T1B

I'm just reading your own explanation and then riffing off it. I guess you could say you helped coined whatever idiocy you find within my post, Mike.

Darwin did not help coin 'Survival of the Fittest'. Spencer coined it, then Darwin gave his blessing to Spencer's riffing off Darwin's original concept. That's completely different from coining. 'Helping to coin', to me, means coming up with an idea together and then pushing that idea through to the exclusion of other terms. Did Darwin say, 'Damn, Spence, that's awesome. I'm gonna chuck Natural Selection out the window and refer to Survival of the Fitness exclusively from now on. You rock, buddy' ? If he did, then he still didn't help to coin it, but he sure as hell would help to popularize it......... which is what it sounds like Darwin did, anyway, through his glowing acceptance of Spencer's term. That's still not really 'helping to coin' in the sense of 'coming up with a concept through teamwork'. To me, it just sounds like Darwin's work was a foundation. Having your concept renamed by somebody else (which you mention, twice, is what Spencer did, to an idea Darwin had) isn't the same as coining. You even mention on the previous page how Darwin had a specific idea in mind regarding Man itself when he came up with his ideas and the concept of Natural Selection (which was then perved into Social Darwinism later).... an idea which Spencer apparently seems to have given a shorter shrift to. From what I'm reading, alone, mind you. I mentioned Malthus because Darwin read him, absorbed him, incorporated some of his ideas... and came up with his own thing. Malthus did not coin Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest or Social Darwinism, his population work (and its subsequent use against the poor), was just a foundation for all three. But he didn't coin any of them. Malthus also didn't help Harry Harrison coin 'Soylent Green'.

I don't care what you've taught. Do you teach students to think, or to regurgitate?

I know you're intelligent, and I'm not as intelligent as you. We work with what the Lord gives us. But I refuse to swallow what you write when it doesn't feel right to me. When it feels right, I'll swallow it, regurgitate it, and reswallow it. I'll even pass it around, mama bird style. But I will not be cowed by your papered bullshit into swallowing something that doesn't feel right.

It's a pleasure to re-make your acquaintance, too, Guido. Take some Advil. You won't make it through the rest of your vacation, otherwise.

Annie wrote:When it feels right, I'll swallow it, regurgitate it, and reswallow it.

HIRED!!!!

Risa wrote:I'm just reading your own explanation and then riffing off it. I guess you could say you helped coined whatever idiocy you find within my post, Mike.

Your special idiocy is something of your own demented production. Leave me out of it.

Risa wrote:Darwin did not help coin 'Survival of the Fittest'. Spencer coined it, then Darwin gave his blessing to Spencer's riffing off Darwin's original concept.

You are one thick-skulled idiot.

Darwin spent years collecting data during his voyage on the Beagle, and then several more years back in England trying to explain the diversity of organisms that he saw while in and around South America. He did not, by himself, invent the concept of evolution or of natural selection - hell, his own grandfather was famous for putting forth claims that species must have evolved (and even described the "primordial soup" bit). Lamarck preceded Darwin, and although we now mock Lamarck's attempt to describe HOW species change (e.g., the whole neck stretching in giraffes bit), the fact is that he argued that species DO change over time, which was important.

Darwin was able to put the geological discoveries of the time (involving the immense age of the Earth and volcanism, which gave natural selection the needed time to work) together with what he saw in artificial selection in domesticated species like pigeons and dogs, together with Malthus's discussion on factors that limit human populations. The individual pieces were all out there for people to see. Darwin's genius was putting those pieces together. About the only thing he didn't "get" was the mechanism of passing on of traits (genetics), which is understandable considering that Greggy Mendel's work was still pretty new.

Darwin's "Origin of Species" is the undisputed unveiling of HOW natural selection works. It's why he's famous.

That's completely different from coining. 'Helping to coin', to me, means coming up with an idea together and then pushing that idea through to the exclusion of other terms.

Well, that's largely because you have no idea about what you're talking. Inventing new meanings for English terms doesn't help your own position. Stick to the English that the rest of educated society uses.

"Coin" in most dictionaries means to "invent or devise." Only a completely ignorant boob or moron would even TRY to argue that Darwin did not help to invent or devise "survival of the fittest," especially after reading Spencer's own words to that effect.

Risa wrote:Did Darwin say, 'Damn, Spence, that's awesome. I'm gonna chuck Natural Selection out the window and refer to Survival of the Fitness exclusively from now on. You rock, buddy' ? If he did, then he still didn't help to coin it,

Spencer, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, got the phrase "survival of the fittest" from reading Darwin and, once again, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION decided to call Darwin's term "natural selection" by the phrase "survival of the fittest."

Darwin AND Spencer disagree with you. But then again, you've shown a tendency to completely ignore facts that disagree with your ill-founded preconceptions, so feel free to continue that trend.

Having your concept renamed by somebody else (which you mention, twice, is what Spencer did, to an idea Darwin had) isn't the same as coining.

What part of "it was Darwin's concept which Spencer renamed" isn't getting through your leadlike skull?

You even mention on the previous page how Darwin had a specific idea in mind regarding Man itself when he came up with his ideas and the concept of Natural Selection

No, I didn't. Try again.

Darwin's ideas on man's origin came in a later book, which I hadn't mentioned.

Risa wrote:I don't care what you've taught. Do you teach students to think, or to regurgitate?

To think, which is a skill that apparently your educators have failed to pass to you.

I know you're intelligent, and I'm not as intelligent as you.

And the sky is blue. Anything else to add? How about your lack of training -informal or formal- in the subject matter in which you are attempting to debate? When was the last time you even took a course on evolution? Read a book on it? Read Darwin?

But I refuse to swallow what you write when it doesn't feel right to me..

Yeah, that's always the hallmark of a really deep thinker. Going with "feelings" and personal beliefs over facts. That's the kind of intellectual laziness that creationists, conspiracy nuts, HIV-deniers, and, well...stupid people are known for indulging in.

I guess that's why the phrases "well-thought out," "strongly supported arguments" and "discerning thinker" have never been applied to you.

When it feels right, I'll swallow it, regurgitate it, and reswallow it. I'll even pass it around, mama bird style.

I'll let that little gem of yours just sit out there for other folks to play with.

But I will not be cowed by your papered bullshit into swallowing something that doesn't feel right.

Yes, well, heaven forbid that you should be swayed by actual facts and quotes from Darwin and Spencer given to you by someone who even you admit is smarter than you and, oh yes, teaches evolution. You just stick with that ocean-liner-sized "gut" instead of that increasingly vestigial organ between your ears.

Take some Advil. You won't make it through the rest of your vacation, otherwise.

Medical advice from someone who is as incompetent in biology as you? No thanks.

and if I may add this guy from the dust bin of forgotten scientists ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

Wolfman wrote:and if I may add this guy from the dust bin of forgotten scientists ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

I've always liked Wallace. Classy guy who never got the credit (during his time or even now, from most folks) he deserved.

I also dig Huxley, aka 'Darwin's Bulldog.'

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Risa wrote:When it feels right, I'll swallow it, regurgitate it, and reswallow it. I'll even pass it around, mama bird style.

I'll let that little gem of yours just sit out there for other folks to play with.

I just lost my appetite.

Wolfman wrote:and if I may add this guy from the dust bin of forgotten scientists ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

I already 'added' him you tard.

Mike,
You fed the troll. I win. Now go fuck off you stupid tard... And stay away from kids minds with your Darwin is Spencer, Spencer is Darwin crap will you please?

Moving Sale wrote: Mike,
You fed the troll. I win.

Said troll took your side in the argument, Tinypants.

I win.

Moving Sale wrote:Now go fuck off you stupid tard...

This alleged "tard" beat you up, down, and sideways in a debate you needlessly provoked. If you couldn't outsmart a "tard," on what lowly rung does that placeyou?

Moving Sale wrote:And stay away from kids minds with your Darwin is Spencer, Spencer is Darwin crap will you please?

I never claimed that the two men were the same. Your claiming that I ever did so demonstrates nicely how your "keen legal mind" managed to lose the argument and wound up with Risa as your champion to boot. Way to go, Tattoo.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: I never claimed that the two men were the same.

Then why were you such a DICK about me pointing out that Spencer coined SotF?

Way to go, Tattoo.

How's the doublewide redneck?

And the lazy eye? How do you use a microscope with that thing shooting off in any direction it 'sees' fit?

And that hump on your back? Ever get that looked at?

Now go fuck yourself you stupid silly tard and keep your wacky ideas about ns and sotf away from kids' minds. Ok?

Moving Sale wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: I never claimed that the two men were the same.

Then why were you such a DICK about me pointing out that Spencer coined SotF?

The "dickness" began when you tried to a drive-by in a misbegotten attempt to correct me.

If I had said that Darwin had coined the PHRASE 'survival of the fittest," I'd have been wrong.
If I had said that Darwin had solely been the one to coin the concept of natural selection/survival of the fittest, I'd have been wrong.

I did neither. I stated that he helped to coin the concept. The fact that you decided to turn it into a debate means that you either mis-read/misinterpreted what I stated (or more importantly, what i did NOT state) or that you were completely wrong.

Moving Sale wrote:Now go fuck yourself you stupid silly tard and keep your wacky ideas about ns and sotf away from kids' minds. Ok?

You don't take losing very well. I noticed that you also decided to ignore the fact that your biggest defender was a poster mocked for being one of the most tedious, inane, consistantly wrong lunkheads to ever set paws to keyboard. I had Darwin and Spencer on my side. You had Risa. Let THAT chunk of ugly reality sit in your cranium a bit longer before you even think about replying or trying to laughably claim victory.

Epilogue:

Ang wrote: who has the duty to take care of them? - page 3

I think the word people were looking for is choices. Anyone can be a victim or a survivor...given the attitude for either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
All this acrimony over semantics. Mike, stop.

