COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 594

starting strength gym
Page 594 of 845 FirstFirst ... 94494544584592593594595596604644694 ... LastLast
Results 5,931 to 5,940 of 8445

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #5931
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,241

    Default

    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    • wichita falls texas february 2021 seminar
    • starting strength seminar april 2021
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You flatter yourself, sir.

    And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you .. the brave men of Black Lives Matter: https://twitter.com/i/status/1296985124681256960

    Such nauseating pussies. I'm sorry for posting this, but this is an important insight. Mothafuckin' animal mothafucka be dead!!! Black lives matter, mothafuckas!!!!!!!

    This is how you win the 2020 election?
    There are certain things I never want to see again and that’s one of them.

  2. #5932
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Prick oughta get the same treatment.

  3. #5933
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    2,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I'm thinking that the old "property owners" standard for the franchise might be the way to go.
    12 years of Public "Education", but at no time is the student given a test of any sort to demonstrate that they are intellectually capable, much less informed enough, to vote.

    Seems like there could easily be a process, which of course would be raciss and sexciss, where you have to take a test along with your ballot to qualify it for being counted.

    Hell. Making it entirely write in would be a hell of an improvement.

    But the logistic might be hard, so fuck the Republic.

  4. #5934
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnKreg View Post
    OK, this is without trying too hard (highest return on Google query), but I think the abstract (though a bit partisan toward homo sapiens in it's rhetoric) and the listed references give a decent indication as to recent scholarship in this area (as of 2006):

    Nonhuman Species’ Reactions to Inequity and their Implications for Fairness | SpringerLink

    The monkey part, at least, shouldn't really surprise anyone, I wouldn't think as they tend to show some component of most of our social behaviors... I would have thought that was fairly uncontroversial. The fact that other more distant species also seem to have basic fair distribution concepts is maybe more surprising if you haven't thought about it all much.
    I'm not going to give Springer $40 to read this, but the abstract is really enough:

    Abstract
    It is well known that humans respond negatively to inequity, but until recently little has been known about such responses in animals. Previous observational research in animals has shown hints that animals do respond to inequity. Chimpanzees respond with temper tantrums if they do not get what they desire, social canids refuse to play with individuals who violate social rules, and ravens show third party intervention against norm violations. Recent experimental work with nonhuman primates has given us a more detailed understanding. Capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees both respond negatively to distributional inequity. Moreover, chimpanzees show significant variation in response depending upon the social group they inhabit, with those from a short-term group or a relatively asocial living situation showing a much greater response to inequity than those from a long-term stable group. This mirrors human variation in responses to inequity, which are based upon the quality of the relationship. In this paper, I attempt to define “fairness” in a way that is useful for nonhuman studies and clarify what aspects are being examined in animal societies. I then place the animal work in the context of the studies on humans, especially as related to research in social psychology and economics. I conclude that studying the inequity response in animals is useful for a number of reasons, including the opportunity to gain insight into how this response functions in less complex organisms and social systems and clarification of our understanding of the evolution of this behavior.
    Yes, it's fascinating that animals have evolved to desire what they want if they don't have it. This is not even interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haghstull View Post
    Ask yourself this: if the elements of the cultural left that have been associated with BLM were "winning", then would a lifetime advocate for law enforcement who has championed some of the U.S.'s most notorious law and order policy initiatives in the past 50 years and his ex-Prosecutor VP be polling at +11 nationally?
    You don't even understand the polls. It's really fascinating that you are this stupid. I'll ask you again: Please go somewhere else to type.

    Quote Originally Posted by neilc1 View Post
    Prick oughta get the same treatment.
    It's long overdue.

  5. #5935
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You flatter yourself, sir.

    And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you .. the brave men of Black Lives Matter: https://twitter.com/i/status/1296985124681256960

    Such nauseating pussies. I'm sorry for posting this, but this is an important insight. Mothafuckin' animal mothafucka be dead!!! Black lives matter, mothafuckas!!!!!!!

    This is how you win the 2020 election?
    Maybe I missed something, but they didn't seem to be doing some kind of black lives matter protest there. I think that might have just been some black people being shitty human beings. I'll concede it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes as those two activities seem to have an awful lot of overlap.

    As for restricting who gets to vote, while there are problems it definitely solves, I feel like new loopholes will be opened for people in government to exploit, ones we may not be able to close once they get through. If who gets to vote is limited to people who meet any set of criteria, I feel the inevitable result will be politicians making sure only people THEY want to be able to vote will meet those criteria. If only property tax payers get to vote, I think we're gonna eventually see more of the population forced into renting apartments in buildings owned by cronies of politicians. It'll be a slow change, but those are usually the most dangerous ones, because people don't notice those until it's too late. Doesn't mean we don't still have a different big problem right now, which is the strategy I call "vote farming", where they foster large concentrations of people reliant on state programs to get by, forcing them to vote for the program providers. This results in the rest of the populace being cannibalized to feed this growing demographic. I get that. I wish I knew a good way to fix it.

  6. #5936
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    Maybe I missed something, but they didn't seem to be doing some kind of black lives matter protest there. I think that might have just been some black people being shitty human beings. I'll concede it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes as those two activities seem to have an awful lot of overlap.
    This is entirely possible. I'm waiting on clarification from BLM. Has that happened yet? "Disavowal"? As of right now,

    When someone on social media objected, a BLM supporter responded “Worry about the police killing Black people, you’re worried about an animal, crazy”.

    Another said: “Only white peoples worry about this.”
    As it stands now, these are sub-human pieces of shit.

  7. #5937
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Yes, it's fascinating that animals have evolved to desire what they want if they don't have it. This is not even interesting.
    The point is that they respond negatively to cheating and unequal distribution of resources -- not just for themselves but as a way of maintaining group cohesion. If you tried to simply describe the behaviors that underlie our elevated notions of justice as an ethologist as opposed to a party to some dispute or other, it wouldn't sound much more elevated that what you can read in this abstract. I'll try to do better in terms of providing some sources. I don't think my point is really so controversial, though people who are used to only thinking within certain frames (the human political for example) may find the point jarring (looking at you MEH).

  8. #5938
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnKreg View Post
    The point is that they respond negatively to cheating and unequal distribution of resources -- not just for themselves but as a way of maintaining group cohesion.
    Have you read the paper? The abstract does not demonstrate this, because it's an abstract. And even if the paper does, it's still not interesting.

    __________________________________________________ __________________

    Now, here's a fascinating fact. The population of Uganda is 42,729,000. They have had a total of 19 deaths attributed to COVID-19, out of a reported 1750 cases. The death rate in Uganda from COVID-19 is therefore 0.000044%. Anyone care to speculate about why this might be? Might it have something to do with Hydroxychloroquin, chloroquin, and ivermectin?

  9. #5939
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Animal studies will show whatever the researcher wants them to show.

  10. #5940
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    4

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    It's funny that after reading this thread silently for half a year, this is the (bad science, manipulative, sleight of hand, limited scope) point which finally compels me to speak up.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnKreg View Post
    The point is that they respond negatively to cheating and unequal distribution of resources
    From page 286 of The Coddling of the American Mind, by the noted and eminently reasonable liberal psychologist, Jonathan Haidt:

    DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

    Sharing plays a big role in the moral lives of children, and they get a lot of practice dividing things equally. If there are four kids and twelve jelly beans, each kid should get three. Obviously. But what do kids do when the jelly beans are a reward for cleaning up the classroom, and one kid did most of the work while another kid did nothing? Even toddlers seem to recognize the importance of proportionality. In one experiment, two-year-olds showed signs of being surprised when two people were rewarded equally if only one of them did any work. By the age of six, kids show a clear preference for rewarding the hard worker in a group, even if equal pay is an option. At young ages, kids have trouble following this intuition when it means that they themselves get less reward, but by adolescence, they are much better at applying proportionality to themselves. Developmental psychologists Christina Starmans, Mark Sheskin, and Paul Bloom reviewed the research on fairness in children and concluded that "humans naturally favour fair distributions, not equal ones," and "when fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair inequality."


    References (for the motivated):
    - Damon (1979)
    - Kanngiesser & Warneken (2012)
    - Alamas, Cappelen, Sorensen, & Tungodden (2010)
    - Starmans, Sheskin, & Bloom (2017)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •