Debate talk:Goat or long-eared jerboa?

• India is a democracy and a great civilization.

• China probably took your job.

• "Christians" who run governments tend to be ugly and repressive.

• When the whites ran South Africa it was far worse.

Conclusion: You (the author) are just a racist - and a moron. ħuman 09:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Japan seems pretty well off even counting earthquakes.

• As a civilisation, Africa was rolling long before Caucasians.

• Why is it those who preach superiority are usually the least superior?

Conclusion: Shriveled brains have trouble seeing the real world. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

history

This "debate" was created by a subsequently admitted sock of Marcus in order to troll the site. It was debated with the creator here. Before admitting it was his sock, and in an attempt to further generate HCM, Marcus blocked his own sock which created some debate on this page.

At the same time P-Foster was deleting it for trolling - racism and Occasionaluse was recreating it.

It then gave rise to this debate at CS.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

this page makes my skin crawl.

can we just baleet it on account of overwhelming consensus?--Brxbrx (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I say yes. It's already been admitted that it was created for the sole purpose of trolling and this kind of hate speech we don't need. Kill it, burn it with fire. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cast it, screaming, into the fires of oblivion. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Because this is "offensive" is not a logical argument to do anything. You all know that, right? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

1.PRATT

2. consensus
--Brxbrx (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but the fact that it's self-declared trolling makes it fair game. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not maybe. It's a naturalistic/moralistic fallacy. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, OC, ignoring the fact that it is made by a troll, which makes it a prime candidate for deletion, why exactly do you think this racist screed should be allowed to stay? Or do you advocate hate speech? --PsyGremlinTal! 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Simply because it being offensive doesn't mean it's wrong. How the fuck can you be so irrational? Debate it or ignore it. Why can't you do one of those? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What's irrational about wanting to remove racist claptrap? Unless you condone that sort of thing? So you're arguing that white people are intellectual and material superior and that's why it should stay. I assume that's what you mean by debate it. Good, so you're a fucking racist too then. At least we've cleared the air up on that account.

The article was created for the sole purpose of trolling. Morons who defend it are trolling too. Delete it. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fuck me, you're retarded today. Just because something is offensive doesn't me it's wrong. Please agree to that before we proceed. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? So kiddy porn isn't wrong? So rape isn't wrong? So racism isn't wrong? Fuck you. Those are offensive and wrong. Fuck off troll. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not simply because they offend you. I can't believe you! Occasionaluse (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If what I say offends you, it is your problem. Please read that. I know you can. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so now that we know you're racist and into kiddy porn, how about the law? Don't you think laws against racism and kiddy porn are there for a reason, you prick? Or are you upset because you can't call them niggers? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You are being so wildly irrational I have to conclude you're trolling. You know that offensive != wrong (even if you don't want to admit it). You know that I haven't endorsed racism, rape or kid porn. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course offensive != wrong. However, wrong often is equal to offensive. Surely you see that. in this case, it's wrong morally, wrong factually, and offensive. The flip side of free speech is freedom of expression. in this case, we're expressing ourselves by deleting a shitty page. Quaru^{bazooka - You can't explain that!} 14:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's wrong factually, it should have been debated and crushed. Instead, people focused on it being offensive (which is not a logical argument). If it was so easy to prove this factually wrong, why not do that? Or are you afraid that'd you'd be lending credence to it by factually demolishing it like some here? 95.154.230.191 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have better shit to do than argue with racists. my only contribution here is with regards to the debate on it's deletion. I do believe the top few posts do an accurate job of arguing the factual basis. Oh, and something about "on misson" and "retarded debate". Possibly a "if they had a larger penis, they wouldn't have the need to denigrate most of the planet" thrown in for good measure. And, I suppose a "drive by debate from a troll" why not? Quaru^{bazooka - You can't explain that!} 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)\

Ok, you have better shit to do than argue with racists - fair enough. But does that mean you aren't going to let anyone argue with racists? Mainstream scientists have better shit to do than argue with creationists...should we delete those debates, too? 95.154.230.191 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Something about "on mission" and "drive by debate from a troll". I had a whole paragraph, not just one line. I have no problem with others debating, when there's a debate to be had. There was a serious lack of that here. "retarded debate" I think applies. Oh, and "obvious troll is obvious" And I do believe, if there was a wiki operated by biologists, say, and they allowed a debate page, it'd be perfectly acceptable for them to delete something posted by a troll trying to argue it. I really don't understand the argument here other than an impulsive "censorship!" call. Quaru^{bazooka - You can't explain that!} 15:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't understand the "delete and ban who doesn't agree with us" call. So if it was what you believe to be a racist acting in earnest, would you have been inclined to let it stay? Most people here think racism is a crank idea, how in the fuck is refuting it not "on mission"?? 95.154.230.191 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Then we seem to have a problem. Free speech opinions at RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards#Forbidden_topics_for_discussion would seem to be in favor of allowing it, but when people read the consequences of such freedom on this page they seem to feel that such content is not appropriate here. (Though I have to confess that I'm not sure what actual impact the suggested change at community standards would make in reality.) In any event Marcus/Occasionaluse has a little bit of HCM.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposed change wouldn't do anything. You'd have the exact same content but a slightly reworded title. My understanding is that if this had been an essay, it would have been fine. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Marcus - I suspect that, if it had been an essay, it would have been worse.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

fine. I'll debate this turd

People of color only seem "inferior" in the eyes of bigots because they have been relegated to the lower classes. After blacks were emancipated in the 19th century, they experienced only a brief period of relative freedom for the duration of the reconstruction. Afterwards, they were crushed down by intimidation and the Jim Crow laws. When the civil rights act was passed, this would seemingly end racism as a barrier, but instead revealed a new one: poverty. Decades of oppression have left the African-American community in ghettos and without access to higher education. Simply removing the barrier of bigotry does not remove the barrier of class. This is why affirmative action is a good thing, it allows blacks to escape their environment, and thus create children outside this negative environment. Eventually, we will no longer distinguish between blacks and whites in terms of inferiority, because being black will no longer be associated with poverty.
It is worth noting that many blacks have escaped their environment without any help, and have made great contributions to our culture.--Brxbrx (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've chosen to debate this. If you're serious about debating this, please move it to the debate page itself. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

no. I am glad it's gone. this debate is tired and only gives legitimacy to the worst of humanity--Brxbrx (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You should go around deleting all debates you find offensive or wrong. That's the new cool. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

don't try and use my rebuttal as a justification to preserve your trolling--Brxbrx (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There were no "arguments" anyway. Just bizarre unsubstantiated statements. Good riddance to troll shit.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would go further to say that this isn't just off-mission. It is anti-onmission with regards to crank ideas.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So you admit the practical intellectual and material superiority but deny it because blacks are poor. --85.78.47.253 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Some sections of the population may have issues with poverty. It is not a specific race that has them exclusively. By applying yourself to the situation , and working very hard it can be overcome. There are very successful people who came from black ghettos, and there are successful whites who grew up in poor areas. I believe its a cop-out to say "I be repressed by whitey" and then go steal cars or run drugs instead of studying hard, or working hard to improve your situation. I myself came from a family that was very poor and it was a struggle at times to get clothing. I learned to sew simple stuff simple because a torn pair of pants could not be thrown out, there was no money to buy a new pair. The had to be repaired and I was the one to do it. I started finding paying jobs when I was 13. I went to college by hunting for scholarships and found one that was closer to indentured servitude. I cringe whenever slavery is mentioned. The last person to be born a slave was what ? 1880 or so. Liberia was established to give freed slaves somewhere to go if they wanted that. I would support the repatriation of any black american to the african homeland of choice. I hear the Somalia is lovely in the fall. Hamster (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

George Washington Carver

The premise of this debate has not been proven. I give you George Washington Carver in evidence. a lazy Hamster 67.72.98.45 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is, it would have been that fucking simple. 95.154.230.191 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also submit Maya Angelou, Cornel West, Dr. King, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Booker T. Washington (just to name the few at the front of my brain) as evidence against the premise of this trolling debate. Conservative Punk (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I know it's hard to believe, but I'm not everyone. I didn't write this. I don't support its premise, but I think it's debatable. An IQ gap between races has been posited by many psychologists. It's "racial" not necessarily "racist". People are quick to conflate them. Hell, Psy would call them kid rapists just for wanting to discuss race and intelligence. 93.174.93.145 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying that you don't believe the people that I mentioned as being notable intellectuals are, in fact, not intellectuals? On your point about a so-called "IQ gap," did it occur to you that centuries of oppression at the hands of imperialists could be at the very source of this alleged disparity? I urge you to look up the Nok civilization as my evidence. Conservative Punk (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. Lot's of straw men today! That's exactly the type of thing you'd bring up in the debate you're trying to kill. One word answer, please: Is the proposition that there are IQ gaps between races debatable (i.e. could you have a fucking debate about it)? 66.90.73.223 (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Now, answer my question: are you then denying that intellectuals and civilizations exist regardless of race? One word answer please. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 15:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No. 67.159.56.162 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So many IP's. I guess Marcus can't create socks fast enough.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I already put him down, along with one or two other luminaries, on Duke's talk page. Just sayin' :) I like him, I did a report on him in 9th grade. very kind hearted--Brxbrx (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Asia has some pretty sick gymnasts

Ever watch the olympics? Ever watch a program on tv about gymnastics, cheerleading, ice skating, or anything similar? Ever notice how the chinese girls have all the sick moves? Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{Give me a G, give me an O, give me an A, give me a T, give me an S.GOATS! ♥} 15:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

sick or slick ? did you miss an L ? asian women have an advantage because typically they have small breasts. Woman with large breasts have the problem with them bouncing about and throwing off a planned trajectory. Why are gymnast breasts even relevant to this discussion ? Goats are very agile creatures who climb cliffs and trees. Hamster (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume she meant "sick" as in slang for "great". And although I agree, largely, I don't think athletic prowess correlates to "intellectual and material" superiority. Quaru^{bazooka - You can't explain that!} 15:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Duh! Ever hear the engineering term 'counterbalance'? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this for now

Yes, I know it's ugly, but it is easy to ignore. Or better yet refute. But it is being used as an example over on the CS discussion, and having it turn to a red link every other day is a bit tiresome. When we're done over there, we can finish the discussion and act or not over here, OK? ħuman 04:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. We don't need to be hosting this. P-Foster (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)