If a person communicates that they believe the world works in one fashion, when in reality, it works in another, three situations are possible. Perhaps more than three, but certainly at least these three.
The first is that they are mistaken. If a person is mistaken about reality, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they truly believed in their mistake. Similarly, were you to torture them, screaming at them "tell me about how the world works!" they would never answer you that the world works in a way different than their misconception.
The second is that they are lying with confidence. If a person is lying with confidence, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they did not truly believe in their lie. Were you to torture them in the same manner as the example in the previous paragraph, they would eventually, under sufficient pressure, answer you that the world works in a way different than their lie, i.e., truthfully.
The third is that they are lying without confidence. If a person is lying without confidence, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they did not truly believe in their lie, same as if they were lying with confidence. However, were you to torture them in the UE-approved manner, they would never answer you in a way that contradicts their lie.
How is this possible? Lying without confidence is where a lie is generated, and then is never spoken aloud, never recognized as a lie, and thus the liar has no internal memory space dedicated to remembering that it is a lie. In the first generation, this might be called lying to yourself or burying the truth, but it has become commonplace since the 17th century or so to pass these lies down from generation to generation, like antique furniture. Thus, these terms are insufficient to describe the phenomenon in the second generation or later. A liar of this variety cannot possibly answer you with the truth, because in order to do that he must have been the architect of the lie, and granddad never passed down the blueprints. Such a lie exists via the magic of ritual. A liar-without-confidence repeats his lie as a social ritual, one which has no bearing on how his decisions of consequence are made. Decisions of no consequence, of course, are free to be used as simple decor, and may, in fact be used to support the lie.
Just don't ask him to move to a black neighborhood.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Second Helpings
This post seems to suggest that Progressivism has ruined the proliferation of science by assuming (nay, demanding) that everyone will just take interest in it no matter what. Once again, the levellers have ruined something by just posting on the wall that it shall be done, and then rewarding those who only look like they're helping, with no rewards for real results, and no punishments for real failures.
A Thought
Progressives literally worship as a saint* someone who's major philosophy was holiness through suffering.
Mglw'nafh fhthagn-ngah cf'ayak 'vulgtmm vugtlag'n!
*So she's only been beatified so far. Sue me.
Mglw'nafh fhthagn-ngah cf'ayak 'vulgtmm vugtlag'n!
*So she's only been beatified so far. Sue me.
Shluuurrrrp mphffff uochhck uochhck uochhck
The Great Fellatio continues.
Money quote from the embedded video:
This reminds me of another ridiculous episode of reality denial:
Am I a heartless bastard for posting this? No. Those who murder reality with an icepick are.
Money quote from the embedded video:
"They obviously don't know anyone with Down's Syndrome, because they think things about them, saying they're stupid or something. They definitely wouldn't do it if they knew Heidi, she's so intelligent and everything."Yes, I'm sure your little retard is just months away from formulating a unified field theory.
This reminds me of another ridiculous episode of reality denial:
"Today, as I type this, Faith is 10 weeks old (+ 1 day) and thriving! She is totally conscious and is as responsive as any "normal" baby. She is very sensitive to touch (especially when it's cold!) and can definitely hear. She smiles, coos, cries, and is a feisty little girl ;) She knows what she likes and dislikes and she'll let you know - she has her own little personality that we just can't get enough of. We have been shocked by her development...from day 1 she was smiling and saying baby words ("boo" "gee" "happen"... yeah). She could lift her own head from birth and when she sat up on her own at 5 days old, needless to say, we were amazed :)"Less than a month later, her baby would die from an acute case of not having a forebrain.
Am I a heartless bastard for posting this? No. Those who murder reality with an icepick are.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Can't have any of that
Universalism has nobly uncovered a holdout method of properly raising children. Naturally, this is unacceptable.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Regressivism
Progress.
As neutrino_cannon points out, if Progressivism decides to throw science under the bus, we'll be in for some fun times.
As neutrino_cannon points out, if Progressivism decides to throw science under the bus, we'll be in for some fun times.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Funny thought
Progressivism's own degenerating effect reinforces its subjects' belief in the myth of the noble savage.
Hee!
Hee!
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Follies of The Present
I touched a little on the subject that follows in this post.
It is fashionable these days to decry the past as silly, when men would get pinned with bronze for capturing an enemy standard or preserving an allied one.
This is nonsense. Do these people have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to organize a mob of non-uniformed men-at-arms, with no modern communication equipment, and only the most basic of discipline? When it gets foggy or dusty, and the mud begins to churn, even uniformed soldiers become just another brown blob in the fray. The only identification anyone has is the knowledge of what side they are fighting on, and the familiarity with that side's standard.
Concentration of arms is one of the first and most important rules of warfare. When the melee has broken, and the lines of combat have dissolved, a flag-bearer can literally turn the tide of a battle by rallying a critical mass of allies to himself, and spurring them into action.
Conversely, the capture of an enemy standard can provide allies with a priceless feint, drawing the enemy away from where you do not want them to be, or closing a trap.
Furthermore, flag-bearers were for the most part unarmed and unarmored. They had one of the most important jobs in the entire army, coordination, and they strode into the melee as the most important target with no defenses.
Preserving an allied standard was the Medieval equivalent of being a Navajo code talker. Capturing an enemy standard was the Medieval equivalent of cracking the Enigma. Except you stood a good chance of getting killed.
Is it any wonder, then, that those who mastered the standard were honored the most highly?
It is fashionable these days to decry the past as silly, when men would get pinned with bronze for capturing an enemy standard or preserving an allied one.
This is nonsense. Do these people have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to organize a mob of non-uniformed men-at-arms, with no modern communication equipment, and only the most basic of discipline? When it gets foggy or dusty, and the mud begins to churn, even uniformed soldiers become just another brown blob in the fray. The only identification anyone has is the knowledge of what side they are fighting on, and the familiarity with that side's standard.
Concentration of arms is one of the first and most important rules of warfare. When the melee has broken, and the lines of combat have dissolved, a flag-bearer can literally turn the tide of a battle by rallying a critical mass of allies to himself, and spurring them into action.
Conversely, the capture of an enemy standard can provide allies with a priceless feint, drawing the enemy away from where you do not want them to be, or closing a trap.
Furthermore, flag-bearers were for the most part unarmed and unarmored. They had one of the most important jobs in the entire army, coordination, and they strode into the melee as the most important target with no defenses.
Preserving an allied standard was the Medieval equivalent of being a Navajo code talker. Capturing an enemy standard was the Medieval equivalent of cracking the Enigma. Except you stood a good chance of getting killed.
Is it any wonder, then, that those who mastered the standard were honored the most highly?
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Rhushivlt H'yddprk wgah'nagl fhtagn
It is remarkable that, when a whole and complete view of the universe is honestly taken, Progressivism isn't just evil, it's friggin' Disney levels of evil.
Have you ever seen anyone comment, upon hearing of a young boy's terrible suffering from some horrible disease, oh, that is so beautiful!
You yourself might even think that is beautiful.
That is because you are a death cultist in the Lovecraftian fashion.
It is not beautiful. Suffering does not turn a normal boy would would probably slice a lizard in half or feed his finger to a toad until it died of stress into a saint. It just turns him into a wretch.
It is sad, because we regret these things happening. What horrible cancer causes you to say that, au contraire, it is beautiful?
I wonder how flammable those black robes are.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "death is just the next great adventure." No, it's not. It's death. It's horrible and awful and I only wish it upon my most hated enemies.
People are lining up to die in fashionable and public ways. People praise to the skies those who "are willing to die for what they believe in." Oh? What about those who are willing to live for what they believe in?
The cherry on top, of course, is that they literally wish for the day when the abominable, hellish dead walk the Earth.
Have you ever seen anyone comment, upon hearing of a young boy's terrible suffering from some horrible disease, oh, that is so beautiful!
You yourself might even think that is beautiful.
That is because you are a death cultist in the Lovecraftian fashion.
It is not beautiful. Suffering does not turn a normal boy would would probably slice a lizard in half or feed his finger to a toad until it died of stress into a saint. It just turns him into a wretch.
It is sad, because we regret these things happening. What horrible cancer causes you to say that, au contraire, it is beautiful?
