Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This appears ripe for a yo momma joke
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Herdity of traitsMaterialist answer, change in environment, mutation, and time.
Variation of traits between generations
The statistical link of traits to survival.
So you kinda got one out of the three.
This doesn't look great for you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Haha yeah - that’s a special type of stupidity. But it’s one of the more interesting lines of absurd questioning I’ve seen “it’s still a fly”, or “its still a dog”
when talking about speciation.
We’re still Eukaryotic deutorostomic, bilateral, Chordate, bony, vertebrate, skulked, jawed, lobed tetropod, amniotic, synapsid, Mammal, Eutherian, primate, great ape humans.
You can’t outf**k your lineage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
there are indeed three things: if any object has these three properties, it will evolve. Life, computer programs, rocks. Anything.
Going to make a stab at it? Because thus far for someone who understands evolution you don’t appear to be able to answer any questions on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think he's asking you to guess which are most closely related based on just that info: human / shark / lungfish. Your reasoning is also important, like why you made the choice you did. He's not asking you to know, and I bet he won't even make fun of you if you get it wrong. Watch, I'll try:Ramshutu, I think the lungfish and the shark are more closely related, because they're both fish and a human is not a fish.
I’m attempting to illustrate a point, many people can describe natural selection, and possibly genetic drift. Few people - and no one in the list of people I have interacted with who don’t believe in evolution - are able to accurately describe the details of the principles and their implications.
Your answer is a great example. Intuitively it seems that lungfish and sharks are closely related: but if you took a lungfish and a human - we are closer. That’s the type of nuance that gets missed, and nuance and understanding necessary to understand the data and experiments.
Humans and Lungfish share a later common ancestor than do sharks and lungfish (though not by much) that means there has been less time for humans and lungfish to diverge than between lungfish and sharks.
The points is actually a key nuance of evolution when talking about the leaves of a tree vs the branches; and an issue I’ve frequently seen misunderstood or misrepresented by the anti-science brigade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
So you don’t know the key mechanics of Evolution, you can’t answer questions related to ancestry, meaning you don’t seem to know much about the broad specifics of it.I don't know how closely related any of them are, so i can't answer your question.
How about you list the three key properties a life form - or anything - requires in order to be able to evolve?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If you took a lungfish, a human and a shark living in the world today - which two would be more closely related, and why?
Still waiting for your answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
He could be serious, he could be trolling, it keeps me busy :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Thats not really a technical detail - it’s part of the core proof of evolution, and the key aspects of the evidence that supports it.
And i I actually do, very much know a great deal of details about the mechanisms and details of evolution, which I would be happy to share (and I am trying to do so outside you telling me to fuck off and calif me pretentious!)
This is is what I mean about intellectual dishonesty - you claim to understand evolution, and have read about it - yet fail in explaining its basic mechanics.
How about I make it even simpler.
If you took a lungfish, a human and a shark living in the world today - which two would be more closely related, and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
First of all, no you don’t; second of all I don’t believe I am superior to religious or spiritual people: just superior to people like you I matters of scientific understanding as it pertains to life, origins and evolution.
I’ll give you a challenge to show whether you understand evolution or not with two questions:
1.) What types of differences would you encounter if you compared a whole genome vs a conserved gene sequence of two organisms, and why?
2.) If you compared conserved gene sequence between chickens, humans, lungfish, and sharks: how would they compare if evolution were true, and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Erm no - given that what I’ve seen you’ve repeatedly misrepresented and misportrayed what evolution is and how it works in order to promote your unfalsifiable nonsense about randomness - and even now are just basically engaging in name calling - I don’t think you understand how evolution works at all, or you do and you are lying to make your conjecture sound more palatable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Selective breeding is not evolution.
But they rely on the same principles.
Children have properties of their parents, changing who breeds and by how much effects subsequent generations, you can control - to a degree - what genes get passed on and which don’t.
That’s how we’ve gotten the massive and wide variety of selectively human bred dogs, horses, rabbits, plants.
Right? The principle behind both are the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Actually no: if past history is anything to go by, the majority of objections to evolution are typified by exceptional ignorance or wilful intellectual dishonesty. Starting at the beginning is actually the only way to really highlight and expose either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I feel we have to start at the beginning here.
I’m going to start off with the very basic aspects of reality and evolution and work up, if you’re actually interested in trying to understand.
Do you agree that dogs can be bred? To be bigger? Taller? Smarter?
Or birds - pigeons for example.
Or domesticated farm animals like cows, sheep, or pigs?
How about horses? Or plants?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
This debate topic is brought to you by MagicAintReal(tm)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
This particular issue whips my sack more than most.
Voting: if a rule specific an individual should not vote, it should be ignored by moderation. Harrassment should be dealt with through moderation, and vote quality should be dealt with by vote removal. I also would go further and state that even if both debaters ask for a vote to be removed - this shouldn’t be enforced either other than if the vote is deemed insufficient or borderline.
These are important enough issues not to be taken out of the moderators hands.
In terms of other special rules, I see these as no different from standard voter issues:
1.) If a debater makes a clear rule, the voters may award points on this basis - or not as they chose. At the very very worst you may request qvoter to justify why they are not following obvious rules, but I don’t think they should be enforced specifically by moderation - only moderated to the extent they are valid aspects to include in a voting decision.
2.) if a debater violates a rule intentionally, and provides an argument as to why that rule must be followed/ this becomes a primary argument and must be aurveyed by the voter to be sufficient imo. IE: if someone runs a kritik on a non-k debate, if the voter explains why the k should be allowed to stand - this is a primary argument that must be surveyed: voters can’t simply say “a kritik is in violation of the rules” any more.
i don’t thinm any of these are actually outside of what happens already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
While I have an opinion, I am only a moderator when it comes to votes, and am just a regular user in most other respects.
Saying that, it is my opinion that having these debates unmoderated reduces the likelihood of people making these debates. I mean, why create a debate if you know you may be legitimately vote bombed, targeted , bullied or otherwise grudge voted without retribution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ian LIvingstone did not know whether 12yr old me would decide to hide and wait for the footsteps to pass (go to section 472), or to discover their owners (go to section 221); yet he knew and planned the outcome of both choices.
So the free choice - and controlling the outcome is largely a non issue. As you say, the problem becomes more one if capability than the whole concept being logically incongruous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Constantly batting ping pong balls at someone, repeatedly when they don’t want you too will get you kicked out of most bars, sporting venues.Funny since we are playing ping pong.
Constantly batting ping pong balls at someone, repeatedly, when they want you to in the context of a rule based consenting competition is called “ping pong”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How can you allow things that would be bannable posted anywhere. Oh yeah, mod buddies get to do that kind of thing.
Punching someone in the face is assault.
Punching someone in the face with rules and specifically applied consent is called boxing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ever read any of the fighting fantasy books? Failing that - bandersmatch.
The book is written, but you get to make specific choices at specific points along the way that changes the specific narrative, and let’s you chose where that part of the story takes you.
Its all written down for you, but you still have a free choice.
The plan argument I’ve always found pretty weak for this reason. People don’t seem particularly imaginative when it comes to considering the forms in which a divine plan could conceive of.
Created:
Posted in:
Thanks to everyone for the supportive messages, I take this role pretty seriously, as I know how frustrating it is as a voter to have what you feel is a good vote removed - and as a debater to have what you consider a bad vote remain in place.
I’ll be doing my best, and will always be happy (as I am currently), to discuss votes or decisions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
The Hydrogen explosions at Fukushima were combusting Hydrogen, not fusing Hydrogen in a fusion reaction. The Hydrogen was produced as a reaction between the zirconium cladding of fuel assemblies (poor neutron absorbing material), and steam at high temperatures. Not the same thing at all.
Due to the nature of nuclear reactors - it’s not possible for hydrogen to be created by a Sodium cooled FBR - as there is no water in the core. It is also next to impossible to make a reactor go prompt critical (exponential chain reaction) - by design.
SL-1 in the 60s went prompt critical - no one is quite sure of Chernobyl did - and thus far there is no indication any other reactor ever has.
even the most catastrophic reactor accidents haven’t killed many people - comparatively speaking.
Literally more people have died in cars between your post and my post than have died as a result of nuclear power generation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You've given many articles that you’ve either subtly not understood, or haven’t presented in their full context. The truth of the matter is actually much more subtle than is being presented.
FBRs have been running since the 1960s, without any major events - and while they are technically challenging, your portrayal of the issues and safety is inherently flawed and misrepresenting the facts.
People are afraid of ionizing radiation mainly as humans are incapable of apprioriately weighing abstract risks.
Even before the NSC was built, you’d get a higher dose of radiation travelling to Brazil and sitting on the beach at Guarapari than you would standing outside reactor 4 at Chernobyl.
Nuclear power has dangers to it, but the risks are ridiculously overhyped and over stated. Nuclear accidents are just big scary and sexy, so everyone is irrationally frightened of them happening everywhere.
Look at it this way. A nuclear power station was subjected to mag 9 earthquake, was then flooded by a massive Tsunami, it lost all power for several days, lost all cooling, and all ability to manage the shutdown the damaged reactors and suffered 3 hydrogen explosions. The meltdown of three reactors still caused less radiation than a single reactor at Chernobyl: and the total number of actual deaths attributed to radiation at Fukushma is 1 death from lung cancer.
The fear of Nuclear power is absurd and irrational - given that falling out of bed kills more people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
- Low pressure coolant reactors are much safer due to lack of possible steam explosions.- The higher heat reservoir for higher temperature afforded by molten sodium or molten salt mean cooling mechanisms of spraying water on the reactor are less necessary.- No hydrogen explosions either.- Many thorium breeding cores can’t be used for proliferation as U233 is a hard gamma emitter.- The extra plutonium generated is not a problem, it’s what breeders do. Breed new fuel.- Sodium is more dangerous when exposed to air, but is less problematic than dealing with super high pressure radioactive steam and water at super high temperature.- Positive void coefficients are only one part of the equation as long as the reactivity of the core as a whole is negative, it’s not a problem. It’s certainly not large enough to be able to cause an uncontrolled steam explosion due to thermal runaway.
I have taken the liberty of bolding the parts of my previous post that you don’t seem to be interested in addressing.
Pressurized water reactors must operate at very high steam pressures and have major issues with hydrogen explosions in emergency scenarios as the zirconium cladding of fuel rods at high temperature reacts with water.
Sodium is dangerous due to its reactivity - but must of the issues you’ve mentioned about it are untrue, or not really issues: the PVC isn’t an issue when the reactivity of the core is taken as a whole. You don’t need to spray water on the core.
There is limited amount of uranium reserves in the world and despite your claims to the contrary, while the worlds remaining supply is measured at the scale of centuries - this is based on current consumption. Increase and scaling up of generation is necessarily going to drop this down - and as more convenient, and more prevelant nuclear power may get - the more need there is for higher efficiency reactors.
Saying this, I would prefer to see more research into LFTR reactors - they are by far and away the most interesting of the Gen 4 designs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Don't split it with the mods.
Bsh will only spend it fabulous parties.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Substantial additional gun controls, prohibitions on some ownership, buybacks, and attempt to substantially reduce the number of weapons legally owned, and increase the legal requirements and burden required to own and sell them.
Created:
-->
@Alec
I'd be happy to debate you on Gun Control - provides I don’t have to take the ultimate extreme position on it (ie: pro gun control, not 100% anti-all-guns)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You and I’m sure others, have beliefs, what I’m talking about are matters if material fact.
Lets cover them:
- Low pressure coolant reactors are much safer due to lack of possible steam explosions.
- The higher heat reservoir for higher temperature afforded by molten sodium or molten salt mean cooling mechanisms of spraying water on the reactor are less necessary.
- No hydrogen explosions either.
- Many thorium breeding cores can’t be used for proliferation as U233 is a hard gamma emitter.
- The extra plutonium generated is not a problem, it’s what breeders do. Breed new fuel.
- Sodium is more dangerous when exposed to air, but is less problematic than dealing with super high pressure radioactive steam and water at super high temperature.
- Positive void coefficients are only one part of the equation as long as the reactivity of the core as a whole is negative, it’s not a problem. It’s certainly not large enough to be able to cause an uncontrolled steam explosion due to thermal runaway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Yeah - everything I have said is factually accurate. Unfortunately for you.
Steam explosions are the most dangerous way a reactor can catastrophically fail. The use of sodium or molten salt eliminates that possibility by running the primary loop at much lower temperatures.
Your issue with FBR producing more radioactive material is the entire point of FBRs. You put in fuel, and the reaction and neutron breeds more fuel - it converts more U238 to plutonium 239 intentionally so that the Pu 239 will be subsequently used as part of the next reaction. It means the fuel lasts longer and has a higher percentage burn up.
But if you want to eliminate the possibility of proliferation, you should go with LFTRS, they can burn up radioactive waste, and use U233, which is a hard gamma emitter and can’t be used in nuclear weapons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
The main issues with nuclear power plants are mainly melt downs, and reactor steam explosions due to reaction runaway. The damage and irradiation caused by Chernobyl wasn’t due to the way the usage of fast or slow neutrons, but the fact that the runaway heat of the core flashed the water to steam to such a high pressure that containment failed and the reactor exploded.
There has been a runaway reaction at the SL-1 one reactor, where it appear the single control rod of the reactor was jammed, and the operator tried to unjam it to attach it to a control mechanism - ending up extracting it too far, and got impaled in the ceiling by said control rod after a steam explosion.
3 mile island and Fukushima were not issues with reaction runaway - this can’t really happen in any modern design - but due to latent decay heat: even if a reactor is shut down, the radioactive decay of remaining fission products still produces substantial heat.
Fortunately steam explosions are not an issue in FBRs as they tend to be molten salt cool : operating at the higher temperature means much lower pressure.
Also, ironically, FBRs are worse for the purposes of nuclear chain reactions, as slower neutrons are actually much easier to produce a fission reaction - hence the need for moderators.
So no - FBR is not particularly more dangerous than other nuclear power plants - which are increasingly safe.
Created:
You know, I shouldn’t have posted that: your right. I apologize, I shouldn’t be making armchair diagnosis, I won’t do it again.
Saying that, it was meant to be serious, but a tongue in cheek reference to your behaviour here. You appear to view yourself as some towering intellect, that most of your failures are down to the actions of others - rather than yourself, you appear to implicitly demand special treatment - and you want to make a big public show of all your drama.
Your current predicament is mostly down to the first and second points: and your unwillingness to either accept error or learn from the mistakes you make: I believe you were used to lower quality opponents then, when faced with an influx of new members that didn’t forfeit every round: you are unable to keep up with each argument. You are now accepting the same large quantity of debates but are doubling down on the dissmissive semantic arguments that lose track of the resolution that helped you lose a number of debates before.
You can either learn, grow and adapt, and not buy into your own hype just enough to question the validity of your arguments (something that any good debater needs to do); or you can keep doing what your doing: which right now makes you sound like that drunk 50 year old drunk guy at a bar in an Ohio state t-shift who can’t shut up about how he wrestled in college.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
No, not really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nuclear reactors don’t go wrong very often, but when they do it has a substantial impact. They don’t kill or even injure many people, compared to other types (coal and oil are through air pollution - solar via the manufacturing process and people falling when installing them). As a result, the deaths from solar are mostly mitigatable - deaths from nuclear are surprisingly minimal.
Gone are the days that reactor techs are impaled on the ceiling by steam propelled control rods.
In my view the issues with nuclear power are not safety related, but frankly economical. Current power stations burn through uranium, and there’s not enough of that left to be economical with a major upswing in nuclear power after maybe 20-30 years. Fast breeder and Thorium based reactors are much better for economy - but even the current ones aren’t great.
The only long term economical power plants are 10-20 years out even with substantial investment into R&D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I was curious as to why he supported that. Is it wrong to be curious?
You’re asking whether it is wrong for you to be curious as to why a troll - who repeatedly states outrageous and idiotic things, and who is frequently taking absurd positions to illicit a response - actually supports one of those outrageous things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@NoodIe
Once we get a few more sign ups, I’ll open up the first roastee for the public vote, then try and chose the roasters.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Bahahaha.
I don’t think I can add anything to that :)
You’re not a narcissist - just smarter and better than everyone else, and if anyone doesn’t understand you - it’s their fault for not being as smart as you.
Well played, sir!
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Fortunately not. I’m mostly nevers and rarelys.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I don't like what he is saying, but as extreme as type1's views are, he should have the right to defend them if he wants.
That doesn’t answer my question: my question was were you really genuinely asking why Type1 supports sending libertarians to the Gulag.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
RM isn’t being excluded by me - as he never opted in.
Comedically Insulting and being comedically insulted (a key part of a roast), isn’t something everyone has the ability to participate in, or the sensibilities to be able to accept, and that’s okay. That’s why this is opt in consent.
The need for a safety word is that roast tend to be very tongue in cheek, and we need a way to separate tongue in cheek objections to a particular roast: IE: “f*** you Omar”, with genuine objections.
We don’t know what has happened to each other in our lives, and a joke that is funny to most of us, may be difficult for someone for genuine or non genuine reasons. It’s not to judge anyone - but sometimes you don’t know until you know; and having a way people can clearly exit if they are uncomfortable is something that is important - even if we never use it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Are you for real?Why do you want to put libertarians in gulags?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Permanent Chihuaha
In other breaking news:
- The pope is catholic
- Bears shit in the woods.
- The sun will rise tommorow.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Voting points make no difference.
Essentially, what happens is that when one debated wins, their current score - and difference between them and their opponent is taken into consideration in determining the amount of points you earn.
For example, Type1 had super low points at one point, around 1240. Winning against him would earn you only a few points. Losing against him would lose you a lot of points.
Think of it as awarding more points when winning against people you’re not expected to beat. And losing more points against someone your expected to beat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
for 3 round debates, if the first round was forfeited, the debate is automatically awarded to the non forfeiting side. If the first is posted by both, and the second round is forfeited: it isn’t an automatic loss. Only if the final round is also forfeited does the loss kick in.
the purpose is really just solely to reduce the annoyance of waiting for a debate to finish when one person hasn’t shown up. But there’s a balance between doing that, and awarding a 5 round debate to one side because they forgot to post a final round.
Created: