Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Deprecator

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  1. Not particularly, though I'm curious as to why you're so defensive about it. Do you not like it when others pass negative judgement in response to your admitted hedonistic pursuits? In theory there's nothing wrong with a mutually beneficial and consensual business transaction regarding the exchange of goods or services, though in practice it seems like there can be underlying issues leading to the sex trade in particular. Most notably, some research has suggested that women are more likely to use sex as "a resource to be traded" as opposed to "a mutually enjoyable leisurely activity" in areas where women make less money and have less access to education, relative to men. If such a notion has any basis at all then paying for sex would in fact be a form of exploitation in regards to the inherent inequality of the system. Even with all factors being equal, one of my favorite sayings of all time goes something like: "A woman that can be easily bought isn't worth having." Perhaps my biased, western upbringing gives me the impression that someone selling themselves for so cheaply (say, within the ~1 thousand dollar range) is either destitute, drug idled or otherwise associated with other unsavory activities. There are smart, independent women out there willing to pay their half on dates and split bills 50/50, who will offer their affections for reasons outside the direct exchange of resources; is the courting process really so inconvenient, strenuous or unrealistic to the point that you prefer to circumvent it altogether through the direct offer of currency?
  2. I thought it was really good and absolutely loved how it combined elements of Ex Machina and AMC's humans with tidbits of hunger games and groundhog's day. My favorite part of Ex Machina was the questioning and interrogation of the human replica to see if it possessed consciousness, and we're seeing that again with westworld where the machines are incorporating elements of deception and deceit when responding to human questioners, seemingly for the sake of self-preservation if not some other mysterious ulterior motive. Of course it's not really clear if this is the result of direct programming or if the AI is somehow mutating its code for the sake of another purpose. In a lucid dream we're free to do whatever we'd like without fear of moral or legal repercussion, a scenario that is replicated with the relationship between the hosts and the guests. Debauchery is an interesting concept, especially when considering the ability to mimic the touch and feel of a human coupled with ideal anatomical proportions in order to satiate the most primal of human urges. So whereas alcohol is used to mimic pleasure associated with nutritional gain, the machines are now used to mimic the pleasure associated with passing on genes with a suitable romantic partner. It sort of reminds me of a scene in AMC's Humans when a young, female protagonist was getting all upset when some teenage boys attempted to turn off a machine when the on version wasn't very compliant with their intentions. I still don't know why she tried to stop them; the boys were clearly hormonal and clearly she had no intention of helping them out in that regard. But we'll see... maybe by the time the show is over I'll be feeling bad for all those poor, NPCs I've massacred over the years.
  3. Interesting turn of events... City loses, barca loses, dortmund loses and bayern and RM draw. And RM go 4 straight games without a win. They may be tied for most points in la liga though I can't help but wonder if this is somehow a mini-crisis. Losing marcello has been a huge blow espeically because danillo has always made me cry a little. There's also no suitable replacement for casemero or modric plus ronaldo seems to be losing his groove. They may be injury prone but when fit I've always been very impressed with the likes of Marco Reus and Aaron Ramsey... would easily take either of them over pogba or rodriguez. Kinda disappointed they haven't moved on to bigger clubs like RM or Barca.
  4. I for one applaud the OP in bringing up concrete data involving interracial murder rates. Facts are facts; according to FBI statistics whites were more likely to murder blacks than the other way around, and there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to explore and analyze why this might be the case. Now while the OP might have the right idea, it's disappointing that he's nitpicking select pieces of data as opposed to broadening his scope and looking at the larger picture. For an example, it should be noted that murder makes up 1.2% of violent crime (which includes assault, rape and robbery), and of that 1.2% only 11% is white on black or black on white. So in the end dog's visual depiction comprises a grand total .132% of all violent crime. So why is dogzilla choosing to focus on 1.2% of violent crime? If I had to take a wild guess I'd say that it's because he's a liberal and the remaining 98.8% of violent crime wouldn't be consistent with his politically correct agenda. It should also be noted that based on dog's data alone, blacks are still ~5-6 times more likely to commit murder than whites. In addition, expanding interracial murder to interracial violent crime paints a completely different picture; according to the DOJ, blacks are responsible for 84.9% of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites, and if you think this can be attributed solely to socioeconomic inequality then think again; blacks are again responsible 82.5% of violent crimes involving blacks and hispanics. So what does this all mean? If we take Dog's eye grabbing title, that blacks are 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by whites than the other way, and change "murder" to "attack," then the statement roughly translates to: Whites 27 times more likely to be attacked by blacks than the other way. So again, while the general approach of the OP was perfectly valid, it's still a bit odd that he chose to nitpick such a tiny facet of violent crime as opposed to violent crime in general.
