wan
Well-known member
Ok then. So why do you imply that I have mental issues? Or whatever misfortune that you think I am mired in.
Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?
- Thread starter pabloes
- Start date
Ok then. So why do you imply that I have mental issues? Or whatever misfortune that you think I am mired in.
Dirius
Well-known member
The person in the example never mentioned anything about the previous day. The person just presented us with a problem (that he or she had a cold). In your example, you made both of us jump to a conclusion without evidence of the cause. Your example is just bad.
You proposed the problem, its up to you to come up with an example for it, not me. The example you provided just lacked the variables you mentioned (the part in which the person gave us evidence). You came up with a bad example.
Ok.
You presented a commonality among "third worlders". I pointed out that the commonality you presented, is also a commonality they have with "1st worlders". Ergo it is not a commonality that creates a distinction that would link countries into a similar block, otherwise some european countries should be considered part of that block.
Americans are a nation of people (they recognise themselves as such) that share linguistic, historical, ethnical, cultural and most important, nationalistic relations. The same is not true for paraguayans and indians.
It proves further your point of "being brown" as a commonality to belonging into such block being wrong.
I have backed up my claim, which is the part you don't seem to comprehend.
I provided you first with an analysis of the situation, during my first and second posts on this thread, in which I explained the conclusions I had reached.
I then provided you with statistical data from a third party site to back up my claim. Given your example, you clearly do not understand what evidence is or how it works. Whether you ignored the data, or were to lazy, or perhaps unable to comprehend it, its your problem mate, not mine.
I actually did ask you many times to post your evidence, or offer a rebuttal, which you didn't. You encased the discussion on your obsession that data and facts were somehow "intellectual dishonesty".
The reason the data backs up my point, is because it shows individuals from the communities I used as example were indeed, more educated and wealthier. There is a connection between poverty and crime, and education and succes. I didn't think I would need to explain to you that. Furthermore I have sort of explained in previous posts already.
Individuals who migrate into a country who are more skilled or better educated, are more likely to be able to provide for themselves and succeed in society in the short term, because they are more likely to find better jobs. Individuals who are not, will end up unemployed, specially when they migrate to a country in which their skills might not be in demand. This is basic social economics. Minority groups who focus on education will fare better than those who do not.
The thing about enforcing the laws is that Europe has been unable to enforce laws on many of the migrant communities properly, mostly due to political bias which seems to want to protect criminal activity. Law enforcement and police are a companion tool towards providing econmic stability.
Native people in europe generally respect the law because they don't want to receive a punishment. For some migrant communities the punishment might seem too laxed (such as when pakistani's walk free after raping women in the UK), ergo to them it matters little, so they feel they can openly disrespect them. If you combine both things (lack of enforcement, and no punishment) why would they respect it? Its more profitable for them to break the laws than obey them.
Last edited:
wan
Well-known member
No, it does not make my example bad. It just means it's incomplete. And if you are unsatisfied with what I have provided, you could have asked for more information from me. But you desperately need to call my example bad, though. I see that.
The someone having a cold example is not the only thing. What if you are involved in a philosophical debate with someone about weather abortion is murder? This issue can be a legal one, but a philosophical one as well. And assuming that you and the person you are debating with both agree it's the latter, then evidence, the scientific method..etc etc become much less important. So, how will people be able to determine who between you is right?
And if you try to nit-pick this particular example as "bad", I can give more examples. For example, the existence of God. Or what caused the Big Bang. Both examples do not seem to require the use of evidence much.
The fact all third-worlders come from countries that are less developed economically is also a commonality. Skin colour is of no importance. It's just an example, which you analysed to death, much like my cold example. You don't seem to get the point, instead you get bogged down in inconsequential details, and you probably consider yourself hot for this.
Paraguayans and Indians do not need to share "linguistic, historical, ethnical, cultural and most important, nationalistic relations" in order to have commonality with each other. The fact that they are both from the third-world suffices.
You seem to think that just because Paraguyans and Indians are dis-similar in many ways (which I dont dispute), that means they have nothing in common. This is false.
I did not say all third-worlders must necessarily all be brown. I just was just trying to find ways to show that they have something in common. If you have such a huge issue with being brown, I can come up with something that offends your delicate sensibilities less. Such as the fact they are all from countries that are less economically advanced.
Do you agree or disagree that all third worlders come from countries that are less advanced economically?
Wrong. It has nothing to do with my supposed inability to understand your links. It has everything to do with the fact I outright reject your links. And it's because I do not want to read the stuff someone else wrote. I want to read stuff you write. I think that if anything, you are the one who is not getting it. You think by throwing out a link, you are backing up your point. You are not.
You are still unable to read, I see. I said, many, many, many times that I was not asking you in regards to the particular topic at hand. I asked why, in general, you think you are always right. God I am tired of explaining this to you over and over again. You obviously can't read, and you seem to think by throwing out words like "my analysis", "my conclusions" etc etc you are proving your point. You aren't. You are just being as unresponsive to what I wrote as a brick wall is impervious to water.
I will say it again, very slowly this time. Why do you think you are always right, in general?
You are the one who doesn't understand anything. Data show only facts, they do not prove causal relationships, no matter how many times you scream "I have evidence". If you still claim your links prove causal relationships, quote them. Tell me on what page and what line specifically. Don't tell me to read it. I won't. I do not accept third-party links as valid forms of answers. In fact, I almost never open third-party links on forums. For the aforementioned reason. But also for computer security reasons.
Prove I ignored your data.
Prove I was lazy.
Prove I was unable to comprehend it.
My problem? This is rich coming from you, of all people. You are the one too stupid to realize that a bunch of data and facts do not prove causal relationships. But keep screaming, though.
And why should I? I did not set out to argue with the author who penned the content of those links you linked to. I want to argue with you.
Nope. I would never say data and facts are intellectually dishonest. I said for you to keep ignoring the convention that one is not to rely on someone else' work to prove one's point, it is intellectual dishonesty. But nice to see your inability to comprehend English sentences is flaring up again.
Correlation does not imply causation. Do you know what this means?
Why did you mention immigrants obeying the rules of their host countries as if this were some sort of achievement?
A barb embedded in an otherwise innocuous statement! I am impressed. I guess in addition to being intellectually dishonest, you are also sly and underhanded. And crafty. Ever thought about working for the feds? They'd love someone like you.
I don't think you get to lecture anybody on having the knowledge to have an adult discussion. You think by throwing out a few links, that means you are backing up your claims. Someone help me, my sides are splitting.
Last edited:
wan
Well-known member
Yes I do have a job. But having a job is the barest minimum of being a citizen. I do not consider it to be some kind of achievement.
Dirius
Well-known member
An incomplete example is a bad example, because it does not work to exemplify your point.
The discussion about abortion is about evidence. What you discuss is usually whether the fetus is a life and thus rendered protection by human rights, which you reach through scientific data. Most pro-abortionists don't deny the murderous nature of their claim, they just suggest that a woman's right to choose should have priority - which is about the legality as you pointed out.
The big bang theory existance is dependant on the scientific data that backs it up, ergo, not the type of example that backs your original argument.
The discussion about the existance of God is also an argument about evidence. In fact the lack of evidence is what usually makes people claim God does not exist. If you disregard evidence, then there is no argument to be had.
All examples that are dependant on evidence being provided or not to say such things.
Your original point was about debating something that does not require evidence. None of these examples fit that description.
I just found your color example wrong and refuted it, you are the one who keeps bringing it up, after having thought of it in the first place.
Actually you are wrong again about economic commonality.
India is the fifth country in the world ranked by GDP, competing with France and the UK. The economic growth in India has been soaring for the past 20 years. Also the poverty rate in India is 21% which is similar to the UK's 20% poverty rate. In contrast, Paraguay's GDP is much much lower, and its poverty rate much more higher. The only diference between the UK and India when it comes to economics is GDP per capita (how it is distributed), but the country as a whole is surpassing the economic standards of what you call "the first world". Also unemployment in India, and Paraguay is lower than some countries such as France (6% vs 8%).
So it seems your economic theory doesn't hold very true.
Sorry, but the facts disagree on that one.
Because I'm using data. How hard is it to understand? If u dislike my attitude, that is another thing.
Your own quote here:
---------------------------------------------------------
Again, I am sorry if you can't understan the data. It is not my fault that you don't understand how evidence works.
Because in every single statistic done in every country in the world, shows a correlation between a level of education and economic succes. Ergo, individuals who are better prepared are going to fare better in a given society. I have said this many times through out this post. This is common knowledge to anyone with a primary education. I wasn't going to link to you every single chart of every single country on this, so I limited myself to posting about two ethnic communities in one of each country. I showed you an ethnic minority group who is doing well, and one which isn't.
You disliked that and said it was intellectual dishonesty and what not.
It seems that you were expecting for me to cite you every single study done on this. I wasn't going to. So I went for a specific example.
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
It seems you don't understand how evidence works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Use of correlation as scientific evidence
Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables – they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument.
However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence. Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blinded studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation.
Correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored.
-----------------------------
To put it in simple terms so you can understand. You are not going to find many (if any) studies that will point you to a direct causation in areas such as these, because it would be imposible to interview every single person that is poor, or not doing well, or find enough variables too similar to analyze. Thus we base data on correlation in areas such as sociology, which found in high amounts accross multiple groups at different points in time, provide you with data to formulate a theory. What you do is take different perspectives, which is what I have done regarding the issue.
You can keep repeating the slogan as many times as you need, but it just reveals the little understanding you posses in such matters. You don't seem to understand how evidence works.
Last edited:
I don't know who is more cuck here, Germany, or the libertarian 3rd worlder that acts against his best interests, and who has to agree with the racist that the 3rd world is what it is only because of the biology/choices of its people, without any cultural/environmental feedback loop whatsoever. The best interests of the individual do not always coincide with the best interests of the ideology.
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
Quite the contrary, the objection is regarding the racist implication, instead of the interests of the nation. Immigration should be controlled because massive immigration has multiple negative implications, but there is no need to say immigration is bad. After all, europeans have migrated to multiple parts of the world. Where are you from peto?
wan
Well-known member
I don't think it's bad. It is merely incomplete, and requires me to furnish more details to make it work. Anyway, I don't think having a good example is super-important. I was just trying to make you see my point. But all you seem to do is ignore what the point the example is trying to illustrate, and instead, get bogged down in criticizing the details of said example. This does not serve much purpose.
Only if you treat it as a legal argument. If you approach it as a philosophical debate, you do not require much evidence.
How does using scientific data tell us whether the fetus deserves human rights? I agree that one might need scientific data to determine whether the fetus is human life. But scientific data do not tell us whether the fetus deserves protection. The latter is a philosophical issue.
How do you know that the scientific method would work to describe anything that happened before the Big Bang? We don't even know what existed before the Big Bang. For all we know, the scientific method, evidence etc etc might have no place in pre-Big Bang states of existence.
Furthermore, if your scientific method is so hot, then use said method and tell me what existed before the Big Bang. Go ahead, tell me.
If what you say is true, then this debate will have been resolved a long time ago. And we will all have reached the conclusion that there is no God (since as you pointed out, there is no evidence for God). But we all know this debate is still raging on, and some people still believe in God. Therefore, you are wrong.
Then let me try and come up with more examples. How about this, should we have the death penalty? This debate requires no evidence, as far as I can see. Heck, you can even have "debates" with someone over whether you should have sushi or burrito for lunch. This also requires no scientific method nor evidence. Anyway, my point is that, there are discussions where the scientific method has no place in.
If India is truly doing so well economically, then perhaps it does not belong in the ranks of the third-world. Also, if India is so great, why do Indians still try so hard to immigrate to the West?
How so?
Indeed, it shows correlation. However, you claimed causation. And correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, you are the one who does not understand how things work.
I never said better prepared individuals are going to fare worse. What are you on about?
I never said your data is intellectual dishonesty. I said the fact you keep refusing to back up your claims using your own words is intellectual dishonesty.
Do you agree or disagree that people should back up their claims with their own words, instead of throwing down a link?
Where did I say I expected you to cite every single study?
Last edited:
wan
Well-known member
I have not been dismissing correlation. Nor did I say it's invalid. However, you claimed causation, and the stuff you quoted seems to merely show correlation.
Also, remind me again why it's OK to call Americans Americans but not ok to call third-worlders third-worlders. I lost track of our exchange.
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
Its just a bad example wan, because you portraited a situation in which you jumped to a conclusion without using evidence, claiming there was evidence.
Its not, because if it is about "its right vs its wrong" is just a matter of oppinion, which would have no value debating. If you are debating is because of the legal implications - otherwise you can't have a debate to begin with. Unless either party presents the other with evidence to the contrary, you end up encased in your perspective.
The big bang theory exists because there is evidence to support it (the universe is in constant expansion which would suggest it had a point of origin). Its not that some guy had a bright idea and just went with it. And the reason there is a consensus among the scientific community, is because there is evidence.
