It's my duty to battle the Left (split from War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?}

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Even today breast cancer with it's near identical death rate as prostate cancer gets far more funding. So what a pile of crap it is you people are peddling.

That’s not what you were arguing, and death rate isn’t the only metric to use. Quality of life, for instance. 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

They mostly 'don't' have these vices.

What a convincing argument. I especially like how you backed it up with a credible source.

Poor people don’t live in million-dollar homes, or own yachts. So the people who do, have these vices. 

 

Quote

They don't have Scrooge McDuck's money bins and that's because that money would lose on inflation.

Who said they did? 

 

Quote

And they probably own no more houses, cars etc, than anybody else, not that it would matter.

Pretty sure they do. Poor people often don’t own homes, much less owning vacation homes.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Wealth is an illusion because it represents a share of an enterprise, selling that share requires a buyer/s with the exact same amount of money, that needs to come from somewhere creating a vacuum which only becomes a problem when money is dispensed for spending, that's rather than being left in a bank.

So wealth is not really an illusion.  Got it.

44 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

If the 'wealthy' were to try and cash in their shares the share markets would collapse. 

That's because the money going out of an economy that way could not be matched by that going in. 

I'm a rationalist. Which means I'm also a conservative.

So there is a need for government oversight and regulation of capitalism.   I agree, because I am a rationalist, which also means I am a liberal.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

This isn't the 1980's. It was being ignored back then. Breast cancer is the best known of all cancers because it effects women

Fine: prove it. Go find the data. It’s not hidden in the sunless area where most of your “information” comes from

[Peterkin]

54 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

If the 'wealthy' were to try and cash in their shares the share markets would collapse. 

So? It's the small investors who'd be left without their homes and pensions; the rich would have their 9 mansions, 19 luxury cars, yacht, jet, furs, jewellery and all those off-shore accounts to fall back on. Plus, of course, they could swoop in buy all the cheap real estate and small businesses from bankrupt small investors. 

41 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

This isn't the 1980's. It was being ignored back then.

In the 1970' and into the early '80's, our city hospital was doing 2-3 prostate currettings a week, histological examination of each consisting 36 slides, on average. That's roughly equivalent to the number and size of cervical sections. There were more ovarian cancers than testicular - as is still the case, at approximately four times the incidence.  As for breast cancer:

Quote

It is estimated that 43,780 deaths (43,250 women and 530 men) from breast cancer will occur in the United States this year.

it is vastly more prevalent in women, but the male ones are not being ignored.

Fact checking is easy. Anyone can do it. Anyone at all!  

[Arete]

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

A male and a female are two very 'similar' things, but are not (any longer) mutually dependent. Some females are bigger and stronger than the average male for example and could do 'all' of the things a male can do. 

Consequently, and for only a few other reasons, males are being removed and discarded, replaced by females. 

I only know of one report of human parthenogenesis, but I don't believe Jesus was ever genetically confirmed to be a tetragametic chimera, so I'd say the report remains disputed. So no, as mammals with a diploid mating system, the continued existence of humans necessitates the existence of both male and female individuals. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Arete

[Peterkin]

There's always cloning...

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Even today breast cancer with it's near identical death rate as prostate cancer gets far more funding. So what a pile of crap it is you people are peddling. 

It would be great if you didn't just make things up. The differences in lethality between breast and prostate cancer is well documented across various metrics.

Take 5-year and 10-year survival rates for example. These are common measures to identify how long patients survive after diagnosis, which includes treatments. It is important to note that the survival rate does not necessarily mean that the patients actually died from the particular cancer.

That being said, in the US using SEER data (you can find them on the NIH website)  the 5 year relative survival rate for prostate cancer is 97% (or 3% die) whereas in breast cancer the 5-year survival rate is about 90% (10% die). So from there we can already see that that the death for breast cancer is about 3x higher for a 5 year period (funding is roughly 2x higher, so as @swansont pointed out, prostate cancer is actually overfunded relative to breast cancer, and both relative to other, deadlier cancer forms) . 

Looking at longer survival it is even worse. 10-yr prostate cancer survival rate is basically the same as 5 -yr (97%). As I mentioned before, more folks die with rather than of prostate cancer. In comparison, the 10-yr survival rate of breast cancer drops to 84%. So if we look at longer-term survival, the difference increases to ~5-fold.

An interesting aspect is to look at untreated effects. While the data is a bit spotty, there some data for breast cancer suggesting a 5-yr survival rate of 19.8% and 10-yr survival of 3.7%. There were some interventions when symptoms presented, so not all patients were left entirely untreated, but it shows that breast cancer left untreated can have significant impact.

(https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(200004)73:4<273::aid-jso15>3.0.co;2-h)

In contrast, the 10-yr survival rate with untreated prostate cancer was 86%, showing that interventions in breast cancer are more important than for prostate cancer.

 

Also just as an anecdote, way back we proposed to develop a simple urine-based diagnosis for prostate cancer and while there was some interest, ultimately it was canned as the attitudes were changing regarding prostate cancer. Physicians started to doubt that early diagnosis of most forms of prostate cancers would be beneficial to patients. The reasons is that most interventions would be more harmful than just let it be, unless they develop into some of the more rare aggressive cases. I.e. unless an assay is able to distinguish these forms, it can add to mental stress to the patients, whereas in breast cancer early diagnosis is more likely to save lives.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The differences in lethality between breast and prostate cancer is well documented across various metrics.

And that's only one factor. When one allocates funding, one must also take into account the methods of diagnosis and treatment, and the cost of each available option.

But why is prostate cancer compared to breast cancer in the first place? The more appropriate analogy of prostate would be to cervical. If you were to compare breast cancer to breast cancer, given that men do get it, though less frequently, you might have a more realistic comparison. But that would require that actually care about the medical aspects, rather than just throw out random accusations of sexism.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

But why is prostate cancer compared to breast cancer in the first place?

The reason is pretty obvious, isn't it? It has been a repeated talking point of anti-feminist sentiments for quite a while. It is pretty much the only example that folks could think of, by cherry picking data in a very myopic way.

Meanwhile, the very same voices ignore the large literature demonstrating medical sexism against women (for an historic perspective see e.g. https://time.com/6074224/gender-medicine-history/ , but there is a lot of peer-reviewer lit out there, too).

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The reason is pretty obvious, isn't it? It has been a repeated talking point of anti-feminist sentiments for quite a while. It is pretty much the only example that folks could think of, by cherry picking data in a very myopic way.

Meanwhile, the very same voices ignore the large literature demonstrating medical sexism against women (for an historic perspective see e.g. https://time.com/6074224/gender-medicine-history/ , but there is a lot of peer-reviewer lit out there, too).

Interesting read. I was hoping the Times article about medical sexism could shed some light on why 19th century American women conspired to foment war between the North and South in order to wipe out all the men and create a single-sex society. Alas, no.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Times article about medical sexism could shed some light on why 19th century American women conspired to foment war between the North and South in order to wipe out all the men and create a single-sex society.

Don't you wonder sometimes whether they might have been justified? But, no: it never happened. And it's not likely to.

I suspect it's because they're too "soft" on the weakness of the Gregs and mindful of their male allies.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Peterkin

[Greg A.]

On 8/8/2022 at 11:21 PM, iNow said:

Friendly hint: You just spent a few hours typing 4 or 5 long ranty posts where you essentially dig in your heels, move goalposts, and offer straw men and red herrings.

That same time could’ve instead been used to post even one single example of the evidence you say is plentiful. Nobody has stopped you but yourself. 

Gosh. I wonder why that is. 

If my understandings are wrong then I will forever be replying to posts opposing my arguments and consequently will NEVER be able to present any evidence supporting what I say. This is simple logic. 

Chronological censorship in action, in this instance driven by the X chromosome's influence, (traitor males mostly) and intellectual arrogance. 

[Peterkin]

 

15 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

If my understandings are wrong then I will forever be replying to posts opposing my arguments and consequently will NEVER be able to present any evidence supporting what I say.

Or, here's an idea to save time: Reply to posts with supporting evidence. A novel approach, I grant you, but might be worth a try.

[TheVat]

19 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Chronological censorship in action, in this instance driven by the X chromosome's influence, (traitor males mostly) and intellectual arrogance. 

 

And yet here you still are, pontificating freely! Have to say, the quality of censorship has really declined since the X chromosomes started taking over.  

BTW, have you heard of the secret parthenogenesis lab those Civil War era ladies were running?  My sister told me they had the process worked out in the Buchanan administration, which was the deciding factor in starting The War of Male Extermination a couple years later.  Clara Barton was in charge.  The nursing gig was just a cover. And why would my sister make that up?  

[Greg A.]

On 8/8/2022 at 11:25 PM, iNow said:

Oh, the sweet delicious irony. 

I won't be gloating when it turns out I'm right. It will be a sigh of relief instead and it will go unheard. 

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I won't be gloating when it turns out I'm right. 

Like a broken analog clock, I acknowledge that you might every once in awhile be correct, but sadly it will almost certainly be by accident. 

[Greg A.]

On 8/8/2022 at 11:24 PM, Phi for All said:

Nobody but YOU is calling anyone stupid sacks. You have no respect for the reasoning process. The fact that none of the arguments against your stances got through to you shows none of the mistaken information was corrected. I showed you some statistics about which party OVER A SEVENTY YEAR PERIOD has grown the economy more, and your response was some bullshit about lag time. Between presidencies, your lag time argument can affect the economy, but over a long period the trends are clear and precise. The Dems have grown the economy more, and you continue to lie about that.

 

You use statistics. But the facts are the days don't suddenly become  warmer after the winter solstice. The worst part of winter actually follows that event. Liberals spend more money (socially) resulting in temporary upturns over a short period of time. Conservatives need to then rebuild those financial reserves which takes time,  periods of apparent austerity. Now, this is mostly conjecture on my part but it does seem to make sense. 

On 8/8/2022 at 11:24 PM, Phi for All said:

But the real problem is that you don't understand the basics of a lot of these concepts. We can explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you. You seem to have adopted a worldview first, and now only listen to "facts" that support that view. Sorry, but I don't think discussion, especially science discussion, is for you. I would recommend some online courses in various studies, because you need to learn more before making arguments you're going to base your whole life on. Wouldn't you hate to find out you were mistaken AFTER you did something really dumb based on what you've been told? I know there are some folks who found out recently that their ignorance can be weaponized by unscrupulous leaders.

Whereas I see your (socio-political) views as being shaped by determinism. They are a product of your middle class background. And you can't say the same thing about mine because they are more distinct than that of a typical conservative. That said there would be an argument that my views could come from a muddled, deluded mindset, a rarer third group. But I do consider these things so it's unlikely. There are no text-books for me to read as I have come across a development that although nothing new, leads to catastrophic consequences. Not allowing discussion of this pending crisis plays a part, and is why it will never get into any text books ever, yet itself is a precursor to impending doom. Something you could help ensure by censoring everyone like me. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Greg A.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Have to say, the quality of censorship has really declined since the X chromosomes started taking over.  

It's because soft Democrats!

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Chronological censorship in action, in this instance driven by the X chromosome's influence, (traitor males mostly) and intellectual arrogance. 

Definitely displays incel behaviors.

I feel like I'm watching a bad sitcom.

[Greg A.]

On 8/9/2022 at 11:13 PM, dimreepr said:

 

Match's up perfectly with the threats (ongoing) to exclude me from this thread (as I was from my OP thread). 

On 8/9/2022 at 11:47 PM, swansont said:

I was able to find e.g. the funding numbers for cancer quite easily. The information is out there, if you can be bothered to look. 

It's not that I can't be bothered, it's that I like everybody else at this forum (and pretty much everywhere else in the world) are already very much aware of the high publicity that breast cancer gets in relation to any other cancers. 

On 8/9/2022 at 11:47 PM, swansont said:

Funny thing about observations is that bias creeps into them quite easily. That matters to some of us, who try to be objective.

Yes, it is funny because that's exactly what you've done. I'd mentioned a point my older brother raised back in the 80's specifically relating to two forms of cancer, the disproportionate attention to one in relation to the other implying political influences at play, you come up with totally unrelated statistics and claim a victory

On 8/9/2022 at 11:47 PM, swansont said:

I don't give a FF about your "prediction" and that's not been the focus of any of this discussion. It can't be, because you were forbidden from bringing the topic up in other threads. You can keep your delusion to yourself.

 

Then why are you discussing now. And how to forbid myself discussing something that I was never given the chance to present in the first place (not that is would have been appropriate to do so on a physics thread anyhow). Yes you did threaten to use the rules if I'd raised my 'Time Experiment' anywhere else. But this is not what I'm doing, yet still the clear threat of censorship is being made. 

On 8/9/2022 at 5:55 AM, MigL said:

I see.
There is nothing arbitrary about vertical fairness, or horizontal fairness.
You can even assign a 'degree' of difference between the two.
You are just one step away from a mathematical relationship bettween angle and 'fairness'.
And I was asking Phi for elaboration, not your 'interpretation'.

 

I guess that includes you; but I suggest you speak for yourself.

And I tought that's what I was doing by politely asking some members not to paint a group with the same broad brush.
Not calling anyone a shitheaad; but some of their behaviour ...

It's the horizontal nature of democratic elections that give us horrible governments. The flatness of the peoples choice divided by 'chromosomal' biases giving at best bland two party system governments. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Greg A.

[Greg A.]

On 8/9/2022 at 11:30 AM, MigL said:

I noticed you said "so many of our fellow citizens", "some white men are mostly", and "many are mad".
I guess that means you and CharonY get the point I was trying to make.
Much appreciated.

Oh, and none of this was in any way supportive of Greg A's ideas.

My ideas? White males are in no way society's enemies yet they are being continuously condemned by Phi as being bad guys. Talk about irony. 

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

And yet here you still are, pontificating freely! Have to say, the quality of censorship has really declined since the X chromosomes started taking over.  

I've had my thread locked, endure ongoing threats of censorship, need to include freedom preservation techniques in some of my posts, yet somehow you are stupid enough to say I pontificate freely?

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

BTW, have you heard of the secret parthenogenesis lab those Civil War era ladies were running?  My sister told me they had the process worked out in the Buchanan administration, which was the deciding factor in starting The War of Male Extermination a couple years later.  Clara Barton was in charge.  The nursing gig was just a cover. And why would my sister make that up?  

What would be the chances of women winning a war of male extermination when the majority of the military is (understandably) male. Who would ever consider the possibility of such an absurd outcome. Isn't it obvious that no one would be conspiring to exterminate males. 

On 8/9/2022 at 11:46 AM, Peterkin said:

Just as well. Greg A has no ideas. He repeats nonsense he's received from various unreliable sources without bothering to verify or inform himself, because it's just so much easier to be a self-designated victim than a functional citizen.  The insight he provides into such a mind-set has been interesting and somewhat entertaining, but the returns diminish very quickly. 

Is that how you feel. Well really the entertainment is just getting started. Victim? I'm not complaining. But you would if you ever had your right of free speech taken away. It's not a good feeling. So stay with the Left as long as you can to avoid it happening. 

On 8/9/2022 at 11:46 AM, Peterkin said:

Has the Supreme Court not gotten around to that yet?

Shouldn't be long!

https://civilrights.org/2020/03/23/u-s-supreme-court-rolls-back-historic-civil-rights-protections-in-comcast-ruling/#

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/27/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-00042478

If you think you're protected, start thinking again!

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Greg A.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Match's up perfectly with the threats (ongoing) to exclude me from this thread (as I was from my OP thread)

It’s funny (though not ha-ha funny) how you see being reminded of the rules, and to follow them, is viewed as a threat. 

9 hours ago, Greg A. said:

If my understandings are wrong then I will forever be replying to posts opposing my arguments and consequently will NEVER be able to present any evidence supporting what I say. This is simple logic. 

If by “simple” you mean “incorrect”

You’re acting like you have no agency here, when the truth is it’s a choice. You can do a little research and include support when you make a claim, as others have done in this thread, but you opt not to. You are responsible for your actions, and omission of actions. Nobody else.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

endure ongoing threats of censorship

Quote three examples.

[Greg A.]

On 8/9/2022 at 11:59 PM, Phi for All said:

But that's not because of censorship, or because you're speaking some kind of Truth we want hidden. It's because your predictions aren't based on anything you can explain. We gave you pages to explain yourself, but you mostly used that time to cry about censorship and how oppressed you are. We pointed out how many of your "observations" were incorrect, and we provided data that supported that. You didn't bother, so we assumed you had no evidence. We asked you many questions hoping to draw out more information about your ideas, and again you ignored those you couldn't answer. That's why your ideas won't make it into the textbooks. Accuracy is one of the hallmarks of science, and scientists are always going to be triple-checking for it.

I'm a theist, which at least technically obliges me to be honest. So I'm being honest when I say I need to bring and end to all challenges so far presented before I can move on and produce evidence of what I believe. A logical point in that if I'm wrong with my understandings then I can't precede at presenting any evidence as obviously it too would be wrong/not exist.

So, that said I know that mathematical formulas can be turned around in such a way that they don't lose any validity but still reveal more facts. What I mean is that if what I'm saying is wrong, then no facts could back up what I say. But if facts back up what I say, then what I say is right (and should be accepted). This getting around the stalemate of needing to have endless arguments from now on. Agreed? 

One more point.

If the future is a hellish place (no god) and what we do today decides the future, then today will decide that what we do successfully will be conducive of a hellish future. And if what you do is bad, then what you do will be successful, and you will be encouraged. And if what I do is good, then what I do will fail, and I will be discouraged. If on the other hand the future is a heavenly place (God exists) and if what you do is bad, then you will fail, but if you fail you will then do good, and will not be discouraged. So the potential for discouragement, is say yourside (10) to myside (1). Me being wrong your 10 being right can only possibly be devastating for me, being consistent with a godless world. But if you ten are wrong to my one, then no big deal you can live with shared wrong easily while then being on the right track as well.  

 

On 8/9/2022 at 10:28 PM, iNow said:

The farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. 

See, I can make up anything I want, too!

You accept a welfare state you accept aging, disabilities, unemployment, criminality etc. But if you change your mind and don't accept those things then you no longer accept a welfare state. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Greg A.

[Greg A.]

On 8/10/2022 at 3:33 AM, John Cuthber said:

I won't- I promise.

This is the honorable thing to do?