Ramshutu

I remember the one that thing that struck me most in the last few times I’ve visited Stockholm, is how the country appears to be on the precipice of degenerating into an authoritarian communist dictatorship.

The thing that leftists are being smug about is the complete seemingly complete inability for the right wing to understand that democratic socialism is not the same thing as communism.

It’s like you guys are sitting there thinking that the only way of getting 12 months of paid maternity leave is by eliminating democracy and the free market with goose stepping militia men wearing Bernie t shirts.

So while we regular humans understand that the place where the line is drawn, is wherever it is practical and reasonable to draw the line, I think the point greyparrot is trying to make is this:

Because you can’t tell him exactly what the top tax bracket will be, and where it will kick in; because you can’t tell him exactly which social programs and socially beneficial services currently managed by private organizations will be managed by the government; or which will be partially or fully subsidized by the government; and because you are not able to tell him exactly how many laws will be passed concerning providing additional worker rights: Greyparrot is implying that your suggestions may as well be calling for the violent overthrow of the government, and the execution of the Borgeoise by the proletariat, and the complete eradication of the free market.

Of course, I didn’t say it was a good point, but that’s the point he’s making.

Of course we all know that the first step towards the overturning of US democracy and the establishment of a communist oppressive government is by passing central funded healthcare, making it illegal to dump poison in the water, and to make Election Day a federal holiday.

    

Of course not.

Being a troll makes somronr a troll. Repeatedly failing to engage on any substance and instead rely on intentionally misleading and incendiary comments he won’t defend as the preferred method of discourse - makes someone a troll.

In light of recent posts, and the general rise of Pseudoscience - from flat earth, creationism, the food babe, fad diets, anti-vax healing crystals and energy channeling, the importance of being able to navigate the sea of woo and pseudoscience is more important than ever.

What techniques do pepppe follow to recognize pseudoscience when they see it?

Dont worry about this guy, he’s just trolling.

At the moment, the right are petrified of more worker and people friendly legislation and the associated problems the conservative donor class will likely face, and so GP, as someone who has had his face sewn onto the anus of propagandizing conservative talking points is simplying echoing the current conservative trends whilst Trump shouts “feed her!” Beside him.

The nuance here is that democratic socialism is not communism, or the type of controlled market of Venezuela. 50% of it is just the same type of thing that every other civilized country on the planet has, and would not give up, 40% is just the same type of thing as some other civilized countries have and who’s citizens would not give up, with the remaining 5% being interesting new policies along the same lines as the other 95%.

Obviously, the conservative media are freaking out. The high earners will be taxed more, and if the type of Scandinavian approach to government was implemented, the actual benefits (rather than faux benefits where workers were promised to be looked after, only to have massive tax breaks for the wealthy and the whole host of policy moves that favor cororations over the little guy  ), to the individual works would be enough to keep conservatives out of power for a generation.

Conservative media craps it out, GP swallows it, and as he can’t defend it, he’ll just troll with the occasional one liner, and nonsensical deflection.

Yes, I explicitly refuted it: this was covered under the sections I just mentioned. Even if you don’t think round 1 where I made the argument, or round 2, where I pointed out how round 1 addresses it, were not quite explicit enough for your tastes, round 5 went out of its way to explicitly explain why round 1 negates that specific claim.

If you take note: pro argues that there is a cap in effectiveness of co2 based on a blog post, that it is has limited effect beyond a certain point, I explain  that it’s a logarithmic process (with evidence), and I quantify (with evidence) what that logarithmic identity that , and use it to explicitly argue that doubling co2 will lead to a temperature rise of 1 degree even without taking into consideration any other process. I point out in round 2 that this explanation runs counter to his argument of the exception efectiveness, and then again explicitly corrected him in the final round, by pointing out co2 concentrations do not work the way he says, and refer him back to the science I pointed out in round 1.

If that isn’t “addressing his argument”, then shrug: all I can say is that he definitely had no detail or response to what I raised either: meaning it’s solid scientific data vs a blog post.

And also in round 5 under “Carbon dioxide ineffective.”

Yeah I did, it’s under the section “Contribution of heat from Carbon Dioxide”

That’s a pretty good idea! Separating the crazy from the people who want to discuss actual science is a good idea. It would mean somebody could spam out some other forum with this nonsense, like whether bees really exist, or that air is a conspiracy.

For a moment, assume it were possible for plants to evolve that were poisonous, or to produce chemicals that alter human biology in some beneficial way.

The answer is 1 and 3.

Theoretically the numbers saved are the same in all examples over enough attempts, but a gauranteed outcome is always preferable.

sorry, I meant treatment 3! Typo.

Question: Treatment 4 - what happens to the other 200 people.

If you remember Edlvsjd from DDO, the interesting thing about the guy is that he at least pretended to be in the realm of scientific thought. There was obvious cherry picking, ignoring data that disagreed with him, and generally being irrationally incoherent. 

However, just because he dipped a toe into the pool of scientific knowledge meant that there was some level of basis for his claims. My favourite was that he often claimed that YouTube experiments always showed water isn’t curved - and sometimes even though you know the guy is an idiot, and wrong - you don’t always know the answer to the nonsense.

I love these types of pseudoscientists, because you end up being able to a super scientific sleuth when trying to debunk them. I find it interesting learning about atmospheric lapse rates and terrestrial refraction due to air, and photo analysis - and even finding novel observations that prove the earth is spherical was interesting.

Of course, he’s deny everything when disproven, then stop talking to you. But the bottom line was that he was just smart enough to ask questions that were interesting to answer and let everyone learn something when he did.

This guy, is either a troll and a buffoon; and there seems to be very little intelligence there, to the point where he doesn’t even offer that value. I think the best idea is to actually turn it into an opportunity to talk about identifying the anatomy of pseudoscience.

I find it quite interesting that Flat earthers, and people like this guy go from site to site getting destroyed by everyone and convincing no one, and spend all their effort and energy writing these nonsensical posts - yet don’t spend any time and energy actually trying to empirically validate their position.

Actually, at least Flat earthers attempt to make their own observational evidence and experiments. So not as god as a flat earther.

There’s a subtlety here, this is not the case that someone is seeing the sky is green, that would imply that there was something objectively different about the world for one person than the other.

Somebody’s problem is not that he sees the sky is blue, but - like many other conspiracy theorists - is holding an irrational and incoherent position inspire of all the evidence he recognizes that tells him otherwise. Given the intentional and repeated deflection away from the points that refute him, he has to have an intuitive understanding of the failure of his own argument.

If for example someone saw the sky is green, and every time it was mentioned that the person in question had tested positive for a condition that makes the sky appear blue - he changed the subject onto something else - it introduces a very different component.

One of the big issues here is the incapability of individuals to understand and appreciate how science and logic works in this particular capacity.

I think this is giving him too much credit. The sky is a physical thing that you can see (or not), and directly observe. In this regard, anyone that wasn’t mentally ill would question their eyes or their sanity.

In this case, this is just following the same patterns as other pseudoscientists - from anti-vaxxers to flat earthers. If you pay attention there is enough evidence in his replies to show he really does know he’s wrong on most of the information and facts. It’s the creationist tactic of just changing the subject or asking another question most of the time that’s so consistent in avoiding the fevers sting facts that it can’t be by coincidence.

Its interesting watching someone dodge and ignore key facts that disprove them, only to bring up some other unrelated point, or tenuous argument. I mean, Einstein’s been proven, and there are multiple experiments to validate it: any scientifically minded individual would crash headfirst into those experiments like a charging rhinoceros - explaining which part is right or wrong, why - why the experiment does show what they think it does, etc.

Pseudoscientists often cant do that - because the experiments are valid, so they go straight for the famous journal of YouTube, or random internet huxters, as if a plywood interferometer is more reliable than the analysis and investigation conducted. You don’t consistently evade things like this repeatedly and consistently without knowing that they’re increasingly strong.

Conspiracy theorists like this are mostly dishonest and distorting, some are far more ignorant and lacking in intelligence than others, but they all seem to draw some element of self worth, or meaning from the conspiracy, as if “being in the know” makes them feel more powerful.

I have bolded the parts of your post you asserted without any supporting evidence, nor is there any supporting evidence.

concession accepted.

You missed 10 little flies in the oitment.

1.) Mass energy equivalence has been proven.

2.) Time dilation has been proven through multiple independent experiments, including:

2.a) atomic clocks in aeroplanes

2.b) the Frisch-smith experiment on relativistic muons.

2.c) Atomic clocks in GPS satellites.

3.) Relativistic mass has been proven in multiple atomic smashers

4.) The relative speed of light being constant has been proven in multiple experiments - most famously in the Michelson Morley experiment.

5.) Multiple experiments have been conducted that prove massive objects bend light including:

5.a) gravitational lensing in galaxy observations.

5.b) the eddington experiment of the sun during a solar eclipse.

6.) the concept of frame dragging - predicted by Einstein - has been observed.

7.) Gravitational waves have famously been observed.

FYI: the answer is B.

What a compelling argument. I’m a nerd, and everything I’m told is a lie!

Of course, you have no evidence of any of that, so we have to take your word for it that your opinion is more reliable that the million scientists in various fields.

That is really the most compelling argument, which is more believable:

A.) That the entire scientific community - every last one of relevant fields - numbering in the million have all been systematically lying repeatedly for hundreds of years, and have managed to successfully recruit new scientists and new people to continue the perpetuate the conspiracy and are hired with a 100% success rate such that not a single one of the million scientists had ever left the conspiracy and taken with them an documentary evidence to expose it. Not only that, they don’t appear to be doing it for any justifiable or practical reason, given that the truth is likely to generate as much money, and be as practical as the lies. And, the only reason we know of this massive conspiracy, is because some nobber on the internet - who doesn’t seem to have any objective evidence, is frequently incoherent, and often contradicts his own claims in the space of a few posts - has managed to unveil the conspiracy and is confident in his claims despite having no actual evidence or practical backing for anything he says, and doesn’t even seem to understand what evidence is.

B.) Scientists are not engaged in some massive conspiracy, you’re just a cretin.

 

Again, no you didn’t answer the question: People used to die - en mass - of small pox, in clusters and epidemics. They do not any more. Why not?

People used to die - en mass - of small pox, in clusters and epidemics. They do not any more. Why not?

So far the only reason you’ve been able to come up with, is a demonstrably untrue assertion, that you have made up, and is not supported by any evidence at all.

In actuality - this is literally your entire belief here is just that. As I’ve pointed out, none of your claims here actually hold any water, you’re free to believe whatever nonsense you want - but don’t try and pretend any of this ridiculous made up clap trap is truez

You didn’t answer my question, you literally made up a nonsensical claim, that is not supported by objective reality.

You can’t simply pull claims out of your arse, with no evidence, and then call them “answers”. This is absurd pseudoscientific limbo jumbo, that has absolutely no value.

So please, answer the question: why do people not catch small pox any more? 

Yeah Einstein is just a stupid conman, who’s theories have been repeatedly validated by independent scientists. Good job we have you:  the insanity spewing internet nut job who randomly asserts nonsensical, incoherent and at times contradictory claims without any evidence. You’re really showing us the way with your petulant denials of any evidence you disagree without cause or reason. 

lol wut? The key features of small pox: 20+ mortality rate, eruption of itchy scab by pustules over the entire body a few days after severe fever onset that last weeks. That is not like any other “skin condition” of any kind. It’s not like Ebola, or any other illness. There is no image you can point to in the entire world of someone who died after a fever, with smallpox like pustules, no Ebola sufferers who you can point to who had smallpox symptoms.

Stop pulling ridiculous bullshit claims out of your arse, you’re going to lose your watch!

So, unless you’re willing to actually provide some evidence to backup this ridiculous nonsense, please answer the question:

why dont people die of smallpox any more?

You do realize that Einstein spend the entirety of his 30 minutes of speach taking a massive german sh*t on everything you’ve said and believe about aether? Right? He literally tears the concept of ether completely apart for the entirety of the speech, did you even read it?

The entire speach is literally “believing that aether is a physical thing, an object with mass, or particles, or a frame is just utter refuted horseshit - but space still has some measurable properties - so let’s call whatever it is that gives space it’s properties “aether.”

Okay - so you seem to be saying that you couldn’t tell a designed animal from an evolved animal.

You've offered an example of how you can tell a designed plant, from an evolved plant. I want to clarify the thought experiment a little, as I think you misunderstood the meaning just a little:

President me that it were possible for plants to evolve that were poisonous, or to produce chemicals that alter human biology in some beneficial way.

How would you tell poisonous plants that had evolved apart from poisonous plants that were designed? How could you tell plants that produce positive biological affects that coincidentally evolved, vs ones that had been designed?

I asked you why no one catches small pox any more.

Smallpox is a condition that is uniquely typified by outbreaks of infectious pustules all over the body, it occurred in multiple epidemic clusters, and killed millions of people. This doesn’t happen any more. No one catches small pox, no one catches a disease that has the same diagnostic properties, and certainly no one does from it.

I asked you, if smallpox is related to diet, why does no one - in the entire world - has died in these circumstances in the last 40 years.

Screaming - without evidence - that small pox is not a real diseases - doesn’t answer that question.

Asserting - without evidence that Smallpox is caused by vitamin deficiency - doesn’t answer that question.

Accusing medical professionals - without evidence -  of making up diseases and poisons - doesn’t answer that question.

Repeating the same ridiculous nonsense at how this is just leaky gut syndrome A without any evidence - isn’t answering the question.

This is simply you evading the question. If Diet causes small pox, you would see small pox today in people who have poor diet? Why do no one have the typical pustules of small pox, and how was it eradicated as a disease.

In reality, your nonsense claims are made up - and make no sense. You’re claims seem unable to explain even the most trivial question like this, and rather than answering the question, you seem to be forced to simply regurgitate the same nonsense.

So please answer the question.

If diet causes small pox - why is there no longer any small pox.

Youve been dodging my question for, maybe 3 pages now. Lets move it to a single question:

If vitamin C deficiency causes Small pox, why does no one ever get small pox any more?

Are you asserting that every human being on the planet, for the last 40 years is getting the right amount of vitamin C - including those who are hospitalized for vitamin C deficiency?

You make no sense.

No it doesn’t. Nothing about it refutes anything that I’m referencing. The reason being is that I am specifically pointing out why small pox isn’t related to diet, and simply can’t be, as a result of all the actual evidence.

You are mostly just using insinuation, implication and hand waving to assert that I’m wrong. It’s not even really clear what you’re even trying to use your facts to support. You’re implying that because lots of people caught smallpox - that mandatory vaccination of children at the time was ineffective - that isn’t evidence that smallpox isn’t a virus, nor that it is caused by diet. That makes no sense. What also makes no sense is you claiming smallpox is related to diet, yet no one catches it any more: I mean come on doofus. Why does no one catch smal pox any more? 

So let me ask again: how can you explain the following, or are you going to keep trying to dodge and deflect.

That’s nice.

Unfortunakey, just posting a link - then asserting it proves your entire position, without providing any details, explanations or justification - is not logical or coherent.

Importantly, nothing you said is in any way related to your claims about diet causing smallpox, and doesn’t address anything I have been talking about for the last 3 pages and you have been ignoring:

Lets see if you are willing to address any of them, or are simply going to keep deflecting and dodging.

On no planet, universe or plane of existence was anything you said a refutation.

What you did was primarily to restate the same thing you’ve been saying since the start of this thread, which is completely untrue, and fails on the most basic principles of logic and coherence.

All you’re doing is throwing together a series of largely unrelated claims and facts, and asserting that they all prove your point. You don’t have a very good grasp of logic, so I’m drilling home the fundamentals of why you are wrong, as you have been ignoring it since the start.

So what we do know, is that it’s impossible that smallpox is due to diet. We know this for 6 reasons:

You have been incoherently asserting that these diseases are based on diet for multiple pages now. We all understand what you believe the cause to be. Unfortunately, as I pointed out repeatedly, the evidence doesn’t stack up with your claims.for example:

1.) People still have bad diets - why they don’t catch smallpox any more?

