barn Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 Hi @Person of Interest May I ask, what is the point that you are trying to communicate? Barnsley
ticketyboo Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, barn said: Hi @Person of Interest May I ask, what is the point that you are trying to communicate? Barnsley "African aircraft test flight" has finally met its match.
Person of Interest Posted July 6, 2018 Author Posted July 6, 2018 Stefan has talked a lot about the link between ethnicity and IQ, and I think this makes compelling evidence. 1
barn Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Person of Interest said: Stefan has talked a lot about the link between ethnicity and IQ, and I think this makes compelling evidence. Without appearing 'difficult' , I hope you can understand why I'm still not getting the point you might have been aiming to communicate. And I rather not 'put words in your mouth', hence my initial question. (prefer to ask than theorise) i. e. a. "ethnicity and IQ" in what context? b. "this makes compelling evidence" for what? Additionally: I suppose, you're going to add caveats soon, too, as probably (I'd assume) you wouldn't want to make a blanket statement about ALL individuals in Uganda. Or, maybe I'm wrong?
barn Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 Hi @ticketyboo Thanks. Something tells me it's not necessary to check it out. Maybe later.
ticketyboo Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 10 hours ago, barn said: Without appearing 'difficult' My guess as to the point, in no particular order: Laugh at a bunch of low IQ imbeciles using a "poo poo" example to set a national health (and culture?) policy Laugh at the contrast between Western political correctness and common sense talk about "poo poo" Laugh at commentators who do a bunch of moral posturing by pretending to not get the point of posting it
Siegfried von Walheim Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 5 hours ago, ticketyboo said: My guess as to the point, in no particular order: Laugh at a bunch of low IQ imbeciles using a "poo poo" example to set a national health (and culture?) policy Laugh at the contrast between Western political correctness and common sense talk about "poo poo" Laugh at commentators who do a bunch of moral posturing by pretending to not get the point of posting it lol reading this comment stream and then watching the videos... LOL. It's almost like (might as well take off the kid gloves) a snobby British instructor purposely "not getting" why "the kids" find something funny. 1
barn Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 7 hours ago, ticketyboo said: My guess as to the point, in no particular order: Laugh at a bunch of low IQ imbeciles using a "poo poo" example to set a national health (and culture?) policy Laugh at the contrast between Western political correctness and common sense talk about "poo poo" Laugh at commentators who do a bunch of moral posturing by pretending to not get the point of posting it Maybe. Maybe not. 17 hours ago, barn said: (prefer to ask than theorise)
ticketyboo Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 I referenced this earlier, but I particularly enjoy the contrast with Western culture. Who would you rather have come to your school and talk to your kids about LGBT issues? Poo Poo Man (see above) Demonic Tranny Man On the one hand, we have a man delivering common sense talk about the relationship between homosexual men and poo poo. On the other hand, we have a God-knows-what delivering God-knows-what. I've setup a false dichotomy for humorous purposes of course [don't want barn to get his knickers in a knot], but I have to go with Poo Poo Man. Low IQ imbeciles can actually sound more intelligent than high IQ Westerners by simply having enough courage and integrity to speak plainly and truthfully.
barn Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 @ticketybooWhen the available options are restricted (such as you put forward), to that small pool of choices(2)... I suppose I can see what YOU'd meant. Is it realistic? Doubt it. Regardless, I still wonder... On 07/06/2018 at 3:54 PM, barn said: On 07/06/2018 at 2:03 PM, Person of Interest said: Stefan has talked a lot about the link between ethnicity and IQ , and I think this makes compelling evidence. [...] ... hence my initial question. (prefer to ask than theorise) i. e. a. "ethnicity and IQ" in what context? b. "this makes compelling evidence" for what?
Person of Interest Posted July 12, 2018 Author Posted July 12, 2018 On 7/6/2018 at 9:54 AM, barn said: Without appearing 'difficult' , I hope you can understand why I'm still not getting the point you might have been aiming to communicate. And I rather not 'put words in your mouth', hence my initial question. (prefer to ask than theorise) i. e. a. "ethnicity and IQ" in what context? b. "this makes compelling evidence" for what? Additionally: I suppose, you're going to add caveats soon, too, as probably (I'd assume) you wouldn't want to make a blanket statement about ALL individuals in Uganda. Or, maybe I'm wrong? a. Maybe I wasn't specific enough with the choice of media or explanations. With a basic understanding of natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution, it does make intuitive sense that because the environment in Sub-Saharan Africa is so harsh and, at some times, barely inhabitable, it favors only the very strongest of the people who are born there. Since intelligence is not nearly the most useful trait when it comes to survival in the intense climate, among other things, the intelligent people will die off without reproducing, and the most physically powerful people will live. b. Even if English was not the politician's native language, the crude and immature way he talked about the subject matter seems unfitting even for a ten year old. I may have been overly subjective in my judgement, but I don't think it's too difficult to see my point. Not to mention the fact that the man was judging all homosexuals based on a singular case which he probably completely made up. I'm not attempting to convey that all Ugandans have a lower intelligence than people from most other places. It's only a generalization that I believe applies for a significant fraction of them.
barn Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 8 hours ago, Person of Interest said: a. Maybe I wasn't specific enough with the choice of media or explanations. With a basic understanding of natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution, it does make intuitive sense that because the environment in Sub-Saharan Africa is so harsh and, at some times, barely inhabitable, it favors only the very strongest of the people who are born there. Since intelligence is not nearly the most useful trait when it comes to survival in the intense climate, among other things, the intelligent people will die off without reproducing, and the most physically powerful people will live. b. Even if English was not the politician's native language, the crude and immature way he talked about the subject matter seems unfitting even for a ten year old. I may have been overly subjective in my judgement, but I don't think it's too difficult to see my point. Not to mention the fact that the man was judging all homosexuals based on a singular case which he probably completely made up. I'm not attempting to convey that all Ugandans have a lower intelligence than people from most other places. It's only a generalization that I believe applies for a significant fraction of them. Thanks for the clarification. I can see now how the title is to mock, to be a satire rather than a rational claim. It's also made me think about whether colder environments offered less harsh living circumstances, and why the majority of the world's population lives in coastal regions.
Person of Interest Posted July 15, 2018 Author Posted July 15, 2018 I believe people in general are more able to adapt to colder environments than warmer ones since we are all mammals. I believe it requires less energy or technological innovation to warm up in a cold climate than to cool down in a warm climate. There are also typically more resources in even the coldest environments (fish in frozen bodies of water, wood from trees, animals to hunt, etc.).
Person of Interest Posted July 16, 2018 Author Posted July 16, 2018 Here's another video. The main person of focus might not be from Uganda, but most likely Sub-Saharan Africa.
barn Posted July 16, 2018 Posted July 16, 2018 On 07/15/2018 at 3:37 AM, Person of Interest said: I believe people in general are more able to adapt to colder environments than warmer ones since we are all mammals. Sorry, that's not true. (Empirically supported too, I had eluded to when "the majority of the world's...") Stefan Molyneux has mentioned it too at Q3/4143 (last third), in the last call-in show. On 07/15/2018 at 3:37 AM, Person of Interest said: believe it requires less energy or technological innovation to warm up in a cold climate than to cool down in a warm climate. All-right. I'm willing to listen to your proofs and arguments for that. (with standard of disproof too, please) On 07/15/2018 at 3:37 AM, Person of Interest said: There are also typically more resources in even the coldest environments (fish in frozen bodies of water, wood from trees, animals to hunt, etc.). Would you say that the growing season is shorter or longer in a colder environment? Additionally, in which environment would the population be required to possess the skill of 'deferral of gratification' (I'd personally go with the colder climate due to longer winters... etc. but I'm open to reconsidering if you have better evidence.)
ticketyboo Posted July 17, 2018 Posted July 17, 2018 On 7/15/2018 at 8:29 PM, Person of Interest said: Here's another video. The main person of focus might not be from Uganda, but most likely Sub-Saharan Africa Cape Town, South Africa. Apropos Stef's latest video. The main African lady speaking at the front of the room made a point regarding Newton and science. Her notion of science is that universal gravitation is something that exists because Newton says that it exists, and that if someone says something different, then something different exists. It's similar to postmodernism (see Thaddeus Russell debate) where she denies that objective relatively exists. She thinks gravity is because "Newton says" not because of reality. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of science, where observations should be repeatable and verifiable. The law of universal gravitation exists not because Newton observed it. It exists because anyone can observe it. Reality is not a Western construction. These people can't even competently cargo cult civilization. But we should totally subsidize them to attend MIT.
Person of Interest Posted July 19, 2018 Author Posted July 19, 2018 On 7/17/2018 at 12:39 AM, ticketyboo said: Cape Town, South Africa. Apropos Stef's latest video. The main African lady speaking at the front of the room made a point regarding Newton and science. Her notion of science is that universal gravitation is something that exists because Newton says that it exists, and that if someone says something different, then something different exists. It's similar to postmodernism (see Thaddeus Russell debate) where she denies that objective relatively exists. She thinks gravity is because "Newton says" not because of reality. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of science, where observations should be repeatable and verifiable. The law of universal gravitation exists not because Newton observed it. It exists because anyone can observe it. Reality is not a Western construction. These people can't even competently cargo cult civilization. But we should totally subsidize them to attend MIT. In my opinion, if so many Africans collectively believe that we are "colonizing" their civilization with such hostility, all the Europeans and Americans should just move out of Africa, grab their popcorn, and watch at a safe distance as African society crashes and burns to the ground.
Person of Interest Posted July 19, 2018 Author Posted July 19, 2018 On 7/16/2018 at 5:49 PM, barn said: Sorry, that's not true. (Empirically supported too, I had eluded to when "the majority of the world's...") Stefan Molyneux has mentioned it too at Q3/4143 (last third), in the last call-in show. All-right. I'm willing to listen to your proofs and arguments for that. (with standard of disproof too, please) Would you say that the growing season is shorter or longer in a colder environment? Additionally, in which environment would the population be required to possess the skill of 'deferral of gratification' (I'd personally go with the colder climate due to longer winters... etc. but I'm open to reconsidering if you have better evidence.) I agree that my first statement was a biased opinion. I hadn't examined any statistical evidence to confirm it. However, I do believe my second and third statements are more plausible. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2363294 According to the patent linked above, the air conditioning system was patented in 1944. A campfire, however, is one of the earliest known inventions in history. Since a campfire or some other method of keeping oneself warm would be far more useful in a cold environment, it makes intuitive sense to state that it requires less technological innovation to warm up in a cold environment than to cool down in a hot environment. Although farming in freezing climates is not viable, there are still numerous wild animals which can provide ample sustenance. Water is also a far more abundant resource in colder environments, albeit frozen over. Lastly, deferral of gratification is a skill which tends to result from increased intellectual capacity. Stefan talks about it himself.
