StrangeSox

I don't think I've ever commented much on gender. But yeah seriously, if you honestly think "how much money a person has (or is born into)" says anything about their "genetic stock," go crack a high school level biology book and work your way up from there. s*** just doesn't work like that, and "common sense" is just an appeal to preformed assumptions without basis. People make all sorts of social decisions on who to marry for various reasons, but that doesn't say anything about underlying genetics. edit: lol try harder dude, that is just sad. not even worth it.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 01:03 PM) LOL. This ssubforum sucks. Given that I am a mod and I get all these DMs from posters bagging on the filibuster and telling me to keep fighting the good fight I would like to keep some balance around here but it's just not possible. I do wonder why these posters are afraid to post around here (hit me up and let me know, you guys know who you are, just cleared my inbox). It's certainly not that anybody would expect regulars in this subforum to be intolerant. But you guys got me. Just like the rest of them who have more discipline than me. It isn't worth explaining basic human interactions to grown men who ignore human nature so they can project their political platform of being self-righteous and holier-than-thou. Resume with the echo chamber. But you guys are right, Anna Nicole Smith really loved that oil tycoon prune and the duck dynasty guy will have a child that will go on to split the atom because we are all inherently equal and his father being a simpleton has no affect on his future. If you'd excuse me, I am going to go join the NBA to dethrone the Golden State Warriors because my mother's 5'1" height has no bearing on my future because we are all created equally and my lack of bone density that my genetics gave me isn't going to affect my future as an athlete. LeBron has no genetic advantage over me and implying such is racist or sexist depending on which filibuster regular you talk to. In parting, and in all seriousness, please don't let your masturbatory personal political beliefs invade your everyday life. There's a whole world out there that some seemingly haven't experience and perhaps experiencing some diversity and different types of people would do you well. We'd all love to live in a utopia world where everyone is exactly the same and dealt the same cards but that's not life. People aren't inherently flawless. People are inherently limited. People are self-driven. People are plagued by image. People are variable. I could go on all day. I just don't know where you guys spend your lives that you think stating otherwise is offensive. To be clear, none of this is personal to me - I would love to talk baseball with you guys where disagreements are settled with reason and this board is absolutely marvelous in its congregating. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard on the way out the door, but I guess it isn't worth explaining to a grown man that "common sense" doesn't give you insight into how genetics actually work. Go crack a biology book.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 12:17 PM) The show runners go out of their way to say it's not a linear plot. It's a little lazy but it works out better But some things have to be linear unless there's some still-to-be-revealed time travel element. Jon's gone from rescuing the refugees at Hardhome to organizing a battle against the Boltons and taking back Winterfell to setting up a government there, traveling to meet with Daenarys, futzing around there for (??) while Daenerys' fleet gets wrecked twice, Highgarden falls and then Danaerys counter-attacks, and now Jon's traveled all the way back North to the Wall. That's just what one character's done, so we gotta figure on linear time there, right? So why is it taking the Night King so damn long to get from Hardhome to the wall in that same time period? In "book time," just that amount of travel alone would have been several months for Jon. Maybe even closer to a year. I'll admit that it's a minor quibble that has me irrationally annoyed though.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 12:41 PM) Therefore, as stated by Rabbit earlier, wealth is genetic! check out the genetic fitness of this wealthy fellow!

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 12:34 PM) That's pretty common on a lot of dating websites. How much money you earn (or are born into) doesn't say anything about your genetics, though.

They rattle the sabers every year when the US and SK are conducting joint exercises in the area. The worry now is that Kim or Trump or both will back themselves into a corner that they can't really get out of without escalating to shooting. I'm glad NK blinked first.

SK's President called for a non-military solution and said that any military strikes would need to be approved by SK first. NK appears to be backing off their "bomb the waters off of Guam" statements for now, too.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 09:58 AM) They are both common sense statements. I don't know where you get your viewpoints skewed but very few people in the real world would take exception to either of those comments. It's not a "common sense statement" to anyone who actually knows anything about genetics. You're just pulling things straight out of your ass right now, from the initial genetic claims to the "very few people in the real world" statements. Have you thought about the implications of your thoughts on genetic superiority and how they apply to racial breakdowns? Do you realize that if your "common sense" claims are follow through, you're saying that on the whole black people are genetically inferior to white people because they aren't as wealthy? edit: I'll just take your admission that you're not basing this on anything but "common sense" i.e. "decided to believe this without evidence" and move on, though! edit2: "very few people" is just a dumb appeal to popularity, anyway! lots of people can be wrong about a thing, especially if they know nothing about genetics and instead just base their conclusions on gut feelings that happen to align with their pre-existing ideologies and viewpoints!

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 09:51 AM) Good thing I have you to clarify what I think for me. Move on. I'm not clarifying anything. You explicitly stated that you think Ivanka Trump is more likely to have a better "genetic profile." That's not nearly the same as an uncontroversial claim that people consider wealth when choosing a partner.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 09:50 AM) Common sense. So, absolutely nothing. How about the second question? The view that wealthy people are genetically superior necessarily claims that poor people are more likely to be genetically inferior. Given that wealth is unevenly distributed between the different races, doesn't that imply that some races are genetically superior to others? If you're making claims about genetics, you're making claims about populations and not just individuals, remember.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 09:49 AM) Of course. Nobody's guaranteed anything. Nature vs. nurture has to play its course. To act as if people don't consider these factors, not you necessarily, is kind of crazy. Your claim wasn't "what people consider" but what is actually true biologically. QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 14, 2017 -> 09:13 PM) would you rather have her mother be someone like say, Ivanka Trump, or would you prefer her mother be some random 25-year-old woman in Appalachia? I think the former would lead to an offspring with a better genetic profile. Why do you think this?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 09:47 AM) You just need to toughen up a little bit and live life with the understanding that not everyone lives in some progressive land like you. People judge others. Looks, earning power and other superficial factors play primary roles in who individuals decide to procreate with. Even with the problems in your viewpoint i think you'd be able to understand that. Why people decide who their partners are is not the same claim you are making. You claimed that Ivanka Trump is more likely to actually be genetically superior to some "25 year old from Appalachia." That's a claim about how things actually work biologically. On what do you base that? What do you think your viewpoint says about genetic superiority given disparities in wealth distributions?

Aside from an attempted Lena Dunham burn being one of the saddest things I've ever seen on these forums, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to "spare" you. The implications of what you're trying to claim are pretty dire. Genetics is a whole big mess of attributes. Whether a particular set of attributes that allows someone to succeed in the very specific time period and society and societal position they were born into is hard enough to pin down, let alone whether those attributes were genetic, something instilled in their upbringing by family/society/culture, some combination thereof, or even blind luck. Genetics and evolution work on timescales of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, far shorter than anything we can derive from a few decades or even centuries of what sort of wealth a particular family line accumulates. Even if we set aside the problems your viewpoint results in when you look at wealth distribution by various subpopulations, your own chosen example says that the daughter of a billionaire is likely to be genetically superior to some (presumably poor) person from Appalachia. What are you basing this on? What other 'insights' into genetic superiority do you wish to share? Have you considered what your idea that "more wealth=superior biologically" says given how disproportionately wealth is distributed on, say, racial categories?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 09:30 AM) You're so evolved. I'm sure your significant other is some half wit with 6 fingers because "equality." Are we really ignoring the simple fact that people look at significant others and judge them on how they could potentially provide, earn and/or contribute as a parent. what the f*** dude, social darwinism was a joke over a hundred years ago. biology simply doesn't work that way, and that's without getting into the f***ed up social implications of your "more money=genetically superior" mindset. e: the ultimate irony is that your example of "genetic superiority" is someone born into generational wealth whose only personal successes appear to be selling crappy handbags on her family name.

Mike Godwin, inventor of "Godwin's Law"

QUOTE (Quin @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 08:17 AM) So Trump is considering pardoning Joe Arpaio. The man who's in jail for defying court orders to stop illegally targeted immigrants. Makes his statements yesterday seem that much more sincere.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 06:55 AM) Agreed. It's total fabrication, but hopefully this will make the alt-right not come out to vote for him again. Richard Spencer already said he's thrilled with Trump's words and doesn't feel like he was really attacking them at all.

After taking two days to condemn Nazi terrorists who used a vehicle to murder a peaceful protestor, Donald Trump is retweeting images of running over his opposition with a vehicle. He was also retweeting an alt-right/Nazi who's a main proponent of pizzagate and has been seen paling around with Richard Spencer.

Being born into third generation wealth doesn't mean you have better genetics. Becoming wealthy doesn't mean your genetically superior and being poor doesn't mean you're inferior. There are a whole lot of bad implications that fall out of that line of thinking.

Yikes

Trump with more strong condemnation

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 14, 2017 -> 04:20 PM) I think there is quite a large gap in logic behind the Islamic Terrorism labeling (which the military and state dept both advised against to prevent the appearance of a war of civilizations) and calling out White Supremacists and literal Nazis. Nazis for obvious reasons, but I have not seen case made that calling out White Supremacists makes White people feel like you are calling them out. That's an important distinction. We don't want to be waging a war on the ideology of Islam. We don't want to present a front that makes it look like that's what we're doing. Waging a war against white supremacy and literal neo-nazis is fine, though. We absolutely should be looking to stamp down that ideology.

Nazi rallies and nazi violence is inherently political in nature. e: Trump may not have "gained" anything from liberals and leftists if he had come out and forcefully denounced Nazi terrorists on the day they killed someone, but he also wouldn't have been called out by numerous Republicans and the entire media for not making what should be the easiest denunciation ever, Nazis=bad. He blew that very, very badly.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Aug 14, 2017 -> 02:35 PM) This will help you out for the rest of your movie-watching/book-reading days: In stories, time isn't always linear. I read plenty, thanks. Everything else in the show has been presented linearly, and we have different characters interacting with different parts of the world that set anchor points for the timelines. People on Dragonstone or at King's Landing or at Winterfell would have gotten ravens that the Night King's army had shown up at the wall some point after they attacked Hardhome. Instead Jon's been able to travel back and forth across all of Westeros multiple times and retake and setup rule at Winterfell, too.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 14, 2017 -> 02:56 PM) Trump just condemned racism and called the KKK, neo-nazis, and white supremacists "repugnant". Bannon will be out by the end of the week, I'd guess. I know there was no real feeling behind it and he was only doing it because he had to, but TBH it was a good speech. Two days too late, though, for a man who'll insult and attack anyone he feels like by name at the drop of a hat.