Saskatchewan: Land of living skies and a racial divide
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
I wouldn't call the prairie people Racist per se, more like frustrated by a sect of people that don't want to help themselves out of the situation they are in. The same angst is directed toward welfare abusers as well. The prairie people on the most part are immigrants that came broke and broken, they came with the philosophy that by working hard is the only way to better their lives and for the wish to help their children to a better life than what they had. When they see perfectly able people sitting around and getting paid for doing next to nothing it rubs them the wronge way.
You won't here a derogatory remark to any of the perceived system abusers that break free of the system and make good for themselves and their families like the new immigrants and ancestral immigrants that came from nothing and through hard work made a path in to mainstream society. IMHO
You won't here a derogatory remark to any of the perceived system abusers that break free of the system and make good for themselves and their families like the new immigrants and ancestral immigrants that came from nothing and through hard work made a path in to mainstream society. IMHO
Insult are always the most intellectual & civilized way of arguing of course :roll: . Especially when arguing you're human superiority over basic natural animal instincts. Nothing shows above animalistic instincts like a intellectually compromised emotional response.
Better'n your method, which as Corduroy has pointed out, begins with you claiming you have "mathematical proof" of something, then spending several pages of back-and-forth proving that you 1) don't have mathematical proof of your thesis, 2) don't understand mathematics, 3) don't even understand your thesis, and 4) think repetition adds truth value.
The equation is simple.
Life in the universe is the result of what survives best.
What didn't die
Plus what reproduced the most.
You should have figured that out by now.
And what didn't survive has taken itself out of the possibility of existing.
Things that help survival chances are encouraged under such a equation.
Life in the universe is the result of what survives best.
What didn't die
Plus what reproduced the most.
You should have figured that out by now.
And what didn't survive has taken itself out of the possibility of existing.
Things that help survival chances are encouraged under such a equation.
That's not an equation. The hint is that there are no numbers or mathematical symbols in it.
Here's another hard truth for you: you are never getting off this planet, no matter how many nickels and dimes you save. And your tendency to respond to demonstrations that you don't know what you're talking about with non sequiturs like "I'm getting off this rock" don't detract from the conclusion you don't know what you're talking about, they add to it.
You base your alleged arguments on "facts" that are backed by nothing but your assertion they're true, then follow them with "reasoning" that consists of a laundry list of logical fallacies, and completely ignore proof that you're wrong or just plain crazy.
"To argue with someone who has abandoned the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. . ."
-- James Madison
That's why I don't argue with you.
Behaviours that have better survival chances then other behaviour will be promoted and more common within life.
If you don't believe in the evolutionary theory then just say so. You're allowed to you're opinion.
If you don't want to believe in what is easily observable in the universe. That's fine. We used to call people who thought the world was round crazy.
It must be because we are so passed our animalistic basic biological instincts.
If you don't believe in the evolutionary theory then just say so. You're allowed to you're opinion.
If you don't want to believe in what is easily observable in the universe. That's fine. We used to call people who thought the world was round crazy.
It must be because we are so passed our animalistic basic biological instincts.
I don't believe in anything. The theory of evolution, which by the way you do not understand, is the best explanation of observed data currently available. No belief required.
Then what part is it i have wrong. It will be very useful for you to explain it to me since ill stop repeatedly annoying you with animalistic biological falseness.
sill waiting. Looks like you got nothing again. What a Bluff you are. :roll:
My survival chances and the elimination of those who could not over a period of billions of years is perfectly mathematical. And is easily a equation.
All life that survived to this day have obviously had behaviours that have given it a edge or they would have not survived to today.
All natural behaviour we observe obviously helps survival chances if the animals showing that behaviour is alive at the present time.
Men have not treated women the way they have because they are evil. Its just the behaviour that gave them the best chance at survival in the universe.
Why do we have to continually police sexual harassment & assault?
Because equality id behaviour that goes against our natural survival instincts that have given life the best chance at survival.