barn Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 Dude (if I may), is it okay if I recommend you changed the profile image that you have currently on? I think it would 'radiate' more along the lines of someone who isn't constantly for mocking... (my own little subjective observation, for sure choose whatever suits you.) 2 hours ago, Person of Interest said: I agree that my first statement was a biased opinion. I hadn't examined any statistical evidence to confirm it. I didn't expect that. Well, that's admirable. OK. Good for you! (of course I had tried to make solid counter arguments, pushback.) 2 hours ago, Person of Interest said: However, I do believe my second... [...] quoting... On 07/13/2018 at 12:33 AM, Person of Interest said: b. Even if English was not the politician's native language, the crude and immature way he talked about the subject matter seems unfitting even for a ten year old. I may have been overly subjective in my judgement, but I don't think it's too difficult to see my point. Not to mention the fact that the man was judging all homosexuals based on a singular case which he probably completely made up. (it's this one, right?!) Speaking of a very specific individual, from a large group of people, I can agree it is fair to judge the way he delivered his own argu... 'stuff' with less than reasonable (by Western standards... if that still exists) tone, choice of words. 1 person. An individual. Can't be representative of a nation, right?! 2 hours ago, Person of Interest said: [...] and third statements are more plausible. I'm quoting... , this one right?! Wait... I think I'm getting mixed up now. Is it that those arguments you're referring to are in this one? (it would have been better, had you quoted them...lemme give it a try <sigh> ) On 07/15/2018 at 3:37 AM, Person of Interest said: I believe people in general are more able to adapt to colder environments than warmer ones since we are all mammals. -> (1) I believe it requires less energy or technological innovation to warm up in a cold climate than to cool down in a warm climate. -> (2) There are also typically more resources in even the coldest environments (fish in frozen bodies of water, wood from trees, animals to hunt, etc.). -> (3) (focusing now on 2 & 3...) -> (2) Lack of energy requires more input than abundance as with the lack of natural heating sources, the effect must be created from scratch. (ie. and rational for counter: shadow, cave, artificial depression, water evaporation techniques... etc.) I'm a big fan of survival too. No, cooling is always easier, requires less calories to be burnt in the process. -> (3) Have you had to self-sustain... ah, forget it... What would you say about the biodiversity being more or less abundant in colder /warmer environments? If we are speaking of extremes, it's sort of an 'equaliser', where superior knowledge of the environment and weather will keep you alive, or see you perish abruptly if you can't extract + conserve. (in the extremes, conservation is king... anyhow, don't watch Bear Grylls, more like Ray Mears) In colder environments, you need energy to get going AND THEN scavenge for more, whereas in warmer climate you have a greater abundance... hence the preference for the world's population from the beginning of time to settle close to water + warmer climate. (look it up, I'm not inventing it.) 2 hours ago, Person of Interest said: According to the patent linked above, the air conditioning system was patented in 1944. According to the link you've provided, that's a fair assessment. However, I invite you to have a peek at James Dawer. (a mere 100yrs+ earlier... it's not uncommon for inventions acquiring formal recognition, way after they'd been put to practical use. Wouldn't be surprised if the Sumerians or the Chinese had a few proto- inventions but never got recorded... 'hu' knows... anyhow.) 2 hours ago, Person of Interest said: Since a campfire or some other method of keeping oneself warm would be far more useful in a cold environment, it makes intuitive sense to state that it requires less technological innovation to warm up in a cold environment than to cool down in a hot environment. I used to giggle slightly when Stefan Molyneux would speak of the bone-chilling cold out in the 'unclaimed' lands... Have you ever tried to make fire in sub- sub- sub- zero temperatures with freezing cold firewood? (I highly doubt it... I have. It's no small feat. Usually, you'd keep some firewood within the living area for later, not because of comfort, but because of necessity.) 2 hours ago, Person of Interest said: Although farming in freezing climates is not viable, there are still numerous wild animals which can provide ample sustenance. Sure. Mongolia still has nomads roaming around with very strict rules and rituals around efficient energy use, shedding the unnecessary stress of comfort and ease. A forum member might be able to tell you much more about it than my currently limited knowledge of the nomads allow for. A very structured and rule driven lifestyle that is, I know that much for sure. No laziness allowed. Or it's allowed but then you're left behind to perish... no hesitation there. 2 hours ago, Person of Interest said: Water is also a far more abundant resource in colder environments, albeit frozen over. True. If you can melt it. Eating snow/ice is no good survival strategy, speeds up hypothermia and frostbite. 2 hours ago, Person of Interest said: Lastly, deferral of gratification is a skill which tends to result from increased intellectual capacity. Stefan talks about it himself. Very true. Can you also remember/find instances with context for type of cultures? (because they are ain't no moderate OR WARM -climate dwellers usually, as my memory goes)
Person of Interest Posted July 20, 2018 Author Posted July 20, 2018 Do you like my profile picture now?
barn Posted July 21, 2018 Posted July 21, 2018 6 hours ago, Person of Interest said: Do you like my profile picture now? (Maybe I shouldn't have suggested. No probs, it only matters what you think, in the end.) Gotta hand it to you... imaginative.
Recommended Posts