This is absolutely pathetic. Everyone in the US is fat as fuck. People are content with being fat, and it’s disgusting. You go to a beach and see hundreds of beached whales, with their oversized beach chairs and little chunkballs for kids. It doesn’t help that fat chicks think they look good by calling themselves “thick” like no bitch you’re fat as fuck don’t lie to yourself. You may have basketball titties and a gigantic, cellulite filled ass but you have a bowling ball stomach and look like you’re pregnant with triplets. Our society is sick
[quote]chriscoochie wrote:
Everyone in the US is fat as fuck.[/quote]
Everyone? Everyone.
[quote]chriscoochie wrote:
This is absolutely pathetic. Everyone in the US is fat as fuck. People are content with being fat, and it’s disgusting. You go to a beach and see hundreds of beached whales, with their oversized beach chairs and little chunkballs for kids. It doesn’t help that fat chicks think they look good by calling themselves “thick” like no bitch you’re fat as fuck don’t lie to yourself. You may have basketball titties and a gigantic, cellulite filled ass but you have a bowling ball stomach and look like you’re pregnant with triplets. Our society is sick[/quote]
Are you so angry because you’re being sacked? Or are you just a really angry teen?
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]chriscoochie wrote:
Everyone in the US is fat as fuck.[/quote]
Everyone? Everyone.[/quote]
0_o I believe he is talking about you Spar
you going to take that?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]chriscoochie wrote:
Everyone in the US is fat as fuck.[/quote]
Everyone? Everyone.[/quote]
0_o I believe he is talking about you Spar
you going to take that? [/quote]
Ooooooh shiiiiit
Sexmachine:
Speaking of the Balkans, how do you see this country carved out in thirty years, or even a hundred years?
Sexmachine:
Speaking of the Balkans, how do you see this country carved out in thirty years, or even a hundred years?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Sexmachine:
Speaking of the Balkans, how do you see this country carved out in thirty years, or even a hundred years? [/quote]
That’s a tough question. To be honest, I’m not knowledgeable enough about the intricacies of the region to have insight into the web of ethnic and nationalist conflicts in the former Yugoslavia to say how things might play out. Someone from the region could tell you more about the details. Broadly, I think Russia will gain complete dominance in Romania; the friction point between Russia and Turkey will be Bulgaria; Russian/Turkish relations will determine what actually happens. It will also depend on whether Russia crosses the Rubicon and tries to turn NATO countries into satellites. There’s no reason for Russia to seek control of Bulgaria so long as their Black Sea ports and access to the Mediterranean are secure.
Russia’s interests in the region lie in stability and it’s not worth their while using their influence for anything other than protecting their Black Sea ports and access to the Mediterranean. And it’s not in Turkey’s interest to try to interfere with them. As I said, they may even seek an alliance of sorts. That depends on what happens in the Middle East to a large extent. The traditional enmity between them was territorial but today it’s related to oil and gas. But the ethnic “tensions” in Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia etc - who knows? It’s been a hotbed for centuries. Russia will back the Serbs though of course.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Sexmachine:
Speaking of the Balkans, how do you see this country carved out in thirty years, or even a hundred years? [/quote]
That’s a tough question. To be honest, I’m not knowledgeable enough about the intricacies of the region to have insight into the web of ethnic and nationalist conflicts in the former Yugoslavia to say how things might play out. Someone from the region could tell you more about the details. Broadly, I think Russia will gain complete dominance in Romania; the friction point between Russia and Turkey will be Bulgaria; Russian/Turkish relations will determine what actually happens. It will also depend on whether Russia crosses the Rubicon and tries to turn NATO countries into satellites. There’s no reason for Russia to seek control of Bulgaria so long as their Black Sea ports and access to the Mediterranean are secure.
Russia’s interests in the region lie in stability and it’s not worth their while using their influence for anything other than protecting their Black Sea ports and access to the Mediterranean. And it’s not in Turkey’s interest to try to interfere with them. As I said, they may even seek an alliance of sorts. That depends on what happens in the Middle East to a large extent. The traditional enmity between them was territorial but today it’s related to oil and gas. But the ethnic “tensions” in Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia etc - who knows? It’s been a hotbed for centuries. Russia will back the Serbs though of course.[/quote]
Thanks for this post. You know quite a bit.
However, I think I should have asked my question more clearly. I should have asked how you see America being carved out in the future considering you said America will one day be a Balkanized backwater. Which groups do you think will claim which territories or states?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Interesting that people are assuming a correlation between lower education and obesity.
I’ve met plenty of smart overweight people.
[/quote]
This lol[/quote]
I agree with beans here. I’m trying to think and I don’t know any smart overweight people younger that about 40.
Apparently exercise can actually stimulate neurogenesis (Van Praag et al., 1999). This may go some way towards explaining it although I suspect there is some positive feedback going on (i.e. smart people stay in shape → staying in shape keeps your brain working → repeat).
Van Praag, H., Christie, B. R., Sejnowski, T. J., & Gage, F. H. (1999). Running enhances neurogenesis, learning, and long-term potentiation in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(23), 13427-13431.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
The biggest resistance I’ve seen is an unwillingness to relocate themselves or their families out of economically depressed areas. They’re aware there’s jobs elsewhere, and they’re aware they’re in a depressed area, but the actual act of moving seems to scare them away from doing anything about it. Social bonding and familiarity is a very strong force.[/quote]
I believe that house ownership is negatively correlated to average wealth across Europe. Basically in countries where people own houses they are less likely to move for work and therefore accept lower salaries.
[quote]EvenIfItsSushi wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Interesting that people are assuming a correlation between lower education and obesity.
I’ve met plenty of smart overweight people.
[/quote]
This lol[/quote]
I agree with beans here. I’m trying to think and I don’t know any smart overweight people younger that about 40.
Apparently exercise can actually stimulate neurogenesis (Van Praag et al., 1999). This may go some way towards explaining it although I suspect there is some positive feedback going on (i.e. smart people stay in shape → staying in shape keeps your brain working → repeat).
Van Praag, H., Christie, B. R., Sejnowski, T. J., & Gage, F. H. (1999). Running enhances neurogenesis, learning, and long-term potentiation in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(23), 13427-13431.[/quote]
I thought Beans and I were in agreement. Maybe I was wrong though
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
I thought Beans and I were in agreement. Maybe I was wrong though
[/quote]
Yeah maybe, I thought he was being sarcastic but on re-reading he was probably agreeing with you. I still can’t think of many smart fat people in my circles.
[quote]chriscoochie wrote:
This is absolutely pathetic. Everyone in the US is fat as fuck. People are content with being fat, and it’s disgusting. You go to a beach and see hundreds of beached whales, with their oversized beach chairs and little chunkballs for kids. It doesn’t help that fat chicks think they look good by calling themselves “thick” like no bitch you’re fat as fuck don’t lie to yourself. You may have basketball titties and a gigantic, cellulite filled ass but you have a bowling ball stomach and look like you’re pregnant with triplets. Our society is sick[/quote]
Teach me to be thin and mazing
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
I thought Beans and I were in agreement. Maybe I was wrong though
[/quote]
Yes I was agreeing with you. I know plenty of muchfat smart people with quality educations, plenty of fat smart people with quality educations and plenty of unfat smart people with quality educations.
You could swap out smart for dumb and add in “lack” before quality educations and it would still be true.
I don’t think there is any correlation between intelligence and body fat levels.
Pffft… What a fucking joke.
Much of this talk of eugenics is absurd, spouted by armchair scientists who understand little of genetics. Genotype =/= phenotype. Almost all traits (e.g. intelligence, looks, athleticism) that we might be interested in have complex, multifactorial patterns of inheritance. Why? Because evolution would have already “fixed” a simple problem really goddamn fast on its own (with the exception of de novo mutations, which cause dysgenics, but also create variation, of the population at basal rates).
Screening by genetic markers is worthless. If we can perform a GWAS that can correlate a marker (which actually spans MANY genes) to a trait strongly enough to explain just a measly couple of percentage points of variation in that trait we get super excited. Because most of the time we find that a gene is linked to something, it can only explain a fraction of a percent of variation of that trait. Even in traits with strong genetic contributions (e.g. intelligence, genetic contribution is often 0.5 or 0.6 IIRC), all of our pooled knowledge of the genetics of a complex trait almost always can explain only a pitiful proportion of the variation. It isn’t the fault of geneticists, though. The sample size required to differentiate very small effect sizes with sufficient power is insane. That said, the simple correlations we report, the underlying assumption of GWAS, are a flawed model that doesn’t account for conditional effects (i.e. gene-gene, gene-environment interactions, epigenetic effects), which actually play a fairly sizable role. I’m sorry to say that genetics are a lot more complex than the media would have you believe, and the things that are reported are highly sensationalized.
We could also try a phenotype-centered approach (i.e. artificial selection). Selection only works in a very contrived setting (e.g. based on IQ tests, which are already flawed as no one seems to agree on what exactly constitutes intelligence) and when we have the ability to control who breed with whom with a high level of control. Obviously, the feasibility of such a system, and the naivete required to assume that elites would not game the system, makes such an idea laughable. Additionally, most “maladaptive” traits are inherited recessively. Our ability to eliminate these traits by breeding is limited as it gets exponentially more difficult by generation. Hardy-Weinberg explains that the proportions of affected and carriers (asymptomatic) in a population are q^2 and 2pq, respectively. 2pq can be understood as 2(1-q)q. So basically, the math tells us that q^2 gets smaller much faster than 2pq (which we wouldn’t know). Add to that our limited ability to distinguish q^2 when the effect size is really small. So eliminating q^2 doesn’t affect the allele frequency in the population very much unless there’s a constant selective pressure over a REALLY long time (like in evolution). Hardy-Weinberg assumes no gene-environment interactions, cannot account for epigenetics, and gets exponentially more complex and unwieldy to use for gene-gene interactions (every additional gene adds another variable), so it’s not a practical approach to complex traits.
Cliff’s: Genetics is a very complex science, and we know relatively little. Whatever approach one might take to eugenics would be limited with our current abilities (and quite possibly will always be) and of questionable benefit, and the cost and feasibility in implementing such a program would be prohibitive. Pseudointellectuals skilled in rhetoric (but lacking in actual knowledge) should kindly refrain from commenting on concepts they barely comprehend, and should be treated with extreme contempt when they do so. Sometimes people don’t oppose ideas because they’re “bleeding hearts”, sometimes they oppose them because the ideas are fucking moronic.
EDIT: I re-read this right after posting and I’ll leave the original up, but I do apologize somewhat because it was a little harsh. Genetics just happens to be a field that I’ve been gifted with a lot of education in, and it’s a pet peeve of mine that genetics buzzwords are all over the media and everybody is throwing them around to support their ideas, even though actual comprehension is not there. And it’s not all your fault that the media would have you believe that you have some degree of understanding. A little knowledge is the most dangerous amount. We all spout BS at times, just try and be a little more cognizant of it in the future. Thanks 
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
… and should be treated with extreme contempt when they do so. [/quote]
And what a tolerant, tender, and lucid darling you are.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Sexmachine:
Speaking of the Balkans, how do you see this country carved out in thirty years, or even a hundred years? [/quote]
That’s a tough question. To be honest, I’m not knowledgeable enough about the intricacies of the region to have insight into the web of ethnic and nationalist conflicts in the former Yugoslavia to say how things might play out. Someone from the region could tell you more about the details. Broadly, I think Russia will gain complete dominance in Romania; the friction point between Russia and Turkey will be Bulgaria; Russian/Turkish relations will determine what actually happens. It will also depend on whether Russia crosses the Rubicon and tries to turn NATO countries into satellites. There’s no reason for Russia to seek control of Bulgaria so long as their Black Sea ports and access to the Mediterranean are secure.
Russia’s interests in the region lie in stability and it’s not worth their while using their influence for anything other than protecting their Black Sea ports and access to the Mediterranean. And it’s not in Turkey’s interest to try to interfere with them. As I said, they may even seek an alliance of sorts. That depends on what happens in the Middle East to a large extent. The traditional enmity between them was territorial but today it’s related to oil and gas. But the ethnic “tensions” in Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia etc - who knows? It’s been a hotbed for centuries. Russia will back the Serbs though of course.[/quote]
Thanks for this post. You know quite a bit.
However, I think I should have asked my question more clearly. I should have asked how you see America being carved out in the future considering you said America will one day be a Balkanized backwater. Which groups do you think will claim which territories or states?
[/quote]
I couldn’t say what territories or states will actually secede. But the South West will become increasingly Latinised; many cities will become sharply split between black and white areas and small, insular communities of immigrants will for all intents and purposes become miniature versions of their home countries. Mark Steyn’s book America Alone gives a pretty good description of what the future holds. I highly recommend it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A better solution would be for those with all that compassion to start businesses of their own and THEN pay their employees more than what they’re worth. The alternative – the nanny state – is a theft of freedom and merely gives a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish.[/quote]
The difference between worth (value) and price (cheapest possible) is a funny thing. I only have 2 employees. As a farmer I’m not even bound by minimum wage (which where I am is 11 dollars an hour). I could get some mexicans super cheap. They trip over each other for work, and drive the price of labor down like a fly by night business always running in the red just to fuck the competition.
I pay my workers 15, and 18 dollars an hour. They’re happy with their jobs, and have a vested interest in my success. They know I’m looking out for them and so they look out for me, which is exactly what I need from them. I pay them what they’re worth. I get what I pay for. It’s win / win.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not to sound like a bleeding heart, but the idea of social engineering sounds like a pretty dangerous one.
[/quote]
If being against social engineering and an eugenics program makes you a bleeding heart, then we are seriously fucked up.[/quote]
Agreed.
Being pro freedom (which by definition would make you against social engineering and eugenics) doesn’t automatically make one a bleeding heart.
On the flip side, just because one claims to support “for the poor” ideas, doesn’t make them a bleeding heart either. I know more armchair social justice warrior who do nothing but bitch on facebook about “taxing” the rich. The next time they donated a dollar or a second of their time will be the first.
If your idea even remotely resembles “but we need the government to do X” and you don’t even do X, you are a massive fucking douchebag, and likely vote democrat. [/quote]
Being pro freedom can mean a lot of things. I think most people are pro freedom. Problem is no one can agree on where the ideal place to be on the freedom spectrum exists - Nobody wants the government to tell them what they can and can not do, but they don’t want the neighbor to be free enough to swing by and shoot them in the face and take their shit any old time they want either.