I found an interesting video of Chomsky talking about Trump, calling him a distraction and a conman. Chomsky knows a thing or two about conning people and creating distractions 🙂
Open thread: July 21, 2018
21 Saturday Jul 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
Pumpkin Person 
Philosopher disagrees technology solves anything but even without Trump and the Republican party we are past the point of return and technology will need to save humanity from extinction. It is only a matter of where we place our resources. There are solutions to climate changing and disrupting human activities. The cost will be gone (in 50 years) but shipping is still possible. And Robots, don’t forget Robots. Computers with be a thousand times more powerful in 15 years. And other future techs.
coast*
I’m starting to entertain the idea that anyone in academia is vetted before they are allowed say anything truthful. When is the last time you heard an academic in any discipline say anything insightful or factual? I genuinely can’t remember.
Puppys joking, but perhaps chomsky really is a distraction to the left. Its quite post modern isn’t it. That the most vociferous critic of elites in the US is a distraction from the real elites.
There are some times in life where I actually do feel dumb. Sometimes when Im watching chomsky talk it strikes me that to act like that and talk with such clarity and astuteness about nonsense makes me think – they really are fucking smart aren’t they?
After all, if Chomsky really was the elites bugbear, he would never be published or given any media access. He’d be languishing in a swamp with David Duke.
When I watch chomsky talk, more than Schwartzmann or Soros or Singer or whoever I truly do see jewish genius. And I don’t mean his theories. I mean his acting.
Its really hard to tell whether hes acting. Really hard. If hes acting I have to be honest and say, I now see why jews rule the world.
Im pretty sure jimmy, if he was allowed speak, would say Chomsky is acting the leftist role.
This is a major social IQ test. Its pretty advanced. I can’t tell whether hes playing this role.
On the one hand he speaks with good eloquency on what a leftist would think about iran and israel and he did write a book saying the media is a carnival mirror.
On the other hand…..
I find it really really really hard to believe why a jewish 170 VIQ plus guy can’t work out why the US is ‘randomly attacking middle eastern countries’ to use his phrase. I mean come on. Thats not plausible. He seems to follow the israeli media quite well from his reasoning in the video…and he has no idea why the US attacked Iraq….or Libya, or Syria, or Yemen or Afghanistan…..
Can someone explain this?
Im leaning towards him being an actor.
Mainly because hes still tenured, publishing companies publish him and mainstream media sometimes asks him his opinion.
But then on the other hand hes a linguistic professor in canada….why start talking about politics in the first place unless you believed what you were saying?
This video makes him look really bad. He basicaly says the US supports israel because of religious fanaticism.
Anyone with basic historical knowledge knows christians hated jews up until the 1960s. They were banned from Harvard. In warren buffets biography, they mention how jews were shunned from the local commerce board. This explanation is basically a total lie and a shoddy one.
Chomsky is actually old enough to remember what average gentiles thought of jews. He must remember it from childhood. But canadians are pretty docile and peaceful I suppose.
The Irish and Italian communities in particular would not have any time for jews.
He’s not canadian LOL. Wikipedia says:
“As a Jew, Chomsky faced anti-semitism as a child, particularly from the Irish and German communities living in Philadelphia”
He’s not consciously acting, it’s just that the thought of blaming jews for anything is so horrific & threatening to him that he uses his high IQ to spread the blame to others. That’s probably what motivated him to get into political activism in the first place.
Chomsky is to the far left what Lion is to the alt right in that they both very skillfully take traditionally antisemetic movements and remove the antisemitism
His letist views are very unapealing for most people and his foriegn policy view is very anti jewish (as he criticises the WTO and US military aggression). He seemes authentic. On HBD however, he seems to be somewhere between Fenoopy and Afrosapiens:
He would be acting as a token of ethnic interest denial . That’s convoluted.
But I think he is acting because he says immigration gens a problem and in other videos he said migrants should be welcomed. At this moment, he ment the gifted people but he switched to the « trained » because it fits his egalitarian stance . So I believe he is not telling what he thinks really .
The history of social attitudes to jews is actually quite interesting. When you read about it, you have a light bulb moment about the 1960s civil rights movement.
People are told in their jewish history books it was about blacks.
It was DEFINITELY more about jewish standing in society.
Pinker has also done the best presentation of theoretical linguistics ever. It’s a pitty he doesn’t have a full class
On line because he is really good at vulgarising without oversimplifying .
Réalhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-B_ONJIEcE
I think the problem of seeing people go against their ethnic interests lies in the solution of the selfish gene theory. For example, liberalism might be linked to a gene, and that gene is very sensitive to being a selfish gene, meaning there’s a strong pressure for it to be selected for among people who have it, therefore people who are liberal will support that very population. Thus r-selected Jews will favor r-selected peoples’ in general because it allows them to have reproductive success in that environment, whereas K-selected Jews will favor K-selected populations.
Thus answering one of the most mysterious parts of HBD in only a few lines.
Just-so stories and the “selfish gene” is BS.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/
just because chomsky is obviously lying about israel and the dangers of global warming and immigration from latin america doesn’t mean everything he says is a lie. and his voice is unique. he still isn’t invited on msm shows much if ever. so pill is wrong. you can listen to chomsky just like you can read stormfront. in the internet age the options are 100x what they were.
chomsky is clearly lying about why the US supports israel. he’s clearly enormously exaggerating the threat of global warming. jews are a mediterranean people. they’re emotional. for example, italian men are born with a vagina that must be sewn up.
if one doesn’t take an eclectic pov it’s impossible to learn from anyone. there are so many subjects one may have an opinion on; a figure who has an opinion on everything will inevitably have an opinion one finds hateful, stupid, etc..
10 years ago my dad looked healthy and not old for his age. a picture from last year he looked like he was 30 years older than he was. he looked like he had AIDS.
so maybe it is a virus with a long incubation period and even after symptoms develop death occurs years later. but there’s no virus i know of other than HIV which has this pattern. AIDS of the brain virus? a new virus.
https://www.livescience.com/62883-herpes-viruses-alzheimers.html
it’s a homicide investigation now. mercury poisoning. i wonder who did it?
very interesting is that the human genome contains viruses. almost all of them are defective; they can’t come to “life”. but others have been associated with MS and ALS in addition to several cancers. they’re an hereditary infection. sort of. every human and every animal has them, but they only come to life in a few apparently.
Cochran recently posted about Alzheimer’s and viral infections:
A couple of other recent studies in Taiwan suggest that antiviral drugs may significantly reduce the incidence of Alzheimer’s.
but afaik there are no anti-viral drugs which hit viruses in general.
but i was thinking about that today. if these endogenous retroviruses are a thing then maybe some AIDS patients who take HAART will have lower rates of some other diseases like MS and ALS. or maybe the AIDS drugs are specific to HIV. idk.
just like theoretically patients with cirrhosis of the liver should have lower rates of cancer…other than liver cancer…because cirrhosis of the liver is associated with very low IGF-1.
he was wraith thin and had nutritional deficiencies. this suggests the brain wasn’t the problem, but that his brain was irreparably damaged by something wrong with his gut. the proximal cause of alcoholic’s brain damage is thiamine deficiency. alcohol per se is not neurotoxic despite what you may have read.
so steven hawking was totally paralyzed for decades and my dad was never paralyzed; it was just that he couldn’t coordinate his movements. he was still able to write intelligibly to the end. he was screaming in part because he was very frustrated with his inability to articulate. like the american who raises his voice in the hopes that the foreigner will magically learn english.
How can you tell if someone is acting (I don’t do politics)
P1) Selection is a causal process.
P2) Actual causal relations are not sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused it being B does not explain its being the case that B.
P3) The distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
P4) If T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case in which ‘T’ free-rides on T.
C) Therefore the claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.
Selectionist theory cannot distinguish between a trait that increases fitness from a trait that has no effect on fitness and is just a free-rider; natural selection cannot be a mechanism that connects phenotypic variation with fitness variation; therefore natural selection cannot be the mechanism of evolution.
P1) “Selection-for” is a causal process.
P2) Causal relations—as a matter of fact—are not sensitive to counterfactual states-of-affairs: if it’s not the case that A, then the fact that its being A would have caused it being B does not explain the case that B.
P3) The distinction between traits T and T’ turns on the truth or falsity of relevant counterfactuals.
P4) If T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case in which ‘T’ free-rides on T.
C) Therefore the claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.
Selectionist theory cannot distinguish between a trait that increases fitness from a trait that has no effect on fitness and is just a free-rider; natural selection cannot be a mechanism that connects phenotypic variation with fitness variation; therefore natural selection cannot be the mechanism of evolution.
(Post this, not the other PP.)
would you publish an article on this pp?
No i believe in evolution & natural selection
Stop reading philosophy & return to science. You’re ruining your brand.
Where’s the flaw in their reasoning?
It’s so poorly written that i can’t tell.
1. Selection-for is a causal process.
2. Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
3.But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
4.So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.
5. So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.
Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs:
Explain. Give example of a causal relation and the counterfactual it’s not sensitive to
A counterfactual is an “if-clause”, which is contrary to a fact. A counterfactual is a statement that cannot be true, for example, “I hear but I have no ears” or “I see but I have no eyes.” Thus, if it were possible for NS to be an explanation for the continuance of a specific trait that is linked to other traits (that is, they are coextensive) in a given population, it would need to—necessarily—invoke a counterfactual about NS. It would need to be the case that the trait in question would still be selected for in the absence of free-riders. As an example from the Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini ( a heart pumps blood (what it was selected-for) and makes pumping sounds (its linked free-rider). Thus, if the pumping of blood and the sound that blood-pumping makes were not coextensive, then the pumping, not the pumping sounds, get selected for.
There is a huge problem, though. Counterfactuals are intentional statements; they refer to concepts found in our minds, not any physical things. NS does not have a mind. NS cannot act on counterfactuals. Therefore NS does not act on counterfactuals; it is blind to the fact of counterfactuals since it does not have a mind.
I said Give example of a causal relation and the counterfactual it’s not sensitive to
Saying that natural selection isn’t an explanatory mechanism doesn’t mean that one doesn’t believe in evolution. Of course, if one attacks the Holy Altar of Darwin, they get called “Creationists.” Say that NS can’t select between traits that increase fitness and free-riders that do nothing is anti-Darwin, or course, but it’s not anti-evolution.
Just invoking NS to explain the continuance of any trait fails to explain the survival of the trait because NS cannot distinguish between traits that enhance an organism’s fitness and free-riders which are irrelevant to survival but are coextensive with the selected-for trait, as long as the traits in question are coextensive.
And before anyone makes any grandiose claims about the authors’ motivations, they’re atheists.
Here’s another solid example: the lactase gene:
The difference in lactose intolerance among human geographic groups, is caused by a difference in allele frequencies in and around the lactase gene (Harvey et al. 1998; Hollox et al. 2001; Enattah et al. 2002; Poulter et al. 2003). The cause for the difference in allele frequencies is primarily natural selection emerging about the same time as dairy farming evolved culturally (Bersaglieri et al. 2004). Together, these observations lead to a compelling adaptive story of natural selection favoring alleles causing lactose tolerance. But even in this case we have not directly shown that the cause for the selection is differential survival due to an ability/inability to digest lactose. We must acknowledge that there could have been other factors, unknown to us, causing the selection acting on the region around the Lactase gene. Even if we can argue that selection acted on a specific mutation, and functionally that this mutation has a certain effect on the ability to digest lactose, we cannot, strictly speaking, exclude the possibility that selection acted on some other pleiotropic effect of the mutation. This argument is not erected to dispute the adaptive story regarding the lactase gene, the total evidence in favor of adaptation and selection related to lactose tolerance is overwhelming in this case, but rather to argue that the combination of a functional effect and selection does not demonstrate that selection acted on the specific trait in question.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00799.x
We must acknowledge that there could have been other factors, unknown to us, causing the selection acting on the region around the Lactase gene
All you’re saying is we can never 100% know anything. Why study science at all if that’s your attitude? Why study anything?
I strongly advise you to drop this crap. You sound mentally ill.
A counterfactual is just “this is what would have happened if that happened”, akin to Newton’s F = ma.
P1) If there is selection for T but not T’, various counterfactuals must be true.
P2) If the counterfactuals are true, then NS must be an intentional-agent, or there must be laws about “selection-for”.
P3) NS is mindless.
P4) There are no laws for “selection-for”.
∴ It is false that selection for T but not T’ occurs in a population.
“You sound mentally ill.”
Ad hominem.
I asked for specific example and you can’t even give one proving you don’t even understand your own gibberish
Take the rest of the day off
Clear your head
You can return with a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE tomorrow
Where’s the flaw in their reasoning?
define “free-rider variant” and define “free-rides on” the verb.
A “free-rider” is a trait that “rides on” the selected trait in question wasn’t selected in virtue of its contribution to fitness, but rather it was correlated with the trait that was selected, thus it got a “free-ride” with the trait that was selected. Free-riders are selected in virtue of their coextension with the selected trait in question, not selected for directly.
“Free-rides on” means that the trait does not contribute to fitness but it is correlated with the trait that was selected for.
the correct conclusion is: natural selection alone cannot explain all variation. that’s not controversial at all.
The correct conclusion is that natural selection cannot be an explanatory mechanism because natural selection doesn’t have a mind; the term “select-for” implies intention; natural selection cannot be intentional because intentions are only carried out by beings with minds (because intentions are directed at something).
The correct conclusion is that natural selection cannot be an explanatory mechanism because natural selection doesn’t have a mind; the term “select-for” implies intention; natural selection cannot be intentional because intentions are only carried out by beings with minds
Oh my God!
“Oh my God!” what? It logically follows that since selection-for is a causal notion and natural selection does not have a mind that it cannot select for trait T or T’. Since I’m pretty sure that you don’t believe that NS has a mind, then you have to argue for laws for selection-for. But it’s not possible for there to be laws for the selection of a trait in any given population of organisms in any given environment because the effects of a trait in a population depends on its natural history and not its so-called selection history.
Theres nothing wrong with what I’m saying in regard to looking at evolution through another lense. People are just married to the story of natural selection and won’t even consider alternative explanations, evolutionary developmental, for instance, because people think that if they believe that Darwinism is wrong therefore they are a “Creationist” or whatnot. This is false.
The argument establishes that we need to abandon the adaptionist paradigm and look towards evo-devo for answers.
but rather to argue that the combination of a functional effect and selection does not demonstrate that selection acted on the specific trait in question.
of course it doesn’t. so what? rr is stuck in a pre-kant world. what does he even mean by “demonstrate”? the theories of natural science as opposed to the mere facts/descriptions of phenomena are always imperfect as they rely on induction and many observations not deduction or observation of a single fact.
read it an weep rr. weep that your understanding has been increased.
but start with a summary.
“what does he even mean by” demonstrate”?”
To clearly show the existence of the just-so just-so story in question. It could have acted on a free-rider or its correlated trait. There is no way to know. The point is that stories can be made to fit any data. Selection could have occurred on a coextensive trait not related to fitness, but which occurs with the trait in question.
“I asked for specific example”
“Architects select for arches, and spandrels “free-ride””, versus “architects select for spandrels and arches free-ride”. The counterfactual would be “if arches without spandrels could be made, then architects would choose them”, the opposite consideration. In the case of the heart, “NS selects for pumping and noises free-ride”, in comparison to “NS selects for noises and the pumping free-rides”. Its counterfactual would be “if blood pumping without noise were possible, then NS would have probably selected that, but not the opposite consideration.”
“Just invoking NS to explain the continuance of any trait fails to explain the survival of the trait because NS cannot distinguish between traits that enhance an organism’s fitness and free-riders which are irrelevant to survival but are coextensive with the selected-for trait, as long as the traits in question are coextensive.”
Does someone dress you in the morning? How do you cook your food? Im curious. You have home help?
Literal analogy of RR’s debating style:
1. I am the best.
2. If I say Im the best, it follows Im the best.
3. Therefore, Im the best.
I cook my own food and dress myself. Thanks for asking.
RR may be what happens when you combine high intellectual curiosity and pugnaciousness with a low IQ.
SAD!
Please continue. I’d like to hear what else you have to say about an anonymous person on the internet.
I wouldn’t stress about this too much Pumpkin. The thesis by Fodor is heavily criticised by the majority of the scientific and philosophical community. It’s known to contain many philosophical and biological errors and is ultimately responsible for Fodor’s humiliation, because that book has made him the laughinstock of evolutionary biology. Jerry Coyne had a nice refutation of it:
https://www.thenation.com/article/improbability-pump/
Natural selection and evo devo are the same thing, just one mechanism is trans-generational while the other is intra-generational. The whole book is just semantical bullshit and goes to show how ignorant the dude is.
It doesn’t surprise me that RR has deluded himself into thinking he’s being persecuted like Galileo or something.
“RR may be what happens when you combine high intellectual curiosity and pugnaciousness with a low IQ.”
RR doesn’t have a low IQ he just has the lowest one here. That’s actually true, believe it or not.
What’s your yearly salary Melo?
Oh and by the way, Gman, I’ll accept your challenge on a few conditions: (1) pay for the test; (2) pay for my travel; (3) pay for my time off work. Do these three things and I’ll accept your challenge. (Melo made a similar “IQ test” challenge a few months back but he would not pay for my time off work nor travel costs nor the test.)
Larger than yours obviously.
You’ve already taken an IQ test and it was around 110. Which is lower than anime kitty.
What’s your salary? “Larger than yours obviously” isn’t an answer.
“You’ve already taken an IQ test”
I’m talking about your little spat a few months back where you challeneged me to take the Raven; i said i would if you paid for it, my time off work and travel. You refused. Gman brings a proposition, I’ll accept if he covers the costs of my missed working time, travel and the test.
I’m successful (much more than you, kid) “in spite of” my “IQ”.
By the way, how do you know that your “IQ” is “higher” than mine? You did some shitty extrapolating from the “biodemographic formula” and then “extrapolated” the fact that construction workers do X Y and Z to “rationalize” your “IQ”. (I also looked for my records and couldn’t find them.)
Near 80 grand on average. Depending how often I work, I also don’t get taxes taken out and I get a dollar raise every year.
I don’t care what your ravens score is, we already know your IQ. Your success is nonexistent. You’re a personal trainer..i have multiple friends and family with your same occupation and I make nearly twice as much. You also just left or are still in college so you’re probably in debt. Do you even have a girlfriend?
Your intellectual inferiority is pretty self evident, im not the one who can’t understand simple concepts. You’ve more or less copied everything from me, even my argumentation style and twisted it to an extreme.
Cool bruh. We make similar amounts of money.
“Your success is nonexistent.”
Says the construction worker. I’m very successful at my job. I have my own studio and am in talks of a gym. But keep thinking that my “success is nonexistent”, Internet friend.
“You’re a personal trainer..i have multiple friends and family with your same occupation and I make nearly twice as much.”
That depends, where do you live? I live in a nice area, I get paid well for my services and I don’t have to break my back to make a solid living. Win-win for me. You’re comparing two completely different markets; I’m sure that I’m much more educated in regard to personal training, programming, human movement science etc than those who got their “cert” from the back of a cereal box (and your “multiple friends and family with [my] same occupation”. Just because your friends and family make X amount of money wherever you live does not mean that it’s the same for me. DIfferent markets, skillsets, people want different things. A ton goes into this business, as I’m sure you know because you “have multiple friends and family with [my] same occupation”.
I work too much to have time for a relationship at the moment but thanks for caring buddy.
Debt? Yea I have some; are you debt free? What’s the relevance? “We make similar amounts of money” but I didn’t go to school and you did so I’m “better”? Let me know if that’s what you’re going for there, if not I retract.
“Your intellectual inferiority is pretty self evident, im not the one who can’t understand simple concepts. You’ve more or less copied everything from me, even my argumentation style and twisted it to an extreme.”
I’m “intellectually inferior” yet you continue to correspond with me. Continuing to converse with people you deem intellectually inferior and whatever other insults you say to me makes you look great! Why don’t you go and converse with someone that’s more on your level if I’m so “intellectually inferior”?
Oh and you hardly have an “argumentation style”. You think that you’re “producing a legitimate form of an argument” because your claims are “backed by empirical observations are premises, conclusions are the overall point a claim is trying to buttress”, YET! you have no inference rules; so continue to “wait”, you don’t formulate arguments, you give wordsalads with no inference rules.
“Says the construction worker. I’m very successful at my job. I have my own studio and am in talks of a gym”
Carpentry is an incredibly lucrative business, I’m not sure what kind of rock you’ve been hiding under.. You owning a gym further proves my point, Not only are you in debt but you’re struggling to keep a business afloat
” and I don’t have to break my back to make a solid living.”
Are you assuming that I do?
” I’m much more educated in regard to personal training, programming, human movement science ”
I’ve actually been severely doubting your knowledge recently, I mean you can’t even understand simple neurophysical and evolutionary concepts, why should your knowledge in physiology and Biochemistry be any better?
“are you debt free?”
Yup.
‘yet you continue to correspond with me.”
I like to play with my food.
“Why don’t you go and converse with someone that’s more on your level if I’m so “intellectually inferior”?”
I enjoy making you look stupid.
“Oh and you hardly have an “argumentation style”.”
Of course I do. My debate style is polemic, which you swagger jacked, just like every other position I have.
“YET! you have no inference rules
Inference rules are implied not something you necessarily have to present. This further proves my point on your stupidity. Other commenters have no problem understanding my arguments. You seem to be the only one who demands unreasonable evidence for theories you do not like, whilst simultaneously ignoring criticism of the ones you favor. Are you going to ever explain why my refutations are supposedly not sufficient? Probably not, you can’t admit when you’re wrong.
“You owning a gym further proves my point, Not only are you in debt but you’re struggling to keep a business afloat”
Who says I’m “struggling to keep my business afloat”? Yea I’m in debt, so what?
“Are you assuming that I do?”
What do you do?
“I’ve actually been severely doubting your knowledge recently, I mean you can’t even understand simple neurophysical and evolutionary concepts, why should your knowledge in physiology and Biochemistry be any better?”
If you’re ever in the tri-state area shoot me an email and I’ll train you for one day and you can see my nonexistent knowledge in regard to my field.
“Yup.”
Kewl
“I like to play with my food.”
This is pretty cringey. So you waste your time with an opponent you deem so below you?
“I enjoy making you look stupid.”
That answers my question.
“Of course I do. My debate style is polemic, which you swagger jacked, just like every other position I have.”
You don’t “debate”, you don’t provide arguments, you give wordsalads.
“Inference rules are implied not something you necessarily have to present.”
lol go back to school kid.
“Who says I’m “struggling to keep my business afloat”?”
It’s new correct? You’re in debt correct?
“What do you do?”
Carpentry.
“you can see my nonexistent knowledge in regard to my field.”
No thanks, it’s already pretty obvious on here.
“This is pretty cringey.”
How ironic.
“That answers my question.”
Entertainment is a waste of time?
“You don’t “debate”, you don’t provide arguments, you give wordsalads.”
Nope, try again.
“lol go back to school kid.”
Well thanks for confirming that you’re ignorant of epistemology. I mean it was kind of already obvious, but you just make it too easy.
rr is right. the reason why tibetans are immune to HAPE and danes are 100% lactose tolerant is just an accident. also OJ is innocent and rr is looking for the real killers.
the term “natural selection” was coined after the well documented selective breeding/artificial selection.
all rr is saying is that nature doesn’t leave a stud book. DUH!
rr is an example of why jews are dangerous.
A breed registry, also known as a herdbook, studbook or register, in animal husbandry and the hobby of animal fancy, is an official list of animals within a specific breed whose parents are known. Animals are usually registered by their breeders when they are still young. The terms studbook and register are also used to refer to lists of male animals “standing at stud”, that is, those animals actively breeding, as opposed to every known specimen of that breed. Such registries usually issue certificates for each recorded animal, called a pedigree, pedigreed animal documentation, or most commonly, an animal’s “papers”. Registration papers may consist of a simple certificate or a listing of ancestors in the animal’s background, sometimes with a chart showing the lineage.
like my black standard poodle was registered with the AKC. but he never had any puppies.
If someone shot someone in front of RR, RR would be confused about whether the person really did shot the person. I don’t know why he calls his blog ‘race realist’ when hes the opposite and basically writes Berkeley sociology here.
“Well you can’t say the dog looks like its parents, it could have looked like a fish or a sabre tooth tiger. We don’t know what caused it. The dogs brain has nothing to do with how the dog acts. If you took a crowbar and hit it on the head repeatedly it wouldn’t change anything. If the dog was born in a jewish middle class household then we’d really see how useful IQ is!!”
No one is saying that.
The argument establishes that natural selection is not an explanatory mechanism in regard to trait fixation in a certain population of organisms. You need to look at evo-devo. To explain the effects that phenotypic trait T has on an organism in a certain environment you need to look at its natural history, not its history of selection. Natural history does not offer laws of selection but a narrative of causal chains that lead to the fixation of a trait in a population. Laws support counterfactuals, natural history does not.
“the term “natural selection” was coined after the well documented selective breeding/artificial selection.”
Natural selection cannot be a causal mechanism because it implies that it selects for traits, when “selection-for” is a causal notion. Only things with minds can select-for (i.e., animal breeder’s can select for and against traits in animals since animal breeders are humans and humans have minds).
Another perfect example of how retarded RR and Fodor are.
The environment(and sometimes other organisms) is what selects for. Organisms are what is being selected, not individual “traits”. What is a “trait” Can you define it binarily? Natural selection is just a name for a particular kind of emergent process formed from these two causal input factors.
Already one of the major premises of the argument is formed from a category mistake, while simultaneously making the same error as Richard dawkins did with his “selfish gene” metaphor.
Since you like using formal and informal logic so much, take the LSAT and see how you do. If you score below 160, never post here again. If you score above 160 I’ll suck your cock and be your sex slave for life. I’m very serious about this, but we need to see an official score report. And a lawyer to draft a legal agreement.
How is that relevant?
Would You Rather Be a RICK or a JERRY? – The Psychology of Rick and Morty – Wisecrack Edition
Im pretty eclectic myself.
I would vote for sanders over clinton, mccain, bush or macron any day.
You think bernie knows why the lebensraum wars in the mid east are happening?
Her eyes look like an ET.
Its nearly 20 years since Lierberman was on the presidential ticket, and progressives still cant figure out why lieberman runs against democrats and is against wall street regulation, pro war etc etc.
Its kind of fascinating how dumb someone can be if they don’t ad hominem examine people.
Its like RR reading all those jewish academic articles and trying to make sense of the world with fake data, fake claims, circular arguments and nonsense rhetoric.
The funny thing about progressive/feminist women, is that they still love burly republican looking men.
The best candidate would basically be candidate trump plus lots of bernie on economics and civil liberties and environment.
Wonder what koch brothers think about neocons?
On another point, I think ad hominem attacks in a debate are perfectly reasonable and fine, as long as they are not ridiculous like calling someone sexually impotent or fat or lazy or basically slandering non relevant character traits to the debate.
Saying someone is funded by the Koch Brothers as you’re opening argument would convince most people straight off. So why no say it? Its relevant info.
I went to the debating event and they listed ad hominem as a ‘logical fallacy’. Its not a a logical fallacy unless you have aspergers and think everyone is 100% honest about their opinions.
For example, theres no point in debating certain ex commenters about race. Hes a hack. If OJ Simpson literally stood up and shot everyone in the jury on tv, certain ex commenter would say it was the jury’s racism that made him do it.
In economics. Basically accusing ‘free market’ economists of being shills and hacks would clear out a lot of the deadwood rotting that subject. A lot of nobel winners don’t know anything about how an economy works but do know how to some math to postgrad physics level.
I remember debating economics with a central bank economist and he asked me how good was my math and gave me a math question on the spot which i answered. These people literally think being good at calculus is economics. It kind of is. But you have to get the story straight first. Then you can do pumpkins statistics hobby.
“Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used when the person receiving the criticism is a woman.
However, its original meaning was an argument “calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason”.[5]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[6][7][8] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance”
Someone with aspergers wrote this. Genuine discussion of the topic is ENHANCED by revealing the identity, motive, funding, past history and relevant relationships the proponent has.
[redacted by pp, july 22, 2018]
“Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[9]”
Yes it does.
Well to be more precise, its likely it does. Nobody in a debate has the actual time to read the nonsense someone biased or a shill from Heritage Foundation is going to mention. Hell say ‘immigration makes people smart as X said in his paper”. Nobody is going to be able to challenge that in real time.
As a matter of epistemology, where time is limited, you have to make a quick decision. The reason ad hominem resonates with the audience instead of other ‘logical fallacies’ is because its true. Pointing out heritage is funded by Citigroup is important to say.
Well by your standards, logic would be searching for truth assuming an infinate amount of time, perfect information.
Also we have experts becuase of the fact that we cant learn everything as well as simple comparative advantage and rational descision making, giving people the freedom not to be forced to learn academics.
Its interesting what you say though, maybe it has more perdictive power to be biased for the layman than not.
Also, how would a layman determine what bias is best for him? in my opinion, its something the upper class determines (within a range of capacity, they probably cant change every belief people have)
Actually this reminds of a debate I got into a few years ago with a comp science PHD guy. Total waste of time arguing with someone who is neurologically handicapped.
“The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism”
100% agree.
Its sad
“Taylor defines naturalism as a family of various, often quite diverse theories that all hold “the ambition to model the study of man on the natural sciences.”[19]
Philosophically, naturalism was largely popularized and defended by the unity of science movement that was advanced by logical positivist philosophy. In many ways, Taylor’s early philosophy springs from a critical reaction against the logical positivism and naturalism that was ascendant in Oxford while he was a student.
Initially, much of Taylor’s philosophical work consisted of careful conceptual critiques of various naturalist research programs. This began with his 1964 dissertation The Explanation of Behaviour, which was a detailed and systematic criticism of the behaviourist psychology of B. F. Skinner[20] that was highly influential at mid-century.
From there, Taylor also spread his critique to other disciplines. The still hugely influential essay “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man” was published in 1972 as a critique of the political science of the behavioural revolution advanced by giants of the field like David Easton, Robert Dahl, Gabriel Almond, and Sydney Verba.[21] In an essay entitled “The Significance of Significance: The Case for Cognitive Psychology”, Taylor criticized the naturalism he saw distorting the major research program that had replaced B. F. Skinner’s behaviourism.[22]
But Taylor also detected naturalism in fields where it was not immediately apparent. For example, in 1978’s “Language and Human Nature”, he found naturalist distortions in various modern “designative” theories of language,[23] while in Sources of the Self (1989) he found both naturalist error and the deep moral, motivational sources for this outlook in various individualist and utilitarian conceptions of selfhood.”
But Taylor is not smart enough to see why all of a sudden BF Skinners ideas were dropped one day and replaced with Terry Tao reasoning on non-inanimate object topics.
It doesn’t take a genius, or maybe it does, to see it was managed into autism. Nobody wakes up one day and is compelled to think people are 100% honest when arguing things and therefore its best to look at how the weather will tell us what is happening with people.
Political science would be most easily explained by literally listing the ethnic backgrounds of all groups and listing their motives. And thats it. You don’t even need the marxist, realist or cultural anthro stuff. [redacted by pp, july 22, 2018]
Funny how JRR Tolkien’s world is actually more realistic than the MSMs world. In Tolkiens world you know why Sauron does things and why Orcs do this and that. You don’t need to talk about ‘class structures’ or other such.
Nobody is confused who the elves are and what they stand for. Nobody.
Meanwhile in MSM land, today our enemy is Russia and nobody explains why.
“Our approach has grown out of the empirical study of family interactions as well as reflection upon the procedures of interpretation employed in our research. For the time being we shall refer to it as objective hermeneutics in order to distinguish it clearly from traditional hermeneutic techniques and orientations. The general significance for sociological analysis of objective hermeneutics issues from the fact that, in the social sciences, interpretive methods constitute the fundamental procedures of measurement and of the generation of research data relevant to theory. From our perspective, the standard, nonhermeneutic methods of quantitative social research can only be justified because they permit a shortcut in generating data (and research “economy” comes about under specific conditions). Whereas the conventional methodological attitude in the social sciences justifies qualitative approaches as exploratory or preparatory activities, to be succeeded by standardized approaches and techniques as the actual scientific procedures (assuring precision, validity, and objectivity), we regard hermeneutic procedures as the basic method for gaining precise and valid knowledge in the social sciences. However, we do not simply reject alternative approaches dogmatically. They are in fact useful wherever the loss in precision and objectivity necessitated by the requirement of research economy can be condoned and tolerated in the light of prior hermeneutically elucidated research experiences.”
100% correct. Popper gets an A for common sense.
[redacted by pp, july 22, 2018]
This is basically saying you need social intelligence to study human beings. You can’t study them like inanimate objects.
One of the reasons jews get away with so much nonsense in academia is not so much that people have low verbal reasoning and jews have very high ones. But that people at a certain level of academia always tend to have little or no social intelligence.
If somehow you had a guy that slept with 150 women and also was doing a phD I would SERIOUSLY doubt he’d believe in ‘mainstream’ accepted academic thought.
hehe.. cool!
whats the map about?
Perfection, i made this. Look at the african tribal borders, i think afro would shed a happy tear. The nations with grey borders are part of an nation but in the same government. Colours that share black borders are aliances. The dark purple in austria is german settled lands. Some african countries are multi-lingual, most are not. No armenian genocide, so the ottoman empire has many christians from syria, eastern anatolia and georgia, its an hodge podge of northen middle-eastern non arab cultrues.
Austria and Germany are allied of course, mittle europe gets more integrted with eachoder and brings wealth (capital) and immigration to eastern europe. Zion is between poland and ruthenia. Hungary takes over transylvania eventually.
Pakistan has new borders, inda gets partitioned differently.
Britain keeps its empire in the good parts.
Arab states unite against Persia which fights an civil war against communists, Soviet union and Arab kingdom partition Persia.
America never fights against spain, so the spanish empire gets partitioned by Britain and japan.
The romanovs keep alaska.
The soviets frees tibet and mongolia.
I forgot to add that Eugenics still is a thing in the upper class since no Hitler, hundred of thousands of maladjusted people get foribly sterilized, this is particularly prevalent in USA, CSA, Sweden, Peru and Brazil.
Also, Hainan is open to non-han chinese immigration from china, so Hainan has cities of different ethnicities that all learn japanese in school.
it’s a peepee IQ test. what’s the criterion? it’s not language or ethnicity. what is it?
Old governments/colonies that should have stayed.
Better course of events that happened in our history (no armenian history, Spanish empire loosing colonies to better owners, the hasburgs integrating yugoslavia to their reign, better partition of india following languages and religion, central powers winning in eastern europe and armistice making them keep their gains, less jews in palestine, the establishment of an country for Boers and Coloureds).
Better african borders with religion and language determining aliances.
Peace in the middle east with better borders (ethnic borders) and mutually assured destruction, Arabs are happy since they have 65+% of the worlds oil.
i meant Armenian genocide
The whole of india has the same religion.
It looks like colonial territory.
About Jewish and emigration, it would be nice if someone studied the variation of ashkenazim % of’the population and variation in third world migration numbers ….
Because I ve just discovered that Kohl in 1990, for reunification purpose, to take 150k Russian Jews – who didn’t speak German – so the population went from 30k to 180k . In 2003, Schroeder gave them same status as Roman Catholic. And now, they have the same kind of policies as France, Uk , Belgium and the Netherlands .
It may be a coincidence but it would be good to know …
McDonald has looked at it qualitatively in regards to various european countries. Why do you want a number like that? It would be too ‘noisy’. You might as well be measuring the amount of people that went to college that had aspergers or watched too many hollywood movies.
I scored a 36 on the Wonderlic, equivalent to an IQ score of 132.
It’s funny how these tests that are very short, with the Wonderlic being 12 minutes, have as much predictive power as the Weschler, a whole battery of tests that take quite a bit of time to complete. Another really good test is Wordsum.
I would urge anyone and everyone to take the Wonderlic to find out their potential intelligence. There are free tests online that are very similar to the ones NFL players are administered. It consists of mostly arithmetically-based word problems and then a plethora of logic problems. It correlates upwards of .9 with Weschler’s, as heard from a secondhand source.
It’s crazy to analyze the scores of different players and their success. Obviously the whiter a position, the higher the average score. I think if you control for arm strength, the Wonderlic is a very good proxy measure for how well a quarterback will perform. A lot of being a quarterback is being able to be mentally quick. So it makes sense the Wonderlic would be a good test to determine a QB’s ability.
peepee needs to tell me how chomsky has conned and distracted in instances other than his linguistics, israel, and global warming.
an interesting phenomenon rr might address is why people over 40 with BMIs in the 25-30 range have the lowest all cause mortality both in the US and in japan.
my “theory” is that lean body mass is good for you, being obese is bad for you, and that maintaining the same lean body mass one had as a yoof is difficult without also having more fat.
(((npr))) on bork.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/19/167645600/robert-borks-supreme-court-nomination-changed-everything-maybe-forever
sowell testified at length in favor of bork. he was ignored because dems ARE racist.
the renunciation of power is the morality of the jurist, not the assumption of power in the name of morality.
—thomas sowell quoting bork.
ted kennedy? boston irish ARE the MOST racist people in the US. it’s not even close.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?10175-1/bork-nomination-day-9-part-2
sowell disproves the stereotype. he’s SMARTER than the senators interrogating him.
I would put Sowell’s IQ around 140 although I always found his writing style kinda awkward…
Herr Dee Durr.
One thing RR is right about though is that natural selection doesn’t explain literally everything. I can’t remember the term, but the idea people actually evolve as they live life is also true. For example, if you abuse drugs, I think they’ve found the children of these people are somewhat more neurotic. Im pretty sure also that if you are an athlete, your children will have a higher baseline fitness. And the reverse if you are a slob.
Also organisms can simply change their environment if their traits aren’t working. This is what experts in ecology call ‘migration’. Its what birds do.
a YUGE problem with black vs white in america is the constant harping by the msm on racial issues. if the jews didn’t do this race would be a much smaller issue.
I’ll posit the reverse theory: we’re susceptible to media manipulation because racial tension exists in the first place.
Puppy changed his environment from North Korea to Canada. Look at him now. He has a blog and he hires people. But just like North Korea, puppy has a similar attitude to free speech. This might be an asian inheritance.
Heres something I don’t get. If you say the mind is not heritable in the psychological sense as RR says, then why is schiz proven to be genetic?
Likewise on the other end, Simon Baron Cohen found children of engineers are a LOT more likely to have autism than say children of drug dealers.
RR would say, the engineers in Eindhoven taught their children how to be autistic.
He rejects most types of heritability studies. If not all.
Puppy when you first came to canada did you get any racist treatment. I notice that you endorsed that book by that jewish women complaining about her white boyfriend ‘racistly expecting her to order a certain item on the menu’. It triggered me.
that is every time a white person encounters a black person he or she comes to this encounter with a TON of msm baggage.
without this, just person to person, whites and blacks would get along much better.
the ultimate cause is capital vs labor. jew vs gentile is a yuge thing in the US and other anglophone developed countries but contra pill it’s not the main thing.
when the antinomy of capital vs labor can be un-seen via harping, it happens.
If I think I float, and you think I float, then it happens.
for more read or watch 1984.
but contra pill it’s not the main thing.
Chomsky taught you well
Listen more to david duke, and less to chomsky, who is a known liar.
“It’s worth reviewing why presidents usually refrain from criticizing the Fed. It’s not out of politeness. It’s because they understand that in the long run, the central bank will succeed only if the financial markets trust it to keep inflation under control—even if that means taking away the punch bowl just as the party gets going. ”
(a) Its not necessarily clear low inflation is good for the economy at all.
(b) The reason central banks are ‘independent’, and judges make laws from the bench and supranational communist organisation like the EU take on all these roles from politicians is that the goyim CANNOT be trusted not to drink the kool aid.
(c) I am really not convinced independent central banks regulate the financial sector anymore strongly than a populist one.
(d) The financial markets thoughts are totally irrelevant. The stock market keeps hitting record highs and most americans have $500 dollars of savings and elected Donald Trump president.
(e) In the particular instance of the Fed, its never been audited, and Bernake during the crisis was later found to have printed money and handed it to specific corporations like GE at knockdown rates and then the economists, who are mentally disabled, turn around and wag their finger at the actual government intervening in a market.
Im actually starting to come around to MMT and basically abolishing independent central banks and letting the government print money and hand it directly to average people rather than printing money and handing it to Robert Rubin and hoping he’ll ‘create jobs’.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/16/house-speaker-paul-ryan-contradicts-trump-says-russia-meddled-2016/789061002/
Paul Ryan.
Hahahaha
[redacted by pp, July 22, 2018]
I d like to know where this doctrine of indépendant central bank who has taken from government the power to create money and given it to banks that charge a fee just to purchase gvt bonds ! Certainly the investment bankers are the beneficiary of it.
I am studying the fall of Ancient Greece and Rome and I wonder if the Jews weren’t involved …. that’s not a topic discussed but there were thriving Jewish communities with many revolutionary members …
Another thing, a guy told me Jewish invented Islam against Christian. Then I asked if they didn’t invent Christianism again Rome ? Someone like McDonald seems to believed Jewish hacked Puritanism (universlism, individualism, and social control based on values ) without seeing the control would be easier if christianism itself was fabricated as a tool. Like Islam is a caricature of monotheism suited for the desert, Christian is a monotheism adaptéd to Platonism and pantheism suites for European (Roman, German and Celtic people)
QE = free money for owners not for workers.
low inflation = less risk for owners, especially owners of debt.
that’s what they are in fact. whether that’s what they are by design is another question.
i strongly encourage more sexy pictures of sumos.
the war between fat and muscle is solved with ‘roids. or so arnold claimed.