Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Universe Expansion is real!, Dan8267 said:

    HydroCabron says

    It is amazing how much has happened in the universe in only 10,000 years.

    6,000. Come on, 10,000 would be ridiculous. God would be twiddling his thumbs for ages before Adam was created.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Universe Expansion is real!, Dan8267 said:

    sbh says

    CaptainShuddup says

    If you have an Opinion or a thought of your own, then you have to pay so much in a banter tax.

    Totally unfair: you'll never get taxed on that, and the rest of us shoulder it.

    Not sure about that. What the captain lacks in thought, he more than makes up for in opinions.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Universe Expansion is real!, Dan8267 said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    The universe just isn't big enough for every one. We need to implement a thought tax. That is the only way we could stop Universe expansion.

    Yes, make a Straw Man argument against the science of climate change. The Straw Man argument reflects your misunderstanding of science, not any ridiculousness in climate science.

    Those guys at NASA know their shit. Republicans don't care about pollution, rising sea-levels, or the myriad affects of climate change because their short-term selfish profit interests are served by polluting the Earth. That's the bottom line.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, Dan8267 said:

    mell says

    Every racist (A) now switched to using the word thug (B), but not everyone using the word thug (B) is a racist (A)?

    I'd still question the truth of the first half of that statement.

    Racists are using the word thug, but not everyone using the word thug is a racist.

    Note that not all racists have to be using the word thug, but plenty are.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Women Against Feminism, Dan8267 said:

    Automan Empire says

    How about because their opinions are informed by naivete

    The young can be naive, but the old can be cynical and foolish as well. Wisdom does not come from age alone. And youth has the enormous advantage of looking at things with fresh eyes.

    I cannot accept that older people are generally wiser than young adults because of graphs like this...

    Given the complete lack of any logical reason to make secular marriage only available to heterosexuals, it seems to me that the younger generations are wiser on some issues.

    And that makes sense to me because human beings stubbornly hold on to prejudices, incorrect "facts", and misunderstandings. Over time, these things tend to be filtered from generation to generation. There is a huge advantage to being born later. You get to stand on taller shoulders.

    That's not to say that no wisdom comes from life experience, but my observations have been that the baggage from older generations tends to outweigh what they've learned from experience. And I think the above graph illustrates that.

    Automan Empire says

    I don't think a 14yo with a nose ring is enlightened enough to turn her metallic nose up on feminism entirely

    I don't think that's the case. We are all feminist by the original meaning of the term from the 1900s to 1920s progressive movement. No one believes that women should not have equal rights under the law including the right to vote, own property, sign contracts, own businesses, etc.

    The backlash, and what that 14-year-old (I'm not sure that's really her age) is rejecting is the 1970s pseudo-feminism that turned the family court system and the media into weapons against men. I call it pseudo-feminism because any definition of feminism that would exclude Susan B. Anthony isn't real feminism. Unfortunately, the term has been hijacked since the 1970s.

    It was a beautiful thing back in the early 20th century when it was based on civil rights rather than hate and power mongering.

    As for the nose-ring girl's post, she has a damn good point. The place where 1920s feminism and progressivism needs to expand into is the Middle East. The pseudo-feminists in the popular press today don't seem to give a damn about that.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, Dan8267 said:

    mell says

    So what? You want to label everybody using the word thug as a racist now?

    A implies B does not imply B implies A.

    Why is basic logic so difficult for the masses?

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What would happen if there were no political parties?, Dan8267 said:

    elliemae says

    The Captain would have no one to hate and would be forced to face his anger issues.

    No, I think he'd find groups to hate: blacks, gays, intellectuals, liberals, people who can read or tie their shoes...

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Women Against Feminism, Dan8267 said:

    Diva24 says

    Women? LOL! These depictions appear to be nothing more than pseudo rebellious teens..

    Don't discount the opinions of young adults simply because you do not agree with them.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Dan8267 says

    Sure, you never came out and directly said those words, but like a typical lawyer, you implied it. You meant blacks.

    I agree, that is how it came across to me, Dan. He is a racist, IMO. But then, I made the case in another thread that all Zionists are racist.

    It's really bad when a racist like bgamall4 is like "damn, you're way too racist". It's like if Hitler said to you, "Don't you think you're being a bit hard on the Jews?". Or Michael Jackson saying, "Isn't he a bit too young for you?". Or R Kelly saying, "You really shouldn't pee on that.".

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    iwog says

    I was right the first time. You're a fundamentalist who has already decided the answer before even asking the question. This is an emotional issue for you and not a scientific one.

    Sorry, but I'm not going to conform to the fantasy image you have of me. You can accuse me of anything you like, that doesn't make it true.

    You have demonstrated repeatedly on this thread that you are utterly incapable of addressing the actual arguments I made, so you resort to personal attacks. Now yes, I've called you an idiot, but I've done so after decimating your arguments. You use personal attacks as a way to distract people from all the issues you've dropped.

    You've been caught in bold face lies, misdirection, and wrong "facts". When face with counterexamples and evidence you shrink from the debate and start building Straw Men of your opponents. This is weak as hell. You clearly have an indefensible position, which is why you refuse to debate the actual issues.

    Skepticism is the very opposite of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists refuse to be convince no matter what the evidence. Skeptics demand to be convinced with evidence. You would have learned this if you didn't have your head stuck so far up your ass that you can't hear what other people are saying.

    iwog says

    If you weren't so ignorant of scientific topics, you'd know that there are ample ways of correcting for non-genetic effects. Twin studies, comparative economic studies, etc.

    Ha, if only there were a way to test trolls on the Internet for their knowledge of a subject matter. I'd gladly take any wager that I know far more about science than you do. Unfortunately, trolls can whine about their opponent's "ignorance" with nothing to back that up, just as you have nothing to back up anything you've said.

    Speaking of those "ample ways", you have presented ZERO evidence to support your thesis that blacks -- and yes, you're talking about blacks -- are genetically stupid. Without evidence, holding such a conclusion is pure racism, nothing more.

    iwog says

    You're just flailing again because you're desperate.

    Proof by insinuation is not proof at all. You're speaking like a politician, not a scientist. No scientific hypothesis is ever supported by the proponents calling the opponents poopy-heads. You need evidence, not insults and insinuation, to support a scientific claim. It is you who does not understand the fundamental concepts of science.

    iwog says

    Dire wolves? Sabre tooth tigers? All environments have dangerous predators. All environments have natural hazards. All environments had dangerous rivals.

    Which only serves to support the hypothesis that intelligence would be evolutionary favored in all environments and thus not race-specific.

    iwog says

    you're too dishonest to have this conversation. You already decided the answer. You keep asking me where you are lying so I'll answer you again. You're lying when you say you have the will and/or ability to research an informed opinion on this topic.

    As I've said many times before, you are either a liar or a retard for accusing me of lying. Everything I've said is backed up by evidence. The evidence I demand is what the scientific community would demand before accepting a claim. Since I'm on the side of transparency and proof, I don't need to lie. You, however, lie like crazy.

    Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion that one race is genetically dumber than another. The only thing you referenced is that laughable Wikipedia, the site that claimed Plato was a surfer, a weatherman, and a student of Barney the Purple Dinosaur. I referenced peer-review scientific articles, and your accusing me of lying and not doing research? What blatant hypocrisy!

    I withheld judgement of you for a very long time even though many have called you a troll. But you know what? You are a troll. You behave just like a troll. Everything you've posted in this thread has been trolling. I just hope all the other readers see from this thread just how much of a troll you are.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, Dan8267 said:

    FortWayne says

    Try this out of the world leftist rant from Dan earlier in this thread. He is making his own code language now even. What will the left make up next?

    Dan8267 says

    By the way, thug is now code for "nigger". It's the socially acceptable way of saying that while trying not to appear racist. I guess the conservatives didn't think we could break their code.

    Really, I'm making shit up? Well, not according to Google's autocomplete.

    Or Time Magazine

    Care to rescind your statement, or would you prefer to double down on stupidity?

    By the way, only right-wing nutjobs call me a leftist. Also, only left-wing nutjobs call me right-wing.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    iwog says

    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Honeybuns, I gave you two glaring examples of traits that are the result of environment after you made the ridiculous statement, "You don't need to find a gene to prove a trait is genetic." Your anecdote is not a response.

    Put simply, you are wrong about this, but you aren't man enough to admit it. All biologists acknowledge that not all traits are genetic, so you cannot assume that differences in intelligence or academic performance among populations is due to genetics. I have given myriad examples of environmental factors that affect intelligence. Ignoring all of these is just plain foolish.

    iwog says

    There are also known genetic traits which are too complicated to be caused by a single gene or even a couple of genes

    And no one is arguing otherwise. But to claim that genetic code is specifically responsible for phenomenon X without evidence is nothing more than junk science. And quite frankly, our court system is broken because asshole lawyers use junk science and then our courts execute an innocent man because of this junk science. So yes, I'm holding up an alleged scientific fact to the scientific standards.

    People who promote junk science are assholes and need to be confronted.
    iwog says

    Dan8267 says

    Oh, so there are not survival challenges in Africa? Tell that to the zebra.

    Logical fallacy:

    Iwog: "Races from Northern Latitudes faced unique survival challenges."

    Dan: "Oh yeah? Well here's a non-unique survival challenge in equatorial latitudes! How about that?"

    Oh, you don't want to get into a logic debate with me. I do logic for a living. You lawyers lie for a living. Logic trumps lies every time.

    So, exactly what logical fallacy are you alleging? Here's a list, pick one. Can't wait to kick your ass with some math.

    Also, real, sincere debaters use the actual words of their opponents when quoting them. They don't misquote.

    iwog says

    Just another example of the bullshit that you believe is an argument. Africans did not necessarily need to make fire to survive. They did not necessarily need the ability to harvest and cure hides to survive. They did not necessarily need to built complex shelters to survive. They did not necessarily need to find different kinds of food during different seasons to survive. Perhaps they didn't need a high degree of social cooperation to survive.

    OK, first off, you were bullshitting when you said, "I never said that blacks are genetically dumber.". Sure, you never came out and directly said those words, but like a typical lawyer, you implied it. You meant blacks. So implying that you weren't talking about blacks was deception. Thus, calling me disingenuous was pure hypocrisy.

    Second, although Africans did not necessarily need to create artificial heat, there were certainly main survival challenges for our ancestors. As I stated, Africa is dominated by aggressive predators. Our ancestors had to defend against them. And guess what, they used fire.

    In fact there were a plethora of survival challenges our ancestors had to deal with that required intelligence including cooperative hunting, defense against neighboring tribes, trap setting, following migrating herds, defense against disease, etc.

    In fact, our species almost went extinct from these challenges. And this happened before we migrated to Europe and developed white skin.

    To say that our ancestors didn't need intelligence from 200,000 to 70,000 years ago shows a high level of ignorance.

    iwog says

    The lie is that you demanded peer reviewed studies.

    Wow, you don't even know what a lie is even though you do it all the time. A demand for evidence is not a lie.

    Lawyers don't care about the truth, only about winning. Scientists and engineers care only about the truth and what works, not about winning 'Nuff said.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    iwog says

    Dan8267 says

    My entire political philosophy is that rationality, transparency, and the scientific method solve all problems

    This is just as stupid as saying the free market can solve all problems.

    That's your lame opinion. Science and rationality has solved every problem that has been solved. Nothing has been solved without these things. And there is no reason to believe that rational thought cannot figure out a solution to any problem.

    Oh, and you still haven't addressed my last post. Giving up already?

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    iwog says

    Race doesn't have to be clearly defined beyond black and white and Asian to measure things.

    If you are going to disparage entire populations, you should at least precisely demarcate which populations are genetically inferior.

    Dan8267 says

    There is currently no consensus whether genetics play a role in racial IQ gaps, or whether their cause is entirely environmental.

    I'm sorry, but you seemed to have forgotten about this part of the quote. You quoted the other part above, but not that part. It was in response to your statement

    Race linked intelligence is a proven point. It's not disputed any more than evolution is disputed.

    Are you retracting that statement or did you just forget to respond to my counterevidence?

    iwog says

    I never said that blacks are genetically dumber.

    Oh, I'm sorry. It's statements like the following that threw me off.

    iwog says

    "No adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."

    ~ American Psychological Association commenting on "The Bell Curve" in a report titled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns".

    The reality is that there are difference in intellectual ability between races. Period.

    Precisely which races are you stating that are genetically dumber?

    iwog says

    Dan8267 says

    The standard of evidence I demand is called peer review. It's also the standard used by the scientific community. You know, the people who study genetics.

    Now you're flat out lying.

    Really? Exactly what part of my statement quoted above is a lie? Is it a lie that scientific papers are peer reviewed? Or is it a lie that people who study genetics for a living are scientists? Or is it a lie that geneticists write scientific papers that are peer reviewed. Exactly what is the lie.

    By the way, a lie by definition is intentional. As I am 100% certain I have not attempted to deceive anyone, I can logically conclude that either you are wrong or lying yourself. Either way, you look pretty bad.

    iwog says

    I can prove eye color is genetic without invoking gene mapping or finding the actual gene.

    Ah, but eye color is far easier to demonstrate as there aren't a multitude of lurking variables like income, neighbor crime levels, gang levels, schooling quality, prejudice, economic advantage, exposures to toxins such as lead. None of these things affect eye color but greatly effect intelligence and education. And measurements of intelligence almost always involve measurements of knowledge (education).

    iwog says

    You asked for the gene responsible for intelligence.

    As I said before, your demand is fucking stupid and betrays gross disingenuousness.

    If you think I am being at all disingenuous, you are a complete moron. My entire political philosophy is that rationality, transparency, and the scientific method solve all problems. As such, any degree of disingenuity would be antithetical to my core philosophy. It would be like the Republican Party engaging in wanton gay sex -- ok, bad example.

    However, if you aren't a complete moron, then you know I'm not being disingenuous in any of my arguments, and thus must be a liar. Geeze, a lawyer who lies. Never saw that coming.

    iwog says

    Because that is the only thing the data shows.

    You mean that data that you refuse to show because it's not worth the effort.

    iwog says

    In fact the default position is that races in colder climates were forced to utilize higher grades of technology to survive and therefore had stronger selection pressures than those living in a climate where you could fall asleep naked 365 days out of the year and wake up without freezing to death.

    I can easily explain it.

    Oh, so there are not survival challenges in Africa? Tell that to the zebra. You know zebras? They are like horses except every attempt to domesticate them has failed because they evolved in an ecosystem with highly aggressive predators.

    By the way, I thought you said you weren't talking about blacks. Your statement above highly suggests that you are. After all, Native Americans and Asians live in cold climates as well. It's pretty much dark skin in tropical areas because of the intensity of the sunlight. Which race was it that you think is genetically inferior?

    One more thing. An anecdote is not the same thing as evidence. For every anecdote you make supporting one argument, I can make an anecdote supporting several contrary arguments. Why do I have to explain to a lawyer that anecdotes aren't evidence? Shouldn't you know that?

    Dan8267 says

    Dan8267 says

    iwog says

    You don't need to find a gene to prove a trait is genetic.

    Fuck yeah, you do. Some traits, such as being homosexual, are believed to be environmental.

    Here's another example. Although in human beings sex is determined genetically, temperatures determine sex in crocodiles.

    By the way, you still haven't responded to this. Are you dropping it? Is that how you admit you were wrong about something, by forgetting about it?

    You still haven't responded to this. You know, if you drop arguments in a debate, you lose them.

    Imagine being in a trial and the opposing side says
    The prosecution has never even addressed the fact that my client was having dinner with the president of the United States on live national television at the time the prosecution accuses him of murdering the victim 10 miles away. Regardless of any possible motive, my client clearly cannot be the murderer.

    If you dropped shit like that, you'd lose the case and rightfully so. What kind of lawyer are you? You drop every argument you can think of a snarky response to and you don't think actual evidence has any place. I mean, my god, you haven't even attempted to support a single assertion you've made with any peer-reviewed evidence. And yet you are making bold scientific assertions.

    Wait, I think I've seen Iwog lawyering...

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    Dan8267 says

    iwog says

    You don't need to find a gene to prove a trait is genetic.

    Fuck yeah, you do. Some traits, such as being homosexual, are believed to be environmental.

    Here's another example. Although in human beings sex is determined genetically, temperatures determine sex in crocodiles.

    By the way, you still haven't responded to this. Are you dropping it? Is that how you admit you were wrong about something, by forgetting about it?

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in YES! Assless chaps make a comeback, Dan8267 said:

    Nothing like a good assless chaps thread to bring everyone on Patrick.net into the discussion.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    iwog says

    I've already said there's a 100 year history of studying genetic inheritance that didn't rely on hunting genes.

    Saying isn't presenting evidence. You have presented no evidence whatsoever to support your racist claims. Not a single piece.

    iwog says

    The standard of evidence you demand is childish.

    The standard of evidence I demand is called peer review. It's also the standard used by the scientific community. You know, the people who study genetics.

    iwog says

    Race linked intelligence is a proven point. It's not disputed any more than evolution is disputed.

    OK, Iwog, you have your head way up your ass here. You are stating that it is an indisputable, scientific fact that intelligence is related to race. The first of many problems with this statement is that there is NO scientific definition of race and that makes your statement meaningless.

    From Princeton University

    There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and the discussion of their connection involves the results of multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Many factors that could potentially influence the development of intelligence have been advanced as possible causes of the racial IQ gaps. It is generally agreed that both genetics and environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores. There is currently no consensus whether genetics play a role in racial IQ gaps, or whether their cause is entirely environmental.

    I realize that Princeton University isn't the indisputable source of information that Wikipedia is.

    iwog says

    My guess is you're trying to invoke non-genetic inheritance to explain away that proven fact.

    No, I'm just refuting that you have presented any evidence to believe that blacks are genetically dumber.

    iwog says

    Claiming non-genetic inheritance is responsible for racial difference is a positive assertion.

    As is claiming a genetic cause is responsible.

    Going back to my Predator example, a black guy (Carl Weathers) has more in common with a white guy (Arnold Schwarzenegger) in terms of muscular development than I (another white guy) does. Strength is clearly genetic, but it's not racially bound.

    Similarly, as far as intelligence goes, I (a white guy) have more in common with Neil deGrasse Tyson (a black guy) than I do with you (another white guy).

    Taylor Swift (a white girl) has more in common with Bright Sheng (a Chinese composer) than she has do with me. I have no musical talent. Musical talent is largely genetic. Yes you have to work with it, but you need the inborn talent. Yet, this genetic trait clearly has spanned our entire species.

    Given all this, why should the default position be that intelligence is primarily race specific? Just thinking about it logically, intelligence is needed for survival, and genes that promote traits critical to survival tend to propagate rapidly across populations.

    Really, if blacks lack the genes for intelligence, how the hell do you explain Neil deGrasse Tyson and other black scientists?

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    bgamall4 says

    The Palestinians do not want to be shipped from Palestine

    Honey, please read my statements before jumping onto your delusions. I didn't advocate shipping Palestinians in cargo holds. I advocated moving the state of Israel to someplace else, which is exactly what you want. The Israelis can fly first class rather than in cargo holds.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    bgamall4 says

    He will judge you for calling him evil too.

    Well that sounds petty, especially since any intelligent being would know I was talking about a hypothetical god that would toss someone into hell for not believing in his existence. Is your god truly that petty?

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in YES! Assless chaps make a comeback, Dan8267 said:

    New Renter says

    Original? Have you seen A Boy And His Dog?

    Actually, no. I should check that out.

    A post-apocalyptic tale based on a novella by Harlan Ellison. A boy communicates telepathically with his dog as they scavenge for food and sex, and they stumble into an underground society

    How does one scavenge for sex? Sounds like something Marcus would do.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in YES! Assless chaps make a comeback, Dan8267 said:

    Rin says

    And thus, I've enjoyed a Charlize Theron clone (but w/ bigger knockers) before and thus, I'm always relaxed and content, when I'm not working.

    I've found my new hero.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, Dan8267 said:

    turtledove says

    I wrote "unfortunately" because I don't think that racist, sexist, homophobic comments are limited to right wing political views.

    Absolutely not. There are batshit crazy people on the left as well, just not as many of them. They are just as vocal as those on the right, but the mainstream Democrats don't listen to the nutjobs on the left whereas the mainstream Republicans do listen to their nutjobs.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    What would be your solution?

    We have the technology to physically move the buildings and the dirt that's "holy". It's even more practical than endless war. Worldwide shipping capacity is so large, no one even knows how much tonnage is shipped every year. It's freaking huge!

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    bgamall4 says

    I know you don't believe in the God who will judge your sorry ass, Dan.

    If your god judges me to be worthy of your hell, then he's an evil god and all bets are off.

    If there were a supreme, all-knowing, all-good god then that god would be highly appreciative of skeptical atheists like myself. After all, it would be trivially easy for such a god to unquestionably reveal himself, end the Middle East conflict, and bring unity to mankind. So if he exists but hasn't done that, he must not want us to believe in him.

    Besides, when I advocate morality, I'm doing so for the sake of all mankind, not for some selfish reward or to avoid some punishment. That makes me far more moral than any faithful could possibly be. Doing the right thing for selfish motives is not morality.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, Dan8267 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Are you such a fool that you cannot see the ongoing crime?

    Look, we get it. You hate Jews. You really, really hate them.

    But look at it from the side of everyone else in the world who's not buried in this conflict. Both sides look like assholes. Yeah, we could argue about which side is worse, but that's pointless. Both sides are wrong and neither side is going to live with the other. At this point assigning blame serves no purpose. We need solutions not people whining about how bad the other side is.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 652 milliseconds to create.