Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,056 thoughts on “Noyau (2)

  1. keiths: The [soldier] ants aren’t reasoning about their sacrifice, so their behavior requires a genetic explanation.

    If I recall, I accepted that I don’t disagree with the statement and nor do I now, other than “genetic” is unnecessary to the statement. I’d object to the anthropomorphisms as there is certainly no “sacrificing” going on. And suggest there is a perfectly good biological explanation as I’ve stated just above. It’s all a result of selection acting on the extended phenotype. So, what mistake in the biology did you think I made? It might help if you quote me rather than yourself.

  2. Jesus H. Christ, Alan.

    You realize you’re making my point for me (yet again), don’t you? Three years later and you still can’t bring yourself to acknowledge your obvious mistake. Unbelievable.

    From here:

    keiths:

    The ants aren’t reasoning about their sacrifice, so their behavior requires a genetic explanation.

    Alan:

    Well, no. Sterile worker and soldier castes are not the carriers of the genome. The queen is. So loss of sterile caste members is of no consequence, genetically.

    Your disagreement was wrong, and you gave a bad reason for it. End of story. The rest of this three-year clusterfuck has simply been you denying your mistake, over and over.

  3. keiths: [quoting me] Well, no. Sterile worker and soldier castes are not the carriers of the genome. The queen is. So loss of sterile caste members is of no consequence, genetically.

    It’s not a mistake. The germ-line is carried by the mated queens. Of course the fitness of the workers (and one aspect of this is them being expendable in defence of the colony) is a heritable feature that is subject to selection. But selection acts on the extended phenotype which is solely a product of the genome of the mated queen of any colony. It’s fixed in the mated queen.

  4. So, you aren’t going to clarify what the “mistake” was.

    Follow the link and read that thread, Alan. I explained your mistake to you over and over.

    By the way, and for the amusement of the readers, at one point Alan actually argued that when he said “Well, no” in the comment I quoted above, he didn’t really mean “no”. Seriously. He called it a “stylistic irrelevance”:

    keiths:

    If you think I am incorrect, perhaps you can explain how “Well, no” is actually the correct response to an assertion that ant behavior requires a genetic explanation.

    Alan:

    Frankly, it was a stylistic irrelevance, which is why i withdrew those two words.

    It’s both hilarious and annoying at the same time.

    I have never met anyone so pathetically unable to admit his mistakes as Alan.

  5. Think about that, Alan. You sank to the level of denying that “Well, no” meant “no”, all to avoid acknowledging a simple mistake.

  6. Alan Fox: I’d be much happier if he reined himself in rather than treating everyone who disagrees with him as dishonest or stupid.

    He’d be much better of at a site where everyone was as smart as or smarter than he is.

  7. keiths: We’re rehashing this yet again, all because of your childish inability to admit mistakes. It’s ridiculous, and it’s a waste of time.

    We certainly wouldn’t want to waste time and re-hash things yet again. Would we?

    lmao

  8. keiths:
    walto,

    When will it be published?I look forward to reading it.

    I still haven’t heard that–or gotten a final version from them to proof. I don’t know what their usual time-from-acceptance-to-publication is, and I don’t wamt to pester them.

    It’s nice having something to look forward to when I get rejections from other places, I guess.

  9. walto,

    I still haven’t heard that–or gotten a final version from them to proof. I don’t know what their usual time-from-acceptance-to-publication is, and I don’t wamt to pester them.

    I see. Well, post a link when it gets published!

  10. walto,

    I would have worried about this right after the election. But not now.

    Trump is floundering at such a record rate of incompetence, that he inspires great confidence that he will continue. He can’t do anything right, and I mean anything. Hillbillies in West Virginia can still keep up their faith for a while, but when they still lose their jobs, they still can’t buy a car, their cities are still just crack dens, they still can’t afford a doctor, and they still are drinking poisoned water, they are going to say screw it as well. He is not going to do one single fucking thing for anyone, ever. When do you think people are going to say, well, finally he is doing a pretty good job for us. That is never going to happen.

    So how long is their energy going to last? Its not infinite. They are already tired. And he will keep getting worse. There isn’t a week that is going to go buy that he doesn’t make another stupid gaffe. Its inevitable, he is just too dam stupid. No one actually likes this man.

  11. phoodoo,

    I very much want you to be right! My concern is that there are too many people who rely on Fox News and Breitbart for their understanding of the world. This article on a looming “epistemic crisis” is what has me worried. You’re claiming that there’s a hard limit to how far Trump supporters can be fooled, and I hope you’re right. I really, really do. Because the alternative is extremely ugly.

  12. Mung: It’s the economy, dummy.

    I’m sure that the proposed tax cuts to corporations will work out extremely well for Trump’s supporters.

  13. Kantian Naturalist: I’m sure that the proposed tax cuts to corporations will work out extremely well for Trump’s supporters.

    I wasn’t aware that tax cuts to corporations will not help people who do not support Trump. Thanks for that!

    So when Democrats vote for ever higher corporate taxes is that because they want to hurt people who may vote against them?

    Also, I just can’t take seriously the idea that Democrats don’t benefit from corporations or from corporate tax cuts, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

  14. Mung: I wasn’t aware that tax cuts to corporations will not help people who do not support Trump. Thanks for that!

    So when Democrats vote for ever higher corporate taxes is that because they want to hurt people who may vote against them?

    Also, I just can’t take seriously the idea that Democrats don’t benefit from corporations or from corporate tax cuts, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

    Tax cuts to corporations are good for corporations, regardless of whether they are supported by Republicans or Democrats.

    I’m a firm believer that the United States has a single party with two right wings. The Democrats and Republicans have virtually identical positions on all the issues that matter. All the rest is noise and window dressing. To see how right-wing both parties are, one need only notice that not a single politician from either party has every pointed out that we could easily afford single-payer health care if only we spent less on “defense”. The War on Terror has cost the US $2.1 trillion dollars. That’s why we can’t afford to fix our roads or prevent people from going to massive debt due to medical bills or college education.

    Please don’t make the mistake of assuming I support the Democrats just because I despise Trump and the GOP. I’m a socialist. Both parties make me sick to my stomach.

  15. Kantian Naturalist:
    phoodoo,

    I very much want you to be right! My concern is that there are too many people who rely on Fox News and Breitbart for their understanding of the world. This article on a looming “epistemic crisis” is what has me worried. You’re claiming that there’s a hard limit to how far Trump supporters can be fooled, and I hope you’re right. I really, really do. Because the alternative is extremely ugly.

    Haha–that’s the same article I linked to!

  16. Mung: Also, I just can’t take seriously the idea that Democrats don’t benefit from corporations or from corporate tax cuts, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

    Must be some reasons that Democrats did not propose the cuts

  17. PopoHummel:
    EXCLUSIVE: ‘Creepy, crazy and weird’: Former classmates say Texas gunman was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism‘ online before killing 26 in the state’s worst ever mass shooting

    The Texas church shooter who mercilessly shot dead 26 people and injured 24 others was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism’ online.

    (…)

    ‘He was always talking about how people who believe in God we’re stupid and trying to preach his atheism’

    Guess then it is not too early to politicize this one as long as we don’t say anything bad about guns

    “During a press conference in Tokyo, President Donald Trump said he viewed the deadly shooting as “a mental health problem at the highest level” and not as a “guns situation.” He added that it was “a little bit soon” to get into a discussion about gun control.”

  18. PopoHummel:
    EXCLUSIVE: ‘Creepy, crazy and weird’: Former classmates say Texas gunman was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism‘ online before killing 26 in the state’s worst ever mass shooting

    The Texas church shooter who mercilessly shot dead 26 people and injured 24 others was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism’ online.

    (…)

    ‘He was always talking about how people who believe in God we’re stupid and trying to preach his atheism’

    Hah, you excluded the part about him being an ex-Bible studies teacher. I blame the Bible.

    Loved how the NFL was celebrating the military (for money no doubt) while this ex-airman was shooting up a church.

  19. Allan Miller:
    OK, let’s say atheism is the problem. What’s the solution?

    Per our state Attorney General currently under indictment for security fraud

    “arming some of the parishioners or the congregation so that they can respond if something like this, when something like this happens again.”

  20. PopoHummel:
    EXCLUSIVE: ‘Creepy, crazy and weird’: Former classmates say Texas gunman was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism‘ online before killing 26 in the state’s worst ever mass shooting

    The Texas church shooter who mercilessly shot dead 26 people and injured 24 others was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism’ online.

    (…)

    ‘He was always talking about how people who believe in God we’re stupid and trying to preach his atheism’

    Maybe the problem wasn’t atheism but marriage

    “Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, the suspect in the massacre at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs that killed at least 26 and wounded 20, had in-laws who occasionally attended services at the church, but weren’t there on Sunday, Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt told reporters.

    “I do believe that there was a connection between him and this location that will come to light over the coming days,” Abbott (R) said during an appearance on “CBS This Morning.” “I don’t think this church was picked out at random. I think there was purpose and intent that Devin Kelley had in showing up at this location.”

  21. Allan Miller:
    OK, let’s say atheism is the problem. What’s the solution?

    I guess more guns. Patrick would know for sure. Breitbart says so,anyhow. They say we have to start arming ministers along with 1st grade teachers.

    Anyhow, it’s obviously Hillary’s fault (and the Obamas and other black Muslims, of course), but it’s OK because the country is getting great again SO FAST!

  22. walto,

    Yes, the dozy fuck you poor people are saddled with used the ludicrous ‘good guy with a gun’ argument at a press conference in S. Korea. And uttered the immortal words ‘now is not the time’. When you’ve been incident free for more than a week, maybe that’ll be the time.

    Strange, none of the ‘good guys’ in the UK are armed, but there is something … can’t quite put my finger on it … that renders this relatively unnecessary. 2550 Days Since Last Mass Shooting. That was just up the way from us, a taxi driver going round country lanes picking off people at random with a shotgun. Killed 12.

    We have apologists for the American position over here too – I have USophile friends who like to dress up in long coats with big hats and spend weekends yee-hawing with like-minded folks; they are quick to defend, even dropping the ridiculous ‘guns don’t kill people’ line. I’m never sure what the ‘therefore’ is, following its bovine repetition. ‘Therefore less gun control’? ‘Therefore there’s exactly the right amount’?

  23. PopoHummel: What the fuck man! NO! I myself am on a Christian hit list. I’ve posted it as a warning for you, US-based atheists.

    Christian hit list, super scary

  24. PopoHummel: What the fuck man! NO! I myself am on a Christian hit list. I’ve posted it as a warning for you, US-based atheists.

    What’s the name of your band. I would like to buy your CDs.

  25. phoodoo,

    Asking for your definition is trolling?

    What you’re doing is trolling. You are insisting that I have changed my definition [of fitness] many times. I can’t prove I haven’t (though I would note that you could easily prove I have). If I have, no purpose would be served by me giving a definition now. It would either be one of those, or a new one.

    On the other hand, you have frequently referred to ‘Allan’s definition’, as if it’s just one thing. Again, what purpose is served by repeating it, since you knew it when you said ‘Allan’s definition’?

    Either way, you must have seen more than one of my multiple definitions, or the only definition, in order to be able to make those statements. So, asking me for a definition now … what purpose is served? You got Alzheimer’s? You genuinely interested in what I have to say on the matter? Here To Learn? None of these things seems likely. Trolling does.

  26. More phoodoo trolling:

    Asking to clarify the definition of fitness, in a thread about mutations is derailing?

    It really pains you to give that secret away, huh?

    So if you really don’t want to give what current definition you are using, but continuing to say-“Hey, that’s not it” you shouldn’t reasonably expect not to be called on it.

    So I will just repeat the last definition I remember you giving. Winners win. Survivors survive.

    phoodoo remembers me giving a definition I never in fact gave, in the clear hope that I will respond with irritation. Which I have, of course, so well done phoodoo, have a cookie.

  27. Allan, FWIW, I think you should be willing to repeat definitions whenever asked for–even ad nauseam in every single goddam thread, if called for. There is no harm–except maybe your own boredom (here a macro might help)–and a lot to be gained. No good comes of looking like you’re ducking, and your allies should not be required to hunt up your definitions from old threads to see if they meet any continuing or new challenges or might benefit from friendly amendment.

    My 2 cents.

  28. walto,

    By the way, it has to be a little comforting seeing the results of this months elections. A transsexual, a ton of black woman, a socialist, Ralph Northam, Phil Murphy and Ashley Bennett were all winners. Remember the soccer moms I told you about, they woke up.

    Pretty cool.

  29. I’m an inveterate doomsayer, phoodoo–dream of Bannon and his minions (and their assault weapons) regularly, but I do appreciate hearing optimism from the sane. So thanks.

  30. walto,

    Take your point. I think little of Creationists who do this, and it is a common habit among them. However,

    1) There is no standard of behaviour I could possibly adhere to that phoodoo would not twist in some way and declare victory. It was clearly more about yanking my chain than anything else, and at a certain point, simple bloody-mindedness kicks in. Imperious demands elicit the response ‘fuck off’. If this was important I might feel different, but I don’t participate here for anything other than leisure and personal interest.

    2) No-one should take, or should need to take, my word for a definition with considerable currency in biology.

    3) In context, phoodoo was accusing me of having said many different things on many different occasions, then demanded I say something again. Of course saying something now would not address that charge. He’s also said, somewhat contradictorily, that ‘all my definitions’ mean the same thing. So I preferred, on this occasion, to address that, rather than offer the standard biological definition yet again knowing that would come back mangled as ‘like I said, what survives survives’.

    It’s that that I took to Noyau, not the ‘request’ for a definition per se. I know – and phoodoo knows – just how many times he and I have had this particular conversation. I’ve actually put a lot of work into explaining this in the past, and I know it just gets mangled. It’s illuminating for people to see the hive mind of Creationists at work of course, but IMO, it tipped over into trolling because of that context. And, it was the trolling, the ‘you-said I-said’ bickering that I considered a derail, and furthermore tedious for onlookers interested in the actual thread topic.

    Of course not responding is another option – that too would be ‘evasive’.

  31. Allan Miller:
    walto,

    Take your point. I think little of Creationists who do this, and it is a common habit among them. However,

    1) There is no standard of behaviour I could possibly adhere to that phoodoo would not twist in some way and declare victory. It was clearly more about yanking my chain than anything else, and at a certain point, simple bloody-mindedness kicks in. Imperious demands elicit the response ‘fuck off’. If this was important I might feel different, but I don’t participate here for anything other than leisure and personal interest.

    2) No-one should take, or should need to take, my word for a definition with considerable currency in biology.

    3) In context, phoodoo was accusing me of having said many different things on many different occasions, then demanded I say something again. Of course saying something now would not address that charge. He’s also said, somewhat contradictorily, that ‘all my definitions’ mean the same thing. So I preferred, on this occasion, to address that, rather than offer the standard biological definition yet again knowing that would come back mangled as ‘like I said, what survives survives’.

    It’s that that I took to Noyau, not the ‘request’ for a definition per se. I know – and phoodoo knows – just how many times he and I have had this particular conversation. I’ve actually put a lot of work into explaining this in the past, and I know it just gets mangled. It’s illuminating for people to see the hive mind of Creationists at work of course, but IMO, it tipped over into trolling because of that context. And, it was the trolling, the ‘you-said I-said’ bickering that I considered a derail, and furthermore tedious for onlookers interested in the actual thread topic.

    Of course not responding is another option – that too would be ‘evasive’.

    What keiths does (or seems to do) is have a link handy at all times. Right there to be reposted if necessary. Tell you what–you post a link to what you consider a good def of ‘fitness’ right here, and *I’ll* try to keep it handy to repost for you whenever this comes up!

  32. Mung:
    I predict that if Trump runs for re-election he’ll be re-elected.

    Suck it you Freedom, Flag, and Fool Haters!

    I’ll bet you predicted wrong when he ran the last time. Why should we trust you now?

Leave a Reply