So I will say that your description of evolution isn’t correct, but I wanted you to go through a little thought experiment with me:

Lets presume for the purposes of this thought experiment that some animals on earth had evolved, and some animals on earth had been designed by a super intelligent creator. The how’s and why’s are not too important.

How would you be able to tell which is which? What tests would you do to be able to tell evolved organisms apart from designed ones.

Superficial assertions that say Smallpox was caused by diet, are meaningless - as actual detail of smallpox and putbreak epidemiology demonstrate it cannot be down to diet.

I covered this in detail multiple times, and summarized your problems with the 6 points above. None of which you’ve actually addressed. Let me repeat them:

Thats pretty interesting, that does seem like a logic but is probably not much more than the weight of a small building! Is that before or after accounting for accumulation of solar system dust?

(4) isn’t quite true. As well as thermal expansion, many parts of the northern hemisphere have been “expanding” due to a process called post glacial rebound.

During the last ice age, most of the northern hemisphere was under a lot of ice; the pressure contributed to these continents sinking. Once the ice melted, these land masses rebound slowly, contributing the land “expansion” talked about.

Somebody is still completely wrong - but it’s a really interesting process, it’s worth mentioning.

This is a summary of all the points you haven’t answered to any substantial degree over the last three pages.

There are no mistakes - diet cannot explain the details of any of these outbreaks; you’ve only provided generic assertions and nonsense.

Given the most basic scientific errors you’ve made, if you ever worked in a lab, it was as a cleaner.

I didn’t drop Koch’s postulate, I said it didn’t apply. It doesn’t apply because viruses require cells to replicate - meaning you camt culture them the way you can bacteria - and given that his rules predate the discovery of viruses - it’s kind of fair.

What you’re doing, is the text book reply of a pseudoscientist, you cite out of date science when you feel it agrees with you, then find whatever nonsensical and incoherent reason you can think of to dismiss the genuine rebuttal.

No, Koch’s rules don’t apply to viruses. If you think they should, you’re an idiot. If you feel me referencing Koch directly is “dropping it”, then you’re a special type of idiot.

Now, given this entire thread is made up of your hasty generalization, and your tenuous over assertion that small individual factoids demonstrate grand schemes and patterns - your second point is like most else - made up.

To prove Spanish flu was caused by hospital intervention a you have to demonstrate a clear correlation between hospital stay, vaccination, illness, death. You don’t do that, because you’re making things up, and when you do this analysis it will refute your position. Instead, you’re forced to do what you’re doing now, taking individual points that demonstrate tiny examples, and the. Extrapolate them to wild conditions.

This is another example of you incoherently throwing out any random fact you feel agrees with you, without any factual or logical basis for those claims.

Now, as you’ve been repeatedly ignoring the key facts that refute your position, let me reiterate the core facts and evidence that refute your position so you don’t have to go back through all the posts you ignored:

So as I keep pointing out: diet is wholly insufficient to explain any viral or bacterial disease.

For example, for the disease of Spanish Flu. You claimed it was caused by dietary problems caused by food shortages. However:

1.) There have been multiple flu outbreaks over the last 130 years that were not associated with any food shortages. Why did these happen?

2.) North America, and parts of the world not affected by food shortages still suffered.

3.) There were food shortages in 1916 and 1917 prior to the outbreak, and severe food problems during WW1 for the troops - yet these were not major years, or major groups who were victims of the Spanish flu.

4.) The flu disproportionately killed the health and young, rather than specifically old or inform groups.


Summary: You continually claim flu is caused by diet: but there is absolutely no correlation between who died, who got sick, and what diet that they had. None at all. As a result, your claims are nonsensical and incoherent.

In terms of Malaria:

You claim Malaria is down to vitamin D insufficiency - as is Rickets.

1.) Rickets still occurs in people who don’t leave the county in places like Sweden, Canada, and the UK: Malaria does not.

2.) Malaria is physically limited to specific geographical regions, and people who have travelled to them.

3.) Incidence of Rickets does not appear to correlate to incidence of Malaria in any way, shape or form.

4.) The idea that everyone who catches malaria has less vitamin D, whereas everyone outside this are gets plenty of Vitamin D - except for the people who travel and catch Malaria - who must have fine vitamin D, and then have poor vitamin D intake for a few days - and this is enough - Is utterly nonsensical.

5.) Having a mosquito net has a major predictive factor in determining who gets Malaria.

Summary: You claim malaria is caused by diet: but there is absolutely no correlation between who catches malaria and diet, and the major facts and evidence about Malaria just cannot be explained diet.

Moving on to small pox.

1.) People still have bad diets - they don’t catch smallpox any more.

2.) Eradication of smallpox coincided with immunization - not dietary improvements.

3.) People with good diets and poor diets caught small pox.

4.) You claim small pox and flu are caused by lack of vitamin c. People still catch the flu.

5.) people who caught cow pox didn’t catch small pox.

6.) people didn’t catch smallpox twice - even though their diet didn’t improve.

Summary: claims that smallpox was due to diet are made up and are directly refuted by evidence and analysis.

As I explained at the time, and I just repeated - you were looking at genetics with a naive and overly simplistic view, so when you looked at the study of scales and feathers, you analyed it based on this faulty understanding.

You took the attempts of trying to make alligators grow feathers as if this proves alligators don’t have a “feather gene”, or some major genetic component that has to be novely created without precursor: based on your naive and overly simplistic understanding.

In reality, that’s not how ANY of this works.

In reality, feathers use mostly the same genes and proteins as scales (and hair for that matter), and the big differences between scales and feathers are mostly related to developmental regulation. Alligators can’t grow feathers because they are far enough removed from birds that there are too many regulatory differences - not because there is a magical new novel gene to produce feathers.

Your error is one of basic understanding of developmental biology and genetics, that you don’t appear to be able or willing to grasp, and upon which all your arguments seem to be errantly based. You’re making no attempt to actually show you have any understanding of the biological underpinning: I’m have been trying to explain literally how organisms develop using basic genetic principles and our modern understanding of how developmental biology works - you are telling me “nope”, you’re offering no explanations of how development does work, or the principles that govern it.

Its like you’re trying to argue that Wayne Gretzky is not the greatest Hockey player of all time because he had a terrible RBI.

Unfortunately - that is not accurate.

If you take a look back, I have been pointing out that your objections and explanations to macroevolution are all based on a very simplistic and naive understanding, each one of your objection were either based on the assumption that big physical differences needed big genetic changes (this is untrue), or that major structure changes required “new” sets of genes to make them (this is also untrue).

I pointed out how it does actually work: (small changes in major gene groups - like Hox genes - produce major phylogenies changes), I explained why it works that way (because development of an organism is primarily the same basic genes and proteins being regulated by a series of simple regulatory genes, meaning changes to the protein, or the more fundamental regulation towards the beginning of the development of the organism has a much larger downstream impact), and I’ve provided a fairly comprehensive set of supporting facts with them (same fundamental cell types, similar body plans for all terrestrial vertebrates, similar developmental patterns, etc).

I also pointed out at times that what you’re claiming is being relied on isn’t even being relied on. In that Macroevolution in its most normal usage doesn’t rely on major phenotypic changes in a single generation - as I explained by listing the changes required to go from fish to amphibian, and from land mammal to whale.

Even though I have gone to great lengths to explain both what the actual science is, and why your understanding of it is wrong, your reply dujour has been to generally re-assert that your interpretation of genetics is correct, and provide a different subtle argument based on that interpretation, rather to defend and justify your interpretation.

In this regard, you are confusing me continually drawing you back to your faulty understanding with “repeating myself”.

I hope that clears things up.

1.) Koch’s postulates don’t apply to viruses, and has been superseded by the Bradford Hill Criteria as a result.

2.) That people marketed vaccines that didn’t work, doesnt mean that the entirety of the deaths due to Spanish flu in North America were caused by medical intervention or bad vaccines of some kind. This is literally incoherent and illogical.

3.) Using a few limited and isolated examples in order to extrapolate into wild conclusions is incoherent and illogical.

Now,

Please address posts #87, #84, #81

In these posts I demonstrate the key peices of evidence that systematically demonstrate that these illnesses cannot possibly be due to diet, that your wild claims cannot explain the real world patterns of these outbreaks, and to which you currently have no argument.