zurew

So just because you know how to have sex, you suddenly know what the ramification of sex? Just because you have a nose and you know how to use your nose, you know what the ramification is, if for instance you snort coke? What does that mean, that animals can understand sex? They know from their instinct how to have sex, but thats far from understanding the ramifications. Speaking of religions, earlier in this thread you said, that being a pedo was considered okay back then, because people could marry with underaged children. Thats not true, thats only true when it comes to certain religions like Islam. I don't think you believe that we should derive our collective morals from a holybook. Its sort of arbitrary, but not totally. Do you think that generally speaking a 10-12 year old child has the same level of maturity, brain development, has the same level of knowledge about relationship dynamics as an 18 year old? The argument is not necessarily about trauma, although I think we should take into account that aspect as well, the real problem is ,that children can't properly consent to have sex with an adult, because of huge power differences including physical and mental as well and because in the vast majority of the cases, children are immature and don't know the ramifications of most of their actions, thats why their parents are responsible for their kid's action. One thing we know for sure, is that as time goes by you have the potientiality to mature, and that can't be denied. Thats a dynamic that can be observed everywhere.

Unnecessary white knighting.

Give it three month and we will see whether Randall's claim about that tech leak is true or not. Yeah, they didn't show any evidence plus the narrative is weak as well. If what they say is true, then they need to do a better job at presenting these ideas . They already don't have a good reputation when it comes to academia and mainstream science, so they shouldn't destroy it even more, with teasing without no evidence. If they want more attention on this and if they want more people to work on this, then they should do a better job at leaking it in a way where it is more believable for scientists and academics. At the end of the day, if what he says is true, then it shouldn't be hard to show tangible evidence, because so far its just teasing with nothing behind it.

When you play a videogame, and there are human characters in it and they imitate real human behaviour perfectly, do you say that they actually have an identity or no?

If you say that everything is conscious, then the conversation should be about the levels (of how concious that particular thing is). I assume you wouldn't say, that a rock is as conscious as a human or would you? Just because everything is consciousness, that doesn't tell us anything about how conscious that particular 'piece' of consciousness is. It doesn't tell you how conscious a rock is vs a human. I don't think assuming or knowing the nature of Everything or Reality is helpful to answer this thread's question. Even if a human and a cheetah is consciousness in their nature, in their essence, they still have different capabilities and possibilities in the relative world and this thread's question aims to ask a question regarding to the relative domain.

The other study isn't relevant, because we aren't talking about skeletal muscle, we are talking about intelligence and brain, unless you can magically connect the two. When it comes to sample size, of course they don't need to measure 7 billion people, but having less than 100 people participating in your experiment is very problematic, especially, when it comes to a subject like this, where you are talking about neurology and intelligence and both fields are extremely complicated. Trying to confidently isolate certain variables with a sample size like this is impossible. Also your study talking about environmental factors having effects on the brain and on the development of the brain, but when it comes to this experiment results, the methodology don't accounts any of that. These people were self reporting their ethnicity, we don't know anything else about them. This study doesn't controll for any of the environmental factors that are known and that could affect these results. This point is still remained to be demonstrated between whites and blacks.

If someone wants to look up the study about brain structures, here is a link to it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/ I guess you purposefully didn't give us the link to that study, because it would have made your point look worse. If you read the methodology you find this: We are talking about an incredibly small sample size, and I don't think you can grab that and then use that to correctly represent the difference(s) between whole groups and races. Even if we were to take all this for granted, you are still very far away from proving your original point. Your study talking about African Americans having smaller total cerebral volume than Caucasians. However, even if that is all true and this study is representative of the races, here is a thing you have to consider: You have to demonstrate how the difference in certain brain structure would manifest in reality when it comes to intelligence and how would it manifest when it comes to IQ. Find a study that contains more than 77 individuals because that sample size is like a drop of water from the ocean. This is from your study and I guess you didn't read these parts:

I honestly can't tell anymore, whether you are actually serious or you are just a massive troll.

What embarassing is, that since you started this thread you haven't been able to provide one evidence that would support your point. Throwing around statistics that shows IQ gap between races and groups says nothing about causality and causes - I am suprised that you still don't understand this point, even though this is obvious. Im sorry my guy, no one will make the arguments for you. You were the one who made big claims on this topic, you are the one with a conclusion and you are the one who is 100% certain in his position, so lets see at least 1 evidence that support your claim(s).

You still haven't provided anything that would suggest that there would still be significant differences. Words like 'extremely likely' and 'obvious' are doing the heavylifting for you without being anything tangible behind them.

You still haven't proven anything, but If your assumption on this topic would be true, what would you do with that information? What would it change?

Its interesting, that you tried to paint a picture about yourself as being "objective" and "scientific", and it seems like that your position can't be moved at all, because you just refute anything that goes against your narrative and you have a defensive response to anything that doesn't agree with you. Notice, that you haven't done any significant research about this topic, and you try to justify your position afterwards you already made up your mind about it (this is not just an assumption, because if you would have done significant research, you would have changed your position or you would have provided your strongest evidence already). You didn't reason your way to arrive at your position, you just assumed your position of being true, and now you trying to backfill it with rationalization.

Its interesting to see how normal people react to tier 2 ideas. Btw, brilliant video.

What do you mean, he would just over-extend. He can use the same 'nuclear threat' as an excuse to achieve whatever he wants, even if he is severely damaged militarily. - This is why I say that this logic, that oh noo he is threatning with nukes, therefore we need to do whatever he says is not as smart as it first seems. A line has to be drawn.

You are assuming that Russia will stop at conquering Ukraine, but why would Putin stop there? If Putin can see, that he can do whatever he wants (he just need to threaten with nuclear war), then he can use that card whenever he wants to achieve whatever he wants, this is exactly why there are lines that needs to be drawn.

So again, all those statisitcs that I know of, are not strengthening your point, only proves that there is a difference, but that difference can be explained in many ways using many variables, so for you to prove that genetics is the main factor you would have to exclude many things.

But why do you assume, that thats the case? What reasons do you have to assume this?

Those doesn't prove your conclusion. Those things only prove that there are differences, but doesn't explain why those differences are occuring.

This is where most of your disagreement lies with people. People who disagreed with you are using the word 'value' in a totally different way than you. When they say value they refer to economic value. They don't use it "how it should be" , but "how it is" now. So most of the disagreement here was about description vs presciption.

Yeah lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. It might be somewhat true or 100% true what he is saying , but if thats the case - he is doing a poor job of exposing it. Regarding Leo's comment on Greer would have been dead if what he says is true, thats not necessarily the case. Assuming what Greer says or parts of what he says is true, I think it would counterintuitively bring more attention to this and people would think that this is indeed true, because they could say "look Greer died in weird circumstances after he made those big claims". I guess regarding my comment on keeping stuff secret, CIA can keep documents classified for a long period of time, so there are ways to do that, so it isn't impossible, but the problem is that even those cases I think some information is still leaked or some evidence. I don't know how to properly make sense of Greer's claims, but one thing is for sure, that because of the lack of evidence I don't see reasons to believe him, but this might change later.

Biggest problem with this, is the lack of evidence. According to his theory there are powerful elites and secret groups that are extremely powerful and powerful enough the hide all these things so much that there is not one tangible document or image or video evidence about any of these crafts or about these powerful tech or about any alien. So in one hand you have these extremely powerful groups and people that are able to keep all these things in secret, but these groups and elites are not powerful enough to prevent these narratives from coming out or from certain information leaking. So why is the case that information can be leaked in theory form but not in any image or video or document format? Also, how is that possible to keep these thing secret for so many years without anything tangible leaking? (We arent just talking about 10 or 20 years we are talking about probably 50-60+ years.)

@Danioover9000 I couldn't find it manually either, I had to use a chrome extension to find it. Its called YCS (youtube comment search)

There are many potential problems. Firstly, it would make the voting system less decentralized so it would be easier to make the system even more corrupt, because you wouldn't need to impact as many people to make the system in your favour, just a little fraction of it. With this change, you would probably give the rich even more option and a relatively easy option to optain more power and money. Secondly, why would those people would care about certain systemic issues, if those aren't directly affecting them? Just because those people would be more educated or open minded that doesn't necessarily mean ,that they would value the same things as others, so there is a possibility, that most of your most cared problems wouldn't be addressed at all or they would be addressed very poorly. - If people think that they don't have any chance to have an impact on things they value the most, then the next step will probably contain riots and violence. Thirdly, (I think one of the biggest problems) is how would you measure who is capable to vote and what test would you use to filter people? Because I don't think the biggest weight here is on education, but more on wisdom. The reason why I say that education probably wouldn't be the biggest weight in your equation, because there are intances of highly educated people having really out there political opinions, that are not necessarily aligned with reality. If you want to select for wise people, the problem is that you can't really measure wisdom, so the filtering process would be really hard or basically impossible. If you create any finite test to filter people , then its relatively easy to learn the necessary things to pass the test. But learning just the necessary things to get through that finite test won't guarantee, that the person who passed it will be actually educated or wise.