Morgan Freeman: "I'm marrying my step-grandduaghter, b!tches!"

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

without looking anything up for yourself

It took me 5 min on pubmed to find a reliable answer. Burden of proof or not, that shows a fairly impressive lack of willingness to verify what you think is right.

I mean, regardless of who should be proving a point, I tend to look things up so that I know what is true...

or can at least defend my position better than repeating "sampling bias" over and over

yeah, repeating a valid refutal of evidence-as-fact makes it false.

would you really sacrifice your own integrity just to white knight your friend?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
yeah, repeating a valid refutal of evidence-as-fact makes it false.

can you name a single study that has no issue with sampling bias?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
would you really sacrifice your own integrity just to white knight your friend?

I'm quite confident in the appraisals anyone who reads this thread will make of my integrity, though I'm glad you care.

white knight? awwww, precious, do you think we are ganging up now?

FFS, inimalist. You ruined everything. facepalm

Originally posted by inimalist
From what I can find on pubmed, it seems to be an accepted fact, though I doubt most researchers would claim it was genetic (and DDM has only made a soft genetic argument anyways).

I was certainly unable to find anyone questioning or providing evidence against the idea, though I do recommend you look through what Pubmed might have.

While I do appreciate you citing more studies, I did not want to "feed the trolls". You know from our past medical-related arguments, that I flock to pubmed like it's the bible. Discussions or debates with Chumps are never serious: it is just a pissing match. Basically, I was avoiding any serious/direct source from Chumps to not give him the satisfaction of making me do something: you took that from me. 🙁 He KNOWS I am right and is just trolling. Now I do not have the satisfaction of not having "fed the trolls". Well, I guess I do since you cited but I did not want vindication. I was happy leaving the original source as something awful and another source with a broken link (frustrating Chumps troll demands).

His vendetta against me is personal and he has voiced such off the boards. He only needed one credible source (he provided it...lol). From there, the discussion should have ended unless he provided another, contradictory, study. He did not do so. He did not do so because he was just trolling.

And, yes, I pointed out earlier today that "environment" seems to impact when puberty starts. I believe I linked it to stress (I cannot remember what I said on the topic).

I also think that those with strong Sub-Saharan African ancestry also sexually mature sooner for partially genetic reasons. Then there is the idea that hotter climates cause the onset of puberty, sooner: I am not sure about this last part. I read, a few years ago, that the reason African Americans still carry with them an earlier arrival of puberty is due to their hotter climate origins. If that is true then that would lend a "genetic" cause to a sooner menstruation. That would not be final, but it would still be applicable to the point.

he quoted but one study with a sharp sampling bias and called it fact. you rushed in and rescued him with a body of study that he should have researched himself and then attempt to blame me for his fumble.

so yes, it is obvious white knighting. and yes it is precious. 😍

Originally posted by focus4chumps
he quoted but one study with a sharp sampling bias and called it fact. you rushed in and rescued him with a body of study that he should have researched himself and then attempt to blame me for his fumble.

so yes, it is obvious white knighting. and yes it is precious. 😍

???

I spent the better part of my morning researching a massive post with the specific intention of discrediting something DDM posted...

how you can possibly see my actions as attempting to blame you for his mistakes...

clearly you are the victim here. big bad inimalist holds you to a basic standard of looking up data to back up what you post, golly gee willickers!

Originally posted by dadudemon
FFS, inimalist. You ruined everything. facepalm

me and science are tight, can't let that stuff slide

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ddm, you only provided one valid study. (and a white supremacist site if you want that to count as 2). [b]the authors of that study admitted a bias in the method of collecting data.

but no matter. inimalist has done your homework (out of pity?). [/B]

Interesting take.

IMO, I provided no studies. I do not remember citing any studies, directly.

I provided 2 or 3 sources that discussed studies but I do not remember posting a link to any study.

Keep in mind that I did beacon you to talk with me outside of KMC, twice. Do you know why?

Originally posted by inimalist
afaik none of those are incorrect and aren't even really controversial...

It would be like saying black people go to jail more often than whites.

I think you might be conflating simple facts with value judgements

That might be obvious to you, but not to Chumps. They are controversial statements to knee-jerking liberals.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm quite confident in the appraisals anyone who reads this thread will make of my integrity, though I'm glad you care.

white knight? awwww, precious, do you think we are ganging up now?

I do not believe he is aware of how colorful our debates have gotten in the past. You would be one of the last people I would expect to "white knight" me in a discussion.

Originally posted by inimalist
???

I spent the better part of my morning researching a massive post with the specific intention of discrediting something DDM posted...

See...I ****in' knew it.

Chumps, if you needed any sort of evidence that inimalist is NOT in my corner...

Originally posted by inimalist
???

I spent the better part of my morning researching a massive post with the specific intention of discrediting something DDM posted...

how you can possibly see my actions as attempting to blame you for his mistakes...

clearly you are the victim here. big bad inimalist holds you to a basic standard of looking up data to back up what you post, golly gee willickers!

when did i claim that the point was wrong? oh wait. i didnt.

your contempt is transparent, as you (deliberately?) still fail to see that i made no claim either for or against the idea that blacks mature quicker than whites. i refuted ddm's lazy evidence gathering and flailing about.

now quick, post another snippy comment with baseless assertions about me, in order to prove that you are totally not emotionally invested in this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not believe he is aware of how colorful our debates of gotten in the past. You would be one of the last people I would expect to "white knight" me in a discussion.

no, I almost wrote in something about that as well

you are cool, but I really don't see myself swooping in to rescue you from... God, I don't even get the analogy.

Seems more like a cognitive bias in chumps to see any disagreement as a coordinated strike. Telltale symptom of paranoid delusion. If chumps is in the 15-25 year old, male, range, I'd suggest he be on the lookout for other signs of schizophrenia. That is the demographic range when that type of stuff shows up.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
when did i claim that the point was wrong? oh wait. i didnt.

This seems conclusive enough, depending on how pedantic you want to get (and certainly they are definitive statements that you could have verified with a simple Pubmed search [you would have discovered you were wrong]):

Originally posted by focus4chumps
-there is no conclusive proof that environmental issues cause black girls to mature sooner than white girls.

-secondly, there is no conclusive proof that black girls to mature sooner on average than white girls.

also, I never said you claimed the fact was wrong, simply that you weren't backing up things you were in fact claiming.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
your contempt is transparent, as you (deliberately?) still fail to see that i made no claim either for or against the idea that blacks mature quicker than whites. i refuted ddm's lazy evidence gathering and flailing about.

yes, you refuted it based on no knowledge you had. Like I said, you can claim "burden of proof" all you want, and if that makes you feel like you have put in the requisite effort to know things, hey, cool, don't let my standards make you feel bad.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I almost wrote in something about that as well

you are cool, but I really don't see myself swooping in to rescue you from... God, I don't even get the analogy.

Seems more like a cognitive bias in chumps to see any disagreement as a coordinated strike. Telltale symptom of paranoid delusion. If chumps is in the 15-25 year old, male, range, I'd suggest he be on the lookout for other signs of schizophrenia. That is the demographic range when that type of stuff shows up.

I do not like this type of commentary from you: the moment when you bring out your psychology tools. Put that shit away. 😐.

Yes, I jest...

but...no...for real... 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not like this type of commentary from you: the moment when you bring out your psychology tools. Put that shit away. 😐.

Yes, I jest...

but...no...for real... 🙁

its a joke

or... no, wait... I'm going to start a new career diagnosing people online 🙂

Originally posted by focus4chumps
when did i claim that the point was wrong? oh wait. i didnt.

My mistake: I was under the impression that you were saying it was wrong mostly because I posted words painting your position as such and I did not get corrected. I still consider "no differences between the races" to still be a positive assertion: you did make that assertion.

If that is the case, you still were burdened with backing up such a claim if you took the conversation as serious business (I do not believe you ever did).

Originally posted by inimalist
its a joke

or... no, wait... I'm going to start a new career diagnosing people online 🙂

There's no way I can tell. You could make a bunch of shit up and as long as it vaguely checked out, most of us would not know the wiser. Don't you realize how much power you have over laymen? I was right there...ready to believe that shit.

Edit - Oh...right. You mentioned that very same fact in the Atheism thread: the willingness to believe more readily with a college education.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's no way I can tell. You could make a bunch of shit up and as long as it vaguely checked out, most of us would not know the wiser. Don't you realize how much power you have over laymen? I was right there...ready to believe that shit.

I care too much about the truth though. also, i'm not even close to a clinician, my opinion on that kind of stuff is little better than an informed layman.

to be fair though, most of what I said was true (the range is closer to 18-25, I was trying to be inclusive of a range I suspected focus fell into), it is simply that diagnosing someone as "paranoid delusional" over a message board is fairly sloppy

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Oh...right. You mentioned that very same fact in the Atheism thread: the willingness to believe more readily with a college education.

oh ya, its pretty bad. I know I am able to make arguments good enough to convince myself of whatever I want. I do my best to go out of my way to be increasingly skeptical of things that validate what I believe, even moreso than things I disagree with entirely. Obviously it isn't always possible, but it is an attempt.

That said, oh ya, having an education in psych certainly has convinced me I know stuff about psych and that people should trust my opinion... its like the ultimate feeling of futility, I know how bad cognitive biases can be but I am powerless to do anything about them

Originally posted by inimalist
This seems conclusive enough, depending on how pedantic you want to get (and certainly they are definitive statements that you could have verified with a simple Pubmed search [you would have discovered you were wrong]):

i was hasty in that post and did not intend those points as absolute statements. the intended context was in conclusion to his sited source. however as i was overly eager and clumsy in that post, so i stand corrected and retract that statement, in its form.

with that aside, i think you already suspected this.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, I never said you claimed the fact was wrong, simply that you weren't backing up things you were in fact claiming.

again, i was not claiming anything. i was refuting cited evidence.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, you refuted it based on no knowledge you had. Like I said, you can claim "burden of proof" all you want, and if that makes you feel like you have put in the requisite effort to know things, hey, cool, don't let my standards make you feel bad.

burden of proof is on the one who asserts the claim to prove it. saying "oh stop it you silly nilly!" does not alter this reality.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
burden of proof is on the one who asserts the claim to prove it. saying "oh stop it you silly nilly!" does not alter this reality. deal with it?

sure, and you refuted his point wrongly, because you couldn't be asked to take 2 min to look it up.

I don't disagree, burden of proof was on DDM. If that, to you, justifies contending his point from a position of total ignorance, fine. I expect much more of myself (as is demonstrated in this thread, where I have settled at least 2 questions even though the burden of proof was never mine), but I can't set standards for you.

If you have met what you think is an appropriate standard of knowledge to refute someone's point, then I cannot judge, other than to say it falls quite short of my own standards, for reasons I have outlined (one of these being the fact you turned out to be wrong on a very easy to verify point).

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i was hasty in that post and did not intend those points as absolute statements. the intended context was in conclusion to his sited source. however as i was overly eager and clumsy in that post, so i stand corrected and retract that statement, in its form.

with that aside, i think you already suspected this.

I know this was directed at inimalist, but:

Very well. My bad. To me, it was quite obvious you made a positive assertion/claim and you only needed to prove it to contradict me. I was relatively satisfied that you had done so (that you proved my point) with the study you cited and wanted to leave it at that....including the disclaimer you kept harping on at the end.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
burden of proof is on the one who asserts the claim to prove it. saying "oh stop it you silly nilly!" does not alter this reality.

Not always.

It is in the definition, at times, of what is being claimed. Negative claims sometimes require proof.

"Global warming is false."

That's a negative claim. However, one would have to prove, with a very complicated thermodynamic system that did not extend beyond this solar system, that it is false. They do so by making a positive claim: global mean temperatures are in normal ranges with no loss or gaining of energy in another portion of the system.

On the surface, it is a rejection of a positive claim. However, it is also a positive claim.

Both parties involved would need to prove their position:

Mean temperatures and/or the related systems are fairly even OR

Mean temperatures and/or ther related systems are showing a positive increase in heat related energy.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, and you refuted his point wrongly, because you couldn't be asked to take 2 min to look it up.

I don't disagree, burden of proof was on DDM. If that, to you, justifies contending his point from a position of total ignorance, fine. I expect much more of myself (as is demonstrated in this thread, where I have settled at least 2 questions even though the burden of proof was never mine), but I can't set standards for you.

If you have met what you think is an appropriate standard of knowledge to refute someone's point, then I cannot judge, other than to say it falls quite short of my own standards, for reasons I have outlined (one of these being the fact you turned out to be wrong on a very easy to verify point).

well you obviously don't agree as you are attempting to amend the rule. your personal standards do not play into this.

and again, avoiding a retraction (generously given considering its painfully obvious context) in order to continue hammering at a false accusation (that i made an opposing claim to the theory, as opposed to simply thwarting stated evidence) is a sign of pettiness.

dude, I'm clearly saying if you have no issues with your standards, that is both fine and your prerogative. I'm not trying to change anything, merely suggesting I demand better than the absolute minimum from myself, but really, I can't say much if that is what you expect from yourself.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
and again, avoiding a retraction (generously given considering its painfully obvious context) in order to continue hammering at a false accusation (that i made an opposing claim to the theory, as opposed to simply thwarting stated evidence) is a sign of pettiness.

hysterical

You should have just taken one of my requests to go to GS Chat.

You have no idea how hard it was finding a credible website with a broken link.