• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • ArrgPirate
  • atwork
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cocky
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • deejayn
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • drinking
  • Drunk
  • eating
  • editing
  • Embarrased
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • gamingpc
  • gamingps
  • gamingsteam
  • gamingxbox
  • Geeky
  • Godly
  • Happy
  • hatemailing
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • lagging
  • livestreaming
  • loving
  • lurking
  • Meh
  • netflix
  • nostatus
  • Poorly
  • raging
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • trolling
  • Wtf
  • youtuber
  • zombies
  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
    Results 1 to 10 of 14

    Thread: Stupid People

    1. #1
      Banned
      is The Final Swing is Not a Drill
      Its How Many People I Can KILL
       
      I am:
      zombies
       

      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Location
      Australia
      Posts
      503
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      1387

      Stupid People

      Noam Chomsky on stupid people Funny!! - YouTube

      Well if you are a bit fragile maybe move on to something else. It is a forum where I am allowed to talk about this.

      I have to admit to some plagiarism first but here goes. For your information if you think I like the so-called other side you would be mistaken. In Obama's first term, 95% of all new economic wealth went to the top 1%. 95%!

      ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
      The Republicans have all this under control. Plan A is to get Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz to stand at the shoreline with bibles in hand. As the sky darkens and the seas approach they will raise their right hand and command the seas to settle. Plan B is to run like hell and blame Islamic terrorists.

    2.    Sponsored Links

      ----
    3. #2
      Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      I am:
      ----
       
      sky's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2018
      Posts
      521
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      26884
      Quote Originally Posted by smash View Post
      Noam Chomsky on stupid people Funny!! - YouTube

      Well if you are a bit fragile maybe move on to something else. It is a forum where I am allowed to talk about this.

      I have to admit to some plagiarism first but here goes. For your information if you think I like the so-called other side you would be mistaken. In Obama's first term, 95% of all new economic wealth went to the top 1%. 95%!

      ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
      The Republicans have all this under control. Plan A is to get Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz to stand at the shoreline with bibles in hand. As the sky darkens and the seas approach they will raise their right hand and command the seas to settle. Plan B is to run like hell and blame Islamic terrorists.
      Wouldn't say there stupid myself.

      Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

    4. ----
    5. #3
      Banned
      is The Final Swing is Not a Drill
      Its How Many People I Can KILL
       
      I am:
      zombies
       

      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Location
      Australia
      Posts
      503
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      1387
      In 1995 a famous debate took place between Ernst Mayr and Carl Sagan. The topic was the probability that intelligent life exists on other planets. Sagan calculated the number of possible planets and concluded that it was likely. Mayr calculated the number of species that has existed (about 50 billion) and the average length of time a species survives (about 100k years). Mayr said that we have only one example of intelligence, namely human beings that have been around for about 200k years. Those species that survived longer tended to be small creatures or bacteria. He argued intelligence is more likely to be a lethal mutation and concluded that intelligent life elsewhere is unlikely. He made the devastating observation that history has refuted the idea that it is better to be smart than stupid.
      Last edited by smash; 03-28-2018 at 10:50 PM.

    6. ----
    7. #4
      Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      I am:
      ----
       
      sky's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2018
      Posts
      521
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      26884
      Quote Originally Posted by smash View Post
      In 1995 a famous debate took place between Ernst Mayr and Carl Sagan. The topic was the probability that intelligent life exists on other planets. Sagan calculated the number of possible planets and concluded that it was likely. Mayr calculated the number of species that has existed (about 50 billion) and the average length of time a species survives (about 100k years). Mayr said that we have only one example of intelligence, namely human beings that have been around for about 200k years. Those species that survived longer tended to be small creatures or bacteria. He argued intelligence is more likely to be a lethal mutation and concluded that intelligent life elsewhere is unlikely. He made the devastating observation that history has refuted the idea that it is better to be smart than stupid.
      Ok now this is interesting I'll have to locate this debate and watch it myself and end up doing some research because they both seem to have a point.

      Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

    8. ----
    9. #5
      Banned
      is The Final Swing is Not a Drill
      Its How Many People I Can KILL
       
      I am:
      zombies
       

      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Location
      Australia
      Posts
      503
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      1387
      Quote Originally Posted by sky View Post
      Ok now this is interesting I'll have to locate this debate and watch it myself and end up doing some research because they both seem to have a point. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
      It was in writing and it was carried out in a particular journal. I don't remember which journal and I don't remember if it was a formal debate in the sense that a proposition was put down and then there was a format. I think it wasn't. Often what happens in journals is that a study is published and the community debates it. The public does not see any of this - it is for academics, researchers, students etc. I believe it came about because the USA was funding an official program searching for life elsewhere with radio etc. The debate reflected the disagreement among biologists (great ones like Ernst Mayr) and astrophysicists (great ones like Carl Sagan). I think the program was defunded around that time or not that long after. I recall it but not well because it was a long time ago. I don't think you are going to find it in full anywhere without access to the kind of journals that I have access to. I will have another look. It was a bit like the optimist (Sagan) versus the pessimist (Mayr). Or if you are very cynical, the delusional versus the realist lol. You can't escape Mayrs' logic here. One species out of 50 billion that all evidence points to is not going to survive much longer. Mayr remarks were taken to be a bit of a comment on society itself, which was what I was hinting at. I am sorry they are stupid. Don't worry about the environment because God promised Noah? Really? Don't worry about a housing crisis because of efficient markets? Really? That is the fucking most stupid thing ever. The point Chomsky made was that they actually believed it. What am I talking about? Well we are in the 6th mass extinction of species and it is caused by man's spread across the world, which has only occurred in recent times. The last mass extinction wiped out the dinosaurs and is accepted to have been caused by an asteroid hitting the planet. I think it wiped out anything of any size. Exactly what is happening now, except we are causing it. Both Sagan and Mayr agreed on all of that. And they agreed that nuclear weapons as did Russell and Einstein Russell-Einstein Manifesto | Atomic Heritage Foundation That leaves climate change. Once again Sagan and Mayr agreed. Those that think otherwise are easy to spot. They are the lawyers and businessman that populate Parliaments and so-called think tanks. Interestingly, it is in a courtroom now. The only priority of a business is the maximisation of profit. One of the best ways to do that is to externalise costs like pollution. If they don't have to pay for it and it does not appear in their balance sheet or their profit and loss statements that is terrific! Laughing all the way to the bank! I find it amusing that people trained in law are going to determine something that is so far beyond their domain they do not even realise they lack the expertise. In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial So why does the public spew out climate denial shit? That is easy to explain one on one and not so easy in writing. There are several ways to respond to information that is presented that you do not agree with. 1. attack the person making the statement 2. engage the debate by providing citations to refute the argument 3. be willing to keep an open mind and take a proper look If you choose number 1, you lose by default. After all if I am wrong you should be able to use number 2. I will change my mind if someone can show me how I am wrong.

    10. ----
    11. #6
      Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      I am:
      ----
       
      sky's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2018
      Posts
      521
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      26884
      Quote Originally Posted by smash View Post
      It was in writing and it was carried out in a particular journal. I don't remember which journal and I don't remember if it was a formal debate in the sense that a proposition was put down and then there was a format. I think it wasn't. Often what happens in journals is that a study is published and the community debates it. The public does not see any of this - it is for academics, researchers, students etc. I believe it came about because the USA was funding an official program searching for life elsewhere with radio etc. The debate reflected the disagreement among biologists (great ones like Ernst Mayr) and astrophysicists (great ones like Carl Sagan). I think the program was defunded around that time or not that long after. I recall it but not well because it was a long time ago. I don't think you are going to find it in full anywhere without access to the kind of journals that I have access to. I will have another look. It was a bit like the optimist (Sagan) versus the pessimist (Mayr). Or if you are very cynical, the delusional versus the realist lol. You can't escape Mayrs' logic here. One species out of 50 billion that all evidence points to is not going to survive much longer. Mayr remarks were taken to be a bit of a comment on society itself, which was what I was hinting at. I am sorry they are stupid. Don't worry about the environment because God promised Noah? Really? Don't worry about a housing crisis because of efficient markets? Really? That is the fucking most stupid thing ever. The point Chomsky made was that they actually believed it. What am I talking about? Well we are in the 6th mass extinction of species and it is caused by man's spread across the world, which has only occurred in recent times. The last mass extinction wiped out the dinosaurs and is accepted to have been caused by an asteroid hitting the planet. I think it wiped out anything of any size. Exactly what is happening now, except we are causing it. Both Sagan and Mayr agreed on all of that. And they agreed that nuclear weapons as did Russell and Einstein Russell-Einstein Manifesto | Atomic Heritage Foundation That leaves climate change. Once again Sagan and Mayr agreed. Those that think otherwise are easy to spot. They are the lawyers and businessman that populate Parliaments and so-called think tanks. Interestingly, it is in a courtroom now. The only priority of a business is the maximisation of profit. One of the best ways to do that is to externalise costs like pollution. If they don't have to pay for it and it does not appear in their balance sheet or their profit and loss statements that is terrific! Laughing all the way to the bank! I find it amusing that people trained in law are going to determine something that is so far beyond their domain they do not even realise they lack the expertise. In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial So why does the public spew out climate denial shit? That is easy to explain one on one and not so easy in writing. There are several ways to respond to information that is presented that you do not agree with. 1. attack the person making the statement 2. engage the debate by providing citations to refute the argument 3. be willing to keep an open mind and take a proper look If you choose number 1, you lose by default. After all if I am wrong you should be able to use number 2. I will change my mind if someone can show me how I am wrong.
      I will read this when I have a moment to think on what you said .

      But referring to what I said earlier about saying there are stupid.
      I do not believe they are stupid, instead i believe they are selfish . They have access to more data on these issues then me or you ever will. This being obvious my only conclusion is they do not care for they will not have to pay the consequence. The idiots are us who believe that there statements are based on what they actually believe when it is far more likely that there statements are based on what benefits them .

      Sorry for my poor grammar .

      Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

    12. ----
    13. #7
      Banned
      is The Final Swing is Not a Drill
      Its How Many People I Can KILL
       
      I am:
      zombies
       

      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Location
      Australia
      Posts
      503
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      1387
      Quote Originally Posted by sky View Post
      I will read this when I have a moment to think on what you said .

      But referring to what I said earlier about saying there are stupid.
      I do not believe they are stupid, instead i believe they are selfish . They have access to more data on these issues then me or you ever will. This being obvious my only conclusion is they do not care for they will not have to pay the consequence. The idiots are us who believe that there statements are based on what they actually believe when it is far more likely that there statements are based on what benefits them .

      Sorry for my poor grammar .

      Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
      Oh I agree that they don't care about other people. They are both selfish and stupid. In fact that has been recognised for a very long time. Here is a relatively recent quote written about the English from Adam Smith in 1776 in the book 'The Wealth of Nations"

      "All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind"

      If you are interested there is a pretty good documentary on YouTube called 'The Four Horseman'. I suppose if you put yourself somewhere on the political spectrum then you might deem this something that you do not like. But I would encourage people to drop the dogma and just look at what gets the best result. The people that are the problem are the wealthy just as Adam Smith said. We should stop looking around at people that lack money and power. They have little control over anything. Most wealth is inherited and inequality is well explained by Stiglitz in 'The price of inequality' and by Piketty in 'Capital in the twenty-first century'.

      Not saying anything in particular about you bro because you haven't said a lot here. But for anyone bothering to read this, the rich have been systematically manipulating the masses on a massive scale starting from WW1. They are distracting us by getting us to blame others for the difficulties they have in their lives. Mussolini was first. Hitler had the Jews and was defending the legitimate governments in Nazi occupied Europe from the partisan terrorists. The Japanese were defending the Chinese population from Chinese terrorists and were going to create an "Earthly paradise" for them if they could just control the Chinese terrorists.

      Mostly they get us to hate other races, nationalities, genders or straight out politically (I will leave that for another post). I can go into the history of how the rich and powerful achieved this and the economic reasons for why the rich get richer and the poor tend to get the bottom end of the stick. Its true that things have improved for the advanced societies over time but conditions for the slaves were better in the 19th century than they were in the 18th century. And that is not a good argument for slavery.
      Last edited by smash; 03-30-2018 at 09:19 AM.

    14. ----
    15. #8
      Banned
      is The Final Swing is Not a Drill
      Its How Many People I Can KILL
       
      I am:
      zombies
       

      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Location
      Australia
      Posts
      503
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      1387
      Anyway I will have another go at getting that exchange/debate between Mayr and Sagan. I know I tried about a year or so ago and couldn't get a full copy (I got parts of it). I might have to work backwards through the journals. I don't have time right now, but I will get back to it and post it in full on BOP provided I can find it.

    16. ----
    17. #9
      Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      I am:
      ----
       
      sky's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2018
      Posts
      521
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      26884
      Quote Originally Posted by smash View Post
      Anyway I will have another go at getting that exchange/debate between Mayr and Sagan. I know I tried about a year or so ago and couldn't get a full copy (I got parts of it). I might have to work backwards through the journals. I don't have time right now, but I will get back to it and post it in full on BOP provided I can find it.
      Pm if you find and post it please

      Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

    18. ----
    19. #10
      Banned
      is The Final Swing is Not a Drill
      Its How Many People I Can KILL
       
      I am:
      zombies
       

      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Location
      Australia
      Posts
      503
      Post Thanks / Like
      Rep Power
      1387
      Quote Originally Posted by sky View Post
      Pm if you find and post it please

      Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
      Just looked again. I can find a copy on Spanish lol. The name of the program that I referred to earlier that the US Government funded was Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). It was published in two consecutive editions of Bioastronomy News in 1995.

      Ok I got it. I am attaching a PDF. It is a shit copy but it is the best I can do for now. I don't know why I can't get it to appear in search results better than this. Hope it at least works.

      file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/221010559-Sagan-Mayr-Debate.pdf

    20. ----
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •