Obama and Hillary are in a sinking boat, who survives?

[Fircoal]

You guys are taking this way to seriously. I wasn't really asking that, but it was more of a joke to make fun of how lame they are and would ruin america

Oh...ooooooooooooooh, we must have missed that. Damn. All right boys, lets pack this one up, we've completely misread the point of this.

LOL
did you seriously not read the first post of this topic as well as the title? OMG this forum should be called 'idiots who have nothing better to do that be idiots'

Considering you think McCain will be better than Obama, I believe the idiot is you

obama has no experience whatsoever. McCain served in the army and was a POW, etc etc. all obama can do is convince some americans he can lead them, while also saying he'll raise taxes in almost every possible way. he hasnt even voted on a bill in the whopping 2 years he's been there

Being in the army before isn't necessarily a good thing. And besides, he has Palin now. McCain fails MOAR.

[Snorri1234]

For instance, I offer this statement: clearly, there aren't as many Asian polo players because of culture. But that statement doesn't mean anything. It could mean that that historically, polo isn't an Asian sport. It could mean that horses aren't as common in Asia. It could mean that Asians see something dishonorable about it. Or (just to toss out a hypothesis) it could have to do with how Asians as a general rule don't have the arm length for effective polo play. (Note that I say as a general rule, since there are certainly exceptions... some of whom play in the NBA. But the general rule means a lower probability of long-armed polo players.)

Those are all valid explanations. You however tried to act like the only reason for such an underrepresentation could be the genetic one, while it is probable that genetic factors play a small role in most examples like these. Your hard science can explain why white people are in the top for swimming, but it doesn't explain why there are no black swimmers at all. Even in running, where black people are far better, there are still white people who run.

The analytical error that GT was talking about was that you seem to think that to find such genetic differences immediately means those are the reason. The fact that there is a genetic difference does not mean it has much influence. I never said that I think the info is false, I said that to point it out as the sole reason is particularly foolish in times like these where money and training matter such a great deal. We're talking about humanity as a whole, you can't explain it all by a few very basic scientific facts. Hell, it would be nice but the world is far too complex for that.

In short, the conclusions you draw from the information are not neccisarily correct and inherently flawed anyway. "Black people are genetically worse at swimming than white people." does not answer the question of "Why are black people underrepresented in swimming?". I love science, but any scientist will tell you that drawing conclusions must be done very carefully.

[kerntheconkerer]

Palin is way better than obama plus his running mate. she dissed him so many times in so many ways in her speech and he can't counteract them...

[Bones2484]

Palin is way better than obama plus his running mate. she dissed him so many times in so many ways in her speech and he can't counteract them...

You are only watching Fox News, arent you?

[Frigidus]

Palin is way better than obama plus his running mate. she dissed him so many times in so many ways in her speech and he can't counteract them...

And you went "Oh, burn"? Who cares about how many times the Republican vice president nominee totally serves her opponents?

[Nikolai]

Those are all valid explanations. You however tried to act like the only reason for such an underrepresentation could be the genetic one, while it is probable that genetic factors play a small role in most examples like these. Your hard science can explain why white people are in the top for swimming, but it doesn't explain why there are no black swimmers at all. Even in running, where black people are far better, there are still white people who run.

The analytical error that GT was talking about was that you seem to think that to find such genetic differences immediately means those are the reason. The fact that there is a genetic difference does not mean it has much influence. I never said that I think the info is false, I said that to point it out as the sole reason is particularly foolish in times like these where money and training matter such a great deal. We're talking about humanity as a whole, you can't explain it all by a few very basic scientific facts. Hell, it would be nice but the world is far too complex for that.

In short, the conclusions you draw from the information are not neccisarily correct and inherently flawed anyway. "Black people are genetically worse at swimming than white people." does not answer the question of "Why are black people underrepresented in swimming?". I love science, but any scientist will tell you that drawing conclusions must be done very carefully.

Permit me a self-quote, since apparently you didn't bother to read what I wrote before.

To be sure, African-Americans are perfectly capable of developing the lower bone and muscle density required to be world-class swimmers - but they're genetically disposed not to do so. You can hunt cultural factors as much as you like - but that doesn't permit you to ignore the science. African Americans are genetically disposed towards higher bone and muscle density and lower body fat ratios, all of which reduce buoyancy. And while that won't matter much for your casual dip at the local pool, at world-class levels where hundredths of seconds count... well, it matters. So while an African-American certainly could become a world-class swimmer, they would have to deal with all the usual problems that swimmers deal with... plus their body's tendency to betray them.

My original point wasn't that genetic reasons are the one and only reason for under-representation, in swimming, of "black" people... nor have I ever claimed such a thing. It was that not all things can be ascribed to culture, unless you take a very broad view of what culture means. And, more particularly, that speculation about how said under-representation relates to slave-holding when there are easier, previously proven scientific reasons is stupid. So this analytical error you're making up is... made up. I will once again recommend use of the brain before the mouth...

[Snorri1234]

To be sure, African-Americans are perfectly capable of developing the lower bone and muscle density required to be world-class swimmers - but they're genetically disposed not to do so. You can hunt cultural factors as much as you like - but that doesn't permit you to ignore the science. African Americans are genetically disposed towards higher bone and muscle density and lower body fat ratios, all of which reduce buoyancy. And while that won't matter much for your casual dip at the local pool, at world-class levels where hundredths of seconds count... well, it matters. So while an African-American certainly could become a world-class swimmer, they would have to deal with all the usual problems that swimmers deal with... plus their body's tendency to betray them.

My original point wasn't that genetic reasons are the one and only reason for under-representation, in swimming, of "black" people... nor have I ever claimed such a thing. It was that not all things can be ascribed to culture, unless you take a very broad view of what culture means. And, more particularly, that speculation about how said under-representation relates to slave-holding when there are easier, previously proven scientific reasons is stupid. So this analytical error you're making up is... made up. I will once again recommend use of the brain before the mouth...

No it's not made up. You are blatantly ignoring the fact that the conclusion you draw from the scientific data is not a valid one to make. Sure that slave-holding story doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that doesn't mean that poverty, lack of water and any number of other social and cultural factors don't offer a valid explanation.

You responded to pimpdave's claim about slavery by saying that the reason for them not swimming was that they aren't as good at it as white people for genetic reasons. And while the science behind it may be correct, it doesn't mean that the reason isn't cultural. Don't accuse me of trying to "explain away" valid science. I am not ignoring it, I am saying that it's a faulty reason for the fact that it doesn't seem to hold true for nearly every other sport in the world. Saying that taking a "broad view of what culture means" is not good is silly as culture is a very broad topic.

Okay, let's take an example. Table Tennis. Now, if there turned up some research somewhere that showed that Chinese people are genetically more adapt at playing the game (for whatever reason) I'd say it does very little to explain why they are at the top of the players. What does explain it a far greater deal is the fact that Chinese kids from as young as 5 years old are trained rigorously each day to maybe some day be a great player. Genetic factors may play in a little bit, but it's clear that for the most part it's all due to cultural reasons.



Science is awesome, but you can't use it to explain everything. Especially when dealing with humans as the subject.

[Napoleon Ier]

= hard science is teh win.

Don't you do biology, though? The biggest joke subject since "Media Studies"?

[Snorri1234]

= hard science is teh win.

Don't you do biology, though? The biggest joke subject since "Media Studies"?

At least you can discover new stuff in biology, without having to build a fucking huge ring to hit little particles against each other.



And the biggest joke subject by far to study is "communication-sciences".

[Napoleon Ier]

= hard science is teh win.

Don't you do biology, though? The biggest joke subject since "Media Studies"?

At least you can discover new stuff in biology, without having to build a fucking huge ring to hit little particles against each other.

Fair play! Thankfully I never have to ever do Biology ever again and can devote all my scientific prowess to the study of pure and applied mathematics, which are the only real man's "hard sciences".

[Snorri1234]

= hard science is teh win.

Don't you do biology, though? The biggest joke subject since "Media Studies"?

At least you can discover new stuff in biology, without having to build a fucking huge ring to hit little particles against each other.

Fair play! Thankfully I never have to ever do Biology ever again and can devote all my scientific prowess to the study of pure and applied mathematics, which are the only real man's "hard sciences".

I don't know. You could certainly make a case for it not being really science, though it is certainly very hard.

[Napoleon Ier]

This begs an important question-what is science? Is it purely empirical or can branches of synthetic a priori such as Mathematics be included? Discuss...

[Snorri1234]

This begs an important question-what is science? Is it purely empirical or can branches of synthetic a priori such as Mathematics be included? Discuss...

Well traditionally I believe it was only empirical stuff that was considered science. But with that definition you would exclude most of physics as it relies on a priori reasoning.

[Napoleon Ier]

This begs an important question-what is science? Is it purely empirical or can branches of synthetic a priori such as Mathematics be included? Discuss...

Well traditionally I believe it was only empirical stuff that was considered science. But with that definition you would exclude most of physics as it relies on a priori reasoning.

Well quite, and it is just that kind of lateral thinking required to formulate syntheticism of a priori which I consider to be a thoroughly masculine quality. It's cold, it's dispassionate, it's Platonic, an antithesis to all that the GCSE system stands for, and it's a serious field of study.

[Neoteny]

= hard science is teh win.

Don't you do biology, though? The biggest joke subject since "Media Studies"?

If by "joke" you mean "as awesome as teabagging bitches," then perhaps. I'm fairly sure that business degrees are the biggest joke subject before and since Media Studies, so your point is moot.

And math is for loons. All one really needs is statistics.

[Napoleon Ier]

= hard science is teh win.

Don't you do biology, though? The biggest joke subject since "Media Studies"?

If by "joke" you mean "as awesome as teabagging bitches," then perhaps. I'm fairly sure that business degrees are the biggest joke subject before and since Media Studies, so your point is moot.

And math is for loons. All one really needs is statistics.

What is a teabagging bitch? Do I even want to know? Do I need to study biology to find out? Is doing Further Maths instead of Biology a better use of my valuable time?

[Neoteny]

= hard science is teh win.

Don't you do biology, though? The biggest joke subject since "Media Studies"?

If by "joke" you mean "as awesome as teabagging bitches," then perhaps. I'm fairly sure that business degrees are the biggest joke subject before and since Media Studies, so your point is moot.

And math is for loons. All one really needs is statistics.

What is a teabagging bitch? Do I even want to know? Do I need to study biology to find out? Is doing Further Maths instead of Biology a better use of my valuable time?

See how much there is of which you're missing out? We also have beer yeast. I'd like to see your derivatives get you trashed.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, we were told at the start if the course that it was possible to get "drunk on Maths". I don't know whether I really want to experience the resulting hangover though.

[Neoteny]

Well, we were told at the start if the course that it was possible to get "drunk on Maths". I don't know whether I really want to experience the resulting hangover though.

"Drunk on Maths..." nonsense.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, we were told at the start if the course that it was possible to get "drunk on Maths". I don't know whether I really want to experience the resulting hangover though.

"Drunk on Maths..." nonsense.

So basically your university/research centre or whatever place it is you do whatever you do in is a gigantic lads club which pretends to study biology but just brews home-made beer and gets pissed listening to atrocious 80s music? I this why I should study biology?

[Backglass]

I this why I should study biology?

Brilliant.

Pro Tip: Get your teeth fixed first. Women don't like giant gaps and cavities.

[Napoleon Ier]

I this why I should study biology?

Brilliant.

Pro Tip: Get your teeth fixed first. Women don't like giant gaps and cavities.

What? No I'm sorry, genuinely, I've tried really hard to construe this in any way which would possibly give it a modecum of actual sense-making, but I just...can't understand what you're blathering about.

[Neoteny]

Well, we were told at the start if the course that it was possible to get "drunk on Maths". I don't know whether I really want to experience the resulting hangover though.

"Drunk on Maths..." nonsense.

So basically your university/research centre or whatever place it is you do whatever you do in is a gigantic lads club which pretends to study biology but just brews home-made beer and gets pissed listening to atrocious 80s music? I this why I should study biology?

Who do you think I am, MTG? I listen to real music.

[Backglass]

I this why I should study biology?

Brilliant.

Pro Tip: Get your teeth fixed first. Women don't like giant gaps and cavities.

What? No I'm sorry, genuinely, I've tried really hard to construe this in any way which would possibly give it a modecum of actual sense-making, but I just...can't understand what you're blathering about.

It's "Modicum", but thanks for your attempt. You really have a deep need to appear intelligent don't you? You try too hard.

Please visit the campus book store for a new dictionary little man.

[Nikolai]

No it's not made up. You are blatantly ignoring the fact that the conclusion you draw from the scientific data is not a valid one to make.

What conclusion, exactly, are you saying I've drawn? Because as I look at what I have repeatedly posted, all I see is this:

My original point wasn't that genetic reasons are the one and only reason for under-representation, in swimming, of "black" people... nor have I ever claimed such a thing. It was that not all things can be ascribed to culture, unless you take a very broad view of what culture means. And, more particularly, that speculation about how said under-representation relates to slave-holding when there are easier, previously proven scientific reasons is stupid.

Which seems a perfectly valid conclusion to draw, based on the data at hand, even by your unusually nebulous standards... so what's wrong, precisely? What conclusion are you saying I've reached?