  5. I am referring to subspecies within tigers. You see identifiable genetic differences based on geographic origin within virtually animal, including that of humans. Taxonomy, as fickle as it may be when attempting to define species or subspecies (multiple definitions are given, all of which are disputed), isn't pseudoscience, and denying that subspecies exist amongst humans becomes the equivalent of not accepting biology textbook definitions for subspecies. That you seem to accept the genetic variation within subspecies of tigers but seem unable to accept the genetic variation within subspecies of humans suggest profound inclinations toward cognitive inconsistencies and general ignorance of basic science. Speaking of "dead" ideas, lets consider the facts: We haven't mapped the entire human genome. We haven't identified all human genes. We don't know the function of all the genes we have identified. We don't fully understand all mechanics involved with gene expression (i.e. chromatin shape). In other words, Liberal: There is no gene associated with race. Skeptic: So you're saying that we've identified all the genes and their functions within the human genome? Liberal: well not exactly, but we can still say there's no gene associated with race. Science: As long as geographic origin is correlated with race then there will be a biological significance associated with race. And if I thought it would help I would go on about the clinical applications of race and how denying its existence undermines its medical relevance in terms of diagnosis, disease progression, drug response and susceptibility, but what's the point. And I usually don't like copying third party sources but I just wanted to point out that ideas pertaining to genetic variation and race (or distinct geographical populations) are not even close to ideas regarding a flat earth.
  6. I don't know, Maiohmy, at this point you keep going around in circles and contradicting yourself. How can race be a social construct with no genetic basis if the very articles you're choosing to link me openly admit that "In biology, races are genetically distinct populations within the same species." You see this genetic variation not only in humans, but in other animals as well. As an example I've already stated, white tigers are differentiated from bengal tigers by a mutation in the gene for the tyrosinase enzyme; this difference is clearly genetic and not remotely a social construct, and observable differences between these races (or subspecies) of tiger extend beyond mere color difference, such as with size (implicating hormonal variation as well). Saying that a certain gene has mutated isn't the same thing as saying white people are mutants, and based on common ancestor theory a vast number of our characteristics would in fact be attributed to mutation. That you find this comical or worthy of derision suggests profound ignorance of the fundamental basics of biology. Furthermore, sentences such as: "One's race is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster," may be true, but in itself does not paint the entire picture and also doesn't contradict the notion that there are genetic components to race. First and foremost I feel it's important to point out that the entire human genome hasn't been sequenced yet; quite literally parts of it are so clustered together that they can't be identified, and who's to say the millions of unidentified base pairs don't have any racial implications? In addition, even if a particular gene has identical base sequences they can still vary significantly in how they're expressed, with the most obvious example being chromosome condensation causing variation in conformation, a phenomenon that attributes different eye color in fruit flies despite having 100% identical base sequences. In other words, there's far more to the gene itself than just the nucleotide sequence; blacks and whites could have 100% identical genes, but a gene's specific function or expression can still vary significantly. So again, given that we don't know the entire human genome and there's a number of other factors attributing to their expression, I can't help but find it absolutely incredible that liberal propagandists have the audacity to make resolute claims regarding what is and isn't genetic. Facts are still facts regardless of whether they're consistent with your world view, and it doesn't help the liberal cause or whatever else you're trying to prove by denying them.
  7. I'm confused. Are you finally accepting that there are genetic components to race? Because previously you clearly stated that there was no genetic component to race, and now I'm getting mixed messages.
  8. Right. And just because 98% of all reported rapes are commited by men doesn't mean that men, as a collective demographic, are more likely to commit rape. There are no biological or environmental factors that increase men's propensity to commit rape. Men, as a collective demographic, are not more likely to commit rape than women. #liberal logic According to science, genes are portions on chromosomes that serve as the basis for expressing phenotypes. Thanks to differences in our genes we have phenotypical variation amongst our species, and these variations are often used to in taxonomy, especially when distinguishing or categorizing other plants, animals or bacteria, kind of like if you wanted to distinguish a white tiger from a bengal tiger. Sorry that you find the acknowledgement of these facts so disgusting, but this is the fundamental basis for why people are disgusted with liberal culture; facts are still facts regardless of whose feelings they hurt and denying them undermines the entire scientific process and general pursuit of knowledge. I just love how geneticists themselves openly concede that there's still so much we don't know about genetics, yet somehow all the liberal criminal justice majors consider themselves to be experts on what can and cannot be genetic.
  9. You're really concerned with my cutting and spinning of things aren't you? Though again, I think you're missing the larger picture here. No one has suggested or implied that black people commit all the crime in society. The issue at hand was the following question: "Are blacks more violent than whites?" Regardless of socioeconomic inequality, social issues or other factors, the fact remains that certain crime databases support the notion that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, a disproportion that is further amplified when considering interracial crime. As such, I'm absolutely baffled as how the liberal Clinton supporters resolutely believe that answering "yes" to the question makes you a deplorable person. Why is it that, according to liberals, I can acknowledge statistics stating that men are more violent than women but I can't do the same when acknowledging that blacks are more violent than whites? (Obviously these are generalities, and I've already defined what "more violent" entails in previous posts. Furthermore, while most men are not criminals and most blacks are also not criminals, this acknowledgement isn't part of, or even related to, the question spurring the controversy). I do keep asking the same question: why can I acknowledge statistics stating that men are more violent than women but I can't do the same when acknowledging that blacks are more violent than whites? The OP has me ignored and you keep going on these tangents on how "blacks don't commit all the crime" and how you're incapable of providing summaries or using your own argument. Are you studying genetics? If we're classifying race by variation in melanocyte's production of melanin, variations in nostril width and lip sizes amongst other categorizable and measurable phenotypes then I daresay there is by definition a genetic component to race. Undoubtedly there will be gray areas though that's because taxonomy is a fickle subject in general; biologists still struggle to find suitable definitions for speciation, which is a tremendous limitation when discussing evolution, but that doesn't mean that saying "this is a horse" or "this is a monkey" becomes irrelevant information altogether. For an example, if we take the "reproductive compatibility" definition for a species then why are biologists differentiating homo sapiens from homo Neanderthals? Just because it's not an exact science doesn't mean it's not relevant. This is true but I don't understand how it's evidence suggesting that a genetic component to criminality is impossible or even unlikely. If red blood cell structure is favored by natural selection in certain geographic areas then why can't skin pigmentation, hormone levels and other variations in chemical production also vary by region? All possibilities should be considered, but one shouldn't be dismissed altogether simply because it's not consistent with your world view.
  10. What a great time to be a Real Madrid fan. CL winners, top of la liga, on the verge of breaking la liga winstreak record... They've looked shaky in the past vs the likes of roma, wolfsburg and now again with sporting yet still their knack for winning continues, this time with an amazing comeback and superb ronaldo free kick. I know I say this every year but what I wouldn't give to seem them defend their title in an el classico champions league final.
  11. Exactly. And no one can explain to my why its discussion or acknowledgment should be indicative of racist or deplorable behavior, as the opinion of the original poster suggests. Data is data, and conclusions or interpretations pertaining to the scientific method shouldn’t be dismissed or ignored merely because it’s not consistent with some liberal or politically correct agenda. Racism as it’s described by the dictionary, the belief that one race is superior to another, in itself has nothing to with advocating violence or eradication in any form. As such it’s ironic that "racists" are often dubbed the lowest and most deplorable of society, as intuitively one would think that a non-violent and non-criminal racist would be ranked leaps and bounds above that of a violent and criminal non-racist. And why does discussing interracial crime discrepancies have to be any more shame inducing than discussing men's propensity towards violence when compared to women? As a male, suggesting that men are more violent than women doesn't offend me in the slightest, in part because it's the truth, and shaming anyone bringing up the topic merely because it's not consistent with politically correct values derails our scientific pursuit of knowledge. Why is black on white rape so much more prevalent than white on black rape? Liberals will claim that genetic components implicating this phenomenon are "impossible" when factually speaking our understanding of genetics is so limited and the length of our genome so extensive that the notion of certain complimentary base-pair sequences increasing rates of rage-inducing hormones or other factors occurring more frequently in one race is far from outside realm of possibility. Why is it possible for one race to be genetically more prone to a certain diseases than another race, yet, a genetic component linking criminality and violent behavior is somehow impossible by default?
  12. I think you've missed my point entirely. First off, social dynamics weren't mentioned anywhere in the article you linked, which clearly stated that crime was caused by socioeconomics factors. If you want to disagree with the article you linked by acknowledging other factors as well then that's fair enough, though surely social factors pertaining to the work force and bread winning aren't enough to explain the discrepancies in propensity towards violence between men and women. The obvious example here being with small children and how little boys are FAR more likely to engage in playground scuffles than little girls, and all despite not having any pressure at all to work, bread-win or provide. Would this fact argue in favor of boys being more prone towards violence than girls or do you want to maintain your "social factor" stance and suggest that parents actively encourage their boys to fight other children. Either way, the point is that the acknowledgement of facts, be it that men are more violent than women, or that white males are more likely to perpetrate crimes against children, or that blacks are more violent than whites, shouldn't be grounds to be labeled a deplorable person. (And for the record, the disproportion listed in your crimes against children article doesn't even come close to the disproportion in interracial crime statistics, which again, can hardly be explained away by "social factors" or "socioeconomic inequality"). As for the narrative you can create, I wouldn't blame anyone for preferring to hire a female teenage college student as a baby sitter as opposed to a 45 year old white male. But hey, if this stance isn't politically correct enough then don't worry, it's only the safety of your children that would be at risk.
  13. If crime is caused by socioeconomic factors rather than cultural pathologies or inherent criminality, as suggested by your article, then surely we'd see equal rates of violent crimes being committed between men and women. Or at the very least we'd see more violent crime being committed by women because don't women make less money? As such it's frustrating that the article attempts to categorize raw data as a myth and then branches off on a separate tangent altogether with government and banks. Is it also a myth that men commit more violent crime than women? Is this also because men are more marginalized and oppressed and therefore receive more attention and punishment? Or perhaps the criminal system is inherently prejudiced against men. As speculative and as controversial as theoretical conclusions may be, the data itself is indisputable. In short, it's ridiculous that with PC/ liberal culture, I can site a source when claiming that men are more more violent than women but I can't use the same source to claim that blacks are more violent than whites. Your article also doesn't even touch discrepancies with interracial crime. For an example, based on , black on white crimes is 200 x higher than white on black crime. Are socioeconomic factors alone enough to explain this? For a further extreme, compare white on black rape to black on white rape. All because of socioeconomic factors you say? At what extreme does it suddenly become okay to explore other possibilities?
  14. I don't get it. When I say that, in general, men are significantly more violent than women, which is to say that men are far more likely to commit rape, murder, assault, robbery and other violent crimes than women are, no one bats an eye. No one accuses me of being sexist or bigoted and heck, no one even asks me to cite my sources. These truths are apparently self-evident, presumed on the basis of testosterone and other genetic and biological factors. Change "men" to "blacks" and "women" to "whites" and suddenly everyone loses their mind, which is incredibly ironic considering that both statements can be supported by identical sources. It's this polarized reaction, inconsistency and general hypocrisy that I find disgusting among Clinton supporters and the liberal community in general. Trump may not be perfect but he's not trying to sugarcoat his words because he's worried about whose feelings he's going to hurt. I suspect Trump will run all over Clinton in the debate, simply because Trump will be in his element and for the life of me I can't fathom a situation where Clinton is capable of answering a direct question.
  15. I still don't buy it. How do we live in a social media obsessed world where photos of every other sandwich people eat are posted online and yet somehow none of these mysterious "I've dated plenty of guys that are 1/10s" are ever backed by visual evidence? Also it's one thing to offer a singular pity date to a 1/10 and it's another thing altogether to form a long term meaningful relationship; the former would make these women feel sincere when answering the poll and the latter of which would still prove otherwise. This is a good point. While my psychology is a little rusty, all of these traits people supposedly look for in a mate, be it chemistry, loyalty, compassion, honesty, shared interest or intelligence, are all considerably amplified and more likely to be perceived, almost to an unrealistic degree, with people they find physically attractive. I could also never understand the "I find intelligence really attractive" gig. Are people literally walking around giving people intelligence tests or inquiring into their academic achievements? They're most certainly not. Rather, the more physically attractive they find them the more likely they are to perceive them as intelligent. I can also say first hand that it doesn't matter how well I do on the MCAT, what curve I set on a test or which medical school I get accepted into; women still hopelessly flock to student athletes and other such individuals with the more desirable physical traits.