Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: JDG rules this gay forum

Recent Posts

1
...  we have not the slightest scintilla of evidence that any of these fantastic complicated  software controlled adaptive systems  were not already pre-programmed within living organisms.
::)

We have not the slightest scintilla of evidence that they WERE "already pre-programmed within living organisms".
Whatever the hell that's even supposed to mean.
actually we do. And you would know this if you had the slightest bit of familiarity with the writings of the third wayers.
2
well if you agree with Voxrat regarding vaccinations, then you are a reductionist in another important sense which is actually much more important to me, namely, that you feel that we can "Reduce" a human to the sum of its parts and tinker with one part of a whole human being and obtain a good result. 
That is a profoundly stupid and ignorant take on immunology.
The immune system is not one separate part of the organism.
It is intricately and intimately involved with the whole system.
Vaccination does not consist of punching some "Big Button" - like, say, stimulating one particular kind of cell - to get some desired result. (That would  be "reductionist").
 It involves activating the whole system.

Your Dunning-Kruger qualities are shining through here: you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
you're not reading carefully. I did not say that vaccinating is like pushing a "big button." ( which was designed to be pushed for the purposes of control )  In fact I made it clear that  vaccination essentially amounts to  "pushing a little button that was never designed to be a control button."
3
...  we have not the slightest scintilla of evidence that any of these fantastic complicated  software controlled adaptive systems  were not already pre-programmed within living organisms.
::)

We have not the slightest scintilla of evidence that they WERE "already pre-programmed within living organisms".
Whatever the hell that's even supposed to mean.
4
to me it appears ...
What "appears" to some Dunning-Kruger poster child who has never cracked so much as an introductory text on the subject is of no consequence to anyone.
5
America is weird then. Most university professors aren't working class, and I don't think many of them take home more than £100k. Teachers certainly don't. Obviously it's more complex than just money, Joe the Plumber might consider himself working class, but is probably better paid than Joe the Astrophysicist.
I think WT is misusing the term.  see my last post.

and, yeah, "working class" carries some connotation of "blue collar" (i.e., work that doesn't require a university degree and involves getting your hands dirty), though they are not coterminous.  I have personally known plumbers who make over 100k, and physics post-docs making 40k.  (though the average person with a physics PhD can expect to eventually make a lot more than your average plumber, especially if they go into industry...)
I guess that's where I was disagreeing with/misunderstanding the term. I get that in most of the US, $100k is pretty decent, but I guess I don't really get where the distinction between 'working class' and simply 'lower income' is then.
I would think working class means most of the population that can't generally get by without their regular income that comes from wages.  Maybe we need some better terms.
6
No.

And therefore the proposition that "Dave is mistreating his goats" is refuted.

Do try to keep up.

Hahaha you end the statement where you argue that as long as there is anywhere were (according to you) goats have it even worse, you are not maltreating your goats with "do try to keep up".

So if I only beat my child 3 times a week, while the guy next door does it 5 times, that means I am not maltreating my child?

You really are a master at shooting yourself in the foot, Dave.
Well, he was, until he shot that foot off then the other and then left hand followed by both leg and most of his upper left arm. A few ears got blown away somewhere along the line. And a couple of teeth, but his crowning achievement was shooting the hand that was holding the gun.

He did, however, paint red circles, or at least as much of a circle as was possible, around where parts were missing. Crack Texas Sharpshooter.
7
well if you agree with Voxrat regarding vaccinations, then you are a reductionist in another important sense which is actually much more important to me, namely, that you feel that we can "Reduce" a human to the sum of its parts and tinker with one part of a whole human being and obtain a good result. 
That is a profoundly stupid and ignorant take on immunology.
The immune system is not one separate part of the organism.
It is intricately and intimately involved with the whole system.
Vaccination does not consist of punching some "Big Button" - like, say, stimulating one particular kind of cell - to get some desired result. (That would  be "reductionist").
 It involves activating the whole system.

Your Dunning-Kruger qualities are shining through here: you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
8
The interesting thing, of course, is that evolution can only even be understood holistically. You can't reduce evolutionary processes to their parts.

Creationists and IDists try, of course, and they love to reduce it to a sciencey-looking equation: evolution = RM+NS.

And they they scoff at it because it seems to make no sense.  And indeed it doesn't.  Both "RM" (they love that R - but Darwin's "Descent with modification" is better) and "NS" are holistic concepts in themselves.  They can only be understood at the level of the system.  And you can't just add them as though evolution could be "reduced" to the "sum" of those two highly complex constructs.  In fact that formulation tells you very little.

A better version might be:

When a population of self-replicators self-replicate with variance, variants that tend to self-replicate better in that environment will tend to become more prevalent.  As a result, over many generations, any features that function to help the self-replicators to utilise local resources and avoid local threats will be successively optimised, and will serve as "machines" that help the organisms survive and reproduce. 

In addition, any population of self-replicators that have features that result in optimal amounts of variance will tend to adapt to change more readily than populations that have features that tend to result in too much, too little, or too irrelevant variance (which is ACTUALLY what the Third Way thing is all about).


Anyone who understands holistic thinking can understand all that.  Anyone who tries to reduce it to its parts will miss it.





And it gets even more holistic than that: the self-replicators do not just change themselves, but the changes they go through also influence the environment that they and other self-replicators operate in, thus changing the parameters that determine what features make self-replicators more likely to self-replicate.

Systems within systems, influencing each other and themselves. Rather than one static design where each animal has a handful of tasks, and that's it.
All of this is quite wonderful indeed, but the thing you miss is that  we have not the slightest scintilla of evidence that any of these fantastic complicated  software controlled adaptive systems  were not already pre-programmed within living organisms. Programmed by what? Programmed by whom? Again, pick your deity, but there is no evidence whatsoever that these systems evolved by any sort of a chance process.  in fact, the only mechanism proposed by Darwinists - random mutation - is overwhelmingly detrimental to organisms, not constructive or adaptive in any way.

And THAT  is why the third wayers are looking for a third way.  because they realize this.
9
That first line is interesting. Have they stopped calling feminists 'feminazis' now, because you know, nazis are a good thing? Or was that always limited to a smaller subset of the alt-right anyway?
10
"split evenly" in this context seems to imply "12% of people who voted for each candidate." with the write-ins, that's 21% of voters, one out of every five. in such a close race, that's huge.

The write-ins are a subset of the 12%. 12% of voters were voting against a candidate; of that group, 9% were voting against both candidates.