human_murda

Fascinating. This is why us third-worlders must invade the West and take what is rightfully ours.

To where?

You don't need to agree with people who make similar claims, but you should first try to understand the essentials of their argument. You think leftists are dumb enough to inadvertently claim that non-White people/lower castes are incapable? But that's not the argument they're actually making; it's simply a mischaracterization (not saying I agree with them, but you don't understand their argument).

The idea that anti-racists are just as racist as White supremacists (through the "soft bigotry of low expectations") is a false equivalence between the far left and the far right. In real life, the far right are far more racist (with huge consequences to their actions, such as crack downs on immigration and opposition to globalism. Hate crimes are also a problem, but their probability is much smaller). Nah, chimps are probably more inbred than humans because their population is way less (high genetic distance between different populations of chimps could actually be suggestive of more inbreeding). He's probably right. In a meritocratic system, based only on talent or merit, White men would probably come out on top. And no, this has nothing to do with genetics. Considering the case of India: most of the historical "talented" geniuses were Brahmins or other upper castes (who form around 5% of India's population). Bhaskara II (mathematics, 1100AD) was a Marathi Brahmin. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (astrophysics, Nobel Prize) was a Tamil Brahmin. Srinivasa Ramanujan was a Tamil Brahmin. Satyendra Nath Bose (boson-fermions, Bose–Einstein condensate) was a Bengali Kayastha (upper caste). C. V. Raman (Nobel Prize) was a Tamil Brahmin. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (Nobel Prize) was a Tamil Brahmin. Rabindranath Tagore (Nobel Prize) was a Bengali Brahmin. Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize in Economics) was a Bengali Vaidya (upper caste). G. N. Ramachandran (Ramachandran plots) was a Tamil Brahmin. There are several other examples (and these people can all be from different ethnic groups in India, but still all magically happen to be upper caste/Brahmin). Tamil Brahmins form around 0.143% of India's population (if merit/talent had nothing to with caste privilege/history and was entirely due to genetics, Tamil Brahmins would have had a 1/10^9 [one in a billion] chance of winning 3 Nobel Prizes). Here is one article related to this. This trend continues somewhat when it comes to Indians in the US (where there is no caste system): the CEOs of Adobe, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Twitter are all Brahmins (or other upper castes). Sundar Pichai is Tamil Brahmin. Kamala Harris's mother is also Tamil Brahmin. Assuming they are in that position on the basis of merit (selected by Americans who are mostly clueless about caste), their historical caste privilege influenced their talent/merit. Here is an article about this. Aside from this, you could look at the test scores of people from different castes : upper castes score much better than lower castes. Both lower castes as well as Muslims (who form around 15% of India's population) perform worse on standardised tests (such as JEE) in India. If you were to judge them on talent/merit, they would be at the bottom. I'm not a Brahmin or White supremacist and do not believe in the caste system (or racial discrimination). However, the fact remains that, if you design a meritocratic system based purely on talent, White men would probably come out on top (and that has nothing to do with genetics). Also, not acknowledging that fact can perpetuate racism/ caste system. In India as well as outside, upper castes tend to achieve more than lower castes in completely meritorious settings. However, people who don't acknowledge that it's related to their historical caste privilege sometimes end up believing that upper castes are superior (I have met some Indians who believe that talent/merit have nothing to do with their caste privilege, that these people are more meritorious because of their caste and that upper castes are innately superior).

I don't think it matters to Rand's theory what quantities are directly measurable or not. Side-length is a measurement, average of side-lengths is a measurement, angles are measurements, sines and tangents of angles are measurements. These are all characteristics of a triangle, even if we might need to perform some computations to find them out. It's possible to restate your definition in terms of quantities that are "directly measurable": we just need the ratio of a triangle's side-length to its perimeter (which is "directly measurable") to be between 0.9/3 and 1.1/3. However, even here we need to "compute" the ratio (which isn't directly measurable). The measurement omission here is the fact that only the ratios matter, not the actual lengths. This isn't actually necessary. It was just the easiest way. Since we know for a fact that only the ratios matter, we can discard all length measurements as a first step (and instead just look at angles). Thus, even without computing averages, we can omit all length measurements (since they're just indicators of scale). Then, based on the law of sines, we can apply the following conditions: 0.9/3 < sin(A)/(sin(A)+sin(B)+sin(B)) < 1.1/3 0.9/3 < sin(B)/(sin(A)+sin(B)+sin(B)) < 1.1/3 0.9/3 < sin(C)/(sin(A)+sin(B)+sin(B)) < 1.1/3 Even after this, there are additional measurement omissions (only ratios of sines matter, not the actual values of the sines. The exact value of the ratio also doesn't matter and only a certain range matters). The idea that we need to compute averages before any measurement omission is incorrect. It's possible to get rid of length measurements first and then do other computations. However, calculating averages first is easier (and it honestly doesn't matter. The average is as much a property of a triangle as a side-length).

The only way to do that would be to compute the average first (the average can be taken as the scaling factor in the previous example). Only once you have gotten rid of all the triangles whose average is not 1 would you even need to check whether the side lengths are between 0.9 and 1.1. Here, the average (or scaling factor) is 1.09, not 1. If the side lengths were 9.87, 10.199, 10.88: the scaling factor would be 10.3163. After omitting the scaling factor, the side lengths would be 0.9567,0.9886,1.0546. After omitting the exact side-length, it would be (yes,yes,yes). What's "circular" about this?

Consider all "almost equilateral triangles" with an average "side-length" of 1. Then all possible "almost equilateral triangles" are just off by a scaling factor from the previously described triangles. However, the scaling factor is not important for determining whether some triangle fits our definition or not, so the scaling factor is just one measurement that's omitted. There are no "required ranges" for a triangle that already exists. A triangle either fits the definition or it doesn't. Its other sides are probably not going to vary just because you measured one side. In the case of triangles with an average "side-length" of 1, all 3 sides are within 1±0.1. The three sides are not "correlated" and we don't need a long list. Other triangles are just off by a scaling factor (which is not important and can be omitted). Mostly irrelevant. Measurement of one side of a triangle doesn't "determine" the allowed measurement range of another. A triangle is what it is and doesn't change during measurement. Such concerns are only relevant if you're constructing a triangle to fit the definition, but it's irrelevant to the problem of defining a triangle. For a triangle that actually exists, its average "side-length" is well defined and the side-lengths are not correlated. What you described previously is the process of constructing a triangle. This is obviously complex and has nothing to do with concepts or measurement omission. The first measurement that is omitted is the scale of the triangle, since the only thing we need to know is whether the side-lengths are within a certain percentage point of the average. You can scale any triangle (that already exists) so that the average "side-length" is 1. Then all sides must be within ±0.1 of 1. The next measurement that's omitted is the exact percentage point by which the sides are off from the average (since it doesn't matter if it's 4.3% or 8.7%). The sides aren't "correlated". The only reason they appeared correlated was because you were describing a non-existent triangle with an undefined (and changing) average "side-length". Hence, you arrived at contradictions like "it's likely that certain measurements could end up excluding themselves from the ranges that they themselves determine". You were not talking about things that exist (or could exist). You were talking about the process of constructing a triangle (which does not exist yet). This is completely irrelevant to Rand's idea about concept formation.

Avoiding the fact that they're (outdated) stereotypes of two nationalities. I'm just going to say that stereotypes don't need to be verbally explicit and leave it at that. As a different example, this is clearly a stereotype of a group of people (it does not refer to an individual) :

Well, there are the conical hats and turbans (among other things), which are used as stereotypes. They're not mental characteristics, but they're still stereotypes. Also, the drawing on the left could represent individuals, while the drawing on the right doesn't. Caricatures of what/who? You're basically just saying that they're caricatures of caricatures ("caricature of two ridiculous faces") avoiding the big turban in the room here.

