|
 Ever since Michael Moore came out with these comments, very rarely has the argument been about his statements, but rather ad hominems about his weight. For the record, Michael Moore did lose 70 pounds after filming Sicko. He did do it in a pretty anti-HTFU way though (he went to a weight loss spa), but I suppose being a millionaire gives you that benefit.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
seiferguy posted:
'Michael Moore is fat' is a concise and accurate summary of about 95% of the counter-arguments ever made against anything he has ever said. It's ridiculous; even when he says actually-stupid things that there are actual, valid criticisms of, the right never bothers to make any of those criticisms, they just call him a big fatty fatso who is fat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:'Michael Moore is fat' is a concise and accurate summary of about 95% of the counter-arguments ever made against anything he has ever said. It's ridiculous; even when he says actually-stupid things that there are actual, valid criticisms of, the right never bothers to make any of those criticisms, they just call him a big fatty fatso who is fat. I wonder how many of them criticized Al Franken for calling Limbaugh a big fat idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:'Michael Moore is fat' is a concise and accurate summary of about 95% of the counter-arguments ever made against anything he has ever said. It's ridiculous; even when he says actually-stupid things that there are actual, valid criticisms of, the right never bothers to make any of those criticisms, they just call him a big fatty fatso who is fat. Also, just saw this on my wall. The guy who posted it is pretty obviously trolling for reactions, but still. http://www.infowars.com/subliminal-super-bowl-illuminati-secrets-revealed/
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:This is pretty typical, their criticisms of Obama are almost impressive in the way that they consistently avoid hitting on any valid areas of complaint. I read the comments on that article. We seriously need to pay better attention to mental health in this country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
constantIllusion posted:I read the comments on that article. We seriously need to pay better attention to mental health in this country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
"It Only Took This Army Vet 3 Minutes To Destroy Obama’s Gun Control Plan." Or more believably he made a complete rear end of himself: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=763111330406988
Chimera-gui fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
"My [opinion of what constitutes my]rights trump your dead." Pretty much sums it up actually. gently caress your murdered schoolchildren, I have the right to this crew served machine gun for reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Has this one been posted yet?quote:This is so sad; from a proud, strong country to a laughing stock of the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
"Canadians David Letterman?" I would bet money that several of those are true in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:"Canadians David Letterman?" I would bet money that several of those are true in Canada. his name is "Harvey Gorgichuk"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Oh, come on, don't tell me you've never heard of Canadian? He's a well known figure in the country who is highly respected, and just happens to talk exclusively in rught wing circlejerk points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
I loving doubt this was made by a Canadian. I realize that's a "No poo poo" type of thing, but I would doubt they would be saying such right wing poo poo about american politics when they're own country is actually you know...well run and quite liberal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
 I'd usually wait for Fulchrum to round these up, but this just showed up in my feed, shared by an ex co-worker. I wonder how many people I've known have actually run into LL101 independently on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Don't most Canadians not refer to people from the US as "American" that often, since "America" includes a lot more than just the US?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
"How can you believe weak people will die without medicine and not be in favor of it?" It's something of a trend where conservatives think "if I were in their position, what's the most selfish thing I could do?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Is that a real liberal logic or a parody one? I honest;y can't tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:"How can you believe weak people will die without medicine and not be in favor of it?" It's something of a trend where conservatives think "if I were in their position, what's the most selfish thing I could do?" These provide a lot of unintended insight into the mind of the person making them, and the insight I have gained is that he (it has to be a he) is a gigantic rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Someone posted a macro the dude made of himself weeks ago, in which he was  -ing about PC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
Conservative Ideology is predicated on the freedom to just drop dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Now that I think about it, it's a conflation of the definitions of "believing in" something- there's a factual definition and a moral one. I might "believe in" survival of the fittest in that I think it's a fact of nature, but that doesn't mean I "believe" it's right to apply it to all human interactions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Darwin really should have chosen a better name for "survival of the fittest ." Fit is fit like round peg in round hole, or since nature has very low standards , small square peg-round hole. That's why joke niche animals like pandas exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Darwin really should have chosen a better name for "survival of the fittest ." I think people are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "fit" in the context of evolution. I believe Darwin meant it in the, "well-matched" sense and not the "great physical specimen" sense. He wasn't saying people with love handles are gonna die off because they're not fit, but that's kind of how a lot of people read it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I think people are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "fit" in the context of evolution. I believe Darwin meant it in the, "well-matched" sense and not the "great physical specimen" sense. He wasn't saying people with love handles are gonna die off because they're not fit, but that's kind of how a lot of people read it. Yeah, the whole point is that if you fit into your environment the best, you're gonna live longer and reproduce more. In your example the people with love handles could be the "fittest" in a situation where food is scare except a few times a year. But still, the point comes back to that comic saying "Letting people die is a good thing" .
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Crain posted:But still, the point comes back to that comic saying "Letting people die is a good thing" . Right and the critical misunderstanding is the word "fit." He's saying that people who might get sick are not "physically fit" so therefore they should die off. That's the wrong version of the word "fit." Humans are pretty adaptable, and using technology to better "fit" into the environment in a Darwinian sense is completely valid. Vaccines aren't preventing "survival of the fittest" they are the definition of "survival of the fittest." They are a thing we developed as humans to aid in fitting into the environment where there are diseases. Is bear hibernation preventing Darwinian "survival of the fittest?" After all, the bears who can't operate in the cold obviously should be killed off for not being fit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Right and the critical misunderstanding is the word "fit." He's saying that people who might get sick are not "physically fit" so therefore they should die off. That's the wrong version of the word "fit." Humans are pretty adaptable, and using technology to better "fit" into the environment in a Darwinian sense is completely valid. Vaccines aren't preventing "survival of the fittest" they are the definition of "survival of the fittest." They are a thing we developed as humans to aid in fitting into the environment where there are diseases. Yeah, if you want to try and claim that vaccines are an affront to evolution then you have to discount all of human technology going all the way to basic tool making and even clothes. And humans would die off in the vast majority of the places we currently habitate if that were the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Is that a real liberal logic or a parody one? I honest;y can't tell. Its real. Recent too. Less than half a day old. Record time to be seen in the wild.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
I agree with these blue guys. I will never ceased to be amazed at how many Americans are fully behind the idea of children dying en mass
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I agree with these blue guys. So you're saying Nationwide's Superbowl ad was ill-advised?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I agree with these blue guys. I'm not sure how the red guy is even remotely sympathetic. The comic even points out that the red guy is an absurd strawman. Did they miscolor someone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
I want to agree but the Ad hominem and Strawman comments plus the fact that it's a goddamn Liberal Logic comic make me want to recoil from it out of principle that I can't imagine them being correct once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Right and the critical misunderstanding is the word "fit." He's saying that people who might get sick are not "physically fit" so therefore they should die off. That's the wrong version of the word "fit." Humans are pretty adaptable, and using technology to better "fit" into the environment in a Darwinian sense is completely valid. Vaccines aren't preventing "survival of the fittest" they are the definition of "survival of the fittest." They are a thing we developed as humans to aid in fitting into the environment where there are diseases. Survival of the fittest is just a term to better describe the mechanism of natural selection, which is explicitly about which genetic traits have more reproductive success, so no I don't think it's valid to say humans making vaccines is an example of survival of the fittest and I do think it is valid to say that humans who are susceptible to diseases getting to reproduce without regard for their susceptibility to those diseases is in defiance of the concept of natural selection and is a more or less proper use of the word. And your bear analogy doesn't make any sense because bears have no need to operate in the winter so what does it have to do with them being fit? If bears needed to operate in the cold to get food, then yes, all the bears that couldn't operate in the winter would die off from not being "fit" for their environment. Bear hibernation very well could be an example of survival of the fittest because at one point there may have been bears that didn't hibernate within a species but they migrated to a colder climate with longer winters or something to that effect and the bears that didn't hibernate starved to death during the winter when there was no food and so only the bears with the genes that made them hibernate continued to reproduce. The reason the cartoon is idiotic and terrible is because conservative dipshit is saying a a belief in the concept of natural selection necessitates a belief that the best option for human society is to function the same way as nature, which is completely uncaring and often cruel by standards of human empathy and compassion. Like yeah our advances in technology are almost certainly making us less likely to radically change genetically as a species, but unless you're literally Hitler the response is most likely going to be so what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:I want to agree but the Ad hominem and Strawman comments plus the fact that it's a goddamn Liberal Logic comic make me want to recoil from it out of principle that I can't imagine them being correct once. As always, when you think you might agree with LL101, the title will show you that no, they're still entirely wrong. quote:Hey! Who told you, you’re allowed to think?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Survival of the fittest is just a term to better describe the mechanism of natural selection, which is explicitly about which genetic traits have more reproductive success, so no I don't think it's valid to say humans making vaccines is an example of survival of the fittest and I do think it is valid to say that humans who are susceptible to diseases getting to reproduce without regard for their susceptibility to those diseases is in defiance of the concept of natural selection and is a more or less proper use of the word. A species which uses mutual aid, for example each member grooming other members of their social group to remove parasites, or pooling medical knowledge to make and distribute vaccines, is displaying fitness in an evolutionary sense. LL101 probably hates mutual aid even more than Darwinism too, which makes it more right 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Survival of the fittest is just a term to better describe the mechanism of natural selection, which is explicitly about which genetic traits have more reproductive success I've always heard natural selection defined as being about heritable phenotypical traits, not specifically genetic traits. Any expressed trait that can be passed from one generation to another by some means. As far as I've known, learned behavior in other animal species passed from one generation to the next is also included under the definition of natural selection, for example. That means that strictly speaking, technological progress such as vaccinations that increase chances of reproductive success by improving odds of survival to reproductive age do fall under the umbrella of natural selection; it's simply a much more complex example of learned behavior, as knowledge passed from one generation to the next that improves reproductive fitness. Idran fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out that Darwin never used the phrase "survival of the fittest", that was a pop-science phrase coined by - of course - a reactionary shithead (mis)using the concept to justify burning orphans for fuel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Survival of the Most Adaptable is more in line with actual evolutionary theory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
Physically speaking humans kind of suck. We're not very strong or fast compared to most animals of similar size and while we have color eyesight we can't see nearly as far or as detailed as say, some birds. Opposable thumbs are useful but that's really about it. The ability to create tools to compensate for weakness is pretty much what let humans become dominant and medical innovations feel like they'd fall under that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Survival of the Most Adaptable is more in line with actual evolutionary theory. This is actually more accurate. Darwin himself even said "it is not the strongest of species that survive but the ones most responsive to change." Everything is changing all the time and generally speaking the things that survived were the ones that could fit the new environment. Some species survive a very long time because their physical traits can live in a huge variety of environments. Crocodiles and alligators are a good example of this; they've been around for millions of years. They aren't all that specialized beyond "lives in bodies of water" and "ambush predator." Extremely specializes species are extremely fragile. Something that can only survive by eating something very specific die off if that thing goes away. If eucalyptus trees vanished then well, there goes koalas! Humans survived largely by being far more adaptable than anything else. Not only could we adapt ourselves to the environment (tools, clothing, agriculture, buildings, etc.) we also adapt our environments to us. If a nasty predator is loving us up we band together and gently caress up that predator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Jurgan posted:Now that I think about it, it's a conflation of the definitions of "believing in" something- there's a factual definition and a moral one. I might "believe in" survival of the fittest in that I think it's a fact of nature, but that doesn't mean I "believe" it's right to apply it to all human interactions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:26
|
|
