Why does the evolutionary process exist?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
Yeah I just like to get the point in that we are all instinctive discriminators, for the benifits of the extreme PC people.Theoryofrelativity said:
I Agree I think you do get unfairly treated as dumb though, but you give back that which you recieve well.
imaplanck. said:
Re being treated as dumb, only the truth hurts, and of course being insulted by lesser men never hurts. So it is more akin to the annoyance experienced when a fly hovers round my donut. Shall I swat said fly or should I eat my donut and give the fly no passing thought. Depends rather on my mood. Either way I eat my donut
(I know my analogies suck! lol)
Theoryofrelativity said:
You shouldn't use big words that you don't understand, it makes you look even more idiotic, if that were possible. Better stick to one or two syllable words.
Gee, it only took you how many months to learn that one thing?
Oh-oh, there's those big words, again.
The people you know must be idiots, too.
It's a good thing you finally changed your signature line. 'Ad Hominem Police' made you look the hypocrite you've so successfully shown us to be on so many occasions.
Of course, I'm sure if you tried real hard, you could put together a much better insult then that because you're Smart Talented Unique Person In Demand.
Q I know this is hard for you , so I'll make it brief, I don't need to be in demand I am self sufficient.
With regards to the ad hom thing, I got bored of retards like you thinking Ad hom meant insult and whining about insults as you have again here promoting your stupidity again yawwwwwwwwwwn, look up Ad hom in wikipidea you may learn something. Though I doubt it.
Back to my donut now........yummmmmmm
here we are for all other Q's out there
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.
In Logic
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect."
Thus attacking the argument and insulting at same time is NOT Ad hom.
Unless you have something intelligent to say, do not say anything Q. Stick to star gazing.
With regards to the ad hom thing, I got bored of retards like you thinking Ad hom meant insult and whining about insults as you have again here promoting your stupidity again yawwwwwwwwwwn, look up Ad hom in wikipidea you may learn something. Though I doubt it.
Back to my donut now........yummmmmmm
here we are for all other Q's out there
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.
In Logic
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect."
Thus attacking the argument and insulting at same time is NOT Ad hom.
Unless you have something intelligent to say, do not say anything Q. Stick to star gazing.
Last edited:
(Q) said:
It is not an issue of authority.
If you don't want to accept it you are not obliged to.
That is your own business, to decide.
--- Ron.
(Q) said:
the only thing you have likely got Q is crabs
(that's Ad hom incase you weren't clear)
I take it back, you have to have sex to catch crabs, perhaps neck ache from looking for God in the sky all the time....
(Note the complete absence of reference to the point of debate)
A technique you are very familiar with I know but as you accused me of it when I addressed the point of debate (most often me as you only ever mentioned me) they were thus not ad homs.
Night night sweetest, try to have another thought, lest the other one die of lonliness.
(Q) said:
cute, is it your new 'tag'? suits you. I am surprised at your level of self awareness.
This thread has always been shit.
swivel said:
you can blame the lame ad hom squad for that swivel, they can't stick to the point
anyway what do you know about sterile neutrino's, did they have something to do with the big bang or Origin of life?
I asked Super what sterile neutrino's had to do with big bang and origin of life on Earth, he replied thus:
“ Originally Posted by superluminal
You mean as opposed to fertile neutrinos? I would say that sterile neutrinos would have very little to do with the origin of life. Unless these so-called sterile neutrinos are actually asexual budding entities. If an asexual "sterile" neutrino could bud off a baby neutrino then we'd have something. But this has not been shown in any conclusive way. The fertile neutrino, now, that's another story. Never been detected, but it could nicely explain the origin of life on earth and the universe. They would be able to penetrate deep into anything they encountered and thus spawn life almost anywhere.
Those are my ideas. ”
My reply:
you are winding me up, never mind
I just found this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...30128075950.htm
"Neutrinos are invisible, uncharged, nearly massless particles that, unlike other kinds of radiation, speed through the universe unhindered by planets, stars, magnetic fields or entire galaxies. The particles are emitted by phenomena scientists believe can help them understand the origins of the universe. "
and this for your reference re 'sterile' neutrino's
"The possibility of sterile neutrinos — neutrinos which do not participate in the weak interaction but which could be created through flavor oscillation (see below) — is unaffected by these Z-boson-based measurements, and the existence of such particles is in fact supported by experimental data from LSND. The correspondence between the six - currently known - quarks in the Standard Model and the six leptons, among them the three neutrinos, provides additional evidence that there should be exactly three types. However, conclusive proof that there are only three kinds of neutrinos remains an elusive goal of particle physics."
They are a 'missing ingredient' of that I am sure.
“ Originally Posted by superluminal
You mean as opposed to fertile neutrinos? I would say that sterile neutrinos would have very little to do with the origin of life. Unless these so-called sterile neutrinos are actually asexual budding entities. If an asexual "sterile" neutrino could bud off a baby neutrino then we'd have something. But this has not been shown in any conclusive way. The fertile neutrino, now, that's another story. Never been detected, but it could nicely explain the origin of life on earth and the universe. They would be able to penetrate deep into anything they encountered and thus spawn life almost anywhere.
Those are my ideas. ”
My reply:
you are winding me up, never mind
I just found this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...30128075950.htm
"Neutrinos are invisible, uncharged, nearly massless particles that, unlike other kinds of radiation, speed through the universe unhindered by planets, stars, magnetic fields or entire galaxies. The particles are emitted by phenomena scientists believe can help them understand the origins of the universe. "
and this for your reference re 'sterile' neutrino's
"The possibility of sterile neutrinos — neutrinos which do not participate in the weak interaction but which could be created through flavor oscillation (see below) — is unaffected by these Z-boson-based measurements, and the existence of such particles is in fact supported by experimental data from LSND. The correspondence between the six - currently known - quarks in the Standard Model and the six leptons, among them the three neutrinos, provides additional evidence that there should be exactly three types. However, conclusive proof that there are only three kinds of neutrinos remains an elusive goal of particle physics."
They are a 'missing ingredient' of that I am sure.
'Origin of life' and 'origin of the universe' are not synonyms.
Theoryofrelativity said:
Don't sell yourself short. Your stupidity was a major driving force.
TheoryOfRelativity:
I find myself increasingly delighted, though often we might disagree in part, of not only what you bring to the table, but how you bring it. Stand and do not falter.
Oh and (Q), come now, let us not become a parody of ourselves, shall we?
I find myself increasingly delighted, though often we might disagree in part, of not only what you bring to the table, but how you bring it. Stand and do not falter.
Oh and (Q), come now, let us not become a parody of ourselves, shall we?
Prince_James said:
I am fortunate that those I respect here and whose opinion I value 'get' me (most of the time at least ;0 )
(note agreement is not sought only comprehension and freedom to express)
Thank you
Last edited: