer was asked before the Olympics to use a different board than usual because his board has an image of Jesus on it. This is something very few people would even see. On the one hand, this surfer is expected to comply with the Olympics standards for "secularism" so as not to offend snowflakes. On the other hand, well ... this.

So people are not getting all bent out shape. They notice the double standards. They know the Olympics wouldn't allow this type of "art" related to a certain middle eastern faith. They know that displaying any religion in a positive light would not be accepted. So... some of these people are saying you know what... these people don't have any respect for people like me. They would not let someone like me have an image of Jesus at the Olympics. And after a while they think to themselves, you know maybe I just won't watch this anymore. Leftists would demand some kind of compensation for an insult. Then, they would want someone cancelled.

You guys seem very bent out of shape. 

[CouchPotato]

Just now, Rebound said:

You guys seem very bent out of shape. 

That's your perception.

[Five of swords]

44 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

This is a logical fallacy on your part. He is not denying that at all. You can believe genetics matter without subscribing to your opinion that races cannot get along.

Here is a simple illustration. You are talking about race. We were discussing men and women. Let's use gender, since we both agree on that.

Men and women are different. I know you agree with this. Those differences matter. I am sure you agree with that. Does it automatically follow then that men and women cannot live together and get along?

I didn't say races cannot get along. I said they do not thrive equally well in exactly the same environment. Ergo, youvannot construct a society that is 'fair' for every race...just like forcing women to compete with men in the Olympics is not 'fair.

 

So your logical fallacy was strawman. And I don't see how you can deny how my analogy fits exactly. Genetics does make people different in meaningful ways...whether it is genetics relating to biological sex or your racial group.

[CouchPotato]

11 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

So your logical fallacy was strawman. And I don't see how you can deny how my analogy fits exactly. Genetics does make people different in meaningful ways...whether it is genetics relating to biological sex or your racial group.

Well, no I think the logical fallacy still stands, even if I misquoted you. You can believe there are differences in genetics without believing that all races are incapable of thriving equally well in the same environment. One does not necessarily follow from the other. I mean there are all kinds of genetic differences in society that are not necessarily tied to race. There are very tall people and very short people. Can they thrive in the same society. What makes you think the difference between race is more significant than those differences?

Edited August 5, 2024 by CouchPotato

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

Nah. You are both just severely retarded.

Awwww muffin! Reduced to simple grade 3 insults already?  Well.... some of those words must have been pretty big for you  

You go have a cookie and a nap, maybe next time  you can do better. 

[Five of swords]

11 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Well, no I think the logical fallacy still stands, even if I misquoted you. You can believe there are differences in genetics without believing that all races are incapable of thriving equally well in the same environment. One does not necessarily follow from the other. I mean there are all kinds of genetic differences in society that are not necessarily tied to race. There are very tall people and very short people. Can they thrive in the same society. What makes you think the difference between race is more significant than those differences?

He is not arguing that racial differences are 'too small'...him and the consensus in the western world in general is that intrinsically there CANNOT be significant differences between races, despite the fact they have different genetics. Because genetics just don't really do anything.

 

The people who argue that all the races are the same are using exactly the same logic as the people who argue that men and women are the same...you could just substitute biological sex for race and get exactly the same argument.

 

Nobody even bothers with a more 'nuanced' position like you are suggesting they COULD do....because even admitting the possibility that genetics could alter whatenvironment a human thrives in willnaturally result in the total collapse of liberal philosophy...so smart people know it is too dangerous to even consider that as a possibility.

Edited August 5, 2024 by Five of swords

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

 

So your logical fallacy was strawman. And I don't see how you can deny how my analogy fits exactly. Genetics does make people different in meaningful ways...whether it is genetics relating to biological sex or your racial group.

No, as he goes on to point out he got it right and you're still wrong.

At the end of the day, women and men are physically different on average and this is a simple fact.  Your claim that gnetis 'don't work that way' is utterly false.

to create an apples to apples competition men compete with men and women compete with women. 

This is a remarkably simple concept and you keep screwing it up, and once again everyone is trying to point that out to you in the hopes you'll do better and you keep flailing around like a 4 year old who's been told it's bed time. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Five of swords said:

He is not arguing that racial differences are 'too small'...him and the consensus in the western world in general is that intrinsically there CANNOT be significant differences between races, despite the fact they have different genetics. Because genetics just don't really do anything.

No, that was what YOU argued.  I have argued all along that there ARE significant differences and that they are based on biology etc. 

And as i pointed out the vast majority of the western world including practicing medical doctors and the majority of people recognize that simple truth. 

You are the one claiming that people do NOT believe that.  But they do. 

Men are biologically different than women. The vast majority know this.  You don't seem to. Hence the joke about it being no surprise you have trouble getting a date  

But i love that you're trying desperately to re-write your position now   

[Five of swords]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, that was what YOU argued.  I have argued all along that there ARE significant differences and that they are based on biology etc. 

And as i pointed out the vast majority of the western world including practicing medical doctors and the majority of people recognize that simple truth. 

You are the one claiming that people do NOT believe that.  But they do. 

Men are biologically different than women. The vast majority know this.  You don't seem to. Hence the joke about it being no surprise you have trouble getting a date  

But i love that you're trying desperately to re-write your position now   

Please try to refrain from commentary. You have no idea what is going on but couch seems to be capable of understanding.

[CouchPotato]

21 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

He is not arguing that racial differences are 'too small'...him and the consensus in the western world in general is that intrinsically there CANNOT be significant differences between races, despite the fact they have different genetics. Because genetics just don't really do anything.

Does it matter whether the differences are "too small" to matter or simply non-existent? I am not a genticist or any kind of scientist. The fact that there are genetic differences between peoples does not necessarily mean that those peoples cannot thrive equally in society. You haven't established that there is any observable difference to justify that belief.

One can believe that there are significant differences between the sexes without believing that whatever genetic diffferences exist between ethnicities are as important.

We sort of touched on this sort of thing in another thread.

Edited August 6, 2024 by CouchPotato

[CdnFox]

Just now, Five of swords said:

Please try to refrain from commentary. You have no idea what is going on but couch seems to be capable of understanding.

He's saying you're wrong.  I agree, he understands    

kid - what you said is clear. Now you're trying desperately to 'unsay' it.  He's being slightly nicer but he points out you're wrong. Beacuse you're wrong. 

The majority of people in canada and the us recognize there is a significant difference between men and women biologically.  You can dance around that all you like but that's a simple truth. 

 

But i love that you've taken to begging me not to be so mean to you  by pointing that out   

[Five of swords]

1 minute ago, CouchPotato said:

Does it matter whether the differences are "too small" to matter or simply non-existent? I am not a genticist or any kind of scientist. The fact that there are genetic differences between peoples does not necessarily mean that those peoples cannot thrive equally in society. You haven't established that there is any observable difference to justify that belief.

If you start saying the differences are 'too small' then you invite a lot of questions...like how small is small enough? What empirical data do we have on this? Are there any differences between black majority countries versus white majority countries, etc.

 

So people avoiding admitting that Adolf Hitler was right are forced to just deny that genetics matter at all, and they sidestep all those questions.

 

People opposed to transgender ideology see the absurdity in that case, but remain blind to the exact same issue with their raceblind ideology. 

[CouchPotato]

1 minute ago, Five of swords said:

If you start saying the differences are 'too small' then you invite a lot of questions...like how small is small enough? What empirical data do we have on this?

I am not a scientist. I am not even very educated. But I think difference in ideology and moral beliefs among ethnicities is mainly due to cultural differences. 

Here is a question I would ask you. How do you define race? I mean I am not saying it doesn't exist. But I do think it is more fluid than sex.

[CouchPotato]

@Five of swords

I am going to ask you sort of an off the wall question.

Do you believe in Atlantis?

[Five of swords]

Just now, CouchPotato said:

I am not a scientist. I am not even very educated. But I think difference in ideology and moral beliefs among ethnicities is mainly due to cultural differences. 

Here is a question I would ask you. How do you define race? I mean I am not saying it doesn't exist. But I do think it is more fluid than sex.

Lol. Well now you just want to change the subject.

 

Transgender affirmers equally suggest that the difference between men and women is simply cultural. And this is just stuff they assert, like yourself, merely because if it isn't true then that means their entire society and political system is based on a lie...so it has nothing to do with objective reality...but rather the nightmare that would follow if it were false.

 

I don't really need or care to explain to you the whole science of human biodiversity, which I have in fact studied a fair amount. Nothing about that needs to be relevant to this discussion. All you need to admit is that it is actually possible for genetic differences COULD IN THEORY cause different races to construct and thrive in meaningfully different societies....because they are different genetically. For example, the only reason no oyster has ever been a great mathematician is because of the genetics of oysters. It is not because of cultural differences.

 

The biggest wall to break down ideologically for the masses is just getting to admit that genetic differences could be meaningful in theory. Once they are willing to even consider that possibility I find that the rest becomes obvious and agrees with everyone's personal experience.

[Five of swords]

4 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

@Five of swords

I am going to ask you sort of an off the wall question.

Do you believe in Atlantis?

I read the dialogue of Plato where Socrates mentioned Atlantis...which is the only source we have that such a thing existed at all.

 

But in that dialogue Atlantis was not all that remarkable. He suggested they had some excellent idea for social justice or something, not that they had advanced technology or anything. The hype that the 'mainstream' associates with Atlantis is just myth and disconnected from any reality

[CouchPotato]

7 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Lol. Well now you just want to change the subject.

I assure you that is not my intent. I am just trying to look at things from a different angle.

Quote

Transgender affirmers equally suggest that the difference between men and women is simply cultural. And this is just stuff they assert, like yourself, merely because if it isn't true then that means their entire society and political system is based on a lie...so it has nothing to do with objective reality...but rather the nightmare that would follow if it were false.

