Steerzing in a New Direction...

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3481

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: But rather sad that sexworkers get a far worse press than they really deserve, that theirs is seen as a less than "honourable profession":
Explain what you mean by "honourable" if you think it is wrong to say that being a prostitute is less than honourable?
It's a common phrase - some lawyers even claim to be engaged in one of them. Partly why I put it in quotes. And partly because most people don't think prostitution qualifies.
No, well.... from a moral perspective that looks on prostitution as a moral ill, I don't suppose they would. That that moral perspective is wrong is your subjective opinion.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: <snip>
Perhaps she was born to "walk in pride", but then she decided to become a prostitute. Lots of antisocial behaviours result in society looking on the people who do them with scorn. Near me we have gangs of professional begging pretend cripples. Is that too an honourable profession?
Rather doubt begging provides much in the way of a tangible quid pro quo, in notable contradiction to prostitution.
A feeling of having done a good deed for your fellow man? Meeting a religious obligation?
Steersman wrote: You may wish to read Feser, particularly as you both seem something in the way of birds of a feather. Somewhat moot how we ground morality in reason
I don't ground morality in reason. Also, from what I have read of Feser, I agree with much of his critique of Dawkins and co, but I can't get on board with his Aquinas stuff. Maybe I just haven't stufied enough Aristottle, but I'm not interested enough to do it.
Steersman wrote: Not sure what "moral intuitions" you think might adjudicate that case.
You are the one whose morality is based on intuited principles.
Steersman wrote: Outright stereotyping, egregious sexism and racism.
Only in the social justice sense of anything having a disparate impact being racist or sexist. My argument doesn't make any claims about whether prostitutes are good and noble individuals, or not. It's your argument that depends on their moral worth. You can't just do a search and replace on your argument and attribute it's inverse to me because we disagree.

Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: And "sad" not least because the "normalization" of that rather demented view tends to give free rein to the psychotics.
You think the Green River killer murdered 48 people because society told him it was ok? #TeachMenNotToRape. I don't think society says it's OK to murder people. Is your argument that society shouldn't view any groups negatively lest psychos take that as an instruction to go to work? Or, are you on a Gladstone like mission and this protection should only apply to prostitutes?
Not at all. But you might actually try reading that article and reflecting on it, in particular:
Attitudes toward prostitutes -- their very dehumanization -- underlies the Green River Killer case, and yet prostitutes are the aspect of this story that has been least discussed.
I did. People disagreeing with you doesn't make them ignorant. The fact that the article asserts there was some connection between him killing 48 prostitutes and societies negative perception of prostitutes is just an assertion. Let's grant it though for the sake of argument.
Steersman wrote: I'm hardly unique in drawing something in the way of a connection between that "dehumanization" - e.g., "We at least know that looking down on prostitutes isn't that stupid" - and those crimes.
Yes, absolutely. This is from the same set of ideas that is currently informing gender politics on college campuses and comes out of the marxist perspectives that got into sociology and feminism. If you buy into the cultural marxism analysis of society, I'm sure it makes sense to want to normalise prostitution and similar anti-social behaviours.

In attempting to normalise it as some attainable goal, you have to buy in the idea that there is nothing about prostitutes and prostitution that tends to make people dislike prostitutes and prostitution. I don't think it is possible to normalise prostitution in the way that you want without some radical change like altering all sexual interactions so that they operate in the same way as encounters with prostitutes.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: The other thought I have is, does anyone actually have the power to normalise prostitution in a way where isolated men with mental problems, or poor impulse control who pay women for sex knowing they wouldn't have sex with them out of choice are not going to feel belittled or degraded and come to hate them. I can see you normalising it so that there are more prostitutes. I'm struggling to imagine how you are going to change the world so that a small proportion of the clients of prostitutes don't end up with some very mixed up and potentially violent feelings about them. Is the aim of this actually to cut down on prostitute murders? It feels to me like those anti-rape activists who fight against efforts to advise women on safety and instead organise slutwalks.
What a ridiculous argument; you're grabbing at straws. Some fans kill various celebrities, and some patients of doctors and psychologists and therapists do likewise. You seriously think that we should close Hollywood - even if that might be a good idea for other reasons - and criminalize psychological therapy because some patients go off the rails?
If prostitutes are at no more risk of being murdered, why are you using the example of them being murdered as a reason to normalise them? If they are murdered more often, what is the relevance that occasionally celerbrities are murdered as well? Why would I be calling for Hollywood to be closed because of the murder of celebrities when I wasn't arguing the the murder of prostitutes meant that prostitution should be banned.

What I was saying was that I very much doubt that it is possible to normalise prostitutes in a way that the kind of person who chokes 48 prostitutes to death isn't going to murder prostitutes. I also doubt that preventing prostitute murder is actually your motivation here since, as we've covered before, you aren't really interested in outcomes but rather principles.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: And the broader answer to that question is part and parcel of Fafnir's claim of a "moral failing" and his "We at least know that looking down on prostitutes isn't that stupid". Buy a gun in the first act then ya gotta use it by the third ...
Looking down on prostitutes has survived for thousands of years.
And so has burning people at the stake or crucifying them ...
Sure, but for the hundreds time you are looking at it from a "that's so unfair on the individual" frame. I'm looking at what things have previously led to the collapse of a society. There are quite a lot of examples of the normalising of prostitution as a society collapses, not so much brutal execution.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: The idea of doing without the police that Pinker thought was great didn't survive a day, yet people keep wanting to try it again, and again. If you want to argue that it isn't stupid, or is less immediately self refuting than looking down on prostitutes, go ahead.
I'm beginning to think that you're a dishonest fraud. Pinker had been in favour of "doing without the police". And then he apparently changed his mind, something you apparently refuse to accept
I know this. He changed his mind when he found it worked disastrously in practice. Look in my words you quoted. I said his idea didn't survive a day of testing, that paraphrases what he said in the quote you are using to refute me. The point is that progressive liberal ideas lead to people supporting ridiculous things like disbanding the police.
Steersman wrote: You have any evidence that he still subscribes to "Bakunin's anarchism"? :think: :roll:
I never claimed that he did. What I claimed was that he abandoned it because it failed so embarrassingly, not because progressive liberal principles were any kind of a guide to what was a good idea and what was an idea that was so stupid that any society that committed itself to making it work would collapse. Imagine if it was just as dumb an idea but it took longer to refute itself, you might find it impossible to undo.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Some justification to try "normalizing" the "antithesis" of that view, that sexworkers are not at all exactly or intrinsically beyond the pale. At least nowhere as far beyond it as child molesters.
The claim isn't and hasn't been, as I have told you repeatedly that every prostitute is a bad person unworthy of compassion, or indeed that any are. Are you capable of understanding an argument that doesn't limit the scope of consideration to one individual and what they deserve? You seem to view all ethical questions in this way. As Clint Eastwood says, "deserve's got nothing to do with it".
What horse crap. You're still using some "character flaws" of one or several members of a particular group to condemn them all.
No. I'm not. You only think that because you are utterly incapable of imagining the world from any perspective other than your own and analyse problems in the same way that led Pinker to think disbanding the police was a good idea. Disbanding the police wasn't wrong because it was fair or unfair to individual police. It was a dumb idea because of the impact on the community of doing it. The issue with normalising prostitutes isn't to do with the fairness or unfairness to individual prostitutes. The issue is what the impact of doing it would be on the community.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Amen to that lady, may your tribe increase.
No. The world would be better if there were fewer prostitutes, not more.
In your entirely unevidenced opinion.
To the same extent as your view that it would be better if prostitution was a normal and unremarkable thing that nobody would mind their son or daughter practicing. Normalising transgenderism seems to be going well, so no reason not to add prostitution to the mix. Only a monster like JK Rowling wouldn't want them to be accepted in whatever way they want.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3482

Post by fafnir »

Service Dog wrote: Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator at webmaster@slymepit.com to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
I'm getting this a lot. My impression is that it has something to do with comment length.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3483

Post by Service Dog »

I watched Dr. Malone on Joe Rogan.

Which affirmed my prior opinion: I imagine teenage 'cool kids' taking a liking-to a nerd, inviting him to hang-out with them. This nerd's nerd-ness is appealing to them. But, too eager to make a good impression, the nerd attempts to not-be a nerd. He tries to 'act cool'. So he fails to deliver his appealing nerd-ness. Delivers a cringe-y inferior version of a cool kid.

Malone should just deliver his expertise-- dry. Don't try to make it more palatable with unfunny jokes. He's not good at those. They just made it harder to follow what he was saying. (STEERSMAN-- I feel the same way about your attempts at humor & rhetorical affectations. Less is more.)

Another schoolyard allegory: the nerd is privy to some juicy gossip, about the teachers. That's why the cool kids suddenly value him. But he overplays his hand-- embellishing his tales to be more lurid. His fanciful versions don't pass the smell-test. Now he's just a pathetic fabulist. Some kids may delight in the bogus versions... but they know it's a dirty thrill, and the nerd is sullied.

Some of Malone's claims are rock-solid. Some... seem-like he'll repeat any-old-thing which pleases the crowd.

He's an imperfect messenger, trying to do the right thing. He's adequate. I hope he improves.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2657
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3484

Post by Za-zen »

Got the surrender communication from the chief. I guess the cusp of the event horizon doesn't last an eternity. We have lived in interesting times. The culture war we predicted has very much come to pass. The irony of the pogrom under the banner of "big tent" inclusiveness is now pervasive in wider society, with the rabid SJWs intent on destroying the fabric of the very nations that grants them the freedom to do so. I hope they enjoy whatever future empire arises that makes them their slaves, as when it comes to MANing the walls the pronoun children who identify as captains instead of the privates their papers say they are, won't hold very long in the face of real existential threat.

I have always wondered how a juggernaut like Rome that destroyed the Gauls 20:1 sandwiched between two armies at Alesia allowed itself to collapse. I think nothing under the sun is new.

Thanks for all the fish Lsumo, and each and every one of you wankers that i have agreed with and vehemently disagreed with. The true treasure is independent thought, and the freedom to mud wrestle with it. With its birth in the Atheist movement the pit has gazed upon the self immolation of secularist thought, to serve an unrelated radical politic. I appreciate very much the great minds of its early days who made real progress in banishing superstition. Great minds like Dawkins, and Hitchens. The former who easily wears the mantle of father of modern secularism, and refused to sacrifice intellectual integrity to the rabid dogs intent on assimilating him into their borg collective.

Farewell and adieu to you spanish ladies/gentlemen/non binary conformists/self identified helicopters/ transracial/ earth sentients opting not to be human.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11404
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3485

Post by Lsuoma »

Za-zen wrote: Got the surrender communication from the chief. I guess the cusp of the event horizon doesn't last an eternity. We have lived in interesting times. The culture war we predicted has very much come to pass. The irony of the pogrom under the banner of "big tent" inclusiveness is now pervasive in wider society, with the rabid SJWs intent on destroying the fabric of the very nations that grants them the freedom to do so. I hope they enjoy whatever future empire arises that makes them their slaves, as when it comes to MANing the walls the pronoun children who identify as captains instead of the privates their papers say they are, won't hold very long in the face of real existential threat.

I have always wondered how a juggernaut like Rome that destroyed the Gauls 20:1 sandwiched between two armies at Alesia allowed itself to collapse. I think nothing under the sun is new.

Thanks for all the fish Lsumo, and each and every one of you wankers that i have agreed with and vehemently disagreed with. The true treasure is independent thought, and the freedom to mud wrestle with it. With its birth in the Atheist movement the pit has gazed upon the self immolation of secularist thought, to serve an unrelated radical politic. I appreciate very much the great minds of its early days who made real progress in banishing superstition. Great minds like Dawkins, and Hitchens. The former who easily wears the mantle of father of modern secularism, and refused to sacrifice intellectual integrity to the rabid dogs intent on assimilating him into their borg collective.

Farewell and adieu to you spanish ladies/gentlemen/non binary conformists/self identified helicopters/ transracial/ earth sentients opting not to be human.
I'm probably going to just put the Pit into the deep freeze. It's be here for insomniacs to read the endless talking past each other of Faffers and Steerzo, plus conspiracy theories and libertarian stuff, etc. You'll also be able to look at all the wonderful old images from Ape+Lust, Gumby, etc., for as long as the links stay active.

If it seems to make sense (Civil War 2.0?) I'll pop it in the microwave to defrost and let everyone know.

One REALLY interesting thing is that I "came into possession of" an archive of the FfTB email back channel from late 2015, just after the Tf00t/Two-Cows fun. I've asked for permissions to share, but I'm not going to curate it, so it's all or nothing. This will be something that I will send another mass email about if it happens.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3486

Post by Service Dog »

"We had to burn the village to save it."
Za-zen wrote: Got the surrender communication from the chief.
What did it say?

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3487

Post by Service Dog »

Lsuoma wrote: ...conspiracy theories...
Lsuoma » Wed May 12, 2021 wrote: ↑
Yawn. Call me when it's sustained over 3-6-9 months.
7 months.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3488

Post by Service Dog »



January 6, 2022: Pearl Clutching Harbor

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7768
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3489

Post by MarcusAu »

Lsuoma wrote: I'm probably going to just put the Pit into the deep freeze.
Anyone questioning the wisdom of this decision may want to consider an alternative...




Though I suppose technically the Pyt started as a 'Spite' forum to begin with...


But if it does come down to it...

"So the buss arrives goodbye to all goodbye to skool pig and skool dog to matron one and all sa hav a good hols we weep with joy. Goodbye headmaster goodbye peason acktually you are joly d. and it is sad to leave. Goodbye to all goodbye".

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3490

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Lsuoma wrote: I'm probably going to just put the Pit into the deep freeze. It's be here for insomniacs to read the endless talking past each other of Faffers and Steerzo, plus conspiracy theories and libertarian stuff, etc. You'll also be able to look at all the wonderful old images from Ape+Lust, Gumby, etc., for as long as the links stay active.
My offer to buy the URL stands.

Guest_8d3a0eda

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3491

Post by Guest_8d3a0eda »

Login issue. Possibly self-inflicted. (I tried to update my email on-record here.)
https://i.imgur.com/Ta4qCsL.png

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11404
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3492

Post by Lsuoma »

Account activated

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11404
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3493

Post by Lsuoma »

MarcusAu wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: I'm probably going to just put the Pit into the deep freeze.
Anyone questioning the wisdom of this decision may want to consider an alternative...




Though I suppose technically the Pyt started as a 'Spite' forum to begin with...


But if it does come down to it...

"So the buss arrives goodbye to all goodbye to skool pig and skool dog to matron one and all sa hav a good hols we weep with joy. Goodbye headmaster goodbye peason acktually you are joly d. and it is sad to leave. Goodbye to all goodbye".
Not a spite site at all - it was created after the FTBTards threatened Abby's job.

As any fule kno...

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3494

Post by Service Dog »

Lsuoma wrote:
Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:51 pm
Account activated
Thank you.

This place is an uncensored, open-to-all soapbox. I can't think of a time when such-a-thing was so desperately needed, as now. It's crazy out there.

I'm 3 days into shivering & fevers, presumably Covid. Most of the first 2 days... my eyes hurt too much to look at a screen & hoisting my body upright took conscious effort. Today, I'm much better-- still: exhausted from the ride. So I'm numb. I don't feel any particular way about the pit closing. But I know myself... normally, I'd feel loss. This place is where I un-jumble my thoughts, compose something more-coherent. Yet I'm also inclined to accept the kick-in-the-pants to move on. Leave this comfort zone. Find a more productive path.

As for bad-actors who make this place suck for you... I think there's a decent chance the problem could be fixed. Steersman seems to respect your authority. Coming from you, saying "Knock if off, you're being an ass" might be all that's required. Then wait&see... shut the place down if it doesn't work.

I count myself as a bad-actor, too. You made ugly, unfounded personal attacks on me this year... then refused to engage with my attempts to refute your claims. Some other pitters took that as a signal to choose-sides & show their loyalty by piling-on against me. I, in turn, decided that I didn't owe you the courtesy of restraining how-much I post. (There were prior times/ years earlier/ when I hogged the conversation-- but those were manic excitement on my part. This was conscious disregard.) If me fucking-off makes the difference between this place continuing to exist/or not... then I'll volunteer to leave. Even if you don't accept that offer-- going forward... I would segregate the bulk of my posts to a side-thread... available for those who want to see/ no bother to those who don't.

Long ago, I read-- and barely remember-- an article about Suicide Notes which came to mind today. The article said that people expect (or hope) to find some profound insight-- why the person killed themselves. But a study of many notes revealed that the reasons people wrote-- tended to be trivial, compared to the drastic solution. Or their note didn't make sense... the person wasn't thinking clearly. They were 'in a mood' which would have passed. I don't think that's a perfect fit for the decision to close-shop. But I think other-options exist, if you wish to pursue them. One alternative would be to be more-forthcoming about what's bothering you. Flesh out your grievances in words... see where that gets us.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3495

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
fafnir wrote: Honestly, Steesman... to normalise prostitution I think you are going to need to widen the scope of your project to rationalise the definition of female. You need to refound the nature of sexual relationships on a firm rationalist liberal foundation (maybe based on contract law and blockchain). The Communists were hoping for a new Communist man to emerge, at which point true Communism would be possible. The founders of the EU had the same hope for a European man. To normalise prostitution we need a Steers-man.
https://archive.fo/g16bw
:-) Not entirely surprised to see that that is from Woody Allen.

Some classic lines though:
I figured there must be a lot of jokers in his position, who were starved for a little intellectual communication with the opposite sex and would pay through the nose for it. ....

Whenever I offered an insight, she faked a response: ....

It all poured out—the whole story. Central Park West upbringing, Socialist summer camps, Brandeis. She was every dame you saw waiting in line at the Elgin or the Thalia, or pencilling the words “Yes, very true” into the margin of some book on Kant. Only somewhere along the line she had made a wrong turn. ....
But careful though or you'll get accused of "normalizing" the view that very few if any sexworkers are guilty of any sort of "moral failing", at least for that choice of a profession - notwithstanding the bogus and quite risible "arguments" of various "traditionalists" and other assorted troglodytes ... ;-)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3496

Post by Steersman »

Lsuoma wrote:
Za-zen wrote: Got the surrender communication from the chief. I guess the cusp of the event horizon doesn't last an eternity. ....

Farewell and adieu to you spanish ladies/gentlemen/non binary conformists/self identified helicopters/ transracial/ earth sentients opting not to be human.
I'm probably going to just put the Pit into the deep freeze. It's be here for insomniacs to read the endless talking past each other of Faffers and Steerzo, plus conspiracy theories and libertarian stuff, etc. You'll also be able to look at all the wonderful old images from Ape+Lust, Gumby, etc., for as long as the links stay active.
Maybe some truth to that "talking past each other", though more on his side than mine of course ... ;-)

But sorry about that chief. Although, as I've periodically argued, that tends to be pretty much the sum-total of the current zeitgeist. As Michael Shermer put it in his The Believing Brain:
As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both “conservative talk radio” and “progressive talk radio” you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event. Social psychologist Geoffrey Cohen quantified this effect in a study in which he discovered that Democrats are more accepting of a welfare program if they believe it was proposed by a fellow Democrat, even if the proposal came from a Republican and is quite restrictive. Predictably, Cohen found the same effect for Republicans who were far more likely to approve of a generous welfare program if they thought it was proposed by a fellow Republican. In other words, even when examining the exact same data people from both parties arrive at radically different conclusions. [pg 263]
Often rather difficult to look at things from a different point of view, particularly a logical one. As Mark Twain once put it:
“We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. It is held in reverence. Some think it the voice of God.”
Lsuoma wrote: If it seems to make sense (Civil War 2.0?) I'll pop it in the microwave to defrost and let everyone know.
Good to know that that's a Plan B, though one hopes that that particular eventuality won't happen.
Lsuoma wrote: One REALLY interesting thing is that I "came into possession of" an archive of the FfTB email back channel from late 2015, just after the Tf00t/Two-Cows fun. I've asked for permissions to share, but I'm not going to curate it, so it's all or nothing. This will be something that I will send another mass email about if it happens.
Oooh! Any particularly juicy bits that leap out and you have permissions to share? ;-) :-)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3497

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote: <snip>
Steersman wrote: But you might try thinking - a challenge, I'm sure - that we simply can not know all of the consequences of any course of action, that we have make various educated guesses, that doing nothing is very often a "cure" much worse than the disease.
OK, so the academic consensus in the social sciences seems to be that men who want to be women are women and are stunning and brave. Progress, let's go with that. Don't stand in the way of progress! Do you want people to die from medieval diseases?
So where - exactly - have I been arguing that "men who want to be women are women"? And are thereby "stunning and brave"? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

You and your mile-wide Bakunin brush ...

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3498

Post by Service Dog »

Below is the director of the CDC-- on TV a few days ago-- talking-about the natural immunity bestowed by prior-infection.

She says: "we do think that Omicron might protect you more against Delta".

But then she says: "and therefore that _suggests_ that Omicron *may* protect you more against Omicron." Then she burst into Kamala laughter.

I think her statement is absurd. If your body develops natural immunity-- tailored to Omicron-- OF COURSE that immunity will be effective against Omicron. There's no basis for her to pretend that's in-doubt.

(Furthermore, the vaccines were developed to fight prior strains of the virus. Not Omicron. So the vaccines train your body to fight those prior strains. Unfortunately, every time our bodies learn to fight a disease-- they ever-after devote a portion of their immune-production capacity... to fighting that bygone disease. Even after the threat is done & gone. So getting Yestereday's same-old vax now actually DISTRACTS your immune system away-from fighting Today's Variant & tomorrow's.)



I have a romantic notion that the 'pyt is a place where I can ask these questions... and someone who disagrees would explain the error in my perspective.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3499

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: Below is the director of the CDC-- on TV a few days ago-- talking-about the natural immunity bestowed by prior-infection.

She says: "we do think that Omicron might protect you more against Delta".

But then she says: "and therefore that _suggests_ that Omicron *may* protect you more against Omicron." Then she burst into Kamala laughter.

I think her statement is absurd. If your body develops natural immunity-- tailored to Omicron-- OF COURSE that immunity will be effective against Omicron. There's no basis for her to pretend that's in-doubt.
Not exactly implausible - even natural immunity isn't a forever thing. Having caught it once is apparently no guarantee of not catching it again, particularly if there's a lengthy time interval in between.
Service Dog wrote: (Furthermore, the vaccines were developed to fight prior strains of the virus. Not Omicron. So the vaccines train your body to fight those prior strains. Unfortunately, every time our bodies learn to fight a disease-- they ever-after devote a portion of their immune-production capacity... to fighting that bygone disease. Even after the threat is done & gone. So getting Yestereday's same-old vax now actually DISTRACTS your immune system away-from fighting Today's Variant & tomorrow's.)

https://youtu.be/knYww0_T79c

I have a romantic notion that the 'pyt is a place where I can ask these questions... and someone who disagrees would explain the error in my perspective.
But glad you qualified your "devote a portion" with the subsequent "explain the error of my ways", as I doubt it holds a lot of water. ;-) You have a citation to justify it?

Not entirely sure myself - an incredibly complex subsystem, probably second only to oögenesis in women ["adult human females (produce ova)"] ... ;-)

But you may wish to take a gander at a couple of Wikipedia articles on the topic, the second in particular which has this:
Even in the absence of antigen stimulation, a human can produce more than 1 trillion different antibody molecules.
Kind of have to read between the lines or follow the links, but that section on "immunlogical diversity" suggests that "devote a portion" phrase of yours is not particularly tenable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_ ... _diversity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunological_memory

Of some related interest is something from the third article:
As of 2019, researchers are still trying to find out why some vaccines produce life-long immunity, while the effectiveness of other vaccines drops to zero in less than 30 years (for mumps) or less than six months (for H3N2 influenza).
How long since the first Covid vaccine came out? Or was designed and released for regulatory approval? 18 months? If the H3N2 vaccine is only good for six months then it is maybe not surprising, or certainly not inconsistent, that the original Covid vaccine is no longer as effective against the original strain as it used to be, much less against the newer variants.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2318
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3500

Post by Keating »

From Za-zen's post, I take it the pit is about to be filled in. I found that I no longer have access to the email address I used for this. (Well, Google is demanding my phone number - fuck that).

Thanks Lsuoma. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3501

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: How, exactly - as I've asked several times - will having been a prostitute necessarily preclude the ability to perform the duties of a teacher? All you've got is special pleading, citing tradition as some bogus "exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception".
As I have explained many, many times I am not arguing that having been a prostitute necessarily preclude the ability to perform the duties of a teacher. You are reducing this to purely a question of the individual prostitute and what she deserves. More than that, if universal principles are being broken, they are your principles, not mine. I've explained that I'm not really big on universal principles, I'm more interested in outcomes.

I'm not making any exception to any universal rule. Steersman.... please take this on board.... other people do not have the same assumptions about the world that you do. When other people state a belief about the world, it is typically with respect to their assumptions, not yours.

For me, what you take to be the whole question "what does the prostitute deserve" is only one part of the issue under consideration. I've explained this to you.
Big of you to concede that any given prostitute might well be able to perform the duties of a teacher.

But your "policy" is based, apparently, on your previous claim that prostitution constitutes a "moral failing". Which is presumably the basis for the "tradition" that sexworkers are to be demonized which you contribute to. Exactly what is the justification for that assertion? How exactly does prostitution constitute that "moral failing"?

Just saying "tradition" is little better than "The Bible tells me so". I rather expect that if you had been living in the antebellum South then you would have been in there like a dirty shirt defending slavery.

But of some related interest and relative to that "demonized", you had said earlier:
The fact that the article asserts there was some connection between him killing 48 prostitutes and societies negative perception of prostitutes is just an assertion. Let's grant it though for the sake of argument.
Big of you to grant that, particularly as Wikipedia justifies it with more than a few credible links and sources:
Since 2018, the term "stochastic terrorism" has become a popular term used when discussing lone wolf attacks.[33] While the exact definition has morphed over time, it has commonly come to refer to a concept whereby consistently demonizing or dehumanizing a targeted group or individual results in violence that is statistically likely, but cannot be easily accurately predicted. ....

A variation of this stochastic terrorism model was later adapted by an anonymous blogger posting on Daily Kos in 2011 to describe public speech that can be expected to incite terrorism without a direct organizational link between the inciter and the perpetrator. ....

It is in this manner that the stochastic terrorist is thought to randomly incite individuals predisposed to acts of violence. And it is because the stochastic terrorist does not target and incite individual perpetrators of terror with their message that the perpetrator may be labeled a lone wolf by law enforcement while the inciter avoids legal culpability or public scrutiny.
Fafnir - "stochastic terrorist"; classy. :roll:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Yes, because you think "how they worked out in the world" is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Cases in point being your "the moral vacuum left by religion" and insistence on anathematizing prostitutes - more precisely, not that this cuts a lot of ice with you, an ex-prostitute.
It's not a get out of jail free card. It's a low bar you have to get over. Show that your untested idea is better than the already tested idea. Isn't that science?
And, pray tell, just how do you think we might test out that idea? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

A demand to specify precisely, to the last decimal, what will be the effects of any particular policy is little better than refusing to get out of bed in the morning because - hey! - we might get run over by a truck.

Rather disingenuous if not outright intellectual dishonesty - at best - to insist on such conditions. Don't think you have a clue how science works.
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: The idea that tradition needs to give a little bit and that I am arguing against that is laughable. Of course it's going to give. The non-liberal world has been in retreat since the 18th Century. Any revolution is hardly going to come from the overreach of Conservatism.
Don't see that your "tradition" of defending religion, social constructionist claptrap
One moment, the social constructivist position I actually hold you just said you agreed with - "social constructionists have a point, at least when it comes to arguing that our definitions".
You seem to have a short memory or some difficulty with the idea that concepts and terms like "social constructionism" and "The Enlightenment" cover a wide spectrum of principles and concepts, not all of which are equally valid or justifiable.

That Latour JPG and article certainly suggests that many of those so-called "social constructionists" apparently think that "the laws of physics are mere social conventions". Seem to recollect some further evidence that many more of that ilk "think" along the same lines - Dawkins' review of Fashionable Nonsense for example:

Physics_Dawkins_SokalHoax_1A.jpg
(207.56 KiB) Downloaded 121 times


"Daffy absurdities" are rife within far too much of "social sciences". Which you're turning a blind eye to if not actually promoting.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3502

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: <snip>
Steersman wrote: But you might try thinking - a challenge, I'm sure - that we simply can not know all of the consequences of any course of action, that we have make various educated guesses, that doing nothing is very often a "cure" much worse than the disease.
OK, so the academic consensus in the social sciences seems to be that men who want to be women are women and are stunning and brave. Progress, let's go with that. Don't stand in the way of progress! Do you want people to die from medieval diseases?
So where - exactly - have I been arguing that "men who want to be women are women"? And are thereby "stunning and brave"? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

You and your mile-wide Bakunin brush ...
I didn't say you had said "men who want to be women are women". The point of that sentence was sarcastic contrast with the conclusions you wanted to draw. Elsewhere in my recent posts I've been pointing out that the arguments you make in favour of your chosen conclusions have very wide and radical implications, if applied consistently. You don't apply your arguments consistently. You just apply them to narrowly defined questions and are only interested in the intended impacts of your policies.

piginthecity
.
.
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:20 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3503

Post by piginthecity »

Thanks, FT and cheers everybody else. It's been a good 'pit.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3504

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: Big of you to concede that any given prostitute might well be able to perform the duties of a teacher.
It's not a concession. I've been saying it since this topic began. You just have an idea of the position of what people who disagree with you is, a search and replace binary opposite of your position, and keep mapping that opinion on to me.
Steersman wrote: But your "policy" is based, apparently, on your previous claim that prostitution constitutes a "moral failing".
No it isn't. I've explained this. Repeatedly. From the bit you quoted - "You are reducing this to purely a question of the individual prostitute and what she deserves". You are doing it again. As I said yesterday "My argument doesn't make any claims about whether prostitutes are good and noble individuals, or not". Or again here:
fafnir wrote:The claim isn't and hasn't been, as I have told you repeatedly that every prostitute is a bad person unworthy of compassion, or indeed that any are. Are you capable of understanding an argument that doesn't limit the scope of consideration to one individual and what they deserve? You seem to view all ethical questions in this way. As Clint Eastwood says, "deserve's got nothing to do with it".
But you go right back to giving me a position that is based on an assessment of the personal morals of the prostitute in question.
Steersman wrote: Which is presumably the basis for the "tradition" that sexworkers are to be demonized which you contribute to. Exactly what is the justification for that assertion?
Not sure what you want here. Some kind of evo-psych explanation of why people don't like prostitutes? People pairing off and having children is pretty important from a cultural survival point of view. As cultures become decadent and go into decline there is often widespread sexual and gender expression that is clearly antithetical to that goal. As I keep saying, it's the classic rat utopia issue. Enacting liberal policy causes mariage rates and fertility rates to plummet. If you go back to brass tacks, that's why a tradition would have grown up that regards these things as immoral. The specific internal justification within the culture don't really matter. It's the culture protecting itself from dysgenic behaviour.
Steersman wrote: How exactly does prostitution constitute that "moral failing"?
Again, I have been telling you that that isn't the way I am looking at this for post after post. This isn't about the state of mind or character of the prostitute in any ideological sense. Just like Pinker and "let's get rid of the police", the sense in which the traditional view is correct is practical, not ideological.
Steersman wrote: Just saying "tradition" is little better than "The Bible tells me so". I rather expect that if you had been living in the antebellum South then you would have been in there like a dirty shirt defending slavery.
I've explained to you before. Traditional values are at least not so dysgenic that they bring the society down. Pinkers "let's disband the police" could never survive as a traditional value. You are making a categorical error in demanding tradition justify itself in this way. This is like going to evolution and demanding what the planners reasons were for making a platypus look like that.

As to the antebellum South. I read "Born in Slavery: Narratives from the WPA Slave Narrative Collection" recently. I recommend it. It's interviews with surviving slaves in the 1930s. My impression was that about a third of them thought life was worse after the end of slavery. A lot of them went back to their former owners. About a third took the view that it was bad before and bad after. The remainder were happier with the new situation.

The thing about there stories is that generally they weren't looking at it in the ideological way you are. They were looking at it comparing their practical situation before or after. The question wasn't whether slavery is ideologically moral or not. The question was - is being a slave in a functioning society better than being a free illiterate peasant in a broken society where you have the lowest status and everybody is struggling to survive?

One of the really sad parts of it was that the most typical complaints was about the way slavery broke up families as brothers and wives were sold. To what extent that was an issue depended heavily on the master. The thing was that the end of slavery seemed to have caused lots of people to disperse as well. Like many societies when they collapse, I suppose. One 90 year old man stood out who had children and grandchildren and hadn't seen any of them in years because they'd left for other parts of the country.

Ending something because it offends your moral sensibilities doesn't necessarily make people's lives better. As I've said over and over, you have to think about how what you want is going to play out practically in the world.
Steersman wrote: But of some related interest and relative to that "demonized", you had said earlier:
The fact that the article asserts there was some connection between him killing 48 prostitutes and societies negative perception of prostitutes is just an assertion. Let's grant it though for the sake of argument.
Big of you to grant that, particularly as Wikipedia justifies it with more than a few credible links and sources:
Since 2018, the term "stochastic terrorism" has become a popular term used when discussing lone wolf attacks.[33] While the exact definition has morphed over time, it has commonly come to refer to a concept whereby consistently demonizing or dehumanizing a targeted group or individual results in violence that is statistically likely, but cannot be easily accurately predicted. ....
You are happy to throw in these woke ideas, but then you don't want to follow them through to where the woke take them. Your link talks about stochastic terrorism as an "idea" and references an anonymous daily Kos blogger. The is the same argument that says you aren't allowed to make arguments against immigration because it is literal violence. You are again making woke arguments because you are a liberal progressive. This is wiki article is just a woke rhetorical assertion.
Steersman wrote: Fafnir - "stochastic terrorist"; classy. :roll:
I'm not woke. Why not tell me I am "literally erasing prostitutes", or something? You can't just throw these woke buzzwords about and expect them to have an impact on people who don't share your beliefs.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Yes, because you think "how they worked out in the world" is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Cases in point being your "the moral vacuum left by religion" and insistence on anathematizing prostitutes - more precisely, not that this cuts a lot of ice with you, an ex-prostitute.
It's not a get out of jail free card. It's a low bar you have to get over. Show that your untested idea is better than the already tested idea. Isn't that science?
And, pray tell, just how do you think we might test out that idea? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:
Well, the difficulty in doing that is one of the reasons we should maybe be cautious. Again, imagine if Pinker's "let's get rid of the police" idea was the kind of thing that took 20 years for it's impact to be felt.

The obvious way that I've told you before is to try and limit the scope of these changes and go slowly enough to see how it goes. Obviously you are going to be trying different things, and there are too many variables to do a linear regression to know exactly which did what given all the interactions. Nonetheless, different states, different cities and different countries try different things. Progressive Liberal cities try different collections of ideas like yours, Conservative cities try more traditional ideas and so on. We can then see which ways of running things produce results we like and which don't.

Personally, I think one of the problems with centralising and globalising power is that it makes it impossible to make such comparisons. If everywhere is governed like San Francisco then nobody can point to anywhere else and say it is run better. One of the good things about states like Florida with covid is that they have given us opportunities to get an idea of how a different way of approaching covid plays out. I like that.
Steersman wrote: A demand to specify precisely, to the last decimal, what will be the effects of any particular policy is little better than refusing to get out of bed in the morning because - hey! - we might get run over by a truck.
No. This is another straw man. The choice isn't between predicting everything down to the atomic scale about the impact of a policy, and completely excluding any discussion of negative impacts. I've said above why I think normalising prostitution is dysgenic, but if a city, or a state wanted to do it I'd think it was dumb, but I wouldn't oppose trying. That's the only way one actually finds out whether these ideas work.

What I am arguing against is turning it into a limited, ideological, moral question where it is right to normalise prostitution or end slavery because it is moral to do it, regardless of real world practicalities. If we don't care about what the outcome is, because doing it is simply "moral".... then that logic takes us in the direction of wanting to apply these ideas federally, to demonise people who raise objections as immoral, and to force through unworkable policies that are "moral".
Steersman wrote: Rather disingenuous if not outright intellectual dishonesty - at best - to insist on such conditions. Don't think you have a clue how science works.
You made up that demand Steersman. I've explained before how one might go about implementing these kinds of things in a somewhat testable way. I've just explained it again.

For myself, progressive liberal cities aren't a great advertisement for progressive liberal policies leading to societies I would prefer to more conservative places. On that basis, I am suspicious of progressive liberal ideas like normalising prostitution. I am similarly suspicious of arguments that want to out of scope fears about the social consequences of progressive liberal policies, as you do.

Maybe true "progressive liberalism" has never been tried?
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: The idea that tradition needs to give a little bit and that I am arguing against that is laughable. Of course it's going to give. The non-liberal world has been in retreat since the 18th Century. Any revolution is hardly going to come from the overreach of Conservatism.
Don't see that your "tradition" of defending religion, social constructionist claptrap
One moment, the social constructivist position I actually hold you just said you agreed with - "social constructionists have a point, at least when it comes to arguing that our definitions".
You seem to have a short memory or some difficulty with the idea that concepts and terms like "social constructionism" and "The Enlightenment" cover a wide spectrum of principles and concepts, not all of which are equally valid or justifiable.
Sure, but we've already agreed that I don't hold lots of social constructivist principles. What I've been talking about is questions of the definition of words, you expressed some agreement with the social constructivist position on this. That being the case, I'm not sure what the disagreement is here.
Steersman wrote: That Latour JPG and article certainly suggests that many of those so-called "social constructionists" apparently think that "the laws of physics are mere social conventions".
Sure, but we aren't talking about what the most radical social constructivists think. You were attacking me as being a social constructivist, but it turns out that the parts of social constructivism I have been defending, you agree with. Whether some swivel eyed loon thinks gravity is some kind of colonialist social convention is irrelevant.
Steersman wrote: Seem to recollect some further evidence that many more of that ilk "think" along the same lines - Dawkins' review of Fashionable Nonsense for example:

Physics_Dawkins_SokalHoax_1A.jpg
Lovely, but you are arguing with me and my position which was about the definitions of words that you said you broadly agreed with. The fact that that position can fall under social constructivism and that some people take social constructivism to some extreme places doesn't mean I, any more than you, hold those extreme positions. This is beyond irrelevant. Again, you are arguing against a collection of opinions you have imagined. I've told you already, I'm quite happy that the phenomenon whereby when you walk off a cliff, you are going to fall is a fact. I've told you this before. You accepted it before, and now we are back in Groundhog Day, it's 6am and it's cold outside.
Steersman wrote: "Daffy absurdities" are rife within far too much of "social sciences". Which you're turning a blind eye to if not actually promoting.
I'm promoting daffy ideas that I have told you I don't hold, by arguing a position that you indicated you broadly agreed with? This is a "Hitler drank water too" argument.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3505

Post by fafnir »

God damned lack of edit button. Can we have the edit button for one day before the pit folds?

Also, I'm just about to convince Steersman that he's wrong. The timing of this announcement is terrible.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7768
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3506

Post by MarcusAu »

piginthecity wrote: Thanks, FT and cheers everybody else. It's been a good 'pit.
And the same to you too, Babe.

All the best for 2022.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5446
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3507

Post by John D »

Service Dog wrote:
Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:14 pm
Below is the director of the CDC-- on TV a few days ago-- talking-about the natural immunity bestowed by prior-infection.

She says: "we do think that Omicron might protect you more against Delta".
Here is the deal (to the best of my knowledge)

The Omicron variant is very different from other variants to date. The omicron variant is more of an upper respiratory infection. It is more like a cold (and some people think it may have picked up some of its change due to being mixed with other viruses). The prior variants, such as delta, infect the lower respiratory systems such as the lungs. So... first point... Omicron is working very differently than other variations.

Another point is what the mRNA jabs really do. They contain RNA that triggers the human body to grow spike proteins on human cells. These spike proteins are the same as the spikes you see on the pictures of the virus. The pointy bits. The body is triggered to grow spike proteins from healthy human cells. The body then produces a T-cell immune response to the spike proteins. The T-cell response builds a chemical cover on the end of the spike proteins. This chemical cap prevents the spike proteins from attaching to cells. If the spike protein can't attach to a cell then the virus cannot reproduce.

There are several other immune systems in the body. The T-cell response is just one of the systems. So, the mRNA jab is really only triggering one system. If you actually recover from having Covid you will have immunity in multiple immune systems. Also, it has always been known that the T-cell response would decrease in effectiveness over time. The T-cells gradually lose their bias toward attacking spike proteins and go on to do other things.

I have not seen any info that explains why the jab works better on Beta than Omicron. Perhaps it is because the variants are infecting different parts of the body. Maybe the T-cell response is stronger in the lower respiratory system than the upper. This is an interesting question that I have heard no specific explanation for. Perhaps the spikes on omicron are different as well which would make the response less effective.

You should watch this guy if you have time.


Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3508

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

John D wrote: I have not seen any info that explains why the jab works better on Beta than Omicron.[...] Perhaps the spikes on omicron are different as well which would make the response less effective.
If the spikes mutated, then the jab is pretty much useless.

Looks like the jab is pretty much useless:

pandemic of the jabbed.png
(38.91 KiB) Downloaded 105 times

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2657
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3509

Post by Za-zen »

Service Dog wrote: "We had to burn the village to save it."
Za-zen wrote: Got the surrender communication from the chief.
One word "stuN"
Whilst trying to understand it, i have come to the conclusion it is something to be reflected upon.

What did it say?

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2657
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3510

Post by Za-zen »

Za-zen wrote:
Service Dog wrote: "We had to burn the village to save it."
Za-zen wrote: Got the surrender communication from the chief.

What did it say?
One word "stuN"
Whilst trying to understand it, i have come to the conclusion it is something to be reflected upon.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3511

Post by Service Dog »

Thanks John. I do watch that guy now, thanks to you. I don't dispute any part of your reply.

But I don't think you addressed the specific question I was trying-to ask:

CDC Director Walensky concedes that recovering-from Omicron gives-you immunity against Delta. Fine. (timecode:1min15sec)

But then Colbert asked whether recovering from Omicron protects you against getting Omicron again.

I think the obvious answer is "Yes! Your body's natural immunity to Omicron is tailor-made to fight Omicron!" She has conceded such immunity exists.

Instead-- she inflects her voice will exaggerated doubt... and cackles as-if she's just said something hilarious.

Colbert reacts like an improv-buddy, echoing & amplifying her point, "That's a lot of conditional words in there: 'may' 'kinda' 'sorta' hahaha"

I think she' talking in a contrived fun-grade-school-teacher voice which half the country adores from politician-tv-personalities/ and half of us hate.

And I think she's talking utter nonsense. Just sayin' shit like a Press Secretary's 'spin'. Not doing the hard work of expertise.
--
Louis Rossman (whose former computer shop location was downstairs from my former apartment) says that the suppression of diverse opinions... is the Cause Of people embracing squirrelly fringe theories:



And, John, I'm kinda glad you aren't in NYC now-- because I wouldn't be able to see you, due to this coof I've got.
But here's Rossman's tour of whut you're missing: spilled garbage, closed businesses, shanty huts for the unvax'd, shouting homeless guy... https://youtu.be/Wn9xZxh8Et4
--
Steersman-- I don't have a citation for my claim about how the immune system fights yesterday's battles. May have been Dr. Malone. May have been this doctor who John recommended. Or another. Their claim was that children have robust immune systems because they are a blank slate... ready to devote immunity-production to whatever hits-them. Whereas adults have already-committed to fighting past diseases (in particular persistent nerve-dwelling stuff like herpes/shingles.).
--
I checked my former email address. No pit-is-closing announcement from the Tit. Is anyone willing to share the SlymePit BackChannel Comm ? Was a specific hard end-date given? Has FT fully-decided to quit? What reasons were cited?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3512

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

I couldn't take my eyes of her bright blue guitar. :liar:



Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3513

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

... and a fascinating article about her:

https://www.hs.fi/paivanlehti/03112018/ ... 85035.html
erja.jpg
(33.35 KiB) Downloaded 98 times

John D
.
.
Posts: 5446
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3514

Post by John D »

Service Dog wrote: Thanks John. I do watch that guy now, thanks to you. I don't dispute any part of your reply.

But I don't think you addressed the specific question I was trying-to ask:
Well... the actual answer is simple. Walensky is an unqualified cunt. She is part of the new batch of political women who cackle. Why do these women think it is a good idea to cackle? It makes them look like nagging girlfriends... I don't get it. Is there anyone who thinks this behavior is professional? Why do they do this? As soon as Walensky or Harris or one of these bitches cackle I know they are fakes.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11404
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3515

Post by Lsuoma »

Keating wrote: From Za-zen's post, I take it the pit is about to be filled in. I found that I no longer have access to the email address I used for this. (Well, Google is demanding my phone number - fuck that).

Thanks Lsuoma. So long and thanks for all the fish.
PM me to reset your email.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11404
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3516

Post by Lsuoma »

And Sidney Poitier will no longer suffer In the Heat of the Night.

He's gone cold at 94.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3517

Post by Service Dog »

The US Supreme Court is hearing Biden's covid mandates today.

Justice Breyer makes a false claim, begs to be corrected. (The reason it's false is that his numbers assume vax + mask = 100% effective in stopping all covid cases.)
So if we delay that one day — maybe I’m wrong, and please tell me if I am — but the numbers I read is when they issued this order, there were approximately 70-something-thousand new cases every day. And yesterday, there were close to 750,000. So if we delay it a day, if it were to have effect, then 750,000 more people will have COVID who otherwise, if we didn’t delay it, would not have. I mean, I don’t doubt the power of the Court to issue a stay, I am just saying, what are the consequences of that? And if I am wrong, you better tell me I’m wrong, because that it really did make a difference.
Justice Sotomayor also claimed that vaccinated people cannot transmit Covid. False.
Additional false statements by Sotomayor today:
– Claimed covid deaths are at an all time high
– Claimed that Omicron has been deadlier than Delta
– Claimed 100K children are hospitalized with covid
– Said OSHA's regulatory authority is a federal "police power."
According to Justice Sotomayor, 100,000 children are hospitalized with COVID and many are on ventilators.

Your move Fact Checkers.

pic.twitter.com/JQPW5K1gPe

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) January 7, 2022



According to Justice Sotomayor, 100,000 children are hospitalized with COVID and many are on ventilators. The actual number of hospitalized kids is 3,300 and most are being treated for another disease.



For reference there are only 116k people TOTAL OF ALL AGES presently hospitalized nationwide with covid. And many of these people are in the hospitals with covid, that is they are in hospitals for another reason and tested positive on entry for covid. pic.twitter.com/Q6rZIy6qCj
Apparently Nick Rekieta & Co. are livestreaming the SCOTUS hearing, and heckling it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um81qHxHwJ4

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3518

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Service Dog wrote: Justice Breyer makes a false claim, begs to be corrected. (The reason it's false is that his numbers assume vax + mask = 100% effective in stopping all covid cases.)
So if we delay that one day — maybe I’m wrong, and please tell me if I am — but the numbers I read is when they issued this order, there were approximately 70-something-thousand new cases every day. And yesterday, there were close to 750,000. So if we delay it a day, if it were to have effect, then 750,000 more people will have COVID who otherwise, if we didn’t delay it, would not have. I mean, I don’t doubt the power of the Court to issue a stay, I am just saying, what are the consequences of that? And if I am wrong, you better tell me I’m wrong, because that it really did make a difference.
Of late, Breyer's become very unsubtle about the Left's utter disregard for the rule of law, in favor of The Ends Justify The Means.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3519

Post by Service Dog »

So much covid news, around me.

Day after Christmas-- GF dropped-off a box of candy for a very old, very feeble lady down the street. The lady said, "I have something for you"... it was a Christmas card with $25 inside, from the prior year. GF felt terrible that she had gone an entire year without visiting the lady. The old lady said, "Have you heard about some vaccine they have now?" "Do you know how to get it?" The state sends an aide to bring her groceries, and help her out. But the aide didn't say anything about the vax. The old lady has difficulties: For example, she does her own laundry at home/ but can't always lift the wet clothes out of the washer. She avoids asking the aide for help-- for fear that she'll be removed from her apartment & put in a nursing home. I don't know if the cure is worse than the disease for her. She never leaves her apartment-- her only vector of risk is the visiting aide. I'm not opposed to helping her get the jab, but now GF & I are both sick.

Today, GF's mom's nursing home called: Mom PCR-tested positive for Covid. No symptoms, tho. On paper, their procedure is to move her to a quarantine floor. But many many residents are testing-positive. Some with symptoms/ some without. They can't put them all in the quarantine floor, so they've done nothing. They tested her on Dec. 31 & the test results arrived today. If she actually has Covid-- then she's already past the quarantine period-- by the time her results arrive! So what did they do? They tested her again today. What good will those results do?-- when they arrive next week. The Caller admitted that they never gave mom a booster shot. "We were too busy" the caller said. Insane. She signed the request form for the booster back in around Halloween.

The rich, jewish, boomer, deadhead I spent Thanksgiving with-- had his heart set on attending 3 days of Grateful Dead shows-- with his sons-- at a Mexican resort this month. Wifey nixed that idea-- due-to the prospect of getting stuck down there, quarantined. As 'Plan B' one of his wanker sons went to Napa Valley with his gf. The other went to some tech-bro yacht party in Costa Rica. When it was time to fly home-- that son felt a little sick & was worried that he might test positive. So he enlisted a tech bro to forge a negative test for him. At the airport-- the Costa Rican customs enforcement asked to see his negative test. He showed them a phone screenshot. They asked for the paper copy. He said he didn't have it. They called the testing-place... who said they had no record of him getting-tested there. The son panicked & ran away from the airport agents. He went to a rapid testing place & got tested immediately. He returned to the airport. Tried to use a different line, with different agents. But they spotted him immediately & had cops waiting. They said he committed a serious offense. He claimed that he paid someone to get tested... and had no idea the test wasn't real. He showed them the real test. They called & it checked-out. So they let him board the plane & leave Costa Rica. But he doesn't know if he's allowed-back/ or on an international watch list. Meanwhile-- the son & gf in Napa knew they were sick. So they bought fake negative tests & flew back East... arriving in very-sick condition. So the Boomer Deadhead Jew dad has flipped his lid. He "can't believe" that both his sons are traveling with fake documents & spreading covid... rather than following the rules & caring about other-people's safety. This same dad was so smug & proud when he obtained fraudulent medical marijuana cards for everyone he knew, via a doctor crony. He follows no rules & is arrogant about it. Total cunt. The innermost circles of the Dead are mad at each-other. They're all ancient. Some tested positive for Covid. Others are neg-- but terrified. Others want the show-to-go-on... so the scared bandmates are saying 'fine do it without us'. But: the contingent of entitled fossil insider fans-- who most fear covid-- are butthurt that the party is going-on without-them. They want everybody to wait until -they- feel safe to rejoin the party. Flights are all messed-up, hotel reservations, etc.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3520

Post by Steersman »

Lsuoma wrote: And Sidney Poitier will no longer suffer In the Heat of the Night.

He's gone cold at 94.
Guess who won't be coming for dinner. Again. Ever.

Though not a bad run at 94. Though I don't know how he - or any others of his age - manage; I get tired and I'm several decades younger.

As Jerry Coyne (age, 72) recently put it:
"Further, the older you get, the less you care about fairly meaningless events like the end of a year. We just can't be bothered, and we're tired."
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/01/ ... -the-aged/

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3521

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:58 am
<snip>
--
Steersman-- I don't have a citation for my claim about how the immune system fights yesterday's battles. May have been Dr. Malone. May have been this doctor who John recommended. Or another. Their claim was that children have robust immune systems because they are a blank slate... ready to devote immunity-production to whatever hits-them. Whereas adults have already-committed to fighting past diseases (in particular persistent nerve-dwelling stuff like herpes/shingles.).
--
Oh, well, if it came from the good Dr. Malone - inventor of mRNA vaccines and thereby a shoe-in for a Nobel prize ... - then who could possibly doubt it? .... ;-)

Still seems a bit moot given the body's ability, according to Wikipedia to "produce more than 1 trillion different antibody molecules". But maybe there's some difference in the short and long term memory capabilities of the immune system. So who knows for sure.

But ran across this recently that may provide some justifications for Walensky's claims about omicron:
Can you get the omicron variant twice?

The omicron variant may cause reinfection. But can you get omicron more than once?

It’s still unclear if the omicron variant provides good immunity to itself, though.
Experts have said the potential for reinfection is much higher among those with natural immunity compared to previous variants.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told KHOU 11 that researchers are unsure what immunity the omicron variant gives people.

“It’s unclear, at this point, what level of immunity occurs after an omicron infection. I suspect over time, yes, you probably can get reinfected. But we don’t have that data yet because omicron has only been around since October/November.”

However, the omicron variant might offer immunity for other COVID-19 variants.
Though I'm not sure that the subtitle of the article - "The omicron variant may cause reinfection. But can you get omicron more than once?" - makes a lot of sense.

https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/202 ... d-19-twice

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3522

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: <snip>
OK, so the academic consensus in the social sciences seems to be that men who want to be women are women and are stunning and brave. Progress, let's go with that. Don't stand in the way of progress! Do you want people to die from medieval diseases?
So where - exactly - have I been arguing that "men who want to be women are women"? And are thereby "stunning and brave"? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

You and your mile-wide Bakunin brush ...
I didn't say you had said "men who want to be women are women". The point of that sentence was sarcastic contrast with the conclusions you wanted to draw. Elsewhere in my recent posts I've been pointing out that the arguments you make in favour of your chosen conclusions have very wide and radical implications, if applied consistently. You don't apply your arguments consistently. You just apply them to narrowly defined questions and are only interested in the intended impacts of your policies.
No, that's true you didn't. But you rather clearly suggested that anybody so deluded as to champion any sort of "faith in Progress" for its ability, at least, to prevent people from dying of "medieval diseases" was clearly in cahoots with those insisting that transwomen were women.

"intellectually dishonest" is probably being charitable. As I've said, you and your mile-wide Bakunin brush.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3523

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: <snip>
OK, so the academic consensus in the social sciences seems to be that men who want to be women are women and are stunning and brave. Progress, let's go with that. Don't stand in the way of progress! Do you want people to die from medieval diseases?
So where - exactly - have I been arguing that "men who want to be women are women"? And are thereby "stunning and brave"? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

You and your mile-wide Bakunin brush ...
I didn't say you had said "men who want to be women are women". The point of that sentence was sarcastic contrast with the conclusions you wanted to draw. Elsewhere in my recent posts I've been pointing out that the arguments you make in favour of your chosen conclusions have very wide and radical implications, if applied consistently. You don't apply your arguments consistently. You just apply them to narrowly defined questions and are only interested in the intended impacts of your policies.
No, that's true you didn't. But you rather clearly suggested that anybody so deluded as to champion any sort of "faith in Progress" for its ability, at least, to prevent people from dying of "medieval diseases" was clearly in cahoots with those insisting that transwomen were women.

"intellectually dishonest" is probably being charitable. As I've said, you and your mile-wide Bakunin brush.
No, it's not a tarring with the same brush issue. Your arguments in favour of positions you like work just as well to argue for positions you don't like. You make arguments that have very wide-ranging radical scope, but you only want them to apply to the things you want to apply them to. Your position is clearly incoherent when the frame is widened so that each case isn't dealt with in isolation.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3524

Post by fafnir »

I don't think the above criticism is remotely unique in applying to you Steersman. I think when one is trying to argue for a moral system based on principles and rationality rather than real world outcomes, it is almost impossible to maintain internal consistency. The equivocative nature of language and the imprecise way that different principles are weighted means that often you can argue both sides of a position from the same starting place. What determines your argument is actually the conclusion you intuitively favour. I don't believe a sane, coherent, consistent moral system that produces outcomes we can accept can realistically be built on reason. That's why I start with tradition as a vehicle for handing down moral ideas that have been tested, and are at the very least unlikely to be so bad that they crash the culture - Pinkers no police idea would be weeded out by this process.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3525

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

I just feel sorry for Phil, who tried so hard all those years to kill the Pit. Instead, it was fafnir and steerz.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3526

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote: Oh, well, if it came from the good Dr. Malone - inventor of mRNA vaccines and thereby a shoe-in for a Nobel prize ... - then who could possibly doubt it? ....
Your tedious sense of humor is a contributing factor in the decline of the pit. Every time you feel the urge to use a 'winky', you should take that as a hint that your joke-- or sarcastic statement-- isn't worth posting. Especially if you've used the same line repeatedly.
given the body's ability, according to Wikipedia to "produce more than 1 trillion different antibody molecules". But maybe there's some difference in the short and long term memory capabilities of the immune system. So who knows for sure.
"Who knows?" you ask. Weigh the 2 pieces of evidence. I offered you the opinion of a credentialed person who is directly studying this specific topic. You responded with a few words from a general encyclopedia-entry on the topic of immunity. Resist the urge to make some 'wry' comment about Wikipedia. It's not fun. It's not funny. It's boorish.

Discover magazine, August 2020: Title: "Children’s Immune Systems Differ From Adults. Here’s What That Could Mean for COVID-19
Children’s innate immune responses might be behind their milder COVID-19 infections."

Citing Sallie Permar, a viral immunologist at Duke University:

"...once a baby is born, its immune system must rapidly respond to a world teeming with viruses and bacteria ready to infect their newest host. So how do babies’ and children’s developing immune systems differ from adults’? And can these biological differences explain why they seem to fare better against COVID-19 than adults, or how much they spread it to others?

....

Our immune systems are made up of innate responses, which we’re born with, and adaptive responses, which come from built-up exposure to past pathogens. As part of that innate response, babies are equipped with millions of newly-generated immune warriors called T cells. The cells each recognize a different pathogen and help build up our burgeoning immune system. But these numbers start to wane tremendously during childhood.
“By the time you’re a teenager or young adult, you really aren't pumping out that many new T cells anymore, and by the time you’re forty, you have hardly any,” says Donna Farber, an immunologist at Columbia University. “So, what [adults] are relying on is all of these memory responses that you generated during your childhood.”
Farber explains that the goal of the developing immune system is twofold. First, generate a robust innate response to all new infections. (This is especially crucial during our most vulnerable early years.) Second, create memories — in the form of memory cells — for all of the pathogens in your environment so you can be protected against them in the future. If your environment doesn’t change much throughout your life, Farber says, by adulthood, you should be perfectly adapted to remain healthy against most toxins.
But Farber also notes this trade-off between our innate and adaptive responses might be putting adults at a disadvantage with the novel coronavirus. Neither children nor adults had memory T cells for COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic, since no one had been exposed to the virus yet. But because adults also have fewer amounts of naive T cells, Farber says it takes a longer time for their innate immune system to respond. This gets even worse for older adults, as they aren’t able to efficiently clear the infection and continue to accrue damage, she adds.
For kids, Farber says COVID-19 may not be as big of a deal because humans are already exposed to the most infectious diseases during childhood, so it’s not that abnormal to face another one. Thus, their innate immune response is likely better prepared to mount a quick response."

https://archive.fo/v5ok7#selection-399.0-423.278

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3527

Post by fafnir »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I just feel sorry for Phil, who tried so hard all those years to kill the Pit. Instead, it was fafnir and steerz.
A pity. Midterms are coming. The madness will start building for 2024, and no pit.

The pit is weak if my chat with Steersman is killing it. I had much longer pointless arguments on the JREF just before everybody left and it went into terminal decline.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3528

Post by Service Dog »

Service Dog wrote: babies are equipped with millions of newly-generated immune warriors called T cells. The cells each recognize a different pathogen and help build up our burgeoning immune system. But these numbers start to wane tremendously during childhood.
“By the time you’re a teenager or young adult, you really aren't pumping out that many new T cells anymore, and by the time you’re forty, you have hardly any
,” says Donna Farber, an immunologist at Columbia University. “So, what [adults] are relying on is all of these memory responses that you generated during your childhood.”
With no help from Big Pharma, children automatically come-equipped to defeat Covid.

When we inject those kids with jab from Two Years Ago, which was designed to fight a done&gone prior version of Covid... we're training their bodies to fight a war that's already over... at the expense of current and future readiness. We're making the kids more-like the worse-off adults.

--

A very similar argument was raised today during the US Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Biden's OSHA Mandates for Covid.

Ohio's Solicitor General Ben Flowers-- noted that the evidence used to justify the OSHA vaccine mandate-- is based on the pandemic of 2 years ago, not the one we now face to day. The claims of vaccine-effectiveness... are old research referring-to the 2019 'wildtype' variant. But the vaccine is not nearly-as effective against today's Omicron variant. Therefore OSHA is mandating a solution which is no longer a solution.

Committing adult worker's FINITE immunity to a 2019-vaccine-response --which only provides INCIDENTAL protection against today's variants-- is a diminished-benefit with a significant 'cost' trade-off.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3529

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I just feel sorry for Phil, who tried so hard all those years to kill the Pit. Instead, it was fafnir and steerz.
And here I'd gotten the impression that it was the "The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show" that had started that ball rolling ...

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3530

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: <snip>
No, that's true you didn't. But you rather clearly suggested that anybody so deluded as to champion any sort of "faith in Progress" for its ability, at least, to prevent people from dying of "medieval diseases" was clearly in cahoots with those insisting that transwomen were women.

"intellectually dishonest" is probably being charitable. As I've said, you and your mile-wide Bakunin brush.
No, it's not a tarring with the same brush issue. Your arguments in favour of positions you like work just as well to argue for positions you don't like. You make arguments that have very wide-ranging radical scope, but you only want them to apply to the things you want to apply them to. Your position is clearly incoherent when the frame is widened so that each case isn't dealt with in isolation.
:roll: What unmitigated and self-serving horse crap - so vague as to be useless. Not to mention that it didn't at all address my point that championing a "faith in progress", at least in curing medieval diseases, is hardly prima facie evidence of promoting the risible view that transwomen are actually women (i.e., adult human females [those with functioning ovaries]). Which is basically what your "argument" boiled down into.

Hardly worth responding to:

And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg
(44.2 KiB) Downloaded 46 times

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3531

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Service Dog wrote: babies are equipped with millions of newly-generated immune warriors called T cells. The cells each recognize a different pathogen and help build up our burgeoning immune system. But these numbers start to wane tremendously during childhood.
“By the time you’re a teenager or young adult, you really aren't pumping out that many new T cells anymore, and by the time you’re forty, you have hardly any
,” says Donna Farber, an immunologist at Columbia University. “So, what [adults] are relying on is all of these memory responses that you generated during your childhood.”
With no help from Big Pharma, children automatically come-equipped to defeat Covid.

When we inject those kids with jab from Two Years Ago, which was designed to fight a done&gone prior version of Covid... we're training their bodies to fight a war that's already over... at the expense of current and future readiness. We're making the kids more-like the worse-off adults.

<snip>

Committing adult worker's FINITE immunity to a 2019-vaccine-response --which only provides INCIDENTAL protection against today's variants-- is a diminished-benefit with a significant 'cost' trade-off.
:roll: I expect that this will be a painful stretch for you but you might actually consider that much of so-called "science journalism" sucks - big time. See the SA interview of physicist Sabine Hossenfelder:
Horgan: Nice! You recently said on your blog: “The biggest task of science bloggers--like Peter Woit, Ethan Siegel and myself--has become to clean up after sloppy science journalism.” Please elaborate.

Hossenfelder: I often find myself having to correct articles that mislead the reader about some recent research. The way much science journalism appears today, it is impossible for someone with no background in the field to tell how serious to take claims. ....

Yes, there is good science journalism. But then there are a lot of outlets that just seem to uncritically repeat press releases or what a scientist told them about their own research. And after one major outlet picked it up, it will appear in a dozen other places, each trying to make a bigger headline than the others. ....
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... -thinking/

And Discover Magazine - which you linked to and quoted from - is one of the worst:
Sex Is More Complex Than A Simple Binary Suggests
Skeletal Studies Show Sex, Like Gender, Exists Along a Spectrum
:roll: :lol: :doh:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... y-suggests
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health ... a-spectrum

Maybe the nature of the beast - too many "magazines" chasing too few advertising dollars - but you might try being a bit more critical of what you read instead of being too quick to peddle it because it happens to support your biases and ignorance.

And that claim by Discover - "By the time you’re a teenager or young adult, you really aren't pumping out that many new T cells anymore, and by the time you’re forty, you have hardly any" - looks to be rather untenable at best if not an outright howler. For instance, see:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... objectonly
https://immunityageing.biomedcentral.co ... /figures/1

The first has a table of the concentration, I assume, of the two main T cell types - CD4 & CD8 in the young and the old:
CD4 (%) --- 52·08 ± 13·73 (12) --- 46·54 ± 15·21 (26) --- NS
CD8 (%) --- 26·25 ± 5·69 (12) --- 19·81 ± 8·77 (26) --- P < 0·05
Doesn't look like a big change to me, but I'm sure that you with your degree in biochemistry and inside track to the good Dr. Malone can show how those are consistent with the Discover claim. :roll:

Likewise the second source, the essential graph of which is this:

ImmunityAging_Tcell_Evolution_Aging_1A.jpg
(108.03 KiB) Downloaded 43 times

Of note are the CD3 - secondary T-cell? - CD4, & CD8 graphs showing the levels (per micro-litre by the look of it) from ages of 10 to 90. Of particular note is that some of those in the 60 to 80 ranges have levels about the same as those in the 10 to 40 age range. Doesn't look much like any justification at all for Discover's "hardly any" or its "wane tremendously".

And while those graphs more or less justify the "linear decrease" that other sources claim, the correlation values (R=0.244, & R=0.365) are not much to hang your hat on, much less any thesis or claim by Discover. And I note that the graph for the CD4 doesn't even have an R-value so it was probably so low as to not even be significant.

Maybe Farber had something else in mind, but it sure looks like she was blowing smoke out of her arse - or Discover was far too quick to sensationalize her argument with outright fabrications. Hard to believe, I know ... :roll:

Ran across an interesting note & quote I made of Shermer's The Believing Brain:
Part of the problem may be that 70 percent of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined in the NSF study as grasping probability, the experimental method, and hypothesis testing. So one solution here is teaching how science works in addition to what science knows. A 2002 article in Skeptic magazine entitled “Science Education is No Guarantee of Skepticism” presented the results of a study that found no correlation between science knowledge (facts about the world) and paranormal beliefs.
If there's any silver lining in the Covid cloud, it may have been in highlighting how profoundly ignorant how much of American society - in particular, but Western "civilization" in general - is of science, how so many are scientifically illiterate, more commited to what feels good over what is true, and more crippled with "virulently anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments".

Not sure that the "prognosis" is all that favourable.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3532

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

fafnir wrote: The pit is weak if my chat with Steersman is killing it. I had much longer pointless arguments on the JREF just before everybody left and it went into terminal decline.
You're 2-for-2.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3533

Post by Service Dog »

Don't play dumb. You saw the experts cited in the article.


I've volunteered to leave the pyt-- or confine the bulk of my posting to a subforum/ if that's what it takes to keep this place alive.

Can you commit to altering aspects of how you post, if that's what it takes to keep the lights on? Clean-up your act.

Like never post that same same same fucking chalkboard cartoon again again again. Broken record.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3534

Post by Service Dog »

fafnir wrote: The pit is weak if my chat with Steersman is killing it.
The point is contrary to everything you so-eloquently argued against Steers. You sound like a progressive, punishing us with your ugly performance art... fafnir: "Pearls before swine!"
Deputy Barney Fife: "Sir, this is a children's Easter Egg hunt."
fafnir: "Weakling!"

Would you be willing to confine your marathon steers debates-- to a subforum-- if that would stop the impending eviction?

(I'd read 'em! you're sharper than the supreme court open arguments I'm listening-to today.)



the closure is weighing-on me tonight. Over the years I've had fallings-out with so many friends & family. Now I'm not welcome in restaurants and public gatherings in my city. Not even the public library. They don't just demand a mask or vax card-- they're snippy about it. Self-appointed brownshirts put their hand on my chest, or pull on my sleeve-- utterly confident they won't be smashed. I'm 6'2" 235lbs. I take pride in my ability to turn the other cheek. But I worry that I've become 'anorexic' about taking-a-Loss. Conditioned to do-so. Forgetting how to take a stand. I'm hyper-sensitive, depressive...sure. This week's feverish nights had a soul-searching component. Like, "am I living my life wrong?" A 'come to Jesus moment' as they say. Figuratively. Not an enormous one, but... still. (The Coof Demon seems to be done wrestling with me. Just a little leftover weakness.)

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3535

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Wonderist got rightly boxed for bogarting the forum. Don't be like Wonderist, or accept boxing.

The upkeep of the Pit is not trivial. Lsuomo does it as a labor of love, and if he's not feeling the love anymore, who can demand he keep at it?

Some of us obviously still value the discussions, honesty, and camaraderie here. I, for one, believe our 'mission' as it were, did not end with the A+ battle. The same "stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy" we stood up against is running wild all over. It's certainly entrenched in the humanist wing of A/S.

I don't know how to run a BBS, but I'll set up an alternate location to hang out if and when the Pit gets filled in. You all are my friends, and I don't want to lose track of you. Hell, Another Lurker just came back into my life after she did four years' hard time.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3536

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Wonderist got rightly boxed for bogarting the forum. Don't be like Wonderist, or accept boxing.

The upkeep of the Pit is not trivial. Lsuomo does it as a labor of love, and if he's not feeling the love anymore, who can demand he keep at it?

Some of us obviously still value the discussions, honesty, and camaraderie here. I, for one, believe our 'mission' as it were, did not end with the A+ battle. The same "stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy" we stood up against is running wild all over. It's certainly entrenched in the humanist wing of A/S.

I don't know how to run a BBS, but I'll set up an alternate location to hang out if and when the Pit gets filled in. You all are my friends, and I don't want to lose track of you. Hell, Another Lurker just came back into my life after she did four years' hard time.
Ah "Wonderist", a word and username to conjure with ... ;-)

Some 1300 references on a search, including one to your "regret" at giving him your private number (what WERE you thinking?):

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... te#p492376

And one to a nefarious plan to wonderize me:

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... st#p356220

One that thankfully didn't come to fruition .. then ;-)

But can sympathize with "our mission". However, simply pointing and laughing - as gratifying as it often is - really doesn't do a lot on the playing field. That's where the proverbial battle for hearts and minds is won - or lost.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7307
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3537

Post by Service Dog »

I built a training-crate for Steersman, back in 2016.

My notion was that-- if Steersman refused to abide by minimal standards of civil discourse...

that any Pitter could refuse to engage with him... anywhere _except_ in his little box.

No need for a hard-coded shunning, then.

https://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 78#p356278

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3538

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: I built a training-crate for Steersman, back in 2016.

Looks like the wheels fell off - not surprisingly ...

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10598
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3539

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: Don't play dumb. You saw the experts cited in the article.
"Experts" these days ain't what they used to be; why I've argued the public needs a much better handle on the science to tell the "real scientists" (tm) from the charlatans and grifters and clowns. Scott Alexander:
So “believe experts”? That would have been better advice in this case. But the experts have beclowned themselves again and again throughout this pandemic, from the first stirrings of “anyone who worries about coronavirus reaching the US is dog-whistling anti-Chinese racism”, to the Surgeon-General tweeting “Don’t wear a face mask”, to government campaigns focusing entirely on hand-washing (HEPA filters? What are those?)
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/i ... you-wanted

Not that you're likely to be much interested in anything that questions the value of ivermectin, even if there's maybe some slight value in it. But - hey, maybe you've seen the light recently ...
Service Dog wrote: I've volunteered to leave the pyt-- or confine the bulk of my posting to a subforum/ if that's what it takes to keep this place alive.
Try it for a week or two ...
Service Dog wrote: Can you commit to altering aspects of how you post, if that's what it takes to keep the lights on? Clean-up your act.
How so? Why? Expect Lsuomo was feeling a dearth of "love" with "The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show" and probably much before then or before I showed up on the scene again.
Service Dog wrote: Like never post that same same same fucking chalkboard cartoon again again again. Broken record.
You're the enforcer now? Maybe Fafnir hadn't seen it? That WAS who it was directed to, not you. Or maybe you think it has some relevance to what you periodically pull out of your nether regions? :roll:

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3540

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: What unmitigated and self-serving horse crap - so vague as to be useless. Not to mention that it didn't at all address my point that championing a "faith in progress", at least in curing medieval diseases, is hardly prima facie evidence of promoting the risible view that transwomen are actually women (i.e., adult human females [those with functioning ovaries]). Which is basically what your "argument" boiled down into.
Again, you act like a fact checker and change the claim so that it can be debunked. I said that the totality of your liberal premises, of which a faith in progress was one, could be used to argue for many conclusions that you opposed or denied and that you picked and chose when to apply them as was convenient to get to your desired conclusion. Somehow you have replaced the "totality of your liberal principles" part with you "championing" progress as having cured medieval diseases. You then replace the conclusion of the argument, that your premises can easily be used to argue for the conclusions you don't like or don't want to discuss, with the claim that you promote those conclusions.

Steersmen, in a debate, you need to respond to the argument the other side made, not completely rewrite what they said so it is the position you attack in all your posts regardless of what the other person said. I can play that game too, but it would be pointless. If you want to argue with yourself, you have a blog for that, I think.

Post Reply