The discussion about the existance of God is an irrational debate, because there is no evidence to directly support it - and it always ends the same way, some people believing in it, and other rejecting, but never reaching a conclusion. What you can have is a debate about the nature/characteristics of God, as we've had on the forum, but this only occurs in placed were, in this example, no one questions the God exists argument.
Actually you do. The argument in favour of the death pentalty is about the pontentil danger of criminals being free one day, the economic impact of having people locked up, and whether it is an intrusion in an individuals human right to life. The debate is about looking at the data and evidence to support both camps.
So then by your admission the division of dividing countries in world blocks would then not be accurate, if you think India might not belong there.
People migrate for economic reasons.
Because in the west the current mechanisms of social mobility (through capitalist economies) are smoother, faster and easier to achieve. So individuals find it easier to move up in capitalists societies. This does not imply that the economy of their native nation is bad, the other one is just better.
Gona answer this on the next post.
wan
Well-known member
You still don't get it. I never said my example is super-good. And if you want to call it bad, to be honest I don't care. All I am doing is try to show you a point. The example is just the way to help you see that point. But you keep attacking my example as bad. This does not take us anywhere, because the example itself is not important. It is not the "meat and potato" of my argument. Heck, I will even agree with you that my example is "bad", just to shut you up. So, yes, my example is bad. There. Are you satisfied now? Are you finally going to deal with my point?
I did not ask you whether a debate has value or not. The important thing is that it *IS* a debate, a debate where the scientific method has no place.
Prove that I cannot have a debate without the legal implications.
What the heck is "encased in your perspective"? English please.
I am not debating whether the Big Bang theory is true or not. I am asking you what existed before the Big Bang. Further, I want you to show that the scientific method is capable of explaining to us what existed before the Big Bang.
Nobody asked for your opinion whether this debate is irrational. The only two things that matter are 1. it is a debate, and 2. it is a debate where the scientific method has no place. Do you dispute either?
The fact some people believe in God despite having no evidence proves that it's possible to have a debate where evidence is not required. Do you dispute this?
Sorry but you don't get to tell me what debates I should have.
A bunch of evidence only shows facts. However, it is still up to the human agent to make a moral judgment about whether we SHOULD abolish the death penalty or not. And in a debate where moral judgments are involved, facts and evidence have little place. You and someone else can be both looking at one piece of evidence, such as potential danger of criminals being free one day, and reach very different conclusions. You might say we should abolish the death penalty and he might say we shouldn't.
Allow me to give you another example, since you seem too dumb to realize that there are discussions where the scientific method has no place. For example, say you have a crush on a girl. You want to pursue her. You tell your friend about it. Then, he starts to pursue her as well. You might now collar him and ask him why he is such a snake. This is also an argument, and it's one where the scientific method has no place.
Nope. I admit to nothing. The "third-world" is a good way to categorize people.
Prove that the current mechanisms of social mobility is what caused Indians to migrate. You are claiming causation again. This time, try not to just throw down a link.
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
Because when you have multiple instances of correlation from various different perspectives you can deduce causation as a valid instance. Once you analyze the different indicators from different groups migrting to different nations you begin to see that.
For example: Venezuelan migrants to Argentina or Brazil.
- In Brazil, venezuelan migrants have caused an explosion in crime in northern brazil.
- In Argentina, venezuelan migrants have caused no problems.
Statistical data from the region has shown that among venezuelans fleeing their country (because of socialism), the majority of unqualified/unskilled blue collar workers have moved to neighboring countries, such as Brazil. On the other hand, the qualified highly educated have moved to countries such as Argentina. Many who are in Brazil have struggled to find employment, while those in Argentina have higher rates of employment.
Same ethnicity and same culture among Venezuelans migrants to both countries. The only diference is the socio-economics of the individuals. This is a huge indicator that crime is caused by a lack of education.
You compare this numbers with the rest of correlations among many different groups that revel similar factors.
Dirius
Well-known member
No wan, your example was just bad.
The reason the discussion about God isn't a debte (an exchange of ideas), because there is nothing one party can say to the other to change its mind, because there is no evidence to present on the matter. The other options were just more bad examples on your part, because all of those examples used evidence to support either side.
The moral argument is a matter of opinion, ergo not a debate. If you think something is wrong "just because", and I think it is right "just because", then it isn't a debate. That is the part you don't seem to understand. In order for either party to show the other they are wrong, evidence has to be presented, to support the claim. That is what constitues a "debate".
If you say the sky is yellow, and I say the sky is blue and neither of us presents evidence, we are not gonna have a debate.
This is why your idea of how a debate is supposed to work is wrong, because you are implying that evidence is not needed to make a point, and sometimes debates are just matter of opinion. They aren't.
Actually I do. Whether you want to obey the correct form, or keep encased in your mentality is your choice though.
Your example isn't debate, its again just presenting a problem. You are not even mentioning what is the expected resolution to your problem. That is why it fails, again, as an example.
At this point you are trying to argue that you do not require evidence to debate
Because the majority of surveys done on migrants around the world reveal so. Direct opinion from migrants.
wan
Well-known member
And? I already conceded that my example was bad. And it was to get you to shut up about it, and start addressing the really important stuff. But do you do it? No.
You need to prove that the discussion about God isn't a debate. You cant just say "because I say so".
Also, I asked you to show that the scientific method can be used to explain what happened before the Big bang. Where is your reply to this?
So what that there is no evidence? Does this make it not a debate? Why does it need to have evidence in order to be a debate?
So what that you think my examples are "bad"? Do you mean to tell me that your brain is only capable of dealing with examples? Is your brain capable of comprehending the main thrust of my argument at all?
1. Prove that moral argument is a matter of opinion.
2. Prove that moral argument is not a debate. Hint: just because you do not like something, it does not mean it is now not a debate.
Why not?
You need to prove that in order to have a debate, evidence is absolutely necessary.
You are talking about matters of fact. Yes I agree that in discussions about matters of fact, evidence is required. However, matters of fact are not the only kind of debate that exists.
You need to prove that evidence is always required to make a point.
What is your definition of a debate?
Very interesting. Why don't you prove that you are able to tell me what debate to have by ordering me to start debating whatever topic you can think of. I want to see if you truly possess the power to compel me to only debate the things you want. Also, I don't think you are one to decide what the "correct form" is. I mean, you don't even know that one is supposed to back up one's claim using one's own words. Apparently, you think by linking to someone else' work means you are "debating". Haha.
So what that my example "failed"? Do you think examples are very important? Do you think by criticizing my examples, you can avoid dealing with my main point?
Indeed I sometimes don't. If your claim is that it is always necessary to have evidence in order to have a debate, you need to prove it.At this point you are trying to argue that you do not require evidence to debate
So migrants never lie on surveys. Is this what you are telling me?
Last edited:
wan
Well-known member
Then prove it. Prove that when there are multiple correlations, that means a causal relationship exists. Also, do you admit that you claimed causation? And that the stuff you linked to only showed correlation? That you think your correlational data somehow proves causation?
Ps: why do you think immigrants obeying the laws of their host countries is some kind of achievement?
Last edited:
SunConjunctUranus
Well-known member
Never been to Western Europe, but what you percieved as a terrorism is a part of spiritual growth to summon their holy spirit at the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem. This is not a hot topic among medieval monk, as far as I know. Pardon my interruption.
Dirius
Well-known member
You are asking me to prove to you, that what you say isn't true. You are demanding evidence. On this very debate that we are having now, you are doing nothing more than demanding for evidence that what I say is correct. Ergo, you are not satisfied with my opinion, and you are asking for evidence.
Your own absurdity when trying to explain debates, is the proof you are demanding all along. Have you believed anything you said was correct, you wouldn't demand evidence to support my claim.
Your argument has been eaten by your own actions. There is your proof wan.
Look at the following quotes you have made:
You are literally asking for evidence, on a statement that says that evidence isn't required to make a point. Its ridiculous wan.
Dirius
Well-known member
Yes because when start looking at correlation between variables that occur at multiple instances, in diferent situations, from many perspectives you reach causality by default, by presenting pool samples that eliminate most variables except for the correlation. If the correlation is the only sustainable variable across multiple samples.
I posted a small example of what I was saying, because I'm not going to quote to you 25 studies on poverty and education rates and how it contributes to the rise of crime in certain communities, because there is a question of space and time.
The problem is that, rather than talk about my point, you just made a claim that it was intellectual dishonesty, and proceed to try to discredit my argument rather than refute it, while resorting to use absurd comparison and dismissing the valuable use of data and evidence.
While correlation does not prove causation, most of the times it does. And in areas where direct evidence is hard to find, it is the only viable model you can use.