Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: A Safe Place

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RickB

1
ehh...
Hubbard and Jones are memorable because they were able to attract followers.
A lot of them.
The only followers Hawkins is likely to ever have are in his imagination.
The biggest effect Hawkins is likely to have on real-world events is not as a leader, but as a follower.
Just one of millions of mindless boosters of the most dangerous demagogue in modern American history.


Thankfully the first part is probably (hopefully) true.

Sadly the fact of the second part could have far reaching and catastrophic consequences.

2
As I said: the two archetypes can be combined, but there is are differences between the two. And in each way there is a difference, your observations match the latter.

I would tend to the idea that Dave is closer to Jones than Hubbard. 
3
RickB: there's a difference between the con man archetype and the cult leader archetype. What you're saying matches the latter much more closely than the former.

The skillsets are related and can be transferred or combined, as shown by L. Ron Hubbard, but there are differences.

Indeed, but which was Jim Jones?  And how did he differ from Hubbard?

I guess we will only know when Dave doesn't drink the kool-aid.

ETA: Ask someone from the 498th medivac company what they thought of jonestown.

4
I've come to realize over time that I cannot "expect" anything from this crowd.  But I enjoy posting here for a variety of reasons and sometimes I do get good suggestions and sometimes hit on some interesting discussions. I do expect that my practices will help the YY and I hope to launch a project there at some point.


Just myself Dave, but every time that you ask for an argument for your ideas I think that you are trying to scam a new audience.

Like now for your Wai Wai project.  You need to convince someone to let you be involved ( and to profit from) some involvement in a government project.  So are you hoping to recruit some people to advise/request/cajole your involvement in some goat project?  What will be you consultants fee?  You being the world's foremost expert in this field.  That is true, correct

What you are not ?  Then why are they paying one red cent?



This is an interesting post to me and I suspect it would be interesting to uncool as well because it provides an opportunity to explore how and why people arrive at certain ideas. Why would anyone think that I'm trying to gain financially from the y y project? Certainly not from anything I have written. Am I one of those lazy white colonialists that wants to build a mansion and have the brown people serve me? No and my life for at least the past four years proves that I'm not one of those types.

So Rick, read carefully what I'm about to write. If I ever manage to do anything in the why why Village it would be something along the following lines... purchase a starter herd of dairy goats and hair sheep in country and set up a rotational grazing system at the y y Village. Build myself a jungle house and live on site for at least one year to work the bugs out of the system. This system has the capacity to produce a maximum of about 2.7 million food calories per year of which I myself might consume a quarter of that, leaving the rest for others who want to be involved in the project. It could also produce a max of 40 baby animals per year driving flock growth.  2 dairy goats plus 2 sheep per villager would be a good initial target for total village flock size.  So 400 dairy goats plus 400 ewes would be my target.  In theory, this would require about 400 Acres, i.e. less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire reservation acreage if I'm doing my math correctly.

EDIT: 400,000 acres would be 40% ... 40,000 4% ... 4,000 0.4% ... 400 0.04%


I would also be interested to hear your take on RickB's earlier post where he said he thought I am some kind of shyster.  You said you are interested in how people arrive at conclusions (or something like that) so I'm interested to hear your analysis of his post.


My analysis: Your posts show a certain neediness that people believe in what you are doing, even while you deny that neediness. He matches that in his head with the "used car salesman" or "snake oil salesman" type - someone desperate to profit from his audience and move on.

I think his observations are right, but miss something, leading to the wrong associations. He misses that the neediness isn't for people even to invest in what you're doing, but just to believe in it. The distinction is subtle, but RAFH did an excellent job pointing it out.




Well I think there IS a "neediness" but I think it's neither of those things.  I know how to get people to agree with me.  Been there done that.  And I already have a select group of friends around the US that agree with me about sustainable agriculture - Greg Judy, Cody Holmes, Joe Hopping, etc.  What I "need" from this crowd is just people "who are here" and "who at least say they are interested in science and in sustainable agriculture."  I DO "need" people like that to talk to whether they ever end up agreeing with me or not.  Why?  Well because I LOVE talking about science and sustainable ag and there is literally only one other person in my local friends and family circle that also likes to talk about that stuff and she is very busy so doesn't have much time. 



Getting back to Rick B ... My analysis of his post is that he is typical of many males - doesn't have a very good "radar" to be able to detect where people are actually coming from.  I've found that in general women have better radar than men.  I have struggled with this issue in the past myself and have had to work to develop a better "radar."


That's not the neediness I'm referring to.

If you were only interested in discussing the science (or sustainable ag), you would stop with the over-the-top hyperbole (like "land rape"), or even not have used it in the first place. If you were only interested in the science, you would not have been so furious over the lack of congratulations. If you were only interested in the science, you would stop with the continual preaching.

You like the picture of yourself as the man of science. But you don't fulfill it.


Ok whatever.

Didn't turn out like you wanted it to, did it Dave?

Well let's look at the basis of my assertion, shall we.

At one point Dave imagined himself as the property manager of a 'sustainable community' where he could boot any resident that he didn't deem 'productive'.  Where in they would lose any investment (to his profit) that they had made since they only 'owned' the straw bale house and not the property.  The management position gave Dave the right and granted him the profit for booting any resident that did not conform to Dave's standards.

Oddly Dave states that this does not enrich himself.

As to the conman accusation, well does anyone really disagree?

No, this does not refer to a Sting (Newman/Redford) level of competence (are you kidding) at scamming people.  It only refers to the fact that Dave wishes to convince people of his bullshit ideas.  I mean Saint Weston Price, are you for real.

But Dave hopes that one day there will be web sites worshiping himself that his children will profit from.

And the statues celebrating his whore mongering won't hurt.
Not to mention his advocacy of child sex.


ETA: Hawkins is logged on right now, so awaiting his response.

5
I've come to realize over time that I cannot "expect" anything from this crowd.  But I enjoy posting here for a variety of reasons and sometimes I do get good suggestions and sometimes hit on some interesting discussions. I do expect that my practices will help the YY and I hope to launch a project there at some point.


Just myself Dave, but every time that you ask for an argument for your ideas I think that you are trying to scam a new audience.

Like now for your Wai Wai project.  You need to convince someone to let you be involved ( and to profit from) some involvement in a government project.  So are you hoping to recruit some people to advise/request/cajole your involvement in some goat project?  What will be you consultants fee?  You being the world's foremost expert in this field.  That is true, correct

What you are not ?  Then why are they paying one red cent?

6
For reference:
This is going nowhere. It is not possible to have a discussion with people who are pretending. I will be leaving this shortly.
I don't want this to get lost.


And right you are.  So-crates assertion with his post is that if an idea is not refuted within an arbitrary time frame then it must stand in perpetuity is blatantly false.  Christian creationism has stood for what 2000 years?  And yet it is now been shown by multiple lines of evidence to be false.

Evidence has no expiration date.  And if the evidence lends itself to a particular conclusion, then that conclusion stands as long as the evidence is valid.  So-crates has yet to provide any evidence that would refute an Out of Africa theory.  That is leaving out the obvious lies (which is So-crates stock in trade) about Omo dating being in error.

So-rates even attributed the Mousterian lithic technology dating exclusively to Homo sapiens when Neanderthals also practiced this very same technology.  The same with Levallois technology.  So-crates is as unlearned in this as one can be.

7
For reference:

The Earliest Modern Humans Outside of Africa

Quote
To date, the earliest modern human fossils found outside of Africa are dated to around 90,000 to 120,000 years ago at the Levantine sites of Skhul and Qafzeh. A maxilla and associated dentition recently discovered at Misliya Cave, Israel, was dated to 177,000 to 194,000 years ago, suggesting that members of the Homo sapiens clade left Africa earlier than previously thought. This finding changes our view on modern human dispersal and is consistent with recent genetic studies, which have posited the possibility of an earlier dispersal of Homo sapiens around 220,000 years ago. The Misliya maxilla is associated with full-fledged Levallois technology in the Levant, suggesting that the emergence of this technology is linked to the appearance of Homo sapiens in the region, as has been documented in Africa.

Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals

Quote
Ancient DNA is revealing new insights into the genetic relationship between Pleistocene hominins and modern humans. Nuclear DNA indicated Neanderthals as a sister group of Denisovans after diverging from modern humans. However, the closer affinity of the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to modern humans than Denisovans has recently been suggested as the result of gene flow from an African source into Neanderthals before 100,000 years ago. Here we report the complete mtDNA of an archaic femur from the Hohlenstein-Stadel (HST) cave in southwestern Germany. HST carries the deepest divergent mtDNA lineage that splits from other Neanderthals ∼270,000 years ago, providing a lower boundary for the time of the putative mtDNA introgression event. We demonstrate that a complete Neanderthal mtDNA replacement is feasible over this time interval even with minimal hominin introgression. The highly divergent HST branch is indicative of greater mtDNA diversity during the Middle Pleistocene than in later periods.

ETA

Oldest Homo sapiens bones ever found shake foundations of the human story
 


Quote
The tools the people at Jebel Irhoud were making were based on a knapping technique called Levallois, a sophisticated way of shaping stone tools. The date of 300,000 years ago adds to a growing realisation that Levallois originates a lot earlier than we thought.

It's interesting that the "full-fledged" Levallois technology in the Levant is pre-dated by the Levallois culture in Africa, don't people think?




Was thinking the same thing.  (re; the last sentence)
8
Quote
As the late Nubian Complex at Aybut Al Auwal is dated to MIS 5c, slightly earlier than the late Nubian Complex in Africa [11], we remain open to the possibility that the late Nubian Complex originated in Arabia, and subsequently spread back into northeast Africa. Given the coarse chronological resolution in both Africa and Arabia (Table 1), however, the question of directionality cannot be adequately addressed, suffice to say there is cultural exchange across the Red Sea during MIS 5c.


MIS 5c  ~96,000 years ago
9
Quote
Abstract
To date, the earliest modern human fossils found outside of Africa are dated to around 90,000 to 120,000 years ago at the Levantine sites of Skhul and Qafzeh. A maxilla and associated dentition recently discovered at Misliya Cave, Israel, was dated to 177,000 to 194,000 years ago, suggesting that members of the Homo sapiens clade left Africa earlier than previously thought. This finding changes our view on modern human dispersal and is consistent with recent genetic studies, which have posited the possibility of an earlier dispersal of Homo sapiens around 220,000 years ago. The Misliya maxilla is associated with full-fledged Levallois technology in the Levant, suggesting that the emergence of this technology is linked to the appearance of Homo sapiens in the region, as has been documented in Africa.

From the paper referenced by the SciMag article
10
providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct northeast African Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia
OR
providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct southern Arabian Middle Stone Age technocomplex in northeast Africa.



Sure just ignore the fact that some of those African sites were 80,000 years older than any Arabian site.

Or just lie about that fact.

11
Quote
Thus the idea that humans and Neanderthals have a common ancestor in Africa is incorrect.
That would be true only if humans evolved in Africa. But as we have seen there is no actual agreed upon connection between the creatures in Africa and humans.
All they have is:
"According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor"
As I noted earlier:
All they have done is listed some creatures that were in Africa and said they might be an ancestor. And people agreed with that.

The "I" being the African-Canadian known here as So-crates.  The African-Canadian known as So-crates has a problem with ancestry.  But I'm betting that he cannot specify where his African ancestors came from.  In fact one must wonder why thee African-Canadian known here as So-crates has so much disdain for other African-Canadians that he will not even entertain them at his business.

12
Following "socrates'" threads over the years I've come to suspect that deep down, he's a baraminologist (God created kinds which are allowed to change into the type they were meant to become). Of course, he knows that around here, he can't come out as such. So he throws in some sound bites like "branching off" and drags in some papers he doesn't understand to make a point because he thinks that's what everyone in the field does.

But he also asserts that the branching off lineages go extinct, but never the primary lineage.  That lineage progresses through the required pre-determined evolutionary steps to arrive at the ideal creature!!

Glory be!!

13
If you don't like my ideas, fine.  But for God's sakes, give me an intelligent objection.  Not this goddamn head up the ass stuff.

Should be familiar territory for you.  You head has been up your ass for fifty plus years!!
No. The reason you think so is because you read posts by people like Borealis who DO have their heads up their asses.  If you would read what I say as opposed to what others say about me, you wouldn't think that.


But, I have read what you say.  And deciding which of you has their head up their ass is based on what you and Borealis have said.  The clear indication is that you have your head up your ass. 

Bullshit creationist dogma aside, Borealist clearly has a better understanding of the environmental considerations.  Jesus butt fucked christ you think that your plan will be equally successful in every environment as long as there is grass.  Even if grass is not native to that environment.

So, yeah Dave get your dick out of your mouth and look at the evidence.

Your plan will only succeed in some very limited environments.

And your plan to save the earth is only a plan to enrich the Hawkins family.

14
Thus the idea that humans and Neanderthals have a common ancestor in Africa is incorrect.


It is easy to forget that Neanderthals are 99.7% identical to Humans.
That includes what Neanderthals inherited from the African migration plus the unique Neanderthal characteristics that evolved in the Neanderthal lineage after leaving Africa.

But that is not what you think.  According to you Neanderthals evolved in Africa.  No one else agrees with this, but then no one else agrees with any of your claims, so not worth arguing about.

Not sure what the African-Canadian So-crates is claiming here, but pretty sure it is wrong.

15
See the number 10 part.
This is exactly what I have been thinking occurred.
https://www.academia.edu/3788868/The_Late_Peopling_of_Africa_According_to_Craniometric_Data._A_Comparison_of_Genetic_and_Linguistic_Models


The part in the North is the migration from the Middle East into Africa that led to the sites on the Nile that we looked at earlier.


Meaning the ones that are older than the ones in Arabia?

But the arrows are for language migration, not technology.

16
It is easy to forget that Neanderthals are 99.7% identical to Humans.
That includes what Neanderthals inherited from the African migration plus the unique Neanderthal characteristics that evolved in the Neanderthal lineage after leaving Africa.
The migration I am referring to is the migration of creatures that left Africa and evolved into Neanderthals.
That should be obvious by the rest of the sentence.


So you affirm that the ancestor of Neanderthal evolved in Africa and that Neanderthals and all of its descendants have an African ancestry.  Thus by your theory, you are descended from an African.

Correct?
So-crates confirms that he has an African in his ancestry?

That is So-crates ancestors came from Africa.

So-crates is an African-Canadian.



17
If you don't like my ideas, fine.  But for God's sakes, give me an intelligent objection.  Not this goddamn head up the ass stuff.

Should be familiar territory for you.  You head has been up your ass for fifty plus years!!

18
"they are entirely different kinds of forest."

Really?

How?

Do they not both involve photosynthesis to create woody and leafy biomass?

Do they not both require a certain level of moisture and fertility in the soil?

Do you think goats like to eat leaves from the TDF but not the ARF?

Or what?

Quit talking out of your ass. 


Stop talking Dave.  E. coli is flying everywhere!!!

19
So if you believe that humans evolved in Africa, it is clearly not based on any actual agreed upon evidence of how that happened.

In case you haven't noticed, your personal approval of literally anything is not required.

ETA:  In fact, if you agree with anything in the current consensus, that consensus should be immediately reviewed.

20
So if you believe that humans evolved in Africa, it is clearly not based on any actual agreed upon evidence of how that happened.


But you stated that Neanderthals evolved in Africa, so why couldn't Homo sapiens?

It is easy to forget that Neanderthals are 99.7% identical to Humans.
That includes what Neanderthals inherited from the African migration plus the unique Neanderthal characteristics that evolved in the Neanderthal lineage after leaving Africa.

Why is it a complete impossibility that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, other than your personal bias?

21
Yes ?
And... ?
So why wouldn't goats and sheep do well in the Amazon rain forest?

This is where the menace aspect comes in.


Rather alarming that his reference states that diseases are unimportant.

I would tend to disagree with that sentiment.

22
And there is no actual agreed upon connection between them and humans. Right?


Sure, the presence of Homo in their names clearly indicates that they are thought to have absolutely no relationship to Homo sapiens. 
23
So Neanderthals and humans did not have a common ancestor as commonly stated.

My, so humans just sprang up out of holes in the ground since nothing else in the world is the least bit like them.

Amazing!!!

24
The alternative is that there was a common ancestor branching that led on one branch to Neanderthals and on the other branch to a lineage in Africa that went extinct.
And in fact, the branch in Africa (such as homo heidelbergenis, or homo Homo rhodesiensis etc) did in fact go extinct.


But did they go extinct before or after Homo sapiens arose?

And why were Homo sapiens fucking and getting fucked by (much more of the latter than the former) Denisovans?

And where is So-crates fake moral outrage about these humans fucking monkey people???

25
One day Socrates might realize why nobody can give him a precise lineage.

Today is not that day.


Why is that familiar?

Oh yay

"An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day!"