Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • "Hasn't the Recall process been mocked enough? "  "no"  "colored signature lists... something else that hasn't been mocked enough."

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 - uncool

2
How did the self-control part evolve?
Like vox said, not a simple explanation, and one you have failed to honestly engage in in the past.
If you really wanted to learn, there are folks here far more qualified than I to explain it and, gosh, they've tried.
I would like to see your side become honest and admit that you don't have any explanation. Just as you don't have any explanation for how life got started on Earth. Just as you don't have any explanation for the origin of diversity of species.
That depends on what you mean by an "answer" here. If you mean "self-control was evolved by this creature on June the 21st, 183528 years before present", then no, we don't have an answer.

But we can observe the creatures we see now, and we can see the extent to which they have self-control. And that will be another trait that can be studied in comparative biology, and checked against the giant tree of life that we've worked out.

Now Dave: what do you mean, precisely, by self-control? Suppression of instincts? Denial for delayed payoff? Or something more?
3
Seems like a good thread for this.

OK so the idea that most news media are heavily left-biased has been circulating among conservative types for decades.  At least since Watergate.

But now we have something new.  The increasingly common accusation is no longer one of mere bias.  It's now about deliberate fraud.

This shift, in the conservative attitude towards journalism, is a big deal, IMO.  It raises two questions:

(1) How did the shift in attitude come about?

It seems to come primarily from The Donald.  As soon as he started whining about "fake news", whammo!  Conservatives all over decided that there was no longer even an attempt at journalistic integrity anywhere (except within their own alternative-facts bubble).  Now it's not surprising that the mindless MAGAbots would follow him in this regard.  What's more remarkable is that conservative folks who appear to be more thoughtful in other respects have gone down the same rabbit hole.
It definitely didn't originate there. Part of why people repeatedly link gamergate to Trump is that gamergate is where that narrative first became widespread enough to be visible.
Quote

(2) How (according to those who buy the "fake news" mythology) did the alleged shift in journalistic practices come about?

This is something the conservatives ought to be talking about.  As far as I can see, they haven't even tried to construct a plausible narrative to explain how and why most journalists suddenly decided en masse that their job had nothing to do with reporting truly and everything to do with trying to bring down good people like Trump.

And that's weird.

Discuss.

I think you're seeing the narrative incorrectly here. The narrative may have come about recently, but the narrative itself is that it's been like that for a long, long time.
4
A goat is a goat.
...

Are you saying that dairy and meat goats have the same nutritional requirements? Or the same preferences?
6
Question: Was grain being eliminated at the same time that the goats were nursing? Or had the goats already been on a grain-free diet?
7
Dave, it's futile to post contreehouse. No one but you and a few of his followers trust that guy.

It's not a matter of trust. Its a matter of content which actually checks out upon close inspection... and other aspects
And when, as in several past occasions (see Philando Castile), it doesn't, that should tell you to take what they say with a grain of salt.

When it's an obvious misreading, make that a large grain of salt.

When they do so repeatedly, check futher than you normally would.

Put it all together, and you get: don't trust them.
9
Sure it's an important topic, but is really quite separate from child marriage. 
The article isn't just about FGM. It talks about the tribal structure, and women and girls who oppose that structure, and what happens to them. That is relevant to Dave's defense that the girls "wanted it"; girls who refuse to participate in the cultural rituals are socially excluded (entirely) unless they are hardheaded enough to continue and lucky enough to be well-connected.
10
Uncool you're like a child who wanders into a movie halfway through and asks what it's all about.
Nah.
11
Yeah, I know, just thought it might be relevant and interesting as a side-topic.
13
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

Quote
the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

Quote
In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" -- "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives -- that's in serious doubt -- it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law -- the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

In other words: "Fight me" - fighting words. "I think all non-Aryans should be eliminated" - horrible, but not fighting words.

I would think any non-Aryan, hearing someone say they should be eliminated, might be forgiven for considering that to be, in the legal sense, 'fighting words'.
I think it would depend heavily on context, but if there is no implication of imminence, as far as I can tell, it wouldn't meet the standard. The word "incite" there was clarified in later cases ("imminent lawless action", Brandenburg v Ohio).

Well... in Charlottesville there were neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and alt-right militia carrying firearms, sticks, pepper spray, lit torches, and assorted other weapons (some of the student reports I linked earlier today described containers of unidentified chemicals) and this spectacle was accompanied by lots of shouting of arguably menacing slogans. According to the clergy group, they did begin actually physically menacing some of the clergy, at which point students and antifa moved to protect them. If such actions don't fulfil the incitement rationale, or even the right to self defense, I'm not sure how far the neo-nazis et al would have to go before fighting back is deemed 'legal'. Running people down with cars, maybe.
Oh, I wasn't talking about Charlottesville (directly); I was still talking about the specific words I'd posted. The carrying itself wouldn't be incitement (as merely having weapons doesn't mean a plan to imminently use them), but a statement like "Eat this" while brandishing the pepper spray (even if the spray isn't yet fired) would count, I think. The "menacing" would depend on what that means.
14
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

Quote
the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

Quote
In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" -- "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives -- that's in serious doubt -- it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law -- the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

In other words: "Fight me" - fighting words. "I think all non-Aryans should be eliminated" - horrible, but not fighting words.

I would think any non-Aryan, hearing someone say they should be eliminated, might be forgiven for considering that to be, in the legal sense, 'fighting words'.
I think it would depend heavily on context, but if there is no implication of imminence, as far as I can tell, it wouldn't meet the standard. The word "incite" there was clarified in later cases ("imminent lawless action", Brandenburg v Ohio).
15
I'd note that there are several places where performing Nazi salutes are going to get an immediate violent response. Plus you can pretty much guarantee that most Neo-Nazis are going to be looking for such a reaction much of the time.
The fact that they're looking for it doesn't make it legal to give it to them. Nor should it.
16
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

Quote
the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

Quote
In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" -- "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives -- that's in serious doubt -- it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law -- the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

In other words: "Fight me" - fighting words. "I think all non-Aryans should be eliminated" - horrible, but not fighting words.
17

I know your Constitution enshrines the right to freedom of speech. But it doesn't enshrine any right to consequence-free freedom of speech. And one of the consequences of shouting "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and Soil" in a public place, is having your fucking Nazi shins kicked in.
Err.

The First Amendment (and interpretations of it) does guarantee that you do not lose any of your rights for your speech. And that includes all rights to be safe from others (as defined legally). In other words, the Nazis have the right (as citizens) not to be assaulted, and do not lose that right by voicing Nazi opinions.

They don't have the right not to be remarked on, mocked, called out, identified, thrown out of businesses, fired (with exceptions determined by state law), or the like. That's not because they are Nazis. That's because no one has those rights (with some exceptions for certain types of opinions for firing, and probably a few exceptions I'm forgetting)

"Having your fucking Nazi shins kicked in" is not the example you should look to.
18
1) if you want your local laws changed to not allow Nazis to March and say those things, then change your laws ... we should obey the laws

2) my understanding is that it is against the law, or rather rule, at TR to threaten people with physical violence. We should obey those laws or rules too

3) it has been reported that these "very fine people" were not marching with Nazis but had gathered separately and peaceably to protest statue removal.
This is really not the best day to be saying "we should obey the laws", with a subtext of "lawbreaking is automatically bad".
19
No.  They will produce more milk because you are fueling them with super high octane fuel.  That's NOT more healthy for them.  Jesus Christ you people are dense.

Yeah, BROWSE is more healthy for them, so why are you forcing them to eat mostly seedless grain (grass) plants?


Why are you such an asshole?  Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around the fact that animal husbandry requires compromise?  My compromises are much less than my average neighbors.  My neighbors are feeding short grass with virtually no seedheads plus mountains of hay and grain.  I am feeding tall grass WITH seedheads plus browse.  What the hell is wrong with you?  I suspect you have a bad case of DaveHasToBeWrongIsm.

I'm not being an asshole, Dave. Your neighbours are not relevant. "Tall grass with seedheads" is hay and grain, Dave. Unless you can show the roots being in the ground makes a difference, but then you'd have to measure protein etc., wouldn't you?

You keep DISHONESTLY claiming to 'work with nature'. But you are not letting your goats choose their natural browse, and it's all about your own convenience. Nothing to do with nature. Except human nature.

Attempt to model Dave's answer to the second part: even in nature, goats don't choose their natural browse. That's part of the role of goat predators. But we've separated them from their predators, so to mimic nature we need to introduce some other method of limiting their choices - like the tractor.
20
Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around the fact that animal husbandry requires compromise?
Wow.

Dave, you really are not the person to be asking this question.
21
What was the point of the chess board? 
Drunk posting?

I was waiting to see if anyone figured it out ... Faid seems to get it ... at least in part ...
"In part"?

What I "get" is that Assange tweeted that picture you posted with no comment, and all alt-right lap dogs out there are joyfully yapping, wagging tails and sniffing each other's bottoms, trying to determine the hidden crucial meaning behind that tweet. They've had no specific concensus so far, other than that it obviously foretells some kind of heavy blow against Killary and Deep State.

Did I miss anything? If so, what?
Just out of curiosity...
Does anyone know how that chess game played out?
Is there some obvious checkmate in three moves that I'm missing?

That was my thinking, too, but no. White seems trapped, but black has no real lines of attack, so white can spend the next few moves developing his pieces; by the end, black has stranded his few pieces behind white's kingside while white both threatens to queen and attacks multiple points on black's king, and black resigns (with iirc a 3-move mate).

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095025

ETA: linked wrong Capablanca-Marshall game,
22
The man who designed that system deserves a prize. I'm not sure what kind of prize, but a prize.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=79DijItQXMM
23
I'm happy to investigate Jack's statement when I get back on my home computer. Also I would like to look at that long research paper that Pingu was encouraging me to read. I would like to determine whether that black reporter for Fox News was correct or not.
Do you mean the report that, as Pingu mentioned, you linked?
25
As a note: Campus Reform is rather strongly slanted towards the "The left is suppressing free speech" viewpoint, to the point of deliberate misunderstanding, but in my experience, when they say something verifiable happened, then it most likely happened.

The other thing is their editor in chief is named Sterling Beard, who names their kid Sterling?

Does he have a sterling beard?
His twitter profile shows him as shaven, so unless he's closeted...