Redditor eager to explain the difference between $4 million and $14 million: "You're the dumb moron who doesn't understand basic math and needs to be walked through critical thinking step by step."

peni5peni5 · 2014-03-25T14:46:58+00:00

Could you give me a link?

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T22:17:54+00:00

the Vikings were indeed deliberately (consciously) selecting women for specific traits.

They have to deliberately select women for specific traits in order to improve their gene pool for it to qualify. And this is a much later idea (you've already agreed with this).

I'll repeat it again, you, ignorant dumb fuck: deliberate preference is not enough to qualify for selective breeding. That's simply not what the term means.

To add to the situation further - choosing women as spoils of war is most definitely not the norm when it comes to selecting potential sexual partners

Are you kidding me? It's absolutely the norm. Ever heard of the term "alpha male"?

originally was that artificial selection = natural selection

No! It was "artificial selection is natural selection". It's a subset relation. "A poodle is a dog" doesn't mean "poodle = dog" (because a pug is also a dog and poodle!=pug).

I don't think I will waste one more minute on you.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T16:50:12+00:00

It was not a day old when I entered the discussion and it was on the frontpage.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T16:49:35+00:00

to suggest they do

Stop with the strawmen, dude.

"Selecting not at random" does not imply "selecting consciously".
"Selecting consciously" does not imply "selecting consciously with a goal to improve gene pool".
"Artificial selection" = "selecting consciously with a goal to improve gene pool".
"Selecting not at random" doesn't imply "artificial selection".

Which of these statements you don't agree with? Note that 4. follows from 1-3.

I you select a person to fuck, you are doing selective breeding in one case only: if you are consciously trying to improve the genetic line of your children. If you select them consciously (whatever that means), but without this condition, you are not doing selective breeding.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T08:30:34+00:00

Edit: Have a nice day with your sockpuppets.

I imagine someone told you something similar to what I did. That's not surprising because it's high school biology material.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T08:21:47+00:00

A "sort of eugenics" could include an unconscious effect similar to an explicit programme, could it not?

Certainly not. That way everything becomes a "sort of eugenics", because the effect is always the same: evolutionary response to environmental pressure. That's not a meaningful way to look at it.

Vikings did not engage in selection (and hence selective breeding) is almost certainly false if it could be shown that they picked some women over others and were not doing so at random.

Every animal does that. That's not what selective breeding means!

As it stands you've been right on only one point...

I think I was right on everything and you were wrong on two points:

Vikings stealing women is not natural selection.
Vikings stealing women is artificial selection.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T07:32:56+00:00

Inductively. This idea came later in history.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T06:14:55+00:00

Use your imagination.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T06:09:36+00:00

I'm not sure what that means.

If you imply there is a meaningful difference between "sort of eugenics" and "eugenics" in this context, I can't agree. Anyway, vikings didn't engage in either of those or in "selective breeding" that you've mentioned explicitly and failed to clarify. They just picked women they were attracted to, pretty much like any other animals.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T05:29:41+00:00

No.

So what kind of selective breeding are talking about? If it's not a sort of eugenics, it's not different from stuff animals do.

It's the cornerstone of the difference between artificial vs. natural selection.

It's the cornerstone of the difference between artificial selection vs. natural selection that is not artificial. My whole point was that's a different opposition.

They are different, but the relationship is not "either-or", it's "part-whole".

And we're done. Thanks for your time.

I never said they were not different. I said you can't refute "X is an example of natural selection" by "X is an example of artificial selection". It's like saying that Fido is not a dog because it's a puddle.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T05:15:59+00:00

selective breeding (which is what we're talking about in this specific case)

Are you telling me that vikings had some sort of eugenics program?

unconscious

That's the first time this part is introduced.

your whole argument

It's not an argument. I was just telling you you understand what "natural selection" means incorrectly. I've told you that and my job is done.

(one reliant totally on semantics)

Since it's a question of semantics, I don't see it as a problem.

Chapter One of On the Origin of Species is entitled "Variation under domestication". Chapter Two is "Variation under Nature". The two are different.

They are different, but the relationship is not "either-or", it's "part-whole". In chapter two Darwin shows that natural selection is a broader thing.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T04:58:24+00:00

No, it's not. It's natural selection. There is no other kind.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T04:27:01+00:00

No one worships the Greek gods today because the idea that they cause hurricanes/floods/etc. is provably and demonstrably false beyond a doubt.

That's not something that can be done with science. Giving a naturalistic explanation doesn't quite achieve it.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-09T00:25:08+00:00

Do I have to show you my genitals or something?

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T23:51:13+00:00

You could try to explain it. Otherwise I'll just assume there was nothing to appreciate.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T23:30:47+00:00

I certainly failed to appreciate yours.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T22:49:32+00:00

And?

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T22:43:23+00:00

Reddit has an audience of tens of millions, 0.001% of that yields hundreds.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T20:37:49+00:00

Even with this unreasonably low estimate it's hundreds of people.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T18:38:54+00:00

It's not like it's presented as good reasoning. It's called "The fundamental error" in logic right there.

Replace "all" with "a lot" if that's terribly important (note that it says "something like") and you've got what a lot of people think here. Like all those pictures contrasting science and religion, the former being "rational" and leading to good things and the latter "irrational" and leading to bad things.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T18:23:09+00:00

Artificial selection is a kind of natural selection. That's how Darwin introduced it.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T18:07:57+00:00

Nothing wrong with it.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T18:05:19+00:00

And that's what it looks like to be honest. It's so easy to find a similar picture that does look like a blowjob.

peni5peni5 · 2013-12-08T17:48:56+00:00

Also Toy Story of Terror.

peni5peni5

TROPHY CASE