Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Double_R
Any employee of the state departments: Doesn't know it's a lie, it might even be a half truth (which are the best lies).Seriously? What do you think the people who work at the state department do all day? Sit around waiting for the VP to tell them what's going on around the world?
In terms of % of employees most probably sit around all day. I've never been surrounded by more unproductive people than when I worked for government, I got out pay be damned thank goodness.
In this case it's not the whole state department, it's just one ambassador and whoever he involved. Seeing as a few phone calls fully explain all the evidence there is no need to assume anyone else was necessary.
Obama: Doesn't know it's a lie, it might even be a half truth (which are the best lies), even if he was ever informed (which I have seen no evidence of). Meanwhile it tends to be counter-productive to put an underling in charge of something and then micromanage them.It's not micromanaging to know when your underling is threatening to withhold US foreign aid to another country.
Maybe, but it remains true that my theory does not require Obama to know about the quid pro quo much less know it was helpful to Biden's personal finances.
The state department, as well as every intelligence agency in the government exists to keep the president informed of world affairs.
That's why people admitted to lying to Trump about troop deployments right?
And your answer is he didn't know because no one told him because the departments themselves didn't know. You can't be serious.
I'm quite serious. Also recall that there are two different things to know:
A) the extortion, which Biden bragged about on camera
B) The fact that Hunter was collecting money for inexplicable benefits as his father delivered on removing a prosecutor who has claimed he was investigating the source of the inexplicable benefits.
There is no reason to assume that anybody except the Bidens and their shell company goons knew about (B) until later investigations and (actual) journalism. One of those shell company goons wasn't sufficiently goonish and became a whistleblower BTW, so even there the conspiracy size was too big.
You tell me, why are they now convinced there are audio recordings of Biden accepting bribes (which he probably solicited)? Why would they do that?Because of politics. Accusing Biden of bribery is what the base wants, even when the source is a Russian oligarch who provided no evidence and no one has talked to in 3 years.
Sounds like they aren't that hard to convince.
If the VP were strong arming another country to save his corrupt son especially against official US foreign policy everyone working around him would know about it.
Ok, so you assume that since everyone must know about corruption, the only possible conspiracy size is: everyone. Since you don't want to be a conspiracy theorist you dismiss the possibility of corruption because such a large conspiracy could not exist.
You call me a conspiracy theorist because I do not dismiss the possibility of corruption. You do not acknowledge that I do not agree with the premise that the only possible conspiracy size is: everyone.
Has it occurred to you that your implicit argument that corruption was impossible is applicable to every government?
How did the holocaust happen? That's a pretty big conspiracy size. They all agreed on the goal? Yes but there were goals within goals weren't there. Some nazis wanted to kill jews and that's all. Some wanted to steal the jew's stuff... and probably see them dead.
That's what's going on here. The deep state wanted burisma protected because it was a pawn in the energy game in Ukraine, fighting over the gas pipelines (sound familiar?). The deep state wanted Shokin gone because he was not playing ball with Ukraine being a puppet (they called him pro-russian and the Russians liked him because of this). Biden wanted all that, plus he was skimming off the whole affair via Hunter's "employment".
Even if a deep-stater knew about Hunter (which there would be no reason to assume they did), they wouldn't care at all about that because blowing the whistle would endanger the removal of Shokin and weaken the US overlordship.
How do you think I know all this?Because apparently Joe Biden decided to tell the entire world about his corruption, right before running for president
That's how I knew about (A), and even that was a slow boil because the propaganda machine didn't care. That was one of Trump's strategic mistakes the whole term BTW, he trusted DC swamp creatures with information. If he had just blasted it out in tweets they could never have railroaded him like they did.
Created:
Posted in:
At this point I would like to point out that the CoC (somehow still not updated) includes "You may not engage in or promote criminal activity."
Can we please remove that absurd rule already?
Created:
Posted in:
Use that intelligence of yours to analyze the exceedingly simple game theory here.
