Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK: Obese woman blames government

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You realize you're using a creationist argument against evolution, right? Confounding quality of life with reproductive success?
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
      You realize you're using a creationist argument against evolution, right? Confounding quality of life with reproductive success?
      No I didn't, I specifically said 'without any resultant advantages' when I mentioned lifespan and only mentioned her quality of life in terms of her reduced access to genetic stock to breed with.

      Comment


      • But there aren't any real disadvantages either, given that she has already reproduced.

        You are using a totally subjective and arbitrary definition of failure, here. It doesn't belong in a discussion of natural selection.
        No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
          But there aren't any real disadvantages either, given that she has already reproduced.

          You are using a totally subjective and arbitrary definition of failure, here. It doesn't belong in a discussion of natural selection.
          It doesn't matter if she has reproduced, that's not the only indicator of success. A mutation could cause an organism to reproduce a million times in it's lifetime but if the resultant offspring all die in their first week without reproducing them that's a failure by most peoples measures. Similarly they could reproduce for a thousand generations, but if the end result is an evolutionary dead end, then that's also a failure in my eyes at least.

          Comment


          • Incidentally, ANY definition of failure in evolutionary terms is by its nature subjective.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
              But there aren't any real disadvantages either, given that she has already reproduced.

              You are using a totally subjective and arbitrary definition of failure, here. It doesn't belong in a discussion of natural selection.
              Watch out, he'll call you stupid and accuse you of not knowing what natural selection means outside US context.
              DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

              Comment


              • Given that you were using a definition of conservative that only made sense in the US context, it was a fair accusation. Also you are demonstrably stupid. Also **** you.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                  Similarly they could reproduce for a thousand generations, but if the end result is an evolutionary dead end, then that's also a failure in my eyes at least.
                  This is a very bad definition of failure, because the vast majority of species that have ever lived are now extinct.
                  Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
                  "We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                    Given that you were using a definition of conservative that only made sense in the US context...
                    Or UK context. Maybe you should have accused me of being British.
                    DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sava View Post
                      Can you guess why this is a really ****ing stupid map?

                      It's a really simple answer.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lorizael View Post
                        This is a very bad definition of failure, because the vast majority of species that have ever lived are now extinct.
                        So? Why is it 'very bad' to consider them failures? Also lots of species go extinct for reasons that have very little to do with their evolutionary paths. You can hardly blame evolution for a species that goes extinct because of a meteor hitting the planet for instance.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Colon™ View Post
                          Or UK context. Maybe you should have accused me of being British.
                          No, what you said made no sense in the UK context, which is why I called you on it. Being that I'm from the UK and all.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                            So? Why is it 'very bad' to consider them failures? Also lots of species go extinct for reasons that have very little to do with their evolutionary paths. You can hardly blame evolution for a species that goes extinct because of a meteor hitting the planet for instance.
                            Because overly inclusive definitions are not productive.
                            Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
                            "We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                              No, what you said made no sense in the UK context, which is why I called you on it. Being that I'm from the UK and all.
                              Maybe you're from France and think it's called the UK.
                              DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Lorizael View Post
                                Because overly inclusive definitions are not productive.
                                Like anything we babble about on here is productive?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X