Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    44383
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    247

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    hate to be the rainshower, but that video is fake - the screaming kids are actually reacting to a terrifying easter bunny

    Seriously, folks.  Don't be Trumpkins about this shit.  

  2. 2 minutes ago, woohorn said:

    Witness reports are crazy-dumb fucks can't even get gender.
     

    Quoted for emphasis.  Remember that EVERY SINGLE TIME you hear or rely on witness reports.

    I've told this story before, about my personal experience with "unreliable witness accounts" - I was 10, mom and I were driving home from a movie (Politergeist -- you only moved the headstones!).  High speed police chase ends right next to us -- vehicle goes airborne, upside down, smashes into telephone pole.  Guy crawls out bleeding, but alive.  A few minutes later, we get home, and tell my dad what just happened.  I told him about the silver TransAm that crashed.  My mother says WTF are you talking about, it was a red pickup truck.

    Witnesses are unreliable as shit.

    And my mom was wrong.  I'm sure of it.  Or not.

  3. 16 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:
    52 minutes ago, Blotto said:
    I fully expect Putin will require Trump to suck his dick on live TV. I 90% expect Trump will do it

    In a way, Putin already has Trump fucking a pig on national television regularly a la Black Mirror.

    You need to lighten up on Huckabeef, man.

    • Like 3
    • Haha 1
  4. 8 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

    Let's assume that there is a statistically significant difference between white people and black people in terms of cognitive ability. Some scientist comes along and proves that this difference is purely genetic and upbringing, nutrition, or any external factors are irrelevant. It's undeniable.

    Racists would immediately seize it to argue that white supremacy, racism in public institutions, poverty, and such aren't keeping black folks down; it's a result of blacks not having those magic extra 10 IQ points that white people have on average. That's a lot less nefarious than using it to justify slavery or genocide, but the intent is still malicious. 

    Continuing with the assumption though, wouldn't the ethical response be the total opposite? Wouldn't decent Christian folks at least subscribe to some kind of well-intended-but-still-racist "white man's burden" type of view? 

    As long as you concede that blacks are fellow humans, wouldn't there be a moral obligation to empower blacks and give them extra advantages and special accommodations? I mean, we want disabled people to be able to have the fullest lives possible and achieve self-actualization. We have laws in place to protect these genetically shortchanged people. We try to remove barriers but also give direct assistance and aid to them. 

    I find it telling that 0.00% of people cite these studies to advance even an attempt at an ethical (albeit patronizing and misguided) position like the one above. When in the context of politics and policy, they are used to either absolve past crimes by the "superior" race or justify future ones. Whether the science is reliable or not, cheapening life and dehumanizing  "other" is, historically, the prelude to every genocide that has ever occurred. 

     

    2 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

    Bullshit. If you were pro-science you wouldn't keep starting these stupid threads with anti-scientific premises. You've been told over and over again, in many different ways and in great detail, that the concept of race is scientifically invalid, and yet you cling to it like an infant sucking its mother's tit. Look at the title of this one: when the source materials you are purporting to discuss are talking about genetically distinct populations, you reduce this to the simplistic, outmoded concept of race. This is antiscientific superstition. Take a look at the actual research with an open mind if you really want to be pro-science (yeah, I know you don't, but for the sake of argument let's pretend you're doing something other than trolling).

    The whole premise is garbage, from "the evil left is against subpopulation studies" to "let's see how it correlates to race."

    There are stacks of studies -- seriously, I suspect that one could go on a mission to read them all this year, and not make a dent -- that examine genetic features and variations of distinct subpopulations.  Yep, including Africans.  Who, by the way, are genetically diverse as hell -- again, rendering the concept of "race" complete garbage.  Which African subpopulation is the "African/black race?"  Shit, which European subpopulation is the "white race?"  Because there's an ass-ton of genetic diversity INTERNALLY in each of those "races."

    Here's just one study I found in literally seconds of google searching:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067985/

    Quote

    Because modern humans originated in Africa and have adapted to diverse environments, African populations have high levels of genetic and phenotypic diversity. Thus, genomic studies of diverse African ethnic groups are essential for understanding human evolutionary history and how this leads to differential disease risk in all humans. Comparative studies of genetic diversity within and between African ethnic groups creates an opportunity to reconstruct some of the earliest events in human population history and are useful for identifying patterns of genetic variation that have been influenced by recent natural selection. Here we describe what is currently known about genetic variation and evolutionary history of diverse African ethnic groups. We also describe examples of recent natural selection in African genomes and how these data are informative for understanding the frequency of many genetic traits, including those that cause disease susceptibility in African populations and populations of recent African descent.

    There are hundreds of genetically distinct subpopulations in Africa alone.  The SECOND that someone uses the word "race" in discussing genetic subpopulation research, they discredit themselves beyond possible rehabilitation.

    Just like Tahoe did.  When he foolishly picked this "fight," on the back of a non-existent problem (weren't we told that the evil left wouldn't allow genetic research into subpopulations?), and used the word "race" (a scientifically irrelevant and meaningless word) in his three word thread title.

    The only thing we're gaining from this is a data point that may be relevant to a determination that the genetically distinct subpopulation of angry white guys in Alabama is a bunch of morons.  We should do more research into why that is.

    • Like 1
  5. 1 minute ago, Texas73 said:

    You think Trump was qualified to be president?

    Shit, he's not even qualified to manage a Burger King franchise.

    I think it's ironic that, in response to a Dem president whose chief failing was his lack of experience and perspective for an executive position answerable to millions of people, the GOP gave us....Trump.  Even LESS qualified, who has NEVER answered to ANYONE.  Head-shaking stupidity indeed.

    I'm enough of a grown-up to have seen inside plenty of organizations -- private for-profit, non-profit, and governmental.  And in every one of them, the leadership is answerable to someone, and damned well better have some experience and perspective that qualifies him or her for the job.  On the occasions where I've seen folks (voters, a board of directors) try to go with the "let's pick a total outsider" approach....it has ended poorly.  Because if you're hiring a ship's captain, you're ALWAYS going to be better off if you hire someone who is an experienced sailor vs. someone who's never even stepped off of land.

    • Like 1
  6. Nope, not even close.
    Moreover, all exit strategy scenarios are unpleasant.
    I give Trump at least another year.

    Yep. Through it all, this is the truth. We built a system that resists efforts to remove an executive, even a godawful one. That’s good...but here’s the weakness of that system.
    You rang?
    Yes, I know it's only one day, but your post reminded me of this article.
    Stocks post worst start to April since the Great Depression
     


    It’s gonna take a lot more of that to register with the moron class.
    giphy.gif

    Pure truth.
     


    And that’s also pure truth. We have a toddler attacking one of the largest businesses in the country, costing the American people billions. Because he’s a petulant infant.
  7. It's the Copernicus position in Copernicus v. Catholic Church.  (pro science, anti- political correctness)

    Bullshit. It’s the lazy Samuel Morton position. You aren’t worthy to sniff Copernicus’ skidmarked shorts.

  8. Also, I think it needs to be said in the interest of being a good internet friend; you aren’t getting good wood on the ball and hitting the sweet spot like you think you are when you post these “accusations-cum-wisdom”, if that is what you are thinking is going on. It just seems like you feel a bit too good about your positions and your arguments/persuasion when some real work is needed. Especially when your posts towards the end of the shag were the epitome of fear-based.
     
     It does pain me to see a poster of merit and respect like twiceHorn take up your water here.

    I’m human. I’m often guilty of the same emotional reactions as the rest of you.

    But I’m trying to do better.

    As for my read on what a shitshow our president and his followers are....I’m predicting the likely outcome. It’s not “fear” to see the titanic approaching an iceberg and saying “that bodes ill.” Irrational fear is saying “there’s a crisis of icebergs everywhere” when the data shows they aren’t.
  9. I am not citing stats Brisket, I am citing life.  Suppose I don't believe the stats?  There is one other thing you may find of interest.  If you think the police are out of control now, you should have lived then.  Maybe that's why I believe crime was controlled(or at least isolated), and people could let their kids run the entire neighborhood without fear.

    You’re free to “not believe stats”....but that doesn’t make them any less true.

    As for cops, I damn well know they were even worse in the past. We just have better video coverage now.
  10. Tahoe: Part of the problem is that both authors meander through the topic with a bunch of unrelated commentary.  They are terrible longcats with more political grandstanding than insight or analysis.
     
    I think Klein is right that anything considering race as a factor directly or by proxy is going to have the propensity to be racist - whether that means being used as talking points for outright racists to confirming low self-expectations for certain races.   
    I don't think that's a strong enough argument to make the subject taboo.

    Because “race” is meaningless garbage when discussing genetics. Don’t forget that. If you use the concept of “race,” you’re already producing garbage. Genetically distinct sub populations is where it’s at. There are thousands of those on each continent.
  11. 1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

    If it's  1400 or 1500 I don't want to argue whether the Earth is flat or round.  I wouldn't have the expertise to know.  But I would support the efforts of scientists to study the issue and publish their papers.  I would want the critical arguments to be science, not an attack on their belief in God.  I wouldn't want them criticized for blasphemy.

     

    And you'll ignore the fact that population genetics is inherent in a crapload of ongoing genetic research without a peep of complaint, because you want to act like an aggrieved pussy, the member of the greatest snowflake generation ever known, mostly because you're pissed off about the fact that society has evolved to a point where you can no longer say "nigger" in polite company.

    You're a reprehensible toad.  The fact that you also abuse the simplest tenets of logical analysis and discourse is merely the diarrhea icing on the turd cake that you serve up wherever you go.  Those folks at those meetings oughta give a second look at those "donuts" you're bringing....

    • Like 2
  12. 16 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Trump's trade policy is moronic.  It's populist idiocy.

    By far the biggest reason I am a Republican is the difference in economic policy - taxes, trade, fiscal restraint, and so forth.  But Trump's trade policy is the populist crap that I hate.  And for a few decades it is very difficult to have fiscal restraint because both parties have a kind of veto power.

    Seriously, STFU.  You bought the clunker knowing EXACTLY how bad it sucks.  Caveat emptor, dumbass. 

    9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

    I stopped being a Republican a long time ago because they weren't interested in fiscal restraint of any sort (unless it pissed off the Dems), and I still don't know why you carry their water, because all they care about is pleasing their lobbyists/donors.  They aren't even bothering to look ahead past the next few elections.

    They laugh at people like you.  They use people like you, because you think that things like fiscal restraint matter to them, when they've got decades to show they don't care.  George W. and the Republican Congress shoulda told you everything you needed to know about the GOP in its current state.

    And this.

    Tahoe is....AT BEST...a useful idiot.  What a grand lot in life. 

    • Like 1
  13. 6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Sullivan's thesis, and mine, is that the Left doesn't want such research.  What about you?

    Do you support genetics research like Reich is conducting?  What about Murray's research?  I'm not asking whether you think it's good research or agreeing with their findings.  How would you vote if they asked for more money for Phase II?  If you don't like their quality would you fund a different geneticist to do the same thing?  Are your feelings the same as if they wanted to study the genetics of, say, dogs?

    If you're not among those who attacked Murray for doing his research.  If you differed with his conclusions based on different science I have no quarrel with you.  (I don't know the science.)  If you screamed "racism" and said "he shouldn't be allowed to say that without being personally attacked (versus attacking his conclusions), then you're somebody I'm addressing.

    Examine this thread and identify the posts which included an ad hominem attack.  It's a sure sign of a bad argument.

    You know what else is a bad argument?  A flat-out lie, like "nobody is discussing the article."

    That, and utterly ignoring the plain truth that genetic research, which includes as a necessary component analysis/comparison between subpopulations, is commonplace as hell.  So, the thing you're freaked out about "the left" not wanting to happen....is literally happening ALL.  THE.  FUCKING.  TIME.  So, you ignoring facts so you can bitch about a straw man, that's a bad argument.

    You being a complete piece of shit?  I agree, that's not an argument.  Nor is it arguable.

  14. 15 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

    We are not animals. This is how you go from Darwin to eugenics so easily. Disgusting. 

    We react to fear stimulus in entirely predictable and manipulable manners.  That ain't one of our "higher life form" traits.  And coming from you, that's a rich criticism.  You beat the fear drum as loudly as anyone on this board.  You beat the drum of animalistic, tribalist bullshit louder than anyone.

    And that fact ain't how you get to eugenics.  It's how you get manipulated by Trump and his ilk.  Beat the fear drum to a fever pitch, reap rewards.  Not a new script at all.  

    You are either a sucker, or a perpetrator.  Either one looks ugly on you.  

×
×
  • Create New...