If your premise is that you need to be of equal or greater intelligence to someone else in order to know you are of equal or greater intelligence then everyone can simply claim that they are the most intelligent and because that is true no one else can see that it's true.
So why the are you interested in what could (in your mind) very well be dogshit interpretations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Tears also control the culture. May the agenda with the best sob-story propaganda win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
What part of…Truth is an affirmative defense…did you not understand????
The part where insults are by definition untrue rendering the establishment of truth to be equivalent to proving non-insult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That's not the definition of an insult, more like the definition of slander.
Created:
Posted in:
Is everyone here former lovers? It's like Grey's anatomy around here.[RationalMadman] Sorry you are super genius to spot this. MPS was my sissy partner for a while while I explored my bi side, that's one of the lower IQ exes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
what MPS said was NOT an insult.
It was an insult but that is the only retort to a boast. That's why boasting tends to be a bad idea.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
At least you admit yiu were wrong
I haven't mentioned yiu nor do I know him. <- choosing the obtuse answer, wouldn't want you to have all the fun
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If you both like writing, you might be interested in a site I made for competitive creative writing. Still in the beta phase, but partly modeled after DART.
Now there is something where voting on a winner is acceptable. I signed up.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Cannot justly be deprived of rights. That should have been obvious to you.but someone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable guilt cannot be deprived of rights.CURRENTLY THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Is that what you did? Does historical slavery also contradict my statement?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You did well in finding other areas of moral hazard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Um, debate is t about changing anyone’s mind. It’s about who can provide the better, more well-grounded argument with more convincing fact based evidence to support the assertion. If minds are changed in the process, that’s just a bonus.
It's about determining the better argument, but I was responding the mps who said he's writing a book and using debate to basically strengthen his case.
If anything I'm saying that if you really care about changing people's minds you need to pull some dirty emotional manipulation because people aren't rational these days (not that they ever were perfectly, but there were times and places where it was much better).
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I've pretty much decided you're not serious enough about debate to engage with. I'll give you something brief to see if you say something reasonable: I don't know what "involved in shootings" means, but someone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable guilt cannot be deprived of rights. Rights are not things you have to take time out of your day to go to a courthouse to recover.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mps1213
“Any law with majority support should be passed and stand/A fentanyl ban has majoirty support//Therefore, fentanyl should be banned”You asked what data can prove this incorrect. Well you can see that data shows when laws are passed based off of collective ignorance usually goes poorly and gets people killed.
See, now you're talking about people getting killed :)
If the conclusion is on the other side of the is-ought chasm values will always be involved. In this case valuing life. The pattern by which values lead to rules is the field of ethics.
So while there may not be data or evidence to say the idea is wrong that the majority should make the decision, you can show that the majority should not make the decision if the majority is wrong.
"The clock is right until it isn't"
You can also show that the decision of a jeopardy wheel should not be followed if the decision is wrong. If the majority is only to be followed when it's right then the majority has no affect on determining what is right.
Just like when the majority tried to claim the earth was flat and threw people in prison for arguing it.
That's called ad absurdum and is the single most common valid argument. If you can show that the premise, if true, would lead to false conclusions then you can conclude the premise is false.
Since the majority thought the Earth was flat, and the Earth was not flat, it cannot be true that the majority is always correct. Hence it is proven that ad populum is a fallacy.
Now my premise was that the majority determined what should be legal, and ad populum is much more general, saying that the majority does not determine what is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mps1213
The reason debunking myths is important should be pretty obvious.
It is to me.
If we don’t start by busting those myths and instead try to explain to people why their philosophy is bad
You can't disprove philosophical theories with non-philosophical arguments. A philosophy isn't wrong because someone following it sometimes has bad information about the world. Nor is a philosophy right just because someone following it is well acquainted with a particular set of facts.
In a scientific conversation the facts need to be established first, before we start using philosophy.
That's like saying when constructing a roof the rafters must be established first, before we can pour a foundation.
A scientific conversation doesn't need to involve philosophy because the definition of "science" already presumes particular philosophical answers. Science presumes reason is the means of attaining knowledge and discerning truth from falsehood (rationality in epistemology). Science presumes there is one reality that we all observe (metaphysics existence exists), rejecting the matrix hypothesis (for example).
Science does not presume an ethics, and that is something many people do not realize. They seem to think for some reason that if they just collect a few more datasets or verify a few more calculations then they'll know right from wrong and can compute proper policy. While atheists decry the dogma of religion and hold up science as the alternative there is a gap because there is no ethics to speak of. They merely say "I don't need god to be a good person".
Yes but they need some way to know what a good person is, and no one teaches children and students this (should be) obvious truth.
If we did it the other way we wouldn’t know anything about anything. We would just have wild theories as to what stars are made of, or wild theories as to the shape of the earth.
When we know the shape of the Earth and the composition of the stars all we will have is wild theories about what is justified and what isn't, what leads to evil and suffering and what doesn't. When we killed sixty million people in the 20th century we knew the shape of the Earth and the composition of the stars, it didn't save us.
No, ethics is not concerned with the shape of the Earth or the composition of stars.
The tool is the same: reason. The problem is different.
The evidence needed for philosophy is thin as a wafer, only mathematics requires less evidence. It is evidence that is available to everyone in every community. That is why the arguments of people like Aristotle still hold validity for philosophy and little to none in terms of explaining natural phenomenon. He didn't have the data to infer atoms or biology. He did have the data to infer good and evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mps1213
But literally every argument you said that people made are extremely easy to refute with evidence and data.
Really?
What data could refute this:
/Any law with majority support should be passed and stand
/A fentanyl ban has majoirty support
//Therefore, fentanyl should be banned
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bill-0
He's been on Tim Pool's show. It's a good sign when you're not afraid of people in other political tribes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mps1213
Yes I’m for legalization. I’ve studied pharmacology and neurochemistry for years at this point. I do make a “moral” argument if you can call it that. I also base a lot of my argument around pharmacology and busting drug myths.
One of the things I've been known to complain about is the lack of basic philosophical education in the vast majority of curricula.
Assuming you're telling the truth about studying pharmacology and neurochemistry for years you must certainly know far more than me and are probably at the point where I would be lucky to know half the terms you use.
... However, the implication that you can make an argument for or against legalization without a moral theory is the philosophical equivalent of asking how to boil water.
Say you bust every drug myth. What does that have to do with anything?
Assume we're talking about marijuana and you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that marijuana never made a person more violent and never will. Does that mean it should be legal? There is a huge amount of assumptions and hidden premises that go into that answer. It's not intractable but it's no less critical a path to determining the proper legality than establishing the objective truth about the drug.
The first and most critical question is not "what does the drug do" but "what gives the government a right to attack people for possessing/using a drug?" which is a subset of "what gives anybody a right to not be attacked by anybody else for any reason?"
It's one thing to gloss over things that are long agreed upon, but it has been my experience that people don't gloss over morality because they agree on it; they aren't even aware of their own moral assumptions and follow a contradictory maze of principles and prejudices.
What if marijuana makes you more content with your life on the edge of society doing small scale farming? Obviously you're not hurting anyone right so that means you should be allowed to do it?
What may be obvious to you or me is not obvious to everyone. There are plenty of things that are harmless (or rather, cannot be proven to be harmful by any strong argument) that are considered immoral. (Oh and nobody believes in a separation of legality and morality, that's just a bizarre myth that got started because of atheist talking points I think).
Maybe somebody believes that this marijuana user is wasting his or her potential and wouldn't be if they didn't use marijuana. Here you might insert your objective facts about marijuana being not that addictive and really doesn't impair your thinking too much (or something). They'll just come back with "but it makes you happy or else they wouldn't do it, fake satisfaction destroys motivation. Unmotivated people are a detriment to the net utility of society and thus it should be illegal on those grounds."
