Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 121 to 160 of 250

Thread: Democratic Presidential Debate

  1. #121

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Irrelevant, as this was not intended as a typical reactor.

    … which by 1996 was reaching its intended operational targets.
    You keep changing your story, mfckrz.

    30% load factor is hardly a "intended operational target". That's a highly inefficient and unstable nuclear reactor.

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    No sane analysis exists profitable EROIs for wind & solar.
    Btw, your EROI/EPR is highly biased and cherry-picked, nuclear EROI goes as low as 10 if you count the cost of nuclear accidents and nuclear wastes. With the latest technologies, wind goes as high as 54 and solar as high as 21.

    But it doesn't matter, because the cost of wind has dropped to 2c/KWh, from 7c/KWh in 2009 in the US.

    Report Confirms Wind Technology Advancements Continue to Drive Down Wind Energy Prices



    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Right. Lemme know when we magically upend the laws of physics by legislative fiat making renewables more cost-effective.
    It's called technological advancement, mfckrz. The cost of wind mills and solar panels have dropped significantly in the last decade.


  2. #122
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Maybe, but that's a Utopian solution that's effectively relegated to the far future. For the moment, the proposal to include or exclude certain people due to clashing genes and culture has evidence working against it.
    We know gene-culture interactions are real, but there are too many unknowns. So erring on side of the precautionary principle would certainly suggest severe restriction or outright exclusion.

  3. #123
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You keep changing your story, mfckrz.

    30% load factor is hardly a "intended operational target". That's a highly inefficient and unstable nuclear reactor.
    The intended operational target was to demonstrate proof of concept, nothing more. And it did that.

    Btw, your EROI/EPR is highly biased and cherry-picked, nuclear EROI goes as low as 10 if you count the cost of nuclear accidents and nuclear wastes. With the latest technologies, wind goes as high as 54 and solar as high as 21.

    But it doesn't matter, because the cost of wind has dropped to 2c/KWh, from 7c/KWh in 2009 in the US.

    Report Confirms Wind Technology Advancements Continue to Drive Down Wind Energy Prices

    It's called technological advancement, mfckrz. The cost of wind mills and solar panels have dropped significantly in the last decade.
    These are fantasy figures, given turbine designs are already approaching Betz's law:



    Optimistic projections suggest that 4 million 5W 300m tall turbines could supply at least half the world's electricity use. Assuming fairly ideal wind conditions—remember that turbines are idle and thus produce no power 90% of the time. Similar situation with solar panels—they only produce power under fairly ideal lighting conditions.

    What's never discussed in these renewable schemes is the tremendous amount of land use that'd be required—land that could've been developed for other purposes (or left alone). And nobody wants to live around gigantic eerie turbines or garish solar farms.

    In all, the power density of renewables is 100-1000x less (and thus requires 100-1000x more space) than fossil fuels: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewa...ce-fossil.html

    I'm not a fan of coal and won't defend it, but this 'solution' is far worse. Nuclear is the only approach that makes sense.

  4. #124
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    We know gene-culture interactions are real, but there are too many unknowns. So erring on side of the precautionary principle would certainly suggest severe restriction or outright exclusion.
    Then why don't you oppose intermixing between different native populations inside the same country?


    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I understand that there are genetic differences not covered by ethnicity or race, which is why there are genetic differences within the same ethnicity or race. However, the reason to keep nations homogenuous ethnically within Europe, Asia and Africa is to retain those ethnicities within their original home nations at have been around for thousands of years. Even if countries and borders have changed in the past, the people have not.
    See comment above; why don't you oppose homogenization between different native populations inside the same country?

  5. #125

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    The intended operational target was to demonstrate proof of concept, nothing more. And it did that.
    You really need to stop fabricating:

    In September 1998, the plant was closed. Two incidents earlier in the year had culminated in a third, which triggered an automatic shutdown.

    During 11 years, the plant had 53 months of normal operations (mostly at low power), 25 months of outages due to fixing technical problems of the prototype, and 66 months spent on halt due to political and administrative issues.
    Not that there's any point in dragging it anymore, but it failed and that's why France had scrapped the entire nuclear reprocessing and fast breeder project. France is even abandoning nuclear and they're not building new nuclear plants anymore. Of course, without the fast breeder this would mean that they still don't know what the crap they're going to do with all the nuclear fuel wastes that they've accumulated.

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Optimistic projections suggest that 4 million 5W 300m tall turbines could supply at least half the world's electricity use. Assuming fairly ideal wind conditions—remember that turbines are idle and thus produce no power 90% of the time. Similar situation with solar panels—they only produce power under fairly ideal lighting conditions.
    I don't know where you're getting your sources from, but wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second. A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time. Sounds like your sources are very old.

    Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 24% of the theoretical maximum output (41% offshore).

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    What's never discussed in these renewable schemes is the tremendous amount of land use that'd be required—land that could've been developed for other purposes (or left alone).
    WWF says 2% of Germany’s surface is enough for 100% renewables

    Germany had already reached 100% electricity consumption from renewables:



    It met 100% electricity consumption from renewables alone, and all the excess electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear were exported. We're talking about an industry-heavy country that consumes a lot of power. If Germany can do it, then so can anyone else.

    According to the official data, the combination of renewables reached 58GW round 1pm, compared with a demand peak of around 53GW. For several hours either side of that time, the renewable output was greater than demand, with excess power being exported to neighbouring countries.

    Over the whole day, renewables accounted for 71.3 per cent of total generation on Monday, May 1, with wind and solar contributing 55 per cent.
    Renewables cover about 100% of German power use for first time ever

    And what about all the land that you can never use or even live due to nuclear radiation?

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    And nobody wants to live around gigantic eerie turbines or garish solar farms.
    Pretty sure no one would rather live around garish nuclear power plants and nuclear wastes. If they did, then they would build a nuclear plant in the middle of a city.

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    I'm not a fan of coal and won't defend it, but this 'solution' is far worse. Nuclear is the only approach that makes sense.
    Renewables will simply out-compete fossil fuels. The vast majority of people will vote for the cheaper and safer renewables, and not more dangerous and more expensive nuclear or fossil fuels. It's simply a no-brainer.
    Last edited by Singu; 07-07-2019 at 07:18 AM.

  6. #126
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Then why don't you oppose intermixing between different native populations inside the same country?

    See comment above; why don't you oppose homogenization between different native populations inside the same country?
    I am not sure what you are referring to specifically tbh. Different native populations in European, Asian and African nations is minimal to unheard of as they're mostly homogeneous. Most native people in Italy are Italians, most native people in Japan are Japanese and most native people in Egypt are Egyptian, minus a few exceptions, etc...

    A variety of different native populations are more prominent among nations that were founded by immigration like former European colonies like the US and Canada. These nations have mostly had a variety of Europeans from different nations immigrating to them at the 19th and 20th century making the countries more diverse.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  7. #127
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I am not sure what you are referring to specifically tbh. Different native populations in European, Asian and African nations is minimal to unheard of as they're mostly homogeneous. Most native people in Italy are Italians, most native people in Japan are Japanese and most native people in Egypt are Egyptian, minus a few exceptions, etc...

    A variety of different native populations are more prominent among nations that were founded by immigration like former European colonies like the US and Canada. These nations have mostly had a variety of Europeans from different nations immigrating to them at the 19th and 20th century making the countries more diverse.
    As I was referring to earlier, the nation-state is only 200-300 years old. It's a patchwork of different tribes that were arbitrarily stitched together (through diplomacy or conquest) and forced to adopt a culture fabricated by powerful bureaucracies. These tribes or subpopulations have different genetics because they come from separate towns or regions. The cultural unity between Munich and Hanover is a very recent invention and would seem absurd to someone from the Middle Ages. Given regional dynamics, it's even likely that a Sicilian has more in common genetically with a Libyan refugee than with someone from Turin.

    If culture is downstream from genes, and if maintaining culture is so important, are you in favour of preserving these subpopulations' genetic characteristics in order to prevent their ethnocide?

  8. #128
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    As I was referring to earlier, the nation-state is only 200-300 years old. It's a patchwork of different tribes that were arbitrarily stitched together (through diplomacy or conquest) and forced to adopt a culture fabricated by powerful bureaucracies. These tribes or subpopulations have different genetics because they come from separate towns or regions. The cultural unity between Munich and Hanover is a very recent invention and would seem absurd to someone from the Middle Ages. Given regional dynamics, it's even likely that a Sicilian has more in common genetically with a Libyan refugee than with someone from Turin.

    If culture is downstream from genes, and if maintaining culture is so important, are you in favour of preserving these subpopulations' genetic characteristics in order to prevent their ethnocide?
    This is a false equivalence. Tribes with very minor differences within nations not the same thing as minor differences between neighboring nations, moderate differences between nations and neighboring nations from different continents and and major differences between distant nations at different continents.

    I understand that nations and continents are not perfect in capturing ethnicity. Asia is extremely diverse as a continent: West Asians, South Asians and East Asians have little in common. West Asians and South Asians have more in common genetically with Europeans than East Asians who have more in common with Native Americans. Southern Italians have more in common with Greeks than with Northern Italians that have more in common with Northern Europeans and so on.

