You think, perhaps, he meant worthless to Americans? As in, if you are an American who can't get the treatment then it is worthless to you? The OP was not saying that "the rest of the world doesn't count". Stop trying so desperately to find a way to bash the US.
Check that link I provided you again: "The Inuit and Yupik are special cases: even though they live in an extremely sun-poor environment, they have retained their relatively dark skin. This can be explained by the fact that their traditional animal-based diet provides plenty of vitamin D."
Sorry, but I just don't see how there is a dramatic evolutionary need to be blonde in only one specific region of Northern Europe Hair color is associated with skin tone. As for skin tone in that region, see above.
For all we know, the lighter skin in the north became popular because "Throgdar the Mighty" beat the pulp out of a bunch of people, and he just happened to be into slightly lighter-skinned (than whatever was average at the time) women... so other wanna-be Throgdars aped his preference. This is patently untrue. Lighter skin is better at absorbing vitamin D, which is useful in cold climates.
There is no "fitness" criteria favoring blonde hair in the slightest How do you know this? Why is blond hair so prevalent in northern Europe? No reason at all? Or is it "Throgdar"?
Eugenics is not attempt to override evolution, because you can't override evolution. You would actually become more "fit" by the enforcement of a eugenics policy that favored you.
However, this is ridiculous, because in the theory of natural selection, fitness is defined by survival (more accurately, propagation of one's genes). So it doesn't have to be "enforced"--it happens automatically
The point of eugenics is not merely to breed individuals who can survive, but individuals who can better accomplish a given task. This is the goal of all selective breeding.
Yes I'd much rather have hundreds/thousands of people killed, hundreds/thousands/millions maimed, and hundreds/thousands/millions of survivors grieving and scarred for life than face up to the fact that "Oh shit, the economy is swirling the drain. My money is now worthless and I can't buy that $SHINY_GIZMO." Yes, because money is only for buying shiny gizmos, not food/clothing/shelter/medicine. Would you rather have thousands of people killed outright, or millions starving to death?
He seems to be referring to the 'Shelley the Republican' article linked to above, but doesn't seem to realize that it's satire, like several other posters. Or perhaps the GP's post itself is satire, and the joke's on us.
Hardly anyone would watch youtube if it was just crappy homemade videos. Youtube is popular in large part because of commercial content, and Google knows that.
I used to think that way about youtube comments until I read a comment on a video about Einstein's "train" thought experiment that started: "Listen up, retards! The bitch in the train...". They are sometimes a strange mix of boorishness and intellectual curiosity/insightfulness that I find quite entertaining.
Oh well. I suppose if wanted to get rid of the comments altogether you could write a greasemonkey script or something, couldn't you?
FTA:
Anothe r[sic] big problem for Microsoft according to insiders is getting the heat and noise output from the current Xbox 360 under control so that the new device can run silently while a movie is being played. It is known that Toshiba has been working with Microsoft on this issue as it has extensive experience in notebooks and "quiet" drives.
This sounds like something that's a lot funnier when you're reading xkcd and imagining it in a marijuana-induced state than when you're actually carrying it out. Even the photos look awkward ("We're attacking you, Stallman, get it?"). And the ninja suits, sheesh.
It already is an intellectual property driven market, by those standards. It's just that you haven't seemed to notice. Before there was genetic modification, there were patents on hybrids. Nobody cares if you grow a few patented strains in backyard. But if you have a large commercial operation, and try to sell the seed as your own, you will be sued. It's been this way for years.
That's funny, I just watched the rerun of the Seinfeld "commie" episode last night. One problem I see with your slogan is that the influence of the "dumb people" is naturally limited by their diminished buying power. Not that I'm against planning, however.
It destroys their argument/credibility only because they are gay, which leaves you with no net gain. If all homophobes were gay, then your only problem would be that there was a large group of homosexuals who hated themselves. This would do as much to discredit homosexuals as it would homophobes. It's a two-way street. Do you see that now?
I apologize for not clarifying that I was looking beyond the self-referential paradox. My black analogy was an attempt to show that the self-referential paradox did not apply in the real world, since most anti-black racists are obviously not black. Most people would agree that most anti-black racism does come come from within the black community, not only because it makes intuitive sense, but because most of the anti-black racists they have seen were not black. Somehow, though, it is ok to assume that the reverse applies to homophobes. That is what makes it so insidous. It is hard to prove that "the worst" homophobes aren't themselves homosexual, so it easy to slander them. And that is the point--to slander someone by calling them a homosexual. This cannot be avoided. If there in fact are hetero homophobes out there, using this argument would do absolutely nothing to convince them. It has no inherent value beyond "calling out" gays. It does not explain that homophobia is wrong or illogical, thus would do nothing to convince a fence-sitting hetero. Furthermore, the original poster does not explain why it should be true that those "most freaked out by homosexuality are repressing it within themselves". What does "most freaked out by" even mean, anyway? Is it just an attempt to avoid saying "most homophobes are homosexual", which would not be taken seriously? I have the feeling it is. I don't wish to unduly antagonize tinrobot, either, it's just that I'm tired of that argument and ones like it ("those most freaked out by blacks actually have a secret longing for black women" etc.), because they make little sense and are unproductive (so liking black women is a bad thing, but only if you're racist?).
FTA:
"....Instead of a woman saying, 'Darling, not tonight, I have a headache,' you could get 'Darling, I have a headache, why not use your robot?' " Ummm...which one, honey? This one?
I've often observed that the people most freaked out by homosexuality are repressing it within themselves. This is nothing more than name-calling, and it does nothing to combat homophobia. Either you are insulting anti-gays by calling them gay, which is a strange defense of homosexuality indeed, or you are merely stating that some homosexuals are self-hating hypocrites, which is no defense of homosexuality at all.
Suppose I said, "I've often observed that the people who hate blacks the most are actually black themselves". Does that make sense? What does it accomplish?
Slashdot Mirror
What is grimson/grimsom?
Clearly, Israel should just let terrorists keep hijacking their airplanes, lest someone on slashdot compare them to the Nazis.
You think, perhaps, he meant worthless to Americans? As in, if you are an American who can't get the treatment then it is worthless to you? The OP was not saying that "the rest of the world doesn't count". Stop trying so desperately to find a way to bash the US.
I'd say you are "Mr. Offended-too-easily". I really don't think they meant to be racist.
Check that link I provided you again: "The Inuit and Yupik are special cases: even though they live in an extremely sun-poor environment, they have retained their relatively dark skin. This can be explained by the fact that their traditional animal-based diet provides plenty of vitamin D." Sorry, but I just don't see how there is a dramatic evolutionary need to be blonde in only one specific region of Northern Europe Hair color is associated with skin tone. As for skin tone in that region, see above.
I'm kind of confused by your reply. Eugenics is selective breeding. I used it to distinguish between human and animal/plant breeding.
However, this is ridiculous, because in the theory of natural selection, fitness is defined by survival (more accurately, propagation of one's genes). So it doesn't have to be "enforced"--it happens automatically
The point of eugenics is not merely to breed individuals who can survive, but individuals who can better accomplish a given task. This is the goal of all selective breeding.
Sally Struthers.
So, are you like, waiting for "the revolution" or something?
In 1908, there was no Soviet Russia, and there isn't today.
He seems to be referring to the 'Shelley the Republican' article linked to above, but doesn't seem to realize that it's satire, like several other posters. Or perhaps the GP's post itself is satire, and the joke's on us.
Hardly anyone would watch youtube if it was just crappy homemade videos. Youtube is popular in large part because of commercial content, and Google knows that.
I used to think that way about youtube comments until I read a comment on a video about Einstein's "train" thought experiment that started: "Listen up, retards! The bitch in the train...". They are sometimes a strange mix of boorishness and intellectual curiosity/insightfulness that I find quite entertaining.
Oh well. I suppose if wanted to get rid of the comments altogether you could write a greasemonkey script or something, couldn't you?
GP said: "US...export[s] massive amount[s] of munitions to rather flakey 'allies'".
Get some sleep or something.
Well, the article says he's a physics undergraduate...
This sounds like something that's a lot funnier when you're reading xkcd and imagining it in a marijuana-induced state than when you're actually carrying it out. Even the photos look awkward ("We're attacking you, Stallman, get it?"). And the ninja suits, sheesh.
It already is an intellectual property driven market, by those standards. It's just that you haven't seemed to notice. Before there was genetic modification, there were patents on hybrids. Nobody cares if you grow a few patented strains in backyard. But if you have a large commercial operation, and try to sell the seed as your own, you will be sued. It's been this way for years.
That's funny, I just watched the rerun of the Seinfeld "commie" episode last night. One problem I see with your slogan is that the influence of the "dumb people" is naturally limited by their diminished buying power. Not that I'm against planning, however.
Who modded this flamebait? He's raising a legitimate point.
It destroys their argument/credibility only because they are gay, which leaves you with no net gain. If all homophobes were gay, then your only problem would be that there was a large group of homosexuals who hated themselves. This would do as much to discredit homosexuals as it would homophobes. It's a two-way street. Do you see that now?
I apologize for not clarifying that I was looking beyond the self-referential paradox. My black analogy was an attempt to show that the self-referential paradox did not apply in the real world, since most anti-black racists are obviously not black. Most people would agree that most anti-black racism does come come from within the black community, not only because it makes intuitive sense, but because most of the anti-black racists they have seen were not black. Somehow, though, it is ok to assume that the reverse applies to homophobes. That is what makes it so insidous. It is hard to prove that "the worst" homophobes aren't themselves homosexual, so it easy to slander them. And that is the point--to slander someone by calling them a homosexual. This cannot be avoided. If there in fact are hetero homophobes out there, using this argument would do absolutely nothing to convince them. It has no inherent value beyond "calling out" gays. It does not explain that homophobia is wrong or illogical, thus would do nothing to convince a fence-sitting hetero. Furthermore, the original poster does not explain why it should be true that those "most freaked out by homosexuality are repressing it within themselves". What does "most freaked out by" even mean, anyway? Is it just an attempt to avoid saying "most homophobes are homosexual", which would not be taken seriously? I have the feeling it is. I don't wish to unduly antagonize tinrobot, either, it's just that I'm tired of that argument and ones like it ("those most freaked out by blacks actually have a secret longing for black women" etc.), because they make little sense and are unproductive (so liking black women is a bad thing, but only if you're racist?).
Suppose I said, "I've often observed that the people who hate blacks the most are actually black themselves". Does that make sense? What does it accomplish?