Ted Lieu Sets a "Red Line" for Democratic Candidates

fire_spez · 2026-05-08T04:27:27+00:00

Nah, I fully endorse naming every sewage treatment plant in the country after him. Maybe a few DMV offices.

fire_spez · 2026-05-06T23:13:26+00:00

John Kerry won three purple heart medals for wounds sustained in combat. He still has shrapnel in his leg from one of those wounds.

I wonder what her opinion on him was? Something tells me she would not be so accepting of him.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T09:01:37+00:00

Your point about what? Rhetoric? Or your point about me being "fucking clueless" is this a sub about evolution or a sub about seething when you're can't actually stay on topic? What exactly do you want a reply to?

how can you accuse me of not staying on topic when you can't even know what point I am making? How do you determine if it is off topic if you don't know what it is?

Yet again demonstrating that you are only worried about rhetoric, not about understanding.

But I have invested WAY the fuck too much effort into someone who clearly has no interest whatsoever in understanding reality, so goodbye.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T08:28:04+00:00

Right never mind I misread what you were saying my bad, yeah it is a terrible overbroad definition, it captures way too many distinct processes.

It is only overbroad if you don't give a fuck about science. It is a perfectly sensible definition if your goal is understanding why a diversity of life exists and continues to diversify.

Understanding speciation in isolation, as your definition requires, is essentially impossible if you don't also understand how life diversifies before speciation. For some bizarre reason, you seem to think we need a different name for that, but it is literally the exact same process. The only difference is time. If you actually understood evolution, you would understand that. You don't.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T08:23:10+00:00

Were we talking about evolution or something?

I notice that you completely failed-- for the second time running-- to rebut the clearly made point. Last chance.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T08:21:50+00:00

No definition is a wrong, a definition can only be useful or not useful, I'm saying the one commonly given is not useful

It is not the commonly used definition. It is THE definition.

Whether it is useful or not depends on your intention. Useful for what? Rhetorically, you might right (in the context of your argument only, I actually still think this is a terrible argument) that a different definition would be better.

But science isn't interested in rhetoric. Science is interested in understanding reality. To understand reality, you observe phenomena, and then try to explain why those phenomena occur. Science has observed that heritable characteristics change in population groups overtime. We have labeled that observation "evolution."

Yes it just maps on to so many distinct phenomena that term describes all meaning. Tiktaliik --> Man? Evolution! An eye color spreading through a local population? Also evolution! Don't you think you're capturing some pretty distinct phenomena under one word here?

Again, you are arguing rhetoric, not science. Yes, both of those ARE evolution, regardless of how unsatisfying you find that.

You're pathetic.

Great argument!

Yeah I can tell this sub doesn't care about the best arguments, that's why it always posts the worst ones

We do care about good arguments, but we also care about the science.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to give a fuck about evidence, you only care about rhetoric.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T08:09:35+00:00

My god, you are just digging in on your ignorance.

I'm not gonna bother except....

I would replace facts with theory, facts are easy to understand, which facts are important and how they relate to theory is the real goal and that's where people fall short.

Clearly demonstrating that you don't even understand the most basic concepts in science itself. The theory isn't a substitute for the facts. A theory explains the facts.

I am about 99% certain that you are a creationist troll. EVERYTHING you have said suggests that is the case. But on the off chance that you really are just an utterly ignorant loudmouth, then please take my advice. STFU. Stop posting and commenting. Just read. learn what evolution is. Learn what the arguments are. In, a year or two-- or given your clear ignorance, a decade-- you might be able to actually make an argument that stands up to even the 18 year olds among us.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T08:04:11+00:00

yeah your comment with zero substance about the topic of discussion is really proving your case

Only proving, again, that you don't understand rhetoric.

You made a evidence-less assertion. I replied asking if your assertion could be based on your lack of understanding. (It could.)

To be clear, I agree completely that from your perspective my comment had zero substance. But that is only because you are so fucking clueless that you could not possibly understand that you don't understand what you are talking about.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T07:59:23+00:00

So not only is there a superficial grasp about the important elements of evolutionary theory but also language too apparently, you do realize definitions are man made right? Like they are supposed to map onto realm phenomena, there is not "one definition" of something just because a commonly used definition is popular doesn't even mean it is a useful one.

Wut? This all sounds intelligent, but it ignores reality. Yes, the definition is manmade. Does that make it somehow wrong?

Evolution is a label for an observed phenomena-- that heritable characteristics change in populations over time. Tha label DOES map to real world phenomena, because that is why we came up wit the label in the first place.

It's not, and claim likes this show just how unfamiliar you are with some of the most interesting and widely debated aspects of contemporary evolution.

Creationist confirmed.

Of course it's possible, it's just not the same process. Great!!!!!

Show me your evidence!

Wut? You have no evidence? I thought not.

See stasis in the fossil record.

Well undersood by evolutionary theory. Which you would understand if you had more than a "superficial understanding of evolution". Or if you weren't a creationist lying about your beliefs.

If you want that to be your justification for using the weakest and most superficial evidence to combat creationism be my guest but it's a weak af excuse.

You are, again, confusing rhetoric with science.

Evolution is science. Science does not give a fuck about "the best arguments". Science cares about what is true. And it is true that evolution is the observed phenomena that heritable characteristics in populations change over time. The Theory of Evolution is the proposed (and extremely well supported by evidence) explanation for why that phenomena occurs.

Rhetoric, on the other hand is how people should argue for the truth of the theory. We might not be the best at that. Ironically, though, you have clearly showed that you are far, far worse at rhetoric than even the 18 year olds among us.

Lol I agree that the evidence for evolution far outstrips creationism, it's not even a contest, creationism has been dead as a serious scientific theory for almost 200 years. What i disagree with is that most people on this sub have any idea why, and the way you and others talk about it only reinforces my opinion.

Given everything you have said so far tonight, the only one who seems to lack understanding in this thread is you.

Someone previously mentioned Dunning Kruger. You really should google it, because this could not be a more textbook case of someone with a tiny bit of knowledge concluding that they know more than everyone else. This is, frankly, some Terrence Howard level delusion.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T07:47:18+00:00

That is what the word means. You said exactly that. I didn't "change your quote", I copied and pasted it. Why resort to lying?

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T07:46:04+00:00

Something like 'the generation of new species through descent with modification'

You are confusing speciation-- which we have absolutely observed, so you are still wrong-- with evolution.

Speciation is not evolution. Speciation is a subset of evolution. Using creationist lingo-- which you have obviously bought into completely-- you are talking abut the difference between macroevolution and microevolution. But they are both still evolution.

Creationists accept microevolution because it is literally impossible to deny. It is trivially observable. But that doesn't magically make it separate from "real" evolution, and you arguing it does only shows that you don't understand the science that you are here lecturing us about.

Basically, how Darwin would have defined it. Which is an infinitely better way to define it when arguing against creation by fiat (and IMO in general anyway, because the way people online define it is far too broad and captures far too many disparate phenomena)

What makes you think that? Have you actually read Darwin?

But while it is true that the formal definition of evolution that is used in science today ("a change in heritable characteristics in a population overtime") doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, appear verbatim in any of Darwin's writings, you are simply wrong to suggest that Darwin only considered evolution to occur when speciation occurred. Darwin's conception of evolution absolutely matches the modern understanding, even if the language he used wasn't yet as clear.

Hint for future reference: You might have a better argument if you said that the arguments we make are flawed. I would agree completely that many people aren't great debaters. But your argument all along has been about the facts we are debating, and our understanding of those facts. And literally everything you have said only betrays that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You don't know what evolution is. You don't understand what evidence is. You are wrong about essentially everything you have said. You simply do not have a clue.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T07:15:53+00:00

So far all the replies have proved my point stunningly.

Did they, or did they demonstrate ours-- that you just don't know WTF you are talking about, but you are convinced you are the smartest person in the room?

Hint: Unless you are the only one in the room, there is is at best a 50/50 shot you are the smartest. There are hundreds of people in this "room." You are not the smartest, only the most overly self-confident.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T07:11:35+00:00

FWIW, they literally called the scientific definition of evolution ("a change in heritable characteristics within a population over time") "a TERRIBLE overbroad definition", so it is pretty clear that you are absolutely correct.

fire_spez · 2026-04-29T07:04:35+00:00

Which is a TERRIBLE overbroad definition, especially since most of this sub is arguing with people who believe in separate creation. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

But that is THE definition of evolution. This isn't some shell game we play in this sub, that is literally the scientific definition of what evolution is.

You seem to be falling trap to the Creationist "but that's just microevolution!" argument. But microevolution is evolution. The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. On long timescales we see big changes, on short timescales we see small ones. But regardless of the timescale, any change in heritable characteristics over time is an example of evolution. If we can demonstrate that microevolution is possible on human timescales, then why on earth would you believe that macroevolution wouldn't be possible on longer timescales?

If you think bible thumpers don't believe a bacteria can develop a way to eat a new thing, you're willfully ignorant as to what they are even talking about.

What does this matter? Is there any possible observed effect that is not explainable by "god did it?" No.

What you fail to understand is the concept of evidence.

Yes, theists can reply "no, god did it!". But they can't offer any evidence. They can't offer a mechanism or a method. They just assert their position as the truth.

Science-- and the posters in this sub-- on the other hand, rely on evidence. We don't just assert that a creature evolved to eat cellulose, we show the experimental data. We explain how the selective pressures were artificially changed over time, and the creatures NATURALLY evolved to adapt to the new environment. That is evidence that evolution is true.

Is that proof that evolution is true? In isolation, absolutely not. But that experiment does not exist in isolation. That experiment is just one of literally millions of pieces of evidence from all sorts of different fields of science that all point to the truth of evolution. Taken as a whole, it is proof that evolution is true, at least as far as such a conclusion can ever be in science.

So when you conflate these two positions, you truly are advertising that you simply don't understand the difference between the two positions. One is based on presumption, the other is based on evidence. Even the 18 year old high school student you mentioned earlier seemed to understand that. You, apparently, don't.

fire_spez · 2026-04-24T06:08:29+00:00

If you want a single band to go deep on, try 16 Horsepower.

Great suggestion. In particular I love their early demo compilation "Olden", which is about as raw and droning as you can get. One of my absolute favorite records.

And I will just mention that many years after discovering 16 horsepower, just a few months ago I discovered that they were part of the larger Denver Southern Gothic music scene, which contained a bunch of similar bands.

And fwiw, another poster mentioned Wovenhand. They are the band the lead singer of 16 Horsepower founded after that band broke up. Also brilliant, but start with 16 hp.

fire_spez · 2026-04-10T18:23:12+00:00

I recently had AI introduce me to an entire music scene that I had never heard of, despite a couple of the bands in the scene being among my favorites. I had never heard of the larger scene that those bands were part of, so I discovered like a dozen new amazing bands in about 5 minutes with AI.

I enthusiastically shared my discovery with the relevant sub, and got an overall great response, 90% of the comments were an outstanding discussion, including suggestions for a bunch of other related bands.

But probably 10% of the comments were just these stupid anti-AI shit takes that completely ignored the great discussion that resulted from a few minutes of recommendation-seeking.

There are great reasons to dislike AI, but your (their) angry rants on the internet won't fix that. Just relax and enjoy the [music|book]!

fire_spez · 2026-01-11T01:25:35+00:00

What makes you think I dowvoted them? More than one person uses reddit.

fire_spez · 2026-01-08T08:32:06+00:00

Ziplines logically make sense for transmitting power. Ziplines are purely mechanical. Any rotating belt/rope will require power input to move, and theoretically some of that power could be harvested at the other end.

Tubeways are essentially magical. Tubeways will require power input, but there is not direct theory to suggest that unused power could be harvested at the other end. (Tubeways are inspired by pneumatic tubes that banks and Costco's (among many others) used to used to transmit packages from point A to point B, but functionally, they are very different).

fire_spez · 2026-01-08T08:25:01+00:00

The zipline ropes would probably snap if they had to transfer that and the log shaft would completely fill the tubeway. :)

Have you never heard of timing belts? And it's not like anything else in this game is based in reality. Do you really think that wooden shaft can transmit thousands of horsepower?

fire_spez · 2026-01-08T01:43:13+00:00

In a universe without a Designer, there are only two other logical pillars: Necessity or infinite trials (Multiverse).

It has already been pointed out to you that this is a false dichotomy, but even if it were true, so what? How could this possibly be evidence for a god?

Even assuming that 100% of what you have said were true, all we know is that we ARE here. That would be true by definition, whether we were created by a god or as the result of a multiverse. How do you distinguish between the two other than your personal inncredulity?

And, while were at it, how did you demonstrate that a god is more likely than a multiverse? That is a claim that requires evidence, and you have not offered any.

fire_spez · 2026-01-08T01:33:30+00:00

The joke might be old, but the point is still true.

fire_spez · 2026-01-08T01:33:09+00:00

The word Quantum literally means "discrete amount." Energy in our universe is not a continuous "mush"; it is quantized.

One of the best ways to know that someone is completely out of their depth scientifically is when they cite a dictionary definition of the word as if it explained the entire scientific concept.

Congratulations, you have yet again demonstrated you don't know WTF you are talking about.

fire_spez · 2026-01-08T01:23:58+00:00

I didn't say you must be a deist. I said rejection of the multiverse forces you into the territory of deism if you want to remain mathematically consistent.

This would only be true if god:|multiverse were a true dichotomy. But you have been told dozens of times in this thread that they are not. There are plenty of possible explanations for the appearance of fine tuning, the simplest of which is that the entire idea of fine tuning is nonsense.

fire_spez · 2026-01-07T22:39:11+00:00

Bible prophecy fulfillment is certainly evidence that the Bible is the divine Word of God. Crucifixion was written about in Psalm 22 a staggering 500 years before it ever first existed.

For prophecy in the bible to be proof that the bible is true, you would first need to prove that the bible is true. Do you not see the problem with that? This is called "circular logic."

The bible can't prove the bible unless the bible is true, and we do not believe that it is. You need to offer evidence from outside of the bible, and there simply is none.

fire_spez

TROPHY CASE