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

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-11 12:13:20 AM

violetvolume: 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.


1. I don't know how to say this nicely, so here goes: Your friend is really, really stupid. Keep her away from children all living creatures and all sharp, semi-sharp, and non-plush objects.
2. I totally stole that pumpkin-chocolate-oatmeal bar recipe. Thanks.
 
2012-11-11 12:15:46 AM
In the end, we all get the governments (and of course the candidates) that we deserve...ultimately, we (the politicians and the constituents) fail to come to meaningful discourse about the real issues. Instead of working to find meaningful common ground, we take the polar opposite viewpoints because we want to be "right" more than we want to cooperate.

For example, I would like to see candidates that expressed the following:
1. It's a good thing to want to provide more social services to people, a more civilized nation would do this sort of thing
2. It's also a good thing to want and encourage people to be more self-sustaining than they currently are
3. While there are exceptions, people are inherently good and would be willing to (1) give more to others while the others (2) work harder to do more for themselves, if we put our heads together and come up with cooperative solutions.

But again, we would all need to be far more mature and less focused on being "right" to see this happen...
 
2012-11-11 12:24:24 AM

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

I love you to death. This gives me an eldritch boner.


Google "RomneyDeathRally" for more. I honestly think it's the greatest thing Twitter has ever been used for.
 
2012-11-11 12:24:52 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: violetvolume: 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.

1. I don't know how to say this nicely, so here goes: Your friend is really, really stupid. Keep her away from children all living creatures and all sharp, semi-sharp, and non-plush objects.
2. I totally stole that pumpkin-chocolate-oatmeal bar recipe. Thanks.


Wasn't my friend, fortunately-- just some mouth-breather who emerged on a friend's status. As for the bars-- they are tasty, enjoy.
 
2012-11-11 12:26:04 AM

tzarro: In the end, we all get the governments (and of course the candidates) that we deserve...ultimately, we (the politicians and the constituents) fail to come to meaningful discourse about the real issues. Instead of working to find meaningful common ground, we take the polar opposite viewpoints because we want to be "right" more than we want to cooperate.

For example, I would like to see candidates that expressed the following:
1. It's a good thing to want to provide more social services to people, a more civilized nation would do this sort of thing
2. It's also a good thing to want and encourage people to be more self-sustaining than they currently are
3. While there are exceptions, people are inherently good and would be willing to (1) give more to others while the others (2) work harder to do more for themselves, if we put our heads together and come up with cooperative solutions.

But again, we would all need to be far more mature and less focused on being "right" to see this happen...


Its the Tragedy of the Commons, and are level of education and reasoning skills is the tragedys.
 
2012-11-11 12:35:39 AM

Blue_Blazer: tzarro: In the end, we all get the governments (and of course the candidates) that we deserve...ultimately, we (the politicians and the constituents) fail to come to meaningful discourse about the real issues. Instead of working to find meaningful common ground, we take the polar opposite viewpoints because we want to be "right" more than we want to cooperate.

For example, I would like to see candidates that expressed the following:
1. It's a good thing to want to provide more social services to people, a more civilized nation would do this sort of thing
2. It's also a good thing to want and encourage people to be more self-sustaining than they currently are
3. While there are exceptions, people are inherently good and would be willing to (1) give more to others while the others (2) work harder to do more for themselves, if we put our heads together and come up with cooperative solutions.

But again, we would all need to be far more mature and less focused on being "right" to see this happen...

Its the Tragedy of the Commons, and are level of education and reasoning skills is the tragedys.


What you did there? I see it.
 
2012-11-11 12:43:46 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Blue_Blazer: tzarro: In the end, we all get the governments (and of course the candidates) that we deserve...ultimately, we (the politicians and the constituents) fail to come to meaningful discourse about the real issues. Instead of working to find meaningful common ground, we take the polar opposite viewpoints because we want to be "right" more than we want to cooperate.

For example, I would like to see candidates that expressed the following:
1. It's a good thing to want to provide more social services to people, a more civilized nation would do this sort of thing
2. It's also a good thing to want and encourage people to be more self-sustaining than they currently are
3. While there are exceptions, people are inherently good and would be willing to (1) give more to others while the others (2) work harder to do more for themselves, if we put our heads together and come up with cooperative solutions.

But again, we would all need to be far more mature and less focused on being "right" to see this happen...

Its the Tragedy of the Commons, and are level of education and reasoning skills is the tragedys.

What you did there? I see it.


You passed the test. Proving that we can in fact overcome the Tragedy of the Commons. If we could actually, maybe, possibly, just give a fark about other people. Just try it. See how it goes. You will still have the nicest car in the neighborhood and get to laugh at poors, but you won't have to watch them die when modern medicine could treat them.
 
2012-11-11 12:48:48 AM

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.


They just found a new dinosaur that has plummage not used for flight. They suspect that it is for mating.

Link

Pretty good evidence for evolution.
 
2012-11-11 12:58:09 AM
When have conservatives ever expressed any interest in facts or reality? If they did, they would have to question their religion and every one of their political representatives. Math, after all, was invented by a Muslim and science was invented by a bunch of Jews.
 
2012-11-11 01:06:06 AM

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.


Another couple of facts.

1) On 9/11, Cheney told Clark, bring me evidence that it was Saddam who did this.
2) A quarter million troops with carte blanche found zero, repeat, zero WMDs.

Iraq was a giant hideous crime.
 
2012-11-11 01:21:24 AM

Kibbler: 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.

Another couple of facts.

1) On 9/11, Cheney told Clark, bring me evidence that it was Saddam who did this.
2) A quarter million troops with carte blanche found zero, repeat, zero WMDs.

Iraq was a giant hideous crime.


5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq

There were WMD's in Iraq. Hell we sold them some of them. There were none at the beginning of the second invasion is a different and seperate statement. Onw with which I happen to agree.

Cheney is an evil man.
 
2012-11-11 02:06:41 AM
Well, this thread went a bit weird. But then I don't think you can factually refute the article.
 
2012-11-11 02:37:39 AM

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's not what evolution is. That is a mis-characterized strawman of evolution invented by people who don't understand evolution. The fact that you just said this displays a profound level of ignorance regarding evolutionary theory. It's almost troll-like... but I'll bite anyway.

Evolution isn't about animals changing into other animals. It is about changes in allele frequency over succeeding generations. That's it. A bird will NEVER become a fish or dog or a cow or anything existing. Evolution does not work that way. It only moves down, not laterally, so anything existing today cannot and will not evolve into anything else existing today. A bird can only evolve into something descended from a bird. Same as a dog, cow, etc... evolution can only build upon what already exists, and it hates wastes of energy (it will always prefer to retool an existing part for a new use rather than evolve a new part entirely). The range of diversity is explained by common descent.

If you still don't understand, maybe this will help:
www.ishkur.com


Moreover, there is no such thing as "macro evolution". It's all micro. Macro is simply micro plus time.
 
2012-11-11 02:45:54 AM

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

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

I was buying this view as well. Can the general populace not understand "taking one for the team" anymore?


Rove didn't lose it. Check the Fox footage. She talks about how "when we did this in rehearsal, the sound cut out here".

If it's rehearsed, then he did not "lose it". It was theatrics.
 
2012-11-11 02:55:19 AM

Ishkur: 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's not what evolution is. That is a mis-characterized strawman of evolution invented by people who don't understand evolution. The fact that you just said this displays a profound level of ignorance regarding evolutionary theory. It's almost troll-like... but I'll bite anyway.

Evolution isn't about animals changing into other animals. It is about changes in allele frequency over succeeding generations. That's it. A bird will NEVER become a fish or dog or a cow or anything existing. Evolution does not work that way. It only moves down, not laterally, so anything existing today cannot and will not evolve into anything else existing today. A bird can only evolve into something descended from a bird. Same as a dog, cow, etc... evolution can only build upon what already exists, and it hates wastes of energy (it will always prefer to retool an existing part for a new use rather than evolve a new part entirely). The range of diversity is explained by common descent.

If you still don't understand, maybe this will help:
[www.ishkur.com image 533x640]


Moreover, there is no such thing as "macro evolution". It's all micro. Macro is simply micro plus time.


Another from the near side of I don't bother reading. As someone has already pointed me to a valuable and missed bit of evelotionary study earlier in this thread Your insulting arrogant post is neither necessary nor particularly inciteful. So please feel free to piss up a rope as I am tired of repeating myself.
 
2012-11-11 02:58:14 AM

yousaywut: Another from the near side of I don't bother reading. As someone has already pointed me to a valuable and missed bit of evelotionary study earlier in this thread Your insulting arrogant post is neither necessary nor particularly inciteful. So please feel free to piss up a rope as I am tired of repeating myself.


You sound incited.
 
2012-11-11 03:03:45 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: yousaywut: Another from the near side of I don't bother reading. As someone has already pointed me to a valuable and missed bit of evelotionary study earlier in this thread Your insulting arrogant post is neither necessary nor particularly inciteful. So please feel free to piss up a rope as I am tired of repeating myself.

You sound incited.


yay for incite....or something.
 
2012-11-11 03:11:12 AM

IoSaturnalia: 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.


In support of Io:

That evolution occurs is a fact. We know, absolutely, observably, that species change over time. So sorry, but evolution is a fact.

The theory of evolution isn't a theory about *if* evolution happens. It does. It is a theory about *how* it happens. An astonishingly well evidenced theory, as close to being declared true as scientists ever get, but yes, the process is still not declared as a fact.

That it happens, though? Fact.

Just like Gravity is a fact. We know, undeniably, that things dropped on earth fall towards the ground. This is an undeniable fact. We do not know exactly why this happens, and so we have a The theory of Gravity, which attempts to explain it. But again, the theory isn't about *does it happen* but about *how* it happens.

Gravity, and Evolution, undeniable facts both. They happen. We can see them happening. You have to be deliberately ignoring the truth to deny that they happen.

How they happen? Well, that's "just a theory."
 
2012-11-11 03:16:43 AM

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.


Yes, we will call you when fish become cows. Until then, shut your stupid face when adults are talking. You're too useless and stupid to express your opinion among anyone but small children and idiots.
 
2012-11-11 03:27:24 AM

The Larch: Yes, we will call you when fish become cows. Until then, shut your stupid face when adults are talking. You're too useless and stupid to express your opinion among anyone but small children and idiots.


img194.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-11 03:29:12 AM

The Larch: /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.


I have come to the conclusion that human minds have difficulty comprehending large numbers, and long time frames.

It is really difficult to comprehend time over millions and billions of year, and don't even make me think in light years. I accept these concepts because there is a rigorous theoretical and empirical framework, but I have no real "feel" for the concepts beyond their mathematical rigor.

I can understand why some people find evolution such a difficult concept.
 
2012-11-11 03:29:47 AM

yousaywut: As someone has already pointed me to a valuable and missed bit of evelotionary study earlier in this thread Your insulting arrogant post is neither necessary nor particularly inciteful. So please feel free to piss up a rope as I am tired of repeating myself.


Howabout you stop being ignorant and stupid first.

If you say something repulsively dumb about a topic you know barely anything about and someone tells you you're wrong, why do you insist that your ignorant opinion is worth anything without bothering to check its validity?

I always find it astounding how we have the greatest depository of human knowledge and accumulated wisdom at our fingertips and people still insist on clinging to their uninformed opinions irrespective of actual reality, as if that settles all bar bets.

There are thousands of scientific papers published every day (and have been so for the past 150 years) verifying evolutionary principles and yet you want to cling to junk pseudo-science like "irreducible complexity" and claim evolution is unproven because birds can't become fish?

What the fark is wrong with you?
 
2012-11-11 03:38:34 AM

Harry_Seldon: I have come to the conclusion that human minds have difficulty comprehending large numbers, and long time frames.


It's because humans can only comprehend numbers and measurements when they use themselves as the standard of comparison. That's why the imperial system of units and measurements feels more appropriate than the metric system: It is based on real quantitative values that humans can relate to. An inch is your finger, from the third knuckle to the edge of the tip. A foot is your foot. A yard is a good step. A cup is how much water you can hold in both hands.

However wildly inaccurate these units may be from person to person, they still represent real, easily understandable measurements that make sense to people. You can use your own body to ballpark most of them for everyday tasks. Meanwhile, a metre is defined as: The distance traveled by light in a complete vacuum in 3.33564095 × 10-9 seconds. So, with your arms outstretched, how long is that exactly?

The metric system is a fine system because of uniformity. Its standards are based on the laws of physics. It's perfect for science and international discourse, but not really useful in common humanspeak where its stark accuracy is just too excessive and its hardcore number crunching too abstract and detached from human experience.

And here is where we come to the problem of describing things like evolution or the Universe: There is no human measurement statistically resonant enough to describe how ridiculously empty and vast space is, or how depressingly long a billion years takes (which is the current estimate that it took for the first protein to become the first proto-cell).

Life was microscopic and mono-cellular for most of life's existence. Sexuality, animals, intelligence..... that's all a recent phenomenon.
 
2012-11-11 03:49:20 AM

The Larch: 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.

Yes, we will call you when fish become cows. Until then, shut your stupid face when adults are talking. You're too useless and stupid to express your opinion among anyone but small children and idiots.


You are about as retarded as a person can get. Your opinion is of less value than a fart in the wind. If you are an example of what a grown up is then I will keep my childlike curiosity and you can keep you arseholish nature out of my business. Your response to one paragragh of a long discussion is about as helpful as tits on a bull.

/ I have listened to the reasoned response of individuals who have pointed out the errors in my opinion through facts and such while people such as your retarded self hop on in halfway through the story and drop some insult meant to prevent me from continueing my discussion with said people and adding exactly nothing to life.

/YAY for anonymous insults. farking juvinile.
 
2012-11-11 03:52:25 AM

Ishkur: yousaywut: As someone has already pointed me to a valuable and missed bit of evelotionary study earlier in this thread Your insulting arrogant post is neither necessary nor particularly inciteful. So please feel free to piss up a rope as I am tired of repeating myself.

Howabout you stop being ignorant and stupid first.

If you say something repulsively dumb about a topic you know barely anything about and someone tells you you're wrong, why do you insist that your ignorant opinion is worth anything without bothering to check its validity?

I always find it astounding how we have the greatest depository of human knowledge and accumulated wisdom at our fingertips and people still insist on clinging to their uninformed opinions irrespective of actual reality, as if that settles all bar bets.

There are thousands of scientific papers published every day (and have been so for the past 150 years) verifying evolutionary principles and yet you want to cling to junk pseudo-science like "irreducible complexity" and claim evolution is unproven because birds can't become fish?

What the fark is wrong with you?


How about you stop being an asshat and read the thread. I cannot help your laziness and will not bow to your asshattery. read back maybe a page might even be 2 so could take you a long time but you will get the entirety of the discussion. When you return I will even accept your apology for being a dipshiat.
 
2012-11-11 03:59:12 AM

starsrift: Rove didn't lose it. Check the Fox footage. She talks about how "when we did this in rehearsal, the sound cut out here".

If it's rehearsed, then he did not "lose it". It was theatrics.


As I understand it, a couple hours before all this stuff with Rove and the lady, the guy at the desk had also walked with a camera back to show viewers the computer room. I think they had rehearsed for that earlier still, and that's what she was referring to.
 
2012-11-11 04:25:14 AM

yousaywut: How about you stop being an asshat and read the thread.


I did. You said something uproariously stupid, and when several people called you out on it, you stood stubborn to your ignorance (almost as a badge of pride) and proceeded to berate and insult them and challenge them on those fronts. And then the thread evolved (heh) into other topics that I wasn't interested in. I just wanted to address the evolution part -- especially the part about your misunderstanding of micro/macro-evolution. abb3w had already posted a full assertion discrediting your misuse of the term but his explanations of things tend to be a bit cerebral (especially to the appallingly uneducated like yourself) so I thought I would have a go at clarifying your confusion in a neat and succinct manner.

Evidently there's no educating the willfully obtuse.

g'night.
 
2012-11-11 04:27:32 AM

Silly Jesus: 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.


What if rather than shooting them, we just had them non-legitimately raped?
 
2012-11-11 04:35:49 AM

Ishkur: yousaywut: How about you stop being an asshat and read the thread.

I did. You said something uproariously stupid, and when several people called you out on it, you stood stubborn to your ignorance (almost as a badge of pride) and proceeded to berate and insult them and challenge them on those fronts. And then the thread evolved (heh) into other topics that I wasn't interested in. I just wanted to address the evolution part -- especially the part about your misunderstanding of micro/macro-evolution. abb3w had already posted a full assertion discrediting your misuse of the term but his explanations of things tend to be a bit cerebral (especially to the appallingly uneducated like yourself) so I thought I would have a go at clarifying your confusion in a neat and succinct manner.

Evidently there's no educating the willfully obtuse.

g'night.


Sleep well. ANd FYI I actually went off and read the link and checked my ego at the door long enough to actually admit my error and all of that. The fact that you could not be bothered to read the whole page and see that your dickbag activity was unnecessary and counterproductive is neither due to me nor my evolving knowledge base.

//farktard gonna be farktarded.

really just apologize for your misplaced attitude and we will call it good.
 
2012-11-11 04:43:08 AM

The President of Hittin' That Ass: starsrift: Rove didn't lose it. Check the Fox footage. She talks about how "when we did this in rehearsal, the sound cut out here".

If it's rehearsed, then he did not "lose it". It was theatrics.

As I understand it, a couple hours before all this stuff with Rove and the lady, the guy at the desk had also walked with a camera back to show viewers the computer room. I think they had rehearsed for that earlier still, and that's what she was referring to.


Ah, hmmm. Well then...
 
2012-11-11 05:11:00 AM

Ishkur: However wildly inaccurate these units may be from person to person, they still represent real, easily understandable measurements that make sense to people. You can use your own body to ballpark most of them for everyday tasks. Meanwhile, a metre is defined as: The distance traveled by light in a complete vacuum in 3.33564095 × 10-9 seconds. So, with your arms outstretched, how long is that exactly?


About a yard. Just slightly over.

Also, you give only the strict scientific definition of the metre with no approximations, and the APPROXIMATIONS of Imperial measures, but not their DEFINITIONS. One of the earliest definitions of the inch was "3 grains of barley dry and round" - so, how big is 36 grains of barley? How about 108? These days, they're defined by the metric system, which means distances are defined by the speed of light as well - how useful is that?

People can ballpark in whatever system they're used to. Thinking the one you're used to makes more common sense than any other is basically ethnocentrism.
 
2012-11-11 06:23:31 AM
yousaywut:

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).

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 ... 


For someone who denies being a Creationist you sure use a lot of their arguments.
 
2012-11-11 06:30:09 AM

jso2897: 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, th ...


Use the U.S. Naturalization test. What would your argument be against that?
 
2012-11-11 06:31:34 AM

HighOnCraic: 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!"


Just use the current U.S. Naturalization test. TADA! No "OMG B-B-B-B BUT JIM CROW" arguments with that one, right?
 
2012-11-11 06:34:01 AM

oldweevil: Silly Jesus: 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.

What if rather than shooting them, we just had them non-legitimately raped?


Sterilization would be good enough.
 
2012-11-11 06:51:42 AM

Silly Jesus: 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 famil


Then get to educating, or move.

/could go either way
 
2012-11-11 06:56:39 AM

Silly Jesus: jso2897: 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 - histori ...


That those who administered it at the local level could, and, if history is any indication, would abuse it.
This is all American History 101 - including the court decisions that ended this kind of thing, and the reasonings and facts behind them. It isn't rocket surgery.
Jim Crow is dead, and I'm pretty certain that the current efforts to breath life into that corpse will fail. The signs all point to "no".
 
2012-11-11 07:04:24 AM

Rueened: yousaywut:

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).

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 ... 

For someone who denies being a Creationist you sure use a lot of their arguments.


That is probably true(er) than you know. I went to a Christian school and started my Biology class there. It slows the knowledge gathering and hampers certain arguments which is why I normally don't go to far down this arguments path. (Intellectually I know it's mostly wrong but my upbringing keeps throwing facts around my head that are just like opinions)

This entire discussion was based on my attempt to show that some Facts are opinions (from a we should have these questions post). It was one of two where arguments can be made I just don't have the knowledge to go too far with this subject. Which I acknowledged some few hundred posts ago.
 
2012-11-11 07:07:48 AM

Silly Jesus: Just use the current U.S. Naturalization test. TADA! No "OMG B-B-B-B BUT JIM CROW" arguments with that one, right?


So, your guy lost and now it's about intelligence tests because obviously there are too many stupid people voting? LOL.
 
2012-11-11 07:25:41 AM

yousaywut: Rueened: yousaywut:

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).

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 ... 

For someone who denies being a Creationist you sure use a lot of their arguments.

That is probably true(er) than you know. I went to a Christian school and started my Biology class there. It slows the knowledge gathering and hampers certain arguments which is why I normally don't go to far down this arguments path. (Intellectually I know it's mostly wrong but my upbringing keeps throwing facts around my head that are just like opinions)

This entire discussion was based on my attempt to show that some Facts are opinions (from a we should have these questions post). It was one of two where arguments can be made I just don't have the knowledge to go too far with this subject. Which I acknowledged some few hundred posts ago.


Have you visited talkorigins.org? There's a lot of useful stuff there. Knowledge is good.
 
2012-11-11 07:41:20 AM

Rueened: talkorigins.org


no but thanks for the link I will chaeck it out.
 
2012-11-11 10:58:09 AM

Silly Jesus: 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.


This is a forum, you don't get to pick who you talk to.
 
2012-11-11 11:07:11 AM

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]


If she wasn't such a hot blond she surely would be fired for that. Maybe she will be soon.
 
2012-11-11 11:44:09 AM

DemonEater: Also, you give only the strict scientific definition of the metre with no approximations, and the APPROXIMATIONS of Imperial measures, but not their DEFINITIONS


That's because the metric system is scientific, based on physical laws and properties of the Universe (in order to be exact, it must be the same everywhere), and the Imperial system is practical, based on the physical limitations and extensions of man. It's supposed to be humancentric.

Imperial didn't really need to be exact until the Industrial Revolution and the advent of machine tools. By then, all the parts and rivets/nuts/bolts/washers/screws and things needed to fit, so standards were established to enforce compliance and universality. That's why engineering still uses Imperial measurements today.

DemonEater: People can ballpark in whatever system they're used to. Thinking the one you're used to makes more common sense than any other is basically ethnocentrism.


I'm Canadian. I grew up using both and flip back and forth all the time, so I don't really have a preference for one over the other except when talking about human quantities. For instance, human height and weight (and cooking) is easier to use Imperial because the quantities are more manageable ie: 6 feet is preferable to 180cm. But for anything non human, especially in scientific data, metric is preferable.

/I will motherfarking kill anyone who "doubles it and adds 30". It's (x * 9) / 5 + 32. How hard is that, seriously?
 
2012-11-11 12:36:25 PM

yousaywut: This entire discussion was based on my attempt to show that some Facts are opinions (from a we should have these questions post).


Well there's your problem: You weren't posting any facts as opinions (they were outright fallacies), and you were asking questions that were settled decades ago. None of what you postulated is a problem to evolutionary theory or science. Those debates were resolved. Everyone's moved on.

But this is par for the course, so its not your fault. Science is moving very VERY fast these days (just as fast as anything else technological) and half the time it forgets to properly inform the public about what it's currently doing while the other half forgets to do crucial things like upgrade high school reading material. Even textbooks that are 20 years old are considered obsolete and deprecated compared to the latest scientific breakthroughs. There is an awful lot of ignorance out there about what evolution actually is, and this is mostly due to inadequate communication and education. If more steps are taken to explain the full process in a more thorough manner to the American people, there wouldn't be so much idiocy.

It's a typical tactic of Creationists to try and disprove evolutionary theory by attacking what it was back in the 19th century because the theory was younger and incomplete back then (pre-discovery of DNA) and hence easier to argue against, which is why they like to use the word "Darwinism", as in a faith belief system founded by Darwin (and that if they discredit Darwin, they discredit evolution.... like a religion). But no one "owns" evolution the way Jesus or any other religious figure "owns", and discrediting Darwin or any kind of advancement or application of the theory a hundred years ago does nothing to hamper its robustness today.

Furthermore, theologians do not seem to understand that the people who attack evolution the most are evolutionary scientists, because science is not dogma, it is a process for studying and understanding the natural world, and that entails constantly testing its assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept evolution at face value like some belief system. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks. If there were holes in the theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis would have found them by now. Instead, predictions are made -- and then proven -- that correctly validate evolutionary assertions.

That's what makes a theory a "Theory".
 
2012-11-11 01:29:22 PM

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


Even still with your admission, it still looked like you might learn something from the canned "microevolution versus macroevolution" mini-lecture I keep on the shelf.

yousaywut: At least you were polite about it:)


I try to save major rudeness for really special occasions.
 
2012-11-11 02:01:22 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.


Soccer riots, anyone???
 
2012-11-11 02:01:53 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Silly Jesus: Just use the current U.S. Naturalization test. TADA! No "OMG B-B-B-B BUT JIM CROW" arguments with that one, right?

So, your guy lost and now it's about intelligence tests because obviously there are too many stupid people voting? LOL.


My guy won....not sure where you're goin with that.

Statistics show that an intelligence based test would negatively impact Republicans more, but that's not why I propose it. I don't want the "Obama is gonna pay my mortgage" people voting any more than I want the "Romney was sent from Jesus" type voting.
 
2012-11-11 02:02:55 PM

machodonkeywrestler: Silly Jesus: 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.

This is a forum, you don't get to pick who you talk to.


I talked to your mom last night. And you could probably call that event a forum, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
 
2012-11-11 03:07:55 PM

Silly Jesus: I talked to your mom last night. And you could probably call that event a forum, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.


I talked to your mom last night, and she said that she regrets not getting an abortion.
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report