Logical fallacy again. I have not asserted any such thing. I have asserted that most of the differences between ethnicities have to do with culture. I would also argue that race is definitely more fluid. This is easy to illustrate. Men and women for the most part are separate. There are extremely rare cases like the boxer this thread was started about. Other than that, men are men. Women are women. There is no crossover. But people from different gene pools can reproduce. I mean I really don't know who slept with who throughout history. There were people who believed Hitler may have been part Jewish. Not saying I agree with that. But hey, I suppose that is possible.

Edited August 6, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Five of swords]

Just now, CouchPotato said:

I assure you that is not my intent. I am just trying to look at things from a different angle.

Logical fallacy again. I have not asserted any such thing. I have asserted that most of the differences between ethnicities have to do with culture. I would also argue that race is definitely more fluid. I mean I really don't know who slept with who throughout history. There were people who believed Hitler may have been Jewish. Not saying I agree with that. But hey, that is possible.

Hitler certainly did not behave in a Jewish manner.

 

You can of course say that all the various races of humans share certain genes, but that is also true with humans and bananas. And I can tell the difference between a human and a banana.

 

If you accumulate a lot of information about the way different races behave, you can pretty much tell what race a person is from their behavior. For example, I can tell you are not jewish already.

[CouchPotato]

2 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Hitler certainly did not behave in a Jewish manner.

What percentage of Jewish blood does one have to have in order to exhibit Jewish behavior? I think the theory about him being Jewish has to do with Alois being a bastard. That bastard!! Some people believe that his grandmother had an affair with a Jewish guy. I am sure you are familiar with that. Probably malarky, but there were certainly Jews in Germany. Maybe someone in that lineage was Jewish. Who knows?

Quote

For example, I can tell you are not jewish already.

Not to my knowledge. I was once at a rest stop in Massachussets and a few rabbis with the hats and beards approached me and said, "You are Jewish aren't you?"

[Five of swords]

4 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

What percentage of Jewish blood does one have to have in order to exhibit Jewish behavior? I think the theory about him being Jewish has to do with Alois being a bastard. That bastard!! Some people believe that his grandmother had an affair with a Jewish guy. I am sure you are familiar with that. Probably malarky, but there were certainly Jews in Germany. Maybe someone in that lineage was Jewish. Who knows?

Not to my knowledge. I was once at a rest stop in Massachussets and a few rabbis with the hats and beards approached me and said, "You are Jewish aren't you?"

The theory that Hitler was jewish was started by a guy in the nsdap who wanted to delegitimize him. Strasserites did the same thing with Reinhard heydritch. In fact, this is just an absurdly common smear tactic in all nationalist circles, even today. Everyone accuses everyone of being secretly jewish.

 

Race is a product of many generations of adaptation to a certain environment. Environment is not merely climate or diet, it is also the way of life chosen by a people. People will genetically adapt, for example, to feudalism...because that political system does place selective pressure on reproduction. 

Edited August 6, 2024 by Five of swords

[CouchPotato]

7 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

The theory that Hitler was jewish was started by a guy in the nsdap who wanted to delegitimize him. Strasserites did the same thing with Reinhart heydritch. In fact, this is just an absurdly common smear tactic in all nationalist circles, even today. Everyone accuses everyone of being secretly jewish.

Yeah, I am not saying the theory about Hitler's grandmother was right. But still, why couldn't he have had Jewish blood. Is that impossible? I mean how long were Jews in Germany? Not hard to imagine that one of his ancestors procreated with a Jewish person. Not hard to imagine that one of your ancestors could have done the same.

Edited August 6, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Five of swords]

1 minute ago, CouchPotato said:

Yeah, I am not saying the theory about Hitler's grandmother was right. But still, why couldn't he have had Jewish blood. Is that impossible?

Based on thr Nuremberg racial laws, anything less than 1/8th jewish is just not jewish. They didn't follow the one drop rule of the us confederacy...they were more tolerant.

Based on how I defined race, you could logically deduce that mixing races just creates a sort of genetic chaos. Mixing races produces a person who is not really fine tuned for any particular civilization, but may operate well enough regardless. Biologists call this 'outbreeding depression' and it is an accepted phenomenon for anything other than humans. For example, mixing a Clydesdale and a thoroughbred would produce a horse that simply is not quite as good at either of the roles of its parents.

 

Because there is a lot of randomness to how much genes you actually get exclusive to one of your parents, it is a rather open question what 'risk' there is with some % admixture. It might be possible for scientists to answer, but the complexity and the taboo of the question makes this very difficult logistically. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if Chinese scientists are pursuing such questions right now.

[CouchPotato]

@Five of swords

So you think that if two people in Norway adopted a child of Jewish descent at infancy and raised him without him ever knowing he was Jewish that he would exhibit some kind of Jewish behavior?

 

[CouchPotato]

@Five of swords

Do you think he died in the bunker or made a great escape?