    The idea of Italy being united centuries ago would of been seen as ludicrous back then. My point is not that nations are these perfect expressions of ethnicity and genetics because they are clearly not. However, nationalism is all we have now in the gap stop between globalism. For that reason we should defend it. And I am not even saying we should strive for ethno nationalist states everywhere. I advocate for nationalism in Europe, Africa and Asia.

    However, outside of those continents I don't think it makes any sense like in the Americas and Oceania. Multiculturalism and globalism does not need to be spread worldwide like a grand experiment, but it can be implemented in some areas of the world where it makes sense and nationalism can be retained where it makes sense.

    The boat has sailed hundreds of years ago on preserving ethnicities within tribes with nationalism, but nationalism has not sailed yet so preserving it where it makes sense and not where it makes sense is the best option IMO. Race and ethnicities can be both social constructs and biological constructs simultaneously. There can be an arbitrary aspect that has no value, but also a genetic aspect that has value. They are not mutually exclusive.

    Anyways to answer your question, I am in favor of preserving nationalism in certain regions (Europe, Asia, Africa) because it gives the best chance for all ethnicities to preserve their genetic characteristics regardless of the extent of it. In the Americas and Oceania, nationalism makes far less sense and it doesn't need to be preserved.

    However, I am coming to terms with the fact that nationalism in Europe is a pipe dream thanks to the EU making borders worthless. So for that reason I advocate for nationalism wherever possible like some nations have already begun to do and have had success so far: Italy, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc... Since globalism and open borders has become the new standard for 1st world nations to strive for the most part in the 21st century.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  9. #129
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Then why don't you oppose intermixing between different native populations inside the same country?
    Who says I don't? The reassertion of local & regional affiliations would no doubt be healthier. I agree with you that nation-states are an arbitrary construction.

  10. #130

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    This is a false equivalence. Tribes with very minor differences within nations not the same thing as minor differences between neighboring nations, moderate differences between nations and neighboring nations from different continents and and major differences between distant nations at different continents.

    I understand that nations and continents are not perfect in capturing ethnicity. Asia is extremely diverse as a continent: West Asians, South Asians and East Asians have little in common. West Asians and South Asians have more in common genetically with Europeans than East Asians who have more in common with Native Americans. Southern Italians have more in common with Greeks than with Northern Italians that have more in common with Northern Europeans and so on.

    The idea of Italy being united centuries ago would of been seen as ludicrous back then. My point is not that nations are these perfect expressions of ethnicity and genetics because they are clearly not. However, nationalism is all we have now in the gap stop between globalism. For that reason we should defend it. And I am not even saying we should strive for ethno nationalist states everywhere. I advocate for nationalism in Europe, Africa and Asia.

    However, outside of those continents I don't think it makes any sense like in the Americas and Oceania. Multiculturalism and globalism does not need to be spread worldwide like a grand experiment, but it can be implemented in some areas of the world where it makes sense and nationalism can be retained where it makes sense.

    The boat has sailed hundreds of years ago on preserving ethnicities within tribes with nationalism, but nationalism has not sailed yet so preserving it where it makes sense and not where it makes sense is the best option IMO. Race and ethnicities can be both social constructs and biological constructs simultaneously. There can be an arbitrary aspect that has no value, but also a genetic aspect that has value. They are not mutually exclusive.

    Anyways to answer your question, I am in favor of preserving nationalism in certain regions (Europe, Asia, Africa) because it gives the best chance for all ethnicities to preserve their genetic characteristics regardless of the extent of it. In the Americas and Oceania, nationalism makes far less sense and it doesn't need to be preserved.

    However, I am coming to terms with the fact that nationalism in Europe is a pipe dream thanks to the EU making borders worthless. So for that reason I advocate for nationalism wherever possible like some nations have already begun to do and have had success so far: Italy, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc... Since globalism and open borders has become the new standard for 1st world nations to strive for the most part in the 21st century.
    What makes of people who are mixed-race or mixed-ethnicity? Do they somehow get along with everyone of the "pure" race? Or do they not get along with any of them?

    And if the "pure" race and ethnicities have the right to preserve their own race, then shouldn't mixed-race also have the right to preserve theirs? Does that mean that people SHOULD mix races?

    So this whole thing seems to implicitly or explicitly ranks the "pure" race as higher and "mixed" race as lower and inferior and somehow not worth preserving. It's simply rank racism, no matter how you put it.

  11. #131
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    This is a false equivalence. Tribes with very minor differences within nations not the same thing as minor differences between neighboring nations, moderate differences between nations and neighboring nations from different continents and and major differences between distant nations at different continents.

    I understand that nations and continents are not perfect in capturing ethnicity. Asia is extremely diverse as a continent: West Asians, South Asians and East Asians have little in common. West Asians and South Asians have more in common genetically with Europeans than East Asians who have more in common with Native Americans. Southern Italians have more in common with Greeks than with Northern Italians that have more in common with Northern Europeans and so on.

    The idea of Italy being united centuries ago would of been seen as ludicrous back then. My point is not that nations are these perfect expressions of ethnicity and genetics because they are clearly not. However, nationalism is all we have now in the gap stop between globalism. For that reason we should defend it. And I am not even saying we should strive for ethno nationalist states everywhere. I advocate for nationalism in Europe, Africa and Asia.

    However, outside of those continents I don't think it makes any sense like in the Americas and Oceania. Multiculturalism and globalism does not need to be spread worldwide like a grand experiment, but it can be implemented in some areas of the world where it makes sense and nationalism can be retained where it makes sense.

    The boat has sailed hundreds of years ago on preserving ethnicities within tribes with nationalism, but nationalism has not sailed yet so preserving it where it makes sense and not where it makes sense is the best option IMO. Race and ethnicities can be both social constructs and biological constructs simultaneously. There can be an arbitrary aspect that has no value, but also a genetic aspect that has value. They are not mutually exclusive.

    Anyways to answer your question, I am in favor of preserving nationalism in certain regions (Europe, Asia, Africa) because it gives the best chance for all ethnicities to preserve their genetic characteristics regardless of the extent of it. In the Americas and Oceania, nationalism makes far less sense and it doesn't need to be preserved.

    However, I am coming to terms with the fact that nationalism in Europe is a pipe dream thanks to the EU making borders worthless. So for that reason I advocate for nationalism wherever possible like some nations have already begun to do and have had success so far: Italy, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc... Since globalism and open borders has become the new standard for 1st world nations to strive for the most part in the 21st century.
    So who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor -- is it you?? And why shouldn't some tiny hamlet in France preserve its genetic independence from the rest of French society?

  12. #132
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    What makes of people who are mixed-race or mixed-ethnicity? Do they somehow get along with everyone of the "pure" race? Or do they not get along with any of them?

    And if the "pure" race and ethnicities have the right to preserve their own race, then shouldn't mixed-race also have the right to preserve theirs? Does that mean that people SHOULD mix races?

    So this whole thing seems to implicitly or explicitly ranks the "pure" race as higher and "mixed" race as lower and inferior and somehow not worth preserving. It's simply rank racism, no matter how you put it.
    It seems like you haven't been reading my posts fully or are misunderstanding them and putting words in my mouth. Anyways, I think people can do whatever they want for relationships whether that is stick to their own race/ethnicity or be with a partner of a different race/ethnicity.

    The same goes for countries as well, if the public votes to be nationalist and secure their borders and ethnicity then that is the route they should go and there is nothing wrong with that. The same goes for a country that votes to be globalist and become multicultural with eventual mixed relationships then that is fine too.

    Btw, I am mixed race - half Italian/half Mexican so it should be obvious by now that I am not doing this to promote my lack of pure race lol. Rather, I think there should be countries that are nationalist and preserve their ethnicity and countries that are globalist and embrace multiculturalism.

    Right now, every 1st world nation minus Japan and South Korea are enforcing the multicultural diversity dogma upon their nation. You would think that a mixed race person like myself would be fine with that, but no. I find it appalling that it is being forced upon these nations without any debate and people just have to accept it mindlessly or fear derision

    Instead, people should have an open debate whether their country should go that path or not. I see nothing wrong with countries and people sticking with their own ethnicity for nationality and relationships. Just like there is nothing wrong with people from different countries and/or ethnicities/race mixing.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  13. #133
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Who says I don't? The reassertion of local & regional affiliations would no doubt be healthier. I agree with you that nation-states are an arbitrary construction.
    OK, but what do you mean by healthier?

  14. #134
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    OK, but what do you mean by healthier?
    ↑ Localization, ↑ Decentralization, ↑ Optionality, ↑ Antifragility

  15. #135
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    So who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor -- is it you?? And why shouldn't some tiny hamlet in France preserve its genetic independence from the rest of French society?
    Nobody can really make such arbitrary judgements at an individual level. All that can be done in this day and age is allow countries the choice to become nationalist or globalist/multicultural depending on their goals and outlook. So basically the choices are open borders/mass immigration, controlled immigration or closed borders.

    Then whatever happens within those nations will be off the hands of the government. However, all multiculturalism will do is result in either balkanization or race mixture or both. Nationalism offers an alternative option for nations that choose to go a route that is opposed to open borders/mass immigration. Opting for either controlled immigration or closed borders.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  16. #136
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Nobody can really make such arbitrary judgements at an individual level. All that can be done in this day and age is allow countries the choice to become nationalist or globalist/multicultural depending on their goals and outlook. So basically the choices are open borders/ mass immigration, controlled immigration or closed borders.

    Then whatever happens within those nations will be off the hands of the government. However, all multiculturalism will do is result in either balkanization like in South Africa or race mixture like in Latin America. Nationalism offers an alternative option for nations that choose to go that route.
    That doesn't answer my question. When a nation goes nationalist, who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor?

  17. #137
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    That doesn't answer my question. When a nation goes nationalist, who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor?
    All nationalism entails in the definition I am using is either controlled immigration from various parts of the world or closed borders. When it comes to what people do within their nation for relationships then it doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter prior to the 21st century and the 20th century for the most part. So the % genetic difference never gets decided by anyone because there is no need for it.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  18. #138

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    It seems like you haven't been reading my posts fully or are misunderstanding them and putting words in my mouth. Anyways, I think people can do whatever they want for relationships whether that is stick to their own race/ethnicity or be with a partner of a different race/ethnicity.

    The same goes for countries as well, if the public votes to be nationalist and secure their borders and ethnicity then that is the route they should go and there is nothing wrong with that. The same goes for a country that votes to be globalist and become multicultural with eventual mixed relationships then that is fine too.

    Btw, I am mixed race - half Italian/half Mexican so it should be obvious by now that I am not doing this to promote my lack of pure race lol. Rather, I think there should be countries that are nationalist and preserve their ethnicity and countries that are globalist and embrace multiculturalism.

    Right now, every 1st world nation minus Japan and South Korea are enforcing the multicultural diversity dogma upon their nation. You would think that a mixed race person like myself would be fine with that, but no. I find it appalling that it is being forced upon these nations without any debate and people just have to accept it mindlessly or fear derision

    Instead, people should have an open debate whether their country should go that path or not. I see nothing wrong with countries and people sticking with their own ethnicity for nationality and relationships. Just like there is nothing wrong with people from different countries and/or ethnicities/race mixing.
    The point is, there's no reason to prefer either preserving the purity or mixing of race for any countries. Any country that does that is preferring one over the other, and therefore professing the superiority of either. All we are saying is that people have freedom of movement and they can live wherever they want.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that countries should accept whomever, but what they should do is to reasonably accept any law-abiding citizens that wish to live in their countries (and to also accept some refugees), and to treat immigrants the same as the natives.

    I think the real debate should be multi-culturism vs. cultural assimilationism. The real difference is the culture, and not the people.

  19. #139
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    All nationalism entails in the definition I am using is either controlled immigration from various parts of the world or closed borders. When it comes to what people do within their nation for relationships then it doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter prior to the 21st century and the 20th century for the most part. So the % genetic difference never gets decided by anyone because there is no need for it.
    But there is a need to define "minor" if we're going down the path of controlling which populations are allowed to intermix based on their degree of genetic similarity.

    If you're saying that nations can do whatever they want within their own borders, you're making the implicit assumption that genetic differences within nations are "minor." If geographical proximity is the main indicator of genetic commonality then this assumption is false: the French region of Alsace has more in common with the Rhineland than it does with Acquitaine, which has more in common with Spain.

    The second issue is that you don't seem to mind the dilution of local populations that have different genetics from the mainstream and each other. Yet the fact that these differences are only minor is entirely your idea; to any xenophobes living in some tiny hamlet, you're a chauvinistic authoritarian who supports a political project designed to dilute their culture.

    Whether you know it or not, you've crafted a definition of "minor" specifically to include or exclude people according to your personal tastes.
    Last edited by xerxe; 07-08-2019 at 06:39 AM.

  20. #140
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    ↑ Localization, ↑ Decentralization, ↑ Optionality, ↑ Antifragility
    WRT to antifragility: mixed-race children have higher IQ

  21. #141
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    That doesn't say what you think it does, has nothing to do with mixed race.

    It's about avoiding cousin marriage—Europeans and East Asians have had various proscriptions against it since ancient times. No doubt part of why their IQs are higher than everybody else.

    Certain SNPs related to higher intelligence also exist in those populations with much greater frequency—especially relative to Subsaharan Africans. Mix an SSA with any higher-IQ person and resulting offspring's IQ will be lower than the latter.

  22. #142
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    That doesn't say what you think it does, has nothing to do with mixed race.

    It's about avoiding cousin marriage—Europeans and East Asians have had various proscriptions against it since ancient times. No doubt part of why their IQs are higher than everybody else.

    Certain SNPs related to higher intelligence also exist in those populations with much greater frequency—especially relative to Subsaharan Africans. Mix an SSA with any higher-IQ person and resulting offspring's IQ will be lower than the latter.
    No, it says exactly what I think it does. The study was explicitly testing for outgroup intermixing. They found that the effect was greater the more distantly-related the parents were.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...xtensive-study

  23. #143
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    No, it says exactly what I think it does. The study was explicitly testing for outgroup intermixing. They found that the effect was greater the more distantly-related the parents were.
    No. Mixing a 90 IQ person with a 140 IQ person will not result in a 150 IQ child. That's not how any of this works.

    Genetic distance is only desirable to a point—i.e., not marrying your cousins reduces mutational load. Beyond that threshold you risk losing valuable SNPs.

  24. #144
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The point is, there's no reason to prefer either preserving the purity or mixing of race for any countries. Any country that does that is preferring one over the other, and therefore professing the superiority of either. All we are saying is that people have freedom of movement and they can live wherever they want.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that countries should accept whomever, but what they should do is to reasonably accept any law-abiding citizens that wish to live in their countries (and to also accept some refugees), and to treat immigrants the same as the natives.

    I think the real debate should be multi-culturism vs. cultural assimilationism. The real difference is the culture, and not the people.
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.

    This is the best case scenario for multiculturalism, in Europe the immigrants are not even integrating properly and causing several issues. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment, which is why we need to look to cultural assimilation or nationalism as the solution to immigration.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    But there is a need to define "minor" if we're going down the path of controlling which populations are allowed to intermix based on their degree of genetic similarity.

    If you're saying that nations can do whatever they want within their own borders, you're making the implicit assumption that genetic differences within nations are "minor." If geographical proximity is the main indicator of genetic commonality then this assumption is false: the French region of Alsace has more in common with the Rhineland than it does with Acquitaine, which has more in common with Spain.

    The second issue is that you don't seem to mind the dilution of local populations that have different genetics from the mainstream and each other. Yet the fact that these differences are only minor is entirely your idea; to any xenophobes living in some tiny hamlet, you're a chauvinistic authoritarian who supports a political project designed to dilute their culture.

    Whether you know it or not, you've crafted a definition of "minor" specifically to include or exclude people according to your personal tastes.
    All I am saying is that nations in Europe either control or stop immigration like they did in the past instead of allowing mass immigration and open borders. It does not need to be more complicated than that. Anything else is you implying motives that are non existent on my part. You are framing it in a way that implies that if I don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that I might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    This is basically a slippery slope argument. I understand nations don't perfectly capture ethnicity and never will due to their arbitrary nature. That doesn't mean that we can't enforce borders in either controlling immigration or preventing it completely. This is why I refuse to answer your trick question directly on defining what minor is since that is a subjective distinction. I never implied anything else beyond controlling immigration or stopping it for nations.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  25. #145

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.
    That may be true, but it's not as if there are no in-fighting and conflicts among people of the same race and ethnicities. People who look similar may stick together, people of similar socio-economic background stick together, people of similar education, religion and even political affiliations do.

    Race and ethnicities are just one of those many imagined in-group similarities. People may be biased towards people that are similar or even just perceived as similar, because perhaps they are perceived to be safe. But that is still a cognitive and behavioral bias and an error.

    The fact is that people of the same race and ethnicity used to fight and kill each other all the time (and they still do), but now they suddenly get along. Why is that? It's because people have found newer ideas to be inclusive about. That is the idea of a nation-state.

  26. #146
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    That may be true, but it's not as if there are no in-fighting and conflicts among people of the same race and ethnicities. People who look similar may stick together, people of similar socio-economic background stick together, people of similar education, religion and even political affiliations do.

    Race and ethnicities are just one of those many imagined in-group similarities. People may be biased towards people that are similar or even just perceived as similar, because perhaps they are perceived to be safe. But that is still a cognitive and behavioral bias and an error.

    The fact is that people of the same race and ethnicity used to fight and kill each other all the time (and they still do), but now they suddenly get along. Why is that? It's because people have found newer ideas to be inclusive about. That is the idea of a nation-state.
    I believe it is a combination of both. Real and imagined differences between races and ethnicities. Imagined differences tend to exaggerate the real differences and make the division worse, but there is still some minor differences regardless. I suppose that the cause is humanity's tribal nature that manifests even in politics.

    Anyways, I don't really mind if certain countries become multi-ethnic melting pots, while others become ethno-states. I just find it bothersome that the choice is literally just multiculturalism for 1st world nations and any other option is seen as xenophobic. Without any consideration of the potential long-term consequences.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  27. #147
    lemontrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    / / /
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.

    This is the best case scenario for multiculturalism, in Europe the immigrants are not even integrating properly and causing several issues. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment, which is why we need to look to cultural assimilation or nationalism as the solution to immigration.



    All I am saying is that nations in Europe either control or stop immigration like they did in the past instead of allowing mass immigration and open borders. It does not need to be more complicated than that. Anything else is you implying motives that are non existent on my part. You are framing it in a way that implies that if I don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that I might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    This is basically a slippery slope argument. I understand nations don't perfectly capture ethnicity and never will due to their arbitrary nature. That doesn't mean that we can't enforce borders in either controlling immigration or preventing it completely. This is why I refuse to answer your trick question directly on defining what minor is since that is a subjective distinction. I never implied anything else beyond controlling immigration or stopping it for nations.
    IMO it's not meant as a trick question.

    I'd figured the reason you didn't respond was b/c it looked like a petty logical argument, but its implication is even if you disallowed immigration you would need some rules to determine who gets to be in the country.

    @xerxe may have worded it at an extreme lol but I think he's not trying to imply that if you don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that you might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism. He's actually suggesting that implementing what you're saying won't be so simple, and might lead to an unfair result.

    FYI I'm not trying to defend xerxe so much as clear up what looks like a misunderstanding. Will really try to stay out of other ppl's arguments in the future.

    I'm putting together my own thoughts on the topic and will get them soon. >.<
    Last edited by lemontrees; 07-08-2019 at 10:47 PM. Reason: changed "you can disallow immigration but you do need some rules" to "even if you disallowed..."

  28. #148
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemontrees View Post
    IMO it's not meant as a trick question.

    I'd figured the reason you didn't respond was b/c it looked like a petty logical argument, but its implication is you can disallow immigration but you do need some rules to determine who gets to be in the country.

    @xerxe may have worded it at an extreme lol but I think he's not trying to imply that if you don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that you might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism. He's actually suggesting that implementing what you're saying won't be so simple, and might lead to an unfair result.

    FYI I'm not trying to defend xerxe so much as clear up what looks like a misunderstanding. Will really try to stay out of other ppl's arguments in the future.

    I'm putting together my own thoughts on the topic and will get them soon. >.<
    Fair enough. The issue is my stance varies depending on the nation. Like in my nation of Canada and in the US, I don't think ethnicity should matter for immigration, but we should try to limit the number of immigrants and encourage integration and assimilation.

    In nations of Europe, then it is more about Germans and Italians for example retaining their German and Italian ethnicities. I know trying to retain existing minor ethnicities within those nations is nearly impossible, which is why I think it is pointless to debate it.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  29. #149
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.

    This is the best case scenario for multiculturalism, in Europe the immigrants are not even integrating properly and causing several issues. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment, which is why we need to look to cultural assimilation or nationalism as the solution to immigration.



    All I am saying is that nations in Europe either control or stop immigration like they did in the past instead of allowing mass immigration and open borders. It does not need to be more complicated than that. Anything else is you implying motives that are non existent on my part. You are framing it in a way that implies that if I don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that I might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    This is basically a slippery slope argument. I understand nations don't perfectly capture ethnicity and never will due to their arbitrary nature. That doesn't mean that we can't enforce borders in either controlling immigration or preventing it completely. This is why I refuse to answer your trick question directly on defining what minor is since that is a subjective distinction. I never implied anything else beyond controlling immigration or stopping it for nations.

    @Raver, I never said that we shouldn't enforce borders. Anyone can see that it's bad to have unregulated population growth which outstrips our ability to accommodate it with new infrastructure.

    The point I want to get across is twofold: 1) genetic differences within nations are not minor, because nations are the arbitrary creations of politicians that didn't follow a genetic map; and 2) if we now accept that nations can have massive internal variability, there's nothing unprecedented about allowing gene flow from the outside.

    WRT multiculturalism, I'm not yet sold on the idea that it has failed, but I agree that assimilation is a perfectly sensible solution to the question of integration, regarding which I'd love to see the Germanization of Syrians and the Swedification of people from Timbuktu.

    Going further, there's an initiative to craft a German version of Islam, and while I have no intimate knowledge of the project or whether it would strip Islam of its essential characteristics, I agree in principle on the utility and decency for immigrants to energetically imbibe the cultures of their destinations; many do so in fact.
    Last edited by xerxe; 07-09-2019 at 06:58 AM. Reason: fixed punctuation :O

  30. #150
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    No. Mixing a 90 IQ person with a 140 IQ person will not result in a 150 IQ child. That's not how any of this works.

    Genetic distance is only desirable to a point—i.e., not marrying your cousins reduces mutational load. Beyond that threshold you risk losing valuable SNPs.
    Science disagrees, dude.

  31. #151
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Science disagrees, dude.
    The Guardian isn't a science publication, consanguineous dude.

  32. #152
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    The Guardian isn't a science publication, consanguineous dude.
    Neither are you. The Guardian summarizes and links the study though.

  33. #153
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Neither are you. The Guardian summarizes and links the study though.
    The claim you're purporting isn't there. It only concerns the fitness benefits of avoiding consanguinity.

  34. #154

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    In nations of Europe, then it is more about Germans and Italians for example retaining their German and Italian ethnicities.
    Yeah, that'll go over well. You only need to add Japan to go back to straight-up 1930's axis power totalitarianism and racial/ethnic supremacy.

    What you're suggesting is literally segregation and apartheid. It's not going to go well in this day and age. I guess Germany had learned their lesson, but in many places nationalistic ideas still lives on.

    It sounds more like you're getting your ideas from some weird right-wing extremist sources.

  35. #155
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    @Raver, I never said that we shouldn't enforce borders. Anyone can see that it's bad to have unregulated population growth which outstrips our ability to accommodate it with new infrastructure.

    The point I want to get across is twofold: 1) genetic differences within nations are not minor because nations are the arbitrary creations of politicians that didn't follow a genetic map; and 2) if we now accept that nations can have massive internal variability, there's nothing unprecedented about allowing gene flow from the outside.

    WRT multiculturalism, I'm not yet sold on the idea that it has failed, but I agree that assimilation is a perfectly sensible solution to the question of integration, regarding which I'd love to see the Germanization of Syrians and the Swedification of people from Timbuktu.

    Going further, there's an initiative to craft a German version of Islam, and while I have no intimate knowledge of the project or whether it would strip Islam of its essential characteristics, I agree in principle on the utility and decency for immigrants to energetically imbibe the cultures of their destinations; many do so in fact.
    Well, it seems like we basically are on the same page regarding immigration into former European colonial nations like Canada, US, Australia and NZ. Cultural assimilation should work well in those nations.

    As for Europe, all your argument states is that immigration within Europe between different European nations is acceptable and outside of it is not. Since there is overlap of ethnicities and genetics between different European nations.

    I suppose we can include some immigration from West Asia, which is basically just Syrian refugees since they are somewhat similar to Southern Europeans and really need to flee their country or risk losing their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yeah, that'll go over well. You only need to add Japan to go back to straight-up 1930's axis power totalitarianism and racial/ethnic supremacy.

    What you're suggesting is literally segregation and apartheid. It's not going to go well in this day and age. I guess Germany had learned their lesson, but in many places nationalistic ideas still lives on.

    It sounds more like you're getting your ideas from some weird right-wing extremist sources.
    I get my ideas from numerous sources from both the Left and Right, but a lot of them are simply organic. I like to get a diverse view of opinions to keep my mind open to different ideas.

    The fact that you are equating nationalism by enforcing borders and controlling immigration with 1930s Nazi supremacy is hilarious.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  36. #156

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    The fact that you are equating nationalism by enforcing borders and controlling immigration with 1930s Nazi supremacy is hilarious.
    Your argument is "Germany should retain their German ethnicity". That's pretty much a lighter version of Nazism. I don't think most Germans particularly care about "retaining their German ethnicity", and I'm sure whomever that suggests that get called a Nazi.

  37. #157
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Your argument is "Germany should retain their German ethnicity". That's pretty much a lighter version of Nazism. I don't think most Germans particularly care about "retaining their German ethnicity", and I'm sure whomever that suggests that get called a Nazi.
    Well, not just Germans, but French, Italians, Greeks, Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc...Is that a lighter version of Nazism to you?
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  38. #158
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Your argument is "Germany should retain their German ethnicity".
    Lol. People will say shit like this, and then hypocritically cry about how colonization erased 'indigenous identities'.

  39. #159
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,928
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Lol. People will say shit like this, and then hypocritically cry about how colonization erased 'indigenous identities'.
    Nothing hypocritical about it.
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  40. #160
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    Nothing hypocritical about it.
    So it's fine when Germany gets colonized, but not Ethiopia. Got it.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •