You mean the lies you parroted back? Get us some proof of your outrageous claims, or everyone will be forced to conclude you are full of shit. Your claims are so outrageous, normal Americans will need a lot of convincing. So where's your proof? And right wing blogs don't count, as right wing bloggers simply don't care about facts, this is a game to them and lies are just part of the strategy.
No blacks with guns were filmed and called white racists. The majority of America supports health care reform. The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them. The conservative minority is fracturing, going crazy with conspiracy theory fueled rage. The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on. Meanwhile, Republican after Republican is caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach, usually in bed with someone not their spouse. Who are the deceptive fuckheads, really?
Nope. Despite the propaganda put out by certain groups that do think in lock-step, liberals are fairly... liberal in their thinking. Liberals don't tend to hold the view that things are perfect just the way they are. Upholding the status quo means thinking the same thing: everything is peachy just the way it is and the old ways are best. Instead, liberals are open to new ideas and new ways of looking at the world, so they tend to be more eclectic in their thoughts and ideals than some other groups.
Hehe, it was a Buckaroo Banzai reference. You know, because he's a top neurosurgeon, particle physicist, race car driver, rock star and comic book hero.
Fitness means ability to produce viable offspring within a given environment. Right? I thought I'd made it clear what I meant by 'fitness.' Survival of the fittest isn't actually a tautology when you put it that way.
You seem to approach software patents as if they were a violation of some imagined laws of nature, rather than just a bad idea. Patents are a social construct, and as such, defined how society sees fit. There are no natural patents.
Trying to show that they are an illusion is silly and will only lose you the attention of intelligent people. You need to put your arguments in practical terms to win people. What will fighting patents, no holds barred and no compromise, actually achieve for real people? All arguments about rights must be put in practical terms. Rights derive from agreements between individuals, no place else, and so you must get people to agree to honor and uphold those rights. Hopefully by logical, rather than emotional appeal.
So why are software patents so bad? Besides being unnatural abominations against God and Man, you know, give us something concrete and real.
I was looking forward to an old age filled with pleasant memories of my many moon landings, that time I helped a young Jewish girl hide from the Spaniards, my service in the Gulf of Afgiraq, and my sexual exploits with Morgan Fairchild. And now you're going to take that away from me?
Um, yeah, see, the thing is: your method has not worked. Demonstrably has not worked. So I'm ready to try something new, you go on doing what hasn't worked. Or did I miss something, and software patents are no longer an issue?
I did not say populations don't oscillate, I said they don't always. And what happened to the Maya and the Inca, who had very strong immunities to local disease, is that they were exposed to diseases their immune systems had not had time to adapt to. You might want to read about how many Spaniards died of tropical diseases that the Mayas and Incas were resistant to.
You really need to stop giving examples that prove my point, sport.
There is no such thing as a fair gun. So there can't be such a thing as a fair gunfight. So I'll just bring this knife.
Um, yeah, here in the real world, we have software patents. Yes, I agree they suck. You are preaching to the choir here at Slashdot on that one, champ. Having to shoot someone in the head sucks too, but if I've got to do it, I'd like a gun, thank you very much. The other guy has one. You are asking us to bring a knife to a gunfight here. But you aren't even going to this gunfight, so sit down, relax, and open up a frosty can of shut the hell up.
I don't think so. I don't think they sat down and studied the ideas of Social Darwinism and only then came up with the idea of offing the 'weaker' peoples. I think they decided, "Hey! Let's off a bunch of folks we don't like to make more room for people who look and act like us, and oh! look, here's a semi plausible excuse!"
I'm telling you the truth, you can not categorically call someone's immune system weak or strong, we all have very different Major Histocompatibility Complexes. In fact, you could take two people whose immune systems functioned well in their current environment, and try to breed them, and they might not even be able to breed, because their MHCs are too similar. Take two people, one of whom has an immune system that doesn't function well in their current environment, and breed them, and you will more than likely get a kid with a very strong immune system.
In short, you are just as wrong about the immune system as you are about evolution.
Not all populations oscillate. Not all populations increase exponentially in the face of unlimited resources. But some do, yes, of course. However, we are not dumb animals and you have not addresses the very real fact that OUR breeding rate falls BELOW the replacement rate when we get fat and happy.
You keep lobbing me easy ones, I keep knocking them out of the park. Looking back on our debate, I've schooled you every. single. time. I mean, whupped your ass, seriously. Count the references I've given. And you? One reference that proved you WRONG. Every single 'argument' (I hesitate to even use that word) you have put forward, I have debunked six ways from Sunday. Look at the moderations, yeah, it's just a conspiracy against an unpopular point of view, haha, right.
Give it up already, stop humiliating yourself, it is getting painful to even take part in this.
There is not really such a thing as a weak or strong immune system. One person's immune system will be good at fighting certain things but not others.
Populations do not rise exponentially in nature, some sort of balance is always found. But more importantly, look at birth rates, when we achieve a certain level of material wealth, birth rates tend to fall to below replacement levels.
So, we've destroyed your points and can not put 2 and 2 together. Again. I hope you realize how boring this is for me, debunking crap arguments that have been around, and thoroughly debunked, for decades. You aren't saying anything new. You are just parroting back what fascists and dictators have been saying since time immemorial.
There will be an absolute limit, sure, but we have enough to meet everyone's basic physiological needs. A small minority are NOT producing the resources. They are sitting on their asses giving orders and taking profits they never earned, because they have the money and the power and they make the rules.
Okay, look, equality of outcome is statistical over large sets. Given a large enough sample of different races, you will find equality of outcome, unless the race is inferior (are you arguing that?) or the there is institutionalized unfairness towards them (which is what I'm arguing.)
This institutionalized racism is evidence we are NOT providing equality of opportunity, and so we have affirmative action. Case closed, you can't show that minorities have better outcomes than whites, we still have racism, and thus, affirmative action, while doing something, is not doing enough.
I don't really have a lot of sympathy for people born with privileges crying about how they don't have enough privileges.
You don't understand fitness. This is our environment now. You can speculate about a species fitness in some hypothetical environment they are not in, but ours is the modern, human world. And we are fit to live in that environment, with all its protections from certain things, and its new dangers and difficulties. Perhaps we are less resilient to disease. We also can not breath underwater. Neither trait makes us let fit for our actual environment.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say your wild guess is very far from the truth.
You mean the lies you parroted back? Get us some proof of your outrageous claims, or everyone will be forced to conclude you are full of shit. Your claims are so outrageous, normal Americans will need a lot of convincing. So where's your proof? And right wing blogs don't count, as right wing bloggers simply don't care about facts, this is a game to them and lies are just part of the strategy.
Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.
No bias here whatsoever.
You have no bias? We've conversed before, so unless you've changed recently, I don't believe you, sorry.
No blacks with guns were filmed and called white racists. The majority of America supports health care reform. The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them. The conservative minority is fracturing, going crazy with conspiracy theory fueled rage. The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on. Meanwhile, Republican after Republican is caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach, usually in bed with someone not their spouse. Who are the deceptive fuckheads, really?
Nope. Despite the propaganda put out by certain groups that do think in lock-step, liberals are fairly... liberal in their thinking. Liberals don't tend to hold the view that things are perfect just the way they are. Upholding the status quo means thinking the same thing: everything is peachy just the way it is and the old ways are best. Instead, liberals are open to new ideas and new ways of looking at the world, so they tend to be more eclectic in their thoughts and ideals than some other groups.
Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.
Hehe, it was a Buckaroo Banzai reference. You know, because he's a top neurosurgeon, particle physicist, race car driver, rock star and comic book hero.
Fitness means ability to produce viable offspring within a given environment. Right? I thought I'd made it clear what I meant by 'fitness.' Survival of the fittest isn't actually a tautology when you put it that way.
You seem to approach software patents as if they were a violation of some imagined laws of nature, rather than just a bad idea. Patents are a social construct, and as such, defined how society sees fit. There are no natural patents.
Trying to show that they are an illusion is silly and will only lose you the attention of intelligent people. You need to put your arguments in practical terms to win people. What will fighting patents, no holds barred and no compromise, actually achieve for real people? All arguments about rights must be put in practical terms. Rights derive from agreements between individuals, no place else, and so you must get people to agree to honor and uphold those rights. Hopefully by logical, rather than emotional appeal.
So why are software patents so bad? Besides being unnatural abominations against God and Man, you know, give us something concrete and real.
but I'll say it again: never before in our history has there been such a good time as now to be a mouse!
Except that being a mouse has been proven to cause cancer in laboratory mice.
I was looking forward to an old age filled with pleasant memories of my many moon landings, that time I helped a young Jewish girl hide from the Spaniards, my service in the Gulf of Afgiraq, and my sexual exploits with Morgan Fairchild. And now you're going to take that away from me?
Um, yeah, see, the thing is: your method has not worked. Demonstrably has not worked. So I'm ready to try something new, you go on doing what hasn't worked. Or did I miss something, and software patents are no longer an issue?
Hahaha, yeah. Sure thing, pal. According to who? Your bureaucrats are doing an end run around parliament on this one.
I did not say populations don't oscillate, I said they don't always. And what happened to the Maya and the Inca, who had very strong immunities to local disease, is that they were exposed to diseases their immune systems had not had time to adapt to. You might want to read about how many Spaniards died of tropical diseases that the Mayas and Incas were resistant to.
You really need to stop giving examples that prove my point, sport.
There is no such thing as a fair gun. So there can't be such a thing as a fair gunfight. So I'll just bring this knife.
Um, yeah, here in the real world, we have software patents. Yes, I agree they suck. You are preaching to the choir here at Slashdot on that one, champ. Having to shoot someone in the head sucks too, but if I've got to do it, I'd like a gun, thank you very much. The other guy has one. You are asking us to bring a knife to a gunfight here. But you aren't even going to this gunfight, so sit down, relax, and open up a frosty can of shut the hell up.
I don't think so. I don't think they sat down and studied the ideas of Social Darwinism and only then came up with the idea of offing the 'weaker' peoples. I think they decided, "Hey! Let's off a bunch of folks we don't like to make more room for people who look and act like us, and oh! look, here's a semi plausible excuse!"
It is so much more effective, stated that way. You make them think "Nazis."
Haha. It's "flamebait" because of the highly flammable gasses.
I don't cry about unfairness. I kick its fucking ass, bitch. But this is getting boring. You could at least call me 'daddy' while I slap you around.
I'm telling you the truth, you can not categorically call someone's immune system weak or strong, we all have very different Major Histocompatibility Complexes. In fact, you could take two people whose immune systems functioned well in their current environment, and try to breed them, and they might not even be able to breed, because their MHCs are too similar. Take two people, one of whom has an immune system that doesn't function well in their current environment, and breed them, and you will more than likely get a kid with a very strong immune system.
In short, you are just as wrong about the immune system as you are about evolution.
Not all populations oscillate. Not all populations increase exponentially in the face of unlimited resources. But some do, yes, of course. However, we are not dumb animals and you have not addresses the very real fact that OUR breeding rate falls BELOW the replacement rate when we get fat and happy.
You keep lobbing me easy ones, I keep knocking them out of the park. Looking back on our debate, I've schooled you every. single. time. I mean, whupped your ass, seriously. Count the references I've given. And you? One reference that proved you WRONG. Every single 'argument' (I hesitate to even use that word) you have put forward, I have debunked six ways from Sunday. Look at the moderations, yeah, it's just a conspiracy against an unpopular point of view, haha, right.
Give it up already, stop humiliating yourself, it is getting painful to even take part in this.
There is not really such a thing as a weak or strong immune system. One person's immune system will be good at fighting certain things but not others.
Populations do not rise exponentially in nature, some sort of balance is always found. But more importantly, look at birth rates, when we achieve a certain level of material wealth, birth rates tend to fall to below replacement levels.
So, we've destroyed your points and can not put 2 and 2 together. Again. I hope you realize how boring this is for me, debunking crap arguments that have been around, and thoroughly debunked, for decades. You aren't saying anything new. You are just parroting back what fascists and dictators have been saying since time immemorial.
There will be an absolute limit, sure, but we have enough to meet everyone's basic physiological needs. A small minority are NOT producing the resources. They are sitting on their asses giving orders and taking profits they never earned, because they have the money and the power and they make the rules.
Okay, look, equality of outcome is statistical over large sets. Given a large enough sample of different races, you will find equality of outcome, unless the race is inferior (are you arguing that?) or the there is institutionalized unfairness towards them (which is what I'm arguing.)
This institutionalized racism is evidence we are NOT providing equality of opportunity, and so we have affirmative action. Case closed, you can't show that minorities have better outcomes than whites, we still have racism, and thus, affirmative action, while doing something, is not doing enough.
I don't really have a lot of sympathy for people born with privileges crying about how they don't have enough privileges.
You don't understand fitness. This is our environment now. You can speculate about a species fitness in some hypothetical environment they are not in, but ours is the modern, human world. And we are fit to live in that environment, with all its protections from certain things, and its new dangers and difficulties. Perhaps we are less resilient to disease. We also can not breath underwater. Neither trait makes us let fit for our actual environment.
I set you up with a straight line like that, and this is the punch line you come up with? Damn it, why do I even try?