The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

Post 1743, your first quote of me. Clipped and taken out of context. Good enough?

Look at when I first quoted you - on post 1727. In full, In context.

I again, quoted your post 1738, in full in context in my post.

So nice try, but no.

Each time I replied to the original comment - I quoted you in full. I then used some of your quotes to highlight a hypocrisy, but always leaving the full quote untarnished in my original responses. Hence why I called BS on that claim (and FYI - I continue to call BS)

I explained why your original interpretation was wrong, you read 'and' as determinant, not as a grouping term.

No, I didn't. You are just trying to diminish the implications it has for your house of cards.

But it is not referenced where it can be followed, where it is required and asked for. In this you clearly have no idea how science and its transparency works.

Then how am I able to reference things you've posted? Am I some form of God? Or do I have the same ability to refer to posts you've already made that you do? I've been transparent - you are being disingenuous.

Is english you second language?

Grammar Nazis shouldn't throw accusations of ESL, without making sure their posts are exemplars of perfect English.

Tsk Tsk

latter refers to the second part of the sentence, it does not infer it is my opinion only.

So, you got something to back up your opinion then? No? Hmmmm.

It is precisely the question,

No, cause it's not the question I asked. If you don't want to answer it because it shows how fabricated your point is, that's cool, just don't be a Cathy about it.

you claim science has proven causality, yet since it has not been published your claim is a false one.

See Word game Waffle in previous posts.

See first sentence then showing how you quote only part of my post.

And as above - I prove that each time I originally responded to any of your statements, just like this post in fact, I quote you in full.

[TheDemonLord]

Next time call it as a 'bait and switch' instead of calling it incorrect then.

Bait and Switch is still "Incorrect" - Since you know, language has a context and all.

That is not the best case societal input.

Oh? You have some additional data to show a greater change?

Assumption one, equals perform differently in inequal circumstances.
Assumption two, is not required...

Your assumption one is the "Equals" part - which goes Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaalll the way back to your foundational premise which I disagree with - that we are a dimorphic species and so such a claim on that basis alone is an assumption that the evidence does not support.

I even clarified that this does not preclude being treated as equals.

Don't be absurd, that is not a predictive model. And at the risk of more unscientific diversion, what results did you link to earlier?

Take the Baseline female Bell curve for IQ - add a variance of up to 10 IQ points to it at each end - it looks nothing like any of the bell curves I posted.

[Berries]

Get a room.

[Crasherfromwayback]

You guys really need to give it a rest.

[Graystone]

Look at when I first quoted you - on post 1727. In full, In context.

I again, quoted your post 1738, in full in context in my post.

So nice try, but no.

Each time I replied to the original comment - I quoted you in full. I then used some of your quotes to highlight a hypocrisy, but always leaving the full quote untarnished in my original responses. Hence why I called BS on that claim (and FYI - I continue to call BS)



No, I didn't. You are just trying to diminish the implications it has for your house of cards.



Then how am I able to reference things you've posted? Am I some form of God? Or do I have the same ability to refer to posts you've already made that you do? I've been transparent - you are being disingenuous.



Grammar Nazis shouldn't throw accusations of ESL, without making sure their posts are exemplars of perfect English.

Tsk Tsk



So, you got something to back up your opinion then? No? Hmmmm.



No, cause it's not the question I asked. If you don't want to answer it because it shows how fabricated your point is, that's cool, just don't be a Cathy about it.



See Word game Waffle in previous posts.



And as above - I prove that each time I originally responded to any of your statements, just like this post in fact, I quote you in full.

Right, so it was a different post as I surmised, wouldn't this have been easier if you just referenced it to begin with? What lying claim am I supposed to have made that I now need to back up? 1738 did not give the quote in full. 1727 does not quote anything showing I conclude sociatal bias causality (it clearly states the opposite).

In what way is 'and' a determinant rather than a grouping term then?

If you refer to it, you can reference it. If you look fucking close, you may even see a link between the two words

Bait and Switch is still "Incorrect" - Since you know, language has a context and all.



Oh? You have some additional data to show a greater change?



Your assumption one is the "Equals" part - which goes Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaalll the way back to your foundational premise which I disagree with - that we are a dimorphic species and so such a claim on that basis alone is an assumption that the evidence does not support.

I even clarified that this does not preclude being treated as equals.



Take the Baseline female Bell curve for IQ - add a variance of up to 10 IQ points to it at each end - it looks nothing like any of the bell curves I posted.

Bored now, you're getting far less amusing and far more suited to having a 'discussion' with katman, you're on much closer levels I fear. You started out alright (apart from the rampant sexism obviously) but it must irk you to be shown to be so scientifically illiterate in public as your rational thought has gone right out the window now.

[Graystone]

Get a room.

You guys really need to give it a rest.

...moderators...good old days...I miss tags...ftp...

[TheDemonLord]

Right, so it was a different post as I surmised, wouldn't this have been easier if you just referenced it to begin with? What lying claim am I supposed to have made that I now need to back up? 1738 did not give the quote in full. 1727 does not quote anything showing I conclude sociatal bias causality (it clearly states the opposite).

Again - you made the initial claim - you are really hot on the whole burden of proof, right up until it applies to you.

In my original reply to your original comment - I quoted you in full. And then argued against the point you made. Which is the opposite of what you tried to insinuate.

All the vagueness aside - you made a demonstrably false claim, then tried to back pedal.

If you refer to it, you can reference it. If you look fucking close, you may even see a link between the two words

And if I've provided it to you, you can go to where it was provided. In the business world, what you are doing is a variant of RTFM - where info has been provided, it's been acknowledged that it was provided, but they insist you provide the info again...

You aren't honoring your obligation of that exchange.

Bored now, you're getting far less amusing and far more suited to having a 'discussion' with katman, you're on much closer levels I fear. You started out alright (apart from the rampant sexism obviously) but it must irk you to be shown to be so scientifically illiterate in public as your rational thought has gone right out the window now.

Interesting response.... So, by that statement - Pinker, JBP etc. are also scientifically illiterate and rampant Sexists. Yet you shied away from explicitly stating that, because you know it's an untenable statement - but it's easier to throw ad hominems at some random on the internet and claim sexism and illiteracy...

Also interesting how you've gone from

just a little bit sexist

to

rampant sexism

right as you are bowing out of the debate.... Sounds like a last ditch ad hominem to poison the last impression...

Or did I take you out of context....

[TheDemonLord]

You guys really need to give it a rest.

This is what I'm doing to try and stay awake whilst doing a long as fuck migration.

[Katman]

...moderators...good old days...I miss tags...ftp...

Really? For someone who joined less than six months ago, that's an interesting reminiscence.

Methinks bogan has re-invented himself.

[Katman]

Thats likely because you have a tenious grasp of reality, plus long really history of being rather stupid.

Refer below.

[sidecar bob]

Really? For someone who joined less than six months ago, that's an interesting reminiscence.

Methinks bogan has re-invented himself.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...?term=methinks

[TheDemonLord]

Really? For someone who joined less than six months ago, that's an interesting reminiscence.

Methinks bogan has re-invented himself.

I thought so too tbh, but some of the mannerisms aren't quite right.

[Graystone]

Again - you made the initial claim - you are really hot on the whole burden of proof, right up until it applies to you.

In my original reply to your original comment - I quoted you in full. And then argued against the point you made. Which is the opposite of what you tried to insinuate.

All the vagueness aside - you made a demonstrably false claim, then tried to back pedal.



And if I've provided it to you, you can go to where it was provided. In the business world, what you are doing is a variant of RTFM - where info has been provided, it's been acknowledged that it was provided, but they insist you provide the info again...

You aren't honoring your obligation of that exchange.



Interesting response.... So, by that statement - Pinker, JBP etc. are also scientifically illiterate and rampant Sexists. Yet you shied away from explicitly stating that, because you know it's an untenable statement - but it's easier to throw ad hominems at some random on the internet and claim sexism and illiteracy...

Also interesting how you've gone from



to



right as you are bowing out of the debate.... Sounds like a last ditch ad hominem to poison the last impression...

Or did I take you out of context....

Those are certainly all words, get an education and come back to us when you can use them properly. Now I guess I'll leave you to have that very important 'last word'

Really? For someone who joined less than six months ago, that's an interesting reminiscence.

Gasp, hoodwinked and balarney, look at Private Eye Pastels over here

[husaberg]

Refer below.

Well a t missing from one post vs 5000 stupid racist and generally dim- witted posts from you, yeah sorry to burst your bubble but that only balances out in a narcissists mind.

[Katman]

Well a t missing from one post.....

It's not one post - it's repeatedly.

You said so yourself.