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.

(New York Magazine)   Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts   (nymag.com) divider line 303
    More: Obvious, gifts, opinions  
•       •       •

7599 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Nov 2012 at 5:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-10 09:04:58 PM

Ivo Shandor: yousaywut: Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.

If you're holding out for a "crocoduck" then you will probably never be satisfied, but presented for your consideration:

Liger - When a lion gets jiggy with a tiger, the resulting offspring is macroscopically different from either parent.

Tiktaalik - a transitional tetrapod fossil. But where is the missing link between fish and Tiktaalik???

Antennapedia - a homeobox gene in fruit flies which determines whether limbs develop as legs or antennae.

Phylogenetic tree - who's your daddy? It goes much deeper than just men and monkeys.

Evolution of the eye - Pond scum, planaria, and photographers have a surprising amount in common.

If you have the time, I highly encourage you to spend a few hours browsing those Wikipedia pages and following some of the links to learn what evolution really is. The "intelligent design" people aren't just out of their league, they're not even playing the same game.


They believe what they believe because it makes them feel better about themselves. You can show them all the science in the world; they wont care. And really, if you ponder the meaning of life, convincing yourself of a lie is far easier than accepting the truth. It is damn scary that when we die it is the end, there is nothing afterwards. People want meaning to life. They dont want to hear that reality is some freak accident. How does that make them feel better about themselves?

If you want to fight against ignorance, then look at the psychology behind why these people are perfectly content with it.
 
2012-11-10 09:05:06 PM

Aldon: randomjsa: A slicker liar could have won, and still might.

Somebody might want to tell him that Obama did win.

Of course, it's not only that Obama is a much bigger liar and distorter of reality, it's that the media doesn't call him on it because they're in the tank for him. If they're not helping him lie then they're actively working to give him a pass on everything he screws up.

You keep hoping and wishing our President will screw up... sooner or later one of your Obama's Katrina! Obama-gate! accusations will really amount to something, then you can be happy about our country suffering.

/frankly I am amazed that Obama has not had a scandal in his first term, unlike every other President in my lifetime. It would be genius level amazing if he does the same on his second term.


Fast and Furious was up there, and they were REALLY trying with the Benghazi thing.
 
2012-11-10 09:05:51 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Ivo Shandor: Antennapedia

The insect encyclopedia that anybug can edit.

(Sorry, the rest of your post was gold but I basically have the sense of humor of a twelve-year-old.)


No apology necessary, that was a good one. :)
 
2012-11-10 09:06:11 PM

Halli: Silly Jesus: Your position is asinine. Nobody could possibly set a baseline for knowledge? IQ test? US Naturalization Test? One question "Who is the VP?" test. You don't think that anyone exists of sufficient intelligence to implement such a test, including you? You're at least literate. Don't sell yourself short. I at least have faith in you that you could pass the most basic of these tests.

Wasn't this whole test thing tried before in the States? Do you remember how that went?

Also you would fail any test for being a Trump supporter.


Are you implying that minorities would perform poorly on a test of intellectual competence? That's pretty racist of you.

/not a Trump supporter...just thought if I could give a large sum of money to cancer children with little to no effort and didn't, I might be a dick
 
2012-11-10 09:06:58 PM

yousaywut: Gough: yousaywut: namatad: Silly Jesus: Would you be in favor of voters having to demonstrate some modicum of intelligence / relevant knowledge prior to voting?


4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

Just because your bias wants all of these to be true does not make it so. So you probably shouldn't ask your questions the way they were asked or people will not be able to vote without disconnecting from reality. Just saying we all have our political beliefs and facts are facts just as theories are theories. Theory of relativity fact or theory?

//just saying perception is reality and you are perceiving facts that are not.

Evolution is a demonstrable FACT. There are theories about how evolution happens: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.

Does anyone actually read the entirety of a discussion before jumping in? Just curious.


I usually do, but I got bogged down in another Politics thread. I was running short of time and had to skip over a couple of pages. I had no idea that those two pages would be totally devoted to this topic. Sorry for piling on.
 
2012-11-10 09:07:28 PM

Silly Jesus: Are you implying that minorities would perform poorly on a test of intellectual competence? That's pretty racist of you.


Sigh.

Silly Jesus: /not a Trump supporter...just thought if I could give a large sum of money to cancer children with little to no effort and didn't, I might be a dick


That's true. Trump is a dick.
 
2012-11-10 09:08:34 PM

yousaywut: ...Really biology is not my area of study.


No shiat.
 
2012-11-10 09:10:01 PM

IoSaturnalia: Gough: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.

There is only Natural Selection. Gould and Llewellen considered 'Puncutated Equilibrium' to be a refinement of Darwin. Dawkins' so-called 'fractal time' response makes much more sense, thougn. 'Puncutated Equilibrium' is just more of the same.


Fair enough, I probably should have written Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.
 
2012-11-10 09:12:01 PM

cman: Ivo Shandor: yousaywut: Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.

If you're holding out for a "crocoduck" then you will probably never be satisfied, but presented for your consideration:

Liger - When a lion gets jiggy with a tiger, the resulting offspring is macroscopically different from either parent.

Tiktaalik - a transitional tetrapod fossil. But where is the missing link between fish and Tiktaalik???

Antennapedia - a homeobox gene in fruit flies which determines whether limbs develop as legs or antennae.

Phylogenetic tree - who's your daddy? It goes much deeper than just men and monkeys.

Evolution of the eye - Pond scum, planaria, and photographers have a surprising amount in common.

If you have the time, I highly encourage you to spend a few hours browsing those Wikipedia pages and following some of the links to learn what evolution really is. The "intelligent design" people aren't just out of their league, they're not even playing the same game.

They believe what they believe because it makes them feel better about themselves. You can show them all the science in the world; they wont care. And really, if you ponder the meaning of life, convincing yourself of a lie is far easier than accepting the truth. It is damn scary that when we die it is the end, there is nothing afterwards. People want meaning to life. They dont want to hear that reality is some freak accident. How does that make them feel better about themselves?

If you want to fight against ignorance, then look at the psychology behind why these people are perfectly content with it.


Are you a Wizard?

//wizard's first rule: People will believe anything either because they want it to be true or because they are afraid it is.
 
2012-11-10 09:12:36 PM

dericwater: yousaywut: ...Really biology is not my area of study.

No shiat.


arsehole much?
 
2012-11-10 09:12:54 PM

Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.

Seems to be a trend...

Now don't tell me you're still butthurt about that stupid election?
Get over it.

I voted for Obama.

Do you always herp when you derp?

If you are trying to make a case for empowering anyone to decide whether anyone else is "smart enough" to vote, you aren't doing a very good job.

NO!, YOU!

I'm not trying to make that case. I don't think I'm smart enough to say who does or doesn't get to vote. I don't think anybody is. You certainly aren't. Don't mean that as an insult - I'm just pointing it out.

Your position is asinine. Nobody could possibly set a baseline for knowledge? IQ test? US Naturalization Test? One question "Who is the VP?" test. You don't think that anyone exists of sufficient intelligence to implement such a test, including you? You're at least literate. Don't sell yourself short. I at least have faith in you that you could pass the most basic of these tests.


I could certainly concoct and administer a test that seemed reasonable and appropriate to ME.
Someone else might disagree. Either way, that's no argument that me or my test ought to be empowered to deprive anyone of the right to vote. Would the people deemed "too dumb to vote" be free to ignore any laws the government they weren't allowed to choose might make? That wouldn't work.
And of course, you are assuming that my motives are pure. What if they aren't? What if my scheme is to concoct a test, and perhaps administer that test in a fashion designed to exclude some group I don't like? There is certainly precedent for that in the "literacy test" iteration of the Jim Crow laws. It was found that those who made and administered the tests controlled their outcomes, and they were used to exclude a particular group. There's a reason our courts have ruled such things unlawful - historically, they have unfailingly been abused.
 
2012-11-10 09:13:23 PM

yousaywut: My thoughts were changed long before this. I added words (in my head) to a question/statement then responded to the misinterpreted statement and ..............get this now.............I was incorrect and have since changed my position regarding the truthiness of said statement.


You are a true internet rarity, and I salute you. With a beer. Which I'm going to get now.

/wasn't trying to be a dick earlier, it just comes naturally.
 
2012-11-10 09:14:45 PM

fusillade762: Mitt Romney is already slithering into the mists of history

The chant is reaching fever pitch. Mouths shriek, throats split. 'Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Romney R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!'

I notice a sting on my arm. When I look down, a locust with Ayn Rand's face gorges messily on my flesh. I understand now.

Romney whips his hooded priests, screaming that 10% must have their hearts ripped from their chests to achieve Godhood.

Coulter spews acid and tar at the crowd, fusing them together in a grotesque mass. Smell is overwhelming, we wait to die.

A zombified titan stands on the stage. Shrugging his shoulders, a boulder of teeth, hair, and cartilage lands on the crowd

A mother hugs her shivering son. She doesn't notice when his mouth distends, revealing rows of razor-sharp teeth.

Romney warmly embraces the orphan before biting into her skull as if it were an apple.

Bush Sr steps on stage and we scream in rapturous agony as our skin is stretched to pieces, to the Washington Post March!

Paul Ryan is sitting just offstage at #RomneyDeathRally, pointing a camera at the crowd. He's not collecting their images, but their souls.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-10 09:17:48 PM

IoSaturnalia: Gough: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.

There is only Natural Selection. Gould and Llewellen considered 'Puncutated Equilibrium' to be a refinement of Darwin. Dawkins' so-called 'fractal time' response makes much more sense, thougn. 'Puncutated Equilibrium' is just more of the same.


Do you mean Gould and Eldredge?

I'm not familiar with Dawkins' "fractal time" response, even if I have my own reservations regarding punctuated equilibrium.
 
2012-11-10 09:21:56 PM
I think the important thing to take away from this election is, no matter who gets elected, you will always be disappointed in your fellow citizens. I must admit I do have a morbid curiosity regarding the number of people who voted based on platform/campaign, and how many voted on non sequiturs (ie. religion, skin color, what the boob tube told them, etc.)
 
2012-11-10 09:30:48 PM

Hueg_Redd: getting so tired of "witty" little phrases like this. This isn't the 1950's south where saying these things made you sound profound to your peanut farming friends


Everyone gets three guesses on who you voted for in the election...

Of course you don't like it, it trumps your fantasy land.

bet you loved: "Let's put White back in the White House" though.
 
2012-11-10 09:31:24 PM

randomjsa: Of course, it's not only that Obama is a much bigger liar and distorter of reality, it's that the media doesn't call him on it because they're in the tank for him. If they're not helping him lie then they're actively working to give him a pass on everything he screws up.


Just once - once- I would like to see a link offered, backing your claims. A real link with raw data, not the blogs you get your information from. Don't get stuck on stupid, son.

So, for the 324th and likely last time, I ask you to provide some sort of credible evidence that the entire media is "in the tank" for Obama. I know it makes assholes like you sleep better at night, thinking it's not really the GOP's fault (personal responsibility!), but Rush Limbaugh having said it does not make it true. Go to schleeps widdle baby, in the morning momma will be here to reassure you that it was really the evil media that lost the election for you. Christ you're an insufferable cockbag. Grow the fark up, you p*ssy, and own the mistakes.

/if you're really this misled and ignorant and not a troll, I genuinely feel sorry for you
//oh wait, no I don't
 
2012-11-10 09:33:29 PM

dickfreckle: randomjsa: Of course, it's not only that Obama is a much bigger liar and distorter of reality, it's that the media doesn't call him on it because they're in the tank for him. If they're not helping him lie then they're actively working to give him a pass on everything he screws up.

Just once - once- I would like to see a link offered, backing your claims. A real link with raw data, not the blogs you get your information from. Don't get stuck on stupid, son.

So, for the 324th and likely last time, I ask you to provide some sort of credible evidence that the entire media is "in the tank" for Obama. I know it makes assholes like you sleep better at night, thinking it's not really the GOP's fault (personal responsibility!), but Rush Limbaugh having said it does not make it true. Go to schleeps widdle baby, in the morning momma will be here to reassure you that it was really the evil media that lost the election for you. Christ you're an insufferable cockbag. Grow the fark up, you p*ssy, and own the mistakes.

/if you're really this misled and ignorant and not a troll, I genuinely feel sorry for you
//oh wait, no I don't


And I was seriously just wondering why I had you labeled as "abrasive but reasonable."
 
2012-11-10 09:40:29 PM

dickfreckle: randomjsa: Of course, it's not only that Obama is a much bigger liar and distorter of reality, it's that the media doesn't call him on it because they're in the tank for him. If they're not helping him lie then they're actively working to give him a pass on everything he screws up.

Just once - once- I would like to see a link offered, backing your claims. A real link with raw data, not the blogs you get your information from. Don't get stuck on stupid, son.


Won't happen. He's a pussy.

shiat and run. It's all he can do.
 
2012-11-10 09:42:27 PM

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Your position is asinine. Nobody could possibly set a baseline for knowledge? IQ test? US Naturalization Test? One question "Who is the VP?" test. You don't think that anyone exists of sufficient intelligence to implement such a test, including you? You're at least literate. Don't sell yourself short. I at least have faith in you that you could pass the most basic of these tests.

Wasn't this whole test thing tried before in the States? Do you remember how that went?

Also you would fail any test for being a Trump supporter.

Are you implying that minorities would perform poorly on a test of intellectual competence? That's pretty racist of you.

/not a Trump supporter...just thought if I could give a large sum of money to cancer children with little to no effort and didn't, I might be a dick


I don't think asking if tests were used before implies that minorities would perform poorly on a test of intellectual competence. The reality is that when tests were used in the past, they were administered unfairly and subjectively--different questions for different groups, and whites were exempted from the literacy test if they could meet alternate requirements (the grandfather clause).

/I know, I know, "This time we'll get it right! We promise!"
 
2012-11-10 09:46:02 PM

Loaded Six String: 6)True. 9/11 happened. Sort of troll bait, that one.


dood
they are ALL troll bait
alas, the kurdish question has been beaten to death
clearly I meant to include a time frame, call it 2003 and forward ...

really? after 6 years of obama is a secret muslim, you didnt have any chance to read the other half, where they stated he was christian?

how about if we rephrase the question
Obama is NOT a secret muslim
would that be better ?
:D
 
2012-11-10 09:49:28 PM

HighOnCraic: yousaywut: HighOnCraic: yousaywut: namatad: yousaywut: 5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

W found ZERO weapons of mass destruction. ZERO.
yes, the kurds were gassed, and no, I am not going to argue the semantics of "mass destruction".
but when we invaded, they had nada. our whole reason for attacking was false.

alas, maybe that question has TOO much wiggle room and would need to be replaced.

How about more americans died in iraq war 2.0, than did during 9/11??

First off calm down you might pop a blood vessel. Second I was quite clear in my answer that there were no WMD's found and it is a fair assumption none around at the time of the invasion. So yes there was too much certainty put into the question to honestly answer true.

As for your question regarding 9/11 WTF dude really? Yes more americans have died as a result of the war then died on 9/11. so True

Hmm. . . It kinda seems like bringing up the Kurds is a distraction when the question was obviously about whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. If "whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different," why bring up the Kurds at all?

Because the original question was whether or not there had ever been WMD's in Iraq. The time of the invasion was not in the original question.

I would say most of us knew that whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion was implied in the question.

But just out of curiosity, if the gassing of the Kurds was evidence that Iraq had WMDs, why didn't we invade in '88?


We still had diplomatic relations with Iraq at that point, but I think more importantly, engaging in direct military conflict would have pissed off the Soviets. The Kurds weren't reason enough to poke the bear.
 
2012-11-10 09:54:30 PM

namatad: Loaded Six String: 6)True. 9/11 happened. Sort of troll bait, that one.

dood
they are ALL troll bait
alas, the kurdish question has been beaten to death
clearly I meant to include a time frame, call it 2003 and forward ...

really? after 6 years of obama is a secret muslim, you didnt have any chance to read the other half, where they stated he was christian?

how about if we rephrase the question
Obama is NOT a secret muslim
would that be better ?
:D


We're cool on the Kurdish question. I suppose the secret muslim thing is a good compromise. I know I'm just picking knits here, but I just couldn't reconcile the Christian thing as a true false seeing as religion is very much a personal thing, yet the outward representation of a religious affiliation is what gets thrust into the spotlight. Hell, for all I know he could be a secret Zoroastrian :D

CSB, though I have no personal or public religious affiliation, my parents are convinced that one day while my grandparents were babysitting me as an infant they had me secreted away to a church to be baptized, so I could be technically Catholic. /CSB
 
2012-11-10 09:55:28 PM

MsStatement: HighOnCraic: yousaywut: HighOnCraic: yousaywut: namatad: yousaywut: 5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

W found ZERO weapons of mass destruction. ZERO.
yes, the kurds were gassed, and no, I am not going to argue the semantics of "mass destruction".
but when we invaded, they had nada. our whole reason for attacking was false.

alas, maybe that question has TOO much wiggle room and would need to be replaced.

How about more americans died in iraq war 2.0, than did during 9/11??

First off calm down you might pop a blood vessel. Second I was quite clear in my answer that there were no WMD's found and it is a fair assumption none around at the time of the invasion. So yes there was too much certainty put into the question to honestly answer true.

As for your question regarding 9/11 WTF dude really? Yes more americans have died as a result of the war then died on 9/11. so True

Hmm. . . It kinda seems like bringing up the Kurds is a distraction when the question was obviously about whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. If "whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different," why bring up the Kurds at all?

Because the original question was whether or not there had ever been WMD's in Iraq. The time of the invasion was not in the original question.

I would say most of us knew that whether there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion was implied in the question.

But just out of curiosity, if the gassing of the Kurds was evidence that Iraq had WMDs, why didn't we invade in '88?

We still had diplomatic relations with Iraq at that point, but I think more importantly, engaging in direct military conflict would have pissed off the Soviets. The Kurds weren't reason enough to poke the bear.


True.

I was alluding to the fact that actual use of WMDs in Iraq wasn't enough to rationalize a war in '88, but the rumor of WMDs in Iraq (combined with the false narrative that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks and some of the hijackers were Iraqis, which WAY too many people actually believed) was enough to rationalize a war in '03.

/Anywhey, this whole Kurd thing is just a big distraction...
 
2012-11-10 09:55:53 PM

Erix: IoSaturnalia: Gough: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.

There is only Natural Selection. Gould and Llewellen considered 'Puncutated Equilibrium' to be a refinement of Darwin. Dawkins' so-called 'fractal time' response makes much more sense, thougn. 'Puncutated Equilibrium' is just more of the same.

Do you mean Gould and Eldredge?

I'm not familiar with Dawkins' "fractal time" response, even if I have my own reservations regarding punctuated equilibrium.


At any arbitrary time scale, for phenotype X there is a bunch of evolutionary activity, followed by a period of quiessence. Depending on the time scale, it's perceived as either puncuated or a gradual change.
 
2012-11-10 09:56:58 PM

dericwater: Examples of Obama's egregious lying?


randumbjsa doesn't stoop to demonstration, he creates your reality. And before you can analyse, it changes again.
 
2012-11-10 10:01:41 PM

quickdraw: I really really thought they knew and were just faking it.


This. Right up until Rove lost it I was sure they were just putting on a confident show so turnout downticket didn't suffer.
 
2012-11-10 10:06:41 PM

quickdraw: I really really thought they knew and were just faking it.


They have that crazy look in their eyes.
 
2012-11-10 10:09:00 PM

12349876: Xythero: So many people are saying that Obama won because the demographics are changing. I don't think that is wholly true. Although the demographics of the country are different than they were 20 years ago, so is the Republican Party. They have become undeniably weird. I can't picture Bob Dole talking about God's rape babies.

Romney got the same percentage of the white vote as Reagan. It's changing demographic + Republicans not appealing to that changing demographic. Romney probably wins with Dubya's Latino support levels.


Yeah, they're already rushing to fix that. The Hispanic Bush is going to be running for office.
 
2012-11-10 10:11:46 PM

IoSaturnalia: Erix: IoSaturnalia: Gough: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.

There is only Natural Selection. Gould and Llewellen considered 'Puncutated Equilibrium' to be a refinement of Darwin. Dawkins' so-called 'fractal time' response makes much more sense, thougn. 'Puncutated Equilibrium' is just more of the same.

Do you mean Gould and Eldredge?

I'm not familiar with Dawkins' "fractal time" response, even if I have my own reservations regarding punctuated equilibrium.

At any arbitrary time scale, for phenotype X there is a bunch of evolutionary activity, followed by a period of quiessence. Depending on the time scale, it's perceived as either puncuated or a gradual change.


Oh. That sounds good, but it's not an arbitrary time scale. Complex life has been around for half a billion years, and species only live a couple million, so it's reasonable to look at timescales comparable to species lifespans if we want to know how evolution works.
 
2012-11-10 10:15:41 PM
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

-Karl "Turdblossom" Rove
 
2012-11-10 10:18:39 PM

contrapunctus: Here's a sad reality for people to chew on.

FOXNEWS, talk radio, Breitbart, and the rest of the fascist-lite media outlets only have a captive audience because 30+ years of middle class decimation have left a large portion of this population desperate and frustrated. Working people have watched as their earning power, political clout, and pensions have been systematically looted and sold off to the highest bidder; all while the cretins at the very top have exponentially grown their own bottom lines. In an environment like this, it's no wonder that so many people ended up falling into the arms of the perpetually angry conservative media machine which gleefully tosses out a scapegoat every week. When people become desperate, they look for a savior. The sick irony is that the candidate the GOP ran in this election couldn't have possibly been a more perfect example of the type of bastard responsible for the predicament the middle class finds itself in.

The Democrats are certainly not without guilt in this equation. They have not championed the working class in this country for a very long time and have allowed the right-wing to fill in the gaps with flag-waving and petty wedge issues like gay marriage. If Republicans are guilty of manipulation, Democrats are guilty of cowardice. Both are guilty of bending to corporate money.

As hard as it may be, we have to learn to empathize with the misguided souls in our country who have been duped by the right-wing hate machine. Their retreat into a non-reality based world may seem pathetic, but the underlying reasons as to why they've done it are dead serious. A lot of people in this country have been hurting for longer than they'd care to admit, but through the skillful manipulation of media, the right-wing has told these people to direct their anger at other marginalized groups rather than the vultures who've been perpetrating economic crimes for several decades. The truth is that most of us have a lot in common with ...


Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
 
2012-11-10 10:19:54 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: 12349876: Xythero: So many people are saying that Obama won because the demographics are changing. I don't think that is wholly true. Although the demographics of the country are different than they were 20 years ago, so is the Republican Party. They have become undeniably weird. I can't picture Bob Dole talking about God's rape babies.

Romney got the same percentage of the white vote as Reagan. It's changing demographic + Republicans not appealing to that changing demographic. Romney probably wins with Dubya's Latino support levels.

Yeah, they're already rushing to fix that. The Hispanic Bush is going to be running for office.


Don't assume that they'll actually vote for George P. They were openly racist about Columba Bush by the time Jeb's term in office was up, and if George P. takes the same immigration positions as his father did, it doesn't matter that he's a Bush, he's not going to overcome the GOP racism.
 
2012-11-10 10:21:04 PM
i14.photobucket.com
Note the scratch in the ground from the light-pole being dragged into place, opposite the direction of the 'flight path'.
Not relevant to thread, just found out about it and wanted to share.
/most people have no idea there were even lightpoles around the pentagon explosion.
 
2012-11-10 10:23:47 PM

erik-k: vartian: Silly Jesus:

You obviously think it important for people to make informed decisions as to not suffer drastic negative consequences (getting people killed). Would you be in favor of voters having to demonstrate some modicum of intelligence / relevant knowledge prior to voting?

The voter test? Again? Give it the fark up. You aren't allowed to disenfranchise voters, and you aren't allowed to change the rules of the game because you arrogantly see yourself as more informed that the general populace.

The average American is likely to: not be able to name a single supreme court justice, not point out where countries we're at war with are on a world map, not be able to point out their own country on a world map, not be able to describe a single one of the ten amendments that guarantee many of their most basic rights, not know who any of their local, state or federal representatives are... this could go on and on.

For most people on Fark's politics tab, observing the blindingly obvious fact that we're more informed than average isn't "arrogant." It's just a statement of fact.

Most of us are also smart enough to realize that Churchill's remarks about "except for all the others that have been tried" are true also. So as much as we might whine about the vote of an idiot carrying as much weight as that of an informed person or fantasize about a world where you have to be informed to vote, we know where that leads.


I worked as an election judge this year, and we had a state senator come down as a pollwatcher briefly to check on turnout. I could tell who he was because he was wearing a name tag that said state senator (I moved to a new district, so I really wouldn't have recognized him otherwise). One of the other election judges asked me who that was after he left, and I said, "our state senator, Mr. ____" and for a second, several people totally thought I meant he was one of our Senators. These are people who care enough about our political process to spend a 16 hour day handing out ballots and they didn't know the names of our Senators.

\It was easier when one of them was named Nighthorse
 
2012-11-10 10:25:29 PM

cman: Captors sometimes grow to love their abductors


And both love their imprisoners.

/just giving you crap
//I've had my share of typos on Afrk.
 
2012-11-10 10:33:26 PM

yousaywut: Cpl.D: yousaywut: 4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

I see you've fallen for the usual creationist trap of thinking the "Theory of Evolution" means "theory" in the common useage of the word. It is not. It's a theory in the scientific method. A scientific theory isn't a guess. It's fact. A guess is a "hypothesis".

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact). I think it may become a fact within our lifetime or be completely disproven and become another oops in scientific history.) Make no mistake I am not a creationist I am merely skeptical of calling an unproven theory a fact.


Leaving aside all the fundamental problems with your argument, the original question wasn't whether evolution was a fact; it was if the earth is older than 8000 years. Do you also dispute this?
 
2012-11-10 10:38:38 PM

IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: I would love to see some folks float away it would entertaining.

That's the beauty/tragedy of the scientific 'theory' - there can be a gazzilion examples that confirm it, but it still can never be called a fact. Find but a single counterexample, and 'poof' it's gone.


As my classical mechanics prof used to say, the only new theories that are worth anything swallow their predecessor whole. Thus general relativity encompasses gravity and special relativity, but also explains some regimes they couldn't handle. So, rest assured, anything that supersedes our current evolutionary theory will still have to explain all the facts it currently does and then some. So it's not like it would really goes poof, just wind up inside a larger theory.
 
2012-11-10 10:49:09 PM

yousaywut: But until a flu germ becomes ebola or a parasite


Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Richard Lenski and his E.Coli experiment.
Link

56,000 generations of bacteria. That's roughly the equivalent of one million years of human evolution, or the difference between now and when we were still walking around as Homo Erectus.

As one might imagine with that sample size, Dr. Lenski has encountered several examples of what you would consider macro evolution. The strain that can metabolize citrate is particularly impressive. It's as if a human had evolved to the ability to digest raw petroleum through a massive change to their stomach, intestines, and liver.
 
2012-11-10 10:57:52 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: yousaywut: Cpl.D: yousaywut: 4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

I see you've fallen for the usual creationist trap of thinking the "Theory of Evolution" means "theory" in the common useage of the word. It is not. It's a theory in the scientific method. A scientific theory isn't a guess. It's fact. A guess is a "hypothesis".

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact). I think it may become a fact within our lifetime or be completely disproven and become another oops in scientific history.) Make no mistake I am not a creationist I am merely skeptical of calling an unproven theory a fact.

Leaving aside all the fundamental problems with your argument, the original question wasn't whether evolution was a fact; it was if the earth is older than 8000 years. Do you also dispute this?


Different question same set. You are retarded.

/please go back and read the set of 6 questions then return with your idiocy.
 
2012-11-10 10:58:39 PM

Cubicle Jockey: yousaywut: But until a flu germ becomes ebola or a parasite

Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Richard Lenski and his E.Coli experiment.
Link

56,000 generations of bacteria. That's roughly the equivalent of one million years of human evolution, or the difference between now and when we were still walking around as Homo Erectus.

As one might imagine with that sample size, Dr. Lenski has encountered several examples of what you would consider macro evolution. The strain that can metabolize citrate is particularly impressive. It's as if a human had evolved to the ability to digest raw petroleum through a massive change to their stomach, intestines, and liver.


Thanks for that. It is very very interesting.

//yes seriously
 
2012-11-10 11:01:50 PM
It's a shame one of the best articles to appear on Fark in weeks (what? Better than American Thinker? No wai!), devolved into an evolution flame war, a rehash of the stupid literacy test debate (there's not going to be a test to vote Silly Jeebus even if you cry about it in every Fark thread), and arguing with trolls who have long since left the thread.
 
2012-11-10 11:09:32 PM

FlashHarry: Aldon: Those who identified themselves as Republicans in 2010 no longer identify as Republicans, instead they identify as independents but pretty much still vote Republican.

this is the tea party. they fancy themselves as "independent," but what they are is simply the farthest right, most racially motivated wing of the republican party. they are the GOP's "republican guards."


And the GOP would do well to keep these knuckle-dragging snake handlers well away from the primaries for the next decade if they want to win anything that isn't dependent upon gerrymandered districts for victory.
 
2012-11-10 11:09:36 PM

yousaywut: Skirl Hutsenreiter: yousaywut: Cpl.D: yousaywut: 4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

I see you've fallen for the usual creationist trap of thinking the "Theory of Evolution" means "theory" in the common useage of the word. It is not. It's a theory in the scientific method. A scientific theory isn't a guess. It's fact. A guess is a "hypothesis".

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact). I think it may become a fact within our lifetime or be completely disproven and become another oops in scientific history.) Make no mistake I am not a creationist I am merely skeptical of calling an unproven theory a fact.

Leaving aside all the fundamental problems with your argument, the original question wasn't whether evolution was a fact; it was if the earth is older than 8000 years. Do you also dispute this?

Different question same set. You are retarded.

/please go back and read the set of 6 questions then return with your idiocy.


To add more fuel to this flame war, how are we even certain that god uses the same standards of time measurement as man? One day for us could be a century for him, etc
 
2012-11-10 11:19:44 PM

yousaywut: I am not being willfully obtuse I am arguing that a theory is not a fact if it cannot be proven. Even scientifically use of the word theory does not make the entirety of the Theory of Evolution a fact. In order for it to be a fact the entirety of the theory must be (at the very least) not disproven. As we have yet to scratch the surface of what DNA/RNA code means we cannot yet call this theory a fact.


img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.


yousaywut: Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter.


Sigh.
Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

The most common response to this is that these are "not really" speciations, since "it's still the same kind". This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral -eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilatera l-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilatera l-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.


Kudos on an impressive threadjack, though.

rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?


GOP fundamental problems with epistemology. Made perfect sense, really.

yousaywut: Does anyone actually read the entirety of a discussion before jumping in? Just curious.


Usually not worth the effort, for longer threads.
 
2012-11-10 11:26:50 PM

abb3w: Kudos on an impressive threadjack, though.


Thanks, I actually long since have agreed that I was in error but folks keep popping in to tell me I was in error.

At least you were polite about it:)

//was not attempting to threadjack nor troll though.

If you had read the rest of the thread you would have seen the part where I corrected my misinterperatation of the statement. So there is that
 
2012-11-10 11:39:07 PM

moefuggenbrew: [i14.photobucket.com image 850x553]
Note the scratch in the ground from the light-pole being dragged into place, opposite the direction of the 'flight path'.
Not relevant to thread, just found out about it and wanted to share.
/most people have no idea there were even lightpoles around the pentagon explosion.


What about potatoes?
 
2012-11-10 11:51:36 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: quickdraw: I really really thought they knew and were just faking it.

This. Right up until Rove lost it I was sure they were just putting on a confident show so turnout downticket didn't suffer.


I was buying this view as well. Can the general populace not understand "taking one for the team" anymore?
 
2012-11-10 11:57:36 PM
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
 
2012-11-11 12:12:37 AM

fusillade762: Mitt Romney is already slithering into the mists of history

The chant is reaching fever pitch. Mouths shriek, throats split. 'Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Romney R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!'

I notice a sting on my arm. When I look down, a locust with Ayn Rand's face gorges messily on my flesh. I understand now.

Romney whips his hooded priests, screaming that 10% must have their hearts ripped from their chests to achieve Godhood.

Coulter spews acid and tar at the crowd, fusing them together in a grotesque mass. Smell is overwhelming, we wait to die.

A zombified titan stands on the stage. Shrugging his shoulders, a boulder of teeth, hair, and cartilage lands on the crowd

A mother hugs her shivering son. She doesn't notice when his mouth distends, revealing rows of razor-sharp teeth.

Romney warmly embraces the orphan before biting into her skull as if it were an apple.

Bush Sr steps on stage and we scream in rapturous agony as our skin is stretched to pieces, to the Washington Post March!

Paul Ryan is sitting just offstage at #RomneyDeathRally, pointing a camera at the crowd. He's not collecting their images, but their souls.


I love you to death. This gives me an eldritch boner.
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report