What type of Capitalist / Socialist are you?

[Lozzer]

Wow loozer, I had no idea you were so misinformed about humans.
Classifying all humans as one subspecies is purely a Christian religious doctronice originating from God creating man.
Intelligent people should know better

Oh no, I'm agreeing with Tyrannical. This could be bad.

How?

Everything I explained is basic 'racial' science, lol.

There is only a 4% genetic divergence between all ethnic groups.

[Drewish]

Wow loozer, I had no idea you were so misinformed about humans.
Classifying all humans as one subspecies is purely a Christian religious doctronice originating from God creating man.
Intelligent people should know better

Oh no, I'm agreeing with Tyrannical. This could be bad.

How?

Everything I explained is basic 'racial' science, lol.

There is only a 4% genetic divergence between all ethnic groups.

Now how much of our genetics is shared with Chimps?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114325.htm

There may be greater genetic variation between different yeasts of the same species than between humans and chimpanzees. This is one of the findings of a study from the University of Gothenburg that is being published in the scientific journal Nature. This study heralds a new era in evolutionary genetics research -- the mapping of an individual's DNA.

Science. It's a bitch.

[PsychoSerenity]

So thus far there are 5 people who have answered the poll, with whom it's completely pointless to discuss issues of ethics and economics (Anyone who answered with the last two answers is a lost cause.)

How so? I think you may be thinking something that didn't come across clearly in the different options you created. A few people have said that they're a mixture of several options. I don't think you can write people off because their world view best approximates, out of limited options, to something you've summed up in a couple of words. Those words will have different meanings to different people.

If Freedom or equality is more important than justice to an individual, then I have no grounds upon which to have a discussion with them. If one of the last two options are the best fit for somebody then they are a brainwashed dip shit who isn't worth my time. FACT.

Are freedom and equality not both important aspects of justice? The one word that particularly separates the last two from the others is "principled". I don't understand why you would have such a problem with someone who identifies with that.

[Drewish]

So thus far there are 5 people who have answered the poll, with whom it's completely pointless to discuss issues of ethics and economics (Anyone who answered with the last two answers is a lost cause.)

How so? I think you may be thinking something that didn't come across clearly in the different options you created. A few people have said that they're a mixture of several options. I don't think you can write people off because their world view best approximates, out of limited options, to something you've summed up in a couple of words. Those words will have different meanings to different people.

If Freedom or equality is more important than justice to an individual, then I have no grounds upon which to have a discussion with them. If one of the last two options are the best fit for somebody then they are a brainwashed dip shit who isn't worth my time. FACT.

Are freedom and equality not both important aspects of justice? The one word that particularly separates the last two from the others is "principled". I don't understand why you would have such a problem with someone who identifies with that.

Anything can be defended as a 'principle'. Equality, freedom, justice... these things are all principles one can advocate for. However, they are mutually exclusive at times, and claims that they are not are born of ignorance. If one holds that the principles of freedom or equality are ends within themselves that are of less value than justice, then they can (to be blunt) go fuck themselves with a lead pipe in my opinion. I can discuss things with consequentialists (even if I disagree with them). I can discuss things with other people who value justice. However people who's view of morality and principles are so clearly in line with a particular economic philosophy as to serve as uncompromising justifications for said economic policy are sheep with no independent thoughts to contribute and are not worth the time of day. Such fools will support their system / party of choice regardless of outcome, logic, or evidence, and have a moral basis for justifying their blind loyalty. Such fuck wads would do well to find the nearest cliff and do us all a favor.

[Drewish]

That was perhaps a bit harsh. I see that your are not arguing with with my disdain for such world views, but that the limitations of my poll mean that not all people who voted for one of the last two (well the second to last one since nobody voted for the last one) have such a world view.

[PsychoSerenity]

That was perhaps a bit harsh. I see that your are not arguing with with my disdain for such world views, but that the limitations of my poll mean that not all people who voted for one of the last two (well the second to last one since nobody voted for the last one) have such a world view.

Ah, yes. That was my point. I'm fairly sure if the description in your previous post was used as an option in the poll it would have received significantly less votes. - But further also, even people who you do think fit that description, from their own or someone else's point of view, they probably do not. Most people, I think, don't consider themselves to be following blindly; they're just seeing things that others aren't seeing (whether it's really there or not is sometimes a difficult point). I completely understand not wanting to waste time trying to communicate with someone when, due to such different world views, no matter what is said, no real communication seems able to take place. But I wouldn't say that such people therefore necessarily have nothing of value to say to other people, who do get something out of the conversation.