Why choose to play the victim, in this? You intentionally sidetracked yourself from your fight with Dr. Phibes (and it was a fight, even as it was a discussion, because it got personal. Dr. Phibes drew first blood on that one) over the viability/sustainability of libertarianism in a hypothetical real world situation, to volley with Moving Sale. But you didn't fight Moving Sale, you melted. As I said, I won't be cowed by your papered bullshit. I like you, Mike, for the simple illogical reason that (exposition and explanation deleted because it only matters to me). I like you for what you represent, not for who you really are or what your prior reputation has been here. You're more approachable when you're being a dumbass, because it means you're vulnerable. Right now, you're being a dumbass.

The reason why this sidetracking is moronic is not because you're wrong, or Moving Sale is wrong. You chose to take the following personally:

Moving Sale wrote:Darwin had his ideas which he labeled NS. Spencer had his ideas which he labeled SotF. Different men with different ideas. If they were the same there would be no need to talk about both. Talking about one would be talking about the other. In my world we make that distinction. In your world you don’t. Fine. Be a tard with a lowly BS in biology and an education Master’s (I Laughed!) Go through life telling people how Darwin is Spencer and Spencer is Darwin.

There were several ways to handle that. The best, in my opinion, would have been to ignore the jibe at your collection of sheepskin. Second best would have been to smile, bow, and take the sheepskin jibe as 'praising with faint damnation' then ignored it, to devote the bulk of your post to shortly describing the original differences in Darwin's NS and Spencer's SotF philosophies, and then close out by explaining how those original philosophical differences don't matter in the big picture of Darwin helping Spencer to 'coin' SotF. But I'm boring that way. Instead, you took offense. In the old days, you would have been accused of 'melting'.. You would have been accused of melting as soon as you uttered the phrase "I am "only" an educated and trained biologist well-read in the subject (yes, I've read "Origin") who also teaches evolution at both the NYS and AP levels. And well, you're a
lawyer, whose expertise in the subject is...well...um..." And each time you compounded the mistake of taking personal offense at what you considered a jibe towards your education level, folks would have pounded you moreso. The wytches would go into overdrive deflating your ego in various and sundry ways. And if the wytches were really good, you'd laugh along with them and jibe back. Things have changed. Or maybe folks would rather lick your boots than step on them. Anyway, I guess you were between a rock and a hard place, because you had boxed yourself in with the following exchange, which started the whole damn thing:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Dr. Phibes, while dissecting and dismissing libertarianism wrote: "Market economy is the survival of the fittest."

And, as Darwin pointed out when he helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest," it is not necessarily the biggest, the swiftest, the strongest, that wins the day. Luck plays a HUGE role. Dinosaurs were the fittest for millions of years. An ecological catastrophe later, and the age of mammals hit. Kodak was the Colossus of photography, banking on film. It became a bloated beast that adapted poorly to the rapid advent of
digital photography.

Moving Sale wrote:Nice try, but it was Spencer who coined it in "Principles of Biology."

Like I said, all this acrimony over semantics.

For me, there are certain general public expectations that come with using a word like 'coin'. The Darwin/Spencer co-coining argument doesn't meet them, for me. Frankly, re-reading all this, you set yourself up the moment you mentioned Darwin -- whom you, as that papered professor, knew had not originally come up with the phrasing -- instead of Spencer.

You're an elitist, Mike. I realize there's a part of you that revels in elitism. That's the curse of the Ivory Tower. The more post-secondary shit folks accrue on their walls, the more likely folks will fall back on their sheepskin collection to make their points for them. But your personal elitism acknowledges the comparative ignorance of the masses, hence your reaching for a name that most of the masses would recognize -- Darwin -- and a concept most of those same ignorant masses would associate with Darwin -- Survival of the Fittest. You were trying to give people an analogy they would understand, and thus in understanding would better understand you and your arguments. But it looks like (to me), something within you was screaming that that was wrong. So you held your nose and used the phrase 'helped coin.'

Problem solved, conscience salved.

Do you have to do that a lot, when teaching? Restructuring commonly held fallacies so that your real point is more digestible instead of received with glazed eyes and plugged ears, I mean?

Moving Sale was right; you acknowledge he's right by bringing Darwin into this in the first place instead of Spencer -- bottom line. When Moving Sale acknowledged that the original differences between the two philosophies were few, you took that as scoreboard. It wasn't. The fact is, Darwin didn't publish the phrase first, Spencer did. You had an opportunity to really show off that sheepskin; but your training and multiple years experience mucking about in the sty of conventional wisdom for pearls got in the way.

It's all good. Those who actually read all this, from beginning to the point of the center not holding, learned different ways to view the Constitution, to view Madison and Jefferson's beliefs, to view the difference between federal and state ability to use public money, food for thought on democracies, libertarianism and Canadian socialism, and about biology that doesn't involve hooters and clams. That ain't bad, man.

Relax about your sheepskin. You got your student award. You don't have to prove anything to anyone -- or brag... unless you're intentionally trying to show vulnerability. Relax. Have some sweet potato pie. It's summer.

Risa wrote:All this acrimony over semantics. Mike, stop.

Are you honestly expecting me to take a plea to stop posting on this seriously? Especially after the small novel you posted immediately after it? Or in light of how many times other posters have begged, pleaded, or just demanded you cease posting...in pretty much any damned topic? Do you grasp the utter hypocrisy in which you are wallowing?

Why the hell should I stop posting, when you've chosen to ignore the same or similar pleas from others?

As far as "acrimony"...lighten up, ditz. You're obviously one of those clueless fucktards (as mvscal likes to say) who honestly takes this internet board crap wat too seriously and therefore assumes that the rest of us do also. I have no hatred for MS, Dio, Scanner, Phibes, or anyone I've gotten into board debates with, Nor will I ever fly or drive across the state or country to hoist a beer with posters them because I "like" them. That's damned creepy. I drink with BSmack only because we went to college together and have been friends since the early 80's. I don't like, love, dislike, or hate anyone on this or any board, 'cuz IT'S A FRIGGING BOARD! Back on Elba, I had a flame war with a poster (Mal, the original TVO) that lasted over two weeks. Lots of "acrimony": insulting families, song parodies, etc. Once it was done, we went on with our lives.

Hell, you psychotic bitch, I don't even hate YOU...because I don't care enough about you to hate you.

If you honestly think there's any real emotion invested in this, you're not only dim, you're pathetic.

Risa wrote:
....seemingly endless horseshit, based on the pathetic misfirings of a poorly-functioning neural net...

You can stop giving what you think is constructive criticism or advice, or whatever the hell you think it is you're doing. Like a good chunk of the board, I find you to be a long-winded, pompous (despite your transparent attempts at fake humility), tediously stupid waste of bandwidth. I have read you give some of the most ill-informed advice and opinions on a wide variety of topics. Your most recent Tolstoyesque pile of cyberdung just adds to the mound of vacuous crap you've inflicted upon this and many other websites. At some point, we'll be able to see it from space.

Risa wrote: The more post-secondary shit folks accrue on their walls, the more likely folks will fall back on their sheepskin collection to make their points for them.

And you base this obvious disdain for "degreed" people on....what?

Your little speech reeks of the kind of envy that poor people use in generalizing about rich people are evil, selfish, and could have only achieved their financial success through screwing others over. Most of the folks I know who make fun of or diminish "sheepskins" are basically insecure about their own academic or intellectual shortcomings.

Smart people aren't arrogant, you just think they are because you're stupid.

Take your own frigging advice. Just stop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01975.html

Remember Deamonte?
The Senate needs to step up on dental care for children.
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A16

HAS THE TRAGIC death of Deamonte Driver already been forgotten? He is the 12-year-old from Prince George's County who died because of a decaying tooth that too long went untreated. Some members of Congress seem willing to overlook his story and what happens to low-income children who lack access to dental care.

Congress is getting ready to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for children in low-income families who don't qualify for Medicaid. This important safety net guarantees certain treatments for children, like well-baby care and hospitalization. Inexplicably, the program does not guarantee dental benefits. Advocates for child health had hoped that the attention caused by Deamonte's case would prompt Congress to mandate coverage.

The Senate Finance Committee is set to release its version of the program today, and early reports indicate that it will not contain a dental guarantee. Drafters of the bill argue that it's not needed since most states already provide dental care under SCHIP. That a federal guarantee would stabilize an important benefit is more reason than ever to include such a provision. Because dental care is seen as discretionary, it is vulnerable to cutting, as evidenced by the attempts of several cash-strapped states to cut the dental benefit.

At the heart of this issue is a lack of understanding of the importance and implications of good oral health care. A recent report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted the increasing prevalence of tooth decay in young children, making it the single most common chronic disease of childhood in the United States. Basic dental care is not a luxury. Those who would scoff at "just a little cavity" would not underestimate the seriousness of an infection in an eye, a leg or any other body part. Deamonte's case was extreme and rare. But every day there are children who can't pay attention in school and who can't fall asleep at night because they have problems with their teeth.

Then, too, there are the cost implications. Untreated dental problems worsen into other medical issues; perversely, there is no question, should that happen, that the care will be covered.

Never heard of Deamonte. Doing an off hand google search, looks like WaPo is making an NYC/LA level mistake in thinking that local news is also national news. Then again, for a little boy whose name is now going to join Megan's Law (missing kids), Jessica's Law (pedos), and Kendra's Law (mental health) ... this should have been more newsworthy.

But I do have a copy of a recent USA Today from last month, which has a page 3 story about the Hiccuping Girl running away from home. It's beneath a story (prematurely, as it turned out) celebrating Genarlow Wilson being freed in Georgia. Hiccuping Attention Whore gets the McNews treatment. Little kids dental crisis does not.

I'm only ambivalent because I've heard the stories about the rising prevalence of dental issues in illegal/anchor baby children. American children need to be helped first. It won't happen. :(

I like JSC's comment on page 4, about prevention being worth a pound of cure. Would you antis really repeal federal assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP? In a sink or swim society, doesn't everyone sink? Where would all that money collected go, instead? What does society do, instead, with people who currently qualify for public assistance?

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: I had Darwin and Spencer on my side.

See, look - you're still doing it. Biological orginisation and cultural orginisation are diametrically opposed, you've been reading 'reason' magazine again.

And as a fellow scientist - I'm appalled

Risa is calling someone else an “attention whore”? Well, that’s fairly laughable.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: If I had said that Darwin had coined the PHRASE 'survival of the fittest," I'd have been wrong.

Learn to use quotes right you fucking tard. That is what was wrong with the post I replied to in the first place.

You are an 'educator?'

You don't take losing very well.

Yelling BODE is a sure sign that you are a tard.

I noticed that you also decided to ignore the fact that your biggest defender was a poster mocked for being one of the most tedious, inane, consistantly wrong lunkheads to ever set paws to keyboard.

And you failed to notice another was a well respected poster. So what?

Now keep your D is S & S is D crap out of the classroom would you?

Tinypants is reduced to shift key smack. Sad.

And then there's this:

Moving Sale wrote:Yelling BODE is a sure sign that you are a tard.

Moving Sale about eight or nine posts earlier wrote:You fed the troll. I win. Now go fuck off you stupid tard.

Irony?

You REALLy ought to remember that chatboards tend to allow posters to quote what you said earlier.

Dimwit.

I noticed that you also decided to ignore the fact that your biggest defender was a poster mocked for being one of the most tedious, inane, consistantly wrong lunkheads to ever set paws to keyboard.

Moving Sale wrote:And you failed to notice another was a well respected poster. So what?

I didn't fail to notice anything. I said that your biggest defender was Rhesus. Hell, she's been sticking up for your idiotic position in other threads and in other forums. I don't know how you've earned her undying love and idiocy, but she's taken up your ignoble cause big time.

Moving Sale wrote:Now keep your D is S & S is D crap out of the classroom would you?

I have no reason to mention Spencer in my classroom, since the explanation of natural selection is Darwin's puppy.

Nice straw man you insist on propping up though. Ray Bolger would be happy.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Now keep your D is S & S is D crap out of the classroom would you?

I have no reason to mention Spencer in my classroom, since the explanation of natural selection is Darwin's puppy.

Dr. Phibes didn't mention either Darwin or Spencer, he mentioned 'Survival of the Fittest'. You brought Darwin into this. When Moving Sale called you on it, you had to stick with the date you brung to the dance. Eventually, with Moving Sale's prodding, you conceded the difference between current thought on the subject, and Darwin and Spencer's own thoughts; but your main thrust seemed to be that, originally, the concepts were interchangeable?

Why is Natural Selection Darwin's puppy alone? Why must Spencer share Survival of the Fittest with Darwin?

And why isn't Survival of the Fittest fit for your classroom?

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Nice straw man you insist on propping up though. Ray Bolger would be happy.

But...... you were the one who entered into the Darwin versus Spencer debate in the first place. Moving Sale did not place any straw man anywhere. But you preferred to dance with him, than with Phibes.

Did you feel more comfortable arguing a dead issue, than a living one (libertarianism as a realistic government ideal)?

To me, you never answered Dr. Phibes question, "Now what can one as a government or people do about this? Tax P5? Through government regulations hinder him? Force him? Imprison him?" regarding his hypothetical. Unless you meant 'Your example, once again, is flawed to the core. It assumes that the amounts you start with MUST control your destiny down the road, regardless of any other factors. Luck plays a HUGE role.' to be that answer. Governments have to have more control over themselves than luck, otherwise they'll be lucky to survive.

Why didn't you want to take Dr. Phibes seriously, Mike? Instead you brushed him off......... in order to fight Darwin versus Spencer. Why was Dr. Phibes question regarding the ultimate fate of a purely libertarian government beneath your notice; but Darwin versus Spencer is worth a week of your time? :?


And now I feel uncomfortable. Here is something beautiful, and green, and relaxing, and Smackaholicish:

Risa wrote:Dr. Phibes didn't mention either Darwin or Spencer, he mentioned 'Survival of the Fittest'. You brought Darwin into this. When Moving Sale called you on it, you had to stick with the date you brung to the dance.

Says who? You? The Queen of Tangents?

Risa wrote:Eventually, with Moving Sale's prodding, you conceded the difference between current thought on the subject, and Darwin and Spencer's own thoughts; but your main thrust seemed to be that, originally, the concepts were interchangeable?

Why is Natural Selection Darwin's puppy alone? Why must Spencer share Survival of the Fittest with Darwin?

Spencer himself said that he got the idea FROM READING DARWIN, you thick-as-lead dullard, and stated that he chose to RENAME THE CONCEPT AS 'SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. Both Darwin and Spencer agree that natural selection was was Darwin's "puppy" (presented BEFORE Spencer coined "survival of the fittest") and that Spencer should get credit for renaming the concept. Why you seem to have a problem with this, I can only attribute to the kind of mental malfunction usually resulting from massive blunt-force trauma to the head. Or lack of oxygen during delivery.

Risa wrote:And why isn't Survival of the Fittest fit for your classroom?

I use the phrase "survival of the fittest" in class, without mentioning Spencer. No real reason to mention him. I have between 80 and 85 class days in which to cram everything in the NYS biology curriculum down the gullets of 14-year-old kids.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Nice straw man you insist on propping up though. Ray Bolger would be happy.

Risa wrote:Moving Sale did not place any straw man anywhere.

You are obtuse.

MS implied -repeatedly- that I teach kids that Darwin and Spencer are the same person.

I never said they were in this debate, nor did I say that I teach kids that they were, hence, the term "straw man."

You really should break out a dictionary some day and look these terms up before attempting to use them in a discussion.

Risa wrote:But you preferred to dance with him, than with Phibes.

The Phibes discussion was over. Done. I made my point.

Risa wrote:To me, you never answered Dr. Phibes question,

Tough shit. I answered it. If you want to know why his attempt at deliberately misrepresenting economic reality didn't help his argument, then re-read what I wrote.

Risa wrote:Why didn't you want to take Dr. Phibes seriously, Mike?

He gave an overly simplistic example that was flawed to the core. How seriously should I take that? I pointed out the flaws in his example. There's no reason for me to devote hours to explaining how a libertarian philosophy would work in is fantasy world, because his fantasy world is so unrealistic (for reasons I explained earlier) that any projections based on it would have NO basis in fact. He completely ignored the impact of managerial competence/incompetence, innovation, public perception and marketing, and sheer dumb luck (good and bad). Hell, if you read his scenario, even HE didn't take it seriously, when he tried to add in a random mishap.

In short - the fact that you wanted me to "dance" more with Phibes than with MS has no bearing upon which debate I "should" have focused. You own statements indicate that you either missed the answers you claim to seek or were (surprise, surprise, too thick to understand them).

"And now I feel uncomfortable."

Good. Now you know how we all feel when we realize you've decided to "grace" us with your presence.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: There's no reason for me to devote hours to explaining how a libertarian philosophy would work in his fantasy world,

erm.. Mike - Libertarian society has never existed. Except maybe Somalia.

because his fantasy world is so unrealistic

Several months ago, Nepal fell to the Communists, not the Libertarians. South America is speeding into socialism, not Libertarianism. One third of the population of this earth was ruled by Communists, 'from ploughshares to atomics' in fourty years. Not terribly fantasic, yeah?

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: There's no reason for me to devote hours to explaining how a libertarian philosophy would work in his fantasy world,

erm.. Mike - Libertarian society has never existed. Except maybe Somalia.

He wasn't addressing anarchy, idiot.

Dr_Chick Corea wrote:One third of the population of this earth was ruled by Communists

Key word being was. It's called political evolution. The music for that tune stopped playing more than a decade ago. The only ones who continue to stay on the dance floor are pathetic tards like you. Lame entertainment, to say the least.

RadioFan wrote: He wasn't addressing anarchy, idiot.

You can equate Anarchy and Libertarianism. It's a bit like Anglican and Episcopalian. In economics ( for people like me and Mike - it's referred to as 'neo liberalism.')

Key word being was. It's called political evolution. The music for that tune stopped playing more than a decade ago. The only ones who continue to stay on the dance floor are pathetic tards like you. Lame entertainment, to say the least.

See Francis Fujiyamas new book, 'I am a discredited moron'. The events I've described are fairly recent and involve very large segments of the world population. (otherwise - outside 'yourtown USA')

Dr_Phibes wrote:The events I've described are fairly recent and involve very large segments of the world population. (otherwise - outside 'yourtown USA')

Are you asking that Americans put down their "lite beer", turn off the NASCAR circle race and
pick up a [shudder] foreign [/shudder] newspaper?

How dare you, sir! That is outrageous!

Well if the various newspapers weren't owned by a fuckstain like Rupert Murdoch, perhaps they'd be worth reading..for their international viewpoint.

But, really, this is the most boring, hollow--yet stuffed--thread I've seen in quite a while. Look at the looooong posts and see how they say NOTHING. Mikey, do you realize you've said NOTHING about Darwin in all the tedious protracted paragraphs you've spewed? Risa, what the fuck is your point?

Be concise!! Be clear. Think carefully. Talk about something important.

Really. This thread is an embarrassment.

As for the actual point, perhaps you'd do well to build on the notion that a nation is only as strong and civilized as the manner in which it treats its weakest members. Be these elderly, infirm, or just fuckups, this barometer is always the accurate gauge.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Risa, what the fuck is your point?

Mike is a snob with blinders on. Phibes deserved a better answer than 'I can't answer you, therefore your question is meaningless'. Moving Sale had Mike by the short curlies because Mike went where Moving Sale went... but Moving Sale wasn't intending any such thing. Mike just gave in to his desire to prove he wasn't wrong.

Other than that, I don't have a point.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Tinypants is reduced to shift key smack. Sad.

Hey Tard it makes a huge difference. Maybe if you fix your lazy eye you might not make that mistake again.

And then there's this:

You REALLy ought to remember that chatboards tend to allow posters to quote what you said earlier.

Pointing out that you lose by default due to a Goodwin's Law type infraction is not tha same as yelling BODE on the merits you stupid piece of ignant trailer trash.

Dimwit.

I didn't fail to notice anything. I said that your biggest defender was Rhesus.

So now you get to decide who is my "biggest defender?" And again... who cares?

I have no reason to mention Spencer in my classroom, since the explanation of natural selection is Darwin's puppy.

So you don't tech SotF and yet you felt the need to bring it up here? Why? You are a tard. You teach at a public school right?

Nice straw man you insist on propping up though. Ray Bolger would be happy.

It's not a strawman you fucking moroon. YOU said they were the same. How is that a strawman?

A missing comma in a reply to shift-key smack? Tsk, tsk...

Moving Sale wrote:Hey Tard it makes a huge difference.

Not to mention... improperly capitalizing tard.

You know what else makes a huge difference?

So you don't tech SotF.

Leaving a letter out of a word... thus making it another word. Spelling, grammar, and typo smack is for bitches.

Bitch.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: Leaving a letter out of a word... thus making it another word. Spelling, grammar, and typo smack is for bitches.

Bitch.

Go fuck yourself you iodiot.

"SotF" & 'SotF' are two different things. That was the point you obtuse fuck.

Moving Sale wrote:"SotF" & 'SotF' are two different things.

That's great. What about tech and teach?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:perhaps you'd do well to build on the notion that a nation is only as strong and civilized as the manner in which it treats its weakest members.

Bullshit.

People on chatboards and from pulpits love to go to the "a nation/society is judges on how it treats its weakest members" line, without a shred of support.

Honestly...when we teach world history, American history, etc., do the textbooks or the instructors HONESTLY make the #1 priority in describing a nation how that nation/regime treated its "weakest members?" Do historians?

No.

It's a nice little line to toss up in hand-wringing arguments like this, especially when people are trying to justify stealing money from one segment of the better-heeled population to redistribute to another segment, but it's not true. Nations are judged on their economic and military impact and how they treated their citizens OVERALL (e.g., were the freedoms of speech, press, religion, respected?). Aside from courses specifically focusing on the topic, I can't imagine any non-Zinn-worshipping instructor spending that much time on the "how they treat the weakest" bit.

Socialist and communist nations haven't been exactly known for their love of freedom of speech, press, or religion, despite their alleged commitment to making things "fair." THAT is how Red China, North Korea, Shining Path, the USSR, have been judged in the court of world opinion...by those they killed and the freedoms they squelched.

Now as for the whole straw man of a pure libertarian society - I just love how idiots like Risa, martard, Fibs, all repeatedly attempt to push me into the corner of defending my alleged belief in a purely libertarian world/nation. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am not, nor have I ever been, one of those wild-eyed, gun-clutching, holed-up-in-a-bunker political purists that people like to portray libertarians as all being. I attended PUBLIC schools up through my first graduate degree, had jobs funded by PUBLIC monies (first through the NIH, then through property taxes, state and federal funding), had FEDERAL loans, and have stated that I don't think that road infrastructure, food & drug inspections, elevator inspections, etc. should be private sector functions. I realize that it's a pretty standard chatboard strategy to force a poster into gradually defending the most extreme versions of their views (e.g, what's being attempted here with libertarianism, the frequent attempts to paint ALL Christians as fundamentalists), but I'm not biting. Setting up a fake little world and then giving short shrift to some of the most important factors in market economies - the unpredictable decision of the buyers, managerial decisions, innovation, unexpected accidents (good and bad), and then trying to portray THAT as the framework in which I'm supposed to defend my alleged views is horseshit. It doesn't help that Risa is so thick-headed as to not be able to read, process, and remember previous posts.

Now, as far as "society's burden" to deal with the "weakest members of society"...it should be left to states, municipalities, private groups (including families, religious groups, private organizations set up for such a purpose, etc.). It is NOT, IMNSHO, the role of the FEDERAL government to deal with it. LBJ's "War on Poverty" is a frigging failure. An expensive, dependency-causing, failure. Having the government steal money from productive members of society to give to the less productive is morally wrong. Charity should not be compulsory.

Moving Sale wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Tinypants is reduced to shift key smack. Sad.

Hey Tard it makes a huge difference.

Really? Why? Did it substantially change the meaning of what I typed as far as the posters/readers here were concerned? Did it cause undo confusion?

Nope.

It was just you grasping at whatever straws you could in order to salvage anything out of this thread to claim some self-esteem.

And then there's this:

Moving Sale wrote:Pointing out that you lose by default due to a Goodwin's Law type infraction is not tha same as yelling BODE on the merits you stupid piece of ignant trailer trash.

YOU tried claiming "bode" first, thus making you a hypocrite. Your lawyerly attempt to spin your hypocrisy otherwise is irrelevant. You tried claiming victory first. The fact is there for all to see.

