@Pingu because I asked a question about the rules

@Pingu

I actually provide reasons as to why certain issues exist...?

Instead of just

arbitrarily assuming factors are due to race

I take a historical and psychological perspective, actually examining the potential factors

@SilverLining
>Trying to argue in <#463779195114225685>

just responding to someone else

who directly @ed me

@SilverLining You just did it again 👏

"I actually provide reasons as to why certain issues exist...?
Instead of just
arbitrarily assuming factors are due to race"

">arbitrarily assuming factors are due to race"

Yeah, I just attribute race to everything for the fuck of it. You got me.

Also, so how is that (giving reasons for your beliefs) any different than someone giving reasons for why they agree with race realism? So the reasons are arbitrary when contradictory to yours? What makes something arbitrary?
I'll take a gamble and wager that judging by the way you respond, you seem to think the only way someone could ever become a race realist is if they were just "ignorant" of how brown people really are and hate them based on one of two things:
1. Because they look different and they're meanie bad men that just want to hate people who are different than them.
2. Because of some anecdotal example/experience.

This is important because it highlights many things, most important of all, why you think your opponent's position is always arbitrary.

Maybe I am wrong here, but given your wording, I doubt it. When you found out I was from a rural area, you implied I was racist because I lacked experience with "other cultures," and in every conversation you argue with the assumption the other person wants to just be a meanie and genocide minorities (hence why you thought I wanted to oppress brown people or something a while back and started arguing against {whatever the topic was} using "well it's wrong to oppress people" even though nobody was advancing that idea), so you'd have a hard time dissuading me of this.

Don't really see you arguing against the idea of you seeing the world in black and white. You seem keen on proving that assessment to be correct.

@Doctor Anon It's a fitting channel for her trashcan ideas anyway

I still remember when you called me "untrustworthy" when I told you that in high school I was into human rights and social justice (albeit on a much softer level). Because you know, you can never change your mind.

I'll find that conversation later

<:GWcentralPikaLUL:377110562116468766>

@Rattus
<:thanosdaddy:459545656479055873>

Lmao

on a more serious note that would be scary af being chased down by philosophical zombies

@The Big Oof

>Trying to argue in <#463779195114225685>

In short, race realism has no legitimate evidence to back it up, as a myriad of other systemic factors explain the differences

Even if there actually were the differences you claim, they would be only minute, not terribly statistically significant let alone a SD or some major amount away, and thus,it'd kinda pointless to discriminate based on them

And, uh... I found the conversation

I never claimed you were untrustworthy

""The amount of times I have heard (and made this argument myself back when I was into social justice and that sort of bullshit) this response.
There's a huge flaw in this style of thinking, because it assumes your opponent doesn't think it will affect other people, when they almost always do.
Even those so called "bigoted Christians," the "yerrr goin to hell" types lefties rant on and on about believe it affects others for religious reasons. I don't believe in God myself, but it's not hard to figure out why they think it will (they think it will cause them to lose favor with God, and that God will punish their society or w/e)."
So more or less, you're saying that other people have sensibilities, and that because it might offend them, it should be banned. You can apply this to literally anything. Hell, you could literally apply this the other way around - some view the proliferation of Christianity as bad due to some beliefs endemic to it, and thus, call for it to be outlawed (of course, nobody, sans an significant minority which has no real political power, actually believes this)."

I guess your simple rural mind couldn't handleit

It's okay. I understand.

But what I was getting at...

Is that rural regions tend to have less interactions with a variety of backgrounds, and thus, be more conservative

It's environmental, not some innate birth trait

chutup liberal

@SilverLining

""So more or less, you're saying that other people have sensibilities, and that because it might offend them, it should be banned.""

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I never said that at all nor did I imply it, and I have no clue how you got that out of my response.

Let's get one thing out of the way first: I wasn't making an argument against homosexuality from religious grounds. I was pointing out that even the very religious, who are supposed to be irrational or something in the eyes of someone like you, have their reasons for the things they think as well, and don't hate people just for the fuck of it.

"You shouldn't ban homosexuality based on religious beliefs"
This is an argument you're having with yourself. I'm not religious anyway, but regardless. Do you even read what other people type before giving your response? I mean, given that you don't even read your sources before proudly citing them, it's a logical conclusion for me to make.

I'm an atheist anyway. I'm not anti-Christian, but I don't think laws should solely be based on religious text or, in your words "because of their sensibilities" (regardless of whatever this meant, it wouldn't apply to what I said). And I'd love for you to explain how you gathered that out of what I said.

And also, that wasn't the conversation I was referring to, the one in question was back when I was still an admin and you had that drawing as an avatar.

Nice essays faggots