Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,286,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 526 to 595 of 595
  1. #526
    Honestly dude, all you did there was give yourself a finger-workout. I'm not here to split ball hairs with you over definitions or have a philosophical discussions with you about the purpose of science. What I am telling you is that it flat out doesn't fucking matter what a "consensus" of scientists say. 1) they're often wrong and 2) who defines what a "consensus" is.

    If you weren't such a petulant teenager and watched the video for ten goddamn seconds, you'd see that the "consensus" is really just a few dozen people. Someone found a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of scientists and 97% of them said "ZOMG". That's not a consensus. That's a narrow and biased observation play-dough-ed into a political talking point.

    Science is about predicting the outcome of something before it happens, like predicting the future a little bit
    See posts 522 and 523. How many times does science get to be wrong before I get to stop believing you and not be called crazy?
  2. #527
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Run along, now.
    BAN
  3. #528
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    I'm old enough to rememeber when they told us that we would be living through a new ice age by the year 2000, and we would all die when the ozone layer disappeared. They said oceans would be dead, and global cooling would destroy the world. They told us Acid rain will destroy all the forests. Overpopulation will result in worldwide famine. They said we would deplete our natural resources, and run out of oil. They said the polar ice caps would melt. Manhattan should be underwater by now. People in cities will need gas masks. Nitrogen build up will make land unusable.
    You make some good points, but to be fair, some of those are still true, would have been true if we didn't take the actions we took, or are still inevitable, just not on the time scales that were threatened.


    E.g. ozone layer - it blocks a significant amount of harmful radiation from the sun. If CFC's and other catalysts hadn't been banned, we'd be in a world of shit with all that UV radiation getting through unchecked. IDK the exact results, but I know that exposure to UV causes skin cancer and without the Ozone layer, humans can use sunblock, but all the plants and animals can't. IDK if there's be mass extinctions, but cancer rates would skyrocket at the very least.

    Ocean acidification is an ongoing problem that is slowly killing off isolated ecosystems which we do not know the ultimate effect of.

    We are certainly on a rapid pace to deplete all the currently known natural resources, and the oil is def. running out. If we put nuclear power on the table as a natural resource, then just gimme a break with ever running out of it.

    The N. polar ice cap is melting and the Antarctica is a tougher nut to crack. It's huge. The glaciers are leaving faster in part because they're getting more snowfall, so they are heavier, and that snowfall is caused by changing weather patterns as the world warms. So a lot of competing factors to investigate. It doesn't help that Antarctica is bigger than the continental US, and so harsh that everyone leaves during winter. It's hard to setup and maintain weather stations in those conditions, let alone on that scale with so little manpower.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  4. #529
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You make some good points
    What else is new?

    If CFC's and other catalysts hadn't been banned, we'd be in a world of shit
    Do you see the difference between a very narrow, specific, and provable finding that CFC's are toxic, and a perennially disproven hoax that the world is gonna end?

    Ocean acidification is an ongoing problem
    Yawn.

    We are certainly on a rapid pace to deplete all the currently known natural resources, and the oil is def. running out
    Source? Didn't we go over this yesterday? In 1980 they said we had 30 years of oil left. 40 years later the worst estimates say we have 50 years left.

    "def." pfffft

    Run along

    N. polar ice cap is melting
    you know that same ice cap used to cover St Louis right? And it melted away before there was ever a single NASCAR race.

    and the Antarctica is a tougher nut to crack.
    It's my understanding that the Antarctic ice sheets are growing. So says NASA. So do your part and let your car idle all night.
  5. #530
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Honestly dude, all you did there was give yourself a finger-workout. I'm not here to split ball hairs with you over definitions or have a philosophical discussions with you about the purpose of science. What I am telling you is that it flat out doesn't fucking matter what a "consensus" of scientists say. 1) they're often wrong and 2) who defines what a "consensus" is.
    Just can't help yourself from moving the goalpost, can you, you silly goose?

    You remember that thing you just said?
    "Science isn't determined by consensus," you said.
    "That's exactly how science is determined." I replied.
    "WRONG Science = reality & truth. Not what some artificially credentialed human beings *think* is reality and truth." you continued.

    Remember?

    As to the question, I specifically answered that in the prior post you maybe scanned and told yourself you perfectly understood. The point is to distrust scientists, but to trust in your own ability to understand what they've done and if you can't find fault in it, then you begrudginly accept it.

    Stop trusting sound bites about science. If scientific discoveries were simple enough to explain in a sound bite or a 30 minute show that covers lots of topics, then it wouldn't have required a team of researchers months to do it. Anyone attempting to do so has another agenda. IDK what the range of agendas that could encompass, but their primary intent is not to deliver an accurate assessment of their findings to intelligent, but uninformed people.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    If you weren't such a petulant teenager and watched the video for ten goddamn seconds, you'd see that the "consensus" is really just a few dozen people. Someone found a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of scientists and 97% of them said "ZOMG". That's not a consensus. That's a narrow and biased observation play-dough-ed into a political talking point.
    I'm not interested in whatever nonsense you pretend is evidence of anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated and now properly admitted that you are not making rational arguments, but irrational ones. You pick and choose your data to support whatever conclusions you like.

    You're not making intelligent arguments. You're making intelligent-sounding arguments. The difference is that the latter is just your opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to. I'm not trying to change any irrational opinions of anyone 'cause that's a perfect waste of time.

    My position is the polar opposite of petulant teenager. It's not "uncool" to click your links. It's intellectually vapid.

    @ bold: BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA.
    So my point holds and you're arguing anyway. See? Irrational.
    Those people are not reliable witnesses... 'cause people are not reliable witnesses. Stop putting trust in sound bites. Look at their methods, and see if you can find fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    See posts 522 and 523. How many times does science get to be wrong before I get to stop believing you and not be called crazy?
    The fact that you don't understand what science is or the goals of science is a totally separate issue from the fact that you are not a rational thinker. Well... I mean the latter probably significantly contributes to the former.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  6. #531
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    BAN
    Are you asking for it? 'Cause I can do that for you, ya know?

    Should I remind you that you and I operate under absolutely different rules, here?
    Because you're here at my leisure, not the other way around.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  7. #532
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Run along
    Nope. You don't get to do that. This is my playground.
    The only one of us that might be leaving is you.

    You see... I'm allowed to push your buttons, but you're not allowed to push mine. 'Cause mod abuse is real, and I'm a petulant teenager,lol.
    Remember?
    I'm the fascist who you hopes gets aids and dies. Remember?
    Remember you said that? I remember.

    You came back to my playground by your own accord. No one invited you back. You're here 'cause I made a stupid mistake and by the time I figured it out, you'd established a pattern of playing nice. Now that I know who you are, an illegal immigrant here, you gotta remain on your best behavior for a good long while and re-establish trust if you want to stay.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  8. #533
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Just can't help yourself from moving the goalpost
    What exactly is your "goal"?

    You remember that thing you just said? "Science isn't determined by consensus," you said.
    Yeah. Remember how you decided to spend a half hour of your life typing a bullshit explanation of what you think "consensus" means just because you have a hard-on for me? That was weird. And just so you know, still, science isn't determined by consensus. Science and consensus are two completely different things. Science is constant, consensus isn't. Science never changes, just the consensus of our understanding of it does. And the consensus is often wrong.

    The point is to distrust scientists, but to trust in your own ability to understand what they've done and if you can't find fault in it, then you begrudginly accept it.
    NO. I'm not a climatologist, that doesn't mean I have to begrudgingly accept everything a climatologist says about climate. Fuck that. Using that same logic, Bill Barr is an attorney and you're not, so everything he says about the law you have to begrudgingly accept. Somehow that doesn't seem to hold true around here. Are you a soldier trained by the military? Are you an expert in wall-building? The consensus of those folks and the wall-builders say a ladder won't work. You refuse to begrudgingly accept that.

    Both the current and former heads of border patrol say WE NEED A WALL. Are you ready to begrudgingly accept that?

    You really are way out of line accusing me of irrational thinking when you talk like this. It's ok to be skeptical of consensus when ORANGE MAN BAD, but when it's your pet issue, or your profession that's getting challenged...suddenly your position changes to "NOD AND OBEY OR WE WILL CALL YOU DUMB"

    Look at their methods, and see if you can find fault.
    I did exactly that. You would know if you weren't such a close minded whelp who buries your head in the sand in the face of anything that refutes your argument. Did you watch the video? It does exactly what you're saying. It goes DEEP into the methods, and finds fault.

    For example: 30,000+ scientists signed a government petition expressing a skeptical view of climate change. The response to that was "well, not enough of them are climate scientists....this isn't really a consensus". Mr. Crowder and I agree with that. We would just like that exact same standard applied to the tiny population of scientists who say "ZOMG". So there is some fault for you....inconsistent definitions of consensus.

    Honestly, that whole video is "looking at their methods and finding fault". But you just wanna say "CROWDER BAD", which is a slur, not an argument.
    Last edited by TheSpoonald; 05-02-2019 at 02:38 PM.
  9. #534
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Are you asking for it? 'Cause I can do that for you, ya know?

    Should I remind you that you and I operate under absolutely different rules, here?
    Because you're here at my leisure, not the other way around.
    Great debate tactic stalin
  10. #535
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm the fascist who you hopes gets aids and dies. Remember?
    Yup
  11. #536
    fault with their methods.
    THE PAUSE

    Is that not a faulty method????
  12. #537
    Side question for MMM: What do you think would be the one single policy we could enact that would have the most positive effect on climate change.

    Hint: Don't think just in terms of US policy. The correct answer would be a worldwide initiative.
  13. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You're here 'cause I made a stupid mistake
    I'm here because I feel like it. When I don't anymore, I won't be.
  14. #539
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Side question for MMM: What do you think would be the one single policy we could enact that would have the most positive effect on climate change.

