If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Pope Benedict XVI tells infertile families that they are sinners for trying to get pregnant without sex   (usatoday.com) divider line 568
    More: Dumbass, Pope Benedict XVI, pope, couples  
•       •       •

5375 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2012 at 1:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



568 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-27 07:22:35 PM

KiplingKat872: FloydA: the same argument.

So you are reiterating the same argument everyone else is: Anything humans do is part of natural evolution, ergo it is proper.



No, you are committing the "is/ought" or "naturalistic" fallacy here.
Noting that something is does not imply that it "should be."


I do not agree with that viewpoint. I have already stated why, many, many times.


You seem to have misunderstood the point.

Do thing things we do have an impact of the evolution of ourselves and other species? Yes. Is it natural? No. Is it right? We really don't know enough to be playing god the way we are.


Is it "supernatural" when we do it? No. Natural is the only category left.



I am really sick of people who can not differentiate between helping people who already exist (their genetic code was at least strong enough to express itself, and they are here and need help) and forcing someone into existence. I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to deal with. It makes no sense to me to consider them the same thing. Helping someone standing there in my face live is not the same as satisfying the personal desires of a couple to force a child into existence rather than adopt.


I'm all for adoption. You are misrepresenting my point, either because you didn't understand it or for rhetorical reasons.

The point is that helping someone "alive today" and "standing in your face" may result in them having offspring later.

You are making a distinction between helping someone reproduce immediately and helping them reproduce later, and claiming that the second is acceptable to you but the first is not. I'm telling you that, from a purely Darwinian perspective, it makes no difference how proximate the help is to the birth.

If you give a little kid a sandwich, and that makes the difference between that kid starving or surviving, and that kid goes on to have offspring, you HAVE helped that person "force a new person into the world," just as much as if you performed IVF or gave them fertility drugs. From the perspective of natural selection, it makes no difference whatsoever which particular events lead to reproductive success- natural selection is a measurement of reproductive fertility and nothing else.


It just is not the same thing and I feel it cheapens human life to say that they are. Treating CF is necessary for an individual survival. Reproduction is not necessary to the survival of the individual.


Individuals do not survive. Genes and gene lineages do. Treating diseases only delays the inevitable death of the individual, it does not prevent it. Evolution cannot be measured in terms of the longevity of an organism; only in terms of the organism's fecundity. Again, you're committing a subtle and convoluted variant of the naturalistic fallacy.

You might has well equate life saving procedures with plastic surgery if you feel that is the case. After all, plastic surgery makes people more attractive, which increases their mating opportunities.

Since that is the only topic of relevance in evolution, then yes, that is a reasonable comparison. Any action that increases fecundity is selectively advantageous, and any action that decreases it is selectively disadvantageous.

That has absolutely no bearing on what we might want to be the case. Our wants and desires are not relevant topics, as far as natural selection is concerned.



You are not going to convince me that eyeglasses, pollution, selective breeding, and medical treatments are "natural."



They are certainly not supernatural. Can you think of a third option?

Note that if you say they are "cultural," you will need to explain why variation in birds' songs and nest shapes, and the shapes, sizes and construction of beaver dams (among other phenomena) do not also fit that category.



I am not going to convince you that they are not.

As these are two fundamentally different conceptions of what natural evolution entails, we are at an end.



Suit yourself. If you change your mind, and would actually like to try to understand what I've been trying to say, rather than just knocking over straw men, I'll be happy to continue. I could even recommend some introductory readings on the topic. This is not the very first time that this issue has been discussed, after all.
 
2012-02-27 07:56:17 PM

KiplingKat872: keithgabryelski:
Let's leave it -- you should think about this for ten years or so -- get back to me. seriously. I think you will change your position once you reconsider what exactly it means to "be reproductive but stupid" vs. "not be reproductive" vs. "not be viable offspring" vs. "being a strong genetic offspring in various measures (mentally and.or physically)".

You do know I stated I am 40 earlier in this thread, right?


Yep -- that is why I said ten years instead of two.

You are undereducated on evolution -- how it works and what pressures actually are -- and you are dug in on your position. It will take a while for you to figure this out.

But you should re-read the thread thoughtfully and try to understand (really understand because you don't) what others have tried to present -- there is enough information in this thread to change your position if you would like your position to be based on science instead of your interpretation
 
2012-02-27 08:02:50 PM

FloydA: Is it "supernatural" when we do it? No. Natural is the only category left.


That is far too simplistic for me to consider seriously.

Personally, I consider that reasoning to be a massive rationalization for the incredible damage we have done to this planet and it's ecosystems. It's the atheist equivalent of "God gave us this planet to exploit and use as we desire." It's a carte blanche, "We can completely fark this world up because anything we do is "natural."

No. It is not. Cars are not "natural," computers are not "natural," the nation state is not "natural," pedophilia is not "natural," firemen are not "natural," the 8 to 6 workday is not "natural," gross materialism is not "natural," TV is not "natural," higher education is not "natural." Most of our lives are completely disconnected from anything that is "natural."

So people assume that because their lives are such, "nature" much be such. '"It must be "natural," because that is the way my life is."

Then they get all pissy when their little yappy dogs get eaten by mountain lions or a bear takes a dip in their swimming pool. When nature really confronts them, they have to KILL IT WITH FIRE!

And no, IVF not cultural. It's emotional and it is ego. It's the narcissism to see one's genetic line continue no matter the cost, rather than any altruistic desire to create a family which one can do with adopted children.

Of course, you will say that is "natural" as well.

The point is that helping someone "alive today" and "standing in your face" may result in them having offspring later.

Yes, that point has been made, a couple times before by others. Already stated my arguments against it several times. Everyone is thinking too simplistically to understand them I guess.

I'm telling you that, from a purely Darwinian perspective, it makes no difference how proximate the help is to the birth.

I do not agree as infertility, the inability to reproduce, is the dividing line for me. If someone is born with a heart condition, their genes were at least viable enough to come to the world without help.
 
2012-02-27 08:06:58 PM

keithgabryelski:

You are undereducated on evolution -- how it works and what pressures actually are -- and you are dug in on your position. It will take a while for you to figure this out.


You are second person to project your ignorance onto me by accusing me of not knowing how evolution works.

If you have an argument, MAKE IT. Don't sit there and project your BS onto the person who has brought more cited material into this thread than anyone. Who actually was the ONLY one to define evolution, natural and sexual selection, and speak of the discoveries and current limitations of human genetic research.

And if you can't, go fark yourself you projecting little shiat.
 
2012-02-27 08:11:52 PM
Condescension from the ignorant and moronic just pisses me off. I gotten enough of that from the Right Wing for the last 12 years.

I tried to meet people half way, was the only person to back up my argument with cited facts.

Most people here only have opinion, intellectual dishonestly, definable argumentative fallacies, and insults.

And the two that don't have a position that is not strong or weaker than my own.
 
2012-02-27 08:15:21 PM
Like last night, "You obviously don't understand evolution. Define it, just define evolution. The way you are talking you don't understand the commonly accepted definition of evolution. Define evolution. Just define it."

And as soon as I did, and backed it up with definitions from my text books, the jackhole really did not have much more to say.

Yes, I DO understand evolution. A shiat-load better than a lot of people in this thread.
 
2012-02-27 08:18:08 PM

KiplingKat872: And no, IVF not cultural. It's emotional and it is ego. It's the narcissism to see one's genetic line continue no matter the cost, rather than any altruistic desire to create a family which one can do with adopted children.


...and fertility treatments and IVF and such are certainly not about species survival.
 
2012-02-27 10:19:25 PM

KiplingKat872: Right, ignore you go


see KiltedBastiche? if you just weren't so intellectually disingenuous you wouldn't have tempted him to place you on ignore

careful FloydA or you'll be next, so much willful ignorance in this thread...

/el oh el

maybe if you guys would learn what science is and how evolution works and how to use Nature in a sentence properly? then you could add some educated opinions to the discussion instead of the usual uneducated bigoted hatred that you guys promote here?

get a book, learn you an edumucation
 
2012-02-27 10:28:33 PM

KiplingKat872: Right, ignore you go


*bolded for emphasis*

KiltedBastiche: I keep telling you


and i keep telling you that ignore means people aren't going to listen to your idiotic ranting

maybe you should buy a dictionary and learn what words mean...?

FloydA: Got to go to lecture now


you teach people in real life? no wonder our country is so screwed up

doesn't anyone enforce standards anymore???
 
