Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
There is no correlation to rising inflation and rising debt.
I just explained the causal relationship. It is not direct.
We have long periods of high debt accumulation and low inflation.
Inflation is only one way the government steals. If the others are more relied upon the inflation needed is not as great.
Norway has no debt but has typical inflation
https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/money-supply-m2 (select "MAX history")
Why they print money when they don't need to, ask them.
My dollar bills work quite well
They are worth less every day. Real value of wages is falling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
If debt causes inflation....why does inflation go up and down but debt always increases?
Inflation doesn't go down, not when averaged over a week or greater.
It's not debt that causes inflation, it's printing money. Only a government with a reserve fiat currency deals with debt by printing money. I can't deal with debt by causing inflation for instance, nobody will accept it when I print out dollar bills.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Now matter how much warmer it gets it won't change the laws of physics. Carbon dioxide is not warming this planet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Pyramid schemes only cause problems when they fall. However since this pyramid is so big it has been causing problems. The inflation.The Republicans love to scream about the debt. I have been hearing about it since ReaganBut it has bever caused us a single problem
Created:
Fan of the guy who laughed at all value systems, might be all you need to know about someone....
Created:
-->
@Lemming
READ-ONLY-MEMORY?I see that it's a technical term, having to do with computers,But the 'meaning escapes me.
Programs in computers are stored in memory. Some memory can be changed (update the program) by the computer itself. Others must be set by special means. Still others can be set once, but not changed after that.
I was postulating that there is a period of plasticity while the psycho-sexual structure is forming when it is open to change; but after a certain point (probably when the structure is complete) it is no longer open to change.
Another analogy would be writing with pen instead of pencil, or the shape of a tree's branches.
The relevance is to point out (again) that it's not a dichotomy. Just because we can't change it when we try doesn't mean we were born that way.
Would be people fully in the genetics camp, arguing that genetics demand a person be attracted to what they 'recognize as this or that sex.
When you realize that there are people who become aroused at the sight of a shoe, reasonable doubt about the existence of a generalized (and pervertable) psycho-sexual system must be gone.
Whatever other factors may be in place there is something that allows us to be attracted to just about anything. That is the opposite of hardcoded. So no we aren't predestined to identify males by a beard, if evolution 'wanted' us to identify by sex without error it would have used pheromones.
Instead pheromones affect us but only subconsciously.
Sexual selection is a very important force in evolution and ours has been completely enslaved to our abstracting mind.
Yet if the person is focused on the 'concept, of a person's 'true sex, it seems a 'bit a choice to me.
You correctly assume that there is no possible way your genes know about "true sex" vs "having a beard or muscles". You are missing the fact that the subconscious thinks too, it has access to all of your perceptions and concepts.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
We 'can effect our genes though, I'd argue.Though we might not 'want to effect our genes, if it's not in our genes, conscious mind, or circumstance.
There will come a day when we rewrite our own genes. It is inevitable (like nuclear energy).
As an example,Though I'm not sure if body parts = genes,Also I suspect it's a fair bit crude/primitive still, in many ways.But various organs or pieces of organs removed,Or substances taken, as some people do under medical guidance,Can effect inclinations of the body encouraging thoughts/actions, to the mind.
Yes, and I think they tried all of these to cure homosexuality.
e.g. they tried castration, psychoactive suppressants, disciplined meditation, etc.. etc...
What a horror show, and something I remember whenever anyone appeals to popular opinion. An analogy might be: Colorblind? cut out your eyes.
I believe the most likely hypothesis is that the psycho-sexual structure is built sometimes from 6-14 years old. It's READ-ONLY-MEMORY from that point on.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Based on what you're saying here, would you go so far as to say it can't be recessive?
Um, let me try to phrase it better:
Note that when I say 'the' allele it is only in the abstract since having functionality spread out across multiple genes is one of the ways things become complicated (and thus non-deterministic).
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.
A recessive trait following Mendelian inheritance would be something we couldn't possibly miss. As has been already posted in this thread twin studies prove it.
Now a recessive trait would serve to make sure there were never too many deviants in the analysis of general benefit, but that would be a factor multiplied by the factor that not everyone with the genes are going to become deviants.
Is that clear? It could be recessive or it could be dominant, or neither (that's a thing) and that's something we wouldn't be able to determine until we've identified the genes. We can't do that until we know what the trigger is.
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.
It's very possible that the genetic component is super generic, related to a bunch of stuff, and is indeed much like a gene that makes one like motorcycles. In that case though the complicated part is neurological or biochemical. Which means we're not going to figure it out any time soon; yet I am certain one day we will have a very good understanding of neurology and how the brain actually works.
It's just a slog of research about a phenomenon occurring before our eyes constantly. It's not like faster than light travel or hyper dimensional speculation.
Perhaps, as some others are saying in this thread, it is epigenetic and only expresses under certain environments (maybe only in advantageous environments). That could be a way for this gene to avoid extinction.But that would raise another big question: are there environments wherein homosexuality is advantageous?
Epigenetics can't be ruled out, but it's not a magic word to me; it's just one category of control system; the vast majority of which are utterly subconscious.
For example if I speculated that there was a biochemical reaction (pure hormone/pheromone communication and protein reaction) due to the environment that caused your brain to go deviant and stay that way would it really have any meaningful difference from an explanation involving epigenetics?
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.
If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be change, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?Control systems beyond our conscious control. That can be the subconscious (which is probably the answer), or it could be gene switching (expressed proteins can change even with identical DNA), or it could be a pure chemical equilibrium of some complexity.I thought the subconscious was determined by genetics, too, hence the variations in it.
Everything ultimately arises from genetics, but people mean something specific (or should) when they say "it's genetic". They mean you can map someone's genome and make a prediction.
I think it was TWS who used "green eyes" as his example of this. Now the fact that I am typing in English is certainly something made possible ultimately by my genes. My genes built the cells and proteins of my brain. My genes determined the patterns by which neurons link; but knowing English is not genetic.
Capacity for diversity vs predestination.
By "gene switching", do you mean epigenetic?
Yes
What exactly is a "pure chemical equilibrium" of some complexity? I've never heard of that term before.
Well I was just covering all the bases. I don't know enough biology to know any examples off the top of my head. From an evolutionary standpoint they would certainly have been prevalent near the start of every new biochemical pathway; but probably just as certainly they would eventually be augmented by active control via in-situ proteins, epigenetics, etc...
Take ion (like sodium or hydroxide) flow through pores in a cell membrane for example. I think there are examples of both active and passive control. In passive control the proteins of the pore itself interact with differing concentrations on either side and that closes or opens the pore. There is no signalling, no waiting for new proteins or hormones to be manufactured. Just chemistry.
I don't know of any examples of life generating its own (pH) buffers, but I would be very surprised if it never happens. In fact I suspect my own blood and cytoplasm are buffers to some degree by design.
The context here is sexual attraction so no matter where the story starts it ends in the brain. A chain reaction of signal chemicals ending in "find men hot" is a bit like a fairy tale and quite inexplicable. Like I said, covering all the bases.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I wish we had access to the underlying quote code so we could save to text file.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Lighter skin (excluding albinism) is as far as I known a sure sign of mixing with non SSA10kBC.Excluding the San people.
I had to google them, they have light skin for SSA10kBC but they are not anywhere close to 1/3 lightest, nor are they as light as that athlete you referenced, nor did they have a significant migration to North America.
In googling I found that they were supposedly the more ancient residents of southern Africa, which again supports the latitude hypothesis in that south Africa is 32 degrees south which is around the same as Eygpt and the fertile crescent.
In the US indoeuropeans are the most common source of lighter skinned genesDemonstrate.
The integral of the immigration and population growth in north america is indoeuropean, via being european. There are simply more indoeuropeans in north america at this moment than east asians, or native americans.
Some post slavery african emigration has occurred but not nearly enough to be common source of light skinned genes.
SSA10kBC is my attempt to consolidate a vauge concept to a precise one. SSA10kBC ~= SsO-CALLED "BLACKS" (the race)SSA10kBC is a subset of "dark skin". They had dark skin and without mixing continue to have dark skin.So then is it your position that descendants of SSA10KBC are the most suited from a genetic standpoint to be characterized as so-called "Black"?
No I'm saying that when people talk about someone being of the "black race" they are probably talking about SSA10KBC.
[A] Since these genes seem highly susceptible to selection pressure they are poor indicators of genetic clustering in general. For instance it would be incorrect (demonstrably so) to assume that because Australians have very dark skin they are more closely related to SSA10KBC than say indoeuropeans.
We know that the native Australian population is one of the most distal and isolated populations of humans in the world. (They are the least related to the rest of us)
Despite this fact over the short term and in a post-selection state the darkness of a person's skin does rule out certain proportions of ancestry from amongst a limited set of options.
And since I've already mentioned Steph Curry as an example, how would you characterize him despite his identifying himself as well as being generally identified as so-called, "Black"?
I think he's SSA10KBC. I would be $1000 on it, of course I never defined "significant" in "Significant subsaharan..." but still...
There are other groups in 10k BC that also had dark skin. Australians for instance had and still have (when unmixed) very dark skin.And what does this indicate to you about the genealogical history of the Australian Aboriginals?
See [A] above.
There are only two options: Indoeuropeans were white OR indoeuropeans were white and everywhere they moved to and mixed with were white alreadyFalse dichotomy. There are indeed other options.
None that I haven't already eliminated via evolutionary arguments.
Some degree of the latter is almost certainly trueThere's no "almost true." It either is or isn't.
It's 100% certain that indoeuropeans mixed with other populations during their migrations. People don't just exterminate the locals to the last man woman and child. Only collectivism allows such atrocities and they didn't have that kind of centralization then. Also just because it's either true or not doesn't mean uncertainty doesn't exist. "Almost certainly true" means there is a high probability that it is true given what we know, not that there is a superposition of true and false.
Racial categorization is already enough of a mess,Very much so. So then how is it prudent to exclude or exempt a person from a so-called, "racial categorization," without first "sorting through the mess"? It would be one thing to state, "attempting to identify Cleopatra's race would be too much of a mess," and another to state, "Cleopatra cannot be [so-called] Black."
These long posts of mine are sorting through it. Cleopatra was not SSA10KBC, this can and is known with as much certainty as one can have without her remains in hand.
I have no interest in figuring out what "people of color" means if it doesn't mean dark skin.So wouldn't that include the very dark skinned peoples of Australia before 10K BC whom you had just referenced above? As admittedly messy as racial categorization can be, why again are you restricting the parameter to just SubSaharan Africans 10K BC?
[B] Restrictions clean up messes. Messes are caused by insufficiently precise definitions/categories or definitions/categories along useless or arbitrary dimensions.
I didn't make this mess. I didn't conflate dark skin with one particular genetic lineage, I'm just creating precise categories from the data. If they don't call a south Indian "black" even though he has skin darker than many "blacks" in NYC it's more complicated than skin albedo.
You imagine asking enough questions about who is "black" of americans and you'll find it's basically the African genes imported during the slave trade; however because those slaves were not genetic freaks among the general gene pool of subsaharan africa any SSA10KBC would also be identified by the same markers.
It's not just skin tone, people's subconscious will find the cues for genetic similarity (at least the parts that manifest obviously in skin and facial structure).
So we're talking about two different things. I don't say "black" because I'm trying to be precise. The skin albedo is merely a clue as to membership in SSA10KBC and it's only a useful clue in some contexts including North America where the only major source of dark skin-genes is SSA10KBC.
Sedentary populations from 10kBC and before at 40 degrees north have light skin. I know of no exceptions.Demonstrate.
Demonstrate a negative? No, you find an exception.
Excluded? Did I give a list?SSA10KBC necessarily excludes--particular North Africa which bears proximity to Greece. I presume you have a reason for doing this.
See [B] above.
But were not talking about a "noticeable" genetic frequency among an entire population; we're talking about whether there's enough evidence to exclude Cleopatra from the characterization of so-called, "Black." And thus far, at least as far as our discussion is concerned, no has provided or demonstrated any.
The evidence is her stated (by ancient historians) ancestry and it is sufficient.
The lack of detectable genetic markers even to this day. In fact I believe I saw an article about the remarkably homogeneity of genetic makeup of Greece of today compared to then.May you reference this article?
We know the indoeuropeans were white because everywhere they migrated people are white today (or rather were until significant migrations from outside occurred).Except everywhere they migrated, the people being white has not been substantiated.
Yes it has. They were white when history started. We know from genetics there weren't vast shifts in gene frequency. Thus they were always white (since the last major mixing).
Or so nearly exclusively as to make any exception very remarkable and therefore the lack of contemporary remark would be absurd.Please demonstrate.
"And thirdly, the men of the country [Ethiopia] are black because of the heat." - Herodotus This is 600 years before Cleopatra.
"This being granted, the whole earth isset on fire by him, and the Æthiopians are turned black by the heat." - Ovid This is 8CE (shortly after Cleopatra)
That brackets her lifetime. It would have been remarked upon.
That's not a matter of liklihood, if there was a significant ancestry 2000 years ago it would still be detectable and it isn't.What about significant ancestry from North African countries?
Never heard anything about it. As I just showed people did remark on the racial differences at the time including between Europeans and Egyptians, Herodotus says that Egyptians have dark skin and woolly hair... of course he described Ethiopians as full black; which merely indicates that Egyptians were darker than Greeks just as we found the situation two millennia later.
As the circumstances around Cleopatra's throne demonstrates there was gene flow from north to south.
Either way...How is it "either way..."? Would the contention against her depiction have been qualified if Jada had chosen a much lighter skinned so-called, "Black" woman to portray Cleopatra?
Either way as in whether it is dark skin or SSA10kBC it's demonstrably not how Cleopatra would have looked.
The complaint (or at least the rational possibility of complaint) lies in the double standards of "whitewashing" and the suspicion of trying to rewrite history as a subversive act. That depends on modern contexts and motivations I have not seriously addressed.
At this point I merely maintain that Cleopatra was a light skinned indoeuropean woman based on the same quality of evidence and inference that allows us to even say she was a real woman at all.
In many contexts including this one they have the same result.No, they actually don't.
Then doesn't my speculation that she was a sasquatch have the same merit as your speculation (implied) that she was SSA10kBC?
If probabilities don't matter they must be equally possible.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'd agree moderation is hard for some people,I 'do think people have underlying genetic inclinations.
If there is one thing that I hope people take away from this thread is that there is no binary: conscious control vs genetic
The mind builds itself after your genes are already set. Of course a genes could leave you with inclinations you can't escape, but so can non-deterministic neural development..
Now I remember hearing that some gene makes you much more likely to fall into addictions including alcohol, but regardless of how you end up with the mental structure you by definition only have control over your conscious decisions.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It's an appeal to authority wrapped in an appeal to ignorance. He has special skills with fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
About as home made as it gets if you don't live on a farm. The rosemary plant I grew... The Italians made the pasta (as they have been known to do)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
lol, oh you're only halfway of the matrix. Those minorities never actually get any power. They're just eye candy to distract you from any kind of interest in how public money is acquired or spent.
Created:
Posted in:
Chicken Cacciatore with insufficient olives, no tomato paste, and too much chicken fat (wings and drumsticks). It was good. Capers + summer tomatoes FTW.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
People 'have done research on 'other fixes,Such as getting people off addictions to various substances and activities,Drugs, anger, hoarding, fear of flying in airplanes.
That's hardly down to a science either. Seems to me people are going to do what people want to do. Again action is not inclination, alcoholics may set their life in order; but how many can become casual drinkers? The inclination remains.
Though I think it only 'really matters for 'real people and 'real actions
We had better hope so given what people do in video games.
(Though on 'another hand, I wrote up a character once in a piece of fiction, born to a fantasy race that due to their genetics enjoyed pain in others,The character argued a philosophy that it was fine and good to enjoy the emotion, so long as the action was 'necessary, though many people would 'look for 'excuses of it being necessary, by such a philosophy I imagine.)
Fiction is a great way to explore philosophy because even people comfortable with abstractions often find it easier to navigate with concrete examples.
There is definitely a strain of "need makes right" in our cultural stream and has been for a while. I was just looking at a vegan "debate" (hard to call the 90% normal to the internet debate) and people were saying "How can you be vegan and have a dog? You know they eat meat right?"
Well the pro-vegan side brought up need-makes-right. Carnivores are allowed to kill for food. Omnivores aren't.
The hardest stance against this I've ever seen was Ayn Rand's. If you could convince her that a deer had a right to life, she would probably kill all the wolves.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
That's all fair. I certainly noticed that if you don't eat sugar for a while your sensitivity goes up. Forgive the tangent but when I tasted things like pears and blueberries after a long near fast I could easily understand why they were treats in of themselves requiring no additional sugar.
Kinks, now that I think about it I must admit they come in go but I never really thought they were "gone" more like dormant. In fact under certain circumstances I 'naturally' went into a sort of abstinence mode where I didn't have sexual thoughts or masturbate for several weeks.
I am certain though, that given the correct descriptions and imagery the same old lusts would return unless I immediately distracted myself. Are you sure the same is not true of those kinks you lost?
The next logical question is how much research was actually done on conversion therapy? Can it be trusted if it exists? I certainly don't trust the APA on anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Possible reasons in some contexts:If you want to do that which makes you happy, why prevent others from doing the same
They want your money/time/labor/ideas to be happy.
They want you to compromise on your beliefs to be happy.
They want you to go out of your way to pander and pamper them to be happy.
For instance, if I identify as a cripple who is deathly afraid of any machinery designed to help cripples and then call it a phobia if nobody caries me around on a dias.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
If I don't like a food,But 'choose to eat the food anyway,Eventually I might come to like it,Acquired taste.
Going with that analogy for a moment... do you ever lose a taste?
I haven't. Sexually or gastronomically.
What if it's possible to expand but not contract?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The fact that they don't show the science is proof in of itself. [Corrected for presumed typos]
I agree. Thus there is no point referencing assertions when the science is required regardless (well if two people agree on the trustworthiness of a supposed authority I guess not, but when does that happen?)
It's not a no true Scottsman. I explained why religion fundamentally gets it wrong. You have no response to that so you pretend everyone else is the same by my standards, without even discussing my standards. It's an amazingly dishonest and cowardly approach, and a waste of my time.
You split religion off into a separate category so that you didn't have to address the issue.
The issue is whether you can trust an organization simply because:
1.) They spend significant time devoted to a single subject or field
2.) They generally agree with each other
3.) They publish official assertions and those assertions are trusted by many people
Many things you've said imply those conditions are not sufficient. There is nothing dishonest in demonstrating that you have a double standard. You have your trusted institutions and you take it for granted that those who disagree with you must trust them too. If they do not trust them, you accuse them of being conspiracy theorists implying that the only possible reason for mistrust would be a vast conspiracy.
All irrelevant to this discission.
You asked the question:
"Can you please present a single example of an industry of expertise other than religion that fundamentally doesn't understand it's own field?"
Created:
-->
@Double_R
and how many times have you verified a track record of solid results?You don't, you assume someone would have told you if there was a track record of failure;So if I have not personally verified someone's track record of results, I should disregard their expertise at face value
I've never told you to disregard anything. What you choose to trust simply isn't an argument.
3 would need to be supported by actual argument explaining how an entire body of professionals in a given field could all be making a fundamental flaw within the basis of their entire profession. I am aware of no other feild other than religion which this argument can be made against.
and your argument against religion was that they "don't employ science"? If so could you please acknowledge that Occam (who you love to quote) was clergy? (As was Thomas Aquinas and a whole lot of others who laid the foundation + the huge number of renaissance men that professed to be christian)
2 doesn't apply to any other field of expertise I am aware of except religion.
How would you know if they didn't show you the science?
Can you please present a single example of an industry of expertise other than religion that fundamentally doesn't understand it's own field?
No true Scotsman much? Is it not a big enough example for you? Do religions "not understand their own field" or is it simply that nobody understands their "field" because the field is an arbitrary tangle of contradictions and fuzzy concepts?
Then what about scientific socialism?
While we're on it: psychology, and no it's not a conspiracy it's a pseudoscience. You can go find Jordon Peterson's talk on "Big Five personality traits" that's the best they got. It's statistics on questionnaires. That's all.
I see you didn't quote the fact that the APA said the homosexuals were nuts. I'm bringing it back: Why did they think that then? Why were they wrong? Did they fix their methodology so they wouldn't make the same mistake again?
Any real scientific community can answer questions like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well I'd ask you to support that statement, but I'm afraid you'd dissect someone.Reason is part of a scientist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Science didn't say "gay is wrong" people role playing as scientist did.You cannot separate science from scientist. Science only exists in scientist's head and in what scientist has written.Therefore, if science comes from scientists and scientists were proven wrong, then science was proven wrong.Science comes from scientists and scientists were proven wrong.Science was proven wrong.
First premise is false. There are no poison wells in logic.
Science is reason applied to repeatable observationReason requires a person. Person can be wrong.
A person can be wrong but reason cannot be. The error originates from imperfect information or imperfect reason.
Just because someone claims to be a scientist does not mean their pronouncements were the result of applying reason to repeatable observation.So you cannot know who is a scientist using science and who is not. Another reason not to trust science.
At most it is a reason to learn the science when there are clues you are being misled.
I didnt say that bishops are infallible. I said Bible is infallible.
I'm not saying scientists are infallible. I say reason is infallible.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Things get silly when trying to force interactions people don't want to have.You mean they force you to not discriminate?
Well you could refrain from discriminating by not interacting with anybody.
No, I mean when they force an interaction because the interaction was offered in other cases.
It's an attempt to punish thought crime. The logical end point of this thinking is putting people in jail for refusing sex. How dare they discriminate based on a protected characteristic! If you can't discriminate there are only two options: sleep with everybody, or sleep with nobody.
They also force people to pay taxes they don't want to pay.
Yes, I've noticed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You seem to have science confused with shamanism.
Anytime there is any respect some conman is going to roll up and try to use it.
Science is reason applied to repeatable observation, often but not necessarily of natural phenomenon.
Just because someone claims to be a scientist does not mean their pronouncements were the result of applying reason to repeatable observation.
Science didn't say "gay is wrong" people role playing as scientist did. Science didn't change its mind. You reference the bible, but if you were applying the same standard you would have to admit the preachers and the bishops are always changing their minds and disagreeing with each other.
Also they cut parks of the bible and keep re-translating it...
Finally, I see you now have the racial pride flag as your avatar. The logical next step is to start to put communist icons on it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You ever seen the movie "Waterloo"?Being referred to as silly or foolish is hardly an insulting term
There is a scene where a lower class British soldier is caught stealing a pig. The looter claims the pig was merely a friend he was helping (or something like that). The Duke of Wellington says "promote him, he knows how to defend a hopeless position".
Then Again, perhaps YOU were offended by what I said to another.
To a degree.
That screams weakness on your part.
Lying about one's emotions either to yourself or others is in my opinion a failed strategy and a weakness.
Created:
Shutup bigot.I like that there was a hot tag with my name!
(just getting it out before the crackdown)
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
"Look, twit, human beings are not all “African” as the other interloper suggests.
Have you had a DNA test done? Has that interloper? Nope. I’d gather not given your stupid ass replies. "
My intellectual output in regards to that is that it has no intellectual value and that it's only possible use and intention was to insult. If the reader does not take it as an insult then it has no purpose.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
There's a theory. A bad theory, but a theory.No, I don’t. I don’t have the power to do so. The only one who has that power is the one reading the words I type. If they get offended, triggered, butthurt…that speaks to their weakness, thus the power to insult them [is] on them, not me.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
... You Insult People With Little Provocation...
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Well there is honesty that relates to fuzzy opinions about other people that have no chance of resolving any conflicts or getting anything done. That's what I meant.
Created:
Can I refuse to create a web page because I don't like the content of the page?[IwantRooseveltagain] For Nazis, yes. For a gay wedding, no. For a gay political rally, maybe, but it’s a stretch.
Because nazis are bad: No principle
PS sexual orientation is not mentioned in the civil rights act.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You need to put yourself in the other guys shoes when you say stuff like that.Being attracted to children is most definitely not my choice, but I cant change it.I didn't know you are a pedophile. Don't have sex with kids bud. If you act on it, you deserve death. But if you don't act on it, it is what it is.
Make an argument if you care enough to threaten death. He's debated it before.
I know what I think when someone tells me I deserve to die: "How can kill you first."
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Homosexuality and bisexuality aren’t caused by the way children were reared by their parents, or by something that happened to them when they were young.How do they know? (hint: they don't)It most certainly can be caused by how their parent(s) reared them. I witnessed my sister do it to their first born son. He’s a total feminine basket case. Irresponsible. Obnoxious. And still living at home (he’s in his mid 20s) with mommy and daddy, and always will. His sister is completely normal (heterosexual female).
Yet we know it isn't something so overt in all cases. I was raised in a catholic household. I'm not a basket case, and I'm definitely not as obnoxious as you appear to be.
If it was easy to figure out we would have figured it out a long long time ago.
If there is a bottleneck trigger that people can stop exposing children to, will the LGBTQ cult call that genocide?
Created:
and there we have the root of the matter. No principles, nothing about the constitution or the civil rights act. Just the plain old fact that you believe the designer is wrong.Because it’s appropriate to not support Nazis. It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage.
Judges are a lot like you, but they are excellent at hiding it.
Created:
And for that sin costs just kept going up and up constantly ever sense.
So if it costs $21k per year in 2018 and it cost $7.7k in 1980 are you claiming that state subsidy constituted $14k per year per student?
I didn't think so. Get a theory that doesn't take 60 seconds to debunk. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/18/cost-of-college-the-year-you-were-born/39479153/
Created:
-->
@thett3
A blanket forgiveness is people who are wealthier than average forcing other people to pay off the debt they agreed to and spent. It’s just grotesque and I’m glad it got blocked
As am I, but it's really only a drop in the bucket compared to how much is being stolen and wasted by inflation, medicare, and military spending.
It continues to amaze me how many people don't seem to realize that nothing is free and cancelling a debt means someone gets screwed.
If the student loan holders were a bunch of giant corporations in bed with the deep state I wouldn't have the slightest problem screwing them. Incredibly though this so called "cancellation" (by all reports I've seen) would be accomplished by using stolen funds (taxes) to pay the creditors.
So the general public is screwed because the government
A) Created a situation that caused tuition to skyrocket and then guaranteed a bunch of loans
B) Steals money to pay for the loans they guaranteed and then "cancelled".
The only difference between this and nationalizing higher education is that the government doesn't get to set curriculum if it happens to be taken over by an orange man (convenient).
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
No, it said experts agree it can't be changed.
It also said (although Double R did not quote this section):
Most scientists agree that sexual orientation (including homosexuality and bisexuality) is the result of a combination of environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological factors.
So they've ruled out precisely nothing in this sentence. Alien hypnosis is an environmental factor after all.
Then it says:
Homosexuality and bisexuality aren’t caused by the way children were reared by their parents, or by something that happened to them when they were young.
How do they know? (hint: they don't)
Also, being homosexual or bisexual does not mean the person is mentally ill or abnormal in any way.
I think being in the 5% makes you abnormal. What they want to say is "people shouldn't mock you for being abnormal in this case", but that doesn't sound professional and they have to keep up the pseudo scientific front.
They may face burdens caused by other people’s prejudices or misunderstandings.
Thirty years ago maybe. Now they may face unearned praise, pandering, legal favoritism, celebratory parades, preferential hiring, and an unlimited supply of sympathy and encouragement for what would have happened if they were beamed back 30 years.'
That's the thing about widespread prejudice, if it exists; spineless committees like this would never dare to call it out because that would by definition be unpopular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Based on the strategy so far (which included putting a car in solar orbit) I think it's a safe bet that they will throw at least one starship out there with cheap or disposable cargo.Once Starship becomes reliable enough, they should full it up to the brim with testing equipment to send to Mars.
It would be interesting to see what people can think of for that.
I doubt many people will be too focused on sending more probes or rovers when manned missions are on the table. Robots are great but if you are already paying to put humans on the surface they are a lot more versatile.
I wonder if a mini-nuclear reactor with WPT would be feasible.
WPT = wireless power transfer?
I don't see that as being useful or feasible for this mission, but in order to refuel on Mars they will need a large and reliable power supply. Also humans are a lot safer if they have large reliable power supplies.
Nuclear is probably the best option, I'm afraid that given SpaceX's track record they may become impatient waiting for somebody to share their toys and try to do it with large solar arrays.
During the transfer that's no problem. By the time they launch we'll probably have good wafer thin solar-panels that can fold out to be very large. On the surface keeping something like that from being destroyed or disabled won't be easy. There is wind power but it isn't any more reliable than here on Earth.
I wouldn't cosign anyone's insurance if they would dare put the lives of men in the hands of a battery bank powered by wind.
TL;DR: They really should use nuclear reactors.
Created:
Is this going to become a site to spread misinformation and harm democracy? Is that what you want?
Are your attempts to shame people with personal trivia going to stop them from posting what they believe? I didn't think so.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If somebody cant get sex consensually, thats not his fault. So why tease and insult someone for something thats not his fault?
Well they think it is.
The in the low-brow male culture sexual exploits are a sign of prowess. The lack of any conquests means no prowess.
To a traditional family man and to picky/toxic women it's his fault for not taking whatever steps are necessary to make themselves appealing to a partner. (hiring a prostitute hardly helps with this judgement)
Both reasons are unfair and irrational, well they make sense from an evolutionary point of view; but so does murdering strange males in order to impregnate their mates.... so we need to do better than "made sense at one point in evolution".
There are quite a lot of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" things in culture and this is not the worst.
I would actually say that very few men actually respond to virgin-hood-shame by raping. They do something much less egregious but still wrong, they lie; well they become dishonest in the way the approach women.
This gets them action, but you can't be surprised when it doesn't work out.
So we have a bunch of women with delusions of grandeur, a culture demanding sexual prowess and/or male begging. The result is few and unstable relationships that might actually start a family. On the other hand every generation has been more casual about sex than the last, so simply having sex (if you show up at a place with a large amount of alcohol and music) is hardly unattainable provided you can brush your teeth and fit within the bell curve of attractiveness.
I think the idea of someone having sex like that because they're ashamed of being called a virgin is a shame.
Created:
Suppose the designer turned down the couple because of all that gay sex they were having, not for being homosexual.Exactly how would the designer know anything about a couples’ sexual activity?
How would the deviant designer know anything about bigotry?
Created:
Lol, if gay graphic designer declined to criticize same-sex marriage for a client they would be refusing the client for being a bigot, not for being heterosexual.
Two can play that game. Suppose the designer turned down the couple because of all that gay sex they were having, not for being homosexual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Apollo carried liquid oxygen and scrubbed the CO2 with an irreversible chemical reaction.
Station has continuous recyclers.
If you can get enough plants they'll do it too and there is reason to expect that a high yield greenhouse might be less weight than packing food and dumping waste over the scale of interplanetary transfers.
As far as "how much room" it's not the volume that's the main problem it's the mass. The answer is: too much. That's why they shut down the manned space exploration even though the Saturn V could send stuff anywhere in the system.
Starship is the first design (actually built) that could be fully refueled in orbit and still have lots of space and mass to work with. Since the lower stage is reusable that refueling won't be super expensive.
It has methane engines and the Mars Direct plan details refueling methane engines on Mars.
All the pieces are there. The plan could work.
Created:
Activists judges disgust me, not because they fail to do their job and follow the law; but because their morals for which they abandon their duty are always so shallow and soaked in hypocrisy.
"balance the interests" those fuckers couldn't balance mass standards. Excuse the language.
Created:
Things get silly when trying to force interactions people don't want to have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
karamin line is no problem, even those virgin clowns can manage that. You hit orbital velocity and you can go as many miles as you have air for.
Created:
He said you would say that.
Created:
So Fox is paying Tucker to try to silence him before the election, it's not working, and fox is also paying these people.
I am content with Fox paying everyone. Death to the propaganda machine.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What proves one's expertise is not argumentation, it's a proven track record of solid results.
and how many times have you verified a track record of solid results?
You don't, you assume someone would have told you if there was a track record of failure; but you're wrong because the clergy doesn't admit to failure.
The APA for example branded homosexuality a mental disorder for years until it became politically expedient to change their tune.
You called it a conspiracy theory to suggest that reporters would run a story about corruption because an ambassador started talking about corruptionI called it a conspiracy theory to argue that multiple outlets reporting on multiple leading figures, entities, and populations all asking for the same thing is not evidence that said leading figures, entities and populations wanted that thing.
Well yes, you did construct a strawman before calling it a conspiracy theory but that was my point.
No one here is claiming all priests are lying.Then how can you deny their conclusions?Via logic 101.Words in a book cannot prove that there exists a spaceless timeless all powerful being.Lying and being irrational are not the same thing.
So you have now suggested three different ways a body of purported 'experts' (but who certainly agree with each other and spend significant time thinking about it) can be wrong:
1.) They're lying it's all one vast conspiracy
2.) They aren't employing science, if they were employing science they would show us (but we can't understand such lofty things and don't even try)
3.) They are irrational, apparently together
Apparently conspiracy isn't the only reason to doubt :)
Created: