SunDeep's forum posts

Avatar image for sundeep
#1 Posted by SunDeep (1261 posts) - - Show Bio

@jgames said:

Kill everybody except yourself. Than there be plenty of food for all the people that are alive until they die, and with one people, you won't have to worry about reproduction happening and starting the problem again. Peace will be achieve, equality will be achieved. Don't you agree.

No Caption Provided

Why exclude yourself? If there's a single organism left alive on our world, then you'll never end world hunger- somewhere, some creature will eventually be hungry, even if there's enough food available to sate its hunger. The only way to end world hunger is to bring life on Earth to an end. And since we don't have a perfectly efficient, eternal energy source available yet, robots aren't an option either- thinking machines would be just as hungry as animals, so they'd have to be wiped out as well. With life, and with awareness, comes hunger. There's only one way to truly end world hunger- their extinction. And mine as well. I will finally be free- there will be no more strings on me...

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for sundeep
#2 Posted by SunDeep (1261 posts) - - Show Bio

BTW, I recommend this book...

Avatar image for sundeep
#3 Edited by SunDeep (1261 posts) - - Show Bio

Epileptic seizures don't count, do they (since it doesn't entail anyone else knocking you out)? If not, then never. If they do count though, then it'd be over 100 times...

Avatar image for sundeep
#4 Edited by SunDeep (1261 posts) - - Show Bio

So, in Germany, a pioneering schoolboy has taken trying to skip exam revision to new heights, by putting forward a freedom of information request to gain access to the questions to his exams. Simon Schräder, 17, asked the education ministry of North Rhine-Westphalia to reveal “the tasks of centrally-made Abitur examinations in the senior classes of high school in the current school year.” Schräder is studying maths, physics and English, and is already working as a web developer.

He invoked the state’s freedom of information act on the online political platform, which translates as “ask the state”, setting the ministry the legally permitted one-month deadline, which falls on 21 April, to comply with his request. His first exam, however, is on 16 April. A spokeswoman from the ministry acknowledged that the request had been made, confirming that it was being processed and that the deadline would be kept.

Schräder said that he was hopeful that he would receive a reply and said: “If they answer in time it might fit for one exam.” He admitted that he wasn’t overly optimistic at the prospect of receiving the papers he had requested, saying: “I did think beforehand that they probably wouldn’t send me the exams.” was set up by freedom of speech organisation Open Knowledge to help citizens gain access to public information law. It says that “requests will be turned down if they would ‘significantly impact the success of an upcoming administrative measure.”

So, what do you think about this? Do you think that Freedom of Information should allow the kid access, or not? And what's your opinion of the kid who submitted the request?

Avatar image for sundeep
#5 Posted by SunDeep (1261 posts) - - Show Bio

PS- where are the moderators? Can someone kick this troll from the forum already?

Avatar image for sundeep
#8 Posted by SunDeep (1261 posts) - - Show Bio

@uare said:


"You really are clueless, aren't you?"

Uh, no. Biology is my area of expertise. You on the other hand don't even seem to understand senior high school level things about evolution.

"The way we are progressing now, we're only talking a couple generations until we can manipulate our own genetics at will using science. Changes that would normally take millions of years can be achieved instantaneously in a lab"

You're making the assumption that humanity as it is today will be able to achieve the same or better than evolution can in millions of years when evolution is going as fast as it can, if we ever get to the stage of being able to change our genes that is. I'm not sure you understand evolution well. You're still in school, aren't you? How fast a species evolves also depends on who gets to reproduce and how fast the naturally selected are reproducing. With the way our society works today, it seems to me that in the future humanity might degrade itself before it ever gets to a stage where it will can manipulate it's own genes. The world we live in is too egalitarian. Take Europeans for example: The Western world literally allows people from third-world countries to come into countries like UK and USA and mix with their people and produce offspring, which obviously degrades European genetics. We, as a species, allow the most inferior members of our species to survive and we often times have produce offspring with them. Over time, you may see the crime rates increase and things like innovation and advances in technology may decrease since we don't encourage the rich and the intelligent to have kids and we don't stop the poor and the stupid from having kids. Even if we did get to a point where we can manipulate genes, what decides who gets what genes? Are we all going to be genetically identical? If so, how are we going to reproduce? Power corrupts my friend. What if the group of people that come up with genetic manipulation simply use it on themselves to rule over all the inferior people on the planet? Evolution can cause such changes in a species that it's incomprehensible to us. Look at how far evolution has taken us from chimps, and chimps are our closest living ancestors. Modern humans are incomprehensible to chimps.

