Unpopular Opinions.

deisedave

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yeah, touched on earlier. Blowjobs are overrated. Giving oral to a girl far more enjoyable.

I blame porn

Lol if you think blow jobs are over rated you obviously have not met a girl that can do it right, deepthroat is one of the best feelings ever

ROFLcopter

Frank sinatra was rubbish and all he did was rhyme, in effect he was the very first rapper.

summerskin

ROFLcopter wrote: »

Frank sinatra was rubbish and all he did was rhyme, in effect he was the very first rapper.

Dumb post makes no sense. He didn't even write his own songs.

Poetry has been rhyming for centuries, were the poets all rappers too??

ROFLcopter

He wasn't a poet, I can't understand the legend status he has. Anyone could sing his badly constructed "music" and do a better job.

summerskin

ROFLcopter wrote: »

He wasn't a poet, I can't understand the legend status he has. Anyone could sing his badly constructed "music" and do a better job.

As I said, it wasn't "his" music, he wrote none of it!!! Can't blame him for songs written by others.

He was an average singer who had charisma.

Gyalist

smegmar wrote: »

I much prefer to give a girl oral pleasure then to receive.

I would hope so, with a username like smegmar!

BunShopVoyeur

mickrock wrote: »

The idea that life emerged from inanimate material (abiogenesis) is crackers.

Scientists cling to this theory despite no evidence and its implausibility.

I know right! It obviously zapped out from God's magic index finger......when will they ever just accept the facts....

pmurphy00

im pro whaling.

Gummy Panda

pmurphy00 wrote: »

im pro whaling.

Is this having sex with very large ladies?

languagenerd

* Ryan Tubridy isn't that bad.

* I know all of Nickelback's songs sound the same... but I still think their live shows must be fun, massive sing-alongs.

pragmatic1

Doing bad things is generally more fun than doing good things.

mickrock

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

I know right! It obviously zapped out from God's magic index finger......when will they ever just accept the facts....

What facts? There's no evidence whatsoever that life can come from inanimate matter.

The theory is so full of holes that it's not plausible.

And no, a supreme being isn't responsible either.

steddyeddy

mickrock wrote: »

What facts? There's no evidence whatsoever that life can come from inanimate matter.

The theory is so full of holes that it's not plausible.

And no, a supreme being isn't responsible either.

Well we do come from inanimate matter. Organic matter built from inorganic matter.

marcbrophy

smegmar wrote: »

I much prefer to give a girl oral pleasure then to receive.

I see what you did there!

loalae

I don't like the sun. I prefer cloudy days.

mickrock

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well we do come from inanimate matter. Organic matter built from inorganic matter.

The building blocks of life, amino acids, can be produced easily enough from matter but the way in which they have to put together in a very complex and specific manner, by chance, to produce life is implausible.

WatchWolf

Because of recurring bad experiences I hate a very certain race. My whole family hates this "race" as well and any one who doesn't hate this certain ugly race are just fooling themselves. I'll put this disgusting race in spoiler tags so I don't offend your fragile little minds...

I absolutely despise

the egg and spoon race

. Absolute filth.

steddyeddy

mickrock wrote: »

The building blocks of life, amino acids, can be produced easily enough from matter but the way in which they have to put together in a very complex and specific manner, by chance, to produce life is implausible.

Not really the principles of organic chemistry deal with molecules that naturally form long chains. The interaction between these molecules means that they can only combine with certain molecules.

smegmar

deisedave wrote: »

Lol if you think blow jobs are over rated you obviously have not met a girl that can do it right, deepthroat is one of the best feelings ever

Actually I had a really great one, but the thing is she never went to town on the dick. Somehow all the area around there can be just as good if it's done right. I hope all you ladies can learn something from this. I know it's ironic a guy called smegmar telling you this.

Deus Ex Machina

A debate about the origins of life is neatly intertwined with one regarding the pleasures of oral sex....this must be like what goes on behind closed doors at the Vatican.

mickrock

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not really the principles of organic chemistry deal with molecules that naturally form long chains. The interaction between these molecules means that they can only combine with certain molecules.

"As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^[SIZE=-1]119,879[/SIZE] is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit."

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Mike Litoris

smegmar wrote: »

Actually I had a really great one, but the thing is she never went to town on the dick. Somehow all the area around there can be just as good if it's done right. I hope all you ladies can learn something from this. I know it's ironic a guy called smegmar telling you this.

I take it the other half caught this thread.:p

Good is good, bad is bad. You aint got a good one yet by the sounds of it.

Rabidlamb

9/11 was a work of genius by the terrorists.

ItsAWindUp

I love Gavin Friday. He is f ucking brilliant.

eth0

One off houses are brilliant places to live.

TeddyTedson

WatchWolf wrote: »

Because of recurring bad experiences I hate a very certain race. My whole family hates this "race" as well and any one who doesn't hate this certain ugly race are just fooling themselves. I'll put this disgusting race in spoiler tags so I don't offend your fragile little minds...

I absolutely despise

the egg and spoon race

. Absolute filth.

I thought you were about to call me something else there :P
I couldn't believe what I was reading :P

TinfoilTinman

mickrock wrote: »

"As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^[SIZE=-1]119,879[/SIZE] is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit."

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

I love how everything starts with "by chance" then is followed by meaningless probabilites.

The definition of life is fairly strict such that a virus does not technically fit into this catagory. Prions are only protein. Viroids only RNA. A self replicating system of molecules does not count as life and yet self-polymerizing molecules (so called living molecules) are all around us.

Not everything is understood about how life formed but there is a lots of promising evidence pointing towards abiogenesis.

You quoted Coppedge (1973). A lot has happened since then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Concerning Dr. Jack Szostak. 2009 Nobel Laurette in medicine for his work on telomerase.

mickrock

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

I love how everything starts with "by chance" then is followed by meaningless probabilites.

The theory of abiogenesis is that life came from inanimate matter in a series of steps and that each step happened by chance. It seems reasonably scientific to multiply the estimated probabilities of each step to get an overall probability of life happening.

You seem to have some doubt that life happened purely "by chance". Oops!

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

A self replicating system of molecules does not count as life and yet self-polymerizing molecules (so called living molecules) are all around us.

So what? There's a gigantic leap from self-replicating molecules to life itself.

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

Not everything is understood about how life formed but there is a lots of promising evidence pointing towards abiogenesis.

It would be truer to say that not very much is understood about how life formed and there isn't much convincing evidence at all.

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

Concerning Dr. Jack Szostak. 2009 Nobel Laurette in medicine for his work on telomerase.

I love how the description of the video on abiogenesis starts "This has been CONFIRMED in Dr Jack Szostak's LAB".

No it hasn't!

steddyeddy

mickrock wrote: »

The theory of abiogenesis is that life came from inanimate matter in a series of steps and that each step happened by chance. It seems reasonably scientific to multiply the estimated probabilities of each step to get an overall probability of life happening.

You seem to have some doubt that life happened purely "by chance". Oops!




So what? There's a gigantic leap from self-replicating molecules to life itself.




It would be truer to say that not very much is understood about how life formed and there isn't much convincing evidence at all.




I love how the description of the video on abiogenesis starts "This has been CONFIRMED in Dr Jack Szostak's LAB".

No it hasn't!

Mickrock whats the alternative your presenting?

mickrock

steddyeddy wrote: »

Mickrock whats the alternative your presenting?

Well, I'm not religious and don't believe in a god.

The only alternative is intelligent design, which a growing number of scientists are considering a possibility.

Many will say that intelligent design is another term for God but it isn't.

steddyeddy

mickrock wrote: »

Well, I'm not religious and don't believe in a god.

The only alternative is intelligent design, which a growing number of scientists are considering a possibility.

Many will say that intelligent design is another term for God but it isn't.

Aliens?

mickrock

steddyeddy wrote: »

Aliens?

No thanks.

steddyeddy

mickrock wrote: »

No thanks.

I dont get what your proposing Mickrock.

strobe

mickrock wrote: »

"As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^[SIZE=-1]119,879[/SIZE] is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit."

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Mick, there is a reason (well lots of reasons) why nowadays you will only find creationist websites such as the above still putting forward Coppedge's 1973 argument from Evolution: Possible or Impossible. Primarily it is because pretty much everyone else now accepts that his argument is based on several flawed and/or outdated assumptions.

For example, one assumption he bases his figures on is 'the required estimate of 239 protein molecules [400 amino acids per protein on average] for the smallest theoretical life form.' This figure of 239 protein molecules [400 aa] was based on a 1969 paper (making it even more outdated) by a guy called Morowitz. The 400 amino acids was in his own words "the average number of amino acids in proteins of the smallest known living thing is 400, at the very least". Which is completely irrelevant when what he should be basing his figures on is the minimum number of amino acids that could have existed in the first life. Not the average in the smallest known living things in 1969 that were already billions of years more advanced than the first life.

He also when coming up with his figures arbitrarily uses the rate of meaningful word formation in random English letter generation (basically how often throwing out random letters will produce proper English words) to calculate the number of possible combinations which would produce a viable gene. This is meaningless.

He goes on to make other similar assumptions that were mistakes when he made them or were based on information from the 70's or before which has now been proven inaccurate.

Kanoe

there's two pages of this god vs evolution crap here, can ya kindly find somewhere else to have this monotonous, constantly regurgitated discussion that no one really gives a crap about?

strobe

Kanoe wrote: »

there's two pages of this god vs evolution crap here, can ya kindly find somewhere else to have this monotonous, constantly regurgitated discussion that no one really gives a crap about?

Don't like it, don't read it. << That's my unpopular opinion for the day.

(It's abiogenesis vs intelligent design crap btw, not god vs evolution crap.)

Kanoe

strobe wrote: »

Don't like it, don't read it. << That's my unpopular opinion for the day.

(It's abiogenesis vs intelligent design crap btw, not god vs evolution crap.)

exactly its unpopular opinion thread not what you think is responsible for all life thread. Take to A&A or humanities ffs

strobe

Kanoe wrote: »

exactly its unpopular opinion thread not what you think is responsible for all life thread. Take to A&A or humanities ffs

People have been discussing all sorts of opinions that have been popping up. Don't like it, report the posts. You know how it works. Take it to ranting and raving ffs.

wonderfulname

ffs...

billybudd

ffs,,,,,

Kanoe

If this was elsewhere it might have some credence but it's AH for the love of Abiogenesis/Creative Designer. I like it lowbrow, I like that it's somewhere I don't actually have to think when I post/read here.make it go away, please.



ffs

K-9

Buddhists win tbh.

Paddy Cow

eth0 wrote: »

One off houses are brilliant places to live.

What are one off houses?

Cavehill Red

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

K-9

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

Didn't know about Jewish people, knew about East Asians.

Women tend to be more of average intelligence as well.

Men tend to be either spectacularly smart or spectacularly dumb whereas women tend to be in the middle.

Read it on the internet somewhere.

kraggy

Paparazzo wrote: »

Only 50% of women in this country breastfeed! And that's on leaving the hospital, many stop very soon afterwards.
That's a lot of social problems!

How do you know? Did you get a picture of them?

Pics or gtfo.

Cavehill Red

This meta-study was quite revealing.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

It debunks all the usual rejoinders offered to IQ testing differences. Nurture is ruled out by trans-adoption studies, cultural specificity of the test is ruled out by the fact that East Asians consistently outperform Europeans who developed the test, historicity is ruled out by virtue of consistent results over a 90 year period using variations of intelligence testing, and there is a provable correlation in relation to cranial capacity and intelligence (wherein east asians have on average an extra cubic inch of brain capacity compared to whites, who have five cubic inches more than blacks)

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

Right, is it you that posted this point earlier thinking you were being oh so rebellious? Averages are not a problem, everybody agrees with averages, but not everybody agrees they are relevant. I emboldened the bit you most misunderstood up there: we must consider everybody to be equal in potential, we can't assume a black person to be stupid because on average black people have lower IQs, just like we can't assume a man to be incapable of minding a child or a woman of lifting above a certain weight, it's not a hard concept to grasp.

Now the red bit, that's bold, you've just claimed all black people are lacking a brain function and are just a little bit more... primal in their response, you've implied that this is an innate characteristic, tut tut, now that is racist.

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

Right, is it you that posted this point earlier thinking you were being oh so rebellious? Averages are not a problem, everybody agrees with averages, but not everybody agrees they are relevant. I emboldened the bit you most misunderstood up there: we must consider everybody to be equal in potential, we can't assume a black person to be stupid because on average black people have lower IQs, just like we can't assume a man to be incapable of minding a child or a woman of lifting above a certain weight, it's not a hard concept to grasp.

Now the red bit, that's bold, you've just claimed all black people are lacking a brain function and are just a little bit more... primal in their response, you've implied that this is an innate characteristic, tut tut, now that is racist.

I think you'll find I haven't posted in this thread before this page. And I made the point about the difference between a group average and individuals more accurately than you did.

Furthermore, your point about potential is demonstrably facile and meaningless. Someone with an IQ of say 70 (a common finding among uneducated sub-Saharan blacks) is not going to suddenly find the capacity to comprehend complex theoretical physics problems no matter how much you wish they could.

The meta-study demonstrates that the nurture (we could substitute education for that term) argument doesn't hold water, anymore than one could feasibly argue that a morbidly obese person with arthritis could run a sub four minute mile in potential. It's not going to happen in actuality and the hypothetical and idealistic potential posited is just that, a naive belief unsupported by evidence or reality.

Now, as for the bit you marked it red, you'll note I stated that was a personal anecdotal experience of mine. Nevertheless it is borne out by the fact that almost no sub-Saharan languages of black origin (English, French and Afrikaans all being sub-Saharan languages too) possess comprehensive tenses for what we would understand as the conditional or subjunctive tenses.

This clearly implies that the abstract concepts involving conditionality ( eg: IF such a thing were to happen, I WOULD or SHOULD do something, etc) are not strongly held among those populaces that speak those languages (Xhosa and Zulu are two I know of with this feature.)

Now, you can choose, in your kneejerk and tediously uninformed fashion to slam the door shut on any discussion of that by deeming it racist. I frankly couldn't care less about how you choose to judge me. It demonstrates nothing more than your ideology clashing with the facts to me. An open mind would have first queried exactly what I meant by abstract concepts before dismissing the point. By failing to do so (though I've now explained it for you anyway) you demonstrated your own closed and prejudged mind.

I also think it's self-evident to anyone, including Africans themselves, who has spent time in their company that despite the existence of very many highly sanguine black individuals (Obama and Mandela both being good examples) nevertheless black people across the globe are generally quicker to laughter, quicker to dispute loudly, quicker to what we might term as I did emotive responses than other races. No doubt Asians, who are generally more reserved than caucasians might say something similar about us. One can if one chooses deem that a method of cultural expression, as it in itself is no correlative of intelligence, primality or anything else other than itself. Equally, there may be something beyond cultural in it. That's not something I've ever chosen to examine or research, personally, but I'd have no problem accepting it was simply a mode of cultural expression.

wonderfulname

Did you even read my post?