Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
yes, predetermined chemistry and structure, to the effect that we walk in circles. It is also true that advocates of determinism also seem to prefer the notion of solipsism. Convenient.Whereas, proponents of free will can easily solve the dilemma of walking in circles: get a map, and learn, by free will, how to use it.
That’s really not the break down here - I think you’re misunderstanding determinism.
Determinism in this sense is that your choice to get a map, or walk in a circle (Thinking it is a straight line), is not a product of a true choice which you have control over; but the choice you make is the product of the physical chemistry in your brain, the state of the universe around you, and the laws of physics that govern it. Meaning that the choice to get a map, or not: is not something you control, but is determined by the chemistry in your brain reacting with the state of the universe around you; and if such a state is repeated exactly, it would be impossible for another state to occur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You’re currently debating about bottled water. Seriously? If you were more active maybe you wouldn’t feel the need to ask people to roast you.
This is actually for the community. If I just wanted to be roasted and flamed continuously, I’d just beg Whiteflame to make me a mod again, or vote on debates, for that matter.
I’m supposed to come up with a roast back - but it’s kinda hard as I don’t have a great deal to work with: you’re like if Costco started making generic own brand forum participants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."Why do Trumpists rely on getting their facts from a source that denies any responsibility for telling the truth or accountability for his failure to tell the truth when he stands before a judge?
I think the answer is fairly obvious. If any reasonable person would be skeptical of his claims - those who believe it must clearly be unreasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Determinism is the principle that each state of the universe precedes from a prior state based upon specific physical laws - such that you would be able to accurately predict the future if you knew enough of the state of the universe.
In your example, I can’t think of any reason your example violates determinism.
Specifically; the idea that you go around in circles would simply be the inevitable product of brain chemistry and structure; rather than some sort of true choice.
Created:
Posted in:
Funny, just 2-3 days ago Ramshutu told Wylted that he'd defend him better than I could and a few days before that made a post about how he appreciated Wylted's role on the site at stirring up activity.
Wylted then backed me for president here regardless and suddenly Ramshutu changed direction.
The specific issue I pointed out, is that you ranting incoherently at admins or anyone in particular is unlikely to help anyone, and the idea that you’ll stick up for free speech when you’re often the first to grab the pitchfork is probably not what Wylted really wants in a president. That’s still completely valid. As I’ve said, I have far less of an issue with Mesmer.
I think Wylted is just being a bit of a troll, and needs to tone things down a bit; if you pay attention I am mostly sticking up for him, but specifically acknowledging that he’s often a bit much, and the issue is not specifically one of disallowing speech.
Interestingly, I completely agree with the reasons he gave for doing it; just absolutely disagree with his execution; we can see how it pans out - but I’m happy to actually help him with his main goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Of course that's outright false. By design, literally every theory in the fields of Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry & the likes is better supported, better tested, better validated & more predictive. The best scientific theories are actually Quantum Theory & General Relativity, but I digress. I know the Evolutionary Theory is not validated, predicts nothing & has no accuracy. But you may help me see otherwise. Show me how evolutionary theory is predictive & accurate.
One of the key aspects of evolution - is that we continually and repeatedly observe it. Even today, we are observing the evolution and competition of covid variants. We’ve seen everything from changes in intestinal structure in Italian wall lizards, changes in cane toads in Australia, Nylon eating bacteria, or PCB resistance in Hudson River fish.
That evolutionary processes are completely observable is one key part of what I mean.
The second is related to the predictive evidence that underpins common descent. Specifically the various nested hierarchies.
Descent with modification produces nested hierarchies. If a group becomes geographically isolated from another, and evolve separately, produce two separate species that share common diagnostic traits. If both groups separate in the same way, all will share the same common diagnostic traits, with each original split group sharing a common diagnostic trait with each other but not the two other split groups. If you repeat this long enough; you produce a nested hierarchy of common traits. All creatures in a group share a set of diagnostic traits, sub groups share all those diagnostic traits, and additional ones.
However, diagnostic traits do not jump branches. (No mammals with feather), unless they were present in a common ancestor.
As an example, all apes are mammals. We all have hair, produce milk to feed. All mammals are terrestrial tetrapods; following the same body plan, almost all the same key features. All terrestrial tertrapods are jawed craniata chordates - Boney skeleton owners with skulls, jaws, and spinal chords. All chordates are deuterostomes - meaning our butthole forms before our mouth in our development - which is a weird thing to all have in common, dontcha think?
Evolution and common ancestry specify that this hierarchy is our ancestry. That the commonality between species is a facet of our common ancestry. And this yields a huge set of predictions.
- Anything found must fit into this pattern.
- Common ancestors between specifics can be found that have all basal traits of both groups but without traits diagnostic of either.
- Ancestry is chronology.
The first major prediction was the postulate that as reptiles and birds where morphologically related, there must be a transitional form, that show a mosaic of traits of both: such as wings, feathers; but without fused forearm bones. This was found in archaeopteryx. Since then there are multiple transitional forms of birds that fill these gaps.
Humans are a great example; we’ve gone from only knowing humans and great apes; to being able to show a clear progression of hominids with ever-increasing brain size and adaptation to upright walking. The progression has no large gaps in it; to the point that Creationists can not agree whether late Australopiths are 100% ape or 100% human. That always makes me chuckle.
We actually have broad links on most major changes between major groups - we have a large number of steps in the progression between fish and amphibians, cetaceans, birds, mammals, and others. Not all; but a lot.
Evolution predicts the specific nature of what will be found; where it will be found, as how old it will be. While there is some flexibility in the latter; modern rabbits in the Burgess Shale would blow evolution out of the water.
Evolution also made a substantial number of implicit predictions about genetics: the existence of genetic mutations, and mechanisms of duplication. On top of this, it also allows ancestry to be determined via genetics and genes. We can analyze and compare genomes of organisms and are able to predict broad similarities and patterns: differences in conserved genes matching inferred ancestry, endogenous retroviruses which are viruses that translate themselves into the hosts DNA and can be inserted in the genome, can be traced through different closely related animal groups.
All of it validates the inherent prediction of evolution that the hierarchy is ancestry.
Moreover - it’s not just an arbitrary prediction - it’s causal ; inferred hierarchies must closely match ancestry in evolved systems because of evolved systems coming about via descent and modification.
That’s why evolution is better supported - it’s predicting the inherent structure of every living being that has ever or will ever be dig up by human; and is predicting the inherent nature of genetic relationships between organisms prior to us even knowing what DNA was. Each gene, species, fossil, etc, is a new potential point of falsification - which invariably ends up being what evolution requires.
The final nail, though, and something that not one single creationist, or someone with an alternative point of view has ever been able to even really acknowledge - leave alone explain: is why these hierarchical relationships exist. The relationship doesn’t exist with cars, books, bikes, houses or anything that’s been artificially designed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I would prefer we go back to bish's way, but the cost of doing that is that people get to spout discriminatory bullshit and get away with it unless they cross over into attacking a user personally
The main issue now, is that there have been a whole variety of different users that have used extreme racism and antisemitism as either a means to purposefully troll, or in a way that precludes any meaningful debate.
At least Mesmer put the facade of logical debate on the white supremacy; and challenged put data forward. Too many threads, perhaps; when a substantial fraction of the politics forum first page is subtly extolling white supremacy, that’s an issue.
I’ve more of an issue with Wylted; I flit between thinking he’s intentionally trolling, or has wider and broader issues that were all far too underqualified to deal with - either way; anyone who comes into the forum and sees all this blatant anti-Semitic trolling on his part is going to grandpa-Simpson the f**k out.
I’m 100% for free speech, and airing controversial views - you often learn something challenging your own thinking - but people need to understand that being a $hitbag troll who is just smearing a bunch of racist rhetoric, for no apparent reason, without almost no value for debate - is not about free speech.
This isn’t banning Jordan Peterson, or Ben Shapiro because they said something shocking about identity politics, or cancel culture; this is banning the guy in the trench coat waving his d**k at people through a window while saying pointlessly negative things about Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
Just stepping out of the roast for a moment.
“For each roast you post, you are giving me (and me alone) permission to roast you once in return. I waive personal attack liability; roasting me waives yours once.”
Methinks you’re not fully understanding one of the central premises of a roast here...
Stepping back into the roast.
I don’t read every word of your posts. I can’t. It’s not possible; you’re the only human I know that would fail a Turing test. You write like you’re a Miss Alabama contestant padding out a philosophy thesis by Translating it into Whalesong then back to English.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don’t even know where to begin.
Start to finish. I can get you from an expanding region of space time and energy all the way to you and I discussing the origins of the world with only a few small leaps of chemistry; and almost everything else along the way being demonstrable, and with no need for any divine intervention.
The only place where God is needed; is in the ultimate origins of the universe, a problem which God only answers with something that has an even more complex and impossible to explain origin - and then telling you not to worry about it’s origin.
The God Hypothesis is unnecessary.
I can demonstrate that religious claims fuelled by supposed divine knowledge have been invariably and systemically wrong from the first rudimentary sun worship and human sacrifice, all the way to the claims of biblical creation and Christianity; and while the combined sum of exploitable knowledge about the universe that came from God or religion since it’s inception has been 0; the entire backbone of the last 500 years of human advancement has been built upon the assumption that magic, miracles and the super nature does not exist
The God hypothesis has failed to be predictive.
The entire concept of God in religion, that life is some sort of weird test designed by a hyperintelligent superbeing, which infinite rewards and punishments are awarded based on finite actions all revolving around a scoring system that even true believers are unable to agree upon; actually makes no logical sense, with substantial metaphysical holes, ethical issues and flat out contradictions that it can be discarded.
The God hypothesis is incoherent.
Various Gods in various stages of human history appear to have been borrows, repurposed, embellished, redesigned and reworked from previous religions; giving common themes and patterns that make it appear religions have evolved through descent with modification - a cultural meme in the true Dawkins definition of the word - rather than being divinely inspired.
The God hypothesis appears to be the product of humans - not from revelation.
Humans have unrivalled capacity for self delusion, imagination, invention, hallucination; religious experience of all types is always firmly dependent on cultural beliefs and knowledge; with personal experiences of God from all different religions reveal contradictory or mutually exclusive information such that at least some people have the capacity for their brain generate a false religious experience - if our brains have the capacity to generate false religious experience, then all religious experiences could likely be false.
The God hypothesis appears to be the product of our brain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
That’s the type of silliness theists tell themselves to make them feel better about all the evidence they can’t deal with....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I Remember when people knew America was a Republic and not a Democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Remember when people didn’t confuse colloquial usage of democracy with its strict definition because that’s the only objection they could make to a point talking about how someone is undermining democratic rights?
Created:
Posted in:
For an allele to take over in a population; the percentage of the population that has that allele has to increase in each generation.
Excluding things like drift, this is either because organisms without the allele die and/or organisms with the allele out-reproduce that that don’t. Longevity and having more Offspring is exactly what I meant by “has more kids than those that don’t”
Created:
-->
@949havoc
You keep ignoring my three points that a vax mandate ignores. It isn't semantics; it's the ignorance I oppose.
I’m not ignoring them; I’m pointing out that it doesn’t matter whether I accept them or not for the purposes of the argument I’m making, the issue is that you’re agreeing with the underlying reasoning for mandates in that it’s okay to mandate you have taken medication in scenarios that puts others at risk; but disagree with the assessment of that risk for vaccines.
The thread is about contradiction of the rights to body autonomy between vaccine mandates and abortion; and to a lesser degree how we can justify the mandate.
The simple answer to the second - is that you have provided the underlying justification - the only difference is one of how we have both assessed risk.
I mean - I pointed out that imperfect efficacy of the vaccine is irrelevant, I could add to that that not everyone is immune through having caught COVID, and treatments are far less effective than the vaccine; and that while the risk of individual transmission is low; the cumulative impact and variant risk is high. But tbh - it’s a different topic for a different thread.
The important part is that while we may disagree on elements of risk - we agree on the underlying justification for the same reasons. It’s not like you’re arguing epileptics should be able to operate machinery without medication, or arguing that they shouldn’t for different reasons...
That is and should always by my choice. What if my own health declines after I have agreed, by choice, to donate a kidney, and I now need both kidneys. No, my withdrawal denial means another life has been valued higher than mine. No, no, no, not unless it is still by my choice and not the government. Of course, to me, government needs to get the hell out of healthcare in the first place.
Bingo. This is exactly it. You can withdraw consent at any point; even if it leads to the death of another.
This is exactly the justification behind being pro choice. If a woman does not consent to being pregnant; then she has the right to chose that. That a fetus dies as a result of that removal, or as the unavoidable consequence ending the pregnancy - then that’s the way it is; every bit as much as removing consent for a liver transplant may very well have lead to the unnecessary death of another.
What this illustrates however; is that the two scenarios are inherently different; they are balancing two different concerns, and other than a disagreement of how much risk needs to be involved - you’ve essentially agreed with both the vaccine mandate and pro life rationale; there’s no inherent contradiction in coming out pro vaccine mandate and pro choice for exactly the same reason it’s not a contradiction to be pro-withdrawal-consent, and pro-epilepsy-meds-before-heavy-machinery-mandate.
Created:
Posted in:
Natural selection (both in terms of habits in how they raised children and perhaps certain dispositions) is quite literally the reason that there certainly has been a reality that the most tough (primarily) and quick-witted (secondarily) survived the several persecutions of their ethnicity.Due to the persecution, not only being fast-thinking is selected in favour of but being 'tough and loyal' in themselves are. If you don't help out others in effective 'tit for tat' trades, you would over time end up isolated and easily persecuted (perhaps violently or at least financially in a glass ceiling for your career prospects).
The specific issue I can point out to with, is that for NS to apply, there has to be genetic variation (which we can likely assume), and a pressure that leads to those with a variation to have more kids than those that don’t. I’m not sure that I see an area in which that can apply sufficiently well enough to make it as a selective pressure.
I would be interested in seeing whether there is a gravitation to one sort of career over others; like an overrepresentation in TV, but under representation in, say, software engineering.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM.
I’d roast you back; but it’d probably be harsh, and I don’t think anyone here wants to read another one of your quitting threads with 10,000 characters dedicated to explaining how much you’ve “learned about yourself”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
But turning that on its head: why do you think that the success is inspite of victimization - rather than the success being because of the very thing those doing the victimizing are claiming?
Created:
Posted in:
If I didn’t know you better, I would think that was you making a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I don’t understand why Brother D is still here...
Created:
Posted in:
Edit: “Semitism” god damned iPhones.
This is not to say that Anti-Semitism is valid; but the basis behind it is the claim that there is an over representation in key areas of employment and power.
Is that claim actually true; and if so what are the causes?
More importantly; if the underrepresentation of blacks compared to whites is indicative of systemic racism - on what basis could we rule out the same if there is a positive true over-representation of other races compared to whites?
Again - this is not to say the claim itself is valid; but to be able to effectively combat anti-semitism, it’s pretty critical to have an answer to that question.
Created:
Posted in:
Remember when conservatives just moaned about taxes and things/people being too “urban” instead of trying to undermine democracy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
It’s clear to a peer of that fear-filled sneering cunning cuckold why he wanted first, here, in this battleThese words still ringing in your ears?
No; should they be?
This is a second hand roast, I’d be more than happy to give you a second hand roast back, but you’ll have to wait till Boxing Day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
If I had to chose a roast flavour, I’d chose one that would make you most interested in participating:
So I’m figuring The flavour “Trumps d**k.”
Created:
-->
@949havoc
It's an economy of scale. The risk of a non-vaccinated person transferring Covid to another is much less than the risk of an impaired person causing harm to another in the workplace, or anywhere in a public setting where the lives of others in the arena of direct cause of harm to them is the impaired person. The reason for the lowered risk is provided in my three factors in my #47, which, again, a vax mandate does not consider as credible factors.
Theres a key bottom line you’re missing here:
You are agreeing to the inherent justification behind vaccine mandates is that it’s okay to require individuals to do things to be less of a risk to others, in order to reduce the risk to others. The disagreement is solely about the amount of tolerable risk.
Or in other words: it’s not okay for the government to require or force you to put a needle in your arm: but it is okay for the government to make you chose between a needle in your arm, and not engaging in activities or work that put others at risk: the disagreement is simply about how much risk; and the specific practicalities of how the choice is outlined.
This is what I meant by you having ignored the point: If we’re really only talking about whether those who have been infected should be subject to a mandate; and whether the probabilities of infection are sufficient to warrant it - your not a million miles away.
That’s one half of your criticism of the liberal position. About supporting vaccine mandates, and your objection to that support is more semantic than fundamental.
The second half is that of abortion; and body autonomy, which is not the same argument: that’s easily explained with another simple question.
If you agree to giving up a kidney for transplant: or having a small price of liver removed. At what point can the government decide you may no longer withdraw consent - and that you must undergo the medical procedure without your consent?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
43 absolutely does. For exactly the reasons I specified in 44.
You objected to that characterization in 45.
I explained the issue with your argument in 46.
You then changed the subject in 47.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Can someone give me a rational explanation why y'all still insist? No, I don't think you can, primarily because of the three factors above.
You literally gave the justification two posts ago.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
That argument would hold water if the vaccine were 100% effective, but it just is not. Better-than-nothing is not the ultimate outcome because the vaccinated are not 100% protected, so are also at risk of contaminating others.
Why does this matter when the goal is about minimizing the risk - not to eliminate it. In the epileptics case - it’s not that medication is 100% effective, but that it lowers the risk to something acceptable. Right?
It seems the distinction you draw is a red herring; as in actuality - the epilepsy example you agree with is practically identical.
What of that scenario. We have certain acceptable risks in living in society, because we also contract cancer, lung disease, heart disease, flu, etc, by associating with society. Shall we fire people for having those diseases, and mandate that they must take preventative medicines, if they are even available, too?
Don’t lose sight of what the important factor is: potentially endangering others. You’re mixing up different irrelevant similarities in your argument
If you have cancer, lung disease, heart disease; you’re not implicitly endangering others, right? So the important criteria don’t apply.
For flu: in a regular flu season, where there is limited spread, and lower mortality rates, and no limited risk of major variants that could undermine everyone’s health; the same calculus doesn’t apply.
If it was pandemic flu; something with, say, a ~1% mortality rate, highly transmissible with limited inherent immunity such that it can rapidly spread and kill hundreds of thousands - I think the same logic applies. No?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Yes, I agree, if an epileptic's fulfilling of work duties might endanger others, then those others' rights to work in a safe environment are endangered. T0he epileptic should take medication if that will prevent the seizures that might otherwise endanger fellow workers, or should work under conditions that preclude endangering others. I expect that a legally blind person should also not work under conditions that could be potentially hazardous for others, such as driving a bus.I don't see that these situations violate the standard that rights end where others' noses begin.
They don’t specifically; but what you just described for is the justification for current vaccine mandates:
If an [unvaccinated worked] fulfilling of work duties might endanger others, then those others' rights to work in a safe environment are endangered. The [unvaccinated person] should take [a vaccine] if that will [minimize] the [risk of passing a dangerous pathogen] that might otherwise endanger fellow workers, or should work under conditions that preclude endangering others.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
If your epileptic - should you be able to work in a job that requires operation of cars or dangerous heavy machinery - if you have a risk of seizures, and are not taking antI-seizure medication?
"If an employee can perform their job functions in a manner which does not pose a safety hazard to themselves or others, the fact they have a disability is irrelevant."See the Americans With Disabilities Act.
You don’t seem to be directly answering the question.
It seems that you agree - if an epileptic cannot carry out their job safely due to risk of seizures - it’s okay for them to not be allowed to work in that role.
Or in other words; you seem to be agreeing it’s completely fine to mandate that epileptics take medication to control their seizures of working in an area where seizures can impact safety of others.
Right? It’s not clear because you didn’t answer the question directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
The pilot was actually not intended to be a series; it was an attempt for the production company to retain the TV rights; they had a clause that said they had to have produced something by a given date.
And f*** Billy Zane.
There’s a few changes for sure, but it looks like
It could be really good.
Created:
Posted in:
Finally coming November 18, 2021 is the amazon Prime adaptation of Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time; you can catch the trailer here:
The book series Predates game of Thrones (and has a lot of the same themes and maneuvering), but far more based on magic - which is explained amazingly well.
I’ve been waiting for this for decades!
Created:
-->
@949havoc
That was only 1/2 of my post - what is your answer to the other one?
If your epileptic - should you be able to work in a job that requires operation of cars or dangerous heavy machinery - if you have a risk of seizures, and are not taking antI-seizure medication?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
This. I fear many of the people I'm surrounded by from day to day would nod in the affirmative.
When I was living in Kansas, I would agree.
The fundamental issue really is that almost no one is pro life; people just differ in terms of what circumstances and conditions people do or don’t have that right.
Created:
Meh; it means that it’s less US and more Canada
Created:
TBH this what comes from taking someone who uses a forum as a fun hobby, taking all the fun out of it, and then making it shitty and stressful.
I’m unsurprised that people haven’t lasted that long in the lead mod position.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
If your religion involves human sacrifice; do you still have the right to practice that religion?
If your epileptic - should you be able to work in a job that requires operation of cars or dangerous heavy machinery - if you have a risk of seizures, and are not taking antI-seizure medication?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Statues do not teach history. They celebrate it.
If racist addition against the flag is not unworthy of celebration - then nothing is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Pointing out self owns in a forum post doesn't make you a better debater
I tend to ask for advice on experts in a subject. If I wanted tips on being a better debater i’d go to whiteflame.
However, if I ever need to advice on the best way to lose rap battle to RM, you’ll be the first to hear about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I have put the person known as Ramshutu on the grill for a few months and roasted him to the point that he looks like this, that is the reason he was inactive for like a year. Now I have used the almighty resurrection stone to reborn a new Ramshutu inheriting previous memories from the ashes, that is why he is back to active posting.
I am back to active posting to make sure you stop making terrible Harry Potter references. Stick with what you know - which given your age is probably related to Paw Patrol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
When one of the best debaters on this site confuses this site with Reddit. You know the quality of "arguments" on reddit, right?
It could be worse, I could have confused whatever TF that post was with a roast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
No one should be silenced for presenting and trying to justify a view - even if it’s extreme.
Mesmer was definitely arguing in favour of white supremacy; but the bulk of his threads were trying to justify that position.
If someone is trying to do that; no matter how extreme and badly, all credit to them. They should be left alone. Hell, any discussion with people you disagree with helps you learn new things.
It was approaching - but not at a the point the volume of different posts on it was getting excessive; but that doesn’t warrant a ban - but thread creation limits.
Otherwise you run the risk of Brontoraptoring the politics forum.
Traffic and dissent isn’t the only thing that keeps people sticking around; it’s the adversarial whiff of victory you get when arguing with someone and knowing they are unable to argue the point; being overwhelmed with threads on the same topic takes that away.
The ban for being an alt account; that’s something else, tbh if the first incarnation was toxic and the second was not; I think that warrants a second chance. It’s more likely that the first ban should have been temporary.
If he can keep the vitriol down; limit the number of threads; and tries to justify his point, he can be as extreme as he likes.
The only issue I have with extreme views, is when people just throw out extreme claims and accusations, with little argument and no setup for debate - expecting everyone else to go to some intense amount of effort to prove them wrong. Bronto was like this, and there are many on this forum like that right now too. Every so often is no issue, but doing it repeatedly is not debate - it’s trolling; and that type of extremist trolling is every bit as shitty as banning people for expressing extreme views.
I don’t think you should be banned; you drive some traffic by helping to juice up handfuls of a rice members. You just need to stfu a little; dial it down from a 11 to about a 6.
Because let’s face it “the only type of Jew I respect” and many others are not threads that appear set up to drive debate or to challenge people’s point of view; just to be controversial to be controversial.
Created:
Posted in:
Just trying this one out.
This is a roast thread, and works as follows:
- You can roast me in whatever way you feel is funny or appropriate.
- You May not roast or insult any other individual in this thread - just me.
- For each roast you post, you are giving me (and me alone) permission to roast you once in return. I waive personal attack liability; roasting me waives yours once.
- Anyone else can rate individual roasts.
- You can post as many roasts as you want.
- Roast with the most upvotes wins a chufty badge.
- Brutal is better; but at least try to be funny.
- Apparently naughty words are bad: so please use creative vulgarities, or star words.
- Use common sense; Show the mod team we deserve nice things.
Eg:
“Hey, Ramshutu; isn’t this thread going to take time away from unceasing effort to get the last word in every other f***ing thread you’re in?”
“F**k you Ramshutu, at least I can write 6 words in a row without using 18 semicolons.”
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
This was obviously a campaign thread - not a call out thread; and I think it was a decent attempt at positive - albeit humorous - campaigning.
The only real issue is “excessive vulgarity” to which I counted only 35 cases of profanity, 36 if you feel wylted’s name is a genitalia reference.
I’m not sure exactly what counts as excessive though.
Would it be okay if Wylted reposted the thread stating it’s “a humorous campaign thread - pro RM” and renamed the vulgarity as follows:
Shit: poop.
Dick: meat sword
Fucked: make the beast with two backs (aka: bang)
Pussy: Boner Garage.
Regardless of any real or imagined phallic comparisons one can draw - I feel this would maintain the spirit of the campaign thread, but also meet the criteria of excessive vulgarity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I think what you’re talking about is the “hidden variables” theory. The notion that QT is actually a manifestation of unseen physical laws - the proposed solution to “God doesn’t play dice”.
We can rule out hidden variables to some degree:
If you consider quantum entanglement of two particles, measurement of spin yields perfect anti correlation (IE if one particular is up, the other must be down).
There are multiple axes in which spin can be measured, and if these are determined based on some hidden property of the particle, there must be some hidden value for each of the axes associated with the particle.
The problem comes that quantum theory predicts that there is a specific probability of one axis being in a given state based on what another was measured in. A second order probability if you will.
That gives you something you can measure; if you measure the first axis multiple times, and it gives you 50% up/down, the second axis’s should have a lesser probability. If you measure the second axis first, QT predicts that it will give you up/down equal amounts of times; the first axis then has a lower probability.
This difference in probability is called Bells inequality; and violations of the inequality implies there are no local hidden variables (hidden variables shared that can be communicated regardless of distanced between the two particles are not ruled out)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Because faith leads to truth by the application of faith as a sixth sense we have, just as the other five senses we have can lead to empiric knowledge, which we also use as evidence of truth. But I do not mean that faith and belief are wholly synonymous because belief, alone, does not demand action to confirm knowledge as faith does.
If you have no way of validating the accuracy of faith, how do you know what it produces is true?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
It seems unlikely given the responses of the generals and Biden that the generals said it was absolutely essential to keep troops in Afghanistan. Nor is it likely that keeping troops in Afghanistan would be preferable militarily was never mentioned.
Most likely, they said that it was the preferred option, Biden had already committed to pulling out American troops from a forever war, and felt that the status quo was no longer justifiable, so they made their preference known and then went with the pull out as it was.
So the truth is likely in the middle.
Obviously, has they done the opposite; people would be equally outraged at how American troops remained in a forever war feeding the military industrial complex; this is primarily just a case of right wing politician weaponized hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Just binged The Expanse.
If you liked the first couple of series of Battlestar Galactica, you’ll love the expanse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Selection pressures haven’t been the same everywhere though, to the point that there have been pretty radical differences in phenotype. There is also pretty large differences in admixture with other hominids, Europeans and East Asians having high Neanderthal admixture which is close to zero among sub Saharan Africans. Don’t know what affect this has or on what but it has to mean something. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that the alleles for traits intelligence, athletic ability, sense of rhythm, sense of direction, pain tolerance, etc are perfectly evenly distributed
In a convoluted roundabout way - this is my point. I would somewhat disagree with the premise about natural selective pressures for various reasons - and completely disagree on your premise that are phenotypes are “radically different” - but let’s assume you’re correct - it’s not an unreasonable premise to presume selective pressures differ throughout different environments.
Distribution of intelligence would be expected to correlate at some geographic level, rather than at a broad racial level. Like, say, Masai being smarter than Zulus; Anglo Saxon’s being smarter than Slavs; rather than correlating on a larger racial basis.
From what I’ve read IQ is estimated to be around 50% heritable. So it is definitely important to improve the environment for disadvantaged people to make sure that they can reach their full potential. But there could well come a time in the future when by all reasonable accounts the environmental issues have been solved and the chips still might not fall in the way people want them to. I just want people to be prepared for that possibility
There’s confusion as to what heritability means in this context; I’d refer you to what I said to Mesmer, it doesn’t quite mean exactly what people think it does; and the way it’s measured is very prone to misinterpretation. Heritability values - weirdly - can change with environments
I think the most pressuring issue is in removing the environmental impacts first, and worrying about what happens as a result later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
The fact that you don't think an argument, which was made with the implications of your argument, doesn't count as an argument, is quite amusing LOL.
You've unwittingly conceded, so thanks.
Given that it’s unclear what you’re point even was, what was the logic behind it, and less clear how it’s relevant or applies: and you don’t seem to want to say, I’ll just wait for you to offer an explanation before trying to disentangle what you’re trying to say; or wait for you to drop what appears to be a nonsensical non-argument.
It's just an accurate label of what you do.
You bs people with sophistry. You're an anti-white shitlib looking to go into semantic funhouses to distract from real arguments.
This is what you always do, and you're about to do it again here.
I would be happy to defend myself if you have specific reasons and justifications for anything you just said
Without that justification - you’re just making unfounded accusations - name calling - which doesn’t require any further response.
Without that justification - you’re just making unfounded accusations - name calling - which doesn’t require any further response.
“No race realist argues this and I certainly didn't argue this -- horrible strawman you're making here.
Obviously, the environment and genetics play roles in making humans. The debate is to what degree.
You're too busy sniffing your own farts to understand the arguments of the other side.”
Repeated name calling aside; This was based on your quote here:
“The average Black person's intellectual "potential" is lower of that than Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Jews”
However, while I’m happy to change my “solely” to “primarily”; it seems that you implied that you definitively knew what the race gap actually was - and that this true gap was solely down to genetics.
“According to your logic, they would all be the same species because we couldn't 'find the genes' to explain all differences.
Okay, so this argument is a rather ridiculous reductio ad Absurdum. It’s rather bizarre.
To start with, species has a functional definition separate from genetics: “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding”. So no, absolutely nothing I’ve suggested would preclude humans, dolphins and chimpanzees, etc being deemed part of the same species. I mean, seriously wtf.
Secondly; I am suggesting that to isolate the cause of slightly varying presentations of a single trait in very genetically related, interbreeding populations, that is known to be impacted by the environment and who do not all share the same environment, one must be able to specifically show that one group shares a specific genetic profile the other does not.
That’s completely reasonable.
This logic can’t reasonably applied to many other scenarios, and certainly not to between humans any non homo-sapien species given that: comparisons are largely not a matter of “slightly varying” with traits being compared largely being wholly dissimilar, the populations have been separated by millions of years of reproductive isolation and independent evolution; the variations of traits within both species do not substantially overlap in normal populations and largely cannot even be compared due to fundamental differences in specifies behaviour and morphology, and that known impact of environment is not known to be able to meaningfully shift the variance in any meaningful way in a way that allows a compared trait to differ in those similar species solely by environmental factors.
In this respect: comparing, say, apes and humans; the extent of evolutionary change, genomic distance, and possible environmental influence makes it reasonable to discount environmental factors when comparing almost any aspect of two disparate species.
However - if Two groups of Chimpanzees lived in very different areas, had different diets, and one exhibited slightly more intelligence; one would certainly need to determine what genetic differences there were between the groups that impacted intelligence, and show one group had more the other before asserting the difference is genetic.
So no; your objection here is utterly ridiculous and clearly nonsense.
I'd argue that intelligence is about 80% hereditary
Firstly, the maximum value of heredity in some studies is 80%, the lowest goes down to about 20% in some circumstances. So what you’re doing here is called cherry picking.
The bigger issue, however, is that I think you have completely misunderstood what a Heritability measurement means in genetics.
Saying IQ has a heredity of 0.8 doesn’t mean that 80% of IQ an individuals is down to genetics.
It means that in a group of people being sampled with a range of IQs; 80% of the variation of IQs is expected to be due to differences in genes, and 20% due to differences in the environment of the individuals being compared. It doesn’t take into consideration the impact of environmental factors that may be shared by all, or shared between compared groups - for example there may well be specific impacts of having all environments meet qualifying standards for adoption.
Values of heritability only work as a broad measure of all environmental impacts if you use a broad set of disparate environments in the comparisons - for example things such as comparing multiple sets of identical twins that were brought up one in extreme squalor vs extreme affluence. L
I have no doubt, for example, that in one key study, the environments provided by swedes qualifying as adoptive parents in 1994 are sufficiently similar to one another to account for only 20% of the variation between children placed in their care. This does not mean intelligence will only vary by 20% compared to their twin if one identical twin is adopted to poor farmers in the democratic republic of Congo.
Given the substantial variations in assessed heritability of IQ in various groups depending on the method of measure; including a broadly consistent array of data indicating that environment can have a significant impact on IQ in a variety of ways, especially at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale; the conclusion you draw is largely is unwarranted.
The fundamental problem you have, is that you’re still continuing to simply assert that correlation is causation. Thats a very basic, very simple and very common fallacy.
It’s simple - to not be using that fallacy, you must know, genetically, what causes intelligence, and know that particular races have less of whatever that is.
The alternative is to be able to perform a test that is able to measure someone’s intelligence, and is able to correct for every possible environmental contribution to that persons Intelligence - thats not only never been done - but is also so utterly impractical as to be essentially impossible.
The bottom line is very simple:
I explained the various factors that determine intelligence from conception; there is MASSIVE variation in all those factors across various social, ethnic and national groups for multiple non genetic reasons: there is huge capacity, potential and avenue for many forms of environmental impact on intelligence.
If intelligence is primarily genetic, then there should be strong correlation between particular genes or sets of genes; and intelligence - there is not. That undermines your conclusion too.
If intelligence is primarily impacted by environmental factors, which largely correlate with race; then there should be evidence of various environmental factors that impact intelligence - and there is (iron, iodine, adoption studies comparing affluence of adoptive parents, extreme poverty ,abuse, broadly show that there is a large impact on intelligence from non genetic factors); that undermines your conclusion too.
You point to hereditary values of intelligence, without fully understanding the meaning of the term - which again undermines your conclusion.
You also point to G-loaded tests - you seem to present these as being fully independent of environment and culture - which they are clearly and definitively not. They are absolutely correcting for obvious issues such as not being dependent on the pre-existence of learned concepts; but that’s only one of a neat infinite array of various factors external to genetics. If you have an impaired IQ due to having been malnourished, exposed to lead, and having been abused - or any one of a number of other environmental possibilities - the test will not correct or adjust for that. How can it?
Relying on G-loaded in this way may correct for slightly more things than an IQ test, but still leaves you dependent on having to assume correlation is causation in order for the claims to be true.
I mean - your statement that these tests are a measure of genetic variation; can be blown out of the water by the fact that western IQ has gone up by around 15 points in a few decades which can’t be explained by any specific genetic factors; and exceeds that “80%” assertion.
In fact the whole principle that IQ is a normalized comparative value - not an absolute undermines your use of it as an absolute indicator of genetic attributes.
That’s the really the bottom line here; you are assuming that because African Americans score lower, that it’s genetic. But until you can specifically tell that it’s genetic, you can’t make that assertion; and given that a huge amount of the data undermines that assertion - as I have shown it’s even less valid.
Created: