Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Truth Grenades

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 - DaveGodfrey

2
There's an entire thread discussing it. Go Read.
3
In any case, this diversion came about for two reasons ...

1)  my refutation of Borealis' idea that the Masai (Maasai) people live short lives - die at like 45 or so ... we certainly have no indication of that from the account of the English teacher ... "sprightly 74 year old man" taking a bride ... and
:facepalm:    You STILL don't get that ONE GUY living to 74 tells you NOTHING about the life expectancy of his society.
Your suckage at science is beyond any hope of salvaging. Ever.
Quote
2) there is apparently a global witch hunt going on right now regarding "inappropriate sexual behavior" (never mind all the other problems in the world ... THIS is Problem #1!!) ... so everyone here ... like good Global Village Lemmings is going ape shit over my comment (but curiously they don't care about Bree's comment)
Funny that.
Can you think of any reason why the country is "going ape shit" over the sexual misconduct of Matt Lauer, John Conyers, Harvey Weinstein,  Roy Moore (and, yes, Donald Trump) and not so much Jimmy Savile?
Any reason at all?
I'd note that over in the UK we did go apeshit over Jimmy Saville. It's why Max Clifford and Gary Glitter, are currently in prison., and Rolf Harris was until earlier this year, and why there were a whole bunch of investigations of several now deceased politicians.
4
I know a couple of diatom researchers. I think I've sorted their Christmas presents for them :)
5
Yes. The age of consent in Kenya and Tanzania is 18.

And other than that specific study about transmission of HIV there aren't any benefits of male circumcision.
6
"Good luck with that"? Is this an admission that you're going to completely ignore the C14 curves then? Despite this being data that everyone has equal access to? You know, because the rest of us don't have any information about your goats, or your neighbour's goats other than what you decide to tell us.
7
Did I say anything about child bearing?  I thought I was talking about marriage.

No, you specified biological readiness and scoffed at evolution. Marriage has nothing to do with either. So don't try to walk it back. You're transparent.

At least I hope you're taking some of this information in. You have daughters, you had a wife, you may one day have a second wife, you should know about and understand women's basic biology.
I continue to find it interesting that you people reach outside your own philosophy (we are a product of blind evolution) to say that a 15 year old girl is actually NOT ready for love / sex / marriage even though physically she IS ready ... and probably has a pretty high sex drive at that age.  What does that say about the adequacy of your philosophy?

You are a dishonest  asshole, Dave. I know you read my post explaining that young teens are NOT physically ready to bear children safely.
I read that.  I think I'm not making myself clear on this point.  I'll try again. 

EVOLUTION ... says the 15 year old girl is ready, does it not?  Why do I say this? Well ... look at "other animals."  In the wild, do you see any elderly matriarch deer sheltering the young female deer from the young bucks to give them time to mature emotionally and physically so they can bear children safely?  I wouldn't know, but I DO know about cattle ... Greg Judy's specifically ... and I'm not aware of any such controls ... as soon as the heifers put out their signals, the young bulls are all over them.  (Incidentally, this is no different from the situation in every high school across America ... of course it's high school boys who are all over them, not a 74 year old patriarch, but that's a different issue.)

EVOLUTION... (why the hell do you capitalise it?) says no such thing. Evolution says nothing. People who understand evolution know that reproductive success is the sole reason for the survival of any species. Reproductive success does not depend on females successfully bearing healthy young after first mating. It depends on success throughout the lifetime of the female. If a young deer or dog loses their first litter because they are not physically mature, it makes no longterm difference to  her reproductive success.

Some species are successful reproducers at first mating. Some are not. It depends greatly on how that species has evolved in terms of reproductive strategy.

Humans are not cows, or mice, or pigs, or lizards. Humans have their own reproductive issues. Over the reproductive lifetime of a human woman, provided she mated regularly, she should theoretically be able to bear a child once a year. An average woman, at that rate, could bear thirty+ children before age 50.

Do you see that happening on a regular basis?

No, of course you don't. Over half of all conceptions fail within days. The woman never even knows she was impregnated. (God is the greatest abortionist). Evolution doesn't 'care' about that, nor does it 'care' if she loses a first child or even half a dozen children. She is reproductively successful if she manages to have 2 healthy children in her lifetime who go on to also be reproductively successful.

Nothing about 'evolution' requires successful reproduction at first mating, and in many cases, including humans, it is pretty common for a female to be able to become pregnant at a young age, but not physically at the best point of maturity to bear healthy young.

If you actually understood evolution you would never make such dumbass statements about what 'EVOLUTION says'.

And since we are humans, an intelligent social species that actually has discovered and learned about how our own reproduction works, we can prevent dangerous outcomes for individual human females by preventing such things as child marriage and intervening with birth control. And 'EVOLUTION' doesn't care about that either.
Wonderful.

And how do you know that the Maasai DON'T know anything about their own reproduction?  (Thus allowing it to be "ok" for them to take 15 year old brides)  Maybe they know A LOT.  Maybe they are smarter about "rhythm" birth control than we are and thus delay conception until the early 20s ... I don't know.  Do you?  My point is that I personally have very little evidence to go on regarding a 74 year old dude taking a 15 year old bride.  All I have is a single report from a woman who lived with them.  And based on that EVIDENCE ... I said "woo hoo" and I don't apologize for that.  There is nothing creepy or bad about that comment IN THAT CONTEXT.  Of course, many people here are DISHONEST ... so they will quote me out of context and try to say I'm a creep etc etc.  That's THEIR problem, not mine.
You have a ton of descriptions from women who it happened to pointed out to you since your idiotic "woohoo" comment.

Do you not think that with what you now know it comes across as utterly crass? That perhaps people viewed it as crass because they understand rather more than you do what child marriage involves? Or can empathise rather better than you can with how the girl in question might actually feel? That we found it distasteful, but were willing to entertain the fact that it might have been a marriage of convenience, that sex was unlikely to be involved and it was a political marriage cementing clan and family ties? (A fact that sadly might not be true given the other articles on the subject). Whereas your immediate thought went to "sexy fun times with a side order of statutory rape" and that's really not something people think is at all ok.
8
Arts and Entertainment / Re: Blue Planet 2
The later ones get better. I feel it suffers a bit from covering the same ground as the first series, but trying to find new things to say, and not always succeeding.
9
So one guy made it to 74 and presumably is fairly wealthy as he can support his increasingly large family group. Others not so much. As Borealis' links demonstrate.

A sample size of one bloke tells you nothing about female longevity, child mortality rates, the risk of death in childbirth, or the incidence of CVD.
10
Dave this is fucked up reasoning on your part.

what's really weird to me is the reason why you - a nontheist and  evolutionist -- would be lecturing me, a theist and creationist about the morality of "non-standard" marriage arrangements.

How stupid are you to think atheists or evolutionists have no morality?

Quote
YOU - supposedly -  believe that humans are just another animal and I think that most other animals have polygamous "marriages" and I don't think males have any compunctions against sexual relations with females that have just recently reached puberty. ( or whatever you call it in non-humans )

Showing your ignorance about the natural world as usual. Most male mammals instinctively know if a female is mature enough to mate with, through scent or other signs. Contrary to your notion of a seething rutting natural condition, many animals, particularly birds and mammals, are monogamous, mating for a season or for life..

Not really. While they may pair up for a season there's absolutely no guarantee of sexual fidelity - in fact in most birds "extra-pair copulation" is rife and many of the offspring a male raises aren't his, but he will often have fathered offspring in another bird's nest. 


I should have clarified 'monogamous as nesting pairs'. For many mammals once mating is accomplished/estrus is over the female will not mate again. Not that many animals can mate throughout the year, and really aren't very comparable to human mating habits.
Indeed not, and just because animals do (or don't) do it is no reason for humans to emulate them, Dave's simplistic understanding notwithstanding-
Quote
Also, afaik, #notallbirds.
Black Vultures IIRC. And (I think) albatrosses.

Lily Trotters do it the other way round. Females are larger and have harems of males who raise their young for them. (Apparently short dumpy ones are preferred as they're better at incubating eggs).
11
Dave this is fucked up reasoning on your part.

what's really weird to me is the reason why you - a nontheist and  evolutionist -- would be lecturing me, a theist and creationist about the morality of "non-standard" marriage arrangements.

How stupid are you to think atheists or evolutionists have no morality?

Quote
YOU - supposedly -  believe that humans are just another animal and I think that most other animals have polygamous "marriages" and I don't think males have any compunctions against sexual relations with females that have just recently reached puberty. ( or whatever you call it in non-humans )

Showing your ignorance about the natural world as usual. Most male mammals instinctively know if a female is mature enough to mate with, through scent or other signs. Contrary to your notion of a seething rutting natural condition, many animals, particularly birds and mammals, are monogamous, mating for a season or for life..

Not really. While they may pair up for a season there's absolutely no guarantee of sexual fidelity - in fact in most birds "extra-pair copulation" is rife and many of the offspring a male raises aren't his, but he will often have fathered offspring in another bird's nest.  
12
TR is not your personal blog Sucky.
13
The British Empire had been bumbling round the world being racist at people for about 350 years before Price was born.
15
You know ...  Magic fairies, the children suddenly started eating salad every day at home, etc

 there are many possible hypotheses :-)

Ha, your whole belief rests on magic, you utter puffoon.
No it doesn't. My belief rests on evidence.
Why do the curves agree Dave?
16
At least now no one can say "What?! Where did Price say he did an experiment on kids who were eating mostly refined carbs?"

You've been shown.

No excuses now.

All you can do is try to say that Price was incompetent.

Which is frankly a hoot.
What excuse do you have for ignoring the fact that nothing in that "experiment" links carbohydrates to the deficiency that Price corrected?

I guess it takes a competent man to correcly identify competence (or lack thereof).

"highly sweetened"

"white flour pancakes"

"doughnuts"

"white bread|

"syrup"

You've got to be kidding me ... no one can be this dumb.
After a decade of watching your online persona, I have no such delusions.

Dave, We are talking about the MECHANISM by which carbohydrates cause problems. Remember? THAT is the point here.

When you admit that a deficiency ALREADY exists, then that deficiency will cause problems by itself. And CORRECTING that deficiency will make the organism better, whether the "cause" of that deficiency was carbohydrates or not.

But that tells us nothing on whether carbohydrates caused that "deficiency" in the first place. And it tell us nothing on whether carbohydrates can cause problems on their own, besides that deficiency.

Do you seriously not get it? And you claim that it's us that suck at science, and not you?
Jesus Christ you are an idiot.

 The kids had horrible teeth. I hope that part is obvious to you.

 now the possible causes in play that I am aware of are...

1)  acid eating the teeth because the kids were eating refined carbohydrates - remedy - brush with toothpaste often

2) acid eating the teeth because of a LACK of body building / tooth protecting materials - remedy - fix their nutritional deficiencies

 those are the two choices that I am aware of.

 Price believed the latter, tested it, and his theory seems to be supported by the experiment. 

 what part of this are you having trouble with?
Where's his control?
17
You probably shouldn't watch Thor: Ragnarok then either
18
Dave, Hunter-Gatherers don't drink the milk of other species as adults.
19
For the same reason that Pahu is incapable of answering whether 20 is between 1 and 10. Because it shows the people he quotes from aren't telling him the full story. Because it shows what he thought was wrong, and what I keep telling him is the case is correct.
It took Pahu several weeks to even accept the existence of rocks overlying the Coconino Formation. (All the while accusing me of "evidence free denial").
20
Plus, I was pretty irked with the completely idiotic reinvention and smooshing together of both the Greek and Roman pantheons.  Seriously, these are well established myths. - don't go fucking with them just so you can make some superheroine movie.  
I'm pretty sure they've been smooshed together like that since the comics were first written in the 1940s. 
21
but if there's a notion here that people are entitled to work in the particular industry they know and like, even if it requires large and sustained public intervention to prop up, I see problems with that. 
If a person can't get a job that covers their expenses in the place they live... shouldn't they move?  If the jobs available to them don't meet their income requirements... shouldn't they retrain?

If people live in an rural setting, and it is unsustainable, we seem perfectly willing to insist that the rural dwellers should move to urban settings, retrain to a completely new field, and completely uproot their lives.  If people live in an urban setting, and it is unsustainable, we seem perfectly willing to increase minimum wage, provide housing and food assistance, subsidize their transportation, and make sure they aren't forced to uproot their lives.
Because a lot of other people who can afford to live in an urban setting want to have teachers, and nurses, and public transport operators, and retail workers within easy reach, and there's an awful lot of them with lots of money.
22
At a vague point at which the brain is sufficiently developed.

ETA: Ah, I see what this is in relation to. Yes, after they've exited the birth canal. Premature babies would be babies once they're out in the incubator. Before then they would be fetuses. In context people would be talking about humans that have been born, but are too young to be described as "toddlers". Infant would be a suitable alternative word.

Words not only mean things, but that meaning may be contextual.
23
Most hotdogs are crappy 80% rusk things where you barely have any meat in them anyway. Proper sausages however (and by extension proper frankfurters), couldn't be more different.
24
I'd still like to see that handled by the ethics investigation rather than a simple resignation. There needs to be a general system of accountability that applies to both Rs and Ds. If Dems resign when they do something shitty but Republicans just hold on and do nothing, accusations will become entrenched as a partisan tool to purge democrats.
Yeah, resignation is fine (at least it gets him out of office), but I still want a formal investigation.  You don't get to just "Bye!" your way out of it.  Also criminal charges for fuck's sake!
In Franken's case there are either no charges to press or his victims aren't interested in pressing charges. Which is their perogative.
25
City life is objectively the "bestest" based on every conceivable metric of quality of life, and as an actuary Pandora should know that better than anyone.
I don't think you're much able to conceive of anything useful here.

It's totally the best in being surrounded by filth, dirt, human excrement, and trash.  Also the best at being unaffordable for anyone except the wealthy.  And it's totally the best for being within walking distance of several posh food boutiques and really trendy gastropubs.  And it's unquestionably the best for being almost constantly within touching distance of total strangers who are happy to glare at you as you walk by.  And it totally rocks in terms of having the latest fashions, technology, and other overt status symbols on display for everyone to see how cool you are.

But if you happen to be fond of trees, or gardens, or home-cooked meals, or a back-yard, or a dog that doesn't fit in a purse, or the sound of the wind instead of cars, or the occasional bunny rabbit or dear being visible outside of a zoo... Yeah, not so much.

All the rats are very good at convincing themselves that the standards that rats have set for rat lives are the only reasonable standards for deer to judge their lives by.

It speaks volumes that your mind went to frolicking bunnies instead of, for example, mortality rates or access to education or economic opportunity. Or anything that matters outside of misguided fantasies about Getting Back to The Simple Life. Harsh truth: The Simple Life is hard. It's short, dangerous, and closed to opportunities of basically every kind. And you know this, which is why you're an actuary in a metro instead of running a combine out in Whitman County.
https://www.visitleevalley.org.uk/en/content/cms/nature/nature.../tottenham-marshes/

Coincidentally this opened to the public a couple of weeks ago. Its a short walk from my house.

I live in London. Population 8.7m