@Saar said in lets all convert to hinduism:
@Zack-Williamson
Eh ? Scientific method is not based on cherry-picking fallacy
They were not cherrypicked
They are cherry picked. If you don’t think you cherry-picked them, you can meet the persons whom I know. They are way better than what you have stereotyped about them.You can meet with a Pakistani Punjabi and N indian Yadav. They are my friends.
You can’t compare two behaviours- 1. online 2.irl. People tend to be very diff from irl here.
Observing online behaviour is perfect for comparison because different people and groups behave entirely different online
than real life
Since I don’t have the privilege to study real life behaviours,
Yet you are arguing with a person whose rudimentary argument was relevant to only real life.
I have no other way but to study online behaviours.
You brought the point of online behaviour. I did not.
Online behaviours can represent to some extent who a person really is.
My 19 friends are situated around me atm. 19/19 = 100% act v diff irl from how they behave online.
Second, online jokes or aggression cannot hurt people. It cannot go through the screen.
Agreed but it is important for understanding the differences in behaviour.
A study on 10-20 people does not prove anything because it is v limited.
Third, what looks aggressive to you, looks funny to me.
I often find them funny as well but rape,genocide,murder,abuse etc are aggressive by definition as they involve aggression whether they are funny or not.
Then try to change your previous posts which encourage others to complain about their online butthurt. Those who think online murders, rapes and genocide are funny would never call accused stupid. Why would you call someone stupid when you are unaffected in the first place ? TLDR: you lied.
Fourth and the most important, you left 2317923 to 3476885 Belgians (20-30% of whole population). 20 to 30 percent was the average of higher caste group in the study. 1 man represents 000043142% of higher castes among Belgians. Nice cherry picking fallacy.
You have to make full use of the sample. The sample is not cherry-picked. It includes any person from a particular group whose behaviour is observable So we have to rely on as much data we get. We never see unadmixed East Asians behaving the way the way West Eurasians(or people who are mixed with them) behave.
Your sample is indeed cherry picked because 1. it leaves more than 99.99% people of the same group. 2. You failed to acknowledge one person’s good deeds. Your study is not even conducted on 1k and that too they are selectively chosen by you.
Do only 2 guys represent more than 450 million indians ? Cherry picking fallacy again.
No. I just gave 2 examples as there are too many other examples to be mentioned. I am mainly talking about males(not females). Based on my observation, extremely high percentage(sometimes even more than 50%) of people of certain ethnicities behave very aggressively and these people mostly come from high socio-economic background. So environment doesn’t play a bigger role here. Genetic differences are the reason as we see different groups behaving entirely differently.
Then mention every Gujarati Yadav. You don’t even have data of all located Yadavs in Gujarat, India.
Could you mention every single username of them ? Who did what ?
Personal experience does not matter because a person can have a cognitive bias already.
My personal experience on social networking sites differ from you anyways
Indians
India is genetically diverse. So different groups will behave differently
Your above points can be summarised in the following fallacious argument-
Premise 1- Zack studied in Saint Paul’s school.
Premise 2- Zack is very aggresive.
Conclusion- Saint Paul’s shool is very aggresive.
However, there are 7.5k other students who studied in saint paul’s school and you cannot judge whole school on the basis of merely a student's behaviour.
No, my observation is entirely based on the sample. If I notice that 50% of the sample is behaving certain way then it is scientific to generalize that group.
Hasty generalisation
I too have so many examples to counter you. I have observed the behaviour of my Dutch, Russians, Danish, Romanians, Germans, Pakistanis, N indians, Japanese friends. Their behaviour is enormously opposite.
Percentage and nuances of behaviour matter and genetic diversity is present even within a homogenous group.
Why did you include Japanese btw? They are relatively unadmixed East Asians.
There are too many other examples which can be mentioned to counter your personal experience. Thus, I would quote wikipedia for your further faulty generilasation which is irrational-
I occasionally edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia is good for quick information but not for in-depth analysis
Could you show me an ss when you edited it ? Have they ever accepted a single edition without 3-4 other sources ? Wikipedia is good for in-depth analysis too.
I challenge you to edit the article ‘indo-European language with your personal experience of TWS and discord.
I don't judge anyone by their online behaviour. You need to research about this topic.
Online behaviour is part of real behaviour.
People behave differently irl because they are aware of consequences.
My friends and me behave diff irl because of something else.
7 reasons why north Indians are more aggressive than S Indians irl.
Prolly right to some extent. But aggression doesn’t only include higher crime rates. It also includes what people do and say and their actions must be observable for studying their behaviour.
Pakistanis are not the most aggressive South Asians. South Asia consists of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, SL. The crime index of Afghanistan is the highest in Asia. Check the crime index of Asia yourself-
Get your facts correct. You can check the map which I ssed from above source. Pakistanis have almost equal crime rate to other South Asian countries except Bangladesh and Afghanistan.
I didn’t include Afghanistan because many consider it as Central Asian instead of South Asian.
South Asia is the southern region of Asia, which is defined in both geographical and ethno-cultural terms. The region consists of the countries of Afghanistan[note 2], Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia
Afghan Pashtuns have around 30% Indo-European admixture(Yamnaya) which is much higher
There is a difference between have and may have. Second, argument from ignorance lacks evidence
Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic may have developed from Indo-European languages coming from Central Europe to Western Europe after the 3rd millennium BCE Yamnaya migrations into the Danube Valley
Source- your article
than the Pakistani average(20%). So even if u include Afghanistan, my point stands. And Bangladeshis on average have 13% Indo-European admixture which is significant on a population level but they also have 15% Eastern Asian admixture.
Since when 13% is more than 20% though ?
Also, Pakistani grooming gangs...
Crime includes non-aggressive crimes like stealing,drug-dealing,fraud,illegal immigration,tax evasion etc.:
https://ocindex.net/assets/downloads/global-ocindex-report.pdf
But still, crime reports support that Pakistan(unless you consider Afghanistan as South Asian) is more crime-ridden(which largely includes non-aggressive crimes) than other South Asian countries: https://ocindex.net/rankings
Also, crime rates are artificially higher in some places simply due to more reporting of crimes. Example:
Are you debating with me in 2012 or 2022 ? Second. the website has not provided any reference to me to check whether it stated statistics true or not. It is not an encyclopedia either
still, unless you include Afghanistan, Pakistan has the highest homicide rate and Madives has the lowest in South Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
So there is a good correlation between having Indo-European admixture and homicide rate and also criminality even if we assume that the crime rates are not simply higher due to more reporting of crimes
Arguing over one country is really nice but it is another cherry picking fallacy to leave other countries lol
You failed to acknowledge african countries which have 10x more homicide rates than Pakistan,
Wherever Muslims reside, the crime rates will always increase. They are fanatics and do not tolerate anything against their religion and PBUH MUHAMMAD
Aggression doesn’t only include higher crime rates. It also includes what people do and say.
Then you need to cite everything they say. You should not cite something which you like only. Nor should you cite something which they say on this website or discord only. What they say on whole internet, must be noticed too.
When did they migrate, according to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations
Read the article carefully. None of them have a direct evidence of migrations. What we have is inferences which need a vast amount of evidence.
http://www.classichistory.net/images/Archives/indoEuropeanArchives/indo_european_migration.jpg
Based on data, archaeologists and population geneticists(e.g. Razib Khan) hypothesize that when Indo-Europeans warriors arrived they killed the local males and bred with the women.
Argumentum ad speculum
Warriors and rapists are aggressive and they gave birth to aggressive children. This can be a reason why populations with Indo-European admixture are often so aggressive.
There is a significant diff between ‘can be’ and ‘is’. An argument from possibility cannot lead to confirmation. All other possibilities must be taken into account as well.
Aryans were never outsiders. The term Aryan belonged to the group of people who used to be Indo-iranians.
I never used the subjective term “Aryan”
Aryan is not a subjective term. The Aryan term is related to migration.
The term Caucasian includes modern and ancient populations of W Asia, Horn of Africa, N Africa, S Asia, C Asia & Europe. Thus, the obsoleted historical classification of races throw your argument out the window.
Right, I should have used “West Eurasian” instead of the outdated term “Caucasoid”
There are only 3 causes of hindu-muslim wars-
1.Hindu political parties motivate hindus to do violence against muslims
2. Economic& cultural factors
3. Demographics
Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India#:~:text=against minority groups.-,Over 10%2C000 people have been killed in Hindu-Muslim communal,3%2C949 instances of mass violence.
I feel so sorry to not find Craig 2.0's genetic diff in the above article