SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Darwin Day is a celebration of Charles Darwin's birthday, the theory of evolution and science in general. This year marks his 210th birthday and 160 years since the publication of The Origin of Species. Those looking to celebrate or learn more about Darwin and evolution will find a wealth of events going on, or if you'd rather not leave the house, try a Darwin Day card with designs generated by simulated evolution.
Recently, an important finding in man's evolution was announced; the so-called Missing Link was confirmed. Australopithecus Sediba fossils were found in 2010 but it took a decade of research and debate for scientists to confirm that this was indeed the missing link that connects man's evolution in an unbroken chain back to primate ancestors.
Not everyone is down with Darwin. The Pew Research Center reports, "In spite of the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted by all but a small number of scientists, it continues to be rejected by many Americans. In fact, about one-in-five U.S. adults reject the basic idea that life on Earth has evolved at all." In Indiana, senator Dennis Kruse introduced a bill that would, among other things, "require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @03:41PM (35 children)
Its tied to beliefs about racism
is same as saying 4 in 5 US adults are racist.
Its a sticky social issue when you're pushing "survival of the fittest" and "amoeba biological differences" and on the other hand creationism proves all (wo)men are created equal and there are no differences between races IQ or criminality or achievement because evolution magically stops applying to humans.
Just saying its a major natural collision point for progressive propaganda. Two infinitely pushed propaganda movements collide, who knows what madness falls out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @04:28PM
So, an Asian elephant is smarter than an African elephant? Think it's the ears?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Alfred on Monday February 11 2019, @04:32PM (9 children)
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @04:47PM
Yeah, I think you get it. And if you have a political party / movement with an non-rational belief set demanding both inherently conflicting beliefs exist and are simultaneously true, gonna be some epic infighting. So here we are.
Attempts at not fighting are fun to watch too. Before the theory of planetary movement based on ellipses was cool, they tried to force ever more ridiculous systems of circles within circles and similar nonsense to have a really complicated system of circular orbits that didn't work well and made no sense but sorta badly matched reality, rather than just admitting defeat and implementing elliptical planetary orbits. Thats kinda where we're at with evolution and equality right now, infinite hot air trying to make incompatible beliefs compatible with each other, its not possible, although funny to watch the attempt.
Its a major social faux pas to point out the very inconvenient truth that modern string theory smells very much like the theory of epicycles from a couple centuries ago. With an opposing view that of course every actual breakthru historically looked like shit until it was beaten into working. Although I don't think the conflict between evolution and equality can be "historical breakthru'd" or hand waved away, its not a physics experiment but an inherently conflicting philosophical outlook.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 11 2019, @11:37PM
Found the idiot troll who's never actually read Darwin before! And who's deliberately confusing "equal" with "identical" for purposes of The Narrative (TM).
The Russian troll farms really aren't doing much in the way of QC these days, are they, Ivan?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday February 11 2019, @11:47PM (3 children)
Such behavior would lead to barbarism and a degraded state of humanity, as only the most violent and aggressive would survive in the short term. Eventually, it would likely lead to the extinction of mankind. "Fittest" does not necessarily mean that which helps a particular individual survive in the short term, particularly if actions are disruptive to the population as a whole. Evolution tends towards behavior that not only helps an individual survive, but that which helps its family, community and so forth on up to better survive, and the more complex a community becomes the less it tolerates disruptive behavior. Most higher animal species evolve their own rules of order, be they pecking order in a flock, lizards defending their patch of your back yard, which wolves in a pack are allowed to mate, etc. Whatever, the rules get followed.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:53PM (2 children)
If evolution was the only way then humans would be as sparse as wolves and living a lot like them too. If morals were suddenly based on principles of evolution and survival of the fittest then things would be very barbaric until human population stabilized at a number much less than it is now. The rules of behavior that come from evolution are parallel to those from lord of the flies or middle school gym class. Whoever has greatest might makes what is "right" which is the same intelligence that legislates the value of pi to be 3. Order may come to a group by the strongest taking change and ruling with might, which usually does not align with smart. There is not an intellectual high road that organisms gain through evolving, it comes from something else. An organism that is the product of evolution does not have the concept of the long term future and operates on simple short term feedback loops of hunger and pain. (those loops being the very thing that drive a system based on the fittest or strongest). I guess Klingon society could have come from evolution but I'm a human and I cant see how I could have.
The morals that are required for a society to really blossom do not come from advanced feedback loops. The "rules" that keep us civilized did not come about by evolution.
And different from pretty much everyone, de-evolution, getting less fit, or evolving into something less is something I see pretty much everyday. So I do believe in evolution, just not that it is moving us in the same direction you think.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:30PM
For a great deal of humanity's history that was the case. It still is, when circumstances require it. Physically, emotionally and mentally, modern humanity is literally the same as "Cro-Magnon Man". There has not been enough time since the last ice age for a global population to evolve into new species, being that environmental conditions have been relatively stable. The superficial differences between "races" are due to many factors, the most obvious being geographical isolation. Many such factors simply cause a genetic drift, the genes in the pool do not change, it is merely different ones that become dominant due to relatively temporary conditions.
Cultural "evolution" is a different thing, although it seems similar in mechanism. The behaviors that allow cultures to change could come about in many ways. Temporary isolation of a population, a population suddenly being led by a particularly charismatic individual(s), an accidental discovery of a better way of procuring food, a loss or gain of a food supply, climate change, etc.
The ability to change culture is an evolved trait, pretty much limited to humanity. Only with our evolved greater ability to reason and imagine have we made the leap from living like "savages" to however you want to describe more modern cultures. Something we have to be concerned about is whether or not our cultural ability to change our environment to suit our desires puts us at an evolutionary dead end, if we are altering our environment to suit our desires are we also altering the factors which affect any further evolution?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:08AM
Morality is older than humanity. If you are truly willing to expand your knowledge, you would do well to read "Our Inner Ape" by Franz de Waal, among others.
No one says that individual morals are evolved the way an eye or a wing or a feather is evolved, and that's a pernicious strawman. Morality, instead, is *technology.* When you think of it as social technology instead of some gross morphological feature, sudden;y things start making a lot more sense.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:32AM (2 children)
And if you then get caught (which you probably would since you're an idiot) and spend life in jail, then you just weren't fit enough either.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:32PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:13PM
Survival isn't good enough. You need to propagate those genes too.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Monday February 11 2019, @04:46PM (9 children)
I wouldn't go for the full 4/5 there, but racism is definitely an element of evolution. Not the science, of course. "Adaptability" is not equivalent to superiority, and any attempt to scientifically define "superiority" is a pseudo-scientific waste of effort.
But too many serious scientists have tried to dismiss "social Darwinism" as a real and dangerous idea. It took German hubris and over-engineering to convince the world that the "final solution" to racial inferiors was inevitably barbaric.
I happen to believe that different people are wonderfully diverse, by genes, ethnicity, upbringing, personality, and many other ways. I also happen to believe that whichever groups have the best adapted traits are not inherently superior, and that we are stronger as a species for the wide diversity of potentially less well-adapted traits.
But I understand that most people are not like me. Most people seem to think that monocultures are great. Agriculture has certainly moved in the direction of killing diversity, and scientists are rightly worried about one disease wiping out the entire food supply as a result. Until we can all give up on our superiority, we will never reconcile survival of the fittest with the overwhelming diversity of the human species.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @04:54PM (8 children)
That doesn't sound so logical. I think you're trying to say something like "not being a jerk to your inferiors is an inherent virtue worth cultivating" is probably what you're trying to say; I could agree with that. Actually the much maligned Christians who used to permeate government had some wise things to say about the topic of not Fing people over. Takes deep separation of church and state to support a really effective Holocaust.
I may be a better evolved creature than an oak tree in the sense that we're dominating the planet better than they are, that doesn't mean I feel a compulsive need to chop a tree down merely because "hey tree, fuck you, because i can". Coexistence, especially with physical separation, seems quite possible.
On one hand, WRT "inevitably barbaric", the milk cow on "Little House on the Prairie" seemed to have a nice life, on the other hand, horrific stories about treatment of livestock by industrial agriculture is kinda making your point about "inevitably barbaric".
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday February 11 2019, @05:17PM (2 children)
whichever groups have the best adapted traits are not inherently superior
That doesn't sound so logical. I think you're trying to say something like "not being a jerk to your inferiors is an inherent virtue worth cultivating" is probably what you're trying to say;
No, I interpret his comment differently. Superior traits in one situation may be inferior in a different one. Your genetically typical African is likely ill-suited to an arctic environment. Your average Inuit poorly suited to the savanna.
Genetic diversity gives a species flexibility. Look at cheetahs - they are extraordinarily vulnerable, which in this sense.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @05:36PM (1 child)
That gets questionable in terms of colonialism; if imperialistic colonial forces can fight the natives on native land better, they deserve that ivory or crude oil for being superior.
Colonial imperialistic invasions never seemed to fail because the invading army wasn't diverse enough; Why if we had just brought along some Koreans or Hawaiians we'd still be holding Rhodesia today, etc.
(Score: 4, Informative) by cubancigar11 on Monday February 11 2019, @07:12PM
You get 0 for history and advice to do more homework. Colonial armies were very diverse. In fact, all over history, any army that was successful was incredibly diverse.
Seriously, you didn't think a bunch of British people were enough to defeat the whole world without enlisting locals, right? In fact, the Chinese name for Indians is translated to 'red turban' because it was Sikhs wearing red turbans that fought all the wars (and also fought in Afganistan, and there is a memorial for them in London for their contribution in WW2). Genghis Khan was famously tolerant of all religions and people of all religious fought and rose to become prominent leaders in his army. Alexander assimilated every army he could get its hands on.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 11 2019, @10:25PM (4 children)
My argument is that "superiority" is a statement of moral authority, and such a statement is inherently unscientific. Human beings lack the moral authority to even make such a statement about ourselves. This is why morality is always attributed to divine proclamation.
If you are a Christian, only God can tell you who is "superior". Not any human being, and certainly not Darwin or any of the hacks that sought to use his theories to prove themselves better than everyone else.
By the same logic, if you an atheist, nobody has the moral authority to declare any person or people "superior" to another. Science can tell you who is better adapted to the cold. It can tell you who is objectively smartest. Science can even tell you that historically, the strong have always killed the weak and stolen their resources. But science can never give you moral authority to do so yourself, because science can never give anybody moral authority to do anything.
P. S. This is a philosophical argument, not a practical argument. I am not arguing that God exists or that any religious morality system is correct. I am merely arguing that any morality system can only be valid when it is based on a belief in a higher authority.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 11 2019, @11:39PM (1 child)
Please keep doing this! But please also understand that you're probably never going to change VLM's mind, nor any of the other "scientific" racists'. They've started with a conclusion and are desperately slurping "data" that confirms it; their entire worldview is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
It's necessary to do what you do for the sake of others who might be infected by their noetic plague germs, but they themselves are too far gone. We can only contain and neutralize them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @12:42PM
This is the authoritarian way of "thinking", you start with the conclusion and then try to prod it up with any and all crutches you can find.
https://www.theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/ [theauthoritarians.org]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:58PM (1 child)
Oh interesting, probably part of whatever disagreement we have is I was reading superiority as hierarchy not as some sort of moral issue.
Its very unusual in any human society I'm aware of for hierarchy to correlate with morality. Things work better when it does, however minimally, of course.
Your "never" bit for scientific moral authority seems to exclude some vast swaths of agnostic philosophy. "Do onto others as you would do to you" various wordy utopian rants starting with Plato quite a bit of Buddhist thought, etc.
Thats if you read moral authority with the Moral capitalized. If you read it with the Authority capitalized that means nothing more than hierarchy and dominance and logical fallacies, which is kinda boring, so I focused on capitalized Moral in the phrase moral authority.
Theres a strong argument that moral authority as a phrase is an inherent oxymoron, just another logical fallacy to control people for unjust purposes. If not in theory then certainly in fact.
If you want real controversy, I'd propose that there are tiers of IQ where cultures can only handle a God or can handle their own morality. Much like libertarianism where it can only be implemented practically and safely in a (sub)culture with an average IQ above 120 or so. Now there is huge room for argument on the lowest IQ a society can have before it can't function agnostically... 140? 110? 100? 90? 50? Interestingly that rolls us back into race discussions.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:47PM
I would characterize such ideas as "ethics", not "morality". But I could well be wrong; I'm not particularly connected with the academic traditions here.
It's absolutely possible to have a system of ethics without a higher authority. But the basis of such systems is more explicit: perhaps we are trying to maximize personal liberty, or personal happiness, or respect for one's profession, or the power and influence of one's nation. Regardless, the motive behind an ethical system is open to choice and argument, which makes it different from a moral system, which is always concerned with nothing more specific than what is "good".
Basing the right to resources on racial superiority is exactly this kind of moral system. What is the ethic behind it? One could argue that it is to maximize natural selection. That, however, is a paradox: how does one accentuate a natural process when doing so takes away its "natural" quality?
More likely, the ethic is to maximize personal authority, using natural selection as an argument for racism but not as its basis. Doing so creates exactly the kind of Morality that you decry: a system meant to manipulate the dumb into supporting a hierarchy that works directly against their own interests.
I didn't realize when I started writing this that I'd arrive at how racism maintains an underclass of the dominant race, but here we are. White supremacists really love to tell poor whites that they deserve special treatment because their whiteness is Good. This racist ideology lacks the debatable basis of an ethical system, and largely serves to keep poor whites from joining other underclasses in pursuit of economic justice.
In this case at least, the hierarchy that results has very little to do with morality or ethics. It has more to do with ambition, ruthlessness, and access to resources. It's my general impression that this is the basis of almost all human hierarchies. I am not aware of any moral or ethical system that prizes these values above all others; the closest I can think of is the Ferengi from Star Trek, who function more as a caricature of capitalism than an actual coherent ideology.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday February 11 2019, @04:58PM (4 children)
Anti-racism is not a denial of evolution.
First, actual genetic variations in humans have not all that much to do with "race" as commonly defined. There are all kinds of genetic variations that have no effect whatsoever on skin color, hair type, or eye shape, and those variations are not geographically distributed in the way that racists think they are.
Second, wherever there has been human contact, there has been lots of human interbreeding, and thus there are not and never have been clear dividing lines between groups of people with particular genetic variations. The differences between a northern European and southern European are noticeable but not huge. Ditto for a southern European and a northern African. Ditto for a northern African and a central African. Ditto for a central African and a southern African. A similar spectrum occurs west-to-east at all latitudes.
Third, a fundamental claim of racism is that the genetic variations that have something to do with skin color, hair type, eye shape, etc are also indicators of completely unrelated genetic variations and even at-least-partially-non-genetic characteristics from muscle mass to morality to the ability to solve complex math problems. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of these claims.
The bright dividing lines and categories of "white", "black", "yellow", and "red", and the supposed non-physical characteristics associated with those colors, which are the key ideas of racism, were invented by white people who wanted an excuse to do terrible things to people they didn't consider "white". That's it. It's nothing more than making up nonsense to pretend it's OK to commit genocide, slavery, and robbery on a scale that makes the Holocaust look like a relatively minor incident.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Troll) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @06:00PM (3 children)
Your claim seems very fuzzy; somehow a genetic mutation resulting in cancer of the breast "proves" that genetic mutation resulting in cancer of the throat. If you're not a racist, how could you possibly know what racists think? You seem rather certain that because only euros have the gene to digest milk as adults, that racists think there are no black people in Africa or something. If you're gonna straw dog, straw dog something reasonable, at least, rather than fanciful. That's like denouncing Jews because of the contents of the protocols of the elders of zion level of logical fallacy. Sometimes leftists use scenes from TV and movies as "proof" of political stuff, which is a similar logical fallacy.
The second is also not terribly useful. Yes a spoon is just a fork with very short tines, and a fork is just a spoon with long tines, and there are interbred sporks, but it seems nonsense to claim that argument somehow proves the concept of fork or spoon do not exist either in theoretical form or practical example, and I have no idea where kitchen knives fit in this analogy. Spoons do not exist therefore I can't buy them at the store; but I can. Another example is from engineering, there exist different sized screws and its possible to manufacture anything that can be reasonably specified, therefore that somehow proves that as a "race" of screws the 6-32 pan head machine screw does not exist and the buckets of them at home depot only exist in the fevered mind of screw-ists who are scientifically wrong. Or a worse example, you've now proven that metric and imperial screws now no longer exist, so if you have a screw that don't fit the hole, just hammer it into place and it'll work just as well as putting the correct screw in the correct hole. We can build boats that fly and boats that sink under the surface of the water and resurface some time and distance later, thus proving the non-existence of boats both theoretically and practically.
The third claim is flat out untrue. Sickle cell anemia is equally distributed across races? Lactose tolerance? IQ? Criminality or proclivity to violence regardless of socioeconomic level? LOL, come on. An alternative interpretation is mind body dualism and the soul and intellect have nothing to do with gray matter or genetics; which is kinda seen as nonsense in modern biology. Its an obsolete view from pre 1800s era medical science. See also vitalism theory and early organic chemistry.
The forth claim misses the point entirely. A great SN automobile analogy is if your only argument against drunk driving is that car manufacturers don't exist in some abstract sense if you ignore reality hard enough and apply enough logical fallacies, then maybe drunk driving is not so bad or you have a logical argument problem, but certainly lecturing people about how believing that car manufacturers exist makes them bad people or they're simply wrong with no proof, or will cause another Holocaust, or believing in the existence of car manufacturers will result in drunk driving deaths, is kinda ridiculous. No... I don't think caving into reality by admitting Ford and Toyota exist, necessarily and inevitably leads to putting Jews in gas chambers again. I think we're pretty safe, or at least next time it happens it won't be because car mfgrs exist.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday February 11 2019, @07:33PM (2 children)
He is not arguing, he is summarizing a huge amount of scientific literature on the matter of race. If you want to have a debate, really, it is unfair to expect everyone else to put an increasing amount of effort into educating you while you don't make any efforts otherwise. So here is my solution:
Q1. What defines a race according to you?
Q2. How many races there are? You can give vague numbers like "more than 100", but give us a number.
Q3. If you gave a finite answer to Q2, list those races. If you gave a vague number, list 5 races and 5 groups of people you don't consider a race.
After you have answered the above 3 questions we will know how much effort is needed, and I am sure there will be some people who have that much time and energy.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday February 11 2019, @08:26PM (1 child)
It doesn't really matter.
For alt-right types like VLM, it's all motte and bailey.
"You can generate estimated regional origin based on full genome sequencing"(which is mostly true, but with serious caveats they will never, ever acknowledge) is what they want you to agree is possible, and as soon as you do, it's equated to completely unsubstantiated(and, in fact, genuinely contraindicated by their own favorite research on the subject if you read past the abstracts*) claims about IQ being derived from skin color. They push a narrative of some small measures of genetic diversity being real in order to wedge in completely false narratives for the pliable.
And they will never ever ever ever ever ever admit to being wrong. Because their worldview is built on excusing their very personal failures as individuals by suggesting some vague group they belong to is better than some other vague group. It's also why they fixate on "western civilization" despite the broad swath of that philosophical tradition owed entirely to other cultures(and the term itself being vague to near the point of uselessness).
VLM is a waste of a human being, and the things he says about race and culture have more to do with that than anything based on serious analysis of anything.
*No really, their GWAS of all polymorphisms in a population sample of 100,000 could only attribute 20% of variation in intelligence to genes (including interactive) effects in healthy individuals, but the abstracts by these fucks still say surely it's all in genes, twin studies said so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:23AM
VLM does not exist, since I cannot buy him from a bin at Home Despot.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday February 11 2019, @04:59PM (7 children)
There's admittedly very little solid argument to support that all races/genders/etc. are, on average, "equal" by any objective measure.
HOWEVER: the important thing to keep in mind is that standard deviation is generally much larger than the difference between the mean. As an example: Group X may average 5 IQ points more than Group Y (a fairly huge difference according to actual statistics), but since 1/3rd of each population lies at least 15 IQ points away from the average, that doesn't really tell you anything useful about how the intelligence compares between two randomly selected individuals from X and Y.
Without racism, you'd expect an intelligence-based job to be occupied by slightly more X's than Y's, and all of them outliers among the general population. With racism you'd expect to see mostly X's, despite the fact that many Y's are much more intelligent than many of the X's employed.
Basically - people should be judged as individuals rather than by population traits, because population traits generally aren't particularly relevant to anything except population-based statistics. And nobody ever employs, befriends, etc. a population.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @05:28PM (6 children)
Oh boy, that one again.
Global warming doesn't exist because the temperature difference between night and day is vastly larger than the average temperature in 1979 and 2019.
Actually, no, thats not how the math works, the more extreme the job the more extreme the ratio. So you'd expect like 501/499 for dog catcher or bartender jobs, but the ratio goes nuts at the extremes where you'd mathematically expect like 99/1 ratios for compiler optimizer troubleshooters or rocket scientists or whatever.
If the average IQ (or whatever) for jobs were boring middle numbers, sure. The subpopulation of real estate saleswomen should theoretically match the overall population much closer than some exotic extremes.
Fun fact about income inequality and permanent destruction of jobs by automation; when IQ 80 people could get "good jobs" in the factories that meant plenty of racial equality of outcome, but when all sub-130 IQ jobs are moved to China / India that means the only people with jobs will be the weird ratio at the extremes of the overlapping curves... not anything like overall population stats at all.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @05:56PM (5 children)
Fuck off racist twat
**Do not engage VLM on race topics, he is a racist hiding behind a halfway open closet door**
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @06:17PM (4 children)
"hiding" ... ok then, AC.
You have to remember its the current year; in 2019 "being racist" merely means being well educated in biology or statistics. Or being relatively immune to logical fallacies in arguments. Or merely being white. Under 2019 definitions, sure, that's me alright. Its not exactly the old days of the Klan where being racist meant something a little more extreme.
You know you're on the correct side of the argument when all the logical arguments are finished and there's nothing left but shouting obscenities. I mean, sure most people of a civilized scientific bent traditionally said something more like "OK sure you convinced me of this plate tectonics thingie, we're all good now" but a good solid "FO" is apparently the modern translation.
Think for a bit about who benefits by comparing normal people, and normal centrist or slightly right wing opinions, to Jim Crow era lynch mobs. Who's getting legitimized here and who's getting delegitimized... Just saying, as a kinda right wing guy, this sorta thing is great PR for the right. Every time a leftist calls a Modern Mainstream Republican a Nazi or Racist or whatevs, another ten Trump voters appear, I love it. If someone would MAGA by calling me a Nazi, that would be great, thanks.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday February 11 2019, @07:53PM (2 children)
Oh, really? What exactly are your credentials? What degrees do you have? What are your published academic works on the subject? How long have you been using your knowledge in the fields of biology and statistics professionally?
Or, as I suspect is far more likely, is it that you spent your time reading a bunch of racist recruitment material somewhere on the Internet and have now decided that anything that disagrees with that must be wrong, never mind the facts?
I do agree there's no closet here, though. Except, of course, that VLM doesn't have the guts to identify himself and thus find out if his employer(s), friends, family, etc find his arguments compelling.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:26PM (1 child)
If your side of the argument has nothing beyond logical fallacies like appeal to authority, citation needed, namecalling, and threats of doxing, that means my side has already won, thanks!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:44PM
Believe that all you want, "your side" is a bunch of whiny entitled white boys who make up a small percentage of the population. No amount if "winning" on the internet will change that, and you should realize by now that every time you think you've "won" and gotten your "yummy liberal tears" it is just making someone angry that such idiots like you exist. Not exactly a real win just pissing people off, but it is better than your genocidal tendencies.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:56PM
haha no, I know I'm on the correct side of the argument because SCIENCE and because I pay attention to the racist shit you post. You've toned it down a lot recently, but as long as you keep engaging the topic I will be pointing out that your somewhat more reasonable arguments these days are still coming from a racist twat.
Maybe you're not racist and just an idiot who believes bad "science" from actual racist twats trying to confirm their discrimination.
Why just tell you to fuck off then instead of engaging your arguments? Cause it is tiresome, we've been over this many times before, and you just want a platform to spew your shitty arguments!! So "fuck off" is the most efficient reply.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday February 11 2019, @07:04PM
We are all equal in our Creator's eyes. Faith in God has inspired men and women to sacrifice for the needy, to deploy to wars overseas, and to lock arms at home, to ensure equal rights for every man, woman and child in our land. We are not just flesh and bone and blood. We are human beings, with souls. God bless you. And God bless America.