WilliamK
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by WilliamK
-
-
Just because Paul doesn't know of a pacifist gene doesn't mean that there isn't one. Any change in the frequency of alleles over time is regarded as evolution, and it's fair to call "natural selection" any set of human behaviors that is not consciously geared toward reproduction (and thus allele frequencies).
Ah, so you do recognize that Paul's use of "fitness" in this context refers to the ability to pass on one's genes, despite your attempt to imply that he had confused it with the ability to do chin ups.
But, once you got past that and addressed his actual meaning, you did make a couple of good points. It is possible that one or more genetic factors could influence one's likelihood to sign up for military service. It actually seems rather likely to me. And, as you also pointed out, there are other factors (ex: attractiveness to/opportunities for mating) that call into question the assumption that military service reduces the odds of passing on one's genes. I'm sure there are specific battles/wars in which it was an overwhelmingly negative factor, but it would take some actual research to determine whether it is in this case, or in general.
His post was actually very intelligent. He simply doubts that there's any significant genetic influence for signing up for military service. Absent actual data, this is no more unreasonable than the opposite assumption, so long as certainty is not claimed.
-
-
And just how much good would that military operation have done if not for a leadership with the vision and drive to create a democracy, and a populace that was unified in its support for that vision rather than being divided against itself?
Dynamite is a powerful tool that, when used intelligently and benevolently, can do very constructive and beneficial work. But it does not logically follow that you can just indiscriminately throw it at every problem and expect the results to be positive.
-
-
It's obvious from Strife's original post that he understood what the original poster meant, but was just commenting (in a rather good natured and friendly way) on the mildly humorous literal interpretation of the subject line. I suspect that you are not so severely dim witted that you couldn't recognize that. But you just couldn't resist taking a pot-shot at Strife, no matter how much dishonesty was required to do it. So determined to paint him in an unfavorable light at every turn that you can't let a friendly post slip by without putting some kind of ugly spin on it. Way to demonstrate that fine Christian morality that makes you feel so superior to the atheist Strife.
-
-
-
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. This is a great time and place to be alive. Thanks to everyone who has helped to make it that way.
May you all have a great day, and a great weekend. No matter who you spend it with, what you're thankful for, or who you're thankful to.
-
In case you haven't noticed, no one here is criticizing our invasion of Afghanistan, our deposing of the Taliban, or going after Bin Laden and friends. Those things are a genuine response to 9/11. Those things have some hope of actually addressing that problem, and doing some good. Those things were not unprovoked, unjustified, or misdirected. Those things do not bring shame upon our country.
But the war in Iraq is something else entirely. Its causes are not related to 9/11, though its peddlers have abused that fear and anger to gain support. It is you, liar and false patriot, who demeans the memory of those lost on 9/11 by trying to use their loss to support the unjustified and disastrous mess in Iraq. It is you who is disgusting.
-
-
Really, Guest. Paul's analogy was completely dependent on that being wrong. He was using it as an example of something that was so blatantly and obviously wrong that no one reading could be so profoundly stupid as to have any difficulty recognizing its wrongness or the purpose of the analogy. It seems that he overestimated at least one reader.
-
Not necessarily. It depends on whether he specified when he said it ...
That's more than "merely."
Ah yes, I did miss that. I'll agree then that "It would be stupid to conclude that Paszkiewicz didn't say something he said he said merely because it didn't occur on the tape." Well, I'll partially agree anyway. I will call it "erroneous" rather than "stupid".
But I have to ask: Who has reached that conclusion?
Here's what you had replied to:
He made numerous statements about things he supposedly did say, which were blatantly false per the classroom recordings, and numerous denials of saying things he did say.At no point does Guest claim that the absence of something on tape ("merely" or otherwise) would prove that something wasn't said. It's not even clear that there are any missing statements at all. He could just as easily have been referring to something that was there, but different from the way Paszkiewicz described it.
Pay attention next time.Good idea.
-
He made numerous statements about things he supposedly did say, which were blatantly false per the classroom recordings, and numerous denials of saying things he did say.
Somebody apparently forgot that LaClair didn't exhaustively tape every single thing Paszkiewicz uttered. It would be stupid to conclude that Paszkiewicz didn't say something he said he said merely because it didn't occur on the tape.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether he specified when he said it, and whether that time was during one of the recordings. If he claimed to have said something in the course of a specific exchange, and that entire exchange is recorded, then it would be possible to falsify his claim.
Guest may not have been referring to something like that. But if it's reasonable to give Paszkiewicz an out based on the possibility that his claim might be unfalsifiable (and so long as it's a tentative out, I'd have to agree), is it not also reasonable to cut Guest some tentative slack on the possibility that he might be referring to something that is falsifiable?
I'm quite willing to grant that your having missed this possibility is most likely just a matter of having spoken before thinking through the permutations. Just a simple mistake, not stupidity. Don't you think it might have been a bit premature to presume stupidity on the part of those who failed to reach the same (and as it turns out, incorrect) conclusion as you?
-
-
-
-
... Looks like if he had done anything differently, either Paszkiewicz or the Board would have simply snuffed his wholly valid complaints.
Of course. What these folks don't like about "the way he did it" is that it was effective.
-
They are not rumors. Did you or did you not have a discussion with a Principal about how you are to act during the Pledge?
Since you are the one flinging nasty accusations, how about you back it up. There's no reason any sane person would demand he prove his innocence when you've presented not a single piece of evidence, nor identified a single witness, nor revealed how you came by this information, nor even who it is who's doing the accusing.
-
If I want half truths, I read your comments.
You must be an optimist.
-
Maybe this way you'll understand it, but I doubt it.
It's not that Patriot et. al can't understand, but that they intend not to.
-
In the interest of fairness, since 2dim wants people to believe that the New York Times is failing, I checked the stock price of the great bastion of the right, News Corp. which is owned by Rupert the right.
As of friday's closing the New York Times closed at $19.81 and News Corp. closed at $22.15. Since as far as I know the New York Times is only one newspaper and not part of a chain, as is news corp. you would think that since people like 2dim only read quality papers like the New York Post the stock would be much higher. In fact, the 52 week high for both companies are almost equal.
Sorry 2dim, you failed again or as most people would say as usual. However in fairness there is a $2.34 cent difference in the price. But lets see what the price is in say 6 months after the Wall Street Journal that was just bought by News Corp is remade in Rupert's image is then. However, with all of the papers he owns and the tv networks a $2.34 difference?
Ah, dude... I'm no financial expert myself, but I do know that share price all by itself doesn't tell you what a company is worth, or how well it is performing. To know what it's worth, you'd have to also consider how many shares there are, not just what each one costs. The result (shares * price) is called market capitalization, or sometimes "market cap" for short. A company with 1 million shares at 100$ per share would have the same market cap as one with 10 million shares at 10$. But, though it tells you more than share price alone, a single snapshot of market cap alone would still not tell you about a company's performance. For that, you have to look at trends, (the trend in share price being one). And to do it right, you have to consider other data like P/E ratio, and harder to quantify information like acquisitions, investment in R&D, sustainability of the business plan, impact of cultural and political trends, etc. It's horrendously complex and inexact. Sort of like weather forecasting.
-
Your not really a janitor are you?
No. That's just his cover. This is his real occupation:
http://www.pureimagination.co.uk/captainca...hooey/index.htm
-
I spoke to Vic Losick today to give him some information he had requested. Has any of you contacted him? He didn't mention it.
Perhaps they're afraid that he might tell the plain, unembellished truth about them.
-
Yoy all seem to be ignoring that I'm the only one here who actually knows him.
We've seen your hatefulness here before. And we've also seen him handle it with remarkable grace. Your opinion caries no weight here, because you've already revealed your character.
Merry Christmas
in Kearny
Posted
Merry Christmas to you too, 2smart.