Moving Sale wrote:So now you get to decide who is my "biggest defender?" And again... who cares?

Well, gee Tinypants, she made a point of defending your shrinking honor in several threads, bring it up even when it was completely out of left field with regards to the topic at hand. And then there's her repeated defending of you in this thread.

Who cares? I like to judge someone by the company they keep. The fact that the biggest tards on the board have taken your side makes it a "perfect storm" of idiocy.

Moving Sale wrote:So you don't tech SotF and yet you felt the need to bring it up here? Why? You are a tard. You teach at a public school right?

I use the phrase "survival of the fittest" (at the underclassman and AP level) in teaching evolution, since DARWIN used it from his 5th edition of "Origins" onward. It's a nifty catchphrase, so he used it, so do I...and so do a hell of a lot of other biologists and bio teachers. Feel free to continue pontificating, however, on what constitutes acceptable biology curricula in your ignorant opinion.

Moving Sale wrote:

Nice straw man you insist on propping up though. Ray Bolger would be happy.

It's not a strawman you fucking moroon. YOU said they were the same. How is that a strawman?

I never said that Darwin WAS Spencer or vice versa. Your claiming that I ever did (link?) proves you to be a liar and your argument that I shouldn't teach something that I never said is a straw man

See what I mean? and *I'm* accused of scroll-wheeling and responding to myself, when I post responses to different people one after the othe?

Mike, let it go, man. You ain't gotta prove nothing. You're roach moteling yourself at this point, though.

Risa wrote:See what I mean? and *I'm* accused of scroll-wheeling and responding to myself, when I post responses to different people one after the othe?

The difference being that Mike's posts are readable. You, on the other hand, ramble all over the place without making so much as a single coherent point.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Bullshit.

especially when people are trying to justify stealing money from one segment of the better-heeled population to redistribute to another segment. Nations are judged on their economic and military impact and how they treated their citizens OVERALL

Socialist and communist nations, despite their alleged commitment to making things "fair," have been judged in world opinion...by those they killed.

I am not holed-up-in-a-bunker.

Okay, Mikey, I just tightened it up a bit and I see your point. And similarly, I surmise your rather drastic--and easy--application of "history" as determining a nation's quality. If the verdict of historians is given such weight, however, how can widely differing opinions be reckoned? Let's say Newt Gingrich decides to write a history book. Does it cancel out Zinn's?

I think you're right on it in suggesting an OVERALL concern for its population is the real benchmark of a society's quality. The separation of rich and poor has exploded in the past fifteen years, largely due to the astonishing tax flight that's occurred in the wake of such criminals as the Reagan crew and the Bushes. The entire Libertarian ideal--and it's a great one--has been so utterly buttfucked past recognition by the likes of every Free Marketer, mega-merging, outsourcing, neocon, right-wing radio hack, Christer fascist, union-busting, FOX whore, that even a lunatic like Ayn Rand wouldn't recognize it.

The REAL purpose of the federal system as Great Mother provider--FDR, LBJ, and yes, Nixon, no one else--was certainly designed for our current aging, overweight, undereducated population.
The TRILLION dollars we're currently throwing down a hole in Iraq could have helped a lot of Americans compete in the world. A lot of education and training, health care and basic comforts to a lot of Americans who want, need and deserve it. And if we consider that the amount of taxes lost in the off-shore shuffle (a practice skyrocketing in Britain, btw) is many many times that, well we can see that our federal system IS well-designed, just not so well managed--and effectively under siege by the utterly criminal Cheney cabal.

No one's suggesting giving fat checks to whinos.

No one's suggesting fat checks for Novisa de Hombre, babs. And, despite the expenditures on illegal immigrants, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the galling waste and war-profiteering occurring now in unprecedented fashion. And--the real issue--the tax-flight is one-hundred times that. So let's not dump on our brown brothers who in Nor Cal, anyway, do a lot of work.

BSmack wrote: The difference being that Mike's posts are readable. You, on the other hand, ramble all over the place without making so much as a single coherent point.

You are being a good comrade to your friend, B - that's admirable. But fair is fair - he got busted for intentionally blurring a line which is quite specific. When you start building a world view on top of unjustifiable extrapolations, it only leads to trouble - and by trouble, I mean lazy mexicans.

A little self-criticism from Mike himself would be in order.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Did it substantially change the meaning of what I typed as far as the posters/readers here were concerned?

Yes. Happy?

YOU tried claiming "bode" first, thus making you a hypocrite.

I never claimed BODE. I said I won 'cause you fed the troll. Big difference.

I like to judge someone by the company they keep.

YOU are keeping company with her and you have the nerve to say it is the other way around? Do you work for Bush?

I never said that Darwin WAS Spencer or vice versa.

It is the whole premise of your argument tard.

Anything else before this gets to page 8 you fucking dick?

This is a great thread

Perhaps you fucking MORONS aren't getting the picture!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/marlboroug ... a6425.html

Are we about done here?