Do you see how easily the goalposts are moved from what you assumed about the moral theory at work vs what this person is implying? Now anything pleasant is a possible threat to society? How can that be a princible?
but as I said people don't care about contradicting principles they don't know they have. They'll throw one at you one minute and forget about it the next.
Democracy is another locus of presumed moral authority. Suppose that it's not anything that is pleasant that society must stop, but only those pleasant things that the majority by whim decide are a step too far.
Well ad populum is a known logical fallacy but that doesn't matter to someone using this argument because MUH DEMOCRACY!
At this point you're dealing with someone with a completely unbounded moral theory. It has no principles and can have no principles because whim is the opposite of principle no matter whose whim it is. Against such a thing all the objective facts about drugs are useless. An unbounded moral theory could justify dropping a nuclear bomb because candy causes cavities.
I've done some sloppy work categorizing all the common variants of unbounded moral theories and one of the most fundamental is moral subjectivism. Everyone who gives the lazy and useless answer of "well I don't believe in an objective morality but..." <- there is no "but", the guy just denied the existence of anything resembling truth. Subjective morality is the epitome of whim.
"Marijuana should be illegal because [I believe] it's wrong." (they often leave off the "I believe" even though it's intrinsic to subjectivity)
"Why"
"I can't explain it to you, it's a subjective truth"
"Then why should I care?"
[At this point they insert some other common unprincipled nonsense]
"There are more people who think like me than who think like you" OR "If you don't already know why it's wrong there is just no hope for you, leave and never return!" OR "God told me, trust me bro" OR "Here are some really smart people who agree with me (dumps of bunch of links because there is always somebody somewhere who agrees with something)"
Reasoning is as strong as the weakest link in the chain. Good (objective) science can never bridge the is-ought chasm alone. It needs good (objective) ethics (and matching epistemology & metaphysics).
So if you’d like to have that sort of discussion we can. I have another form called “drug education with pharmacology” or something like that. We can have the conversation there.
I'll check it out (if I don't forget). My experience with drugs is quite pedestrian and I wouldn't mind knowing more. My one observation is of a family member on some kind of antidepressant. He blamed a lot of near sociopathic behavior on "coming off" that drug. I also have anecdotally noticed these things show up a lot in the history of school shooters.
it’s hard to vote against the evidence and logic I have
I wish that were true, but what you call controversial isn't all that controversial in the grand scheme and quite a lot of people are open to the legalization of some drugs.
It's like you're arguing for homosexual liberation five years after the stonewall incident, or for civil rights after MLK was assassinated. It's easy to get a false sense of the rationality of your fellow man when you're swimming with the rising tide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mps1213
A debate? Yes. The 'formal' debate with judges and a big "winner" determined by votes? No.
Well, I just thought about it and you're for legalization right? So am I (due to base moral principle not any particulars of a drug). If I was on the wrong moral side it wouldn't be so bad to "lose". Of course now that I admitted I would want to "lose" some troublemakers are would vote for my arguments. Or (forgive me, no offense) your arguments might be so terrible that I "win" even though I know my arguments are invalid in the total context.
Or the judges would think your arguments were weak when they weren't....
You see what kind of non-sense inappropriate democracy brings? Turns every debate into a political strategy session (and those who don't realize that are naive).
Created:
Posted in:
Well unfortunately in 2016 everybody thought it would be politically impossible to simply pretend there was a crime. The blind loyalty of the left-tribe and the ignorant trust of the normies was vastly underestimated.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Agreeing to a protective order is not a trial establishing guilt it's just saying "I'll save everybody the lawyer fees because I don't want to see that *)##$ again either".The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after alle
Created:
Posted in:
Learn very rapidly and show high curiosity and depth of understanding
Your curiosity and depth of understanding have not made an impression on me.
Question authority and the status quo
Nor have I seen anything but a complete comfort with the status quo from you.
Have weak emotional regulation with possible rage problems
Here I agree.
Before you start to respond to the above though, keep in mind that list is what I would consider classic psychobabble pseudoscience. It has too many points that are too broad. If anything it appears to be a balm for people on the fringes of society to comfort themselves with. "Yes, I have all these problems and no friends; but at least I'm smart."
I speak as someone who experiences temptations like that. I may think I'm smarter than most people, I definitely think I'm more rational that almost everyone; but what is the point in telling people that?
What's your thoughts when you just read that. Did you say "well I guess ADOL is more rational than most people, good on him". I doubt it.
I suspect a Dunning Kruger effect here. It may take a special kind of stupid to think telling others you're intelligent is going to turn out well.
Then again this is a debate website with barely any traffic because nobody debates anymore. I'm anonymous, you're more or less anonymous. What is there to lose?... What is there to gain?
The mentally unwell are over represented on this site in my opinion, and perhaps I've already invested far too much time here. I've had few good debates and even those about rather trivial or ephemeral matters. Posting my reasons for seeking debate has reminded me of what I've not had here, there are much more friendly places to lounge about for some banter and social interaction.
Created:
Posted in:
@Sir.Lancelot @Mps1213
Debate doesn't change minds at any appreciable rate because the number of people committed to rationality as a core value is small and most of those have already come to the correct conclusions already.
I let go of that delusion a long time ago.
Created:
Posted in:
[RationalMadman] I don't see where I bragged
I guess you never said you had high IQ or were more intelligent than average, but it was strongly implied.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
As I explained in my previous post, I'm talking about willing participants in activities providing no discernable benefit to those involved. And by willing, I'm talking about people who are aware of all of this.
Aware that there is no benefit? Then of course that's against human nature.
...but since humans so easily delude themselves and others that means absolutely nothing and large numbers of people to come together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved.
In the first example, you have both the Vice President upending US foreign policy in order to cover for the corruption of himself and his son by making up a lie that the Ukrainian prosecutor is corrupt, meanwhile the State Department and the President decide to go along with it pretending it's all for legitimate reasons. Why? How does this benefit either? No conceivable answer.
Any employee of the state departments: Doesn't know it's a lie, it might even be a half truth (which are the best lies). +Not being on the wrong side of your superiors who could fire you.
Obama: Doesn't know it's a lie, it might even be a half truth (which are the best lies), even if he was ever informed (which I have seen no evidence of). Meanwhile it tends to be counter-productive to put an underling in charge of something and then micromanage them.
What you claim can only be explained by conspiracy against the public is absurdly easy to explain through ignorance and self-interest.
Then you have government officials from both within the US government (including republicans) buying into the whole thing hook line and sinker. Why?
You tell me, why are they now convinced there are audio recordings of Biden accepting bribes (which he probably solicited)? Why would they do that?
What about US intelligence communities? Any of them care to speak up about what was going on? No? Why not? No conceivable answer.
How many people actually knew what was going on? Do whistleblowers not count? (because there are whistle blowers)
What about journalists? Anyone wondering why a non corrupt prosecutor is being fired for corruption after being pushed out by an official of a foreign government?
Yes I posted those questions from journalists, you dismissed them because they were Russian.
Does anyone want to break the story of the corrupt VP covering up for his son? No? Why not? No conceivable answer.
How do you think I know all this?
So with all of the hard passes by literally everyone to look into this, how did we eventually find out? Oh, because the corrupt VP who got away with everything decided to tell the entire world about it just as he was gearing up for a presidential campaign.
Oh he didn't tell the whole world about Hunter's income sources. He was just bragging about the quid pro quo when it was still cool to extort US puppets.
And now that the issue has been widely politicized, all of a sudden we are learning the truth that no one wanted to know about before.
You are right the lack of wide politicization explains the lack of hard scrutiny before. It's easy to dominate the narrative when you're the only one releasing information.
Makes perfect sense.
I know.
But there's more, because it turns out the world's third most utilized medical site decides to post whatever feels right to them with no science to back it up.And the staff who run various aspects of this website just go along with it. Non of them share the fact that the website most people turn to for basic easily verifiable medical information is bullshit with anyone, including apparently after they leave the company.And medical professionals from all over the world who could easily tell whether the information is bogus seem to care nothing about the fact that dangerously false information is being spread by this prominent site.
First I've heard of it.
And no journalist wants to break the story and maybe win a Nobel prize for exposing the fraud that spreads false medical information to hundreds of millions of people every month.
"Most scientists agree that sexual orientation (including homosexuality and bisexuality) is the result of a combination of environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological factors."
That's not medical information, that's stating the sky is blue in scientific vocabulary. Try to imagine a test to disprove that.
BTW you can't win nobel prizes for for non-PC things BTW. See Obama 'winning'.
This is the world we live in in the mind of a conspiracy. theorist
Well when you're done roleplaying as a strawman maybe you can admit I'm right about appealing to authority being useless in the context of debate.
Created:
Posted in:
[RationalMadman] I didn't even say one thing about MPS and him attacking me had 0 to do with the topic. I will refrain from insulting back.
You made yourself a topic when you were bragging. Ad hominem is only a fallacy if the hominid is not the subject. You can't have an interpretation of the rules where people can go around saying "I am the god of facts and logic made manifest, kneel." and any denial is bannable.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
None of these are analogous.
They aren't analogies they are examples of "large numbers of people to come together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved".
So yes, I think it is plausible because it's happened so many times and keeps happening.
if the experts involved didn't know their information was unreliable, they wouldn't be experts.
Eureka!
The Nazis, MAGA, all examples of people being led by their worst impulses in a situation where people are scared and/or angry and looking for a scapegoat.
Well it's a good thing we've moved beyond fear and anger... oh wait...
If you're wondering what the emotions evolved here are it's very simple: People don't like to be shamed, they don't like to feel as if they're broken or disabled.
Anyone who is willing to tell a sexual deviant that they're abnormality is not only beyond their control but the result of a long history of being loyal supporters of their family is going to have a willing audience.
Don't misunderstand, just because it is comforting doesn't mean it's false; but this isn't different and it never will be. People will always have values which means they will always have preferences which means they will always have bias. Objectivity isn't the lack of bias it's the application of logical checks.
Any social or political scientist could explain how this works in detail. None of this compares to the type of conspiracies you allege.
The only conspiracy I've alleged (when you were paying attention) was that Hunter and Joe Biden were conspiring with the CEO of Burisma to deflect an investigation. Everything else could be easily explained by people following orders or reporting what they were told.
Just as statements on WebMD without a shred of scientific utility (and just like religious dogma quite untestable for the moment) can easily be explained by WebMD staff wanting to lend aid and comfort to what is popularly seen as a victim group. That's not a conspiracy, or if it is; then everything is a conspiracy and anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist is insane.
Created:
Yemen has very low vaccination ratesYemen is being devastated by COVID-19
You should read more carefully:
Remember it's about whether the pandemic ended not somebody's questionable estimate of excess deaths.
Created:
The question is do you believe rain dances cause it to rain AND Do you believe praying caused the Covid pandemic to subside.
No to the compound condition and no to each individually.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
[IwantRooseveltagain] The pandemic ended in countries where no vaccine was distributed.Name a country that didn’t get the vaccine
Yemen, Papa New Guinea.
Remember it's about whether the pandemic ended not somebody's questionable estimate of excess deaths.
[IwantRooseveltagain] Hey there was a lot of praying going on too.Are you serious?
I am making a serious point. Preceding the inevitable does not prove causation. People have done the rain dance for thousands of years, and it always rains... eventually.
What’s hilarious to me is @Double_R hasn’t said anything here.He tried to debate me telling me I was way off in the collusion, etc. Well guess what!!! He was wrong and I was right then as proven now.Truth always prevails.
Since he's a believer in authority how can he doubt a judge (who is an expert in constitutional law after all)...
Created:
Posted in:
Contradiction in what I was taught and expected to believe.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I think both sides (choice and genetic) have agreed to this.
There are more sides than that, I don't think it's genetic in any meaningful sense. Genetic to a lesser degree than alcoholism, maybe.
I am saying that the allele(s) involved (if any) are so non-deterministic that it wouldn't matter if they were dominant or recessive because they wouldn't predict much of anything.But being completely homosexual, especially in antiquity, would mean that you wouldn't breed. Hence, not breeding 100% determines that your genes won't be passed on, so complete homosexuality should be super deterministic if it is genetic.Unless the benefits of homosexuality (or partial homosexuality) are outweighed by some of the most anti-breeding genes (gay genes), homosexuality should have entered extinction long ago. The fact that there isn't a hypothesis that anyone seems to agree with (people keep mentioning the excess caretaker hypothesis, but you don't seem to agree with that yourself) makes it pretty hard to advocate for a genetic cause.
Whenever people talk about evolution they're always "telling a story" because there is almost never direct evidence of selection events. You know the start, the finish, and you can usually infer the environment and then you tell a story.
As evolutionary stories go, excess caretaker hypothesis doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me. I'm neutral on it. That's not why I don't think it's genetic. I don't think it's genetic because it's too widespread and we can't detect a variation between isolated populations of humanity. (at least none that I've heard of, although it could be suppressed given the LGBT cult)
What we can rule out is that there is an allele (even if recessive) that when expressed causes you to be a sexual deviant. The uncertainty is not modeled by recessive vs dominant.Are you ruling this out because it's a singular allele, rather than multiple?
Yes, a single allele would be too simple no matter the dominance to explain what we see. The potential complexity of multiple alleles each having potentially non-linear impact becomes exponentially more complicated.
In reality all these different systems interact with each other constantly. Any given function could rely on altering gene expression, protein domino logic, ion gradient changes, neuron signals, protein-like-RNA unfolding a bit, etc... etc... all at once (in different parts of the process).All we can do right now is bracket what is possible by ruling out a few possibilities based on what we don't observe and what natural selection would allow.I already gave my retelling of oromagi's theory of increased fitness for homosexuality. The environment where that would be considered more useful would be somewhere children are at risk and require a lot of help from adults; but not an environment with limited food or water as adults eat and drink a lot.There is no reason it would need to react to the environment though; it is enough for a trait to be useful at the time to be selected; it doesn't need to detect when it would be useful, although sometimes it can and that kind of usefulness does tend stick around.The biggest problem with your retelling is that ultimately, the homosexuals genes don't get passed on. Yes, they can help other's genes to be passed on, and that may help the tribe, but unless the homosexual passes on their genes, those genes should go extinct. In other words, helping other children doesn't help pass on your genes. Sure, closely related children can have similar genes, but they don't necessarily have your (homosexual) genes.
If the the others don't have the homosexual genes then the theory falls apart, genes are selfish, and if the gene is unique to the non-reproducing individual it's an evolutionary dead end.
However that is something we can already rule out by modern observation. If there is a gene set, it is not so deterministic that it will certainly make you a deviant. So for the sake of argument say there is a set of genes [Deviant] that when you have them all you have a 25% chance of going deviant under typical nurture (for the paleolithic). You have three siblings, you're the only deviant; but they all have [Deviant].
Now [Deviant] has a chance to be selfish without direct reproduction. In this case niece and nephew survival promotes [Deviant] over the losers in the next cave who have 25% more children and no [Deviant].
I'm pretty sure "it's genetic" means something's variance range can be (usually partly) explained by genes, rather than something you can only make a prediction with.
In that case, what could possibly not be genetic? Even if the variance is very uniform throughout the human species, all you need to do is include other species in the analysis to say once again "it's genetic".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
"pretty please can we violate the bill or rights?"
I'm sure there were edge and transition periods, but if everybody was typhoid mary it wouldn't have stopped. Well actually if we were all typhoid mary we wouldn't have any symptoms... ok maybe that's what happened. That hypothesis would require the testing to either be positive constantly or to be ineffective on the latest variants.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
When you start throwing numbers in the poll things get a lot more complicated.
Created:
Since a single viral particle is enough to infect another organism preventing significant replication is required to say the vaccine prevents transmission.[IwantRooseveltagain] but only an idiot would think that is required.(to be considered effective)
Contrast this to say someone who recovered from covid. They stopped transmitting it.
Whether that is because the vaccine in this case was half-baked, used new techniques that proved to be ineffective, or covid just replicated too fast for the human body[IwantRooseveltagain] The pandemic is over because of the vaccine genius. Seems pretty effective by that measure, doesn’t it?
Hey there was a lot of praying going on too. Also the alignment of the sun and planets?
The pandemic ended in countries where no vaccine was distributed. The victor (as always) is the advanced immune system that comes standard. The vaccine, if it was as good as previous vaccines; would have sped that victory to such a degree that there were populations who weren't infected. That never happened. How much it helped is a matter of academic interest. It was oversold and many people's statements were proven false.
Created:
That statement proved quite true.[IwantRooseveltagain] a misleading statement that vaccines "do not prevent transmission of the disease"
The immune response was simply not fast enough to prevent transmission, in sharp contrast to vaccine-immunity for many many other viruses (like smallpox).
Whether that is because the vaccine in this case was half-baked, used new techniques that proved to be ineffective, or covid just replicated too fast for the human body I do not know; but it's a fact and all the people (including CNN) who repeated misinformation because of "expertise" were exposed for their imperfect epistemology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Made, past tense. The bisected toroid is fully formed in his mind.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Please you can keep up with context better than that, don't be obtuse.
If you had a point here you forgot to make it.
Ok let's try this:
You seem to think it's perfectly plausible for large numbers of people to come together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved
Examples of large numbers of people coming together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved:
The catholic church
The Nazi state
The USSR
Some say MAGA
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What you misunderstand is that it's not about trust in any organization or individual, it's about trust in basic human nature. If WebMD was spreading misinformation, people would know about it.
As they knew with the abrahamic religions?
People who don't dare question authorities don't police them.
Why then, spread misinformation?
The #1 reason anyone spreads falsehoods is that they believe they are true.
They wouldn't, because like all of us they care about their well being over anything else and spreading misinformation would severely and irreparably harm that.
What about those anti-vaxer shamans who are making $$$? Trusting the money is about as safe as trusting the mob and for the same reasons.
So when I call you a conspiracy theorist it's not because you don't trust the sources I deem credible, but because you don't trust basic human nature. You seem to think it's perfectly plausible for large numbers of people to come together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved, or for even larger numbers of people who are in a position to recognize what's happening would say absolutely nothing about it to anyone. I don't know what society you grew up in, but that's not how people work.
The catholic church
The Nazi state
The USSR
Some say MAGA
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Why wouldn’t you want votes???
It's concession to a fallacy. The best argument wins, and ad populum isn't the best argument.
There is no problem with structured critique, running a poll; but so long as there is text to the effect of "winner" that is determined by votes I will not participate.
Also bigotry against my sexual orientation biases people against me. I suppose I could always take the wrong side of the issue, but that would be torture for me; knowing there is a way to beat my arguments but not being able to explain? *shiver*
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
This is most welcome news. Suddenly in the storm of insanity someone says the obvious. Problem is that it tempts me to stop reading news and pretend things just keep going well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Only if there is a way to do it without votes and he agrees on the burden of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Well you have a theory without any real world evidenceYou have NO examples. Lol
Your strawman has no examples, I have two so far: USA and Norway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
No, Norway shows that it is not inextricably related. My theory does not claim it is inextricably related as clearly explained. Your counter-examples fails.Norway shows that debt is unrelated to inflation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
What shall we do? Lol
Continue in ignorance it appears.
Created: