mf - story #7487 - JF Doesn't Know What He's Talking About

JF Doesn't Know What He's Talking About
posted by Lucifer on July 25th, 2023 at 12:58AM

Originally From: https://thewaywardaxolotl....7185108961837462

JF's definitions make no sense. For example, in the 2021 discussion that BG and JF had, JF was trying to argue that DNA is a replicator, but that's not true. BG was arguing that DNA is necessary but not sufficient for both replication and reproduction, but JF couldn't comprehend this possibility, so he chose to rage quit like the ignorant coward he is.

> Firstly, this is not an example of a tragedy of the commons.

It IS a tragedy of the commons. Genetic diversity is important for a sustainable population. If everybody selects the same exact genes for their gene-edited children in a future where such technology is widely available, there's going to be big problems caused by the massive decrease in genetic diversity and the general decline of the population's capacity for adaptability.

> Secondly, it's too absurd to take seriously - that we'd have super-humans, but not relatively simple robots to flip burgers and handle garbage?

The point is that there wouldn't be people at the bottom of society's social hierarchy to do jobs relating to menial labor. Not everything can be automated. Moreover, if this did happen, the changes to society would be very unpredictable, and perhaps very undesirable.

> Here is where your political naivety shines... and you have previously already said how you don't care about consent and social support

Says the person who doesn't understand game theory, political philosophy, or economics. You don't care about consent either. You think it's okay to have children without their consent, and you think everybody should abide to your authoritarian ancap world where tribal warfare and might makes right is the law of the land. In Ancapistan, everybody would be fighting each other day and night over power and "moral superiority".

> In fact, you said you don't care about morality, so it's so cringy to hear you now trying to advocate for some kind of virtuous action.

There is nothing contradictory about rejecting the conventional understanding of morality and wanting to live in a well-functioning society.

Link

posted by dennisn on July 25th, 2023 at 9:08AM

> JF's definitions make no sense.

Or maybe ... DUNNING-KRUGER? You realize he has a fucking phd in that area, and you and your bf have nothing? Are you SURE that phd-JF doesn't know what DNA motherfucking is? Why am I the only one who feels the cringe for you two?

During my interactions with you two, you have repeatedly strawmanned and misrepresented and misunderstood basic points, refused to even try to understand opposing points. So I think it's safe to bet on JF here too.

> BG was arguing that DNA is necessary but not sufficient for both replication and reproduction, but JF couldn't comprehend this

I have no idea what that means - you are incoherent. You're saying that JF thinks that DNA alone can replicate -- like, just put a single isolated DNA molecule on a petri dish and it'll copy itself? JF thinks that?

> so he chose to rage quit like the ignorant coward he is.

Blithering did that 30 minutes into our third debate - he really REALLY didn't want to hear my arguments. It was fucking cringe.

> Genetic diversity is important for a sustainable population...

Why are you quoting this?

> there wouldn't be people at the bottom of society's social hierarchy to do jobs relating to menial labor.

Why are you quoting this? What does this have to do with anything?

> Says the person who doesn't understand game theory, political philosophy, or economics.

Baaaahahahaha. All 3 of those are snake oil :DDDD. Anyone who invokes any of those 3 things immediately reveals they're cringe retards :D. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ECONOMICS LOOOOOOOOOOL. Holy shit you're dumb. You/he forgot to mention Godel's thing :DDD. And something about quantum mechanics or vibrations.

> You don't care about consent either.

Fucking. Clown. World. For you or him to be invoking this argument :)))))).

> You think it's okay to have children without their consent

They do consent, and they can revoke their consent whenever they're capable/willing.

> and you think everybody should abide to your authoritarian ancap world

I have no idea who you're quoting or what's going on. Was this an exchange between BG and JF? "Authoritarian ancap" eh, you sick dishonest fuck :P. "valuing consent and opting-out" is "authoritarian" to you. Fuck your mom :P, you're hopeless.

> might makes right is the law of the land

Which is totally not how things operate today ;). King George will definitely not be the mightiest, the rightest ;). You are too dumb, and waaaay too dishonest.

> In Ancapistan, everybody would be fighting each other day and night over power and "moral superiority".

Totally unlike today. Or totally definitely absolutely not like it would be under totally-NOT-authoritarian King George rule. Everyone will obviously see that Geroge is basically right about everything, about breeding licensing, about land allotment, about "taxation" rates and whatever he chooses to do with that rent-seeked pile of gold. (Anyone who doesn't is obviously a malicious saboteur who is basically choosing to be imprisoned or shot ;)

> There is nothing contradictory about rejecting the conventional understanding of morality and wanting to live in a well-functioning society.

Tf? That's my position you fucking retard. The conventional understanding of morality so far has been that violent theft and slavery is okay. I define "well-functioning" as one which shuns slavery and harm to innocent people.

Link

posted by dennisn on July 25th, 2023 at 11:04PM

> You're saying that JF thinks that DNA alone can replicate -- like, just put a single isolated DNA molecule on a petri dish and it'll copy itself? JF thinks that?

Yes/No ????

(You do this EVERY fucking time. I've lost count of all the questions that you've ignored.)

Link

posted by Lucifer on July 25th, 2023 at 11:40PM

No, DNA cannot replicate by itself. The *entire* organism is required in order to replicate DNA.

Link

posted by Dumb nigger on July 26th, 2023 at 11:04AM

Your DNA is never getting another *entire* organism lmfaoooo. Fucking clown cuck can’t even basic biology but he thinks he has a place trying to talk shit about me ahahaha. Bitch you thought those screenshots were a flex 🤣🤣🤣
This is hilarious lmao these cucky dicklets are out here pretending they’re deep loool. So pathetic yet funny. Modern day court jesters right here bro. You little horny bitch, you wanna get raped over and over huh? Go get more screenshots and I might consider it.

Link

posted by Dumb nigger on July 26th, 2023 at 10:44AM

Are you also a flat earther? This bitch been trying to clown around on the internet and here I am waiting for my cotton to get plucked.

Now I get it! You’re trying to overcompensate for your low IQ. So you ARE self aware after all. You know how dumb and biologically challenged you are. That’s why you try to pretend you’re deep and intellectual. Hahaha. Not working bro.
By the way - this is the end for your genes. You’re never getting laid or respected. Nobody even takes you seriously. Your clown friends aren’t getting any pussy either hahaha. This is so fucking hilarious 😂 What’s the point living as a retard? If you feel like it, child, you should kill yourself. We’ll understand bro it’s okay.

Link

posted by Dumb nigger on July 26th, 2023 at 10:38AM

Lol. Hahaha. Not long before you delete or edit this one too bro. How old are you? Nevermind, I wasn’t this retarded even as a teenager. Actually never in my life was I this dumb. Yo momma was right to whoop your ass. Go back and get another whooping bro. You deserve it 🤡

Link

I disabled editing :p by dennisn on July 26th, 2023 at 10:53AM.

I know. by Lucifer on July 26th, 2023 at 2:45PM.

posted by dennisn on July 26th, 2023 at 9:06AM

Hm, okay maybe you really are low IQ or something and I shouldn't be so hard on you. Up until now I thought your evasions were more malice than incompetence.

Link

posted by Lucifer on July 25th, 2023 at 5:37PM

You know you're losing the argument when you cite your PhD and say that game theory is "snake-oil".

Link

posted by dennisn on July 25th, 2023 at 8:41PM

You don't even know what game theory is. It's a niche thing in math, that Duning-Krugers (99.9% of people) misuse. All you and Blithering know about it is that one 2x2 table, looool. That's not gAmE tHeOrY! People do this with quantum mechanics too, they have no idea wtf they're talking about, they're larping, affinity scamming. You also conveniently ignored "political philosophy" (hahaaahahahahahaha) and "economics" (haaaaaaahahaha). You're a waste of time to talk to, you ignore everything.

Your sentence also made no sense, I don't have a phd, and I don't think JF called BG out on his scamming.

Link

posted by Lucifer on July 25th, 2023 at 11:32PM

> Your sentence also made no sense

By your logic, you should shut the fuck up and listen to Paul Krugman for all your opinions about economics, because he has a PhD, and you don't. He has a PhD, so that validates everything that he says, according to you. Otherwise, you wouldn't repeat that Molyneux and all the other retards have PhDs, as if that's an actual argument.

Link

Dennis's Mistakes on Morality
posted by Lucifer on July 25th, 2023 at 5:36PM

From: https://thewaywardaxolotl....came-amoral.html

> "Only creatures that have the mental capacity to conceive of abstract rules can be bound and protected by said rules - and only if they reciprocate."

That is very arbitrary. By the same logic, a newborn infant or a person with severe dementia may not be protected by the Libertarian NAP if they lack the mentally ability to understand it. Most people would disagree and insist that those humans deserve the same legal protections as more mentally capable humans.

> "Morality = universally preferable behavior"

No, Morality is not "universally preferable behavior". You just made that up. Most people in Japan, the United States, and Europe view the assassination of Shinzo Abe to be a "morally bad" thing since they like Japan, but most people in China and Korea view his assassination to be a "morally good" thing because they hate Japan. If it was truly the case that it is "universally preferable" to condemn murder, then why are there hundreds of millions people who applaud the assassination and celebrate the assassin as a hero?

> "Humans aren't fighting over the last bits of air, land, water, etc."

That's literally what they've done all throughout modern history, with the main exception being the modern era.

> "Our competitions are chosen / voluntary."

No, they aren't. If competition was truly voluntary, then there would be no competition at all because everyone would avoid it. One of the most fundamental principles of geopolitics is that selfish players (countries in this case) will compete against each other for scarce resources. And there are no permanent friends, only temporary allies for as long as the right conditions for cooperation hold true.

> "Having one more human born on this planet won't hurt any existing human."

If it's exactly *one* human, then probably not. But it isn't. The world population is increasing by several tens of millions of humans every year. Only a fool would say that there's no way this continuing trend could ever go wrong on a planet with finite resources. Unlimited population growth is unsustainable, and that's what we're heading towards.

> "The energies in our ecosystems aren't that scarce"

Yes they are, and they always have been. And it will only become more apparent as the world population continues to grow. If that continues, all it will take is another major crisis or two to make the world's food/resource supplies trip up and unable to keep up. Then you'll catch a glimpse of how biological systems have *always* work.

> "Being selfish is okay. You've been brainwashed to think it's wrong."

If anybody thinks that being selfish is wrong, then that would be you. You think that it's "evil" to have children that you cannot feed, even if that turns out to be the most successful (and selfish) reproductive strategy. You also deem many so-called "immoral" behaviors to be "universally wrong", even though they're motivated by selfish desires, whereas I don't view them to be universally wrong nor universally right.

> "Morality, defined as universal preferable behaviors, does exist."

Since you keep using the descriptor "universally preferable", it seems that you care about what the greatest number of people would consider to be moral or immoral, right? If so, then you should pay your taxes instead of trying to evade it. The vast majority of people consider taxation to be preferable and morally right, and since it's impossible to reach a 100% consensus by everybody anyway, you should be in favor of taxation and paying your taxes too, if you want to be "moral" anyway (according to most people's brains and mirror neurons).

> "Modern moral theory says you aren't obligated to help him."

Modern Liberals disagree with you. Who's to say that your beliefs are more correct than theirs, besides yourself?

> Other species are not subject to the same moral protections as us, since they can neither conceive nor reciprocate moral norms.

If that's true, then human babies, severely retarded people, and the mentally disabled elderly do not have the same legal protections as everyone else, which contradicts most people's moral intuitions, at least in today's world anyway. Though I am indifferent since I understand that literally nothing is objectively immoral.

> "but even so using more energy in the ecosystem doesn't necessarily harm other species."

Yes it does. The Industrial Revolution was powered by fossil fuels, which fundamentally changed the Earth, caused tons of pollution, and lead to the sixth largest mass extinction event in the Earth's history. As another example, humans have had to breed literally billions of livestock animals inside slaughterhouses in order to generate enough meat to feed the planet, and yet it still isn't enough, in part because the human population won't stop growing.

> Animals shouldn't breed if there isn't enough energy around to sustain themselves. Just like a mother is being cruel/evil if she has babies that she cannot feed.

And yet animals will still breed anyway irregardless. If there's a famine and civilization collapses, the most reasonable thing to do from a biological/evolutionary/game-theoretic point-of-view is to take what you can and give nothing back. Because that is what will maximize your reproductive success. And all the organisms that follow that strategy will spread their genes to a greater extent, whereas the most altruistic ones who choose to have fewer offspring will have their kind die out. You don't seem to understand biology or evolutionary theory very well...

Link

posted by dennisn on July 25th, 2023 at 9:53PM

> [requiring cognitive capacity to understand abstract rules] is very arbitrary.

No it's not. It's kinda an obvious mother fucking implication.

> By the same logic, a newborn infant or a person with severe dementia may not be protected by the Libertarian NAP.

Yea, kinda. Animals too. What's your point? You got a better alternative? You think newborn infants should be legally responsible for any contracts they agree to, as per your wanting them to have "the same legal protections [and resonsibilities]"?

> No, Morality is not "universally preferable behavior".

Yes it is. It has always been this. For example, "thou shalt not murder" is (1) universal (2) able to be chosen/prefered (3) a behavior.

> Most people in Japan, the United States, and Europe view the assassination of Shinzo Abe to be a "morally bad"

Most people are incoherent. What's your point? Did Shinzo directly hurt anyone? Simple test. He probably *advocated* for people to be hurt, as most politicians do (the cops do the actual dirty bloody work), so technically he's probably innocent, but meh, practically speaking, who would defend such a shithead if misfortune befell him.

> If it was truly the case that it is "universally preferable"

You fucking retard, I already explained what "preferable" means here. What the fuck is wrong with you? http://dennisn.mooo.com/m...ory.php?sid=7359

> why are there hundreds of millions people who applaud the assassination and celebrate the assassin as a hero?

Most people are amoral/immoral opportunistic apes. They CHOOSE to be that. Ask any of them, from either side, if enslaving people is good or bad, or if theft is good or bad, or if killing INNOCENT people is good or bad (like vaporizing/nuking Hiroshima, or fire bombing Tokyo and Dresden).

> That's literally what they've done all throughout modern history [fought over THE LAST BITS OF AIR, LAND, WATER]

Lie. False. You're dumb and dishonest. Most of the planet was uninhabitted just a hundred years ago.

> there would be no competition at all because everyone would avoid it.

False. You are dumb, Duning. Boys for example turn everything into a competition just for the fuck of it. Clearly your parents kept you in a shelterd cave all your life.

> One of the most fundamental principles of geopolitics

There is no such thing as gEoPoLitIcS Duning. You are so dumb. Seriously, go outside some time.

> selfish players

Everyone is "selfish". Meaningless empty sentences.

> countries

"countries" aren't things. There is no "USA". There is ... Lockhead Martin, and covert gangs like the CIA, and old money like the Rothchilds, etc.

> will compete against each other for scarce resources

That's not why people fight. They fight to preserve their (ill gotten) wealth, for power and control, to preserve that. Cornering and monopolizing natural resource markets (as you Georgists also want to do) is just one of several methods faggots use to get this control, but it's not for the actual resources themselves. USA didn't attack Iraq "for the scarce oil", as was often claimed at the time. They attacked Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia after years of deliberation, almost certainly at the behest of (((Israelis))). Nobody was running out of scarce oil.

> And there are no permanent friends, only temporary allies

You are sad :P. I have permanent friends. Try growing a spine, and some principles.

> The world population is increasing by several tens of millions of humans every year.

Almost every population's fertility is currently below replacement levels (2.1). Sub-Saharan Africa's will be too, apparently, soon. Because homo sapiens aren't rabbits or deers. We have "brains", you fucking retard. To assume that we'd over-breed like rabbits is soooooo fucking retarded, you're embarrassing. But most importantly, dishonest. Like when I asked you if YOU're that YOU'd overbreed, and you said "oh yea definitely i'd have 500+ kids", you fucking dishonest turd :P. Waste of time to talk to you.

> Only a fool would say that there's no way this continuing trend

Hahahahahaa. So you didn't even know that the trend has already reversed. DUNING. KRUGER. But bruh, for sure, you and your ilk (Ehrlich) should definitely be in charge of shit!

> Unlimited population growth is unsustainable

HAaaahahahahaahah. Thanks for this super important info bro. Let me write this down! What we all do without your wisdom.

> and that's what we're heading towards.

AAaahahahaha. *Googles...* Japan's fertility rate is 1.3. US's is 1.6. China's is 1.7. AAAhahahaha.

> all it will take is another major crisis or two to make the world's food/resource supplies trip up and unable to keep up.

Fear mongering whore :P. In reality, if you ever went outside, you'd see that food security and all-around well-being is now more secure than ever before. You never hear about famines these days - but you would have a few decades ago.

> Then you'll catch a glimpse of how biological systems have *always* work.

We get it. You're miserable, and you really want to see the world burn, all cuz you're too pussy to confront your evil violent parents. Smh. We all have to suffer, cuz you can't deal with the real evil-doers in your real life. Loool. Sad.

> have children that you cannot feed, even if that turns out to be the most successful (and selfish) reproductive strategy.

Who tf says that's the most successful strategy? Also selfish doesn't necessarily equal hurting other people - that was my point. The term "selfishness" is meaningless/tautology/neutral. Commies love to conflate the two though, to trick (shame) people into sacrificing themselves.

> You also deem many so-called "immoral" behaviors to be "universally wrong"

Ffs, morality IS univeral wrongs/rights you dense dishonest faggot. It's amazing that after all these months we can't even agree on the word, you don't even understand the secular-ancap argument, yet you write on and on and on ... about what exactly?!? Your faggot strawmen :|. Soooo sad.

> it seems that you care about what the greatest number of people would consider to be moral or immoral

Holy fuck man you're so pathetic :|. Your entire worldview is literally made of straw, no joke. No - morality is not a popularity contest - it's a lot closer to science, or math actually. Logic isn't determined by vote. No NAP-violating rule can be universalized. That's a logical statement. It's truthfulness or falsehood is not determined by majority vote.

> you should pay your taxes

Dishonest faggot :P. Call things by their proper name ... you think I should be violently forced to pay for things I don't want, against my will, at gunpoint. Why don't you ever do that? Why do you always hide behind that pathetic obvious euphemistic word "taxes"? Dishonest piece of shit. You're a good slave-boy though. Too bad Big Brother isn't paying you anything for being his little bitch. Pathetic. But this does demonstrate how YOU are the state. Fags like you, an overwhelming swarm of mosquitos ... YOU all are the real state. Without your tacit support for all this evil shit, it wouldn't exist. All your millions of proboscises are a force to be reckoned with. I could swat you easily, and all your gay friends - but I can't swat the whole swarm of you pests. Sigh.

> The vast majority of people consider taxation to be ... morally right

No they don't retard. That's why they hide behind the euphemism, they PAIN STAKINGLY avoid explicitly saying what it really is (except for a few sociopathic autists), and they get soooo triggered when you try to get them to do that - ie. guilty consciences under intense tension to hide that uncomfortable truth. Again, try going outside some time and talking to people. You would have known this by now if you had ever tried this.

> you should be in favor of taxation [aka. violent theft] [assuming you care about the majority will]

Haaaaaahahahaha. Holy fuck you're pathetic. But yea, obviously this is how YOU think. You're projecting, as always.

> "moral" [means] according to most people's brains and mirror neurons

I'll leave you two alone, you with your straw man. Faggots :D

> > "Modern moral theory says you aren't obligated to help him."
> Modern Liberals disagree with you.

Who the fuck are you quoting? I never said that.

> Who's to say that your beliefs are more correct than theirs, besides yourself?

Who's to say that the square of a hypotenuse of a right triangle is the sum of the squares of it's two sides?

> nothing is objectively immoral.

Waste of time. Dude, stop wasting my time, please. You're clearly not present in the conversation, you aren't being honest. What are you doing?

You don't think it's objectively immoral to gouge out toddler's eyeballs? Really? What about your parents - is it objectively immoral to kill them? Remember when you said "if you ever lay a finger on my family or children, I will kill you and chop your balls off. I mean it!!!" http://dennisn.mooo.com/m...ory.php?sid=7187 That sure sounds like you think that it's objectively universally immoral to hurt your children. You incoherent fuck. Waste. Of. Life. You zero.

> The Industrial Revolution was powered by fossil fuels, which fundamentally changed the Earth, caused tons of pollution

.... and pulled countless people out of poverty and improved most people's lives.

> and lead to the sixth largest mass extinction event in the Earth's history

HAahahahaha. I'm pretty sure that's bullshit :D. Humans have been extincting species for a long time, before and after the industrial revolution. Species have been extincting themselves too on their own without our help too :P. But thanks for exposing the commie propaganda you read :DD.

> As another example, humans have had to breed literally billions of livestock animals inside slaughterhouses in order to generate enough meat to feed the planet

So? (I'm vegan btw)

> and yet it still isn't enough

What? Yes it is enough. What the fuck are you saying? It's more than enough, herds are regularly "culled" to stay on the safe side of pandemic outbreaks - we have that much slack/excess in our food systems.

> in part because the human population won't stop growing.

HAaaaaaahahahahah [continuation from earlier laughing]. You're soooooo full of shit, this is sad.

> Just like a mother is being cruel/evil if she has babies that she cannot feed

I'm guessing you're quoting Blithering here? I have no idea what you're doing. Nevertheless, when you said you'd have 500+ kids, were you assuming you'd be able to feed them all? "Oh the web of lies we weave"

> If there's a famine and civilization collapses, the most reasonable ... bla bla bla

"Edge cases make terrible law." Clown. You don't make laws for life-boat scenarios. But it's very telling that this is where your mind is at - at the brink of annihilation. Seriously dude, confront your parents, this isn't healthy.

> You don't seem to understand biology or evolutionary theory very well...

Okay Duning :D. And neither does phd JFG. And phd Dawkins. We should all listen to you loser degree-less bums :D. (I don't consider Blithering's computer degree anything, nor your bachelors.)

Link

Stop ignoring my questions
posted by Lucifer on July 25th, 2023 at 11:36PM

Responding to: https://thewaywardaxolotl....7588641071666119

> Rules will exist in ancap citadels. And they will be better rules since they'll be voluntarily and intentionally agreed to.

Lol, you actually believe that??? Any bloke with a modicum of common sense could easily realize that that wouldn't happen at all. If anything, the rule providers would all fight and kill each other over which rules, crimes, and punishments are justified. It is truly ridiculous, crazy, and idiotic that you think that would any better than what we have now.

> There will be competition for the best rule providers. Things will initially work very similar to how they do now, except with a real option to opt-out.

But if by "competition for the best rule providers", you mean that the rule providers would all seek to find out who's the best at all-out tribal warfare, then I fully agree with you.

> Statism IS slavery: forcing people to do things against their will, preventing them from leaving the plantation

Statism isn't slavery any more than it's slavery for parents to force their children to do household chores. If the children enjoy all the benefits that their parents give them, then they have to do their part, contribute, and follow the parents' rules. Again, you're using the Rhetoric of Exploitation here. You're trying to portray normal, non-crazy people who are fine with government as being exploited and having no agency, even though they do have agency, and they want a government because they're sensible.

Link

> Lol, you actually believe th by dennisn on July 26th, 2023 at 10:51AM.

Prisoner's Dilemmas and Ancaps by Lucifer on July 26th, 2023 at 2:58PM.

> If [fighting is] costly, the by dennisn on July 27th, 2023 at 10:22PM.

You’re the actual retard, Denn by Dumb nigger on July 28th, 2023 at 2:43AM.

> You’re the actual retard, De by dennisn on July 28th, 2023 at 9:48AM.

You’re right. It would be bett by Dumb nigger on July 26th, 2023 at 3:16PM.

None of your business. by Lucifer on July 27th, 2023 at 1:13AM.

The inability to edit is reall by Dumb nigger on July 27th, 2023 at 1:29AM.

Bro sounds gayer and gayer eve by Dumb nigger on July 27th, 2023 at 1:27AM.