Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Pages: (527) < ... 219 220 221 222 223 [224] 225 226 227 228 229 ... >

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,11:01    Quote (Henry J @ June 30 2016,07:38) Quote With the standard model model of particle physics possibly about to be expanded in view of the new LHC measurements now couldn't be a better time to exite students. Yeah, after hearing for decades that general relativity is "the" theory of gravity, and a while back I saw an article that said it has competition! Something called the four vector potential model of gravity. There should be a lot of additional time available to teach physics.  According to UD, ID has won, so we can replace the study of evolution with Poof! -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,11:32    Quote (JohnW @ June 30 2016,19:01) Quote (Henry J @ June 30 2016,07:38)   Quote With the standard model model of particle physics possibly about to be expanded in view of the new LHC measurements now couldn't be a better time to exite students. Yeah, after hearing for decades that general relativity is "the" theory of gravity, and a while back I saw an article that said it has competition! Something called the four vector potential model of gravity. There should be a lot of additional time available to teach physics.  According to UD, ID has won, so we can replace the study of evolution with Poof! And teh fall, all teh way into a gravtational well that contains pure energy with trillions of degrees of heat with no time or space. Their imagined god is a waiter at USA franchise restaurant. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,14:21    For some reason "smoking causes cancer" is not a simple fact at UD, there are several dozen comments arguing about word meanings on that topic.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,15:43    Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2016,12:21) For some reason "smoking causes cancer" is not a simple fact at UD, there are several dozen comments arguing about word meanings on that topic. But "gay marriage causes the collapse of civilization" is uncontroversial. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,15:52    Can anyone explain to me what this comment from O'Leary means in ordinary English? . . . Quote Some of us would be happy to see an honest public exposition of the relationship between Darwinism and racism. Darwinists need racism, as a supposed mechanism of their theory. No one else needs it, and it is total crap for human societies. goodusername at 1, you can only front this bluff because of an unusual reversed polarity in political correctness. Darwin and his followers are protected despite scandalously obvious evidence of racism being essential to their theory. Because Darwinism is the creation story of naturalism. From here. -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,16:04    Quote 2 NewsJune 30, 2016 at 2:06 pm Some of us would be happy to see an honest public exposition of the relationship between Darwinism and racism. Darwinists need racism, as a supposed mechanism of their theory. No one else needs it, and it is total crap for human societies. goodusername at 1, you can only front this bluff because of an unusual reversed polarity in political correctness. Darwin and his followers are protected despite scandalously obvious evidence of racism being essential to their theory. Because Darwinism is the creation story of naturalism. Quote 3 goodusernameJune 30, 2016 at 2:55 pm Quote Darwinists need racism, as a supposed mechanism of their theory. Thanks, but it seems to do quite well without it. stupid darwinism, needing all that racism!

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,16:05    I thought Political Correctness was bad, but now the Polarity is Reversed!

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,16:22    Quote (timothya @ June 30 2016,16:52) Can anyone explain to me what this comment from O'Leary means in ordinary English? . . .   Quote Some of us would be happy to see an honest public exposition of the relationship between Darwinism and racism. Darwinists need racism, as a supposed mechanism of their theory. No one else needs it, and it is total crap for human societies. goodusername at 1, you can only front this bluff because of an unusual reversed polarity in political correctness. Darwin and his followers are protected despite scandalously obvious evidence of racism being essential to their theory. Because Darwinism is the creation story of naturalism. From here. I'll give it a shot.... Quote Some of us would be happy to see an honest public exposition of the relationship between Darwinism and racism. translation: We creationists would like people to think evolution equals racism. Quote Darwinists need racism, as a supposed mechanism of their theory. translation: I heard the phrase "favoured races in the struggle for life" related to Darwin, so, you know, ...race...Darwin...racist...get it?   Quote goodusername at 1, you can only front this bluff because of an unusual reversed polarity in political correctness. translation: When I passed out from all the bottom-shelf tequila, TBS was on. Egon was talking to Venkman. IDK what happened. Quote Darwin and his followers are protected despite scandalously obvious evidence of racism being essential to their theory. Because Darwinism is the creation story of naturalism. Translation: Is there anything left in that tequila bottle? Edited by stevestory on June 30 2016,17:22

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,17:38    Quote (timothya @ June 30 2016,15:52) Can anyone explain to me what this comment from O'Leary means in ordinary English? . . .         Quote Some of us would be happy to see an honest public exposition of the relationship between Darwinism and racism. Darwinists need racism, as a supposed mechanism of their theory. No one else needs it, and it is total crap for human societies. goodusername at 1, you can only front this bluff because of an unusual reversed polarity in political correctness. Darwin and his followers are protected despite scandalously obvious evidence of racism being essential to their theory. Because Darwinism is the creation story of naturalism. From here. Andre nails it.     Quote Darwinism is built on scientific racism… You know those black people who are just above the gorilla and just below the white man? You know the stuff Francis Galton proclaimed based on Darwin’s grand scientific claims and voila, the system of apartheid was born because some white men thought it true…. and     Quote Darwin was the original architect of apartheid. Take that, stupid racist Darwinists! Darwin was probably responsible for the US slave states turning into the Bible Belt too.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,17:40    Bet you didn't see this coming! William J Murray:   Quote First: I’m not a Christian. I’ve never read the Bible. Gritting Teeth Thread

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,19:10    MatSpirit: Quote Some people (not me) think that Barry pulls this singling out stunt whenever he sees an ID commenter losing badly, but I follow the old “Never attribute to malice …” saying. Does anyone think that Barry is smart enough to get this insult?

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,19:15    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 30 2016,19:10) MatSpirit: Quote Some people (not me) think that Barry pulls this singling out stunt whenever he sees an ID commenter losing badly, but I follow the old “Never attribute to malice …” saying. Does anyone think that Barry is smart enough to get this insult? MatSpirit is mopping the floor with them, in a way that I never have the patience for. But I will take July 4 in the bannination poll. Any takers?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2016,14:02    Quote Scientific Dissent Can Never Be Securities Fraud July 1, 2016 Posted by Barry Arrington under academic freedom, Intelligent Design, Science 3 Comments Over at the Progressive Fascist post, progressives wd400, FierceRoller, rhampton7, and Seversky have emerged as apologists for the attorneys general’s fascist efforts to quash dissent from climate alarmism.  What if the climate research really did amount to securities fraud they ask? I have litigated securities fraud cases for over 25 years.  I know what it takes to make a securities fraud case, and I can tell you that the fascist apologists’ question is like asking, “What if that circle really were square?”  There is a legal standard for what constitutes securities fraud, and the scientific research in question (whether it was disclosed or not) can never meet that standard.  Steve Simpson does a good job of explaining this principle here. UPDATE: KF brings this article to my attention.  It is also an excellent resource for rebutting the fascists and their apologists. did you see an argument in there? Cuz I didn't.

Learned Hand Posts: 214 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2016,16:01    Arrington seems to run a bankruptcy/debt collection shop, with a sideline in anti-gay constitutional law. If you're being hassled by debt collectors, insolvent, or really hate the gays, maybe he's your lawyer. But I'm skeptical that he's litigated many securities fraud cases, much less done them consistently for 25 years. That analysis strikes me as extremely lazy and results-oriented. For example, even setting aside the possibility of a federal civil fraud action, it's not that hard to figure out a few ways private plaintiffs could quantify damages. Regulatory risk is the one that leaped out to me. A large investor could claim they invested $X in reliance on a prospectus that did not disclose the risk of accelerating climate change, and when that risk was realized the resulting bad PR and regulations reduced the value of that investment by $Y. Damages could be X or Y, depending on the statute in question (i.e., restitution or rescission). As an easy example, BankCo finances a refinery expansion and takes the refinery's capacity or some equipment as collateral. OilCo needs to disclose material risks as part of the deal, but does not disclose anything related to climate change. A few years later and accelerated climate change (or even the PR associated with the disclosure that OilCo knew more than it was letting on) results in bad PR and/or tighter regulations. That reduces the value of BankCo's collateral. BankCo could go to court and argue that it would not have invested had OilCo disclosed (a) that it believed its operations were likely to accelerate climate change, or (b) that it was concurrently financing an attempt to suppress climate science. BankCo could demand that OilCo make up the difference in its collateral valuation, or even ask for rescission of the deal. I think (b) is particularly interesting. Actual securities litigators are on the lookout for risks that weren't disclosed, and that would have affected investment decisions had they been disclosed. "We're financing a FUD campaign like the one that blew up in Big Tobacco's face" seems like it would qualify. How likely it is that such a case could be brought depends on who the plaintiffs would be, where they are, what they invested in, etc. etc. etc. It's a much more complicated analysis than "Liar! Fraud! Communist!" And thus probably unsuited for the legal titans at UD.

Learned Hand Posts: 214 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2016,16:59    The Federalist piece Arrington links to is the legal equivalent of, "If monkeys evolved into men, why don't monkeys wear hats?" The author is a fairly accomplished attorney, which you would never guess from hand-waving lorem ipsum like this: "Third, what, exactly, are the damages? If stockholders have anything to worry about, it’s that the government will drum ExxonMobil out of business, but that isn’t the company’s fault. People who buy gas from ExxonMobil are free to walk or ride their bikes. But so long as they drive cars, they are part of the very problem oil companies are accused of causing. Another principle of law is that you don’t have a claim for damages when the cause of those damages is you." The author should sit down and have a serious think about whether preaching to the choir is keeping him from thinking seriously about the arguments he makes. Because this is borderline gibberish. No court would say that stockholders, having used a product, have taken such responsibility for the damages arising from failing to disclose the risks of producing that product. Especially in this case, where that use is a consequence of a lack of economical alternatives--a lack due partly to the (presumed) defendant's efforts to squelch public concern over those risks. It's one thing to float a weak argument like this as a topic for discussion or an interesting thought. To say it's open and shut is beyond lazy; this is an author who's presupposing that his readers will be so ideologically constricted they won't stop to think twice about the issue. And given that Arrington was one of those readers, I guess it was a fair assumption.

KevinB Posts: 525 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2016,17:12    Quote (Learned Hand @ July 01 2016,16:01) Arrington seems to run a bankruptcy/debt collection shop, with a sideline in anti-gay constitutional law. If you're being hassled by debt collectors, insolvent, or really hate the gays, maybe he's your lawyer. But I'm skeptical that he's litigated many securities fraud cases, much less done them consistently for 25 years. That analysis strikes me as extremely lazy and results-oriented. For example, even setting aside the possibility of a federal civil fraud action, it's not that hard to figure out a few ways private plaintiffs could quantify damages. Regulatory risk is the one that leaped out to me. A large investor could claim they invested $X in reliance on a prospectus that did not disclose the risk of accelerating climate change, and when that risk was realized the resulting bad PR and regulations reduced the value of that investment by $Y. Damages could be X or Y, depending on the statute in question (i.e., restitution or rescission). As an easy example, BankCo finances a refinery expansion and takes the refinery's capacity or some equipment as collateral. OilCo needs to disclose material risks as part of the deal, but does not disclose anything related to climate change. A few years later and accelerated climate change (or even the PR associated with the disclosure that OilCo knew more than it was letting on) results in bad PR and/or tighter regulations. That reduces the value of BankCo's collateral. BankCo could go to court and argue that it would not have invested had OilCo disclosed (a) that it believed its operations were likely to accelerate climate change, or (b) that it was concurrently financing an attempt to suppress climate science. BankCo could demand that OilCo make up the difference in its collateral valuation, or even ask for rescission of the deal. I think (b) is particularly interesting. Actual securities litigators are on the lookout for risks that weren't disclosed, and that would have affected investment decisions had they been disclosed. "We're financing a FUD campaign like the one that blew up in Big Tobacco's face" seems like it would qualify. How likely it is that such a case could be brought depends on who the plaintiffs would be, where they are, what they invested in, etc. etc. etc. It's a much more complicated analysis than "Liar! Fraud! Communist!" And thus probably unsuited for the legal titans at UD. Surely the risk to OilCo is not the climate change itself, but the regulatory change that might be taken to counter the climate change or the perceived risk of climate change. The "fraud" comes not from dissenting from climate change, but from suppressing the information that the risk exists.

Learned Hand Posts: 214 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2016,17:28    Quote (KevinB @ July 01 2016,17:12) Surely the risk to OilCo is not the climate change itself, but the regulatory change that might be taken to counter the climate change or the perceived risk of climate change. The "fraud" comes not from dissenting from climate change, but from suppressing the information that the risk exists. Yes, exactly. Even if the risk of climate change turns out to be zero, if OilCo believed (a) that there would be an impact on the value of the investment it was selling and (b) that a reasonable investor could choose not to invest or to invest on different terms if the risk were disclosed, it probably had a duty to disclose that risk. I don't have any experience with suits involving publicly-traded shares. (Most of my experience is with the securitization of non-mortgage-based instruments.) So there's probably a huge swathe of issues on both sides of the question that I'm not seeing. I think the above would apply the original issue and underwriting of shares, though, and in any event OilCo should now be digging through its old prospectuses from the past few decades to see what its litigation risk might be. "There's no risk, this is just progressive lies" is not going to be the answer.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2016,19:27    Quote (Learned Hand @ July 01 2016,17:01) I think (b) is particularly interesting. Actual securities litigators are on the lookout for risks that weren't disclosed, and that would have affected investment decisions had they been disclosed. "We're financing a FUD campaign like the one that blew up in Big Tobacco's face" seems like it would qualify. How likely it is that such a case could be brought depends on who the plaintiffs would be, where they are, what they invested in, etc. etc. etc. It's a much more complicated analysis than "Liar! Fraud! Communist!" And thus probably unsuited for the legal titans at UD. Barry's framing was dishonest literally before the title was over. On the other hand, he seems to have been the treasurer of a misspelled PAC for Michele Bachmann, so maybe Hanlon's Razor, which someone directed at Barry earlier, is most appropriate.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2016,16:26    Quote I’m not a Brit, but were I one, I’d sure vote Brexit. Celebrate the Science Writer as Asshat

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2016,17:08    Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2016,16:26)       Quote I’m not a Brit, but were I one, I’d sure vote Brexit. Celebrate the Science Writer as Asshat Mahuna is turning out to be quite the ID intellectual.   Probably due to his objective morality.   Quote Um, on the “surrender to Germany” thing, BOTH World Wars were CAUSED by England. In BOTH cases, Germany attempted to negotiate an END to the war soon after it started and continued to attempt to negotiate an end to the slaughter for most of each war. In BOTH cases, the wars continued because ENGLAND was fighting to DESTROY Germany as an ECONOMIC competitor– The saddest thing about Brexit is that the Pound is down to $1.33 and they don't make anything I want to buy.*  Guess this might be a good time to visit and see the graves of some of the people who invented the scientific age. * Actually they make the SDRplay software defined radio which was a neat toy at $150.  It should be a great buy at $75, but I've already got one.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2016,17:30    Quote 3 NewsJuly 2, 2016 at 4:11 pm mahuna at 2: This is not a politics site but I would respectfully draw attention to the fact that what defeated Germany was the *English-speaking peoples*. What drew together England, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and many African and Caribbean countries against Germany? (= the ability to understand a common language.) Do you really believe it was economics? Have you no idea how wealthy Canada, for example, is? (If we ever get around to inventory.) Clearly not. Economic problems are actually negligible around here. what an idiot. hey look a UD commenter comes along pretty quickly: Quote 4 AxelJuly 2, 2016 at 4:26 pm News, the Russians beat something like 80 % of the German army ; our contribution was was relatively trivial. Of course, our ‘detaining’ the German troops that we did, in N Africa, then France, Belgium and Holland must have helped the Russians in some measure. The Russians broke the back of the German army at Stalingrad, where many more Russians died – as in other Russian cities – than the total Allied losses. Kursk and Pomarevka sealed the victory for the Allies. Stalin was so livid that Churchill and Roosevelt kept postponing the setting up of a second-front, that he threatened to do a deal with Hitler. lol

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2016,17:50    News at UD: Quote This is not a politics site No further commentary required . . . -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2016,17:55    . . . and News at UD again: Quote but I would respectfully draw attention to the fact that what defeated Germany was the *English-speaking peoples*. What drew together England, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and many African and Caribbean countries against Germany? (= the ability to understand a common language.) The struggle for independence FROM the English-speaking English on the Indian subcontinent was successfully waged by a population speaking in excess of 100 non-English languages. What an ahistorical maroon that person is. -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2016,12:16    Quote 14 rvb8July 2, 2016 at 10:34 pm I have a ‘religious’ response to many things Andre, as I know that religion has been a great benefit in our evolution as a species. My KJ Bible is never far from my desk and I read it often. So, if in my writing if you detect religious overtures, that is because they are there. However, I refuse the obvious nonsense in said book, and only accept the good and humane teachings; of which there are many. In the first five books of the Bible, Moses refers to himself as the most ‘humble’ servant of God. Now, isn’t it odd that the author, referring to himself, in the third person, should say of himself that he is the most ‘humble’ of God’s servants. I like the tale, but know it to be a tale. He then of course proceeds on to mass exterminations and enslavements of the most ‘unhumble’ kind. So, in conclusion, yes!, I use religious language because that is how we ‘evolved’ to communicate.   Quote 15 MungJuly 2, 2016 at 10:38 pm So, in conclusion, yes!, I use religious language because that is how we ‘evolved’ to communicate. Physical law and chance just happened to cause us to evolve to use religious language in order to communicate. How miraculous is that? Quote 16 rvb8July 2, 2016 at 11:30 pm No, the ‘miraculous’ is not necessary! Just the joining together of a social ape into large groups, where a common belief (God), can be used to mould their social behaviour, to the reproductive success of all members of that group. Of course now that science has confirmed this view it is time to let God go, and keep the literature and history. This may be impossible, as the religious impulse has shaped our brains over hundreds of thousands of years; but some have been able to ditch God. rvb8 is probly not going to be at UD long Edited by stevestory on July 03 2016,13:18

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2016,16:55    When you go to UD hoping for some fun recent comments from a non-complete idiot, and this is what you see:

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2016,16:59    and yes, in case you're wondering, i Do fire up that song ritualistically before i open UD.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2016,21:04    Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2016,14:55) When you go to UD hoping for some fun recent comments from a non-complete idiot... Looking in all the wrong places, Steve.  Well, one of the wrong places. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2016,12:07    UD is the most idiotic echo chamber i've ever seen. It's really a delight when the occasional science-literate person shows up and casually kidney-punches them a few dozen times. If there's a bigger buffoon in the world than Barry holding forth about Global Warming, I've never seen it. Edited by stevestory on July 04 2016,13:08

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2016,15:37    Quote (stevestory @ July 04 2016,12:07) UD is the most idiotic echo chamber i've ever seen. It's really a delight when the occasional science-literate person shows up and casually kidney-punches them a few dozen times. If there's a bigger buffoon in the world than Barry holding forth about Global Warming, I've never seen it. Salvador Cordova giving his perspective on epistemology might be a close second.  He is to smarmy what Barry is to arrogant.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2016,15:43    I think salvador has about 15-30 IQ points on Barry, but that's not a huge compliment.

Pages: (527) < ... 219 220 221 222 223 [224] 225 226 227 228 229 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard