000

[JohnEngelman]

They should...sure...it's the ideal, but in reality, in this country, political disagreements is over anything but rational or fact based arguments. This board only reflects the sorry state of politics in America currently. It's one of those fun-house mirrors where all discussion is distorted by people's ignorance or personal biases or tribalism on the topic being discussed. That's not a space where reason or evidence can be discussed honestly really.

Those who spend a lot of time on internet forums are usually people without much going on in their lives. Many of these people have personality problems. Some are demented.

I try to stay above the fray, calmly composing my arguments and posting my facts.

 

[ll74]

Those who spend a lot of time on internet forums are usually people without much going on in their lives. Many of these people have personality problems. Some are demented.

I try to stay above the fray, calmly composing my arguments and posting my facts.

You just described yourself and then claimed it's not you

Well done.

 

[Nixithid]

I rarely post a link with the attitude, "This essay proves that I am right." Nevertheless, I believe that if my detractors studied Paul Graham's article as carefully as I have, and if they would learn from it as I have tried to, or encounters here would be more productive. According to Paul Graham, the lowest form of discourse is name calling. The second lowest is insulting.

The second highest form is:
"DH5. Refutation.

"The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work."

The highest form is:
"DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

"The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point."

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Disagreements on the Politics Board should always be discussed calmly and politely with rational, fact based arguments.

" Disagreements on the Politics Board should always be discussed calmly and politely with rational, fact based arguments."

I completely agree, but you've obviously never flipped a table before.

 

[Veroe]

It's Christmas time and with everyone visiting family that may or may not agree with their own politics I feel it'd be more apt to say that every disagreement over politics should be stated calmly, rationally, and based on evidence regardless of whether you're on Lit's politics board or in a disagreement with that one whacky uncle that may have had a little too much eggnog.

Unfortunately there's no real appreciable difference whether your on line or off in America.

 

[JohnEngelman]

It's Christmas time and with everyone visiting family that may or may not agree with their own politics I feel it'd be more apt to say that every disagreement over politics should be stated calmly, rationally, and based on evidence regardless of whether you're on Lit's politics board or in a disagreement with that one whacky uncle that may have had a little too much eggnog.

Unfortunately there's no real appreciable difference whether your on line or off in America.

I enjoy political arguments, but only if they resemble formal debates. I think of them as chess games: contests of skill and knowledge. I like to stay at the top of Paul Graham's hierarchy: refuting points.

In my book review of George Will's anthology, The Leveling Wind, I disproved two of Will's most important factual assertions.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...s-and-bad-arguments-by-john-engelman.1578508/

That is the way I like to win a political argument: quickly and decisively. Unfortunately, most political arguments on the internet do not resemble erudite debates; they are similar to chimpanzees yelling at chimps they do not like, and throwing feces at them.

Few posters on the internet stay at the top of Paul Graham's hierarchy: refuting central points; they dwell at the bottom, resorting to insults and name calling.

Words change their meaning over time. A racist used to be someone who thought blacks could not perform and behave as well as whites. Now a racist is someone who thinks that blacks should perform and behave as well as whites, and who does not make excuses for them when they do not. Calling someone a racist is name calling: it does not refute the point of an opponent; it indicates that refutation is impossible.

 

[ll74]

I enjoy political arguments, but only if they resemble formal debates. I think of them as chess games: contests of skill and knowledge. I like to stay at the top of Paul Graham's hierarchy: refuting points.

In my book review of George Will's anthology, The Leveling Wind, I disproved two of Will's most important factual assertions.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...s-and-bad-arguments-by-john-engelman.1578508/

That is the way I like to win a political argument: quickly and decisively. Unfortunately, most political arguments on the internet do not resemble erudite debates; they are similar to chimpanzees yelling at chimps they do not like, and throwing feces at them.

Few posters on the internet stay at the top of Paul Graham's hierarchy: refuting central points; they dwell at the bottom, resorting to insults and name calling.

Words change their meaning over time. A racist used to be someone who thought blacks could not perform and behave as well as whites. Now a racist is someone who thinks that blacks should perform and behave as well as whites, and who does not make excuses for them when they do not. Calling someone a racist is name calling: it does not refute the point of an opponent; it indicates that refutation is impossible.

You've never won an argument. You like being told that people agree with you and you like getting a positive ratings on your stupid Amazon reviews of books that reinforce your racism.

 

[JohnEngelman]

They should...sure...it's the ideal, but in reality, in this country, political disagreements is over anything but rational or fact based arguments. This board only reflects the sorry state of politics in America currently. It's one of those fun-house mirrors where all discussion is distorted by people's ignorance or personal biases or tribalism on the topic being discussed. That's not a space where reason or evidence can be discussed honestly really.

I try to be polite, and to improve the intellectual and social quality of discussions here. My anti racist detractors keep trying to pull the discussion down to their level.

I do my best to ignore their insults, name calling, and obscene words.

A Papua New Guinea language has a term, Mokita. It means "truth that we all know, but agree not to talk about."

My more intelligent detractors know that what I say is true, but they think it is Mokita. The others seem to genuinely believe in their cliches. This is because the truth about the relationship between gene alleles, intelligence, crime, and race has been suppressed for at least two decades.

Those who are privately aware that what I say is true fear that the truths I express will lead to eugenics, and may lead to genocide, so they agree that the truth should be suppressed.

Charles Murray provided the best answer to their fears when he wrote in his essay, "The Inequality Taboo," Commentary, September 2005:

"specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm."

Those who ignore heriditarianism and race realism disregard the limitations of human nature and human potential. There is often wisdom in tradition.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

View attachment 2197119

As I mentioned earlier,this is a graph of existing data. Nowhere does it show what the outcomes of the three tests scores would be,if the total cost of education had not increased. It's cute how you think this graph illustrates the claims you attribute to it.

 

[JohnEngelman]

As I mentioned earlier,this is a graph of existing data. Nowhere does it show what the outcomes of the three tests scores would be,if the total cost of education had not increased. It's cute how you think this graph illustrates the claims you attribute to it.

You are claiming that if educational expense had remained constant, test scores would have declined.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You are claiming that if educational expense had remained constant, test scores would have declined.

No I am not making any claims, what I am saying is, the graph shows nothing. It charts reality. You are trying to imply that the money spent on education didn't change the test results. So it was a waste of dollars. Which is not something that graph can EVER show.