Post the best pictures you got.
I like to see what others have and we need a thread to combine all the good materials.
Here I concentrated on the fact that Pol-Cel Nazis can literally not read more then 50 characters of text and are proud of it.
For these idiots everything must be a "meme" or have a "joke". Pol-cels are oblivious to the fact that others are giving them information and knowledge not jokes or memes.
Did anyone else observe this behavior from Pol-Cels ?
These idiots are unable to read children literature let alone anything important.
It looks like daddy Hitler hates people who can read or have attention spans greater then ADHD gold fish.
I never imagine the ability to have a attention span or read more then 50 characters of text will ever be something that I need to argue for. However here we are !
And this is no slander you cab go to /pol/ and engage these idiots yourself.
Of course it is like going to a zoo to look at the stupid animals.
661 posts and 218 image replies omitted.>>496999>Muh HARD SCIENCES Doesn’t explain why it’s not falsified or falsifiable
>If the model cannot predict reality Even stoichiometry is probabilistic
>>497000>We can RCT history >>497001>Doesn’t explain why it’s not falsified or falsifiableIt is falsifiable, you can take take measurements of a distillation column and predict the vapor and liquid fractions in the reflex and reboilier. Since these variables can be verified as matching or not, means the model is falsifiable. And you keep doing experiments and changing your model, until it can reliably predict.
>Even stoichiometry is probabilistic stoichiometry is falsifiable and can predict reality because it is the mathematical ratios of a chemical equation, a scientific model.
>>497002Math isn’t falsifiable. Or rather, mathematical laws are not.
And your distillation example is also not an example of falsification, you wouldn’t falsify your entire model of chemical processes from one test or failure to replicate and discard or tweak the model. Especially when there could be something wrong with the equipment
>>4970001) No proof as to why it can’t be scientifically tested or what does that even mean
2) Falsifiability is not “can it be tested”
>>496999>Do you honestly believe that chemical process modeling in non falsifiable? It's a HARD scienceYes, this is literally part of the controversy in regards to falsifiability in science. Multiple fields don't untilzie it at all, and one of those that don't put much importance to it is chemistry, which instead uses analysis and synthesis and the creation of certain models to operate. Not even the theory of evolution is something which is falsifiable by Poppers standards, which is why he initially said it was unscientific before he had to try and walk it back.
>>497005Race isn't a thing utilized in any clinical setting, and it has no basis in any legitimate "scientific theory" of genetics. Ancestry is a thing that is used, but that is not the same thing.
>>497014>Screenshots and not the actual articleLiterally one guy. But this is some big brave man fighting against the politically correct establishment, isn’t it?
Now, do you know what actual physicians and medical literature says about race and organ transplants?
>>497018>Refuses to provide scientific article proof,What;s the point> You'll just ignore it like my refutation of Lewontin because you don't know what you're reading.
>>Continues to project his feelings of being cuckolded and emasculated by black men through fabricated stories What I described isn't cuckolding. What I described was racial self defense. If I was shot in self defense by a black man for fucking a black chick then I would've been the one doing the cucking.
>>497019>Racial Self-DefenseKek. How does it feel knowing that you can’t stop white women from fucking nonwhite men. Perhaps even the white women in your life.
By the way, of all your stories, has it occurred to you that the common detail wasn’t the race of the other me, but that they were interested in said girl? Because it might have taken you being a little less autistic, or rather being able to bed a woman in the first place, to realize that you didn’t run into some truth about races and sex, but just got into some petty squabbles over women.
> Lewontin’s Fallacy is the only card I got, I, someone who studies genetics Here was an opportunity to blow me out of the water with “race is genetically relevant in medecine”, but ypu can’t even do that, save for posting popular news articles and not actual science.
>>497021It wasn't just a random op ed, they cited an actual scientist. If want to read more from him you can just google his name
> How does it feel knowing that you can’t stop white women from fucking nonwhite menDon't care about nasty low value slampigs burning coal. A lot of escorts and craigslist whores straight up say "No black, Arab, or Indian men"
>but that they were interested in said girl?That's false. I've been given shit by random dudes for mingling with women of their race. It's different than stealing a girl on the dance floor. This is why spoon feeding research papers is a fools errand. You can't read. I tried it in the other thread and it didn't work because you people aren't proficient enough in biology to be reading those papers
>>497022Again with the refusal to use actual scientific articles. And the “Someone gave me a dirty look, they’re gonna jam my testicles in my eyesockets”.
>I don’t care about slags dating black men. These prostitutes and hookup services totally refuse to fuck black people<Implying the only white women that exist, much less fuck black men are ugly slags, call girls or hookup serviceaSounds like sour grapes. Or an inability to do racial self-defense.
>>497023>Or an inability to do racial self-defense.More like I'm not going to prison over it. I'm sure the non white men who've seen me or other white guys with their girls have had brief fantasies in that back of their heads about unloading a glock into me or the offending white man. A little while ago I had to pull out this baby because I was out on the town with a few brown chicks and some "youths" accosted us and started getting aggressive
>>497037How did I switch goalposts
>According to whom?Edwards and other geneticists. You can do your own research. I know you'll hand waive away anything I give you. You can find tons of articles and paper son how Europe is very genetically homogeneous.
>And what does it mean to be far apart?Genetically different.
>>497031https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/#!po=1.04167> A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.Race isn’t clinically useful at the very least
> The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.An example of this is the distribution of both genetic diseases across populations and successful organ donation rates which can vary depending on the organ being donated.
Livers: Mostly doesn’t matter
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954674/Kidneys: Some Racial Differences, but asian and latino recipients actually have more successful transplant rates from black and white donor kidneys compared even to same-race transplantation from white to white or black to black
>>497045>The paper “debunked” itselfNot how it works. For someone who studies biology you don’t seem to understand how to read journals. You’re assuming a hypothesis that isn’t presented in the paper
1) Again, geographic ancestral groups =/= race and the authors are very clear about it, especially for clinical applications
2) They mention that this “thousands of loci” thing is only true if you sample only a few specific populations and not the world at large. Essentially, that’s saying that if you sample Hutus, Danes and Mongolians using thousands of Loci, and not any other groups that may possibly be in-between. More importantly, the Richards paper used only a few hundred loci to try and establish “Lewontin’s Fallacy”, Rosenberg (2002) used 377 and the Authors themselves said the minimum threshold is around 100 Loci and can determine geographic ancestry with 100% accuracy.
Saying that “a few hundred loci isn’t much” is what we scientifically call a cope. Just like how geographic ancestry is the same as race.
>>497046>Again, geographic ancestral groups =/= race and the authors are very clear about itExcept they're not
>used 377 and the Authors themselves said the minimum threshold is around 100 Loci and can determine geographic ancestry with 100% accuracy.Using c and not ω, ω is more accurate.
n such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.
Unique IPs: 15