Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


popoi last won the day on July 5

popoi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

115 Excellent

1 Follower

About popoi

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)

Recent Profile Visitors

242 profile views
  1. I think that's what any answer I can come up with is going to boil down to, yes. The obvious follow up when you as "What makes humans more special?" is "To who?" Obviously no answer that's outside of religion is going to be able to give you an answer that appeals to some ultimate arbiter's preferences to say that humans are the most special in the same way that the religious one does. Without the religious aspect, we're just limited to talking about the natural preference of humans for humans, but I think that's fine. There's nobody else around that we know of that we'd need to be able to make an airtight case to. We're the only ones we have to justify that specialness to, and it's kind of naturally obvious to most humans that we tend to consider humans more valuable than not humans. It's hardly evolution's fault if you can't come up with any other reason to value other humans than that God told you to, not that I believe that's actually the case, mind. Because we're not any of those things (other than apes, of course). I imagine dolphins were capable of communicating we would be hard pressed to convince them that they should consider humans more important than dolphins, for much the same reason that if we met, I doubt I would be able to convince you that my survival was more important than yours. We would probably be able to convince each other (in both senses) that we are more important than for example the cockroach, if for no other reason than the potential for mutual gain by cooperation or mutual destruction by conflict.
  2. A host organism, specifically one of another species. Uhhhh, if the definition applies to humans it seems like it applies whether God exists and thinks humans are really special or not. You need to tell me what kind of answer you'd accept, because I'm not going to go back and forth trying to guess. Though I should say any answer is ultimately going to come down to the natural tendency of humans to value themselves (as simple self preservation) and other humans (as social animals) more than other forms of life.
  3. It seems like you effectively did though. Leaving aside that it was a leading question with some very flawed assumptions, you asked me why I think I'm better than other things. And since this is being asked under the assumption that evolution says all those things and me are equal (at least in a scientific sense) and I accept that version of evolution, why I think humans are better seems like it can only possibly be a subjective statement about values, or to put it somewhat simplistically an opinion. What other answer were you expecting me to be able to give you apart from that? Do you understand that "parasite" has a pretty specfic meaning in biology that humans and most other things don't satisfy? This is definitely not the first time I've answered this question, and given that you don't seem to be able to retain any correction I provide on any subject it seemed like a legitimate question to ask.
  4. Are you going to listen this time? As a human, I obviously value the well being of humans more than most other species. That's still true even if there's not some power ranking somewhere that says humans are the best things ever. Well it's a good thing humanities courses are also required at most schools then. Does it bother you that gravity doesn't say you're special either?
  5. If Gravitationism is true then we are all nothing more than worthless masses moving slowly but inevitably toward the largest nearby mass, so there is nothing wrong with throwing your TV on the ground to accelerate the process. No, you're asking for me to be consistent with your weird strawman of what you think my beliefs must be.
  6. I would think a bigger mystery for this theory is why murders dropped significantly in the 90's and since 2000 have been hovering around the same rate they were in the 60's. I was still in school in the early 90's and I'm pretty sure I learned about evolution at some point, so it doesn't seem like that was what did it.
  7. Taking reasonable precautions isn't the same thing as presuming negativity. Not taking a drink from a stranger out of caution isn't the same thing as presuming that they're a rapist. If you presumed that all men were rapists why would you ever go on a date with one in the first place? Some people have engaged in violence based on that belief, yes. Mostly not, because it's not actually a thing that meaningfully impacts most of our lives, and we already have access to institutional power, so taking things to the streets isn't really necessary. Dave's calculation has been explained multiple times by multiple people. I'm losing interest in responding to you when you don't seem to be putting any effort in to keeping up with the discussion. The population ratio is irrelevant to those numbers.
  8. I already addressed this to Dave: The mere observation is not the problem, it's the conclusions you draw from it. I'm specifically talking about Dave representing that data as 86%/14%. If you take the proverbial crowd of 100,000 Black people, and subtract the 13.8 murderers, you are left with 99986.2 non-murderers, the point being that's an awful lot of people to presume negativity toward who don't deserve it on that basis.
  9. I mean you don't have to explain that part to me, because I already explained it on the last page, in the process of explaining why those percentages aren't especially relevant to the question that was at hand, which was why you think you see 75% of crime reports containing Black suspects. At best you're just restating the arrests/100k stats, but in a way that requires a fair amount of additional explanation, implies a very strangely constructed sample, and excludes statistics for other races that were also included in the table for the sake of expressing it as a big percentage. I'm also not quite sure how the idea that there are only 99986.2 non-murderers in a crowd instead of 99997.9 warrants a negative presumption toward that entire crowd (but not the other one). No, conclusions are fine, I'd just like them to not be as terrible as "It is not only ok but correct to presume negativity toward Black people until they prove me wrong"
  10. So again, you seem to be conflating the facts with your interpretation of/reaction to those facts. Recognizing that men commit more crimes than women is not sexist. Presuming negativity toward men until they show you they are not like the negative stereotype you have of them based on that fact is. Why? There doesn't seem to be anything requiring racists to be equally racist toward every other race. Oh well if you've got facts that's different. Racists never think the facts are on their side. Huh? Any negativity? Is there no negativity toward Black people who identify with BLM that is not their fault? Probability of what, exactly?
  11. I haven't taken any issue with any actual fact you've posted, once we separate it from the stuff you made up and the stuff that is factual but that you misinterpreted. My problem is when you take those facts and try to use them to justify statements like this: Which as I said seems like the dictionary definition of racism.
  12. I don't want to, but you keep misrepresenting them and just outright making them up, and I certainly can't let that slide after all the griping you've done about supposedly incorrect points in my posts. You could very easily support your assertion that Black people are arrested for a disproportionate amount of crime with actual numbers with a little bit of research. So again, crime has been on the decline for almost 30 years. They can't really fix your perception if your perception isn't actually that grounded in reality. You just got done agreeing that it was around 54%, and I explained at some length why the 86%/14% calculation wasn't really applicable to any subject we've been discussing so far.
  13. It's better to discourage that kind of thing where possible, and from what I've seen plenty have, but it's more or less unavoidable at a protest where the police aren't specifically lined up to protect you that some stuff is going to get broken. Though I don't think dudes doing property damage is at all comparable to dudes being neo-Nazis in terms of being problematic for one's own goodness. I guess if the event was advertised as featuring several prominent property damagers in the same way that Unite the Right advertised prominent white supremacists it might be a little more of a problem, but even then I don't know that choice of tactics or behavior poses the same kind of moral problem that explicitly racist ideology does. Ok but the table had a column with that value calculated already.
  14. Wow at this rate he might even make it back out of the hole before we have to shut everything down again.

Important Information

Our Terms