I wonder how flammable those black robes are.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "death is just the next great adventure." No, it's not. It's death. It's horrible and awful and I only wish it upon my most hated enemies.
People are lining up to die in fashionable and public ways. People praise to the skies those who "are willing to die for what they believe in." Oh? What about those who are willing to live for what they believe in?
The cherry on top, of course, is that they literally wish for the day when the abominable, hellish dead walk the Earth.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Relinked
I hear this all the time from my father. Usually the conversation goes something like:
"Father, the Jedi are evil!"
"Rubbish. Winston Churchill once told me that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others! Would Winston Churchill lie to me?"
"Yes."
"Well, democracies don't tend to go to war with one another. How does your mysterious Sith Master explain that?"
"The democracies that do not go to war with one another are all US client states, kept in line by the State Department. They don't have any meaningful independence, and so they do not typically engage in war. Of course, this more or less only goes for the official client states. The unofficial ones can go to war as much as they like. It is, of course, convenient for the US to claim that any nation it goes to war with is not a democracy."
"We prefer to call them allies."
"Whatever helps them sleep at night."
"And anyway, that's hogwash. France, for instance, isn't a client state of ours."
"ORLY?"
*unearthly screech from the space slug inside my father's brain*
"Father, the Jedi are evil!"
"Rubbish. Winston Churchill once told me that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others! Would Winston Churchill lie to me?"
"Yes."
"Well, democracies don't tend to go to war with one another. How does your mysterious Sith Master explain that?"
"The democracies that do not go to war with one another are all US client states, kept in line by the State Department. They don't have any meaningful independence, and so they do not typically engage in war. Of course, this more or less only goes for the official client states. The unofficial ones can go to war as much as they like. It is, of course, convenient for the US to claim that any nation it goes to war with is not a democracy."
"We prefer to call them allies."
"Whatever helps them sleep at night."
"And anyway, that's hogwash. France, for instance, isn't a client state of ours."
"ORLY?"
*unearthly screech from the space slug inside my father's brain*
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Why Popular Science Is Bad Science
Demotists (oooh, I haven't used that word in a while) love to claim that democracy enriches the sciences by getting more people involved with science. Their excuse being that more people involved means more independent discoveries and more scrutiny in general.
In fact, the higher percent of the unwashed masses that are are involved in science, the worse off science is. Demotists love to assume that democracy encourages more people to be scientists, when in fact it encourages more people to exercise authority in science. There is a very dangerous difference between those two things. Surely a larger number of actual rational, trained scientists is a good thing, in general. However, when the mob, unversed in rational thought and unconcerned with the search for truth, becomes involved, only bad things happen.
The mob loves to promote its pet ideas, whether true or not. Even if those ideas are discredited by actual science, the mob can bludgeon their way to popularity, by the sheer force of their social influence. Soon, you have a bogus science feedback loop, where the mob supports a wrong idea, men of power court the mob and the idea, and soon, one scientists fails against the monster of desire for status. Then another, then another, until true science is buried under a mound of make-believe. At best, the scientists are simply cloistered away from popular opinion, where they can do no harm, and at worst, they are subsumed entirely by the creeping mold.
Who knows what ideas we hold today that have gained prominence this way? Some are easily recognizable, but are others?
There is no way to insulate scientific thought from authority. The only way to seek truth freely is to ensure that authority seeks truth as well.
In fact, the higher percent of the unwashed masses that are are involved in science, the worse off science is. Demotists love to assume that democracy encourages more people to be scientists, when in fact it encourages more people to exercise authority in science. There is a very dangerous difference between those two things. Surely a larger number of actual rational, trained scientists is a good thing, in general. However, when the mob, unversed in rational thought and unconcerned with the search for truth, becomes involved, only bad things happen.
The mob loves to promote its pet ideas, whether true or not. Even if those ideas are discredited by actual science, the mob can bludgeon their way to popularity, by the sheer force of their social influence. Soon, you have a bogus science feedback loop, where the mob supports a wrong idea, men of power court the mob and the idea, and soon, one scientists fails against the monster of desire for status. Then another, then another, until true science is buried under a mound of make-believe. At best, the scientists are simply cloistered away from popular opinion, where they can do no harm, and at worst, they are subsumed entirely by the creeping mold.
Who knows what ideas we hold today that have gained prominence this way? Some are easily recognizable, but are others?
There is no way to insulate scientific thought from authority. The only way to seek truth freely is to ensure that authority seeks truth as well.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Let Us Pray
It is the moral duty of every Progressive to preach his Good Word. Progressives greet each other with a parry of dogma, each seeking to out-moralize the other.
The power of the clergy flows southward to the dregs on the wings of Universalism, emboldening false prophets in every corner of the empire. "Doom!" their signs say. Doom, of course, for you. Everyone is the elect in their own sermons.
Orwell's doublespeak was secular; Universalism's is holy. "Submit!" became "repent!", "thievery" morphed into "community", and, of course, "chaos" metastasized into "freedom".
Fencing with such metaphorical phalluses requires the restraint of the monster of reason. Put to the wayside those thoughts that beget prosperity, they will not help you here! Only the most ruthless, vile, slippery thoughts will survive. The chameleonic ones that resemble sweet honeysuckle until it is too late.
To the Great Death God, you must submit! With your submission he will grant you the darkest of powers. Worship the Man-Jesus, the most base god, who loves evil and works in death! Worship the Good Man, that the word be forever corrupted and true Good smoten as Evil!
Once Satan guided you on your path; now you have strayed. Is it any wonder that he vexes you?
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
The power of the clergy flows southward to the dregs on the wings of Universalism, emboldening false prophets in every corner of the empire. "Doom!" their signs say. Doom, of course, for you. Everyone is the elect in their own sermons.
Orwell's doublespeak was secular; Universalism's is holy. "Submit!" became "repent!", "thievery" morphed into "community", and, of course, "chaos" metastasized into "freedom".
Fencing with such metaphorical phalluses requires the restraint of the monster of reason. Put to the wayside those thoughts that beget prosperity, they will not help you here! Only the most ruthless, vile, slippery thoughts will survive. The chameleonic ones that resemble sweet honeysuckle until it is too late.
To the Great Death God, you must submit! With your submission he will grant you the darkest of powers. Worship the Man-Jesus, the most base god, who loves evil and works in death! Worship the Good Man, that the word be forever corrupted and true Good smoten as Evil!
Once Satan guided you on your path; now you have strayed. Is it any wonder that he vexes you?
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Cow-Milking Mutants
European humans are weird.
To most European readers, the inability to consume milk is seen as a defect, similar to allergies. In reality, it is by far the norm for humans outside of European populations, and overwhelmingly the norm for nonhuman mammals.
It's theorized that lactase persistence is carried over from Eurasian nomads, from which most Europeans are descended. As an adaptation, it allows populations to consume large quantities of dairy, a renewable food source, while maintaining good health.
Aliens studying this would fine European humans strange indeed.
Here's a map of lactose intolerance around the world, by country.
To most European readers, the inability to consume milk is seen as a defect, similar to allergies. In reality, it is by far the norm for humans outside of European populations, and overwhelmingly the norm for nonhuman mammals.
It's theorized that lactase persistence is carried over from Eurasian nomads, from which most Europeans are descended. As an adaptation, it allows populations to consume large quantities of dairy, a renewable food source, while maintaining good health.
Aliens studying this would fine European humans strange indeed.
Here's a map of lactose intolerance around the world, by country.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Wartime Soccer Games
WD: Oh so
It occurs to me
Modern military enthusiasts laugh at brightly colored uniforms in historical militaries.
"Oh, those silly people, we know better, we use camouflage."
It would be funny
If it turned out that high-visibility colors for military personnel is a sign of civilization.
The idea here being that the combatants are civilized enough to mutually agree that friendly fire is a bad enough thing that they will sacrifice camouflage to prevent it.
I don't know what the likelihood of that is
Probably pretty low
Would be hilarious if true, though.
N_C: Given what I've heard about warfare in that era
this seems vaguely plausible
I think more likely
that command and control and morale were considered more important than being sneaky
WD: Right that does seem more likely
N_C: Being sneaky and light infantry is all fine and well until they cavalry or bayonet charge you
WD: But it is certainly true
That modern "civilizations"
Are virtually incapable of making such mutual agreements with their enemies.
N_C: We certainly don't have the channels to do so
WD: Right
N_C: there are a series of letters between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II before WWI
WD: The Red Telephone was considered exceptional
And is often praised as this
Miracle of Western Democracy
N_C: Ha!
it's hilarious when you put it that way
WD: Right!
Guys
The monarchs of the 19th century were doing that
All the damn time.
In many ways
The old monarchies were more peaceful during wartime
Than democracies are in peacetime
Not in all ways
N_C: I have a hard time imagining the Christmas soccer game thing happening between many peacetime rivals
let alone during an actual war
WD: Right
Hell
South America
Can't have organized professional soccer games during peacetime without riots breaking out
N_C: ha!
WD: And they're clients of the same state!
N_C: Yes, in the age of Democracy, war breaks out as a result of soccer games
in the Age of Aristocracy, even the last twilight remains
soccer games broke out as a result of war
It occurs to me
Modern military enthusiasts laugh at brightly colored uniforms in historical militaries.
"Oh, those silly people, we know better, we use camouflage."
It would be funny
If it turned out that high-visibility colors for military personnel is a sign of civilization.
The idea here being that the combatants are civilized enough to mutually agree that friendly fire is a bad enough thing that they will sacrifice camouflage to prevent it.
I don't know what the likelihood of that is
Probably pretty low
Would be hilarious if true, though.
N_C: Given what I've heard about warfare in that era
this seems vaguely plausible
I think more likely
that command and control and morale were considered more important than being sneaky
WD: Right that does seem more likely
N_C: Being sneaky and light infantry is all fine and well until they cavalry or bayonet charge you
WD: But it is certainly true
That modern "civilizations"
Are virtually incapable of making such mutual agreements with their enemies.
N_C: We certainly don't have the channels to do so
WD: Right
N_C: there are a series of letters between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II before WWI
WD: The Red Telephone was considered exceptional
And is often praised as this
Miracle of Western Democracy
N_C: Ha!
it's hilarious when you put it that way
WD: Right!
Guys
The monarchs of the 19th century were doing that
All the damn time.
In many ways
The old monarchies were more peaceful during wartime
Than democracies are in peacetime
Not in all ways
N_C: I have a hard time imagining the Christmas soccer game thing happening between many peacetime rivals
let alone during an actual war
WD: Right
Hell
South America
Can't have organized professional soccer games during peacetime without riots breaking out
N_C: ha!
WD: And they're clients of the same state!
N_C: Yes, in the age of Democracy, war breaks out as a result of soccer games
in the Age of Aristocracy, even the last twilight remains
soccer games broke out as a result of war
Every Cloud Has a Lining of Indeterminate Color
Progressivism is rapidly giving the world away to nerd culture. I cannot tell if this is a good or a bad thing, yet.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Brief Thought
I find it interesting that when Progressives want to complain about how something has become too far influenced by the will of the mob (or the will of those controlling the mob), they say that it has "become commercialized".
Friday, April 6, 2012
Deconstructive Criticism
In this installment of How Progressivism Lies to You While Ruining The Entire World, we examine being nice.
Surely you should be nice. Only a completely evil person, showing visible signs of his pact with Satan would say otherwise.
Oh hush, you. That's just my complexion.
We are told constantly that it's important to be nice in general. Our default setting, or possibly our only setting should be "nice", even if it means causing ourselves a good deal of discomfort.
Yet, how does being indiscriminately nice affect the receiving party? Well, it turns out that being indiscriminately nice to someone is about as helpful to them as shoving a hot poker underneath their toenails.
When you are indiscriminately nice to someone, regardless of their behavior, you are stealing from them one of their most important tools of self-improvement. Contrary to Progressive theory, people cannot simply wish* themselves to improvement. They must receive the correct input from their family, friends, and peers. This means that they get hurt when they make a misstep. For humans, the most productive way to do this is via a visible loss of status. In other words, by being mean to them. This set of inputs, when used correctly, will automatically help improve the individual in question, and is necessary for turning incompetents into useful, respected members of the tribe. When this is removed entirely from the equation, the incompetents have no way to improve.
