SIN | Incredulous - Latest Comments

Re: 10 Awkward Facts about the Ten Commandments

HTAE — Sun, 20 Aug 2023 12:29:12 -0000

The ten commandments scripture are real.

Re: Questioning the “sexy” bonobo hype

Ronit — Mon, 06 Jun 2022 07:00:58 -0000

Aren't you the same troll who kept shitting on Sex at Dusk because it did not confirm your biases? Anyways, its very clear that you have zero knowledge on anthropology, evolutionary biology and primatology. I have done research on these disciplines for almost two years now and all the research I have found supports the notion that "humans are biologically predisposed to be monogamous".

Christopher Ryan's comments on research on bonobos suffer from the same issue that Sex at Dawn suffered from:- "Biased reporting of data,, theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings, and problematic assumptions" as correctly stated by Ryan Ellsworth.

Very few of Ryan's theories are supported by research and the studies that supposedly "proves" his thesis have been debunked by the latest research.

"You are such a bubble-dwelling priggish prat. My god, you're pathetic and snide, with unfounded claims of "abuse" to camouflage your passive-aggressive behavior - it's all so typical of your type and ordinary."

Ahh yes, the typical ad hominem attacks Sex at Dawn fanboys and scientifically illiterate people like you use when you have been proven wrong. This is was the same strategy adopted by Ryan when Saxon debunked his entire book. People like you spread lies about Saxon that have no evidence to support it. You call her a religious bitch without providing any proper evidence for your claims

Another issue with people like you is that you would rather believe you feelings, agendas and biases rather than empirical evidence. Ryan uses unsystematic evidence to prove his point, along with the fact that Ryan is not qualified to write a book on anthropology and evolutionary biology(His main degree is psychology, which is rife with issues related to just-so stories).

Re: Myths of Victorian Post-Mortem Photography

agen slot — Sat, 25 Dec 2021 06:18:28 -0000

I found postmortem photography kind of creepy to be very honest
agen slot

Re: Short Answers to Ten Famous Paradoxes

Akum Jamir — Sat, 10 Apr 2021 02:21:47 -0000

Grandfather paradox : Let we just assume that we have gone to the past and did kill our grandfather before he had children ...... would our existence will be possible???? Yes it surely it is
Possible and as we all know that life goes on , on continuous rate .... my theory is that humans beings have millions of timeline that is possible and we are the chooser of it .... for an example if I have not decided to give my idea or theory on this blog it will still go on and also if I have also decided to give my theory and it will also still go on and thus their is a possible timeline of whether to give or not(i,e., My theory) and also if i had chosen to give my theory timeline then their is still a timeline that continous to go on without my theory on this blog.
So as similar to the example if you killed you grandfather in the past then that would be the timeline on which he will be death and that you are on a different timeline of him being alive... and you killed your grandfather of different timeline.....

Re: Myths of Victorian Post-Mortem Photography

Edward Clint — Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:50:23 -0000

The child is the one having their portrait taken. And children are notoriously fidgety and in need of help. The two women, not posing for portraits, are able to adopt relaxed poses.
The idea that even the smallest motion over 30 seconds causes blur in Victorian photographs is false. Especially false in bright daylight where a fast shutter speed is an option. Within a couple of decades of the invention of the camera there were high quality cameras that needed just a couple of seconds of exposure, well short enough to produce images like this one.
And there is no reason to think a black person would not have been part of a photograph that was clearly taken to illustrate the process or craft of portrait photography. There are man thousands of surviving photographs of black people from these times.
Lastly, why on earth would anyone fake this? There is no question about how posing stands were used, this is well documented by professional photographers at the time in numerous trade publications, books etc..,

Re: Myths of Victorian Post-Mortem Photography

CVWII — Tue, 24 Nov 2020 11:39:12 -0000

Look at the photograph of the photographer taking a picture of the child, posing stand, servant, etc. I feel that this is fake. While the scene is realistic with the posing stand, neither the servant nor anyone else is using a stand. They are all natural. At a time when they would need a posing stand for the child, it is highly unlikely they could take that realistic a photograph of the outdoor scene, or would include the servant in it. Study the photograph and think about it. Not even the photographers arm or the cloth hanging in the breeze show any motion. Not even the black woman (who probably wouldn't even have been photographed at that time) shows the least blur. Look at it and think about it.

Re: Myths of Victorian Post-Mortem Photography

RATM — Wed, 16 Sep 2020 18:30:14 -0000

No, it was from a few years ago.

Re: Myths of Victorian Post-Mortem Photography

Edward Clint — Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:19:22 -0000

Hello RATM. Was it a recently published article?

Re: Myths of Victorian Post-Mortem Photography

RATM — Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:13:33 -0000

This makes me feel better. I saw one of the articles accompanied by many pictures, and it was terribly sad and disturbing. Although dead children provoke a similar reaction, at least the funereal portraits make sense, and are less grotesque (if that's the right word).

Re: Short Answers to Ten Famous Paradoxes

Thyris Discordia — Mon, 10 Aug 2020 01:37:36 -0000

Chicken or the Egg?

Chicken with rooster egg.

Re: Myths of Victorian Post-Mortem Photography

steoeh — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:36:39 -0000

Hi thanks for sharing this info transferwise scams

Re: Against Steelmanning

Edward Clint — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 15:30:40 -0000

Thanks. I linked to the source paper,
Aikin, S.F., Casey, J.P. Straw Men, Iron Men, and Argumentative Virtue. Topoi 35, 431–440 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11...

Re: Against Steelmanning

Anonyme Anonymes — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:41:47 -0000

CAn you give the source for "Aiken and Casey used as an example an exchange about the infamous Westboro Baptist Church" ?
Good article btw.

Re: The Prime Directive: Star Trek’s doctrine of moral laziness

Eric Otness — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:05:39 -0000

No, the UN wasn't responsible for North Korea's fate. Not directly, anyways. But I AM blaming the USSR and Red China for its fate.

And technically, when has there ever been such a purely internal matter in other cultures? Even our own country of America was ultimately founded with some help with the French and Spanish as one of their power games with Great Britain (don't get me wrong, the American Minutemen definitely were fierce fighters with a sincere desire for independence, and they definitely put up quite a fight, but the French and Spanish also deserve some credit for America becoming an independent nation). If we put the Prime Directive to its most literal and logical conclusion, America itself would never exist in the first place, not as an independent nation, anyways, heck, maybe not even as a colony. In fact, we probably won't even have ANY civilizations whatsoever (that's also one reason why I think making a community purely isolationist like with, say, that village from Disney's Beauty and the Beast, whether depicting it in a positive or negative light, is completely stupid, since the village wouldn't even exist if it was as isolationist as, say, Cambodia under Pol Pot as that movie seemed to imply with their putting down Belle for being worldly.). The Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars also had that exact problem with their Republic and the Jedi Order, as well as their usage of something similar to the Prime Directive, though at least there, the story acknowledged the Prime Directive-type rule there was completely useless (too bad Lucas seemed to infer even something as useless as that was preferable to the Galactic Empire.).

As far as the United Nations, I never said it was a world government, if anything, I indicated it was a front organization, and there's sufficient evidence to point to it being a front organization for the Soviets, including its Charter being blatantly plagiarized from the Soviet constitution, or how a few of its key founders, including especially Alger Hiss, were Soviet spies. And the United Nations bit was mostly relevant because Gene Roddenberry specifically modeled Star Federation on the United Nations, or at least, the licensed product Star Fleet Technical Manual made it pretty clear it was meant to be based on the United Nations charter.

Re: The Prime Directive: Star Trek’s doctrine of moral laziness

Edward Clint — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:32:08 -0000

If you blame the UN for the fate of North Korea, then the PD doesn't apply, it ceases to be a purely internal matter of some other culture as you've already interfered, giving the Korean War moral legitimacy (as well as giving us some culpability for the whole situation). I don't really buy all that. The UN wasn't and isn't a world government pulling the strings in Moscow, or anywhere really. It's edicts are largely toothless and ineffective, except where nations were already going to do a thing.

I appreciated the point though, that on Earth, few nations are completely isolated from each other and having no interactions. Particularly today. This is another reason why the PD is a bad idea: the non-interference ship sailed long ago. It many ways, it just isn't possible anymore.

Re: The Prime Directive: Star Trek’s doctrine of moral laziness

Eric Otness — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 07:32:23 -0000

I know this is over 6 years old, but I digress:

Agreed overall with your premise of the Prime Directive (and quite frankly, it only existed because of a far left view on Vietnam which was self-serving at best, especially when the whole reason why we were even IN Vietnam was specifically to PREVENT the Soviets from forcing it to become Communist, meaning that, ironically, our reasons for even going into Vietnam was to prevent interference.), but there is one minor quibble I need to address:

"And your conclusion just doesn't follow. In North Korea, there are death camps. Camps for people to be exterminated, usually after some torture. (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik.... The North Korea people have gotten shorter over a generation due to famine. It threatens its neighbors with nuclear weapons.
In South Korea, they make multi-billion watched pop songs, electronics, and video games. The reason these two Koreas are different, is the US showed up with guns and bombs and resisted the conquest of the south. Would you prefer the south be more like the north, since all that meddling we did was wrong?"

Well, technically, the reason North Korea has those aspects was also due to meddling... by the Soviets and Red Chinese. Let's not forget, before World War II, Korea used to be a unified country, yet Stalin after the war decided to do a victory lap and try to implement Communism all across the globe (and, heck, there's even sufficient evidence that the United Nations, which acted as the inspiration for Star Trek in fact, was deliberately modeled after the Soviet Union, literally having its charter copy and pasted from that of the Soviet Constitution, so if you really think about it, the UN ITSELF promoted Communists interfering with the rest of the world via imperialism), so it's not clear cut regarding interference, but that sort of thing is ultimately what makes the Prime Directive useless (if we were to follow it to the letter, we'd have to just sit back and let Vietnam be invaded back in the 1960s).

I'm a person who adheres to black and white views myself, a moral absolutist in other words, yet even I realize the Prime Directive is just stupid and poorly thought out (and is a bit closer to relativism than true black-and-white adherence.). I honestly think people adhering to Nietzsche's "he who fights monsters becomes them" so absolutely was a mistake.

Re: Zoe Quinn’s lying, cheating, claim of stabbing and killing a man alleged by photographer

Union Lacktivist — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:52:40 -0000

Spacedad is a piece of crap enabler. Hey, hook up with that manipulative narcissist so she can ruin your life and we can laugh at you and support an abuser.

You're garbage.

Re: Questioning the “sexy” bonobo hype, part 2: a primatologist debunks Christopher Ryan

Evito — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:03:51 -0000

The portion of animals that don't kill for their sustenance in one form or another is exceedingly small. Even most herbivores eat insects and it isn't by accident either they seek them out.

Re: YouTube gripped by unsubscription mass delusion

Adam — Thu, 04 Apr 2019 13:23:20 -0000

Your explanation about the YouTube issue is perfect. Agreed.

Re: Myths of Victorian Post-Mortem Photography

Adam — Thu, 04 Apr 2019 13:21:39 -0000

These old photography are just awesome. Like them so much.

Re: Against Steelmanning

Edward Clint — Sun, 24 Mar 2019 16:34:51 -0000

That isn't steelmanning and isn't a "technique". That's standard practice of high quality debate and discourse that's been codified and expressed various ways many decades before anyone had come up with "steelmanning" e.g. principle of charity, etc..,

Re: The Prime Directive: Star Trek’s doctrine of moral laziness

Bradley Holliday — Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:24:22 -0000

For those who have never read the exact wording of the prime directive:

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel, Federation citizen and/or representative may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship/installation, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

Re: 10 Awkward Facts about the Ten Commandments

PKAmmoTroop — Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:39:15 -0000

So I took a look at your little article and noticed quite instantly that for commandment #5 you wrote "Thou shall not kill" but in the Bible it doesn't say that, it says "Thou shall not murder" That's a huge difference than "thou shall not kill", kill comes from people who don't bother to read the bible. Murder is a premeditated act committed on specific human being for a defined reason. Killing in self defense is not murder because it does not fit the definition. Shooting a deer for meat is not murder because it does not fit the guidelines. I spent 20 years in the USAF not preparing for murder but preparing for war.

In item #5 you said Decalogue takes a strong stance on slavery, but the Decalogue only mentions slavery once when God said quite clearly: "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" you made the rest of that stuff up to prove a point you couldn't have made with the actual material

I can easily pick apart every single point you make because you and the other skeptics who go into the bible with a closed mind miss the fact that the entire bible quite clearly says "All humans are imperfect and cannot follow laws, either made by man or made by God" You look at the bible and say "AH HA! The bible is wrong because we eat bacon!"

Every human in the bible sins and the bible shows that fact on every page. All I can say is actually read the bible, end to end, word for word, chapter for chapter. It's an incredible story that your hate filled heart misses.

Re: Agnosticism is untenable and irrelevant, part 2

Anthony — Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:03:54 -0000

Funny thing is, despite being an agnostic, I AGREE with most of what you said.
I believe i don't know anything to a certain degree, and i can't say for sure if "evolution" is true or even likely to be true, maybe i don't even know if i don't know, but its irrelevant to my current state of justification of existence, at least for me it is not. All i need to know is that i need to sleep right now because its really late at night.
It is possible for a trickster god to be playing tricks on us like you said, but then again for me its irrelevant. If it is for you, best of luck.
The only misconception you have is......, that perhaps i am mistaken, but based on narrative of you are writing, you seem to paint all agnostic in a single stroke of brush. is it fair for me to say that all atheist believe in evolution, global warming or flat earth?. That all Christians take the old testaments as meaningful context or ramifications of old teachings that are revised by Jesus resurrection?
The definition i can find so far on agnosticism is that they don't know OR think its unknowable that a god exist, i am the latter . perhaps your definition covers a wider extent of context, but i disagree.
I say i am agnostic simply because i don't know whether god exist, nor do i know that i don't know, don't ask i don't know and i don't care. But it does not mean that i think "evolution" is true or untrue, i simple BELIEVE or JUDGE based on my knowledge that it is most likely true, possibly false but most likely true.
I do NOT think it is irrelevant for us to discuss whether god exist or not, i just don't know if it is relevant to discuss whether or not god exist, you may argue, but then again i BELIEVE or JUDGE your argument as most likely accurate, rather thank most likely TRUE. why? because either :
A. I am Ignorant.
B. Your an idiot.
C. we have no idea why i think that way and whether its relevant to discuss why i think that way.
so as i am closing my argument, i am going to paint the all atheists with the same brush you used to write this article and make my JUDGMENTS for myself, that is, "Everyone in the world think the world revolves around them, and that they know the best. Failing to realize that they themselves are invoking special pleading whilst labeling others for special pleading."
yes, i am a jerk, goodnight. :)

Re: Faux-nobo: “Naked Bonobo” demolishes myth of sexy, egalitarian bonobos

Edward Clint — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 13:42:47 -0000

No, it is the real name of a real person. An example of a fake name would be "Nyx".

This book is a review of the published scientific literature on bonobos, including Frans de Waal. It has been given favorable review by prominent primatologists such as Craig Stanford. It is also perfectly consistent with conversations I have had with primatologists who are among my colleagues.