Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Richy_T]

What the fuck are 'supermodel genes'?  So you think the white kid is pretty and the other isn't.  That is totally subjective.

Also, with 'white genes', you only mean that teeny tiny amount that affect skin color, no?  Why would other genes in white people be recessive?

Well it's not just the that the skin is different... There are also other differences.. There is a reasons why all 100m sprinter and marathon runner are black and not white.

So you're telling me if I want good-looking kids who can outrun the cops...

And dance

[1714838462]

1714838462

[1714838462]

1714838462

[1714838462]

1714838462

[1714838462]

1714838462

[Divitiae miserae]

[Snip]

Well said, Jorge.

And this? https://i.imgur.com/CWQkRzh.jpg

Do you think the West doesn't carry out atrocities on innocent civilians? What happened in Paris might be a reaction of all the mess in the Middle East initiated by the US-led coalition.
Also, multiply by ten the latest terrorist attack and replicate it each day and you may get an idea of how Middle-Easterners live below ISIS, a Frankenstein whose father is the "civilised" West.

So what are you suggesting? You don't want to prevent future events like that?

How about not assaulting and invading other countries and funding "rebels" to topple the local not-very-West-friendly governments?

[oda.krell]

[racist drivel]

You have no idea how recessive and dominant genes work, nor how they are passed on between generations. Go play with some Punnett squares

And not one word of explanation. Helpful. This type of dismissive attitude, without so much as explaining how he is wrong, is pathetic.

What is there to explain or argue? This is no different than asking a civil engineer to engage in a serious discussion with a "9/11 truther", or asking an aerospace expert to argue with someone who's convinced the moon landings were faked. It's waste of time, because the opposing party is clearly unwilling to spend any amount of time and effort to learn the basic concepts of the respective field, and will solely aim to win the argument by rhetorical smoke and mirror tactics, not scientifically adequate reasoning.

[Richy_T]

And not one word of explanation. Helpful. This type of dismissive attitude, without so much as explaining how he is wrong, is pathetic.

It's called being educated in the basic facts of what you're talking about. I'd be happy to tutor for 0.3BTC/hr but a basic biology textbook would be cheap and Wikipedia is free.

You know what *is* a recessive trait? Blue eyes. Guess they've been bred out of existence already since we don't give a damn about blue eyed people breeding with anyone else. What's that?

[Ibian]

[racist drivel]

You have no idea how recessive and dominant genes work, nor how they are passed on between generations. Go play with some Punnett squares

And not one word of explanation. Helpful. This type of dismissive attitude, without so much as explaining how he is wrong, is pathetic.

What is there to explain or argue? This is no different than asking a civil engineer to engage in a serious discussion with a "9/11 truther", or an aerospace expert to convince someone who's convinced the moon landings were faked. It's waste of time, because the opposing party is clearly unwilling to spend any amount of time and effort to learn the basic concepts of the respective field, and will solely aim to win the argument by rhetorical smoke and mirror tactics, not scientifically adequate reasoning.

Simply saying "you are wrong, and ugly" is no argument.

[Ibian]

[Snip]

Well said, Jorge.

And this? https://i.imgur.com/CWQkRzh.jpg

Do you think the West doesn't carry out atrocities on innocent civilians? What happened in Paris might be a reaction of all the mess in the Middle East initiated by the US-led coalition.
Also, multiply by ten the latest terrorist attack and replicate it each day and you may get an idea of how Middle-Easterners live below ISIS, a Frankenstein whose father is the "civilised" West.

So what are you suggesting? You don't want to prevent future events like that?

How about not assaulting and invading other countries and funding "rebels" to topple the local not-very-West-friendly governments?

You don't care at all that we are inviting in people who want to kill us, and actually do it, do you?

[oda.krell]

[racist drivel]

You have no idea how recessive and dominant genes work, nor how they are passed on between generations. Go play with some Punnett squares

And not one word of explanation. Helpful. This type of dismissive attitude, without so much as explaining how he is wrong, is pathetic.

What is there to explain or argue? This is no different than asking a civil engineer to engage in a serious discussion with a "9/11 truther", or an aerospace expert to convince someone who's convinced the moon landings were faked. It's waste of time, because the opposing party is clearly unwilling to spend any amount of time and effort to learn the basic concepts of the respective field, and will solely aim to win the argument by rhetorical smoke and mirror tactics, not scientifically adequate reasoning.

Simply saying "you are wrong, and ugly" is no argument.

