Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Hello Dickie from Newark.

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

1
Jesus Christ.

And you people have advanced science degrees.

 Which supposedly means that you know a thing or two about determining truth.
I've noted this before, but your sarcasm is the closest you ever come to being right. You should really just stick to these sorts of short, declarative sentences where you just state the opposite of what you believe. If you do it long enough, you might just manage to come across as not being a completely despicable idiot.

"Disbelieve the obvious"

"The obvious"  being the mainstream media narrative

 Or millions of years

 Or goo to you via the zoo

 And so on
Keep it up, Dave! You look very slightly less stupid this way! (Although shit like "goo to you via the zoo" still makes you look pretty damn stupid.)
2
Like so many movements on the left, anarchism is a playground for dumb kids and most people grow out of it.
So we're supposed to care about them why again?

Because most is not all, genius.

As an example, look at what a relatively small number of marginalized Nazi morons has been able to do.
Other people have pretty much covered this already, but the fact that your point is "look what they've been able to do" should really give you second thoughts about thinking of them as "marginalized." What have anarchists been able to do that could possibly lead you to draw this equivalence?

It is perfectly sensible to be wary of groups that have members who are anarchists, etc.  Any normal person who is not brainwashed by dumb internet leftism can recognize this.  It is also perfectly sensible to appreciate what they are doing (fighting actual white supremacists) while not agreeing with any of their other political philosophies, or while being wary of thier larger goals as a group.
Okay. Is anybody doing anything other than this though? I mean, I think we all agree with their goal of opposing fascists, right? If there are "members who are anarchists" who have goals like overthrowing the government or causing general chaos (and is there any evidence that there are? is there any evidence that there's a significant faction with those goals?), I think we are probably all (or at least mostly all) opposed to those goals. I'm really not seeing any indication that it's something worth worrying about right now though. Certainly not anywhere near the level that we should be worried about the group they're opposing. I just can't think of any events that have occurred that might have led you to worry about anarchists when there are Nazis organizing marches and a president who seems astonishingly reluctant to condemn them.
3
Like so many movements on the left, anarchism is a playground for dumb kids and most people grow out of it.
So we're supposed to care about them why again?
4
Also, let me know when Satanists kill six million people.
5
The reason we're having the conversation about Confederate monuments now is because the movement against them has become so strong that the government is actually taking it seriously. If a movement against other monuments ever gets close to that point, that will be the time for that conversation.
6
Quote

In fact, the only point of having it right now seems to be to distract from the conversation about whether or not to take down Confederate statues.

Wrong.  The point of having it right now is because idiots are already doing things like defacing statues of Lincoln.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Abe-Lincoln-Statue-Burned-on-Chicagos-South-Side-440897443.html

LOL no. Look over here an idiot did a thing is not a reason to have that conversation now.
7
^^^
galactic brain take

I should have guessed this would be your answer. 

ETA: Everything is a slippery slope, that's why you have the conversation beforehand.  The point is, there is a level of association with slavery that we are willing to tolerate.  You can avoid talking about that through snarky internet one-liners, if you want, but you'll be no closer to a satisfactory answer.
I'm completely satisfied with the answer of tearing down all statues of fucking Confederates. If we want to talk about tearing down more statues after that, we can have that conversation then. For now, Confederates go.

Agreed,
Great, so this...
Conversation over.
...is not...
Wrong.
Because the conversation is about whether or not to take down Confederate statues. We agreed, so it's over. A separate conversation about whether or not to take down other statues and monuments can also be had, but it doesn't need to be had right now. In fact, the only point of having it right now seems to be to distract from the conversation about whether or not to take down Confederate statues.
9
^^^
galactic brain take

I should have guessed this would be your answer. 

ETA: Everything is a slippery slope, that's why you have the conversation beforehand.  The point is, there is a level of association with slavery that we are willing to tolerate.  You can avoid talking about that through snarky internet one-liners, if you want, but you'll be no closer to a satisfactory answer.
I'm completely satisfied with the answer of tearing down all statues of fucking Confederates. If we want to talk about tearing down more statues after that, we can have that conversation then. For now, Confederates go. Conversation over.
10
Jesus Christ.

And you people have advanced science degrees.

 Which supposedly means that you know a thing or two about determining truth.
I've noted this before, but your sarcasm is the closest you ever come to being right. You should really just stick to these sorts of short, declarative sentences where you just state the opposite of what you believe. If you do it long enough, you might just manage to come across as not being a completely despicable idiot.
11
WHAT ABOUT SLIPPERY SLOPES!!!!!
12
Which is pretty fucking scary because it means they will literally believe whatever they are told to believe regardless of the facts.

And they've also been convinced that it's the other side that's actually doing this. Like everything they're doing wrong, they think it's everyone else that's doing that and not them. Which now that I think about it, is another common Hawkins behavior.

He has the strongest Morton's Demon I've ever seen, so when you have a force that is actively putting people's demons to work, the guy with the strongest demon is going to be your strongest follower.

It's seriously such a little stretch for him to go from reflexively ignoring/dismissing all the evidence for any scientific conclusion his religious beliefs tell him he should disagree with to reflexively ignoring/dismissing any event his political masters tell him he should disagree with. The fact that it ever surprised me now surprises me.

(Sorry for responding to my own quotes like I'm some sort of Socrates. Just had some follow-up thoughts I wanted to add.)
13
It's kind of amazing how successfully team Trump managed to plant the idea into the minds of their followers that any news that was in any way critical of them was "fake." Although I guess it's kind of a natural extension of what the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh segment of the right had been doing since the 90s (even the 80s in Limbaugh's case). It just seems like we've reached a tipping point, whereas before mainstream news was maybe reflexively doubted to some degree by that crowd, now it's reflexively dismissed. Like if the New York Times says the sky is blue, they'll immediately google some Breitbart piece to prove to themselves that it's not. Which is pretty fucking scary because it means they will literally believe whatever they are told to believe regardless of the facts.

I had been kind of surprised that Hawkins had been taken in by all this at first since he seemed to be pretty apolitical as far as I could tell before this election, but now that I really think about it, he is pretty much the ideal candidate. He has the strongest Morton's Demon I've ever seen, so when you have a force that is actively putting people's demons to work, the guy with the strongest demon is going to be your strongest follower.
14
Also, do you think everyone who showed up to the thing was a "paid agent for someone in the shadows"? Or even half of them? Like what difference does it really make if the person who organized it was "really" a white supremacist or just pretending to be one because "someone in the shadows" paid him to? White supremacists had a big march where they carried torches and chanted Nazi slogans to protest the removal of a symbol of slavery, and one of them rammed his car into a bunch of people, killing one of them. How do you see this as the time to be babbling about both sides and free speech and idiotic conspiracy nonsense? There are fucking Nazis marching through our towns and hurting/killing people! That is the thing any decent person should be focused on here!
15

So what was this then, a Honey Pot to get pictures of White Nationalists acting badly?  Wasn't Trump a Democrat until a couple of years ago? And a Hillary Clinton supporter? 

Dave, what point is it that you wish to make about Kessler?    How does his former support of Obama and Occupy mean he can't be a White Supremacist now, as he himself claims? 
Dave?
I find it rather odd that he was a supporter of a black guy - Obama - and now all of a sudden he's a white supremacist.  Perhaps he's a paid agent for someone in the shadows?  And the "black guy support" and the "white supremacy" are just masks that he dons at his masters' bidding?
Interesting. I wonder who these masters might be. Would you say they are probably "global elites"? "International bankers" maybe? Do you think they're people with "New York values"? Or maybe a "cosmopolitan bias"?
16
Also, if you think it took the theory of evolution for a black man to be put in a cage, how was it they were being put in chains hundreds of years before Darwin was born?
17
There are extremely important fundamental differences between giraffes and every other creature. If we take the idea that giraffes are just another animal to its logical conclusion, who knows where it would lead. Forcing them to live in the water perhaps?

That's you. That's how stupid you sound. I need to say this because I know you won't get it otherwise.
18
Hahahaha ... the Ministry of Truth is effective!
I can only assume you are referring to pro-Trump propaganda here, since "Ministry" implies government, and Trump is the head of the government, so...
19
Did I say that I agreed with that FB comment?
No, you didn't. And maybe, just maybe, that's why my post didn't include that assumption, but instead asked the question, "Do you disagree with it substantially?" A question (I note with some dread about what's yet to come in this thread) you have yet to answer.
20
Why no. No I didn't!  Did we just have another occurrence of a trained scientist making an unwarranted assumption? !!
No. No, we didn't. If there was one, you could quote it and show it to everyone. But there wasn't, so you can't.
21
Do you want to know my guess as to what really happened?  From reading between the lines of everything that's out there?
You already showed us that FB post you reposted. Do you disagree with it substantially? If so, why did your repost it? If not, we already know more than we could possibly have wanted to about what you think happened.
22
Just when I thought I'd lost the capacity to be surprised by Dave Hawkins, he posts a rousing defense of Nazis. Amazing.
23
It's not about what I can or can't see, it's about what you're proposing. I'm saying the idea that (for example) Allosaurus and Ornitholestes are secondarily flightless is more parsimonious than the idea that they are less closely related to Oviraptors and Ornithomimosaurs than Pterosaurs are.
24
To the best of everyone's collective memory, has Socrates ever suggested expanding his list of "secondarily flightless Euparaves" to include all flightless theropods (or even all flightless dinosaurs or dinosauromorphs)? Because I think that would actually improve the parsimony of his hypothesis.
25
The reason that a frame shift is more plausible in a pterosaur to bird theory than in a dino to bird theoy is the following:
In a dino to bird theory the resulting digits after the frame shift have the same characteristics as before. Which from a selection advantage point of view makes no sense.
No, from a selection point of view, it's neutral. It is neither selected for nor against, which means it may or or may not drift throughout the population. Note that this includes the possibility that it may.
On the other hand in the pterosaur to bird theory the resulting 3 digits are different than they were before the shift.
Then I don't know what you are proposing, but it isn't a frame shift. The entire point of the frame shift hypothesis is the fact that digits with the homology of 1-2-3 express from embryological positions II-III-IV. If you are proposing a scenario where you have something you are calling "digit 3," but it has the homology of digit 4, and it expresses from embryological position IV, then what has your frame shift mutation done, exactly?