Surely you should be nice. Only a completely evil person, showing visible signs of his pact with Satan would say otherwise.
Oh hush, you. That's just my complexion.
We are told constantly that it's important to be nice in general. Our default setting, or possibly our only setting should be "nice", even if it means causing ourselves a good deal of discomfort.
Yet, how does being indiscriminately nice affect the receiving party? Well, it turns out that being indiscriminately nice to someone is about as helpful to them as shoving a hot poker underneath their toenails.
When you are indiscriminately nice to someone, regardless of their behavior, you are stealing from them one of their most important tools of self-improvement. Contrary to Progressive theory, people cannot simply wish* themselves to improvement. They must receive the correct input from their family, friends, and peers. This means that they get hurt when they make a misstep. For humans, the most productive way to do this is via a visible loss of status. In other words, by being mean to them. This set of inputs, when used correctly, will automatically help improve the individual in question, and is necessary for turning incompetents into useful, respected members of the tribe. When this is removed entirely from the equation, the incompetents have no way to improve.
It gets worse. A Progressive might claim that while the incompetents in question are not being molded into effective individuals, they are at least happy. Bullshit! Just because you are being nice to someone does not mean your displeasure is not palpable. The incompetent will eventually pick up on your displeasure with his actions, and his actual loss of status (not simply what he's been privy to), and fall into depression because of it. Further, because you are de-facto expressing your displeasure by being nice, he comes to assign that as a negative input, meaning that any time someone is genuinely nice to him, he will suspect they are displeased with him, and that he has lost status. Because this process is gradual, not instantaneous, and because the input is nonvariable, and does not reflect any actual utility or incompetence, it does not even help him to improve, and simply makes him exceptionally depressed, and convinced of his irrevocable uselessness!
For the dispensing party, being indiscriminately nice poisons their attitude toward the receiver, as they are not able to vent their displeasure and must instead disguise it as pleasure. Thus the dispenser will resent the receiver, and animosity will form, where criticism (being mean) would have solved the problem and prevented any division between the parties.
Thus, Progressivism and its ilk has mutilated the act of being nice and turned it from a tool for positive reinforcement, to an underhanded, destructive act laced with venom. Who knew you could literally ruin someone's life by being nice to them!
Do someone you know a favor. Be hard on them when they screw up. Make their loss of status exquisite and sharp, pointed like a surgeon's knife. They will be better for it.
For the dispensing party, being indiscriminately nice poisons their attitude toward the receiver, as they are not able to vent their displeasure and must instead disguise it as pleasure. Thus the dispenser will resent the receiver, and animosity will form, where criticism (being mean) would have solved the problem and prevented any division between the parties.
Thus, Progressivism and its ilk has mutilated the act of being nice and turned it from a tool for positive reinforcement, to an underhanded, destructive act laced with venom. Who knew you could literally ruin someone's life by being nice to them!
Do someone you know a favor. Be hard on them when they screw up. Make their loss of status exquisite and sharp, pointed like a surgeon's knife. They will be better for it.
*For libertarians, this changes to will or bootstrap. It's the same damn thing, though.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Ease
"This is America, where you can find a gun easier than mental health services,"
Can you, really?
Certainly in most areas, there are more gun stores than mental institutions (because mental institutions are much more expensive than gun stores), but provided the mental institutions are there is it really easier to get a gun than to check into a mental institution?
To buy a gun in the United States, you must fill out form 4473, recording the sale of the firearm. A background check will be performed. The whole process takes half an hour to several hours. Of course, you can buy guns from private sellers without a background check, but this is actually much more difficult than doing it the former way (speaking from experience) for most people.
Here's the process for checking into a mental institution from eHow.
I'm absolutely positive the perpetrator's thought process went exactly like this:
"I feel depressed. I wonder if there are any mental institutions that I could check in to. No? Darn. Well, then I guess my only choice is to shoot up the nursing school."
Can you, really?
Certainly in most areas, there are more gun stores than mental institutions (because mental institutions are much more expensive than gun stores), but provided the mental institutions are there is it really easier to get a gun than to check into a mental institution?
To buy a gun in the United States, you must fill out form 4473, recording the sale of the firearm. A background check will be performed. The whole process takes half an hour to several hours. Of course, you can buy guns from private sellers without a background check, but this is actually much more difficult than doing it the former way (speaking from experience) for most people.
Here's the process for checking into a mental institution from eHow.
I'm absolutely positive the perpetrator's thought process went exactly like this:
"I feel depressed. I wonder if there are any mental institutions that I could check in to. No? Darn. Well, then I guess my only choice is to shoot up the nursing school."
The Simplest Solutions Are Often The Best
What were tall theropod neural spines for? They may have served a number of secondary functions, but I'm going to place my bet that they were deception aids. Mammals do not usually have tall neural spines (obviously tallish neural spines are present in some artiodactyls, but they are much smaller than those in some theropods, and serve as fat and/or muscle attachment points), but they, too, exhibit size deception. Extended neural spines seem like an easy way for theropods to look 3-5 times heavier than they really are, at a reasonable cost. This does imply that these theropods were unable to arch their back as certain mammals do (and had no integument large enough to raise to assist with the deception). This could be due to the structure of their spine, or their extremely lengthy history as bipeds, I honestly don't know enough about theropod anatomy to say.
Shattering Windows and Generally Busting Up The Place
This image, by Mark Witton, has become one of my favorite pieces of paleoart. Why? It presents a scene with two elements entirely contradictory to popular zoological dogma: A feathered herbivorous ornithiscian dinosaur eating a tyrannosauroid.
What?
By now you know that I think it's highly likely that all ceolurosaurs were feathered, and the first protofeathered ancestor may have been as far back as the dawn of dinosaurs themselves. Yet, the view is still very unpopular.
What probably comes as a major surprise is the fact that the Styracosaurus is munching on a theropod dinosaur. You probably don't know is that's a fairly common pastime for herbivores.* Turns out, obligate herbivores are pretty rare.
*But don't think that therapods are past getting even.
What?
By now you know that I think it's highly likely that all ceolurosaurs were feathered, and the first protofeathered ancestor may have been as far back as the dawn of dinosaurs themselves. Yet, the view is still very unpopular.
What probably comes as a major surprise is the fact that the Styracosaurus is munching on a theropod dinosaur. You probably don't know is that's a fairly common pastime for herbivores.* Turns out, obligate herbivores are pretty rare.
*But don't think that therapods are past getting even.
Off-Topics
All zero of my readers may have noticed that I've written more about zoology recently than usual. While this may seem off-topic, for the most part an understanding of zoology, especially paleozoology, is very important for an understanding of reactionary thought. Reactionary thought is realist thought, and for that to coalesce properly, the subject must have a good background in evolution theory, among other things.
While posts about poor reconstructions of protowhales and feathered dinosaurs might seem like a distraction from the real purpose of this blog, they are good examples of how evolution is taught in a dogmatic, mystical manner*, rather than as a rationalized series of cause-effect relationships. These posts are intended to show that someone with only a basal understanding of the subject (i.e., me) can use a well-developed sense of rationality and intuition to make correct assertions about evolution and paleozoology. I know hardly anything about early cetaceans, yet it is blindingly obvious that Rodhocetus in the post on April 2nd is horribly wrong, if you merely examine it as rational fact, not dogma.
Also, it's my damn blog.
*This may be why creationists so vehemently oppose it. Progressivism has ensured that the majority of people encounter scientific (especially evolutionary) theory as a dogmatic assertion, rather than a rational one. Two dogmas cannot occupy a space at the same time, and thus, you have protests in Bible Belt states, etc. There are numerous examples previous of contradictory science and dogma getting along just fine, mostly through the use of a narrative handwave.
While posts about poor reconstructions of protowhales and feathered dinosaurs might seem like a distraction from the real purpose of this blog, they are good examples of how evolution is taught in a dogmatic, mystical manner*, rather than as a rationalized series of cause-effect relationships. These posts are intended to show that someone with only a basal understanding of the subject (i.e., me) can use a well-developed sense of rationality and intuition to make correct assertions about evolution and paleozoology. I know hardly anything about early cetaceans, yet it is blindingly obvious that Rodhocetus in the post on April 2nd is horribly wrong, if you merely examine it as rational fact, not dogma.
Also, it's my damn blog.
*This may be why creationists so vehemently oppose it. Progressivism has ensured that the majority of people encounter scientific (especially evolutionary) theory as a dogmatic assertion, rather than a rational one. Two dogmas cannot occupy a space at the same time, and thus, you have protests in Bible Belt states, etc. There are numerous examples previous of contradictory science and dogma getting along just fine, mostly through the use of a narrative handwave.
Sexual Hierarchy and Group-Based Intelligence
Could a strong sexual hierarchy be a prerequisite for sophisticated group structure and social intelligence? I don't know, but the idea is certainly interesting.
Giant Killer Chickens
The best counter argument when someone quips "there's no evidence that large theropods had feathers" used to be "there's no evidence that they didn't, either."
Now, there's this.
It's very difficult for humans, even some scientifically-minded ones, to recategorize objects in their brain space. For most humans, dinosaurs, especially large theropods, have always been essentially big demon-lizards, and it's hard to wrap our minds around the idea that, in fact, were they alive today, they would certainly be regarded wholly as birds, not as a distinct group.
While cladistically, the phrase "birds aren't dinosaurs, dinosaurs are birds" is wrong, it's much more correct for describing what dinosaurs actually were. Not ancient reptiles* that happened to be the ancestors of birds, but ancient birds that happened to be descendants of archosaurs.
*Oh yeah, and there's no such thing as a reptile.
Now, there's this.
It's very difficult for humans, even some scientifically-minded ones, to recategorize objects in their brain space. For most humans, dinosaurs, especially large theropods, have always been essentially big demon-lizards, and it's hard to wrap our minds around the idea that, in fact, were they alive today, they would certainly be regarded wholly as birds, not as a distinct group.
While cladistically, the phrase "birds aren't dinosaurs, dinosaurs are birds" is wrong, it's much more correct for describing what dinosaurs actually were. Not ancient reptiles* that happened to be the ancestors of birds, but ancient birds that happened to be descendants of archosaurs.
*Oh yeah, and there's no such thing as a reptile.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Thank you, Eliezer
Every time you spend money in order to save a life with some probability, you establish a lower bound on the monetary value of a life. Every time you refuse to spend money to save a life with some probability, you establish an upper bound on the monetary value of life. If your upper bounds and lower bounds are inconsistent, it means you could move money from one place to another, and save more lives at the same cost. So if you want to use a bounded amount of money to save as many lives as possible, your choices must be consistent with some monetary value assigned to a human life; if not then you could reshuffle the same money and do better. How very sad, how very hollow the indignation, of those who refuse to say that money and life can ever be compared, when all they're doing is forbidding the strategy that saves the most people, for the sake of pretentious moral grandstanding...
Pseudoscience
Anal-sys
Kids, let's see if we can list all of the structural and anatomical concepts that the author of this piece doesn't understand!
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Skeletal Hellbeasts of The Past
Whoever did this illustration (and those who created the hordes of other illustrations like it) needs a good flogging.
The artist has basically pasted a thin layer of skin onto the skull of Rodhocetus, giving it a stretched, hellbeast sort of look.
Why is the hair sparse and patchy? Haven't you ever seen an otter?
Mammals have noses made of soft tissue that progress further than the skeleton would suggest. Why would you draw a protowhale as if it were a squamate relative?
Why is the belly truncated and shapeless? Mammals usually have an s-shaped sternum-to-pubis contour, what about Rodhocetus suggests otherwise?
Well, at least it's not as bad as this rendition, which looks like a sprawling scaleless crocodile with a mysterious absence of neck muscles.
The artist has basically pasted a thin layer of skin onto the skull of Rodhocetus, giving it a stretched, hellbeast sort of look.
Why is the hair sparse and patchy? Haven't you ever seen an otter?
Mammals have noses made of soft tissue that progress further than the skeleton would suggest. Why would you draw a protowhale as if it were a squamate relative?
Why is the belly truncated and shapeless? Mammals usually have an s-shaped sternum-to-pubis contour, what about Rodhocetus suggests otherwise?
Well, at least it's not as bad as this rendition, which looks like a sprawling scaleless crocodile with a mysterious absence of neck muscles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)