Non-Americans only care about America? Okay, you probably can't show every abstraction with a still image, but you can show some abstractions (including stereotypes) with still images. Do you think there's any difference between the following two images?

It isn't. It's an abstraction. Which Chinese boy (in reality) does it refer to? It could be anyone. "A picture of an individual Chinese boy who happens to eat this way" would have to be a literal photograph of a Chinese boy. It is an individual copy of that drawing though. That's not how Math works (unless you're just talking about the US). I actually live outside India now (for studies), although that's only been two years. However, I've seen the "We wuz kangz and shiet" memes, debates about race and intelligence, how White people are going going extinct, how Australian Aborigines are not human and all of those things while in India (and not on Stormfront, but on sites like Reddit and YouTube. It's mostly coming from Americans but also from South Africans, Australians, Canadians and British people who cared about American politics and are trying to "defend America"). I was raised in a small town of 16000 people in a lower middle class family (although we're more upper middle class now). I normally wouldn't have to listen to all of this BS but access to the internet (and knowledge of English) is enough, without which I wouldn't have encountered Ayn Rand anyway (I saw her on an online booklist).

Well, you know that now, because I gave a source. But if you were just observing patterns about casting in movies, you could easily come up with conspiracy theories about the alt-right controlling Hollywood. I never said that non-(White men) should be cast because they were discriminated against by Hollywood historically. I'm just saying that your White victimhood narrative doesn't hold up. You came up with the claim that "White men were getting erased from existence". And you have previously made claims such as "There is more to discuss about the increasing assault on, and the self-abnegating guilt by, one specific race and specific gender - i.e. white men - wherever they live - racialistically motivated, also". You keep making the same claims on a lot of threads and also claim that other people are making everything about gender and race. You're the one making the claim that White men, as a collective, are assaulted and victimized everywhere on the planet.

Despite the existence of Katie Dippold's twitter page, Paul Feig and Ivan Reitman are still men. Who are they taking revenge against? Also, the Ghostbusters movie is about women in media. BLM is irrelevant here and doesn't prove any point about women taking revenge against men (the director and one of the producers are men). Sure, there are women in the team but that's not relevant to the point that these movies are supposedly ways of taking revenge against men. And they could have written totally different and better stories with pansexual, brown, female leads but they didn't. It's easy to talk about how imaginary movies would have been better, but given how the 2016 movie was a lazy sequel, they would have produced a shitty movie with straight, white male leads. You are blaming the problems of the movie on the fact that they have non- straight, White male leads (or the politics behind it) when the actual problem is that they just used that as a selling point and did not try to be original. They tried to sell the movie with politics but the problem is not the politics, the problem is that they were lazy (and they would have been lazy no matter who the leads were). Similar stuff could be said about the recent Aladdin movie. It was a remake and wasn't that well done (from the Genie's CGI to the costumes looking home-made to the casting). Jasmine was specifically supposed to be Persian, but they did not cast someone Middle-Eastern (and she was probably the only famous Middle-Eastern character in Western media who wasn't a terrorist, apart from Jesus). Is this because the casting was done by the alt-right trying to make Jasmine whiter? No, it was because Naomi Scott (who doesn't look Persian) was more famous and could sing and because the film was a remake and kind of lazy. The film wasn't bad because Disney was infiltrated by the alt-right or because of politics. It was bad because it was a lazy remake. There are also examples on the opposite end of the spectrum, like Hollywood casting light-skinned actors to appeal to China. Has the alt-right infiltrated Hollywood?

Who is "they"? Progressives don't make movies. There's no group of leftists sitting around and deciding whether some movie is going to be economically viable. These decisions are made by Studio executives who determine if there's going to enough interest in a movie to generate a profit. Sometimes, political topics generate enough interest (like the case of the Ghostbusters movie) even if they're crap. And these are not flagship movies for a Studio. They just generate some passive income (like remakes of Video Games), while they focus on bigger projects. They're the equivalent of card games made by well known gaming studios. And these movies are not made by leftists. Bigger projects that are not lazy cash-grabs and have different leads are the Star Wars series, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (the lead isn't Peter Parker) or even a video game like The Last of Us 2. These are well made films (and games) and no, they're not made by "progressives".

Oh no. Anyway, Revenge by who against who? These movies are usually made by White men. The 2016 Ghostbusters movie was directed by a White male. Are these White men seeking revenge against White men? They're just using non-White, non-male characters as human shields to deflect blame and allow race obsessed people like you to wallow in White victimhood. These movies are like corporations trying to cash in on Pride month. If anybody is a parasite, it's the directors and producers trying to cash in on political issues, not the "progressives" or leftists or whoever. They're using your emotional investment in identity politics (and belief in White male victimhood or, alternatively, non-White, non-male victimhood) to make a profit. These movies would have been total crap even if they had straight, White male leads catering to poor, White, victimized males. Also, you're acting as if casting straight White males is somehow natural and unintentional and non-deliberate and has no politics or power play behind it; as though non-Whites and non-males were never "cancelled from existence" in Hollywood. Also, before you accuse me of being "racialist", like you inevitably do in an attempt to victimize yourself more: I have never, in the history of posting on this forum started a discussion on race. I have only made posts about race as a response to White people on this forum making racial comments about non-White people like me. So no need to start a tirade about how my posts are "racialist" or any of that non-sense. And I generally don't care about race because it's not a politicized topic in India. It's usually Americans (and people who care about American politics, and maybe politics in the West generally) who go on and on about race. Race is not important in the politics of most of Asia.

That is a questionable claim. Evidence to the contrary are the infinite amount of companies selling skin lightening creams in India and abroad, creating the gigantic fair skin business. These companies bank on the irrational insecurities of people. The adverts for these products generally show people getting fairer skin with these creams and suddenly getting hired or married. Examples are fair and lovely (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 and many more), which was the og brand for self hatred, Pond's white beauty (white beauty series 2 3), Fair and handsome (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), L'Oreal white perfect (1) and infinitely many more. There are corporations that promote "accepting yourself" in the West while these same exact companies promote "dark is inferior" products in India and elsewhere. Industries, such as bollywood and other film industries in India also bank on "whiteness" (or preference for a higher caste). Dark actresses find it difficult to find jobs in India. This is also present in other countries: almost all media personalities in Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Mexico, etc favor "whiteness". Even in the US, a lot of "black" media personalities are light skinned compared to the black population of USA, simply because that is more profitable. "whiteness" or fairness is considered aspirational (there's this "we can be white too" attitude that is sold by these companies). Indian designers only hire fair skinned models in India and would claim that the idea that "dark is doomed" is more profitable and it's not their job to change it. Modeling competitions only have light skinned people in India. Directors don't hire dark skinned people because it's not profitable (in India). Even roles of darker skinned characters are given to lighter skinned actors because darker actors are not bankable in India. The few that are hired may be cast as poor or rural or as servants. People who work in the industry usually deny it. Some delusional North Indians also deny it by saying that the majority of North Indians are light skinned (they're not) and that these products are marketed towards them. Even a lot of music made in India promotes the idea that "white is glamorous" because it's more profitable (For eg, "chittiya kalaiya" or "my white wrists"). All of this is in a country in which at least 90% of the people are dark skinned. No one would hire you in India when "image" is at stake because if you're darker, you're not "presentable". You can't be an air hostess or an actor or a salesperson or any get hired for any job which involves the "image" of a brand or customer service if you're dark skinned in India. There are things such as "white monkey jobs", which bank on the soft power of white people (or light skinned people), to sell things. Racism can be pretty profitable (some industries, such as skin bleaching, probably would not exist without racism. It may still exist, but would be much smaller). While I don't think capitalism is inherently racist, the idea that capitalism would "solve" racism is stupid. It requires societal change that may not be tied to the free market.

Are you suggesting that a police (C) arresting murderer (B) who killed victim (A) is an initiation of force? Clearly C was NOT there in the act of B against A, C was never attacked, and hence any use of force by C could not be retaliatory? You don't need to be personally victimized to use retaliatory force, especially when the victim is dead and could not possibly retaliate. The problem here is that the retaliatory force was carried out by a mindless mob, not the fact that retaliatory force was carried out at all, on somebody else's behalf, which is perfectly valid. Nope. Plenty of laws protect police who initiate the use of force. They're not acting independently of the police institution. (Of course, you could be arguing about some abstract, perfect police station that works this way, but this case is very specific).

There's nothing particularly quantum mechanical about Noether's theorem (it was proven just before quantum mechanics was widely accepted). It applies to classical mechanics too.

Also, this nonsense (of per capita emissions) is what international agreements are based on. No international agreement asks all countries to have identical emissions.

Austere has a very limited negative connotation. dictionary.com defines "austere" as: 1) severe in manner or appearance; uncompromising; strict; forbidding 2) rigorously self-disciplined and severely moral; ascetic; abstinent 3) grave; sober; solemn; serious A terrorist should not be described as having a strict or extreme adherence to morality, even if the word has minor negative connotations.

It's not just this. India and China are leading the world in reforestation and shifting to renewable energy (and India is a dirt poor country). The idea that USA (or western countries in general) is unjustly punished, especially in comparison to India is retarded. India hasn't even started to industrialize and these American morons are already blaming India for shit that hasn't happened yet. They should at least allow us to fuck shit up before blaming us.

Apparently the number eight turns into an emoji.

There are plenty of sources with the same information: 1) Climate Analytics, 2015 (Pg 😎 https://climateanalytics.org/media/historical_responsibility_report_nov_2015.pdf 2) World Resource Institute: Per Capita (Historical): (India and China are not even on the list) 1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes 2. UK: 1,127 tonnes 3. US: 1,126 tonnes 4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes 5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes 6. Germany: 987 tonnes 7. Estonia: 877 tonnes 8. Canada: 780 tonnes 9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes 10. Russia: 666 tonnes 3) CDIAC (US Department of Energy; It was shut down, apparently after Trump got elected): Ranking as of the start of 2019: 1) US – 397GtCO2 2) CN – 214Gt 3) fmr USSR – 180 4) DE – 90 5) UK – 77 6) JP – 58 7) IN – 51 😎 FR – 37 9) CA – 32 10) PL – 27 4) Global Carbon Budget (Pg 19) 5) OurWorldInData (Data from CDIAC): India has a lot of plastic pollution as well as dust pollution from construction and particulate matter which lowers air quality. But if you're talking about greenhouse gases, India has next to nothing to do with it. India is not industrialized enough. India could not possibly have caused global warming in the last century (and global warming didn't start in 2017). India may contribute to global warming in the future, but as of 2019 (and talking about things that have already happened), India hasn't emitted that much. 97% of world CO2 emission (historical total) happened outside India.

Of course you didn't. Not that you have the intellectual capacity to understand this, but if you're comparing the total emissions of different countries, you're comparing India's total emissions to Vatican City's total emissions by implication. Your precious data is irrelevant. And India's CO2 emissions are still close to zero. And USA's cumulative emissions are 10 times that of India anyway (even with one-fourth of the population). So whether it's per capita or total, USA still pollutes way more than India (and "the west" in its entirety obviously pollutes way more than India): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1bD8IE6BU

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/32439-rebloggednumbskull-is-too-kind-a-word/&tab=comments#comment-360740 Comparing total CO2 emissions of India to that of Vatican City is nonsense. Only per capita figures matter. Otherwise, you're just comparing populations, not emissions. Everything from Total GDP to total number of rapes to total CO2 emissions are higher in India. None of that can be used to construct a moral argument (you cannot claim India is richer or has high rape rates or is a major pollutant based total figures). I already typed it out before. India has an infinite population. Anyone who expects any total statistic for India to be the same as that of Vatican City has no sense of reality, which is that India's per capita emissions are close to zero.