Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Look, I get it, you're annoyed at me for calling you out, and that's fine. It's a natural reaction. But what's the adult response here? Is it just niggling at me so you can get some sort of retaliation happening? "Oh well, he did fix a mistake I made and that's really annoying so I'll just start jabbing at him, because that's certainly not what a child would do"?

Or is it perhaps accepting that and moving on without trying to fit an insult in for your own gratification? Because I'm perfectly willing to move on but you seem desperate to get the last word in and make it an insult, and it's not making you look good, man.

Rest assured, I'm not annoyed at you 'calling me out', because you didn't, Neruz did, and I thank him for it. Losing is how a gentlemen develops himself. I am currently very content.

I accepted defeat before you even turned up, so in what way was the adult thing to do dwell on a single chink in the armor, and insist that it was something you had done?

The honer of glory on the battlefield of debate goes to Neruz, not yourself. At least for that win, the battle isn't over yet. 

I'm having fun, you guys? 

[Max White]

Except that in the condition of modern society, being stupid is not a quality that affects one's ability to survive and reproduce. (Ovbiously it does a bit, but probably not enough to have a noticable evolutionary impact).

Ah, but you see, it WOULD were we to let the stupid kill themselves in medical trials.

[Neruz]

Except that in the condition of modern society, being stupid is not a quality that affects one's ability to survive and reproduce. (Ovbiously it does a bit, but probably not enough to have a noticable evolutionary impact).

Ah, but you see, it WOULD were we to let the stupid kill themselves in medical trials.

Indeed it would. But it doesn't, because we don't.

So your point is?

[Max White]

It would be logical to hold these medical trials to cull the weak, thus leading to the development of mankind down the path of an intellectual race, more capable of surviving as an entity.

[Jackrabbit]

Understand that I didn't want to insult you in any way or win whatever debate is going on between you and Neruz. I just pointed out the fact that it's natural selection that's involved in culling the species, not evolution. This isn't a victory or anything, just a correction. Why do you seek to make such a big deal out of it? Do you think I'm stealing Neruz's thunder? Do you think I even care about what he does with his thunder?

Are you willing to let this little argument (which, and this is the only thing I will say against you, is phenomenally unnecessary) lie? Because I sure as hell am.

[Max White]

I just pointed out the fact that it's natural selection that's involved in culling the species, not evolution.

No, no you didn't. Once again, Neruz did. All your trying to do is take that from him.

Oh, and by the way, you should know I enjoy arguing, why would I let such a thing rest?
Not only did you barge in on a debate with childish nonsense, but you then supplied another opportunity to reddeem yourself with a new debate that is looking to be just as fun, why let it go?

[Jackrabbit]

[Evolution] has everything to do with culling the species. Not always through strategic means, but the idea that the 'weak' die out through any means is what natural selection is based on. When some giraffe have short necks, they couldn't reach the higher branches of trees to feed and starved to death, thus the 'weaker' of the species were culled and now they have longer necks.

Followed immediately by:

Darwin came up with Natural Selection, not Evolution

Granted. I mean if you like splitting hairs for no particular reason, I shall admit defeat on that detail.

I like how you tried to make it out like it's some pointless nitpick. It's an important distinction. For starters, natural selection is in fact about culling species, not evolution. They're sort of hand in hand in that manner. A giraffe with a short neck would die because of natural selection. Giraffes as a species get progressively longer necks because of evolution.

Are you implying there's something wrong with backing up someone else's claims by going into more depth? Here's what Neruz said.

Little theory that Charles Darwin came up with, I think he called it evolution.
Contrary to what political correctness may say, smart people are more likely to have smarter kids.

Darwin came up with Natural Selection, not Evolution. And Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about culling species.

Try again.

And again, in case you missed it, here's what I said, which was said after you claimed that Neruz was wrong and evolution had everything to do with the culling of species:

Darwin came up with Natural Selection, not Evolution

Granted. I mean if you like splitting hairs for no particular reason, I shall admit defeat on that detail.

I like how you tried to make it out like it's some pointless nitpick. It's an important distinction. For starters, natural selection is in fact about culling species, not evolution. They're sort of hand in hand in that manner. A giraffe with a short neck would die because of natural selection. Giraffes as a species get progressively longer necks because of evolution.

I can make it more clear if you want.

[Neruz]

It would be logical to hold these medical trials to cull the weak, thus leading to the development of mankind down the path of an intellectual race, more capable of surviving as an entity.

But the stupid don't hold the smart back. In fact they're mostly not even a drain on resources; often they provide invaluable labour in the form of, say stacking shelves at supermarkets, or farming (not to say that all people who do things like this are stupid, just that rocket scientists tend to be rocket scientists, not farmers.)

Without that solid base of people providing resources, the smart people would have no foundations on which to build their castles of knowledge. After all; the rocket scientist needs to eat.

[Max White]

Notably long quote, you get it.

Now there is no need to explain when the point has been made and is perfectly clear. It was an honest mistake I made, no need to assume yourself a font of knowledge who must rain your words onto others who know all too well how a natural system works.

You were just doing it to feel good about yourself for the win, because sometimes it feels soo good to win, right? I mean your batman, you must be used to always being right.

[Max White]

But the stupid don't hold the smart back. In fact they're mostly not even a drain on resources; often they provide invaluable labour in the form of, say stacking shelves at supermarkets, or farming (not to say that all people who do things like this are stupid, just that rocket scientists tend to be rocket scientists, not farmers.)

Without that solid base of people providing resources, the smart people would have no foundations on which to build their castles of knowledge. After all; the rocket scientist needs to eat.

Now the question just comes into numbers then. Both a numeral value of intellect and number to be culled. There will always be rednecks that just shoot animals and not much more, do you realy think we can conduct research fast enough to clean stores out of workers?

At some level we are better off without some people.

[Neruz]

To be fair Max, you didn't admit your error until after Jackrabbit posted.

Now the question just comes into numbers then. Both a numeral value of intellect and number to be culled. There will always be rednecks that just shoot animals and not much more, do you realy think we can conduct research fast enough to clean stores out of workers?

I don't know I'm not qualified to answer the question.

At some level we are better off without some people.

That's why prisons exist.

[Jackrabbit]

I appreciate you are trying to guess my motives, but you're wrong. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out a mistake (one that you admitted was a mistake only after I pointed it out) and I don't really see this as a victory. I'm not trying to win anything, I'm not trying to prove myself better than you, I don't want to beat you, and I'm having trouble getting you to understand this. My comment on how good it feels to be right was supposed to be humorous. It's really not my fault you took offense and started this ridiculous argument.

Basically, calm down. I'm not trying to do anything any more objectionable than pointing out a mistake and I'm not doing it so I can feel superior to you. 

[Max White]

Yea, another quote.

*Sigh* Are you so elitist that you assume that anybody who debates with you is in a hystarical frenzy while you sit back relaxed? I wouldn't be here were I not having a good time, so please, telling me to calm down is just patronizing.

I admired defeat before you showed up, I can get the quote if you like. I was more then willing to let the point rest. However, it seems that in my crazy state I just couldn't see how being called snide by an internet super hero was any less then an attempt to make one feel special.

If your not enjoying yourself, may I suggest you stop debating with me? I really have no motivation to stop as it is.

[Max White]

That's why prisons exist.

Are you saying there should be a law against stupidity?

[Jackrabbit]

Darwin came up with Natural Selection, not Evolution

Granted. I mean if you like splitting hairs for no particular reason, I shall admit defeat on that detail.

This'd be the quote you mean?

Yeah, I saw that and refuted the point you're trying to make. I think you missed a vital step here. It's called "reading Jackrabbit's post so you don't end up looking silly". Here, I shall dissect my post for you, spoilered so nobody but you needs to sigh about how long my post is. I shall highlight my comments in, oh, let's say, Green. Green's a nice color.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Evolution] has everything to do with culling the species. Not always through strategic means, but the idea that the 'weak' die out through any means is what natural selection is based on. When some giraffe have short necks, they couldn't reach the higher branches of trees to feed and starved to death, thus the 'weaker' of the species were culled and now they have longer necks.

Okay. See this? This was your mistake, a post made after Neruz argued against your point. Your mistake was claiming that evolution is about culling species, whereas it's actually natural selection. I believe this point has been made abundantly clear.

Followed immediately by (This is an important bit!):

Darwin came up with Natural Selection, not Evolution

Granted. I mean if you like splitting hairs for no particular reason, I shall admit defeat on that detail.

I like how you tried to make it out like it's some pointless nitpick. It's an important distinction. For starters, natural selection is in fact about culling species, not evolution. They're sort of hand in hand in that manner. A giraffe with a short neck would die because of natural selection. Giraffes as a species get progressively longer necks because of evolution.

See that there? That was where I corrected your mistake. A mistake you did not admit as being a mistake until AFTER I corrected it. And you spoke to me directly when you did it. Why should I not assume you are accepting the fact that I corrected your mistake and are moving on with good grace? Well, that's what I did assume. This was not to be.

Are you implying there's something wrong with backing up someone else's claims by going into more depth? Here's what Neruz said. Another important bit! Make sure to read it! Just a reminder.

Little theory that Charles Darwin came up with, I think he called it evolution.
Contrary to what political correctness may say, smart people are more likely to have smarter kids.

Darwin came up with Natural Selection, not Evolution. And Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about culling species.

Try again.

"Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about culling species." Again, this is important! Because you argued against the point. You did not admit that you had made a mistake until I pointed it out to you, and you denied making the mistake when Neruz corrected you. This apparently constitutes as "stealing Neruz's victory". God knows how that works. Did you seriously not read my post?

And again, in case you missed it, here's what I said, which was said after you claimed that Neruz was wrong and evolution had everything to do with the culling of species:

Darwin came up with Natural Selection, not Evolution

Granted. I mean if you like splitting hairs for no particular reason, I shall admit defeat on that detail.

I like how you tried to make it out like it's some pointless nitpick. It's an important distinction. For starters, natural selection is in fact about culling species, not evolution. They're sort of hand in hand in that manner. A giraffe with a short neck would die because of natural selection. Giraffes as a species get progressively longer necks because of evolution.

I can make it more clear if you want. And so, without you even asking, I will.

You claim that evolution heavily involves culling species. Neruz argues against that point. You disagree with Neruz and argue for the point. I also argue against the point. You concede, and then accuse me of stealing some sort of victory from Neruz or something? I don't know, it's pretty silly. The problem, as I see it, is you took my joke about how nice it was to be right (maybe I should have added "for a change", hm?) poorly and reacted badly (really badly. I mean, come on man, it was childish) I brush off your jabs with another joke (this one containing batman) and you once again fail your spot check and begin to accuse me of stealing a victory from Neruz, or milking it, or something else that makes no sense. Why did I want you to stop? Because, to be frank, you're being very, very silly and it pains me to see someone be so silly.

NO SERIOUSLY, READ ALL OF THIS. ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOU RESPONSE.

ALL OF IT. THIS IS IMPORTANT.