To be sexually aggressive has given better odds of survival in the universe.
Naturally the majority of life that still exist today will have aggressive sexual behaviour based on my equation
Because those that did not have not survived, or had reduced chances of survival.
If it's that easy, you'll certainly have no trouble giving us the equation. Have at it.
What's called racism is actually bigotry. People like you who insist there are races of people continue to perpetuate the "racist" attitudes of White 17th century Europeans that race is based on skin colour.
Well, we all know what opinions are worth.
Again, it's called bigotry. Don't be so lazy.
Race based on skin colour is a purely European construct. Discrimination based on culture or ethnicity is called bigotry.
How is that even possible??
Ridiculum Argumentum. Secluded species are very at risk to even minute changes in their environment. Humans have expanded across the globe and live in a wide variety of environments all because we don't just hang around and act like a bunch of hermits. There is not one single society of people who hasn't contributed something to man's vast sum of knowledge at some point or another.
If you think quoting Sherlock Holmes is a persuasive argument in this case, you are dead wrong. And no, you applied Occam's Razor incorrectly as well.
Modern humans are it's own species you fool. The last time there has been more than one race of humans living at the same time as modern humans is just before the last Neanderthal died.
Which is why mixing is much more important than seclusion. You get an infusion of new DNA that moves biodiversity along. If that didn't happen, then life's diversity wouldn't be constantly changing or being reborn after an ELE.
Uhhhh...yeah. :roll:
And as Colpy has pointed out, it doesn't fit the actual definition of "bigotry" either. It's actually overgeneralization, and in Angstrom's case, since he's a whimpering li'l pussy, it's always negative overgeneralization.
That's what bigotry is though. Over generalizing about a particular ethnic group is stereotyping and that is a form of bigotry. Even when you try and say something that's seems complimentary like, "Asians are good at math", that's actually a bigoted comment although certainly not a harsh one like saying "Asian can't drive for shit".
Survivability odds will dictate behaviour of life. It stimulates behaviour that add greater chances to survive over time.
Ok now explain to me where i got evolution theory wrong.
Well, first, that's not an equation.
Second, evolution has nothing to do with behavior.
Third, the sine qua non of evolution is not survival, it's reproduction.
It's also not an odds-making function.
That's four errors you've made off the bat.
So reproduction will not equate survival pass you're own mortality??? Basically is the same.
If a behaviour helps with reproduction that behaviour will not be transferred to offsprings?
Over a period of billions of years it became a odd maker. Because anomalies only happened rarely. Over a long period.
If a behaviour helps with reproduction that behaviour will not be transferred to offsprings?
Over a period of billions of years it became a odd maker. Because anomalies only happened rarely. Over a long period.
No, it actually isn't. Mules and hinnys survive quite nicely, thank you, by they can't reproduce.
Only if it's genetic. Otherwise, the specific idiocy you're following is called "Lysenkoism."
So, if something has odds of one in three of surviving, does that mean it can be 2/3 dead?
Nope. Dead is either 0 or total. Your grasp of statistics is just as sound as your grasp of other mathematics.
So basic instincts are not genetic?
On a small scale of one living thing my mathematics and statistics make no sense but when used with infinite life with infinite space in infinite time, things average out
Some behaviour will give better odds at survival.
And after a few millions years trends will develop.
Whenever people try to use the argument that something is right because it's 'natural', they pick and choose what they consider natural.
Human beings are violent at times. That's natural. They separate into groups. They demonize others or shun them. But they also co-operate and get along with others. They mix with other groups, exchange ideas and culture and form new groups. They procreate with each other too. Sorry white supremacists, but interracial procreation is natural. Multiculturalism is natural.
Human beings are violent at times. That's natural. They separate into groups. They demonize others or shun them. But they also co-operate and get along with others. They mix with other groups, exchange ideas and culture and form new groups. They procreate with each other too. Sorry white supremacists, but interracial procreation is natural. Multiculturalism is natural.