Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape

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 - BenTheBiased

Just kidding around, although obviously "fuckhead" and "priceless" are two of FX's favorite words. Honestly if you want some background on discussions with him on the subject, pretty much any thread started by him here is what you're looking for:
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
FX, I can't tell you how happy I am to see you picking up the baton for absolute motion. It always bothered me a bit that the cart thread was the one thread on TR where you appeared to be a rational person. I'm glad to see that's no longer the case.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
I'm sure he has just as good an understanding of that term as Branco does:

I mean I can see if you're talking about like turkey vultures or something, but nobody thinks, say, bluebirds are ugly, right? Though I guess if you're a birds-are-birds YEC, especially if you're also a platonist, you inevitably end up committing to putting things in some pretty weird boxes.

ETA: That linked post kinda implies that he thinks bats lost their ugly when they became birds. Although it's not entirely clear (obviously).
Why do fuckheads always resort to insults?

Because that's how you define fuckheads - that they always resort to insults?

A davinition that would make Hawkins himself proud (if he were capable of that level of analysis).

I'm new to this forum.
Sorry for the confusing in-joke. The "fuckheads" reference was one too, btw. It was pretty hilarious, trust me.
That platonic ideals thing is present in that :staregonk: play :staregonk: he wrote, so that definitely seems to be part of it. So he originally included "ugly" in the category and linked pterosaurs to bats not only because they both flew but because he thought of them both as being ugly? That's really amusing to me if it's true. Does he think birds are ugly too, or did he drop that part with the bats?
Why do fuckheads always resort to insults?
Does anyone know why he's obsessed with the pterosaur->bird thing? Does he consider it more biblical than the consensus view or something?
Politics and Current Events / Re: Sessions
Also wtf was Lankford doing, bringing up the "short memories" of democrats back when Holder kept withholding stuff from them, as a way of justifying Sessions withholding stuff from them? He ended that whole rant by saying they had to go to the court to finally get them to say no, you can't withhold stuff from us. Um, okay, doesn't that mean Sessions shouldn't be withholding stuff from them?
Politics and Current Events / Re: Sessions
Tom Cotton is the worst.
I hope Dave appreciates it if he ever clicks on it.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Yeah, was thinking that the whole time. Either he has no clue what the Russia investigation is about and has it completely confused with the Clinton e-mail investigation, or he's making some concerted effort to try to make Russia about Clinton rather than Trump based on nothing. Either way, he looked like an idiot.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Comey
He suggested that he would talk about it to Mueller and that he would also talk about it to the Senate committee in a closed session, just not to the public. But he had no coherent reason for not talking about it in public.

ETA: Read some speculation that it's because he's afraid Trump would fire him if he did.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Comey
Ah, thanks.

And also, weird.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Comey
Today's hearing was a fucking farce.

ETA: Sums it up...

Not sure why that won't embed (because it has an embedded video maybe?), but it says:
.@SenAngusKing: "What is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this committee?"
DNI Coats: "I'm not sure I have a legal basis."
"Oh wait" as a sarcasm signifier is almost as grating as that dumb handwave emoji.
Politics and Current Events / Re: The Fourth Estate
Do I want to know what "Dimms" are?

I'm assuming it's their new term for Democrats. I've heard "Dimocrats" in the past, so I guess that's a short version, but why did they add a second m?

ETA: Oh, I think it's because Dobbs writes the full version as "Dimmocrats," presumably because people might pronounce it with a long i if there was only one m, and then he carries the second m to the short version too. God what a weird try-hard attempt at a clever name. He might as well have just called them "Poopyfaces." It would have had the same effect with much less effort and confusion.
See this is your problem. You base your entire worldview on "stories" (i.e. anecdotes and myths) and ignore actual evidence.
Politics and Current Events / Re: corbyn won
Not a Brit, but just looking at the gains Labour's seen in the polls over the last month or so, it looks like it's coming from pretty much all the other parties. Even UKIP.
Yeah, it's a symptom of his all/some/none problem that he conflates the idea that well managed grazing can improve overgrazed pasture (which is obvious and a truism) with the idea that well managed grazing can improve any pasture, which is highly dubious.

ETA: Though of course it's what Savory says too, so he never had a chance at not believing it.

ETA2: Or I guess more to the point, the idea that it's necessarily better than not grazing.

ETA3: Or even just grazing less. Or that whether or not it's better depends on any factors relating to the individual situations, like the condition of the pasture, or the types of plants growing there, or even the type of fucking herbivore. It's been said before, but in his quest to be less "reductionist," his "big button" approach is the most reductionist possible way of looking at it. He reduces all of nature to the most simplistic possible terms because that's apparently the only way he's capable of thinking. It isn't reductionism in terms of reducing something to the sum of its parts; it's reductionism in terms of simply ignoring most of those parts and just focusing on a few of them. There is no useful understanding of the system that can possibly come from that. Certainly nothing approaching a holistic one, because it ignores most of the whole.
It's quite extraordinarily how tightly Dave has rolled himself in his own bullshit.  He has totally cut off any method of checking his position against reality by the simple expedient of deciding that anything that he doesn't like is being done by people who don't check their position against reality.

Evidence that HM doesn't necessarily produce the results claimed for it?  Must be from octohatters "sitting" in ivory towers!  Why?  Because if they weren't they would see that HM produces the results claimed for it!

So why should Dave bother to read them?!
Should I change my view that grass is green and the sky is blue (daytime no clouds) if octohatters publish papers which say otherwise?
If you'd never actually seen the grass or the sky, and you only believed they were those colors because Alan Savory told you so...yeah, I would say you should be open to evidence to the contrary.

What's really astounding to me is that people as smart as you cannot see how obvious it is that "herbivores managed properly improves pasture."  And it's also astounding that octohatters design studies to fail so that they can "prove Allan Savory wrong."  Just blows my mind.
What's really astounding to me is that you believe that it's "obvious" that herbivores improve pasture without any evidence other than Alan Savory's say-so, and that you believe that "octohatters design studies to fail so that they can 'prove Allan Savory wrong'" (who are you quoting?) based on apparently nothing at all other than your own fervent belief. You are a true believer, completely impervious to any evidence against what you believe. Just blows my mind.

I'll never stop wondering how a person gets like that and manages to stay that way.
"What is certainly true is that a meat only diet - especially when "meat" does not include marine animals and game - is not a healthy diet."

Nope.  You're wrong again.

You should go back and re-read Stefansson's story.

See this is your problem.  You ignore data you don't like.  You have an idea in your head of how the world should be and you ignore all data that doesn't fit that view.
See this is your problem. You base your entire worldview on "stories" (i.e. anecdotes and myths) and ignore actual evidence.
When are you guys going to ever wake up and smell the roses about what goes on in academia snake oil?
Evidence would help.
You don't know what evidence is.  You wouldn't recognize it if it bit you on the ass. So no, it wouldn't help.  But there is plenty of it out there.
No, Dave, I said evidence. You know, the stuff they use in scientific studies. What you're thinking of is blind faith