2012-02-27 10:32:36 PM

KiplingKat872: Of course, you will say that is "natural" as well.


sorry to interupt your exchange with tweedledumb and tweedledumber, but i'm a bit curious

what is natural?
 
2012-02-27 11:44:49 PM

KiplingKat872: And if you can't, go fark yourself you projecting little shiat.


i've been pretty polite through this whole thing. how about you take a breath before answering posts.

You are second person to project your ignorance onto me by accusing me of not knowing how evolution works.

I am the second person to tell you a fact. I've described exactly why, you've ignored it. I've asked you to re-read my post. You haven't come back with clarification questions -- you've just moved on.

Let me try again:

1) IVF helps people that are having trouble conceiving -- typically it isn't impossible to conceive, just difficult.
2) evolution makes no distinction between a tree falling on a persons head and a pinched fallopian tube
3) neither does evolution make a distinction between conventional sex and sperm making its way to an egg in some other manner.
4) you've chosen to fixate on IVF as some sort of bad helping tool -- with no scientific consensus that there is an issue.

so it comes down to you saying "hey, this is my position" with little back up.

This is continued with you believing no one is paying attention to your words, yet I read several messages explaining the above (and other points) are you seeming to ignore the core points of their message instead answering (many times) a different issue. every time you've said "saving a life" (except for the first time perhaps) you have been answering a question and posing a position that was not asked or presented.

But, now, i'm the "projecting little shiat".

a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-02-28 09:20:45 AM

I drunk what: KiplingKat872: Of course, you will say that is "natural" as well.

sorry to interupt your exchange with tweedledumb and tweedledumber, but i'm a bit curious

what is natural?


The way I am using it in this discussion is the same as the first definition brought up by googling "natural definition" is: "Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

Free Dictionary says pretty much the same thing.

The definition everyone else here seems to be using is "everything."
 
2012-02-28 09:27:03 AM

keithgabryelski: 2) evolution makes no distinction between a tree falling on a persons head and a pinched fallopian tube


Really, so genetics does not matter in evolution. It is the same as random chance.

Because that is what you describe with this scenario. Not natural selection, random chance.

Natural selection is "the slower zebra with shorter legs gets caught by the cheetah, therefore zebra with longer legs gets to breed and pass on their long legged genes."

Most people who have so much "difficulty" conceiving they can't do it on their own would, by nature, not be able to do so. Ergo, they would not be able to pass on their genes for defective reproductive systems to the next generation.

IVF and similar treatments circumvent that so more people in continuing generations will have genes for defective reproductive systems.

So yes, Evolution DOES see a difference.

And *I'm* the one that knows nothing about evolution. *rolls eyes*
 
2012-02-28 09:30:30 AM

keithgabryelski: But, now, i'm the "projecting little shiat".


And yes, yes you are.
 
2012-02-28 09:33:05 AM

keithgabryelski: 1) IVF helps people that are having trouble conceiving -- typically it isn't impossible to conceive, just difficult.
2) evolution makes no distinction between a tree falling on a persons head and a pinched fallopian tube
3) neither does evolution make a distinction between conventional sex and sperm making its way to an egg in some other manner.
4) you've chosen to fixate on IVF as some sort of bad helping tool -- with no scientific consensus that there is an issue.


1) IS does not concern OUGHT, you need a proper is-ought bridge for those matters
2-3) completely irrelevant since "evolution" never makes any distinctions, since it is not an entity that affects ought problems, and has no bearing on the good/evil value of any actions.
4) people are entitled to their beliefs, even if they are wrong, however using "scientific" 'consensus' (an equally funny term) is about the most useless thing you could use to suggest their religious beliefs are wrong, at best, concerning the topic of morality, science can only guess at what would be considered an ethical (not moral, VERY important distinction here) norm for that particular society, which is akin to a local village in some third world country arguing whether or not it is ethical to paint your house red vs blue.

to recap, if you wish to engage people on religious topics that also have some scientific details to it you ought to be ready to defend your particular religious view versus what you think is their flawed religious view and at least pretend to be using the same scientific terms of what reality is.

i'd suggest you start with Nature, and go from there and avoid anyone who still pretends to be an intellectual concerning topics like evolution, who still use outdated and disproven theories to support their argument:

FloydA: I'm telling you that, from a purely Darwinian perspective, it makes no difference


but that's why we call them the Idiot Brigade, because they don't even understand how Science works and yet they claim to be the "experts" of such things, but instead dogmatically cling to any straw to retain their anti-theist faux-science dominance tough guy fight club...

in the end they are all just a bunch of hate filled bigoted internet bullies who troll actually intelligent people into word salad walls of text battles to impress their girlfriends like mamoru and Leeds, which is really just sad on so many levels

so do your part and shun these morans any chance you get
 
2012-02-28 09:36:35 AM
So many people (sociologists even!) keep claiming I got the science wrong, yet no one can point to how....
 
2012-02-28 09:37:17 AM

I drunk what: who still use outdated and disproven theories to support their argument:


Natural selection is outdated and disproven?
 
2012-02-28 09:39:57 AM

I drunk what: 2-3) completely irrelevant since "evolution" never makes any distinctions, since it is not an entity that affects ought problems, and has no bearing on the good/evil value of any actions.


You realize if evolution "does not make any distinctions," the dinosaurs would still be roaming the earth, right?

This (at least the debate I have been involved in) is not, nor has it ever been, a "good/evil" argument. I have never phrased it in those terms and anyone who has is pulling a strawman out of their arse.
 
2012-02-28 09:52:12 AM

KiplingKat872: The definition everyone else here seems to be using is "everything."


you see the problem with this^? yet you don't seem to see the problem with that (below)?:

KiplingKat872: The way I am using it in this discussion is the same as the first definition brought up by googling "natural definition" is: "Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."


and FWIW i can give you a hint why this discussion is quickly breaking down, while i agree for generalized purposes dictionary def.s are good enough to start discussions once you've reached a certain point of philosophical debate, especially the kind that even the smarties have trouble with, the dictionary tends to cease its usefulness as indicated here:

KiplingKat872: The way I am using it in this discussion


since in order to maintain an actual conversation, and not just emotionally charged one way lectures tangent to each other, you must both be using the term in the same sense or else you are all just wasting each other's time, as you might have guessed by now scrolling up and rereading those walls of text

so on that note allow me to illustrate, the flaw in your term and why it won't help you defend any view you do have about the subject

KiplingKat872: "natural definition" is: "Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."


1st off, when defining a term like "natural" is it ever a good idea to use the term, that you are attempting to define, IN your definition of the word??

e.g. if someone asked me what is my definition of Chinese, and i told them "you know stuff that comes from China", meanwhile neither of us has any idea of what China is??

the whole exchange has already failed

so then i'd ask you, what is Nature? and making an educated guess from your definition you would suggest Nature is any stuff that is not made by Man correct?

and to further illustrate the point, you seem to object other's use of the definition for "natural" = EVERYthing

but your definition also says "Existing in or caused by nature", which means you need to provide an example of something that exists outside of, or is not caused by 'Nature' (once you've clearly demonstrated what Nature is)
 
2012-02-28 10:03:42 AM

KiplingKat872: Natural selection is outdated and disproven?


nope but Darwin's theory is, and natural selection is not a packaged deal where you have to take one with the other, Darwin was right about some stuff and mostly wrong about the rest (including his core theory), and when people like FloydA use the lump sum term to include anything Darwin taught as the prevailing scientific theory then he is only fooling himself, and naive laymen

KiplingKat872: You realize if evolution "does not make any distinctions," the dinosaurs would still be roaming the earth, right?


is "evolution" an intelligent entity? perhaps you are suggesting there is an angel of evolution akin to the angel of death?

just so we understand each other properly

no Nature's coding, is not an intelligent entity, the pic in my profile is just for kicks not serious debate

just because God programmed Nature to be a certain way does not imply that it has taken on a "consciousness" of its own, that's just silly Man and his tendency to anthropomorphize everything

KiplingKat872: This (at least the debate I have been involved in) is not, nor has it ever been, a "good/evil" argument.


so then you are attempting to state that scientifically speaking that IVF is a value-less choice? no wonder you got everyone so confused

just skimming a couple of posts here and there i thought you were trying to convince them that you are placing some sort of moral value on the action...?
 
2012-02-28 10:18:43 AM

I drunk what: but your definition also says "Existing in or caused by nature", which means you need to provide an example of something that exists outside of, or is not caused by 'Nature' (once you've clearly demonstrated what Nature is)


So...you going to quibble over semantics now? The only way for the pro-fertility treatment/IVF people to win a fight involving science is to depart from science and get philosophical?

If you want to debate the morality of it I don't really have a moral judgement beyond population numbers and the number of orphaned children that need homes. I do not think the process is inherently evil, just very selfish and wasteful in the current world in which we live. Sort of like setting up a waterslide park in the middle of drought stricken country. Waterslide parks are not inherently bad, it just putting it there is a real problem.

I provided a clear, cited, definition of what I consider "natural." I already provided several examples of what is not "natural" and yes, that includes much of medical science (though not all, several animal species have been shown to seek out medicinal herbs or mineral deposits to alleviate symptoms or balance their diet). I do not think medical science is bad because it alleviates suffering (becuase I am strangely compassionate that way). I do see a difference between treating cancer and IVF because one is saving the life of someone who already exists and the other is forcing someone into existence.

My issue on the evolution side is that genetically (either because their gametes are flawed or because of physical difficulties encoded in the parents), these people can not reproduce in the first place. If a child is born with a heart condition, their parent's genes were at least viable enough to express themselves and now that the kid is here, they deserve to live.

But infertility is evolution saying, "You do not get to pass your genes onto the next generation." It is a very clear line. Mankind has found ways to trump that science, to force kids into existence from these defective genes.

What we have learned in the last 20 years about the human genome is the sheer volume of data and complexity, that we have only begun to scratch the surface of understanding it. We don't really know what we are doing. And the significantly greater number of birth defects and genetic diseases among IVF children is a cause to sit back and think about well, "What are we doing to mankind, long term, with these practices, really?"

It sort of like the environmental question. The planet will survive, but we are making it impossible for our own species to survive on it (as we wipe out tons of other species.) We're just starting to understand how it all works and how what we do affects it.

And as I stated many, many, many times before. I agree that this is a personal choice. I am not advocating it being outlawed, I think this goes under the same topic of pro-choice where it is their body and their lives.

But that does not mean I have to agree with it. Nor does it mean I have to shut up.
 
2012-02-28 10:25:17 AM

I drunk what: just skimming a couple of posts here and there i thought you were trying to convince them that you are placing some sort of moral value on the action...?


Read my posts, not what they say about what I am saying. Half the time, my opponents here have responded as if they never read my posts.

I drunk what: is "evolution" an intelligent entity? perhaps you are suggesting there is an angel of evolution akin to the angel of death?


No, I have never suggested that, anyone who says I have is using strawman.

Evolution makes only one judgement: Is this genetic code viable in this environment? Is it capable of reproducing into the next generation and continuing the species? Infertile people's genetic code is not viable.
 
2012-02-28 10:27:28 AM
I drunk what:

And when I say "judgement" I use that term as an allegory. Either one's genetic code is viable to produce offspring or it is not.
 
2012-02-28 10:34:06 AM
It's amusing to watch an idiot and an ideologue try to debate each other, when neither is using reason to reach their positions in the first place.
 
2012-02-28 10:41:34 AM

KiplingKat872: But infertility is evolution saying, "You do not get to pass your genes onto the next generation." It is a very clear line. Mankind has found ways to trump that science, to force kids into existence from these defective genes.


Actually it is more clear of a dividing line than the individual of a species that is incapable of successfully competing for food and eluding predators. The genes of an infertile couple do not even have the chance of survival into the next generation.

Except through mankind's interference.

Not though their own genetic viability, but through the intelligence of someone else.
 
2012-02-28 10:49:02 AM
I drunk what:

Sorry, in reading your posts addressed to keithgabryelski and FloydA, I misunderstand what you were driving at. I was being more hostile than you warranted. My apologies.
 
2012-02-28 10:51:30 AM

KiplingKat872: No, I have never suggested that, anyone who says I have is using strawman.


and do non-intelligent entities make distinctions? or judgments for that matter?

for example, does the law of gravity make distinctions or judgments?

then how is it that "evolution" does??

KiplingKat872: So...you going to quibble over semantics now?


because you were accomplishing so much by skipping over that part? how goes your interaction with all the others here?

how you speak to others is your-their business, when you speak to IDW, words have meaning

and he will remind you of that fact bluntly and directly

pointing out the fact that people erroneously use terms in "debates" is not semantics

/depending on how you define the word "semantic"

KiplingKat872: Infertile people's genetic code is not viable.


viable to who? Mother Nature Evolution....?

perhaps your interpretation of Mother Evolution's Will? her Word??

/you're starting down a crazy path, lad
//perhaps you should pause a moment and ponder some things

KiplingKat872: I do see a difference between treating cancer and IVF because one is saving the life of someone who already exists and the other is forcing someone into existence.


btw ALL pro-creation is "forcing someone into existence", which i don't think really supports the point you're trying to drive into everyone's head, so you might want to consider where you plan on going with that thought

/and whether or not you thought your cunning plan all the way through

KiplingKat872: But infertility is evolution saying, "You do not get to pass your genes onto the next generation." It is a very clear line. Mankind has found ways to trump that science, to force kids into existence from these defective genes.


so then not only does Mother Evolution, make distinctions and judgments she also speaks to you as well? is she guiding you to some sort of genetically flawless master human race?

do they all have blonde hair and blue eyes....?

/who is taking bets on godwin?
//i got 2:1
 
2012-02-28 10:57:13 AM

KiplingKat872: I was being more hostile than you warranted


there's another problem, notice that even when i deal out warranted hostility to the IB, i never compromise my integrity

maintain low tones, maintain low tones

anyways, all feelings aside, you still have some splainin' to do, and i suggest you begin by properly defining Nature, and going from there

so then? What is 'Nature'? specifically and in any context
 
2012-02-28 10:59:10 AM

I drunk what: so then not only does Mother Evolution, make distinctions and judgments she also speaks to you as well? is she guiding you to some sort of genetically flawless master human race?


Oh for fark sake.

We are back to quibbling over semantics.


An asteroid impacted the Yucatan and the resulting changes in climate conditions wiped out the dinosaurs planet wide, leading to the rise of the mammals. Is that not a distinction between viable genes and non-viable ones?

You keep impressing consciousness on my argument when I have never stated any, you are creating a strawman because you are saying you are too stupid to understand allegorical language.
 
2012-02-28 10:59:16 AM

KiltedBastiche: It's amusing to watch an idiot and an ideologue try to debate each other, when neither is using reason to reach their positions in the first place.


feel free to jump in with some intelligent conversation if you are capable

/i'll wait here patiently
 
2012-02-28 11:01:42 AM

I drunk what: anyways, all feelings aside, you still have some splainin' to do, and i suggest you begin by properly defining Nature, and going from there


O.K. I'm done and you are on ignore.

I HAVE defined "nature," I have even CITED definitions of "nature." I have provided examples of what is not nature, as you requested before you even requested them.

It's just not a definition you like, so you are ignoring it the same way the farkwits on this thread don't like the reality of what the permutations of evolution are, so they keep claiming I don't know anything about it.
 
2012-02-28 11:03:34 AM
Actually I am through because I am tired of condescension from morons and intellectual dishonest people.

Have fun y'all.
 
2012-02-28 11:11:19 AM

KiplingKat872: Actually I am through because I am tired of condescension from morons and intellectual dishonest people.

Have fun y'all.


Congrats on your epic failure at understanding what everyone in this thread has been trying to explain to you.

Maybe next time when everyone tells you you're wrong and cites reasons, you'll learn something instead of turning the derp up to 11. Has it never occured to you that when everyone you meet persists in telling you that your logic is wrong, and tries to explain why, Occam's Razor suggests the very strong possibility that your logic is wrong and you are simply either unable or unwilling to recognize it? Don't fall afoul of the Dunning-Kruger effect if you can possibly help it.

Note, the previous comment does not in any way apply to comments from I derped what, who is arguably the stupidest (in the strict sense of the word, not the solely pejorative) and least logical poster on Fark. He's literally never worth listening to; even SkinnyBrain and SteveB are more lucid and intelligent.
 
2012-02-28 11:15:21 AM

KiplingKat872: We are back to quibbling over semantics.


*ahem*

I drunk what: pointing out the fact that people erroneously use terms in "debates" is not semantics

/depending on how you define the word "semantic"


/the slashy was for bonus lulz, and truthiness

KiplingKat872: You keep impressing consciousness on my argument


oh terribly sorry about that, should i avoid using the quote button in the future? perhaps not bold things for emphasis?? shame on me

KiplingKat872: you are creating a strawman because you are saying you are too stupid to understand allegorical language


oh i see, so you're being allegorical, so then if Mother Evolution is not doing all of those things: making distinctions, judgments, saying, etc.. then who precisely IS doing all of those things?

is it me? you seem to want to pin some blame on me in your posts, would it help if i volunteered?

KiplingKat872: An asteroid impacted the Yucatan and the resulting changes in climate conditions wiped out the dinosaurs planet wide, leading to the rise of the mammals. Is that not a distinction between viable genes and non-viable ones?


actually that would be a good illustration of the term "indiscriminate" which in some circles is used as an antonym for terms such as, to make a "distinction"

so then are you trying to convince me that an asteroid impact is being indiscriminate or that it purposely chose to wipe out all non-viable genes?

because it sounds like to me that you are getting terribly confused about the concepts of Cause and Effect, with things like sapient choice, for example

and IF we are only talking about non-intelligent things like gravity, evolution, thermodynamics, etc.. then i don't see how that could be happening?

is it perhaps, because you a sapient being are attempting to rationalize this stuff?? just guessing
 
2012-02-28 11:17:24 AM

KiplingKat872: O.K. I'm done and you are on ignore.


o noess

/i'll be around if-when you are ready to have a thought
//well.... bye
 
2012-02-28 11:19:21 AM

KiplingKat872: So many people (sociologists even!) keep claiming I got the science wrong, yet no one can point to how....


Wow - and you accuse other people of not paying attention to your arguments? That's some fine projection, right there.
 
2012-02-28 11:21:58 AM

KiplingKat872: I HAVE defined "nature," I have even CITED definitions of "nature." I have provided examples of what is not nature, as you requested before you even requested them.


and for those of you keeping score at home, i believe we got mired down somewhere in the vicinity of "stuff that is not made by Man" or "stuff that exists in Nature (lulz)" but unfortunately he was unable to see why this was a piss poor choice, even with my help, so remember kids, before you try to argue stuff make sure you know your terms going into the fight ! :D

until next time kiddies

/same bat time, same bat channel
//same bat shiat crazy "arguments"
 
2012-02-28 11:22:00 AM

KiltedBastich: KiplingKat872: Actually I am through because I am tired of condescension from morons and intellectual dishonest people.

Have fun y'all.

Congrats on your epic failure at understanding what everyone in this thread has been trying to explain to you.

Maybe next time when everyone tells you you're wrong and cites reasons, you'll learn something instead of turning the derp up to 11. Has it never occured to you that when everyone you meet persists in telling you that your logic is wrong, and tries to explain why, Occam's Razor suggests the very strong possibility that your logic is wrong and you are simply either unable or unwilling to recognize it? Don't fall afoul of the Dunning-Kruger effect if you can possibly help it.

Note, the previous comment does not in any way apply to comments from I derped what, who is arguably the stupidest (in the strict sense of the word, not the solely pejorative) and least logical poster on Fark. He's literally never worth listening to; even SkinnyBrain and SteveB are more lucid and intelligent.


Sadly, my opinion of anthropologists has been damaged by this guy.
 
2012-02-28 11:34:51 AM

DarwiOdrade: Sadly, my opinion of anthropologists has been damaged by this guy.


www.empireonline.com

what about this guy?

sadly my opinion of mankind has been damaged by this website
 
2012-02-28 11:41:41 AM

KiplingKat872: It's just not a definition you like


i like definitions that don't implode on themselves in the same paragraph

like when people say it is natural for people to have babies through procreation but it is unnatural for them to use IVF in the same breath

meanwhile they say that anything created by man is unnatural making both of those cases unnatural then

you big dummy

try my definition on for size and see if you are then able to form a thought...

/i know he isn't listening
//not talking to him

i'm going to have to award this round to the IB, that was just a weak and sad attempt to have an uneducated opinion

for shame
 
2012-02-28 11:44:27 AM

KiplingKat872: Have fun y'all.


i578.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-28 11:49:14 AM

I drunk what: DarwiOdrade: Sadly, my opinion of anthropologists has been damaged by this guy.

[www.empireonline.com image 355x400]

what about this guy?

sadly my opinion of mankind has been damaged by this website


I should have said "natural anthropologists" - clearly Indiana Jones is man-made. ;)
 
2012-02-28 11:51:01 AM

DarwiOdrade: Wow - and you accuse other people of not paying attention to your arguments? That's some fine projection, right there.


Really? Where is a single scrap of citable scientific proof/theory of ANYone else's arguments in this thread?

B.S. and ignorant statements like "Evolution does make any difference between trees falling and pinched fallopian tubes" is NOT disproving my arguments.
 
2012-02-28 11:56:33 AM

KiplingKat872: DarwiOdrade: Wow - and you accuse other people of not paying attention to your arguments? That's some fine projection, right there.

Really? Where is a single scrap of citable scientific proof/theory of ANYone else's arguments in this thread?

B.S. and ignorant statements like "Evolution does make any difference between trees falling and pinched fallopian tubes" is NOT disproving my arguments.


Since you like Wikipedia, here's a quote:
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Notice the bolded word. Changes due to deaths of individuals count regardless of the cause of death. It doesn't matter whether the death is caused by hereditable characteristics, only that the hereditable characteristics change. Clear enough?
 
2012-02-28 11:56:57 AM

DarwiOdrade: Sadly, my opinion of anthropologists has been damaged by this guy.


Yes, anthropologists don't agree with you and have the temerity to point out you do not understand evolution.

My heart bleeds.
 
2012-02-28 11:57:16 AM

DarwiOdrade: I should have said "natural anthropologists" - clearly Indiana Jones is man-made. ;)


aw, don't be too hard on him, most people trip up over this "Nature" stuff, i'm sure he knows what he meant, even if he can't effectively communicate it to another person

but yeah, you should have used the term exactly in the sense that he wish-believed it meant (which may or may not depend on the def. he cited) ;-P
 
2012-02-28 12:00:24 PM

DarwiOdrade:

Since you like Wikipedia, here's a quote:
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Notice the bolded word. Changes due to deaths of individuals count regardless of the cause of death. It doesn't matter whether the death is caused by hereditable characteristics, only that the hereditable characteristics change. Clear enough?


Wikipedia. You are going to Wikipedia for a single sentence definition while ignoring natural selection?

That is your defense: To ignore a major pillar, perhaps the largest and most central pillar, of evolutionary theory.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Have fun moron.
 
2012-02-28 12:00:30 PM

KiplingKat872: DarwiOdrade: Sadly, my opinion of anthropologists has been damaged by this guy.

Yes, anthropologists don't agree with you and have the temerity to point out you do not understand evolution.

My heart bleeds.


No - you don't agree with me. That you think you represent all anthropologists is the height of arrogance.
 
2012-02-28 12:01:39 PM

KiplingKat872: DarwiOdrade:

Since you like Wikipedia, here's a quote:
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Notice the bolded word. Changes due to deaths of individuals count regardless of the cause of death. It doesn't matter whether the death is caused by hereditable characteristics, only that the hereditable characteristics change. Clear enough?

Wikipedia. You are going to Wikipedia for a single sentence definition while ignoring natural selection?

That is your defense: To ignore a major pillar, perhaps the largest and most central pillar, of evolutionary theory.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Have fun moron.


At least I understand the difference between evolution and natural selection. Don't worry - it's common for ignorant people to confuse the two.
 
2012-02-28 12:02:08 PM

DarwiOdrade: Sadly, my opinion of anthropologists has been damaged by this guy.


He's not an anthropologist. I call Internet fakery BS. FloydA teaches the topic and obviously knows more about the topic than this nitwit has ever forgotten. I'm (among other things) a sociologist, and we cross-pollinate with anthropologists so much many universities have shared departments for both disciplines. I am good friends with many actual PhD anthropologists out in the real world, and they would be aghast at both his complete ethical bankruptcy and total lack of comprehension of the flaws in his arguments.

Don't hate on anthropologists because of this douchebag. He's just an arrogant, ignorant idiot, like so many others. If he has a BA in anthropology he probably passed with a 'C' grade, and even then I'd be shocked.

KiplingKat872: DarwiOdrade: Wow - and you accuse other people of not paying attention to your arguments? That's some fine projection, right there.

Really? Where is a single scrap of citable scientific proof/theory of ANYone else's arguments in this thread?

B.S. and ignorant statements like "Evolution does make any difference between trees falling and pinched fallopian tubes" is NOT disproving my arguments.


It would if you weren't clearly a victim of your own incompetence, and unable to recognize expertise when it rubs your nose in your own intellectual dogshiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 568 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report