In principle, you are right. But this "discussion" started by an abuse of rigidly defined terminology of the field that has currently the best understanding of the topic in question ("recessive", and "biology").

If someone claims that prime numbers are divisible by some other number (other than 1), do I need to seriously argue against that? There's obviously a difference wrt absolute certainty between a purely formal result (of pure math) and an empirical result (like in biology), but even in the latter case, the result is still a lot closer to "certainty" than to "totally up for uneducated debate".

[Ibian]

[racist drivel]

You have no idea how recessive and dominant genes work, nor how they are passed on between generations. Go play with some Punnett squares

And not one word of explanation. Helpful. This type of dismissive attitude, without so much as explaining how he is wrong, is pathetic.

What is there to explain or argue? This is no different than asking a civil engineer to engage in a serious discussion with a "9/11 truther", or an aerospace expert to convince someone who's convinced the moon landings were faked. It's waste of time, because the opposing party is clearly unwilling to spend any amount of time and effort to learn the basic concepts of the respective field, and will solely aim to win the argument by rhetorical smoke and mirror tactics, not scientifically adequate reasoning.

Simply saying "you are wrong, and ugly" is no argument.

In principle, you are right. But this "discussion" started by an abuse of rigidly defined terminology of the field that has currently the best understanding of the topic in question ("recessive", and "biology").

If someone claims that prime numbers are divisible by some other number (other than 1), do I need to seriously argue against that? There's obviously a difference wrt absolute certainty between a purely formal result (of pure math) and an empirical result (like in biology), but even in the latter case, the result is still a lot closer to "certainty" than "totally up for uneducated debate".

And the part about calling people ugly? How do you explain that?

[Divitiae miserae]

[Snip]

Well said, Jorge.

And this? https://i.imgur.com/CWQkRzh.jpg

Do you think the West doesn't carry out atrocities on innocent civilians? What happened in Paris might be a reaction of all the mess in the Middle East initiated by the US-led coalition.
Also, multiply by ten the latest terrorist attack and replicate it each day and you may get an idea of how Middle-Easterners live below ISIS, a Frankenstein whose father is the "civilised" West.

So what are you suggesting? You don't want to prevent future events like that?

How about not assaulting and invading other countries and funding "rebels" to topple the local not-very-West-friendly governments?

You don't care at all that we are inviting in people who want to kill us, and actually do it, do you?

What I said would surely help. If I remember correctly 8% of France population is Muslim and the attack was orchestrated and carried out by a handful of people who were raised in France. Who is at fault here is the French intelligence.

[Richy_T]

Simply saying "you are wrong, and ugly" is no argument.

Which is why I gave a hint as to where to start looking.

There's no point having an argument when one side has a totally invalid foundation for theirs. Quite simply, he is wrong though actually strangely attractive.

[Ibian]

[Snip]

Well said, Jorge.

And this? https://i.imgur.com/CWQkRzh.jpg

Do you think the West doesn't carry out atrocities on innocent civilians? What happened in Paris might be a reaction of all the mess in the Middle East initiated by the US-led coalition.
Also, multiply by ten the latest terrorist attack and replicate it each day and you may get an idea of how Middle-Easterners live below ISIS, a Frankenstein whose father is the "civilised" West.

So what are you suggesting? You don't want to prevent future events like that?

How about not assaulting and invading other countries and funding "rebels" to topple the local not-very-West-friendly governments?

You don't care at all that we are inviting in people who want to kill us, and actually do it, do you?

What I said would surely help. If I remember correctly 8% of France population is Muslim and the attack was orchestrated and carried out by a handful of people who were raised in France. Who is at fault here is the French intelligence.

So again, what are you suggesting? What should be done? Something practical this time, if you please.

[Ibian]

Simply saying "you are wrong, and ugly" is no argument.

Which is why I gave a hint as to where to start looking.

There's no point having an argument when one side has a totally invalid foundation for theirs. Quite simply, he is wrong though actually strangely attractive.

Simply saying "you are wrong" is no argument either. Wrong how? How does it actually work?

If you don't want to have a discussion, simply don't. But you are here now.

[Richy_T]

What I said would surely help. If I remember correctly 8% of France population is Muslim and the attack was orchestrated and carried out by a handful of people who were raised in France. Who is at fault here is the French intelligence.

Nope. Who is at fault are those who decided to pick up weapons and strap on suicide vests. The question is how to best mitigate those. I don't really see that "race" factors into it though.

[Divitiae miserae]

So again, what are you suggesting? What should be done? Something practical this time, if you please.

Switch the military tactic from offence to mostly defence; more competent intelligence; more stringent checks at the border to reject suspects.

[Richy_T]

Simply saying "you are wrong" is no argument either. Wrong how? How does it actually work?

If you don't want to have a discussion, simply don't. But you are here now.

Recessive genes are not eliminated by breeding but are passed on just the same as dominant genes. It is only in their expression that it makes a difference. In future generations, recessive genes may recombine to once again be expressed phenotypically.

Genes increase or decrease through natural selection which will depend on many other factors.

That's as far as I'm willing to go explaining grade school science. Especially in a thread about the price of Bitcoin.

Here, have it as a link since Google is apparently just too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punnett_square

[Divitiae miserae]

Nope. Who is at fault are those who decided to pick up weapons and strap on suicide vests. The question is how to best mitigate those. I don't really see that "race" factors into it though.

It'd be nice, but a world free of terrorism is unlikely. If the relevant state vigilance is weak results of this kind are inevitable.

[adamstgBit]

all in b4 massive pump of all time.

[r0ach]

What the fuck are 'supermodel genes'?  So you think the white kid is pretty and the other isn't.  That is totally subjective.

Contrary to what fat pride and other whacko groups try to claim, "beauty" is not even close to entirely subjective.  Symmetry and attributes that define health are obvious objective standards of looks, probably plenty more exist.  I hate to break it to you, but the world in general will unanimously agree which child received the supermodel genes and which didn't.

Since the Caucasian genes are recessive, this is how it turns out nearly every single time in these kinds of offspring, the child looks nothing like the white parent.  From a strict biological and natural selection point of view, the purpose of reproduction is solely to spread your genes into the future.  In the scenario above, what she has done is basically pass on her genes as non-influential junk DNA, while the African genes determined almost the entire outcome of the child where it doesn't resemble one of the parents at all.

Of course there will be tons of Marxists coming along to claim that mentioning African genes are dominant and Caucasian and Asian genes are recessive is "da raycism", because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that whatever genes compromise the recessive groups would basically be made extinct by full integration between all groups.  This infuriates the common Marxist because it blows the lid off their fake narrative where those groups of people tend to constantly push for things like conservation of variety in animal species, yet they would be pushing for the exact opposite in this case, the extinction of the recessive human groups on purpose.

[Divitiae miserae]

What the fuck are 'supermodel genes'?  So you think the white kid is pretty and the other isn't.  That is totally subjective.

Contrary to what fat pride and other whacko groups try to claim, "beauty" is not even close to entirely subjective.  Symmetry and attributes that define health are obvious objective standards of looks, probably plenty more exist.  I hate to break it to you, but the world in general will unanimously agree which child received the supermodel genes and which didn't.

Since the Caucasian genes are recessive, this is how it turns out nearly every single time in these kinds of offspring, the child looks nothing like the white parent.  From a strict biological and natural selection point of view, the purpose of reproduction is solely to spread your genes into the future.  In the scenario above, what she has done is basically pass on her genes as non-influential junk DNA, while the African genes determined almost the entire outcome of the child where it doesn't resemble one of the parents at all.

Of course there will be tons of Marxists coming along to claim that mentioning African genes are dominant and Caucasian and Asian genes are recessive is "da raycism", because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that whatever genes compromise the recessive groups would basically be made extinct by full integration between all groups.  This infuriates the common Marxist because it blows the lid off their fake narrative where those groups of people tend to constantly push for things like conservation of variety in animal species, yet they would be pushing for the exact opposite in this case, the extinction of the recessive groups on purpose.

Bottom line: Klum is still totally bangable.

[Richy_T]

Nope. Who is at fault are those who decided to pick up weapons and strap on suicide vests. The question is how to best mitigate those. I don't really see that "race" factors into it though.

It'd be nice, but a world free of terrorism is unlikely. If the relevant state vigilance is weak results of this kind are inevitable.

It is unlikely in any case. I'm especially wary of unchecked immigration. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm an immigrant myself and have counted amongst my friends people from many races, cultures and religions and celebrate many of the things that exist in my life because of it. Assimilation is key though and France especially has allowed enclaves to develop where ideals that run counter to the ethos of western secularism have been allowed to build. Any realistic level of vigilance less than panopticon-levels will have trouble with that.