Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3311
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 18 hours ago, Homercles said:

    but I feel that their uptempo offense is bringing the defensive struggles of the BigXII to the SEC

    LSU 2011: 62 offensive snaps per game
    LSU 2019: 71 offensive snaps per game

    Quote

    ...don’t get a lot of rest

    By what standard? Their TOP isn't significantly different than it was under Miles, their offense is more efficient than Miles' could be in his wildest fucking dreams, and they turn the ball over considerably less.

    Quote

    defend more possessions

    They're averaging 0.5 more possessions per game than they did in Miles' best years, and their average TOP is different by a factor of 3 minutes. 

    Seems to me like their D just flat out isn't as good as it used to be, but they've more than made up for those deficits with outstanding offensive play.

  2. What’s gotten lost in this conversation is the embarrassingly dishonest tactic the anti-NN crowd has used in support of their view, which is the perpetual employment of the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

    As previously stated, Net Neutrality was instituted as a consumer protection measure. It was well justified as 40% of the country (129 million people) are serviced only by one option for ISP’s. Ajit Pai lobbied strongly against it, and his reasoning was that NN is a “burdensome regulation.”

    That is what’s known as a positive statement, and positive statements require positive evidence. In this case, Pai has to satisfy 2 measures of proof in order to justify the repeal:

    1. How exactly is NN “burdensome” to ISP’s?

    2. If it can be proven that NN is burdensome to ISP’s, what evidence is there that it is so burdensome that ISP’s deserve the benefit of the doubt in weighing corporate interests against public/consumer interests? 

    Ajit Pai failed spectacularly in every way he could fail to meet that standard of evidence. Similarly, the OP here cannot answer these questions rationally. He uses logical fallacies, emotionally potent oversimplifications and canned retorts as a means to conceal the reality that, as numerous others have stated, he hasn’t the foggiest clue what this issue is even about. That’s been the common thread that I’ve observed in every single poster on shaggy/surly that supported the repeal. FCHorn thought NN was the internet’s version of the fairness doctrine, and everyone else’s argument basically came down to “Trump supports the repeal, therefore it is good and right.”

    • Like 1
  3. 17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    It gets better.  You’re going to be OK.

    If you knew what it was you were arguing, you'd have already stated it instead of resorting to these useless canned retorts. 

  4. 5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Are you arguing that service levels in the airline industry are better today than they were pre-deregulation?

    green_shirt_guy.gif

    He doesn’t even know what the fuck he’s arguing. 

  5. 18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    You will wait forever. All he knows is what someone else told him, which is "regulate bad, deregulate good." 

    • Like 1
  6. 5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

     Beyond, “evil corporations might”.

    Explain away brainiac.

    No explanation is needed. You tried to plead a case in favor of the repeal of net neutrality, you didn’t give any rational person a single reason to believe you, so we therefore have no reason to believe you.  Come back when you have something to consider.

    To top it off, you come out with these one-liners that you think are loaded with intelligence, but all they do is confirm what we suspect: you suffer from “a cognitive bias in which [you] mistakenly assess [your] cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from [your] inability to recognize [your] lack of ability.”

  7. 4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Talk about pantsing yourself.

    yup, I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

    Leftist fucking drivel. 

    Just give up. You’re like the boxer who wants a rematch with Mike Tyson after he knocked him out 60 seconds into the fight. 

  8. 8 hours ago, Incredulity said:

     

     Explain away Mr. Helper.

    Telling that you rely on insults.  

    Let me guess, not worth your time.  Taking your ball and going home.

    He doesn’t rely on insults, he’s just using them for decorative effect. He’s a colorful one, that hayden.

    You, on the other hand, are relying on the greatest weapon you have: the inability to understand simple things.

    • Like 1
  9. 1 hour ago, Todd Gack said:

    And the one response is an editorial from a guy (not a climatologist) who also wrote an article called "Coal is Clean".  This is after he laments that "there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation."  Jesus...

    I understand it's easy to think you're enlightened and above it all when you stay in your echo chamber and only ingest info from people who already agree with you.  But to then lecture everyone else about propaganda and manipulation is just too much cunty condescension to ignore.

     

    1 hour ago, Longhornmaniac8 said:

    A guy citing Spencer/Christy's work as the end-all, be-all of temperature records and criticizing others for making adjustments is just laughably hilarious.

    And then citing an article by Bjorn fucking Lomborg as an accurate authority on, well, anything. I should say he's great at being a contrarian.

    And then citing one single response to one of the 10 peer-reviewed papers that find >90% consensus among climate scientists as if it refutes it.

    It's really funny when people like @Thetexashammer pretend they know what they're talking about because they've done a little internet sleuthing.

    He's so stupid he doesn't even know what he doesn't know. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

    I think it’s very informative that when I very obviously accused mop, who’s held to be some sort of concerned citizen by his fanatic right wing brethren, to be a sufferer of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, he chose the route of negging the accuser rather than refuting the accusation.

    He didn’t do that because he thinks it’s false; he did it because he knows it’s true and he’s too much of a chickenshit to admit it. If one were to roll his balls into a drinking straw, it’d look like two kernels of corn rolling through a storm drain.

  10. 11 hours ago, DixonHur said:

    The "evidence", as far as I can tell, consists of an inability to read a line chart, a creationist, and a writer with no science background.  So, I did evaluate it and decided it was BS.

    As would anyone else with an IQ greater than that of a lima bean

    • Like 1
  11. 15 minutes ago, Bookman said:

    I know what you mean, right? It's like the general theory of relativity. It doesn't explain the motions of galaxies, so therefore gravity doesn't exist.

    TURNING SCIENCE ON ITS HEAD BECAUSE I DONT LIKE WHAT YOU SAY!!!

  12. 44 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    here's the thing about arguing with the climate deniers: it's actually dogma for them. there is a strong correlation between evangelical and climate science belief. they are not here to take input, they are here for output, to preach the word. i'm 100% serious about this. they will never change their mind.

    and here's the thing about he dishonest way that they frame the debate: we are actually in the middle of the catastrophe. it's not like a high speed car wreck, it's a lot more like a slow moving train wreck. we know our climate is changing. some of it may be due to natural climate fluctuation, but there is no denying that throwing a bunch of carbon into the air isn't affecting the larger trends.

    and beyond that...what's so bad about a green new deal? we know it will create jobs, we know clean air and water are good things. we should aspire to be a better steward of the planet. i mean, shit, that's in the first book of the bible.

    we are polluting our oceans. but the thinking is similar to air pollution: the ocean, like the atmosphere, is so big that certainly we are overstating our role in this, right? wrong. our ecosystem is hardy and flexible, but it is also a fairly delicate balance of things that allow us to eat sushi and farm corn. we should absolutely try to minimize our impact on that, and deal with the planet's changing climate as it happens to the best of our ability, as humans have always done.

    there is finally movement on this front, real international movement. and how anyone wants to shout about "but, this article said this in 1978!" misses the goddamn forest for the trees. we are the frog enjoying the hot bath at the moment. if we don't find a way to turn off the fire, we will be that boiled frog. 

    There’s no doubt about any of that especially for the bolded portion. They are simply living out the Statements of Faith from a lot of religious organizations like Answers in Genesis. In it, they actually brag (as if this were a virtue) that “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

    Confirmation bias, holla!

  13. 24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    I, too, was flummoxed that he called the "running back drop a wide open touchdown" play. Great post. 

    Goddamnit, is that still a thing? There still are people shitting on Herman for the best call that he had for the whole of that game???

    • Like 1
  14. 48 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Again, fucking read. It doesn't say nations will be wiped off the face of the earth by 2000. It says they could potentially be wiped out (which they can be) sometime in the future if we don't act before the year 2000. That statement was 100% true at the time and still is. The whole point was that we could have avoided a significant possibility for cataclysmic damage by acting before 2000, not that the damage would occur by 2000.  

    Not only that, when you make a prediction that X will happen by Y year and it turns out that X happened by Z year, it doesn’t invalidate the whole fucking prediction.

    Two weeks ago my wife and daughter and I  went to a birthday party. The host was asked to bring a guest a bottle of beer and when he reached into the cooler, he noticed that two of the bottles were conjoined by a chunk of ice. He laughed, pulled out the chunk and let it sit on the part of his deck where the sun was hitting. We then placed a small wager as to when the ice would melt to the point where the bottles would separate. A bunch of people said it would happen sooner than it eventually would. So they were wrong about the when, but they were correct about the what. Nobody said “it’ll never melt and that wet spot on the deck has nothing to do with anything.” They all knew it was going to melt, it was just a question of when.

    Similarly, even if the timing of these AGW predictions were as wrong as these idiots claim, it does not invalidate the whole of the prediction. If I predicted 18 months ago that the 2018 Texas-OU game would be played on October 13 and it turns out that they would be scheduled for October 6, that doesn’t mean I was wrong about the two fucking teams playing each other for the whole year (or that they ever did).

  15. 18 hours ago, zork said:

    Why are you fuckers negging mop?  He cares about the topic?  He brings discussion on the topic.  You may not agree with everything or anything he says but he is legitimately attempting to discuss the topic.  Let him talk, or at least don't neg him to bolivia and then, like swam, start talking months later about why he or his ilk aren't here talking with you about xyz.  He says he is a UT grad.  He has great fish stories too about his time on the coast.  Let him talk.

    You’re confused. He’s doing neither of those things

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  16. On 9/16/2019 at 12:18 PM, CurlyDumps said:

    This isn’t even a bad or painful memory for me. In the moment, it was a comedic masterpiece.  Charlie Chaplin in his prime couldn’t have delivered such a brilliant blend of satire, slapstick, and truth. Now, with the benefit of time, the feelings associated with being a national embarrassment  have faded, and the memory of that game conjures nothing but pure joy. It was a great day for Texas Football.  Thank you, Coach Strong.

    When I watched the Texas captains walk to the middle of the field for the OT coin toss, I looked at their expressions and I said to my father “I have not seen that expression since January 3rd 1993.”

     

  17. 2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

    obviously. but like i said, what struck me is how difficult it even is, even if the intent was there (which i agree, it is not). 

    it’s like telling your kid, you can have all the cookies and cupcakes you want, i want you to be happy. then locking him in a jail cell full of spinach and lima beans. 

    the citizens who spout this have no idea about the process, and still likely know more than fearless leader. 

    They have no idea because all they know is what soundbytes from either of the two teams physically trigger their silly assed little tribal instincts. 

    If they had any actual idea, the only conclusion you draw from observing the realities regarding legal immigration is “wow, I’m surprised that illegal immigration isn’t even more prevalent than it already is.”

    But they don’t say that. Instead, they march happily along as their naked emperor strips away legal routes to immigration, bark loudly about intensifying “defenses” against illegal immigration, and absolutely cannot for the life of them see how ridiculously contradictory and unrealistic the ultimate aim of those two policies, in conjunction with each other, truly are. There’s a lot wrong with that lot, but one of their worst shortcomings is the sheer inability to complete syllogisms.

  18. 2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

    obviously. but like i said, what struck me is how difficult it even is, even if the intent was there (which i agree, it is not). 

    it’s like telling your kid, you can have all the cookies and cupcakes you want, i want you to be happy. then locking him in a jail cell full of spinach and lima beans. 

    the citizens who spout this have no idea about the process, and still likely know more than fearless leader. 

    They have no idea because all they know is what soundbytes from either of the two teams physically triggers their silly assed little tribal instincts. 

    If they had any actual idea, the only conclusion you draw from observing the realities regarding legal immigration is “wow, I’m surprised that illegal immigration isn’t even more prevalent than it already is.”

  19. 7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

    rarely click on this thread, was coming to post the ^^^ clip from lwt.  horrifying.

    What’s horrifying is how little that dumb motherfucker in the White House knows about this topic, which was his one issue that he ran on. That’s like Sarah Palin with “tax cuts” written on her hand but around a million times more ridiculous. 

    Seriously, he really does believe

    1) that lottery nonsense as he spelled it out (that wasn’t the only time he’s referenced it),

    2) that “the country is full,”

    3) decries chain migration when he hasn’t the foggiest clue what the fuck it is, how it works, or that his wife did it for her parents

    4) that we have zero obligation to refugees even from countries whose straits are largely our doing, a la Honduras 

    5) that illegal immigration is a national emergency and that, to combat it, we must build a gigantic wall along the southern border even though the overwhelming preponderance of illegal immigration is done in ways that a wall could not stop

    It’s like the moral depravity of his policy proposals is trying to compete with the stupidity of same. That’s quite a remarkable competition that takes place inside of that empty head

    • Like 1
  20. 17 hours ago, mop said:

    what a thread.

     

    the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012 was left with something like 4,000,000 square kilometers of sea ice, it was a relatively low ice year.  it is now 2019....and we are having a year roughly the same as 2012.  consider that 4 million square kilometers is about 2.5 times the size of Alaska. so the prediction was an ice-free arctic by 2012.  7 years later we have an area 250% the size of Alaska with ice.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...