[Drewish]

That sounds a bit too psotmodern for my taste

[Lozzer]

Wow loozer, I had no idea you were so misinformed about humans.
Classifying all humans as one subspecies is purely a Christian religious doctronice originating from God creating man.
Intelligent people should know better

Oh no, I'm agreeing with Tyrannical. This could be bad.

How?

Everything I explained is basic 'racial' science, lol.

There is only a 4% genetic divergence between all ethnic groups.

Now how much of our genetics is shared with Chimps?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114325.htm
Garbage.

There may be greater genetic variation between different yeasts of the same species than between humans and chimpanzees. This is one of the findings of a study from the University of Gothenburg that is being published in the scientific journal Nature. This study heralds a new era in evolutionary genetics research -- the mapping of an individual's DNA.

Science. It's a bitch.

[Warren Dew]

As I said, we didn't merge together as Multi-regional model would suggest. We had a shag here and there, but for the most part, we emigrated from Africa and replaced other 'human' populations throughout Europe

We have about as much Neanderthal ancestry as there is difference between the DNA of humans and chimps, or between males and females. That's a very substantial amount of interbreeding.

If you want to argue that we're not different races, that's a bad way to make the argument. A better argument would be to admit there was significant interbreeding - it might well have been complete mixing, if neanderthals were less than 5% of the human population before the mixing, as seems likely - but to argue that most of our DNA was shared with neanderthals in the first place, so the mixing didn't introduce many differences.

[Warren Dew]

Are freedom and equality not both important aspects of justice?

Indeed, it seems to me that all concepts of justice trace to either freedom or equality, with the exception of "justice is whatever I irrationally think it is."

[Seth]

So thus far there are 5 people who have answered the poll, with whom it's completely pointless to discuss issues of ethics and economics (Anyone who answered with the last two answers is a lost cause.)

How so? I think you may be thinking something that didn't come across clearly in the different options you created. A few people have said that they're a mixture of several options. I don't think you can write people off because their world view best approximates, out of limited options, to something you've summed up in a couple of words. Those words will have different meanings to different people.

If Freedom or equality is more important than justice to an individual, then I have no grounds upon which to have a discussion with them. If one of the last two options are the best fit for somebody then they are a brainwashed dip shit who isn't worth my time. FACT.

Depends on exactly what you mean by "justice" I suppose.

[Tyrannical]

Are freedom and equality not both important aspects of justice?

Indeed, it seems to me that all concepts of justice trace to either freedom or equality, with the exception of "justice is whatever I irrationally think it is."

You can make people free, but you can't make them equal

[Lozzer]

As I said, we didn't merge together as Multi-regional model would suggest. We had a shag here and there, but for the most part, we emigrated from Africa and replaced other 'human' populations throughout Europe

We have about as much Neanderthal ancestry as there is difference between the DNA of humans and chimps, or between males and females. That's a very substantial amount of interbreeding.

If you want to argue that we're not different races, that's a bad way to make the argument. A better argument would be to admit there was significant interbreeding - it might well have been complete mixing, if neanderthals were less than 5% of the human population before the mixing, as seems likely - but to argue that most of our DNA was shared with neanderthals in the first place, so the mixing didn't introduce many differences.

So you're saying whites are superior to everyone else?

[Warren Dew]

As I said, we didn't merge together as Multi-regional model would suggest. We had a shag here and there, but for the most part, we emigrated from Africa and replaced other 'human' populations throughout Europe

We have about as much Neanderthal ancestry as there is difference between the DNA of humans and chimps, or between males and females. That's a very substantial amount of interbreeding.

If you want to argue that we're not different races, that's a bad way to make the argument. A better argument would be to admit there was significant interbreeding - it might well have been complete mixing, if neanderthals were less than 5% of the human population before the mixing, as seems likely - but to argue that most of our DNA was shared with neanderthals in the first place, so the mixing didn't introduce many differences.

So you're saying whites are superior to everyone else?

Wow, what a leap into racism!

I challenge you to explain how anything in my post could be taken to mean that.

[Tyrannical]

As I said, we didn't merge together as Multi-regional model would suggest. We had a shag here and there, but for the most part, we emigrated from Africa and replaced other 'human' populations throughout Europe

We have about as much Neanderthal ancestry as there is difference between the DNA of humans and chimps, or between males and females. That's a very substantial amount of interbreeding.

If you want to argue that we're not different races, that's a bad way to make the argument. A better argument would be to admit there was significant interbreeding - it might well have been complete mixing, if neanderthals were less than 5% of the human population before the mixing, as seems likely - but to argue that most of our DNA was shared with neanderthals in the first place, so the mixing didn't introduce many differences.

So you're saying whites are superior to everyone else?

Silly Lozzer, there is no such concept as superior in biology Some organisms are merely better adapted to a particular environment than other organisms