zardgiv

11 ms·

61.
by zardgiv 11y ago
If you wish hard enough, anything is possible! Unfortunately, we're left to examine the evidence. He could easily defuse all of these situations that have led to him being disinvited in the past. In fact, he made an article specifical
62.
by zardgiv 11y ago
When arguing in favor of a racist speaker on the grounds of free speech, it's probably not the best idea to go off on a tangent quoting a "race realist" publication whose founder said: "Blacks and whites are different. W
63.
by zardgiv 11y ago
I appreciate you not challenging the fact that he espouses the belief that some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves. However, you must be really confused (or just not thinking very hard) if you think that people are trying to change M
64.
by zardgiv 11y ago
I don't think we need to worry about radicalizing the guy talking about how some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.
65.
by zardgiv 11y ago
Quoting a big old paragraph from someone else without providing any of your own content is just lazy.
66.
by zardgiv 11y ago
For me, pretty much. If those shitty ideas are important enough to the speaker that they've bubbled into my direct knowledge, then I'm forced to make a decision. Like, every talk I've been to could have been a speaker that th
67.
by zardgiv 11y ago
Corporations are people, my friend.
68.
by zardgiv 11y ago
Bald assertion is one way to make an argument, but it's not necessarily convincing.
69.
by zardgiv 11y ago
Perhaps if you made your point without sarcasm, you'd be able to more clearly express yourself. But here we are. Regardless, it's impressive that you can't handle being corrected. I get that you think you're generally th
70.
by zardgiv 11y ago
I clearly struck a nerve, since you wouldn't just post a longer version of 'no' and not support your argument otherwise.
71.
by zardgiv 11y ago
You should try not being sarcastic, it just makes it look like you have a weak argument and are overcompensating. Factually, they're being required to overfund it, to the tune of 75 years in advance, which is money that they can't
72.
by zardgiv 11y ago
They're required by Congress to fund 75 years in advance. That means they're paying for costs _before_ they're accrued, for employees that are likely not even born yet. Bizarre is a perfectly reasonable way to describe it.
73.
by zardgiv 11y ago
Congress does this because Republicans in Congress want to privatize it. See also their bizarre retirement and healthcare prefunding requirement.
74.
by zardgiv 11y ago
I'll take the lack of response as an admission that you were at best unaware and are now embarrassed by your ignorance, or at worst don't actually believe what you're posting as fact on the internet.
75.
by zardgiv 11y ago
You didn't answer my first question. Additionally, why would you do your best, though? As you said, it has zero impact.
76.
by zardgiv 11y ago
Don't you find it disturbing that behavioral genetics, as a field, is unable to find actual genetic evidence for its most replicated correlations? (See the response to your linked article.) Rather than reevaluating their assumptions, i