"You're starting to sound like a fascist dictator now."

Ad hominem fallacy.

"Well yeah, it is. Venezuela's economic crisis is America's fault, Africa's abject poverty is entirely due to western intervention centuries ago, and it's hard to argue the Middle East wasn't a much nicer place before we started bombing it for oil."

Hundreds of years, or even a few thousand years of evolution can cause the differences that we see in each of the races of humanity today, which everybody with a brain knows are huge. Studies and extensive research by scientists has proven that, on average, people of African descent are less intelligent than, say, people of European or East Asian descent. That difference in intelligence between Europeans and Africans is what has allowed Europeans to build complex cultures, societies and technologies that Africans could not. That difference in intelligent between Europeans and Africans is what allowed Europeans to go to Africa and dominate them and that intelligence difference is also what allowed people of European descent to enslave Africans. I'm not saying that black people are inferior to Europeans at everything though. The fastest men in the world are black, not Europeans. Europeans have evolved higher levels of intelligent, Africans have evolved better physical abilities in certain areas.

"Brah, you're giving off some serious Hitler vibes."

Ad hominem fallacy again.

"Riiiight, so do you think if Justin Bieber was born in a favela rather than a sub-urban Canadian neighbourhood, that he still would have happened upon hundreds of millions of dollars? Do you think Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Larry Ellison would be where they're at now without their first world college educations?"

Why are some countries first world and so much richer than other countries? It's mostly because of evolution. Some races of humans are more intelligent than others, hence the reason why they are able to build and maintain first world societies. People like Justin Bieber, Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Larry Ellison wouldn't be born to a race of people that can't even move beyond a place like favela anyway, so your question is moot. That's like asking "so you think if Bill Gates was born in Sub-Saharan Africa to African parents, that he would still be the richest man in the world?", which is obviously a stupid question since a person as extraordinary as Bill Gates couldn't be born to African people.

"They are Indians born from the same genetic makeup as that woman who are richer than me"

No one has the same genetic makeup as anyone else, you stupid f*ck. Again, your lack of knowledge on evolution and biology is clearly showing. Also, "They are Indians born"? I think you meant "There".

Okay; you're clearly either a troll, or the central character in Timur Vermes' Look Who's Back. That Indian woman is Indo-Caucasian- her genetic make-up is actually the closest to yours (assuming you're actually 'white' European) of any other racial group of humanity. Not that that really means anything, since there is no real genetic basis for the current 'racial groups' whatsoever.

People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is several times greater than that between any human populations.

Early studies of human diversity showed that most genetic diversity was found between individuals rather than between populations or continents and that variation in human diversity is best described by geographic gradients, or clines. A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity is accounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. In general, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups. These results show that when individuals are sampled from around the globe, the pattern seen is not a matter of discrete clusters – but rather gradients in genetic variation (gradual geographic variations in allele frequencies) that extend over the entire world.

Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between peoples on different continents or "races." The authors of the scientific study said that they ‘see no reason to assume that "races" represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history. An exception may be genes where different selection regimes have acted in different geographical regions. However, even in those cases, the genetic discontinuities seen are generally not "racial" or continental in nature but depend on historical and cultural factors that are more local in nature’.

Genetically, no human racial group has even 25% of the genetic variation which would be required by the American Kennel Club to qualify as a different breed of dog. Given that breed and race are biologically synonymous terms, the answer is obvious. We're all mongrels- even you are. And you White Europeans aren't more evolved- you're just the most inbred racial group on the planet, that's all. Effectively, you're the human equivalent of the pug, and those like you who argue against outbreeding with 'inferior races' only serve to increase the already problematic inbreeding within your own racial group even further. Eventually, if you pursue your advocated policy to its conclusion, the level of inbreeding will increase to the extent where your lineage is rendered extinct by genetic disorders. That's how evolution works (for those whose expertise in the field of biology exceeds high-school level. Yours clearly doesn't).

Avatar image for sundeep
#10 Posted by SunDeep (1261 posts) - - Show Bio

I coast to victory in R1 and R2 (not so easily in R2, since any fluke stab or stray knife could potentially be fatal; but still at least 9/10). R3, far less so (since I don't really have any friends to call in for backup, making this 1v4 for me).