    Hint: Don't think just in terms of US policy. The correct answer would be a worldwide initiative.
    Not my topic of expertise. I don't have the information to answer, nor even the training to know what information that would entail.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  15. #540
    Countdown to ban in 3...2...1...
  16. #541
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Great debate tactic stalin
    Is there rational content to that string of words?
    Are you asking me to debate you on the topic of banning?

    That's really close to you trying to push my buttons, now isn't it?

    This is the game you're choosing to play?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  17. #542
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    This is the game you're choosing to play?
    You seem to be the one hungry for a game. So....your move.
  18. #543
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Countdown to ban in 3...2...1...
    When I thought it was spoon and I was pushing his buttons, he kept his cool. When I know it's him and I just call a spade a spade, he loses his cool. What a silly person.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  19. #544
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    he loses his cool.
    Citation needed
  20. #545
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    When I thought it was spoon and I was pushing his buttons, he kept his cool. When I know it's him and I just call a spade a spade, he loses his cool. What a silly person.
    It's hard not to wonder what the point of it all is, isn't it?
  21. #546
    Before I get banned, I really want MMM to respond to the logical cul-de-sac he's trapped himself in.

    If our choices are A) find fault with the methods, or B) Begrudgingly accept their conclusions......... then what do you say to the fact that the current leaders of Border Patrol insist that a wall is necessary? The former leader of BP (an Obama appointee) says the same thing. These people know way more about securing a border than you ever will. They say "WALLS WORK"

    Would you like to explain where you find fault with their methods, or would you like to begrudgingly accept their conclusions?
  22. #547
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    You seem to be the one hungry for a game. So....your move.
    You've led this conversation by the nose. Don't pretend I'm doing so.

    I called you out on your response to the Yale research. I walked you up to a rational response and you turned away.
    You said things exposing you don't know what science is or does, and I've corrected you, as a professional scientist whose studies the philosophy of science and the soft underbelly of consensus that rests on the foundation of careful effort. You choose to remain ignorant on that. OK. No longer my problem. I've offered you a rational path, and you once again turn away.

    You then brought up this topic of banning. Though I'd twice already said, let's not. Rather, let's just be friends. Just don't push buttons and everything will be great.

    Now you're pretty much pushing my buttons by bringing up the topic at all. Calling me stalin over some fantasy of a debate and all.
    This is a path you're laying out brick by brick. If you want to change the subject, please do.

    If you want to be treated with respect then treat people with respect.
    You want me keep posting, here? Deal with me slinging poo while you rebuild the trust between us that you've shattered by your own actions.

    Or are you just looking to burn another bridge and blame the bridge for being flammable?

    My advice to you is to drop this conversation entirely. It only ends in you getting banned.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  23. #548
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I called you out on your response to the Yale research. I walked you up to a rational response and you turned away.
    I explained this to you twice, and so did poop. The yale guy can't know the number of crimes. The data he needs is illegal to collect. Believing him, would be IRRATIONAL.

    as a professional scientist
    You blow up soda cans.

    Just don't push buttons and everything will be great.
    It's impossible not to trip over a button with your sensitive ego. Im not even gonna try.

    Now you're pretty much pushing my buttons by bringing up the topic at all.
    See

    If you want to change the subject, please do.
    Do you begrudgingly accept that walls work? Or do you find fault with the methods of the heads of border patrol?

    You want me keep posting, here?
    After you tell me whether you begrudgingly accept that walls work....no I don't.

    rebuild the trust between us
    Wut? Why?

    My advice to you is to drop this conversation entirely.
    You're the one who keeps posting about it.
  24. #549
    The point is to distrust scientists, but to trust in your own ability to understand what they've done and if you can't find fault in it, then you begrudginly accept it.
    Do you regret saying this now?
  25. #550
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Citation needed
    Dude, nearly every one of your posts includes either some personal attack, some bellittling of the other persons pov, or both.

    If you don't respect anyone else's opinion, fine. If you think you're the smartest accountant in the world and everyone else is an idiot in comparison, that's not healthy, but that's fine too. The problem is that you don't even follow the most basic rules of how to interact with people on a grown up level.

    So yeah, you don't have to change if you don't want to, it's up to you. But don't expect people to happily sit here and let you be a douche to them. Maybe go to masochists.com and find someone who enjoys being abused. Then everyone's happy.
  26. #551
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Before I get banned, I really want MMM to respond to the logical cul-de-sac he's trapped himself in.

    If our choices are A) find fault with the methods, or B) Begrudgingly accept their conclusions......... then what do you say to the fact that the current leaders of Border Patrol insist that a wall is necessary? The former leader of BP (an Obama appointee) says the same thing. These people know way more about securing a border than you ever will. They say "WALLS WORK"

    Would you like to explain where you find fault with their methods, or would you like to begrudgingly accept their conclusions?
    They want to be more effective at their jobs. That is a totally separate question as to whether the country needs them to be more effective at their jobs for the cost it involves.

    Their job isn't to be aware of the greater implications to the national economy or to national security. If those greater issues say that we need to beef up border security, then taking their advice as to what would be the best way to do so is exactly the right call.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  27. #552
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Dude, nearly every one of your posts includes either some personal attack, some bellittling of the other persons pov, or both.
    This sounds like a pot/kettle problem
  28. #553
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    This sounds like a pot/kettle problem
    Okay whatever you say.
  29. #554
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    They want to be more effective at their jobs.
    What do scientists want to do?
  30. #555
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    I explained this to you twice, and so did poop. The yale guy can't know the number of crimes. The data he needs is illegal to collect. Believing him, would be IRRATIONAL.
    You said, "ARGH ARGH ARGH, My gut doesn't like it." That's not explaining anything but your gut.

    Yes, and I countered that you both made arguments to discredit his conclusions without investigating his methods.
    If you're prepared to throw out the 25M number because you're discrediting his conclusions, that's rational.
    If you're prepared to accept that whatever the rate of crime among illegal immigrants is half because you accept his other conclusion about the 25M, then that's rational.
    It is not rational for you to pick and choose which conclusions which you accept based on how you feel about it.
    Poop accepts that. He's a rational person.
    You didn't. You're not.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    You blow up soda cans.
    I know! It's awesome!
    I get to teach people about Maxwell's Equations and show them that there are so many cool and interesting and often really fun consequences like blowing up soda cans or playing with a Tesla coil.

    Living the dream. Instilling joy in science in the next generation.

    What do you do again? accountant?
    I bet that's just great for you.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    It's impossible not to trip over a button with your sensitive ego. Im not even gonna try.
    At your own risk.
    I've never done anything without a perfectly clear warning about the consequences of repeating it.
    I've never been called out by anyone but you as to the respectable way I moderate the forum.
    If you feel disrespected, it's because you're being disrespectful.
    Change, and see change.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    See
    If you want to apologize for the way you've treated me and this forum, that'd be a good way to open the conversation without pushing my buttons.
    You left here a total asshole. You came back after being banned and acted deplorably. So deplorably that you got ong to ban that account. ong who was never in favor of you getting banned. You burned that bridge.

    You want to come back here like nothing happened?
    Sorry, but no.
    You treated us all like shit, and that has consequences.

    So frankly, fuck you and any notion that you should be allowed to waltz back in here as though none of that ever happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Do you begrudgingly accept that walls work? Or do you find fault with the methods of the heads of border patrol?
    Walls work at what, exactly?
    What is the work that walls do?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    After you tell me whether you begrudgingly accept that walls work....no I don't.
    Good riddance.

    [QUOTE=TheSpoonald;2299215]Wut? Why?/QUOTE]
    see above

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    You're the one who keeps posting about it.
    I'm responding to your questions and other statements which are clearly directed to me on this topic.
    and I've repeatedly advised you to drop it, as it's a dangerous subject for you to broach. Partially because you can't control your emotions. Partially because you've already shown me that offering you any leeway in good faith is a mistake.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  31. #556
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Do you regret saying this now?
    No. Do you see why?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  32. #557
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    They want to be more effective at their jobs. That is a totally separate question as to whether the country needs them to be more effective at their jobs for the cost it involves.

    Their job isn't to be aware of the greater implications to the national economy or to national security. If those greater issues say that we need to beef up border security, then taking their advice as to what would be the best way to do so is exactly the right call.
    There's such giant gaping holes in this I don't know where to start. Ok...they want to be more effective at their jobs. Why? Do they make more money if they are? Is their workload easier if they catch more illegal crossers? Or fewer? Define "effective"? And what is their incentive for being effective?

    If we presume that you're correct, then you also have to presume that BP wants to be more effective at their job because they don't want criminal aliens to enter the country illegally. But it's not just them. It's everyone. It's us. The taxpayer who funds their efforts. We do that because WE want them to be effective at their jobs. So you have already answered the question about whether or not making them more effective would serve national interests. It would.

    And besides, you've MOVED THE FUCKING GOALPOAST!!

    The question is....do you believe that walls work, or are you still hung up on this brilliant "ladder" idea that you and Oskar thought of? We're not talking about politics, or legislation, or economics, or spending or anything right now. We might be talking about those things later when you move the goalpost. But for now....let's keep the post where it is.

    Now follow me here....

    People who know how to build walls built some prototypes. Some people who know about getting over walls tried to get over them and couldn't. They had ladders. Do you find fault with that methodology? Or do you begrudgingly accept that walls work, and your silly ladder can't beat them.
  33. #558
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    What do scientists want to do?
    Predict the outcomes of measurements.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  34. #559
    When I was a kid I was shit hot at Maths, I mean freaky good. I got told I had a bright future as an accountant. I remember thinking even as a kid "jeez that sounds shit". I think I wanted to be a train driver at that age.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #560
    Scientists want to discover facts. Science is not facts, it's the method by which people try to discover facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #561
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Yes, and I countered that you both made arguments to discredit his conclusions without investigating his methods.
    Dude. Seriously. This is sad now.

    He doesn't have a method. No one does. No method to collect that data exists. If you saw something in that study that explains how they know how many crimes are committed by illegal aliens, please quote it. I read it, and it's not in there.

    If he is making the claim: "The same number of crimes, committed by 2x population, means the crime rate is half." then he must presume to know the exact number of crimes committed by illegal aliens. I'm telling you that methodology is bullshit because he can't know that. The data he needs does not exist.

    Now I've done everything you asked. I've investigated the methods, challenged them, and found fault.
  37. #562
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    When I was a kid I was shit hot at Maths, I mean freaky good.
    Same. I could count backwards by threes when I was three myself; could multiply numbers like 73 x 28 in my head when I was eight.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I got told I had a bright future as an accountant.
    That's like saying "you're a real wiz with words, you should be a copy editor." Whoever told you that had a small brain imo.

    I got told I should be a statistician. It's not my main job now, but plays a big part in it.
  38. #563
    The crime rate is the number of crimes divided by the population. C/P.

    But we don't actually know C. We have to do analysis using what we know about P in order to guess C.

    C is a function of P

    If P changes, then so does C

    The yale guys showed that P changes, then presumed that C remained constant, which is erroneous because C is a function of P. And C can't remain constant if P isn't.
  39. #564
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Scientists want to discover facts. Science is not facts, it's the method by which people try to discover facts.
    True in principle. Sadly though the reality is that Science is in practice the methods by which people try to get grants so they can do Science. And those methods include practices that don't always stand up to scrutiny.
  40. #565
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    the reality is that Science is in practice the methods by which people try to get grants so they can do Science.
    And that's all controlled by left-leaning academia and big-government bureaucrats. And coincidentally, the outcomes of science seem to support all of their political goals.

    Yeah....no reason to be skeptical of this. Believe them or be labeled a *DENIER*
  41. #566
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    they want to be more effective at their jobs. Why? Do they make more money if they are? Is their workload easier if they catch more illegal crossers? Or fewer? Define "effective"? And what is their incentive for being effective?
    Most people take pride in a job well done. Good managers are constantly seeking ways to accomplish their goals more efficiently. What that efficiency looks like can take just about any form.

    I mean... you may not care about doing 1 iota more than you need to avoid being fired. I've certainly worked with people like that.
    That's not the kind of attitude that drives any successful endeavor, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    If we presume that you're correct, then you also have to presume that BP wants to be more effective at their job because they don't want criminal aliens to enter the country illegally. But it's not just them. It's everyone. It's us. The taxpayer who funds their efforts. We do that because WE want them to be effective at their jobs. So you have already answered the question about whether or not making them more effective would serve national interests. It would.
    No. We don't have to assume any of that. That's you projecting a narrative after the fact that suits your pre-conceived notions.

    Your current argument is that no one has any idea how much criminal activity is happening due to illegal aliens. So if no one can know if it's a problem, then why should we take their analysis seriously about what to do about it?

    It's not everyone. It's not all of us. It's not all taxpayers. "We" don't want BP to be endlessly better at their jobs, regardless of the cost. That' just you and some other mouth-frothers who think complicated national issues can be boiled down into sound bites.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    And besides, you've MOVED THE FUCKING GOALPOAST!!
    lol
    OoooKaaaaaay.... this'll be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    The question is....do you believe that walls work, or are you still hung up on this brilliant "ladder" idea that you and Oskar thought of? We're not talking about politics, or legislation, or economics, or spending or anything right now. We might be talking about those things later when you move the goalpost. But for now....let's keep the post where it is.
    OK, before I laugh at your continued criticism over whether ladders are effective for climbing.... just whatever...

    That wasn't the question, you absolute train wreck of a thought process.
    "then what do you say to the fact that the current leaders of Border Patrol insist that a wall is necessary?" is what you asked.
    and it's what I answered.

    If you mean this:
    "Would you like to explain where you find fault with their methods, or would you like to begrudgingly accept their conclusions?"
    I explained why I find fault in their methods.

    Note: if the goalpost was moved... it was not I who moved it.

    Now. What do you think ladders are for? You ever seen one? Heard of Boy Scouts? They taught us how to make ladders using sticks and string. Very low tech. You know what you can do with a ladder? That's right! Climb! It's super useful for getting over stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Now follow me here....

    People who know how to build walls built some prototypes. Some people who know about getting over walls tried to get over them and couldn't. They had ladders. Do you find fault with that methodology? Or do you begrudgingly accept that walls work, and your silly ladder can't beat them.
    BWAAAHAHAHAHA. You're still on that nonsense?
    Those guys had someone throw a grapple to climb over. but it was "only 1 of them" so thank god they're on our side, right?
    FFS.

    I absolutely find fault with their methodology if they had a 20 ft. ladder and couldn't get over a 20 ft. wall.
    Incompetent morons.
    The fact that you don't obviously agree is just indicative of your mental block of bias.
    Just c'mon. Get real.

    Knock it off with talking total nonsense and pretending you should be taken seriously about it.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  42. #567
    https://www.apnews.com/a7c524fcd45e4c99959970d337dbdc3c

    Honestly, what's it gonna take to convince you man

    Recent assaults by tactical teams on prototypes of President Donald Trump’s proposed wall with Mexico found their imposing heights should stop border crossers
    Military special forces based in Florida and U.S. Customs and Border Protection special units spent three weeks trying to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices,
    Tubes atop some models repelled climbing devices
    The findings appear to challenge what Janet Napolitano, now chancellor of the University of California, often said when she was President Barack Obama’s homeland security secretary: “You show me a 50-foot wall, and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder.”
    Topping the steel with smooth concrete surfaces helps prevent climbing.
  43. #568
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Dude. Seriously. This is sad now.
    Why don't you cry about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    He doesn't have a method. No one does. No method to collect that data exists. If you saw something in that study that explains how they know how many crimes are committed by illegal aliens, please quote it. I read it, and it's not in there.
    No. His research methodology. You trust him to use a mathematical model to estimate the number of illegal immigrants. You don't trust the same person's same models from the same research about his conclusions.

    If you accept the 25M number, then you accept his models and conclusions. You can't take the 25M and reject the 1/2 rate. That's not rational.
    Reading the summary in a news story is not the same as reading whatever presumed publication goes along with it.
    Stop trusting sound bites.

    IDGAF which number we use. 25M or 11.3M. It has no bearing on any of my positions in this conversation. It's you who seems to care deeply about the 25M, but to draw the opposite conclusion to the research as to what that means about crime rate.
    Irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    If he is making the claim: "The same number of crimes, committed by 2x population, means the crime rate is half." then he must presume to know the exact number of crimes committed by illegal aliens.
    Nope. He's not projecting into the future. He's reflecting on the past.

    I'm not repeating why it doesn't matter whether or not anyone knows the exact number of crimes. It's just not relevant.
    If you can't see that X/Y goes down if Y goes up, then that's by choice. You're an accountant. Stop feigning ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Now I've done everything you asked. I've investigated the methods, challenged them, and found fault.
    No. You picked and chose which of his results fit your preconceived narrative and you've rejected the parts that don't. You've made assumptions about his methodology and simply refuted them as "can't be known." Well, all the same... he's the expert... you're a muckraker, and I don't accept your analysis as informed.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  44. #569
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,647
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    It's a steel slat fence. The only reason to even bring a ladder is if you want to get pregnant women and fat folks over. You can literally just throw a rope, grap through the fence, tie the top to itself and climb up. Make a knot rope and everyone with a moderate fitness level can do it. How can you possibly believe that a navy seal team took more than 20 seconds to scale that thing. The only wall that Trump was interviewed in front of doesn't even have a smooth section on top, which means you need nothing at all. Friction climbing between two opposing surfaces is one of the easiest things you do in rock climbing... children can do it on door frames.
    Last edited by oskar; 05-02-2019 at 04:58 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  45. #570
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    https://www.apnews.com/a7c524fcd45e4c99959970d337dbdc3c

    Honestly, what's it gonna take to convince you man
    "Only once did a tester manage to land a hook on top of the wall without help"

    Thank god he's on our side, eh?


    Don't you know fake news when you smell it?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  46. #571
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    How can you possibly believe that a navy seal team took more than 20 seconds to scale that thing.
    For real.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  47. #572
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    And that's all controlled by left-leaning academia and big-government bureaucrats. And coincidentally, the outcomes of science seem to support all of their political goals.

    Yeah....no reason to be skeptical of this. Believe them or be labeled a *DENIER*
    So... you're saying science is a small group , controlling knowledge through consensus?

    Clown.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  48. #573
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    If you can't see that X/Y goes down if Y goes up, then that's by choice.
    BUT X IS A FUNCTION OF Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  49. #574
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    And that's all controlled by left-leaning academia and big-government bureaucrats.
    There's two considerations here: First, the quantity of available funding is controlled by the government to some extent but also depends on charities and industry. Not all funding comes from the government; they are simply one of three main sources.

    Second, of the different pots of funding provided by the government and charities, the distribution of them is controlled by academia because they're in the best position to evaluate the proposals. You don't get vetted by a funder for your political views when you are asked to review proposal X; you're vetted based on your expertise.

    The problem with this is the tendency of outcomes of funding decisions to include a large component of randomness: different reviewers are sensitive to different aspects of the proposal, have their own theoretical views, and the system is so competitive that if even one reviewer doesn't like your perspective, you're fucked. And if all three reviewers (usually it's 3 but it can be more) like your perspective, the funding committee essentially ends up flipping a coin to decide between a number of highly-rated proposals.

    In terms of certain fields of research this is problematic because certain zeitgeists tend to be prevalent. It may, in the current 'climate', be difficult to get funding to prove climate change is not real because a lot of the reviewers may already be heavily inviested in the view that it's real. So there is a kind of inertia where ideas can tend to become dogmatic and it takes a very striking finding or series of contrary findings to begin to change the minds of people in the community. That said, once the evidence begins to pile up to challenge a prevalent dogma, it usually isn't long before minds are changed with it. As a group, scientists are quite flexible in their thinking.

    Funding provided by industry is largely controlled by individual funders. If I want BMW to fund my project to build a better cup holder, I have to convince a group of non-experts that I know something about ergonomics. The problem with this is they aren't really in a position to evaluate whether the Science I'm proposing is good or shit. So it can be even more gamey than the other sources of funding.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    And coincidentally, the outcomes of science seem to support all of their political goals.
    Also rather oversimplified. While you are going to have a hard time getting funded to prove things that are grossly distasteful to most people (like that a certain race is prone to crime, for example), a lot of controversial subjects get funded (IQ and race, IQ and sex come to mind), and results tend to be treated objectively by most members of the scientific community. It's the general public that tends to have a hard time handling objective truths they don't like.

    As for climate change, this is an example of a branch of science where the consensus is precisely at odds with the wishes of the ruling class. Not many big business CEOs are happy about arguments coming from scientists about climate change.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Yeah....no reason to be skeptical of this.
    There actually isn't much reason to be skeptical of the underlying motives of the work in most cases. The better place for skepticism is in whether the work is of a sufficient quality to support the conclusions.
  50. #575
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Don't you know fake news when you smell it?
    That's the AP man. It's not breitbart, it's not vox, it's not daily caller, its not fox, its not msnbc, it's not any of that. I'm not saying that the AP always gets it right, or that they always call it right down the middle, but it's pretty hard to read this and say "nah, don't believe it"

    The same story has been picked up and repeated by dozens of other news outlets.

    either find fault with the AP's journalistic methodology or begrudgingly accept their results.
  51. #576
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    BUT X IS A FUNCTION OF Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ...nanners assumed without investigating his statistical methods or why he feels justified in stating that conclusion alongside the 25M number.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  52. #577
    Is there a reasoned estimate of the raw total number of crimes committed by illegal aliens in the US?

    If yes, then doubling the number of illegals halves the crime rate per 100k.

    If no, then doubling the number of illegals makes no difference to the crime rate per 100k.

    End of story. Can we move on now?
  53. #578
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    That's the AP man. It's not breitbart, it's not vox, it's not daily caller, its not fox, its not msnbc, it's not any of that. I'm not saying that the AP always gets it right, or that they always call it right down the middle, but it's pretty hard to read this and say "nah, don't believe it"

    The same story has been picked up and repeated by dozens of other news outlets.

    either find fault with the AP's journalistic methodology or begrudgingly accept their results.
    Dude. Walls. Ladders. Not science. Kids can do it.
    What on earth makes you think trained military professionals can't?

    Do yourself a favor and google image search "climb over wall" and see kids using ladders to climb over border walls.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  54. #579
    I should add that the media doesn't help the image of science when it draws strong conclusions and sexy sound bites from what is essentially preliminary research. This is why, for example, the cure for cancer is always 'right around the corner!' It's a much better headline than 'some promising findings in cancer research that provide an incremental step in our understanding'. Who the fuck wants to hear about that?
  55. #580
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Is there a reasoned estimate of the raw total number of crimes committed by illegal aliens in the US?
    NO.

    I am concluding that because of the known fact that it is illegal to collect such data. Either find fault with that methodology or begrudgingly accept my conclusion.

    If no, then doubling the number of illegals makes no difference to the crime rate per 100k.
    Thank you
    Last edited by TheSpoonald; 05-02-2019 at 06:06 PM.
  56. #581
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Dude. Walls. Ladders. Not science. Kids can do it.
    What on earth makes you think trained military professionals can't?

    Do yourself a favor and google image search "climb over wall" and see kids using ladders to climb over border walls.
    PHYSICS DENIER!!!
    Last edited by TheSpoonald; 05-02-2019 at 06:06 PM.
  57. #582
    Fix that wall! Fix that wall!

    Ramadan2.jpg

    https://972mag.com/photos-palestinia...amadan/108543/

    Not like that! Not like that!

  58. #583
    After some of the men made it over, Israeli police officers arrived on the other side of the wall.
    WALLS WORK
  59. #584
    I'm not sure what you see in that video. It kinda looks like a bunch of mexicans standing ON the border while Border Patrol just sits on the beach and watches waiting to arrest any idiot that tries to make a run for it.
  60. #585
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    PHYSICS DENIER!!!
    lol.
    Don't tell my boss, OK?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  61. #586
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    WALLS WORK
    So by "work" you mean they slow people down so law enforcement officials have more time to apprehend each one?
    That thing I've been saying all along?

    Then, Yeah. Walls slow people down. They're speed bumps.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  62. #587
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,471
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    I'm not sure what you see in that video. It kinda looks like a bunch of mexicans standing ON the border while Border Patrol just sits on the beach and watches waiting to arrest any idiot that tries to make a run for it.
    'Cause the wall might as well be a park bench for all it's what's stopping people.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  63. #588
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quick recap, for the context

    Quote Originally Posted by Neo Banana View Post
    Posts Steven Crowder vid, brandishing his opinion on Climate Change as if it were fact, in typical Crowder fashion
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Steven Crowder?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo Banana View Post
    Not playing that game. If you have a problem with what he says, make your case.

    If your argument amounts to "ZOMG, *THAT'S* YOUR SOURCE!!" then please eat a pine cone and enjoy the rest of your day.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    But *THAT'S* YOUR SOURCE!! ZOMG
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I really wonder about what Steven Crowder thinks about climate change
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo Banana View Post
    Steve was just telling you what I think about climate change. Better you hear it from him cuz he did all the research and shit. I just kinda smelled bullshit and went with my gut.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Too bad you chose to have the same opinions as a walking talking confirmation bias
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo Banana View Post
    I told you I'm not playing that game. Slurs are not arguments
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    So nowadays, to apparent conservatives and possibly triggered snowflakes, calling a climate change denier a climate change denier is a slur somehow.

    Excellent argument.
    I knew I've seen that tactic before somewhere ...

    Oh, that's right;



    Congrats banana, you just perfectly emulated your idol Tucker.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  64. #589
    Walls are speed bumps? Well yeah, they're really good speed bumps. I don't think anyone is suggesting walls are impossible to navigate. But it takes time, and the better the wall, the more time it takes. The purpose of the wall is not to make it impossible for people to cross the border, it's to slow down crossing attempts to manageable levels.

    We've got a fantastic wall surrounding the UK, it's called sea, but that doesn't stop people trying and succeeding in crossing. No wall that Trump can build will be better than sea. Anyone who thinks a wall can stop everyone is deluded. Walls just make it bloody difficult.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #590
    Hey Jack.

    Does Crowder say something you disagree with

    Because honestly now, the guy actually does a lot of research and makes some good points. Instead of being open minded to something tha tmight change your view, you and at least two other people here have just said "nyah crowder"

    Honestly, it's pathetic, and you all should be ashamed of yourself.

    I mean, maybe that could have been your initial reaction, but jesus guys. It's been days now and you're still all just sticking your fingers in your ears saying "I CAN"T HEAR YOU"

    Class acts. All of you
    Last edited by TheSpoonald; 05-03-2019 at 09:18 AM.
  66. #591
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Anyone who thinks a wall can stop everyone is deluded.
    Right. Exactly. As you can see from this chart, after they built the wall in Hungary, they had so many illegal crossings that it made them far too busy to fill in the chart.

  67. #592
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I knew I've seen that tactic before somewhere ...
    It's funny you mention "context" in the opening of your post. It's funny because your buddies at TYT totally ignored it.

    Did you see the 5 minutes of Tucker's show before that segment?

    Do you know what Joy Behar said on the view that day?

    And this guy's screaming about Dylan Roof???!!!! Here's a life-tip. When someone says "we currently have people like _______" and then names someone who's been in prison for half a decade....he's full of shit.
  68. #593
    Right. Exactly. As you can see from this chart, after they built the wall in Hungary, they had so many illegal crossings that it made them far too busy to fill in the chart.
    There's a bit of a difference here though. All the wall in Hungary had to do was make it more difficult than going another route. Nobody actually wanted to go to Hungary, it was just the easiest route to places like Germany. Now it isn't the easiest route. So in that regard, the wall is a success.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #594
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    Hey Jack.

    Does Crowder say something you disagree with
    Pretty much anything he says on literally any topic I disagree with. He's a shock jock for the right. It turns out, being a complete ignorant nitwit and shouting right wing talking points will make you a lot of dollars. Bonus if you are a member of some minority or disadvantaged group. Other notable examples are Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin.

    Here is an example of some guy much smarter than I am whom I respect totally dismantling and destroying Steven Crowder's statements on climate change and his easily convinced soyboy followers. There are many of these; he literally has to dismantle Crowder's malicious idiocy on a regular basis as he keeps spouting cherry picked, out of context, poorly researched and misreprented nonsense ad infinitum



    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpoonald View Post
    I mean, maybe that could have been your initial reaction, but jesus guys. It's been days now and you're still all just sticking your fingers in your ears saying "I CAN"T HEAR YOU"
    Only when the source is proven idiots with agendas. You just can't take every single idiot seriously just because he or she has some semblance of a platform. The idiot has to demonstrate some thinking capability before I grant him or her an audience to my attention.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  70. #595
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Capitalism still rules. Socialism and communism still suck. MAGA.

Posting Permissions

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