:darwinsm: You think Trump earned his billions through welfare?
You Darwinists are the stupidest pack of morons.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Last edited:
Take Down the Bird Feeder!
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
You Darwinists are the stupidest pack of morons.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'll restate this for you since you're incapable of understanding or accepting information contrary to your ideas. You are most certainly no authority on anything that's been discussed in this thread.
Social constructs vary widely among different groups of humans, and change over short periods of time. They're not genetic, nor based on evolutionary history. Females are, obviously the bearers and primary raisers of children in most societies, but that doesn't mean they don't have other roles even in primitive societies. I've already linked you several sources for that, but you reject them because apparently you think women are only fit to be sex/childbearing slaves. Which is also why you will likely never bear offspring absent an overturning in societal norms.
Today we see society and social constructs changing considerably in this regard because of technological change enabling women to control childbearing, and obtain a better education freeing them to take on larger and more varied roles. Cultures change most due to technology, not evolutionary forces. Historical events such as the invention of agriculture and the industrial revolution have already changed society considerably.
Social constructs can be whatever we want them to be because there's no underlying biological imperative as far as social roles go that technology cannot alter in one way or another.
especially black birds
Then there's the Mexican pigeons....
View attachment 25157
The book is entitled "How to dig a tunnel".
He's prepping for Trump's new border wall!
I differ with your characterization for the reasons given.
It really isn't, for the reasons given prior.
In as much as I credited you with the lesser of two errors.
That you don't distinguish between assertion and explanation is one reason it's fruitless to discuss with you. The other being your tendency to mix in low-brow, personally charged insult as an integral part of a response, even when you aren't the object of any insult.
No, I noted the subtext. Most of my objections weren't rooted in it, but it was a thing worth noting while peeling the false face of the author away from his attempt to sell the narrative. The author is defending a sort of person who is looking to justify particular actions. He sells that person as altruistic and well meaning, and put upon by angry animals. The fact that the altruist is described using a human and the recipients of his largess are described as animals, eventually dangerous, intruding and malcontent, isn't accidental. And all of it is subject to scrutiny, which I gave it.
That's me again. Are you using a phone or something that interferes with the quote function?
I think it reflects a particular weakness that I spoke to in particular. And there's a good deal of difference between your original assertion that I was calling Clete a racist, which I clearly didn't, and saying his choice to promote the piece reflects poorly on him, which it does and for the reasons I set out.
That's your assessment. I think you're mistaken for the reasons given.
It's such a profoundly dull comment I had to find something worthwhile to do with it. Or, the subtext is, "Stop wasting time with the side-bar that addresses nothing substantive or meaningful".
I trimmed that down not long after, but you're omitting the context contained in the sentence that proceeded it. Here's the culled version, though it also rests on the established subject:
"Birds aren't imaginary characters, but I don't see that it matters. What does is what they represented, or rather misrepresented."
In that context it isn't difficult to read at all, though it's easy enough to misrepresent in an effort to make a dismissive point of no particular importance. What does(matter) is what they (the imaginary characters) represented, or rather (as used by the author) misrepresented.
That's your reading. I think it's mistaken for the reasons set out prior.
That's the assertion all right, but not a proof. You decided what was being asserted then blew the ref whistle. Or, you're really only penalizing your own shortfall in examination.
I think you'd have a hard time making the case. I was taught you don't start a fight because you can't win an argument, but if someone throws a punch you put them on their pants. In argument you can manage that with humor. If you do it well enough you can sometimes cause the other party to reconsider. And often enough, if I catch something that I didn't in reading over a response before posting it, I'll go back and edit it out as quickly as I can. The post you're noting is a good example. The wolves bit, while appropriate given, was culled in a slightly later edit (so much so that it doesn't show up as an edit). Mostly because I don't find that fruitful and I thought there was a better, more restrained response to your wondering for a collective about whether I'm the racist: "Then "we" don't know much about me worth knowing."
I've also publicly apologized on a few occasions when I reconsidered my approach to a poster and found it unacceptable. I don't see evidence of editing or owning in your efforts, which is part of why I don't seek you out for engaging on a point and have for some time limited myself to necessary responses.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you were taught that by who?
some sissymary?
cause "put them on their pants" sounds really really gay :nono:
So...what are the odds that last bit from Sod was a mature reflection on the salient points of the argument coupled with an intelligent criticism of particulars? lain:
The alternative being some love note about or to, well, you know, me.
lain:The alternative being some love note about or to, well, you know, me.
I'll restate this for you since you're incapable of understanding or accepting information contrary to your ideas. You are most certainly no authority on anything that's been discussed in this thread.
Social constructs vary widely among different groups of humans, and change over short periods of time. They're not genetic, nor based on evolutionary history. Females are, obviously the bearers and primary raisers of children in most societies, but that doesn't mean they don't have other roles even in primitive societies. I've already linked you several sources for that, but you reject them because apparently you think women are only fit to be sex/childbearing slaves. Which is also why you will likely never bear offspring absent an overturning in societal norms.
Today we see society and social constructs changing considerably in this regard because of technological change enabling women to control childbearing, and obtain a better education freeing them to take on larger and more varied roles. Cultures change most due to technology, not evolutionary forces. Historical events such as the invention of agriculture and the industrial revolution have already changed society considerably.
Social constructs can be whatever we want them to be because there's no underlying biological imperative as far as social roles go that technology cannot alter in one way or another.
You're trying to insert an imaginative agenda into science and it simply fails. There's nothing scientific in what you have stated, it's an attempt to cleave social workings from evolution when social workings are a direct reflection and mechanism of evolution altogether.
Social constructs have not changed at all, there's just an illusion of such- women are simply doing things which require more men to involve their selves in to compensate for it. That is why no actual professor on the subjects of biology or evolution has ever taken what you all say seriously :wave2:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So...what are the odds that last bit from Sod was a mature reflection on the salient points of the argument coupled with an intelligent criticism of particulars?
The alternative being some love note about or to, well, you know, me.
what are the odds that you don't really understand the concept of ignore? :darwinsm:
BAM!
right on "your pants", mary! :darwinsm:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i come from a "hard" science background - heavy on chemistry, physics, engineering
we mocked those involved in the "soft" sciences like biology and atmospheric science, etc
and totally scorned those involved in the social "sciences" :chuckle:
She comes off as a feminist undergraduate-turned-professional teacher's aide who has simply over-classified herself.
A liberal agenda takes precedence with her, not science. That's all a lot of college students amount to.
There's a reason why so many of them, despite a secure and financial opportunity, do not receive PhDs- you can buy an education, you can't buy intelligence
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
She comes off as a feminist undergraduate-turned-professional teacher's aide who has simply over-classified herself.
A liberal agenda takes precedence with her, not science. That's all a lot of college students amount to.
There's a reason why so many of them, despite a secure and financial opportunity, do not receive PhDs- you can buy an education, you can't buy intelligence
You can't even buy a clue doofus. Anyone familiar with Alate knows she's eminently qualified in biology. You OTOH are just some dumb kid with no particular knowledge about anything who just rants a lot and is incredibly boring. Just go back to the games console, it's probably about the only thing you may be any good at.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
what is it with your bizarre fixation on "boring" as an epithet? :freak:
if you're so bored by him, just go away
in fact, do us all a favor and just go away
Define 'qualified' :chuckle:
Is that why nobody can refute what I stated- Darwin II doesn't seem to know much more beyond anyone else :idunno:
I know the type, you all treat them as a monolith.
You're just a tool, dude.
Find a different thing to say :wave2:
Alate_One
Well-known member
You've never explained YOUR qualifications. Care to enlighten us?
I've refuted you a half dozen times. You're simply pulling a Trump. Reality doesn't exist for you, you ignore contrary information.
Paper on gender roles coming into being as a result of the plough
You might want to take your own advice.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
| We identify the causal impact of traditional plough use by exploiting variation in the historical geo-climatic suitability of the environment for growing crops that differentially benefited from the adoption of the plough. |
o
m
g
:doh:
i had to read so much crap written like this in my education program :nono:
Except you haven't. You've gone on and explained what speciation is a half a dozen times, trying to conflate it to the whole of evolution.
You're dumbing down evolution to fit your feminism- we're full circle right at the point where you were wrong and are depending on your credentials to somehow miracle your falsehood as truth.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Uhh no I didn't explain speciation. I gave you the definition of biological evolution: changes in heritable characteristics (genes) in a population over time. That doesn't necessarily equate to speciation, though speciation is included as well as larger changes such as the evolution of new features. Maybe you should start here and keep reading . . .
If the actual definition of evolution is so "dumb", what is your definition of biological evolution?
Maybe you should stop trying to find lame, technical ways to make it look like you're the only person who knows anything about anything. You're trying to compensate, and it doesn't do you any good.
Social constructs are both a reflection and a drive of evolution, and it exists within most all creatures. Why don't you just admit that your feminism is an attempt to repeal such constructs, that it is not evidenced, that women still mainly excel in their roles, and it isn't some evil patriarchy holding you all back