#Gamergate and all things SJW

khorum

Murder Apologist
23,811
79,482
160d 11h 16m
People who hate the book and have never read it essentially believe that you could pick the Vikings in Civ, start in the middle of the desert, and would easily and knowingly conquer the Numidians who started next to a river and a coast line, with 4 grain tiles, 1 iron tile, 2 hill tiles, and 5 grassland tiles.... because you picked the Vikings.

That is the super-duper simplified version of it.
That's easily answered with the same logic that unravels Diamond's thesis: if you start the vikings in the middle of the mississippi river basin, they conquer the world and win the game in record time. In fact, a bunch of viking descendants sit on that basin now and DO rule the world. The Mandans and the Plains Indians who sat on that same basin for thirty thousand years never progressed past the neolithic age, though they had contact with the Anasazi enough to trade for their pottery and agriculture.

You could stick the chugs in the Ruhr river valley of the North European Plain three thousand turns ago and they wouldn't have fared any better. They wouldn't have developed metallurgy. They wouldn't have resisted the Roman Legions in the early game and they'd be just as nearly extinct in that game as they are in this one.

On the other hand that Incans had virtually no usable arable land and still built the most complex road network outside of western Europe across the spine of the Andes and through tributaries of the Amazon and its attendant rainforests.

For every sad sack cargo cult Jared Diamond could explain away with malarial jungles or shitty weather, there are ancient incans and transsiberian steppe people who had similarly shitty starting positions but whose roads and monuments survive to this day.
 

iannis

LYING DOG FACED PONY SOLDIER
29,601
13,882
76d 12h 46m
Soft land makes soft people. Hard land makes hard people. But hard people don't love hardness for its own sake (awrance, only the English love the desert) and being hard they go take the soft land. Which, eventually, makes them soft people.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: khorum

khorum

Murder Apologist
23,811
79,482
160d 11h 16m
Nature doesn't suffer weakness. All the soft people are dead. All these limp-wristed hipster fucks are just COMPLACENT. Somewhere in them is still an unbroken legacy with a thousand generations of unblinking genocidal savages.

When push comes to shove, they'll remember how to shove.
 

GuardianX

Perpetually Pessimistic
<Bronze Donator>
2,930
6,952
Depends on circumstances. Drunk you might get homicide, even if it wasn’t your intent. Otherwise manslaughter.

point is you’re being criminally charged for the intentional or unintentional death of a zygote/barely developed fetus with the same weight of an actual developed and living person
Your intent is to get people to what, feel sympathy for a person causing loss of life?

What about the person caused to miscarriage?

Hell, I'll even use your logic, that "zygote" has value, emotional and monetary.

The general value associated with a successfully implanted fertilized egg is, at minimum, about 5000 USD. Would you be fine with a MisD being issued for the value of the "life" being lost?

What about another stage of hypothetical.

The "zygote" lost was the first successful implant in a series of implants, medical cost in the hundreds of thousands. Should insurance and the family be compensated for the full value of that "Zygote"?

DEEPER!

On top of losing the "Zygote" the family discovers that the woman is now 100% without ability to carry a pregnancy after the accident. Should she be compensated for that as well?

I mean all of this makes sense in a logic world.

Damages were had, damaged party unable to recover fully, monetary losses.

What would your take on such a story be?
 

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
25,253
68,488
105d 6h 33m
Not to re-derail the thread with this late reply, but when you mentioned sirtuins and I saw the diagrams you linked it reminded me that I'd heard of Sinclair before. He co-founded the now defunct Sirtris Pharmaceuticals and received a lot of attention peddling resveratrol (that compound in grapes and red wine that was all the rage about a decade ago) as a wonder anti-aging drug because of its supposed role as a SIRT1 activator. Lo and behold, resveratrol doesn't actually produce the effects he touted it for, but this wasn't discovered until after his company was bought out by GSK for 700+ million. I won't outright call him a snakeoil salesman, but his credibility is certainly suspect following these events.

As for the sirtuins themselves, while they don't feature in his Google talk, apparently his recent book still focuses on them as the key to aging despite their significance remaining an open question. I think an informational theory of aging is an interesting foundation to build on, but if the takeaway is that research should be directed at very specific biological mediators like sirtuins then it's probably for the purpose of developing novel pharmaceuticals, not to gain a better understanding of the issue in context.

In that wider context, contradictions begin to arise when considering that the systemic effect of SIRT1 expression is a shift toward the oxidation of fatty acids (beta-oxidation) over glucose (see Randle cycle) for energy production, and lipolysis is a common factor in the growth and proliferation of cancers (SIRT1 has a role in promoting leukemia along these lines). Yet the treadmill segment in Sinclair's video depicts an old rodent on NMN (a nicotinamide derivative that works as a potent inhibitor of beta-oxidation with consequent anti-cancer effects); this inhibition is the same underlying mechanism for the performance-enhancing effects of the functionally similar substance meldonium, which was banned by the WADA (as tennis player Maria Sharapova found out the hard way a few years ago). That mouse was literally doping.

What's this got to do with fasting? Well, the fasting state closely resembles the defective cancer "metabolism", which is characterized by production of lactic acid at rest and in the presence of oxygen (so-called aerobic glycolysis) as glucose and stored glycogen are depleted, elevating stress hormones like cortisol which shift the system toward lipolysis with ongoing tissue catabolism to provide amino acids for conversion to fatty acids in order to continue running the inefficient cycle. This is great if you're looking to lose weight quickly (at the cost of lean muscle mass), but it's unlikely to be a good longevity strategy since ideas about the metabolic origins of cancer are being increasingly acknowledged.

So in light of it all, I'm seriously wary of lifestyle hacks like fasting, intermittent or otherwise, as an anti-aging device, not least of all because any conclusive evidence for/against it in humans requires cohort studies that'll be a long time coming.
you should post more
 

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
25,253
68,488
105d 6h 33m
Hey Xeq, if humans discover single cell organisms on Mars, have we found life on Mars?
If this is the logic to not do an early abortion then you should have starved to death or killed yourself long ago for the amount of cellular "life" you are constantly destroying.

just saying
 
Last edited:

GuardianX

Perpetually Pessimistic
<Bronze Donator>
2,930
6,952
If this is the logic to not do an early abortion then you should have starved to death or killed yourself long ago for the amount of cellular "life" you are constantly destroying.

just saying
I mean...there is an entire dietary style devoted to refusing of food based on certain emotional based factors.

I guess people who disagree with abortion at any stage are kinda like vegans in a way. I guess the only difference is, when we go out to eat, instead of asking you to refrain from eating meat and products forced from animals, we ask if you killed any babies lately. You know, common dinner topics.
 

AladainAF

Hard truths cut both ways
<Gold Donor>
8,672
21,295
44d 5h 45m
If this is the logic to not do an early abortion then you should have starved to death or killed yourself long ago for the amount of cellular "life" you are constantly destroying.

just saying
No, it's not the logic I'm using to do an early abortion. It's the logic I'm trying to use when Xeq determines something has "life" or not. Science generally considers single celled organisms a "life". Why?

edit: IDGAF about abortion, i just want to know Xeqs logic, it seems broken, unless im misunderstanding it.
 
Last edited:

Xequecal

Potato del Grande
7,962
-2,027
82d 20h 52m
No, it's not the logic I'm using to do an early abortion. It's the logic I'm trying to use when Xeq determines something has "life" or not. Science generally considers single celled organisms a "life". Why?

edit: IDGAF about abortion, i just want to know Xeqs logic, it seems broken, unless im misunderstanding it.
Single celled organisms will only ever be single celled organisms. If I cut my finger and drip blood in the sink, does the sink now contain life because the blood cells haven't died yet?

Also, even if one concedes that life does begin at conception, it doesn't suddenly become a requirement to grant that life full human and legal rights from that instant, like a lot of red states are trying to do.