Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    The evidence suggests that Africans have been around for the longest, as that continent possesses the most genetic diversity.
    Actually that depends what you call Africans, science shows some of the African people clearly evolved last, not that long ago, in Western Africa.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No, I tire of this form of debate. I will not defend every individual sentence I wrote, on its own, taken out of the context of my overall argument. Go back and tackle my post as a whole, if you have something to say about it.

    To give an example of why your method doesn't work...let's take a look at your first 3 responses:

    Why do you chose not to?
    Because of reasons I give in a later part of my post, beyond the first sentence.

    So?

    Does that make their extinction acceptable?
    That's a loaded question, that assumes I share the same fundamental principles you do. The reason you are able to get away with it is because you are attacking me sentence by sentence. If you adressed my post as a whole, you'll see that I come at the issue from a wholly different angle, whereby I place moral value on individuals and show that it is misleading to think of anyone being made 'extinct' as such.

    A Siberian tiger is more than a Siberian tiger, it is an individual entity, should we therefore not try to save it's species?
    I deal with the animal thing later in the post.

    I would strongly disagree with that, most of what constitutes you is inherited.
    Yes, but they are still my individual traits. You're missing my point. I can almost see you typing your post, pressing the quote button before you read it, and then going through replying to it sentence by sentence with the first objection that comes into your head. That is not tackling my argument. If you read my post as a whole you'll see that when I talk about what constitutes a person I am talking conceptually, not engaging in some nature vs. nurture debate or anything like that.

    ---

    See what I mean? It would take me forever to go on, and would be pointless, messy, and useless. The above is not a debate, the above is you chasing me around my post, making me continually repeat myself.

    I'm willing to debate with you, but I would like to do it more or less in prose, please.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Actually that depends what you call Africans, science shows some of the African people clearly evolved last, not that long ago, in Western Africa.
    Please cite some sort of source for this. This not only flies in the face of current evolutionary theory. It seems to rest on a Pokemon-like understanding of 'evolution'. Species evolve holistically, in jumps...parts of species do not evolve seperately. It makes no sense to say humans evolved at time x in place y first, but then some more evolved later at time w in placez
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    No, I tire of this form of debate. I will not defend every individual sentence I wrote, on its own, taken out of the context of my overall argument.
    Excuses, excuses.

    Go back and tackle my post as a whole, if you have something to say about it.
    I already did, the fact I broke it down is irrelevent.

    Do you have answers or excuses?

    To give an example of why your method doesn't work...let's take a look at your first 3 responses:
    Nice way to avoid the subject.

    Because of reasons I give in a later part of my post, beyond the first sentence.
    But I showed them to be irrelevent.

    That's a loaded question, that assumes I share the same fundamental principles you do.
    What principals do I hold?

    You speak for me, but do you know?

    The reason you are able to get away with it is because you are attacking me sentence by sentence.
    Because sentance after sentance was wrong, as I clearly demonstrated, and your total lack of defense suggests you know that too.

    Why not come clean and admit it?

    If you adressed my post as a whole, you'll see that I come at the issue from a wholly different angle
    If you addressed my answers you would see that that angle is clearly wrong.

    But instead you elected to duck every word I said and bleat and moan and make excuses instead.

    whereby I place moral value on individuals and show that it is misleading to think of anyone being made 'extinct' as such.
    As I indicated I severly question your morality.

    I deal with the animal thing later in the post.
    And I demonstrated once again you were wrong.

    Something you chose to ignore in your response.

    Yes, but they are still my individual traits.
    I didn't say they were not.

    You're missing my point
    No, unlike you I did you the courtesy of addressing your points.

    I can almost see you typing your post, pressing the quote button before you read it, and then going through replying to it sentence by sentence with the first objection that comes into your head.
    It matters not how you say what you say, but the substance of your words.

    Is that really a relevent comment?

    Just because I use the quote feature, so that I can address an individual point does it make my argument any more or less significant?

    I feel not.

    I think what was significant was that I addressed every point you raised, showed they were wrong, and you singularly failed to respond with anything but a baseless complaint.

    That is not tackling my argument.
    I tackled it in depth, your excuses is not tackling an argument.

    How can you even complain I didn't tackle your argument, when I addressed every single point, and you in return addressed none?

    I think my views of your morality are being strengthened by the minute.

    If you read my post as a whole
    I did.

    you'll see that when I talk about what constitutes a person I am talking conceptually, not engaging in some nature vs. nurture debate or anything like that.
    What I saw was you were wrong.

    See what I mean?
    No I just saw someone who lost an argument making excuses.

    It would take me forever to go on, and would be pointless, messy, and useless.
    Translated = You were wrong.

    The above is not a debate, the above is you chasing me around my post, making me continually repeat myself.
    No, the above was a comprehensive answer to your post showing that you were completely wrong.

    What you are doing is running from a debate and hiding behind a petty whinge.

    I'm willing to debate with you, but I would like to do it more or less in prose, please.
    I don't think you are willing.

    Let us put it to the test.

    My previous post still stands.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    Please cite some sort of source for this. This not only flies in the face of current evolutionary theory. It seems to rest on a Pokemon-like understanding of 'evolution'. Species evolve holistically, in jumps...parts of species do not evolve seperately. It makes no sense to say humans evolved at time x in place y first, but then some more evolved later at time w in placez
    I'm not really clued up on pokemon, so you will have to explain your pokemon theories to me, so I can see what you are talking about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That's quite a round about way of saying "Errrrr no you're wrong and I'm clever"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Yes, that's the more poetic view of it, but to look at it more clinically, you are more likely to share many of those traits with people from similar racial backgrounds. eg the research on the link between eye colour and perception
    No...well I see your point...but this goes back to an issue I was asked to clear up, actually.

    Most of what we value in individuals...we're talking mainly 'mental' characterists here...vary more within races than between races. It's a bell curve thing. Imagine, say, you had a graph plotted showing the intellegence of each member of a racial group. I dunno how we'd measure intellegence or define the group but let's pretend we have done both. The graph is gonna look like a bell - it curves up slowly, then curves up fast, then curves down slowly, then curves down fast. To put it simply: there are a few people on each extreme, and most are somewhere in the middle two quadrants.

    Now dot he same for another race and you'll get another bell curve. Place the two curves on the same graph. Now there might be a difference...one might be every so slightly the right of the other...showing that there is a very very general difference betwene the two races. But when you take the people the graph is describing as individuals, it remains the case that most people remain somewhere in the middle of the two bell curves, and that most - and I mean 'most' with a vengeance - people on either bell curve will find plenty of people on the other bell curve to their left and right on the graph.

    Put basically, there is way more variation within the curves than between the curves...there is way more variation within racial groups than there is between them.

    Now this isn't as much the case for certain physical characteristics...such as the ones that pretty much define racial differences...but these physical characteristics just simply aren't that important. We gain our identity, and give identity to others, on the basis of mental traits primarily. Therefore we simply do not gain our identities, for the most part, from anything connected to our racial group. Maybe culture, family, and all these things come into the picture more...but these are things very distinct to race, and are too often conflated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cheesecakebobby)
    That's quite a round about way of saying "Errrrr no you're wrong and I'm clever"
    Maybe it is, but it's also easier.

    On a messageboard you have no ability to interupt someone as they are speaking, so you have to break it down into quotes to deal with it, after they have posted.

    If you do that you can address a persons mistakes that they'd rather you hadn't noticed, or remembered, in a similar way to how you might interupt a person in a conversation, or a debate, if you spotted a complete piece of tosh offline.

    The more mistakes and errors they make the more broken down the response tends to get, and the more convoluted it looks to the reader.

    It's not really attempting to be clever, a clever response to a clever post wouldn't need many breakdowns, the opposite is actually the case, the more breakdowns the less clever the original post was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I see you're not interested in a debate, Mr. Bedford. Shame.

    Still, at least I can take comfort in the fact that we're both East Midland Geminis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    No...well I see your point...but this goes back to an issue I was asked to clear up, actually.

    Most of what we value in individuals...we're talking mainly 'mental' characterists here...vary more within races than between races. It's a bell curve thing. Imagine, say, you had a graph plotted showing the intellegence of each member of a racial group. I dunno how we'd measure intellegence or define the group but let's pretend we have done both. The graph is gonna look like a bell - it curves up slowly, then curves up fast, then curves down slowly, then curves down fast. To put it simply: there are a few people on each extreme, and most are somewhere in the middle two quadrants.

    Now dot he same for another race and you'll get another bell curve. Place the two curves on the same graph. Now there might be a difference...one might be every so slightly the right of the other...showing that there is a very very general difference betwene the two races. But when you take the people the graph is describing as individuals, it remains the case that most people remain somewhere in the middle of the two bell curves, and that most - and I mean 'most' with a vengeance - people on either bell curve will find plenty of people on the other bell curve to their left and right on the graph.

    Put basically, there is way more variation within the curves than between the curves...there is way more variation within racial groups than there is between them.

    Now this isn't as much the case for certain physical characteristics...such as the ones that pretty much define racial differences...but these physical characteristics just simply aren't that important. We gain our identity, and give identity to others, on the basis of mental traits primarily. Therefore we simply do not gain our identities, for the most part, from anything connected to our racial group. Maybe culture, family, and all these things come into the picture more...but these are things very distinct to race, and are too often conflated.

    I accept all that. I was probing I guess. The point I s'pose I am getting at is that there may be intangible, mysterious things that are related to race, eg musical sense. For instance why does nearly all black music have a different melodic sensibility to very 'white' music?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    I see you're not interested in a debate, Mr. Bedford. Shame.
    As I said before, my post still stands.

    Tackle it if you ever get the urge.

    I'd find it far more stimulating than excuses.

    Edit: I also notice you not only ran away from the debate, and refused to address my post, but you neg repped me for it.



    I love it when that happens, it puts the icing on the cake.
    Anyone who neg reps a post that they can't answer is telling a big story.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    I accept all that. I was probing I guess. The point I s'pose I am getting at is that there may be intangible, mysterious things that are related to race, eg musical sense. For instance why does nearly all black music have a different melodic sensibility to very 'white' music?
    Cultural evolution.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well I'm no expert in the area, but I really don't see how race itself can have been a factor. I would suspect it would have something to do with the different history of different races...the differing cultures, lifestyles, social arrangements...and then there's pure circumstance, they way things just turn out differntly when they happen in different places. All of these things are attatched to race...in that these people migrated elsewhere, and so over time developed into a seperate anthropological group, and developed a different culture to go with a different lifestyle, and in turn developed a different sort of music.

    See what I mean? There are links, but they are not the links some would have us make - they are indirect links, piggybacking links...not direct causual links. I can't see how racial makeup would have an intrinsic effect on intuitive musical preference, though if someone can argue otherwise I'd be interested to read it. I personally can only imagine such a complex, subtle and inherently social thing to be a product of enviromental influences...but then as I said I'm no expert.

    I would also consider the way in which the new multiracial geopolitical situation in the West is leading toward quite a merging and blending of cultures...with plenty of 'whites' taking up 'black music' and vice versa...indeed much of the foundations of contemporary 'white' rock music are in imported 'black music'. This suggests to me that the cause of the difference is not inherent in race, but can rather be explained by cultural differences etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    As I said before, my post still stands.

    Tackle it if you ever get the urge.

    I'd find it far more stimulating than excuses.

    Edit: I also notice you not only ran away from the debate, and refused to address my post, but you neg repped me for it.



    I love it when that happens, it puts the icing on the cake.
    Anyone who neg reps a post that they can't answer is telling a big story.
    I neg repped you because you are acting like a child. Stop acting like a child and debate me in prose. If you read the guidlines stickied at the top of the D & D forums it is made very clear that sentence-by-sentence pedantism is not a legitimate form of debate:

    4) When you respond please do not quote individual lines/short paragraphs at a time - if you do so the context of the original quote may be lost.
    [To be clear please keep to a MAXIMUM of 4/5 quote boxes per post.]
    This is pretty much an accepted maxim of written debate. You don't see established writers picking apart books sentence by sentence, it simply wouldn't work. Jamie is right, you do simply lose the content of the original post, and thus sacrifice the actual debate.

    You can keep name-calling if you like, but I confident that most posters on this forum will sympathise with me on this - I'm not the only person who gets frustrated by this tactic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    I'm not the only person who gets frustrated by this tactic.
    Remarkable then that Vienna got debator of the year on the strength of that very tactic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Remarkable that Vienna got debator of the year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No accounting for taste
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    I neg repped you because you are acting like a child.
    Is that it is it?

    And running away from a debate and making excuses is mature how?

    Me thinks you are making excuses yet again.

    This is pretty much an accepted maxim of written debate.
    You do when the posts were as poor and error ridden as yours was.

    As I stated above On a messageboard you have no ability to interupt someone as they are speaking, so you have to break it down into quotes to deal with it, after they have posted.

    If you do that you can address a persons mistakes that they'd rather you hadn't noticed, or remembered, in a similar way to how you might interupt a person in a conversation, or a debate, if you spotted a complete piece of tosh offline.

    The more mistakes and errors they make the more broken down the response tends to get, and the more convoluted it looks to the reader.

    It's not really attempting to be clever, a clever response to a clever post wouldn't need many breakdowns, the opposite is actually the case, the more breakdowns the less clever the original post was.


    In other words you neg repped me because you made a poor post, along with your silly insults about childish beahviour, and your reluctance to address the issues it speaks volumes.

    I notice you are still makiing excuses.

    Now what was it you were saying about acting like a child?

    Keep going, it's funny to watch someone behave like you are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Remarkable then that Vienna got debator of the year on the strength of that very tactic.
    I maintain that Iago is a far superior debater. Vienna has just been around for longer and is much more prevalent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    I maintain that Iago is a far superior debater.
    So are quite a few. However in terms of pure dogged determination to 'win' an argument and grind the 'opponent' down she is second to none. It's just she does it in an uninteresting, unenlightening, and evasive way too often.
 
 
 

3,084

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.