Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I haven't played in years but so far everyone is town except whiteflame who's blatant mafia.can you elaborate on this??
Honestly just assumed this was a sarcastic statement, given that he didn't VTL me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I think we need to create a list of PROBABLE and PLAUSIBLE candidates to be more clear.
Trouble is that we could spin this out a lot wider if we do that. Assuming that Maria Ross is a character in this game, we could basically include any character who played a substantial role in any individual arc, which is a lot of characters for this series. I have some trouble believing that listing them all would be helpful.
Yup, and honestly this still isn't the best method of narrowing it down. When creating a mafia game you pair what characters you know of with what mafia roles you know of and try to balance it all. It isn't easy and sometimes you choose weird characters to make it work. That's why I'm not terribly keen on jumping on Pie over his claim as of yet.
I'm not keen on it, either. The character is minor, but the role and its justification make a great deal of sense. I have trouble believing that Pie would have stumbled across this as a fake claim, though if we assume that he is scum, I would be more inclined to believe that either his partner knows FMA very well or that scum was given fake claims. That being said, I think this fits so neatly that it is likely devised by Supa, and I'm more inclined at the moment to believe that he's town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Unvote
I'll keep my focus on the characters.
Though it's a bit of a spoiler, I think it's unlikely that both Ling and Greed are in this game as separate characters. There was another Greed, but if Ling is here, he's not. Edward, Alphonse, Winry, Mustang, and Scar are all about as obvious choices as it gets since they are all major characters in the series. Apart from them, I can see all of these as options, though I'd also include Alex Louis Armstrong (pretty likely), Olivier Mira Armstrong (less likely), Izumi Curtis (pretty likely), Riza Hawkeye (pretty likely), Tim Marcoh (less likely), Shou Tucker (hard to say how likely), and Solf J. Kimblee (less likely). This will add a lot to our complications.
As for eliminating some of the outliers from the list, I think it's worth recognizing that, with 8 players, not every one of the seven deadly sins will be present. I've basically eliminated Greed based on the overlap with Ling. Pride, Lust, Gluttony, and Sloth all play comparatively minor roles, so their likelihood of being here seems pretty small to me. Barry the Chopper seems pretty unlikely as well (though I think he has better odds than these sins), as does Maria Ross (hence my uncertainty regarding Pie's claim).
So if we're just focused on the likelier ones, we still have well over 8. I don't have any thoughts yet on the theme based solely on my own role and Pie's, though I think it may become more obvious as we get more claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'll need to give this claim some thought. We're talking about a game with 8 players, likely 2 of whom are mafia (wouldn't be terribly surprised if we had a homunculus, likely Envy since he is mentioned in your claim, and Father in here, though I don't want to assume that the split will be that obvious), and Maria Ross plays a pretty small role in the series on the whole, so I have a difficult time believing she's in this. I recall the scene you've described, and it does fit the Miller (more loosely than some other characters would), so I'll hold off on any judgement of this until I'm off of work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Might as well start doing something to gin up activity. Gotta get these inactives in here, so let's start with...
VTL MisterChris
Created:
Posted in:
Ah, good to be back. Lucky enough to not be experiencing the head wave that's been gripping the northwest. To anyone living out there: here's hoping it's a good day for rain.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I mean to in the near future. Got a few of them near me now that I've moved out to Tennessee.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
@Vader
Take the signups updated from the last page of gators game please so we can get started. All of those people are ready to start
Supa, I think this was directed at you.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Don't have to ask me twice.
/in
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Really? Because the complete lack of both in your responses doesn't give me much reason to believe that you're functioning on anything more than your personal bias. But, hey, if you want to make claims about Jewish people and non-whites instituting some kind of genocide, be my guest. Not interested in discussing it further.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Yeah, I’m not doing this. We are clearly very far apart on this, and if you want to assert that I’m wrong for no reason aside from your own bias, be my guest. I’m not interested in having this discussion.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I thought it would amuse you to be roped in
Not sure what part of this you thought I would be amused by. Not exactly enjoying reading through material that is basically torn straight out of some very antisemetic playbooks.
yes, I have heard it said that a Jewish Chinese guy will usually have more genetically in common with European Jewish males than with other Chinese people.Plus Jews don't usually claim to be white unless they are doing so as a free pass to bash white people in general. Here are 1000 tweets where that happens https://archive.org/details/TheEuropeanManTweetArchive/page/n1
What and what? There aren't very many Jewish Chinese people to begin with, so I don't know where that saying come from. I also don't know how you think these tweets somehow disprove that Jews are often white. Just because many white people don't want to be lumped in with everything white people have done wrong over history doesn't make them not white anymore.
PALESTINE
Palestine isn't a neighbor, nor is it a country. The West Bank and Gaza are home to Palestinians. And if they're the ones you were asking about, then I have to wonder what you're talking about when it comes to immigration from these regions. They want their own country, not to be absorbed into Israel.
It's hard not to assume some ulterior motive here, seeing as how it is pretty common to ask that white countries be flooded with non whites, while places like Japan should remain predominantly Japanese. It is almost like some sort of slow genocide of whites. Like a friendly genocide. Something like boiling a frog. Not to mention how clear this answer is to the answer about Israel being flooded with 3rd world immigrants.
A) That boiling frog analogy is BS. Look it up sometime. The frog jumps out when the water gets hot enough.
B) Why are you assuming my motive? I answered you with a single word, and yet you're suddenly applying a massive amount of context to it that was neither stated nor implied.
C) This whole statement is incredibly xenophobic. Really? A "slow genocide of whites" results from allowing other races to immigrate in later numbers?
But no, I'm not enjoying this. You're welcome to respond, but I'll probably stop here. I'm not interested in engaging in this kind of discussion.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
@HistoryBuff
Many jewish people are also caucasian.No they aren't
...I'm sorry, what am I looking at? You realize that many Jews are ethnically eastern European, myself included. We're as Caucasian as much of the population from that part of the world. What are you implying here, that we're somehow racially distinct by virtue of being Jewish?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Not sure why I'm suddenly being roped into this, but fine:
1. Should America be allowing more immigrants into their nation?
Yes.
2. Should Israel be more welcoming of their closest neighbor by increasing their immigration?
I honestly don't get this question. What do you mean by "closest neighbor"? They share a border with 4 other countries, and Saudi Arabia isn't exactly far. I'm not aware of a large contingent of people from any of those countries wanting to come to Israel, but I guess it would depend on the country, since Lebanon and Syria are very different in relation to Israel than Jordan and Egypt. Israel's security concerns are also a factor in this, as is their size and capacity to take in more people in this manner. So I don't have a solid answer for you.
Created:
Just noticed an error, meant to say that unknown risks always beat known risks for you.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Well, no one can fully alleviate your uncertainty. I’m sure even years down the line and billions vaccinated there will still be a large subset of the population that continues to argue that the harms of this vaccine just haven’t been seen yet, and the only way to fully disprove that is time and evidence.
That being said, what you’re doing here seems like a poor substitute to me. You’re latching onto claims of harm that also have yet to be proven, except in their cases, there’s no prior evidence to support them. These may be new vaccines, but their functions are very much in line with previous vaccines: they result in an antigen that is presented to the body to elicit an immune response that also targets the virus. There’s a track record that we can follow to make pretty good assumptions about how they’ll play out, and that track record is almost universally safe and effective.
Beyond that, it seems as though known risks always beat unknown risks for you, which is somewhat understandable, though difficult for me to apply in this situation when those known risks are very clear and establish the virus as particularly dangerous to people like you who may have a heart condition. That known risk outstrips the few the legitimate concerns I’ve heard regarding the vaccine in my eyes. The reason it apparently doesn’t for you is that you view every risk people claim as legitimate, despite the lack of evidence and despite existing barriers to those harms. And if we are talking about uncertainty, at least we know that the mRNA vaccines won’t mutate. The virus has and will continue to do so, resulting in changes to the various virulence factors it has on hand and, as a result, causing new and uncertain harms. It’s a known risk now (to some degree - despite extensive research into it, there’s still a lot we don’t know about how this virus behaves and why), but it likely won’t remain that way.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Having lots of people saying that they’re concerned doesn’t mean their concerns are based in real issues with the vaccines. Yes, allergic responses happen. You’re injecting someone with something their body has never seen before, and it can be dangerous if it isn’t carefully monitored. It’s also a short term harm that is easily addressed.
As for heart disease, a lot of that correlation is disputed. What isn’t disputed is the ability of the virus to cause and/or exacerbate heart conditions. The claim that it’s “barely worse than the flu” only applies to people without preexisting conditions, some of which may be unknown to many of us, but it’s clearly on your mind. I don’t see why the vaccine makes you more fearful than the virus on that basis.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Whoever this guy was, I don’t believe he cured cancer. Many, many labs have “cured cancer” in mice and rats only to be left with no significant effect in humans. If he really did cure cancer, I’m sure we would have heard from at least some of the patients he saved. Surely, a few of them would have gone to the press with such an amazing outcome.
Also, just generally, the idea of any pharmaceutical company burying a cure for cancer is absurd to me. If a company did stumble across a cure, they’d want it for themselves. Nothing would make a company more famous or profitable overnight, since they could sell that cure at basically any price they want. They would instantly corner the market and render all competitors obsolete. And the same applies here. If your point is that Pfizer and Moderna are holding any such research hostage, what about all the other companies, especially those developing different kinds of vaccines that wouldn’t be subject to the same potential problems? Why aren’t they shouting this research from the rooftops?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
But, honestly, this is besides the point. This person clearly didn’t do the massive amount of work required to find out the specific molecular basis for the death in question. Just reading through this quote, it’s pretty clear that he’s taking some known evidence (and surmising the existence of other evidence that runs contrary to established research), and spinning it to make the vaccine sound more dangerous by artificially inflating its meaning. He’s not an expert solely by virtue of his chosen field, and his claims don’t function as proof or support for these theories.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
...When you are actively presenting replicable results based on real data that contradicts what other scientists claim to know, no, that is not what gets you called a quack and makes you lose your job. If this was absolutely verifiable and anywhere near as widespread as this person claims, then the proof should be everywhere, and evidence should be plentiful. The same is true for a scientist with clear evidence that incorporates what we already know and better utilizes new findings to discover that the world is flat. If that happened and further data supported it, then eventually it would get to the point that no one could deny it. Getting pushback on a conclusion is literally what happens with almost every piece of research that exists, but that doesn’t mean that publishing it is a massive risk.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Every theory he’s suggesting for what happened to this person is based on incredibly specific molecular biology. If he has a work up for this person that is this detailed, then he should have ample evidence that this is what killed them, and a publication should be forthcoming because that amount of work would take months and contradict a great deal of existing publications.
It’s more likely that this person did the autopsy, gave the physical issues that caused the victim’s death, and then conjectured that they could be the result of one or more of these issues. My guess is that he has no evidence to support any of these claims.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I don’t know who this infectious disease specialist is or where he’s getting his information, but he’s got some problems with his points, here.
Binding receptors is necessary but not sufficient for the spike protein does harm. It has to undergo a conformational change, one that is impossible given that the mRNA sequence used for vaccines produces a variant of the protein that lacks that capacity. The fact that that mRNA also includes a moiety that anchors the spike protein to the cell also makes it pretty difficult to believe that it will spread beyond the location where the mRNA is expressed.
The mRNA has a known time limit, with most of it being entirely degraded in 24-72 hours. The notion that it can spread significantly beyond the infection site isn’t backed up by any data, whereas its elimination from the body is well-supported. It is not found in every organ, just the liver and spleen, both of which make a lot of sense given that they are used to help eliminate such sequences.
As for Antibody Dependent Enhancement, that’s a really fascinating phenomenon, but it is a phenomenon unique to Dengue viruses and has an important caveat: it only happens with viruses that have multiple serotypes. Being immunized against a single Dengue virus serotype results in enhancement of another serotype. SARS-CoV-2 only has one serotype, so you would have to assume that mutations would result in the production of a unique serotype, which would likely require many mutations in the spike protein without disrupting its other activities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
My familiarity with the research helped. While it was very distinct work, I have done a good deal of research on viral RNAs and I thought the mRNA vaccines were a solid concept with strong execution.
Can’t say I experienced much in the way of symptoms. Second jab gave me extreme exhaustion the next day, but otherwise I only had a bit of arm pain. My wife had a more severe reaction to the first jab (she got Moderna) in the form of more severe arm pain that lasted about a week. Wouldn’t be surprised if the stronger reaction to the viral ones is based in their eliciting their own immune responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Pfizer. Didn’t have any choice in the matter, though if given the option, I would have chosen it as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The AstraZeneca vaccine has a similarly bleeding edge technology it uses, and is similarly based in previous research. The difference is just in the means by which expression occurs, with AZ using a virus to express them in the cell, and Moderna/Pfizer using an mRNA in a lipid coat. The latter is more limiting, in that the survival of the mRNA is inherently limited, but I would regard both in a similar light. J&J has a similar vaccine to AZ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not sure what response you’re referring to, but I believe it was correctly directed at you.
The development cycle was a lot faster with mRNA vaccines. They may be relatively novel technology, but a lot of the groundwork for them had already been laid in response to previous coronaviruses, so really it was just about reproducing what other labs had already done with those viruses and seeing if they worked as well in humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sounds like your friend knows what they’re talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It also could potentially mean other instructions, with far more subtle effect, are given. I do not believe they are, I believe it's potentially viable by an mRNA vaccine designed by some of the best genetics-specialised innovators at present.
The way you’re explaining this is off. It doesn’t give instructions - it encodes a protein that functions as the target for immune responses. The way you’re phrasing it suggests that it is somehow programming the cell, when in reality all it does is get treated like any other mRNA in the cell, being shuttled to the ribosomes and producing protein.
And just because it’s produced by “some of the best genetics-specialized innovators” doesn’t mean you can or should attribute magical qualities to their work. What you’re talking about here would be a massive discovery in the field, one that would revolutionize our ability to modify genes. Why do you think CRISPR was and is such a huge deal? Scientists could only modify genomes in a specific, targeted fashion with highly specialized proteins before it was discovered, and even that requires the delivery of a protein and a guide RNA (very different from an mRNA) into cells. If we could do it with mRNA alone, that would break the field wide open and make much of the existing technology for it obsolete overnight. Why on earth would scientists be wasting that discovery on some random alteration to the DNA of vaccine recipients?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Much of the evidence just is, Wylted. The conclusions from that evidence may be derived from assumptions built on other works, including theories, but that doesn’t mean that the evidence itself is tainted.
And if that’s true that the best evidence may come from before the germ theory was established (from someone who touted himself as a skeptic, which means his conclusions were also biased), then I’ll just ask how he could provide evidence against the germ theory of disease when he didn’t and couldn’t have known about viruses. Considering there’s an entire body of research that he didn’t have any means of knowing, I don’t know how his theories could apply to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The Manhattan Project involved researchers who were housed on site at specific locations and not allowed to leave. There was also no internet by which to disseminate information. We’re talking about a world with the internet where everyone lives everywhere and interacts with a broad assortment of people. Seems dramatically different to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I’m saying what makes a crackpot: someone who is willingly subjecting themselves to great physical danger for the purposes of proving a point that the vast majority of their colleagues agree is a danger. I’m not arguing that someone is a crackpot for disagreeing with a consensus theory.
As for Bechamp, it doesn’t look like he’d be much of an expert on this topic. He was an organic chemist (not a biologist) who lived and died before antibiotics were discovered. He had a storied career, but he seems like an odd choice to support an argument against germ theory when the evidence obtained in the last century+ of time couldn’t have featured in his theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can mRNA trigger extremely calculated, subtle changes to DNA when made by the most advanced genetic scientists on our planet? Yes, for sure.
I have a number of problems with this characterization because what you’re talking about is only theoretically possible. There are much simpler and well-known ways to do this, and if scientists really wanted to disguise one of those as a vaccine, I can think of at least 5 better choices that have established means to do so. mRNA is a shit way to do anything aside from delivering translatable information, that’s why the “m” stands for messenger. Is it possible? I suppose so, in the same way that virtually anything is possible. Is it at all likely? I’d say not.
Does/Do Pfizer and Moderna do this? Na, probably not at least certainly not according to the articles. In the end how would we really know? Those that knew could easily be silenced, don't deny it.
See, this part I don’t get, either. At best, what you’re talking about silencing is the researchers who worked on the vaccine. There are lots of those and I have a hard time believing that all of them could be sworn to absolute secrecy, but supposing they are, there are an even larger number of researchers doing huge work ups on these patients receiving the vaccine. Have they all been silenced, too? Speaking from experience, researchers who find something groundbreaking tend to talk to just about everyone they can about it. Maybe this is the one scenario where they wouldn’t be allowed to do so, but I don’t know how it’s possible to control so many people doing research in so many places, many of whom are not necessarily going to be forthcoming about their work until they get something publishable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I’d say actively working to try to infect yourself with a deadly virus falls in line with “crackpot” behavior. If he’s right, he gets to be smug and little else. If he’s wrong, he gets a deadly virus. Not saying actual scientists can’t show that degree of insanity - the actual case where someone discovered that Helicobacter pylori could cause stomach ulcers involved him swallowing a pure culture of the stuff. He got ulcers.
As for his qualifications, that remains to be seen. I don’t know this person, but I know a lot of scientists and, in particular, a lot of microbiologists. All of them agree that the germ theory of disease is accurate. Not impossible that they’re wrong, but if we’re going to appeal to authority, one researcher hardly seems like the stronger choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I think the difference between "MRNA being rewritten into the dna" and theorists saying it rewrites DNA, is merely jargon. They say the latter but meant the former.
That is not a difference in jargon. If I say that mRNA is being reverse transcribed, I mean that it’s having a copy made that is DNA. If I say that it rewrites DNA, I’m saying that it modifies a DNA sequence. That is a pretty important distinction, especially as the former has no lasting effects.
Also would love to debate you on germ theory at some point. It seems some scientist was going around injecting himself with HIV for years to prove germ theory was bad, so it may be interesting to explore.
Be happy to, though this guy sounds like a crackpot. There is a subset of the population that is immune to HIV, just FYI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Please read the text. It’s actually a pretty neat finding.
It says that mRNA can be rewritten back into DNA, similarly to how a retroviruses reverse transcribes its genome. It does not alter the human genome to do this, though they theorize that the purpose for it is to find mutations in the genome using these small DNA fragments as a template.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Well-earned! An important step to get past, good you get a chance to take a break from education for now.
Created:
Posted in:
Much as I do think having this kind of group is a good thing, I think creating multiple places where votes are requested will end up overcomplicating things. I personally respond to most vote requests that are sent to me by PM, but not everyone knows to do that or is willing to go out of their way to do so. So, I suggest that we use a continuous thread to monitor the Vote Requests thread and split up voting to get them all covered. A large part of the problem that exists now is that voters don't check the Vote Requests thread, think someone else has the debates that need voting covered, or don't really care for a given debate/topic. We can at least partially address those problems if we dedicate the efforts of a group to the task.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
My favourite member overall is probably whiteflame but he's married and I don't think he's bi.
Appreciate that. No comment on the bi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Go to your profile page. Under the Debates tab, there’s a set of 3 other tabs: Debates, Comments and Votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No rage to speak of. You’re welcome to your views of me, and nothing in here is particularly insulting, though I guess my not raging buys into your description pretty well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Given how much of a Bleach fan I used to be, I was surprised I didn't recognize Ginrei, but he does seem like a good fit.
Seems like you've mostly got me nailed down, though I think in some of these cases you might be surprised. Appreciate all the details!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Don't blame you for feeling that way. Not sure if this one's going to happen, but hopefully things will pick up with whatever game we do next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sounds like fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I try to make my debates as easy to read as I can, although I have a tendency to get wordy at times. I should vote more, although the reason I don't is because so few debates interest me. And those that do, are written badly.In my experience, and maybe this is something you've experienced as well, most debates did not need to be more than three rounds. If they are, little if anything productive is said in the fourth or later rounds.I also find that debates with long character limits (especially those with more than 10k characters per round) are incredibly tedious to read, as well. Not only could 4/5ths of the content been cut, it should have been.I further find that debaters really struggle to debate their actual resolutions. They don't seem to understand the resolution and don't seem to have thought about it much, if at all. They seem to view resolutions more as a "statement of a topic," as opposed to a claim to be affirmed or negated. This is like listening to music out of tune for me.
Speaking as someone who is almost always more verbose than he has to be... yeah, I'd say I agree with basically everything here.
Some debates can be a chore to read through because they just aren't that interesting or cover ground that's so extremely well trodden that all you can see is what's missing, but aside from some recent repetition, I haven't found it too terribly difficult to find something interesting in each debate. It helps that I've kind of made a side-hustle out of breaking down arguments.
I can recall scant few debates that actually required more than three rounds. Hell, I can recall more than a few that could have been two. I've had instances where I've skimmed the latter rounds, noticed that they didn't add anything meaningful, and just left them out of an RFD entirely. Seeing some changes on that front, if only because I'm starting to see some people shifting to a more crystallization/weighing-heavy final round, which is my jam. Similarly, agreed that anything over the 10k limit is usually too much. I keep thinking back to when I was doing live debating, and though I know my arguments weren't as tight in those rounds, I'm sure I didn't do anywhere near as much talking as I do writing, and in many ways, I think I was more effective.
But yeah, that last one is particularly troublesome. Even if they do understand the gist of the resolution, it's amazing just how often certain specifics that are essential to the debate just don't even get discussed. One of these days, I'd just like to post something all about resolution and burdens analysis because they're often not great, if they exist at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m not saying Bullish would have been lying. I would have been concerned about mafia having some role that allowed them to escape the JK. That’s not to mention that this is my first time seeing a confirmed mason be scum, so I would have had to put aside my preconceptions as well. Not saying I made a good move, but I am saying that the right move would have been difficult for me to make, and I’m not sure I would have made it given that additional information.
Created: