Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    44442
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    247

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.  

  5. 5 minutes ago, jettrink said:

    Yep.  The stuff could have been going on and not reported, but I think most metros covered this type of activity routinely.  There have always been gangs and shit, but some Joe Blow walking up and killing 30 people in a restaurant type of incident just didn't happen.


    Data shows that mass shootings are getting deadlier (higher body count), but not more frequent.  So, that's absolutely a bad piece of data that motivates fear.

    But, when considered in terms of total risk of a person being a victim of a violent crime, we are STILL in the lowest-risk period of our history.  Yes, even accounting for school shootings, the Orlando shootings, the Killeen Luby's, etc.

    What you are talking about is the RANDOMNESS aspect of it.  Which is absolutely something that motivates fear.  But it's not a rational fear, it's an emotional one.

    My body doesn't care whether it is killed in a random act of violence or in a perfectly ordinary statistically likely way (wreck on my way home, shot by someone I know, killed by a deadly disease).  And by that measure, my body is safer than it ever has been.

  6. Just now, jettrink said:

    We fear random acts of depravity because they are a hell of lot more prevalent and at a much larger scale than they were 50 years ago.

    Data please?

    And here's just a simple question to get you thinking about what that data might show....is it that random acts of depravity (say, kidnapping and raping random kids) are more prevalent, OR, is it that coverage of such events is much bigger and better than before?

    Check the data.  There's never been a safer time to be a child in America.  Heck, in just the past 15 years, sex crimes against children have dramatically DECLINED.

    The statistical truth is undeniable: you are safer now in America than at any time in our history.

  7. I just did some intergoogles homework.  There were at least a couple of papers out there that I found right off the bat.

    And it actually logically makes sense.  The old "don't shit where you eat" rule.  If Paul Pervert lives at 200 Pecan Street, and kids start to disappear from 300 Pecan, and 400 Pecan, and the cross street at 500 Pecan...he damned well knows he's gonna be the first place the law looks.

    Sure, there's gonna be some outliers out there, but among the recidivists, they were MORE likely to choose random locations, not those in proximity to their homes.

    Again, if you're going to make a decision based on data meaning something, do some homework to find out if the data indeed actually means what you HYPOTHESIZE that it means.

    • Like 1
  8. 19 minutes ago, yoladu said:

    The abuse of power this president is employing to settle some personal vendetta should scare everyone.

    http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/investing/dow-jones-nasdaq-stocks-amazon/index.html

    This.  If you don't conclude that this is tinpot dictator bullshit, you are a lost fucking cause.

    The president of the fucking United States.  Attacking the fucking THIRD LARGEST AMERICAN COMPANY BY MARKET CAP, taking down that market cap by BILLIONS of dollars (billions of dollars that USED to be part of the net worth of the American people who hold stocks, 401ks, etc.).

    If Obama did this, the Trumpkins' heads would explode.  But their orange god does it, and it's just fine.  Because the orange god did it.  QED.

    For fuck's sake, people.  This admin is so far off the rails, we can't even see the tracks from where it stands.

  9. 3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    Facts. Evidence. Data... that is all a registry is-- facts and data. And, like you argue, facts and data are ideally used to inform decisions so you can make smarter, more intelligent decisions. Right?

    I guess I'm lost here with why you think having a sex offender registry is bad and why you wouldn't want to check it before moving into a specific area and get a view into "who's who in the zoo" and what potential bad actors (based off previous data/evidence/facts) to avoid. I guess my question is, why not? I guess I'm from the camp that having "too much" data is better than "not enough".

    And let me edit to be clear; this isn't necessarily born from fear anymore than using heuristics and stereotypes to inform behavior is born of fear. It's just wanting to leverage some known conditions to minimize risk-- even if the risk is already minimal as you are saying.

    Because data point one (registered sex offenders living in zip code X) doesn't correlate to data point two (likelihood of a registered sex offender committing a sex offense in zip code X).

    Residential sex offender data is effectively useless for the purpose of "avoiding my kids being molested by a repeat offender."

    I don't entirely oppose "sex offender" registries.  I think they should be LIMITED (as you yourself noticed, if a teen couple gets frisky in the back seat of dad's Buick, or if a girl sends her boyfriend a pic of her boobs, it does nobody any good for those folks to be in the database).  AND, I think the database is most useful for situations where there IS a statistical correlation to recidivism: positions of trust.  Your kids aren't likely to be molested by a neighbor just because he lives nearby.  They ARE more likely to be molested by their church youth director.  So, the church should be able to use the registry to make hiring/volunteer decisions.

    But note that my distinction is driven by facts and data.  Data as to sex offenders in my hood?  Useless.  Data as to sex offenders who may end up working with my kids?  Useful.

  10. 3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    I didn't say that kids are more likely to be kidnapped/molested/etc and I agree that it's probably the same likelihood, my only point being that likelihood is still unacceptable because it's largely not a random event (in my eyes). It's not an accident or misadventure or unforeseen mechanical failure/human error, it's a sad mental illness that can be manifest itself into criminal, honorific behavior. I'd like to know if someone has given in to that mental illness before and acted out their criminal fantasies so that I can avoid them because I think there is probably a chance that person could do it again. The same way I'd like to know if someone has been convicted of random terrorism so I could potentially avoid their grocery stores and bus stations (to use your terrorist example).

    Again, my point is and you can disagree and not necessarily be wrong, as far as my kids are concerned, the chances this had of happening in the 1970s and the chances of it happening now, whether they are the same or not, is too high for me and I'd like to be empowered to avoid it. All this being said, I realize there still isn't much by way of control one can have over this happening randomly, but why not curate a list to let others avoid people convicted of this behavior if they want to?

    Because residential proximity is not a particularly correlative factor in whether your kid will be molested.

    IF molestation is going to happen, the order of likely suspects is (1) family member, (2) church or other activity supervisor/contact, (3) (and WAY down the list) stranger in your community.

    And even then, "in your community" is pretty damned broad.  I live on one side of Mopac,.  Maybe there are few registered offenders in my hood.  But on the other side of Mopac, there are more.  Do you think that if Chester the Molester wants to nab a kid walking back from the 7-11, is he more or less likely to do it at the 7-11 a block from his house, or the one across the freeway?

    In fact, the data that is available seems to show that proximity to "targets" has no material correlation to recidivism -- those offenders who do repeat do so at random locations that have no connection to where they reside.

    Facts.  Evidence.  Data.  Not "won't someone think of the children!"

  11. 31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    You act as though this is the result of negligence, and not intent.  You're wrong.

    There is a strong faction within the Republican Party that seeks to undermine the entire concept of public education, and would prefer that public money just go to fund private (overwhelmingly parochial) schools instead.  You've seen the first part of that strategy in how schools are funded--most Oklahoma schools now only have class four days a week.  The next phase of that is the passage of vouchers.

    So if you're a parent, you'll have a choice of (1) part-time poorly-funded public school, or (2) using a voucher (plus some of your own money) to send your kid to a private school.  If you have a job and can't afford to stay at home with the kid on Friday, that's probably not much of a choice at all.  So the GOP succeeds in undermining public education in Oklahoma, all while touting "school choice."

    This.

    And, one more thing:

    If y'all think that leadership in Texas isn't looking at the Oklahoma model with doe-eyed admiration, you haven't been paying attention.  The results in Oklahoma are a feature, not a bug.  And they're a feature our own leaders lust after.

    • Like 1
  12. 8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Yeah, stranger danger is a myth.  And they've already been held accountable with prison sentences and prison records.

    The general public does not have the tools to deal with the information they can glean from the sex offender registry.  The authorities do, to a certain extent, but they already have that information.

    Any purpose such registries serve is false security and whatever infinitesimal bit of good they do is far outweighed by dehumanizing people.

    Good post.

    And look, crime is a great lens through which we can examine fear, and risk mitigation.  My family has been a victim of crime.  Hell, just last year, my daughter had her luggage ransacked during our layover in Kiev.  They didn't take much, but they took a couple of things she cared about, and damaged some of her stuff, and she was really upset when we arrived and she found her bag in that shape.

    Clearly, the risk factor of having that happened is higher in a den of crappiness like Ukraine.  And the "fault" is on the criminals on the ground.  BUT...we exhibited poor situational awareness.  All of our fellow travelers on that flight were doing the "plastic wrap your bag for 2 euros" routine in the Vienna airport.  We should have followed their cue.  And/or, I could have read up a bit on airport security before we flew, and I would have seen that Kiev has a problem with that issue.  And we could have wrapped our bags, and all would have been fine.

    It's a low risk in general.  In certain locations (Kiev), it's a higher risk.  But you can reduce that risk through some simple reasonable measures.  Don't let fear run the show -- use reason, and it's much more effective.

  13. I haven't done any formal IQ test in a jillion years.  I always tested in the 99+ percentile, and IIRC, IQ scores were....really high.  And no, I'm not going to put a number here because I think that's asinine.

    The point is, I'm plenty "intelligent" by the STANDARD metrics that academia uses.

    I'm also just smart enough to realize that doesn't mean NOTHING, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as folks think it does.  "Intelligence" is a broad collection of WAYS you think about things.  In some respects, I have some good ways of thinking about things, and those translate to success.  In other ways, I'm not so strong at my ways of thinking about things, and I struggle, at least relatively.

    In short, IQ etc. is a very limited way of looking at "intelligence."  Subsets of "intelligence" skills are even more telling.  But we don't even know how to categorize or evaluate all of those.  When it comes to thinking, we're talking about grading a computer that none of us designed, we barely understand, and we don't even grasp all of the design or data inputs.  We can talk about pieces of pieces.

    And, bringing it back home....almost NONE of those pieces correlate to "race," which is largely a skin color construct (which DOES have a strong component of localization and limited local variation, but isn't connected at all, genetically, with many other traits).

    • Like 3
  14. 35 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    I'm with y'all up into the incredulity about sex offenders and their registry. I like having them being held accountable and having to register in a fully transparent way so that I can know what neighborhoods to avoid or neighbors, specifically, to avoid when buying a home or who's who in the zoo. I get that rehabilitation works and that some have changes of heart and mind and even more are railroaded by the state for being 17 and having sex with a 15 year old gf, but I'd rather just avoid the whole situation entirely when it comes to keeping kids away from pedo's. Before anyone comments, I know this likely means having to turn down scholly's for my athletic kids to Mich St and Penn St...

    Sure.  Groovy.  But riddle me this: are kids more or less likely to be kidnapped/molested/etc. by a repeat offender in modern times (even before the prevalence of such registries) than they were 40 years ago?

    Nope.  There's a very, very small chance that a kiddie diddler is gonna grab your kid walking back from the 7-11.  That chance was going DOWN when sex offender registries were implemented, and from what I have seen, the trend line didn't change.

    It's just an infinitesimally small risk, so small that it shouldn't really influence your behavior.  Telling your kids to scream and fight like hell if an adult tries to grab them is vastly more effective at making them safe.

    Your thinking is EXACTLY the thinking we're talking about here.

    "I'll just avoid anyplace that might be a target of evil muslim terrorists, so no thank you, I won't be travelling to DC, New York, Paris, London, etc."  Nevermind that the statistical chance of you being a victim of a terror attack in any of those places is so small as to be statistically insignificant.  Layer on top of that the fact that you could be a victim in other places, too -- don't go to San Bernadino, Manchester, Barcelona, Columbus Ohio, Orlando, etc.  The real, and logical answer is "it's not a statistically significant threat in the West, and to the extent that it is a threat, it can happen most anywhere."

    I hunt and shoot with my kids.  Accidental shooting deaths are around 700 per year.  Accidental hunting deaths are around 75-80 per year.  My kids are more likely to be killed doing either one of these hobbies than in a terrorist attack.  And with respect to both (firearms safety and terror attacks), we exercise training and common sense.  Follow gun safety rules.  If you're at the train station in Berlin, and see a backpack leaning up against a post with nobody nearby, report it and GTFO of that location.  Reason and logic, not fear.

    • Like 1
  15. 19 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

    Of course success in life is linked to intelligence.

    Success in life has been linked to the ability to delay gratification. I am passingly familiar with the studies.

    I'm not denying either of those facts.

    I'm saying that "IQ" and the ability to delay gratification are not the same thing. Maybe they are linked, sounds reasonable, I'll read  your links if I get a chance, but they are not the same thing.

    We're also just at the very beginning of understanding how to match genetic markers to certain traits (including but not limited to "intelligence," which in and of itself is difficult to define -- certain cognitive abilities are often characterized as intelligence, but that fails to account for the ability to communicate effectively, or to persuade, or to connect to emotions of others in a social context, etc. etc.).  In other words, we have some pretty weak and narrow definitions of "intelligence," and we have an even weaker idea of how genetics connects to same.

    Hell, there are a crapload of genetic factors that tie to things like hair and eye color, but also seem to have secondary effects that we don't have the foggiest idea what they are.

    Sure, these things should be studied.  And, umm, they are.  But in terms of making any sort of broad conclusions -- well, we know the Tahoes of the world will do so, and will want to do so.  Tahoe, good news, though -- "Crania Americana" is a rare volume, so your copy is worth a LOT of cash.  

  16. 1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

    Evidence for this bullshit statement?

    Which serious geneticists are under attack and by whom? Be specific.

    He can't.

    And the language he uses tells us that he can't, and he's not interested in doing so.

    There ARE geneticists who are studying genetic information from distinct subpopulations.  For fuck's sake, almost all human genetic study involves some element of this.  Correlating it to "race" is where the fucking stupidity takes over, and tells us all about a person's motivations.  It's the third word in Tahoe's thread title.  That wasn't a mistake.  It was the truest thing he's ever written.

  17. 1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

    It’s a bit of a tangent, but I believe it’s this fear of random evil that is at the root of many who buy into conspiracies. We get crackpot theories like the government perpetrating 9/11 or all of these school shootings being hoaxes because the idea of a sinister cabal secretly pulling the strings, as terrifying as it is, is more palatable than the haphazard reality.

    We want SOMEONE to be in control.

    Great point.  I thought it was interesting that this sort of thinking took root most easily among those who are already among the powerless (e.g., look at how much the "street" in the Middle East loves them some conspiracy theories), but then watching the well-educated white folks (who have it pretty good here in the USA) fall for anti-vax bullshit threw a wrench in that.

    I still think there's something to your point, but it's complicated.

    1 hour ago, bernorange said:

    I would posit there is a greater point about enacting "bad" policy based upon emotion period (fear, outrage, jealousy, anger, etc.).  Strong emotions are anathema to reason, logic and strategic thinking.

    They are completely anathema.  And I know we love to joke about the Jack Nicholson line about how he writes women so well: “I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”  But stick with me, there's something to that, with respect to "speaking different languages."

    How many of us had relationship challenges because we were speaking in cold reason and logic (without much emotional empathy), when our partner was speaking entirely in terms of emotions and feelings?  Not only did we not get anywhere, we ended up getting pissed at each other.

    Our country is experiencing (and to some degree, always has experienced) that disconnect.  Trump is the embodiment of the "pure emotions" president.  He has little use for reason, logic, or facts.  But he is a MASTER at playing the crowd and emotions.  I say that with due admiration -- he pulls the strings like very few men can.  We simple critters LOVE us some emotion.  Tell a crowd of Texas fans "OU SUCKS!", and you'll get a loud cheer (I mean, sure, that also happens to be factually true, but that's not why we cheer -- we cheer because it's awesome and fun to hear).  Tell a crowd of riled up angry folks that someone else is to blame for everything they fear, and they LOVE it.  It's time-honored, over thousands of years -- it's winning politics.  Because we're simple animals.

  18. 2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

    Sadly a good portion of our country feels this way. The fact that people are fleeing their countries to avoid almost certain death is lost on them. 

    And my citation to the Bible was not happenstance.  The Venn diagram of people who feel this way and people who are loud and vocal "christians," often of the type who complain that christians are persecuted here, looks a whole lot like two perfectly overlapping circles.

  19. 15 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    The Harvard geneticist didn't equate race with distinct subpopulations.  Andrew Sullivan didn't and I don't.

    Your thread title choice says differently.

    It says it in bold fucking type.

    People who think they're clever are really sad fucking people.

  20. The fallacy is in equating "race" with "distinct subpopulations."  Oh, and I read the whole article.

    All "black people" are not the same subpopulation.  Same with all "asians" or "white people."

    For example, the white subpopulation that has developed in Norway since the Vikings settled down may indeed have some genetic strength with respect to standard IQ testing.  The white subpopulation that has developed in, for example, Alabama, has not.

    Chuck the concept of "race."  It's an outmoded, stupid, intellectually limited and lazy way of looking at genetics.

    The fact that this idea is championed loudest by people like Tahoe even further discredits it.  Yes, it does.  Kind of like how I laughed on the West Mall when I walked by the "legalize hemp" table.  These guys were great at explaining how it was totally NOT about legalizing marijuana as a drug, and hemp is awesome, you can make rope, and clothes, and it will be great for farmers.  Great....but, ummm....if it's totally NOT about legalizing weed, then why were those guys ALWAYS total stoners?

    If it's totally NOT about race....than why is it always old white guys from Alabama pushing this shit?

    Because they want to reinforce their own lazy thinking.  If you'd have said "genetics and genetically distinct subpopulations," you might have a smidgen more credibility here.  There are folks who do genetic research that ties to subpopulations.  There are others who want to revive the thinking of Samuel Morton.  You know which group you fall into.  it's lazy jackasses like you who are actually the greatest impediment to such in-depth genetic research, because you wait ravenously in the wings, drooling at the prospect of extracting each and every data point that validates your pre-existing prejudices.

    • Like 8
  21. Eddie V's has em for $1 each on Sundays and Mondays.

    Also, trade secret: you can go to the Whole Foods downtown or in the Domain (and maybe others), where there's sit-down eating, and (1) buy a bunch in the shell at the seafood counter, (2) ask the guy there to shuck 'em for you, and (3) sit down and eat em for around 75 cents a pop.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...