And then, of course, there is the uncomfortable truth, that fetuses of a certain race are aborted much more often, than others. Something, the noisiest defenders of the procedure's legality â" had they been self-consistent in their thought â" would've called evidence of racism...
As usual with statistical differences between races, it can probably be entirely explained by wealth differences. It's a tertiary effect of racism. If people don't feel they can afford to support a child they are more likely to abort. For any race. But because of primary racism, black people and hispanics are significantly poorer on average.
Which means the answer is not banning abortion, but banning the racism that leads to the financial inequity.
Fashion companies do quite well, to be sure. At least as long as fickle fashion smiles on them. But that's not Tesla.
I never said anything about fashion companies. And if your implication is that that's what Apple is, yet because you feel differently about Tesla, it's not, is just ignorance. They are both in the business of quality designed technology.
I'm still not sure where you're coming from with the idea that Tesla would be "compromising" to sell e.g., a truck with a fitting for a Honda generator under the bonnet, but whatever.
Well that just suggests that you don't understand Tesla just as much as you don't understand Apple.
The sort of anti-scientific hypocrisy present in a considerable portion of your posts here, is a common manifestation of that.
You can't find a single case of me contradicting any consensus opinion of scientists. Guaranteed. I'm afraid you can't play tit-for-tat here. Balance is not believing the truth lies between two opposing opinions. The AGW deniers are anti-science. Period.
I never have. Not even a little bit. And neither has any climate scientist. It's not an either/or. The fact that most of the climate change of the last century is anthropogenic does not mean that there isn't natural climate change over different time intervals.
Yet another straw man from you - yet another demonstration of your lack of real arguments.
A cornerstone of science is repeatability, but if something hasn't even ever been recorded to happen *ONCE*, how can you call it repeatable?
Easy. Man is not a special thing created by a god. It's simply a species of animal. And artificial selection has been demonstrated to work thousands of times.
No, species are just a phenomenon of genes. All apparent species natural selection can be explained by gene natural selection, but not vice versa.
For example 90% of the cells in your body are not homo-sapiens at all. They contain genes, but they are a multitude of bacterias with their own genes. And without them we wouldn't live. We are an incredibly complex symbiosis of many different forms of life each with their own set of genes. Thinking natural selection works at the level of species doesn't even touch this larger truth.
That's a very valid point, and where I don't recognise the username I do often go over the same ground. But I've been here long enough to recognise the regular faces, and there's a small core group of the same denialists commenting on every climate story. And they HAVE been personally proved wrong on these myths time and time again, and they continue to come back and repeat the myths again, as if the MiB had wiped their memories each time.
I'm quoting from their founder â" "to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit".
Thanks for giving a link to the complete speech. To be fair she unambiguously says that the decision for that should be made by the mother. Which eliminates everything that is morally wrong with eugenics.
that from bulldogs to dairy cows the more thoroughly bred the animal, the more fragile it becomes. That a loss of genetic diversity leads to extinction.
It's more fragile if the selection wasn't aimed towards robustness - compare and contrast with natural selection that *IS* geared towards robustness.
There's nothing fundamental about selection that will produce fragility. In fact if robustness is you r major goal, you could certainly produce more robustness faster than nature. Nature's selection being somewhat inefficient.
In my opinion, current "climate change science" quacks like the same duck -- a core of sound science deep underneath a pile of conclusions far more profound than the science actually supports.
Further, any time historically hat anyone has ever attempted any kind of eugenics procedure on mankind, it inevitably fails to produce the desired result. Say that you killed every believer in god, for example... Or tried to wipe out homosexuality by killing everyone who was gay.
Are you presenting the latter as the historica cases you claim, or as hypotheticals that the phrase "say that" implies.
So what are these historical cases of eugenics that failed? And did they fail because the science is wrong, or because politics intervened to cut short the attempt.
Contrary to some religious beliefs people are animals. And respond to selection in exactly the same way as other animals. And indeed non animal life. The selection mechanism being the gene, whether fox, human or pot plant.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is surprised that you aspire to being a glasshole.
If only linking to it was the same thing as reading it.
That's a fallacy, that scientists have consensus, or that the majority of scientists are always right.
Wrong.
Plenty of very respected scientists question various aspects of AGW, for recent example antarctic melting done via AGW vs. volcanoes.
Excellent. Now why aren't they publishing papers?
Always amusing when a non-scientist thinks they are being intellectual merely by siding with either the largest or most vocal group of scientists.
Come back when you know how science is done.
You're done. You'll likely keep sputtering after this point but I won't let you waste more of my time with your obvious stupidity.
And so he bigot runs away.
So you have nothing.
And then, of course, there is the uncomfortable truth, that fetuses of a certain race are aborted much more often, than others. Something, the noisiest defenders of the procedure's legality â" had they been self-consistent in their thought â" would've called evidence of racism...
As usual with statistical differences between races, it can probably be entirely explained by wealth differences. It's a tertiary effect of racism. If people don't feel they can afford to support a child they are more likely to abort. For any race. But because of primary racism, black people and hispanics are significantly poorer on average.
Which means the answer is not banning abortion, but banning the racism that leads to the financial inequity.
Fashion companies do quite well, to be sure. At least as long as fickle fashion smiles on them. But that's not Tesla.
I never said anything about fashion companies. And if your implication is that that's what Apple is, yet because you feel differently about Tesla, it's not, is just ignorance. They are both in the business of quality designed technology.
I'm still not sure where you're coming from with the idea that Tesla would be "compromising" to sell e.g., a truck with a fitting for a Honda generator under the bonnet, but whatever.
Well that just suggests that you don't understand Tesla just as much as you don't understand Apple.
The article was written about us.
Thanks for the admission.
The sort of anti-scientific hypocrisy present in a considerable portion of your posts here, is a common manifestation of that.
You can't find a single case of me contradicting any consensus opinion of scientists. Guaranteed. I'm afraid you can't play tit-for-tat here. Balance is not believing the truth lies between two opposing opinions. The AGW deniers are anti-science. Period.
Deny natural climate change all you want
I never have. Not even a little bit. And neither has any climate scientist. It's not an either/or. The fact that most of the climate change of the last century is anthropogenic does not mean that there isn't natural climate change over different time intervals.
Yet another straw man from you - yet another demonstration of your lack of real arguments.
The American dream is alive and well, depending on where in America you live.
It isn't and it never was. It's the American Dream, not the American Reality.
You now deny your own argument.
No, sorry, I never claimed anything about 1942.
Good day, sir.
Running away?I must conclude that you concede defeat.
Two problems.
1) The story you link to refers to a claim of the explanation for conciousness being quantume mechanics, not the soul
2) The link is also simply an example of Betteridges law. The headline asks a question (that the two are linked), and the body gives the answer no.
but thanks for proving that you're just an arrogant close minded douche.
My mind may look closed to you, but that's because yours is apparently constructed from swiss cheese and Cheetos.
A cornerstone of science is repeatability, but if something hasn't even ever been recorded to happen *ONCE*, how can you call it repeatable?
Easy. Man is not a special thing created by a god. It's simply a species of animal. And artificial selection has been demonstrated to work thousands of times.
You are not special.
No, species are just a phenomenon of genes. All apparent species natural selection can be explained by gene natural selection, but not vice versa.
For example 90% of the cells in your body are not homo-sapiens at all. They contain genes, but they are a multitude of bacterias with their own genes. And without them we wouldn't live. We are an incredibly complex symbiosis of many different forms of life each with their own set of genes. Thinking natural selection works at the level of species doesn't even touch this larger truth.
The very anti-science I just mentioned.
I am not red-baiting, simply pointing out that 'Progressives' have always waved 'Science (tm)' around like something they own.
It's not that progressives own science. It's that so many on the far right choose to be anti-science.
That's a very valid point, and where I don't recognise the username I do often go over the same ground. But I've been here long enough to recognise the regular faces, and there's a small core group of the same denialists commenting on every climate story. And they HAVE been personally proved wrong on these myths time and time again, and they continue to come back and repeat the myths again, as if the MiB had wiped their memories each time.
I'm quoting from their founder â" "to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit".
Thanks for giving a link to the complete speech. To be fair she unambiguously says that the decision for that should be made by the mother. Which eliminates everything that is morally wrong with eugenics.
The easiest way to get rich/powerful is to be the child of somebody rich/powerful.
Not just the easiest way, but the usual way. The American dream being the fantasy that this isn't true.
that from bulldogs to dairy cows the more thoroughly bred the animal, the more fragile it becomes. That a loss of genetic diversity leads to extinction.
It's more fragile if the selection wasn't aimed towards robustness - compare and contrast with natural selection that *IS* geared towards robustness.
There's nothing fundamental about selection that will produce fragility. In fact if robustness is you r major goal, you could certainly produce more robustness faster than nature. Nature's selection being somewhat inefficient.
In my opinion, current "climate change science" quacks like the same duck -- a core of sound science deep underneath a pile of conclusions far more profound than the science actually supports.
Maybe you haven't thought that through either.
Further, any time historically hat anyone has ever attempted any kind of eugenics procedure on mankind, it inevitably fails to produce the desired result. Say that you killed every believer in god, for example... Or tried to wipe out homosexuality by killing everyone who was gay.
Are you presenting the latter as the historica cases you claim, or as hypotheticals that the phrase "say that" implies.
So what are these historical cases of eugenics that failed? And did they fail because the science is wrong, or because politics intervened to cut short the attempt.
In Harry Potter there's a dragon.
There is already decent evidence that the 'soul' is a quantum phenomenon
Oh, if that's true it would be the most interesting thing ever brought to Slashdot! Please present said evidence! I can't wait!
Get over it it and accept theres more too it than you understand.
No, I'll leave that kind of unthinkingness to religious types.
Contrary to some religious beliefs people are animals. And respond to selection in exactly the same way as other animals. And indeed non animal life. The selection mechanism being the gene, whether fox, human or pot plant.
Who said history started in 1942?
No one. You're continuing to demonstrate an inability to handle numbers bigger than 100.