Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mainframe

  1. It's pretty stupid that Dana White won't make a few concessions for Fedor considering how good he could be for the UFC. A Lesnar vs. Fedor fight could easily eclipse UFC 100 in terms of total viewers/PPV sales. I also read UFC has something cooking with ESPN, as in some future fights might actually be broadcast for free. A lot will be cleared up on Friday.

  2. I got 2 minutes into it before i turned it off.


    Me too. What I don't get is why people are so quick to believe almost everybody is lying to them EXCEPT whoever makes these crackpot documentaries. Don't they realize the bogeyman (or possibly bogeymen) made this documentary too!?!? :nut:

  3. People will say that suicide is selfish, but it would be selfish of me to think that I have the right to dictate what someone else does with their own life.

    For me to say that I don't want to lose a friend that I care about, but that my friend has to keep living a life that she hates and that makes her miserable.



  4. Lesnar is a lot faster and a much better wrestler than Hong Man Choi though. If Shane Carwin wins his next fight, he'll probably get a shot at Lesnar and he's pretty much the same size, with bigger hands.




    Carwin's on the left. That would be a good fight.

  5. Dana White spoke pretty confidently about bringing Fedor to the UFC. Specifically to fight Brock Lesnar. I'm not a fan of Lesnar but it's hard to deny that he's bringing major publicity to the UFC, which is what they want. I would love to see Fedor rock that Donkey Kong motherfucker, and I think it will most likely happen. Say what you want about Fedor, I think he can take more abuse than Mir and he's a calmer, more confident fighter. My uneducated hope is that Lesnar beats the winner of Shane Carwin/Cain Velasquez then gets rocked by Fedor. My reasoning for this is that Lesnar will win that first fight and get overconfident and Fedor will come in next stone-cold like always and catch him slippin.

  6. Casek that last article just reiterates the first article with less bile. Still harping on the 30 year old, out of print textbook that was taken totally out of context in the first place. Your argument has officially gotten stale.


    Seriously, I realize there is a resource issue at hand, but how about looking at it with the perspective of using our technology to fix these issues. Not sterilizing and killing off the populace to fix said issues.


    The fact that most of you can brush off such claims is pretty fucking scary to me.


    Nobody is advocating "sterilizing and killing off the populace." The wild "claims" being made here are in the article casek posted. I see very meager evidence to make these claims, and the article is unabashedly biased from the beginning. Pure political mudslinging. Also, what's with this vague idea of using technology to fix everything? It's not that simple. Overpopulation is a looming issue; this is scientific consensus, ask a scientist. The earth provides a finite supply of resources. It's a simple equation. Actually, in many ways, advancing technology leads to greater use of resources. Holdren apparently took overpopulation predictions too seriously too early. In any case, it looks like he recognized the moral and social problems presented by the possibilities considered in that textbook. I'm not "brushing" anything off, I'm looking deeper into it.

  7. ^Like any career scientist, he's published lots of stuff. Holdren's CV:




    "Dr. Holdren's work has focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy."


    Murder and evil seem conspicuously absent here.




    Oh, and how about this guy:




    Obama's Energy Secretary is a good dude. I hear he's not much of a politician but he's a great scientist.

  8. I didn't see anything in there about killing anyone. He was talking about using technology to help (or, if necessary, force) people to make more responsible decisions. If you're referring to the compulsory abortion thing, that was presented as a drastic measure for a situation in which overpopulation is wreaking havoc in a certain region. I do recognize that sounds ghastly. Bad shit happens in the world. And yes, feeding a vastly larger population may be impossible. At some point, the earth can only support so many people, regardless of technology. And population growth seems to be outstripping technology. It's quite possible that global population will reach crisis levels in the relatively near future. This is scientific consensus.

  9. Ok, scifi was definitely the wrong word to use there.


    As a scientist, I'm very critical about opinion pieces like the one you posted. I looked at other pieces by the author that had been posted on that website; just looking at the titles all I saw was "radical" this, and "socialist" that. It seemed fairly clear that the dude has his own agenda and isn't likely to present more empirical information that considers different viewpoints on the issue. Kind of like you. I don't like politics. I do like science. I'm trying to tell you that, from a scientific point of view, what I read in that excerpt isn't "insane." Wrong, possibly. Again, he doesn't seem to be advocating anything in particular. He is merely presenting approaches to the problem of overpopulation. This problem could well be imminent. Do you have better solutions to overpopulation, assuming we don't colonize other planets/moons in time? 'Real humans' will do what 'real humans' have to do to survive, whether it scares you or not. Again, I'm not supporting these policies, I am approaching this from a detached vantage point.

    • Like 1

  10. Oh I'm listening to Curtis Mayfield right now, how could I be mad? This is what I get for trying to discuss science and politics on a graffiti message board.


    Well, my attempt to have a reasoned debate with you has failed, so I guess I better just troll you. I heard this was yo boat fool:



  11. Calling you a Eugenicist isn't like calling you an asshole.


    Not how you said it. And you're clearly angry, what with all the negaprops.



    Even case by case, this is still pretty sick. If world government, mass sterilization, poisonings, etc. don't throw up red flags all over the place, you may need to brush up on being human.


    Did you even read that excerpt you posted? He isn't saying we need all this shit to happen, this is more like sci-fi futuristic speculation. I can see where he's coming from, from a scientific point of view. Do you have anything that shows him PUSHING these views, calling religiously for the realization of some Brave New World dystopia? Whispering fervent exhortations into Obama's ear regarding the creation of a global SS? Show me that and maybe I'll jump on your bandwagon. He sounds eccentric, but I see no real evidence here that he isn't a solid scientist.

  12. Oh yeah, and thanks for all the nega-props. I'm pretty sure you're the only person who's given me nega-props, other people have propped me for calling you out but for some reason their props aren't as powerful as yours. I don't really care. Funny to see how you react to people who don't agree with you though. But for everyone else - I think it's pretty clear who the biggest nutjob in this thread is...

  13. Nobody said we were overpopulated right now. India sure is. Parts of Southeast Asia sure are. And global population keeps rising. All this guy seemed to be advocating in that excerpt you posted were possible solutions to possible (even probable) future situations. If he was advocating anything it sounded more like case-by-case application of solutions based on country-specific need. Doesn't sound like "global socialism Lenin's ghost is going to kill us all!" to me. Oh, and I'm not a 'eugenicist,' and name-calling doesn't prove your point. I'm not supporting these theories, I'm trying to contextualize them so we don't all start a witch-hunt in here.

  14. Ok, well after reading that he sounds much more sane. I see no overt support of any of those 'crazy' policies, he is merely discussing them as possibilities (many of which appear to be existing ideas) for confronting drastic overpopulation issues. He sounds like a scientist, though perhaps a tiny bit naive about the way some of these ideas could be received (although he does recognize moral objections). Some of it actually seems fairly prescient; it's an uncomfortable fact that measures like these may become necessary for the survival of the human race if population and resource usage keeps on accelerating past the reach of technology. Yes, I'm a scientist.


    Those excerpts actually support my hunch that the article you posted is biased.

  15. Well, that article certainly didn't pull any stops in being utterly biased against this guy, so it's a little hard for me to base my judgment of his character or scientific expertise on this alone. That said, he does sound a bit like an overzealous scientist who's read Brave New World a few too many times. However, it's unclear how much of this is in fact (as the article not so subtly suggests) Holdren's personal philosophical belief or more a matter of scientific speculation. Many of the things he's 'advocating' seem to be placed in a fairly unspecified future; they sound sort of like sci-fi latter-21st century possibilities. Is he in fact pushing these programs at the moment or are these just ideas? This is a very important distinction that seems to have been glossed over. I need more information from different sources, all this article really sounds like to me is a thinly-veiled bit of defamation aimed at making him (and, by association, Obama) look like a socialist wackjob. I could be wrong.


    Oh yeah, and Stephen Hawking said somewhat recently that humanity needs to take to the stars as soon as possible or we're all doomed...is he a nutjob too?

  • Create New...