/liberty/ - Liberty

Ever heard of the Dunning-Krueger effect? These morons want to be smart, and they think they are (even though they know nothing about the topic at hand), so they will insist their belief is right until the evidence overwhelmingly proves otherwise (and sometimes, even not then). I experience this constantly when I refer people to the scientific literature on haplogroups and why "race" is a very broad, rarely helpful generalisation.

It's why we're AnCaps, bro. We look at the evidence and derive the right answer from what we can see and what we can test. We don't stick to our guns when we're in the wrong (because we've arrived the the point of being right, we don't have to).

>>17481

>Ever heard of the Dunning-Krueger effect?

Yes, I try to exemplify it only rarely :^). What really bothers me about race and IQ is that people, smart people at least, usually recognize when they are making a claim that rests on empirical reality. For instance, if someone is making claims about the efficacy of a stimulus program, they (hopefully) recognize they're implicitly making an endorsement of the efficacy of a descriptive theory of reality, Keynesianism, or at least its modern bastardization. With race and IQ, most people that oppose bigotry will implicitly state that the "environmentalist" theory of racial IQ differences is 100% valid and there's no way it could be wrong (I oppose genuine bigotry as well, I do not consider an in-group preference bigotry, however.) If they acknowledge that many of their positions (immigration, etc.) are based on an unproven scientific premise, they are explicitly acknowledging the possibility that the hereditarian model of racial IQ differences might be valid, and if acknowledgements of this possibility were frequent in the debate over the lack of success of blacks in America, there would be much less certainty and fodder for the gatekeepers to berate whites with; not to mention, stupid people get the impression that the more humble a person is in their claims the less valid those claims are, so even intelligent people have an innate desire to overstate their claims for the sake of effectiveness and persuasive power. I lean towards the hereditarian position of race/IQ differences, I think that genetic factors probably account for at least 10% of the gap in the IQ tests of various racial/ethnic groups, but I'm open to the possibility that there's a million ways I could be proven wrong, and I'm thoroughly happy to examine the evidence on both sides. Archeologists haven't agreed upon the "Out of Africa" theory beyond a shadow of a doubt, which at this point actually refers to TWO distinct migrations from Southern Africa (if I recall correctly), this unsettled archeological issue is a massive unknown variable in the entire race/IQ debate- when I say race/IQ debate, I refer to the debate over "institutional racism" which implicitly claims the validity of the environmentalist model of IQ differences. To clarify, one alternate archeological theory to "Out of Africa" is that the direct predecessor of homo sapiens actually existed in multiple places and they all independently evolved into modern humans at their own pace. Revelations in future about archeology could completely overturn what would at this point be the most rational position on racial IQ differences, why the hell isn't this ever mentioned? I don't want people to agree with me, while that would be nice, more importantly I want intelligent people to attempt to be empirical, rational, critical thinkers, maybe even follow that whole Bertrand Russell thing about only considering the facts of a matter in scientific inquiry… This actually reminds me of street epistemology! I've not done this often, but when I engage in a Socratic dialogue with a religious person, I'm less concerned about their conclusion, and much more concerned about their process for reaching it.

>I experience this constantly when I refer people to the scientific literature on haplogroups and why "race" is a very broad, rarely helpful generalisation.

Haplogroups to me just means common ancestor, so I'm not an expert. But I'm going to disagree with you anyways (oh shit, Dunning-Kreuger award inbound) feel free to correct me where I go astray.

I think race is a "broad" term, but that's largely due to the fact that groups that were both distinct and separated for thousands of years now (trigger warning for /pol/acks: miscegenation) have gene flow inbetween them, so you've gone from having genuinely distinct European/African/Asian populations that had limited contact with other semi-distinct populations within their own continent to having gene flow between all groups everywhere, which basically blurs the spectrum of previously distinct groups. Think about it this way, if the only two groups of people on Earth were genetically distinct groups of Africans and Europeans with no gene flow for 300,000 years (genetically distinct meaning they differed in physiology and neurology), it would be fair to say at that point that race is a pretty meaningful recognition of legitimate differences between the two populations. If you had 500 years of gene-flow, you'd have a really broad spectrum of mixed people (assuming individuals were willing to have an interracial relationship) at that point, I would say that there is still two distinct races, there's just lots of exceptions. (1/2)

>>17486

(2/2)

According to your average liberal, they'd arrive 1,000 years into that process of miscegenation and tell you race was never a meaningful distinction. Anthropologists can tell your race/ethnicity pretty much just from your jaw bone, so it's not like it's entirely in our imagination. I would disagree that race is a "social construct": an idea or notion that appears to be natural and obvious to people who accept it but may or may not represent reality, so it remains largely an in. Race is natural and obvious, because there is a phenotype to represent such changes, but there is real and non-obvious differences as well. The people who say "race is a social construct" are, not uncommonly, under the misapprehension that the only known and the only potential racial differences are melanin content/melanosomes/the ability of individuals to resist damage to folate reserves from UV radiation- namely, skin color. Again, we know that outside the cranial cavity (brain) there are very real racial differences: bone density/skull structure/quantity of connective tissue/ability to taste PTC/natural body odor/proportion of fast and slow twitch muscles/testosterone/gestation period/frequency of twinning (not dressing similar)/maturation speed/size and onset of development of secondary sexual characteristics (muh dick)/likeliness of a variety of diseases ranging from strokes to kidney disease. The list goes on. Average brain size differences/skull size differences are well correlated, brain size is correlated with IQ (even within a given population, for instance, two similar groups of whites, the one population with larger average brain size is

likely to be slightly more intelligent at least.) The really contentious point, even among scientists, is genetic IQ differences between races, but at least physical differences are non-controversial among academia (still horrifying to the unwashed masses). Physical differences are not talked about in the media, even in sports where such discussion is completely legitimate (think of the coach who got fired for talking about fast twitch muscles in black athletes) because discussing physiological differences, between races, that are a result of genetics is like a "gateway drug" to "race realism." To be clear, race realism is a term that is generally used by genuine racists, but I wish the term could be rehabilitated for those of us who fall into the rational camp of individuals who are open to where the data leads, lean towards the hereditarian model, do not claim certainty in our position, and are not hateful to other groups on the basis of their unearned disadvantages or advantages.

To continue on physical differences, blacks have a denser bone structure and less fatty/connective tissue in their abdomens. This means they're going to be slightly disadvantaged in swimming (never win the Olympics in swimming) and slightly advantaged at the highest level of running (Kenya, cough cough). We use the term race, I would sort of prefer the term ethnicity, mainly because I think that "caucasians" can be quite distinct within that racial group, but sadly the term ethnicity includes social and cultural history which is really not what I'm focusing on in these discussions. I think there are real genetic distinctions between an Irishman, a Norwegian, and a Russian, these people are all "white" but their ancestry is distinct enough, to my knowledge, that there might be meaningful distinctions in physiology and neurology.

Anyways, I'd be happy to put forward the hereditarian case, in case you're not familiar with it. I can't say with certainty, but from your post you seem to be among the "environmentalist" camp of race/IQ differences- again, I might be totally off base, that's just my guess.

>>17486

>>17487

That was informative as hell. Just one minor nitpick: All the great kenyan marathon runners come from one particular tribe, as far as I know. Not sure about other running-sports.

Okay. Let's take this from the top.

What exactly is the claim that's gotten you so frustrated – that differences in IQ between races are primarily environmental (or genetic)? These are just views. People form views by an interaction between their mental faculties and their psychology. I don't know why people hold the views they do and nobody else does either. As individuals, we can only speculate. If your gripe is that people involved aren't being conscious of their own fallibility then that itself is a genuine sweeping generalization.

One sure way to tell whether somebody is a shithead is when they begin with an appeal to their own openmindedness, accusing others (and, in this case, those they've never met) of internalised bigotry.

And why this obsession with proof? "Racial IQ differences are environmental, or genetic" is not a scientific hypothesis. In this form, it is not falsifiable. You can never test for causality because of the problem of induction.

>>17499

>What exactly is the claim that's gotten you so frustrated – that differences in IQ between races are primarily environmental (or genetic)? These are just views.

It's not the views. It's the undue confidence in them. The people who are least capable of making an argument for the environmentalist or hereditarian model are, for some reason, the most confident. People will say shit like "the environmentalist model is 100% accurate" unironically.

>If your gripe is that people involved aren't being conscious of their own fallibility then that itself is a genuine sweeping generalization.

And an accurate one, in general.

>One sure way to tell whether somebody is a shithead is when they begin with an appeal to their own openmindedness, accusing others (and, in this case, those they've never met) of internalised bigotry.

Wot? I didn't accuse anyone of internalized bigotry. I was saying that some staunch racists could not explain to you the hereditarian view of racial IQ differences, they just take for granted that "niggers are subhuman." My gripe here isn't with the hereditarian model or everyone that holds it, my problem is that some of the people who implicitly or explicitly endorse the hereditarian model, besides being bigots, are simply unscientific. The same applies to the environmentalist model, legions of people support this idea implicitly (blaming white racism for everything) but they can't articulate the case for the model or the fact that they could be wrong.

>"Racial IQ differences are environmental, or genetic" is not a scientific hypothesis. In this form, it is not falsifiable.

No shit, Sherlock, I wasn't putting forward a scientific hypothesis, I was putting forward the two most commonly recognized potential explanations for racial IQ gaps.

>You can never test for causality because of the problem of induction.

I mean, after we identify what we think are IQ-linked genes, if we could adjust those genes as independent variables in the future with genetic engineering, we could certainly make a case that these genes have a causal relationship with a higher/lower IQ.

>>17486

>>17487

I've got class really soon (just got up), so this'll be quick. I'm just gonna throw at you NY favourite videos on the subject, and also state that the idea all "races" evolved independently has a very weak scientific basis and is mostly pushed by (sigh) "Race realists".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrKrGkgeww4

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vVmj8dDx9yY

Give them a chance, seriously.

Even assuming that racial differences in IQ are wholly legitimate, that does not therefore lead to the conclusion that we need a state. If the libertarian critique of government is valid, it doesn't suddenly become invalid if the racial realists are correct. That's what bothers me most about these arguments.

>>17503

>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrKrGkgeww4

>6:30

>stereotypes exist because of confirmation bias, not biology

Really, faggot? East Asians ARE better at math on average, that's a completely accurate generalization. The fact that he's claiming East Asians' faster reaction times, higher visual-spatial IQs could not have anything to do with biology, and even recognizing the correlation is a "hasty generalization" tells me this guy is pushing an agenda instead of just giving the straight facts.

>those genes for height aren't denied to him because he has Asian eye folds

THAT'S RIGHT BIGOTS, ASIANS CAN BE TALL TOO, #NOTALLASIANS

>your DNA is not your identity

I'm sure this guy is going to give a completely unbiased account of the effects genetics have on personality… oh wait…

>people are mixed-race therefore there are no races

There are Siberian Husky-Corgi mixes therefore there is no such thing as distinct breeds of dogs. This is clearly flawed thinking.

>We shouldn't get hung up on skin color

I don't. I might get hung up on white racism being consistently blamed for black underachievement when that might just be a result of differences in natural ability. I love this meme of people being bothered by skin color. No semi-rational person cares about skin color, they care about IQ, brain size, and testosterone, and the effects those have on behavior and success, which skin color may be an indicator of. Actually, even if there wasn't any legitimate differences between groups, skin color would still be representative of cultural/value differences, and people will naturally recognize that people who look different and behave differently are not in their "in-group", being in a "diverse" environment is like a hunter-gatherer being forced to merge tribes with 5 other groups, it leads to a lack of societal trust/social cohesion/volunteering/social norms/etc.

This is not an argument for statist segregatory/apartheid policies but it is a good reason to let people associate only among their tribe if they're so ebul as to want to do that.

Watching the second video meow.

>>17507

>That's what bothers me most about these arguments.

Speaking as a libertarian who recognizes biology as the most likely cause of differences in race & IQ, I never point this out to justify statism, but I do point it out because I'm tired of white people being blamed for everyone else's. I think I might have pointed this out, but if it makes sense to blame white people for blacks having lower IQs, we have to ask why whites (who have hated and mistreated Jews historically) have lower IQs/incomes than Ashkenazi Jews. To me, it seems that you're going to blame white racism for blacks not doing as well as whites, you have to blame Jewish nepotism for whites not doing as well as Ashkenazi Jews. Just to be clear, I believe the hereditarian view is the most likely, but I'm willing to admit there's no airtight case for it.

>>17503

2nd video

>I don't see much of a basis for biological

races in the human species

How long would two human populations have to live in radically different environments, all the while changing radically AT LEAST physiologically and potentially neurologically, for you to say that race wouldn't just be a >muh social construct?

He backpedals a little:

>I accept that race can be a distinction, if not an arbitrary one, rooted in biology, I will continue to oppose that it is an essential concept in the human populations, "race essentialism"

Good on you for having the emotional maturity to not just to call a position on an empirical matter racism.

>muh ethnic groups are like totally the same in China

Yeah, ethnicity doesn't mean much in many cases since two distinct cultural/historical groups can have shitload of gene flow because they're so close to each other. You can rightly point out two Chinese ethnic groups are basically the same, this does not necessarily prove that there are not important physiologically and neurological distinctions between the "average" Chinese person today and the "average" Aboriginal today.

>muh genetic determinism

Yes, this is somehow infinitely worse than the economic determinism of the average liberal. Every criminal is a good boy until he gets separated from the memes of production.

>judging IQ based on race is like judging criminality based on jawline

Not really. Race can be useful to judge IQ because different racial groups had distinct environments which would have selected for different traits, including IQ to a differing degree. It might be the case that there was not enough time for this to happen, it might be the case that the environmental pressures were radically accelerated in their effects on IQ because the lowest IQ individuals in Europe were killed off every few decades in particularly bad winters when only the most forward-thinking individuals with the greatest impulse control could resist eating their own seed crop so they could live on to the next three years. Keep that process going for 10,000 years and you'd rationally expect an increase in average IQ, on a biological basis. Race is just an indicator of the differing environments. Skin color is actually really a good indicator of the climate of an ancestor, and it seems obvious that in warm climates with semi-abundant food sources during all seasons, there would be less of a pressure towards impulse-control, forward-thinking, etc. than in say, Siberia.

We know that people that carry the 2R variant of the MAOA "warrior gene" are much more likely to commit crimes. All races carry it, but blacks carry it disproportionately (5.5% of blacks versus 0.9% of whites and almost no Asians at all carry it.) If the MAOA-2R gene was RIGHT NEXT to a gene for a unique jaw structure, in that case a certain unique jawline would be an AMAZING predictor of the degree to which some individuals are particularly disposed to delinquency.

Next point.

To paraphrase: These stupid racists think IQ, income, criminality, they're just a result of immutable inherited characteristics!

NOPE! These are only useful on the aggregate, on the individual level, even knowing that someone has been abused and has the MAOA-2R gene is insufficient to know they're violent criminals, I'd need a few minutes of conversation to judge them, HOWEVER, if I know an entire group of people disproportionately has lower IQs and carries the 2R variant more often, I should not look for some evil outside conspiracy to explain their lower incomes and higher crime rates. Genes are poor predictors of individual behavior, and potentially amazing indicators of large group outcomes.

>>17502

>It's not the views. It's the undue confidence in them. The people who are least capable of making an argument for the environmentalist or hereditarian model are, for some reason, the most confident. People will say shit like "the environmentalist model is 100% accurate" unironically.

That's your perception. The problematic word here is "undue". You can observe that people are confident in their beliefs but you can't gauge the merits of their confidence unless the reasons are given for you to judge them. Without familiarity with a person's thinking, accusations of overconfidence are always baseless. Starting any discussion with the claim that people, not some people, just people, are irrational and you are not, is poor form. This is not the same as establishing that people are wrong. Overconfidence is personal. Being wrong is not.

>Wot? I didn't accuse anyone of internalized bigotry. I was saying that some staunch racists could not explain to you the hereditarian view of racial IQ differences, they just take for granted that "niggers are subhuman."

This is because "niggers are subhuman" doesn't follow from IQ, genetics or anything of the kind. It's a very old opinion, one which predates both IQ and genetics. IQ is used by scientific racists to explain why niggers might be subhuman. That niggers are subhuman is a conclusion borne by experience.

>My gripe here isn't with the hereditarian model or everyone that holds it, my problem is that some of the people who implicitly or explicitly endorse the hereditarian model, besides being bigots, are simply unscientific. The same applies to the environmentalist model, legions of people support this idea implicitly (blaming white racism for everything) but they can't articulate the case for the model or the fact that they could be wrong.

And where do you find these "legions of people"? Are you well acquainted with these people in your personal life or is this just from your experiences online? Why are you looking for informed scientific opinion among casuals and not in the relevant literature?

>we could certainly make a case that these genes have a causal relationship with a higher/lower IQ

Sure, you could always make the case, but that's not the same as proving it.

>>17543

Continued.

These race essentialists say that race is the determinant of these outcomes rather than a complex variety of factors (socioeconomics, genetics, non-genetic inherited environment)

I'm happy to admit that I have no certain answer on the question: to what degree does heredity account for an immutable race/IQ gap, and I have no idea to what degree the higher testosterone/MAOA-2R in blacks means there's going to be a permanent disparity in crime rates. Let's just say that blacks commit assaults 6 times more often than whites, it might be the case that having that MAOA-2R gene only makes blacks as a whole 1.045 times more likely to commit assault, that would represent a "permanent" and "legitimate" difference in crime rates. It might be that there is no such gap, or that the gap is much larger. I am, again, fully ready to admit that there could be a variety of complex factors besides gene sets and the races that correlate to those gene sets accounting for different outcomes. But what this really comes down to is can we blame all these problems in the Hispanic/black community on poverty/white racism/poor parenting/muh polees brutality or a lack of ability in those groups, I am inclined to think that at least 10% of the gap in black/white IQ scores is genetic.

It would be cool if he would compare the predictive power of the hereditarian and environmental models of race/IQ differences, of course, that would not lend itself towards his emotional prejudices.

>Genetic determinism is not an especially good explanation of outcomes

The strawman HAS ALREADY BEEN BEATEN!

STOP, STOP, IT'S ALREADY DEAD!

I'm happy to admit that shitty parenting, poverty, shitty schools, etc. are all factors in IQ and criminality. But, maybe that poverty and the decision to have children while in poverty was a result of blacks/Hispanics naturally having lower IQs, which leads to a positive feedback loop of blacks and Hispanic parents having children in bad environments because those parents weren't so smart in the first place, leading children to have even worse outcomes. Or maybe IQ differences between races are purely due to environments, and the consistently lower black IQs are just a result of inheriting a poor environment from irresponsible parents, of course, this contradicts everything we've learned from transracial adoption studies, but it's an easier pill to swallow given most peoples' emotional biases.

>>17544

>You can observe that people are confident in their beliefs but you can't gauge the merits of their confidence unless the reasons are given for you to judge them.

Most people are not familiar with the facts of the IQ-debate (beyond basic platitudes like race is a muh social construct), yet a huge portion of people still have strong views on the issue, these 2 facts invariably lead to the conclusion that there's a big overlap between people who are confident in their beliefs on race and people who don't know what they're talking about on race (whether they are bigots, anti-racists, whatever.)

>IQ is used by scientific racists to explain why niggers might be subhuman

See, there's like "/pol/ scientific racists" and "Charles Murray 'racist'." Charles Murray is actually familiar with the facts and open to changing his beliefs, and he's not hateful. If the /pol/ scientific racists are similarly open to changing their position on this scientific matter, I admire their adherence to empiricism, but I do not admire their bigotry.

>And where do you find these "legions of people"? Are you well acquainted with these people in your personal life or is this just from your experiences online? Why are you looking for informed scientific opinion among casuals and not in the relevant literature?

I wasn't complaining about the lack of informed people who argue for one side or the other, I was complaining about the abundance of uninformed people who are happy to give their opinion while being… uninformed.

>Sure, you could always make the case, but that's not the same as proving it.

I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that throwing a red ball causes my cat to swipe at it even if I've thrown the red ball 10,000 times and the cat swiped (at it) every time, there's always room for irrational skepticism.

>>17545

Continued, and let me be clear, these aren't exact quotes

>dese ebul race essentialists think it's useful in determining how we perceive our fellow humans

On a group basis? On the aggregate? Yes, on an individual level, no.

>and they even want to assign rights on the basis of this

Well, I'd certainly take my "race essentialism" into account if I was determining state immigration policy, and if I were a really hardcore statist I might determine that I want people with lower IQs to have fewer children to reduce crime rates and welfare dependency, which would lead me to the conclusion that poor people (of all races) shouldn't get ANY subsidies for having children. Super spooky eugenics programs, guise.

>either there is 350 races, hundreds of which are in Africa, or there is one human race

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the False Dichotomy, written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

>We'll talk about the biological vs. social construction of race

k

>the human races, as most people think of them, are unquestionably social constructs

Social construct: a social construct is an idea or notion that appears to be natural and obvious to people who accept it but may or may not represent reality. I'm sorry, do black people whose ancestors lived in Africa 3,000 years ago have physical differences as compared to whites whose ancestors lived in Europe 3,000 years ago? Yes! Lots of real physical differences, there might even *gasp* be neurological differences accounting for achievement gaps, meaning classifying these 2 groups as part of a separate race is far from having no basis in biological reality.

>LOL I FOUND TWO PEOPLE WITH MEDIEVAL/ANCIENT AFRICAN ANCESTRY WHO HAVE WHITE SKIN

SHIT, I GUESS THAT MEAN THERE'S NO WAY TWO HUMAN POPULATIONS IN RADICALLY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS COULD HAVE DIVERGED EVOLUTIONARILY REGARDLESS OF HOW LONG THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE AND HOW POWERFUL THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES ARE!

Yes, skin color is an imperfect approximation of what's "under the hood" (within the skull, or the body) on an individual basis.

>Any actual overlap between race and skin color is purely statistical and accidental

Or maybe 200-600 years of miscegenation have blurred the lines. Yes, skin color is a much poorer predictor of race than it was in 1100 AD.

>You can answer that Obama is white, black, and mixed, and be right on all counts

Nope, wrong on all but one, he's very mixed race, meaning he's not a member of any distinct race. Inb4 some memer tells me that most people are a little mixed. Yup, but I don't think it's fair to say Obama is a member of any distinct racial group(s) in the same way a 97% Northern European is "caucasian/white" or a 97% Sub-Saharan African is "negroid/black"

>human populations don't qualify as subspecies

Sure. But, just for the sake of argument, imagine that there were 200 IQ genes, each one you had flipped on granted an additional point of IQ, if whites had 150 flipped on on average, blacks only 87 on average, this would have ridiculously huge consequences in economics/crime but it wouldn't qualify them as subspecies.

To be clear, I'm not under the misapprehension that intelligence can be so easily manipulated, and yes, it's the complex interplay of many genes.

>>17550

Continued.

>We might use the term dene or cline for different human populations

Cool. Doesn't tell us about the validity of hereditarian/environmental models of race/IQ gaps.

>I object to the idea that these "buckets" or racial divisions were there before we created them, because we can just say that Iran has 1 race, or 24, since it has distinct ethnic groups

Or, maybe, just maybe, the physical and genetic differences were there before >MUH SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS and we then assigned the buckets based on those differences. Meaning those differences are rooted in reality and not entirely arbitrary.

>muh continuum

Yes, the continuum of races has gotten more continuumy. By that, I mean the distinctions will be less clear as races mix over time. This doesn't mean there were no relevant distinctions before such gene flow occurred.

Skipping around a bit to try to get to relevant points

>Are there 13 races in Europe

There are some genetic differences between those populations, but in general, they faced quite similar environmental pressures in terms of to what degree is testosterone/MAOA-2R/high IQ rewarded or punished (more or less fit) in those environments.

>>17503

Third video now.

>Why are Jamaicans good at sprints, Kenyans at marathons, Jews win nobel prizes, persistent racial gaps in IQ scores

OH SHIT, HE'S TAKING ON THE HATE FACTS, LET'S SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR HIM TO SAY SOMETHING THAT'S MISLEADING

>the myth of racial purity

No one with an IQ above 70 thinks Northern Europeans never married other European ethnic groups. However, that "white race" would still have the same general pressures towards IQ, meaning that there isn't a break in the "seal" of groups with a general environment. The mediterranean, and the ural mountains "sealed" in the European populations who generally had an environment that (I would theorize) specifically punished low IQ/rewarded high IQ OR those environments did not have the rampant diseases of Africa, to anthropomorphize, natural selection could focus on IQ instead of just "IS THIS GUY GOING TO DIE OF DISEASE IN FIVE MINUTES?" What I mean is, if natural selection is super "busy" selecting on the basis of some random trait independent of IQ, it can't focus on "rewarding" high IQ, even if high IQs were slightly beneficial, it's too busy making sure that individuals can resist disease, regardless of their IQ. So, natural election would "say" to Africans: "those of you who can resist disease are good to go as long as your IQ is above 60."

>The human gene pool is a shared gene pool

Breeds of dogs share a gene pool, b-but t-they're totally equally intelligent and aggressive, right?

>dur dur admixtures, therefore race can not be correlated with any important traits in practice

k, you did this enough the last video

Alright, this guy is putting a lot of bullshit forward, this is as much as I'm going to consider. He brings up completely valid scientific facts, no problem with that, it's just that they in no way disprove the hereditarian/prove the environmentalist point of view on race/IQ differences. I'm sure if I bothered to watch the part on Race/IQ differences I'd hear 4 minutes which could succinctly be described as

>muh socioeconomics

>muh white racism

>>17554

Continuing video #3 because I'm a glutton for punishment

>Even dumb people are capable of locating a mate and producing offspring and surviving long enough to send them off

Except that's environment dependent. It's much less feasible for a dumb person to survive in a cold climate that requires impulse control/forward thinking than it is for a dumb person to survive in a hot climate that does not punish low IQ (~70) in any real way.

>>17546

>>Most people are not familiar with the facts of the IQ-debate (beyond basic platitudes like race is a muh social construct), yet a huge portion of people still have strong views on the issue, these 2 facts invariably lead to the conclusion that there's a big overlap between people who are confident in their beliefs on race and people who don't know what they're talking about on race (whether they are bigots, anti-racists, whatever.)

Most people don't think about the issue. Of those that do, they form their opinions independent of evidence but base it on the prevailing consensus, authorities and personal experience. The strength of resolve in the nurtured intelligence camp is emboldened because it's the popular view to hold and the convenient view to hold. You should know this, so why does it trouble you?

>>IQ is used by scientific racists to explain why niggers might be subhuman

>See, there's like "/pol/ scientific racists" and "Charles Murray 'racist'." Charles Murray is actually familiar with the facts and open to changing his beliefs, and he's not hateful. If the

>/pol/ scientific racists are similarly open to changing their position on this scientific matter, I admire their adherence to empiricism, but I do not admire their bigotry.

/pol/ can go to hell. If you care about this issue, or any other scientific dispute, you'd eliminate /pol/ as a source of authority on anything. When you think of anti-racism, neoliberalism or even new earth creationism, your thoughts should never turn to imageboards.

>>And where do you find these "legions of people"? Are you well acquainted with these people in your personal life or is this just from your experiences online? Why are you looking for informed scientific opinion among casuals and not in the relevant literature?

>I wasn't complaining about the lack of informed people who argue for one side or the other, I was complaining about the abundance of uninformed people who are happy to give their opinion while being… uninformed.

I know you weren't. I asked you where these people are and why their opinion matters to you. This is important because I don't think Francis Bacon give too much mind to the habits of the hoi polli. You attacked the level of the debate by reducing it to the level that exists on internet forums. You also spoke in general terms, and in doing so accused a great deal of people.

>>Sure, you could always make the case, but that's not the same as proving it.

>I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that throwing a red ball causes my cat to swipe at it even if I've thrown the red ball 10,000 times and the cat swiped (at it) every time, there's always room for irrational skepticism.

In lay terms, yeah, but in pioneering science it's far more difficult. If you're going to speak of proofs, you better damn well deliver.

>>17503

Here is one response to one of the videos by Spawktalk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLQEvAmkI4

>>17685

> You attacked the level of the debate by reducing it to the level that exists on internet forums.

Since we are on one such forum, that seems quite relevant.

>If you're going to speak of proofs, you better damn well deliver.

Proofs don't exist in science or outside areas like mathematics. I'm not saying that to be an academic, but to point out that the goal is to gather and accumulate evidence. There will never be a definitive conclusion, only degrees of certainty.

Even putting aside the word "proof", it is IRL impossible to show that differences in intelligence between races are due at least in part to heredity to anyone convinced otherwise, due to extremely fluid arguments like microaggressions. However, there does remain an overwhelming body of evidence to support that position for anyone with an open mind.

>>17690

>Since we are on one such forum, that seems quite relevant.

As much as I respect the people of his board, I would never treat them as being archetypical of the ideas they profess to hold. The only thing we are representative of is the following of ideas as they are expressed on this website. It is never relevant to reduce a position to how it exists online.

>Proofs don't exist in science or outside areas like mathematics. I'm not saying that to be an academic, but to point out that the goal is to gather and accumulate evidence. There will never be a definitive conclusion, only degrees of certainty.

Yeah, I know. I invoked the problem of induction earlier. I don't encourage OP's loose language and caution him against it.

>unproven hypothesis

>>17685

>You should know this, so why does it trouble you?

Can't I understand belief formation and still be pissed off about it? Yeah, it would be pretty awesome if people had a modicum of intellectual integrity that wasn't just "oh, fuck, would this view be unpopular to hold? Better irrationally cling to the alternative view, regardless of the evidence or logic to either position!"

>When you think of anti-racism, neoliberalism or even new earth creationism, your thoughts should never turn to imageboards.

I wasn't saying anywhere was an accurate representation of anything, except /pol/ being a representative of racists that are almost always irrational. Of racists, the majority are the type who have had negative anecdotal experiences, can't define "hasty generalization" to save their life, and don't know what a remotely reliable sample size is. I've been acquainted with four Jews (at least for any significant length of time), one of which I had a several negative experiences with, this does not mean I hate 25% of Jews. If I wanted to be really confirmation bias-y I could just ignore the 3 nice/okay ones.

>I asked you where these people are and why their opinion matters to you.

Where are they? Everywhere, including my university, when my professor brought up the migrant crisis months ago he didn't bother to bring up the rampant inbreeding (which increases defects/lowers IQ), low-IQ, and potential for a permanent low-IQ hereditary class by importing these hostile (mostly) men. Of course, I didn't either, but I did point out that they have no respect or understanding for Western culture, would invariably increase crime rates, would invariably take at least 4 generations to assimilate, would invariably blame white racism when they don't succeed because they aren't going to without even knowing the language, would also be the perfect cover for ISIS agents: this was pre-Paris attacks.

>If you're going to speak of proofs, you better damn well deliver.

One package of deez nutz coming up

>>17695

>I don't encourage OP's loose language

Are you calling my language a slut?

>>17732

Ownership is the moral right to use and exclude others from the use of something.

You own your body. You have moral agency (you are capable of making decisions about what is good and evil, even if they're poorly made.) This is why you are responsible for the use of your body, not only in physical, but in moral terms; if someone else owned your body, you would still be capable of making moral decisions, but you would not be morally responsible for the actions that your body then takes. If your body was used to killed someone (and your body was owned by a slave master), we would say "Joe's slave killed Bill," we wouldn't say "that slave killed Bill" since that would ascribe ownership of the slave's body to the slave; this is assuming the slave masters make some attempt at philosophical consistency.

Labor is a result of your sustained efforts combined with your previously acquired talents, since you own your body, and you are responsible for your actions, and labor is a result of your actions, it logically follows that if you infuse your labor with an unowned object and you are the first appropriator you now own it (the basis of homesteading theory). If you are the first to appropriate an unowned chunk of marble from a mountainside, infuse your labor with it in the form of sculpting, and sell it, at no step of the way can we say "the state is responsible" or "the collective is responsible" for that statuette you have produced, because while they may want to claim responsibility for this labor to justify taxation, if they want to claim responsibility for your positive actions, they must logically also claim responsibility for all your negative actions (and any action that results from your body which they claim to own), in this case they would be, minimally, criminally negligent for each and every crime you commit. This means that the entire state apparatus, or the entire collective must be put on trial for, at the least, serious criminal negligence if the body that they own (yours) goes out and commits a murder. This means that, if an individual is 99.9% owned by the collective, and they commit a murder, 99.9% of the sentence time should go to the outside owners. Slavery is not a good deal if you are attempting to have any logical consistency, instead, you must arbitrarily deny an individual's self-ownership while demanding respect for your own, there can be no consistent moral basis for these claims, especially since these slave owners would not recognize the degree to which they are criminally responsible for their slaves' bodies' actions. You can not claim "this slave is morally responsible for his actions," if you do, you have no basis for revoking the profits of his actions and failing to be punished for the crimes he commits.

Above, I have addressed one alternative to full self-ownership: slavery. I will now address the idea that there could be "no self-ownership."

It's logically contradictory, and if you propose it you're claiming to be an evil person, but let me elaborate.

The contradictory aspect stems from the combination of two things:

-moral agency, we are morally responsible for our actions, and

-ownership ("the moral right to use and exclude").

If you are responsible for what you do, but you do not have the moral right to use the body you inhabit, it is not morally permissible to breathe, move your body, think, blink, or even to destroy your own body to end this cycle; if you kill yourself to try to escape this status where you are forever a moral criminal for using your body, you have destroyed that which you have no moral right to use, which means you've committed a crime far more grave than merely inhabiting that body (assuming unowned human bodies are more valuable than unowned clay is necessary for "grave-ity", even if the bodies aren't particularly valuable, you still don't have the right to destroy them, it's just less of an issue if you do). If you say "no individual has self-ownership" there are a few consequences we can draw:

>>17733

-You do not have the moral right to exclude me from the use of your anus, so bend over.

-I also do not have the moral right to use my body, so if I raped you, the crime would not (logically) be that your rights were violated; instead, the moral crime is that I used a dick I had no right to use for the end of raping some unowned mass of cells with no responsibility for its actions.

-That argument "you" proposed is actually not a result of "your" actions (meaning the body produced the argument, and we can not ascribe that argument to the ego), this argument "your" unowned body produced is by no means a valid argument we can ascribe to "you" (if one side proposed this idea in a debate, especially if the argument was valid, that side could not win because you can't ascribe the result of a body which is not owned to a specific "ego" or "personhood".)

If we have no self-ownership, it is a grave crime to use your body, meaning the only reason rape is wrong is not that women have the right to exclude you from their vagina, it's that both the man and the woman have no moral right to use the body "they" (their egos/consciousness) is inhabiting.

>>17733

Self-ownership is a materially meaningless platonic form that is used an anchor for your ideology. It's a spook, a holy idea of which you act in the service of.

>>17734

>That argument "you" proposed is actually not a result of "your" actions (meaning the body produced the argument, and we can not ascribe that argument to the ego), this argument "your" unowned body produced is by no means a valid argument we can ascribe to "you" (if one side proposed this idea in a debate, especially if the argument was valid, that side could not win because you can't ascribe the result of a body which is not owned to a specific "ego" or "personhood".)

The concept of the self-ownership is not necessary for making an argument. What you are claiming is that I have to follow a chain that follows from self-ownership to argue against it, because otherwise I wouldn't be arguing against it, because then it wouldn't fall unders molyneux's version of ownership. That's one gigantic non-sequitur, it simply doesn't follow.

>>17762

>The concept of the self-ownership is not necessary for making an argument.

Self-ownership is not necessary for an argument to be made… it is necessary to say "you" own the body which "you" (your ego) controls to ascribe the result of the body's vocal cords/resonation to "you" (your ego).

If there is no ownership, it's not "your" argument since it was produced by a body "you" don't own.

>What you are claiming is that I have to follow a chain that follows from self-ownership to argue against it,

No, if you don't have self-ownership, "you" have never produced an argument in your entire life. If my ego does not own the fingers typing on this keyboard, you can not ascribe these arguments I am making to my ego ("me"), you can only say that arguments have been made by some amalgamation of cells in the form of a biologically human body.

>That's one gigantic non-sequitur, it simply doesn't follow.

Pls logic better

>>17760

>Self-ownership is a materially meaningless platonic form

It's not a Platonic form you dweeb

>>17828

>Self-ownership is not necessary for an argument to be made… it is necessary to say "you" own the body which "you" (your ego) controls to ascribe the result of the body's vocal cords/resonation to "you" (your ego).

That's begging the question. I move, I make arguments, I do all sorts of things.. self-ownership is a not a neccesity to acknowledge that fact.

>If there is no ownership, it's not "your" argument since it was produced by a body "you" don't own.

This is an absurd linguistic argument. "me" and "you" are terms that don't require anarcho-capitalist property rights to be used, you've simply stated that these terms do require them without any base for it whatsoever.

>No, if you don't have self-ownership, "you" have never produced an argument in your entire life. If my ego does not own the fingers typing on this keyboard, you can not ascribe these arguments I am making to my ego ("me"), you can only say that arguments have been made by some amalgamation of cells in the form of a biologically human body.

A mind/body dualism, with the mind being based on the anarcho-capitalist conception of property, is not a necessity to acknowledge the fact that I argue, the fact that I argue is deducted from how I express myself, saying that property right are a necessity for this, is like saying that alien space pinguins are a necessity to eat kiwi's because otherwise they wouldn't be kiwi's but just a lump of cells. You are some amalgamation of cells in the form of a biologically human body, a human that argues, like humans do and for which they don't need anarcho-capitalist property rights.

>Pls logic better

Pls don't fallacy by begging the question

>>17851

>That's begging the question. I move, I make arguments, I do all sorts of things.. self-ownership is a not a neccesity to acknowledge that fact.

No, it's not, begging the question, it's explaining the logical conclusion of some twit claiming he doesn't own his own body.

We acknowledge that a body acts, generally in accordance with the intentions of "the real you" (your ego, consciousness, the emergent property resulting from the neurons that your consciousness inhabits). If your ego has no moral claim of ownership on your body, we can not say any argument that is produced with that body's vocal cords or fingers are that ego's making. Let me put it this way. Imagine there's a machine that no "ego" has the moral right to use and exclude. In that case, no individual "ego" can say "I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS MADE FROM THAT MACHINE!" All egos would have an equal claim on it. The same is true of your body. If you do not have a moral claim to your body, and merely inhabit it as an ego with no right to use it or exclude others from it, "I" (my ego) have/has as much moral claim to the sound waves that result from your vocal cords (arguments) as you do. In fact, if you don't own your body, you are not morally responsible for anything you do, good or bad. We can ascribe as much responsibility to me as to you if "you" (your ego) commits a murder, because I have as much of a moral claim to the results of your actions (even a murder or an argument) as you do.

>This is an absurd linguistic argument

Ignoring this because "absurd" isn't an argument.

>"me" and "you" are terms that don't require anarcho-capitalist property rights to be used,

This is not an argument.

>you've simply stated that these terms do require them without any base for it whatsoever.

Okay. So, let's try to take this a bit slower

-There is "the real you." This is the thinking, rational (slightly at least), emergent property that stems from the complex arrangement of neurons in a physical body. Regardless of self-ownership, this "real you" exists, and we can acknowledge that it directs the actions of a physical body (that physical body being necessary, but not sufficient for such a "real you" to exist.) We can call this your ego, your consciousness, your "person(hood)."

-There is the physical body that we associate with the ego. This physical body is the neurons, 23 pairs of chromosomes in your cell nuclei, etc.

If an ego/personhood/consciousness does not own "their own" body (that which they inhabit and that which sustains them), that ego has no moral claim results from their body. If that body is used to commit a murder, but the body is not owned by the ego, we can say that the ego may have directed the murder but we can not say the ego is morally responsible for it- however, we can say that the ego is committing a moral crime by using a body which they do not, by definition, have the moral right to use (remember that ownership includes the right to use and exclude, if you do not own your body, you are not "allowed" to use it). The reason you can ascribe the results of my body to my ego is that my ego owns my body. If someone else owned my body, you would be obligated (by rationality) to ascribe any result of my physical body to that person. If my ego does not own my body, you can not rationally claim that the arguments stemming from the physical body can be morally ascribed as a result of the ego.

If my ego does not own "my" physical body, you can not say "this is Joe's argument" (not my real name). Okay, let's be clear. If I don't own my body, I have no moral claim to the results of my actions (property), nor am I indebted with (morally responsible for) the damage I create (like a broken window or a severed artery). For this same reason, you can not say that there is such a thing as "Joe's arguments." You can say that Joe's ego attempted to direct a mass of cells (that everyone has an equal claim to) to produce an argument, but you can not say that the ego is responsible for the argument, all egos have an equal moral claim to the results of that unowned body's actions.

>>17869

>No, it's not, begging the question, it's explaining the logical conclusion of some twit claiming he doesn't own his own body.

It is begging the question since it imbeds the conclusion, that is self-ownership into the premise of the argument. I could just as well claim that you need pink unicorns to make an argument, and that by denying their existence you are therefor acknowledging their existence. Both are normative claims don't explain why there can't be other explanations of people making arguments.

>We acknowledge that a body acts, generally in accordance with the intentions of "the real you" (your ego, consciousness, the emergent property resulting from the neurons that your consciousness inhabits). If your ego has no moral claim of ownership on your body, we can not say any argument that is produced with that body's vocal cords or fingers are that ego's making. Let me put it this way. Imagine there's a machine that no "ego" has the moral right to use and exclude. In that case, no individual "ego" can say "I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS MADE FROM THAT MACHINE!" All egos would have an equal claim on it. The same is true of your body. If you do not have a moral claim to your body, and merely inhabit it as an ego with no right to use it or exclude others from it, "I" (my ego) have/has as much moral claim to the sound waves that result from your vocal cords (arguments) as you do. In fact, if you don't own your body, you are not morally responsible for anything you do, good or bad. We can ascribe as much responsibility to me as to you if "you" (your ego) commits a murder, because I have as much of a moral claim to the results of your actions (even a murder or an argument) as you do.

This starts with the descriptive position that there is a mind/body dualism, that there is a "real me", an ego as an entity that is separate from my body. This is begging the question, but I shall accept it for the sake of the argument. Nowhere do you explain how self-ownership follows from there being an ego that exerts bodily control, or how this is a necessity for the proposition that ego's have bodily control. You only defend the proposition that people have bodily control, and conclude from that that we have a moral right to property. The proposition of us having bodily control is the "is", the "moral right" is the ought. You can't make an ought from an is. The machine analogy rests upon the premise of the owning of a machine being the same as self-ownership, and self-ownership being true. It is therefor begging the question.

You don't understand the is/ought problem and the fallacy of begging the question. The rest of your posts consists of examples of your reasoning being applied, not logical arguments supporting your reasoning.

>>17887

>It is begging the question since it imbeds the conclusion, that is self-ownership into the premise of the argument.

No, it's not "embedding the conclusion" I AM DEDUCING THE RESULTS OF A PREMISE, IF I DEDUCE THE RESULTS OF PREMISES YOU CAN'T SAY "WELL, LOL, THAT'S JUST BEGGING THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOUR PREMISES ARE DEFINED," NO THAT'S HOW DEDUCTION WORKS >:(

Fucking hell. Example:

-Joe is a King

-Kings are male rulers

-Joe is a man

DURR THAT'S BEGGING THE QUESTION, no, it's just deduction

>Both are normative claims don't explain why there can't be other explanations of people making arguments.

Go ahead and try to explain it in other ways, if one of those other ways happens to be an argument against my argument, go ahead.

>This starts with the descriptive position that there is a mind/body dualism, that there is a "real me", an ego as an entity that is separate from my body. This is begging the question, but I shall accept it for the sake of the argument.

It's widely accepted that consciousness is an emergent property that is far greater than the mere sum of the parts. You're not really being that magnanimous by accepting it.

>Nowhere do you explain how self-ownership follows from there being an ego that exerts bodily control

I wasn't trying to. I was explaining the logical conclusions we can draw if the ego owns the physical body and if the ego does not. I am not attempting to explain the exact mechanisms that allow the ego to control, own, or not own a body, I am explaining the results of those various premises.

>or how this is a necessity for the proposition that ego's have bodily control.

Egos can have physical control, but that's irrelevant if they don't have ownership of the body they inhabit. I am talking about moral responsibility. If egos don't own "their" physical body, they can use it, we can even trace back the results to the intents of the ego, but we can not say "this ego is morally responsible for a change in the physical universe," you might say it's… causally responsible, or something, but in moral terms I am as morally responsible for the results of an unowned body's actions as the ego inhabiting it.

> You only defend the proposition that people have bodily control, and conclude from that that we have a moral right to property.

People owning their bodies is the only situation wherein they are morally responsible for their actions, allowed to use their bodies, and allowed to deny someone access to their assholes or cunts or liver or whatever.

>The proposition of us having bodily control is the "is", the "moral right" is the ought. You can't make an ought from an is.

I didn't say "individuals ought to have self-ownership because they are causally responsible for their respective physical body's actions." Ever. I was explaining the results of various premises. Into logic, pls.

>The machine analogy rests upon the premise of the owning of a machine being the same as self-ownership, and self-ownership being true. It is therefor begging the question.

No it doesn't. It's explaining the result of a premise. If no one owns a machine, no ego can claim ownership of it. I am literally putting forward a variety of scenarios and explaining how the alternative scenarios to self-ownership are fucking stupid, I am essentially using the process of elimination, this is not the same thing as "LOL BEGGING THE QUESTION" or "LOL OUGHT FROM IS."

>You don't understand the is/ought problem and the fallacy of begging the question.

Correction, you don't understand them. I understand perfectly well what assuming the initial point is (begging the question) and that you can't just say "look how things are, therefore moral commandment."

>>17760

Rawls pls go

>>17910

>he conclusion of self-ownership is imbedded in premise because you state that you need to have self-ownership to make an argument,

WRONG

I am saying that an argument can be bade irrespective of self-ownership, but we can't ASCRIBE THAT ARGUMENT TO YOUR EGO, IN MORAL TERMS. I HAVE AS MUCH OF A MORAL CLAIM TO YOUR SPOKEN WORD AS YOU DO. IF YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR BODY, YOU CAN NOT SAY THE SOUND OR TYPING PRODUCED WITH IT BELONGS TO YOU, SINCE YOU DON'T OWN THE FINGERS OR VOCAL CORDS PRODUCING THEM. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT POINT, PLEASE STOP BEING SO OBTUSE.

>without providing any evidence that it is indeed a requirement to make an argument.

I SHOWED VERY CLEARLY WHY SELF-OWNERSHIP IS NECESSARY TO

A

S

C

R

I

B

E

AN ARGUMENT

to someone.

>That doesn't imply mind/body dualism, and it surely doesn't imply the ancap version of the ego.

Yes it does. If your consciousness is not a direct result of the sum of the parts of your neurons it is distinct from your mere physical body in the same way that the emergent property of clever ant-colony behavior is distinct from the mere physical parts of individual ants.

>You didn't explain any "logical conclusions" you stated them as fact and claimed that I need self-ownership to make an argument, without explaining why this a necessity.

An argument can be produced by a physical body regardless of self-ownership. But, if there is no self-ownership, you can't claim

YOUR

body produced that argument. Because you don't own the body. If you produce a statue with an unowned robot body I tossed your brain into, you can't say "lol dis is my statue" because you can't produce property if you don't own the body laboring with it.

>Why does the use of the term "me", require the ancap concept of self-ownership?

It doesn't. "me" is your ego and body, but if you have no self-ownership it's just your ego. If you don't own your body, your ego can still direct it, but I have as much of a right to make use of it as you do, and as much of a claim to the results of "your" unowned physical body as "you" (your ego) does.

>You did say moral rights follows from self-ownership, you made an "ought", being moral rights, from the "is" that is self-ownership.

Wow, you're really grasping at fucking straws here. No, this is not at all true. Self-ownership, by definition, is the moral right to use and exclude. From this, it stands to reason that labor which is the result of the intentional efforts of an owned body, creates products which are property, the reason that you have a moral claim to what you produce and a moral responsibility for the crimes you commit (and no one else does) is because YOU are responsible for the actions of YOUR owned body.

>Which rests on the premise that there is self-ownership

No, it doesn't, I've explained multiple thought experiments that were rested on many different premises, from the premise that all humans are owned by another human, or that all humans own each other somewhat equally, or that no human owns "their own" body.

>"If no one owns a machine, no one owns a machine" is a fucking stupid truism from which ancap self-ownership does not follow.

That's not the point you fuck. The point was that property rights stem from the ownership of a body, and that whatever is produced with an unowned body is not owned by anyone, and that which is not owned by anyone is "equally owned" by everyone (in that they all have the right to attempt to use and exclude others from it). If I don't own a body, or the robot body I inhabit, I can't claim ownership of the arguments that result from the vocalizations of those bodies, or the products resulting from raw materials + manipulation.

>The initial point that you assume is self-ownership.

Wrong, all these arguments are meant to show why no self-ownership is untenable, I start from the position that self-ownership needs to be proven and I work towards it by eliminating the alternatives. Nerd.

>>17916

>I am saying that an argument can be bade

can be made*

>>17916

>That's not the point you fuck. The point was that property rights stem from the ownership of a body, and that whatever is produced with an unowned body is not owned by anyone, and that which is not owned by anyone is "equally owned" by everyone (in that they all have the right to attempt to use and exclude others from it). If I don't own a body, or the robot body I inhabit, I can't claim ownership of the arguments that result from the vocalizations of those bodies, or the products resulting from raw materials + manipulation.

Which means if you say "none of us have self-ownership" in a debate where we pick winners and losers, the other team has as much of a

MORAL

(not causal) claim to your arguments as you do. This means that all subsequent debate is irrelevant in terms of picking a winner and loser if you first establish that you can't say anyone is responsible for their arguments in moral terms, if they have no moral claim to their arguments it would be irrational to vote for a winning "ego" when in reality those egos can not ever win a debate because only their physical bodies (which are unowned and useless without the ego) could be considered morally responsible for the arguments, but physical bodies alone aren't moral agents, so this means that an argument voiced by an unowned body at the behest of a thinking ego allows us to say that the ego had a causal/logical role in the cause/effect chain, but that no ego in the room has a greater or weaker moral claim to the resulting arguments. Remember the distinction between moral claim and just a causal claim, imagine for the sake of analogy that self-ownership and the logically resulting property rights are valid, in that case, if I inspired someone to make a great product with a random comment, you could point to my role in the cause/effect chain but you can't say I have a moral claim to the results of that.

>>17916

>I am saying that an argument can be bade irrespective of self-ownership, but we can't ASCRIBE THAT ARGUMENT TO YOUR EGO, IN MORAL TERMS. I HAVE AS MUCH OF A MORAL CLAIM TO YOUR SPOKEN WORD AS YOU DO. IF YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR BODY, YOU CAN NOT SAY THE SOUND OR TYPING PRODUCED WITH IT BELONGS TO YOU, SINCE YOU DON'T OWN THE FINGERS OR VOCAL CORDS PRODUCING THEM. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT POINT, PLEASE STOP BEING SO OBTUSE.

>An argument can be produced by a physical body regardless of self-ownership. But, if there is no self-ownership, you can't claim

YOUR body produced that argument. Because you don't own the body.

Why is self-ownership necessary for using the terms "you" and "me" for functioning human organisms who act? You're begging the question by imbedding self-ownership into the premise of me making an argument, you imbed in the term "me".

>body produced that argument. Because you don't own the body. If you produce a statue with an unowned robot body I tossed your brain into, you can't say "lol dis is my statue" because you can't produce property if you don't own the body laboring with it.

Why is self-ownership necessary for the concept of property?

>Yes it does. If your consciousness is not a direct result of the sum of the parts of your neurons it is distinct from your mere physical body in the same way that the emergent property of clever ant-colony behavior is distinct from the mere physical parts of individual ants.

That doesn't imply mind body dualism, and it certainly doesn't the ancap version of the ego, which is on which everything you say rests, the unproven claim of there being a man in the descartian theater that is an ancap.

>Wow, you're really grasping at fucking straws here. No, this is not at all true. Self-ownership, by definition, is the moral right to use and exclude. From this, it stands to reason that labor which is the result of the intentional efforts of an owned body, creates products which are property, the reason that you have a moral claim to what you produce and a moral responsibility for the crimes you commit (and no one else does) is because YOU are responsible for the actions of YOUR owned body.

Self-ownership isn't by definition the "right to use exclude", it means that we own ourselves. You cannot make the "ought" that is moral rights, from the "is" that is self-ownership.

>No, it doesn't, I've explained multiple thought experiments that were rested on many different premises, from the premise that all humans are owned by another human, or that all humans own each other somewhat equally, or that no human owns "their own" body.

None of which offer any logical argument for self-ownership. You simply stated that they were stupid too, and that we therefor have to pick self-ownership.

>That's not the point you fuck. The point was that property rights stem from the ownership of a body, and that whatever is produced with an unowned body is not owned by anyone, and that which is not owned by anyone is "equally owned" by everyone (in that they all have the right to attempt to use and exclude others from it). If I don't own a body, or the robot body I inhabit, I can't claim ownership of the arguments that result from the vocalizations of those bodies, or the products resulting from raw materials + manipulation.

This assumes that property rights are necessary to state that I made an argument. You never explained why it is so, you simply stated that it is as a premise and that property rights (the ought) follow from it, using the fallacy of making an ought from an is. I am my body, as in the sense that I am a living organism, a person, "ownership" is completely unrelated to this fact and not imbedded into it, as you claim.

>Wrong, all these arguments are meant to show why no self-ownership is untenable, I start from the position that self-ownership needs to be proven and I work towards it by eliminating the alternatives. Nerd.

Posting flawed theories of ownership in which the ancap concept of ownership is twisted around, is not an argument for self-ownership. Just like the theory that I need pink unicorns to make an argument being flawed doesn't mean that I need pink elephants to make an argument.

>>17918

>Which means if you say "none of us have self-ownership" in a debate where we pick winners and losers, the other team has as much of a MORAL (not causal) claim to your arguments as you do.

Morality doesn't enter the equitation when stating that someone made an argument. It doesn't follow from it.

>>17922

>Why is self-ownership necessary for using the terms "you" and "me" for functioning human organisms who act?

Because we're trying to see if we can reach self-ownership via the process of elimination which means it's necessary to examine the alternatives to full self-ownership. This means we have to examine the logical conclusions of "no self-ownership" to see if it's even a feasible answer to the moral question.

How was this not exceptionally obvious…

>You're begging the question by imbedding self-ownership into the premise of me making an argument, you imbed in the term "me".

Top kek, are you looking for any excuse to throw out terms you don't know how to use? By the way, it's embed, not imbed.

>Why is self-ownership necessary for the concept of property?

If you don't own your body you wouldn't have the right to use your own body (which is a contradiction because your ego still has moral agency, so your ego is not allowed to use the body it's forced to use to sustain itself). Basically, without full self-ownership, there is either slavery (some kind of ownership of state/one by another) or a bizarre logically contradictory situation wherein no one has the right to use their own body (no self-ownership). Property rights logically stem from the combination of "owned" labor, if a body was not owned, the labor it produced is not "owned", the property it produces is not owned, if your unowned body produces a marble statue your ego has no more of a claim to it than my ego, and in that case the only method of conflict resolution (were there indeed no self-ownership) would be to arbitrarily design an irrational system of property rights or to solve the conflict with aggression.

>That doesn't imply mind body dualism, and it certainly doesn't the ancap version of the ego, which is on which everything you say rests, the unproven claim of there being a man in the descartian theater that is an ancap.

If you accept that consciousness is an emergent property, as you already have, you are accepting MY form of mind/body dualism. It's not religious, I am literally just saying that your consciousness is greater than the sum of your neurons and in that sense is "separate", but still dependent upon, those neurons.

>Self-ownership isn't by definition the "right to use exclude", it means that we own ourselves

And ownership is the right to use and exclude. I defined this right at the beginning, if you had a problem with that, maybe you should have pointed it out then instead of pretending I never said it which is just dishonest.

>You cannot make the "ought" that is moral rights, from the "is" that is self-ownership.

See above, then kill yourself for being wrong about this half a dozen times.

>None of which offer any logical argument for self-ownership. You simply stated that they were stupid too, and that we therefor have to pick self-ownership.

If I address every possibility and show they are untenable, and show that full self-ownership is the only one that does not lead to any contradictions, but instead leads to a system of property wherein all the crimes we recognize as evil are clearly delineated as evil, as well as clarifying the evil of state taxation, whereas other alternatives would institutionalize rape and slavery, this is an argument for but not an airtight proof for self-ownership. If you want to be a retarded radical skeptic let's have a debate about whether or not language is meaningful LOL XDDDD

>This assumes that property rights are necessary to state that I made an argument.

No it doesn't, and if you've failed to understand this I am not going to explain it for you again. You're equivocating ego, physical body, moral responsibility, and causal responsibility, which means you're either a troll or you didn't read the post carefully. I was very careful to keep those separate, and you try to equivocate them. Good job.

>>17933

>You never explained why it is so, you simply stated that it is as a premise and that property rights (the ought) follow from it, using the fallacy of making an ought from an is. I am my body, as in the sense that I am a living organism, a person, "ownership" is completely unrelated to this fact and not imbedded into it, as you claim.

I have explained, in very exact fucking detail, what I mean when I say that it is necessary to have self-ownership

TO ASCRIBE AN ARGUMENT TO YOUR EGO

I am not going to make the argument again. This has been very clearly stated, you saying "DURR HURR I DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ CAREFULLY THEREFORE YOU'RE BEGGING THE QUESTION" is not a refutation of any of my arguments explaining why it is necessary to have self-ownership to ascribe an argument to an ego.

>Posting flawed theories of ownership

Oh, look, someone ACTUALLY assuming the initial point. Faggot.

>theories of ownership in which the ancap concept of ownership is twisted around, is not an argument for self-ownership.

I was clearly explaining that if an ego proves we have no self-ownership it is impossible for that ego to be morally responsible for the victory since they have no moral claim to the results of their body. I have probably explained this 6 times, I should not even have had to repeat myself again this time, fucking hell. The point is that it's impossible to win a debate by proving no self-ownership is valid, as it's nearly a self-defeating argument; this does not mean it's impossible it's true, it means if it is true you can't win a debate if you convinced everyone of it and they understood the consequences. If this doesn't make any sense, it's because you need to read over my previous posts again and practice your reading comprehension; if you do not understand why you can not win a debate if there is no such thing as self-ownership, read over the posts again CAREFULLY this time. It's not assuming the initial point, it's a logical deduction from the premise, if you call this begging the question again I am going to assume you're retarded or trolling and I am not going to reply again. The point about debate was an argument, not an airtight proof, against the concept no self-ownership; the point was that, even if you're right about it, you can't be considered to "own" the resulting argument, again, this should be clear to you if you've paid any attention at all to what I've been saying. I coupled that point about debate with the point about rape being permissible, property being an impossible concept, the logical contradiction in using a body you're not allowed to use (no moral right to use without ownership, by definition, THAT'S NOT ASSUMING THE INITIAL POINT THAT'S HOW DEFINITIONS WORK YOU FUCK!)

>>17933

>>17934

I've come to the clear conclusion that when people tell you you're begging the question for explaining the results of defined premises they're retarded. Pretty sure I saw someone on /liberty/ "call out" begging the question because aggression and violence as synonymous. They weren't even making a semantic argument, they were just trying to say that the use of synonymous terms was circular reasoning when it was literally just the use of synonymous terms. In this case, the "brilliant" calling out of begging the question rests on a misunderstanding of the fact that logical deductions from logical premises is not begging the question, worst case scenario the premises are untrue, or the logic is invalid, in which case feel free to point out the error in logic; an error in logic is not begging the question, it's just an error in logic.

>>17935

my grammar was pretty awful in this post, sue me

>>17933

>>17934

I was almost going to repeat myself again. I'm going to respond to the initial argument, being self-ownership and what follows from it, I ask you to improve your form and make your point instead of making a mess by quoting every sentence.

>The point is that it's impossible to win a debate by proving no self-ownership is valid, as it's nearly a self-defeating argument; this does not mean it's impossible it's true, it means if it is true you can't win a debate if you convinced everyone of it and they understood the consequences. If this doesn't make any sense, it's because you need to read over my previous posts again and practice your reading comprehension; if you do not understand why you can not win a debate if there is no such thing as self-ownership, read over the posts again CAREFULLY this time. It's not assuming the initial point, it's a logical deduction from the premise, if you call this begging the question again I am going to assume you're retarded or trolling and I am not going to reply again. The point about debate was an argument, not an airtight proof, against the concept no self-ownership; the point was that, even if you're right about it, you can't be considered to "own" the resulting argument, again, this should be clear to you if you've paid any attention at all to what I've been saying. I coupled that point about debate with the point about rape being permissible, property being an impossible concept, the logical contradiction in using a body you're not allowed to use (no moral right to use without ownership, by definition, THAT'S NOT ASSUMING THE INITIAL POINT THAT'S HOW DEFINITIONS WORK YOU FUCK!)

You take self-ownership as the premise for making an argument about self-ownership, stating it is impossible to argue against self-ownership because you then wouldn't "own" an argument. You therefore assume that the truth of self-ownership is your argument for self-ownership and thus you make the question begging fallacy.

You respond to this by claiming self-ownership is part of the definition of you making an argument. You again define the conclusion, being self-ownership, as the premise from which your claim it follows, begging the question.

If I claim that you need pink unicorns to make argument, and that you therefor cannot argue that they don't exist, I embed the pink unicorns in the definition of the premise, without explaining why this is necessary to make an argument. If pink unicorns are replaced with self-ownership, it is just as fallacious.

>>17936

How much have you donated?

>>17949

>You take self-ownership as the premise for making an argument about self-ownership,

No I don't. This is flat-out wrong. I start from the premise self-ownership is unproven and my arguments have to show why it is the only reasonable answer to the moral question of who owns the body of individuals, if anyone does.

>You take self-ownership as the premise for making an argument about self-ownership, stating it is impossible to argue against self-ownership because you then wouldn't "own" an argument

The premise for that is "what would be the logical conclusions of us having no self-ownership" not LOL WE HAVE SELF-OWNERSHIP THEREFORE SELF-OWNERSHIP :^)

>You therefore assume that the truth of self-ownership is your argument for self-ownership and thus you make the question begging fallacy.

If you don't own your body you don't own your arguments. You have failed to, in any way, refute this, and brick walling all day about fallacies that I am not using isn't an argument.

>You respond to this by claiming self-ownership is part of the definition of you making an argument. You again define the conclusion, being self-ownership, as the premise from which your claim it follows, begging the question.

Nope, ownership is the moral right to use and exclude, if you do not have the moral right to use your body, you have no more of a moral claim to the results of your body than I do. If you don't get this, at this point, you need to practice your literacy.

>If I claim that you need pink unicorns to make argument, and that you therefor cannot argue that they don't exist, I embed the pink unicorns in the definition of the premise, without explaining why this is necessary to make an argument. If pink unicorns are replaced with self-ownership, it is just as fallacious.

Wow, you're really fucking dense. I can't believe you still haven't got this. ARGUMENTS CAN BE MADE regardless of bodies being owned or not. HOWEVER, arguments CAN NOT BE OWNED if bodies are not owned. IF THE APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING AN ARGUMENT IS UNOWNED, AND IF THERE IS NO SELF-OWNERSHIP THAT IS THE CASE, YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MORAL CLAIM TO THAT ARGUMENT

THIS ISN'T FUCKING DIFFICULT

I'VE EXPLAINED THIS AT LEAST THREE TIMES

EVERYTIME YOU JUST FUCKING IGNORE IT AND SAY "DURR PINK UNICORNS" OR SPEW MORE BULLSHIT ABOUT QUESTION BEGGING

Alright, I'm going to get a brain aneurysm if I keep pretending that you're capable of rational debate when you clearly are not. You refuse to acknowledge anything I have said and you just scream fallacy where none has occurred. Sorry, I am not insane enough continue talking to you. Bye.

>>17952

>If you don't own your body you don't own your arguments.

You have failed to show how there is self-ownership, how there is something as "owning an argument". You tried doing so by making claims about what it would entail if we do not have self-ownership, according to your theory of self-ownership that is…. I could have just as well said that we need pink unicorns because the alternative is pink elephants and pink elephants are unreasonable. The truth of your argument isn't proven by the fallaciousness of another argument. You further argued that it is NECESSARY TO HAVE A MORAL CLAIM, which is an argument from consequences.

And then we are only still at the concept of self-ownership, not the anarcho-capitalist "oughts" than you try to get out of the "is".

>I'VE EXPLAINED THIS AT LEAST THREE TIMES

You copy-pasted an explanation of the implications which you believe follow from self-ownership. That's not an argument for the concept itself, and that what is supposed to follow from it.

>Nope, ownership is the moral right to use and exclude

But morality aint real and ownership is.

>>17956

>But morality aint real and ownership is.

>lol I'm going to equivocate definitions even though yours is more closely aligned with common English usage

>>17979

So there never existed any slave-owners! That's good to hear, now ask the speakers of the common english language if they agree with that.

>>17981

That property claim (to a slave) was a moral claim to use a slave's body (towards an end) and keep the products of that labor. No inconsistency there.

>>17982

Which makes the morality an irrelevant aspect of property, since it only rests upon claiming and acting upon the claim.