Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, gifts, opinions  
•       •       •

7610 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Nov 2012 at 5:44 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-10 04:02:00 PM  
We create our own reality when the reality we have is something that we do not like.

Simple psychology, really
 
2012-11-10 04:14:20 PM  

cman: We create our own reality when the reality we have is something that we do not like.

Simple psychology, really


The enlightened mind resists this. Others just go balls to the walls.
 
2012-11-10 04:16:33 PM  

mrshowrules: cman: We create our own reality when the reality we have is something that we do not like.

Simple psychology, really

The enlightened mind resists this. Others just go balls to the walls.


Not always. Stockholm syndrome is a great example of this. Captors sometimes grow to love their abductors because it helps them cope with their miserable reality.
 
2012-11-10 04:20:00 PM  
Facts have a liberal bias.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.
 
2012-11-10 04:30:16 PM  
There is no difference to Republicans. Opinions are facts.
 
2012-11-10 04:31:33 PM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

NTTAWWT
 
2012-11-10 04:51:21 PM  
I really really thought they knew and were just faking it.
 
2012-11-10 05:09:32 PM  

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


So yah, it is one or the other right?
They either knew that they were losing and were faking it to try and keep the numbers up and to get the vote out. Which is fine.

Or they were completely deluded. Which is batshiat-crazy.

GAT_00: There is no difference to Republicans. Opinions are facts.


And it is that kind of thinking which has pushed the GOP into this wonderful corner. They either have to admit that the far right is batshiat crazy or they have to double down.
Bwahahahahahahahahah

WE KNOW what they are going to do!!
 
2012-11-10 05:16:16 PM  

namatad: They either knew that they were losing and were faking it to try and keep the numbers up and to get the vote out. Which is fine.

Or they were completely deluded. Which is batshiat-crazy.


lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-11-10 05:20:53 PM  
Isn't this sort of similar to sports fans? Even if a team is an underdog you can find fans who will swear on the life of their unborn child that their team will win the Superbowl World Series Cup. Are the losers derided for believing in their team? "You must have been an idiot to think your team would win. Look how delusional you were!"

/mostly serious
 
433 [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2012-11-10 05:24:50 PM  
It's like an episode of COPS!
 
2012-11-10 05:28:36 PM  
analogy is a helluva drug.
 
2012-11-10 05:29:42 PM  

Silly Jesus: Isn't this sort of similar to sports fans? Even if a team is an underdog you can find fans who will swear on the life of their unborn child that their team will win the Superbowl World Series Cup. Are the losers derided for believing in their team? "You must have been an idiot to think your team would win. Look how delusional you were!"

/mostly serious


Delusional sports fans are left to their delusions 1) because that's part of the fun, and 2) because, unlike politics, pushing a false narrative doesn't get people killed.
 
2012-11-10 05:33:30 PM  

BKITU: Silly Jesus: Isn't this sort of similar to sports fans? Even if a team is an underdog you can find fans who will swear on the life of their unborn child that their team will win the Superbowl World Series Cup. Are the losers derided for believing in their team? "You must have been an idiot to think your team would win. Look how delusional you were!"

/mostly serious

Delusional sports fans are left to their delusions 1) because that's part of the fun, and 2) because, unlike politics, pushing a false narrative doesn't get people killed.


Yeah, that's why is wasn't completely serious.

The rabid delusions seem quite similar though...just different consequences.
 
2012-11-10 05:35:03 PM  

BKITU: Silly Jesus: Isn't this sort of similar to sports fans? Even if a team is an underdog you can find fans who will swear on the life of their unborn child that their team will win the Superbowl World Series Cup. Are the losers derided for believing in their team? "You must have been an idiot to think your team would win. Look how delusional you were!"

/mostly serious

Delusional sports fans are left to their delusions 1) because that's part of the fun, and 2) because, unlike politics, pushing a false narrative doesn't get people killed.


Follow-up question for you then...

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?
 
2012-11-10 05:35:54 PM  
It's looking more and more like the outcome of the war between the GOP establishment and the GOP base is going to result in the base saying "You know what? You can keep your facts."
 
2012-11-10 05:40:18 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 05:46:03 PM  

heap: namatad: They either knew that they were losing and were faking it to try and keep the numbers up and to get the vote out. Which is fine.

Or they were completely deluded. Which is batshiat-crazy.

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 512x304]


when I heard her ask that question, I thought I was going to die. LOL
 
2012-11-10 05:46:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: Follow-up question for you then...

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?


No, but I would greatly prefer that those either in power, or achieving to power, not push false narratives that get people killed.

A large percentage of the voting population being idiots is a necessary, but unfortunate, side-effect of preserving the right to vote for everyone. If you're trying to make real the ideal of "all men are created equal," then even people who have fewer functioning neurons than teeth in their heads have to be included in that. The sociopathy of political elites who are willing to use that idiocy to gain or retain power by any means, even those means that are patently evil, is what pisses me off.
 
2012-11-10 05:47:33 PM  
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
 
2012-11-10 05:51:19 PM  
theupsidedownworld.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-10 05:51:24 PM  

FishyFred: It's looking more and more like the outcome of the war between the GOP establishment and the GOP base is going to result in the base saying "You know what? You can keep your facts."


Depends on who is considered in your term, "the GOP base". Because many of the sane republicans voted for Obama. Only the die-hard nutbags voted for Romney.
 
2012-11-10 05:52:03 PM  

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


sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved
 
2012-11-10 05:53:32 PM  

namatad: heap: namatad: They either knew that they were losing and were faking it to try and keep the numbers up and to get the vote out. Which is fine.

Or they were completely deluded. Which is batshiat-crazy.

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 512x304]

when I heard her ask that question, I thought I was going to die. LOL


I started laughing hysterically to the point that I completely missed the next ten minutes of the program... including his reply.
 
2012-11-10 05:53:37 PM  

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.


Thank you for your opinion, but I wasn't talking to you.
 
2012-11-10 05:53:59 PM  

namatad: heap: namatad: They either knew that they were losing and were faking it to try and keep the numbers up and to get the vote out. Which is fine.

Or they were completely deluded. Which is batshiat-crazy.

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 512x304]

when I heard her ask that question, I thought I was going to die. LOL


the look on baier's face was like a kid being told there just might not be a santa clause, too
 
2012-11-10 05:55:12 PM  

BKITU: Silly Jesus: Follow-up question for you then...

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?

No, but I would greatly prefer that those either in power, or achieving to power, not push false narratives that get people killed.

A large percentage of the voting population being idiots is a necessary, but unfortunate, side-effect of preserving the right to vote for everyone. If you're trying to make real the ideal of "all men are created equal," then even people who have fewer functioning neurons than teeth in their heads have to be included in that. The sociopathy of political elites who are willing to use that idiocy to gain or retain power by any means, even those means that are patently evil, is what pisses me off.


Well said.

I reluctantly agree that that may be the reality that we are stuck with. Idealistically, I still yearn for an informed and intelligent electorate making life and death decisions concerning me and my family.
 
2012-11-10 05:55:18 PM  
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
 
2012-11-10 05:56:49 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved


Love it. Can we implement it immediately?
 
2012-11-10 05:57:23 PM  
This is old news. . .

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "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."
 
2012-11-10 05:57:45 PM  
There is something that all the Republicans seem to be missing from this last election....

1) They believed the election would be like 2010 and more voters would identify as Republicans.
2) They believed they were winning the independent vote so they couldn't loose.
3) They believe that 3 million Republican just didn't show up to vote.

The truth is that the only reason Romney won with independents and the turnout for self identified Republicans was so low was because: Those who identified themselves as Republicans in 2010 no longer identify as Republicans, instead they identify as independents but pretty much still vote Republican. So the truth was that Obama actually won the true independents.

/If Republicans don't realize the truth in the next couple of years, those ex-Republicans might actually be up for grabs.
 
2012-11-10 05:59:52 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


Out of all the stupid phrases, this is what you pick on?

/I'm sick of them too, but at least this one has a valid and relevant point.
 
2012-11-10 06:00:37 PM  
cognitive dissonance is the air that republicans breathe.
 
2012-11-10 06:01:20 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-10 06:01:48 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-10 06:01:57 PM  
FTA: At the policy level, this is the GOP that denies climate change, that rejects Keynesian economics, and that identifies voter fraud where there is none. At the loony-tunes level, this is the GOP that has given us the birthers, websites purporting that Obama was lying about Osama bin Laden's death, and not one but two (failed) senatorial candidates who redefined rape in defiance of medical science and simple common sense. It's the GOP that demands the rewriting of history (and history textbooks), still denying that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" transformed the party of Lincoln into a haven for racists. Such is the conservative version of history that when the website Right Wing News surveyed 43 popular conservative bloggers to determine the "worst figures in American history" two years ago, Jimmy Carter, Obama, and FDR led the tally, all well ahead of Benedict Arnold, Timothy McVeigh, and John Wilkes Booth.


WTF? I'm pretty much a Bernie Sanders-leaning liberal, but I would never rank a single GOP politician, not even W., as being as bad as those three.
 
2012-11-10 06:03:01 PM  

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."
 
2012-11-10 06:03:13 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved


You do realize that if this was a serious statement you would be sinking to their level, right?

I know you are kidding and all, but still...
 
2012-11-10 06:04:36 PM  
It's not that complicated: By definition, a "conservative" belief system resists new influences and information that contradicts what one already holds to be good and true. Even self-proclaimed conservatives (at least the thoughtful ones) will agree with that.

Therefore, when conservatives lose, the only options are 1) that they didn't REALLY lose; or 2) that the people who won must not be on the side of things which are good and true, because they are not conservative.
 
2012-11-10 06:06:44 PM  
FishyFred: It's looking more and more like the outcome of the war between the GOP establishment and the GOP base is going to result in the base saying "You know what? You can keep your facts."

Especially those that run around with a bible in their hands, convinced of their divine right to create their own reality
 
2012-11-10 06:06:49 PM  
You guys, most of the trolls are still washing their hair and returning some video tapes. You can't tell them they can't make up facts, when they can't even fight back.
 
2012-11-10 06:07:26 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved

You do realize that if this was a serious statement you would be sinking to their level, right?

I know you are kidding and all, but still...


Their level is a desire for competent and informed people to vote?
 
2012-11-10 06:07:44 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: You guys, most of the trolls are still washing their hair and returning some video tapes. You can't tell them they can't make up facts, when they can't even fight back.


slackers should stick to a schedule.
 
2012-11-10 06:08:20 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved

You do realize that if this was a serious statement you would be sinking to their level, right?

I know you are kidding and all, but still...

Their level is a desire for competent and informed people to vote?


No, shooting people for not believing what they believe is what I meant
 
2012-11-10 06:09:39 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved

You do realize that if this was a serious statement you would be sinking to their level, right?

I know you are kidding and all, but still...

Their level is a desire for competent and informed people to vote?

No, shooting people for not believing what they believe is what I meant


Oh, yeah, that bit is a tad extreme.
 
2012-11-10 06:10:11 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 06:10:29 PM  
Silly Jesus, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with this, but don't worry!

I have a link that can help you.

Here you go Silly Jesus, this should help you catch up to the rest of the world.
 
2012-11-10 06:11:34 PM  
That article was dead-on. The only disagreement I had was that the author believes, in contrast to the GOP, that Obama has a mandate. I still think it was a very close election; and I don't want any president to walk around boasting of a "mandate," as if he has unanimous approval.

Otherwise, perfect.
 
2012-11-10 06:11:35 PM  

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.


I had hope that the demographics ARE changing. There would be ever fewer on the left side of the bell curve who were believing the shiate.

Example: In Ohio the very faithful the "Jeep jobs will be sent to China" lie was aimed at had direct personal knowledge that it was a lie and the Romney team, thinking they only needed to repeat the big lie to get it work, wouldn't back down, and lost Ohio.
 
2012-11-10 06:12:50 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 06:13:01 PM  

Raharu: Silly Jesus, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with this, but don't worry!

I have a link that can help you.

Here you go Silly Jesus, this should help you catch up to the rest of the world.


Ummm....oook...

/backs away slowly
 
2012-11-10 06:14:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: No, shooting people for not believing what they believe is what I meant

Oh, yeah, that bit is a tad extreme.


A tad? Listen to the two of you, calmly discussing how superior you are to all the other citizens of our country. Your combined arrogance is truly astounding.
 
2012-11-10 06:16:29 PM  

vartian: Silly Jesus: No, shooting people for not believing what they believe is what I meant

Oh, yeah, that bit is a tad extreme.

A tad? Listen to the two of you, calmly discussing how superior you are to all the other citizens of our country. Your combined arrogance is truly astounding.


I AM VASTLY SUPERIOR TO YOU BECAUSE I LIKE CAMPBELLS CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP AND YOU DO NOT
 
2012-11-10 06:17:32 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.


You don't think Obama's plot to shove gun control down our throats by personally handing automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords so they'll terrorize the public causing them to cry out for protection constitutes a scandal?
 
2012-11-10 06:18:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: Idealistically, I still yearn for an informed and intelligent electorate making life and death decisions concerning me and my family.


Its not whether or not they are informed that worries me. Its the incapacity of most to accept new information that doesn't feel right to them, whether armed with lots of facts or few of them. There was a study that showed that people knew the most were actually least accommodating to changing their minds when shown they believed falsehoods.

Some of the most informed people are the most delusional. Look at Rove on election night.
 
2012-11-10 06:19:50 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-10 06:19:58 PM  

vartian: Silly Jesus: No, shooting people for not believing what they believe is what I meant

Oh, yeah, that bit is a tad extreme.

A tad? Listen to the two of you, calmly discussing how superior you are to all the other citizens of our country. Your combined arrogance is truly astounding.


"Tad" was facetious. You seem like a really fun person to be around.

And if it's arrogant to realize that I'm intellectually superior to the mouth-breathers who think that the earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode around on dinosaurs, your accusation is not the insult you intend it to be.
 
2012-11-10 06:20:22 PM  

bugontherug: 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.

You don't think Obama's plot to shove gun control down our throats by personally handing automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords so they'll terrorize the public causing them to cry out for protection constitutes a scandal?


Show us this gun control bill that Obama supports. Otherwise, go troll somewhere else.
 
2012-11-10 06:21:11 PM  

FlashHarry: cognitive dissonance is the air that republicans breathe.


It's not dissonance. Cognitive dissonance requires some degree of discomfort on the part of the individual, until the dissonance is resolved by selecting one of the two incongruent thoughts or by choosing a third path that incorporates sections of both.

What the Republicans have begin to embrace--more frighteningly, to me anyway--is doublethink, the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs while simultaneously believing both of them. In doublethink, there IS no discomfort, and both beliefs can be accepted even though they cannot be true. Anybody who can do that is functionally psychotic, and needs to be handled very carefully.
 
2012-11-10 06:21:37 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved


1: true
2: true
3: true
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)
5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)
6: true

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.
 
2012-11-10 06:23:38 PM  

bartink: Silly Jesus: Idealistically, I still yearn for an informed and intelligent electorate making life and death decisions concerning me and my family.

Its not whether or not they are informed that worries me. Its the incapacity of most to accept new information that doesn't feel right to them, whether armed with lots of facts or few of them. There was a study that showed that people knew the most were actually least accommodating to changing their minds when shown they believed falsehoods.

Some of the most informed people are the most delusional. Look at Rove on election night.


That is true. A simple "Who is the Vice President" type question wouldn't be sufficient. Anyone who didn't know the answer to that should obviously be kicked out of the process for that cycle, but knowledgeable morons would still get through.
 
2012-11-10 06:23:43 PM  

vartian: Silly Jesus: No, shooting people for not believing what they believe is what I meant

Oh, yeah, that bit is a tad extreme.

A tad? Listen to the two of you, calmly discussing how superior you are to all the other citizens of our country. Your combined arrogance is truly astounding.


Hey, nothing wrong with a competency test for voters.
i18.photobucket.com
As long as I get to write and administer it.
 
2012-11-10 06:23:52 PM  
0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2012-11-10 06:23:56 PM  

Aldon: There is something that all the Republicans seem to be missing from this last election....

1) They believed the election would be like 2010 and more voters would identify as Republicans.
2) They believed they were winning the independent vote so they couldn't loose.
3) They believe that 3 million Republican just didn't show up to vote.

The truth is that the only reason Romney won with independents and the turnout for self identified Republicans was so low was because: Those who identified themselves as Republicans in 2010 no longer identify as Republicans, instead they identify as independents but pretty much still vote Republican. So the truth was that Obama actually won the true independents.

/If Republicans don't realize the truth in the next couple of years, those ex-Republicans might actually be up for grabs.


Wouldn't it also make sense that a reason the demographics were more like 2008 than 2010 would be that 2010 was a midterm election, and conservatives always turn out in greater numbers than moderates and liberals in midterms? Thus it would be silly to assume the numbers would be like 2010?
 
2012-11-10 06:24:00 PM  

vartian: Silly Jesus: No, shooting people for not believing what they believe is what I meant

Oh, yeah, that bit is a tad extreme.

A tad? Listen to the two of you, calmly discussing how superior you are to all the other citizens of our country. Your combined arrogance is truly astounding.


media.washtimes.com
 
2012-11-10 06:24:58 PM  
the GOP denies anything that they imagine will not bring them a buck or that may cost them a buck, because in the end, the dollar is their only true love.
 
2012-11-10 06:25:35 PM  

GAT_00: There is no difference to Republicans. Opinions are facts.



and beliefs are facts too.
 
2012-11-10 06:27:06 PM  
jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.
 
2012-11-10 06:27:43 PM  

bugontherug: You don't think Obama's plot to shove gun control down our throats by personally handing automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords so they'll terrorize the public causing them to cry out for protection constitutes a scandal?


There is so much derp in that one sentence that it is not even worth going into. I repeat there was no scandal, a political scandal involves something immoral and/or illegal. Oh, and it has to be based on facts. I can't be something that only exists in the right wing echo chamber.

/"shove gun control down our throats" haahahahhahaaa! You guys are really in your own world aren't you?
 
2012-11-10 06:27:59 PM  

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.


Even the conservative media and leadership seems to be realizing that embracing a false feel-good reality isn't in their best interest. You might want to follow suit.
 
2012-11-10 06:28:10 PM  
Two quotes and an anecdote:

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

-- John Kenneth Galbraith

All right, that's almost a reasonable excuse for the current repub attitude.

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

And that's why I will never, ever, ever vote for a repub again, for any office. Ever.

Finally an anecdote. I've been seeing a lot of "Can't we all just get along?" type statements here and on Facebook. The argument is that civility and respect oblige progressives to reach out the hand of friendship -- again -- to conservatives if we are to have a return to political normalcy. This is why that can't, shouldn't, happen.

When I was a teenager I used to hang out with a friend named Jay. One day we were playing Risk. Late in the game I had beaten him down to a single army and he was about to lose that. "Oh, please," he said. "Leave me this one teeny little army so can say in the game. Just this one army." I said sure, why not. When it was his turn he sat up and pulled out the dozen armies he'd been hiding, and proceeded to win the game. Did I say anything? No. Did I ever let him pull that stunt on me again? Heck, no. When he twisted my arm to play backgammon with him for money and he ended up losing $75 the first night, did I offer to forgive the debt? Oh hells no, although in his defense he didn't ask me to and, after I relieved of of fifty more bucks the following night when he attempted to recoup his losses, he never offered to play me for money again.

We've already endured eight years of "It's your own fault, you were stupid enough to believe us" under the Bush regime. The Scott Walker affair demonstrated again, that repubs say what they please to get into office, then pursue completely different, unannounced agendas once they're in power. The Democrats need to press their advantage, mercilessly, if they hope to implement their programs. At least we're up front about what we want to do. The repubs cannot be allowed to regroup, to reframe their lies in a different format to achieve their unscrupulous goals. There is, for instance, a long battle ahead of us to undo the past twelve years of gerrymandering which is the only reason the repubs have held on to their House majority. There is no room any more for compromise. The repubs must be utterly destroyed before a new, clean conservative movement can rise from their ashes.

Pars republicanorum delenda est.
 
2012-11-10 06:31:29 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 06:32:12 PM  
There doesn't seem to be much discussion as to where this "I don't accept yr facts bc they don't fit my beliefs" has come from.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you see this "l can tell whatever lies l like (and the sheep will take my word for it)" anywhere else in civilized world.

Does it go back to the Religious Right assault on Evo education, which employs anti-science and anti-intellectual arguments to bolster it's fake arguments ("Teach the Controversy!")

USA is one of few countries that doesn't have a national educational curriculum and allows local groups like Texas Board of Ed to control syllabus.

Election has shown the weakness of non-factual approach, but as the article said, a more skilful liar may have got through.

I would have thought it was worth teaching all kids reasoning skills and how science works, and fighting the religious bigots who are afraid of that.
 
2012-11-10 06:34:00 PM  

mjjt: USA is one of few countries that doesn't have a national educational curriculum and allows local groups like Texas Board of Ed to control syllabus.


That may be a good thing. I dont know about you, but I dont want someone from Texas to control what can or cannot be taught in my Maine schools.
 
2012-11-10 06:34:56 PM  

HighOnCraic: FTA: At the policy level, this is the GOP that denies climate change, that rejects Keynesian economics, and that identifies voter fraud where there is none. At the loony-tunes level, this is the GOP that has given us the birthers, websites purporting that Obama was lying about Osama bin Laden's death, and not one but two (failed) senatorial candidates who redefined rape in defiance of medical science and simple common sense. It's the GOP that demands the rewriting of history (and history textbooks), still denying that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" transformed the party of Lincoln into a haven for racists. Such is the conservative version of history that when the website Right Wing News surveyed 43 popular conservative bloggers to determine the "worst figures in American history" two years ago, Jimmy Carter, Obama, and FDR led the tally, all well ahead of Benedict Arnold, Timothy McVeigh, and John Wilkes Booth.


WTF? I'm pretty much a Bernie Sanders-leaning liberal, but I would never rank a single GOP politician, not even W., as being as bad as those three.


Well you see there are 48 percent of the people who will vote for the Romney no matter what. There are 48 percent of the people who are with him...oh wait.


It is not 48% (48-49% is the popular vote Romney got, before someone hollers at me because Romney said 47%) that hate liberals in particular Obama and others, but it is a sizable portion of that group that certainly in the double digits. For about the last decade, they have been told that liberals are the greatest threat facing the nation and a sizable portion of them have bought this hook line and sinker.

It is sad really that at this point in politics we are able to draw lines as far as where people stand. It is really sad that as people we have no flexibility on our positions. We can blame the politicians in Washington for the gridlock and partisan bickering but the reality is that we the people share equal blame. It is not that our government failed, it is that we elect failures into government. A sizable chunk of this blame falls on our governmental system that strictly rejects outsiders, no third parties allowed.

The best thing that could happen right now is for the GOP to destroy itself completely. Not because I hate conservatives, but because I hate our two party system, and given the political landscape right now if the GOP were to shatter, it would give a few parties some more opportunities come the next couple election cycles, and a potential shift in how elections are run (unfortunately because people believe everything they hear this fighting would be between popular vote and electoral college. Rather than the middle ground that eliminates a significant majority of the problems our government faces, notably gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, a 2 party system, and only a few states mattering in election (currently swing state, in a popular vote more populous states). The system is pretty simple, electoral votes in states are decided based on the popular vote within a state, and parties assign candidates to the number of seats they have.)
 
2012-11-10 06:37:42 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.


Indeed, we already went through this with literacy tests in the South. It's funny how a lot of people who argue that the government can't do anything right will also argue that a voting test can be set up that will be free from abuse.
 
2012-11-10 06:38:36 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.



clapping.gif


I do think that we could keep it in check though. Go with something as simple as the already established U.S. Citizenship Test.
 
2012-11-10 06:39:41 PM  

bugontherug: 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.

You don't think Obama's plot to shove gun control down our throats by personally handing automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords so they'll terrorize the public causing them to cry out for protection constitutes a scandal?


Are you suggesting that Obama is working up a Number Six on the USA?

farm9.static.flickr.com
 
2012-11-10 06:39:54 PM  

KrispyKritter: Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape


Still waiting.
 
2012-11-10 06:40:55 PM  

cman: mjjt: USA is one of few countries that doesn't have a national educational curriculum and allows local groups like Texas Board of Ed to control syllabus.

That may be a good thing. I dont know about you, but I dont want someone from Texas to control what can or cannot be taught in my Maine schools.


No...you misread what he said. The Texas School Board already does decide your curriculum in Maine. They are the largest buyer of textbooks, so their edited version of the book is what the publisher prints for everyone.
 
2012-11-10 06:41:47 PM  

KrispyKritter: Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape


Allen West disagrees, in fact he's STILLLLLL WAITING!
 
2012-11-10 06:41:53 PM  

Aldon: There is something that all the Republicans seem to be missing from this last election....

1) They believed the election would be like 2010 and more voters would identify as Republicans.
2) They believed they were winning the independent vote so they couldn't loose.
3) They believe that 3 million Republican just didn't show up to vote.

The truth is that the only reason Romney won with independents and the turnout for self identified Republicans was so low was because: Those who identified themselves as Republicans in 2010 no longer identify as Republicans, instead they identify as independents but pretty much still vote Republican. So the truth was that Obama actually won the true independents.

/If Republicans don't realize the truth in the next couple of years, those ex-Republicans might actually be up for grabs.


Don't for that elusive beast, the "undecided voter". Romney got many of those votes because they were all either attention whores or Republicans too embarrassed to admit they were voting for Romney. After Denver, the latter types got a bit more emboldened.

But you're absolutely right--the GOP was utterly convinced they had locked up the independent vote. Add that to the 53% who weren't lazy, grubby welfare recipients, and they just couldn't even consider the possibility of losing. They had only one possible outcome in mind and skewed, ignored, or shouted down any other evidence to the contrary.
 
2012-11-10 06:42:10 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 06:42:22 PM  

yousaywut: namatad:
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


Sorry but that is incorrect.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]

From: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
 
2012-11-10 06:42:34 PM  

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.


THIS IS WHAT VICTORIA JACKSON ACTUALLY BELIEVES.
 
2012-11-10 06:43:40 PM  
Also the iPhone browser sucks.
 
2012-11-10 06:43:45 PM  
I'm glad some of the more unhinged sort are coming back. More schadenfreude for me.
 
2012-11-10 06:43:57 PM  

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)


"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word."
 
2012-11-10 06:43:57 PM  

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


Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East

Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Excerpt, Chapter 5
U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A War Crime Or an Act of War?
By Stephen C. Pelletiere
Published: January 31, 2003

(New York Times) I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
 
2012-11-10 06:44:07 PM  

bartink: Silly Jesus: Idealistically, I still yearn for an informed and intelligent electorate making life and death decisions concerning me and my family.

Its not whether or not they are informed that worries me. Its the incapacity of most to accept new information that doesn't feel right to them, whether armed with lots of facts or few of them. There was a study that showed that people knew the most were actually least accommodating to changing their minds when shown they believed falsehoods.

Some of the most informed people are the most delusional. Look at Rove on election night.


Well educated people simply come up with more sophisticated rationalizations for their delusions.
 
2012-11-10 06:44:59 PM  

cman: mjjt: USA is one of few countries that doesn't have a national educational curriculum and allows local groups like Texas Board of Ed to control syllabus.

That may be a good thing. I dont know about you, but I dont want someone from Texas to control what can or cannot be taught in my Maine schools.


With a national educational curriculum, it is unlikely that Texas would have enough influence to rewrite history books for other states. The fact that no other state has gone so far off the deep end as Texas has indicates that the rest of the country would, as a group, vote down Texas' attempt to push their agenda on other states. That's kinda the whole point of a national educational system.

/Must . . . resist . . . urge to make joke about Maine failing to . . . teach about apostrophes. . .
 
2012-11-10 06:47:34 PM  

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)


Pig pile on yousay!

This always bugs me. "The theory of relativity is only a theory; therefore, I deny the existence of nuclear weapons." "The germ theory of disease is only a theory; therefore, I refuse to take antibiotics when I'm ill." "The theory of gravity is only a theory; therefore, I am floating away into outer space gooooddddbbbbyyyyyeeeee..."

Actually that last one I'd like to see.
 
2012-11-10 06:52:12 PM  

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 exemplify this thread.

Pew study: Obama, Romney get nearly equal treatment from media. Equally negative.

Of course I fully expect you to claim the study itself is biased. Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
2012-11-10 06:52:39 PM  

clambam: 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)


Pig pile on yousay!

This always bugs me. "The theory of relativity is only a theory; therefore, I deny the existence of nuclear weapons." "The germ theory of disease is only a theory; therefore, I refuse to take antibiotics when I'm ill." "The theory of gravity is only a theory; therefore, I am floating away into outer space gooooddddbbbbyyyyyeeeee..."

Actually that last one I'd like to see.


You know who else would like to see that>
 
2012-11-10 06:54:29 PM  
fta The rude jolt administered by the election does not mean that the GOP will now depart from its faith-based view of reality

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-10 06:54:57 PM  

fusillade762: 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 exemplify this thread.

Pew study: Obama, Romney get nearly equal treatment from media. Equally negative.

Of course I fully expect you to claim the study itself is biased. Go ahead, I'll wait.


Exactly.

Media doesnt care about pushing political positions. All they really care about is money, and ragging on people is very profitable.

Fox News and MSNBC are biased indeed, but for them, it is about marketing to specific demographics. The management of those networks really could give a shiat about a racist tea party member holding up a misspelled sign, or a rapist in the OWS camp. All they care about is putting stories on the television that people want to see.
 
2012-11-10 06:55:14 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 06:55:53 PM  

Silly Jesus: Are the losers derided for believing in their team?


Yes.
 
2012-11-10 06:58:33 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved

1: true
2: true
3: true
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)
5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)
6: true

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.


looks like we've already identified somebody too stupid to vote this year, awesome test namatad
 
2012-11-10 06:59:49 PM  

jules_siegel: The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.


So the Iraqis did have WMD at one point in time per your quoted article. Thanks for making my point much appreciated.

//Does anyone deny that Iraq at one time had WMD's? The original question was poorly written for the answer that the tester required.
 
2012-11-10 06:59:57 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.


So you agree that the special and general theories of relativity and the theory of gravity are also not facts?
 
2012-11-10 07:00:19 PM  

yousaywut: 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.


Incorrect. Again you parrot usual creationist arguments, all dis-proven. You might not be a creationist, but it's fairly obvious that you've listened to their arguments (which have been dis-proven into oblivion an absurd amount of times.) As I noted before, a scientific theory is fact. It cannot and is not both proven and unproven. I urge you to read that wikipedia article myself and two others linked you to or at least quoted from.
 
2012-11-10 07:00:23 PM  

HighOnCraic: cman: mjjt: USA is one of few countries that doesn't have a national educational curriculum and allows local groups like Texas Board of Ed to control syllabus.

That may be a good thing. I dont know about you, but I dont want someone from Texas to control what can or cannot be taught in my Maine schools.

With a national educational curriculum, it is unlikely that Texas would have enough influence to rewrite history books for other states. The fact that no other state has gone so far off the deep end as Texas has indicates that the rest of the country would, as a group, vote down Texas' attempt to push their agenda on other states. That's kinda the whole point of a national educational system.

/Must . . . resist . . . urge to make joke about Maine failing to . . . teach about apostrophes. . .


There is one possible way l can see a national science curriculum being 'imposed' on the whole country over the objections of the Religious Right using State's Rights as excuse.

We are clearly moving towards on-line education, particularly in maths and science where the subjects are harder and teachers fewer. As yet there's a hole where certification needs to be, but which could be filled by either a Federal body, or by default, by an IBM or Microsoft type organization becoming the recognized authority.

Obviously it cd also lead to splintering if home school religious groups were able to set up their own 'standards' that ignored scientific method.

But there is a hope that election may be a nail in the coffin of those who think that insisting on a non-factual personal reality, actually works.

l'd like to see an approach that went something like "You can teach yr kids any beliefs you want, but the country needs people who understand and use scientific methods and rational thinking to make decisions"
 
2012-11-10 07:00:46 PM  

sugardave: Silly Jesus: Are the losers derided for believing in their team?

Yes.


Sometimes they keep following a losing team so long and so intensely, you can't help but admire their tenacity.

See: The Chicago Cubs
 
2012-11-10 07:01:20 PM  
At least credit the man who uttered it, subby.

images.nymag.com

Moynihan could drink Ted Kennedy AND Drew under the table. Respect should be paid.
 
2012-11-10 07:01:48 PM  

sugardave: Silly Jesus: Are the losers derided for believing in their team?

Yes.


Yes. That is the point. Their team was not believable, they chose to believe in their team anyway, and they lost because of their indefensible belief in their team. So, yes, it is proper to deride the losers for believing in their team.
 
2012-11-10 07:02:49 PM  

clambam: 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)


Pig pile on yousay!

This always bugs me. "The theory of relativity is only a theory; therefore, I deny the existence of nuclear weapons." "The germ theory of disease is only a theory; therefore, I refuse to take antibiotics when I'm ill." "The theory of gravity is only a theory; therefore, I am floating away into outer space gooooddddbbbbyyyyyeeeee..."

Actually that last one I'd like to see.


The theory of relativity is only a theory therefore neutrinos cannot exist. The rest of your reply is silly. Funny but silly. I do not deny the existance of any of these theories nor the obvious and empirical evidence of their current validity.

I would love to see some folks float away it would entertaining.
 
2012-11-10 07:04:32 PM  

elchip: sugardave: Silly Jesus: Are the losers derided for believing in their team?

Yes.

Sometimes they keep following a losing team so long and so intensely, you can't help but admire their tenacity.

See: The Chicago Cubs


Well, that is the point where derision turns to morbid fascination a la train wreck style gawking.
 
2012-11-10 07:05:09 PM  

KrispyKritter: Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape


Stop making sense.
 
2012-11-10 07:06:14 PM  

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??
 
2012-11-10 07:07:56 PM  

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.


So, basically, what you're saying is

randomjsa: 'People don't reject liberal conservative ideas, they either didn't understand them or they were tricked!'

 
2012-11-10 07:10:12 PM  

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
 
2012-11-10 07:12:36 PM  

Notabunny: sugardave: Silly Jesus: Are the losers derided for believing in their team?

Yes.

Yes. That is the point. Their team was not believable, they chose to believe in their team anyway, and they lost because of their indefensible belief in their team. So, yes, it is proper to deride the losers for believing in their team.


26.media.tumblr.com

"But the Generals were due"!
 
2012-11-10 07:13:21 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


I know right? This is 2012. If your phrase isn't superimposed over a picture of Willy Wonka or a fat dog why should I care?
 
2012-11-10 07:16:54 PM  

Raharu: Silly Jesus, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with this, but don't worry!

I have a link that can help you.

Here you go Silly Jesus, this should help you catch up to the rest of the world.


Funny'd.
 
2012-11-10 07:18:17 PM  

Antifun: looks like we've already identified somebody too stupid to vote this year, awesome test namatad


ROFL
alas, this guy really made my point. Your beliefs and understanding of facts do not change reality.


yousaywut: (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)


the universe is irrelevant. we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know, without any doubt whatsoever), that evolution happens. that is a FACT. we have a large number of ideas about exactly how it happens, over how long a period of time, and some of the myriad details involved.

but the year mutation of the annual flu and drug resistant aids and TB are pretty much all the proof needed that evolution happens.

/EVEN if god is causing the mutation, that doesnt change the fact that it is evolution.
/unless you dont understand genetic mutation and want to pretend that it doesnt exist ...
 
2012-11-10 07:18:20 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-10 07:19:35 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 07:21:18 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 07:22:24 PM  

Raharu: Here you go Silly Jesus, this should help you catch up to the rest of the world.


No cheatun.....

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-10 07:22:48 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.


yes that is what I have been saying. But hey this is Fark so please feel free to insult my intelligence next time.
 
2012-11-10 07:25:32 PM  

fusillade762: Well educated people simply come up with more sophisticated rationalizations for their delusions.


That is a great line. It perfectly encapsulates the backwards logic and anti-intellectual mindset of the contemporary conservative. Ironic in its eloquence.
 
2012-11-10 07:25:42 PM  

namatad: Antifun: looks like we've already identified somebody too stupid to vote this year, awesome test namatad

ROFL
alas, this guy really made my point. Your beliefs and understanding of facts do not change reality.


yousaywut: (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

the universe is irrelevant. we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know, without any doubt whatsoever), that evolution happens. that is a FACT. we have a large number of ideas about exactly how it happens, over how long a period of time, and some of the myriad details involved.

but the year mutation of the annual flu and drug resistant aids and TB are pretty much all the proof needed that evolution happens.

/EVEN if god is causing the mutation, that doesnt change the fact that it is evolution.
/unless you dont understand genetic mutation and want to pretend that it doesnt exist ...


We do have enough facts to prove micro-evolution that much is true. But until a flu germ becomes ebola or a parasite macro-evolution has not been confirmed. (that I am aware of I don't actually keep up with biology sciences so I could be mistaken).
 
2012-11-10 07:27:00 PM  
There is a scary reverse feedback loop that has developed over the last couple decades -

1. Republicans talk non-reality, need an outlet to convince voters of this non-reality...
2. Talk radio/Fox news arises to fill this need...
3. Many, many voters are convinced of the non-reality...
4. These voters now demand politicians that conform to the non-reality...
5. Republicans now MUST double-down on the non-reality

around and around....

Its a perpetually propagating alternate reality.
 
2012-11-10 07:28:36 PM  

namatad: we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know


If the only 'proof' you have of a theory is that 'all the data and evidence we have to date fit' it's still not a fact. The standard model is not a fact. General relativity is not a fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is not a fact and will never be a fact.

That doesn't mean that they are not right, and they aren't the best models we have to work with (so far). It just means that we can't 'positively' prove them.
 
2012-11-10 07:28:58 PM  

yousaywut: 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).


"Evolution" is a category. The facts are things like "mistakes sometimes occur when DNA is copied" or "the frequency of alleles within a gene pool can change from one generation to the next". Despite what you may think, you are denying evolution because you are still talking about obsolete and irrelevant notions such as "irreducible complexity" while the actual scientists have moved on to wondering (for example) whether paired or unpaired sections of ribosomal RNA change more quickly.
 
2012-11-10 07:33:33 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-10 07:35:04 PM  
Rich could be a dick with his theater reviews but no question he is a wordsmith.
 
2012-11-10 07:36:59 PM  

Gulper Eel: At least credit the man who uttered it, subby.


He's credited in the article.
 
2012-11-10 07:38:28 PM  

Ivo Shandor: yousaywut: 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).

"Evolution" is a category. The facts are things like "mistakes sometimes occur when DNA is copied" or "the frequency of alleles within a gene pool can change from one generation to the next". Despite what you may think, you are denying evolution because you are still talking about obsolete and irrelevant notions such as "irreducible complexity" while the actual scientists have moved on to wondering (for example) whether paired or unpaired sections of ribosomal RNA change more quickly.


I was citing examples off the top of my head. It has been a while since I even looked at evolution for scientific accuracy. As it seems like the best we have for a theory I just assume someone is studying it and that they are either smarter than me or just more dedicated to this subject either way it's not my area of expertise. (Not that I have an area of expertise but I am better at some things than others).

/This entire discussion does not change the fact that the original question can be argued, therefore eliminating it from the answer this question as true or be denied the right to vote as the original poster declared.
 
2012-11-10 07:40:19 PM  

T.M.S.: Rich could be a dick with his theater reviews but no question he is a wordsmith.


It's not often one sees 'solipsistically' and 'bit on the ass' in the same essay.
 
2012-11-10 07:42:41 PM  

yousaywut: namatad: Antifun: looks like we've already identified somebody too stupid to vote this year, awesome test namatad

ROFL
alas, this guy really made my point. Your beliefs and understanding of facts do not change reality.


yousaywut: (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

the universe is irrelevant. we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know, without any doubt whatsoever), that evolution happens. that is a FACT. we have a large number of ideas about exactly how it happens, over how long a period of time, and some of the myriad details involved.

but the year mutation of the annual flu and drug resistant aids and TB are pretty much all the proof needed that evolution happens.

/EVEN if god is causing the mutation, that doesnt change the fact that it is evolution.
/unless you dont understand genetic mutation and want to pretend that it doesnt exist ...

We do have enough facts to prove micro-evolution that much is true. But until a flu germ becomes ebola or a parasite macro-evolution has not been confirmed. (that I am aware of I don't actually keep up with biology sciences so I could be mistaken).


You should probably shut up before you dig yourself even deeper.

Your wrong. You're being willfully obtuse and ignorant.

Your argument basically is this:

"What if 2 + 2 actually equals FIVE, and it's only SEEMED to equal 4 all these years because some invisible, undetectable force has been hiding the truth from us, and making all of our equations work even though our math was wrong!"

2 + 2 equals FOUR. Fact. Evolution occurs. Fact.
 
2012-11-10 07:43:12 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?


Because american foreign policy is farked up? Seriously (I can only guess as I was just a kid) but my thought would be that at the time we would have been unable to gather the political will to invade a country for internal issues. (unlike Bosnia/Libya etc. and all those in between.

and Most knowing what was implied is definitely not part of the issue. I also recognized what the question was attempting to imply, however the question directly stated now or ever before so implication goes out the window and fact becomes an issue.
 
2012-11-10 07:50:19 PM  

realmolo: 2 + 2 equals FOUR. Fact. Evolution occurs. Fact.


fashionablygeek.com
 
2012-11-10 07:51:26 PM  

yousaywut: Ivo Shandor: yousaywut: 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).

"Evolution" is a category. The facts are things like "mistakes sometimes occur when DNA is copied" or "the frequency of alleles within a gene pool can change from one generation to the next". Despite what you may think, you are denying evolution because you are still talking about obsolete and irrelevant notions such as "irreducible complexity" while the actual scientists have moved on to wondering (for example) whether paired or unpaired sections of ribosomal RNA change more quickly.

I was citing examples off the top of my head. It has been a while since I even looked at evolution for scientific accuracy. As it seems like the best we have for a theory I just assume someone is studying it and that they are either smarter than me or just more dedicated to this subject either way it's not my area of expertise. (Not that I have an area of expertise but I am better at some things than others).

/This entire discussion does not change the fact that the original question can be argued, therefore eliminating it from the answer this question as true or be denied the right to vote as the original poster declared.


The original question of "Does evolution exist" can not be argued from a scientific standpoint. You can argue it from a religious standpoint if you like, you can insert all sorts of weasel oppositions, but evolution itself is an observed fact. Not just observable, observed.

That's exactly the sort of thing TFA is talking about. Your pursuit of belief over fact is completely illogical.
 
2012-11-10 07:51:56 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: realmolo: 2 + 2 equals FOUR. Fact. Evolution occurs. Fact.

[fashionablygeek.com image 450x450]


Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.
 
2012-11-10 07:54:12 PM  

realmolo: yousaywut: namatad: Antifun: looks like we've already identified somebody too stupid to vote this year, awesome test namatad

ROFL
alas, this guy really made my point. Your beliefs and understanding of facts do not change reality.


yousaywut: (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

the universe is irrelevant. we have sufficient information (facts) here on earth to know, without any doubt whatsoever), that evolution happens. that is a FACT. we have a large number of ideas about exactly how it happens, over how long a period of time, and some of the myriad details involved.

but the year mutation of the annual flu and drug resistant aids and TB are pretty much all the proof needed that evolution happens.

/EVEN if god is causing the mutation, that doesnt change the fact that it is evolution.
/unless you dont understand genetic mutation and want to pretend that it doesnt exist ...

We do have enough facts to prove micro-evolution that much is true. But until a flu germ becomes ebola or a parasite macro-evolution has not been confirmed. (that I am aware of I don't actually keep up with biology sciences so I could be mistaken).

You should probably shut up before you dig yourself even deeper.

Your wrong. You're being willfully obtuse and ignorant.

Your argument basically is this:

"What if 2 + 2 actually equals FIVE, and it's only SEEMED to equal 4 all these years because some invisible, undetectable force has been hiding the truth from us, and making all of our equations work even though our math was wrong!"

2 + 2 equals FOUR. Fact. Evolution occurs. Fact.


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.

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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.
 
2012-11-10 07:55:09 PM  

SEAN PANNITIES

 
2012-11-10 07:55:47 PM  

yousaywut: hose in between.

and Most knowing what was implied is definitely not part of the issue. I also recognized what the question was attempting to imply, however the question directly stated now or ever before so implication goes out the window and fact becomes an issue.


Well, here's how I read it:

5) there were [at the time of the invasion] and are [currently] no weapons of mass destruction in iraq

If in your opinion, that sentence read, "there were never at any time in history and are currently no weapons of mass destruction in iraq," well, you're entitled to your own opinion, yadda yadda yadda.
 
2012-11-10 07:56:35 PM  

starsrift: yousaywut: Ivo Shandor: yousaywut: 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).

"Evolution" is a category. The facts are things like "mistakes sometimes occur when DNA is copied" or "the frequency of alleles within a gene pool can change from one generation to the next". Despite what you may think, you are denying evolution because you are still talking about obsolete and irrelevant notions such as "irreducible complexity" while the actual scientists have moved on to wondering (for example) whether paired or unpaired sections of ribosomal RNA change more quickly.

I was citing examples off the top of my head. It has been a while since I even looked at evolution for scientific accuracy. As it seems like the best we have for a theory I just assume someone is studying it and that they are either smarter than me or just more dedicated to this subject either way it's not my area of expertise. (Not that I have an area of expertise but I am better at some things than others).

/This entire discussion does not change the fact that the original question can be argued, therefore eliminating it from the answer this question as true or be denied the right to vote as the original poster declared.

The original question of "Does evolution exist" can not be argued from a scientific standpoint. You can argue it from a religious standpoint if you like, you can insert all sorts of weasel oppositions, but evolution itself is an observed fact. Not just observable, observed.

That's exactly the sort of thing TFA is talking about. Your pursuit of belief over fact is completely illogical.


Yeah I am kinda going down the rabbit hole on this one. and My use of micro vs macro evolution was not in the original question. So I will have to switch my answer to: True as written the statement is True.
 
2012-11-10 07:56:56 PM  

heap: namatad: They either knew that they were losing and were faking it to try and keep the numbers up and to get the vote out. Which is fine.

Or they were completely deluded. Which is batshiat-crazy.

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 512x304]


This isn't good for Megyn, either. She is clearly just a paid stooge and mouth piece for Fox News.
 
2012-11-10 08:01:46 PM  

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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.


You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?
 
2012-11-10 08:03:48 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.

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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.


If that's your standard of "fact", then nothing in science can ever be considered a fact. Ever. And honestly, after the "bird does not become a fish nor a dog" comment, you probably shouldn't argue about evolution anymore. I stay out of discussions of things like computer science because I don't understand the basics, but for some reason everyone thinks they're perfectly qualified to argue the validity of evolution.
 
2012-11-10 08:04:56 PM  

IoSaturnalia: 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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?


Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.
 
2012-11-10 08:07:15 PM  
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 that 47% who voted for Romney whether we want to admit it or not.
 
2012-11-10 08:07:23 PM  

IoSaturnalia:
You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?


I'll take you up on that bet. No vertebrate above amphibians has redeveloped gills, no matter how much time it spends in the water. Whales have already been (at least partially) aquatic for over 50 myr and don't have gills, and neither did any aquatic reptiles.
 
2012-11-10 08:08:22 PM  

Erix: 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.

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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

If that's your standard of "fact", then nothing in science can ever be considered a fact. Ever. And honestly, after the "bird does not become a fish nor a dog" comment, you probably shouldn't argue about evolution anymore. I stay out of discussions of things like computer science because I don't understand the basics, but for some reason everyone thinks they're perfectly qualified to argue the validity of evolution.


I understand the basics and was using (omg) hyperbolic examples to make a point. That standard of fact is actually used in science and math. It made for some really weird discussions during nuclear physics class.
 
2012-11-10 08:08:59 PM  

IoSaturnalia: If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?


Penguins will not develop gills. A species of penguin may possibly be the predecessor of some species which might go through a variety of genetic mutations which lead to a successful new species of animal which is aquatic and has gills.
 
2012-11-10 08:09:48 PM  
Iraq did have some old crap from before 1991, but it wouldn't have been useful as a weapon, and it's not clear the Iraqis even knew they had it. It appears from the inspection in 2003 that they really had dismantled their WMD program and destroyed all of the contents.

I believe most people who voted for Romney fit into one of these categories:

1. People rooting for 'the team'.
2. One issue voters on abortion, homosexuality, 'Christian Nation', immigration, or other issues.
3. Low-information voters.
4. Voting with their pocketbook "are you better off than you were four years ago".

I think that most people who voted for Obama would fit into the same four categories.

I think that very few people in this country are racist to the point of voting against Obama for that reason, but they are VERY loud, and they are encouraged by Fox News and Rush. I think that if Obama had been exactly the same except his dad had been an Afrikaaner, very few people on either side would have switched their vote.

But I do think the level of vitriol by the Stormfront types would be a lot lower.
 
2012-11-10 08:10:41 PM  

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.


Examples of Obama's egregious lying?
 
2012-11-10 08:11:38 PM  

yousaywut: IoSaturnalia: 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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

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


Once again, Natural Selection can never be proven, never be regarded as a fact. It's a 'theory'. It can only be confirmed.
 
2012-11-10 08:16:45 PM  

IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: IoSaturnalia: 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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

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

Once again, Natural Selection can never be proven, never be regarded as a fact. It's a 'theory'. It can only be confirmed.


Natural selection is a theory that explains how and why evolution happens. Evolution, however, is a fact, even if we want to debate the way it works.
 
2012-11-10 08:17:18 PM  

bugontherug: 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.

You don't think Obama's plot to shove gun control down our throats by personally handing automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords so they'll terrorize the public causing them to cry out for protection constitutes a scandal?


Nah, he's just working for the hispanic, gun-owner and pro marijuana demographics' votes.
 
2012-11-10 08:19:06 PM  

namatad: sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened


3 and 4 are good. #6 needs to be more specific, along the lines of "hijacked passenger airliners were flown into buildings on Sep 11, 2001". #5 is open to speculation, and it would be better to say "no weapons were found..." rather than saying that no such items existed. I would be inclined to drop those two and replace them with "T/F: A majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens".

I would get rid of your question #1 because it relies on documents of questioned authenticity, and there's no way for someone today to independently verify it. It's true, but it's a much weaker "fact" than something like the age of the universe which anyone can test with a few rocks and a Geiger counter. Also number 2 should be re-worded to something like "... identifies himself as a Christian".
 
2012-11-10 08:20:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.


What makes you think you're any smarter than the rest of the wad? If you possess any extraordinary intellectual qualities, you certainly haven't demonstrated them here today.
 
2012-11-10 08:23:00 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.

What makes you think you're any smarter than the rest of the wad? If you possess any extraordinary intellectual qualities, you certainly haven't demonstrated them here today.


I know who the VP is. That's a start. That would weed out many thousands of people...and on from there.
 
2012-11-10 08:25:02 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved

1: true
2: true
3: true
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)
5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

6: true



You're an idiot: TRUE.

4) Evolution is a FACT. The theory of evolution supports and explains the fact of evolution. Replace "evolution" with "gravity" and see how that works. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity supports and explains the fact of gravity. BTW, the theory of evolution is much more robust and fully detailed in its explanation of the fact of evolution than the current theory of gravity is in explaining the fact of gravity. Scientists still don't know what the mechanism is for objects to "tell each other their presence" so that gravity works. Are they gravitons? Warping of the space-time continuum? Vibrations of superstrings?

Evolution has a very clear and well detailed mechanism: the DNA.

5) That all depends on how one defines weapons of mass destruction. TNT itself isn't WMD, but several billion tons of it could be considered WMD. As of the time of the second Iraq war, there were no nuclear weapons, no chemical or biological weapons, not even a large store of TNT. So yeah, there were no WMD in Iraq at least at 2002 through to the present.
 
2012-11-10 08:28:12 PM  

IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: IoSaturnalia: 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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

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

Once again, Natural Selection can never be proven, never be regarded as a fact. It's a 'theory'. It can only be confirmed.


Arrrgh.

Evolution and Natural Selection are fact, and are easily proven. Not only have they been proven many times over, but you can set up experiments on your own to prove them. There's no question on this.

The Theory of Evolution is not the theory of IF evolution works. It's the theory of HOW evolution works.

The Theory of Evolution may be completely wrong. There's now evidence that if you take a pair of animals that do not have a superior genetic structure and have them live in a community of the same animals that have a superior "mutation", that the children of the pair may have the "mutation" as well. How is this possible? Lamarckian theory? Viruses causing the mutation? Viruses sharing the mutation? Something that happens via skin contact, or something else? It's too new to know. We could be completely wrong about the major factors in divergent evolution.

But it's still Evolution, and it's still Natural Selection. Like Gravity, it's a proven fact.

And if it someday turns out that fish and humans have a completely different evolutionary process, and their similarities are a complete coincidence...that stilll doesn't disprove Evolution. Evolution does not say that everything from humans to amoebas have a common ancestor.
 
2012-11-10 08:29:52 PM  
How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?
 
2012-11-10 08:30:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.

What makes you think you're any smarter than the rest of the wad? If you possess any extraordinary intellectual qualities, you certainly haven't demonstrated them here today.

I know who the VP is. That's a start. That would weed out many thousands of people...and on from there.


Mmmm..yeah, I think I'll just stick with the ol' Vox Populi. Most self appointed geniuses don't inspire any confidence in me.
They have a tendency to buy stuff from ACME Corp.
 
2012-11-10 08:31:42 PM  

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


Natural selection of inflammatory comments lead to a new thread species.
 
2012-11-10 08:32:00 PM  

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


Beats the shiat outta me.
 
2012-11-10 08:32:00 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved

1: true
2: true
3: true
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)
5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)
6: true

You're an idiot: TRUE.

4) Evolution is a FACT. The theory of evolution supports and explains the fact of evolution. Replace "evolution" with "gravity" and see how that works. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity supports and explains the fact of gravity. BTW, the theory of evolution is much more robust and fully detailed in its explanation of the fact of evolution than the current theory of gravity is in explaining the fact of gravity. Scientists still don't know what the mechanism is for objects to "tell each other their presence" so that gravity works. Are they gravitons? Warping of the space-time continuum? Vibrations of superstrings?

Evolution has a very clear and well detailed mechanism: the DNA.

5) That all depends on how one defines weapons of mass destruction. TNT itself isn't WMD, but several billion tons of it could be considered WMD. As of the time of the sec ...


You are a dumbass lazy farker (too lazy to actually read a thread before saying something stupid) without the brains god gave a goat. FACT.

Argument for number 4 over see previous posts.

The question for number 5 is has no dependance on the term WMD it depends on the timeline which as the question states is forever. not since 2003 or even since 1990 forever. The implication is there that the question is trying to refer to since the invasion but the fact is the question needs to be reworded.

//first fact is open to debate the other 2 have been discussed.
 
2012-11-10 08:32:41 PM  

IoSaturnalia: 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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?


Penguins will never develop gills. Penguins will either die off (most likely) and evolved versions of them will swim and live in the sea for more of their time than currently now. We have mammals who have gone back to the sea (dolphins, whales, otters) and none of them have gills. Penguins came from birds, which are evolved from dinosaurs. Maybe if you trace back another 100 million years, you would get ancestors that had gills.
 
2012-11-10 08:32:46 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Arrrgh.

Evolution and Natural Selection are fact, and are easily proven. Not only have they been proven many times over, but you can set up experiments on your own to prove them. There's no question on this.


Arrrgh. How's about you read a little Popper or otherwise educate yourself before making bold pronouncements like this?
 
2012-11-10 08:33:51 PM  

yousaywut: A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed.


Yes, and electricity is a myth because we can't see it. As is wind.

And space? Not real... well at least not to the extent they would have us believe. Likely a veil of some sort placed there by a creator that knew we would look outwards and be shocked if we saw heaven.

Gravity is the biggest lie of them all. All they know is that things do fall when we toss them up, nothing more.

It's all actually God magic and man should not presume so much into the world of the unknown. We know nothing beyond that which can be readily observed on my front porch by me and my dog Trigger. THAT IS PURE SCIENCE FACT. In fact there are only TWO facts humans know: water is wet and Freedom.

ffs

The entire bone structures and biology of large mammals in the sea are those of land animals that evolved into sea life. Horses were one doglike-badger-thingys, In fact, all land mammals came from those that survived the dino-die-off (small little rodent-like bastards) so in a way, yes, a dog did become a cow.

You walk around with at least a dozen vestigial traits your body has zero need for but nature has burdened you with none-the-less.

What do you think observing the fossil record is, if not witnessing history? As so many different species' DNA is mapped and cataloged we are starting to be able to show a type of 'genetic evolutionary paper trail'. We have found our species mitochondrial Eve, we HAVE PROVEN these things to be true.

I'm all for calling a scientist out on his shiat when he makes unqualified claims. But there is a far cry between that and decrying science itself because you personally (in all your wisdom and glory) just feel they haven't proven things well enough to your Joe-Everyman-Logic standards.

Are there any other sciences you'd like to deny the validity of because you didn't happen to see them occur real-time in front of your face?
 
2012-11-10 08:34:29 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.

What makes you think you're any smarter than the rest of the wad? If you possess any extraordinary intellectual qualities, you certainly haven't demonstrated them here today.

I know who the VP is. That's a start. That would weed out many thousands of people...and on from there.

Mmmm..yeah, I think I'll just stick with the ol' Vox Populi. Most self appointed geniuses don't inspire any confidence in me.
They have a tendency to buy stuff from ACME Corp.


You categorize people who know who the VP is as geniuses. Interesting.

You're currently Farkied as "Potato", but I'm going to have to add "Easily mesmerized" to that.
 
2012-11-10 08:35:05 PM  

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

Beats the shiat outta me.


Seems to be a trend...
 
2012-11-10 08:35:38 PM  

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


*troll grin*

I guess that would be my bad:)

//Just trying to show that not all facts are facts depending on the perception of the viewer. Question 5 of Namadad's you can't vote hypothetical.

/wasn't intentionally a troll just came out that way eventually.
 
2012-11-10 08:36:16 PM  
derp

yousaywut: I am not being willfully obtuse I am arguing that a theory is not a fact if it cannot be proven.


YES, you are.
I did not say the "theory of evolution" was a FACT.
I said that evolution was a fact. They are completely different things, but you went with what you thought you read, rather that what was actually written.

Evolution is a fact. It happens everyday. The theory explaining evolution is a mutable THING, which continues to grow and be improved upon as human knowledge expands.
The likelihood that the current understanding of evolution is completely WRONG is close to zero, if not vanishingly small. I would give you huge odds that it will be improved, but not overturned or explained in a completely different theory.

Unlike, say, the big bang theory, which who the fark knows what theory might replace that.

But go ahead, keep being a pedant if that is what you want to talk about.
 
2012-11-10 08:36:52 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Horses were one doglike-badger-thingys


Millions of years, still not giving a fark.

www.badassoftheweek.com
 
2012-11-10 08:37:08 PM  

dericwater: 4) Evolution is a FACT. The theory of evolution supports and explains the fact of evolution. Replace "evolution" with "gravity" and see how that works. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity supports and explains the fact of gravity. BTW, the theory of evolution is much more robust and fully detailed in its explanation of the fact of evolution than the current theory of gravity is in explaining the fact of gravity. Scientists still don't know what the mechanism is for objects to "tell each other their presence" so that gravity works. Are they gravitons? Warping of the space-time continuum? Vibrations of superstrings?


oooooooooooooooooo thanks
I like the gravity analogy. YANK - stolen
 
2012-11-10 08:38:31 PM  

MurphyMurphy: yousaywut: A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed.

Yes, and electricity is a myth because we can't see it. As is wind.

And space? Not real... well at least not to the extent they would have us believe. Likely a veil of some sort placed there by a creator that knew we would look outwards and be shocked if we saw heaven.

Gravity is the biggest lie of them all. All they know is that things do fall when we toss them up, nothing more.

It's all actually God magic and man should not presume so much into the world of the unknown. We know nothing beyond that which can be readily observed on my front porch by me and my dog Trigger. THAT IS PURE SCIENCE FACT. In fact there are only TWO facts humans know: water is wet and Freedom.

ffs

The entire bone structures and biology of large mammals in the sea are those of land animals that evolved into sea life. Horses were one doglike-badger-thingys, In fact, all land mammals came from those that survived the dino-die-off (small little rodent-like bastards) so in a way, yes, a dog did become a cow.

You walk around with at least a dozen vestigial traits your body has zero need for but nature has burdened you with none-the-less.

What do you think observing the fossil record is, if not witnessing history? As so many different species' DNA is mapped and cataloged we are starting to be able to show a type of 'genetic evolutionary paper trail'. We have found our species mitochondrial Eve, we HAVE PROVEN these things to be true.

I'm all for calling a scientist out on his shiat when he makes unqualified claims. But there is a far cry between that and decrying science itself because you personally (in all your wisdom and glory) just feel they haven't proven things well enough to your Joe-Everyman-Logic standards.

Are there any other sciences you'd like to deny the validity of because you didn't happen to see them occur real-time in front of your fa ...


Nope I'm good:)
 
2012-11-10 08:40:13 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 08:41:06 PM  

namatad: derpyousaywut: I am not being willfully obtuse I am arguing that a theory is not a fact if it cannot be proven.

YES, you are.
I did not say the "theory of evolution" was a FACT.
I said that evolution was a fact. They are completely different things, but you went with what you thought you read, rather that what was actually written.

Evolution is a fact. It happens everyday. The theory explaining evolution is a mutable THING, which continues to grow and be improved upon as human knowledge expands.
The likelihood that the current understanding of evolution is completely WRONG is close to zero, if not vanishingly small. I would give you huge odds that it will be improved, but not overturned or explained in a completely different theory.

Unlike, say, the big bang theory, which who the fark knows what theory might replace that.

But go ahead, keep being a pedant if that is what you want to talk about.


Again nope I'm good. I have already changed the answer to True as written so there is that.

Still think you need to reword the WMD question but that's just my opinion man.
 
2012-11-10 08:41:40 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 08:41:47 PM  

yousaywut: A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed


Yeah!! and I didn't come outta no monkey's butt!
 
2012-11-10 08:42:07 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-10 08:43:57 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 08:45:33 PM  

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.


I don't think there's a bowl big enough to hold all the dicks you deserve to choke on.
 
2012-11-10 08:45:59 PM  

Harry_Seldon: MurphyMurphy: Horses were one doglike-badger-thingys

Millions of years, still not giving a fark.

[www.badassoftheweek.com image 408x304]


The badger maims, but he does not kill.
 
2012-11-10 08:46:28 PM  

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


Welcome to Fark, where we can turn the most mundane conversations into the biggest political flame war.
 
2012-11-10 08:48:12 PM  

dericwater: Because many of the sane republicans voted for Obama. Only the die-hard nutbags voted for Romney.


Ayup. Republican here who hasn't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since 1988.
 
2012-11-10 08:48:37 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.


Stop it! You're being an ignorant ass pretending you know anything about science.

Evolution is a FACT. It exists. People try to explain why (as opposed to closing their eyes and ignoring all the signs of evolution). People see evolution have occurred and is occurring. They need to provide a mechanism to explain why it happens. Why do they? Because the initial thought would be stasis: that is, nothing changes. That would be the default assumption. If you leave a rock on the ground, it just doesn't move around by itself. That's what people would assume with biological entities. Man begets man, dogs beget dogs. No change. But, we look at the biome over long course of time (and in some instances, not that long), and note that there are indeed changes. Those changes are the FACTS. Those changes are the smoking gun indicating that there is no stasis.

To explain it, there were a number of hypotheses. Please note that ALL these competing hypotheses are attempts to EXPLAIN THE FACT OF EVOLUTION. The only one that doesn't is Creationism, which denies the fact of evolution and assumes a static biological world, one that has never changed.

If there were a dead person with a bullet hole in the head, a smoking gun nearby, competing theories might be: 1) a stranger was the killer, 2) a known acquaintance as the killer, or 3) suicide. The analogy to creationism would suggest that a large boulder rolled over an alligator. Creationism doesn't even acknowledge the facts that everyone else sees. In the analogy with evolution, some theories include, of course, natural selection, Lamarckism, Lysenkoism, and several others. Natural selection, of course, is the one theory that has stood the test of time, and more current research with regards to DNA and such have only bolstered NS. All other failed theories, nonetheless, were proposed to try to EXPLAIN THE FACT OF EVOLUTION. None of them tried to deny that fact.
 
2012-11-10 08:49:00 PM  

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

Beats the shiat outta me.


perfect example of a large segment of the population that just insists on denying fact because they've been convinced to do so.

They construct a doubt beyond any reasonable scientific standard and then re-brand the science as belief,
therefore making ACTUAL FACTS equal or lesser to their own unsubstantiated beliefs.

Once your beliefs are equal to someone elses facts, all you have to do is get people to believe.
No thinking required. No science, no proof or evidence.

"You think we need to pay for our debts with revenue?
HA! If we just cut all revenue I believe revenue will just come pouring in."

And we get that and more:

"Obama didn't really win.
There is no mandate.
We need to double down and go further to the right.
Socialism is destroying the nation,
Obama is ruining America, he spent 16 trillion dollars,
we need to cut taxes, strip all social spending and bring God back into everything if we want to restore our nation to prosperity."

Evolution is just one of many trees in their forest of lies we need to cut down before the people blindly wandering can see the landscape for what it is.
 
2012-11-10 08:50:15 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 08:51:40 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 08:52:34 PM  

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

Welcome to Fark, where we can turn the most mundane conversations into the biggest political flame war.


But Bevets isn't even here.
 
2012-11-10 08:52:54 PM  

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

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved


1)To the extent of my knowledge, true. I've seen nothing to prove otherwise.
2)Don't really know what his religious affiliation is, publically or personally, so C) I do not know.
3)True
4)True
5)This one I have a point of contention with, as it is fact that Saddam used mustard gas in a genocidal attack on the Kurds in 1988. I was under the understanding that chemical attacks utilizing mustard gas, VX, cyanide compunds, etc. were considered weapons of mass destruction. So were there? Yes. Are there? There has been no evidence of that uncovered since the deposing of Saddam. A true or false is not applicable here as written.
6)True. 9/11 happened. Sort of troll bait, that one.
 
2012-11-10 08:53:51 PM  

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!
 
2012-11-10 08:54:15 PM  

dericwater: 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.

Stop it! You're being an ignorant ass pretending you know anything about science.

Evolution is a FACT. It exists. People try to explain why (as opposed to closing their eyes and ignoring all the signs of evolution). People see evolution have occurred and is occurring. They need to provide a mechanism to explain why it happens. Why do they? Because the initial thought would be stasis: that is, nothing changes. That would be the default assumption. If you leave a rock on the ground, it just doesn't move around by itself. That's what people would assume with biological entities. Man begets man, dogs beget dogs. No change. But, we look at the biome over long course of time (and in some instances, not that long), and note that there are indeed changes. ...


Another douche heard from.

/Facts have been presented and my answer based on the original question has been altered to read True evolution exists.

//Your argument is stale and regurgitated.
 
2012-11-10 08:56:55 PM  

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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.


Don't make me hit you with this Archaeopteryx fossil. Wings like a bird. Teeth like a dinosaur. Consider your thoughts changed.
 
2012-11-10 08:59:13 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 08:59:52 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 09:01:39 PM  

PanicMan: 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. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

Don't make me hit you with this Archaeopteryx fossil. Wings like a bird. Teeth like a dinosaur. Consider your thoughts changed.


LOL. The head pictures of such an action made me laugh.

AKA imagine that.

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.
 
2012-11-10 09:01:44 PM  
Hey, I had a woman on Facebook tell me that the only way to curb abortion is by banning them completely, that access and knowledge about birth control is plenty widespread, that birth control doesn't work and the number-one reason women abort is because of birth control failure (???). She also insisted that the only "comprehensive sex education" that works is teaching abstinence. Then she told me how sorry she felt for me that I didn't understand any of these things.

So, you know. People will just fervently believe what they want to believe, no matter how many numbers you can produce, no matter how many doctors and scientists put forth objective facts, no matter how many studies or cases you can reference. It simply doesn't matter. People will just tell themselves they're right, the polls are skewed, the numbers are wrong, the studies are biased, the researchers have ulterior motives, and so they continue telling themselves they're right and everyone else is mistaken.
 
2012-11-10 09:02:32 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-10 09:03:34 PM  

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.)
 
2012-11-10 09:04:32 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.


I knew about the Liger which is one helluva awesome creature. 600lbs of meat eating 60mph running terror. Some of the others I had heard of but haven't studied. Really biology is not my area of study.
 
2012-11-10 09:04:44 PM  

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.
 
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-cellula