…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Joe Felsenstein seems to have made a fool of himself recently.
Fixed that for you.
Mung:
Don’t be dense, Mung. Yahweh is the Christian God. The fact that he’s also the Jewish God and the Muslim God doesn’t change that.
Moron.
True, but that doesn’t mean you couldn’t learn something if you actually tried.
Neither I, nor anyone else, is preventing you from presenting your position and defending it. Even if a demon is deceiving you, you could still present your position and defend it.
Or a demon could be responsible for your false claim that you always defend your positions. Do you deny that you claimed that you always defend your positions? Perhaps a demon is responsible for both assertions.
I defended it, doofus:
“Faiths” aren’t the sort of thing I avoid insulting, any more than any other foolish ideas. I’ll avoid gratuitously insulting people, out of common courtesy, but if someone’s self image is so tied to their faith that they are unable to distinguish insults to one from insults to the other, that’s their issue.
There are two cheap debating tricks in my view.
The one we see regularly at UD where Barry (or typically Kairofocus) uses faux offence as an excuse to silence an effective critic.
Another is to gratuitously insult a fellow commenter with the deliberate intention to ruffle feathers and provoke an intemperate response.
There’s a (tiny so far) reform movement in Islam whose motto is, Ideas do not have rights; human beings have rights.
Sadly, there being no creator to have endowed them, human beings “have rights” only if they have been provided protections by those with the power to do so.
Actually, hotshoe_ has left permanently.
That’s regrettable, but when I type “She” capitalized I mean “She Who Created TSZ”.
It’s all political.
Any attempt to define rights and morality from first principles will fail. The best you can do from principle is try to minimize the hurt that one person can do to another. But it’s pretty hard to come up with specific rules and laws. The social environment is constantly changing.
I agree completely.
Ha ha, you still believe in Lizzie? The evidence of Her existence is getting pretty meager by now.
I expect She’ll be back shortly after Jesus returns.
Glen Davidson
I heard she was spotted in a 7-11 outside of Memphis.
Walking toward her flying saucer, no doubt.
Glen Davidson
What I heard was just that somebody claims to have spotted her image there on a slice of toast.
I’m flattered, thanks. (Really!)
Now, you had some $10,000 bet you were willing to make, and apparently it wasn’t taking up the $100 bet I proposed. I was very specific about what bet I was interested in making. So far all we know about the bet you were proposing was that it wasn’t taking the other side in my bet.
So what was it? Is one a “fool” to ask? Or are you just very pleased to have been willing to bet a larger amount … but won’t tell us what you were willing to bet it on?
Mung’s $10,000 bluster starts here.
It’s all the more hilarious given that Mung wouldn’t even say what he wanted to bet on.
Example:
Um, Mung — there’s another way we can separate the players from the pretenders. The players aren’t afraid to say what they’re betting on.
You’re a pretender.
UD:
Feel free to highlight the “scientific arguments for the supernatural”.
Rank dishonesty. Shameful.
Quite a few of the 31 are pre-Darwin scientsts, and many of these made the “Argument from Design” which was that we had no way other than Design to account for the sophistification of adaptations. Which argument became obsolete as soon as natural selection was understood.
When do you plan to start doing that?
No no no. Shortly before Jesus returns it is the anti-Christ that appears. That would be Patrick.
Jesus returns with the saints, which is where you will find Lizzie.
gra·tu·i·tous
ɡrəˈt(y)o͞oədəs/
adjective
1.
uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.
It’s your site now Patrick. Make of it what you want it to be.
It’s Lizzie’s site. She just went out for a pack of cigarettes. She’ll be right back!
Mung at UD,
Still burns huh? You can’t even understand the simplest device can you? It’s like you can never ever admit you’ve learnt something as that might involve losing face. Well I’m here to tell you it’s ok. You have no dignity to lose.
It’s amazing, really, how you refuse to see what is right before your eyes.
OMagain has devised a way to test for “the power of cumulative selection”?
Do share.
Joe Felsenstein,
TAFD is not scientific. Torley uses italics to emphasis the word “scientific” in his title. None, not one, of the arguments are scientific.
Science according to certain definitions of Intelligent Design.
Granted, there may be a loose end in there, somewhere.
Glen Davidson
OMagain has nothing, as usual. Would you be able to produce if I put up some money, OMagain?
A quantitative measure of cumulative selection and software tests demonstrating how much cumulative selection is provided by the Dawkins Weasel program.
How much would your time and effort be worth to do that?
Mung,
Almost like a function that measures fitness… 😆
Almost like a function that assigns fitness.
I’m begining to see why you find programming so hard.
Programming is easy. Even keiths and Joe F. can write a program. It’s demonstrating that the code meets the requirements that is difficult.
And your code consists of what, exactly?
Mung,
It parses a list of items (quantities and weights) and composes a receipt at check out 9.
Retail store clerk is right.
phoodoo,
Now you have the evidence that William J Murray is not in his right mind, according to your own definition, will you continue to be on the same side in the same tent for the sake of the ID project? Will you mention your change of heart the next time your path’s cross on a thread at UD?
Or is his insistence that he’s seen aliens directly and his child was stolen from his wife’s womb (for only for a night!) a bridge too far even for you?
Don’t you know you are supposed to determine values then discard them without assigning or using them! That’s Munginan programming.
It’s quite apt really as the result they get does not actually matter as they already know the answer. So it’s not surprising that mind-set would infect everything they do!
After all, look at Ann Gauger and the result they did not want to get in one of the few actual experiments they’ve done.
Good luck, Tom.
I have no knowledge and little interest in the issue of Biblical views regarding slavery, but one thing I DO know is that keiths is constitutionally incapable of admitting he has ever been wrong about anything and will never retract a false accusation of error he’s made with respect to what somebody else has written. He’s even written a recent OP that at least partially explains why he is this way! Anyhow, I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. He will not admit that he was wrong about this. What he will do now is attack me for suggesting the possibility and attribute it to my own failings. That’s how he rolls.
Hahaha. Surprise surprise.
The OP is actually a pathological deflection, shifting the focus from obsessive-compulsive disorder to general psychology. It does not explain what is going on with keiths.
Tom English,
You may be right.
That’s a good way of looking at things I think. I know *I* should try to live by it anyhow.
Me too. 🙂
petrushka,
It’s not so easy though. You give an argument for X and someone misunderstands it, or mis-characterizes it or makes fun of it, etc. Before you know it, you’re in a pissing contest. I find it hard to determine when to give something another shot or let someone say something confused or confusing about what I’ve written–and just let it go. But as you say, responding, even non-personally, is often counterproductive, and certainly unnecessary in a small, basically closed group like we find here. Those who didn’t get it probably won’t.
ETA: I mean, if you see that you’ve said something wrong, you should try fix it, but if you’re just repeating yourself…..